Paul's hateful letter to the Romans

[TimCallahan]

When Protestant ministers choose to use a New Testament text as the basis for a sermon they are often likely to pick one of the Pauline epistles, rather than the words of Jesus. In one instance this is particularly problematic, since the doctrines enshrined in that document are inimical to our representative democracy and human right in general. They are also vile and pernicious in that they assert that God deliberately creates certain people or the express purpose of damning them to hell for eternity. This document is Paul's epistle to the Romans.

As an example of how the theology of Romans effects a religiously based world-view, consider the remarks made by a prominent fundamentalist minister, John MacArthur, in reaction to the revolts in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. He stated in no uncertain terms that the rebels in these countries were in violation of God's law, since Romans says that all governments are instituted by God - including dictatorships. Here's what he had to say, specifically

 

[AvalonXQ]

When Protestant ministers choose to use a New Testament text as the basis for a sermon they are often likely to pick one of the Pauline epistles, rather than the words of Jesus. In one instance this is particularly problematic, since the doctrines enshrined in that document are inimical to our representative democracy and human right in general. They are also vile and pernicious in that they assert that God deliberately creates certain people or the express purpose of damning them to hell for eternity. This document is Paul's epistle to the Romans.

Certain passages in Romans are some of the most confusing in the New Testament.
I will point out that a lot of folks (myself included) don't read what Paul is saying as implying the sort of individual determinism that you're implying. Other groups (those accepting Calvinist predestination) do perhaps agree with that, but I don't believe they're in the majority.

Romans chapter 12 is my favorite chapter in the Bible.

 

[MG1962]

Well I guess the first question becomes. How many Christians live in these countries, and how many of those took part in protests. Yes I know Egypt has about 10% but I believe that is seen as relatively high for the region

So I suspect the Pastor has to show me how non Christians are held to the standards of the bible as decided by him

 

[TimCallahan]

Certain passages in Romans are some of the most confusing in the New Testament.
I will point out that a lot of folks (myself included) don't read what Paul is saying as implying the sort of individual determinism that you're implying. Other groups (those accepting Calvinist predestination) do perhaps agree with that, but I don't believe they're in the majority.

Romans chapter 12 is my favorite chapter in the Bible.

Frankly, I don't see anything confusing at all. Paul says it pretty plain and straight. Consider Rom. 9:21 -23 (emphasis added):

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory . . . ?

To put this passage in context, it follows an assertion that God deliberately hardened Pharaoh's heart (in Exodus) so God could show his power by humbling him. Paul anticipates the reader's objection that Pharaoh has been denied free will (Rom.9:19, 20):

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?

Notice how neatly Paul dodges the rational objection with a "How dare you!" response. Plainly and simply, he argues in this whole extended passage that God deprives people of free will (as in the case of Pharaoh) and even deliberately creates some people, the "vessels of wrath" for destruction, while making other beforehand for salvation. There's nothing confusing here. It's quite clear - and quite hateful.

 

[dafydd]

Certain passages in Romans are some of the most confusing in the New Testament.
I will point out that a lot of folks (myself included) don't read what Paul is saying as implying the sort of individual determinism that you're implying. Other groups (those accepting Calvinist predestination) do perhaps agree with that, but I don't believe they're in the majority.

Romans chapter 12 is my favorite chapter in the Bible.

You can read anything you want to into the bible. You'd think that if it was true then all Christians would be singing from the same hymn sheet. Yet another reason why I am an atheist.

 

[dafydd]

Frankly, I don't see anything confusing at all. Paul says it pretty plain and straight. Consider Rom. 9:21 -23 (emphasis added):

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory . . . ?

To put this passage in context, it follows an assertion that God deliberately hardened Pharaoh's heart (in Exodus) so God could show his power by humbling him. Paul anticipates the reader's objection that Pharaoh has been denied free will (Rom.9:19, 20):

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?

Notice how neatly Paul dodges the rational objection with a "How dare you!" response. Plainly and simply, he argues in this whole extended passage that God deprives people of free will (as in the case of Pharaoh) and even deliberately creates some people, the "vessels of wrath" for destruction, while making other beforehand for salvation. There's nothing confusing here. It's quite clear - and quite hateful.

