When theology and reason collide.

[Nekoda]

I haven't read Romans recently enough to be sure, but I typically see chapters 9-11 as Paul's answer for why Israel failed to complete its covenant mission. His point is that Israel's failings were not outside of God's plan; He always planned for Jesus to succeed where Israel failed. I find this reading of having the advantage of following the theme of the first 8 chapters and not suddenly and for no reason switching into some weird discussion of double predestination.

But that is exactly what he does. Writing Romans chapter 9:10-18 Paul anticipates that someone will object:

Romans 9:19

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

In other words, Paul's picture of God is that of an unjust tyrant. He, the Potter, makes people resist Him, then blames them for it and punishes them. If you raise your voice to object - well - who are you to talk back to God?

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?


Here again we see Paul's theology in matters of man's choices. Man has no choice, according to Paul. According to him - God's purposes are met by overriding free will, making men "objects of wrath prepared for destruction" so that the riches of mercy may be shown to His special chosen.



In short, according to Pauline Theology - man is a prisoner without a choice, without a voice - and be he good or bad - he must submit to God's will - and that it is in fact God's will that he be a sinner, if that be his lot as clay in the potter's hands.



This is Blasphemy. This teaching makes God the author of sin in an individuals life. It makes a mockery of Mercy - as one cannot truly repent and ask forgiveness if that person believes they are not at fault or ultimately responsible in the first place.

Probably a clever way of saying that people tend to break rules when they're given them. It's more of a psychological observation than a theological belief.

And it is also untrue. Test yourself. Next time you're driving - and you stop at a red light - bring to mind that it is the law that you stop at red lights. Does a reflection of the traffic law give rise to an urge to break that traffic law? It doesn't in me.

No where does Paul teach the idea that sin is legally imputed through genetics. That view is read back into Romans 5, but its not there. All Paul says is that Adam caused death to come to all men. Think of Adam as letting a monster loose that goes about attacking people. That's a rather good analogy since Paul views sin as a living force (and no not that force ).

The analogy doesn't fit. According to Romans 5:12-17 - all of humanity suffers death because of the sin of one man. And all sin because of the sin of one man. It isn't the case of some roaming monster that one is unlucky enough to get attacked by. The "roaming monster", according to Paul - afflicts all men who have ever walked the earth - because of the sin of one man - Adam.

If you are born after Adam - as everyone is - that's too bad. The monster is with you because of your genetic father.

You could say the same about Jesus. In Matt. 11:25-26 He thanks the Father for purposely allowing the 'infants' to understand Jesus's message while hiding it from the intellectuals. Maybe Richard Dawkins doesn't believe because God's keeping Him from believing.

The issue at stake is obedience or repentance. The "wise and learned" have a Pharisee, or a Pharisee's teaching to refer to, to excuse them.

In Rabbinic Judaism - this is the Babylonian Talmud - written by the Pharisees.

In Christianity - it is the writings of the Pharisee Paul of Tarsus.



A little child has no such capacity to intellectualize away wrong doing. If they do wrong and conscience convicts they feel guilt and if they do not want to continue to feel guilt they change their ways - ie: they repent.

 

[Nilloc]

But that is exactly what he does. Writing Romans chapter 9:10-18 Paul anticipates that someone will object:

Romans 9:19

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

In other words, Paul's picture of God is that of an unjust tyrant. He, the Potter, makes people resist Him, then blames them for it and punishes them. If you raise your voice to object - well - who are you to talk back to God?

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?


Here again we see Paul's theology in matters of man's choices. Man has no choice, according to Paul. According to him - God's purposes are met by overriding free will, making men "objects of wrath prepared for destruction" so that the riches of mercy may be shown to His special chosen.

As I said, he's probably talking in the specific situation of Israel and the covenant (the theme of the whole letter) and not some for-all-time situtation about free-will vs. predistination. The Jews believed that God, generally speaking, guided the course of history. That seems to be what Paul is affirming here.

In short, according to Pauline Theology - man is a prisoner without a choice, without a voice - and be he good or bad - he must submit to God's will - and that it is in fact God's will that he be a sinner, if that be his lot as clay in the potter's hands.

It isn't fair to take one passage from Paul (ignoring the larger context of the letter) and use that as way to define everything he beleived theologically. He talks about (or at least implies) choice in other places.

This is Blasphemy. This teaching makes God the author of sin in an individuals life. It makes a mockery of Mercy - as one cannot truly repent and ask forgiveness if that person believes they are not at fault or ultimately responsible in the first place.

Geez if you think that's blasphemy, I can't imagine what you think of the Old Testament. I find the picture Paul paints of God far closer to Jesus than much of the Old Testament. Paul says God wants to be merciful to all (Rom. 11:32), where as a large chunk of the Old Testament shows God only wanting mercy for a couple of Israelites.

And it is also untrue. Test yourself. Next time you're driving - and you stop at a red light - bring to mind that it is the law that you stop at red lights. Does a reflection of the traffic law give rise to an urge to break that traffic law? It doesn't in me.

It doesn't have to do it in every situation, just in general. If you want a real life situtation, just look at how the drug laws have cuase more widespread drug use than if we didn't have them or when the UK recently tried to block access to the Pirate Bay, the site got 12 million more hits than usual. And its not as if Paul is teaching anything new here, the idea of knowledge leading to sin was probably taken from Genesis 2 and 3.

The analogy doesn't fit. According to Romans 5:12-17 - all of humanity suffers death because of the sin of one man. And all sin because of the sin of one man. It isn't the case of some roaming monster that one is unlucky enough to get attacked by. The "roaming monster", according to Paul - afflicts all men who have ever walked the earth - because of the sin of one man - Adam.

If you are born after Adam - as everyone is - that's too bad. The monster is with you because of your genetic father.

No, it does fit. The monster effects all men on earth, not because they're human, but because the creation itself has been corrupted. That's what Paul says. For him, sin isn't something that effects humanity through genetics, its a condition that effects the world. Like if kids are born in a post-apocalyptic future and then blaming the crappy conditions they live in on genetics. He's really just interperting what it says in Gen. 3; he's not making up something new.

The issue at stake is obedience or repentance. The "wise and learned" have a Pharisee, or a Pharisee's teaching to refer to, to excuse them.

In Rabbinic Judaism - this is the Babylonian Talmud - written by the Pharisees.

In Christianity - it is the writings of the Pharisee Paul of Tarsus.

A little child has no such capacity to intellectualize away wrong doing. If they do wrong and conscience convicts they feel guilt and if they do not want to continue to feel guilt they change their ways - ie: they repent.

What does this have to do with anything? I pointed out that Jesus thanks the Father for stopping people from accepting His message. How is that any better than what your accusing Paul of saying?