Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[dadof10]

We are saved by God alone! :yes

Correct! ....By God's Grace alone. It's our view of the application of that salvific Grace that divides us...Among other things.

 

[Drew]

Paul is leading up to what he is trying to say.

I do not see how this works. Paul makes a statement about people being justified and you seem to believe that he does not mean what he writes. Another poster here (glorydaz) makes a similar kind of argument - even though Paul clearly says that people are ultimately saved by good works (in Romans 2), she somehow thinks Paul does not mean what he says because he is building an argument that men are saved another way.

Does that make sense? Would you construct an argument for a certain position by writing down things you believed to be not true? I certainly would not. There is no evidence at all that Paul does not mean what he says in Romans 2. And what he says in Romans 2 is that people will be ultimately saved and justified according to their deeds.

 

[Drew]

[Paul is leading up to what he is trying to say. If you look at Romans 3:19-25, he writes this about the law, - 'Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law (which means the whole world), so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no human being will be justified in his sight by the works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Well I certainly disagree with your conclusion that the whole world is under the "law" in Romans 3. The argument follows further below in this post. Now, I certainly am aware that I am embracing the following positions which may seem contradictory to you (and perhaps others):

1. I am asserting that the "law" by which no one is justified (Romans 3) is the Jewish Law - the Law of Moses - the Torah. And the Law of Moses was only ever for Jews.

2. I am asserting that the "law" in Romans 2, in the specific verse where Paul says that the doers of the law will justified, is not the Law of Moses - it is something else.

Now the arguments for defending the coherence of holding these positions are lengthy and I will not provide them here in this post. Anyway, the following is the argument as to why the "law" in Romans 3, where Paul says that the law cannot justify anyone, is the Law of Moses, which is specific to the Jew:

Here is Romans 3:19 in the NASB:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Now people will argue that Paul cannot mean “Law of Moses†(Torah) here when he uses the tem “lawâ€. That argument goes like this: The “so that†connective strongly implies that “law†is something that all mankind is under. So since Torah is for Jews only, Paul must be referring here to some general principle of law, and not Torah.

I think that this is a mistake for at least three reasons:

1. Paul almost always uses the word “Law†to denote the Law of Moses, so why we would he do otherwise here?

2. The phrase “it says to those under the law†strongly suggests that he is talking about a “law†that is limited in its applicability. Otherwise, this qualifier is entirely unnecessary;

3. The context provided by verses 1-18 support a “Torah†reading, specific to Jews, for the word “lawâ€

I will not make the case for point number 1 right here – that would be too lengthy a treatment and that case is made elsewhere. Point 2, I suggest, requires no further elaboration. So I now turn to point number 3 in relation to the understandable objection that it seems that the “so that the whole world….†clause makes it clear that this is some kind of universal law.

So why does he then talk about the whole world being accountable to God if “law†here is Torah, which is for Jews only. One needs to look at the preceding 18 verses where Paul has engaged in separate treatments of Jew and Gentile being sinners.

Here is the important point: He has just finished (in verses 9-18) an argument that the Gentile is a sinner just like the Jew. So his statement about the whole world being accountable is not only in relation to what he has just written about the Law - that could not be true since the Gentiles were never under the Law - but it is rather the capstone of his whole argument.

So Paul's basic point is this:

1. The Jews have been faithless (verses 1-8);

2. The Gentiles, too, are sinners (verses 9-18);

3. While the Law speaks only to those under the Law - the Jews - the whole world nevertheless stands condemned before God.

 

[Drew]

....., but the way I always saw Romans 2 was that once a man has received the Holy Spirit he will do good deeds because the Holy Spirit changes us. The Evanglists don't need to preach about good deeds because so long as they help people find the Holy Spirit, He will take care of getting the good deeds done!

I believe that you have hit on a central and important truth here (I have been making similar arguments in this and other threads).

Dadof10 - please indulge me while I explain, since I sense you do not agree with what Pard is saying.

I want to be clear - Paul means what he says in Romans 2: ultimate justification / salvation is indeed awarded according to "good works". But Paul also means what he says elsewhere - that man cannot, by himself, generate these good works. Man needs the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to generate these saving good works (check out Romans 8 - around verses 10 -16 or so).

So, yes, there is a sense in which it is the "job" of the Holy Spirit to generate these good works and, as you say, "He will take care of getting the good deeds done".

