Re: > Re: Defining GOG & EOG

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 20:37:52 -0600

At 02:03 PM 12/18/97 -0600, George Andrews wrote:

>I do not see why Eduardo and you accuse me of being in "direct opposition to
>Romans 1" when it is here that Paul instructs us of mankind's total depravity
>with its accompanying tendency toward idolatry. Hence, unbelievers worship the
>creation and only believers see the God of nature. It appears to me that
you see
>the emphasis of Rom. 1 as teaching a natural revelation of God for all to see.
>Instead, its emphasis plainly reveals man's inexcusable guilt before God. The
>thrust of Paul's argument in Romans is that mankind has SUPPRESSED the truth of
>God that HAS BEEN revealed through nature because of their "wickedness."

Interesting. I have never read that passage that way. I have always viewed
Romans 1:20 as an explanation of 1:19

Romans 1:19 (NIV) since what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them.

Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

if 20 is an explanation of 19 then the creation is what has been made plain
to them.

>Perhaps, postmodernism has something to say in that it is honest; for as Godel
>has shown us, even logic and mathematics can not be considered absolutely true
>since there may be latent antinomies; one doesn't know! But again, I see this
>incompleteness as pointing to mankind's need for revelatory truth and
>from our darkened condition by God's grace.
>> Anybody's perception is as good as anyone else's.
>Glenn, I have not said this, for I hold, with Dooyeweerd and others that
all of
>theoretical thought is religious at center and therefore an unambiguous
>description of reality is possible with a redeemed intellect. Moreover, as I
>think you will agree, the scientific method does discriminate between
>(to some degree!) unless we want to deny our senses totally.
>Thanks for the engagement;

Maybe I misunderstood what you were advocating. It sounded dual to me, but
since you say that truth is not dual, then I will accept that and go away.


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood