18原来神的忿怒，从天上显明在一切不虔不义的人身上，就是那些行不义阻挡真理的人。19神的事情，人所能知道的，原显明在人心里；因为神已经给他们显明。20自从造天地以来，神的永能和神性是明明可知的，虽是眼不能见，但借着所造之物，就可以晓得，叫人无可推诿。21因为他们虽然知道神，却不当作神荣耀他，也不感谢他。他们的思念变为虚妄，无知的心就昏暗了。22自称为聪明，反成了愚拙；23将不能朽坏之神的荣耀变为偶像，仿佛必朽坏的人，和飞禽、走兽、昆虫的样式。24所以神任凭他们逞着心里的情欲行污秽的事，以至彼此玷辱自己的身体。25他们将神的真实变为虚谎，去敬拜事奉受造之物，不敬奉那造物的主。主乃是可称颂的，直到永远。阿们！ (罗马书1:18-25)

让我们祷告：

　　父神啊，我们切切祷告，求您赐给我们理解能力，来明白您的这些话。父啊，帮助我们认识到那不证自明、不可否认的真理。父啊，求您在我们准备进入这丰富的知识的时候，叫我们明白这些。我们祷告，乃是奉救主基督的名，阿们！

一、回顾

　　1)我们需要建立起一个起始点，即：我是怎么知道我所知道的东西的？
　　2)至少在基督徒的世界观里，《圣经》是所有知识、道德和真理的起始点。用低级的权威来评估《圣经》是否真实，是不能接受的。我们讨论过，到底要拿出什么证据来才能使人相信《圣经》是神的话呢？假如真有这种证据，不管它是什么，按定义它就应比圣经更具权威。然而这却是矛盾的，因为没有任何东西比神的话更具权威。
　　3)简述了66卷书所组成的《圣经》；
　　4)我们为什么应当相信圣经──因为圣经具有自证的权威。 　　5)圣经的主题：神──神是良善的、有理性的、可知的。
　　今天我们接下来讨论：“我们为什么应该相信神。”这句话听上去好像是理论性的。上礼拜五我去参加一个葬礼，遇见一位以前打排球的朋友(我曾当了二十年的排球教练；他参加过亚特兰大奥运会)。当旁边没有人的时候，他问我：“我为什么要相信神？”我立刻想回答他：“我已经为你写好了一篇讲道稿，就在我车里。”
　　“我为什么要相信神？”是一个人人都会问的问题；我们也应该能够回答别人。

二、假设

　　圣经里的每一位先知、使徒、教师、传福音的、或者牧师，看起来似乎都作了一个假设，那就是──有一位神。这些有智慧、受启示的教师，不仅自己有这个假设，而且他们也假设他们的听众知道有神。

　　作为一名需要被纠偏的基督徒，令我非常惊讶的是：圣经从来没有给过任何形式的证据来证明神的存在。圣经警告人不要去跟随假神；圣经对人关于神的错误认识、错误观念进行纠正。但圣经里从来没有一个人做过今天需要被纠偏的基督徒们乐此不疲的事 ──寻找证据来证明神的存在。为什么会这样呢？

三、重担

　　我记得自己就有过那种想要找出说服人的、证明神存在的责任。你和不信神的朋友谈话，一定会有这种重大的责任感：要向他们证明神的存在。我把证明神的存在看作是捍卫真理的重担，放在自己的肩头。

四、证据

　　我曾高举科学证据。地质学家们天天都找到证明神存在的证据。上次讲道后，摩拉(本教会的一位执事)带来一份2003年4月12号的《洛杉矶时报》，上面头版头条登着：“新的数据显示，以色列诸王不是‘神话’。”若在过去，这则报导会成为我的另一件武器，可以用来与人辩论神的存在。

　　我的弹药库里还有许多历史记录。历史上有很多《圣经》之外的文献可以用来证明圣经的真实性，从而证明神的存在。我们当然也要留心倾听人们与神建立关系后生命改变的见证。人生命的改变当然是神存在的很好的见证──直到你发现也有人生命改变但却根本不信神。圣经预言的实现听上去也很有说服力；但你必须相信圣经，才有说服力；对那些连圣经都不相信的人是没有说服力的。

　　还有历史对神存在提供的证据。比如说“宇宙论”或者“因果论”(有别于其它宗教的“因果关系”)，就像电影《音乐之声》中女主角所唱的：“无中不会生有。”万事万物都有原因；神就是从无到有一切的原因。......你问我：“相信这点吗？”是的，我相信。“这是解释我们这个世界的唯一有说服力的观点吗？”是的。但相信与证明不是一回事；更不用说“泛神论”者说“万物是由万神造成的” 了。