But, if we look at Romans 8, if not elsewhere, the believer cannot simply "sit back" and expect this will happen entirely automatically. Paul continues to exhort the believer to "run the race".

At the end of the day, I cannot say that I can clearly identify the "line" between where the believer's efforts end and the work of the Spirit begins. But, I would say that the job of the believer is to continually yield to the Spirit and, as you say, it is basically the Spirit that generates the works that will result in the granting of eternal at the Romans 2 judgement.

 

[dadof10]

....., but the way I always saw Romans 2 was that once a man has received the Holy Spirit he will do good deeds because the Holy Spirit changes us. The Evanglists don't need to preach about good deeds because so long as they help people find the Holy Spirit, He will take care of getting the good deeds done!

I believe that you have hit on a central and important truth here (I have been making similar arguments in this and other threads).

Dadof10 - please indulge me while I explain, since I sense you do not agree with what Pard is saying.

I want to be clear - Paul means what he says in Romans 2: ultimate justification / salvation is indeed awarded according to "good works". But Paul also means what he says elsewhere - that man cannot, by himself, generate these good works. Man needs the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to generate these saving good works (check out Romans 8 - around verses 10 -16 or so).

So, yes, there is a sense in which it is the "job" of the Holy Spirit to generate these good works and, as you say, "He will take care of getting the good deeds done".

I fully agree. That's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. Our "works" can only be salvific if they are done in faith. They are, however NECESSARY for our ultimate justification. We MUST co-operate with this indwelling Holy Spirit, as you rightly said. Pard may also agree with you, but in his post above he seems vague about our co-operation with the Holy Spirit ("he will do good deeds because the Holy Spirit changes us"). I could be misunderstanding his take, though.

Also, whereas I agree with you, I just don't see it specifically taught in Romans 2. That the Holy Spirit works through us and that "boasting" about our deeds is prohibited because He is the true Doer of the works, is plainly taught elsewhere.

But, if we look at Romans 8, if not elsewhere, the believer cannot simply "sit back" and expect this will happen entirely automatically. Paul continues to exhort the believer to "run the race".

At the end of the day, I cannot say that I can clearly identify the "line" between where the believer's efforts end and the work of the Spirit begins. But, I would say that the job of the believer is to continually yield to the Spirit and, as you say, it is basically the Spirit that generates the works that will result in the granting of eternal at the Romans 2 judgement.

It's just as well we can't identify the "line". I know I would be the first one to go ONLY to the line and NO farther. I have to keep harping on my kids to not be of the "what's the least I have to do to get to heaven" mindset. The apples don't fall far from the tree.

 

[Drew]

Also, whereas I agree with you, I just don't see it specifically taught in Romans 2.

I agree - we need to wait for Romans 8 for the teaching about how it is the Spirit that generates the good works.

 

[mondar]

So, this has been going on since '05, and there is no way I am gonna read ALL those posts, but the way I always saw Romans 2 was that once a man has received the Holy Spirit he will do good deeds because the Holy Spirit changes us. The Evanglists don't need to preach about good deeds because so long as they help people find the Holy Spirit, He will take care of getting the good deeds done!

Pard, I would not mind interacting with you a little. I would agree that "He will take care of getting the good deeds done!" In terms I am more familiar with, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is "regeneration" and the regenerate will produce the works of the regenerate. They will persevere in sanctification and in their love for God and the things of God. However, I disagree that this is the issue of the text. Let me repost some exegesis earlier in this very long thread that I posted in April 2010.

The fact of possibility or impossibility is not the issue of the text.

The topic sentence of the local context of verses 6-10 is verse 6. (all quotes from ASV)
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Verses 1-5 makes it clear that the topic is the unregenerate Jew passing judgment on the pagan Gentile of chapter 1. This unregenerate Jew will not escape the judgment of God (vs 3).
Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
This unregenerate Jew despises the riches, goodness, and forbearance of God.
Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Verse 4 and 5 makes it clear that this person is unrepentant and has a very hard heart.

After reading the context of verses 3-5 it seems inconceivable that we can think of the context as relating to believers. Do you think verses 3-5 refer to believers?

