Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[archangel_300]

i look at the atonement this he bore them( all sins) but we have to let the blood be poured on us. we must allow him to redeem us.

But I would think it would be foolish of God to pay for a sin if he knew by foreknowledge that the person would would reject him in the first place. Also God would not be just or righteous because if that person rejects him and sends him/her to hell to pay for their sins when they are already paid for.... God cannot be just.

 

[jasoncran]

fits his charechter. why does he save us, even when we get saved we still hurt him and deny him by actions. we arent worth his time.

wouldnt you look for any of your kids if they were to be kidnapped even if they were hell on wheels?

 

[archangel_300]

fits his charechter. why does he save us, even when we get saved we still hurt him and deny him by actions. we arent worth his time.

wouldnt you look for any of your kids if they were to be kidnapped even if they were hell on wheels?

absolutely, I'd protect my children even if they were "hell on wheels".

 

[glorydaz]

i look at the atonement this he bore them( all sins) but we have to let the blood be poured on us. we must allow him to redeem us.

But I would think it would be foolish of God to pay for a sin if he knew by foreknowledge that the person would would reject him in the first place. Also God would not be just or righteous because if that person rejects him and sends him/her to hell to pay for their sins when they are already paid for.... God cannot be just.

That's simply faulty human reasoning.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

You're correct...any 7th grader could read this and see what Paul is saying. Of course, unlike you, he wouldn't start in the middle of the book and hope to know the meaning. Paul is laying out the plan of salvation. It's known as the Roman Road for a reason...you've stopped at a rut in the road and can't see where the road started or ended. You have no idea what Paul is saying because that one verse has blinded you to everything else.

 

[jasoncran]

fits his charechter. why does he save us, even when we get saved we still hurt him and deny him by actions. we arent worth his time.

wouldnt you look for any of your kids if they were to be kidnapped even if they were hell on wheels?

absolutely, I'd protect my children even if they were "hell on wheels".

the hasnt sin kidnapped us all, and that the Lord has fulfilled the first part of isaih 61. how much does the father in heaven love us!

 

[francisdesales]

fits his charechter. why does he save us, even when we get saved we still hurt him and deny him by actions. we arent worth his time.

wouldnt you look for any of your kids if they were to be kidnapped even if they were hell on wheels?

absolutely, I'd protect my children even if they were "hell on wheels".

Trust me, that's easy to say, but in reality, we must let them go after a many attempts to help them...

Ever hear of "tough love"? Sometimes, that is the route we must take when someone has a child who just will not listen.

 

[francisdesales]

You're correct...any 7th grader could read this and see what Paul is saying. Of course, unlike you, he wouldn't start in the middle of the book and hope to know the meaning. Paul is laying out the plan of salvation. It's known as the Roman Road for a reason...you've stopped at a rut in the road and can't see where the road started or ended. You have no idea what Paul is saying because that one verse has blinded you to everything else.

Drew is not "starting in the middle of a book". He is pointing out a verse that is ignored, that happens to be in the middle of a book. That is the point of departure. I think we agree on the meaning of Romans 1, so there is no need to continue arguing about it. Thus, we will focus on where we disagree. That is normal, and it doesn't follow that he randomly chose this verse and ignored everything else.

It would be helpful if you could support your chastising. Drew's explanation makes perfect sense to me and takes into account all of what Paul says on the issue. As I have said before, Romans 1-3 is related, the theme being "no one can come to God alone". Do we agree, that no one can come to God alone? No one can be justified in God's view, whether pagan without God or whether Jew with a law and no Spirit support. following rituals does not justify. Paul's example in Romans 2 states that GOD is providing the Law written on the hearts of pagans, not that the pagan wrote it there!!! (2:15)

Thus, the pagan of 2:6-10 who is justified is done so because of GOD working there! Not the pagan's work alone. This is God's catholicity in action - salvation made available to all men, because God DESIRES all men to be saved.

