![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/Paul5.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
This is an installment of\u00a0my replies to a series of articles on the epistle to the Romans<\/a> (written by St. Paul) by\u00a0Dr. David Madison<\/strong>: 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,<\/span> \u201cBad Bible Theology: Paul\u2019s Letter to the Romans: Let me count the ways\u2026that Paul got it wrong\u201d<\/a> (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<\/em> interest in), I will reply to all.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The<\/span> introduction<\/a> is basically a catalogue of rank insults, where he calls St. Paul<\/span> \u201ca crank\u201d<\/span> and a<\/span> \u201cdelusional cult fanatic\u201d<\/span> and \u201cthe prototype for Christian crazies\u201d and<\/span> \u201can obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian\u201d and<\/span> \u201can embarrassment.\u201d\u00a0He adds:<\/span> \u201chow can anyone take this guy seriously?\u201d That about covers the \u201ccontent\u201d there.\u00a0Bears 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?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison\u2019s words will be in<\/span>\u00a0blue\u00a0<\/span>below.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Dr. Madison calls his critique of Romans chapter 1<\/span> \u201cMaybe It\u2019s Not the Worst Book in the Bible: \u2026But It\u2019s a Contender\u201d<\/a> (1-26-17).<\/span><\/p>\n There is little doubt that Paul belonged to the school of thought that Jesus had been conceived\/born the same way everyone else is.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. James Tabor<\/a> thinks quite otherwise:<\/span><\/p>\n Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus\u2019 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 \u201cthough existing in the form of God\u201d emptied himself and took on human form, \u201cbeing made in the likeness of humankind\u201d (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further \u201cthough he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich\u201d (2 Corinthians 8:9). He is likely referring here, metaphorically, to the \u201criches\u201d of Jesus\u2019 pre-existence with God, since we have no evidence Jesus came from a wealthy family background. Paul also writes \u201cIn the fullness of time God sent forth his Son,\u00a0made<\/em>\u00a0of a woman \u2026\u201d (Galatians 4:4). Although this verse is often translated \u201cborn of a woman,\u201d Paul avoids the Greek verb\u00a0gennao (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9),\u00a0<\/em>which means \u201cto beget, to give birth to,\u201d referring to either the mother or the father.\u00a0\u00a0The implication of these texts is that Jesus\u2019 mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus\u2019 pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God\u2013eliminating any necessity for a human father. (<\/span>\u201cDid Paul Invent the Virgin Birth?\u201d<\/a>, Taborblog<\/em>, 8-20-16)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n No, God is not obvious by looking around at nature Albert Einstein<\/strong> would disagree:<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0obituary, April 19, 1955)<\/span><\/p>\n Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe \u2014 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)<\/span><\/p>\n 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)<\/span><\/p>\n My comprehension of\u00a0God\u00a0comes from the\u00a0deeply felt conviction\u00a0of a\u00a0superior intelligence\u00a0that reveals itself in the knowable world. In common terms, one can describe it as\u00a0\u2018pantheistic\u2019\u00a0(Spinoza).\u00a0(Answer to the question, \u201cWhat is your understanding of God?\u201d\u00a0Kaizo<\/i>, 5, no. 2, 1923, 197; in Alice Calaprice, editor,\u00a0<\/span>The Expanded Quotable Einstein<\/a><\/i>, Princeton University Press, 2000, 203)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, philosopher David Hume<\/strong> (often mistakenly regarded as an atheist):<\/span><\/p>\n The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind.\u00a0(Treatise<\/i>, 633n)<\/span><\/p>\n Wherever I see order, I infer from experience that\u00a0there<\/i>, there hath\u00a0been 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\u00a0 universe.\u00a0(Letters<\/i>, 25-26)<\/span><\/p>\n 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 . . .<\/span><\/p>\n 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 . . .<\/span><\/p>\n All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is\u00a0adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author.\u00a0(Natural History of Religion<\/i>, 1757, edited by H. E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yeah, I know: just because Einstein and Hume thought like this, isn\u2019t proof<\/em> that it\u2019s true. But it is<\/em> proof that some brilliantly intelligent, scientific and philosophical people who aren\u2019t even Christians (a pantheist and a deist) \u2014 who don\u2019t even believe that the Bible is inspired revelation \u2014 essentially agree with what Romans 1 is expressing, and that, conversely, not only<\/em> idiots and simpletons and<\/span> \u201cdelusional cult fanatics\u201d\u00a0<\/span>think in this way.<\/span><\/p>\n God can\u2019t wait to get even\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201cgave them up\u201d\u2014and we get insights into Paul\u2019s 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\u2026obsessed about sex much? More about that on the next point. Suffice it to say here that Paul\u2019s 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 \u201cacknowledge God.