Romans 1, and inexcusability

[Mushroom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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-----

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bookslover]

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.