Does God turn people evil?

[Lanakila]

In my study of the 1st 3 chapters of Romans a few verses stand out.

Rom 1:24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

1:26aBecause of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

So who really is to blame? Does God first make people do things he (or his people) call evil, and then blame them, and tell them they are worthy of death for those things?

[stumpjumper]

I guess it depends upon who you ask.

I would tend to take a different interpretation on that passage.

Paul is setting up a more systematic view in Romans is my opinion.

[Lanakila]

I guess it depends upon who you ask.

I would tend to take a different interpretation on that passage.

Paul is setting up a more systematic view in Romans is my opinion.

What do you mean by systematic view? This doesn't explain away the problem of sin/sinner/creator which boils down to which came first chicken egg type argument.

[Glass*Soul]

In my study of the 1st 3 chapters of Romans a few verses stand out.

Rom 1:24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

1:26aBecause of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

So who really is to blame? Does God first make people do things he (or his people) call evil, and then blame them, and tell them they are worthy of death for those things?

What strikes me is how similar the language and tone that Paul uses to villify those who worship idols in Romans is to that which will be used a generation later by the (probably) pseudonymous author (an admitted admirer of Paul's) of the (truly horrible) book of II Peter to describe those who fail to conform to orthodoxy.

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings....But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!...

These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

(Sodom and Gomorrah are evoked earlier in the chapter.)

So these particular undesirables are like "brute beasts...born only to be caught and destroyed."

For more of the same read Jude.

[Lanakila]

Yeah and the ones that have escaped by knowing the Lord, it's worse off for them than it was in the beginning. That verse kind of shoots a hole in the OSAS doctrine. But Paul actually taught OSAS, it's Peter, James, and Jude and maybe others I am not thinking of that did not.

[Lanakila]

Btw folks its contradictions like this, on the very doctrine of salvation that got me to start searching the scriptures like Paul admonished the Phillipians for doing, and led to my eventual deconversion. Literalists just can't handle the contradictions that are in the text, and the contradictions on how, who, and if you stay saved are there, and that doctrine is of utmost importance in the life of a believer. I did start out a 3 point Calvinist, rejecting the doctrines of limited atonement, and irresistable grace.

[stumpjumper]

I guess it depends upon who you ask.

I would tend to take a different interpretation on that passage.

Paul is setting up a more systematic view in Romans is my opinion.

What do you mean by systematic view? This doesn't explain away the problem of sin/sinner/creator which boils down to which came first chicken egg type argument.

I think it depends upon how you look at the whole book of Romans. I tend to look at it as a letter primarily concerned with justification. In the early portions, he is showing that we are all sinful and then later on that we have been justified by grace.

If you want my real opinion of Romans, I believe it is very universalistic. Paul wrote using a lot of diatribes and many times he would build up an argument just to tear it down again...

I don't agree with all of Paul's premises either but I think Romans is a very difficult book to look at just in sections...

[Joykins]

I always interpreted that verse as God's attitude saying:

"OK, guys, if that is what you really want, so be it. I'll stop interfering. Have at it."

[cas07]

I always interpreted that verse as God's attitude saying:

"OK, guys, if that is what you really want, so be it. I'll stop interfering. Have at it."that is how i have always seen it as well.