# Romans 1, and inexcusability



## steven-nemes (Jun 28, 2009)

I heard someone say that the events of Romans 1, the suppressing of the truth, the resulting fall into unnatural sin, etc., was an event that occurred at some point in time in the past, and is not an occurrence to every person at every point in their life.

This is interesting to me because, if true, then I am no longer in the sticky position of holding that everyone has some sort of deep-down knowledge of God when it seems at times that certain persons really do not believe that God exists, and there do not know him at all.

What say you?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

I say that such a view is hog wash. Romans 1 clearly teaches that God's wrath is universally poured out upon all flesh and that the knowledge of God and Supression thereof is universal in mankind.

Increasingly I'm convinced that people that come to such conclusions have never bothered to exegete Romans in its entirety to get it to cohere into the arguments that Paul is presenting. A person who comes to the conclusion that this is a thing of the past is cherry-picking verses to sustain something they've convinced themselves of before they come to the Word.

Romans 1:17, in fact, is key to this because it calls the Gospel the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith and then Paul proceeds to demonstrate the unrighteousness of men in a lengthy argument leaving all condemned according to the deeds of the flesh.

Furthermore, Romans 5:12-21 obliterates this argument as it demonstrates that the guilt and penalty of sin, including death and original corruption, is imputed to all of Adam's posterity.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jun 28, 2009)

I believe this to be a good interpretation given the context in which Paul is speaking.
I do think a further interpretation can be given though, which does account for how this might take place in the life of every individual in history. In the context of worldviews, one must believe either that there is a God or that there is not. The suppression of theism would occur at any point in which one replaces a belief in God with the contradictory belief in either no God or lesser god(s). I believe this also would be faithful to account for how "they [and we] suppressed the truth in unrighteousness".

I am interested to hear your thoughts.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 28, 2009)

The significance of this interpretation, it seems to me, is this: that the knowledge of God's decrees against certain behavior, the knowledge of God's existence through the created order, the rejection of God and the proceeding worship of creatures, etc., is describing the course of history and specifically what happened following the fall of man; it is not the case that it is describing the course of events followed by every single individual ever born. It is clear that not everyone from birth pursues animal-worship, homosexual relations, and all the while knows that God will punish them for these things.

That all men are considered sinful by way of imputation on behalf of Adam is not at all inconsistent with this interpretation. What it states is not that not all men are inherently sinful, but rather that not all men are subject to the criticism of Paul in chapter 1, and therefore, not all men actively suppress a known truth regarding God's existence (because it seems to me that some people really do not believe in God at all) just as not all men actively seek homosexual relations because of their rejection of God.

This interpretation seemed at first strange to me. It definitely requires more thought and more study on my behalf, but it (as far as I can tell) fits with what other things also seem true to me.

Something that seems interesting to me is that all the verbs in the passage that deal with what happens to the individuals are past-tense; they already happen. He is not describing a universal process but rather the course of history.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

Steven,

Your interpretation of the Scriptures on this point has been condemned first by the Council of Ephesus and is semi-Pelagian at best and Pelagian at worst.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 28, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Steven,
> 
> Your interpretation of the Scriptures on this point has been condemned first by the Council of Ephesus and is semi-Pelagian at best and Pelagian at worst.



Well that sure sounds terrible; I would hate to be condemned by anyone, and of course, being called Pelagian or semi-Pelagian is not pleasant at all. But firstly, I have never said that I _hold_ to this interpretation, only that I am considering it and that it is quite appealing to me; secondly, because I am unfamiliar with the Council of Ephesus (and because I also don't immediately see how this interpretation is in any way Pelagian or semi-Pelagian), I ask that you please explain a bit more.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

Steven,

You just replied to my post by stating:


> That all men are considered sinful by way of imputation on behalf of Adam is not at all inconsistent with this interpretation. What it states is not that not all men are inherently sinful, but rather that not all men are subject to the criticism of Paul in chapter 1, and therefore, not all men actively suppress a known truth regarding God's existence (because it seems to me that some people really do not believe in God at all) just as not all men actively seek homosexual relations because of their rejection of God.


