Justification

[totorodaisuki]

In Romans 2:1-16 Paul declares that justification is contingent upon obedience, and specifically upon "doing the law" (verse 13). Mere knowledge of God's will is insufficient to save,
since only the "doers of the law will be justified". Yet shortly afterward he goes on to maintain that justification takes place by faith "apart from the works of the law" (verse 28).

How do we resolve this apparent tension in Paul's thoughts? As Reformed believers we know we are not saved by our works. Yet we must deal with this tension.

How did the Reformers, such as Calvin and Luther, and the Puritans resolve this dilemma?

 

[John The Baptist]

What is in between these two quotes is the solution to your problem. Paul quotes Psalm 14 in between, which says that ‘no one does good, no not one.’ Paul is making an argument. Here it is summed up

1. Only the doers of the law will be justified (2:13)
2. No one does good, and law brings knowledge of sin (3:9-20)
3. We are only justified by faith in another. (3:21-31)

This is why it’s so important that we follow the argumentation in epistles, or things can be taken out of context and get confusing.

Truth is, there is tension. And we are meant to feel it! We’re supposed to see our need for an alien righteousness, not our own.

Also, it is very true that eternal life requires perfect obedience/righteousness. Many evangelicals don’t acknowledge this, and they dishonor God’s holiness in the process. Practically, they think God’s grace comes at the expense of his justice/righteousness. Perfect obedience is required. Thank God his Son fulfilled the requirement for us.

The doctrine of imputation is important here as well. The righteousness which justifies us is not and never is our righteousness. It is always Christ’s, based on his perfect obedience.

If you have more questions, please let me know.

EDIT: As an example, the governmental theory of atonement (made popular by Charles Finney during the second great awakening) is an official position, common among those in the Wesleyan tradition, which denies the need for a substitutionary sacrifice.

 

[totorodaisuki]

What is in between these two quotes is the solution to your problem. Paul quotes Psalm 14 in between, which says that ‘no one does good, no not one.’ Paul is making an argument. Here it is summed up

1. Only the doers of the law will be justified (2:13)
2. No one does good, and law brings knowledge of sin (3:9-20)
3. We are only justified by faith in another. (3:21-31)

This is why it’s so important that we follow the argumentation in epistles, or things can be taken out of context and get confusing.

Truth is, there is tension. And we are meant to feel it! We’re supposed to see our need for an alien righteousness, not our own.

Also, it is very true that eternal life requires perfect obedience/righteousness. Many evangelicals don’t acknowledge this, and they dishonor God’s holiness in the process. Practically, they think God’s grace comes at the expense of his justice/righteousness. Perfect obedience is required. Thank God his Son fulfilled the requirement for us.

The doctrine of imputation is important here as well. The righteousness which justifies us is not and never is our righteousness. It is always Christ’s, based on his perfect obedience.

If you have more questions, please let me know.

Fantastic reply brother. That filled in the missing piece in my thinking! SDG!

 

[arapahoepark]

Indeed.
I take the hypothetical view that verse. A man could...but a Man did it in our place.

 

[jwithnell]

EDIT: As an example, the governmental theory of atonement (made popular by Charles Finney during the second great awakening) is an official position, common among those in the Wesleyan tradition, which denies the need for a substitutionary sacrifice.

Do you mind pointing me toward info on the governmental theory? I've been studying this time in American church history and haven't come across it by name. It would explain a great deal about the damage that came out of this era.

 

[arapahoepark]

Do you mind pointing me toward info on the governmental theory? I've been studying this time in American church history and haven't come across it by name. It would explain a great deal about the damage that came out of this era.

I believe a theologian by the last name of Miley (if I recall just like Miley Cyrus) made an ST on it during the period.

 

[John The Baptist]

Trent is right, John Miley is a good primary source. I will look into some resources and get back to you tomorrow.

 

[jwithnell]

Thanks y'all. (Please forgive if I've diverted this thread. I appreciate the OP and thought the initial response was terrific.)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My comment is posted merely as an addendum to the good answers already given in the thread to the initial post.

Let a man grasp the design of the apostle for the sweep of his thought throughout the epistle, and certain difficulties (likely not all) will disappear.

Paul uses (by our numbering ch/v) 15vv of ch.1 to greet the Roman Christians and explain his aim. He sets out his gospel thesis in vv16-17. His first main point follows from 1:18, where he begins by writing about the revelation of wrath, which discussion continues through various branches to 3:20. All of this matter must be interpreted through the purpose statement of 1:18. This is the "bad news" portion of the letter, to be immediately followed by the "good news" euangelion or gospel purpose that comes in his second point.

That second point is begun in 3:21, with language that invokes the revelation of righteousness. For the next 8 1/2 chapters, through the end of ch.11, Paul distills his verbal proclamation of the gospel, his preaching of Christ, setting it out before the Roman Christians (where he never yet went to preach in person). More toward the close of the letter, we note the Apostle continues beyond the gospel proper to gospel-implications, i.e. to matters of Christian practice that flow out of the lives that have become united to the Lord Jesus and his perfect mediatorship.

The outline of Romans (excluding the greeting and epilogue) is essentially Guilt (1:18-3:20), Grace (3:21-11:36), and Gratitude (12:1-15:13). Indeed, if someone could keep the expressed will of God, then justification in God's sight should come through obedience; however, the whole first portion of the letter is written to indict every man without exception. That includes the obviously guilty and the ignorantly guilty; the indulgent Gentiles, moralists of any stripe, and even Jews in external covenant with God who have possession of the Law and ostensibly know its content.

Those categories cover the field of humanity, even by analogy; thus e.g., we can settle the modern, proud Christian who boasts in his external relation to Christ while defying his authority, nicely in the same final category as the Pharisees who boasted that they were not like other men. There is no way to escape the crushing indictment of God through the moral law, through the preaching of that law to all men. It reaches to the heart and motive of everyone, and finds us all guilty. In that condition, there is only one remedy: namely, a righteousness apart from the law. How will you come into possession of a perfect obedience? You cannot produce it, you cannot buy it, you cannot promise even a token for it.

Yet it is available, without money or price, as the pure gift of God. Those terms seem so good, so wonderful, even a bit "overgenerous;" and it is sad to see so many reject the gift in order to mock it, or offer some effort rather than take it, or insist on paying just a little something to reduce the debt (even just a little). In what way could the gift be improved by the recipient? Do you have no comprehension of the cost? Still, men will not have the one thing necessary on the Giver's terms. They must be given the very eyes to see--meaning the faith--unto apprehending both their guilt, and the grace that satisfies God's righteous requirement.

Only profound thankfulness pouring out of a humbled heart that now loves the Redeemer is able to render obedience that God accepts (even then!) on account of the saved's union with the Mediator.

 

[greenbaggins]

To put it another way, when you read Paul, you must be able to discern the difference between law and gospel. When Paul states the requirement of the law (which is perfection), that is a statement of the law. This is what Romans 2:12-13 says. Hypothetically (as one author has already stated on this thread), if a person could be perfect, they could be justified in that way. Paul then goes on, however, to prove that no one can measure up. That is still law. The law tells us we messed up. The gospel tells us the solution to this problem, which is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the sinner, and the sinner's sin imputed to Christ. As has been said, no one gets to heaven without a perfect righteousness. We can try (but inevitably fail, because our sin wipes out all our own righteousness, if we are trying to earn it) to earn our own righteousness, or we can trust that Jesus has provided the perfect righteousness we need, and given it to us as a free gift.