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?
__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ
Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis
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.
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site. SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
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.
__________________
Gregory Goodrich
Grad Student
Paedo-baptist
Westminster Fellowship ~ Phx, AZ
The Following User Says Thank You to knight4christ8 For This Useful Post:
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.
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post:
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.
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.
Quote:
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
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,3 and so became dead in sin,4 and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.5
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;6 and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.7
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,8 and wholly inclined to all evil,9 do proceed all actual transgressions.10
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;11 and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.12
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,13 does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,14 whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,15 and curse of the law,16 and so made subject to death,17 with all miseries spiritual,18 temporal,19 and eternal.20
1 GEN 3:13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 2CO 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 ROM 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
3 GEN 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. ECC 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
4 GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. EPH 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.
5 TIT 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. GEN 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. JER 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
6 GEN 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. ACT 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. ROM 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 1CO 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
7 PSA 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. GEN 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. JOB 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
8 ROM 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ROM 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. ROM 7:18 For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. COL 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.
9 GEN 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
10 JAM 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. EPH 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. MAT 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
11 1JO 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. ROM 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. JAM 3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
12ROM 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. GAL 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
13 1JO 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
14 ROM 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. ROM 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
15 EPH 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
16 GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
17 ROM 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
18 EPH 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.
19 ROM 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. LAM 3:39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?
20 MAT 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 2TH 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.
The Following User Says Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post:
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,
23and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
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 :Paul seems to enjoy confusing me by going between past tense and present tense i.e. Romans 7. It's confusing!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
God has no basis for judging Idolatry if His Revelation of Himself is unclear.
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.
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.
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.
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?
__________________
Jonathan
Audio Engineer
Reformed Anabaptist
Ohio
Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:
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.
Quote:
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:
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post:
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.
__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana
Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant. John Donne
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyler
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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?
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).
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):
Quote:
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
Quote:
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by py3ak; 06-28-2009 at 08:15 PM.
Reason: Off-topic
The Following User Says Thank You to knight4christ8 For This Useful Post:
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.
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?
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?
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.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to knight4christ8 For This Useful Post:
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?
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.
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'?)
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?
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.
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post:
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.
__________________
Brad
Member- Eagle Heights PCA
Winchester, VA
Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
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 :
Quote:
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.
Last edited by christianyouth; 06-29-2009 at 12:37 PM.
Reason: Syntax correction
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...
Quote:
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...
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).
Quote:
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?
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.
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.
__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org
I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS
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:
Quote:
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:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven-nemes
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.
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, worshiping 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,
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-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis
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.
__________________ Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH
Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.
-Jonathan Edwards-
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.
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,
The Following User Says Thank You to Wannabee For This Useful Post:
Linear Mode
