Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[Mysteryman]

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.

Hi

Maybe you should read more of the word of God, instead of only one verse. It is better to get a broader view of the Word, instead of such a narrow minded view such as you have.

If you have not learned how to read context, I am sure more than one person is capable of showing you how to read context. Myself included.

 

[Free]

Maybe you should read more of the word of God, instead of only one verse. It is better to get a broader view of the Word, instead of such a narrow minded view such as you have.

If you have not learned how to read context, I am sure more than one person is capable of showing you how to read context. Myself included.

It is probably best to not suggest someone is reading only one verse or that they need to learn to read in context since one verse is a part of the context and can change the meaning of what else is being said. Every verse is significant and the writers wrote what they did for a reason.

Equally troubling is telling someone they are narrow-minded simply because they disagree with your position. This becomes even more of a problem when, on the one hand, you accuse someone else of reading only one verse and on the other hand you want to change the whole meaning of a verse based on the, thus far, completely unsupported claim of a single word gone missing from the originals. Isn't a better example of narrow-mindedness one where someone ignores, or changes the meaning of, one verse that does not sit properly with one's currently held beliefs?

Let's please stick to the arguments.

 

[Mysteryman]

Maybe you should read more of the word of God, instead of only one verse. It is better to get a broader view of the Word, instead of such a narrow minded view such as you have.

If you have not learned how to read context, I am sure more than one person is capable of showing you how to read context. Myself included.

It is probably best to not suggest someone is reading only one verse or that they need to learn to read in context since one verse is a part of the context and can change the meaning of what else is being said. Every verse is significant and the writers wrote what they did for a reason.

Equally troubling is telling someone they are narrow-minded simply because they disagree with your position. This becomes even more of a problem when, on the one hand, you accuse someone else of reading only one verse and on the other hand you want to change the whole meaning of a verse based on the, thus far, completely unsupported claim of a single word gone missing from the originals. Isn't a better example of narrow-mindedness one where someone ignores, or changes the meaning of, one verse that does not sit properly with one's currently held beliefs?

Let's please stick to the arguments.

Context clears up the whole issue. Every verse suggested by Drew so far within this conversation leaves out the context. And context is of the utmost importance most of the time. Plust the fact , that the Word can not contradict itself.

Avoiding the context implies narrow mindedness. I have brought up the context more than once. It is not a matter if one can see :shades or not. It is a matter of acknowleding at the very least that the possibility exist because of the context.

Also, narrow mindedness comes in many forms. Belonging to a certain denomination can bring about a closed mind because of the stance of that paticular denominational . The sugject is not just about one verse with a possible missing word in it. The Word of God entails complete context of the whole Word of God, as a total reference of itself.

If man could do good works and gain eternal life. What purpose did it serve for God to send his only begotten Son to die ? And by what act of our own, did we do that which would even come close to gaining eternal life by accomplishing such an act ?

If I don't steal, then by not stealing I gain eternal life ?

If I don't covet, then by not coveting I gain eternal life ?

The Word tells us that the Law could not make anyone righteous. So by doing the law as our guide, then not one person is going to see eternal life, since the law could not make anyone righteous.

Does one strive their whole life wondering if they did enough to gain eternal life ? If you say no to this, then Romans 2:7 must have the word "in" put back in the verse, so that the verse becomes whole again.

And by returning this verse to its original proper rendering. Then those will not be able to deceive others with their own misundersatndings. And if anyone can produce the originals and prove me wrong, I suggest they start looking for them.

The same holds true in Galatians 6:8 - again the word 'in' is missing at the end of this verse. And the context of verses 7 thru 9 make this very evident that it is talking about rewards. And if that is not enough, all one needs to do is turn to I Corinth. 3:15 - "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss" - "yet he himself is saved" - "yet so as by fire"

And on top of that, Ephesians 5:5 has the word "in" in the verse. Which pertain to one's inheritance. Our inheritance can be lost, but not our salvation. And no man can gain their salvation by good works. It is absurd to say the least !

 

[Drew]

Context clears up the whole issue. Every verse suggested by Drew so far within this conversation leaves out the context.

Please sub-stantiate this assertion. Precisely how are any of my statements or arguments untrue to the context? You have made a claim - you now need to defend it.

If man could do good works and gain eternal life. What purpose did it serve for God to send his only begotten Son to die ?

To defeat sin on the cross and enable men to become fully human and fulfill their potential. This is rather clearly how Paul sees thing - the person in Christ will most assuredly be conformed to the image of the Son.

If I don't steal, then by not stealing I gain eternal life ?

If I don't covet, then by not coveting I gain eternal life ?

No one, least of all me, is suggesting this. But Paul says what he says in Romans 2, even if you somehow believe that you have mystical insight into the true wording that no greek scholars apparently have.

