My interest in apologetical discussions isn't remotely as great as others on the board, but I wanted to ask a question for the Scripturalists. This is a simple question, and its not meant to be any "silver bullet", because I'm sure you've dealt with it before; I just don't recall seeing it mentioned in any of the discussions.
In Romans 1, Paul states that the invisible things of God are clearly seen, and understood, through the created order. Without being sophistic, couldn't we agree that "clearly seeing" and "understanding" something, so much so that they are culpable for its rejection, is tantamount to "knowing"?
In chapter two, speaking of Gentiles who have not the law, and presumably mankind in general, bereft of the Scriptures, Paul states that they "by nature" are aware of moral standards of God, hence their conscience either excuses or accuses them.
According to Scripturalism, how could Gentiles, who don't have the Scriptures, "know" enough about God, and enough about His moral commands, to be found culpable in His sight?
Like I said, I realize you've probably heard it before; just wondering what your response would be.
In Romans 1, Paul states that the invisible things of God are clearly seen, and understood, through the created order. Without being sophistic, couldn't we agree that "clearly seeing" and "understanding" something, so much so that they are culpable for its rejection, is tantamount to "knowing"?
In chapter two, speaking of Gentiles who have not the law, and presumably mankind in general, bereft of the Scriptures, Paul states that they "by nature" are aware of moral standards of God, hence their conscience either excuses or accuses them.
According to Scripturalism, how could Gentiles, who don't have the Scriptures, "know" enough about God, and enough about His moral commands, to be found culpable in His sight?
Like I said, I realize you've probably heard it before; just wondering what your response would be.
Last edited: