Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?

I do believe that God withholds some kinds of evidence of His reality and character for the purpose of drawing us to Himself by faith alone. Obviously, being God, he COULD provide all kinds of evidence but He doesn't, and we have to answer why. His use of miracles over the centuries could be said to have been sparing considering what He could have done. The prophecies given are rather cryptic, which explains the endless complaints that they aren't even prophecies by some here. Christians of course know they are.I've always appreciated Blaise Pascal's Pensees on this subject:

Another reason God may be sparing with the kinds of evidence so frequently demanded at EvC is that the first part of us that died in Eden with the original sin of our first parents was the spirit, the faculty in communion with God, that is, the ability to know the "things unseen" that now require faith (Hebrews 11:1). When we fell in Adam we were reduced to "flesh" or "the carnal mind," the part of us said by scripture to be "enmity with God" and in fact capable of nothing but enmity to God: It is the spirt that is first restored by faith in the sacrifice of Christ that reconciles us to God: The demand for more evidence, for physical miracles, is a demand that God appeal to the "flesh" but this is exactly what God does not want to do, for the flesh is only the result of death, the cause of death, and more and more death, and incapable of obeying God or knowing God. It is the spirit which is life. The restoration of our life through Christ is first of all a restoration of the spirit, the image of God in us that cries "Abba, Father." The body will be restored at the resurrection, but meanwhile it is a "body of death" to us, as Paul says (Romans 7:24). (I may be wrong to be ordering these in a hierarchy as all our faculties died in Adam and all are restored in Christ so that maybe it is truer to say that it is a matter of degrees rather than one faculty at a time).Everything God does is for our good and His glory. He gives us EXACTLY the amount of revelation of Himself that is good for us. It will never be enough to satisfy the natural man, only the meek who worship Him in spirit and in truth.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-15-2005 04:28 AM

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Jesus gave many proofs to his disciples and they were for the most part pretty blockheaded {edit: as we all are "in the flesh") though they had their moments of illumination.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-15-2005 01:57 PM

OK, that probably explains it. That's covered by Pascal however. God gives what's needed but not as much as so many think he should before they will believe.

quote:

---

Faith's quotation [Pascal] writes:

229. This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern.

​

This isn't exactly accurate. There are many people that have concluded some kind of aspects of deity on or in nature. For example, pantheists believe in some way that "God is in all". Panentheists beleive that "God is in all" to some extent.

---

Even where those are the dominant religions there are probably only a few who really intuit God's presence and the rest believe what they are taught from the religion.I thought I quoted the part from Pascal where he acknowledges that some do find God in nature, though I can't find it in what I quoted above, so I must not have, and I know I myself have acknowledged it in other posts on other threads: That is, there are always some who have that kind of sensitivity. But overall he's correct, most of us don't. I certainly never did until I became a believer.

quote:

---

Faith's quotation [Pascal] writes:

If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith.

​

And, to contrast the various Judeo-Christian faith systems to an "alternative" monotheistic faith system, consider the proposition of the deist.

​

Deism is likewise the belief in "one god". The position holds that God exists but is not immanent, or active, in his creation. Deists usually embrace some kind of natural theology and see reason and natural law as humanity's only guide to moral rectitude and ultimate salvation. Faith, they hold, is a logical consequence or our perception and evaluation of the natural phenomena.

​

Admittedly, the deist sees these things independantly of eccliastical authority. They tend to reject the validity of revelation and miracles. They also tend to reject the concept of divine providence and the possibility of a direct, personal communication with God (and consequently deny many things revealed in the Scriptures).

​

However, notwithstanding these sharp disagreements, deists would still agree with many Christians that there is one creator-god -- a creator-god deserving of worship (the most appropriate form being a life of virtuous piety and repentance for our sins) and who rewards virtue amd punishes wickedness in some kind of afterlife.

​

There is no unified deist position, but they generally consist of free-thinkers and were mostly united in the condemnation of religious "superstitions" as the greatest impediment to human progress.

