18原來神的忿怒，從天上顯明在一切不虔不義的人身上，就是那些行不義阻擋真理的人。19神的事情，人所能知道的，原顯明在人心裏；因為神已經給他們顯明。20自從造天地以來，神的永能和神性是明明可知的，雖是眼不能見，但借著所造之物，就可以曉得，叫人無可推諉。21因為他們雖然知道神，卻不當作神榮耀他，也不感謝他。他們的思念變為虛妄，無知的心就昏暗了。22自稱為聰明，反成了愚拙；23將不能朽壞之神的榮耀變為偶像，仿佛必朽壞的人，和飛禽、走獸、昆蟲的樣式。24所以神任憑他們逞著心裏的情欲行汙穢的事，以至彼此玷辱自己的身體。25他們將神的真實變為虛謊，去敬拜事奉受造之物，不敬奉那造物的主。主乃是可稱頌的，直到永遠。阿們！ (羅馬書1:18-25) 讓我們禱告： 父神啊，我們切切禱告，求您賜給我們理解能力，來明白您的這些話。父啊，幫助我們認識到那不證自明、不可否認的真理。父啊，求您在我們準備進入這豐富的知識的時候，叫我們明白這些。我們禱告，乃是奉救主基督的名，阿們！ 一、回顧 1)我們需要建立起一個起始點，即：我是怎麽知道我所知道的東西的？
2)至少在基督徒的世界觀裏，《聖經》是所有知識、道德和真理的起始點。用低級的權威來評估《聖經》是否真實，是不能接受的。我們討論過，到底要拿出什麽證據來才能使人相信《聖經》是神的話呢？假如真有這種證據，不管它是什麽，按定義它就應比聖經更具權威。然而這卻是矛盾的，因為沒有任何東西比神的話更具權威。
3)簡述了66卷書所組成的《聖經》；
4)我們為什麽應當相信聖經──因為聖經具有自證的權威。 5)聖經的主題：神──神是良善的、有理性的、可知的。
今天我們接下來討論：“我們為什麽應該相信神。”這句話聽上去好像是理論性的。上禮拜五我去參加一個葬禮，遇見一位以前打排球的朋友(我曾當了二十年的排球教練；他參加過亞特蘭大奧運會)。當旁邊沒有人的時候，他問我：“我為什麽要相信神？”我立刻想回答他：“我已經為你寫好了一篇講道稿，就在我車裏。”
“我為什麽要相信神？”是一個人人都會問的問題；我們也應該能夠回答別人。 二、假設 聖經裏的每一位先知、使徒、教師、傳福音的、或者牧師，看起來似乎都作了一個假設，那就是──有一位神。這些有智慧、受啟示的教師，不僅自己有這個假設，而且他們也假設他們的聽眾知道有神。 作為一名需要被糾偏的基督徒，令我非常驚訝的是：聖經從來沒有給過任何形式的證據來證明神的存在。聖經警告人不要去跟隨假神；聖經對人關於神的錯誤認識、錯誤觀念進行糾正。但聖經裏從來沒有一個人做過今天需要被糾偏的基督徒們樂此不疲的事 ──尋找證據來證明神的存在。為什麽會這樣呢？ 三、重擔 我記得自己就有過那種想要找出說服人的、證明神存在的責任。你和不信神的朋友談話，一定會有這種重大的責任感：要向他們證明神的存在。我把證明神的存在看作是捍衛真理的重擔，放在自己的肩頭。 四、證據 我曾高舉科學證據。地質學家們天天都找到證明神存在的證據。上次講道後，摩拉(本教會的一位執事)帶來一份2003年4月12號的《洛杉磯時報》，上麵頭版頭條登著：“新的數據顯示，以色列諸王不是‘神話’。”若在過去，這則報導會成為我的另一件武器，可以用來與人辯論神的存在。 我的彈藥庫裏還有許多曆史記錄。曆史上有很多《聖經》之外的文獻可以用來證明聖經的真實性，從而證明神的存在。我們當然也要留心傾聽人們與神建立關係後生命改變的見證。人生命的改變當然是神存在的很好的見證──直到你發現也有人生命改變但卻根本不信神。聖經預言的實現聽上去也很有說服力；但你必須相信聖經，才有說服力；對那些連聖經都不相信的人是沒有說服力的。 還有曆史對神存在提供的證據。比如說“宇宙論”或者“因果論”(有別於其它宗教的“因果關係”)，就像電影《音樂之聲》中女主角所唱的：“無中不會生有。”萬事萬物都有原因；神就是從無到有一切的原因。......你問我：“相信這點嗎？”是的，我相信。“這是解釋我們這個世界的唯一有說服力的觀點嗎？”是的。但相信與證明不是一回事；更不用說“泛神論”者說“萬物是由萬神造成的” 了。 又比如說“目的論”，也就是“萬物都有設計，有設計就有設計者。”假如我在森林裏撿到一塊手表，要是我以為這塊手表是沒有人設計的，那實在是很愚蠢的想法。這個論點的確很強，事實也的確是這樣。我們所看到的宇宙間榮耀的設計，怎麽可能不承認有一位偉大的設計者呢？但是，“那塊手表也可能是哪個星球上的戰神放在那裏的呀！”聽上去很可笑，可是真有人這麽說過。他承認手表有位設計者，但卻說他 “並不一定是基督教的一神上帝啊！說不定是外星人呢！”人甘願愚蠢的時候，你是很難與他辯論的。 另外一種是哲學上的“本體論”，很深奧，我們就不必多加討論了。 所有這一切方式方法都有它們的問題。要來證明神的存在實在不是件容易的事，難道不是嗎？這種辯論最後都導致同一個結果：我講我的，你講你的；我否認你，你拒絕我；爭論可以一直繼續下去。 五、“神大概存在？” 假如神存在，你就不必非成為哲學教授、邏輯大師才能發現神的存在；你也不必成為雄辯家才能使別人信服神的存在。此外，上述的種種證據，充其量也就是個“很有可能性”。它們不能絕對證明神的存在。難道我們應該設想說：在審判日神會對不信的人用 “你們應該知道我很可能存在”這個聲明來審判他們嗎？你們讀過聖經，關於審判的日子有沒有這種話？ 我們已經說過，聖經裏從來沒有列出任何論據來證明神的存在。我再問大家一下：這是為什麽？ 到此為止，我們列舉的證據分別來自曆史上的偉大思想家，諸如古代的安塞姆[注1]、阿奎那[注2]、亞裏斯多德(古希臘哲學家)和近代、現代的摩蘭德、哈伯馬斯、斯特羅貝爾、麥克.道維爾[注3]等，他們都試圖以證據來證明神的存在，證明聖經真理。但是，我們從來沒有從奧古斯汀、加爾文或其他許許多多的宗教改革思想家那裏聽到過這類的論述。這兩種人在護教學上是截然不同的。奧古斯汀說：“我相信，我才可以理解。”而不是“我必須先理解，然後才能相信。”這裏有個極大的差別。我把阿奎那與亞裏斯多德歸於一類；把奧古斯汀與使徒保羅看作另一種人。 或許你從來沒有聽說過上述任何一位的名字；那麽讓我們來看看你聽說過的人吧。 六、大衛的論述 當大衛以神啟示的權威說話時，你認為他會用什麽來證明神的存在？我們不必猜，就在聖經裏。前麵我說過，“聖經裏從來沒有給過任何證據來證明神的存在。”這不算是個百分之百正確的聲明。請看大衛的論證：“愚頑的人心裏說‘沒有神’”(詩 14:1)。聽上去他好像在進行人身攻擊；我不知道在辯論中這種說法能不能贏得人。假如你與一個無神論者辯論神是否存在，他列出了種種論據，你對他說：“ 你是個愚頑人。”結果呢？當然是不歡而散。