Apologetic Observations from Romans 1
I. The Knowledge of God
A. Historical Opinion
Classical Apologetics states its estimate of the knowledge men have of God in different ways. Sometimes it asserts that man has the possibility of knowing God through the assistance of the theistic proofs, but has innately no real knowledge of God. At other times it says that man has general notions of God, religion, and ethics, but has no specific or clear knowledge of God without the assistance of the theistic proofs. It tended sometimes to say that men by nature and reason knew or could know that God existed but could not and did not know what He was like. Kuyper, as we have seen, generally denied that there is remaining among natural men any knowledge of God. He taught that the natural principium or source of such knowledge had been distorted and blocked by human sin.
B. Biblical Distinction
These historical approaches to the knowledge of God mentioned above tend to give a single answer to the question of whether men know God. They fail, therefore, to understand or do justice to the crucial distinction which the Bible makes in answering this question. The question, “Do men know God?” cannot be answered correctly with one word. To answer this question with either a “yes” or a “no” is wrong and superficial. When we ask the question, “Do men know God?” to be fully biblical and balanced we must answer, “Yes and No, and in that order.” As we have seen, Romans 1:18‑23 teaches a key distinction with respect to apologetics and the knowledge men have of God.
It teaches that men know God. The evidence for this assertion may be briefly reviewed.
- v. 18 ‑ men suppress the truth
- v. 19 ‑ that which is known about God
- v. 19 ‑ is evident in them
- v. 20 ‑ being understood is clearly seen
- v. 21 ‑ although they knew God
- v. 30 ‑ haters of God
- v. 32 ‑ they know the ordinance of God
It also teaches that men do not know God. Again, the evidence for this assertion may be briefly reviewed.
- v. 21 ‑ heart was darkened
- v. 25 ‑ exchanged truth for lie
- v. 28 ‑ they did not see fit to have God in knowledge
If we are to do justice to both these emphases of the passage, we must distinguish between two kinds or two levels of knowledge. Various terms have been used by defenders of the faith to distinguish these two kinds of knowledge. I will speak of constitutional and intellectual knowledge.[1] Thus, we must compare the “constitutional” knowledge and the “intellectual” knowledge of the natural man.
Van Til (and Reformed and Presuppositional Apologetics following him) makes the crucial distinction of Romans 1:18‑23 between man’s constitutional knowledge of God and his ethical ignorance of God. Note the following diagram:
Classical Apologetics is guilty of underestimating human depravity. By failing to make this distinction it underestimates both the effects of man’s depravity on his knowledge and the amount of light sinned against. Thus, it never indicts man severely enough for his sin. Any time it wishes to stress how much man knows, it must lessen human depravity. Any time it wishes to stress human depravity, it must lessen the clarity of divine revelation to men. Human knowledge of God is like Italian dressing for salads which is composed of two different liquids, vegetable oil and vinegar. By failing to make a difference between these two different things it can never accurately describe either.[2] Thus, it gives too positive a response to the wicked religions and philosophies of the natural man. Thus also, it gives a too vague, general, and low estimate of how much men actually know of the living God. Thus, it never severely enough accuses and charges the natural man with his sin.
Kuyper, on the other hand, has attempted to do justice to how wicked and depraved even the minds and reasons of men are. He has seen clearly that the natural man has no right ethical or intellectual knowledge of God. But without the key distinction of Scripture between intellectual knowledge of God and constitutional knowledge of God, he has concluded that in no sense do men know God. Without intending at all to do it, he has removed the basis for the natural man’s depravity. In attempting to stress his depravity and guilt he has removed its very basis. Another result of his failure to see clearly the distinction between these two kinds of knowledge and the reality of the natural man’s constitutional knowledge of God was his conclusion that apologetics was basically useless.
II. The Depravity of the Fallen Mind
A. Classical Apologetics and Human Reason (Natural Theology)
Human reason is viewed by many Roman Catholic theologians and Classical apologists as at worst wounded. It is not viewed as dead in sin. Men are challenged on the basis of reason alone to construct for themselves a natural theology which will bridge the gap between themselves and the Christian faith. Prior to accepting the gospel and believing in Christ, the Classical apologist assumes that men may be convinced by theistic proofs of the existence and character of God. Thus a reason basically unaffected by the fall of man into sin is made the point of contact for Christian Apologetics.
Reformed and Biblical apologetics assumes that man is totally depraved‑‑including his reason. This is, of course, the teaching of Romans 1:18-23 where man is viewed as a truth-suppressor who uses his reason to justify his wicked refusal to honor and thank God. Thus, Reformed apologetics, rather than making natural reason its ally, confronts human reason with divine demands.
