#31. Romans 1:28 – The Sad Reality (Indignation Series, Part X)

 Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

And according as they do not test God, to have Him in recognition, God gives them over to a disqualified mind, to do that which is not befitting…

Yes, this is the sad reality. All of our issues that we consider prominent and degrading to our social lives – lies, corruption, evil inventions, and more which we will consider in the following three articles – are, in truth, the effect of the issues presented in the previous verses. This is the fifth time that Paul has used the term “according.” He uses this to show us what is in accord with the dishonorable emotions – a dishonorable mindset. It is not solely a dominance of the emotions, but a crooked, or perverse moral depravity (unrighteousness.) These two concepts, though they build off of the previous statements, go hand in hand – both are according to the irreverence and unrighteousness which leads to dishonoring our bodies in the desires of our hearts (which itself, as we’ve considered, is the seat of moral consciousness and intelligence.) We do not have the “disqualified mind” that Paul mentions here without also having “dishonorable emotions” and “dishonorable bodies” – themselves being effects of irreverence and unrighteousness.

These people do not test God. No, not a math test, goof. We must consider each use of the term “test,” which, in Greek, is dokimazo, or “SEEMize,” in order to determine its meaning. When we do this (I assume you just dropped everything and studied your concordance,) we find that this term is twice translated as attest throughout the New Testament. The first is seen later in this very letter, Rom. 14:22, and the other occurs in 1 Cor. 16:3, where Paul asks Corinth to attest through their letters. This gives us a strong indication as to the true intent of the word: to test is an action that one commits in order to craft an opinion by subjecting our mind to impression – the literal act of seeming about something.

The authority of God is hardly seemed, anymore. The very notion that He is sovereign over His entire creation is lost to all but a select few. Most believe in their own free wills – the idea that their freedom of choice is sovereign. This ideal prioritizes the flawed moral compass, and dismisses the spiritual subtext as conjecture. This quite literally disassociates the cause from the consequence – and thus demands some other cause, being this “freedom of choice.” Man makes itself the cause of its problems.

Here’s an example. When we seek moral reform, we do so by beginning with the mind and internal physical issues from experiences we keep bottled up. We don’t prioritize the spiritual aspect – why is that? Because we are too busy examining ourselves, we forget our problem’s cause: the irreverence and unrighteousness subjected to us is from God (Rom. 1:22-28, 8:20.) Instead, we look at ourselves. We study our habits, our decisions, our breaking point – and then believe that changing our actions will inherently solve the issue. Motivational quotes, spiritual conformity, and self-help programs look at the effect, instead of the cause, and are thus doomed to fail.

Of course, many are going to be swift to defend their individual social groups. Many alcoholics have entered church groups to work out of their issues. Many will discipline themselves to get over smoking. Many seek methods and programs to move past their addictions or self-destructive habits, and while these programs may not always succeed, they have, collectively, helped billions over the last 2,000 years.

To these claims, I say: boy, I love the people that are true to their word. I love the programs that truly desire to help an alcoholic, or help someone spend less time on a screen, or kick any other nasty habit, socially or physically. I love this stuff, and no, there’s no “but,” or “we have to consider,” here. I truly, genuinely love the instances where churches truly help, you know? Even many believers could not lay claim to such kind actions.

What I will say is that these support groups, while effective at mitigating an issue, and bringing many a peace concerning their day to day lives, do not effectively resolve the fundamental issue. One alcoholic may be healed over time, but alcoholism is still prevalent, and arguably worse today than it’s ever been. One may not have to watch porn anymore, but porn addictions still plague our “free” society. These social groups cannot reverse these issues as a whole, and I think one could see this, whether they believe in Paul’s evangel or not.

It’s impossible, simply put. As long as alcohol exists, someone is addicted to it (this is by design.) The sad reality is that men cannot reverse these effects. It’s like claiming that doctors have beaten death if one’s chemotherapy works. This may be true in a relative sense, but no one is escaping the reality of death which will inevitably follow.

You may call me pessimistic for “looking at the world this way.” I disagree. I’m simply looking at the world. To state a negative fact is not inherently pessimistic, nor is calling it pessimistic an excuse to ignore said fact. It is still reality, whether we like it or not, and this mortal weakness has been at the heart of everything Paul is saying here.