So then, when we get to verse 6, we are rendering to every man an impartial judgment is the idea. So then verse 7 is a description of Gods impartiality. He will impartially render eternal life to those who have "patient good works" (??? ???????? ????? ??????), he will render his judgment according to those good works. Verse 8 is a description of Gods impartial judgment upon those who are disobedient.
**** A little extra comment on vs 7. I note the concept of "patience" in good works. Verse 7 is asking for more then 50%. It is asking for perfection in with the unusual word "????????." (patience).

That is all that is being asserted, is that God will be an impartial judge. So then when you ask.... "Are you saying Romans 2:7 is an impossibility?" It depends upon what sense you are asking this question. If you are asking according to the context---is it possible for a unregenerate Jew to do the continuous works of faith, the answer would be yes, it is impossible. However, I suspect you are not asking the question in relation to the context, but rather according to the understanding of the New Perspective on Paul which does not grasp the context of the passage.

The whole point of verses 7-8 relate to the concept of the question does God judge impartially. It is not referring to a method of salvation. If it were possible (and it is not) for an unregenerate Jew to do the works of God continuously, then yes, he would inherit eternal life by his own merit. He would not need the substitution of Christ. Christs death would be a foolish error on the part of God if this unregenerate Jew could continuously and patiently do good works.

The fact that the context is about the unregenerate Jew also shows up in verse 10. This is why Paul mentions to "the Jew first." Of course God is impartial with the Gentile too. That is the point of verse 10.

If I can add some more about the context.....

Verse 11 is a new part of the context. In verses 6-10 the issue was that the judgment of God is impartial. Verse 11 is an explanation of why God is so impartial. It is his nature to be impartial. He is a "no respector of persons" kind of God.

Then in verse 12 and 13 we again see the Jewishness of the context. Verse 12 speaks of both unregenerate Jews and Gentiles. Those under the law will perish with the law, those not under the law go to hell without the law. Then comes the disputed passage... verse 13.
Rom 2:13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
This refers back to verse 1. In verse 1 the unregenerate Jew was judging the Gentiles of Chapter 1, but doing the same things themselves. They were depending upon possession and hearing the law to make them righteous judges. But they were not doing the law. Jesus also accuses the Jews of violation of the Law to satisfy their own traditions. In verse 13 Paul makes it clear that hearing the law will not justify before an impartial judge/God. To be declared righteous, the unregenerate Jew must do the law. Verse 13 is laying out the criteria for a future justification of the unregenerate that will never really happen, or never really come. The justification is on the basis of the Mosiac Law.........

If I might add, please notice in verse 13 that the law referred to is "heard." The hearers are then unregenerate Jews (Yes, there were regenerate Jews, but they are not in view in Chapter 2). This law in verse 13 can be no other then the Mosaic Law. It is not something that is written on the heart as is later mentioned in verse 15. In fact no where does the scripture refer to the Old Covenant as written on the heart. Now the New Covenant is written on the Heart, but verse 15 is not referring to the New Covenant, but it is referring to the "conscience." The word "conscience" is found right within the verse and defines the meaning of the idea of this law written on the heart. In creation, then, man had the image of God pressed upon mans heart, but it was marred in the fall. The result is that we are sinful, but somewhere deep inside is the memory of what is morally right, or a conscience. This conscience can "accuse" us, or if it is hardened it can "excuse" us.

Notice the next verse, verse 16. The "secretes of men" in their consciences is what God uses to "judge" men. While we might excuse ourselves by hardening our consciences, God does not, he judges the unregenerate Jew on the basis of his own conscience.

OK pard, your turn, any thoughts?

 

[MarkT]

I do not see how this works. Paul makes a statement about people being justified and you seem to believe that he does not mean what he writes. Another poster here (glorydaz) makes a similar kind of argument - even though Paul clearly says that people are ultimately saved by good works (in Romans 2), she somehow thinks Paul does not mean what he says because he is building an argument that men are saved another way.

Does that make sense? Would you construct an argument for a certain position by writing down things you believed to be not true? I certainly would not. There is no evidence at all that Paul does not mean what he says in Romans 2. And what he says in Romans 2 is that people will be ultimately saved and justified according to their deeds.

I think it’s safe to say God will render to every man according to his works. But you seem to think he’s constructing an argument for a certain position. What position?

The Jewish position was that the works of the law would make them righteous before God. Is that what Paul is saying? I don’t think so.

I think Paul is making an opening statement when he says doers of the law will be justified ie. he takes the Jewish position, and then he develops his argument for why it will fail. I think his argument goes on past Ro. 2. In fact you have to read the whole letter.

