I am going to deliver analysis once
more concerning an article posted some time ago by Dawson Bethric over at Incinerating Presuppositionalism. The
article calls into question the concept of sensus
divinitatis. Surprisingly, Bethric authors a blog designed to refute presuppositional
apologetics while at the same time admitting near complete unawareness of this
basic concept that lies at the heart of a reformed Christian’s epistemology. I
find it extraordinary that Bethric has read very much of Van Til, Clark,
Bahnsen, Plantinga and Frame without confronting the concept of sensus divinitatis.
Does Romans 1:20 contradict itself?
Before we get into the
epistemological components of my analysis, I need to address Bethric’s charge
that Romans 1:20 contains a contradiction. Dawson thinks that Paul’s usage of
the words aoratos with the word kathoraō create a contradiction. After
all, how can one “clearly see” what is invisible? What Bethric does not clearly
see himself is what Paul is doing with his use of language. It is something we
all do. How often have you asked someone if “they can see the solution to that
problem?” How many times have you, after arriving at an understanding of
something or intending to communicate to someone that you understand a concept
have you used the phrase “I see” to communicate that you understand? Bethric’s
objection here is either dishonest or ignorant. I will allow him the courtesy
of selecting which it is. Paul is clearly not talking about sensory perception
in Romans 1:20. He is referencing what philosopher’s call a priori knowledge. We see this in v. 19 where Paul says, dioti to gnōston tou theou phaneron estin en
autois. For that which is known of God is conspicuous, open, manifest,
clear, obvious, evident.
Additionally, the Greek word kathoraō is being used in an
intellectual sense just in the same manner as I used “see” in the previous paragraph.
Louw-Nida includes “to learn about,” BDAG, “also of inward seeing,” and
finally, NIDNTTE, “In addition to its usual lit. sense “to see [physically,
with one’s own eye],” the vb. is often used of intellectual or spiritual
perception (e.g., 1 Sam 12:17) and of what one experiences or suffers.” The
lexical data clearly contradicts Bethric’s disingenuous attempt to impose a
contradiction in Scripture where one does not exist. At minimum, this places
Bethric’s credibility and integrity into serious doubt.
Does Romans 1:19-25 Posit A Priori
Knowledge or A Posteriori Knowledge?
To answer this question, we have to
pay strict attention to the objects of knowledge Paul discusses in Romans 1:19-21.
In v. 19 Paul tells uses the phrase “that which is known about God.” Notice
that Paul is assuming that men, all men, possess knowledge of God. This
knowledge, moreover, is clear, obvious, conspicuous. Then in v. 20 the object
of knowledge shifts to God’s attributes. And we know things about God’s
attributes, which are invisible, by looking at creation. We can know that God
is very intelligent, very power, and a master designer. We know that God is a
caring God by the way nature is put together. Now, we come to v. 21 which
clearly brings us back to knowledge of God Himself. “Although they knew God” is
the phrase Paul employs. This isn’t knowledge about God, His attributes, etc.
This is “knowing God.” They knew God, says Paul. To answer Bethric’s charge, we
can safely say that Romans 1 covers not a
priori knowledge or a posteriori
knowledge, it deals with both. We are born knowing that God exists. We are
born knowing that when we behold the universe, we see and understand clearly
the invisible attributes of God it communicates.
Can a Self-Deceived Person Know they are Deceived?
“For even though they knew God,
they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their
speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Self-deception is a very
dark behavior and made possible only because of the curse. The antithesis is
chilling. Man knows God, and he deceives himself into not knowing God at the
same time and in the same sense. I am not going to take the time to get into
the psychological nuances of self-deception. First, those nuances are beyond
the scope of this blog. Second, the sort of self-deception we are talking about
is primarily spiritual in nature. The noetic effects of sin are such that man’s
cognitive faculties are just as affected by by the fall as his will and
emotions. James 1:22 uses the expression paralogizomenoi
heautous. Liddell gives us a range on paralogizomenoi
as follows: reason falsely, use fallacies, draw a false inference, mislead by fallacious
reasoning, disguise, deception, fraud, etc. The use of the reflexive pronoun
stresses that all this false reasoning and deception is self-initiated and
self-inflicted. The concept of self-deception is not new in Christian circles
even if Bethric has never heard of it before now and even if he does not like
it very much. Nevertheless, it is also the case that not only do the noetic
effects of sin cause man to deceive himself, he is also blinded by the god of
this world so that he does not see the light of the gospel. (2 Cor. 4:4) Top to
bottom, the unbeliever’s cognitive ability to see the truth and his volition
desire for the truth have been radically impeded by his own desire for autonomy
and his rebellious attitude toward His Creator.
Is Christian Theism a Product of the Imagination?
