If He was revealed, why did He wait so long to reveal Himself? Humans have been around for 100,000+ years.

## Background Christians commonly hold that God revealed the truth progressively in history in areas of theology like the plan of salvation and law . Many Christians also believe that the Triune nature of God was revealed progressively over time, and that early men may not have understood God to be a Trinity but the Trinity was revealed slowly with "increasing clarity as more and more of the Scriptures were written" . ## Question Given that Christians believe God has revealed different aspects of his nature over time, do any Christian denominations believe there are limits to "progressive revelation"? Specifically, could God reveal new information about his nature in the future such as another person? Or is the understanding of his nature now considered fully complete?

> **18** For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in > unrighteousness; > **19** Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. > **20** For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even > his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: I had this discussion in small group about how everyone undoubtedly knows who God is through creation (verse 20). But when "they are without excuse" does that imply that those who have not heard the gospel, but know that there is God, through creation, can be saved? The questions arose amongst the group on whether or not people in this situation can be saved without hearing the gospel? Or are they presented with the gospel in a different way (not ways of spreading the word)? Or is there something wrong/missing? A friend of mine did quote a passage from the book "Radical" by David Platt that when we ask the question about how people in 3rd world countries can be saved if they were never given the chance to hear about the gospel. Platt tells us that the problems lies within the question itself, that by asking it assumes that these 3rd world country people who have never heard of the gospel are innocent, when we are all sinful in nature. But going back to my original question, referencing verse 20, are we all "without excuse" even if we have not heard about the gospel? **Is there another way the gospel can be presented?**

I've encountered discussions, such as the one linked [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/107665/66156) , where certain Christians assert that atheists inherently acknowledge God's existence, often relying on certain interpretations of Romans 1:18-25. I'm keen to explore this interpretation further, examining its prevalence among Christians and investigating alternative exegeses that might support divergent perspectives. Are there theological or philosophical arguments within Christianity that present nuanced readings of Romans chapter 1, challenging the blanket assertion that all atheists, deep down, possess an inherent awareness of God's existence? --- The following are quotes from different sources presenting the viewpoint I'm calling into question: >*Believe No One Who Calls Himself an Atheist* > > **If what Paul says in Romans 1 is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist**. Anyone who calls himself one is wrong on at least three fronts. > > First, someone who claims to be an atheist is suppressing the truth he knows. According to Romans 1, “What can be known about God is plain to them” (v. 19), and their denial is an expression of the fact that they are among those “men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). Therefore, whatever they believe about themselves, the God who made them says otherwise, and we must believe God rather than man. [...] > > (Source: [Why There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist](https://www.crossway.org/articles/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-an-atheist/)) > Many people who say they are atheists will say those who believe in God are stupid, or foolish. Ironically, Scripture says they are the fools. Professing to be wise they became fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Their foolish hearts were darkened. Indeed, Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”” > > **So, when you speak to someone who says he’s an atheist, he is 1) lying, and 2) a fool. He is like a person who says he doesn’t believe in gravity. He sees how it works, he experiences its effects, but denies it exists. Truly, such a person is a fool.** > > How do we as Christians answer the atheist? **I have come to the conclusion that we simply tell them that they really do believe that God exists, because the Bible says they do**. **Even though they may deny it, they know in their heart that they do believe it**. In other words, there really are no atheists. We tell them that they are suppressing this truth in unrighteousness, just as Scripture says. They may call you names, mock you, and hate you, all because you are telling them the truth. Most importantly, we give them the gospel. We should never think we are better, because God tells us “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11) May the Lord grant the atheists we meet the same grace He has given us. > > (Source: [There Are No Atheists](https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/there-are-no-atheists)) > *There really are no atheists defense* > > **This is the argument that all true atheists are at heart lying so that they may live in a way that is contrary to God's commands (as seen in particular interpretations of Romans 1:18-25)**. Critics note that there are atheists who are not lying and are not using their atheism as an escape to sin. Proponents note, however, that they could just as easily still be lying, perhaps not to others anymore but themselves (i.e. loving the wrong woman argument). Some have claimed this argument, however, fails to account for Stephen Maitzen's point on the demographics of theism. If all atheists are liars, why are people in some societies so much more likely to lie than in others? Finally, some have also claimed this argument fails to account for Jason Marsh's point on natural nonbelief in early humans. Since there was quite plausibly such a thing as natural nonbelief in early humans, then it does not make much sense to say that said nonbelief is self-deceptive. That is because natural nonbelief entails nonresistant nonbelief. > > (Source: [Argument from nonbelief#There_really_are_no_atheists_defense - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief#There_really_are_no_atheists_defense))

