Romans 1:24 - 28: Is this even Christian?

[Tladatsi]

Hello,

In an other posting someone pointed out Romans 1:24 - 28 as scriptural condemnation of homosexuality (and lesbianism in particular). Since Paul is more or less down sex in general, this not surprising.

However I notice something I had never imagined I would see in the Bible, even less so in the NT. Now I am sure I have read Romans before but I completely missed this one. In Romans 1 Paul is telling the Romans that people instinctively know the truth of God but reject it and Him. Dispite knowing the truth, they worship false idols. An odd proposition it seems to me. I have never heard that stated anywhere else in the Bible. In the OT it seems that Yahweh revealed His truth to the Israelites and not to other people intentionally. The Canaanites and Egyptians did not worship Yahweh because Yahweh was not interested being worshiped by them and hence did not reveal Himself to them. God made an convenent with Abraham and not with other peoples for a reason. Numbers 15 discusses the distinction between foreigners who sin through ignorance and the children of Israel who know better. So it does not make any sense to say God "implanted" knowledge of God into every single human.

However, far more than that, what Paul says next is much more amazing.

"Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. (Dio kai paradioken antons o Theos...)

What does that mean? God planted the knowledge of Himself in these people, they reject God nonetheless, so God gives them permission to sin. I don't even sure where to start. The verb in question is paradidomi means "to give up", "deliver", "surrender" or "to betray". It is the verb that is always used to describe Judas Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus (Mat 26 and 27). God betrayed them to sin? It is a staggering thought. Lest this be thought a bit of rhetorical excess Paul repeats himself.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: The Greek begins with the same six words. Paul repeats himself word for word. God surrenders these people to sin. It is hard to believe that Paul really means this. However, just for good measure, he says it again.

Romans 1:28And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. Again the exact same Greek words. God "gave up", "surrendered", or "betrayed" these people to sin.

Just as interesting, Paul does not threaten them with hell fire and damnation. They are just ignored by God.

Does God abandon people to sin? Does He give the up, surrender them to "vile affections"? Is this for real?

[Xavier]

Ah, the joys of the fallen free will... Seems like God is giving the people what they asked for.

[Little Shepherd]

Since Paul is more or less down sex in general, this not surprising.
:lmbo:

[Tladatsi]

Ah, the joys of the fallen free will... Seems like God is giving the people what they asked for.

Are you being serious or just being glib.

[Xmansmommy]

Why is it so surprising to you that God turns away His goodness from people who are determined not to do good?

[Sparko]

"to give up" means that they insist on sinning and reject God, so God saying basically "fine. I am done trying to convince these people. let them rot in their sins. they can have what they want."

and they will eventually pay the price for their choices.

[serapha]

Hello,



In Romans 1 Paul is telling the Romans that people instinctively know the truth of God but reject it and Him. Dispite knowing the truth, they worship false idols. An odd proposition it seems to me. I have never heard that stated anywhere else in the Bible. In the OT it seems that Yahweh revealed His truth to the Israelites and not to other people intentionally. The Canaanites and Egyptians did not worship Yahweh because Yahweh was not interested being worshiped by them and hence did not reveal Himself to them.

Hi there!

:hi:


Perhaps you just haven't read the parts of the Bible which show the world the One, True God is the God of Israel.

When David slew Goliath,

17:46
This day will the LORD deliver F97 thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

when Elijah was on Mount Hermon going against the prophets of Baal...

39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.


and when Daniel read the dream in Babylon...

2:47
The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.


There are several occasions when the One, True God of Israel was identified to the world that He was the One Sovereign God.... but even with regal declarations of the One, True God, people continued to worship idols.


For goodness sakes, the Jews were idoltrous, always trying to worship God and have added worship on the side to false idols. That continued until the captivity when the Jews never again would worship any other than the God of Israel.... but they tried for years and years to be polytheistic but were never successful at it.


I hope this helps in your understanding.


~serapha~

[Tladatsi]

Why is it so surprising to you that God turns away His goodness from people who are determined not to do good?

Because what I thought was a central Christian principle that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to save the world from sin. That seems to me to mean that God did NOT betray mankind to sin but rather never gave up, even if it meant death and suffering on the cross to do it.

If God really did "surrender" people to sin, how can he then judge them? He let them go do what they want. You cannot have it both ways. If God gave up on people, He gave them permission to sin. So He can hardly punish them for doing what He gave them permission to do.

Romans 1:24-28 seems to be the exact opposite of Christian thought.

[Tladatsi]

"to give up" means that they insist on sinning and reject God, so God saying basically "fine. I am done trying to convince these people. let them rot in their sins. they can have what they want."

and they will eventually pay the price for their choices.

