Can man, without the light of faith, by his reason alone, know that God exists?

[RDKirk]

I didn’t deflect but answered you directly. I told you about the different levels of faith. I asked you to read the parable of the soils which you did not. I even told you about the new Christian that could fall away in Heb. 6 but you didn’t comment in that. So let’s look at the parable of the soils,

““The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled underfoot, and the birds of the sky ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky soil, and when it came up, it withered away because it had no moisture. Other seed fell among the thorns; and the thorns grew up with it and choked it out. And yet other seed fell into the good soil, and grew up, and produced a crop a hundred times as much.” As He said these things, He would call out, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭8‬:‭5‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 8:5-8 “The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled underfoot, and the birds of the sky ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky soil, and when it came up, | New American Standard Bible - NASB (

“The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled underfoot, and the birds of the sky ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky soil, and when it came up,

bible.com

Here is Jesus explanation to the parable.

““Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved. Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; they believe for a while, and in a time of temptation they fall away. And the seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked by worries, riches, and pleasures of this life, and they bring no fruit to maturity. But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word with a good and virtuous heart, and hold it firmly, and produce fruit with perseverance.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭8‬:‭11‬-‭15‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 8:11-15 “Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not belie | New American Standard Bible - NASB

“Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not belie

bible.com

The word of God is the draw, the call. The seed that lands by the road are the ones that resist the call and the devil takes their faith away. So yes, some people will resist the call. You could even make the argument that the seed that fell in rocky soil and among the thorn, while did not initially resist the call, did not have enough faith to remain in God. However, those that fell in good soil did not resist the draw but quite the opposite they embraced it.

So I did answer your question directly but you chose to ignore it. Sometimes an answer is not an either/or or a yes or no.

A problem with that parable (and the reason Calvinism is not argued away) is that it opens the idea that people have little or no agency in their own salvation. The seed has no agency in what soil it's sowed into; the seed has no agency over the conditions in which it grows.

That parable cannot stand on its own, except in Calvinist thought.

 

[Hawkins]

It destroys the purpose of Earth. Earth is for humans to be saved by Faith (New Covenant). If you can logically prove God, it simultaneously means Earth's purpose is defeated that humans can rely on logic instead of Faith to know God. It means men are no longer savable.

The closest logic is that, pursuing a God is each and every human's own responsibility. Christianity remains the only possibility, that is the only possible truth, without actual competition. The god of this world has blinded the minds of men that they failed to logically prove these two points which are possibly the closest we can do in terms of "logically proving God".

 

[Hentenza]

A problem with that parable (and the reason Calvinism is not argued away) is that it opens the idea that people have little or no agency in their own salvation. The seed has no agency in what soil it's sowed into; the seed has no agency over the conditions in which it grows.

That parable cannot stand on its own, except in Calvinist thought.

I’m not a Calvinist and was not trying to “reason” Calvinism away. However, my argument began with the verse stating that no one can come to Christ unless drawn first by the Father. You did not argue against that verse so I’m going to assume that you agree with it. The parable of the soil is a continuation of that thought.

You are basically arguing free will but there is no mention of free will in scripture. If we had free will then we would have the free will to make all moral choices but we can’t because we don’t have the free will to stop sinning. So even if we had free will it would be a limited free will to choose God at the time of the call but without affecting God’s foreknowledge and omniscience.

I don’t believe that we only have two soteriological choices, free will or predestination because both are taught to a certain extent in scripture. I believe that there is a third option that our finite minds can not comprehend.

 

[RDKirk]

I’m not a Calvinist and was not trying to “reason” Calvinism away. However, my argument began with the verse stating that no one can come to Christ unless drawn first by the Father. You did not argue against that verse so I’m going to assume that you agree with it. The parable of the soil is a continuation of that thought.

You are basically arguing free will but there is no mention of free will in scripture. If we had free will then we would have the free will to make all moral choices but we can’t because we don’t have the free will to stop sinning. So even if we had free will it would be a limited free will to choose God at the time of the call but without affecting God’s foreknowledge and omniscience.

I don’t believe that we only have two soteriological choices, free will or predestination because both are taught to a certain extent in scripture. I believe that there is a third option that our finite minds can not comprehend.

No, I'm not arguing free will. I think we have a choice, a single choice, of what will be our master, but that is not "free will." Only Christians even have this debate--secular philosophers have abandoned the concept of free will, asserting instead that every decision is determined in some manner.

And, true, "free will" as some Christians define it, is not given in scripture.

