Recently, I was listening to a John Robbins lecture on apologetics and something he said hit me like a ton of bricks. Robbins was speaking about Rom.1:18-21, and his explanation of a key phrase in the passage radically altered my understanding of the text.
The most popular method of Christian apologetics today is evidentialism. And those who use this method argue for the truth of Christianity by appealing to sense experience. The most famous of all evidentialist apologists is Thomas Aquinas, whose best known defense of Christianity is the cosomological argument. In this argument, Thomas founded his case for the existence of God on the fact that, “it is certain and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.” Many of today’s best know Evangelical apologists accept Thomas’ argument, including such respected scholars as Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, and John Gerstner.
Evidentialists have long considered Romans chapter 1:18-21 as a primary proof text for their position. The passage reads
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 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, 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. – NKJV
Evidentialists take the phrase “being understood by the things that are made” to refer to the non-human physical universe. They understand the passage to say in effect that all men have knowledge of God by seeing, touching, smelling or hearing the physical stuff of this world. For example the New Geneva Study Bible, of which R.C. Sproul was the general editor, commenting on Rom.1:20, states,
Divine invisibility, eternity, and power are all expressed in and through the created order…The invisible God is revealed through the visible medium of creation.
Evidentialist Charles Hodge states much the same thing when he writes,
This divine revelation has been made apo ktiseos kosmou, from the creation of the world, not by the creation; for ktisis here is the act of creation, and not the thing created; and the means by which the revelation is made, is expressed immediately by the words tois poiemasi, which would then be redundant. The poiemata tou theou, in this connection, are the things made by God, rather than the things done by him. – Commentary on Romans
But what if “the things that are made” [tois poiemasi Gk.] refers to something other than non-human creation? Hodge himself seems not to know what to make of the words “the things that are made” when he calls them “a redundancy.” But what if the words “the things that are made” are not a redundancy but in fact refer to something new? What if “the things that are made” is a reference to men?
This is the point Robbins made in his lecture, and it’s the point that I missed the first few times I listened to it. And although Robbins’ reading of the text may seem like a stretch at first blush, there is good support for it. For while the most common reading of Romans 1:20 identifies “the things that are made” [poiema]with the non-human physical elements of the world, the only other time poiema is used in the NT, Ephesians 2:10, it clearly functions as the predicate of a human subject. The passage in Ephesians reads,
For we are His workmanship [poiema], created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Here, “we” are the subject of poiema, which is rendered “his workmanship.” And if poiema can refer to people in Ephesians, is it that much of a stretch to believe that poiema could also refer to people in Romans 1:20? By understanding poiema in this way, we can render Rom.1:20 as , “For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the men whom He has created, even His eternal power and Godhead.” If Robbins is correct, and I believe that he is, Romans 1:20, rather than being an evidentialist stronghold, is in truth a scripturalist citadel.
You can hear Robbins’ full lecture here under Collection 5: Defending the Faith, Level 2 , Lecture 2. The relevant portion starts at the 34 minute mark.
Lux Lucet 
I just listened to this series recently. Excellent lectures.
They’re real gems. The thing I’ve found with John’s stuff is that it pays to go over it several times. I never get it all the first go round.
“If Robbins is correct, and I believe that he is, Romans 1:20, rather than being an evidentialist stronghold, is in truth a scripturalist citadel.”
Hi Steve,
Sorry for being so slow, but could you please expand on the above? How does this information become a scripturalist citadel?
Thx
The usual understanding of Romans 1:20 sees “the things that are made” as referring to the physical universe: rocks, trees, mountains, oceans, heavenly bodies etc. They take the passage as a whole to teach that our senses – hearing eyesight for example- furnish us with knowledge about God when we look upon the physical universe. This is called evidentialism.
Clark and Robbins have a very different
Clark and Robbins have a very different view of this passage. They argue that “the things that are made” actually refers, not to the physical universe, but to men themselves. The Lord’s “eternal power and Godhead” are understood by “the things that are made” (individual men) because the knowledge of God is innate, or as the Bible puts it, manifest in them. Man’s in are ideas about God are just that, innate, put there by Christ who is the light that lightens every man who comes into the world. Man’s concept of God is not the result of his looking at the physical universe and concluding God made it, for his concept of God is put in him by God himself.
Evidentialists love to point to this passage as preauthenticating Aquila’s’ proof food the existence of God.
Evidentialists love to point to this passage as preauthenticating Aquinas’ proof for the existence of God, but it does no such thing. I’d Clark and Robbins are correct in their understanding, and I believe they are, then this passage is actually a refutation of evidentialist apologetics, which holds that sense experience furnishes is with knowledge, and a strong defense of Scripturalism, which holds that revelation alone in the 66 books of the Bible alone furnishes us with knowledge.
The evidentialist starts with sense experience and attempts to prove the existence of an invisible God. The Scripturalist starts his thinking with the Bible and does not attempt to prove God exists, but accepts what the Scriptures teach about him.
Thx Steve. The idea of the inate knowledge we have coming from the Lord is from John 1. Is that right? Are there any other passages that teach this idea? Would something like Ecclesiastes “He has put eternity in their hearts” include this idea, or is that a stretch?
You’re welcome, John. You are correct that the reference I gave is from John 1, which tells us that Christ is the light that lightens every man coming into the world. You’re reference to the passage in Ecclesiastes seems to me to be right on target. I don’t that that’s a stretch at all.
The idea of the innate knowledge coming to us from the Lord – this is a new idea for me but I can now see these verses teach it along with Romans 1.
Has anyone expanded on this with a book or essay, cos I wonder what the parameters or limits of this innate knowledge are? It obviously doesn’t teach us that God is a trinity of Persons, or that Christ is the only way to the Father, so exactly what do we know innately and how does our sin affect that ? Thx very much.