Then what is Jesus all about? Why did Jesus suffer and die on the cross if God was just going give up on people and let sin? Jesus did not need to die to free everyone from sin if God was going to "give up" on everyone and "surrender" them to sin.

This seems to be the exact opposite of the Christian message.

[Xmansmommy]

Because what I thought was a central Christian principle that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to save the world from sin. That seems to me to mean that God did NOT betray mankind to sin but rather never gave up, even if it meant death and suffering on the cross to do it.

If God really did "surrender" people to sin, how can he then judge them? He let them go do what they want. You cannot have it both ways. If God gave up on people, He gave them permission to sin. So He can hardly punish them for doing what He gave them permission to do.

Romans 1:24-28 seems to be the exact opposite of Christian thought.

God didn't just give the entire world up. He gives individuals up after having loved and drawn each individual. We don't know how long He tries before giving them up. But we do know that He searches the heart and knows at what point a person is determined not to repent. We also know He's longsuffering and we witness that longsuffering in scripture as well as every day in the real world.

He gave them up to be taught the natural consequences of their own choices. And trust me, they aren't always pretty. He didn't just say, "Oh, go and do whatever you like and I don't care" as you seem to think. These people being spoken of in Romans 1, knew God. They knew the truth but they would not live in it. They knew they would be judged by God and guess what the scriptures say the punishment was? You got it, death. Not eternal conscious torment. God allowed them to learn that their choices would lead them to death. Ever met anyone who was guilty of the sins listed in Romans 1:29-31? Examine a person's life who lives those kind of lifestyles and see if they don't die an early death.

[Sparko]

Then what is Jesus all about? Why did Jesus suffer and die on the cross if God was just going give up on people and let sin? Jesus did not need to die to free everyone from sin if God was going to "give up" on everyone and "surrender" them to sin.

This seems to be the exact opposite of the Christian message.


Jesus died on the cross so that we can turn to God and get forgiveness. Without Jesus we would be dead in our sins. Even if we wanted to turn to God we would have no way to pay for our sins other than ourselves without Jesus. But if we don't want Jesus, God isn't going to force him upon us.

Giving them up doesn't mean just saying "oh well, go ahead and sin. see if I care" -- It means that God lets us have our free will. If we insist on rejecting him and sinning despite his efforts to show us different, then he will not force us to be his servants. He will let us have our way and face the consequences.

Hopefully when somene who rejects God and insists on sinning and does continue with his path of destruction, he will eventually hit bottom and realize that it is not the way to live and turn back to God.

It's what we call "tough love"


And the bible does indeed teach that God will stop guiding us and let us have our own way if we insist. He let Adam sin and go his own way. He gave up on the whole world exept 8 people once and flooded the whole thing. He quit trying to convince the Pharoah with Moses after he would not listen.

But he is always there if we change our minds and turn back to him. He forgave David for his sin, He forgave Peter for his turning away, etc.

[Tladatsi]

Jesus died on the cross so that we can turn to God and get forgiveness. Without Jesus we would be dead in our sins. Even if we wanted to turn to God we would have no way to pay for our sins other than ourselves without Jesus. But if we don't want Jesus, God isn't going to force him upon us.

T OK but Paul is not talking about people who hear the Gospel and rejected it. He is talking about any person, even those who have never heard the Good News.

Giving them up doesn't mean just saying "oh well, go ahead and sin. see if I care" --

T - But that is exactly what Paul IS saying. That is why he used the verb paradidomi, it means to surrender someone to the enemy, to betry.

It means that God lets us have our free will. If we insist on rejecting him and sinning despite his efforts to show us different, then he will not force us to be his servants. He will let us have our way and face the consequences. Hopefully when someone who rejects God and insists on sinning and does continue with his path of destruction, he will eventually hit bottom and realize that it is not the way to live and turn back to God. It's what we call "tough love"

T - [b]Again Paul is not talking about People who have heard the Gospel. When he was alive how many people had? A few thousand, may a few tens of thousands out of the millions of people alive?

And the bible does indeed teach that God will stop guiding us and let us have our own way if we insist. He let Adam sin and go his own way.

T- No, God punished Adam and Eve and the talking snake. Adam had to pull a living by the sweat of his brow from the earth, Eve the pain of childbirth, and the snake had to crawl about on his tummy, eat dust, and get trampled upon.

He gave up on the whole world exept 8 people once and flooded the whole thing. He quit trying to convince the Pharoah with Moses after he would not listen.

T - Except it was God who hardened the King of Egypt's heart (Ex 7:13 and 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:21, 11:10, 14:8)

[Tladatsi]

God didn't just give the entire world up. He gives individuals up after having loved and drawn each individual. We don't know how long He tries before giving them up. But we do know that He searches the heart and knows at what point a person is determined not to repent. We also know He's longsuffering and we witness that longsuffering in scripture as well as every day in the real world.