There are some vile passages in the Bible. A dreadful book.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Frankly, I don't see anything confusing at all. Paul says it pretty plain and straight.

No, he really doesn't. This passage, like much of the rest of Romans, uses Greek rather awkwardly and is pretty hard to translate into English, first off.
Second, there are tons of analogies and metaphors that have to be parsed very carefully and whose precise meanings are greatly disputed (and have been for hundreds of years).
Then people try to take the precise phrasing of whatever English translation they have, combine it with their own interpretation/extension of Paul's metaphors, and use it to make sweeping generalizations about God, free will, and salvation. But most of Romans is just not that crystal clear.
Basically, any doctrine that you try to base on these passages rather than other, more direct and clear parts of scripture, is likely not going to hold up very strongly under deeper analysis.

It's nowhere near as bad as what people do to Revelation, but it's the same sort of problem.

 

[Craig B]

He stated in no uncertain terms that the rebels in these countries were in violation of God's law, since Romans says that all governments are instituted by God - including dictatorships.

Assuming it is true that Paul was executed during a persecution of Christians by Nero, he must have felt ambivalent about his fate, since Nero was instituted by God. Anyway, Nero was the Pontifex Maximus, as he inscribed on his coins. So a predecessor of the Pope really. And infallible too, if Paul's epistle is to be taken seriously. Which it isn't of course; it's the most obnoxious thing imaginable. I don't remember Chrisians evoking Romans when they were complaining about maltreatment of their churches in communist countries.

 

[Mudcat]

*snip*

Not exactly helping the case of the God Botherers, Avalon

 

[HansMustermann]

Hmm, actually, I don't find the Greek to be that ambiguous, if you go to the concordance lists, and at least the gramatical structure seems to be no worse than anywhere else.

http://biblos.com/romans/9-19.htm
http://biblos.com/romans/9-20.htm

Nor do the other translators and theologians seem to produce much of a deviation from what Tim said. Which probably matters more than my tortured attempts at understanding Koine Greek, anyway.

http://bible.cc/romans/9-19.htm
http://bible.cc/romans/9-20.htm

And not only that, but it kind of fits the tone of the OT too. For whatever faults Paul may have had, he does seem to know his OT. The theme that basically who are you to even dare ask God is very consistent with God's own tantrum at the end Job, and the idea that the created has no business to argue with the creator is paralleled in for example Isaiah 45:9.

It seems counter-intuitive today, perhaps, but you must remember that Judaism seems to have had no afterlife at all for a long time, and then it had Sheol. But even Sheol wasn't really a place of reward or punishment. Even Genesis tells you after a mere couple of pages that God didn't want man to live for ever. So all rewards and trials had to be in this world and given by God. That's the whole thing that made the story of Job even necessary.

Paul's revelations and christianity came after a lifetime of that mind set. Whatever happens to you, whatever your station in life, whatever injustices you suffer, ARE God's will and plan. It would have been indeed more illogical for him to argue that you CAN argue with God and refuse your share appointed by God.

You also have to remember that early Christians strongly believed that the apocalypse would be upon them any day now. It's even reflected in all those chronologies which ended up with them being in the year 5700-5900 from the creation of the world. A very popular idea was that the world reflects the 6 days of creation, at 1000 years per day, and the 7'th day, God's kingdom, will come any day now. Combine that with the belief that Jesus will come back any day now, and you can see why people doing chronologies hundreds of years apart, all HAD to end up just under 6000 years.

In that frame of mind, really, it makes little sense to argue how to fix your life and government in this life, when the next one will come soon enough anyway.

 

[Leumas]

No, he really doesn't. This passage, like much of the rest of Romans, uses Greek rather awkwardly and is pretty hard to translate into English, first off.
Second, there are tons of analogies and metaphors that have to be parsed very carefully and whose precise meanings are greatly disputed (and have been for hundreds of years).
Then people try to take the precise phrasing of whatever English translation they have, combine it with their own interpretation/extension of Paul's metaphors, and use it to make sweeping generalizations about God, free will, and salvation. But most of Romans is just not that crystal clear.
Basically, any doctrine that you try to base on these passages rather than other, more direct and clear parts of scripture, is likely not going to hold up very strongly under deeper analysis.

