Stock Atheist Insults / Flesh vs. Spirit / Did Paul Wallow in “Personal Torment”?

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on the epistle to the Romans (written by St. Paul) by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, “Bad Bible Theology: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Let me count the ways…that Paul got it wrong” (2-26-18). He devotes a paper to each chapter. Unless he repeats himself (a bad habit of his) or descends to sheer biblical skepticism (which I have less than no interest in), I will reply to all. 

The introduction is basically a catalogue of rank insults, where he calls St. Paul “a crank” and a “delusional cult fanatic” and “the prototype for Christian crazies” and “an obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian” and “an embarrassment.” He adds: “how can anyone take this guy seriously?” That about covers the “content” there. Bears poop in the woods, brats throw fits, squirrels walk telephone lines, and the prevalent anti-theist brand of atheists insult Christians. Ho hum. What else is new?

Thus far, I have counter-replied to 31 of Dr. Madison’s critiques, from three different series, without hearing one peep back from him as of yet (28 days’ total time, starting on 8-1-19). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. I know he’s still alive and kicking, because I’ve seen him write other posts during this same period (example one / two / three).

Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

Dr. Madison calls his critique of Romans chapter 7, “Gosh, Why Is THAT in the Bible?: One big chunk of the New Testament can go in the trash” (4-21-17).

No, there is no such thing as a Holy Man who is privy to God’s thoughts . . . 

Really? No saints, no prophets, no apostles, and no Jesus Who is God, no fathers and doctors of the Church? What a despairing view.

As any layperson who has plowed through the whole Bible will testify, there seems to be a lot that doesn’t need to be there, that shouldn’t be there. The common sense reaction, “How in the world is this the Word of God?” applies to literally thousands of texts—although many folks wouldn’t say so out loud.

So I guess we need a wise guy like Dr. Madison to decide what makes the cut in the Bible, rather than holy people (whose existence he has just denied) and the Church of God deciding such mundane things for us.

Just how bad can some scripture be? . . . in terms of pathetic human babbling—resulting in pathetic theobabble—it would be pretty hard to beat Romans 7. In fact my distaste for Paul goes back to my teenage years; Bible geek though I was, I dreaded reading his clunky letters. Then in 1992 I came across British scholar A.N. Wilson’s perfect description of Paul: “To say that he was self-contradictory is an understatement. He was a man who was fighting himself and quarreling with himself all the time; and he managed to project the warfare in his own breast on to the Cosmos itself” (Jesus, p. 23).

That explains quite a bit. Dr. Madison ran across this slop in 1992: as arrogant and assuming as his own endless trashings of the Bible, and it apparently set him on the course that ended in atheistic despair. We are what we eat. As Paul wisely stated:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. 

Dr. Madison found Wilson, Carrier, and others to satisfy his itching ears, and he has regurgitated their irrational pablum ever since (looks like).

So would this be your first choice for a guy to write scripture? No. His personal torment did not result in insights about God.

Yes (were it for me to select). I absolutely love St. Paul and his personality and style. He’s on my short list (with Jesus, Mary, St. Augustine, St. Therese, St. Teresa of Avila, and Cardinal Newman) of people to go talk to, when I (Lord willing) get to heaven. I guess that makes me a nutty fanatic, too, huh? So be it. The so-called “smart people” insulted Paul from the beginning. In Athens, this is what some of the pointy-heads said about him: “Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, ‘What would this babbler say?'” (Acts 17:18a). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Writing Theology from the Therapist Couch

Paul felt that sin was a cosmic force, and—much like an aggressive cancer—invades people to their very core:

Exactly right. It’s called original sin and concupiscence (propensity to sin). It’s the easiest Christian and biblical doctrine to defend, as it is self-evident by observing any and all people.

“For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.” (7:14-20)

He had super-sized internalized low self-esteem. Today we would advise therapy and even meds is some cases.

Nonsense. Christians draw a stark distinction between the flesh (which means that part of fallen humanity that wars against God, and is separate from the Holy Spirit and grace; not literal flesh) and the spirit: a common rhetorical dichotomy in Paul: especially in Romans 8 and Galatians 5. Paul is highlighting the flesh and its fruits in this chapter, just as he will highlight (in deliberate contradistinction) the triumphant Spirit in chapter 8.

It’s a dramatic build-up, so to speak. He is saying here that we can’t win this battle with our flesh and sinful desires, by ourselves (the heresy of Pelagianism or works-salvation). We need God’s enabling grace and power (which he details in the next chapter).

This is not low self-esteem; this is the reality of very flawed and frail human beings. But those who deny sin have to redefine and rationalize this sort of statement away. The way Dr. Madison does it is to classify St. Paul as a mentally ill nut and fanatic, in need of medication for his malady, rather than admit that he himself ever suffers from what Paul describes here.

I think it is far more “mentally ill” and abnormal (not to mention prideful) to deny that we have any sin or struggles with sin, than to openly admit the obvious.

But he was sure that the Cosmos had provided a fix for his anguish. “Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” This is personal theism with a vengeance; Paul had horrible forebodings about a wrathful God aware of his inability to defeat sin. However, he had discovered, through his hallucinations, the magical solution: believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Verse 7: “Brothers, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.” But did this really work for Paul? He’s complaining a lot in these verses about the on-going battle: “Wretched man that I am!”

