If humans have no capacity to successfully infer the ends of their existence in terms of obligatory behavior, then obviously Paul's statements are false. But if humans have no such capacity, it is hard to imagine why anyone would ever feel guilt or see a need to repent at all.

The whole section is a follow-up to the fact that faith in the gospel is what is reckoned as righteousness to God. IOW, maybe Paul is anticipating, as he does elsewhere in Romans, the typical "why does God find fault" argument to this kind of justification. Paul then shows that man cannot be justified by any natural, moral righteousness for the reasons he proceeds to give.

Paul's basic argument is that man doesn't even behave properly with what he IS given. God requires that which is given, however little it might be. And apart from forgiveness and repentance, humans pretty much just fail on those terms.

 

J: How could we possibly know that guilt is a relatively recent development for humans?

 

Z: Considering this, is it appropriate to soften the universal impression I get from this passage?

J: It seems that even atheists have a meaningful concept of God, LFW, final causes, etc. Moreover, I haven't talked at length to a great many folks involved in "habitual" sexual sin, but those with whom I have, at one point or another, they told me that they felt guilt at some time, at least, about their lifestyle. Some of them claimed that their guilt was due to religious brainwashing. Others didn't. But they all admitted to FEELING guilt prior.

I assume Paul is not trying to reject the principle that God only requires what is given. And clearly there are some children that are so psychologically abused that they can't POSSIBLY intellectually develop properly. That being the case, God can't POSSIBLY judge by the same standards as those who were given "much."

So no, I don't think Paul is trying to be absolutely universal. (He even seems to discuss the failure of Jews separately, thereafter, for the case that they didn't recognize themselves in that first description of human failure.) Rather, he seems to be making the point that, for all practical purposes, it is generally true that humans don't seek God with what is given them--rather, justification occurs as God seeks humans.

---

 

 

J: I must confess I am at a complete loss to imagine how guilt could just somehow append to human psychological experience at some historical point of time. It seems obvious to me that there are religions to this day that are literally obsessed with the objective. Does that mean they have no sense of subjective fault? I can't see it. People are diverse now. I suspect they always have been.