Some Further Clarifications On General Revelation

I'm gong to try to make this post clear and concise.

1. When God creates men He endows them with certain innate ideas. It is THESE propositions that are the constituents of general revelation; not creation itself. This is the idea expressed in John 1 where it says that Jesus is the light which enlightens all men coming into the world. I do not know the extent of these propositions, but know that they must include some information about God's attributes and the like.

2. Because men are sinful, they supress this knowledge. I take this to mean that they do not believe these propositions "implanted" by God. I do not think that the Scriptures necessitates that we all believed these propositions at one point in time. If one wanted to maintain that we did at one time believe these, then I think they would have a frightful time explaining what, exactly, this means. Of course I can say that man knows these propositions in that they are innately within every man's mind. They do not know them in that they believe them; though, some in fact do know them in this manner (e.g., Christians). We just have them innately in our mind, though many (possibly most?) of us never consciously consider them.

3. Nature is, in fact, not a natural order arrived at via evolution. It is a created order. As someone who believes certain truths about God and creation, I can look at a mountain or the sky and see the glory of God.

4. Christianity is simply the collection of doctrines/propositions revealed in the Scriptures. In order to look at nature and understand perfectly what God intends for us to see in nature would require that one perfectly understands and believes all the propositions in Scripture. I do not think anyone has done this, so I do not think anyone perfectly understands or comprehends the glory of God in nature. My point is this: this isn't just an either or thing. One doesn't understand general revelation or not. I think this is Russ Moore's point in saying that we must refer to the Bible to "correct" ID. Though I disagree in his point that ID proves too much (or anything at all), I do accept his view that we must go to the Scriptures. Why?

5. There may be pagans who are not Christians that believe SOME but not all of the propositions revealed in the Scriptures. Thus, there may be a pagan outthere that believes that there was a really powerful God that created the world, though he doesn't believe the god was omnipotent. Well, he looks at creation and sees the results of this really powerful god. We would say that he has some of it right, but not all. Not even close to enough. This is because he only believes that there is a limited god and not an omnipotent God. But note well, this pagan was not convinced by nature that a god existed, but because he believed a god existed he saw the results of this god in nature.

6. Likewise, there may be another pagan who believes more than this previous pagan. He believes that there is an omnipotent God. Thus, when he looks at nature he sees the results of this omnipotent God. However, he believes nothing about this God's righteousness or his own sinfulness. But note well, this pagan believed and then look at nature and understood something.

7. In addition to this, there might be a third pagan who not only believes in an omnipotent God, but this God's righteous requirement that creation not be worshiped, and his own sinfulness at doing so. He then looks at nature and sees that it was created and not worth worshipping. But note, however, that this pagan believed first and then looked at nature to see the results of this righteous God.

8. My point is this, by pointing to nature, an unbeliever will not "see" anything of God's glory (even if a mistaken view of some of the previously mentioned pagans) unless they first believe those very propositions in question about God and His righteous requirement.

9. So, my question is not whether someone has to be a Christian before they understand ANYTHING that God intends for us to see in creation, my question is this: Can a man understand ANYTHING that God intends for us to see in creation without first believing those very things? That is, will an atheist see nature as God's created order BEFORE he believes that there is a God and that this God created the nature that he now sees?

10. Finally, to sum up, my point is that people who disagree with me here are putting the cart before the horse. Either the person will believe that God created nature or not. Either way, pointing them to nature to prove anything or to get them to believe anything is pointless. God cannot be found first in a canyon. One must find Him in the Scriptures, and then once that person believes, he can see the canyon for what it is: the creation of God. But not before.