Paul's Words Are Often Construed To Unwittingly Support A Blasphemy

Blasphemy is an insult of God, especially denying the goodness of God. Or to attribute the good God does to Satan. (Rives, DCMS:323-24.)

Paul says "many things difficult to understand" (Second Peter 3:14-17), and thus if what Paul says also sounds blasphemous, we were already warned. While we should try to find ways this is not true out of simple politeness, many mainstream Christian leaders take the blasphemous interpretation and promote it. They are completely insensitive to what they are doing is uttering and endorsing a blasphemy. This means that many Christians unwittingly utter blasphemies in reliance upon Paul's "difficult to understand words." I assume Paul did not mean to promote blasphemy, but the fact his words easily are read to support blasphemy underscores the dangerousness of treating Paul as inspired.

There is one exception where I do believe Paul inexcusably and clearly uttered a blasphemy. This is when Paul said "God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands," (Acts 17:24). By definition, as explained below, Paul thereby said Jews worshiped an idol at the Temple of Jerusalem where God's Shechinah presence was said in the Bible to reside. For if God does not reside in temples made of human hands, the God worshiped at the Temple could only be a false god. Hence, Paul's words would constitute a blasphemy as it insults the God of the Bible as a false god.

Example #1: 'The Law from God Causes Sin'

In many places, Paul says lust/concupescience is stirred up by the Law. John Locke in 1823 comments on Paul's doctrine in Romans 7 as follows, and you can see Locke is troubled.

First, Locke mentions that the way Paul is interpreted some view Paul as saying

that the law excited men to sin, by forbidding it. A strange imputation on the law of God, such as, if it be true, must make the Jews more defiled,....

Works of John Locke (1823) Vol. 8 at 313.

Locke says Paul surely could not mean this, but Locke does not properly explain why.

Then Locke explains Romans 7:5, and confesses its meaning -- blasphemous as it is without Locke admitting it. Locke says Paul means:

nevertheless sin, persisting in its design to destroy me, took the opportunity of my being under the law, to stir up concupiscence in me; for without the law, which annexes death to transgression, sin is as good as dead, is not able to have its will on me, and bring death upon me. Conformable hereto, St. Paul says, 1 Cor. xv. 56, "the strength of sin is the law i. e. it is the law, that gives sin the strength and power to kill men. Works of John Locke (1823) Vol. 8 at 316.

What Paul does in Romans 7:5 is speak of the "sinful passions through the Law" very much like Paul said elsewhere in 1 Cor. 15:56 that the Law given Moses made sin to be wrought in our members. Tischendorf comments on Romans 7:5 that Paul in that verse means "the sinful passions...[are] coming into active exercise through the law" just as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:56 about the Mosaic Law. (Tischendorf, at 57.)

Again, this underscores that Paul's words in Romans 7:5 and 1 Cor. 15:56 can plausibly be read to support blasphemy. Locke with all his might did not want to see it. Yet, when Locke got around to summarizing Romans 7:5, Locke could not sugar-coat Paul's words enough to hide it.

Thus, many Christians unguarded to see the danger in Paul's "difficult to understand words" fall from "their steadfastness in Christ" by applying Paul to such blasphemous points about God and His Law.

#2: Paul Implies The God of Jerusalem Is A False Idol

At least one time Paul inexcusably uttered a blasphemy, and this time none of his words are 'hard to understand.' This is when Paul said "God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth anddoes not live in temples built by hands," (Acts 17:24).

If Paul is correct, then who did the Jews worship at the Temple of Jerusalem where God's Shechinah presence was said in the Bible to reside? It could not be a true God for Paul says God does not live in such temples. As James West in the Gospel and the Greek Philosophers correctly exposes, Paul's teachings about the Temple opposed that of the apostles (not to mention our Lord Jesus who spoke of it as "my Father's house" in Luke 2:41-52). On this verse in Acts 17:24, West correctly comments:

But like the Stoic philosophers, the writer of Acts has “Paul” agreeing with them that “God” does not dwell in temples as the superstitious pagans believed. It is notable that Paul, in his own words, admitted his opinion that the Jews worshipped an “idol” in the Temple at Jerusalem (even as the author of Acts portrayed the Jewish Christians as pious temple devotees; cf. Acts 2:46, 21:20–26; 1 Cor. 10:18–19).

Thus, Paul portrayed the 12 apostles and James who still worshiped at the Temple as worshiping something that could not be the true God, for God supposedly does not live in temples made of human hands. And Paul was saying God does not live in such temples even though our Lord warned that Daniel's prophecy of a sacriligious prescence would soon defile the Holiness of the Temple (which Holiness stemmed from the Shechinah-presence).

Am I Being Unfair to Paul?

I don't think so.

Put yourself back in the year 45 A.D. Imagine you are standing outside a pagan temple where the pagans claimed God supposedly lived inside. If you were Jewish, one reason you could give that their religion is false would have to be because the true God lives in the Temple at Jerusalem. That had to be in the mind of Jewish person as a very valid difference. But if you said that the pagan god is false because God does not live in temples made of human hands, you just invalidated the entire Jewish faith. Something like this could not inadvertently escape Paul's lips.

It is like someone claiming to be a Christian but who then speaks of "my Buddhist faith." Even if he later claims such words inadvertently came out of his mouth, it does not wash.