T - I am sorry I just don't buy it. I do not believe that God gives up on people. Especially people who have not heard the Good News, which is who Paul is talking about. Paul was writing to the Romans no later than 50 AD. How many people had heard of Jesus? A few thousand, maybe tens of thousands out of the millions alive at the time?


He gave them up to be taught the natural consequences of their own choices. And trust me, they aren't always pretty. He didn't just say, "Oh, go and do whatever you like and I don't care" as you seem to think.

That is exactly what Paul says. He says that God "gives them up", surrenders them, betrays them. That is what the verb paradidomi means.

These people being spoken of in Romans 1, knew God. They knew the truth but they would not live in it. They knew they would be judged by God and guess what the scriptures say the punishment was? You got it, death. Not eternal conscious torment. God allowed them to learn that their choices would lead them to death. Ever met anyone who was guilty of the sins listed in Romans 1:29-31? Examine a person's life who lives those kind of lifestyles and see if they don't die an early death.

No, that exactly NOT the people who Paul is speaking of. These are people who have NOT heard the Good News. Look at Romans 1:18-20

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Paul is not describing some people who heard the Gospel and rejected it. He is saying that anyone who sees the earth and the sky should automatically know God. That is a strange position of an evangelist. Why bring the Good News to people who should already know it and have already rejected it and in turn have been abandoned by God?

[Sparko]

T OK but Paul is not talking about people who hear the Gospel and rejected it. He is talking about any person, even those who have never heard the Good News.



T - But that is exactly what Paul IS saying. That is why he used the verb paradidomi, it means to surrender someone to the enemy, to betry.



T - [b]Again Paul is not talking about People who have heard the Gospel. When he was alive how many people had? A few thousand, may a few tens of thousands out of the millions of people alive?

Well Gorsh, T, I guess you didn't read the first part where is says

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

God reveals himself clearly. They reject God. They sin. They deserve his wrath. They refuse to see what God has revealed to them. Not because it is no evident, but because they are wicked and don't want to see that there really is a God.

T- No, God punished Adam and Eve and the talking snake. Adam had to pull a living by the sweat of his brow from the earth, Eve the pain of childbirth, and the snake had to crawl about on his tummy, eat dust, and get trampled upon.


:duh: How is that not in line with Romans 1? They sinned, they got his wrath and were kicked out of paradise. Later they submitted to him and he accepted them again. But they still had to deal with the consequences of thier sin. The didn't get paradise back.


T - Except it was God who hardened the King of Egypt's heart (Ex 7:13 and 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:21, 11:10, 14:8)

It also says the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Basically when it says that God hardened his heart it is referring to God sending plagues against Pharoah, knowing it would only tick him off and make him more stubborn. The plagues and what moses said caused Pharoah's heart to harden, he became stubborn. But it was a REACTION to what God did, not a direct action. God warned him and warned him and then 'gave him over' to his hardened heart.

===

I usually don't like paraphrase versions of the bible, but on Romans 1, I think the Message (a modern language paraphrase version) states the ideas Paul was saying pretty clear. I am going to quote it below.


18But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth. 19But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! 20By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. 21What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. 22They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. 23They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand. 24So God said, in effect, "If that's what you want, that's what you get." It wasn't long before they were living in a pigpen, smeared with filth, filthy inside and out. 25And all this because they traded the true God for a fake god, and worshiped the god they made instead of the God who made them--the God we bless, the God who blesses us. Oh, yes!

26Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either--women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. 27Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men--all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it--emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

28Since they didn't bother to acknowledge God, God quit bothering them and let them run loose. 29And then all hell broke loose: rampant evil, grabbing and grasping, vicious backstabbing. They made life hell on earth with their envy, wanton killing, bickering, and cheating. Look at them: mean-spirited, venomous, 30fork-tongued God-bashers. Bullies, swaggerers, insufferable windbags! They keep inventing new ways of wrecking lives. They ditch their parents when they get in the way. 31Stupid, slimy, cruel, cold-blooded. 32And it's not as if they don't know better. They know perfectly well they're spitting in God's face. And they don't care--worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best!



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=65;

[Tladatsi]

[/b]Well Gorsh, T, I guess you didn't read the first part where is says

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

God reveals himself clearly. They reject God. They sin. They deserve his wrath. They refuse to see what God has revealed to them. Not because it is no evident, but because they are wicked and don't want to see that there really is a God.

T - In my original posting I noted this section of Romans 1 quite clearly. What is Paul saying here? That people somehow know God intrinsically? Moses knew nothing of Yahweh until Yahweh showed up personnally to inform Moses of the truth. The same with Abraham. Yahweh met Abraham in Gen 12 and explained the situation. So how can Paul say that God and the Gospel "have been clearly seen". If this is so, who needs evangelists?