說到人身攻擊，當我們知道聖經裏說一個人是“愚頑”時不是指“無知”而是指“無道德”之後，就更加是人身攻擊了。你隻要讀一讀舊約就知道了：當聖經裏描寫一個人是“愚頑”時，那人不是個“笨蛋”，而是“邪惡的壞蛋”。大衛怎麽可以這樣說呢？怎麽可以把不信神的人說成是“不道德的”、“滿有罪的”呢？今天早上我們所讀的這段經文裏，使徒保羅給我們作了明確的解釋： 18原來神的忿怒，從天上顯明在一切不虔不義的人身上，就是那些行不義阻擋真理的人。 19神的事情，人所能知道的，原顯明在人心裏；因為神已經給他們顯明。20自從造天地以來，神的永能和神性是明明可知的，雖是眼不能見，但借著所造之物，就可以曉得，叫人無可推諉。21因為他們雖然知道神，卻不當作神榮耀他，也不感謝他。他們的思念變為虛妄，無知的心就昏暗了。22自稱為聰明，反成了愚拙；23將不能朽壞之神的榮耀變為偶像，仿佛必朽壞的人，和飛禽、走獸、昆蟲的樣式。24所以神任憑他們逞著心裏的情欲行汙穢的事，以至彼此玷辱自己的身體。25他們將神的真實變為虛謊，去敬拜事奉受造之物，不敬奉那造物的主。主乃是可稱頌的，直到永遠。阿們！ (羅馬書1:18-25) 假如我與人對話時，無視聖經對他們的觀點，那我就是沒有智慧的。我曾是個教練，我的球隊和別人比賽之前，我一定會先查找對方的資料，知己知彼。當我們讀到這段經文後，我在與人討論之前，聖經就已經告訴我對方所知道的事(即“有神”)，以及對方的一些特征。我不會置聖經於不顧，假裝以為不是這樣。就象上次我提到的我與一個信“禪功”的人有場對話；我根本不相信他所聲明的他“不信邏輯思維”。假如我相信他，那麽我與他之間就根本無話可談了。我告訴他說，他正是在運用邏輯思維來說服我相信他的“禪功”；他並不是生活在一個邏輯不存在的世界裏。因為我認為“神存在”的這一知識一定是如此明顯，以至沒有人能夠忽視它，說“不知道”。 現在讓我們回到這段經文裏來。請注意，這裏許多句經文是以“因為”、“所以”開頭的。下麵我們從第25節開始，從下往上追溯著來看： 第23和25節說：“他們......去敬拜事奉受造之物，不敬奉那造物的主。”這裏的 “受造之物”包不包括人的理性和科學？我們從25節裏還知道，他們這麽做的原因，是一種交換：把“真實變為虛謊”。這裏說他們在一定程度上是知道什麽是“ 真實”的；他們是故意做這種交換。在第24節裏，我們知道“敬奉受造之物”的行為與不道德是分不開的。“受造之物”對人的行為當然是無能為力的：他們“彼此玷辱自己的身體”。人所願意選擇的世界觀是那個允許他們為所欲為的世界觀，正如耶穌所教導我們說的，人寧可要黑暗，因為可以隱藏他們的罪。 “人們總是去做他們心裏最傾向於要做的事，絕無例外。” 我經常引用這句話，這是約翰森.愛德伍茲[注4]說的。你們如果不同意，可以在主日學的時候提出來，我們一起討論。 在第22節裏我們看到，在將“真實變為虛謊”的文化裏，並不是每個人都是願意認罪的刑事犯。聖經說，他們“自稱為聰明，反成了愚拙。”一個人認自己的罪、尋求神的憐憫，是一回事；一個人自以為聰明、有知識，就如古代的希臘人、羅馬人，今天的後現代主義者、人文主義者、知識分子等等，則完全是另外一回事。這也是對我們中間那些馬上要去上大學的青年人的一個警告。今天在我們的社會裏和許多其它社會裏，反基督教、不敬虔的思維方式被視為是很成熟的、很有智慧的；相信上帝則被看作是未開化的、頭腦簡單的。你們一進大學就會被那些年輕的教授們看為愚蠢的，因此我們必須知道，上麵說的“昏暗”並不是指那些胡作非為的黑幫分子，而是那些被稱為“理性地看待生活的人”。 21節說，這種“愚拙”與“昏暗”是他們的“思念變為虛妄”的結果。這一切的發生是因為“他們雖然知道神，卻不當作神榮耀他，也不感謝他。”現在我們可以開始看到，“愚拙”、“昏暗”、“虛妄”的思想並不是因為沒有足夠的證據或論據(證實神存在)，而是因為他們故意否認、拒絕他們已知是真實的事情。 那麽，他們是怎麽知道神存在的這個真理的呢？是因為有人與他們辯論，向他們提供、列舉了證據嗎？20節告訴我們：“自從造天地以來，......借著所造之物，就可以曉得”神的永能和神的屬性。不僅如此，我們更進一步地知道，人是“無可推諉”、沒有借口不信的。那種說神存在是“極有可能性”的辯論可以休矣！保羅沒有說人“有點借口”、“隻不過借口不充分而已”；也沒有說人“應該知道”，而是說人“的確知道”。他後來在第二章裏再一次強調，無論是誰，都是“無可推諉”的。 在我們與人討論、辯論時，我們絕不能放棄、後退。最近我在與人討論時，那些思想敏捷、善於思考的人就發現並向我指出：凡是用證據、曆史等來證明神存在的觀點和立場，本身就存在著邏輯錯誤。我在與人辯論時，直接了當地告訴他們神的存在是“不證自明的”，是“明明可知的”。我發現有人就情不自禁的點頭。這是相當有力的。為什麽？因為聖經就是這麽說的！下麵我們還會討論他們為什麽會承認，但我首先強調的是，我們不能放棄自己的立場，說“我不承認聖經對你們的論述。”我們絕不能在這點上讓步。聖經明明白白地宣告，人是知道神存在的。就如班森博士說的，“你不能用瘋子的語言對瘋子說話；你用清醒的頭腦對他們說，希望有一天他們會醒悟過來，知道你所說的是真的。”你不能對不信神的人說他們的立場是“合情合理的”；它是不合理的，他們曉得那是錯的。 這聽上去是沒有理性的論點嗎？不！這是合乎理性的。倒是其它那些論點、論據才是不合理的。 從第19節裏我們知道，關於神存在的知識是不需要論證的；你不需要深思熟慮地推論。我們不需要看著星星，然後思考得出結論說：“嗯，一定是誰造了它們。”《詩篇》十九篇說：“諸天訴說神的榮耀。”不是我們看見宇宙萬物，把它們聯係起來，進行分析，推論說一定有一位神。神不是僅僅讓人看到他創造的萬物，然後讓人去琢磨，推論出他的存在；而是清楚地將自己的存在“顯明在他們心裏”。所有的人都知道神存在──不是他們自己造的神；所有的人都知道有一位真神。 那麽他們為什麽不信？ 第18節回答了這個問題：他們“行不義阻擋真理”(或可譯作“他們以不義故意壓製真理 ”)。這就是答案；我們一定要明白這點。現在，大衛的論點或許就比較容易理解了。人拒絕神是一種罪──是“不信的罪”(來3:12)，即人否認自己知道是真的事。據我所知，聖經裏極少說到人確實知道的事。聖經沒有說，人人都知道有些事是明明錯的，不應該做的。聖經說，神的律法“寫在人心裏”，但這並不是說我們的心就這麽準，可以來衡量真理；我們知道人心壞到極點。但聖經說，所有的人──每個人──都知道一件事，那就是神的存在。 七、人成為昏暗的順序 人壓製、敵擋那明明顯在他們心裏的真理，不是因為無知，而是因為“不義”，因為他們在“ 不義”之中。