---

I'm not sure of the import of the above in relation to my quotation of Pascal, which was meant to represent the attitude of the unbeliever who complains that there is not enough evidence in nature to convince him to believe -- to believe either in the Biblical God or the Deist's God it would seem. Certainly there are SOME who think they have such evidence, but Pascal is dealing with the case of the many who say there isn't.

quote:

---

Faith's quote [Pascal] writes:

But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied; wherefore I have a hundred times wished that if a God maintains Nature, she should testify to Him unequivocally, and that, if the signs she gives are deceptive, she should suppress them altogether; that she should say everything or nothing, that I might see which cause I ought to follow.

​

This statements seems to be highly linked with the question of why there is suffering in the world. I think that anyone who is looking to beleive in God can rationalize their reasons as to why God allows this.

---

I think you MAY be finding more in these quotes than Pascal put there? He is merely characterizing in various ways what seems to me to be a common attitude here at EvC for instance, that God simply hasn't given us enough evidence to ascertain his existence.

quote:

---

My only hope is that, whatever their reasoning, they would hold to a position that is most accurately portraying their religion's perception of their own divinity. My own personal is that God judges in proportion to that which has been revealed to each individual.

​

In some sense, at the most basic level, knowledge of God is evident within creation itself. This is a no-brainer.

---

Well I only know this since I became a believer. Scripture says it is so and I believe it, and now am able to discern it, but nevertheless before I was a believer I was in no better position than those that Pascal is talking about, or those at EvC who say they find no definite proofs of God in nature.This may be a digression but everything in nature seems to me to be flawed as a matter of fact, hinting at something glorious but never quite fulfilling it, in fact presenting destruction and ugliness as often as beauty and coherence. If you look at the principles by which life exists then I think you may begin to apprehend something of God, but again, most of us don't. The result of a combination of our flawed/fallen intellects as subject with flawed/fallen nature itself as object.

quote:

---

In another sense, I think the default position of human faith, even without revelation, is that of the deist position -- that there is some kind of creator-god that has created all things. This position is slightly more complicated but apparently does happen in various forms of natural theology found around the world.

---

Just as a matter of fact, however, at least in OUR time, this doesn't seem to be the case for most people. Pascal was dealing with the growing assumptions of Enlightenment rationalism, so may have been particularly bombarded with that kind of objection to claims about God. But then those are the same objections that WE are confronted with, as the Enlightenment certainly did its work of undermining religion over the last few centuries.Also, however, I'm not so sure the denial of evidence of God is all that recent in any case. Deism may not be any kind of natural view at all. Historically it was a reaction to the Enlightenment assault on Christianity, a holding onto what little was left of it that rationalists could entertain after the Enlightenment had munched away at it. Even the Old Testament speaks of the folly of people's denying that there is a God at all -- in David's time about 1000 BC -- side by side with affirming that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." for those who can recognize Him. Most natural religions acknowledge many gods, plural, and sacrifice to those gods, without recognizing a Creator God and have done so for millennia. Abraham's family kept household idols before the Lord of hosts apprehended him, and continued to hold onto those idols through the time of Isaac and Jacob. Islam's version of monotheism supplanted hundreds of local deities. Christianity in its push through Europe displaced hundreds of not thousands of local cults and deities.I think the Fall did its work of obscuring God from us by destroying our spiritual ability to apprehend his character and even his existence, by bringing catastrophe and destruction and death into Nature, and by giving Satan and his demons rule over us to deceive us.

quote:

---

In the fullness of the last sense, there is the knowledge of God that comes via revelation. In this regard, it comes directly from God or his prophets, etc. This is a unique experience that is certainly the most complicated to grasp -- that God is alive and active in one's life. Going beyond the "nature is a reflection of God" or "the God is the ultimate watchmaker", this position holds that God is a friend that is deeply concerned with every aspect of your life.

---

This kind of belief can only be had by spiritual regeneration from God Himself, however, by His own Holy Spirit, that opens one's eyes to His written revelation. The unregenerate man is blind to God's revelation.

quote:

---

Faith's quotation writes:

Whereas in my present state, ignorant of what I am or of what I ought to do, I know neither my condition nor my duty.

​

I think this accurately captures the human condition even for many Christians.

---

If so, granting many degrees of the gift of faith and the ability to understand revelation, it is our own fault, because as Christians we have been given all the light we need to know our condition and our duty.

quote:

---

As I've said before, from my own perspective, it must be stressed that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions.

​

The church has a high regard for their conduct in so far as she believes the Spirit is moving them according to the Lord's will.