Yet, the corruption that I noted that is passed to all of mankind in Adam includes their enmity toward the things of God. It is not merely that men sin and are sinful but that their natures are literally enslaved to Sin and hostile to God.



> Chapter VI
> Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
> 
> I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.1 This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.2
> ...


----------



## christianyouth (Jun 28, 2009)

> 21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was *darkened*.
> 
> 22(AP)Professing to be wise, they *became* fools,
> 
> ...





Paul uses past tense language, as well as plural language which seems to add some weight to that view you heard, Steven. Though if the view you are espousing is correct, I would have to rework my understanding of the flow of Romans.

Also you bring up a good point about not all men engaging in(or even desiring to) homosexual relationship, while Romans 1, if speaking of an individual, would seem to say that homosexuality is indulged in by the natural man(since the subject of Rom 1 is not just said to seek to suppress the truth of God, but also to burn with desire toward other men).

United in Christ,
- Andy

note aul seems to enjoy confusing me by going between past tense and present tense i.e. Romans 7. It's confusing!


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jun 28, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Steven,
> 
> Your interpretation of the Scriptures on this point has been condemned first by the Council of Ephesus and is semi-Pelagian at best and Pelagian at worst.



Yes, please expound. I think you may have misunderstood Steven.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 28, 2009)

Perhaps my language was ambiguous, perhaps you misunderstood me, or perhaps I even misunderstand what I write, or don't understand an implication of this understanding of the text.

Do you think that, given this interpretation of the text, because not all men are born with a knowledge of God, that not all men are therefore inherently sinful and disposed to disbelieve and disobey God? If that is a clear consequence of adopting this interpretation, then clearly it ought to be abandoned; but it doesn't appear to me clear that if men do not have inherent knowledge of the existence of God, that they do not have inherent disposition towards disobey God's commands.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Perhaps my language was ambiguous, perhaps you misunderstood me, or perhaps I even misunderstand what I write, or don't understand an implication of this understanding of the text.
> 
> Do you think that, given this interpretation of the text, because not all men are born with a knowledge of God, that not all men are therefore inherently sinful and disposed to disbelieve and disobey God? If that is a clear consequence of adopting this interpretation, then clearly it ought to be abandoned; but it doesn't appear to me clear that if men do not have inherent knowledge of the existence of God, that they do not have inherent disposition towards disobey God's commands.



The Scriptures testify the opposite - that God has been clearly revealed to all men by the things created:

[bible]Psalm 19:1-4[/bible]
[bible]Isaiah 6:3[/bible]
[bible]Romans 1:19[/bible]
[bible]Romans 2:14-15[/bible]


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 28, 2009)

I agree with you, that it is clear from scripture that God has revealed himself to man in a general way, through the created order and through the moral sense; however, I disagree that this necessitates that men have knowledge of God. For it is possible that sinful man does not interpret creation properly (and so nowhere in his noetic structure is the belief that God exists), or perhaps he is not disposed to believe in God (and so never considers it as a plausible explanation of the natural world or the moral sense), or perhaps his sociological environment enforces upon him beliefs in false gods or no gods at all (and so the belief in Yahweh is nowhere to be found in his noetic structure).

I can explain perhaps better through an analogy: that I am yelling my name in a large room full of people does not make necessary that anyone does then hear my name or even know my name or who I am; it is possible that many of them are deaf, or have earphones in, or others are preventing them from hearing, or so on.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

Your analogy fails because God states that men do see and do hear it and have the knowledge of Him inherent in them (as I quoted from Rom 2:14-15). Man actively suppresses such knowledge of Him and it is the basis for this condemnation.

To deny man's culpability in this active suppression is to destroy Paul's entire argument as it proceeds and is to posit that God has no basis for judging mankind for their suppression of Truth whereas the Apostle declares:
[bible]Acts 17:28-30[/bible]

God has no basis for judging Idolatry if His Revelation of Himself is unclear.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 28, 2009)

Well, firstly, the quote from Romans 2 does not clearly state that knowledge of God is inherent in man, that the belief "God exists" is anywhere in their noetic structure. It does say that the moral law of God is written on their hearts, and so they condemn themselves when they behave contrary to what they know is wrong and right, but it doesn't follow from that fact that they know God exists deep down inside.