Yes, it did work, for him and for Christians generally. See Romans 8 and Paul’s entire corpus. We can be sure that if Paul didn’t write this chapter about human frailty, then atheists like Dr, Madison would be saying that he is merely “pie-in-the-sky” and a juvenile fantasist divorced from reality of human struggles and sufferings and existential angst. But if he does write it, we get this condescending, patronizing tripe. If he didn’t express this aspect of the Christian life, then the cry no doubt would be that all Christians are self-righteous and “holier-than-thou”: folks who deny that they have any problems, who live in self-delusion. We just can’t win.

Now it’ll be fun to see what Dr. Madison does with Romans 8. Perhaps he will say that is unreality and pie-in-the-sky “magic.” When Paul appears too “happy” then atheists will say he is nuts (excessive religious “enthusiasm” etc.), but if it looks like he is too sad, he is a nut. See how it works? It’s Jekyll and Hyde. Paul is two-faced. We Christians are madmen no matter what we believe or express. We can never be right.

Bear in mind that this outburst is made in a letter to a church he’s never visited. 

So what? We’re to believe that every pen pal relationship of people who never met is invalid?

From Galatians 2 we know that he didn’t get along with Peter . . . 

From Galatians 2 what we know is that he rebuked Peter one time for behavioral hypocrisy. Big deal. The Bible says that “faithful are the wounds of a friend” and “rebuke a wise man and he will love you.” That proves nothing about any supposed ongoing difficulty. I’ve rebuked my children scores of times. Does it follow that I don’t “get along” with them? No!: not logically, and not in actual fact.

For one who thinks himself so wise (able to judge, mock, and dismiss the Bible and holy persons at the drop of a hat), Dr. Madison seems exceedingly naive and unrealistic about human relationships (in drawing such a ridiculous conclusion).

His theology may have appealed to simple-minded converts, but how was he perceived personally? Who knows—when the scroll was received, some of them may have rolled their eyes: “Oh no, not another letter from that insufferable dingbat.”

This is what passes for “rational argument” in Dr. Madison’s eyes . . . 

Forgive me for resorting to a cliché, but the theology spun from Paul’s tortured brain reminds me of Macbeth’s bitter lament about life; the only words that don’t apply to Paul—darn it—are “then is heard no more.”

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

How melodramatic. This is self-refuting so I need not give it any further attention.

***

Photo credit: Paul in Athens, on Mars Hill, Anonymous (19th century German) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Conversion & Apostolic Credentials / Pre-Pauline Evangelism / “Rogue Apostle”? / Falsely Alleged Fears / Universal Atonement / Foolishness of the Cross / Unspiritual Persons

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on the epistle to the Romans (written by St. Paul) by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, “Bad Bible Theology: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Let me count the ways…that Paul got it wrong” (2-26-18). He devotes a paper to each chapter. Unless he repeats himself (a bad habit of his) or descends to sheer biblical skepticism (which I have less than no interest in), I will reply to all. 

The introduction is basically a catalogue of rank insults, where he calls St. Paul “a crank” and a “delusional cult fanatic” and “the prototype for Christian crazies” and “an obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian” and “an embarrassment.” He adds: “how can anyone take this guy seriously?” That about covers the “content” there. Bears poop in the woods, brats throw fits, squirrels walk telephone lines, and the prevalent anti-theist brand of atheists insult Christians. Ho hum. What else is new?

Thus far, I have counter-replied to / answered 28 of Dr. Madison’s critiques, from three different series, without hearing one peep back from him as of yet (25 days’ total time). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. I know he’s still alive and kicking, because I’ve seen him write other posts during this same period.

Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

Dr. Madison calls his critique of Romans chapter 5, “Theology Written Under the Influence of OCD: When you don’t bother to have your work checked…” (3-24-17).

When you don’t bother to have your work checked…

If you’re looking for Bible texts that are red-flag worthy (a good project, I might suggest, for Christian[s] who are wondering, Why am I taking this stuff seriously?) here’s one to put on your list: Galatians 1:11-12, in which the apostle Paul positions himself for maximum credibility: 

“For I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

So picture this. Paul experienced his dramatic Damascus Road conversion to Christ—he never gives the exact details in his letters—those we find in three fictionalized versions in the Book of Acts.

Why would he have to, if the book of Acts contains two firsthand accounts from him (22:5-16; 26:12-21)? Of course it is completely arbitrary and speculative to say they are “fictionalized versions”. This is more of the atheist silliness when it comes to any Bible text that they either dispute or don’t care for. But no one else is obligated to accept the “Gospel Truth” that some portion is merely a made-up story. I’ve been reading Paul and the rest of the Bible for 42 years now, and am very familiar with his style and personality. These two accounts in Acts sure sound like him to me.

Wouldn’t you think that, after bouncing back from the trauma of hearing Jesus from the sky (which included being struck blind), he would have rushed back to Galilee or Jerusalem to find the disciples? Surely there were apologies to be made for his persecution campaigns, and surely he would be desperate to learn as much as he could about Jesus, whom he had never met.

Yes, it seems like he would, but people don’t always do what we might expect them to do. We have no good reason to doubt the story as told.

