I just wanted to know what comparison you were trying to make with the Romans and Acts excerpt, I'm confused.
A common claim among Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, is that non-Christians, and atheists specifically, are “without excuse” for not believing in the all-everything god of Christianity. To justify this claim these Christians point to a passage in Romans in which Paul directly said this:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20
This justifies, among other things, saying that anyone who claims to be an atheist is really just “denying god” and that it’s fair to send people to hell for not believing in Christianity even if they were raised in a different religion or if they realize the external evidence doesn’t seem to support Christianity because Paul here claims the truth of Christianity is innate within everyone.
However the problem with claiming this is that the Paul presented in Acts doesn’t think non-Christians are “without excuse” and instead accounts for non-Christians as those simply ignorant of the truth and thinks god gave proof of Christianity through the resurrection of Jesus saying:
“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” - Acts 17:29-31
Both of these claims can not be true. People can not have been ignorant of the truth of Christianity and had an innate knowledge of the truth of Christianity. However both of these are claimed by Paul, one in his own writings in Romans and one in Acts. Also, if the Paul in Acts is correct then anyone who hasn’t been presented with the alleged evidence for the resurrection doesn’t know Christianity is true and therefore they would be “with excuse” for not believing.
The point is even within the New Testament the claim that people are “without excuse” for accepting Christianity is contradicted and contradicted by no less than the person who claimed it. Even if a Christian were to take sides and say one is right it discredits the veracity of the other book and potentially the other author as a whole. With letters attributed to Paul making up nearly half of the New Testament, though only 7 are universally considered actually written by Paul, and the author of Acts also being the author of the Gospel of Luke, this poses a serious problem for anyone claiming Biblical inerrancy or even consistency on an important issue in the Bible.
Moreover without even consistent Biblical support of this claim that non-Christians are “without excuse” to fall back on even hardline fundamentalists Christian should realize they actually have to present evidence that Christianity is true and not just say “you know you secretly believe in god and are just denying it.”
Thanks for the question.