![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/Paul12.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<\/span> \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 Thus far, I have counter-replied to \/ answered 28 of Dr. Madison\u2019s critiques, from three different series, without hearing one peep back from him as of yet (25 days\u2019 total time). This certainly doesn\u2019t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. I know he\u2019s still alive and kicking, because I\u2019ve seen him write other<\/em> posts during this same period.<\/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 5, \u201cTheology Written Under the Influence of OCD: When you don\u2019t bother to have your work checked\u2026\u201d<\/a> (3-24-17).<\/span><\/p>\n When you don\u2019t bother to have your work checked\u2026<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n If you\u2019re looking for Bible texts that are red-flag worthy (a good project, I might suggest, for Christian[s]<\/span> who are wondering, Why am I taking this stuff seriously?) here\u2019s one to put on your list: Galatians 1:11-12, in which the apostle Paul positions himself for maximum credibility:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFor 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n So picture this. Paul experienced his dramatic Damascus Road conversion to Christ\u2014he never gives the exact details in his letters\u2014those we find in three fictionalized versions in the Book of Acts.<\/span><\/p>\n 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<\/span> \u201cfictionalized versions\u201d. This is more of the atheist silliness when it comes to any Bible text that they either dispute or don\u2019t care for. But no one else is obligated to accept the \u201cGospel Truth\u201d that some portion is merely a made-up story. I\u2019ve 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.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Wouldn\u2019t 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.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, it seems like he would, but people don\u2019t always do what we might expect them to do. We have no good reason to doubt the story as told.<\/span><\/p>\n But no, Paul bragged to the Galatian Christians about not getting his information from disciples and eyewitnesses. All he knows came from \u201crevelations.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n How is this necessarily to be regarded as \u201cbragging\u201d? If revelations do indeed exist, it\u2019s 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<\/em> it is all nonsense and fairy tales. He can believe whatever he likes, but the mere fact that he<\/em> disbelieves something is no proof that it is nonexistent.<\/span><\/p>\n What? Let that sink in. Why aren\u2019t Christians massively suspicious about this? Why would you pay any attention whatever to a man who hallucinated his way into this new Jewish cult?<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously because we believe in revelations and in the power of Jesus to transform lives. I\u2019ve experienced it myself. A vision is not a hallucination. The first is a real thing; the second is not.<\/span><\/p>\n 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).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is yet another non-issue.\u00a0 \u201cFirst great missionary hero<\/em>\u201d (which Paul was) is logically distinct from \u201cfirst Christian missionary \/ missionaries\u201d. Paul\u2019s conversion \u201cis normally dated to AD 33\u201336\u201d (Wikipedia,<\/span> \u201cConversion of Paul the Apostle\u201d<\/a>), 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. <\/span><\/p>\n There was already outreach to Gentiles during Jesus\u2019 ministry<\/span> (as I detailed in another reply<\/a> to Dr. Madison). Jesus gave His disciples the great commission, to \u201cGo therefore and make disciples of all nations\u201d (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. <\/span><\/p>\n 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):<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 11:19-20<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni\u2019cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews.\u00a0[20] But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyre\u2019ne, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. Therefore, if they made it that<\/em> 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Even more remarkably, early on there was a congregation in Rome\u2014without Paul\u2019s help. As the faith spread, we have to wonder just what, exactly, the\u00a0earliest<\/i><\/b>\u00a0unlettered Christians believed and taught about Jesus. Actually, we have no idea.<\/span><\/p>\n All it would take was one zealous missionary Christian, on a boat from Israel to Rome, to start a church there.<\/span><\/p>\n It would seem there was no uniform message about Jesus. Paul himself complains about this, e.g., in 2 Corinthians 11:4, \u201cFor 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n When we read Paul\u2019s self-designation as a rogue apostle, we can suspect that Paul himself was a culprit in spreading fake news about Jesus. His \u2018truth\u2019 about Jesus came out of his own head. No one seems to have asked, \u201cCan you verify that?\u201d or \u201cCan you do some fact-checking with the original disciples to make sure you\u2019ve got it right?\u201d Paul didn\u2019t have anyone check his work.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201ccheck[ing] his work,\u201d<\/span> isn\u2019t it? Paul also participated in the Council of Jerusalem, presided over by James and Peter (Acts 15:1-29): which \u201cofficial\u201d teaching he then proclaimed on his missionary journeys (16:4). <\/span><\/p>\n This can hardly be construed as \u201crogue\u201d: when he participated in the most important Christian council prior to Nicea in 325, and then announced its teachings as binding. It\u2019s just one of the innumerable \u201cMadison myths.\u201d I\u2019ve addressed this issue also with a Protestant:\u00a0Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a \u201cLone Ranger\u201d?<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Nor did anyone really care: if he claimed a revelation, that was awesome enough.<\/span><\/p>\n This is untrue as well, as the account in Acts records with regard to his immediate post-conversion period:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 9:26-27<\/strong>\u00a0And 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]\u00a0But 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n His tortured theology, his personal terrors and OCD, shaped his hallucinated chats with the risen Jesus\u2014and we see this full strength in Romans 5.<\/span><\/p>\n Quintessential example of the logical fallacy of<\/span> \u201cpoisoning the well\u201d<\/a>. Nothing whatsoever in this laundry list is established beyond all reasonable doubt.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, his abject fear of death is utterly apparent in these two passages (who could possibly doubt<\/em> it?):<\/span><\/p>\n Philippians 1:21-24\u00a0<\/strong>For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.