---

Isn't scripture clear that the Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus Christ ONLY to His followers? Certainly God is in charge of all human beings and watches over all with a good will, but the gift of the Holy Spirit was given ONLY to those who have entered into the New Covenant by the sacrifice of Christ.

quote:

---

This high regard also includes those precepts and doctrines found within other religions which, although differing on many points from that which the church believes and propounds, often reflects a ray of the truth which enlightens all men.

---

There are certainly many inspiring teachings that have come from many wise men of other religions and other cultures, people with an intuitive grasp of what is good and the ability to teach it, showing that much of the light of the image of God remains even in fallen humanity. But this is not saving grace, merely natural grace -- I think it has a more official name but I can't think of it -- God's preservation of his creation and his general goodness to mankind which scripture affirms, but it is not belief unto salvation and I believe the Catholic Church has lost its Christian bearings completely when it begins to suggest that.

quote:

---

In tracing human history, it is generally believed by older school Catholic theologians that the primal knowledge of the Lord was often supplanted in religions by concepts of gods which are "more accessible."

---

Of course. Certainly the "gods" are more "accessible" to FALLEN nature which has lost the capacity to discern God, but this is precisely the idolatry that God condemns throughout the Bible. For one thing they are quite a bit like us fallen creatures. As scripture tells us, those gods are demons ...members of Satan's kingdom who have had the right to rule us since Satan deceived our first parents, and have done so by impersonating gods in order to receive worship and tribute and sacrifice from humanity and keep us all in bondage. "Accessible" indeed. But I really don't think this Catholic view goes back very far does it? It's pretty recent isn't it really, all a part of the recent ecumenical drive to draw all religions under the Vatican umbrella, which has pretty much involved a deemphasis on -- if not an outright denial of -- all the particular requirements for salvation historically taught by the Christian Church, including Catholicism?

quote:

---

In doing such, the "primordial" monotheistic knowledge of a monotheistic God seems to deteriorate into a pantheon of divinities whose attributes seems to be defined more by nature and/or human characteristics. Even still, despite this supposed deterioration, these religions often carry a distant memory of this "Sky-God" whom they have lost most contact with.

---

Certainly. There is a dim light left in all humanity that still recognizes the one true God, and this is reflected in the "Sky God" evidences -- but for all intents and purposes it is so dimmed as to be inconsequential, while fallen human nature has succumbed to demonic deceptions and committed all kinds of idolatries, really succumbing to our own blindness to everything of the invisible world.

quote:

---

The Catholic Church holds a deep conviction in regards to what is called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word) present in all religions.

---

Is this since Vatican II?

quote:

---

She does this in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the contemporary world from our first two parents and on throughout human history. The position of the church in this regard is inspired by a universal concern -- she is guided by the faith that God the Creator wants to save all humankind in Christ Jesus, the only mediator between God and man.

---

Faith based on what? The Bible does declare that God does not desire the death of any but the salvation of all, and yet it also declares that because of sin this is not going to come about, since God's holiness and justice require the meeting of conditions that will not be met by all.

quote:

---

As such, the church still proclaims, and is bound to proclaim that Christ is 'the way and the truth and the life' in conformity with the Christian Scriptures found within the John 14:61. It is within Christ that one must find the fullness of religious life and in whom the Father has reconciled everything to himself.

---

But as I understand it, this language may hide the Catholic belief (or Vatican II belief) that Christ Himself does not necessarily have to be proclaimed AS Christ but is assumed to be "known" in some sense without such proclamation?In any case, I think perhaps you have taken this subject a bit far afield, as we are talking about how much evidence God has given us for discerning His reality and character and whether He measures it out. I'm not sure what your considerations here have to say about this. It seems to me that the Catholic Church may have decided to MAKE UP for the lack of evidence most people experience by declaring that their nearly nonexistent knowledge of the true God is nevertheless sufficient for salvation. I see no justification for this in scripture.