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is an aspect of biblical teaching that Dr. Madison doesn\u2019t get at all, and I think he is certainly capable<\/em> of learning it: with his doctorate in biblical studies and all. He\u2019s out to sea. I covered it in a previous critique of his diatribes (this time against Jesus Himself):<\/span> \u201cMadison vs. Jesus #7: God Prohibits Some Folks\u2019 Repentance?<\/a>\u201c. I wrote there:<\/span><\/p>\n Note that the onus lies upon the people who \u201csuppress the truth\u201d and are engaged in \u201call ungodliness and wickedness\u201d\u00a0(1:18). They choose in their own free will to disobey God,\u00a0then<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0the text says that \u201cGod gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity\u201d (1:24). In other words, He didn\u2019t\u00a0cause<\/em>\u00a0their rebellion; He only\u00a0allowed<\/em>\u00a0them in their free choices, to rebel.<\/span><\/p>\n The same dynamic is seen in the juxtaposition between Pharaoh freely hardening his heart, which is then applied to\u00a0God<\/em>\u00a0(in a limited sense) doing it (which means that He\u00a0allowed<\/em>\u00a0it, in His providence; He didn\u2019t\u00a0ordain<\/em>\u00a0it). I<\/span>\u00a0explain this<\/a>\u00a0at length, in<\/span>\u00a0two papers<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n No slack given here to folks who didn\u2019t see eye-to-eye with Paul on religion, those who\u2014and this was the big\u00a0no-no<\/b>\u00a0for Paul\u2014cheerfully embraced lust (we\u2019d all be better off if Paul had given it a try). Paul doesn\u2019t seem to have heard the stories about Jesus hanging out with sinners.<\/span><\/p>\n Quite the contrary: Paul is eminently tolerant of those who believe differently, and say that they can possibly be saved, in the next chapter:<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 2:13-16<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.\u00a0[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.\u00a0[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\u00a0[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019ll be fun to hear Dr. Madison\u2019s take on this<\/em> passage when he gets to it in his next article. Maybe he\u2019ll say it couldn\u2019t possibly<\/em> have been written by Paul the<\/span> \u201cobsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian\u201d and so must have been added later<\/em> by one of those unscrupulous and deceptive early Christians. We\u2019ll see! I haven\u2019t 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.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Bible teaches from cover to cover that if a person rejects God and His grace: which God gives them the freedom<\/em> 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\u2019s 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 \u201cthe doors of hell are locked on the inside<\/em>.\u201d Paul teaches forgiveness of sin and repentance and a possible better life by His power after that, just as Jesus did:<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 1:7-8<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace\u00a0[8] which he lavished upon us.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Colossians 1:13-14<\/strong>\u00a0He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,\u00a0[14] in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Colossians 2:13-14\u00a0<\/strong>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,\u00a0[14] having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Colossians 3:12-14\u00a0<\/strong>Put on then, as God\u2019s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience,\u00a0[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.\u00a0[14] And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the epistle to the Romans, Paul also uses the wonderful word \u201cgrace\u201d (the cause of our salvation and any good that we do and similar to forgiveness and mercy)<\/span> 21 times<\/a>, and<\/span> many other times<\/a> in his other letters. He also uses the word \u201cmercy\u201d (usually referring to God)<\/span> 23 times in his letters<\/a>: eleven of these in Romans alone. But I don\u2019t expect Dr. Madison to notice any of that<\/em>. He\u2019s too busy tearing down and mythmaking.<\/span><\/p>\n Knee-jerk disgust about women loving women, men loving me\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Now, full disclosure before I get into this one: I am gay, so it\u2019s no surprise that I have no patience with Paul\u2019s rant against same-sex love.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s correct. No surprise at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Sure, we can cut him some slack since his thinking was influenced by severe teaching in the Old Testament\u2014and he lived centuries before human sexuality had been studied. What would we expect?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n We would expect the same teaching that was before his time, and taught ever since in historic Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n But the folks who want to point to these verses in Romans 1 (vv. 26-27) as binding \u201cword of God\u201d\u2014because \u201csaint\u201d Paul said them\u2014are blind to their own hypocrisy: they don\u2019t 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, \u201cGet a life!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Paul disdained men loving women: \u201cIt 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.\u201d (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: \u201cAnd those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires\u201d (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\u201d (I Corinthians 7:8). True enough, Paul\u2019s delusions about Jesus returning soon warped his thinking: \u201c\u2026the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none\u201d (I Corinthians. 