But the parable of the sower does present, if taken by itself, as an assertion that the person has no agency in his salvation. I think Jesus' intent was to make a different point relating to how evangelists should view their success as evangelist, not actually about soteriology at all.

If we interpret this parable strictly as an allegory of salvation, the implication is deterministic: People accept or reject the word based on what kind of “soil” they already are -- a condition they didn’t consciously choose. In other words, the soil is descriptive of spiritual receptivity, not moral decision.

It's not just me picking up on this. Augustine and later Calvin saw in it the evidence of divine election: Only those whose hearts God has prepared (“good soil”) can truly receive the word and bear fruit. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there.

If instead we read it primarily as a lesson to evangelists (which fits the narrative context better), then the lack of human agency among the hearers is not the point. The point shifts to the sower’s duty: to keep scattering seed without assuming responsibility for the soil’s nature.

That interpretation sidesteps the determinism issue entirely. The agency in focus is the evangelist’s, not the hearer’s. It teaches that evangelists will see wildly different results, and they shouldn’t judge themselves by those outcomes.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think we can come to a conclusion on the question without bringing our conclusion to it. What Paul says on the matter is not necessarily that we can, without prior understanding, reason ourselves to anything approaching God. What he says is that God's power is known, basically identifying it as something we should recognize as a brute fact. But whether this strikes us as true or not is going to depend on our framework for making sense of the world, as our thinking is not without contamintion before we can even begin to reason on such matters. Being that I trust the Bible as God's word, I am of course inclined to recognize the truth of the statement.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think we can come to a conclusion on the question without bringing our conclusion to it. What Paul says on the matter is not necessarily that we can, without prior understanding, reason ourselves to anything approaching God.

But enough that we are condemned for refusing to acknowledge it.

 

[Aaron112]

But enough that we are condemned for refusing to acknowledge it.

It looks like this whole topic/thread is not only distracting away from knowing Jesus, but may actually be preventing some souls from being saved, or trying to anyway.

 

[RDKirk]

It looks like this whole topic/thread is not only distracting away from knowing Jesus, but may actually be preventing some souls from being saved, or trying to anyway.

This forum is for hard topics.

 

[Hentenza]

No, I'm not arguing free will. I think we have a choice, a single choice, of what will be our master, but that is not "free will." Only Christians even have this debate--secular philosophers have abandoned the concept of free will, asserting instead that every decision is determined in some manner.

And, true, "free will" as some Christians define it, is not given in scripture.

But the parable of the sower does present, if taken by itself, as an assertion that the person has no agency in his salvation. I think Jesus' intent was to make a different point relating to how evangelists should view their success as evangelist, not actually about soteriology at all.

If we interpret this parable strictly as an allegory of salvation, the implication is deterministic: People accept or reject the word based on what kind of “soil” they already are -- a condition they didn’t consciously choose. In other words, the soil is descriptive of spiritual receptivity, not moral decision.

It's not just me picking up on this. Augustine and later Calvin saw in it the evidence of divine election: Only those whose hearts God has prepared (“good soil”) can truly receive the word and bear fruit. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there.

If instead we read it primarily as a lesson to evangelists (which fits the narrative context better), then the lack of human agency among the hearers is not the point. The point shifts to the sower’s duty: to keep scattering seed without assuming responsibility for the soil’s nature.

That interpretation sidesteps the determinism issue entirely. The agency in focus is the evangelist’s, not the hearer’s. It teaches that evangelists will see wildly different results, and they shouldn’t judge themselves by those outcomes.

I would agree with you except that Jesus explains the parable. Each one of the conditions is directly attributable to a person’s choice. You are thinking that the person has no choice on the quality of the soil that the seed lands on but that is not the case.

““Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

[these made the decision to allow the devil to take away the word. It is their choice not the sower’s).

Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; they believe for a while, and in a time of temptation they fall away.

[Once again the choice is theirs. For reasons of their own they fall away. The responsibility if creating a firm root is the person as the writer of Hebrews explains in chapter 6]

“And the seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked by worries, riches, and pleasures of this life, and they bring no fruit to maturity.

[This again is a choice and also part of the explanation by the writer of Hebrews in chapter 6]

“But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word with a good and virtuous heart, and hold it firmly, and produce fruit with perseverance.”
‭‭
[This person made the right choices also these could be directed at some of those that are predestined. But again it is a choice.]

‭‭Luke‬ ‭8‬:‭11‬-‭15‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 8:11-15 “Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not belie | New American Standard Bible - NASB

“Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not belie

bible.com

[Annotations mine.]