他們知道有一位神，但他們故意選擇無視他的存在，不把他作為神來榮耀。結果，他們的思想就變得“虛妄”，他們愚拙的心就變得“昏暗”。他們在此昏暗裏宣告自己扭曲的、歪曲的智慧；他們“自以為聰明，反成了愚拙。”最後就導致不敬奉神而去“敬奉被造之物”，成為無道德的蠢行。他們不去敬奉那位滿有智慧、全能的、美善的神、賜生命與一切美好事物的主，反而去敬奉塵土。 八、道成肉身 沒有什麽事情比神的存在更顯明的了。作為基督徒，我們應該把人否認神的誇誇其談──無論他們的學問多高、修辭多美──看作為“昏暗”的、“愚拙”的。這位拯救背逆靈魂的神，以基督其人與他所做的工向我們顯示：“神本性一切的豐盛，都有形有體地居住在基督裏麵”(西2:9)。 我們對基督的反應──是否信他──是我們是否相信真神的試金石。耶穌對猶太人說：“你們若認識我，也就認識我的父”(約8:19)。你不認識耶穌，就不可能認識神。 神成為人(的樣式)，住在我們中間，為我們死了。有一點是極其重要的：盡管聖經教導說，所有的人都知道有一位神，使他們無可推諉；但聖經沒有教導說，所有的人都知道神的救恩。這是兩件完全不同的事。我在神學院時，聽到一位教授竟然說：“人要是都知道神的話，就都能得救了。”知道有神是一回事，信“基督是神、是救主”則完全是另外一回事。 唯有十字架的大能才能將人從他們昏暗了的心裏、從虛妄裏救出來；唯有基督拯救靈魂，使人與真正、聖潔的神聯係。願我們永遠信靠他。 讓我們一起來禱告： 父神啊，那種試圖要來證明您的存在的努力實在是多麽愚拙啊！我們求您赦免我們的這種愚笨。父啊，願我們認識到您啟示使徒保羅告訴我們的人的本性──人否認他們知道是真實的事。 父啊，願您軟化人的心。父啊，求您在各地各處將人們從壓製真理、敬奉受造之物的昏暗、愚拙中帶出來。願您打開他們的眼睛，打開他們的耳朵，賜給他們一顆心來敬奉您這位永活的真神。父啊，讓我們這些作為基督徒的人，不丟棄我們所知道的關於人的本性的知識、關於神性的知識，讓我們在與人討論時有智慧，有口才；但是讓我們認識到，“基督降世，為要拯救罪人”這個福音的宣告是您拯救靈魂的方法。這福音要向那些隻有知識且這知識把他們帶進審判的人宣告；求您賜給他們那可以把他們帶進榮耀裏來的(救恩)知識。父啊，求您幫助我們，使我們在說到屬天之事的時候有智慧。 我們禱告，是奉救主基督的名求，阿們！ _______________ 注1]
安塞姆：歐洲中世紀“經院哲學”的主要代表，1093年英國坎特伯雷教堂的大主教。主要著作有《上帝為何化身為人？》。 [注2]
阿奎那：十三世紀羅馬天主教偉大的神學家，也是人本主義的意大利文藝複興的奠基人。 [注3]
麥克.道維爾：著名的《鐵證待判》一書的作者。 [注4]
約翰森.愛德伍茲(Jonathan Edwards)：美國教會第一次大複興的領導人，有“罪人在憤怒的神手中”(“sinners in the hands of an angry God”) 這一名言。 | Romans 1:18-23 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is 5manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:18-25). Review We have, in our Remedial Christianity series, discussed: (1) the need to recognize that there must be a starting place for knowledge; how is it I know the things I know? (2) that, at least from a Christian world view, the Bible is the starting place of all knowledge, ethics and truth; it is nonsensical to affirm the veracity of the Bible by evaluating it through lesser authorities, (3) what the Bible is actually about—a brief overview, (4) why we should believe the Bible—because its truth is authoritatively self-evident, and (5) the main topic of the Bible, God—that God is good, reasonable and knowable. We will now continue our discussion of God—specifically, why should we believe in God? An Assumption There is an assumption that every prophet, apostle, teacher, evangelist, or pastor in the Bible seems to make—that there is a God. Not only do the wise and inspired teachers we read of in Scripture make this assumption, they assume their audience knows it as well. As a remedial Christian I was fascinated when I came to realize that the Bible never offers any type of proof for the existence of God. The Bible warns against following false gods. The Bible also gives correction regarding false views of the true God. But no one in the Bible ever does that which is so common among remedial Christians today—that is to seek to give an argument for the existence of God. Why do you suppose