This is the first time I've written in over four months. Wow! I've started college, and I'm loving it. I intend to write again because there are a bunch of questions I'm working through (and I love working through them).
I'm going to revisit a question I've often seen in regards to what Paul says in Romans 1. A friend brought up the fact that he couldn't quite agree with what Paul seems to say-my exegesis seemed to sidestep what Paul says. This is actually an objection, as I've looked more into it, I've seen in many Christian and non-Christian circles. Paul seems to say that mankind knows, from looking at creation, "wow there is a God, He is good, He is the sovereign Lord and we ought to bow the knee to Him." This seems outright false though. Cultures throughout the ages, while they might know that God exists, do not know that they ought to repent of their sins or even exalt God above creation. So did Paul get it wrong? Well, let's take a look at the text.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 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 foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
(Romans 1:18-23 ESV)
What is Paul saying here? "What can be known about God"-right there, Paul mentions a limitation. He acknowledges that God cannot be known exhaustively in creation-there are only certain things that can be known about God. Let's continue"what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." So God has shown what can be known about Himself to mankind in creation. What exactly has He shown? "His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature". The word for "divine nature" is θειότης, which is not the word used to describe the essence of God in Colossians 2:9 (in Him the fullness of deity dwells bodily). In other words, Paul's not saying that people know all that God is in Romans 1:20, whereas in Colossians 2:9 He is saying that all that God is dwells bodily in Jesus Christ. Rather, He's referring to the attributes of God. The antecedent of the "it" is the power of God and the attributes of God manifest in His bringing forth the stars, the sea, the moon, the sunsets, in bringing forth lovers, friends, families, and in all good things.
"For although they knew God" = "although they knew the power and attributes of God manifest in creation-His eternal power and divine nature (=attributes)", they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him = they did not praise the God or thank the God to whom those attributes pointed. In other words, in seeing the beauty and power of God manifest in creation, they did not seek the God manifest in those things. For that reason they are without excuse.
So the objection then is this: well, why should anyone have known that they ought to have sought God after seeing His attributes manifest in creation? Why is that something they can be held accountable for?
An analogy may be instructive. Suppose ever since you were little, you had a single mother who slaved away for you year after year. Suppose she gave you many good gifts-food, laughter, movies-she got you involved in clubs where you made the best friends of your life. And suppose you never thank her for it at all. Now suppose you never thanked her for it or showed an ounce of gratitude. If a friend of yours noticed your attitude towards your mother, and called you out on it, and you responded "well how should I have known that I ought to have thanked her for it? No one ever told me that!" Wouldn't you want to slap your theoretical self in the face? If your friend responded, "no one should have needed to tell you that-it should have been clear. The only thing that prevented you from seeing your moral obligation to thank her is your own hardness of heart", wouldn't we all applaud said friend?
There's an axiom or a principle we can draw from this. There are certain actions which are connected to a moral obligation necessarily. In other words, certain actions demand certain moral responses by nature of the action, even if one is not informed of that moral response. We ought to know to thank the mother mentioned above even if one does not tell us explicitly that we ought to thank her. In God's case, even if one is not explicitly told "you ought to thank God for seeing His beauty manifest in the sunset", one ought to know that-the only reason we don't know that is the same reason that the boy above doesn't know to thank His mother: we are so self-absorbed and/or so in love with the Creator's gifts and services that we forget the Creator Himself.
Now the counter to this might be, "well okay, but in your example the mother's existence is really really plain. God's existence isn't." That's the very thing Paul's disputing. If one sat down and thought about creation, I think God's existence would be really evident. In fact, the majority of cultures throughout the ages have looked at creation and inferred the existence of Deity. Secular cultures are a modern phenomena.
In any case, we could modify the analogy to perhaps make it fit. Suppose the mother cooks for you, cleans for you, gives you many good gifts, puts you into clubs-but you almost completely forget her existence. I mean, the thought crosses your mind every now and then, but you rarely give it a second or third or fourth thought. You are so enamored with what she does for you that you forget her, and you forget that she's the one who gave you all those good gifts.
Now before someone respond "but who would do that?!", let me make the point. This is, at the very very least, a possible situation. If the son of this mother responds, "well no one told me to spend more time with her, or to thank her, or to pursue her and look more deeply into what makes mother...well, mother", wouldn't that reflect poorly on the character of the son? Wouldn't that expose him to be immoral, self-centered-sinful? I think it would. If someone calls the boy out on his self-centeredness, and he responds "well I didn't know I was being so selfish and self-centered. You can't hold me accountable for being selfish when I didn't know I was being selfish!" Wouldn't we say "that's outright absurdity"?
Yes, we would. I believe the Apostle is making a similar point. He's saying that we see the beauty of a sunset, the wonder of love, and it shows forth a creator. We know God in that we know the eternal power and divine attributes of God manifest in the creation. Paul seems to be saying that in knowing these attributes, it ought to be plain that we have an obligation to thank the One behind it all. No one ought to have to tell us to thank God for His beauty manifest in creation. It ought to be plain to acknowledge the Creator-yet how do we respond to God's revelation of Himself in nature? The rest of Romans 1 and the beginning of Romans 2 answer that. We make idols based off the creation to worship; we refuse to submit to the moral law God writes on our hearts, since we have all done immoral things. Suppose one beholds the glory of the sunset and doesn't give a second thought to the One who makes that sunset happen. Can that man be held accountable? I'd say yes-because he, like the thankless boy above, is so enamored with the gifts that he forgets the Giver. In knowing the beauties of creation, he ought to know to thank God. The only reason he doesn't is because he's enamored with the gifts of the Giver. We are selfish idolaters outside of Christ to the core-moreso than we know. That shows forth our selfishness and thanklessness. That's the basis by which God is just to declare us "guilty" in His courtroom-our depravity exposes itself in our forgetfulness.
Does Paul make the claim that, in our worship of the gifts from the Giver, we forget the Giver Himself? Yes-read the rest of Romans 1. Hence, Paul isn't making an illogical point. His point actually squares with the moral reality-or perhaps, the Moral Reality-in whom we live and move and have our being.