But no, Paul bragged to the Galatian Christians about not getting his information from disciples and eyewitnesses. All he knows came from “revelations.”

How is this necessarily to be regarded as “bragging”? If revelations do indeed exist, it’s perfectly plausible. But of course, Dr. Madison denies that revelations exist, because he thinks there is no God to give them. So obviously for him it is all nonsense and fairy tales. He can believe whatever he likes, but the mere fact that he disbelieves something is no proof that it is nonexistent.

What? Let that sink in. Why aren’t Christians massively suspicious about this? Why would you pay any attention whatever to a man who hallucinated his way into this new Jewish cult?

Obviously because we believe in revelations and in the power of Jesus to transform lives. I’ve experienced it myself. A vision is not a hallucination. The first is a real thing; the second is not.

Paul is celebrated as the first great missionary hero, but somehow the faith had already spread to Damascus (Paul was headed there to try to put a stop to it). 

This is yet another non-issue.  “First great missionary hero” (which Paul was) is logically distinct from “first Christian missionary / missionaries”. Paul’s conversion “is normally dated to AD 33–36” (Wikipedia, “Conversion of Paul the Apostle”), whereas the death of Jesus occurred in about 30 AD. That allowed 3-6 years of missionary activity before Paul became a Christian or evangelist.

There was already outreach to Gentiles during Jesus’ ministry (as I detailed in another reply to Dr. Madison). Jesus gave His disciples the great commission, to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19), and we also had the seventy disciples (Lk 10:1-20) doing outreach: which plausibly and likely could and would have included Gentiles by this time.

Some early Christian figures, like Hippolytus (c. 170-235) believed that Ananias was one of the seventy. But whether he was or not, there was plenty of time for him to be in Damascus as a Christian, and for him and other Christians to be proclaiming the gospel there. It was only 136 miles from Jerusalem, as the crow flies. Antioch and Cyprus were further away (300 and 254 miles). But we know that missionaries arrived in both places after the scattering (Acts 8:1b, 4) as a result of the persecution of Stephen (which Paul witnessed and approved of: Acts 8:1a):

Acts 11:19-20 (RSV) Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni’cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews. [20] But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyre’ne, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.

Therefore, if they made it that far before Paul even converted, certainly some would have preached (and/or resided) in Damascus: less than half the distance from Jerusalem, compared to Antioch, and 118 miles closer than Cyprus: both of which were being evangelized before Paul became a Christian. 

Even more remarkably, early on there was a congregation in Rome—without Paul’s help. As the faith spread, we have to wonder just what, exactly, the earliest unlettered Christians believed and taught about Jesus. Actually, we have no idea.

All it would take was one zealous missionary Christian, on a boat from Israel to Rome, to start a church there.

It would seem there was no uniform message about Jesus. Paul himself complains about this, e.g., in 2 Corinthians 11:4, “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.”

That’s right. There are always heretics and false prophets. Jesus predicted it, and Paul expresses the same opinion in his letters. But the existence of counterfeits does not disprove that the authentic apostolic Christian teaching and Divine Person of Jesus exists.

When we read Paul’s self-designation as a rogue apostle, we can suspect that Paul himself was a culprit in spreading fake news about Jesus. His ‘truth’ about Jesus came out of his own head. No one seems to have asked, “Can you verify that?” or “Can you do some fact-checking with the original disciples to make sure you’ve got it right?” Paul didn’t have anyone check his work. 

It was later verified as authentic teaching and a legitimate calling from God, in consultation with other apostles (Gal 1:18-19; 2:1-9). This is certainly people “check[ing] his work,” isn’t it? Paul also participated in the Council of Jerusalem, presided over by James and Peter (Acts 15:1-29): which “official” teaching he then proclaimed on his missionary journeys (16:4).

This can hardly be construed as “rogue”: when he participated in the most important Christian council prior to Nicea in 325, and then announced its teachings as binding. It’s just one of the innumerable “Madison myths.” I’ve addressed this issue also with a Protestant: Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a “Lone Ranger”?

Nor did anyone really care: if he claimed a revelation, that was awesome enough.

This is untrue as well, as the account in Acts records with regard to his immediate post-conversion period:

Acts 9:26-27 And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. [27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 

His tortured theology, his personal terrors and OCD, shaped his hallucinated chats with the risen Jesus—and we see this full strength in Romans 5.

Quintessential example of the logical fallacy of “poisoning the well”. Nothing whatsoever in this laundry list is established beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is not hard to read between the lines that Paul was terrified of death, and he was distraught about his own unworthiness before God.

Yes, his abject fear of death is utterly apparent in these two passages (who could possibly doubt it?):

Philippians 1:21-24 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. [22] If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. [23] I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. [24] But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. 

2 Timothy 4:6-8 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. 

As to his supposed “unworthiness before God”: that is, I submit, a projection of Luther’s continual unease onto Paul (Dr. Madison again bringing false Protestant baggage into his analyses). I cited my friend Al Kresta in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, along these lines:

Unlike the modern Evangelical-Protestant revivalistic preaching tradition, the Apostle Paul was not preoccupied with his acceptance as a sinner before a holy and righteous God. That was Luther’s crisis. Protestants have tended to read Paul through the lens of Luther’s experience.