In light of this Warfield’s statements that “Christianity makes its appeal to right reason” and that Christianity is “valid for all normally working minds”[3] must be seen as naive and superficial. Such statements clearly underestimate the effect the sinfulness of human reason has on the apologetic problem. Warfield attributes validity to sinful human reason’s claim that it does not know God. He also assumes that you can deal with sinful human reason without challenging its presuppositions.
B. Abraham Kuyper and Total Depravity (Natural Revelation; Common Grace)
Abraham Kuyper and those of his school have put great stress on the total depravity of the human mind. To emphasize this they have asserted that the natural man has lost all knowledge of God. Thus, when we assert that in a sense men do know God despite their sin, those who have followed Kuyper’s line of thought have accused us of denying total depravity. They have asked, “Aren’t men totally depraved? Isn’t then their knowledge of God depraved—even their constitutional knowledge of God? Doesn’t man’s total depravity mean that they lose this knowledge?”
To such questions I respond with an emphatic No! Why does not total depravity mean that even mankind’s constitutional knowledge of God is depraved or erased? Several considerations will help us see the problem with Kuyper’s thinking.
(1) Man’s constitutional knowledge is the presupposition of total depravity. Unless man knows God, he cannot sin against God. Thus, to say that depravity removes the natural man’s knowledge of God is to say that depravity in effect destroys itself. In other words, when it so depraves men that they cease to know God, they cease to be sinners or depraved.
(2) Man’s constitutional knowledge is not subject to total depravity. Have you ever seen a totally depraved nose? Of course not. But aren’t men totally depraved? Yes, but noses are not subject to depravity. In the same way constitutional knowledge may be suppressed but cannot be depraved.
(3) Man’s constitutional knowledge of God remains in hell when he is not only totally, but even absolutely depraved. Will men know God in hell? Of course, they will. Yet they are absolutely depraved there.
(4) Those who take Kuyper’s position have recognized that some unconverted men do have some remnants of the knowledge of God. But they have argued that the fact that men continue to know God (constitutionally) in their depravity is due to the restraint of common grace. This does not make sense. Romans 1:18-23 teaches that the basis of human guilt before God and being exposed to the wrath of God is man’s constitutional knowledge of God through natural revelation. If such knowledge is due to common grace, this results in the very strange idea that it is God’s common grace which is responsible for men going to hell for their sins.
(5) The true view of the relation of total depravity to natural revelation is this. Total depravity uniformly influences man’s response to natural revelation and the knowledge or awareness of God it imparts. It is in this sense that it is total or uniform. Yet it does not erase that revelation from his consciousness. Nor does it deliver him from being continually confronted by it.
III. The Philosophy of the Natural Man
A. Historical Problem
Throughout the history of Christian apologetics we noticed again and again the attempt of well-meaning Christian teachers to use popular views and philosophies of their period to defend the Christian faith. Justin Martyr adapted Platonism to this purpose. We argued that the result of this was disastrous for Christian truth despite its supposed advantages. Thomas Aquinas utilized Aristotelian philosophy and logic to construct his massive statement of Christian doctrine and truth. We noticed how this made his arguments for God almost impossible to understand. We also noticed how it exposed those arguments to many objections.
On the other hand, men like Tertullian in the early church and Kuyper in the modern period emphasized the Antithesis or the complete hostility or contradiction between Christian faith and worldly philosophy. This, however, has made it difficult for them to explain the measure of truth, goodness, and progress that worldly societies have manifested. They have had a more difficult time than Justin Martyr explaining the degree of value present in non-Christian religions and philosophies.
B. Biblical Solution
Again, Romans 1:18-23 gives us a beginning in properly resolving this problem. The religious tendency in men is due to the innate sense of deity which natural revelation develops in them. By implication, the philosophical tendency in men which makes them seek after ultimate truth is due to the same reality. The philosophies and religions of natural men all work with this innate sense of deity and seed of religion planted in them by their Creator. Fundamentally, they are perversions and distortions of this natural revelation. Their suppression of the truth operates by substituting false gods for the true one and lies for the truth. The appearance of truth and value in their intellectual systems is due to the dim reflections of truth we occasionally glimpse through the error that covers it.