In the light of Christ we know no one is good but God alone. We are evil. Paul writes, ‘all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, Ro. 3:9, as it is written, ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God.’ All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Ro. 3:23

In conclusion he states, ‘no human being will be justified in the sight of God by works of the law‘, Ro. 3:20, and ‘we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law‘. Ro. 3:28

 

[MarkT]

There’s no distinction between Jew and Greek. The Greek who does the law because it is in his nature to do it, is doing good. He might even be excused for his conflicting thoughts, being without the law, and not knowing what the law says. The Jew who hears the law and breaks it is a sinner. He is no better off than the Greek sinner who doesn’t know what the law says. So what advantage do the Jews have? The Jews were entrusted with the law. God chose them. But again, what difference is there between the Greeks who are without the law who break the law and the Jews who hear the law, are entrusted with the law, who break the law. Both are law breakers. Both are sinners. According to the law, anyone who breaks the law even once is a sinner and deserves death. You have to practice what you preach. You can be a do-gooder all your life, but break the law just once and you’re doomed.

No one keeps the law perfectly. No one, except Jesus, ever did. I think basically that's what Paul is saying.

 

[Drew]

The fact of possibility or impossibility is not the issue of the text.

The topic sentence of the local context of verses 6-10 is verse 6. (all quotes from ASV)
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Verses 1-5 makes it clear that the topic is the unregenerate Jew passing judgment on the pagan Gentile of chapter 1. This unregenerate Jew will not escape the judgment of God (vs 3).
Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
This unregenerate Jew despises the riches, goodness, and forbearance of God.
Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Verse 4 and 5 makes it clear that this person is unrepentant and has a very hard heart.

After reading the context of verses 3-5 it seems inconceivable that we can think of the context as relating to believers. Do you think verses 3-5 refer to believers?

No one is saying that Paul is not addressing the Jew in the first 5 verses of the chapter. But that is hardly an argument that Paul then does not go on to expand the scrope of his treatment to include all of humanity.

And expand his scope he clearly does:

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "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. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

I am not sure what your argument is here. Paul is indeed chastising the Jew in the beginning of the chapter. Why is the Jew in trouble? Paul tells us why - there will be a future judgement at which both Jew and Gentile will be judged according to their good works, with eternal life at issue. I am really not sure how this conclusion can be avoided - Paul makes his statement that God will grant eternal life based on good works in verses 6 and 7. He then clearly re-states the point in subsequent verses where he makes it clear that both Jew and Gentile are in view.

It is perfectly coherent for Paul to argue that the Jew is in trouble precisely because, like all other human beings, He will face a judgement where eternal life is granted according to good works.

And this is precisely what Paul is saying.

 

[MarkT]

Drew

Well I certainly disagree with your conclusion that the whole world is under the "law" in Romans 3. The argument follows further below in this post. Now, I certainly am aware that I am embracing the following positions which may seem contradictory to you (and perhaps others):

1. I am asserting that the "law" by which no one is justified (Romans 3) is the Jewish Law - the Law of Moses - the Torah. And the Law of Moses was only ever for Jews.

2. I am asserting that the "law" in Romans 2, in the specific verse where Paul says that the doers of the law will justified, is not the Law of Moses - it is something else.

Now the arguments for defending the coherence of holding these positions are lengthy and I will not provide them here in this post. Anyway, the following is the argument as to why the "law" in Romans 3, where Paul says that the law cannot justify anyone, is the Law of Moses, which is specific to the Jew:

You’re making the law Jewish but it’s not. It’s not that the law only applies to the Jew. This is the law by which all men will be judged. This is the law period. God let the Jews into his confidence by revealing the law to them, and then they betrayed him and they turned their backs on him and they forgot him and built idols, and this is reason for the day of wrath when all men will feel his anger.

Actually it is the same law but in the light of Christ. Consequently we are following the law when we follow Jesus. But to do that you have to have ears to hear. You have to believe in him. You have to be obedient to the truth. You have to have the Spirit of God. You must be born again.

Here is Romans 3:19 in the NASB:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Now people will argue that Paul cannot mean “Law of Moses†(Torah) here when he uses the tem “lawâ€. That argument goes like this: The “so that†connective strongly implies that “law†is something that all mankind is under. So since Torah is for Jews only, Paul must be referring here to some general principle of law, and not Torah.