1…. Luther said he feared God but clung to the Apostle Paul. All the constitutive elements of the classic Luther-type experience, however, are missing in both the experience and the thought of the Apostle.

Unlike Luther, Paul was not preoccupied with his guilt, seeking reassurance of a gracious God. He was rather robust of conscience, even given to boasting, untroubled about whether God was gracious or not [Phil. 3:4 ff.; 2 Cor. 10, 11]. He knew God was gracious. He never pleads either with Jews or Gentiles to feel an anguished conscience and then receive release from that anguish in a message of forgiveness. . . . Paul’s burden is not to “bring people under conviction of sin,” as in revival services. Forgiveness is simply a matter of fact.

When Paul speaks of himself as a serious sinner, it is . . . very specifically because . . . he had persecuted the Church and missed God’s new move — opening the covenant community to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 15:9-10; Eph. 3:8; Gal. 1:1316; 1 Tim. 1:13-15). (p. 41) 

The wretchedness of humanity was part of the very fabric of reality as Paul perceived it: introduced by Adam, sin was a disease that cursed every human. This was so dangerous because God’s default emotion is wrath; God regards us as his enemies (v. 10). But Paul was sure he knew how to get right with God.

There is original sin, of course, but Protestants distort its extent and nature, and Dr. Madison exaggerates God’s antipathy or hostility to mankind. This is the loving God of the Bible (expressed by Paul / universal atonement):

Romans 5:6 While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass [original sin], much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (cf. 5:17, 20-21)

Romans 11:32 For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. [15] And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.. . .

1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

He had it all worked out that wrath flipped to love through the gimmick of Jesus dying (“we have been justified by his blood,” Romans 5:9): “…we will be saved through him from the wrath of God.” The essence of Paul’s theology is found in one of the most famous verses in the letter (v. 8): “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” This is so embedded in Christian piety that it’s hard to grasp that this is magical thinking; Romans 5:19 helps bring this to our attention: “For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

For Dr. Madison it is superstitious magic and a “gimmick”; for us Christians it is God’s love expressed in His merciful, gracious plan to save anyone who accepts His free offer of grace and an eternity in heaven in blissful union with Him. As always — when he comments on supernatural and purely spiritual things — , he makes no argument against God’s method of salvation and atonement. He simply assumes that his readers will agree with him that it is absurd; so all he does is mock.

That’s not how reasoned argumentation works, I’m afraid, but it sure is how echo chamber / groupthink clones and sheep atheist forums work. He does the same tired thing in his next paragraph (even bringing in the wonderful word, “Abracadabra” for effect), so I will pass over it.

This scheme should provoke a stunning this-does-not-make-sense moment. Guy P. Harrison has made one of those yes-of-course statements for which he is so well known: “No one seems to know why a god who makes all the rules and answers to no one couldn’t just pardon us and skip the barbaric crucifixion event entirely.” (Christianity in the Light of Science, Loftus, editor, 2016)

Yes, of course He could have done that, had He chosen to. God was under no obligation to be horribly tortured and die for us. He could have simply proclaimed as saved those who chose to obediently follow Him. Any educated Christian knows this, but Guy P. Harrison seems utterly unaware of it for some strange reason. But the passion and crucifixion was in fact how God set it up, in order to show the immensity of His love. We (including atheists) honor war heroes who willingly die for others, or police officers and firefighters (such as those at 9-11) who are willing to risk death for the sake of others, and sometimes actually do die.

Yet when it comes to God doing the same thing for all of us, we so often get mockery and stupefied noncomprehension and lack of gratefulness from atheists. It’s one thing to simply not believe in something; but to mock and lambast what one clearly doesn’t understand in the first place is a bit much to take. But we understand that it comes from people who are (by free choice) lacking in grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote about these things:

Romans 1:21-22 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 

1 Corinthians 1:18, 21-25 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. . . . [21] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. [22] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, [23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, [24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 

1 Corinthians 2:11-14, 16 For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. [14] The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. . . . [16] . . . But we have the mind of Christ. 

Dr. Madison exhibits all this dumbfounded inability to understand Jesus and God’s glorious plan of salvation in spades, particularly in this ludicrous comment:

One of Richard Carrier’s more acerbic descriptions of Jesus pulls us back to the reality of how much we don’t know about the guy: “…an uneducated rural construction worker from some inglorious town in the middle of nowhere…” (The End of Christianity, Loftus editor, 2011) This was God’s instrument for diverting his wrath from the multitudes of his human enemies? 

He expresses these sad, pathetic, pitiful things because he is an apostate. St. Peter wrote about such men:

2 Peter 2:15, 20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

So did St. Paul:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. 

May God have special mercy on Dr. Madison and open his eyes. We Christians know that God wants to do so, but it’s up to . . . Dr. Madison to accept His free offer of grace and salvation. Please Lord!

***

Photo credit: Apostle Saint Paul, by El Greco (1541-1614) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

God’s Fair Judgment / Soteriology / God Knowing Our Thoughts / Chosen People

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on the epistle to the Romans (written by St. Paul) by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, “Bad Bible Theology: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Let me count the ways…that Paul got it wrong” (2-26-18). He devotes a paper to each chapter. Unless he repeats himself (a bad habit of his) or descends to sheer biblical skepticism (which I have less than no interest in), I will reply to all. 

