Jim,

Thanks for your repsonse. I'll respond below.

>Rom 1 is devoid of assensus. The persons there had an awareness of
>certain props but did not assent to them - they did not believe them -
>rather, they rejected the props (that God made them aware of) and
>exchanged the Truth for lies.


Two things strike me here, Jim.

First, I would like to see how you derive from the relevant verses in Romans
the proposition that the pagans referred to there had no true theistic
beliefs. I understand that you think the passage implies that, but I would
like to see the actual argument.

Secondly, you are using assent/accept and belief synonymously, but many
philosophers do not. There is a distinction some draw between a disposition
to feel it true that p whenever they consider p (belief) and taking the
truth of p as a policy in their reasoning and decision making (acceptance).
L. Jonathan Cohen develops this distinction in *Belief and Acceptance*
(Oxford, 1992), and I think it is particular useful for developing the idea
of self-deception. On the application of this distinction to atheism and
natural knowledge of God, see David Reiter, "Calvin's Sensus Divinitatis and
Externalist Knowledge of God" (*Faith and Philosophy,* July 1998) One may,
as David argues, have a more nuanced position than you are advocating by
maintaining that the unregenerate do not assent to the propositions in
question but they do believe them. And if assent is not necessary for
knowledge, then the unregenerate can know theistic propositions, even if
they do not assent to them.


>I think this is a damaging point for your outlook: Rom 1 does not
>teach that these unregenerate held true beliefs - it teaches that they
>were aware of the Truth yet rejected it and exchanged it for lies.

[Michael] I don't see any damage here unless the language of Romans 1
entails that the individuals held no true theistic beliefs. Since the text
doesn't explicitly state "they did not at any point hold a true theistic
belief," you must infer this from the text, as you seem to be doing from the
following: They (i) hold down the truth in unrighteousness (1:18), were not
thankful (1:21), did not glorify God as God (1:21), (iii) became vein in
their imaginations (1:21), their foolish heart was corrupted (1:21),
professing to be wise they became fools (1:22), changed the glory of the
uncorruptible God into an image...(1:23), changed the truth of God into a
lie (1:25), did not desire to retain God in their knowledge (1:28); and yet
these very individuals "know the judgement of God, that they which commit
such things are worthy of death (1:32).

You are arguing that if these things are so (what is stated in the verses),
then the individuals to whom the text refers did not hold any truth theistic
beliefs at any time. Naturally, with a premise like that, you can easily
generate your desired conclusion. But I'm asking you to provide an argument
for your conditional premise. Until then, the argument strikes me as
unsound. For your argument to be more persuasive I think you need to
actually present an argument from specific verses, while also keeping in
mind the distinction between belief and acceptance.

Third, notice that responsibility in Romans is grammatically and logically
connected to 1:20 which states that the reason why people are accountable is
because "the invisible of things of Him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead," and this is linked to the prior "that which may be known
of God." You want us to interpret this passage as referring merely to the
pagans understanding the meaning of certain theistic propositions. (I'm not
even sure I understand how that works.) But you admit that this is
insufficient for knowledge, but the verse in question is an elaboration of
verse 19 which affirms "that which may be known of God." So we must then
reinterpret "knowledge" in verse 19 to refer to notitia, their grasping the
meaning of theistic propositions. Not only does this seem odd to me, but I
think you will find this inconsistent with the meaning of the Greek words
used to attribute knowledge to the Gentiles in Romans 1 and elsewhere in
Scripture.
(Even you referred to the problematic attribution of "sight" to the Gentiles
in Romans 1:20, and "understanding" gramatically modifes "sight" in the
passage).

Another point, Jim, is that I have to evaluate your proposal in the light of
its logical implications, some of which seem to me entirely unacceptable. If
the unregenerate hold no true beliefs about God, then (i) for any
unregenerate person, none of their theistic beliefs are contradictory and
(ii) given the entire set of unregenerate people's beliefs, none of the
theistic beliefs in that set contradict any other. Are you willing to say
that in the set of all theistic beliefs held by
unregenerate people, no two are contradictory?

And since (I think) you would admit that Jews and Muslims are not saved, you
must deny that they hold any true theistic beliefs. Now since the set of
Jews and Muslims will at least include those who believe the relevant
Scriptures of their religion, you must maintain that either those Scriptures
contain no true theistic propositions or the individuals in question do not
believe them. I think that is a very queer position to maintain. There are
plenty of true propositions about God in both Judaism and Islam. Worse yet,
many professing Christians are not actually regenerate, so you must maintain
that they don't believe any true theistic propositions. It follows that such
individuals believe *nothing* in the Bible about God and that such
individuals
hold no two theistic beliefs that are contradictory. In the end I wonder
what it even means to *believe* a proposition given these sorts of
implications.

So I don't see your position as being very plausible.

>It
>is an indictment of the unregenerate person's unbelief even when faced
>with props that God makes evident to their awareness. The culmination
>of Paul's argument is that all (Jew and Gentile) are shut up under sin
>(unbelief) - (point made by Russ).

Yes. And how does this imply that <no unregenerate person has ever held a
true theistic belief>?

