Reconciling Romans 2:13 with the rest of New Testament

[lanman87]

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Notice upon whom God’s sheds His mercy. In Exodus 20:6, upon those who keep the Commandments. In Titus 3:5, upon those who have done righteous works.

It is interesting that we read Titus 3:5 in completely different ways.

he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit

I understand it to mean- any works of righteousness we may have done play no part in why he saved us. He saved us according to his own mercy

 

[De_Maria]

Does God still justify us by “doing the law”?

There are two forms of justification.

1. The justification of faith and works which is by keeping the Commandments. This is the very same justification of the Old Testament. But it does not justify of all things.
2. The justification of faith apart from works which is by faith in the operation of God in the Sacraments. Those who submit to God with faith, are further justified in the Sacrament of Baptism where we are washed of ALL sins while calling on His name.
3. Only those who do #1 are eligible for #2.

Where does it say that?

The word “sacrament” was not yet coined when the New Testament was written. However, when St. Paul says the term “mysteries of God”, this is what he is talking about.

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

And when he says, doctrine of baptisms, also.

Hebrews 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

And when he says, faith of the operation of God, which is a reference to the washing of regeneration:

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

It is interesting that we read Titus 3:5 in completely different ways.

he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit

I understand it to mean- any works of righteousness we may have done play no part in why he saved us. He saved us according to his own mercy

That’s very close to how I understand it. Notice that you say, “we may have done.”
Whereas, he says, “we have done”. There is no maybe to it. If we have done the works of righteousness, which are the Ten Commandments, the Law, which He has always required us to do, He has already forgiven us of our sins. Then, if we present ourselves to the Church asking to be baptized, He will wash us in His mercy and make us new creations, born again in the image of His Son.

 

[Malka]

Thomas Aquinas has some great commentaries.

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/

__

The Ancients

Theophilus of Antioch
“For he who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing [Rom 2:7] seek immortality, he will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither has eye seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man to conceive [1 Cor 2:9]. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish [Rom 2:8–9], and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men [To Autolycus 1:14 (c. A.D. 181)].

Clement of Alexandria
“So that when we hear, "Thy faith hath saved thee, we do not understand Him to say absolutely that those who have believed in any way whatever shall be saved, unless also works follow. But it was to the Jews alone that He spoke this utterance, who kept the law and lived blamelessly, who wanted only faith in the Lord. No one, then, can be a believer and at the same time be licentious; but though he quit the flesh, he must put off the passions, so as to be capable of reaching his own mansion.” [Stromata 6:14 (c. A.D. 202)].

Hippolytus of Rome
“And again, it is said, the Saviour has declared, Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. [Matthew 7:21] And it is necessary that they who perform this (will), not hear it merely, should enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Refutation of All Heresies 5:2 (A.D. 225)].

Cyprian of Carthage
“You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire; you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living” [Works and Almsgiving (Treatise 8) 14 (A.D. 253)].

 

[Malka]

Ignatius of Antioch
“Give heed to the bishop, that God may give heed to you. My soul is for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be with them in God! Labor together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God. Please him under whom you fight, and from whom you receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as complete armor. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that you may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you. May I have joy of you for ever!” [Letter to Polycarp and Smyrna 6 (c. A.D. 110)].

Gregory of Nyssa
“Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith” [Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 (A.D. 335- 394)].

 

[Erikaspirit16]

righteous by faith

we are justified by apart from the law

Of course it all depends on how you interpret those words: “righteousness” and “justified.”

As a Catholic, I’ve always looked at it this way:

Before Christ, mankind was locked in a room (Purgatory, if you like). There was another room (Heaven), but they had no way to get out of the room they were in. Christ came along, and by His death, opened the door to the locked room so that people could move from the locked room to the “Heaven” room. But it was up to each individual if they wanted to leave one room and go into another. Some left, some decided to stay.

Two important points from the analogy: 1) No one was able to open the locked door by himself. Christ had to do it. (Christ “justified” them if you will.) 2) No one automatically (the Protestant version) left the room. Each person decided (free will) whether they wanted to leave (good works) or not (embrace sin).