Secondly, the clarity of God's revelation is indeed necessary for his judgment of mankind to be just; but that the creation is clear does not entail that all men know God. You will disagree, but you have not yet (to me it seems) proven that all men know God inherently.

Thirdly, the point Paul makes there is (I think) that the Greeks were right in asserting that a divine being created the world, and that we are dependent upon him for our existence; but that doesn't mean they know the true God somewhere deep down inside. In fact, Paul even says that God has overlooked "times of ignorance": what are they ignorant of? The true God? Then they did not have inherent knowledge of him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

Steven,

The Scriptures are plain on this subject. It's not up to me to convince you of a proper interpretation of them if you are going to cavil about tenses when Paul moves from a universal present tense condemnation of all men in Romans 1:18-20 and then goes on to speak about the consequences to men in succeeding verses. Your interpretation of Romans 2:14-15 is wrong whether or not you accept the Confessional exegesis of the matter. Romans 1:19 is likewise plain.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 28, 2009)

Well, I assume you don't want to discuss it any longer, and I accept that. I hope I didn't anger you or frustrate you at any point during the brief conversation; it is just that I don't agree with you on your understanding of certain texts. I disagree that the scriptures you assert are plain would lead a person to believe precisely what you get out of them; nonetheless, my opinion thus far is undeveloped and does not lean one way or the other. I need to study more and think the matters over, no doubt.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 28, 2009)

Steven,

I assume you would agree that every person has the moral law written on their hearts. It's not conscious though--witness all the different ethical theories and whatnot. So why not the existence of God? Why can't this follow the same principle, thus allowing for a historical rendering of Romans 1?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Well, I assume you don't want to discuss it any longer, and I accept that. I hope I didn't anger you or frustrate you at any point during the brief conversation; it is just that I don't agree with you on your understanding of certain texts. I disagree that the scriptures you assert are plain would lead a person to believe precisely what you get out of them; nonetheless, my opinion thus far is undeveloped and does not lean one way or the other. I need to study more and think the matters over, no doubt.



Steven,

This is not my personal interpretation. This is the standard exposition of the text in the Reformed Confessions and is one of the classic points of departure between Pelagian/Rationalist views of man and historic Orthodoxy on the point.

I confess, with the Church, that the Scriptures testify that what may be known of God is suppressed and that man is left without excuse for not worshipping Him as God.



> 18For the wrath of God *is* revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
> 
> 19Because that which may be known of God *is* manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20For 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:


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2009)

Steven, as you think and study I would suggest keeping in mind the question whether man is excusable for his sin and unbelief, and if not, on what basis.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 28, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Steven, as you think and study I would suggest keeping in mind the question whether man is excusable for his sin and unbelief, and if not, on what basis.



I think that man is not excusable for his disbelief and his sin; but I (tend to) disagree that every man by virtue of being born of human parents on the planet earth knows therefore that God exists, and has the belief "God exists" somewhere in their noetic structure.



Skyler said:


> Steven,
> 
> I assume you would agree that every person has the moral law written on their hearts. It's not conscious though--witness all the different ethical theories and whatnot. So why not the existence of God? Why can't this follow the same principle, thus allowing for a historical rendering of Romans 1?



Well by your own admission here the idea of human beings being moral and having some moral sense does not necessitate that they believe that God (the true God) exists. Secondly, it doesn't seem to be the interpretation Rich is espousing, to say that because all men tend toward religious beliefs, they therefore know of God in some sense. Rich seems to be saying that all men know the true God inherently, by virtue of being born here on earth. Thus, if what you suggest could be a possible interpretation, then it is still not the one Rich is defending.


To Rich: I definitely will have to read over Romans 1 and study it; the issues you raise about the wrath of God currently being revealed, what can be known about God currently being revealed, etc., are very critical. Until then, I will not offer a more systematized exposition of the text.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 28, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Steven,
> ...



I was speaking hypothetically, assuming your position temporarily. I do not admit this. I think personally that belief in God falls under the category of the moral law, and is therefore imprinted on men's hearts.