The Word tells us that the Law could not make anyone righteous.

The Bible tells us is that the Law of Moses does not make one righteous. But this does not mean that we cannot be justified by doing good works. The Law of Moses is a specific code. It is not to be equated with the category of doing good.

 

[Drew]

Does one strive their whole life wondering if they did enough to gain eternal life ? If you say no to this, then Romans 2:7 must have the word "in" put back in the verse, so that the verse becomes whole again.

Why you think you are on par with the Holy Spirit is a disturbing mystery. In my many years on this board, you are the first person to make the audacious claim that you have insight into what the original texts, long lost in the mists of time, actually contained.

I suggest that you are only damaging your own credibility with this belief that you have mystical insight into the content of the original texts.

And if that is not enough, all one needs to do is turn to I Corinth. 3:15 - "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss" - "yet he himself is saved" - "yet so as by fire"

I ignore context? Excuse me? The context here is a discussion specific to church leadership. Paul is saying that leaders need to build on the foundation. If they fail to do so, their ultimate salvation is not at risk for that reason. There is nothing in this text that logically contradicts Paul's clear statement in Romans 2 that ultimate salvation is based on good works. In 1 Cor 3, Paul is specifically talking about the responsibilities of church leaders, and the consequences of not being faithful to those responsibilities.

 

[Drew]

And on top of that, Ephesians 5:5 has the word "in" in the verse. Which pertain to one's inheritance. Our inheritance can be lost, but not our salvation. And no man can gain their salvation by good works. It is absurd to say the least !

Here is Ephesians 5:5:

For you can be confident of this one thing: 1 that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

You are, I suggest, on very shaky ground here. It appears that you are saying that Paul is really saying that such people can indeed be saved but that they will get no rewards - that they will get to be in the kingdom but not get any rewards "in" that kingdom.

Well, that is plausible, but only plausible. The statement can also read "that person does not even get a place in the kingdom of Christ and God". You simply assume that is possible to be in kingdom without receiving any of the rewards that go along with that. An exceedingly dubious suggest, I think.

 

[Mysteryman]

Context clears up the whole issue. Every verse suggested by Drew so far within this conversation leaves out the context.

Please sub-stantiate this assertion. Precisely how are any of my statements or arguments untrue to the context? You have made a claim - you now need to defend it.

If man could do good works and gain eternal life. What purpose did it serve for God to send his only begotten Son to die ?

To defeat sin on the cross and enable men to become fully human and fulfill their potential. This is rather clearly how Paul sees thing - the person in Christ will most assuredly be conformed to the image of the Son.

If I don't steal, then by not stealing I gain eternal life ?

If I don't covet, then by not coveting I gain eternal life ?

No one, least of all me, is suggesting this. But Paul says what he says in Romans 2, even if you somehow believe that you have mystical insight into the true wording that no greek scholars apparently have.

The Word tells us that the Law could not make anyone righteous.

The Bible tells us is that the Law of Moses does not make one righteous. But this does not mean that we cannot be justified by doing good works. The Law of Moses is a specific code. It is not to be equated with the category of doing good.

Now you are suggesting being justified by your good works. Romans 3:28

Romans 4:2 - "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory ; but not before God"
Romans 4:4 - "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt"
Romans 4:5 - "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness without works"
Romans 4:6 - "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"

God does the justifying - Romans 8:30 - 33.

Galatians 2:16 - "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ , that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law shall no flesh be justified"

 

[Mysteryman]

And on top of that, Ephesians 5:5 has the word "in" in the verse. Which pertain to one's inheritance. Our inheritance can be lost, but not our salvation. And no man can gain their salvation by good works. It is absurd to say the least !

Here is Ephesians 5:5:

For you can be confident of this one thing: 1 that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

You are, I suggest, on very shaky ground here. It appears that you are saying that Paul is really saying that such people can indeed be saved but that they will get no rewards - that they will get to be in the kingdom but not get any rewards "in" that kingdom.

Well, that is plausible, but only plausible. The statement can also read "that person does not even get a place in the kingdom of Christ and God". You simply assume that is possible to be in kingdom without receiving any of the rewards that go along with that. An exceedingly dubious suggest, I think.

It is more than plausible, it is a fact ! I Corinth 3:13 - 15, supports Ephesians 5:5, and so does Galatians 6:7 - 9 and also Colossians 3:24 and 25.

And what do you mean by this comment - "The statment can also read - "that person does not even get a place in the kingdom of Christ and God" < It is comments like this one which expresses private interpretation. Ephesians 5:5 is talking about one's inheritance and nothing else !