　　又比如说“目的论”，也就是“万物都有设计，有设计就有设计者。”假如我在森林里捡到一块手表，要是我以为这块手表是没有人设计的，那实在是很愚蠢的想法。这个论点的确很强，事实也的确是这样。我们所看到的宇宙间荣耀的设计，怎么可能不承认有一位伟大的设计者呢？但是，“那块手表也可能是哪个星球上的战神放在那里的呀！”听上去很可笑，可是真有人这么说过。他承认手表有位设计者，但却说他 “并不一定是基督教的一神上帝啊！说不定是外星人呢！”人甘愿愚蠢的时候，你是很难与他辩论的。

　　另外一种是哲学上的“本体论”，很深奥，我们就不必多加讨论了。

　　所有这一切方式方法都有它们的问题。要来证明神的存在实在不是件容易的事，难道不是吗？这种辩论最后都导致同一个结果：我讲我的，你讲你的；我否认你，你拒绝我；争论可以一直继续下去。

五、“神大概存在？”

　　假如神存在，你就不必非成为哲学教授、逻辑大师才能发现神的存在；你也不必成为雄辩家才能使别人信服神的存在。此外，上述的种种证据，充其量也就是个“很有可能性”。它们不能绝对证明神的存在。难道我们应该设想说：在审判日神会对不信的人用 “你们应该知道我很可能存在”这个声明来审判他们吗？你们读过圣经，关于审判的日子有没有这种话？

　　我们已经说过，圣经里从来没有列出任何论据来证明神的存在。我再问大家一下：这是为什么？

　　到此为止，我们列举的证据分别来自历史上的伟大思想家，诸如古代的安塞姆^[注1]、阿奎那^[注2]、亚里斯多德(古希腊哲学家)和近代、现代的摩兰德、哈伯马斯、斯特罗贝尔、麦克.道维尔^[注3]等，他们都试图以证据来证明神的存在，证明圣经真理。但是，我们从来没有从奥古斯汀、加尔文或其他许许多多的宗教改革思想家那里听到过这类的论述。这两种人在护教学上是截然不同的。奥古斯汀说：“我相信，我才可以理解。”而不是“我必须先理解，然后才能相信。”这里有个极大的差别。我把阿奎那与亚里斯多德归于一类；把奥古斯汀与使徒保罗看作另一种人。

　　或许你从来没有听说过上述任何一位的名字；那么让我们来看看你听说过的人吧。

六、大卫的论述

　　当大卫以神启示的权威说话时，你认为他会用什么来证明神的存在？我们不必猜，就在圣经里。前面我说过，“圣经里从来没有给过任何证据来证明神的存在。”这不算是个百分之百正确的声明。请看大卫的论证：“愚顽的人心里说‘没有神’”(诗 14:1)。听上去他好像在进行人身攻击；我不知道在辩论中这种说法能不能赢得人。假如你与一个无神论者辩论神是否存在，他列出了种种论据，你对他说：“ 你是个愚顽人。”结果呢？当然是不欢而散。说到人身攻击，当我们知道圣经里说一个人是“愚顽”时不是指“无知”而是指“无道德”之后，就更加是人身攻击了。你只要读一读旧约就知道了：当圣经里描写一个人是“愚顽”时，那人不是个“笨蛋”，而是“邪恶的坏蛋”。大卫怎么可以这样说呢？怎么可以把不信神的人说成是“不道德的”、“满有罪的”呢？今天早上我们所读的这段经文里，使徒保罗给我们作了明确的解释：

　　18原来神的忿怒，从天上显明在一切不虔不义的人身上，就是那些行不义阻挡真理的人。 19神的事情，人所能知道的，原显明在人心里；因为神已经给他们显明。20自从造天地以来，神的永能和神性是明明可知的，虽是眼不能见，但借着所造之物，就可以晓得，叫人无可推诿。21因为他们虽然知道神，却不当作神荣耀他，也不感谢他。他们的思念变为虚妄，无知的心就昏暗了。22自称为聪明，反成了愚拙；23将不能朽坏之神的荣耀变为偶像，仿佛必朽坏的人，和飞禽、走兽、昆虫的样式。24所以神任凭他们逞着心里的情欲行污秽的事，以至彼此玷辱自己的身体。25他们将神的真实变为虚谎，去敬拜事奉受造之物，不敬奉那造物的主。主乃是可称颂的，直到永远。阿们！ (罗马书1:18-25)

