What Relation Must I Have to the Truth in order to Suppress it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
I guess I would say that everyone is built with a God sized hole (Calvin's sense of diety). They will believe and act as if X, Y or Z fills that hole (only God correctly fills that whole and people are without excuse for filling that hole with something else). I do not see how Calvin can be understood when saying that worshipping idols made by human hands demonstrates the sense of diety, if you try to imply that the actual content of Christian Theism is a part of Calvin's sense of diety.

CT
 
Semper,
Who is arguing that any unbeliever is not guilty of suppressing the truth? The answer is no is doing such. One open question is what has to be true of one's relationship to the truth, before one can be said to be guilty of suppressing it. I think it is simple to see that one can be guilty of suppressing something without actually possessing the correct answer.

CT
 
I guess I would say that everyone is built with a God sized hole (Calvin's sense of diety). They will believe and act as if X, Y or Z fills that hole (only God correctly fills that whole and people are without excuse for filling that hole with something else). I do not see how Calvin can be understood when saying that worshipping idols made by human hands demonstrates the sense of diety, if you try to imply that the actual content of Christian Theism is a part of Calvin's sense of diety.

The way I think of it is that the sense of deity-slot is itself the knowledge of God that all men have. From that point, they can attempt to insert X, Y, or Z, which is idolatry, or they can insert a saving knowledge of the true God. In other words, the slot that exists contains information in itself, and it contributes to the noetic structure of humans. And then idolatry is an incorrect use of the slot, whereas first-commandment-keeping is a correct use of it.

I think this makes sense because Romans 1 teaches a knowledge of God that all men have (I'm tentative on Steven's proposal), but this knowledge is not a full knowledge, much less a saving knowledge.

----------

Steven,

Are you saying that although God may be clearly revealed from the creation order, this doesn't imply that people actually have a knowledge of Him?
 
I guess I would say that everyone is built with a God sized hole (Calvin's sense of diety). They will believe and act as if X, Y or Z fills that hole (only God correctly fills that whole and people are without excuse for filling that hole with something else). I do not see how Calvin can be understood when saying that worshipping idols made by human hands demonstrates the sense of diety, if you try to imply that the actual content of Christian Theism is a part of Calvin's sense of diety.

The way I think of it is that the sense of deity-slot is itself the knowledge of God that all men have. From that point, they can attempt to insert X, Y, or Z, which is idolatry, or they can insert a saving knowledge of the true God. In other words, the slot that exists contains information in itself, and it contributes to the noetic structure of humans. And then idolatry is an incorrect use of the slot, whereas first-commandment-keeping is a correct use of it.

I think this makes sense because Romans 1 teaches a knowledge of God that all men have (I'm tentative on Steven's proposal), but this knowledge is not a full knowledge, much less a saving knowledge.


There is in fact information there, the question is what exactly is that information. The real question is information like, "Christianity is true" is part of the information in the sense of diety.

I would say that knowledge of "Godness" is what is in the sense of diety. If you go more than that, then I think you have to run afoul of Calvin. (Not that a person can't do such, but then one can't bring the bat of Church History down on those who disagree).

CT
 
Can anyone be held to be morally responsible without some knowledge of God?
God would be quite unjust to judge such a person, just as He would be unjust to judge a stone.
 
Semper,
Who is arguing that any unbeliever is not guilty of suppressing the truth? The answer is no is doing such. One open question is what has to be true of one's relationship to the truth, before one can be said to be guilty of suppressing it. I think it is simple to see that one can be guilty of suppressing something without actually possessing the correct answer.

CT

That may be, but that's NOT the way Scripture (Romans 1) speaks about the matter of suppressing the knowledge of God. These two things are predicated about the same people. 1) They know God 2) They suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness.

We're not dealing with any hypothetical here, but a concrete statement of Paul's about all humanity.
 
Semper,
Who is arguing that any unbeliever is not guilty of suppressing the truth? The answer is no is doing such. One open question is what has to be true of one's relationship to the truth, before one can be said to be guilty of suppressing it. I think it is simple to see that one can be guilty of suppressing something without actually possessing the correct answer.

CT

That may be, but that's NOT the way Scripture (Romans 1) speaks about the matter of suppressing the knowledge of God. These two things are predicated about the same people. 1) They know God 2) They suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness.

We're not dealing with any hypothetical here, but a concrete statement of Paul's about all humanity.

And I do not have to deny either.

