Drew
Member
With this admittedly provocative title, I want to expose the “dirty little secret†of so many evangelicals – the fact that they either ignore the Romans 2 teaching about a future justification by good works or, more commonly perhaps, they develop entirely implausible schemes about how, in in Romans 2, Paul is speaking about what is only a hypothetical possibility.
On the face of it, we have a clear and unambiguous assertion by Paul - the granting of eternal is based on good works:
God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
Its funny. If you show this text to any 7th grader, they will clearly get Paul’s meaning – eternal life is given based on how you have lived, not what you believe. And yet so many evangelicals will deny ultimate justification by good works. What is their argument?
In the main it appears to be this: Paul cannot really mean what he has written here since, in Romans 3, he writes at length about the sinfulness of mankind - if man is so sinful, it is simply not possible for him to be saved by doing good works.
This is not a good argument. First, the fact that all have sinned does not, of course, mean that all must necessarily continue to sin. In fact, later in Romans (chapter 8), Paul makes it abundantly clear that the person with the Spirit can indeed win the victory over sin. So I am not sure how the “men cannot be saved by good works because we are hopeless sinners†argument really survives. It is clear that Paul understands that people can indeed escape the trap of Romans 3. So how does Romans 3 then trump Romans 2?
And there is another problem – people who do not believe that Paul means what he writes in Romans 2:6-7 (above) have no explanation as to this deep mystery: what was Paul thinking when he wrote Romans 2:6-7 - why would he tell us something that he is later going to undermine? This is a question that needs to be answered. Remember – Paul nowhere in the letter ever gives any kind of “I did not mean what I said in Romans 2:6-7" disclaimer.
Much more can be said, but I will stop here for now.
On the face of it, we have a clear and unambiguous assertion by Paul - the granting of eternal is based on good works:
God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
Its funny. If you show this text to any 7th grader, they will clearly get Paul’s meaning – eternal life is given based on how you have lived, not what you believe. And yet so many evangelicals will deny ultimate justification by good works. What is their argument?
In the main it appears to be this: Paul cannot really mean what he has written here since, in Romans 3, he writes at length about the sinfulness of mankind - if man is so sinful, it is simply not possible for him to be saved by doing good works.
This is not a good argument. First, the fact that all have sinned does not, of course, mean that all must necessarily continue to sin. In fact, later in Romans (chapter 8), Paul makes it abundantly clear that the person with the Spirit can indeed win the victory over sin. So I am not sure how the “men cannot be saved by good works because we are hopeless sinners†argument really survives. It is clear that Paul understands that people can indeed escape the trap of Romans 3. So how does Romans 3 then trump Romans 2?
And there is another problem – people who do not believe that Paul means what he writes in Romans 2:6-7 (above) have no explanation as to this deep mystery: what was Paul thinking when he wrote Romans 2:6-7 - why would he tell us something that he is later going to undermine? This is a question that needs to be answered. Remember – Paul nowhere in the letter ever gives any kind of “I did not mean what I said in Romans 2:6-7" disclaimer.
Much more can be said, but I will stop here for now.
