It is most apparent to me that the existence of God is never really argued
in scripture, it is accepted a priori. I also agree that the scriptural
approach to explaining God is revealing Him though Christ.
I wasn't sure whether you were referring to a cosmological or teleological
argument in reference to using "nature as a proof of God's existence."
I suppose I interpreted "nature as proof" as a form of teleological
argument. I realize that Paul is not making a direct argument for the
existence of God, but he does seem to wonder why people won't recognize (and
"glorify") the Designer, inferring identity from his designs, ala Paley.
I have not noticed anywhere in scripture a cosmological argument. Some have
suggested Ps. 19:1-3, but I see how it ascribes necessary attributes, not
Thanks for the response. I have a lot I want to learn about apologetics,
and a lot of reading to absorb. This is still pretty new territory for me.
--Grace and Peace,
on 8/27/01 9:21 PM, george murphy wrote:
...However, I think Pascal is about 99.9% right here here. In Romans 1 Paul
is not making an appeal to his readers to believe in the existence of God
because of the evidence of nature. What he is saying is that people should
recognize God's deity and power from creation but that in fact they don't -
not that they don't believe in any God at all but that they misrepresent God
and worship things other than the true God. I.e., the problem is bad
natural theology. [snip]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 27 2001 - 23:34:04 EDT