In my previous blog, I stated I would respond to both of Glen Miller’s propositions. I responded to his proposition that the judgment of God would not consider the gospel as part of its process for, well, determining whether or not a person would enter heaven. In this blog, I shall return to Miller’s second thesis, namely, that men can reach a state of moral purity in theory apart from the gospel according to Romans 2. Now, to be fair, Miller did qualify this statement by relegating this possibility to the theoretical. In this post, we shall simply ask the question of Romans 2: “Is the Apostle Paul actually teaching that men can achieve moral purity apart from the gospel”
We do not have the benefit of understanding Miller's view of moral purity because he neglects to provide one. Does he mean sinless perfection? Such a state is beyond the grasp of the sinner in this life. Anyone who says they do not sin is guilty of lying. How can one reach moral purity given the existence of past sins? Forgiveness in Christ without knowledge of Christ? What about forgiveness without knowledge of forgiveness? What if the culture practices polygamy? What if sexual immorality has become the norm in a given culture? There are many questions regarding the "moral purity" that Miller does not address. It is possible, I suppose, that he has grappled with them elsewhere and I am simply unaware of it. It would be much more convenient for this post if we knew precisely what Miller means when he uses the term "moral purity." I can only assume his meaning and move from there. But in my response, I will show that Romans 2 does not teach that man can attain moral purity, theoretically or otherwise, not only of Miller's hidden definition, but of moral purity in any sense of that term whatever.
We do not have the benefit of understanding Miller's view of moral purity because he neglects to provide one. Does he mean sinless perfection? Such a state is beyond the grasp of the sinner in this life. Anyone who says they do not sin is guilty of lying. How can one reach moral purity given the existence of past sins? Forgiveness in Christ without knowledge of Christ? What about forgiveness without knowledge of forgiveness? What if the culture practices polygamy? What if sexual immorality has become the norm in a given culture? There are many questions regarding the "moral purity" that Miller does not address. It is possible, I suppose, that he has grappled with them elsewhere and I am simply unaware of it. It would be much more convenient for this post if we knew precisely what Miller means when he uses the term "moral purity." I can only assume his meaning and move from there. But in my response, I will show that Romans 2 does not teach that man can attain moral purity, theoretically or otherwise, not only of Miller's hidden definition, but of moral purity in any sense of that term whatever.
Paul wrote the second chapter of Romans in the larger context of the book Romans. In order to understand the immediate context of Romans 2, we must understand the larger context of Romans. The central concern of Romans is justification by faith that comes through the impartiality of the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God to salvation. In other words, the offer of salvation is universal and God is in fact saving Jew and Gentile alike. The gospel of Christ is now the power of God to salvation for all of humanity.
Paul moves to his largest discourse on justification in Romans 5. He does not abandon his universal language. All men in Adam are dead and subject to judgment. All men who are in Christ are justified and have eternal life. This language continues through Paul’s argument in Romans.
After taking a very brief look at Romans 2 in the larger context in which it was written, there is nothing in that chapter to indicate that Paul actually intended to assert that men could attain moral purity outside the gospel or otherwise. In fact, it is quite the contrary. Paul provides a vivid description of the depraved condition of the human race in chapter 1. He moves to the impartial character of a Holy God in chapter two and the moral culpability of humanity. He then pronounces all the world guilty before God, Jew and Gentile alike. Then, after informing us of our hopeless condition, he gives us hope. That hope is faith. The power of God to produce faith comes by the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is in perfect harmony with his teaching in Eph. 2:8-10. For by grace we have been saved through faith. If man may attain moral purity apart from the gospel, why did Jesus come to begin with? All men have sinned! Are we to believe we can actually stop sinning apart from the gospel, on our own? Even if that were possible, and it is not, what of those sins that we have committed prior to attaining moral purity. Or are we talking about moral purity relative to the rest of humanity? Such relativistic views of morality have far more in common with ungodly cultural philosophies than they do biblical Christianity. To claim that men can attain moral purity apart from the gospel is as antithetical to Christianity as any teaching could possibly be.
“Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)
No comments:
Post a Comment