Who is going to argue that? The law is not for Jews only.

I think that this is a mistake for at least three reasons:

1. Paul almost always uses the word “Law†to denote the Law of Moses, so why we would he do otherwise here?

He doesn’t.

2. The phrase “it says to those under the law†strongly suggests that he is talking about a “law†that is limited in its applicability. Otherwise, this qualifier is entirely unnecessary;

Under the law means subject to the law. The Jews were subject to the law in their daily lives; subject to judgment and punishment, and stoning by the people; no mercy, no forgiveness, no love, no compassion.

 

[mondar]

No one is saying that Paul is not addressing the Jew in the first 5 verses of the chapter. But that is hardly an argument that Paul then does not go on to expand the scrope of his treatment to include all of humanity.

And expand his scope he clearly does:

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "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. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

I am not sure what your argument is here. Paul is indeed chastising the Jew in the beginning of the chapter. Why is the Jew in trouble? Paul tells us why - there will be a future judgement at which both Jew and Gentile will be judged according to their good works, with eternal life at issue.

On of the key differences is how we look at the larger context of Chapter 2. IMO the theme of the Chapter is not a method of salvation, but a statement of the impartiality of God. He does not show favoritism. While the Chapter is primarily about Jews, it is not to the exclusion of Gentiles (as you mentioned). But the fact that the Gentiles are included in Chapter 2 does not mean that the primary idea that God judges impartially is with reference to a judgement upon Jews (first). The gentiles are added as an afterthought. Of course Paul will later do this same thing later in the book of Romans in other contexts (Chapter 9 - 11). However, let me again stress that the issue is what the Chapter is about. I do not take the view that the Chapter is about a means of justification (whether Jew or Gentile). I take the Chapter as a statement that God's judgement is impartial, and therefore the Jewish person who practices what he condemns the Gentiles for will be judged. As Paul says in verse 12, it is not about hearing the law (Mosiac) but about doing the law that will be the basis of judgment. So then, did the Jew keep the law? Did any individual Jew keep the 10 commandments? Did even Moses or Abraham love God with all his heart, mind, and soul? Chapter 3 will answer that question, we have all fallen short.

I am really not sure how this conclusion can be avoided - Paul makes his statement that God will grant eternal life based on good works in verses 6 and 7.

If I can speak to the specifics.....

The real issue is how we are seeing verse 7. You see it as a method of salvation, I see it as a statement of God's impartiality upon the works of unregenerate Jews (and also Gentiles). IMO, to see verse 7 as a statement of the method of salvation disconnects verse 7 from the context of verses 1-5.

Let me connect the verses into a context starting with verse 3.
3 And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
I see verse 3 as a topic statement. It is the issue that Paul is going to persue in the context of Chapter 2. He is defending this statement right here as he develops the context.

The Jew, in judging the Gentile, does not escape the judgment of God. This is true especially because the Jew "practices" the same things. God does not show favoritism to the Jew, but judges impartially and the Jew is under judgment. The passage is pointing to the great sinful nature of the Jew, just as Chapter 1 showed how unregenerate Gentiles have an evil nature.

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:

Here comes the first "heart" statement within the context. It is a term used in a different way later in the context in verse 15. The word in verse 2 is associated with the "impenitent heart. The heart of the one who practices the evil that Gentiles did in Chapter 1, and yet judges the Gentile for that same evil. Verses 4-6 picture this "impenitent heart" and its relationship to God's judgment. This heart "despises" Gods grace and his goodness. Paul then quickly turns to a statement of judgment and what he will do with the Jew who thinks himself good in God's sight. That is verse 5, the "day of wrath." Verse 6 begins by stating the basis of this "day of wrath." God will judge men with impenitent heart by their works impartially! He will render every man according to his works. Then comes verse 7.

7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
This is not a promise that a Jew with an impenitent heart can do good works and receive eternal life. It is simply a statement that God will judge impartially.

11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
I also think verse 11 and 12 are the book ends with 7-10 between 1-5. The conclusion to the statement of 7-10 are found in verses 11-12. It mentions nothing of a method of salvation, but only judgment upon what verse 3 calls the "unrepentant heart." Jews who sin under the law, are condemned, Gentiles are also condemned. There are no righteous, there are none who practice works. Of course Chapter 3 hammers this home. Again, the issue is not a method of salvation, but the fact that God is no respecter of persons. Paul is saying in Chapter 2 that condemnation of the Jew will occur because of God's impartial judgment, just as Chapter 1 leads to condemnation of the Gentile.

