Justin Taylor’s Post On “What Unbelieving Pagans Know about God and Why They Are Responsible for It”

Comments

2 responses to “Justin Taylor’s Post On “What Unbelieving Pagans Know about God and Why They Are Responsible for It””

1. 

   Paul Baird

   February 17, 2012

   Read it, sorry but is that supposed to be a devastating line of argument ?

   “First, the object of their knowledge is God’s “invisible attributes.” In particular, Paul points to God as Creator with eternality, power, and divinity (“eternal power and divine nature . . . creation of the world”).”

   That’s that feedback concept I’ve tried explaining to you. Believers do not follow a deity that is unresponsive. There is a point to rite, ritual and sacrifice, usually involving food or war.

   “Second, he explains the location of their knowledge of these invisible divine attributes: “in the things that have been made.” In other words, his invisible characteristics are found in his visible creation.”

   Again it’s part of the feedback relationship and also the interaction between the believer and their environment.

   “Third, he explains the duration of their knowledge, to the effect that this has always been the case: “ever since the creation of the world.””

   Considering the number of faith paths that have a Creation myth…

   “Fourth, he points to the quality of their knowledge: it is “clearly perceived,” hearkening back to his comment that this knowledge is “plain to them.””

   Hmm. Tell me, is the evidence in the sedimentary rocks clearly there to substantiate the Flood ? Don’t you think it ought to be ? Don’t you think that everything stated in the Bible should also be plainly knowledgeable rather than open to so much historic interpretation ?

   I think the article cited is doing what it should do – preaching to the choir. Just don’t expect it to convince anyone who isn’t in the choir.

   Reply
   1. 

      defectivebit

      February 17, 2012

      Read it, sorry but is that supposed to be a devastating line of argument ?

      huh?

      “First, the object of their knowledge is God’s “invisible attributes.” In particular, Paul points to God as Creator with eternality, power, and divinity (“eternal power and divine nature . . . creation of the world”).”
      That’s that feedback concept I’ve tried explaining to you. Believers do not follow a deity that is unresponsive. There is a point to rite, ritual and sacrifice, usually involving food or war.

      I have no idea what you are talking about Paul. I don’t remember ever talking to you about a “feedback concept.”

      “Second, he explains the location of their knowledge of these invisible divine attributes: “in the things that have been made.” In other words, his invisible characteristics are found in his visible creation.”
      Again it’s part of the feedback relationship and also the interaction between the believer and their environment.

      Still have no idea what you are talking about…

      “Third, he explains the duration of their knowledge, to the effect that this has always been the case: “ever since the creation of the world.””
      Considering the number of faith paths that have a Creation myth…

      “…” Not sure what you are trying to imply here.

      “Fourth, he points to the quality of their knowledge: it is “clearly perceived,” hearkening back to his comment that this knowledge is “plain to them.””
      Hmm. Tell me, is the evidence in the sedimentary rocks clearly there to substantiate the Flood ?

      Depends on what worldview one is using to interpret the evidence. If one has a worldview that rejects the Triune God of Scripture a priori then the evidence will not be interpreted to substantiate any claim of Christianity, necessarily so.

      Don’t you think it ought to be ? Don’t you think that everything stated in the Bible should also be plainly knowledgeable rather than open to so much historic interpretation ?

      It is plain because God has made it plain to them. In their very being as creatures and in the world around.

      I think the article cited is doing what it should do – preaching to the choir. Just don’t expect it to convince anyone who isn’t in the choir.

      So then why did you ask the very first question in this comment? If it is doing its job as “preaching to the choir” why would you think it is trying to be “a devastating line of argument?”

      Reply