 

[Drew]

Now you are suggesting being justified by your good works. Romans 3:28

Romans 4:2 - "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory ; but not before God"
Romans 4:4 - "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt"
Romans 4:5 - "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness without works"
Romans 4:6 - "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"

The works in verse 2, by context are clearly the works of the Law of Moses. Look back at the end of chapter 3 - Paul denies the ability of the Law of Moses to justify. He is not talking about good works. Verse 5 is a metaphor about a workman - why people insist that this verse means that Paul is denying justification by good works is beyond me. Paul is using the analogy of a workman who expects rewards based on what he does. But his real point is that Moses is not justified simply because he does the works of the Law of Moses. Paul is saying that, unlike the workman who expects to be paid because of what he has done, Abraham understood that his salvation is not based on a debt that God "owes" him, just because he kept the Law of Moses.

Galatians 2:16 - "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ , that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law shall no flesh be justified"

Thank you for making my argument for me. Indeed no one is justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. But that does not mean that we cannot be justified by doing good works.

 

[Drew]

And what do you mean by this comment - "The statment can also read - "that person does not even get a place in the kingdom of Christ and God" < It is comments like this one which expresses private interpretation. Ephesians 5:5 is talking about one's inheritance and nothing else !

As I have already indicated, you are simply assuming that one can be in the kingdom of Heaven without any inhertance. You are engaging in circular reasoning - assuming that "salvation" can exist in the absence of an inheritance. This is a very questionable assumption.

 

[Mysteryman]

Now you are suggesting being justified by your good works. Romans 3:28

Romans 4:2 - "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory ; but not before God"
Romans 4:4 - "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt"
Romans 4:5 - "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness without works"
Romans 4:6 - "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"

The works in verse 2, by context are clearly the works of the Law of Moses. Look back at the end of chapter 3 - Paul denies the ability of the Law of Moses to justify. He is not talking about good works. Verse 5 is a metaphor about a workman - why people insist that this verse means that Paul is denying justification by good works is beyond me. Paul is using the analogy of a workman who expects rewards based on what he does. But his real point is that Moses is not justified simply because he does the works of the Law of Moses. Paul is saying that, unlike the workman who expects to be paid because of what he has done, Abraham understood that his salvation is not based on a debt that God "owes" him, just because he kept the Law of Moses.

Galatians 2:16 - "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ , that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law shall no flesh be justified"

Thank you for making my argument for me. Indeed no one is justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. But that does not mean that we cannot be justified by doing good works.

Two questions

1. What good works will justify you ?

2. What good works will give/get you eternal life ?

 

[mondar]

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. He his judgment when he condemns the Jew, he uses the Law of Moses. His judgment on the heathen Gentiles, he uses their own conscience and the Law written on their hearts.

Notice the beginning of the context. The context begins with the claim that a certain man (the Jew) is "inexcusable," and "condemned." Because God impartially judges both unbelieving Jew, and Pagan Gentile.

The error of NT Wright, is that he assumes that the context is about believers and unbelievers being judged in some future judgment. Certainly unbelievers will be judged and condemned in the future by their works, but believers are judged on the basis of Christs imputed works. Believers are not in view in verse 13, or in Chapter 2.

I am guessing I will be back soon.

Might be an interesting path...
mondar please enlighten us.

Are you saying Romans 2:7 is an impossibility?

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.

Now to ask you a question... What law do you say is being referred to according to the context in verses 12-13? What in the context demands the interpretation that Chapter 2 is about anyone saved? NT Wright, got it all wrong, and it is him that ignores evangelical counter exegesis. NT Wright is the one with the dirty little secrete of ignoring evangelical exegesis.

 

[mondar]

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.

LOL, yes, with different words it might inflame passions a little less.

I too stand by my statement that NT Wright and those of the New Perspective ignore the volumes of evangelical exegesis of Romans 2. NT Wright has been directly rebutted specifically on Romans 2 by several writers. I have heard some of his response and am disappointed. It seems to me he is misrepresenting evangelical exegesis, and even dodging it. I have wondered if he knows he is wrong and cannot come to admit it.

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.

I will admit that I did not read the book by NT Wright in which he counters Piper. However, I did listen to NT Wright address Pipers comments and felt very disappointed in Wright. He simply set up a straw man. I listened to Wright mentioning Piper in the youtube video that I posted. I listened to other videos by NT Wright. I read the passage in Piper's book that NT Wright was referring to. Piper speaks of 4QMMT on page 104 and chapters 8 and 9. Anyone reading Piper will know NT Wright set up a straw man. With such a poor response by NT Wright, Piper does not need to respond back.

I really hate to buy another book by NT Wright, I feel disappointed in him. But we can talk about any counters you wish.