1)What is this content of the knowledge of God that Paul speaks of?

It seems that in recent Reformed History, we have tried to stuff more into the sense of diety than is reasonable, the Bible demands, older Reformed people stuffed into it, etc.

Secondarily, I think I need to see your work as you dogmatically assert that the past tense is only prophetic. In your previous post, you seemed to imply that if it was not, then there would be excuse. That simply is not the case.

CT
 
Semper,
Who is arguing that any unbeliever is not guilty of suppressing the truth? The answer is no is doing such. One open question is what has to be true of one's relationship to the truth, before one can be said to be guilty of suppressing it. I think it is simple to see that one can be guilty of suppressing something without actually possessing the correct answer.

CT

That may be, but that's NOT the way Scripture (Romans 1) speaks about the matter of suppressing the knowledge of God. These two things are predicated about the same people. 1) They know God 2) They suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness.

We're not dealing with any hypothetical here, but a concrete statement of Paul's about all humanity.

And I do not have to deny either.

1)What is this content of the knowledge of God that Paul speaks of?

It seems that in recent Reformed History, we have tried to stuff more into the sense of diety than is reasonable, the Bible demands, older Reformed people stuffed into it, etc.

Secondarily, I think I need to see your work as you dogmatically assert that the past tense is only prophetic. In your previous post, you seemed to imply that if it was not, then there would be excuse. That simply is not the case.

CT

The content is the natural, innate knowledge of the Creator God, the possession of which is natural to man, and must lead to worshipping Him as His invisible attributes are plainly displayed, as the text says. It's fairly simple. I'm not sure why you're going into attack mode.

I never said "only prophetic" - I'm sure there's an element of history in those words also, but my use of the tag "prophetic" was simply a way of saying "universally applicable". It's quite plain that Paul is not merely speaking of some subset of humanity that lived before his day, and using a plain historic past. Is Paul not making a universal argument here, while using a past tense? Can you simply be plain and say what you believe about this passage? Does the condemnation in Romans 1 apply to each and every human being? Does not every single human being have sufficient knowledge of God to condemn him when he does not seek God to worship him as a result of it? This dancing around semantically is getting tiresome. What exactly is your issue with the historic reformed reading of this passage?

If the plain reading of this text as applying to all men universally, and condemning all for suppressing the knowledge that the text clearly says they have (and the possession of this knowledge is the reason there is no excuse for their condemnation) then how is there yet no excuse? The excuse given by Paul is easily inferrable - "I didn't know". Absent that, what excuse is there? I assume that since you're so emphatically arguing contrary to my statements, you've got an explanation... I'd love to hear it.
 
Semper,
Who is arguing that any unbeliever is not guilty of suppressing the truth? The answer is no is doing such. One open question is what has to be true of one's relationship to the truth, before one can be said to be guilty of suppressing it. I think it is simple to see that one can be guilty of suppressing something without actually possessing the correct answer.

CT

CT,

I don't think you read what I wrote very carefully or understood its import. I already presented what the historic Reformed position is on the subject but you seemed to have missed it.

Did you misunderstand the difference between mediated guilt and immediate guilt?

In other words, is man guilty of Sin only when he personally, historically engages in a particular sin (mediated view) or is he guilty of Sin on account of his solidarity with Adam in the first Sin (immediate imputation).

The answer is the latter but that our commission of actual offenses is additional guilt and that one of the consequences of Original Sin is not only guilt but corrupttion that leads to actual offenses. We are guilty in Adam even before we sin according to the likeness of Adam and then we add to our guilt by the commission of actual sin. This is the historical Reformed position that the guilt and corruption from Adam's Sin is imputed to us. Consequently, even as Adam was guilty of the sin of suppressing Truth about God in unrighteousness we, with him, are guilty.

As I noted, there are grave consequences to denying the immediate imputation of guilt because the corresponding analogy to Christ's impution is an immediate one. To argue for mediate guilt and condemnation for Sin is to argue for mediate righteousness with respect to salvation.

Finally, as is noted in the Forum Rules, if you wish to challenge the Reformed position on the nature of immediate imputation then it is up to you to provide the exegetical basis for this. I suggest you read Berkhof on his treatment of the subject as well as the Imputation of Adam's Sin by Murray before you try to argue for another view on the nature of guilt as it accrues to Adam's posterity.
 
ah yes- Rich just made another point I had wanted to make. Someone had asked why the interpretation of Romans 1 has anything whatsoever to do with the imputation of Adam's guilt to those over whom he is head. Rich has nailed it. The interpretation of Romans 1 vis a vis the OP's question and subsequent development is very directly connected with the understanding of imputation of Adam's sin.
 