that is? An Overbearing Task I remember feeling this great responsibility to provide a plausible argument for the existence of God. Similar to my desire to defend the truth of the Bible, I laid upon my shoulders the task of defending the existence of God. Many of my methods were the same with God as with the Bible. Evidential Proof I marched in the testimony of science. Archeologists are daily making finds which affirm the existence of God. In the April 12, 2003 edition of the L. A. Times we read in headlines, “Israeli Kings No Myth, New Data Suggests.” I would most certainly have added this clipping to my seemingly undeniable evidence for the existence of God. The historical record was also in my arsenal. There are numerous extra-biblical sources which affirm the truth of the Bible and therefore the existence of the God who inspired it. And, of course, we must also give heed to the changed lives. A changed life is surely a great argument for the existence of God until one begins to notice that there are many people whose lives change who do not believe in God at all. Fulfilled prophecies also seem to be very persuasive. Unless, of course, the person you’re speaking with doesn’t believe the prophecy was ever made in the first place. Historical Proofs Then there are the historical proofs for the existence of God; things like the cosmological, teleological and ontological argument. Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument, simply stated, is an argument based on cause and effect. As Maria sang in The Sound of Music, “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.” Everything must have a cause. It only makes sense that God is the first cause, the uncaused cause. Do I believe this to be true? Yes. Is it the only plausible explanation for the world we see? I think so. But believing it and proving it are two different things. The cosmological argument may be a pretty good argument, but it certainly isn’t proof. Teleological Argument The teleological argument is the argument of design. There seems to be a design?to the universe and it is unreasonable to believe that there is a design without a?designer. If I found a watch in the jungle, it would be silly for me to ignore the fact that a watchmaker must exist. This is quite a compelling argument. And quite frankly, I?can’t think of any better explanation for the glorious designs we see than to acknowledge a master designer. But the watch may have been placed in the jungle by?the warlords of the planet Zakon. This may sound silly but people often believe silly things. The fact that the teleological argument is the most reasonable explanation for the reality we observe is not necessarily proof—a good argument perhaps, but not proof. Ontological Argument About a