Certainly. THEY wouldn't have been complaining that God had not given enough evidence. It's people who were not THERE who complain about that -- complain that they can't possibly be expected to trust a mere written report of such things, and think that if only God would show THEM the same things they'd be able to believe.I agree that it is possible to have all kinds of evidence of God's existence and still have no faith in him. That is abundantly demonstrated in Scripture, and in fact in every Christian's life if we're honest. God has given me all kinds of proof, for instance, not only of his existence but his personal care for me, and yet I'm always forgetting him, acting as if he isn't there and not trusting him in particular situations and only realizing that after the fact. {Edit: But the difference between me as a believer and someone who isn't is that I'm immediately contrite when I see this and repent and increase my prayer life and do what I can to recover what I've lost. Nevertheless I fall again anyway and have to pick up and start again. The unbeliever however just forgets God and that's that.But the topic here isn't how we get to an active faith in God is it? Or maybe it is, now that I recall Crashfrog's way of putting it, that God withholds evidence in order to inspire faith. Hm. It's hard to get at this but I think it misstates the problem. It isn't that God withholds evidence IN ORDER to generate faith in him as if the mere withholding of evidence would accomplish that. It's that the giving of evidence DOESN'T in itself generate faith in him, which is what you are recognizing above that I'm agreeing with. So more evidence would not generate more faith. It could conceivably be the case that every human being would KNOW there is a God if He had provided more evidence and yet, as you say, not have faith in Him, not love Him or worship Him.Pascal's solution to this is that God provides JUST ENOUGH evidence to convince the Elect, which is not enough to convince the reprobate -- because making His existence uncontrovertibly clear would lead to the condition we are thinking about, a worshipless recognition of the reality of a God we actually hate (hatred of God being the natural condition of being fallen and mere flesh).I think descriptively Pascal's formulation is true enough, but it doesn't explain why some can believe with less light than others can. Is this maybe the real issue here? The full explanation then is something along the lines that the Elect receive saving grace in order to believe the reports He provides, but more than that to love God through them, which is a fulfillment of the first commandment, while the reprobate continue to demand visible fleshly evidence that wouldn't lead them to love God even if it were given them.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-15-2005 07:03 PM

Yes, I can't accept any of that, and have pretty much already answered it. I don't see any justification for the idea of "implicit faith in Christ." It doesn't seem to me that Clement, or certainly Paul, said anything close to that in recognizing the remnants of belief in the true God among fallen humanity in some cultures. Certainly that much is consistent with scripture but it is far from saving faith.

Gad, you're brilliant. Mind like a steel trap.Just wanted to say that.I probably disagree with you somewhere or other, but not here.

I don't have time to spend on any of this right now except to say that you have misrepresented the point. The scriptures are the only source of knowledge of the specific character of the Judeo-Christian God, His attributes, His character, His personality, His intentions.You cannot get that from Nature/the Universe.That does NOT mean that it is the "sole reliable source for a Christian's understanding of God." It's the final authority for testing all other knowledge, but it's not the SOLE source of knowledge.Nature (science) tells us much MORE about God AFTER we've understood scripture's revelations so that we understand Nature through scripture. If it's not consistent with scripture it's false, but if it's consistent it expands our knowledge of God.And men led by the Holy Spirit and steeped in the scriptures and knowledgeable about historical and cultural context are able to illuminate many things about God and the human condition that we might otherwise overlook. This is not a source independent of scripture, but in a sense it is a separate source of information about God that Christians rely on. Good pastors do this for their congregations every Sunday. Again, if it's not consistent with scripture, it's false, but if it is consistent it expands our knowledge of God.Legend has made it clear he's not a "fundie" or if I got it right, a believer in God at all. But his thinking is very sharp on this subject.I hope to get back to this later.

In this post Message 54 you keep asking me to answer a post #45 but that post is one by Legend Message 45 and I don't see one by you addressed to me in the vicinity -- or I'm too tired to look through all that verbiage at the moment to figure it out. Please correct your reference.But you did include this quote from that mythical post #45, and ask me to respond to it: Not sure what you want me to address here. I've many times acknowledged the existence of demons and their impersonations of various "gods." Scripture says in a couple of places that the gods the various nations sacrifice to are in fact demons. So if Ammon-Ra is a real entity -- not all the gods are real, some I think are made up -- but if he's a real entity then I suppose he's a demon and I would acknowledge his reality, which is not the same thing as "believing in" him, which implies putting faith in him.

No mystery here. Aquinas took a lot of what he wrote from Aristotle and built on it.