The sower, however, knows each choice but the choice is still up to the person. Everyone gets a “seed” but what people do with it is a choice.

 

[RDKirk]

I would agree with you except that Jesus explains the parable. Each one of the conditions is directly attributable to a person’s choice. You are thinking that the person has no choice on the quality of the soil that the seed lands on but that is not the case.

““Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

[these made the decision to allow the devil to take away the word. It is their choice not the sower’s).

Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; they believe for a while, and in a time of temptation they fall away.

[Once again the choice is theirs. For reasons of their own they fall away. The responsibility if creating a firm root is the person as the writer of Hebrews explains in chapter 6]

“And the seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked by worries, riches, and pleasures of this life, and they bring no fruit to maturity.

[This again is a choice and also part of the explanation by the writer of Hebrews in chapter 6]

“But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word with a good and virtuous heart, and hold it firmly, and produce fruit with perseverance.”
‭‭
[This person made the right choices also these could be directed at some of those that are predestined. But again it is a choice.]

But no. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there. The soil does what it does because of what it already is.

 

[Aaron112]

But no. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there. The soil does what it does because of what it already is.

Perhaps...... yet then , think on this ----- how does the rocky soil ever or sometimes become good soil ? What breaks it up (Scripturally) ?

 

[Fervent]

But enough that we are condemned for refusing to acknowledge it.

Given Paul's argument in Romans 1-3, I would say it appears to be more about the fact that failing to acknowledge God as God automatically means putting something that isn't God into the rightful position that only God can occupy, which is bound to lead us into condemnable beliefs and actions. So while condemnation naturally follows from failure to recognize God, it isn't necessarily that failure alone that condemns us even if condemnation is inevitable.

 

[RDKirk]

Given Paul's argument in Romans 1-3, I would say it appears to be more about the fact that failing to acknowledge God as God automatically means putting something that isn't God into the rightful position that only God can occupy, which is bound to lead us into condemnable beliefs and actions. So while condemnation naturally follows from failure to recognize God, it isn't necessarily that failure alone that condemns us even if condemnation is inevitable.

I don't think those were progressive issues in Paul's mind. As Paul continues on in Romans, he firmly lays out that if God is not your master, something else is...there is no midway position. It's black-and-white.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think those were progressive issues in Paul's mind. As Paul continues on in Romans, he firmly lays out that if God is not your master, something else is...there is no midway position. It's black-and-white.

I wouldn't call the issues progressive, and I'm not sure we're disagreeing. Paul is identifying the one true sin as idolatry, which begins with a failure to recognize God as God. Something is going to occupy that space, and if it isn't God then it is sin. But Paul is speaking about men without pollution of prior knowledge, without cultural biases and such. My concern is not with the right-or-wrong nature of belief vs disbelief, but with the polemics that are so often engaged in from this passage that serve to foster an adversarial climate to discussions with skeptics.

 

[Hentenza]

But no. Jesus never portrays the soil as having changed itself. The conditions are simply there. The soil does what it does because of what it already is.

I don’t see how you see the “soil” not changing itself when the “soil” here is an image of the person’s choices in life. People decide which way they want to go. If you have an atheist that is set in his/her belief then the seed will fall by the road because the atheist will choose to discard the seed. Others might get the seed, discard it initially but then decide to follow Christ. The seed initially landed in rocky soil but, by the person’s choices changed the rocky soil to good soil.

Basically it is the person’s choices that determine what kind of soil the seed fell on and it is their choice to make the seed grow by changing the “soil”. The soil quality is not static.

 

[RDKirk]

Perhaps...... yet then , think on this ----- how does the rocky soil ever or sometimes become good soil ? What breaks it up (Scripturally) ?

First, as I said I don't think that's what the parable is about at all. It's about sowing. Jesus explicitly says that the meaning of the parable was for His disciples, His prospective evangelists.

There is no concept in this parable of the soil transforming (either by itself or by an exterior influence) within the parable. I don't think that's where Jesus was going with this parable. Within the parable, the soil simply is what it is. The parable explains why some people will respond effectively to the gospel and some won't...but the evangelists are to proceed in their evangelism anyway and not be dismayed by the different responses they observe.

If we place this parable with John 6, however, it sounds very deterministic. And Romans 6-7 amplifies the concept of man's innate helplessness in turning from sin to God on his own. What choice we have is only because God gives us that choice, not because we have the power to make it through our own moral strength.