Thus, God has no partiality, and will judge based upon our Spirit-moved works on earth, not on the faith that can move mountains, but without love...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

One of the major differences is that NT Wright fails to see the context as one which compares Judiasm, with the heathen unregenerate Gentiles. In fact right in verse 13, it refers not to justification by any works, but specifically the works of the Mosaic Law. Of course Judaism seeks justification by the Mosaic Law. God will impartially judge both unsaved Jew, and pagan Gentile on the basis of works.

The context is a contrast between unsaved hypocritical Jews, and pagan Gentiles. The Jews seek justification by the Law of Moses, the pagan Gentiles seek justification by their own works and become as verse 14 says... "a law unto themselves." The whole issue, is that if Jew or Gentile, God judges impartially.

Please explain to me how the "unregenerate pagan" can do works deserving of eternal life, UNLESS they WERE regenerate due to the Spirit of God writing a Law on their hearts (2:15) and moving this "pagan" to indeed follow the promptings of God - for all those who love are of God, John wrote. They don't BECOME a law BY THEMSELVES, but by their actions, it is apparent that God is working within them. THAT is the evidence Scriptures give us for our knowledge of God's presence - loving obedience to Him proves God within us. Thus, read carefully Romans 2:15 - it is God who makes the pagan obey God's Law since God is writing it, according to Phil 2:12-13...

Only God's Spirit can enable us to do anything worthy of eternal life. Thus, the pagan, while not ritually baptized, is showing that he is not exactly "unregenerate". If so, how does he enter into eternal life?

"Judaism" does not seek justification through the Mosaic Law. Pharisees did. That is why Jesus chastised them, their focus was incorrect, and ignored mercy, forgiveness and love. There were numerous "righteous" Jews who indeed walked from faith to faith, working in love, in part, through their rituals. The FIRST Chrisitans saw Christianity as a CONTINUATION of Judaism, not diametrically opposed. Ritual obedience is an act of obedience to God - but it doesn't follow that one is justified AS A RESULT of this obedience.

The point of Romans 1-3 is that EVERYONE without God remains in sin and cannot do anything to be just in His eyes. Romans 1 shows the result of man without God, Romans 2 shows that Gentiles CAN be just because of the action of God and Romans 3 shows that MERELY performing rituals does not justify - look at the various Psalms quoted - all refering to evil and wicked Jews who were circumcised but remained unjustified.

Paul's point is that only in God, specifically, In Christ's Spirit, can we be justified.

Regards

 

[faithtransforms]

How then Francis do you explain this?

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

He that believeth not shall NOT see life, the bur the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

[faithtransforms]

i look at the atonement this he bore them( all sins) but we have to let the blood be poured on us. we must allow him to redeem us.

But I would think it would be foolish of God to pay for a sin if he knew by foreknowledge that the person would would reject him in the first place. Also God would not be just or righteous because if that person rejects him and sends him/her to hell to pay for their sins when they are already paid for.... God cannot be just.

Arch, how would you explain this:

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Whole world pretty much means whole world, if I'm not mistaken. But they must RECEIVE salvation through faith. If they do not believe what God has done for them, I'm afraid they're heading south when they die.

 

[francisdesales]

How then Francis do you explain this?

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

He that believeth not shall NOT see life, the bur the wrath of God abideth on him.

Is not the Son Love incarnate?

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 1 John 4:7-9

Thus, those who Love have the Son, and have access to eternal life, for eternal life IS the Son of God dwelling within..

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:11-12

This does not mean we do not have to live the Christian life - but that God does not condemn the ignorant who never heard of Jesus of Nazareth. Those who open themselves to God and seek Him out can receive the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Love, and attain eternal life.

Only those who REJECT the Son are condemned. One must know the Son to reject Him. Ignornace is not covered by Christ's dictate in John 3.

Regards

 

[Drew]

In Romans 2, the Scriptures are speaking of "saved to eternal life", while elsewhere, Scriptures sometimes speak of salvation refering to a past event - the point in time where we accept Jesus as our Savior and are forgiven of sins in the waters of Baptism. The two points are NOT interchangeable, although Pauline thoughts PRESUME (not demand) that the past event will in time lead to the future event. We know later writings do NOT make this presumption, esp. 2 Peter, speaking of returning to the vomit of a past life of sin and losing that status and becoming worse than before being "saved" from sin, since faith alone saves no one - to heaven..

