Heiko Oberman on Luther’s view of knowledge of God:
. . . Since the Fall every man has been a philosopher, for he has taken his experience of the world and his knowledge of reality — which he has succeeded in describing scientifically — as a standard by which to measure God. But the intellect does not suffice to grasp the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; He must be apprehended through the Scriptures. The “God” created by man is a false god of his own making. (Heiko Oberman, “Luther: Man Between God and the Devil,” 170)
Luther is not arguing against thinking or being “rational,” instead his context was disputing with the scholastics of his day; these were those who engaged the philosophy of his day, articulated by his compatriots in the Roman Catholic church. But his point of dispute was not so limited to these philosophers; instead he believed (as Oberman summarizes) that endemic to the Fall, man is bent in upon himself — and will create God in his own image. In this sense then, trying to reach or think about God, except from Christ’s revelation (Jn. 1:18), flows from man reflecting — without revelation — upon what is intuitive or apparent to him through his experience and his reflections upon this experience. It is in this framing that Luther would say that all men are philosophers.
The Face Of Christ 
“. . . Since the Fall every man has been a philosopher…”
I’ve often wondered about the nature of ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ and it’s role in the Fall. My thought has been that ‘every man has been a philosopher’ since the Fall in part because the very instrument of Adam and Eve’s manifested sin was this tree…
Certainly, I affirm that sin entered creation through their unbelief, certainly, sin entered through disobedience, but I have to think there is some significance to the fact that their unbelief and disobedience centered around that particular tree – indeed, that there is significance in God’s making that particular tree the forbidden object… what do you think? Just coincidence?
Here’s what I’m getting at. Adam and Eve pursued the knowledge of good and evil literally “apart” from God. He wasn’t “around,” and the pursuit of these was not, at least at this point, a God sanctioned activity. And the result, ever since, has been ‘man bent upon himself’ – ‘man reflecting-without revelation (He’s still apart from God)-upon what is intuitive or apparent to him through his experience and his reflections upon this experience.’ The result ever since has been mankind, reflecting and pursuing (according to “his experience of the world and his knowledge of reality”) his own definitions of what is ‘good’ vs. what is ‘evil,’ and as a result — what is also ‘godly’ (what God is like).
And then comes Christ (as you put so well), the culminating revelation and means of how to know true Good by knowing the True God, and additionally, knowing true evil as all that is contrary to Him. Only as God is ‘with us’ in the revelation of Christ are we able to rightly know what is truly good and truly evil… and what is truly ‘Godly’ as well (what God is like).
Sorry about the ramble. What do you think – heresy?
P.S. I’m not a missionary, but I am an MK. 4 generations of missionaries precede me in what you might call a “humbling heritage.”
Hi Josh,
No, I think that is a good summary and reflection on your part!
I would just say, that while I hold to “progressive revelation,” I believe that Christ has always been around (whether in anticipation or in realization) as the mediator ‘between God and men’. This means that even in the OT Christ was there, mediating knowledge of God to humanity (Angel of Yahweh, etc.). So that “His revelation” has been around since before the foundations of the world; and it becomes a revelation of redemption in Gen. 3:15.
I agree, without revelation what are men to do . . . worship themselves 😦 .
Sounds like you have a great and godly heritage, Josh!
No, I’m with you completely on the “Christ has always been around” part. I knew I should have clarified.
What I meant to say was that revelation culminates in the incarnate Christ and His work, even though God the son has obviously been active throughout the OT(liked your reference, perhaps also Dan. 3:25, etc.?), as has the application of His anticipated ‘cross-work.’ As you implied, without His OT mediation, no amount of animal sacrifice would have sufficed to facilitate knowing God.
Yes, thank you, in regards to my heritage. It is wonderful and a blessing in many ways, it means more to me than I can explain, and at the same time – in a very small way – allows me to say with Paul, “I myself might have confidence even in the flesh…but whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ” (Phil. 3:4,7). Didn’t mean to overspiritualize things… it just always makes me think.
I’m glad we agree, Josh 😉 .
I love that verse from Phil., in fact I like that little epistle so much I memorized it :-)!
I actually grew up as a PK, and I too thank the Lord for allowing me to be born into that situation; it has been a real blessing!
Thanks for sharing, Josh . . . I’m glad that we have come into contact!