What Todd and Rich are saying, I think, is that since Adam suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, in him all mankind did so also. I have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness because I did so in Adam. On that ground, whatever I may do now, I am inexcusable. God was clearly known to Adam, and by my identification with him, I am guilty of that original suppression.

But then that leads into the question of whether I suppress knowledge now as well. And there I think the answer is also clear: my last practical judgment on these matters, as an unconverted person, does suppress what may be known. It is not merely nescience, it is ignorance.
 
Semper,
Who is arguing that any unbeliever is not guilty of suppressing the truth? The answer is no is doing such. One open question is what has to be true of one's relationship to the truth, before one can be said to be guilty of suppressing it. I think it is simple to see that one can be guilty of suppressing something without actually possessing the correct answer.

CT

CT,

I don't think you read what I wrote very carefully or understood its import. I already presented what the historic Reformed position is on the subject but you seemed to have missed it.

Did you misunderstand the difference between mediated guilt and immediate guilt?

In other words, is man guilty of Sin only when he personally, historically engages in a particular sin (mediated view) or is he guilty of Sin on account of his solidarity with Adam in the first Sin (immediate imputation).

The answer is the latter but that our commission of actual offenses is additional guilt and that one of the consequences of Original Sin is not only guilt but corrupttion that leads to actual offenses. We are guilty in Adam even before we sin according to the likeness of Adam and then we add to our guilt by the commission of actual sin. This is the historical Reformed position that the guilt and corruption from Adam's Sin is imputed to us. Consequently, even as Adam was guilty of the sin of suppressing Truth about God in unrighteousness we, with him, are guilty.

As I noted, there are grave consequences to denying the immediate imputation of guilt because the corresponding analogy to Christ's impution is an immediate one. To argue for mediate guilt and condemnation for Sin is to argue for mediate righteousness with respect to salvation.

Finally, as is noted in the Forum Rules, if you wish to challenge the Reformed position on the nature of immediate imputation then it is up to you to provide the exegetical basis for this. I suggest you read Berkhof on his treatment of the subject as well as the Imputation of Adam's Sin by Murray before you try to argue for another view on the nature of guilt as it accrues to Adam's posterity.

Semper,
From the get go in this thread, I pointed out the incongruity of Calvin and certain viewpoints put forward in this thread. If you think they can be made to go together, then I would love to see it.

Next, Unless you wish to say, the inexcusability of man's rejection of God spoken of by Paul in Romans 1 is due to him being born is Adam, I do not see where this line of inquiry is coming from?

Now if you are saying that their guilt is due to being born in Adam, okay. But that has never been the question, at least not in my line of inquiry (and since you are replying to me, I assume you are talking to me).

CT

-----Added 6/29/2009 at 07:46:08 EST-----

What Todd and Rich are saying, I think, is that since Adam suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, in him all mankind did so also. I have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness because I did so in Adam. On that ground, whatever I may do now, I am inexcusable. God was clearly known to Adam, and by my identification with him, I am guilty of that original suppression.

But then that leads into the question of whether I suppress knowledge now as well. And there I think the answer is also clear: my last practical judgment on these matters, as an unconverted person, does suppress what may be known. It is not merely nescience, it is ignorance.

So your position is that the "known of God" is applying to everyone or just Adam? It seems that Todd and Rich are saying that known is not simply past tense, but you seem to be saying that you can exegete the text in a way that past tense is fine and not current tense.

CT
 
From the get go in this thread, I pointed out the incongruity of Calvin and certain viewpoints put forward in this thread. If you think they can be made to go together, then I would love to see it.
No, nor is this the discussion. If you would like to start your own thread then have at it.

Next, Unless you wish to say, the inexcusability of man's rejection of God spoken of by Paul in Romans 1 is due to him being born is Adam, I do not see where this line of inquiry is coming from?
Then I suggest you re-read the entire thread, especially the relevance of mediate and immediate imputation. I'm not going to re-tread this because you're more interested in an epistemological discussion and haven't labored to understand the relevance of imputed Sin to the issue.
 
