Replies

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:21-31)

No, I'm not the one who is pitting Paul against Paul. What he consistently teaches is that God will NOT count our sins against us if we are under grace. That is what is meant by "imputing" or "imputation" of righteousness. We are found in Christ, not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. (see Philippians 3:9).

Gill's Exposition of the Bible explains what Romans 2:6 means by God rendering to every man according to his works:

Who will render to every man according to his deeds. God will be the Judge, who is righteous, holy, just, and true; every man in particular will be judged; as the judgment will be general to all, it will be special to everyone, and will proceed according to their works; for God will render to wicked men according to the demerit of their sins, the just recompense of reward, eternal damnation; and to good men eternal life, not according to the merit of their good works, which have none in them, but according to the nature of them; such who believe in Christ, and perform good works from a principle of grace, shall receive the reward of the inheritance, which is a reward of grace, and not of debt. In other words, God will render to evil men according to the true desert of their evil deeds; and of his own free grace will render to good men, whom he has made so by his grace, what is suitable and agreeable to those good works, which, by the assistance of his grace, they have been enabled to perform.

You are getting stuck in the same rut many do who imagine their works are what justifies them. If that is what you want to cling to, then I doubt anything I or anyone else says to you will change your mind. Continuing to argue the same points is a waste of time. I'll continue to pray for you and all those who are reading these threads for eyes and hearts to be opened to the grace of God that brings salvation.

For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed--a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." (Rom. 1:17)

I'm not the one who is pitting Paul against Paul.

In discussions on salvation and how faith and works come into play, Protestants invariably jump immediately ahead to somewhere about Romans ch. 3-4. Your so-called "pitting Paul against Paul" is avoided by almost never mentioning what he first says in Chapter 2.

Protestants describe justification in forensic terms -- God sitting as judge and acquitting the believer and awarding eternal life. But here's my point: in every illustration and statement about how God will judge us, the explicitly stated criterion is that of works. So how on earth can justification be said to be "by faith alone" when in Scripture works are the thing illustrated as the basis of acquittal/judgment? I don't deny that faith is an underlying principle for those rewarded with Heaven. But as such, it is only implicit. How do you move past the explicit principle (works) to make the implicit principle exclusive?

There lies a chief objection I have with Protestant soteriology.

Gill's Exposition of the Bible explains what Romans 2:6 means by God rendering to every man according to his works

And most of this I can nod in agreement. But this commentary fudges it in a few points: "and to good men eternal life, not according to the merit of their good works, which have none in them, but according to the nature of them[.]"

The author's problem (seeing as the author is Protestant and trying to preserve a Protestant principal) is that Paul speaks of those "persevering in well-doing." Well, if Scripture calls these "good works (well-done works)" then such have an inherent goodness to them, right? Possessing that quality, they are worthy of the promised reward (which is what term "merit" used in its theological sense (from the Latin meritum) means).

But the author has to do a bit of verbal play here, saying the works are rendered with eternal life not because of their "merit" (even though they are called "good works") but on account of their "nature." If you can explain the distinction between the "nature" of good works and the "merit" of good works, you get a prize. It's just typical Protestant word play that arises whenever "works" is used in a positive sense to turn it around and say "its really talking about faith."

As I've noted, Paul in Rom. 2:6-7 echoes what his Teacher, Jesus Christ says:

For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Matt. 16:27

The "coming with his angels" phrasing is repeated and expanded by Jesus later:

Matthew 25:31-46Revised Standard Version (RSV) The Judgment of the Nations 31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matt. 25:31-46

Are the works illustrated here ascribed a meritorious(i.e, being given the promised reward) value? Yes, they are. On account of those works, the "sheep" are called "righteous." (compare 1 John 3:7 ("He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.")

So the Gill commentary is right in noting "what is suitable and agreeable to those good works, which, by the assistance of his grace, they have been enabled to perform." But the Gill commentator's gratuitous "which have none in them" belies a theological bias.