Ive answered this below, which you quote: "That does NOT mean that it is the "sole reliable source for a Christian's understanding of God."
You misinterpreted what Legend wrote to say it is the SOLE source of belief. I corrected that. It is the final authority, but not the only source of information about God. I don't know what one *could* conclude, although I myself don't see much evidence in nature for the above, and don't see that many peoples throughout the history of the world have drawn such inferences about God from nothing BUT Nature either. But my point was that you will not find in Nature anything to tell you such things as that God is a covenant-making God, who desires a love relationship with His human creation; that He is a God of such holiness that it is dangerous to approach Him; a God who requires specific forms of worship as well as specifically defined modes of sacrifice because of His holiness and our sin; that He is the kind of God who would incarnate as a human being to die that His beloved might be saved. NOBODY has ever intuited any of this about God from His creation. Show me anyone or any religion that has ever intuited the triune nature of the Creator from such observations apart from the Bible. No you didn't. First of all I just named a few attributes and characteristics that can only be derived from the Bible, that you didn't mention, and second, you haven't shown that those you describe are the basis for any known religion or belief in God; and you have made observations about the triune nature of reality that could be DERIVED FROM from knowledge of the Trinity as shown in the Bible, but you haven't shown that anyone has arrived at such ideas from an observation of Nature alone. I think Nature is illuminated BY scripture after knowing scripture, and can also in turn illuminate the nature of God. But apart from the Bible it gives only scanty impressions of its Maker which most people aren't able to recognize, only specially sensitive kinds of people as far as I can see. The Catholic monk Brother Lawrence is striking I think for his epiphany, his impression of the overwhelming greatness of God in the blossoming of a tree in the Spring. However, I suppose he must have known some scripture for starters too. No, as I said, and was careful to say, it is the final authority, the cornerstone if you prefer, the foundation, but it is not the SOLE source of knowledge. The portrait of God is filled out by observations of nature and history based on the Bible. Why would you deny that there are these other sources of knowledge since you affirm them in other contexts? They are simply not primary for a Christian, and if any inferences from them contradict scripture we discard the inference. Scripture is our standard. Some use any seeming contradictions to discredit Scripture. We work the other way around.There are specifically Christian views of God that are not knowable outside the Bible, which is what Legend recognizes -- Legend who doesn't believe a bit of it understands this fact -- but as I said, once the Biblical portrait is understood Nature, human history, everything, are illuminated by it and in turn reveal more about the nature of God, even to the spiritually obtuse among us who would never intuit the existence of God from Nature alone. Now you've totalized this. I haven't. I didn't say that you can't know ANYTHING about God from nature, and Legend didn't say this either, and I believe he tried to show you your error a few times. SOME intuit SOMETHING about God from nature, and many true things, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIAN THINGS. Nobody has ever intuited the Fall of Man or the sacrifice of the Son of God for sinners from Nature. This was Legend's point and mine -- the character of God as Christians know Him cannot be intuited No big deal. I was merely answering your misinterpretation of what Legend said. You were not being accurate. Well I'm saying that only the Scriptures can tell us such things as how to be saved from the consequences of the Law's judgment of our sins. Nature will never tell you that. And the rest is a funny thing to say: Moses IS scripture. Scripture is the revelations of God through men God chose for the purpose.Not sure what you mean about the revelation of God's affinity to his creation. I've agreed that SOME things are known by SOME people about the nature of God from His Creation alone. SOME things, but the Bible is needed for the knowledge of many other things. I would surmise that in the first few centuries after Adam the human spirit was not as