If we grant Bethric’s method for
claiming that all theism is simply a product of human imagination, it is easy
to see how we might slide down that slope directly into solipsism. Solipsism is
the view that the only thing I can know is my own internal world. And if we
move in that direction, Bethric’s own Objectivism must also bow the knee. We
could play this game into an infinite regress where Bethric claims our belief that
God exists is in our imagination and we respond by saying it is only in Bethric’s
imagination that our beliefs are in our imagination. Back and forth we could go
into an infinite quibble. There are far too many facts supporting Christianity
for it to be chalked up to the imagination, facts that are anchored in history
and archeology. To claim that Christianity is merely the product of human
imagination is little more than philosophical rhetoric, a claim without an
argument. Bethric has paid attention to Ayn Rand’s use of rhetoric. He employs
it frequently when he doesn’t have an argument, thinking it will compensate for
his lack of analysis. So, the claim that Christianity is a product of the
imagination is empty rhetoric and should be promptly dismissed.
Is the Sensus Divinitatis a
Christian Rescuing Device?
I once said to Bethric that he did
not understand Presuppositionalism because he did not understand biblical
Christianity and therefore, he should refrain from criticizing what he does not
understand. Here, Bethric has proven my point. If you do not understand the principle
in the sensus divinitatis, then you
do not understand Christianity. Bethric does not understand the principle in
the sensus divinitatis. Therefore,
Bethric does not understand Christianity. Moreover, if you do not understand
Christianity, you do not understand presuppositionalism. Bethric does not
understand Christianity. Therefore, Bethric does not understand
presuppositionalism.
AàB
BàC
~C
/ ~A
John Calvin writes, “There is
within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of
divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking
refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a
certain understanding of his divine majesty.” [Institutes] This is the classic
statement of the reformed doctrine that affirms that the knowledge of God is
implanted in the conscience of all men. Calvin is simply restating what Paul
stated in Romans 1 and 2. All men know their Creator.
It seems to me that Bethric is here
insisting that we establish our epistemology, a distinctly Christian
epistemology, upon a non-Christian concept of the universe. Bethric’s complaint
against the sensus divinitatis comes
down to the fact that it is not a principle that fits within his system. Van
Til points this out when he writes, “They forget that a Christian conception of
God demands a Christian conception of the universe.” And surely a Christian conception
of God demands a Christian conception of man, and of how human predication is
possible in the first place. If Bethric is going to demonstrate that the
Christian concept of the sensus
divinitatis is unreasonable, he will have to provide an argument as to why
he thinks so. To refer to how apologists have used it in exchanges with him, as
he does, is not an argument against the concept. To attempt to classify the sensus divinitatis as one more natural
human faculty for knowing will not do. Once again, Bethric shows his ignorance
of biblical Christianity in general and reformed theology in particular. Yet,
he is supposed to be a trusted and reliable resource to help people “incinerate”
presuppositional apologetics. To compare physical perception with spiritual
perception simply will not do. Christianity is a supernatural belief system. It
holds to a two-level view of reality. Bethric continues to want to force
Christian claims into his view of the world and then offer criticism of those
views. What Bethric must do is begin with Christianity’s views and show how, on
its own beliefs, it is a contradictory system. So far, Bethric hasn’t even
attempted to do this from what I can see.
Is Natural Revelation Sufficient for Culpability?
Bethric criticizes the apostle Paul’s
statement, eis to einai autous
anapologētous. The Greek word anapologētous
essentially means without an apologetic, without a defense. In other words,
Paul is saying that the unbeliever has no defense, no excuse, no warrant for
their refusal to submit to God. Bethric then walks us through his criteria for what is necessary in
order for people in this category to be deemed culpable on such a level.
Bethric continues his appeal to empirical criteria, to properly functioning
faculties, etc. Everything must be working just right in order for this to be
the case. But Bethric’s argument fails on a number of fronts. Suppose I am
driving along in the desert. Support I am out in a sports car in the middle of
nowhere and I decide to take her up to 100 mph. What happens when the officer
pulls me over and I claim that there were no stop signs along the way telling
me the speed limit and therefore, I am not responsible and should not get a
citation? How many examples like this could we multiply one upon the other? All
men know, for some strange reason, that they could be better. They know, morally speaking even,
that they have committed sin, wrong if you prefer. We come back to Romans
2:14-16, “For when Gentiles who do not
have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law,
are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their
hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately
accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God
will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”
The real problem with Bethric’s
claim is that he invokes what he thinks are his own absolutes. Bethric prefers
his own moral standards, his own autonomous reason, his own rules for evidence,
justification, and argumentation. But Christian Scripture resists such finite
irrationalism. In the same way we see that 2+2 = 4, we see that creation = God.
In summary, Romans 1:20 contains no
contradictions; our knowledge of God is a
priori, but also a posteriori and all men are without excuse in their suppression of this knowledge of God and to be clear, all men, including Bethric do suppress it.
Christian theism is not a product of the imagination unless one wants to end up
in solipsism. The sensus divinitatis is
not a rescuing device for Christian theism and anyone making such absurd claims
only indicate their lack of integrity or their complete ignorance of
Christianity. Finally, God has provided all men everywhere with knowledge of
Himself so that they are culpable for their unbelief. Their rejection
of God is unjustified and without warrant.