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.[/quote]
Drew, I have read some of what NT Wright claims on this. Are you sure you have it right here? I remember the issues. Wright claims that because the word ?????? is anartharus (spelling?) that it can refer to "a law." I don't believe Piper speaks to this issue, but DA Carson does. The form simply does not exclude the Mosaic Law being the issue in the context. And, the context mandates that it be the Mosaic Law.

Rom 2:3 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?
What things are being practiced in verse 3? What is being condemned? Certainly the things the pagan Gentiles are doing in chapter 1. So Gentiles are not the ones doing the condemnation, that is the unregenerate Jew (as I said in the previous post). What law would the Jew judge by in verse 3? This gets to Wrights view of 2nd temple Judaism as not a thing of self-righteousness. If it is the Jew in verse 1-5, then it is the Law of Moses in verses 12-13. Context is king!

*Note to Francisdesales---I am pooped after all this writing. If you simply read my responses to the other two fella's, you should see I actually replied to what you said anyway. To labor the point with more replies to the same questions would not profit anyway. Sorry, out of gas for tonight.

 

[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.

 

[faithtransforms]

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.

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

Well, would God be just or righteous if he arbitrarily picked some people for heaven and created others just to go to hell?

 

[jasoncran]

not a god i would want to serve.

 

[Drew]

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.

I agree. But if I read you correctly, you are agreeing that Paul is asserting that God will impartially render eternal life based on the content of the person's life. If you believe this, then we agree.

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).

This seems like a questionable interpretation. How do you get from "patience" to a requirement for perfection?

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.

If you are saying that because the passage begins with an admonition to the Jew that the rest of the passage must therefore be restricted to the Jew, then you are clearly mistaken. It is, of course, entirely coherent that the reason why the Jew is in trouble is precisely because all of humanity, including the Jew, will be subject to a future judgement based on good works with eternal life granted to those who "persistently seek glory, honour, and immortality.

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.

Like others here, you are placed in the dififcult position of explaining why Paul would make an assertion that some will get eternal life based on "persistence in doing good" if, in fact, he believes that this is impossible. Paul is not that sloppy a thinker. No competent writer would write that God will give eternal life to those who persist in doing good if that writer believes that this is impossible.

Christs death would be a foolish error on the part of God if this unregenerate Jew could continuously and patiently do good works.

This effectively begs the question - you assume that eternal life is granted based on something other than good works and use that assumption to undermine the plain sense of what Paul says - that eternal life is indeed granted based on the content of the life lived.

 

[Drew]

I too stand by my statement that NT Wright and those of the New Perspective ignore the volumes of evangelical exegesis of Romans 2. NT Wright has been directly rebutted specifically on Romans 2 by several writers. I have heard some of his response and am disappointed. It seems to me he is misrepresenting evangelical exegesis, and even dodging it. I have wondered if he knows he is wrong and cannot come to admit it.

Nice dodge.

You made a claim. Please give actual evidence. I have already asked you to do this once. It is not acceptable to accuse Wright of ignoring counter-arguments if you are not willing to give us some examples. So please, tell us one significant argument put forth by Piper and company and we will see if Wright ignored it or not.

Or, tell us the specifics of a Wright argument that you consider unsuccessful. Then we will have something to actually talk about.

 

[francisdesales]

1. What good works will justify you ?

2. What good works will give/get you eternal life ?

Any work done in Christ, faith working in love is all that matters, according to Paul.

Why is it so difficult to see that man is TRANSFORMED, and is no longer a "pile of rags" when that man is in Christ and the Spirit of God abides in the man??? Good works, a result of a synergistic action between God and I, are indeed salvific - because they aren't my works alone! How could I brag, if GOD is moving my will and desire to do the act, without which, I CANNOT enter into eternal life???

Regards

 

[Drew]

Wright claims that because the word ?????? is anartharus (spelling?) that it can refer to "a law." I don't believe Piper speaks to this issue, but DA Carson does. The form simply does not exclude the Mosaic Law being the issue in the context.

The fact that the form does not exclude the possibility that the Mosaic Law is in view does not, of course, mean that the Mosaic Law is, in point of fact, in view.

And, the context mandates that it be the Mosaic Law.

I see no valid argument for this.

It is clear that just because Paul is speaking to the Jew does not mean that Paul cannot talk about a judgement universal to all men - which he clearly does with several direct references to Gentiles.

As per my previous post, it is entirely coherent for Paul to tell the Jew that he is in trouble precisely because that Jew will stand with all men - both Jew and Gentile - at a coming judgement.

Where do you get this idea that if Paul is addressing the Jew, he cannot therefore go on to make a general statement about all humanity with the obvious implication to the Jew that "since everybody is going to face that judgement, you will too".