dull as it later became as a result of the accumulation of sin through original sin. Spiritual death like physical death is a cumulative thing down the generations. But also in those cases there was direct communication from God. We know from scripture that all three of those you name heard from God directly. So did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Moses, and Samuel... And again, that's how Scripture was made, from the testimony of people who heard directly from God. Seems to me pretty straightforward. Don't we know scads of people who in their hearts say there is no God? All kinds of people. People who know the scriptures and people who don't. And there are others who intuit God without the scriptures too -- though again, not the things specific to Christian belief and salvation. Haven't I discussed this with you before? I thought I had. Trace elements, yes. And one thing we can infer FROM scripture is that people started out knowing the one true God and degenerated over time into idolatrous demon propitiation and worship with scant memory of the true God left. Such reports as the above confirm that. Shreds of memory do not constitute an understanding of the character of God and none of them have ever intuited the plan of salvation. Actually a good example is your own from above -- the triune nature of some things in nature that reflect the Trinity. Without scripture that triune nature is not reocgnizable. As I asked, show me a religion or anybody who has recognized that triune quality who knows nothing of the Biblical Trinity. The fact is, oddly enough, that nobody has as far as I know. Buddhism -- and I think Hinduism before it -- recognizes some kind of fundamental flaw at least in human beings with the idea of "ignorance" as a basic condition of humanity. Mostly the tendency seems to be to accept the status quo as the way things were meant to be. Absolutely. That's exactly what we could learn from scripture, and such studies corroborate it. Sometimes missionaries discover legends among a particular tribe that are remarkably prescient in relation to the idea of salvation even, though they are distorted in various ways. The idea of salvation was known to Job in some form. God promised the Savior from Eden after all. There could be vague memories of even that. These are interesting myths. I'm aware of the remnants of the Sky God, the One God in many legends, but wasn't aware there are myths that suggest a dim memory of the Fall. That's interesting too. Corroborates the Bible again. But most myths are so distorted it suggests more than just a dimming of memory, it suggests the elaborations of ego. These things in any case are WHY we NEEDED scripture, direct revelation of God, as our fallen minds and memory had lost touch with him and have only the vaguest and inaccurate ideas about Him without that help. Interesting. I enjoy learning that there are memories of the Fall among us too.You are a fan of Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Alexander Brooks, Tal Brooke? So am I, though I haven't received their material in a long time. Have you read Tal Brooke's books about his experiences with his guru Sai Baba? All of them. Where should I start? Yes and no. I mean my enthusiasm for his excellent logic is certainly derived from the agreement, but at the same time the logic is stellar. I'm not that dumb, Mr. Ex. His reasoning was a thing of beauty. That he arrived at the right conclusion made it matter. Aw come on. Can't you appreciate that I can appreciate the intelligence of a guy who couldn't be farther away from what I think about most things? Give me some credit. Give HIM some credit. I've shown you what he's shown you -- you've misinterpreted the points he made. They are impeccable logic. Well I did. I do have things I have to do. In fact I'm behind again. But I wouldn't intend to run away. I may even eventually get back to some stuff I supposedly abandoned weeks ago. I just get involved in too many things at once sometimes. Right now I have over 40 unopened notifications from EvC. I've probably read some of the messages already. Anyway.Come on. I know you can get the point Legend was making, that he's explained more than once and I've now explained for the second or third time. I can sure identify with that. I think you just dismissed out of hand the good reasoning Legend and I have both given you. And you may dismiss out of hand what I've taken pains to explain here too.P.S. If you respond to this, how about breaking it into smaller bits or reducing it to one major point or something?

