Now that is in direct opposition with Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:14-16
No, Rom 1, the “they” is very specific:
Rom 1: 28 And 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;
The “they” are the extremely, openly, publicly disobedient. Follow the thought in the entire chapter and see how they end up applauding all kinds of evil. This is not your average Joe.
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Again, this is not your typical person, right?
A good question is whether or not you think like a Calvinist and think man is utterly depraved or not. Catholics don’t believe this. Jews don’t believe this. Nobody believed total depravity was the case with man until Calvin defined it as such.
I’m not sure how you can read Rom 2:14-16 and get the exact opposite of what it’s saying. Paul says that the Gentiles don’t have the Law but they do have an inner witness to the law, and by that fact, are either accused or excused in their conscience according to their obedience to what has been revealed to them. That is exactly what it says, and is exactly what the article says. Yet, when you quote it by saying “No one has this type of invincible ignorance” and then use Rom 2:14-16, you are quoting the very passage that refutes your assertion, not supports it. Read it one more time. It says Gentiles have a law on their hearts, since they don’t have the formal Law, and they can be excused or accused by it. They are held accountable to what they know, exactly like it says.
Who is James written to? What is the context of the infamous passages? It’s to Jews in the Diaspora, right? And the antagonist is made to say:
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
These are well informed Jews beyond any realm of ignorance. They are debating faith. This is an internal debate, as it where. Who is Abraham or Rahab? If you never heard of them, this would have no meaning to you. The context here is conscience, and you can’t have this debate without leaving that on the table.
There is no discrepancy with the RCC position. It’s nuanced by circumstance and individual. Not endlessly nuanced by myriads of irreconcilable positions, but nuanced nonetheless by the reality of different human situations.
Did all humans, immediately after, say, Jesus’ ascension, die without having heard his name and go right to hell? Did human who died just before just was ascending to heaven, but had never heard of him, make it to heaven? Where is the cutoff? Your logic really tanks there doesn’t it? It’s absurd to think that more people were judged to hell AFTER Jesus rose from the dead than before. Yet that is the Protestant position, plain and simple. This is not the Jewish or Catholic position, so you have to choose.
Again, if you don’t have faith, which is required, none of this can make any sense. You see two pictures, because you don’t have the faith to see how they could be one. But you have 2000 years of testimony that contradicts the 500 year old concept you hold. From my perspective, it takes more faith to believe Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Knox, who didn’t agree on much anyway, than to just take at face value what the only universal Church has always taught.
If you could get yourself to say “If the RCC is right, as it says it is, how could I reason as they do to see the congruity of what they are saying about…” this or that.
There is no overlooking, and there is no formula that fits everyone the same. There is a sliding scale of culpability, as Scripture plainly teaches. This is a prominent feature of Pauline theology, is it not? What about:
Rom 14: One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind…But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean…So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
Paul teaches here that this clearly comes down to conscience. If you remove this part of the teaching, there is no way to reconcile the RCC position. It falls apart, and you are left with the “black and white” version of the Protestants, which as I demonstrated above, leads to absurd conclusions.
Is the “African in the jungle” going to hell for not having heard the Gospel, or for being untrue to his conscience?
) but I don’t have time to go look that up. Regardless, many, dare I say most, Protestants believe you are going to hell if you don’t believe in Jesus. It rings out in sermon after sermon, book after book. I’m not sure how you have missed that!