The introduction is basically a catalogue of rank insults, where he calls St. Paul “a crank” and a “delusional cult fanatic” and “the prototype for Christian crazies” and “an obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian” and “an embarrassment.” He adds: “how can anyone take this guy seriously?” That about covers the “content” there. Bears poop in the woods, brats throw fits, squirrels walk telephone lines, and the prevalent anti-theist brand of atheists insult Christians. Ho hum. What else is new?

Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

Dr. Madison calls his critique of Romans chapter 2, “Is the Church really filled with hypocrites? No.: But the apostle Paul noticed a few… “ (2-10-17).

Paul goes on this rant against hypocrites although he had never visited the congregation in Rome. Near the end of the letter, in chapter 16, he says “hi” to quite a few people whom he knows there, so maybe he had reports of unsavory conduct. In 1:11 he had written, “I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you.” Hence his strong words against hypocrisy; maybe he’s giving advance warning?

We can give him credit for impatience with hypocrisy, but then nasty Paul resumes the rant. God will run out of patience: “…for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil” (vv.8-9). Wrath, fury, anguish, distress. Paul’s message here reminds us of John the Baptist’s severe words for the religious leaders who came out to hear him preach: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee the wrath to come? …even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7-10) Yes, there are Hallmark moments in Paul’s letters, but there is uncompressing severity as well. Don’t get carried away bragging about a ‘god of love’ in the New Testament.

I dealt with this false idea that God’s judgment or reference to it by His creatures (like Paul) is somehow supposedly immediately an evil, wicked thing, in the previous installment. No need to go over old ground . . . But we see that Dr. Madison will often be repeating himself once again: a hallmark of his attack against the Gospel of Mark also.

Can It Be? A Hint at Secular Ethics?

Again, to his credit, Paul saw that being in God’s favor didn’t depend on being Jewish, i.e., in the company of those who had heard God’s law for centuries. “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (v. 13). No matter who you are, you can qualify, and I find vv. 14-15 startling; did Paul really realize what he was saying: “When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness…” Do instinctively…written on their hearts…their own conscience bears witness? Atheists who argue that we don’t need religion to behave morally embrace these very concepts.

I wondered aloud in my previous reply how Dr. Madison would deal with this. I thought he might deny that Paul wrote it. Instead, he gives him credit, and calls this “secular ethics.” It may be part of secular ethics (although those don’t usually reference God), but it is also Christian ethics and always has been. I give Dr. Madison credit as well, for recognizing and praising this portion that he would agree with. Not bad: to be written by “a crank” and a “the prototype for Christian crazies” huh? 

I noted this passage way back in 2003, in one of my more “conciliatory” papers about atheism.

But Paul is caught in a major contradiction here, because he really doesn’t mean what he says in verse 10, i.e., that glory, honor and peace are for everyone who does good. The heart of Pauline theology, so earnestly embraced by Luther, was justification by faith, as stated so bluntly by Paul in Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” No amount of ‘doing good’ will do the trick.

There is no contradiction. This is simply Dr. Madison the former Methodist, interpreting Paul the way Protestants do. Paul teaches precisely what Catholics hold, regarding justification and salvation, as I have shown in many papers:

St. Paul on Justification, Sanctification, & Salvation [1996]

Romans 2-4 & “Works of the Law”: Patristic Interpretation [2-16-01]

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11]

St. Paul’s Use of the Term “Gift” & Infused Justification [2013]

“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans [11-18-15]

Philippians 2:12 & “Work[ing] Out” One’s Salvation [1-26-16]

‘Doers of the Law’ Are Justified, Says St. Paul [National Catholic Register, 5-22-19]

The Invasion-of-Privacy God

No surprise: personal monotheism is stated here with a vengeance. Paul is confident that, on the Day of Judgment, “…God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” (v. 16) God will judge your thoughts! The theologians who came up with this idea discovered the formula for terrorizing people.

“The theologians” didn’t come up with anything. This was part of God’s revelation. It’s called omniscience: i.e., God knows everything. Thus, this would include human thoughts. It was taught in the Old Testament long before Paul was born:

1 Chronicles 28:9 (RSV) …the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought.… (cf. 1 Ki 8:39; 2 Chr 6:30; Ps 44:21; Is 66:18; Ezek 11:5; Mt 6:8; Lk 16:15; Acts 1:24; Rom 8:27; Heb 4:13)

Psalm 147:5 Great is our LORD, and abundant in power;  his understanding is beyond measure. (cf. Job 36:4; 37:16; Is 40:28; 46:10; 48:3; Acts 15:18)

I suppose it would be a source of terror for unrepentant sinners on judgment day. But of course, that’s not God‘s fault. They chose to reject Him.

Jesus was in the same camp (at least as depicted by those who created the fictional Galilean peasant); he claimed that the hairs of our head are numbered—and the deity knows as well the thought-crimes inside our skulls: lust is the equivalent of adultery.

Yes He was. This hits upon a major component of atheism, or the subjective reasons for atheism. The atheist (or any unrepentant, active sinner) doesn’t like the idea of God watching over them and knowing what they are doing. That goes against the desire for human autonomy and freedom that we all have or tend to have. And so the easiest way to get rid of this “cosmic supervision” is to deny that God exists.