\u00a0[22] If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell.\u00a0[23] I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.\u00a0[24] But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Timothy 4:6-8\u00a0<\/strong>For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come.\u00a0[7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.\u00a0[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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As to his supposed<\/span> \u201cunworthiness before God\u201d: that is, I submit, a projection of Luther\u2019s continual unease onto Paul (Dr. Madison again bringing false Protestant baggage into his analyses). I cited my friend Al Kresta<\/a> in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em><\/a>, along these lines:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s crisis. Protestants have tended to read Paul through the lens of Luther\u2019s experience.<\/span><\/p>\n 1\u2026. 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 <\/i>an anguished conscience and then receive release from that anguish in a message of forgiveness. . . . Paul\u2019s burden is not to \u201cbring people under conviction of sin,\u201d as in revival services. Forgiveness is simply a matter of fact.<\/span><\/p>\n When Paul speaks of himself as a serious sinner, it is . . . very specifically because . . . he had persecuted the Church and missed God\u2019s new move \u2014 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)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 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\u2019s default emotion is wrath; God regards us as his enemies (v. 10). But Paul was sure he knew how to get right with God.<\/span><\/p>\n There is original sin, of course, but Protestants distort its extent and nature, and Dr. Madison exaggerates God\u2019s antipathy or hostility to mankind. This<\/em> is the loving God of the Bible (expressed by Paul \/ universal atonement):<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 5:6<\/strong>\u00a0While we were still weak, at the right time\u00a0Christ died for the ungodly.<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 5:15<\/strong>\u00a0But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man\u2019s trespass [original sin], much more have the grace of God and\u00a0the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (cf. 5:17, 20-21)<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 11:32<\/strong>\u00a0For God has consigned\u00a0<\/b>all men to disobedience,\u00a0that he may have mercy upon all.<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19<\/strong>\u00a0For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that\u00a0one has died for all; therefore all have died. [15] And\u00a0he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.. . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1 Timothy 2:3-4<\/strong>\u00a0This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4]\u00a0who desires all men to be saved\u00a0and to come to the knowledge of the truth.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He had it all worked out that wrath flipped to love through the gimmick of Jesus dying (\u201cwe have been justified by his blood,\u201d Romans 5:9): \u201c\u2026we will be saved through him from the wrath of God.\u201d The essence of Paul\u2019s theology is found in one of the most famous verses in the letter (v. 8): \u201cBut God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.\u201d This is so embedded in Christian piety that it\u2019s hard to grasp that this is\u00a0magical thinking<\/i><\/b>; Romans 5:19 helps bring this to our attention: \u201cFor just as by the one man\u2019s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man\u2019s obedience the many will be made righteous.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n For Dr. Madison it is superstitious magic and a<\/span> \u201cgimmick\u201d<\/span>; for us Christians it is God\u2019s 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 \u2014 when he comments on supernatural and purely spiritual things \u2014 , he makes no argument<\/em> against God\u2019s 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. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not how reasoned argumentation works, I\u2019m afraid, but it sure is<\/em> 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, \u201cAbracadabra\u201d <\/span>for effect), so I will pass over it.<\/span><\/p>\n This scheme should provoke a stunning\u00a0this-does-not-make-sense<\/i><\/b>\u00a0moment. Guy P. Harrison has made one of those\u00a0yes-of-course<\/i>\u00a0statements for which he is so well known: \u201cNo one seems to know why a god who makes all the rules and answers to no one couldn\u2019t just pardon us and skip the barbaric crucifixion event entirely.\u201d<\/span> (Christianity in the Light of Science<\/a><\/i><\/b>, Loftus, editor, 2016)<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, of course He could have done that, had He chosen<\/em> 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<\/em> die. <\/span><\/p>\n Yet when it comes to God<\/em> doing the same thing for all<\/em> of us, we so often get mockery and stupefied noncomprehension and lack of gratefulness from atheists. It\u2019s one thing to simply not believe<\/em> in something; but to mock and lambast what one clearly doesn\u2019t understand<\/em> 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:<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 1:21-22\u00a0<\/strong>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.\u00a0[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 1:18, 21-25\u00a0<\/strong>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]\u00a0For 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.\u00a0[22] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,\u00a0[23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,\u00a0[24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.\u00a0[25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 2:11-14, 16\u00a0<\/strong>For what person knows a man\u2019s 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.\u00a0[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.\u00a0[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.\u00a0[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] . . .\u00a0But we have the mind of Christ.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dr. Madison exhibits all this dumbfounded inability to understand Jesus and God\u2019s glorious plan of salvation in spades, particularly in this ludicrous comment:<\/span><\/p>\n One of Richard Carrier\u2019s more acerbic descriptions of Jesus pulls us back to the reality of how much we don\u2019t know about the guy: \u201c\u2026an uneducated rural construction worker from some inglorious town in the middle of nowhere\u2026\u201d<\/span> (The End of Christianity<\/a><\/i><\/b>, Loftus editor, 2011) This was God\u2019s instrument for diverting his wrath from the multitudes of his human enemies?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n