Jim,

One more time. :)

>Hmm..."you can't conclude from [Rom 1] that they did have true theistic
>beliefs" - OK, good. So from what passage(s) can you?

[Michael] Jim, this is a blatent case of taking a quote out of context. My
point was a logical one. I wanted you to make sure that you are
distinguishing
between (i) Romans not teaching that unregenerate people have some true
theistic beliefs and (ii) Romans teaching that unregenerate people do not
have any true theistic beliefs. Your recent post seemed to me to
incautiously switch between these. You may think that I don't have good
reasons for thinking that Romans teaches what I think it does, but your
position is not merely that, but it is that Romans teaches the very
opposite. In fact, the latter is I suspect your reason for thinking that my
view is mistaken.

Let's distinguish between two claims of mine:

[M1] Romans 1 teaches that unregenerate people have some knowledge of God.
[M2] Romans 1 teaches that unregenerate people hold some true theistic
beliefs.

Now, in my view, although [M2] follows from [M1] (given that knowledge
entails belief), I also take it that language such as "they hold the truth
in unrighteousness" strongly suggests something like a cognitive state of
belief (though not necessarily acceptance, given how I define these terms).
Moreover, my argument for [M1] is the standard argument and traditional
interpretation of Romans 1:19-20: "That which may be known of God is
manifest in them, for God has shown it unto them, for the invisible things
of him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." I take this
to indicate some propositional knowledge of God possessed by unregenerate
people.

Now you come along and argue as follows

[J1] Hebrews 11:3 teaches that unregenerate people have no knowledge of God.
[J2] Romans 1 teaches that unregenerate people hold no true theistic
beliefs.

[J1] is a reason for thinking that [M1] is false, and [J2] is a reason for
thinking that [M1] and [M2] is false. (And to the extent to which I base
[M2] on [M1], [J2] undercuts [M1], i.e., [J2] attacks the ground of my
affirming [M2].)

I responded as follows: (a) You have no good reason to suppose that either
[J1] or [J2] is true (undercutting defeater) and (b) there is good reason to
suppose [J1] is false (rebutting defeater). So I am proposing
defeater-defeaters for your alleged defeaters against [M1] and [M2].

This is how things look when we view our dialogue from the vantage point of
my having started it with an assertion and you answering by way of
objections. But even this is misleading. The discussion began with your
asssertions. This whole thread began with a "problem" that you
introduced.

You wrote (to Russ) with respect to Romans 1 and Hebrews:

"I myself am having a hard time with reconciling these verses: just when I
think I have a firm stance, I seem to lose my footing and wind up back at
square one. . . . It seems hard to deny that the unregenerate have some
knowledge of God as Creator, Designer, and Governor of the worlds. But then
there's Heb 11:3 - by faith do we perceive these things. Hence the
discrepancy - How can the unregenerate be said to know these things
when Heb ascribes such knowledge to faith? Now, perhaps there are many ways
to resolve the discrepancy - here is one of my attempts."

So we begin with your contention (or assumption) that Hebrews 11:1-3 teaches
that unregenerate people have no knowledge of God. If it does, then the
traditional interpretation of Romans 1 is mistaken, and I am mistaken in
affirming [M1] and [M2]. But then, as you correctly note, then we need to
find some alternative interpretation of Romans 1. So you propose the
distinction between knowing (assensus and notitia) and awareness or
understanding (notitia). And you appear to support this interpretation on
the grounds that Romans 1 denies that unregenerate people (at least the ones
referred to) have any true theistic beliefs. Hence, they do not have
knowledge of God, but they have an awareness of theistic propositions.

[I will avoid getting into the problems generated by your employment of your
distinction, e.g., normally when I am aware of p, I either believe or have
an inclination to believe that p. So it isn't even clear that your
distinction works as you have stated it, and even you suggested that
awareness of p and knowledge of p sometimes go together. Quite so. But then
you have a lot more explaining to do.]

But it looks to me as if it is actually your take on Hebrews that has
motivated how you handle Romans, at least this is how you presented the
situation. But then it might be the case that you are basing [J2] in part
on [J1], such that the warrant that [J2] has for you is partly derived from
the warrant [J1] enjoys for you. But then my original rebutting defeater
against [J1] is also a defeater against [J2].

If your interpretation of Hebrews has dictated your approach to Romans, as
you make it sound, my take on your entire project here is quite simple: you
begin with a false assumption and hence needlessly reject the traditional
interpretation of Romans in favor of a view of Romans that cannot be
supported by any sound exegesis of Romans.

I don't mean to be harsh, Jim, but we need some sort of response to my
objections. That's where we are at in point of the dynamics of this
discussion. I understand that there are lots of issues here. So why don't
you begin with what seems to have generated your take on Romans,
namely the Hebrews passage. Just focus on that for awhile. Show me
how that passage implies that unregenerate people have no knowledge
of God. Simple request.


Peace,
Michael