:duh: How is that not in line with Romans 1? They sinned, they got his wrath and were kicked out of paradise. Later they submitted to him and he accepted them again. But they still had to deal with the consequences of thier sin. The didn't get paradise back.

T - "And the bible does indeed teach that God will stop guiding us and let us have our own way if we insist. He let Adam sin and go his own way." and I pointed out that God did not give up on Adam, God took action. He did not give up on Adam.

It also says the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Basically when it says that God hardened his heart it is referring to God sending plagues against Pharoah, knowing it would only tick him off and make him more stubborn. The plagues and what moses said caused Pharoah's heart to harden, he became stubborn. But it was a REACTION to what God did, not a direct action. God warned him and warned him and then 'gave him over' to his hardened heart.

T - God did not give up on the King of Egypt. God was not interested in teaching the King His truth. Off the many instances of the King's hardened heart, the easy majority are caused by God. In Ex 9:12 it clearly states that "[H]e hardended Pharaoh's heart", He being the Lord. The subject is Yahweh, the verb (khazaq) is active and intensified (piel) and direct object is "leb par'oh", the heart of pharaoh. The use of piel clearly indicates that Yahweh is not only the initiator of this action (hardening or more literally strenthening) but that it is an action that is above and beyond normal action. It is Yahweh who is actively and intensely hardening the King's hear.

More to the point is the earlier episode where God threatens to kill Moses with a fiery sword. God did not just give up on Moses when he failed to get a certain circumcision performed. He stepped in an took action. When the Israelites sinned in the desert, God did not give up on them, He stepped in and took action. That is the God who does not give up on even sinners.
===

[Sparko]

T - In my original posting I noted this section of Romans 1 quite clearly. What is Paul saying here? That people somehow know God intrinsically? Moses knew nothing of Yahweh until Yahweh showed up personnally to inform Moses of the truth. The same with Abraham. Yahweh met Abraham in Gen 12 and explained the situation. So how can Paul say that God and the Gospel "have been clearly seen". If this is so, who needs evangelists?



T - "And the bible does indeed teach that God will stop guiding us and let us have our own way if we insist. He let Adam sin and go his own way." and I pointed out that God did not give up on Adam, God took action. He did not give up on Adam.



T - God did not give up on the King of Egypt. God was not interested in teaching the King His truth. Off the many instances of the King's hardened heart, the easy majority are caused by God. In Ex 9:12 it clearly states that "[H]e hardended Pharaoh's heart", He being the Lord. The subject is Yahweh, the verb (khazaq) is active and intensified (piel) and direct object is "leb par'oh", the heart of pharaoh. The use of piel clearly indicates that Yahweh is not only the initiator of this action (hardening or more literally strenthening) but that it is an action that is above and beyond normal action. It is Yahweh who is actively and intensely hardening the King's hear.

More to the point is the earlier episode where God threatens to kill Moses with a fiery sword. God did not just give up on Moses when he failed to get a certain circumcision performed. He stepped in an took action. When the Israelites sinned in the desert, God did not give up on them, He stepped in and took action. That is the God who does not give up on even sinners.
===


Uh huh. I see... So you don't think that God flooding an entire planet is "giving up on sinners?" - Or raining fire down on Soddam and Gommorah? Or what he promises he will do in Revelation when he destroys the wicked in fire and plagues?

God lets us have our way if we fight him long enough. If we turn back to him he is waiting there with open arms. When Adam turned back to God, God accepted him. When Moses turned back to God, God accepted him. When David turned back to God, God accepted him. But there are plenty of cases where people refused to turn back to God and God destroyed them.

[jason]

Since Paul is more or less down sex in general, this not surprising.
Paul is not down on sex. Unless being down on sex means promoting sexual realtions in the safest and most fulfilling and perfect way possible. It is out sex crazed culture that is down on sex.

In Romans 1 Paul is telling the Romans that people instinctively know the truth of God but reject it and Him. Dispite knowing the truth, they worship false idols. An odd proposition it seems to me.
Why ? Its called surpressing the truth in unrighteousness.

So it does not make any sense to say God "implanted" knowledge of God into every single human.
Actually it does. It is most certianly true.

What does that mean? God planted the knowledge of Himself in these people, they reject God nonetheless, so God gives them permission to sin. I don't even sure where to start.
He does not give them permission to sin, he simple gives them what they want. If you want to reject God and have nothing to do with him, then God will give you your hearts desire ultimately, however foolish that request.

Just as interesting, Paul does not threaten them with hell fire and damnation. They are just ignored by God.
And yet it is a more truly terrifiying prospect if you understand what it means.