Now, according to their natural tendency, such systems could manifest no practical value or outward goodness. The false starting-points of these religions and philosophies could have no value or goodness in God’s world. Another reality must be taken into account. God in His common grace restrains the sins of men. He introduces blessed inconsistencies into their thinking. It is such inconsistencies which allow worldly religions and philosophies to manifest a measure of value and goodness. This reality of common grace is not emphasized in Romans 1:18-23. Yet the emphasis of Paul on the fact that natural men should give thanks to God (Rom. 1:21) and that the goodness of God leads natural men to repentance (Rom. 2:4; cf. Acts 14:17) makes plain that God has not abandoned or ceased to work with wicked, natural men.
Fundamentally, however, the teaching of Romans 1:18-23 is that all the philosophies and religions of natural men have their foundation in a rejection of their duty to honor God and thank Him. They all operate, in other words, with the presupposition that they have no obligation to honor or thank the living God. Naturally, intellectual systems growing out of such a premise or presupposition will without exception eventually poison any defense of the Christian faith which attempts to use them. Despite their appearance of truth, goodness, and beauty, they are simply sophisticated disguises for the worm of sin. Thus, we must not follow Justin Martyr or Thomas Aquinas in their use of Plato or Aristotle to defend the Christian faith. Such defenses of the Christian faith either result in the perversion of the faith or end up proving nothing.
IV. The Problem of the Contact Point (or Common Ground)
The above discussion of non-Christian religion and philosophy naturally raises the question or problem of common ground or the point of contact between believer and unbeliever. Classical Apologetics has made natural reason and its better religious and philosophical productions the point of contact between the Christian faith and the natural man. Kuyper and his school have pointed out the depravity of natural reason. As a result of this, they have for all practical purposes denied that there is any point of contact between believer and unbeliever. Our study of 1 Peter 3:15 led us to conclude that there is a point of contact between the saved and unsaved. Peter himself assumed this when he told his Christian readers to make a defense of the hope within them to any who should ask. 1 Peter 3:15, however, does not make plain what that point of contact may be. Since the Bible teaches the depravity and wickedness of natural reason, the question cannot be answered in the way Classical Apologetics has done.
Romans 1:18-23 enables us to answer the question of common ground as follows:
A. Nothing in Common
Romans 1:18-23 teaches, first of all, that believers and unbelievers have nothing in common. That is to say, they have nothing in common with the religions or philosophies growing out of the bitter root of man’s refusal to honor and thank the living God. There is no common ground between the way of life and thinking which honors and thanks God and the way which does not. There is no point of contact between light and darkness and the text says that “their foolish heart was darkened”. As to man’s intellectual knowledge, he is ignorant of God.
Therefore, our appeal must not be to man’s intellectual interpretations of reality‑‑what he admits to be so, his religions and his philosophy. We must remember that the unbeliever’s presuppositions are false. This makes his entire interpretation of reality completely false. We must, therefore, never permit him on the basis of his philosophies or religions to decide whether Christianity is true. We must never appeal to him to consider the truth of Christianity on his own grounds, from his own presuppositions. There is need for repentance, regeneration, and revolution in the unbeliever‑-not merely the revision of his view of the world.
B. Everything in Common
Yet in another sense this key passage of God’s Word teaches us that the believer and unbeliever have everything in common. How does this key distinction show this? First of all, Romans 1:18‑23 assures us that we have a point of contact with every man for the gospel. Man not only has a vague sense of deity, he knows the true God. He does not merely have the capacity by means of complex, theistic proofs to be brought to the knowledge of God. He is confronted with the existence of God continually. This knowledge and confrontation with the true God are far-reaching. He knows the power, goodness, and justice of God. He knows the wrath of God. He is aware that as an apostate son of God he is exposed to that wrath. God and the gospel are relevant for the worst pagans.[4] They always make sense to the sinner. They always fit his condition.
C. Inevitability of Confrontation
Romans 1:18‑23 teaches that man’s intellectual problems with the gospel are ultimately moral and ethical in their causes. Ignorance and anti‑Christian intellectual systems are the product of sin. The fact that men know God and that their true problem is moral has a deep impact on our method of presenting the gospel.
(1) There is no avoiding confrontation. Confrontation is necessary. We must set before men the absolute difference between what we believe and what they believe. We must emphasize the antithesis, that is to say, the intellectual hostility between Christianity and every other view. People today like to think of themselves as tolerant and accepting. They will attempt to put a construction on our teaching which they can accept within their viewpoint. We must constantly make plain the absolute differences.
(2) All this means that our manner, while kind, must be one of authoritative boldness. Because men do know God, anything short of a demand that they accept the truth is wrong. Anything else betrays the truth. We must never so present the truth of the gospel as to imply that there is any possibility that it might not be true. We must always present the gospel as absolute truth accompanied by undoubtable evidence.