While obviously Paul was not addressing the issue of the temple at Jerusalem per se, this is no excuse. Words have meaning. Paul's words in particular equally invalidated the true God of the Bible just as much as the false idol whom Paul was trying to undermine with this teaching. Because Paul's words if valid equally apply to the God at the Temple at Jerusalem, making Him out to be a false god, Paul clearly blasphemed God.

Example #3: The So-Called Sovereignty of God Doctrine

Calvin contended that Paul in Romans 11:8, 32 says God causes the lost to be lost by hardening them in unbelief. (Rives, DCMS: 451.) Satan supposedly acts on orders from God to cause the lost to be lost. (Calvin, Institutes, Ch. XVIII, Book 1, No. 1.) The main criticism of this is that it means that God makes evil happen -- unbelief and a lost condition. This is a quintessential example of blasphemy. As a result, many Swiss protestant pastors who were friends of Calvin personally told Calvin that he committed blasphemy by this doctrine. (Rives, DCMS: 433; 436) And the Lutheran party of Germany of the 16th Century were likewise adamant Calvin taught a blasphemy in this doctrine. (Rives, DCMS: 446 et seq.)

Later Calvinists deflected criticism of Calvin's doctrine by placing it under the innocuous label of the "Sovereignty of God" doctrine. They efended the broader notion that God directs even evil by relying principally upon two verses from Paul.

Ephesians 1:11 says “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will....”

Calvin defenders say this means God “brings about” all things. “Everything is brought about by God.” See The Sovereignty of God Over Evil by Matt Berman in PDF (5/21/08).

In Romans 11:36 we likewise read: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” This same Calvinist voice rationalizes: “Thus, all things have their source in God’s eternal decrees, all things are brought to pass by God’s almighty power.” Id.

The writer of this piece knows that the question arises: how can God not thereby be the author of sin? Here is his answer, and you can plainly see a mind caught in a logical dilemma but who refuses to confess the error of the premise. He says: “[God] is behind good in a way that renders Him fully deserving of all of the credit for it, but He is behind evil in such a way that He deserves none of the blame for it.” Id. How so? “God is the ultimate cause of sin, but He is not the positive cause of sin.” Id. “He does not produce sin in people’s hearts, but directs it by means of negative causation.”Id.

Such is the gobbledy-gook that you end up with when you claim God is "behind evil."

The key question is this: is God leaving people alone or is God directing them to sin? Following Calvin, this author says the latter is true - God supposedly directs sin: “I am not saying that God simply leaves a person to their own sinful nature, and that is all there is to it. God also directs the degree of evil in a person's heart by hardening it by means of negative causation.” Id.

His main proof, like Calvin’s, is 1 Kings 22:19-23 because it says God was “sending a deceiving spirit to ‘entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead.’” But Micaiah who uttered this was a false, not true prophet. Why? Because when so speaking his words violate the Law -- Numbers 23:19 which says "God is not a man that He should lie." See S. Rives, Did Calvin Murder Servetus (2008) at 454.) A true prophet who contradicts the Law is, the Law says, then a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-5.)

What about Paul's Example of God Hardening Pharoah's heart?

God's hardening Pharaoah's heart in Genesis was to harden him to exert his lawful right as ruler to not let the Israelites go. "But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." Exodus 4:21. See also Ex. 7:3.

Was this a sin?

All Pharoah had was Moses's authority to believe God required it. Since Pharaoh's magicians could duplicate all the signs and wonders which Moses demonstrated, Pharaoah was not convinced that God had spoken. No authority yet existed in Moses's words. As a result, there was no sin in which God was hardening Pharaoh's heart. God merely hardened the ruler to hold onto his sovereign rights.

But Calvinists disagree, and cite Paul's use of this example in Romans 9 to blasphemously claim "God himself actually arranged for Pharaoh to sin." ChristianAnswers.net. But this is not true, for the reason just explained.

Incidentally, there is another alternative to the one I suggest. Some scholars point out that the idiom in Hebrew is consistent with permission, and not ordaining the hardening. See Kyle Butt, M.A., and Dave Miller, Ph.D., "Who Hardened Pharoaoh's Heart?" Apologetics Press (accessed 7/31/2010. But this will not suffice to answer Calvinism because these two scholars do not address that Paul saw it as compulsion, and that was the basis of Paul's argument in favor of predestination. If Paul is inspired, their explanation does not work.]

As you can see, the Sovereignty of God Over Evil doctrine blasphemes God by attributing to God the causation of all evil and hardening people in sin.

Hence, even if Paul's words did not mean what these Calvinists claim, their reading of Paul is plausible. This underscores the danger of Paul -- his words have caused many Christians to blaspheme God.

Incidentally, in Jesus' Words Onl y (2007) at 412 et seq., we discuss how the early church 125 A.D. to 325 A.D. universally regarded predestination doctrine as blasphemy although none mention Paul's words. They simply ignore him as the source, and excoriate the notion.

The modern era has been poisoned by this doctrine, which has repelled people from embracing Christianity because it is combined with such a horrible blasphemy:

Since Calvinism has largely dominated the Protestant landscape for the last five centuries, most skeptics have dismissed Christianity as absurd, and have turned away in utter disgust in order to embrace atheism. The smug Calvinist declares, “So be it! You have the problem!” (Kyle Butt, M.A., and Dave Miller, Ph.D., "Who Hardened Pharoaoh's Heart?" Apologetics Press (accessed 7/31/2010.)