I once had a parishioner who was worried that people were watching her through the TV. Crazy, yes, but just drop the TV, and that’s what personal monotheism is: God is always watching you. Who thinks it’s cool to have cameras—installed by the state, our boss, landlord or a god—spying on us in our bedrooms and bathrooms—indeed, everywhere? And with the capacity for getting inside our heads. This evil theology should be off-putting to decent people.

See what I mean? Dr. Madison demonstrates for one and all precisely what I just stated (and I am answering as I read: as is my usual custom and modus operandi). I would say that “decent” Christians aren’t offended by this. It’s simply part of Who God is: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. This knowledge (of God and our awareness of it) should cause us to reform our bad behavior. But if a person doesn’t want to do that, then he or she would be hostile to all these related ideas: hence also to God; and so they reject Him and deny that He exists.

As for the folks who have lost their faith and mourn its passing, Christopher Hitchens asked why—why would you want it back? Personal monotheism is totalitarianism: you can’t even have ‘secret thoughts’ without God knowing. Heaven, Hitchens said, is a celestial North Korea. He couldn’t imagine anyone yearning for it.

Right. I submit that he can’t imagine anyone who wants to hold on to sinful behavior and thoughts, contrary to God’s will, liking the idea that God knows all their thoughts.

Paul and Jesus should rub people the wrong way because they claimed to be on a first name basis with the Invasion-of-Privacy god. Beware all who position themselves this way—and posture accordingly. They rate themselves as supremely qualified to tell the rest of us what to do. As we go through the Letter to the Romans we will see that Paul specializes in just that.

God’s messengers tell us what God revealed about Himself. Why would anyone expect otherwise (on the assumption that God exists)? So, don’t blame them; blame the God Who motivates and sends them.

A Positive Note at the End 

Paul had little patience with the notion of Chosen People. So being circumcised was irrelevant; this outward mark on the flesh counted for nothing:

Well, it wasn’t nothing when Paul had Timothy (half Jewish and half Gentile) circumcised (Acts 16:1-3).

“Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God” (v.29).

A nice sentiment indeed . . . 

All this shows is that Paul agreed that all the rituals of the Mosaic Law were not binding on Gentiles. But it doesn’t follow that the Jews were not the chosen people, or that Paul denied that they were. Romans 11 puts the lie to the latter:

Romans 11:1-2 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. [2] God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. . . . 

Romans 11:17-18 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, [18] do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. 

Romans 11:26-29 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; [27] “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” [28] As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. [29] For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

See also Romans 3:

Romans 3:1-4 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? [2] Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. [3] What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? [4] By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, “That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged.”

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. 

***

Photo credit: Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (c. 1620), attributed to Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Virgin Birth / God in Creation / Human Rebelliousness / Paul’s Loving Tolerance / God’s Forgiveness / Paul on Sex & Marriage / God’s Just Judgment

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on the epistle to the Romans (written by St. Paul) by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, “Bad Bible Theology: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Let me count the ways…that Paul got it wrong” (2-26-18). He devotes a paper to each chapter. Unless he repeats himself (a bad habit of his) or descends to sheer biblical skepticism (which I have less than no interest in), I will reply to all. 

The introduction is basically a catalogue of rank insults, where he calls St. Paul “a crank” and a “delusional cult fanatic” and “the prototype for Christian crazies” and “an obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian” and “an embarrassment.” He adds: “how can anyone take this guy seriously?” That about covers the “content” there. Bears poop in the woods, brats throw fits, squirrels walk telephone lines, and the prevalent anti-theist brand of atheists insult Christians. Ho hum. What else is new?

Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

Dr. Madison calls his critique of Romans chapter 1 “Maybe It’s Not the Worst Book in the Bible: …But It’s a Contender” (1-26-17).

There is little doubt that Paul belonged to the school of thought that Jesus had been conceived/born the same way everyone else is.

Dr. James Tabor thinks quite otherwise:

Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus’ virgin birth nor does he ever name either Mary or Joseph. What he does affirm is that Jesus pre-existed before his human birth and subsequently gave up his divine glory through his birth as a human being. He writes that Jesus “though existing in the form of God” emptied himself and took on human form, “being made in the likeness of humankind” (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). He is likely referring here, metaphorically, to the “riches” of Jesus’ pre-existence with God, since we have no evidence Jesus came from a wealthy family background. Paul also writes “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman …” (Galatians 4:4). Although this verse is often translated “born of a woman,” Paul avoids the Greek verb gennao (γεννάω), which means “to beget, to give birth to,” referring to either the mother or the father.  The implication of these texts is that Jesus’ mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus’ pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God–eliminating any necessity for a human father. (“Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth?”, Taborblog, 8-20-16)

No, God is not obvious by looking around at nature

In verse 20, Paul lays the groundwork for condemning unbelievers: “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.” So God’s power and nature can be “understood” through what he has made? Actually, precisely because God’s nature and power are invisible, they are not understood. Presumably Paul had the natural world in mind, but theologians with a couple thousand years of practice know that this is feeble: indifferent nature shows no mercy to humans. I suspect Paul didn’t give enough thought to this, because in his letters he explains endlessly what God expects and demands. So rules of conduct to convict sinners aren’t at all so obvious from the “things that God has made.”