(3) Romans 1:18-23 makes clear that the explanation for the natural man’s intellectual problems with the gospel is always at bottom moral. If we are really to address his needs, our presentation of the gospel and even our intellectual arguments must have an ethical focus. Clearly, this being his problem, the unconverted man will always feel personally attacked by the gospel. Unless he repents, what it says about him must make him angry. As those commanded to preach the gospel, we must never think we can avoid this uncomfortable situation. We must never try to invent a gospel or method of presenting it which avoids this. If we succeed in inventing such a gospel or such a method, it will only be by betraying and destroying the biblical gospel.
D. Necessity of Presuppositionalism (in theistic proofs)
As we have seen, Romans 1:18-23 teaches a key distinction with regard to the natural man’s knowledge of God. Constitutionally, he knows God and cannot help but know God. Intellectually, he does not know God, and his foolish heart is darkened. This means, when we raise the question of common ground, we must assert that the unbeliever and believer have everything in common, and nothing in common. Both of these responses to the question of common ground are of great importance with regard to the subject of theistic proofs.
Because the unbeliever has everything in common with the believer (including the fact that both know of the existence of God), in a sense the theistic proofs are not necessary. They are not necessary, because we do not need to prove to the unbeliever what he already knows. The theistic proofs as put together in Classical Apologetics were intended to bring the natural man from a state of not knowing God to a state of knowing God. Or, they were intended to bring him from a state of knowing God vaguely and uncertainly to a state of knowing God clearly and certainly. Theistic proofs put together for such purposes are unnecessary. The unbeliever already knows God and knows Him so clearly and certainly that he is without excuse.
Because the unbeliever (on the other hand) has nothing in common with the believer, the theistic proofs of Classical Apologetics are also misguided. The theistic proofs have been built on what was thought to be neutral ground. Justin Martyr took the supposedly neutral ground of Plato’s philosophy. Aquinas took the neutral ground of Aristotle’s logic and philosophy. In both cases the theistic proofs assumed that there was an intellectual neutral ground between believer and unbeliever. According to Romans 1:18-23 no such neutral ground exists. We might have thought that in the religious desires and thoughts of the unbeliever there would be some ground that was not stained by his sin. Yet Paul sees the religion of the natural man as the high point and climax of his depravity.
Theistic proofs which assume that the unbeliever does not know God and which assume that there is an intellectually neutral ground are not biblical, useful, sound, or convincing. This does not mean that theistic proofs are wrong. They simply must be properly put together. Romans 1:18-23 asserts that the world proves the existence of God every moment of its existence (Psa. 19:1, 2). For theistic proofs to be valid or sound, however, they must be presuppositional in character. This means two things.
First, this means that they must presuppose or assume that men already know that God exists. Thus, theistic proofs must have for their focus leaving men without excuse by exposing their suppression of the truth.
Second, this means that theistic proofs must presuppose or assume that there is no such thing as neutral ground intellectually. All intellectual systems and religious ideas are either built on a humble and thankful acknowledgement of the living God or a refusal to honor and thank God. It is impossible to prove the existence of the living God on the basis of a system which begins by thinking that we need not honor or thank God.
If they are to be right and sound, the theistic proofs must be radically altered away from what they were in Classical Apologetics. They must assume that men already know God and expose their suppression of the truth. They must realize that there is no neutral ground and self-consciously assume the existence of the living God.
[1]Van Til contrasts psychological and epistemological knowledge of God. He also speaks of metaphysical and ethical knowledge of God. Cf. Jim S. Halsey’s For a Time Such as This (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 66-68. I mean to make the same distinction by means of the terms, constitutional and intellectual.
[2]Thus, Classical Apologetics is guilty of what might be called apologetical Eutychianism. Eutychianism was a false doctrine with regard to the person of Christ. It was also known as monophysitism. Its error was to teach that after the incarnation Christ had only one nature. Thus, what orthodox Christology kept separate, the divine and human natures of Christ, it mixed together. Thus, Christ’s nature was a tertium quid–a third thing–neither divine nor human, but something else. Consequently, it could do no justice to what the Scriptures taught either about the divinity or the humanity of Christ. Similarly, Classical Apologetics has failed to keep distinct the two kinds of knowledge of God and, thus, can do no justice to what the Scripture teaches about either.
[3]B.B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield (Presbyterian and Reformed: Nutley, New Jersey, 1973), “Introduction to Beattie’s Apologetics,” 2:99-100, 105.
[4]Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 90‑94, 153; The Infallible Word, Van Til, “Nature and Scripture,” 274-275.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
