This is not really a question but rather a statement. I see many young earth creationists use this verse to prove that Evolutionists (Atheist or Theists) do not know that they are talking about. But Paul does not have that in mind. Reading Romans 1, you see that Paul is describing those who deny God (yes, Atheists). in fact, it is also talking about those who worship idols in the same sentence. So what does Science have to do with this verse? Absolutely nothing! The principle could be used, saying you become arrogant and say that you are wise, but you are actually wrong. But that’s not what this verse is saying. Using it in the “Creation vs Evolution” is taking it out of context. If we are debating God vs no god, then the context is correct. Since Christians vary on their views of Science and Creation, we can’t use Romans 1:22 because Evolution is not atheism. Accepting a scientific theory is not denying God.
I believe St. Augustine salutes you!
I agree, but confess that I have used Romans 1:20 to support the truth of physical observations in determining the reality of the the world and God. In other words: science and God as revealed through general revelation.
Can I not do that? I admit, since science was not around 2000 years ago as we know it, there is a disconnect of sorts, but certainly principles of observation and the reality of creation was accepted and is the basis of scientific observation and thought.
What do you think when backing up a few verses?
It’s hard to say because I can see this in Verse 20. But Yes. You can use that for scientific purpose because what paul is saying is talking about creation (Whether by Evolution or not). The next verse and verse 22 are talking about the people that do not see God in everything even though it’s clear.
So I can agree with you that its probably alright to use Romans 1:20 when you talk about creation.
Thanks for thinking about this @DarkX_Studios! I’ve spent some time thinking about Romans 1:20 as well pondering in what sense are people without excuse and how does this apply to science?
Are people without excuse because Paul knew virtually nothing about the natural world and the only good explanation was a Creator or was he writing based upon what we did know (which was virtually nothing)? Does that question make sense?
Would you say that part of your motivation is that so many Christians use Romans 1:22 to dismiss the work of scientists or experts in many fields they disagree with? Just to say, ‘they’re just fools because they aren’t Christian?’
The Text, in the middle of the Context:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
I’ve said this before, Paul is a great rhetoritician… a great debater… but he’s not the most logical of the Biblical writers!
In verse 20 we read: "for the invisible things of him (from the Creation of the World) are clearly seen…"
Yeah? The invisible things are clearly seen? Clearly visible? Clearly understood? I’m thinking this is relatively debatable. Paul even says people are without an excuse because these invisible things are so knowable.
I wonder why he chose the term “invisible”?
Verse 21 he presumes they had already known God, and yet had enough vanity that they rejected God.
And verse 22 comes in a short stroke like an ice pick: “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” But just who doesn’t qualify for this criticism? Faith Healers would qualify in my view. Creationists who make up non-sensical refutations to Geology would also qualify.
Verses 23+ talk about turning the “invisible God” into an idol, making the irony of worshiping something Created by the Creator, rather than the Creator himself!
The verse is clearly speaking about the fetish-ism of pagan cults … placing a physical object as the target of pagan adoration, rather than the invisible and unbounded infinite represented by God.