Does God abandon people to sin? Does He give the up, surrender them to "vile affections"? Is this for real?
It depends. God will always give grace to those who turn back to him and bring them into the family, but those who want nothing to do with God and prefer to set themselves up in the throne reserved for him (Which is ultimatly what sin is all about), God will let them.

Notice of course the interesting idea contained here that homosexual practice is not the actual sin in question, but that it is the natural penalty for rejection God (along with a host of other behaviors).

I actually always thought, based on the things I have seen, that this passage very accurately reflects what goes on in a world that rejects God. they get more and more depraved and evil, and they revel in this.

Heck, given the existence of groups like NAMBLA are defended and they are even spoken of positivly in the fringe "leading edge" of the culture, how could you doubt the truth of Paul's words.

Jason

[jason]

Because what I thought was a central Christian principle that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to save the world from sin. That seems to me to mean that God did NOT betray mankind to sin but rather never gave up, even if it meant death and suffering on the cross to do it.
Yes. But here is a question. What is God to do with those who want nothing to do with him ? Those who call evil good and good evil ? Those who refuse to submit to the created order and bend the knee, as it entirely right for them to do ?

Should God force them against their will to bend the knee ?

Serious question.

If God really did "surrender" people to sin, how can he then judge them?
Are they not responsible for their behavior ?

I wasn't aware that "But its your fault for giving me the freedom to do what I really wanted to do" was a defense in a court of law.

He let them go do what they want.
Is that really a defense ? Sounds a bit like, "But I was just following orders". You can't shift the responsibility for doing the wrong thing just because nobody stopped you from doing it. That is the essence of personal reponsibility.

If God gave up on people, He gave them permission to sin.
I'm curious to know were you got this idea from that God has an obligation to save people from themselves. He does and he will grant mercy to all who ask (Keep in mind of course that you have to ask for mercy, courts do show mercy to those who have nothing but contempt for the institution) for it.

Also, he has not given the people in question permission to sin.

Just because a court does not preemtivly imprison you for crimes you may commit and does not force right behavior upon you, does not mean you therefore have a license to do as you please. As I said above, "But you didn't stop me" is not a recognised defense anywhere I know of.

So He can hardly punish them for doing what He gave them permission to do.
I think you are misunderstanding this idea of "permission".

It is worth noting, that the things mentioned are not "sins" as such, as much as the consequences of Sin. Because they have rejected God and want nothing to do with him, then God says "alright then, have it your way, but the consequences are on your own head". And a nasty list of consequences they are indeed.

But why do these people suddenly loose moral culpability for their behavior as you seem to think ?

God will be there waiting to forgive them if they turn around (as many do) but I don't see why he has an obligation to stop people from rejecting him.

Jason

[Tladatsi]

Uh huh. I see... So you don't think that God flooding an entire planet is "giving up on sinners?" - Or raining fire down on Soddam and Gommorah? Or what he promises he will do in Revelation when he destroys the wicked in fire and plagues?

God lets us have our way if we fight him long enough. If we turn back to him he is waiting there with open arms. When Adam turned back to God, God accepted him. When Moses turned back to God, God accepted him. When David turned back to God, God accepted him. But there are plenty of cases where people refused to turn back to God and God destroyed them.

God did not give up, He did something. He did something. He flooded the Earth, He destroyed burned Sodom and Gomorrah, and He threatened Moeses with a burning sword, but He did not give up. Finally He did something quite different, He sent His only begotten son to Earth. He never said "Go do what you want, I give up". That is what Paul said.

[jason]

God did not give up, He did something. He did something. He flooded the Earth, He destroyed burned Sodom and Gomorrah, and He threatened Moeses with a burning sword, but He did not give up. Finally He did something quite different, He sent His only begotten son to Earth. He never said "Go do what you want, I give up". That is what Paul said.
But Paul did not say that.

Paul's statement is in the context of, "If you wont repent then God will let the consequences of your wrongdoing come upon you".

These natural consequences often drive people to repentance.

Jason

[Sparko]

God did not give up, He did something. He did something. He flooded the Earth, He destroyed burned Sodom and Gomorrah, and He threatened Moeses with a burning sword, but He did not give up. Finally He did something quite different, He sent His only begotten son to Earth. He never said "Go do what you want, I give up". That is what Paul said.

Tladatsi, I think we are just talking past each other on what "give them up" means.

It doesn't mean to turn a blind eye to them and give them permission to sin. It doesn't say "GIVE UP" on them either. It says "Give them up to" - that means "turn them over to"

Like if someone you know was beating his wife and you "gave him up to" the police. You turned him over.

Likewise, God turned sinners over to their sins when they refuse him. He is not saying "its OK to sin now" - he is saying if you want to wallow in mud, I will turn you over to the mud and you will see that the mud is its own punishment.

