Could you use Romans 2 to argue the importance about adherence to the law

[SuS33]

I know protanstans like to throw at us the part where Paul says we are not bound by law anymore. But I know he was talking about something different there. God’s mortal law is never changing and always binding. While Paul also talked about some Jwish laws like circumcision which are no longer binding. What do you think?

 

[fhansen]

I know protanstans like to throw at us the part where Paul says we are not bound by law anymore. But I know he was talking about something different there. God’s mortal law is never changing and always binding. While Paul also talked about some Jwish laws like circumcision which are no longer binding. What do you think?

To those Protestants who want to use Paul’s (mainly) teachings as a license to be relieved of any obligation towards obedience or righteousness, a sort of get-out-of-hell-free-card, yes, Rom 2 should be clear: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” Rom 2:13. They have a few ways of dismissing it, of course, but not without introducing new theology or just plain twisting the obvious meaning.

 

[SuS33]

To those Protestants who want to use Paul’s (mainly) teachings as a license to be relieved of any obligation towards obedience or righteousness, a sort of get-out-of-hell-free-card, yes, Rom 2 should be clear: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” Rom 2:13. They have a few ways of dismissing it, of course, but not without introducing new theology or just plain twisting the obvious meaning.

Thank you. I wanted to make sure I can use it and that I wasn’t misinterpreting it. Though it seems to me as clear as daylight.