-----Added 6/29/2009 at 07:46:08 EST-----

What Todd and Rich are saying, I think, is that since Adam suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, in him all mankind did so also. I have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness because I did so in Adam. On that ground, whatever I may do now, I am inexcusable. God was clearly known to Adam, and by my identification with him, I am guilty of that original suppression.

But then that leads into the question of whether I suppress knowledge now as well. And there I think the answer is also clear: my last practical judgment on these matters, as an unconverted person, does suppress what may be known. It is not merely nescience, it is ignorance.

So your position is that the "known of God" is applying to everyone or just Adam? It seems that Todd and Rich are saying that known is not simply past tense, but you seem to be saying that you can exegete the text in a way that past tense is fine and not current tense.

CT

I'm not going to speak for Todd and Rich because their line of argumentation is quite obscure to me, though I'm fairly confident about the imputation point. I'm not getting into the question of the past vs. the present tense - I suspect that is probably a fruitless rabbit trail. Rather I would say that there are two ways in which men are without excuse: because of original and actual sin.
 
That may be, but that's NOT the way Scripture (Romans 1) speaks about the matter of suppressing the knowledge of God. These two things are predicated about the same people. 1) They know God 2) They suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness.

We're not dealing with any hypothetical here, but a concrete statement of Paul's about all humanity.

And I do not have to deny either.

1)What is this content of the knowledge of God that Paul speaks of?

It seems that in recent Reformed History, we have tried to stuff more into the sense of diety than is reasonable, the Bible demands, older Reformed people stuffed into it, etc.

Secondarily, I think I need to see your work as you dogmatically assert that the past tense is only prophetic. In your previous post, you seemed to imply that if it was not, then there would be excuse. That simply is not the case.

CT

The content is the natural, innate knowledge of the Creator God, the possession of which is natural to man, and must lead to worshipping Him as His invisible attributes are plainly displayed, as the text says. It's fairly simple. I'm not sure why you're going into attack mode.

I never said "only prophetic" - I'm sure there's an element of history in those words also, but my use of the tag "prophetic" was simply a way of saying "universally applicable". It's quite plain that Paul is not merely speaking of some subset of humanity that lived before his day, and using a plain historic past. Is Paul not making a universal argument here, while using a past tense? Can you simply be plain and say what you believe about this passage? Does the condemnation in Romans 1 apply to each and every human being? Does not every single human being have sufficient knowledge of God to condemn him when he does not seek God to worship him as a result of it? This dancing around semantically is getting tiresome. What exactly is your issue with the historic reformed reading of this passage?

If the plain reading of this text as applying to all men universally, and condemning all for suppressing the knowledge that the text clearly says they have (and the possession of this knowledge is the reason there is no excuse for their condemnation) then how is there yet no excuse? The excuse given by Paul is easily inferrable - "I didn't know". Absent that, what excuse is there? I assume that since you're so emphatically arguing contrary to my statements, you've got an explanation... I'd love to hear it.

If imputation and inexcusability are based on what Adam had and not me, then on what basis do you say that knowledge is something that I have and not just something Adam had?

CT
 
If imputation and inexcusability are based on what Adam had and not me, then on what basis do you say that knowledge is something that I have and not just something Adam had?

CT

If righteousness and holiness is something Christ has and not you, then on what basis does God consider you justified?
 
If imputation and inexcusability are based on what Adam had and not me, then on what basis do you say that knowledge is something that I have and not just something Adam had?

CT

If righteousness and holiness is something Christ has and not you, then on what basis does God consider you justified?

At this point, I would say Union with Christ, but since that is not the case for the unbeliever, there must be another answer. I am willing to hear it.

CT

-----Added 6/29/2009 at 08:37:58 EST-----

-----Added 6/29/2009 at 07:46:08 EST-----

What Todd and Rich are saying, I think, is that since Adam suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, in him all mankind did so also. I have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness because I did so in Adam. On that ground, whatever I may do now, I am inexcusable. God was clearly known to Adam, and by my identification with him, I am guilty of that original suppression.

But then that leads into the question of whether I suppress knowledge now as well. And there I think the answer is also clear: my last practical judgment on these matters, as an unconverted person, does suppress what may be known. It is not merely nescience, it is ignorance.

So your position is that the "known of God" is applying to everyone or just Adam? It seems that Todd and Rich are saying that known is not simply past tense, but you seem to be saying that you can exegete the text in a way that past tense is fine and not current tense.

