Is creation alone capable of producing salvific faith?

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@heddle

I recently heard a discussion about the famous passage in Romans , chapter the first

In one class I took on Romans, the professor asked a question to the class, ‘is it possible to be saved without the Gospel?’ Since we were in Romans 2, and Romans 1 was so last week, I decided to go with yes- if one without the law follows the law written on his conscience/heart. Now Paul goes on to technically add that if you screw up one time then you’re guilty of breaking the whole law and there’s not one righteous.

@heddle

The discussion concluded that creation, aka the book of nature, aka general revelation was important but never provided sufficient knowledge for one’s salvation.

I’ve become convinced, thanks to @TedDavis, that Romans 1:20 is for those that already ‘know God’ through nature but didn’t worship him but rather creation. I.e. see:

The Lutheran Option?

Partly guilty as charged. I know George and his work originally through the ASA, though I have also seen him in a few other places. One of the things I learned from George is that a “Lutheran voice” might emphasize theology of the cross (the suffering servant, who put aside power and allowed himself to be crucified) over theology of glory (the God of the philosophers, as in natural theology). That is Lutheran language, and in many evangelical circles it’s not heard very much (if at all). Havi…

At the end of the day though, I’d probably have to just believe that God is a fair and just judge and only be able to leave it at that.