> Secondly, it doesn't seem to be the interpretation Rich is espousing, to say that because all men tend toward religious beliefs, they therefore know of God in some sense. Rich seems to be saying that all men know the true God inherently, by virtue of being born here on earth. Thus, if what you suggest could be a possible interpretation, then it is still not the one Rich is defending.



What I'm trying to get at is, do we really have a solid reason to dispense with the historical rendering of the text?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Secondly, it doesn't seem to be the interpretation Rich is espousing, to say that because all men tend toward religious beliefs, they therefore know of God in some sense. Rich seems to be saying that all men know the true God inherently, by virtue of being born here on earth. Thus, if what you suggest could be a possible interpretation, then it is still not the one Rich is defending.


I'm not saying it's because they are born here on Earth but because:
1. God has revealed it to them.
2. God says they know this revelation, including His invisible attributes. God states that it is *clearly seen*.
3. God says they suppress this revelation.
4. Man has this knowledge within him by virtue of His creation in the image of God (has the Law of God written on his heart).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

Furthermore, as I noted earlier that these texts cannot be taken in isolation from the continuation of Paul's argument as he proceeds in Romans 2 (which is not a Chapter marker that Paul put into the text):


> 1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
> 
> 2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.


This is not a past event but a present activity of mankind as he presents it. You simply cannot make Paul speak of a hypothetical past tense of humanity that supresses knowledge of God, that God gives over to ungodliness, and then try to insert that into the flow of Paul's argument. Paul is building a case for the universal condemnation of man - those that don't possess the written Law (Gentiles) and those that do (Jews). All are left in condemnation by the time he concludes his argument about the unrighteousness of men.

Romans 3:23


> 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God



Where, in Paul's presentation, can this be establish for _all_ if only the Jews are under condemnation because you have left every Gentile out of such condemnation because, according to your presentation, Romans 1:18ff is in the past?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

christianyouth said:


> Also you bring up a good point about not all men engaging in(or even desiring to) homosexual relationship, while Romans 1, if speaking of an individual, would seem to say that homosexuality is indulged in by the natural man(since the subject of Rom 1 is not just said to seek to suppress the truth of God, but also to burn with desire toward other men).



Paul's point in this catalog of sins that proceed from idolatry is not to imply that every man individually participates in every sin listed but that these sins have their initial root in idolatry, which leads to folly, which leads to a giving over, and out of which wicked acts proceed. This is why, if you read the Prophets, you will note that Israel's idolatry is condemned and, consequently, their wickedness toward their neighbor and all the injustices that ensue.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jun 28, 2009)

Steven,

I would ask that you read through my last post and see if you think this might be an additional rendering of how individuals' do suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. This would mean that the particular passage Paul gives is focused on the historical events, as you have presented it, but that this literal historical account further develops in history and can be accounted for in the way I spoke of.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Steven,
> 
> Your interpretation of the Scriptures on this point has been condemned first by the Council of Ephesus and is semi-Pelagian at best and Pelagian at worst.



Let me qualify this statement as, in retrospect, it comes across as unnecessarily pugilistic. In noting that a particular interpretation about the Scriptures is semi-Pelagian does not necessarily imply that a person is a full blown semi-Pelagian. In shorthand, it can simply serve as a warning that a particular interpretation is consistent with a semi-Pelagian understanding of that point. I am going out on a limb here but I would guess that the person who presented the interpretation to you initially is coming from such a perspective and that presentation would be consistent with a semi-Pelagian or Pelagian Systematic understanding of the nature of man.

In other words, it's possible that your view of this point might not otherwise corrupt the remainder of your understanding of man but that would be an inconsistency and the historic understanding serves to remind that all these things fit together into a coherent picture of man's nature after the Fall whereas to try to hold a view that man doesn't really have sufficient Revelation would be, at best, an incoherency within a broader understanding.