The notion of 'seeking God' can be found in multiple passages in the Bible: Acts 17:26-27 >**26** And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, **2700** **that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him**. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us Proverbs 8:17 >I love those who love me, **and those who seek me diligently find me**. Jeremiah 29:13 >**You will seek me and find me**, when you seek me with all your heart. Isaiah 55:6 >**Seek the Lord while he may be found**; call upon him while he is near; Deuteronomy 4:29 >But from there **you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him**, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. 2 Chronicles 15:2 >and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The Lord is with you while you are with him. **If you seek him, he will be found by you**, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you. Matthew 7:7-11 >**7** “Ask, and it will be given to you; **seek, and you will find**; knock, and it will be opened to you. **8** For everyone who asks receives, **and the one who seeks finds**, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. **9** Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? **10** Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? **11** If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! Hebrews 11:6 >And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that **he rewards those who seek him** Acts 17:27 is particularly interesting to me because it takes place in the context of the Apostle Paul addressing the Areopagus of Athens, proclaiming a universal invitation for all mankind to seek (and find) God. But the question in the title remains: what is the success criterion for the task of 'seeking God'? Of course, one could simply say that the task of 'seeking God' could be considered successfully accomplished if God is actually *found*. In other words, the success criterion for *seeking God* is actually *finding God*. Well, although technically correct, this kind of simplistic answer doesn't actually answer the question to my taste because it simply pushes the problem to now having to determine whether or not God has been found. And the question remains, what does 'finding God' actually look like, and how can one know, epistemologically speaking, if this 'finding' has actually taken place, from a subjective point of view? And digging deeper into what this 'finding' might actually look like, I foresee two general kinds of answers that people might offer: - Answers focusing on general revelation, apologetics, history, natural theology, science, and even sacred scripture. In other words, assessing the publicly accessible evidence intellectually, and rationally coming to the conclusion that God must exist. I foresee that some people might go down this route and claim that God can be 'found' rationally in this manner. On this view, seeking God may entail studying entire PhDs in philosophy and theology, spending years in the study of arguments and counter-arguments for/against God's existence from science, history, philosophy, etc. Finding God would then probably look like having some sort of 'aha' moment of realization after having weighed all the publicly accessible evidence. A possible downside to this approach is that there are many intellectuals who actually claim to have done all this with intellectual honesty and still failed to be convinced. [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) comes to mind as a notable example. - Answers that focus on 'finding God' in a more direct, private, experiential, and revelatory way, involving some kind of [religious experience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience) . The problem of this approach is that it sounds very much like [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) to me, which I know to be very controversial. So it looks to me that it's either a long path of hard studying of arguments, without a guarantee of being eventually convinced, or a path of seeking revelatory experiences that is highly controversial. My specific questions therefore are: - Am I positing a false dichotomy? (This question specifically can be seen as a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99241/61679) - What is an overview of Christian perspectives on what it actually means to 'find God' as a success criterion for the task of 'seeking God'?

According to experienced Christians, "If anything, a focus on General Revelation should correlate with more experience focus, as people relish in the signs of God." It is so true that when the Faith of a person is thoroughly establish, the pathway to intimate experience with God is enhanced! But when there is less known about the strong Apologetic foundation of Christianity, it seems that the average Christian must rely on experiences he has encountered, to maintain his faith. Would this dilemma tend to cause church services to be more audio/visual (which is appealing to the younger set in the church)? This question is based on 35 years of teaching Apologetics in a Christian high school. The dearth of information evidenced from a questioning of students from the diverse churches, revealed that General Revelation (and Apologetics in general) was non-existent in the Discipleship classes of those churches! Discipleship class manuals contained the usual topics of Baptism, communion, tithing, family, charity, prayer, etc. These are the **what's of Christianity**. But the **why's of Christianity** were left out. Or were referenced to para-church orgs such as Cru, Intervarsity, Got Questions, and the like outside the local church. The satisfaction the students showed when they realized that the Christian worldview provided **reasons and answers** that the average mind sought after, was amazing! The response of the surprised parents was off the charts! This class filled a huge gap that was in the Discipleship efforts of their churches. So is this the reason why church families that do not have access to great Apologetic teaching, are relying on audio/visual emphases in Sunday morning churches, or youth group meetings with emphasis on "a good time"? Experiential emphasis? And does it also lend to a tendency for Believers to want and seek some physical manifestation in their walk with God to increase or sustain their Faith in God Would a foundation in General Revelation teaching (Apologetics) provide a surer foundation and basis for any experience they may encounter?

How integral is a personal experiential aspect to Christian belief in addition to [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) ? Can one rely solely on natural theology, or is a personal encounter or experience considered essential in Christian doctrine, and if so, what type(s) of experience(s) specifically? I'm interested in perspectives on the balance between these two elements in shaping and reinforcing one's faith. --- EDIT: @curiousdanni brought up a very good point: > If you rely solely on natural theology you can't be a Christian - the Gospel is communicated only through special revelation. I agree with this observation. Considering this, I think the question can be rephrased in more general terms as follows: Publicly accessible revelation (that can be grasped intellectually, including nature and Sacred Scripture) vs. Privately accessible revelation (involving spiritual experiences that presumably go beyond the confines of the intellect)?