He then clearly re-states the point in subsequent verses where he makes it clear that both Jew and Gentile are in view.

It is perfectly coherent for Paul to argue that the Jew is in trouble precisely because, like all other human beings, He will face a judgement where eternal life is granted according to good works.

And this is precisely what Paul is saying.

If you disconnect verse 7-10 with verses 1-5, and make it a method of salvation, you obviously have a point. You must also disconnect the context from Chapter 3 which proclaims loudly the condemnation of all men according to their works.

3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

Also, I think Paul carries hints of the impartiality of God right into Chapter 3.
3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction;
Here, he mentions "faith." Since there is no distinction, and all sinners will be judged upon works (if the Jew, the works of the law---if the Gentile, the works of conscience (2:15)). The only righteousness of man which makes him acceptable to God, even man in the covenant, is an imputed righteousness from the cross, to the believer.

 

[Drew]

On of the key differences is how we look at the larger context of Chapter 2. IMO the theme of the Chapter is not a method of salvation, but a statement of the impartiality of God. He does not show favoritism.

I see both themes here. And I certainly do not see how Romans 2 does not clearly address ultimate salvation.

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

If you believe that Paul thinks that zero people will be justified by "doing the Law" you have Paul really saying this:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified (***but there will be zero people justified in this way). 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law (***but actually none of them do instinctively the the things of the Law) , these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (***but actually none of them will be able to claim that their consciences are defending them)

You really have Paul making a deeply confused and misleading statement.

We have Paul starting with a statement about doers of the Law being justified. Paul then elaborates by referring to events where Gentiles do the things of the Law. You appear to placed in the remarkable position that Paul writes of Gentiles doing these things (to be justified by context) while believing that there are no such Gentiles. So even though he writes of Gentiles doing the Law, as an explanation of the statement about doers of the Law being justified, and yet you believe that Paul thinks there will be zero such Gentiles who do what he says they do.

I am not really sure how such a position can be sensible maintained.

 

[ArielIrene]

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.

I found this portion of an article by a Theologian at: http://bible.org/seriespage/study-and-e ... mans-21-16

At first glance it appears that Paul is referring to any non-Christian and affirming that if they're good enough—as demonstrated by their works—they will be saved. In fact, he has been so interpreted by various commentators. The problem with this view is that it throws Paul into hopeless confusion within himself (cf. Eph 2:8-9), even in Romans itself, and results in a “council of despair.†For in the conclusion of 1:18-3:8, that is, in 3:9-20, Paul emphatically denies that anyone can be saved by their works. It is better to seek another solution.

Others argue that good works (v. 7) means “faith†and that the reference is to the Jew or Gentile who has faith. The problem with this view is that Paul does not use work (e[rgon, ergon) in this way, but instead often draws a sharp antithesis between faith and works (4:6).

What Paul is referring to is the true condition for eternal life—a condition he will demonstrate (by the end of 3:20) that no human being can fulfill. Thus the true condition for eternal life, the very demand of the Law of God, is to produce the good without ceasing and without failure in the outcome, ever. Of course, no one can fulfill the demand.

The last two solutions are the best: (1) they adequately explain the passage internally; (2) they do not put Paul at odds with himself, either in Romans or throughout his writings; (3) they concur with broader NT ideas about the distinct, yet close relationship of faith and works in salvation and judgment (Matt 7:15-27; Gal 5:6, 19-21; 6:7-10; James 2:14-26). To decide, however, between the two, is not easy. In the end, however, we must remember that it is not exactly Paul’s purpose at this point in Romans to discuss how one is saved, but rather to point out the nature of God's absolute justice in his method of judgement. That seems to be his point in 2:1-16.

2:12-13 In vv. 12-13 Paul explains the implications of v. 11 where he said that there is no partiality with God. Since this is true, the Gentile will not be judged by the law, but will perish apart from the law, whereas the Jew who had the law of Moses will be condemned by that law. Thus vv. 12-13 prefigure what the apostle will say in 3:9-20, namely, that all are guilty and will be punished according to God's justice.

