The implications of patron gods is quite clearly to benefit people. Take a look at any of the prayers to patron gods and you'll see the clear implications: god-advocacy is intended to result in an observable physical benefit from the god.
Paul is demanding a different view, a view that he knows is counter-cultural.
Aside, you're telling me you want to know in what context Paul's rejection would actually occur -- which is odd. Why are you asking me to prove something Paul is denying? I'm assuming this is some kind of rhetorical thing I don't fathom, so I've answered as much as I can. But I can't refute something Scripture actually asserts. Therefore the only way I can understand your question is, why Paul would even bring it up.
My time has been constrained lately and I haven't been as clear as I ought. I apologize. Let me lay out what I'm saying as concisely as I can.
As you mentioned above: "Sure, it's persecution.
But Paul is emphasizing the plain fact: that God's love is unaffected by persecution."
My point is WHY does he need to stress this plain fact? The obvious answer is that within the ROMAN Church there were people who thought that persecution somehow negatively affected "God's love". I think we can agree on this.
The entire point of verses 31-39 is to counter this misunderstanding within the ROMAN Church. The question is, what are they misunderstanding? You think they have the idea that persecution somehow negatively effects salvation, I think they have the idea that persecution negatively effects only God's love for us. Let's take a look at this within the context of what the Roman Church is misunderstanding. Let's start at verse 31.
"
What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us?"
Paul is clearly addressing a misunderstanding in Rome. He is stressing that no one can bring a "charge" against "God's elect".
"
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"
This is their misunderstanding, that someone or something can separate them from the love of Christ. I think we both agree up to this point.
"
Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?"
This is where we part ways.
The misunderstanding in Rome has to fit the words here. There has to be a logical way that "tribulation...distress...etc." CAN separate us from the love of Christ or salvation. It has to be a possibility to their minds. The only way I can think of for them to LOGICALLY misunderstand (if there is such a thing
), is if the Jewish converts in Rome thought that persecution was a sign of abandonment by God, a "curse", like in the OT. Persecutions, to the Jews, happened when they were unfaithful to God and He responded by removing His love, so to speak. Now, it's only logical that, coming from a Jewish culture that taught this, they would misunderstand CHRISTIAN persecution to be the same. Same God, right?
I think this is what Paul was hearing from the Roman Church and what he was responding to here.
As I said above, the misunderstanding has to fit the words of the text, it has to be possible for "tribulation..." to separate us from whatever Paul means by "God's love". You think he means "salvation", but I don't think this makes sense, I don't think it's a logical misunderstanding.
What I'm asking of you is to explain HOW the
misunderstanding in Rome, which led to this response from Paul, could be referring to salvation. In other words, how could the
Christians in Rome think that persecution could effect SALVATION? What point of reference do they have?
That Paul only means only "the love of Christ" here and not salvation, takes into consideration the historical Jewish mindset concerning persecution, which means it makes sense in that context. That Paul means "salvation" by "the love of Christ", and that someone could think that persecution effects it, has to fit with some point of reference, some historical or logical construct within the mind of the Christians in Rome and Paul. I just don't see it.
In short, I asking for you to make your view of the Roman misunderstanding (that persecution effects salvation) make sense, because that's the only way Paul's response makes sense.
