Can the unsaved do good?

[themuzicman]

As I've said before, in 2:5-16, Paul does not describe what is not and what will not be, but what is and what will be, according to his Gospel; and this does not contradict what he says in 3:20, 3:28-31, 6:22-23, 7:4-6 and 8:3-9. These doers of the law are doers of the morality of the law, both Greek and Jew, which they do by the Spirit as a result of being justified by faith in Christ.

You keep claiming this, but you fail to show us in Romans 2:6-16 (or anywhere in this chapter that would set that context), where Paul indicates that he is speaking about those who are "of the spirit" or "have been justified."

You keep moving forward and then trying to import meaning back into text that doesn't have this as its context.

In most circles, that's call "eisegesis".

And I know what Romans 3 and Romans 8 say. However, Romans 2 doesn't say those things.

Muz

 

[Jim1]

Hi Muz,

You're not following my point. My point is that the language in 2:5-16 is not consistent with a hypothetical but with factual statements made by Paul regarding what God will in fact do in the judgment as stated "according to my Gospel." Therefore, either what Paul states in 2:5-16 is contradicting what he says in the rest of the epistle (3:20, 3:28-31, 6:22-23, 7:4-6, 8:3-9) or it isn't. A comparison of these passages shows that he is NOT contradicting himself. He does in fact describe the law being establish in the justified ones (both Gentile and Jew) apart from the works of the law (3:28-31), this established law being fulfilled in the justified ones (both Gentile and Jew) by the Spirit (8:3-9). The justified ones (both Gentile and Jew), the saints, are in fact doers of this established/fulfilled law, whereas the unjustified ones are in fact NOT doers of this established/fulfilled law. This is seen in 2:13-16 and 3:28-31 and 8:3-9. One would have to have irrefutable evidence that Paul was contradicting himself in order to legitimately conclude that he was contradicting himself. However, no such evidence exists. To the contrary, what Paul says in 3:28-31 and 8:3-9 (as well as in 3:20 and 6:22-23) completely agrees with what he says in 2:13-16. Your objection to this rests solely on your contention that Paul speaks of the law in only one sense (the letter). However, Paul clearly speaks of the law in two senses: (1) the letter (the works of the law) and (2) the morality (the established/fulfilled law). It is the latter to which he is referring in 2:13-16.

Jim

 

[themuzicman]

Well, as long as you're going to continue to import other texts into this one and insist that they alter the reading that is plainly there, you're beyond help.

When you're ready to deal with this text as it exists without refuting it with other contexts, let me know.

Muz

 

[Jim1]

Hi Muz,

Importing other texts? Paul's Gospel doesn't change from one chapter to the next. Paul states what will be according to his Gospel in 2:5-16. He doesn't then contradict himself in subsequent chapters (3:20, 3:28-31, 6:22-23, 7:4-6 and 8:3-9). All of these passages (2:5-16, 3:20, 3:28-31, 6:22-23, 7:4-6 and 8:3-9) agree with one another in expressing Paul's Gospel.

Jim