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 thatâs not what this verse is saying. Using it in the âCreation vs Evolutionâ 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 canât use Romans 1:22 because Evolution is not atheism. Accepting a scientific theory is not denying God.
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?
Itâs 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 itâs 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! Iâve 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, âtheyâre just fools because they arenât Christian?â
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Iâve said this before, Paul is a great rhetoritician⌠a great debater⌠but heâs 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 seenâŚ"
Yeah? The invisible things are clearly seen? Clearly visible? Clearly understood? Iâm 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 âinvisibleâ?
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: âprofessing themselves to be wise, they became fools.â But just who doesnât 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 âinvisible Godâ 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.
I think this verse can be even viewed as a scold to Young Earth Creationism.
Paul obviously coudnât mean that Christian morals and truths are embedded in the universe, he would have to ignore his own experiences as a great enemy of Christianity. If it would be so easy, almost all people (him included) wouldnât have mistaken Godâs plan so greatly.
So what he probably meant was how big and unknowable the world is, and how much bigger and greater God had to be.
All those people rejected Godâs greatness, preferring smaller gods that were easier for them to understand and relate to. gods with animals head, gods of rain and other common phenomena, gods of sun to note and many other things they were accustomed to.
Obviously mistaking one seemingly great thing for God when you know so little is to be predicted, but staying in this belief without ever trying to understand more about it and even more, hating on anything that brings something new to the table because it disagrees with how you see your small god, is not a behaviour worthy of praise.
And isnât it awfully typical of Creationists to do exactly that? Believing that their understanding of God is perfect? That those people that lived few thousand years ago managed to capture him perfectly, without a flaw? Was God and by extension, the universe so simple it can be grapsed by anyone? Shouldnât we instead admit that we know nothing, and try to understand the world more, accepting that God may be far beyond anything that even the smartest and the wisest thought about him.
And what did Creationists do instead? They stayed in one belief, that the way how ancient people saw God is the only right way, rejecting and fearing every new discovery, everything that went against their small god.
Thatâs at last one way of seeing this verse, obviously Paul was just a human and he may have truly believed that even though he failed to see it before, Christian God and his plan were always there and were obvious for any open-minded person to see (Job begs to differ). If thatâs true that only shows us that our understanding of God canât stop on Paul or any other Apostle, it cannot even stop on Jesus, even if there comes a time when we understand his every word and wisdom, there will still be a lot we donât know and one day we may have to accept, that the image of God we created in our heads is a far cry from reality.
In reading the text, isolating verse 22 from 23 is a mistake, as both are required to complete the sentence and the thought:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 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.
That sounds like even more of a warning not to change the glory of God into something anthropomorphic and reducing it to a literal physical phenomenon, as some have done to the creation story.
I certainly agree with most of what you say⌠butâŚ
No not atheists. Seeing no reason to believe in the God talked about and used by theists for their own selfish gain, is not the same as denying God.
As for Paul in Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 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. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
He is talking about wickedness, suppressing the truth, idolatry, and denying what is made plain to all people (like creationists frankly). This is not the same as refusing to buy into the God theists use to toot their own horn at all. As for honoring God, well, Jesus explains how we do that in Matthew 25.
31 âWhen the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, âCome, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.â 37 Then the righteous will answer him, âLord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?â 40 And the King will answer them, âTruly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.â 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, âDepart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.â 44 Then they also will answer, âLord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?â 45 Then he will answer them, âTruly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.â
So⌠it is not the Samaritan, heretic, or those who donât believe the approved dogma who do not honor God but the religious person passing over to the other side of the street to avoid the stranger hurt and bleeding his life out.
Of course I agree. But donât think atheism is denying God either. Denying God does not mean those who cannot understand what you even mean by this word âGodâ or about refusing to have anything to do with inquisitors torturing people who wonât go along with their obsession with power and service to a devil-god. Denying God refers to those who believe in a God but simply do not care about Him or anybody else, because they too busy looking out for themselves. Denying God is not about those like Einstein (not even close to being a theist) who see more of God in order and workings of nature than in the abuses of religion. Denying God refers to those who deny their fellow human beings what they need to live because they cannot see God in them.
So Paul wasn"t aware of Anaximander?