thousand years ago, Anselm came up with the ontological argument. I will mention it only briefly due to its difficulty. It may not sound compelling, but some great minds view it as quite a convincing argument. It goes something like this, “God is a being than which no greater being can be conceived. Since being is greater than non-being, God must exist.” This argument, of course, assumes that being is greater than non-being. I’ll bet by now you’re wondering what to have for lunch. An Infinite Regress The chore of proving the existence of God is daunting. And it generally leads into conversations of infinite regress. I march in my facts; you march in yours. I deny yours; you deny mine. I point out the unreasonable nature of your position; you do the same to me, ad nauseum. God Probably Exists? It seems that if there is a God, you shouldn’t have to be a philosophy professor or master logician (man of logic) to figure out that He exists. Nor should you have to be a debate champion in order to convince others that He exists. Add to this that the above arguments only assert probability. Are we to suppose that on judgment day God will judge the unbelievers by stating that they should have known that He probably existed? As stated earlier, there is no argument anywhere in the Bible for the existence of God. Again, why do you suppose that is? Many of the arguments I have given so far have come from great thinkers such as Anselm, Aquinas, and Aristotle. More recently we see the very popular arguments coming from fine thinkers such as J. P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, and Josh McDowell. We don’t, however, see this kind of argument coming from Augustine, Calvin, or many other Reformed thinkers. Maybe you’ve never heard of any of these scholars. Let’s appeal to someone you have heard of. David’s Argument—The Apostle Paul’s Explanation How do you suppose David, speaking with divine authority makes an argument for the existence of God? We needn’t wonder—it’s in Scripture and his argument is simple, “The fool has said in his heart, ’There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Seems a bit ad homenim (an attack on the person rather than the merit of the argument). It seems even more ad homenim when we realize that when the Bible speaks of a fool it carries the notion, not of an ignorant person but, of an immoral person. How can this be? The Apostle Paul explains, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is 5manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21?because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of?their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans?1:18-25). It would be unwise of me, in my conversations with humans, to ignore what the?Bible says about them. I need