Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
In John Stott's commentary on Romans (p91) he claims that when Paul holds gentiles accountable for their actions, (their conscience now accusing now defending them) this is not universally applicable to every Gentile. Why? because the Greek does not use the definite article "the Gentiles" but "Gentiles". That is, among the Gentiles there are some who show a greater sense of moral values - right and wrong.
Now I appreciate Stott not wanting to ascribe a working moral compass to every gentile. This is patently not the case, nor is it what Paul teaches either! Conscience like natural revelation is not a reliable guide but it is sufficient to hold us accountable and show a general principle at work in us. When we go against conscience it becomes "seared" (1 Timothy 4:12) and silenced. Paul's point is not that it is a true moral compass for the gentile, always pointing True North but that we are all born with a conscience and rather than refine it, realigning it to True North (as opposed to magnetic north)we go against conscience and this makes us who have no Torah accountable.
Paul is not a surgeon suggesting a remedy for the gentile, rather he is a pathologist dispassionately showing the progress of the disease.
Getting back to the greek definite article or rather the lack thereof, which was my point in posting. Romans 3:9 "...both Jew and Gentile..." compasses every gentile and jew in it's scope yet it would appear to lack the definite article does it not? So John Stott's observation is wrong in the context and wrong in the particular?
Am I right?
Now I appreciate Stott not wanting to ascribe a working moral compass to every gentile. This is patently not the case, nor is it what Paul teaches either! Conscience like natural revelation is not a reliable guide but it is sufficient to hold us accountable and show a general principle at work in us. When we go against conscience it becomes "seared" (1 Timothy 4:12) and silenced. Paul's point is not that it is a true moral compass for the gentile, always pointing True North but that we are all born with a conscience and rather than refine it, realigning it to True North (as opposed to magnetic north)we go against conscience and this makes us who have no Torah accountable.
Paul is not a surgeon suggesting a remedy for the gentile, rather he is a pathologist dispassionately showing the progress of the disease.
Getting back to the greek definite article or rather the lack thereof, which was my point in posting. Romans 3:9 "...both Jew and Gentile..." compasses every gentile and jew in it's scope yet it would appear to lack the definite article does it not? So John Stott's observation is wrong in the context and wrong in the particular?
Am I right?