I repent of being ornery and short in this response but I do believe that this understanding is inherently dangerous given the rest of my presentation on this thread. I should have been more patient in helping you avoid this danger.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

knight4christ8 said:


> I believe this to be a good interpretation given the context in which Paul is speaking.
> I do think a further interpretation can be given though, which does account for how this might take place in the life of every individual in history. In the context of worldviews, one must believe either that there is a God or that there is not. The suppression of theism would occur at any point in which one replaces a belief in God with the contradictory belief in either no God or lesser god(s). I believe this also would be faithful to account for how "they [and we] suppressed the truth in unrighteousness".
> 
> I am interested to hear your thoughts.



I need some clarification about how you are presenting this. Are you arguing that man's disposition to suppression of Revelation is mediated? In other words, are you saying that it is not true of man until he historically participates in this sin by actually suppressing the Truth of God?


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jun 29, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> knight4christ8 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe this to be a good interpretation given the context in which Paul is speaking.
> ...



Thanks for the question Semper. The representative headship of Adam and the resulting effects of his sin upon all his posterity are not at all affected, or interpreted in any heterodox manner, by this position. The only variance is that instead of positing that all men are inexcusable because they know God and yet don't worship Him, this position claims that all men are inexcusable because according to the clarity of general revelation man should know God and does not. 
In other words, the inexcusability is in not knowing God when we should.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 29, 2009)

knight4christ8 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > knight4christ8 said:
> ...



Where do you get this position?

When one reads Romans 1, how does one come to a position that vv. 18-21 are NOT universally applicable to each and every human being? Please explain.

Paul is telling us that man (i.e. all men) is inexcusable. Every single one has no excuse, because since creation that which is knowable about God has been shown to all - and despite the fact that they (same they) knew God, they did not worship Him as God. Although THEY KNEW God. This is prophetic speech, put in the past tense indeed, but that does not remove the applicability to all human beings. Yes, not everyone to which this passage applies is alive or has lived yet. Yet this applies to every human. 

If there is a person to whom this does not apply, then they have an excuse. The whole point Paul is making here is that not a single human being HAS an excuse for failing to worship the God that is evident to them and known through that evidence by them. Your interpretation seems quite frankly to turn Scripture on its head (and to what end, I don't know - are you trying to make God 'more fair'?)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 29, 2009)

knight4christ8 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > knight4christ8 said:
> ...



Adding to Todd's point, this creates problems when considered in light of Romans 5 and the nature of the imputation of Adam's Sin. To argue for God's condemnation in the way you have articulated is to note that God's wrath toward mankind is only mediate. That is to say that God does not have wrath on all flesh but only the flesh that has actually sinned. In your presentation, man is not under condemnation for Sin but only for the condemnation of actual sins. The Scriptures testify that it is both.

Romans 5:12-21 is key here and is why the Confessions speak of the guilt of Adam's Sin being _imputed_ to his posterity. It is why men die, including infants who have not yet committed a specific trangession. According the the above presentation, infants are not under the wrath of God and should not die until they have actually trangressed the Law of God but Romans 5 notes that all are in Adam and sinned in him because he acted as our federal head and his guilt and corruption is imputed to all of his posterity.

Thus, to argue that men are not guilty of suppressing the Truth of God in unrighteousness is to deny that Adam was guilty of this in his first Sin or to deny that the guilt and corruption of this Sin was imputed to his posterity. To deny this is to also do grave damage to the imputation of Christ's righteousness as Romans 5:12-21 serves as a comparison between Christ and Adam. As Adam's sin is imputed so is Christ's righteousness. Hence, to argue that we are only guilty of sin when we commit actual sins is to argue that we only have righteousness when we practice actual righteousness.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 29, 2009)

One point made is that not all men engage in X or Y sin, or have desire to, which is then presented as implied by the text to be a necessary result of this suppression of the truth. Cultural influence, or even "He that restraineth" may keep men from physically carrying out certain sins, even make them abhor the thought of them, but we know that looking in lust is adultery, and hatred is murder. Man left to himself is a vile and wicked creature, and anyone one who is honestly familiar with his own heart would attest to that.


----------



## christianyouth (Jun 29, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Can anyone be held to be morally responsible without some knowledge of God?
> God would be quite unjust to judge such a person, just as He would be unjust to judge a stone.