Or, to put it another way, to get to Heaven you need both: you need Christ’s death on the cross to enable you to enter Heaven–not GUARANTEE you Heaven, but give you the option. And you also need good works–no good works, no Heaven. You don’t deserve Heaven by your good works because you didn’t open the locked door, Christ did. But you have to decide whether or not to walk through the open door (do good works).

 

[Wannano]

If no good works means no heaven then what are the good works and how much of them do we need to “walk thru the door”?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If no good works means no heaven then what are the good works and how much of them do we need to “walk thru the door”?

See my paragraph 2, above: staying in the locked room = embrace sin. If you embrace sin (mortal sin, to be more specific), you stay in the room. As for good works, it seems to me everyone performs good works every day, ranging from holding a door for somebody to risking their lives to save a drowning child. After the Resurrection, it’s not the performance of good works, per se, that is getting you to Heaven, it is the absence of mortal sin (where I think most Protestants would leave it–“justification”). But I can’t conceive of anyone, even the most extreme criminal, who has not performed some good works during their lives. But you raise a good point.

 

[Wannano]

If the room is “purgatory” then those who died before Christ would all be going to heaven right?

It is hard to imagine that a person would embrace sin at the final judgement if given a glimpse of glory…but I have had people tell me they want hell even though they have been given a glimpse of glory while on earth. Yet I too “embrace” sin from time to time even though I certainly do not want hell.

 

[Crusader13]

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Actually, from my understanding in this passage Paul is speaking to the Jews and Gentiles in Rome, who were engaged in a bitter dispute regarding their salvation. This is for those who had not yet accepted Christ, the Law of course being the entire Law of Moses.

The Jews were under the belief that simply being Jewish was going to save them and the Gentiles were doomed because they didn’t have the Law to save them. Paul, however, was showing that the Gentiles had the natural law to follow and would be judged by how well they followed the natural law.

So in this context Paul was explaining that it isn’t their Jewish identity that will save them and their attitudes of disdain towards the Gentiles was misplaced. He explains that they (the Jews) were no different than the Gentiles, with regards to their sinfulness and in some aspects were worse off because the Jews had the revelation of God as their guide, so they have more culpability before God as opposed to the gentiles, who followed the natural law and not the Law of Moses.

I don’t believe that doers of the Law, in this passage and in this context, was referring to how Christians need to practice the law (the sacraments) as it doesn’t seem to fit with theme of the first three chapters.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If the room is “purgatory” then those who died before Christ would all be going to heaven right?

You are making me re-think my little analogy. So I’m giving you full marks for politely poking a few holes. And you are right–I’m not sure it works on deeper levels. I’ll have to give it more thought.

I still like my analogy, but I can see I need a lot of footnotes. Yes, the locked room would represent Purgatory at Christ’s Resurrection, and yes, everyone there would be going to Heaven. Their lives are already over. And presumably those who have seriously sinned are already in Hell. Those born after Christ’s Resurrection would face an open door, and the choice of whether or not to go through it: “good works” if you will. (But then you need to define “good works.”)

My main problem (and let’s face it, it’s a problem that’s been debated for 2,000 years) is that according to Catholic theology, if you are “in a state of grace,” i.e., have “Sanctifying Grace,” you will go to Heaven. On the face of it, that’s rather similar to the Protestant idea of “being saved” or “being justified.” You get Sanctifying Grace when you are baptized (and you could write several books on what that means) and lose it if you commit a serious (mortal) sin. You can re-gain it by being truly sorry in confession. And of course there’s nothing there about “good works” in the sense of positive actions. I would interpret “good works” broadly, in the sense of “avoiding sin,” and I would imagine that everyone, even the most depraved sinner, could not go through life without doing positive “good works” at some point, whether it’s opening the door for someone, loving their mother, or admiring a sunset. Will they offset a mortal sin? No.

It is hard to imagine that a person would embrace sin at the final judgement if given a glimpse of glory…but I have had people tell me they want hell even though they have been given a glimpse of glory while on earth. Yet I too “embrace” sin from time to time even though I certainly do not want hell.