When God turns the sinners over to their sins, that means they will suffer the consequences of the sin. Sin is not just an arbitrary rule that God makes up. He tells us that things are sin because they are evil and bad for us. When we do those sins, we will hurt ourselves and others. We will pay for it one way or another. And then we will pay again on judgment day, unless we have Jesus as our savior.

Now I have explained this to you several times, and Jason has explained it to you, and others have explained it to you. I don't know how many other ways to explain it. If you just refuse to hear what we are saying, I will just have to give you up to your stubborn ignorance :wink:

[Xmansmommy]

T - I am sorry I just don't buy it. I do not believe that God gives up on people. Especially people who have not heard the Good News, which is who Paul is talking about. Paul was writing to the Romans no later than 50 AD. How many people had heard of Jesus? A few thousand, maybe tens of thousands out of the millions alive at the time?


That is exactly what Paul says. He says that God "gives them up", surrenders them, betrays them. That is what the verb paradidomi means.

No, that exactly NOT the people who Paul is speaking of. These are people who have NOT heard the Good News. Look at Romans 1:18-20

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Paul is not describing some people who heard the Gospel and rejected it. He is saying that anyone who sees the earth and the sky should automatically know God. That is a strange position of an evangelist. Why bring the Good News to people who should already know it and have already rejected it and in turn have been abandoned by God?

I never suggested that Romans 1:18-19 referred to those that had heard the gospel and rejected it. You might look at my thoughts on those texts here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73362&highlight=romans).

[Tladatsi]

But Paul did not say that.

Paul's statement is in the context of, "If you wont repent then God will let the consequences of your wrongdoing come upon you".

These natural consequences often drive people to repentance.

Jason

That is EXACTLY what Paul is saying (Dio kai paradioken antons o Theos...). The verb paradidomi comes from the verb didomi (to give) and the prefix para above, from, near, etc. Hence, "give up" or "give over". There are five main senses of this verb.

1) to give into the hands (of another)

2) to give over into (one's) power or use (including by treachery)

3) to commit, to commend

4) to deliver verbally

5) to permit allow

The verb occurs in the NT 135 times in 118 verses. Senses 3 and 4 make no snese in the context of Romans 1. Sense 1, 2, and 5 are possible. In the NT, Sense 2 is by far the most common. In Mat 4:12 John the Baptist was delivered up to the authorities (paradothi). In Mat 4:10 Judas Iscariot betrays Jesus (paradois). Luke 9:44, John 6:64, Acts 3:13, 1 Cr 5:5, and 2Peter2:4 are but a few more of many examples. It is a harsh word of giving someone over to an enemy.

Only rarely is the more neutral sense of the word (1, 3, or 4) used Jud 1:3, Eph 5:2, Luke 1:2, Mar 7:13and Luke 4:6.

In the context of Romans 1, which of these senses makes the most sense? Sense 1 is quite neutral, like delivering a newspaper. Sense 2 (the most commonly used) is quite harsh, like delivering a prisoner to his executioner, as Judas Iscariot did. Since 5 is somewhat positive, giving permission. Given the overall harshness of this section of Romans 1, Sense 2 is most consistent.

In Romans 1, the verb paradioken is in the active voice and indicitive mood with God as the subject of the sentance. In this sense God is actively handing over, betraying, people to a live of sin.

[Tladatsi]

Tladatsi, I think we are just talking past each other on what "give them up" means.

It doesn't mean to turn a blind eye to them and give them permission to sin. It doesn't say "GIVE UP" on them either. It says "Give them up to" - that means "turn them over to"

Like if someone you know was beating his wife and you "gave him up to" the police. You turned him over.

Likewise, God turned sinners over to their sins when they refuse him. He is not saying "its OK to sin now" - he is saying if you want to wallow in mud, I will turn you over to the mud and you will see that the mud is its own punishment.

When God turns the sinners over to their sins, that means they will suffer the consequences of the sin. Sin is not just an arbitrary rule that God makes up. He tells us that things are sin because they are evil and bad for us. When we do those sins, we will hurt ourselves and others. We will pay for it one way or another. And then we will pay again on judgment day, unless we have Jesus as our savior.

Now I have explained this to you several times, and Jason has explained it to you, and others have explained it to you. I don't know how many other ways to explain it. If you just refuse to hear what we are saying, I will just have to give you up to your stubborn ignorance :wink:

Yes we agree. Paul is saying that God actively giving over, surrendering people to a live of sin. (I gave a longer response to Jason on the grammar and meaning of the Paul's Greek.) I don't buy it. Throughout the OT God never gives anyone over to a life of sin.

[Tladatsi]

I never suggested that Romans 1:18-19 referred to those that had heard the gospel and rejected it.

OK then, we agree, Paul is not referring to people who heard the Good News and rejected it.