As a fair defense of the Past-tense, plural view of Rom 1:17, this view would not mean that unbelievers are justified in their unbelief, because even if this was referring to a past event, Paul still makes it clear that certain things can be known about God from nature, namely, his extreme power and his divine nature. And because of that, Gentiles were guilty, because they denied his power and divine nature and made him into something like a powerful creature(fashioned him in the likeness of man, or worse, birds and reptiles). If the Gentiles were guilty for not bowing to the image of God communicated by nature(powerful, divine), then the atheist who likewise refuses to bow to natural revelation is guilty as well.


Another great verse relevant to this topic :


> Acts 17:26-27From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 29, 2009)

> And because of that, Gentiles were guilty, because they denied his power and divine nature and made him into something like a powerful creature(fashioned him in the likeness of man, or worse, birds and reptiles)..


This is in past tense...


> If the Gentiles are guilty for not bowing to the image of God communicated by nature(powerful, divine), then of course your run-of-the-mill atheist is guilty as well.


And this is in present tense. Now you're really confusing me...


----------



## christianyouth (Jun 29, 2009)

Brad said:


> > And because of that, the Gentiles were guilty, because they denied his power and divine nature and made him into something like a powerful creature(fashioned him in the likeness of man, or worse, birds and reptiles)..
> 
> 
> This is in past tense...
> And this is in present tense. Now you're really confusing me...




Sorry Brad, I need to take more time with my posts(in the middle of another project right now).




> If the Gentiles were guilty for not bowing to the image of God communicated by nature(powerful, divine), then the atheist who likewise refuses to bow to natural revelation is guilty as well.



Fixed.

Did you really not understand the point being made?


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 29, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Are you saying that although God may be clearly revealed from the creation order, this doesn't imply that people actually have a knowledge of Him?



Yes; that God is revealing himself does not imply that S knows about God, or can properly interpret that revelation, or even is interested in that revelation, or is necessarily confronted by the revelation all the time in such a way that the person is overwhelmed and can't but believe in God. 


Now I don't understand how you get from the use of past tense verbs to describe humanity in general the notion that every person is born with an innate knowledge of the existence of God and he constantly suppresses that truth through his unrighteousness. The chain of events that Paul describes as having happened to humanity in general _clearly_ does not apply to every individual that lived, nor do I think it should be taken as such.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 29, 2009)

Rich,

I completely agree with your position, but I don't think this is a Pelagian argument (though a link is present). I think it's a difference between presuppositional and evidential apologetics. Men are without excuse, period. And yet some still think that God must be proven. I would state, simply, that all creation proves God and that He is true. In fact, all creation proves that Scripture is of God and that it is true. But an evidentialist thinks he must persuade men that there is a God first in order to begin with common ground. However, read my conclusion here before responding, for it might tie what you were saying better. 

Steven - you stated "the clarity of God's revelation is indeed necessary for his judgment of mankind to be just..." This is a terribly presumptuous statement. God needs clarify nothing and is perfectly just to do as He pleases. What He does is just because He is just. It is this perfect justice that necessitated the cross. It was the ONLY way He could justify Adam and Even not being in hell immediately upon their sin. But, the point is, if we don't understand God's justice then it is our error and we are to question ourselves rather than God's justice. I know that wasn't your intention. But your assertion necessitates such a conclusion in light of your position on natural revelation and man's culpability. However, all men everywhere stand condemned already unless they know of Christ, including the man in the deepest jungle who never hears His name. According to your statement God is not just in condemning him.

I don't think Roman's 1 deals with imputation directly at all. However, I do think that it is clear on both man's culpability in light of his inherent knowledge of God, as His creation and image bearer and on the reality that man's depravity, if left to fester unrestrained, utterly consumes even the most basic traits of our heavenly Father that may linger in the most carnal of men. This is what has happened in the distortion of our nature as a result of the fall. It is what we all are and deserve, but by God's grace. It seems that if this is understood that much of this simply begins to fall in place. It also seems that arguing against this necessitates a position that is, after all, semi-Pelagian, because it espouses man's ability to either know God or not. Man knows God, and yet suppresses what is clearly evident in unrighteousness, pursuing his love of sin and pseudo-anonymity rather than honoring the Creator he denies and rebels against.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 30, 2009)

Joe,

Paul's concern in Romans 1 is not primarily to help us choose an apologetic method. This has been my frustration throughout this thread. Notice what I say from the outset of my response:


> Increasingly I'm convinced that people that come to such conclusions have never bothered to exegete Romans in its entirety to get it to cohere into the arguments that Paul is presenting.