CT

I'm not going to speak for Todd and Rich because their line of argumentation is quite obscure to me, though I'm fairly confident about the imputation point. I'm not getting into the question of the past vs. the present tense - I suspect that is probably a fruitless rabbit trail. Rather I would say that there are two ways in which men are without excuse: because of original and actual sin.

If Paul is making an argument for imputation of various things in Romans 1, then why is he bringing up all this stuff about what is available to people now? The inexcusability is based on what is available to them, not what was available to Adam.

CT
 
If imputation and inexcusability are based on what Adam had and not me, then on what basis do you say that knowledge is something that I have and not just something Adam had?

CT

If righteousness and holiness is something Christ has and not you, then on what basis does God consider you justified?

At this point, I would say Union with Christ, but since that is not the case for the unbeliever, there must be another answer. I am willing to hear it.

CT

-----Added 6/29/2009 at 08:37:58 EST-----

-----Added 6/29/2009 at 07:46:08 EST-----



So your position is that the "known of God" is applying to everyone or just Adam? It seems that Todd and Rich are saying that known is not simply past tense, but you seem to be saying that you can exegete the text in a way that past tense is fine and not current tense.

CT

I'm not going to speak for Todd and Rich because their line of argumentation is quite obscure to me, though I'm fairly confident about the imputation point. I'm not getting into the question of the past vs. the present tense - I suspect that is probably a fruitless rabbit trail. Rather I would say that there are two ways in which men are without excuse: because of original and actual sin.

If Paul is making an argument for imputation of various things in Romans 1, then why is he bringing up all this stuff about what is available to people now? The inexcusability is based on what is available to them, not what was available to Adam.

CT
As before:
[bible]Romans 5:12-21[/bible]

Do your homework and labor through some of the implications. I've recommended some resources to read.
 
Hermonta, I don't know that Paul in Romans 1 is arguing for imputation. Romans 5 is the chapter that sets out imputation. But given that we know Romans 5 is coming, we can see that one way in which all men are without excuse is because of their sin in Adam. Of course, original sin brings forth actual sin: and so, in whatever particular form it takes, men are guilty of ignorance by their actual sin as well (which is to be distinguished from nescience).
 
Hermonta, I don't know that Paul in Romans 1 is arguing for imputation. Romans 5 is the chapter that sets out imputation. But given that we know Romans 5 is coming, we can see that one way in which all men are without excuse is because of their sin in Adam. Of course, original sin brings forth actual sin: and so, in whatever particular form it takes, men are guilty of ignorance by their actual sin as well (which is to be distinguished from nescience).

I think you are reading too much backwards into Romans 1. If Romans 1 does not deal with imputation then the argument about inexcusability is based on what the person living today or anytime past Adam had or has available.

It really seems that if Paul wanted to make an argument for inexcusability based on imputation then he would have changed how he went about Romans 1.

Guilt based on imputation is clear but inexcusability based on imputation is not so clear at all.

CT
 
Reformed dogmatics has always insisted that guilt and culpability are included in the imputation of Adam's Sin. You are required to exegete the opposite if you are going to challenge the Confessions and explain how "all sinned" when Adam sinned. You also need to explain the universal suppression of Truth apart from imputation if, as you say, imputation is "reading too much backward into Romans 1".

You also err in assuming that ignorance is an excuse for unrighteousness. Even pagans understand it is not. Try arguing that in a court of Law.

The irony is that the exact words you are using are the kinds of arguments that Arminians make to point out that God cannot hold men accountable or responsible for something they don't have the capacity to do. In other words, man cannot help suppressing the Truth and so he's not responsible for the sin in suppressing Truth.

Explain to me, please, why your presentation is not Arminian and what place it has on this board.
 
Reformed dogmatics has always insisted that guilt and culpability are included in the imputation of Adam's Sin. You are required to exegete the opposite if you are going to challenge the Confessions and explain how "all sinned" when Adam sinned.

If all did not sin then how does one get guilt? Answer we do all sin. Where have I denied culpability? The question has been inexcusability. Culpability is just a part of representative headship of Adam (or the same concept works in other human relationships). If we were not culpable then then how does one get guilt?

You also err in assuming that ignorance is an excuse for unrighteousness. Even pagans understand it is not. Try arguing that in a court of Law.

I never said ignorance is an excuse. Can you point out where I did?

The irony is that the exact words you are using are the kinds of arguments that Arminians make to point out that God cannot hold men accountable or responsible for something they don't have the capacity to do. In other words, man cannot help suppressing the Truth and so he's not responsible for the sin in suppressing Truth.