　　假如我与人对话时，无视圣经对他们的观点，那我就是没有智慧的。我曾是个教练，我的球队和别人比赛之前，我一定会先查找对方的资料，知己知彼。当我们读到这段经文后，我在与人讨论之前，圣经就已经告诉我对方所知道的事(即“有神”)，以及对方的一些特征。我不会置圣经于不顾，假装以为不是这样。就象上次我提到的我与一个信“禅功”的人有场对话；我根本不相信他所声明的他“不信逻辑思维”。假如我相信他，那么我与他之间就根本无话可谈了。我告诉他说，他正是在运用逻辑思维来说服我相信他的“禅功”；他并不是生活在一个逻辑不存在的世界里。因为我认为“神存在”的这一知识一定是如此明显，以至没有人能够忽视它，说“不知道”。

　　现在让我们回到这段经文里来。请注意，这里许多句经文是以“因为”、“所以”开头的。下面我们从第25节开始，从下往上追溯着来看：

　　第23和25节说：“他们......去敬拜事奉受造之物，不敬奉那造物的主。”这里的 “受造之物”包不包括人的理性和科学？我们从25节里还知道，他们这么做的原因，是一种交换：把“真实变为虚谎”。这里说他们在一定程度上是知道什么是“ 真实”的；他们是故意做这种交换。在第24节里，我们知道“敬奉受造之物”的行为与不道德是分不开的。“受造之物”对人的行为当然是无能为力的：他们“彼此玷辱自己的身体”。人所愿意选择的世界观是那个允许他们为所欲为的世界观，正如耶稣所教导我们说的，人宁可要黑暗，因为可以隐藏他们的罪。

　　“人们总是去做他们心里最倾向于要做的事，绝无例外。”

　　我经常引用这句话，这是约翰森.爱德伍兹^[注4]说的。你们如果不同意，可以在主日学的时候提出来，我们一起讨论。

　　在第22节里我们看到，在将“真实变为虚谎”的文化里，并不是每个人都是愿意认罪的刑事犯。圣经说，他们“自称为聪明，反成了愚拙。”一个人认自己的罪、寻求神的怜悯，是一回事；一个人自以为聪明、有知识，就如古代的希腊人、罗马人，今天的后现代主义者、人文主义者、知识分子等等，则完全是另外一回事。这也是对我们中间那些马上要去上大学的青年人的一个警告。今天在我们的社会里和许多其它社会里，反基督教、不敬虔的思维方式被视为是很成熟的、很有智慧的；相信上帝则被看作是未开化的、头脑简单的。你们一进大学就会被那些年轻的教授们看为愚蠢的，因此我们必须知道，上面说的“昏暗”并不是指那些胡作非为的黑帮分子，而是那些被称为“理性地看待生活的人”。

　　21节说，这种“愚拙”与“昏暗”是他们的“思念变为虚妄”的结果。这一切的发生是因为“他们虽然知道神，却不当作神荣耀他，也不感谢他。”现在我们可以开始看到，“愚拙”、“昏暗”、“虚妄”的思想并不是因为没有足够的证据或论据(证实神存在)，而是因为他们故意否认、拒绝他们已知是真实的事情。

　　那么，他们是怎么知道神存在的这个真理的呢？是因为有人与他们辩论，向他们提供、列举了证据吗？20节告诉我们：“自从造天地以来，......借着所造之物，就可以晓得”神的永能和神的属性。不仅如此，我们更进一步地知道，人是“无可推诿”、没有借口不信的。那种说神存在是“极有可能性”的辩论可以休矣！保罗没有说人“有点借口”、“只不过借口不充分而已”；也没有说人“应该知道”，而是说人“的确知道”。他后来在第二章里再一次强调，无论是谁，都是“无可推诿”的。

　　在我们与人讨论、辩论时，我们绝不能放弃、后退。最近我在与人讨论时，那些思想敏捷、善于思考的人就发现并向我指出：凡是用证据、历史等来证明神存在的观点和立场，本身就存在着逻辑错误。我在与人辩论时，直接了当地告诉他们神的存在是“不证自明的”，是“明明可知的”。我发现有人就情不自禁的点头。这是相当有力的。为什么？因为圣经就是这么说的！下面我们还会讨论他们为什么会承认，但我首先强调的是，我们不能放弃自己的立场，说“我不承认圣经对你们的论述。”我们绝不能在这点上让步。圣经明明白白地宣告，人是知道神存在的。就如班森博士说的，“你不能用疯子的语言对疯子说话；你用清醒的头脑对他们说，希望有一天他们会醒悟过来，知道你所说的是真的。”你不能对不信神的人说他们的立场是“合情合理的”；它是不合理的，他们晓得那是错的。