It's nowhere near as bad as what people do to Revelation, but it's the same sort of problem.

In other words what you are saying is..........

The Bible is a load of rubbish that has no meaning or substance and can be interpreted whichever way one sees fit for the purposes of the moment and to best sham the DUPES at hand.

The Bible was not written for any people who speak any living languages of today nor for any people who have any kind of modern conceptualization of existence altogether let alone culture.

The Bible is not meant to be read by people and only shysters are capable of warping and writhing it to wriggle out of or into any particular sham they are perpetrating for the purposes of scamming people to act in the manner that is best suitable for their schemes and dastardly aims.

The Bible is a load of HOGWASH and CLAPTRAP designed in such a way so as to BAMBOOZLE and DUPE any morons willing to abandon all reason and logic and just submit and truckle in servile casuistry for the hope of seeing their wishful thinking fulfilled and to alleviate the pangs of cognitive dissonance.​

Ok I agree with you.

 

[Beerina]

As an example of how the theology of Romans effects a religiously based world-view, consider the remarks made by a prominent fundamentalist minister, John MacArthur, in reaction to the revolts in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. He stated in no uncertain terms that the rebels in these countries were in violation of God's law, since Romans says that all governments are instituted by God - including dictatorships. Here's what he had to say, specifically

It's like I've always said -- If god exists, one should spit in His face, if He is as the Bible describes. Or even not, ignoring the Bible and just looking at the state of the world around you.

There is nothing respectable about a creature that lets babies get raped to death.



The correct response, when realizing that, say, God wants you to suffer living under dictatorships and not resist them, is one of these:

1. F-U, God. Die like a pig in Hell.
2. I humbly admit I am a worthless enabler of evil, and worship you and your faulty ways simply because I do not have the power to overthrow you. I will lie and praise you just as I do this dictator you have put over me, and for exactly the same reason.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In other words what you are saying is..........

No, none of those things.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, as meaningful for us today as it was ages in the past.

The Bible is a message to all mankind.

Anyone can read the Bible and learn enough to live a good, Christian life, to have a positive relationship with God and with Man.

Like any source of truth, understanding deeper and loftier matters requires more discernment and study. If you want a thorough and accurate understanding of, for instance, God's motivation in creation, the relationship between soteriology and eschatology, or how free will intersects with a divine plan, you're not going to find these with a quick perusal. And since it wasn't written in English, perusing an English translation is even worse.

The Bible is just as vulnerable to quote-mining and intentional misinterpretation as any other substantial text.

I think the most important take-away is this -- none of these difficult matters are necessary for understanding how to be a Christian or how to treat other Christians. A straightforward approach to understanding the Bible yields a straightforward understanding of its core messages. Digging deeper into the Bible requires, not just deeper scrutiny, but deeper genuine study.

 

[slingblade]

Avalon, you're a good guy, with a good head on your shoulders. Of all our religious folks on this board, I'd put you up there with a bare handful who seem to practice what they preach, and are worthy of respect.

But you don't need to be a christian to live what's thought of as a "good christian life."
Many atheists do so every day, and have no need of christianity to accomplish it.

What's more impressive? Being "good" when you think you're being watched, and might be punished, or being "good" when no one's watching and there's no penalty for being bad? (Of course, I don't mean punished by the law, but by a god.)

I'd have to say atheists, in general, have it all over the religious people.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Avalon, you're a good guy, with a good head on your shoulders. Of all our religious folks on this board, I'd put you up there with a bare handful who seem to practice what they preach, and are worthy of respect.

But you don't need to be a christian to live what's thought of as a "good christian life."
Many atheists do so every day, and have no need of christianity to accomplish it.

What's more impressive? Being "good" when you think you're being watched, and might be punished, or being "good" when no one's watching and there's no penalty for being bad? (Of course, I don't mean punished by the law, but by a god.)

I'd have to say atheists, in general, have it all over the religious people.

Well, I personally have learned that I am not strong enough to be good on my own. I need God to be strong; I rely on His strength more than my own.