So then how can Paul say that God has surrendered these people to a life of sin when they have never heard to Word of God? What Paul seems to be saying is that people are born with a knowledge of God and yet reject it. How is that? Moses knew nothing of Yahweh until Yahweh showed up personnally to inform Moses of the truth. The same with Abraham. Yahweh met Abraham in Gen 12 and explained the situation. So how can Paul say that God and the Gospel "have been clearly seen". If this is so, who needs evangelists?

[Xmansmommy]

I refer you to the link I posted so that you can better understand my position, Tladatsi.

[jason]

In Romans 1, the verb paradioken is in the active voice and indicitive mood with God as the subject of the sentance. In this sense God is actively handing over, betraying, people to a live of sin.
Hang on, you have just over stepped what you are claiming is the case.

Based on the definition you provided there is no need for treachery in the sense of handing people over.

I have no problem with God saying to people, "Ok you want to live a life of sin and reject me, then so be it, I will give you over to what you most desire".

In line with the definitions you have provided. There is no requirement that it be a betrayal. It is an honouring of what they want.

Jason

[Sparko]

Yes we agree. Paul is saying that God actively giving over, surrendering people to a live of sin. (I gave a longer response to Jason on the grammar and meaning of the Paul's Greek.) I don't buy it. Throughout the OT God never gives anyone over to a life of sin.

Apparently you are still not reading what Jason and I (and other have been saying) You have made up your mind what you want Paul to be saying and nothing I or anyone else say will change your mind. I suggest you read some commentary on the verses in question. Christians have been studying Paul's words for 2000 years, so if you don't want to believe me or Jason then perhaps you will believe some expert theologians?

God will let people have their own ways, if they want to wallow in mud despite his being there for them, he will let them do that. Even if they destroy themselves by doing it. It is NOT 'permission' to sin as if they can now sin without consequences. It is not God not caring. It is God honoring free will.

Some commentaries:

--
Robertson's Word Pictures (RWP):
God gave them up (paredōken autous ho theos). First aorist active indicative of paradidōmi, old and common verb to hand over (beside, para) to one’s power as in Mat_4:12. These people had already wilfully deserted God who merely left them to their own self-determination and self-destruction, part of the price of man’s moral freedom. Paul refers to this stage and state of man in Act_17:30 by “overlooked” (huperidōn). The withdrawal of God’s restraint sent men deeper down. Three times Paul uses paredōken here (Rom_1:24, Rom_1:26, Rom_1:28), not three stages in the giving over, but a repetition of the same withdrawal. The words sound to us like clods on the coffin as God leaves men to work their own wicked will.


Clarke:
God - gave them up, etc. - They had filled up the measure of their iniquities, and God, by permitting them to plunge into all manner of irregularities, thus, by one species of sin, inflicted punishment on another.

---
Gill:
Rom 1:24 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness,.... Not by putting any into them, but by leaving them to the pollution of their nature; by withdrawing his providential restraints from them, and by giving them up to judicial hardness:

--
JFB:

gave them up--This divine abandonment of men is here strikingly traced in three successive stages, at each of which the same word is used (Rom_1:24, Rom_1:26; and Rom_1:28, where the word is rendered "gave over"). "As they deserted God, God in turn deserted them; not giving them divine (that is, supernatural) laws, and suffering them to corrupt those which were human; not sending them prophets, and allowing the philosophers to run into absurdities. He let them do what they pleased, even what was in the last degree vile, that those who had not honored God, might dishonor themselves" [GROTIUS].

--

People's New Testament (PNT):

Wherefore. Having chosen folly, God gave them up to the consequences of their folly, and there followed an awful moral degradation which is now described. Their false religion was no check upon their lusts. They engaged in the lowest and most disgusting lusts. Language cannot describe the pollution of the Gentile world, when Paul wrote, as revealed by the pagan writers of that period.

[Sparko]

I refer you to the link I posted so that you can better understand my position, Tladatsi.

so far he doesnt seem to be interested in anyone's position but his own. I hope I am wrong. Otherwise we have just wasted our time here.

God bless you xmm.

Sparko

[Xmansmommy]

so far he doesnt seem to be interested in anyone's position but his own. I hope I am wrong. Otherwise we have just wasted our time here.

I understand and agree Sparko. At least we gave an answer for the hope of our faith. :smile:

God bless you xmm.

Sparko

And you as well! :hug:

[Tladatsi]

Hang on, you have just over stepped what you are claiming is the case.

Based on the definition you provided there is no need for treachery in the sense of handing people over.

I have no problem with God saying to people, "Ok you want to live a life of sin and reject me, then so be it, I will give you over to what you most desire".

In line with the definitions you have provided. There is no requirement that it be a betrayal. It is an honouring of what they want.

