Journal: Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry
Volume: JBTM 20:2 (Fall 2023)
Article: A Rejection Of Classical Evidentialism And An Argument For Complementary Theories Of Knowledge Of God In Romans 1:18–20
Author: Benjamin Kelly

A Rejection Of Classical Evidentialism And An Argument For Complementary Theories Of Knowledge Of God In Romans 1:18–20

Benjamin Kelly

Jonathan K. Corrado

Benjamin Kelly is the lead pastor of Reconciliation Church in Cincinnati, OH. Jonathan K. Corrado is a creation scientist, works in the defense and nuclear industry, and is a senior officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve.

Introduction

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18–20).1

The last century has seen a revival of debates over the use of natural theology within the context of Christian apologetics and dogmatics. Much of this debate centers on the use of Romans 1:18–20 and whether this text provides a theological precedent for natural theology using an evidentialist epistemology. Evidentialism is an epistemology, or theory of knowledge, that deems evidence as necessary to justify knowledge of God. The theological and epistemological elements present in Romans 1:18–20 demonstrate fallen humanity’s culpability before a righteous God due to a natural revelation of God through nature. However, Romans 1:18–20 does not lead to a positive case for evidentialism, as the knowledge of God presented in these verses is described initially as intuitive knowledge of God, followed by knowledge of God to be gathered by observation from nature. The paper argues Romans 1:18–20 does not

JBTM 20:2 (Fall 2023) 222

support a classical evidentialist epistemology, because it identifies a knowledge of God that is intuitive and divinely implanted into humans by God.

First, this paper describes evidentialism as a theory of knowledge and how it has been connected to theories of natural theology used in interpreting Romans 1:18–20. Then, it demonstrates that Romans 1:18–20 does not present an evidentialist epistemology in which knowledge of God is based on observable evidence. Rather, intuitive knowledge of God will be presented as a more appropriate alternative explanation ...