　　这听上去是没有理性的论点吗？不！这是合乎理性的。倒是其它那些论点、论据才是不合理的。

　　从第19节里我们知道，关于神存在的知识是不需要论证的；你不需要深思熟虑地推论。我们不需要看着星星，然后思考得出结论说：“嗯，一定是谁造了它们。”《诗篇》十九篇说：“诸天诉说神的荣耀。”不是我们看见宇宙万物，把它们联系起来，进行分析，推论说一定有一位神。神不是仅仅让人看到他创造的万物，然后让人去琢磨，推论出他的存在；而是清楚地将自己的存在“显明在他们心里”。所有的人都知道神存在──不是他们自己造的神；所有的人都知道有一位真神。

　　那么他们为什么不信？

　　第18节回答了这个问题：他们“行不义阻挡真理”(或可译作“他们以不义故意压制真理 ”)。这就是答案；我们一定要明白这点。现在，大卫的论点或许就比较容易理解了。人拒绝神是一种罪──是“不信的罪”(来3:12)，即人否认自己知道是真的事。据我所知，圣经里极少说到人确实知道的事。圣经没有说，人人都知道有些事是明明错的，不应该做的。圣经说，神的律法“写在人心里”，但这并不是说我们的心就这么准，可以来衡量真理；我们知道人心坏到极点。但圣经说，所有的人──每个人──都知道一件事，那就是神的存在。

七、人成为昏暗的顺序

　　人压制、敌挡那明明显在他们心里的真理，不是因为无知，而是因为“不义”，因为他们在“ 不义”之中。他们知道有一位神，但他们故意选择无视他的存在，不把他作为神来荣耀。结果，他们的思想就变得“虚妄”，他们愚拙的心就变得“昏暗”。他们在此昏暗里宣告自己扭曲的、歪曲的智慧；他们“自以为聪明，反成了愚拙。”最后就导致不敬奉神而去“敬奉被造之物”，成为无道德的蠢行。他们不去敬奉那位满有智慧、全能的、美善的神、赐生命与一切美好事物的主，反而去敬奉尘土。

八、道成肉身

　　没有什么事情比神的存在更显明的了。作为基督徒，我们应该把人否认神的夸夸其谈──无论他们的学问多高、修辞多美──看作为“昏暗”的、“愚拙”的。这位拯救背逆灵魂的神，以基督其人与他所做的工向我们显示：“神本性一切的丰盛，都有形有体地居住在基督里面”(西2:9)。

　　我们对基督的反应──是否信他──是我们是否相信真神的试金石。耶稣对犹太人说：“你们若认识我，也就认识我的父”(约8:19)。你不认识耶稣，就不可能认识神。

　　神成为人(的样式)，住在我们中间，为我们死了。有一点是极其重要的：尽管圣经教导说，所有的人都知道有一位神，使他们无可推诿；但圣经没有教导说，所有的人都知道神的救恩。这是两件完全不同的事。我在神学院时，听到一位教授竟然说：“人要是都知道神的话，就都能得救了。”知道有神是一回事，信“基督是神、是救主”则完全是另外一回事。

　　唯有十字架的大能才能将人从他们昏暗了的心里、从虚妄里救出来；唯有基督拯救灵魂，使人与真正、圣洁的神联系。愿我们永远信靠他。

让我们一起来祷告：

　　父神啊，那种试图要来证明您的存在的努力实在是多么愚拙啊！我们求您赦免我们的这种愚笨。父啊，愿我们认识到您启示使徒保罗告诉我们的人的本性──人否认他们知道是真实的事。

　　父啊，愿您软化人的心。父啊，求您在各地各处将人们从压制真理、敬奉受造之物的昏暗、愚拙中带出来。愿您打开他们的眼睛，打开他们的耳朵，赐给他们一颗心来敬奉您这位永活的真神。父啊，让我们这些作为基督徒的人，不丢弃我们所知道的关于人的本性的知识、关于神性的知识，让我们在与人讨论时有智慧，有口才；但是让我们认识到，“基督降世，为要拯救罪人”这个福音的宣告是您拯救灵魂的方法。这福音要向那些只有知识且这知识把他们带进审判的人宣告；求您赐给他们那可以把他们带进荣耀里来的(救恩)知识。父啊，求您帮助我们，使我们在说到属天之事的时候有智慧。

　　我们祷告，是奉救主基督的名求，阿们！

_______________

注1]
　　安塞姆：欧洲中世纪“经院哲学”的主要代表，1093年英国坎特伯雷教堂的大主教。主要著作有《上帝为何化身为人？》。

[注2]
　　阿奎那：十三世纪罗马天主教伟大的神学家，也是人本主义的意大利文艺复兴的奠基人。

[注3]
　　麦克.道维尔：著名的《铁证待判》一书的作者。

[注4]
　　约翰森.爱德伍兹(Jonathan Edwards)：美国教会第一次大复兴的领导人，有“罪人在愤怒的神手中”(“sinners in the hands of an angry God”) 这一名言。

　　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)?