I agree. And a lot of Catholic theologians do, too. The “Fundamental Option” theory that was popular in the late 60s-70s basically held that each person has a fundamental orientation towards good or evil. Therefore, committing a single mortal sin would not necessarily change your orientation towards good (“God”). This was condemned by John Paul II in his encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” where he re-affirmed that yes, a single mortal sin would be enough to send you to Hell, as the Church has always said.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2—

But of course it’s not so simple, since to commit a mortal sin you have to give “full consent of the will.” Again, you could write libraries about free will. But you could certainly make a very good argument (I would) that it is virtually impossible for anyone to give full consent of their will, for all sorts of reasons: genetic, social, psychological, economic, etc. etc. There is a theological theory (I really can’t remember where–perhaps part of the Fundamental Option school?) that it’s only after you are dead that you really have free will. Therefore at the Last Judgment, you will be presented with your sins, and you then will truly have the ability to reject or embrace them. And, as you say, it’s reasonable to think that very few people would choose Hell; which in turn means almost all people would go to Heaven. I personally find that an attractive and logical theory. But of course it’s just a theory. Other than the free will objection, the argument against the “single mortal sin = Hell” doctrine is that it is very legalistic. Is it just? Is it merciful?

The other consideration is that if you were, basically, a good person, how likely is it that you would commit a mortal sin? Theoretically, anyone could, of course. But it’s like you see in the movies: If you kill a person, it’s hard. If you kill a second person, it’s easier. A third? Easier still. And so on. And the opposite would also be true: If you are kind to a person once, it’s easier to be kind a second time, etc. So you “program” (probably not a good choice of words, but hopefully you see what I mean) yourself to act a certain way. You could deviate from your “fundamental choice,” but it would become harder and harder whichever way you went. So although I agree with Veritatis Splendor that a single mortal sin could send you to Hell, I wonder how often or how easily that would be possible.

 

[De_Maria]

If no good works means no heaven then what are the good works

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

and how much of them do we need to “walk thru the door”?

God is the Judge. But Scripture says:

Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

 

[De_Maria]

… Yet I too “embrace” sin from time to time even though I certainly do not want hell.

Hm?

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

…
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

 

[fhansen]

I was wondering how Catholics reconcile Romans 2:13

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

with the numerous text that say we are righteous by faith, apart from the law? (I’ve listed a couple)

Such as Romans 3: 21-23 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Galatians 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law , for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Was Paul contradicting himself or is there a reason he says you are justified by doing the law then turns around and says we are justified by apart from the law?

I know the Evangelical/Protestant answer to this question. I was just wondering how Catholics see it?

Rom 2:13 always seemed to me to pose a problem for Sola Fide, not for Catholic theology. The New Covenant is not about abolishing the law or no longer needing to obey it. It’s about how we fullfil it, not whether we fulfill it. To be “under the law” means to attempt to fulfill it by my own efforts, with my own “righteousness”, by the letter. To be “under grace” means to fulfill it in union with God, with the “righteousness of God”, by the Spirit. By faith we enter communion with God, then He does the justifying rather than ourselves. “Apart from Me you can do nothing”, John 15:5.

The law is holy, spiritual, and good according to Rom 7 and elsewhere. We’re the problem, not the law. We need to change, we need God. Adam thought otherwise, that he could do just fine without Him. When the time was ripe Jesus came to reconcile us with and lead us all back to God again, if and as we’re ready and willing. Then He can mold the changes in us, transforming us into His own image, into beings who love as He does. Then that love proceeds to fulfill the law, Rom 13:10.

Understood this way Rom 2:13 makes perfect sense; Paul was never saying that faith frees us from the obligation to be righteous, to obey, to be who we were created to be. We’re saved by faith, via faith, through and on the basis of faith Phil 3, because faith is the means to righteousness because it’s the means to God, who, alone, can make man righteous or obedient (ref Jer 31:33). So our first step in being justified is to return to the intimate relationship with God that we were made for-that comes before any other authentic obedience is even possible.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

… Yet I too “embrace” sin from time to time even though I certainly do not want hell.

Hm?

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

…
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

But putting quotation marks on the word embrace, I meant to communicate the idea of “falling for” “slipping into”.