In philosophy, [*fideism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism) seems to be used as a label to refer to epistemological approaches that tend to prioritize *faith* over *reason*. And this makes sense; after all, "fideism" is just Latin for "faith-ism." In the context of Catholic theology, *fideism* is a bad thing. John Paul II warned against "a resurgence of *fideism*" ([*Fides et ratio*](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html)) and Pius X links it to modernism in *[Pascendi Dominici Gregis](http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html)* . But it turns out that "fideism" is actually a very vague term, particularly so because it is frequently used pejoratively by opponents of certain belief systems. One person might be accused of fideism for believing that reason alone cannot demonstrate God's existence, while another might be accused of it for believing that reason alone cannot change a sinner's heart. The *Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* gets to the heart of it: > Fideism claims that **truths of a certain kind** can be grasped only by foregoing rational inquiry and relying solely on faith. [[source](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/) , emphasis added] Using this language, my question is: What are the "truths of a certain kind" found in the *fideism* rejected by the Catholic Church? Put another way: According to Catholicism, in what matters is it legitimate to prioritize faith over reason? For example, consider doctrines like: - the nature of the Trinity - The immaculate conception of Mary - The virgin birth of Jesus Christ - The descent of Jesus into Hades after his crucifixion - The real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist Are these doctrines thought to be discernible exclusively or primarily through *reason*? Or do they find their primary support in one's *faith* in the Scriptures and Tradition? **How does the Catholic Church define the *fideism* that it rejects?** I am particularly interested in direct quotes from papal encyclicals and official documents of the Vatican, particularly post-Vatican II.

It's a matter of fact that God's actions can be seen tangibly in the Old Testament and New Testament. Why did God so favor the ancient ancestors but seems to have left us now? How does God communicate with us today? An overview of how different denominations answer this question would be helpful.

It's good that God has blessed us with towering intellectual pastors/Christian writers like D. A. Carson, John Piper, John F. MacArthur, etc. Many of the aforementioned people belong to Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Presbyterian or Cessationist, etc. church/ministry backgrounds, and some cases even the typical Catholic church/ministry background. They generally teach The Bible in a relatively more erudite/academic manner than pastors in the Charismatic/Pentecostal Christian churches or ministries. However, what are the drawbacks of studying the Bible in an overly erudite (overly academic) manner?

It is widely understood among trinitarians that the doctrine of the trinity is best seen through special revelation, particularly the scriptural accounts of the incarnation of Christ. But have there been attempts by Christians to prove the trinity particularly through philosophy? In other words, have certain Christian thinkers ever held that the trinity can be arrived at logically, independent from divine revelation in Scripture?

The Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church states plainly (emphasis added): > In Jesus Christ, God himself came to earth. _He is God's last Word._ Indeed, some modern English translations of the New Testament present Chapter titles for Hebrews 1 that echo this sentiment: _God's final word: His Son_ (NIV), _God's Final Word in His Son_ (NASB), _God's Supreme Revelation_ (NKJV). Hebrews 1:1-2 says, > God, having spoken earlier at many times and in many ways through the Prophets, spoke to us in these last days by the Son, who he established heir over all things and through whom he made the ages. From a _sola-scriptura_ protestant perspective, what does it mean that _Jesus is God's last word_? Has God spoken to man in the time since Jesus' teaching? If so, by what method has he done so?

What is the Biblical basis for the argument that it is possible for someone to learn limited (non-salvific) information about God without learning about him from the Bible or another believer, such as from nature?

I think it was Francis Bacon who said that the Bible and nature were God's two books and that one would do well to study both in great detail. What are the biblical arguments for and against this view? In particular, I want to highlight Matthew 11:25 > At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and > earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, > and revealed them to little children. Could these hidden things involve, for example, the historical Adam and Eve, forever concealed from scientific scrutiny? Also, for some reason I cannot pinpoint, I am a little skeptical about placing the study of nature on equal footing with the Bible, as much as I love what science has given us. Perhaps some good answers can clarify my own thinking on this.

Many belief systems share common themes; an afterlife, rebirth, bodily mutilation and sacrifice. To me this suggests a shared origin either in history or storytelling (Abrahamic faiths) or that they were all "made up" to appease basic human fears or death and to cope with grief. Taking these similarities into account how do Christians dismiss other beliefs and accept their own as the one true religion?

I understand that there is an element call faith to believe a system of belief. But my question is, are there valid arguments to prove God to someone who does not believe? Or at least to present God as logical?