Jason

That is one of the senses of the word. That is how it is used most of the time in the NT, even by Paul. However, even if we take a less harsh reading, it does not really change the point. If we take away the sense of betrayal which the NT often uses this verb to have, it still has the sense abadonment or even permission. Read Thayers Lexicon if don't believe me.

[Tladatsi]

Apparently you are still not reading what Jason and I (and other have been saying) You have made up your mind what you want Paul to be saying and nothing I or anyone else say will change your mind. I suggest you read some commentary on the verses in question. Christians have been studying Paul's words for 2000 years, so if you don't want to believe me or Jason then perhaps you will believe some expert theologians?

God will let people have their own ways, if they want to wallow in mud despite his being there for them, he will let them do that. Even if they destroy themselves by doing it. It is NOT 'permission' to sin as if they can now sin without consequences. It is not God not caring. It is God honoring free will.

Some commentaries:

--
Robertson's Word Pictures (RWP):
God gave them up (pared?ken autous ho theos). First aorist active indicative of paradid?mi, old and common verb to hand over (beside, para) to one’s power as in Mat_4:12. These people had already wilfully deserted God who merely left them to their own self-determination and self-destruction, part of the price of man’s moral freedom. Paul refers to this stage and state of man in Act_17:30 by “overlooked” (huperid?n). The withdrawal of God’s restraint sent men deeper down. Three times Paul uses pared?ken here (Rom_1:24, Rom_1:26, Rom_1:28), not three stages in the giving over, but a repetition of the same withdrawal. The words sound to us like clods on the coffin as God leaves men to work their own wicked will.


Clarke:
God - gave them up, etc. - They had filled up the measure of their iniquities, and God, by permitting them to plunge into all manner of irregularities, thus, by one species of sin, inflicted punishment on another.

---
Gill:
Rom 1:24 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness,.... Not by putting any into them, but by leaving them to the pollution of their nature; by withdrawing his providential restraints from them, and by giving them up to judicial hardness:

--
JFB:

gave them up--This divine abandonment of men is here strikingly traced in three successive stages, at each of which the same word is used (Rom_1:24, Rom_1:26; and Rom_1:28, where the word is rendered "gave over"). "As they deserted God, God in turn deserted them; not giving them divine (that is, supernatural) laws, and suffering them to corrupt those which were human; not sending them prophets, and allowing the philosophers to run into absurdities. He let them do what they pleased, even what was in the last degree vile, that those who had not honored God, might dishonor themselves" [GROTIUS].

--

People's New Testament (PNT):

Wherefore. Having chosen folly, God gave them up to the consequences of their folly, and there followed an awful moral degradation which is now described. Their false religion was no check upon their lusts. They engaged in the lowest and most disgusting lusts. Language cannot describe the pollution of the Gentile world, when Paul wrote, as revealed by the pagan writers of that period.

It seems to me that "divine abandonment" is this completely opposite everything else in the Bible. This idea seems especially odd given the fact that Paul is not talking about people who have heard the Good News and rejected it, but people who have never heard it in the first place.

[Samurai Drifter]

It seems to me that "divine abandonment" is this completely opposite everything else in the Bible.

It is completely in line with everything else in the bible. A few instances (out of myriad) of the same word in the LXX:

Le 26:25 And I will bring upon you a sword avenging the cause of my covenant, and ye shall flee for refuge to your cities; and I will send out death against you, and ye shall be delivered into the hands of your enemies.

Isa 34:2 For the wrath of the Lord is upon all nations, and his anger upon the number of them, to destroy them, and give them up to slaughter.

Isa 65:12 I will deliver you up to the sword, ye shall all fall by slaughter: for I called you, and ye hearkened not; I spoke, and ye refused to hear; and ye did evil in my sight, and chose the things wherein I delighted not.

Eze 39:23 And all the nations shall know that the house of Israel were led captive because of their sins, because they rebelled against me, and I turned away my face from them, and delivered them into the hands of their enemies, and they all fell by the sword.

Mic 6:16 For thou hast kept the statues of Zambri, and done all the works of the house of Achaab; and ye have walked in their ways, that I might deliver thee to utter destruction, and those that inhabit the city to hissing: and ye shall bear the reproach of nations.

A few from the New Testament:

Mt 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Ac 7:42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

This idea seems especially odd given the fact that Paul is not talking about people who have heard the Good News and rejected it, but people who have never heard it in the first place.

Based on what reasoning are you arriving at your conclusion? The passage states clearly:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Thus, these men know the truth and actively attempt to hold it down.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

They which may be known of God has been shown to them.

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.

They knew God.

So, the scripture is consistent in its teaching that, if you know God and turn from God, God will certainly deliver you over to that which destroys.