I really don't know much about the ID movement, and haven't been too interested in finding out yet. It apparently accepts an old earth and doesn't take all scripture as foundational and I argue from a young earth position. Sometimes we overlap, often not, but otherwise I'm arguing with the evolutionists and not with ID so it's kind of off in the margin somewhere from my point of view at the moment.Is it based on Aquinas? I guess it's largely a Catholic movement, right? Michael Behe etc? I suppose I'll have to get to know more about it.I thought it was well known that Aquinas took a lot from Aristotle. Not that I'm any expert on either, just that seems to be common knowledge.

Surely the term "henotheism" is tendentious and revisionist as applied to the Hebrew scriptures. It implies a pantheon with one god as the single god of a tribe, or the dominant god, while acknowleging the existence of other gods. The message of the Bible from beginning to end, on the other hand, is that there is ONE God over all, alone uncreated, all other "gods" being created beings. The term does not apply. The Shema that is the core of Jewish religion is enough to make the point that the God of the Hebrews is exclusive -- the Lord our God is ONE God. He is also self-existent. The other "gods" are clearly identified in scripture as created beings, in fact as demon usurpers, enemies of the one God, and so is the god of a henotheist system a created being among other created "gods." I find this to be extremely odd reasoning. I think for starters you probably need to rephrase it to get your point across, as "based on the Christian Scriptures" is simply a historical impossibility. I suppose you mean to say that Egyptian belief in a single deity has a lot in common with the single deity of the Christian Scriptures (are you including the OT in this phrase?) which implies a common source of the concept? Such as an implicit recognition of the one Creator God revealed in the Bible in the form of Ammon-Ra?The problem with this idea is that the Biblical portrait contradicts such ideas. If Ammon-Ra is a concept of a remote all-knowing Creator God, then he could be considered to be a representation of the Egyptians' dim memory of the God of Adam before the Fall, dimmed by the effects of the Fall, the vagueness of such memories being the reason we NEED the revelation of Scripture. But if Ammon-Ra is personified in some way, as a created being, then he is merely one of the idols the Biblical God condemns. Scripture gives enough light to make such judgments. Yes, you've posted such information, and it's interesting because it does suggest a dim memory of the true God in many human groups. But it's dim, and no memory of God or God intuited from nature, either one, has even arrived at the concepts taught in the Bible pertaining to salvation, or even God's constant interaction with the human race and care for His Creation. These memories are interesting vague corroborations of what the Bible reveals in much more clarity. But you seem to want to put them on the same footing with the Biblical revelation, or even ahead of the Bible in some way. This makes no sense. Their meaning only becomes clear BECAUSE of the Bible.Same with the gods that are demons -- we understand their origin, their nature, their history, their motives, their MO, ONLY from the Bible. A great deal of the human race has been in bondage to these gods, who are like mafia bosses, requiring obeisance, requiring payment for protection, taking bribes and commissions as hit men and the like. Only the Bible has revealed their true nature. I can't imagine what circumstances might permit it. First, no demon god will ever lead anyone to a faith in the real God -- they exist to deceive and to present themselves as the rulers in the place of God. Then, speaking of the dim memories of the One true God in some people groups, you don't find any notion of RELATING to that God, any notion that He pays much attention to His creation or anything like that, right? How are you going to get from there to anything like the faith of the Bible?This message has been edited by Faith, 05-20-2005 12:35 PM