 

[Justin_Mary]

I was wondering how Catholics reconcile Romans 2:13

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

with the numerous text that say we are righteous by faith, apart from the law? (I’ve listed a couple)

Such as Romans 3: 21-23 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Galatians 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law , for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Was Paul contradicting himself or is there a reason he says you are justified by doing the law then turns around and says we are justified by apart from the law?

I know the Evangelical/Protestant answer to this question. I was just wondering how Catholics see it?

We are not justified because we do the works. We do the works because we are justified.

 

[De_Maria]

lanman87:

I was wondering how Catholics reconcile Romans 2:13

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

with the numerous text that say we are righteous by faith, apart from the law? (I’ve listed a couple)

Such as Romans 3: 21-23 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Galatians 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law , for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Was Paul contradicting himself or is there a reason he says you are justified by doing the law then turns around and says we are justified by apart from the law?

I know the Evangelical/Protestant answer to this question. I was just wondering how Catholics see it?

We are not justified because we do the works. We do the works because we are justified.

That’s the Protestant understanding of faith alone. Ask yourself, “does God save unrepentant sinners?”

If your answer is, “yes”. Then you believe in the Protestant idea of faith alone.

If your answer is, “no”. Then you understand the Catholic Doctrine of salvation by faith and works correctly. Before one is saved, one must repent, amend his ways, make a determination not to sin anymore and turn to God. Unless a person does these things, he will not be saved.

Ezekiel 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

 

[Justin_Mary]

That’s the Protestant understanding of faith alone. Ask yourself, “does God save unrepentant sinners?”

If your answer is, “yes”. Then you believe in the Protestant idea of faith alone.

If your answer is, “no”. Then you understand the Catholic Doctrine of salvation by faith and works correctly. Before one is saved, one must repent, amend his ways, make a determination not to sin anymore and turn to God. Unless a person does these things, he will not be saved.

My answer is yes & no. Jesus died on the cross, reconciling us to the Father through His blood… while we were still enemies. So in that sense we were all saved, Gentile & Jew, saints & sinners.

Still we must follow Christ, abide in Him & allow Him to abide in us. We won’t be accepted into heaven (saved) if we aren’t “clothed in Christ” or “wearing the wedding garment” even though we were invited.

St Paul was saved when Christ died, he was saved when he persecuted the Church, he was saved when he was struck off the horse on the road to Damascus. He was saved when Annanias restored his sight. He was saved when Annanias baptised him. He persevered in the faith, preaching Christ crucified to the very end thereby winning the race & his place in heaven.

There were several opportunities St Paul could have lost it all.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

That’s the Protestant understanding of faith alone. Ask yourself, “does God save unrepentant sinners?”

If your answer is, “yes”. Then you believe in the Protestant idea of faith alone.

If your answer is, “no”. Then you understand the Catholic Doctrine of salvation by faith and works correctly. Before one is saved, one must repent, amend his ways, make a determination not to sin anymore and turn to God. Unless a person does these things, he will not be saved.

My answer is yes & no. Jesus died on the cross, reconciling us to the Father through His blood… while we were still enemies. So in that sense we were all saved, Gentile & Jew, saints & sinners.

Still we must follow Christ, abide in Him & allow Him to abide in us. We won’t be accepted into heaven (saved) if we aren’t “clothed in Christ” or “wearing the wedding garment” even though we were invited.

St Paul was saved when Christ died, he was saved when he persecuted the Church, he was saved when he was struck off the horse on the road to Damascus. He was saved when Annanias restored his sight. He was saved when Annanias baptised him. He persevered in the faith, preaching Christ crucified to the very end thereby winning the race & his place in heaven.

There were several opportunities St Paul could have lost it all.

We aren’t all like St. Paul. How about Herod? Was he saved when Christ died, was he saved when he persecuted the Church?

Besides, St. Paul was a Jew. And even before he turned to Christ, he already believed in God.

So, the fact remains, before one is saved, one must do the works of God.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

 

[Justin_Mary]

We aren’t all like St. Paul. How about Herod? Was he saved when Christ died, was he saved when he persecuted the Church?

My point was the difference in protestant & Catholic understanding of saved.