Bobby,
I’m still curious what this perspective does with the first couple of chapters of Romans. 🙂
Matt,
It assumes that w/o the interruption of Christ, man will suppress the knowledge of God and worship the creation rather than the creator. All along, their conscience condemning them or excusing them framed by their own suppressed conceptions of God.
I think that this makes theological sense. This may be one among many reasons why it is impossible to please God without faith (Hebrews 11). But I’m not so sure about this as an exegesis of Romans 1:20, but we can talk more about that when you have more time. I just want there to be some way where the knowledge of God “from the things of the world”, while not saving and while not in any way close to complete (because they are not Trinitarian, not from faith in and through Christ, etc.) is somehow genuine or even true. I guess what I was saying about the problematic exegesis is that, according to Paul, this knowledge renders us without excuse. It does not seem to me that it is the basis of our excuses. Indeed, he says that they even turned away from this “natural” knowledge of God, right?
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Hi Matt ~
I don’t know if this will help or only ‘fan the flames’ of debate, but below is a portion of a post from my blog on this same issue…
“…And so is the case with many who have chosen a world without God; they are ‘fine,’ “everything’s fine,” but inside they are troubled by an inexpressible angst. What is the source of the angst?
Don Richardson calls these people “doubly haunted.” I think that’s a perfect description. “Doubly,” because there are two parts to the angst. The first part is something I’ve brought up frequently in the past several weeks – the testimony of “General Revelation.” Whether or not an unbeliever in the God of the Bible acknowledges it, he/ she is nevertheless surrounded by a created world that points to the power and existence of an intelligent Designer. What’s haunting about this? The created world is unable, on its own, to disclose the Way to know the Designer.
The second part of this “double-haunting” angst is more along the lines of what we’re talking about in this letter – that there seem to be many unbelievers who inexplicably fight the logical conclusions of the secular world philosophies they profess to follow in order to do “good,” or to seek “justice.” Why would they do that? I am incredibly encouraged with some of the reasons given by missionary and anthropologist Don Richardson, in an excerpt from his book, Eternity in Their Hearts:
“Paul observed that Gentiles often behaved as if they were consciously conforming to the law of Moses, when in fact they had never heard of Moses or his law! How can this be? he wondered. Later the Spirit of God guided Paul to an amazing answer: ‘When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves.’ (Rom. 2:14). In other words, the law expressed within pagan man’s nature serves him as a sort of interim Old Testament. That is certainly inadequate, but it is ever so much better than having no law at all!
Paul continues: ‘They are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.’ Paul was manifestly fair to the Gentiles. He gave Gentiles, even the crudest ones, credit for possessing God-given moral sensitivity quite apart from Judeo-Christian revelation” (p. 113).
That is the second part of the “double-haunting” – a degree of “God-given moral sensitivity” that, without the custom-made foundation of a relationship with Christ, functions the way a stone in a shoe does – as a source of troubling angst. And yet, what a bridge! What a tool God has given us for leveraging the truth of the Gospel into conversations with our family and friends and neighbors! Because not only does an unwanted presence in a person’s shoe cause consternation as they walk, it also tends to function as added encouragement to take off the shoe and discover the problem! And this is my uplifting point: You are not alone in your efforts to reach the lost people you love – because God has gone before you, placing stones in the shoes and peas under the mattresses of those He is waiting to call princes and princesses in His Kingdom.” 2/13/09
I think you can credit non-believers with some degree of ‘God-given moral sensitivity’ and at the same time, going back to the original quote posted by Bobby, agree that “The ‘God’ created by man is a false god of his own making.” General Revelation does give enough clues about God to warrant worshipful pursuit – it’s just not enough to break man free of the gravitational field around himself as the center of his own universe — which inevitably ‘bends things back onto himself.’ Man is “without excuse” primarily because of what is wrong within himself. What is wrong within man suppresses what clues God has left outside of him.
Unable to ‘know how to know’ what (Who) deserves worship, man defaults to himself. And yet, introduce Christ into this setting where there already exists even a remote awareness of ‘something greater,’ and all the pieces now have the potential to fall into place. That’s why I don’t see General Revelation as a cruel joke – I see it instead as yet another example of God’s amazing grace, a prepping agent which lays dormant until the catalyst which is the presence and/or proclamation of Christ (who alone holds the power to break man free from his own gravitational field!) removes the veil and allows (quickly or slowly, it’s all in His time) the testimony of General Revelation to finally make sense and corroborate the testimony of Special Revelation.
Uh… that was a lot. Sorry.