7:29).<\/span><\/p>\n He\u2019s not against permissible, moral sex at all. His position is \u201clet 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.\u201d (1 Cor 7:17, 20; cf. 24). If one is called to be married, Paul says they should get married:<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:2<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:9<\/strong>\u00a0But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:28<\/strong>\u00a0But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:36, 38<\/strong>\u00a0If 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 \u2014 it is no sin. . . . [38]\u00a0So that he who marries his betrothed does well; . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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:<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:7-8<\/strong>\u00a0I 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.\u00a0[8]\u00a0To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:25-27, 32-35, 38<\/strong> Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord\u2019s mercy is trustworthy.\u00a0[26] I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.\u00a0[27] Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . [32]\u00a0I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;\u00a0[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,\u00a0[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.\u00a0[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] . . .\u00a0and he who refrains from marriage will do better.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n None of this is \u201canti-sex.\u201d None of what Dr. Madison cites that I did not, is anti-sex. It is anti-not doing what God has called<\/em> one to do. It\u2019s anti-disobedience<\/em> to God and His guidance. And this is exactly what Jesus taught as well:<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 19:9-12<\/strong>\u00a0And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.\u201d\u00a0[10]\u00a0The disciples said to him, \u201cIf such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.\u201d\u00a0[11] But he said to them, \u201cNot all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.\u00a0[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.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Outside of the most pathetic cults, you will\u00a0never<\/i><\/b>\u00a0find a marriage counselor who urges couples to follow Paul\u2019s advice.<\/span><\/p>\n Really? How about the following advice?:<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 5:25, 28-29<\/strong>\u00a0Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, . . .\u00a0[28] Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.\u00a0[29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n How about having a husband who would die<\/em> for his wife? Do you think that<\/em> is a man that a woman would want to marry? Is that good advice<\/em> to the husband? Would marriage counselors agree? Or would they say, \u201cwhatever<\/em> you do, don\u2019t marry a man who treats you like Jesus Christ treated people, and who would die<\/em> for you, if necessary. We can\u2019t have that<\/em>!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201cthe good book\u201d? Here he shows us his full venom: \u201c\u2026 they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God\u2019s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In Christianity, there is such a thing called \u201cjudgment.\u201d God offers every human being a chance to be saved and to escape such final judgment and condemnation. It\u2019s 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\u2019s no other choice. It\u2019s either follow God and go to a paradise-heaven for eternity, in blissful union with God, or willful separation from Him for eternity. <\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not hatred to simply condemn sins and wrong and evil behavior. But in today\u2019s crazy postmodern world, one mustn\u2019t ever say anything is wrong<\/em>, I guess. To do so is to be a \u201chater.\u201d It\u2019s ludicrous. The radically secular mindset and mentality can\u2019t seem to imagine or conceptualize any other scenario.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n God is the same in both testaments. He is merciful, loving, and forgiving. But He\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n Hildegard of Bingen is a saint with far more appeal than Paul: \u201c\u201dGod hugs you. You are encircled by the arms of the mystery of God.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, and<\/span> St. Hildegard<\/a> (1098-1179; a Doctor of the Catholic Church)<\/span> also<\/em> wrote the following<\/a>, about judgment:<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, we see that she is just like every other renowned Christian theologian (Dr. Madison might consider not citing her again; it didn\u2019t work<\/em> well for him), and teaches that God is benevolent, but also that He is the judge of the world. It doesn\u2019t 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<\/a> were not wicked, when they handed down life sentences and some death sentences. The Nazis were wicked.\u00a0 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). <\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/span>
\nIn verse 20, Paul lays the groundwork for condemning unbelievers: \u201cEver 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.\u201d So God\u2019s power and nature can be \u201cunderstood\u201d through what he has made? Actually, precisely\u00a0because<\/i><\/b>\u00a0God\u2019s 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\u2019t 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\u2019t at all so obvious from the \u201cthings that God has made.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n