I think that I agree with you, although I would word things this way:

1. There is indeed a future good works judgement with eternal life in the balance - to deny this is to simply choose to filter out some of Paul's statements. At that judgement, the issue will not be "what you believe", but how you have lived. Now, of course, each case is different. I am entirely convinced that the "good thief" (on the cross) indeed ends up "saved" even though he did not have time to go on and do good works. But if you have decades of living, and sin unrepentently, it will do you no good to "claim the blood" at the Romans 2 judgement.

2. In the present, when a person truly believes that Jesus is Lord, that person is given the Spirit. At this point, we can truthfully say that their future ultimate salvation (by good works) is assured, assuming that the person does not abjectly turn their back on God. In other words, as long as the faith is genuine, the person does not need to "worry" about the future judgement - it will most assuredly be favourable. But the future judgement is indeed based on good works.

Why people insist that "salvation" is a single event mystifies me. Remember - Paul refers to savlation sometimes as a present reality, and sometimes as a future event.

 

[Drew]

There is no "dirty little secrete" among evangelicals in regards to Romans 2. Evangelicals address it all the time. I think your assuming way too much without looking at the facts of imputed righteousness.

I politely disagree in respect to two things here. First, I think it is indeed true that many, even most, evangelicals simply deny what Paul means what he says in Romans 2:6-7. Note that he clearly says that God will grant eternal life according to what the person has done. If you accept this, then we are in agreement. If not, I suggest that you are effectively "picking and choosing" what Pauline assertions you embrace.

And I do not believe the Scriptures support this idea that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer, if this is what you are referring to here. Yes, we are ascribed a state of righteousness, but not the righteousness of Christ. We can discuss this if you like.

Aside from scripture, which we can copy and past all day long, the gospels as a whole tell us that the foundation of our our salvation is in our faith in Christ.

I certainly do not deny this. Yet Paul means what he says in Romans 2:6-7 - ultimate salvation is based on good works. Do you think I am being inconsistent? If so, I will exlain why there is no inconsistency.

 

[Drew]

Anyone suggesting that Evangelicals have been silent in their refutation of Paul, or that there is some "dirty little secrete," are simply and profoundly ignorant of evangelical writings.

My choice of words may have been over the top. But I stand by the essence of the statement - evangelicals generallly dismiss Romans 2:6-7, and Romans 8, without a legitimate argument to undergird that dismissal.

I have noticed that NT Wright fails to address the exegesis of Evangelicals such as John Piper, DA Carson, and others.

I suggest this is a false claim and I am prepared to provide the relevant evidence. Wright has written an entire book putatively responding to Piper. Now, mondar, you have made a claim here - that Wright fails to address Piper. It is now time to defend that claim. What specific assertions do you believe that Wright has ignored? I have read Wright's book on Justification. We will see what the evidence shows. So, please, let us know any argument by Piper that Wright has ignored.

One of the major differences is that NT Wright fails to see the context as one which compares Judiasm, with the heathen unregenerate Gentiles. In fact right in verse 13, it refers not to justification by any works, but specifically the works of the Mosaic Law. Of course Judaism seeks justification by the Mosaic Law.

You cannot simply assume that verse 13 refers to the Mosaic Law. There is an argument that Paul's reference to "law" in verse 13 is not actuall refer to the Mosaic Law. And it is an easy argument. Notice what Paul goes on to say right after verse 13:

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,

It is clear that the Gentile is not under the Mosaic Law. And yet Paul suggests that they are under a "law". So, we can already see that "law" from verse 13 need not be a reference to the Law of Moses as you assert. Yes, it would be natural to assume that "law" in verse 13 is the Law of Moses. But the terms of Paul's own argument (in the following verse) shows that Paul is thinking of a "law" other than the Law of Moses.

