(The following is an edited response to a question from a reader, sent to me some time ago. The question was brought up in the context of my Systematic Theology, but it is also relevant to the previous entry, Common Ground.)

I affirm that man has an innate knowledge of God, with enough clarity and content so that he is without excuse in denying or disobeying God.

However, I deny that a system of theology can be based on our innate knowledge of God. Or, to say it another way, I deny that our innate knowledge of God can be the first principle of the biblical worldview — there is insufficient content, clarity, and objectivity, among other reasons.

This is why I never appeal to intuition to justify any part of my theology or to perform apologetics. An accurate understanding of the content and the extent of our own innate knowledge of God comes from verbal revelation in the first place.

To say this yet another way, although I affirm that we have an innate knowledge of God, we do not base our faith and assurance or our theology and apologetics on this innate knowledge; rather, we must base these things on verbal revelation.

I do "appeal" to man’s innate knowledge in my writings, but I never do this as if the truth of Christianity rests on this as its foundation, or as if this innate knowledge is itself proof that Christianity is true. Otherwise, this would become an appeal to man’s intuition, and the argument would become subjective.

Rather, I appeal to this innate knowledge only to explain why biblical presuppositions are not denied in practice but are implicitly assumed even by unbelievers, and to explain in what sense we have common ground or a point of contact with the unbelievers when preaching the gospel to them.

So, although I affirm that Scripture is indeed logically undeniable, when I use "undeniable" in the context of discussing man’s innate knowledge, the emphasis then is not on the logical undeniability of Scripture, but that some core biblical premises cannot be denied in practice despite the unbelievers’ claim to the contrary.

Thus, we refer to man’s innate knowledge not to prove Scripture (rather, it is Scripture that proves the innate knowledge), but only to explain why we can communicate with unbelievers and how to properly relate to them.

In other words, when we are speaking of the innate knowledge of God, we are considering the strategic aspect of apologetics, and not the strictly rational aspect. That the Scripture is logically undeniable is demonstrated by engaging the contents of Scripture itself, and not man’s innate knowledge.

Some people have failed to note this distinction in my writings (or mistakenly think that I have failed to make this distinction in my writings), so that they falsely accused me of being incoherent on this point (that is, as if I deny intuition and then appeal to it anyway). Rather, in my system of theology and apologetics, (if not for the fact that Scripture teaches it) we can throw out man’s innate knowledge altogether and it will remain essentially unaffected (although some practical adjustments will be needed), since it does not depend on man’s innate knowledge.

Then, you wrote, "I'm thinking maybe what is suppressed is the innate knowledge of God which is written on every man's heart." This is exactly right. But you would like to know why this is still called knowledge, if it is suppressed to the point of being denied. The explanation is that just because you know something does not mean that you consciously think about it all the time. However, if you know something, it does imply that it can potentially be recalled.

This has similarities to what people mean when they refer to repressed memory, although I am wary of the implications that can come from using the word. When it comes to our innate knowledge of God, Scripture teaches that sinners know God in their minds, but they have, in a morally culpable way, suppressed or repressed this knowledge. Greg Bahnsen called this the sinner's "self-deception."

In regeneration, the elect sinner is awakened, as if from a deep slumber away from wisdom and knowledge, and into the light of Christ and Truth:

But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." (Ephesians 5:13–14)

To read more about man’s innate knowledge of God, and its implications and uses, please see my Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, and Presuppositional Confrontations.

Recommended:

Common Ground

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations

Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Posted in Theology, Apologetics | Permanent Link