Explain to me, please, why your presentation is not Arminian and what place it has on this board.

I stand with Edwards here and the fourfold state of human nature, therefore Arminians do not bother me. Since we are born in sin, we crave unrighteousness, therefore we sin.

If you believe that I am missing Edwards point/distorting his position, I would be happy to listen to your argument.

CT
 
Reformed dogmatics has always insisted that guilt and culpability are included in the imputation of Adam's Sin. You are required to exegete the opposite if you are going to challenge the Confessions and explain how "all sinned" when Adam sinned.

If all did not sin then how does one get guilt?
All did sin. Hence, the culpability. There are two ways of explaining this historically: realism and federalism. Confessional theology is Federal. As I stated already, we not only have guilt (reatus) but culpability (culpa) and are therefore under punishment.

You also err in assuming that ignorance is an excuse for unrighteousness. Even pagans understand it is not. Try arguing that in a court of Law.

I never said ignorance is an excuse. Can you point out where I did?
Then make your point Hermonta. If I misunderstand you it's because you are dancing around the issue. Put forward your position and defend it exegetically. You like to ask a lot of questions but now it is your turn to show your cards. Why are men universally guilty and condemned in Romans 1:18ff?
 
Reformed dogmatics has always insisted that guilt and culpability are included in the imputation of Adam's Sin. You are required to exegete the opposite if you are going to challenge the Confessions and explain how "all sinned" when Adam sinned.

If all did not sin then how does one get guilt? Answer we do all sin. Where have I denied culpability? The question has been inexcusability. Culpability is just a part of representative headship of Adam (or the same concept works in other human relationships). If we were not culpable then then how does one get guilt?

You also err in assuming that ignorance is an excuse for unrighteousness. Even pagans understand it is not. Try arguing that in a court of Law.

I never said ignorance is an excuse. Can you point out where I did?

The irony is that the exact words you are using are the kinds of arguments that Arminians make to point out that God cannot hold men accountable or responsible for something they don't have the capacity to do. In other words, man cannot help suppressing the Truth and so he's not responsible for the sin in suppressing Truth.

Explain to me, please, why your presentation is not Arminian and what place it has on this board.

I stand with Edwards here and the fourfold state of human nature, therefore Arminians do not bother me. Since we are born in sin, we crave unrighteousness, therefore we sin.

Yes, but even before "we sin", we have already sinned. We are already guilty. The condemnation of men as sinners is already in place at conception. Sure we sin really, in fact, and in time, but it is because we are already sinners and already standing under the just condemnation of a Holy God.

Your position, on the other hand, seems to argue for a lack of sinfulness until one actually commits willful sin. Can you please explain how it is you are NOT arguing this way?
 
Reformed dogmatics has always insisted that guilt and culpability are included in the imputation of Adam's Sin. You are required to exegete the opposite if you are going to challenge the Confessions and explain how "all sinned" when Adam sinned.

If all did not sin then how does one get guilt?
All did sin. Hence, the culpability. There are two ways of explaining this historically: realism and federalism. Confessional theology is Federal. As I stated already, we not only have guilt (reatus) but culpability (culpa) and are therefore under punishment.

You also err in assuming that ignorance is an excuse for unrighteousness. Even pagans understand it is not. Try arguing that in a court of Law.

I never said ignorance is an excuse. Can you point out where I did?
Then make your point Hermonta. If I misunderstand you it's because you are dancing around the issue. Put forward your position and defend it exegetically. You like to ask a lot of questions but now it is your turn to show your cards. Why are men universally guilty in Romans 1:18ff?

Perhaps it would be helpful if you take your own advice and read carefully. I have been clear from round 1, that no one has excuse. The issue is your need to drop the hammer on someone.

The question is why is everyone inexcusable

Answer:
20 For the invisible 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; so that they are without excuse.

With Westminster I believe that people are guilty because they are born in Adam and his imputed unrighteousness. They are inexcusable because of what is clear to them but they refuse to see.

CT
 
With Westminster I believe that people are guilty because they are born in Adam and his imputed unrighteousness. They are inexcusable because of what is clear to them but they refuse to see.

CT

Can you explain this a little further?

Specifically, I'm interested in the relationship between guilt and inexcusability, because it seems to me that if you are excusable that negates or diminishes your guilt.

Secondly, about the phrase "to them". What is clear to them? Is it clear to them both before and after they refuse to see it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top