 

[Drew]

The problem with this view is that it throws Paul into hopeless confusion within himself (cf. Eph 2:8-9), even in Romans itself, and results in a “council of despair.†For in the conclusion of 1:18-3:8, that is, in 3:9-20, Paul emphatically denies that anyone can be saved by their works. It is better to seek another solution.

I politely suggest that this commentator has not understood Paul.

1. About Ephesians 2:8-9: I suggest that context shows that in this verse, Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) is not denying salvation by good works, he is denying salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses. And that is something entirely different. I can provide the relevant arguments and elaborate as necessary.

2. At the end of chapter 1, and at the beginning of chapter 3, Paul describes the sad state of mankind apart from Christ. This is not any kind of denial that people can be saved by “good worksâ€, it is instead a denial that men can be saved by good works, apart from the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, given to all those who are in Christ. Note this from Romans 7:

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Clearly, the first part of this material describes humanity as we see it at the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter. But Paul is quite clear here in chapter 7, and he goes on in chapter 8 to elaborate, the person in Christ is delivered from the sad state described in chapters 1 and the first bit of chapter 3.

And finally, in Romans 3:20, Paul is not denying that people will be justified by doing good works, he is denying, as in Eph 2:8-9, that a person can be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[Amazed]

Good works? I personally try to be a good example and to do good deeds as i see the Lord directing me. Nevertheless, the Word clearly points out that "There is no one who does good, not even one." Romans 3:12.
Romans 4:4-8- Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never coung against him."
And lets not forget the criminal who was crucified next to Jesus.
Luke 23:42- 43Then he (the theif) said, "jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
This theif, admittingly, spent his life as criminal. Nevertheless, Jesus accepted him simply because he confessed that he was a sinner and that he was getting the deserved punishment for his deeds. And because he asked Jesus to to remember him. This simple confession was the "good deed" that led this criminal to eternal life with Christ.
Praise God.

 

[Drew]

Nevertheless, the Word clearly points out that "There is no one who does good, not even one." Romans 3:12.

No. Did you not read my last post? If Romans 3 was all we had, you might have a point. But if you look at Romans 7, it is clear that Paul believes that the person in Christ is delivered from, rescued from, the sad state of slavery to sin:

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

What is the status of the man here prior to verse 25?

It is exactly the same state as the person in Romans 3:12 - someone unable to do good.

What has happened to that person? He has been, yes, delivered from that state.

So how can you believe that Romans 3:12 says that no one can ultimately be justified by good works?

Look at what Paul says about the believer in Romans 8:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.

Now, do you still believe that 3:12 rules out justification by good works?

 

[Amazed]

Hi Drew. We all obviously know that a person is not justified by works alone. I think a lot of times the good works don't come right away. First we must renew our own minds to the Word of God by the power of the Holy Spirit.
When I serve Christ, it is because I sincerely and honestly want to. I serve Him because I love Him, not because I am trying to earn grace.
One of Paul's epistles tells us that faith leads to obedience and obedience leads to righteousness. Obedience without faith is empty. Edify the faith through the power of the Spirit, and the obedience will come naturally. That's my opinion. However, you've definitely convinced me to do a study of Romans.

 

[Drew]

Hi Drew. We all obviously know that a person is not justified by works alone.

I certainly agree that human beings cannot be justified unless they are considered to be "in Christ" by the One who has the right to make such a judgement.

For your information, I believe that when Paul says that "a man is not justified by works", he is not, repeat not, refuting the belief that good works are needed for ultimate justification. After all, here in Romans 2, he tells us that good works romanaindeed the basis for being awarded eternal life:


6God "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.

As per my recent posts, I do not think one can pass this "deeds" judgement unless one has the Holy Spirit. And to get the Holy Spirit, you need to be in Christ.

When Paul writes that a man is not justified by works, he is saying, effectively, salvation is not limited to those who do the "works" of the Law of Moses, that is say, Jews. He is arguing against justification by ethnicity, not against justification by good works. I suspect that you know that most Christians will disagree with me on this, but so be it.

 

[Amazed]

Actually Drew, I think I agree with that particular interpretation of scripture- as in Paul declaring that justification is not based on ethnicity.
I believe that works are meaningless unless they derive from pure motives. I don't know what denomination of faith your are, but my guard against justifcation by works is mainly targeted to certain "religous" groups who put more emphasis on good deeds than on faith. I hope you are not offended by my perspective.