 

[RDKirk]

I don’t see how you see the “soil” not changing itself when the “soil” here is an image of the person’s choices in life. People decide which way they want to go. If you have an atheist that is set in his/her belief then the seed will fall by the road because the atheist will choose to discard the seed. Others might get the seed, discard it initially but then decide to follow Christ. The seed initially landed in rocky soil but, by the person’s choices changed the rocky soil to good soil.

Basically it is the person’s choices that determine what kind of soil the seed fell on and it is their choice to make the seed grow by changing the “soil”. The soil quality is not static.

In Romans, Paul makes it pretty clear that man is helpless to change his condition without God's grace in making the choice possible. And from John 6, unless the Father draws a man, that man cannot come to Christ. The initial action is on God's part. God is the prime mover, but man has a choice of reaction.

 

[Hentenza]

In Romans, Paul makes it pretty clear that man is helpless to change his condition without God's grace in making the choice possible. And from John 6, unless the Father draws a man, that man cannot come to Christ. The initial action is on God's part. God is the prime mover, but man has a choice of reaction.

Right. The seed is the word, the draw. God is the sower. What people do with the seed is the choice, the level of reaction. The soil is not static.

 

[RDKirk]

Right. The seed is the word, the draw. God is the sower. What people do with the seed is the choice, the level of reaction. The soil is not static.

The evangelist is the sower. The evangelist is the sower even in 1 Corinthians 3:

“What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow."

Again, the sower is the evangelist planting the seed, but it's God who makes the gospel grow in the soil. The soil cannot transform itself. That idea doesn't even work as a parable, because those farm-knowledgeable people knew that soil does not transform itself.

But in Romans:

Romans 8:7 – “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”

“Mind governed by the flesh” refers to the natural, unregenerate human mind. The verse underscores human inability to turn to God or obey His law without divine intervention. This is the passage in Romans that explicitly states inability, not just unwillingness: the fleshly mind is incapable of submission to God apart from the Spirit.

The natural mind is hostile and incapable, but through union with Christ, the believer is freed from sin and empowered to live righteously. Human agency is insufficient apart from God’s grace, and obedience is a result of God’s work, not human effort alone.

The soil cannot transform itself.

 

[Hentenza]

The evangelist is the sower. The evangelist is the sower even in 1 Corinthians 3:

“What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things
Again, the sower is the evangelist planting the seed, but it's God who makes the gospel grow in the soil. The soil cannot transform itself. That idea doesn't even work as a parable, because those farm-knowledgeable people knew that soil does not transform itself.

You are misunderstanding 1Cor. 3.

“And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it. But even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like ordinary people? For when one person says, “I am with Paul,” and another, “I am with Apollos,” are you not ordinary people?”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭1‬-‭4‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 3:1-4 And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it | New American Standard Bible

And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it

bible.com

The immature ChristIans of Corinth are taking favorites in which teachings they want to follow, Paul or Apollo, rather than following the teachings of the apostles as a whole. Even today people have their favorite pastors and will follow their preaching sometimes without question.

“What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now the one who plants and the one who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭5‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 3:5-6 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020)

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.

bible.com

This continues that conversation but makes it clear that the one who is in charge is God not Paul or Apollo. Since God is the one thst grows and since they are God’s field then they need to mature IN God not in Paul or Apollo.

God causes the growth but these people are already Christians and they need to mature with God’s help. Once a person is justified then they need to cooperate with God in their sanctification. This is the deep teaching of this chapter. Paul even goes to explain in the following verses how these people will be judged based on their works performed during sanctification. There are many choices that the believers choose here that leads to the rewards that they will get at judgement time. The choice to mature is with the person so the choices a person makes can change the soil. Again, the soil is not static.

But in Romans:

Romans 8:7 – “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”

“Mind governed by the flesh” refers to the natural, unregenerate human mind. The verse underscores human inability to turn to God or obey His law without divine intervention. This is the passage in Romans that explicitly states inability, not just unwillingness: the fleshly mind is incapable of submission to God apart from the Spirit.

The natural mind is hostile and incapable, but through union with Christ, the believer is freed from sin and empowered to live righteously. Human agency is insufficient apart from God’s grace, and obedience is a result of God’s work, not human effort alone.

We basically agree here. No one can come to God unless He draws Him and man in its natural state can not come to God but if God draws him (seed) then He can become a believer. This IS the same argument that I made at the beginning of this thread. If natural man can reason God’s existence then God drew him to Him and he then would become a believer. The scriptures is full of scriptures that teach that man alone is incapable of coming to Christ in their fallen state.

The soil cannot transform itself.

People choices can transform the soil once the call has been made.