Anyway, by dismissing the cause, we do not test God. We don’t craft opinions based on honest consideration of the word of God, but from experience and theory (this is that reasoning part from Rom. 1:22.) The point is to have Him in recognition, or “realization” – epignosis, “ON-KNOWLEDGE,” as in, doing something with the evidential information, being the astounding accuracy and creativity of God’s universe (Rom. 1:20,) not to mention His living word. When we dismiss the cause, this realization is severed.

There are thousands upon thousands of practical examples of this that I don’t even know where to start. The educational system shutting out all consideration of God, the church’s version of “the truth,” the political notion that America is “God’s country,” when God laid claim to Israel? Shoot, you fill in all the blanks. I’ll just stick to the free will thing: the created human does not want the all-knowing God, their Creator, interfering with their decisions for their lives.

Do you see it? See how the direct, clear information is there, in the sentence? It’s all there – created, all-knowing, Creator. Please, pray tell: how does the all-knowing God somehow not know the decision you’re about to make? Make it make sense. The logic there doesn’t track – especially if God has His own plans! If He has His own plans with His created creatures, then how on bloody earth could you screw that up?? How could you possibly go against His script?

This is not an intellectual issue; people know the meaning of “all-knowing.” The issue is a moral, ethical, and spiritual one. We are simply avoiding the fact because, if there is an Almighty God, then He must be holy and just, and He would naturally expect to see this same quality in His sons and daughters. This is too much to live up to, and many, apart from hearing God’s perspective on how the story works, simply give up and cry “foul!” These people then defer to the aforementioned “free will” theory.

(Okay, that’s not the only reason one may subscribe to free will, but it’s in line with the topic, so it’s the one I’m covering here. But this is a common self-justification for the free-will ideology.)

The problem with this approach is, of course, that it is relatively arbitrary (I tell you this for your own good, @FreeWillFan007.) It is, in a factual, moral, and ethical sense, a delusion to presume that we are somehow accomplishing anything by setting the consideration of God aside in favor of our own personal lives as if He didn’t make the lives (Ps. 139:13-16.)

Thus, we do not seek to realize God, for we bend and disavow His declarations. This is not to say that the indignation of God would enable us to realize God, of course. The indignation itself is a disposition – a mindset on God’s end. He does not give sin leeway under the statute of righteousness. If righteousness were diluted with unrighteousness, then it would no longer be righteousness. We are referring to two incompatible ideals, which do not overlap.

Because of this, God then gives us over to disqualified minds. To be “disqualified” is, literally, “UN-SEEMED.” This is the opposite of seeming something. This is not for one to go, “Oh, well, okay, I guess I’ve got a disqualified mind, then! Forget you, God!” Though many may react this way, it is, unfortunately, the very example of a “disqualified mind” that God is referring to. Most would rather do anything else than give God the time of day, yet it is this very act – a lack of consideration of God – which inadvertently makes the aforementioned deviant behavior an unsolvable mess. There is no amount of time that mankind could spend arguing with each other, advancing society, or growing in intelligence, which would resolve the inherent moral corruption of our hearts, and sway our minds to that of a loving reverence toward God and, thus, each other.

Note that Paul does not claim that our disqualified minds are the cause of “not testing God,” but the result of “not testing God.” The natural conclusion, if we were only considering the mind of an individual, would be that we should test God, then.  Unfortunately, this takes us back to the core issue, which was introduced to us in Romans 1:18. Because of sin in us, there is no way for us, on our own, “of our own will,” to enact this change. Moreover, it is yet again God Who gives us over to this disqualified mind – this lax, dismissive, borderline condescending nature toward the very idea of Him, or His authority.

This is inconvenient, no?

No, really, I’m not being a smart-ass: it is inconvenient, right? To prefer the injustice as opposed to the truth about God’s heart? It’s exhausting, no? Continually fighting and fighting and fighting with no break, in attempts to exonerate this flesh with “moral behavior?” How much more frustrating for those who try hard and fail? Does this mean they are out of God’s loop, even if they tried?

Hmm. I feel like I’m having a bit of trouble conveying just how inconvenient this is for you. It’s so inconvenient, for one, that Paul points out, at the end of this verse, that our actions under these disqualified minds are not convenient in the slightest. He will, of course, provide a long list of twenty-two decidedly inconvenient actions, which, if we did not have irreverence and injustice supplanting our conscience, would make our lives far easier in the long run.

- GerudoKing