Drat I just lost a whole post on this subject. Hit a wrong key somehow. Hope I can recover the gist of it.I believe I have been addressing exactly this idea all along. It indicates that God is knowable in his creation but that nevertheless he is not known. It affirms only that his "eternal power and divine nature" are knowable through the creation, however, and gives no hint that any deeper knowledge of God is possible merely through the creation, certainly not the central focus of scripture, his plan of salvation.But let's say that everything about God IS detectable in the creation in the sense that the evidence is actually there -- the fact is that NOBODY HAS DETECTED IT. No natural religion worships the true God, probably since the time of Job anyway. As your many examples show, there is only the vaguest shadow of the One God in any culture, and the barest hint in some cultures of something suggestive of the Fall. The Chinese Shang-Ti sounds like a remnant of true worship but that's way in the past and he's hardly acknowledged. The idols have come forward in the place of the true God all over the world. ONLY the religions of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures have restored any idea at all of the one Creator God who is sovereign and the final judge of all things. Islam has picked up their version of the One God from these sources. Otherwise the world continues in idolatries of all kinds.The passage of Romans you quote shows that some evidence of God is apparent in the creation itself, and that therefore we are accountable for it, but the fact is that our fallen nature, with a little assist from the demonic hordes, leads us to confusion and denial and culpability unto hell, and without God's specific revelation of his intervention in Jesus Christ NOBODY would have a hope of salvation. And in fact in the next chapter Paul goes on to affirm that we're ALL hopelessly lost and are not to judge one another because none of us is free from this offense to God, which God has put up with patiently in all of us until he reveals the gospel to us. Yes, I love that psalm. But I believe I've addressed this idea already many times. And I've addressed it above in any case. God is knowable in his creation but nobody knows him nevertheless. I think he used to be known more and that this is another example of our accumulated fallenness that the knowledge is vaguer and vaguer. There are always those, as I keep saying, who have the kind of sensitivity that recognizes God in His creation, but even then they only have bare inklings, and certainly never grasp the plan of salvation. Only those who have the scripture can really appreciate God in Nature, and rightly understand his character. Those who deny the scripture but affirm God in nature end up affirming things that contradict scripture, and that can't be. Both are true. If there is a contradiction the fault is not in scripture, it's in our fallen minds. There is a problem with this idea the way you keep wording it. There is only one God. He's not a "Christian God," He's God, period. The fullest revelation of this God is in the Christian scriptures however. And the attributes that are revealed in the Christian scriptures are simply, as a matter of observable fact, NOT grasped by anybody who knows God only from Nature. This is demonstrable on this very forum. In fact their view of God directly and even aggressively contradicts and denies the scriptural portrait. It is of no use to be able to recognize that there IS a God from the creation, if you have a false or insufficient idea of his character from that source. If you have his attributes wrong, then you do not know him, it's as good as having a false idol for your god. I understand the light in this passage to be the light of truth -- enLIGHTenment of the mind and spirit -- knowledge of eternal things. The darkness is the darkness of sin and fallenness and the demonic realms, the light is the truth of God. I gather that he is using light to demonstrate something of the nature of God, especially the Trinity. That's fine, but the idea of the Trinity came first and the illustration afterward. In other words we need scripture to know about the Trinity and then we can recognize it in creation as well. Again, as I said before, you have not demonstrated that anyone has ever intuited God or the triune nature of God simply from a recognition of triads in nature. Again, show me anybody or any religion that has intuited the resurrection from the planting of seeds without knowledge of the Bible. Yes, scripture reveals the meanings in nature, as I have affirmed. AFTER we know scripture, Nature becomes legible in its light. But again, show me any religion or anyone who has intuited the resurrection of the Son of God from Springtime without knoweldge of the Bible and the resurrection of Christ? I can agree with this, that the evidence is in fact THERE, at the same time again point out that NOBODY HAS EVER RECOGNIZED IT without knowing the scriptures, and their blindness to it doesn't save them from culpability for rejecting it either. Those who find God in Nature but reject the Bible are never going to figure out the resurrection from their observations. In fact they deny all the special revelations of scripture. But we who know scripture can see in nature all of it. I hope what I'm saying here is making it clearer because you haven't been getting my point. You are wrong to think that just because the evidence exists in nature that anybody ever appreciates that evidence, or that anybody could ever gain a saving knowledge of God from it. Why is it that those who affirm God in nature deny the truths of scripture? YHWH, as Legend keeps saying, is ONLY known through scripture. He's absolutely right. Nobody has EVER arrived at a knowledge of YHWH from Nature, much less YHWH's plan of salvation. Yes, the evidence may in fact be there, but they are blind to it. All of us are blind to it until Christ opens our eyes. Yes, and he had the Holy Spirit because he had Christ. The idea that you seem to have, and that the Catholic Church now affirms, that the Holy Spirit operates in people who do not have Christ, has no scriptural support whatever. The Holy Spirit was sent by Christ on account of His ascension, to those who believed on Him. He testifies to Christ alone and anyone who does not know Christ does not have the Holy Spirit.Nevertheless my point is that the ability to recognize God in nature is a special gift to some people. Few have it. There are those who through ordinary grace, without the Holy Spirit, may recognize God in Nature, but these are the ones I'm talking about above who never get the slightest inkling of the character of God that can only be known through the scriptures, and often outright deny the scriptural revelation. If to some extent some correctly surmise something of the character of YHWH in these intuitions, nevertheless it is the paltriest intuition and they never arrive at saving knowledge unless they are led to the gospel of the scriptures. Yes, Brother Lawrence was, but he was led by Christ as I said -- the Holy Spirit is given ONLY through Christ. It's a different level and kind of knowledge. The blossoming tree instilled a powerful love of God in him that was consistent with the Biblical portrait. If you can show me anything remotely like this occurring in someone who does not know the gospels or the scriptures then you'd begin to have a point. The ONLY ones "who can see analogies of the Christian God in nature" are the ones who know and love the Christian God from the scriptures. Anyone who scorns the revelation of the scriptures is far from recognizing the Christian God in nature. They are affirming a god of their own invention. I haven't followed all the discussion with Legend, but his apprehension of the fact that the character of YHWH is known only through the scriptures is right on. Yes, Paul recognizes it through the Holy Spirit, and his lifelong soaking in the Hebrew scriptures. Again you seem to be implying cart before horse, as if anybody would ever intuit such relationships from nature alone without revelation. It hasn't happened, it doesn't happen.====
Interesting that you appreciate Tal Brooke and SCP. I'm not familiar with his writings on Teilhard.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-21-2005 10:13 AM

---

DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude. Certitude...
-- Blaise Pascal, 1654Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro.
-- Unknown, quoted by John of the Cross"...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19