Quote
Pilgrim said:

In the passage above, Paul argues NOT from Scripture, i.e., the inspired Old Testament but from nature itself by bringing forth two major tenets:

1) The existence of God is known individually, personally and internally, i.e., in one's mind and conscience from the very fact that man is created in the image of God; God's self-revelation to the soul (manifest IN them).

2) The existence of God is known empirically, i.e., through physical perception of the creation itself.

Thus ALL men are held guilty of denying God's existence intellectually and/or practically because they inherently know that He exists. To deny the existence of the one true God as He has revealed Himself is to consign oneself to futility, illogical and irrational thinking and a life of sin.

Pilgrim,

I agree with all you wrote. I guess my only point was, not that we shouldn't use other arguments, but that our primary proof for the existence of God should be Scripture. Would you agree with that? Do you think that since Romans was written to fellow Christians, Paul was arguing with his audience in mind?

Thanks,
John