Paul's thesis in Romans is not to simply put forward a list of disconnected aphorisms. As I note, from the outset, a person has to pay attention to the entire presentation and then it will help put the individual arguments into context. As I noted, Romans 1:17 says:
[bible]Romans 1:17[/bible]
Is it pure coincidence that what follows in Romans 1:18-3:23 is an unpacking of the unrighteousness of men?

Does Paul intend by Romans 1:18-20 to write a sidebar about human epistemology and are we warranted in interrupting that argument to argue about whether or not men really are under the condemnation of God rather than, as is implied, only a subset of men that have suppressed Truth in the past.

The point, taken to the absurd, is that we can pull apart Paul's presentation and pull people groups out of this universal condemnation of Sin and, by the time we get to Romans 3:23 we've completely gutted the need for the Gospel. Not all flesh is condemned. There _are_ some righteous after all because we convinced ourselves in Romans 1:18ff that the men who suppress the Truth in unrighteousness was a thing of the past or we got distracted by an interesting philosophical discussion and cared more about whether or not we can use the verses for presuppositional apologetics rather than hearing the Apostle teach us about the need for the Gospel.

Romans 1 is not necessarily a dogmatic presentation on the nature of imputation but, because it is in the overarching presentation, you cannot ignore the implications of Sin and its nature as it is explained in Romans 5. The universal character of guilt and culpability that is imputed to us cannot be considered as if it has no bearing on Romans 1:18ff. There would be no explanation for the fact that the wrath of God is poured out on all flesh nor that all flesh suppresses the Truth in unrighteousness if God had not imputed the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin to his posterity.

Hence, whether Romans 1 deals directly with imputation is beside the point. If you ignore imputation then, as before, a person is ignoring the argument in its entirety and cherry picking verses to satisfy curiosity.

In the end, this is not an argument for/against presuppositional or evidential apologetics. This is an argument for/against the Gospel. I have been very forceful here because some are so intent to focus on the incidentals that they are weighing in on distractions where I'm trying to guard an incoherency from destroying the force of Paul's argument. There are places to discuss systematically the import of certain verses for understanding how man knows God and the nature of suppression but those fine philosophical points need to wait when an argument jeopardizes the Gospel and somebody is laboring to show how the part fits within the whole.


----------



## Confessor (Jun 30, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Yes; that God is revealing himself does not imply that S knows about God, or can properly interpret that revelation, or even is interested in that revelation, or is necessarily confronted by the revelation all the time in such a way that the person is overwhelmed and can't but believe in God.



I would say it actually implies _all_ of those. When we talk about natural revelation, we are talking not only about nature that man can see, but about every single thing created, including even man's own thought processes and self-consciousness. God is "clearly seen" in all of natural revelation, and therefore it follows that (1) man is necessarily confronted by Him all the time such that he is overwhelmed and can't but believe in God; (2) he must be interested in Him, just as we would be interested in the color red if we could not but see it everywhere; (3) he must be able to interpret it, "because God has made it plain to [him]"; and (4) he therefore knows God in some sense.

By the way, the interpretation in (3) is _non-inferential_; I didn't just become a classical apologist. 



steven-nemes said:


> The chain of events that Paul describes as having happened to humanity in general _clearly_ does not apply to every individual that lived, nor do I think it should be taken as such.


[bible]Romans 1:18-25[/bible]
First, vv. 18-20 are all in present tense, notably including the phrase, "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" (present perfect). And then Paul immediately goes on to say in the past tense that men did not honor God or give thanks, but rather had their hearts darkened and turned to depraved lusts, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator.

While I am not absolutely positive in this exegesis, it seems that Paul is going from a universal statement (that all men are without excuse due to the perspicuity of natural revelation) to a more particular instantiation, but yet the instantiation itself can apply to tons of unregenerates today (only the homosexual description limits the scope of it; every other description applies to all unregenerates without exception). _Most importantly, the universal statement that Paul makes prior to the instantiation is what proves the universal knowledge of God._ So, even if you establish that the instantiation applies only to those people Paul is talking about and to no one else, it does not really help your case.