>As for your valuable points:
>1. I'll get my quotes from the other commentators - please be patient.
>2. As to your (1) and (2) refer to my suggestion above for the real
>issue - it really doesn't matter what props are in view my friend - Rom
>1 teaches that whatever the props were, they were rejected in unbelief.
> No assensus, no knowledge.

May I make a suggestion? Let's go back to the context of my argument. I was
responding your challenge stated as follows:

>Now, I think you want to maintain that the 'pagan' of Rom 1:20 has
>knowledge that God is the Creator, but how do you reconcile this with
>Heb 11:3

You originally challenged me to harmonize *my* view of natural knowledge of
God (and Romans 1) with Hebrews 11:3. You are suggesting here that there is
an inconsistency in *my* position. I argued that there is no inconsistency.
One of my supporting arguments required a premise to the effect that the
propositional objects of knowledge were not the same in Romans and in
Hebrews. That was the primary intent of the argument at that point. But now
you try to refute my defense of consistency by saying, "it really doesn't
matter what props are in view my friend - Rom 1 teaches that whatever the
props were, they were rejected in unbelief. No assensus, no knowledge." O.K.
So my interpretation of Romans is false. So what? My argument was directed
to your original charge that *my* position was *inconsistent*. But since
false propositions can be consistent, the fact that my interpretation of
Romans includes false propositions does nothing at all to show that I have
not defended myself against your original charge that my position is
inconsistent. It is not. You may think my position includes many false
propositions. Fair enough. But please distinguish that from claiming or
otherwise suggesting that my position is inconsistent.

For clarity sake, let me review my points thus far.

You began by introducing an apparent inconsistency between Romans
1:19-20 and Hebrews 11:3. The inconsistency is allegedly one generated by
the traditional interpretation of Romans 1, according to which it is read as
affirming a natural knowledge of God among the unregenerate.

In essence you argued that the following two propositions are logically
inconsistent.

[H] By faith we know that {<the worlds were framed by the word of God> &
<the things that appear were made from things that do not appear>}.

[N] There is a natural knowledge of God.

Hence, your claim.

[J] H and N are logically inconsistent.

So to the extent that one interprets Romans 1 in a way that entails [N], to
that extent the person generates an inconsistency in the treatment of the
Biblical texts. As stated above I was interested primary in showing that [J]
is false. How did I do this?

First, by arguing that the natural knowledge of God need not entail a
knowledge of the target propositions in [H]. Second, by arguing that the
faith-mode by which the target propositions are known in [H] need not
exclude knowing the same propositions in some other mode. The text does not
say "only" by faith are these known, only that we know them that way. Third,
by arguing that the faith-mode by which the target propositions are known in
[H] need not be construed as saving faith, and so it could be a mode of
knowing open to unregenerate people. I supported this last claim with
support from Kuyper, and others.

Now the first thing to note about my argument is that I am defending myself
against your charge that I have a consistency problem. The fact that you
don't accept any of the three reasons adduced above is irrelevant to the
original issue. The second thing to note, is that there is implicit, in my
consistency defense a critique of your position. This is where the truth or
falsity of my reasons becomes significant. The critique of your position,
implicit in my defense, relates to your employment of Hebrews.

You take as your background belief

[1] Only the regenerate have saving faith.

You read Hebrews as affirming that:

[2] Theistic knowledge can only be acquired through saving faith.

And then you conclude:

[3] Only the regenerate can have theistic knowledge.

A valid argument, but in my view unsound, as I think premise [2] is false.
Now I know that you believe it is true. Hence, I approach your position as
follows:

Jim, on what basis do you infer [2] from the Hebrews passage? In other
words, I am attempting to undercut [2]. I want to show you that the Hebrews
passage does not provide adequate support for [2]. How?

First, I argue thus: the Hebrews passage in reality only refers to two
theistic propositions, and hence any conclusion that all theistic knowledge
is by faith, is unwarranted on such grounds.

Second, I argue thus: the Hebrews passage in reality does not exclude
another mode by which its two target propositions may be known, hence to
conclude with [2] on the basis of the Hebrews passage is unwarranted.

Third, you assume that "faith" in the text refers to saving faith. But it
need not refer to saving faith, so what reason do you have to conclude that
it does refer to saving faith? Is there reason to think it doesn't? Perhaps.
Verse 1 provides an apparent definition of this faith, but the definition is
not an adequate one for saving faith (since it clearly does not take the
person and work of Christ as its necessary object) and the definition can be
instantiated by unregenerate people, i.e., certainly they can have an
assurance of things that are not yet in existence and be persuaded of things
that do not appear.

Notice here that these criticisms of your argument for [3] do not depend on
criticisms of your view of Romans. So distinguish what I am arguing here
from what I argued above with reference to your use of Romans.

Hence, I believe that I have shown my position to be logically consistent.
In that way, I answered your initial challenge. Your rebuttals do not appear
to be relevant to my defense. Unless you claim otherwise, I will take it
that you believe
that my position is logically consistent. Secondly, I believe that I have
shown that your arguments against natural knowledge of God in Hebrews and
Romans are based on unsound arguments. The challenge, I think, is now for
you to rebut my argument by showing that these texts actually support your
position. How does Hebrews 11:1-3 support [2]? How does Romans 1 support the
view that unregenerate people have no true theistic beliefs? This is the
stage the argument has reached.

Peace,
Michael