Albert Einstein would disagree:

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. (To a banker in Colorado, 1927. Cited in the New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe — a spirit vastly superior to that of man . . . In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort . . . (To student Phyllis Right, who asked if scientists pray; January 24, 1936)

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. (to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941)

My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world. In common terms, one can describe it as ‘pantheistic’ (Spinoza). (Answer to the question, “What is your understanding of God?” Kaizo, 5, no. 2, 1923, 197; in Alice Calaprice, editor, The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000, 203)

Likewise, philosopher David Hume (often mistakenly regarded as an atheist):

The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind. (Treatise, 633n)

Wherever I see order, I infer from experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance . . . the same principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect from the Infinite Art and Contrivance which is displayed in the whole fabric of the  universe. (Letters, 25-26)

The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion . . .

Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .

All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author. (Natural History of Religion, 1757, edited by H. E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26)

Yeah, I know: just because Einstein and Hume thought like this, isn’t proof that it’s true. But it is proof that some brilliantly intelligent, scientific and philosophical people who aren’t even Christians (a pantheist and a deist) — who don’t even believe that the Bible is inspired revelation — essentially agree with what Romans 1 is expressing, and that, conversely, not only idiots and simpletons and “delusional cult fanatics” think in this way.

God can’t wait to get even 

Because people resorted to other gods, especially idol worship, God kicks them to the curb. In verses 24, 26 and 28 Paul states explicitly that God “gave them up”—and we get insights into Paul’s tormented personality by his list of things that God gave people up to: (1) the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies; (2) to degrading passions; (3) to a debased mind and things that should not be done. Hmmmm…obsessed about sex much? More about that on the next point. Suffice it to say here that Paul’s concept of God is weighted heavily toward revenge and punishment: God himself gives people up to sin. All this because people did not see fit to “acknowledge God.” 

This is an aspect of biblical teaching that Dr. Madison doesn’t get at all, and I think he is certainly capable of learning it: with his doctorate in biblical studies and all. He’s out to sea. I covered it in a previous critique of his diatribes (this time against Jesus Himself): “Madison vs. Jesus #7: God Prohibits Some Folks’ Repentance?“. I wrote there:

Note that the onus lies upon the people who “suppress the truth” and are engaged in “all ungodliness and wickedness” (1:18). They choose in their own free will to disobey God, then the text says that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (1:24). In other words, He didn’t cause their rebellion; He only allowed them in their free choices, to rebel.

The same dynamic is seen in the juxtaposition between Pharaoh freely hardening his heart, which is then applied to God (in a limited sense) doing it (which means that He allowed it, in His providence; He didn’t ordain it). I explain this at length, in two papers.

No slack given here to folks who didn’t see eye-to-eye with Paul on religion, those who—and this was the big no-no for Paul—cheerfully embraced lust (we’d all be better off if Paul had given it a try). Paul doesn’t seem to have heard the stories about Jesus hanging out with sinners.

Quite the contrary: Paul is eminently tolerant of those who believe differently, and say that they can possibly be saved, in the next chapter:

Romans 2:13-16 (RSV) For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. 

It’ll be fun to hear Dr. Madison’s take on this passage when he gets to it in his next article. Maybe he’ll say it couldn’t possibly have been written by Paul the “obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian” and so must have been added later by one of those unscrupulous and deceptive early Christians. We’ll see! I haven’t read that article yet, so I may be a prophet. I do know that this sort of silly game with the biblical text is often played by atheists with nothing better to do with their time.

The Bible teaches from cover to cover that if a person rejects God and His grace: which God gives them the freedom to do, then they will be condemned forever by that same choice. God allows them to go to hell. St. Paul is no different. He’s not some ruthless, unforgiving ogre, out of touch with the rest of Holy Scripture. This is Christian teaching, and Jewish before it; and it is Pauline teaching. C. S. Lewis famously wrote that “the doors of hell are locked on the inside.” Paul teaches forgiveness of sin and repentance and a possible better life by His power after that, just as Jesus did:

Ephesians 1:7-8  In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace [8] which he lavished upon us. 

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, [14] in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, [14] having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 

Colossians 3:12-14 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, [13] forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. [14] And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 

In the epistle to the Romans, Paul also uses the wonderful word “grace” (the cause of our salvation and any good that we do and similar to forgiveness and mercy) 21 times, and many other times in his other letters. He also uses the word “mercy” (usually referring to God) 23 times in his letters: eleven of these in Romans alone. But I don’t expect Dr. Madison to notice any of that. He’s too busy tearing down and mythmaking.

Knee-jerk disgust about women loving women, men loving me 

Now, full disclosure before I get into this one: I am gay, so it’s no surprise that I have no patience with Paul’s rant against same-sex love.

That’s correct. No surprise at all.

Sure, we can cut him some slack since his thinking was influenced by severe teaching in the Old Testament—and he lived centuries before human sexuality had been studied. What would we expect? 

We would expect the same teaching that was before his time, and taught ever since in historic Christianity.