to examine the scouting report. What do I learn about mankind in this passage? Let’s go back into this passage (noticing the “therefores,” “becauses,” and “sinces” at the beginning of the verses) and see what we learn about?people. In verses 23 and 25 we learn that people “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (could “creature” include things like human reason and science?). We also learn in verse 25 that the reason they do this is because they made an exchange; they “exchanged the truth for the lie.” This also means that they, at least at some level, had the truth and made a willful exchange. In verse 24 we learn that the worshiping of the creature (the creature obviously very limited in terms of holding men accountable for their actions) is inextricably related to immoral behavior. They dishonored “their bodies among themselves.” People will generally choose worldviews which allow them to do as they please. People will always follow their strongest inclination at the moment—they must. In verse 22 we learn that the culture of people who exchange the truth for a lie are not necessarily criminals who are readily willing to admit their sin. It is said of them, “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” It is one thing to help a professed sinner who seeks the mercy of God. It is quite another thing when you have, (as with the Greeks, the Romans, and today’s post-modern, humanistic, academic cultures),anti-Christian thinking heralded as wise and intellectual. In verse 21 we learn that this foolishness and darkness was a result of the futility (ineffectual) of their thoughts. All this happened “because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful.” We now begin to see that the foolishness, darkness, and futile thinking was not a matter of having insufficient evidence or argumentation. It was a matter of denying what they already knew to be true. But how do they know the truth of the existence of God? Verse 20 tells us that “by the things that are made” God’s “invisible attributes are clearly seen.” This would include “His eternal power and Godhead.” Furthermore, we learn that it is so evident that men are “without excuse.” So much for an argument of probability! He doesn’t say that men will have a poor excuse or a little excuse or that they should know of the true God. He says they do know. In verse 19 we learn that this knowledge is not discursive. In other words, it’s not that men need to figure it out. We don’t look at the stars then somehow reckon somebody must have made them. It is not merely that God has shown men what may be known of Him, but it is “manifest [clearly apparent] in them.” In other words, all men know there is a God. And not merely a god of their own making. All men know that