 

[archangel_300]

i look at the atonement this he bore them( all sins) but we have to let the blood be poured on us. we must allow him to redeem us.

But I would think it would be foolish of God to pay for a sin if he knew by foreknowledge that the person would would reject him in the first place. Also God would not be just or righteous because if that person rejects him and sends him/her to hell to pay for their sins when they are already paid for.... God cannot be just.

That's simply faulty human reasoning.

Is it?? And what's faulty about it?

 

[archangel_300]

i look at the atonement this he bore them( all sins) but we have to let the blood be poured on us. we must allow him to redeem us.

But I would think it would be foolish of God to pay for a sin if he knew by foreknowledge that the person would would reject him in the first place. Also God would not be just or righteous because if that person rejects him and sends him/her to hell to pay for their sins when they are already paid for.... God cannot be just.

Arch, how would you explain this:

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Whole world pretty much means whole world, if I'm not mistaken. But they must RECEIVE salvation through faith. If they do not believe what God has done for them, I'm afraid they're heading south when they die.

Yes whole world... not just Jews but Gentiles and people from every walk of life and from every nation/race on this planet. But this cannot mean every single human being on the face of the planet.
It's obvious that not every one is given an equal chance at salvation. Some people never hear the gospel at all.

 

[archangel_300]

fits his charechter. why does he save us, even when we get saved we still hurt him and deny him by actions. we arent worth his time.

wouldnt you look for any of your kids if they were to be kidnapped even if they were hell on wheels?

absolutely, I'd protect my children even if they were "hell on wheels".

Trust me, that's easy to say, but in reality, we must let them go after a many attempts to help them...

Ever hear of "tough love"? Sometimes, that is the route we must take when someone has a child who just will not listen.

Very true Francis, very true.
The same goes for us Christians if we go astray, sometimes God allows us to go astray so we can learn from our experience. Experience can sometimes be our best teacher.

 

[francisdesales]

1. There is indeed a future good works judgement with eternal life in the balance - to deny this is to simply choose to filter out some of Paul's statements. At that judgement, the issue will not be "what you believe", but how you have lived. Now, of course, each case is different. I am entirely convinced that the "good thief" (on the cross) indeed ends up "saved" even though he did not have time to go on and do good works. But if you have decades of living, and sin unrepentently, it will do you no good to "claim the blood" at the Romans 2 judgement.

2. In the present, when a person truly believes that Jesus is Lord, that person is given the Spirit. At this point, we can truthfully say that their future ultimate salvation (by good works) is assured, assuming that the person does not abjectly turn their back on God. In other words, as long as the faith is genuine, the person does not need to "worry" about the future judgement - it will most assuredly be favourable. But the future judgement is indeed based on good works.

Why people insist that "salvation" is a single event mystifies me. Remember - Paul refers to savlation sometimes as a present reality, and sometimes as a future event.

Good job, I have nothing worthwhile to add.

Regards

 

[Drew]

You're correct...any 7th grader could read this and see what Paul is saying. Of course, unlike you, he wouldn't start in the middle of the book and hope to know the meaning. Paul is laying out the plan of salvation. It's known as the Roman Road for a reason...you've stopped at a rut in the road and can't see where the road started or ended. You have no idea what Paul is saying because that one verse has blinded you to everything else.

The problem, of course, is that as much as you appeal to the "Roman road" concept, you give the reader no reason at all to believe that Paul would write something he knows to be false. What kind of writer would assert "man is ultimately saved by good works" if he is going to go on "the Romans Road" and then change his mind? It is all well and good to appeal to say "Paul will first describe how we would be saved by good works, if this were indeed possible, and then go on to tell us this other way that man is saved". The problem is that, if he were going to do so, Paul would certainly "tip his hand". No rational, competent writer would assert something that he knows to be false unless that statement is appropiately qualified.

In other words, where is the disclaimer? Where does Paul say "this bit about being saved by good works is my description of what would be the case, if being saved by good works were possible"

Yes, I get "hung up" on this one little verse. Your solution - ignore it. I am not willing to go there.