But the folks who want to point to these verses in Romans 1 (vv. 26-27) as binding “word of God”—because “saint” Paul said them—are blind to their own hypocrisy: they don’t notice that Paul shuddered at heterosexuality as well! Everything in his writings about sexuality screams dysfunction! And we have the impulse to scream at Paul, “Get a life!”

Paul disdained men loving women: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:1-2) You read that right: marriage is okay because liability to immortality should drive you to it. Or how about this gem: “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24). And this: To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am” (I Corinthians 7:8). True enough, Paul’s delusions about Jesus returning soon warped his thinking: “…the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none” (I Corinthians. 7:29).

He’s not against permissible, moral sex at all. His position is “let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him . . . Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.” (1 Cor 7:17, 20; cf. 24). If one is called to be married, Paul says they should get married:

1 Corinthians 7:2  But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 

1 Corinthians 7:28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. . . . 

1 Corinthians 7:36, 38 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin. . . . [38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; . . . 

For those called to be single (and celibate) in order to devote themselves more fully to the Lord, and to heroically renounce things that are good, for the sake of the kingdom (as the Catholic Church has taught ever since), Paul says this is even better:

1 Corinthians 7:7-8 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. [8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

1 Corinthians 7:25-27, 32-35, 38 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. [26] I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. [27] Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . [32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; [33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. [35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . [38] . . . and he who refrains from marriage will do better. 

None of this is “anti-sex.” None of what Dr. Madison cites that I did not, is anti-sex. It is anti-not doing what God has called one to do. It’s anti-disobedience to God and His guidance. And this is exactly what Jesus taught as well:

Matthew 19:9-12 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” [10] The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” [11] But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” 

Outside of the most pathetic cults, you will never find a marriage counselor who urges couples to follow Paul’s advice.

Really? How about the following advice?:

Ephesians 5:25, 28-29 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, . . . [28] Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,  

How about having a husband who would die for his wife? Do you think that is a man that a woman would want to marry? Is that good advice to the husband? Would marriage counselors agree? Or would they say, “whatever you do, don’t marry a man who treats you like Jesus Christ treated people, and who would die for you, if necessary. We can’t have that!”

Full stop, Christians. How can anyone read the ending of Romans 1 and say, with a straight face, that Paul should be called a saint? Or that this text merits inclusion in “the good book”? Here he shows us his full venom: “… they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die…”

In Christianity, there is such a thing called “judgment.” God offers every human being a chance to be saved and to escape such final judgment and condemnation. It’s our choice what we do with His free offer of grace, mercy, and forgiveness. If we spurn that, then yes, we do deserve to die. There’s no other choice. It’s either follow God and go to a paradise-heaven for eternity, in blissful union with God, or willful separation from Him for eternity.

It’s not hatred to simply condemn sins and wrong and evil behavior. But in today’s crazy postmodern world, one mustn’t ever say anything is wrong, I guess. To do so is to be a “hater.” It’s ludicrous. The radically secular mindset and mentality can’t seem to imagine or conceptualize any other scenario.

It’s a common Christian dodge that the nasty god of the Old Testament gave way to the loving God of the New Testament. But Paul does his best to keep the wrathful god alive and hovering over hapless humans.

God is the same in both testaments. He is merciful, loving, and forgiving. But He’s also not mocked and He will judge human behavior at the end of the age; just as human judges or juries make decisions about punishing those who have done wrong and have broken laws.

Hildegard of Bingen is a saint with far more appeal than Paul: “”God hugs you. You are encircled by the arms of the mystery of God.”

Yes, and St. Hildegard (1098-1179; a Doctor of the Catholic Church) also wrote the following, about judgment:

Before the Comet comes, many nations, the good excepted, will be scoured with want and famine. The great nation in the ocean that is inhabited by people of different tribes and descent by an earthquake, storm and tidal waves will be devastated. It will be divided, and in great part submerged. That nation will also have many misfortunes at sea, and lose its colonies in the east through a Tiger and a Lion. The Comet by its tremendous pressure, will force much out of the ocean and flood many countries, causing much want and many plagues. All coastal cities will be fearful and many of them will be destroyed by tidal waves, and most living creatures will be killed and even those who escape will die from a horrible disease. For in none of these cities does a person live according to the laws of God.

Thus, we see that she is just like every other renowned Christian theologian (Dr. Madison might consider not citing her again; it didn’t work well for him), and teaches that God is benevolent, but also that He is the judge of the world. It doesn’t follow that He somehow becomes wicked, because He judges wickedness, as the Creator of the universe. The two things do not contradict at all. The judges at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals were not wicked, when they handed down life sentences and some death sentences. The Nazis were wicked.  Dr. Madison would have it that the judges were wicked and the Nazis were the good guys (if we analogously follow the reasoning he applies to God as Judge).

People who argue in these absurd ways ought to become consistent and become anarchists: opposed to any laws whatever. As soon as one recognizes any legal system or schema of right and wrong, then there will be folks who violate both, and hence are punished: by society and ultimately (in the theist and Christian conception) by God (minus repentance and redemption). Anyone who accepts human law and systems of justice can certainly comprehend (whether they believe it or not) cosmic justice, presided over by God. If there is a God, this makes perfect sense and is exactly what we would expect.

***

Photo credit: Saint Paul, by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***