It's only with this realization that I have found the humility to forgive the weaknesses of all other human beings, as well. How can I hold them to a standard that I know I, myself, can't meet?

And while I won't judge any individual, I can say as a general matter that no human being on the planet, atheist or not, lives a life free of evil. We all make bad, selfish, malicious choices. None of us lives up to our created potential.

But that's okay, because the transcendent act of Christ redeems us from our evil, and puts us in touch with His unique perfection.

Christianity is not a story of learning to be perfect; Christianity is about growing better and relying on our God's perfection.

 

[Mudcat]

The Bible is the inspired word of God

Evidence?

as meaningful for us today as it was ages in the past.

what is the relevance of not wearing clothes of mixed fibers, might I ask?

The Bible is a message to all mankind.

Other than providing an early example of "you can't believe everything you see in print" what message is it trying to convey? Please use, plain, straight forward, non-evasive English.

Anyone can read the Bible and learn enough to live a good, Christian life, to have a positive relationship with God and with Man.

FTFY and you do know that 'anyone' can do that even without the Bible (or holy book of choice) right?

 

[Rasmus]

what is the relevance of not wearing clothes of mixed fibers, might I ask?

I am more concerned with the lack of updates or references for later generations.

There might have been a sound reason back when for that law, and maybe it was obvious and well understood.

You could expect smart believers to not only follow that law, but realize when it'd no longer be practical to relevant to adhere to it.

But then, shouldn't there also be laws that didn't make a bit of sense back then, but would eventually be well understood? (Something about, uh, i don't know, the timing of decompression after diving, the danger of nuclear energy, a teensy tiny warning against voting a certain Mr. Hitler to power...)

The book contains a lot that may have once been very relevant but certainly isn't now. So even if some parts are still important now, where is what's important only for today?

In other words, why does the inspired wisdom from god not contain anything only a god could come up with? why is it indistinguishable from something a non-inspired but potentially deluded person might have written?

 

[Mudcat]

I am more concerned with the lack of updates or references for later generations.

Hah! I like that! If it really is the divinely inspired word of God where are the status updates?

 

[Craig B]

Well, I personally have learned that I am not strong enough to be good on my own. I need God to be strong; I rely on His strength more than my own. (...) But that's okay, because the transcendent act of Christ redeems us from our evil, and puts us in touch with His unique perfection. Christianity is not a story of learning to be perfect; Christianity is about growing better and relying on our God's perfection.

That is a very benign and attractive form of Christianity, but is it the one preached by Paul to the Romans? The most atrocious possible belief is that God "predestines" people to their fate, and that it is this divine choice, rather than human action or merit, that leads to salvation. Or, for the majority, to damnation. In 1880 a Canadian defender of the ideas of the American atheist R G Ingersoll quoted from Romans (see http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38303/38303-h/38303-h.htm) :

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." (Romans, 8th and 9th Chapters.)

Now, you have a problem. If, as you say,

I am not strong enough to be good on my own. I need God to be strong; I rely on His strength more than my own.

then either God imparts this strength to us all, in which case your own puny merits are irrelevant; or he imparts it only to his chosen ones, and then we are back within the realm of divine predestination. Unfortunately the predestinators, though monstrous, are intellectually consistent, while the more sympathetic Christians, though benevolent, are not. Paul's position, however, is clear. Unfortunately.

 

[Rasmus]

Hah! I like that! If it really is the divinely inspired word of God where are the status updates?

There isn't even any need for updates as such. The bible is full of predictions - but as far as i can tell, they fall neatly into two groups:

One type of prediction or prophecy is fulfilled or coming true in other parts of the Bible.

The other are currently pending and have for the last few thousand years.

Why does the thing waste pages and pages on people's lineages or different recounts of the same stories but fail to mention aspirin, penicillin, microcomputers, people on the moon or anything of the sort.

Why does it even tell us any old stories, if the space could be used for much more valuable information?

Suppose I offered you the chance to compose a 250 page book that would be send back in time to the year 1900. What would you put in it if you wanted to do the world a favor?

The Bible is the equivalent of you simply giving me a copy of The Farmers and Planters Almanac, 1870 from New York to send back in time.