Furthermore, as seen in Romans 2:1,
[bible]Rom2:1[/bible]
Paul makes it clear that the preceding chapter was intended to be universal -- otherwise it would not apply to anyone who passes judgment on another. Therefore I think it's pretty clear that the instantiation applies not only to those particular unregenerates. Most of the descriptions (excluding the homosexuality part) applies to all unregenerates.

As a result, I would have to say it's far from clear that Paul is speaking only of mankind "in general." I'm not even sure that's an option from the text. If you want to reduce the scope from universal, then it appears you must drop to particular, not "general" (as if Paul is speaking only of "every pagan without distinction").

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 09:34:20 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> There are places to discuss systematically the import of certain verses for understanding how man knows God and the nature of suppression but those fine philosophical points need to wait when an argument jeopardizes the Gospel and somebody is laboring to show how the part fits within the whole.



Rich, I agree with this, and I'm using it to defend the presuppositionalist interpretation of the passage. That is, since I think it is clear Paul is talking about the universal condemnation and sinfulness of all men without exception from Rom. 1-3, it follows that the suppression of truth in unrighteousness etc. is not limited to a particular group of people or to mankind in general. Original Sin and Total Depravity are aspects of the Gospel no doubt, but they affect one's apologetic as well.

I was not trying to say that in Romans 1:18ff. Paul is trying to teach us apologetics in isolation from the point of the Gospel he's trying to make.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 30, 2009)

Ben,

That's fine but keep in mind that sometimes that larger issues can be forgotten if we embark upon distractions.

I heard an excellent quote from Calvin yesterday that I don't have the exact words but it was essentially to the effect that we, as sinners, are more likely to stumble into error on the basis of one word than be corrected by a lengthy explanation.

In other words, my very first post and throughout has been saying "focus on the big picture so you don't lose the Gospel in all of this!" It's not that I'm disinterested in the apologetic concern but the error is more fundamentally dangerous.

I appreciate the fact that you reinforced the point I made earlier that Romans 2:1 doesn't make sense if the condemnation is not universal. Romans 3:23 doesn't make sense either.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 30, 2009)

Rich,

That's why I said I agreed with you. 

My only point, to you, was that I didn't think it was necessarily semi-Pelagian because of the apologetic views that might influence or be derived from one's understanding. However, as I closed my post it became evident that entirely separating such a view from semi-Pelagianism was impossible for all the reasons you stated. I actually thought my post complemented yours. If I err then it must be because I misunderstand you. Either way, I didn't think it necessary to focus on imputation in Romans 1 because, from my perspective, it becomes distracting. It is developed too well in Romans 5 with the depravity of man so clearly represented in Romans 1 as a foundational support. Clearly present is also God's withdrawal of restraint, leaving the carnal man to his futility as He "gives them over" to further debasement. All of this in light of the FACT that all men inherently know of their Creator, yet deny Him in unrighteousness, desiring to bow before His creation instead. Again, I thought this was all complementary to what you had stated.

Blessings,


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks, I wasn't trying to be pugilistic but explanatory.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 30, 2009)

As Rich and others have so clearly stated, the whole purpose of the first two-and-a-half chapters of Romans (to 3:20) is to show, without equivocation, that the entire human race is, with the exception only of Jesus Christ, poisoned by sin - the sin nature which we have all inherited from our first parents. The very fact that our Lord is exempt from having the sin nature serves to prove Paul's point regarding the rest of us!

As part of proving his point, Paul also shows that all human beings, without exception, know that God exists, through their consciences and their observation of the creation. Another passage, poetic in nature, that can be marshalled to support this is Ecclesiastes 3:11 - "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, *He has put eternity into man's heart*, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."

It is an inescapable fact - taught consistently throughout the Word of God - that all human beings are aware of the existence of God, and that all human beings (with one exception) possess the sin nature.

To deny these two facts is to cease to be orthodox at this point.


----------