there is one true God. So why don’t they believe? That question is answered in verse 18 where we are told that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Perhaps now the argument of David makes more sense to us. Man’s rejection of God is a sin—the sin of unbelief (Hebrews 3:12). The Sequential Order of Darkness Men suppress the truth (a truth that has been clearly shown to them and made clearly apparent in them), not because of ignorance but in unrighteousness. Men know there is a God but willfully choose to neglect glorifying Him as God. As a result of this they become futile in their thinking; their foolish hearts are darkened, and in this darkness they profess a twisted and perverted wisdom. But professing to be wise they are fools. The end result of this immoral foolishness is the worship of the creation rather than the Creator. Instead of serving a wise, all-powerful, benevolent Master and Giver of life and all good things, they serve the dust. God in the Flesh There is nothing more blatantly obvious than the existence of God. As Christians, we are to view the ranting of men denying the existence of God (no matter how well dressed in academic verbiage) as darkened foolishness. And this God, who saves lost souls from their own rebellion, has revealed Himself in the person and work of Christ, “For in Him [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). A litmus test as to whether we believe in the true God is our response to Christ. Jesus taught, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also” (John 8:19). God became a man who dwelt among us and died for us. It is critically important to understand that even though the Bible teaches that all men know there is a God in a way that leaves them without excuse, it does not teach that all men know God in a saving way. It is the power of the cross alone which delivers men from the futility of their own darkened hearts. It is the cross of Christ alone that saves souls and unites men with the true Holy God. May we ever trust in Him. Questions for Study 1. What assumption do we see made by prophets and teachers in Scripture (page?1)? 2. What are the weaknesses of evidential and historical proofs for the existence of?God (pages 2)? 3. Give a brief explanation of the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments (pages 2, 3). 4. Why is an argument which asserts that God probably exists a poor argument (page 3)? 5. What was David’s argument against the unbeliever (page 3)? 6. How does the Apostle Paul explain the reasonableness of David’s assertion (pages 3-5)? 7. What is the sequential order of darkness (page 5)? 8. How has God revealed Himself to humanity (page 5)? 9. How does one know if they have a genuine, saving relationship with God (page?5)? |
