Note that if textual coherence, consistency, non-contradiction and harmony are not necessary determiners of valid interpretation, then given Rom. 2:6-11 I can claim that the Bible teaches that men are saved, not by faith alone, but by the combination of works and faith for it clearly states in James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (ESV) If the passages are cited in response that we are saved by faith alone and not by works, I can simply say “the Bible teaches both” and this is only an “apparent” contradiction that is “beyond our sinful human understanding” therefore we should believe both. But this would hardly pass as proper exegesis or biblical theology! Why? Because a hermeneutical prinicple is being violated – that of coherence, which is the essence of the prinicple of context. A hermeneutic of coherence (i.e., consistency, harmony, non-contradiction, etc.) is not being applied to the faith / works contrast in these different passages. Likewise, these hermeneutical principles must also apply to the passages on sovereignty and human responsibility.
The point of Romans chapter 2 is to demonstrate that possession of the divine Law and circumcision as a sign of the Jew’s election by God to be his people, gives the Jew no advantage over the Gentile with respect to being declared righteous before God. To the God who does not show favoritism, the Jew too is accountable. Just as the Jew judges that the Gentiles are sinners without the law, they too are sinners even though they have the law. They also do what the Gentile sinners do, and they will not escape God’s judgment, for his judgment is “based on truth.” (2:2, 3, NIV) So the Jews reliance upon the law and circumcision come into play here. Paul argues that even the Jews do not keep the law they claim puts them in a privileged position with God. Paul also addresses their claim that being among the circumcised people of God provides them with a secure position before God. He does this by reversing their argument about their special position before God due to them having and keeping the law. He does this by raising the point that there are Gentiles who keep the law too – by nature they do what the law requires (2:14, 15 and 26, 27). Therefore, they too would have right-standing with God even though they are uncircumcised. Once it is established that the Jew indeed does break the law, any reliance upon the law and circumcision only amounts to self-reliance and the futility of self-righteous striving. Paul argues,
“Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.” (2:25-27, NIV)
All this is not to argue that the Gentiles too are righteous before God because they “do by nature the things required by the law” and are therefore on an equal footing to the Jew who has the law and is physically circumcised. No. For it is a given for the Jew that the Gentiles are sinners. Neither is Paul arguing that the Jew needs to do better with respect to keeping the law for his righteousness. Rather, Paul, for the moment is conceding to the Jew who thinks he is righteous on the basis of the law. He’s conceding the point temporarily too bring in the Gentiles as law keepers and also uncircumcised, so as to show that the Jew, although circumcised, that he does not keep the law. In other words, he is in the same position as the Gentile sinner. All this is Paul’s way of dismantling the Jew’s false conception that righteousness and the grace of God are to be found in the possession of and obedience to the law that God gave to Israel who are marked by circumcision which is the sign of being the elect people of God. Paul’s point is that none of this matters if uncircumcised Gentiles keep the law too! Either the Gentiles are righteous before God because they “do by nature the things required by the law” and are therefore on an equal footing with the Jew who has the law and is physically circumcised, or, the Jew needs to do better with respect to keeping the law. But of course this is not what Paul wants to communicate. Neither of these alternatives will work in God’s economy of salvation.
So, by the Jew insisting that keeping the law is the means by which one experiences the grace of God and is the means for accessing that divine grace, along with the idea that that all this is a real possibility before God to his satisfaction and that this divine grace is exclusive to the Jew as the elect people of God, and was by no means for the Gentiles, except as they were committed to becoming subject to the law and circumcision, the Jews are exhibiting a stubborn and unrepentant heart and “storing up wrath” against themselves for “the day of God’s wrath.” (Rom. 2:5, NIV) How so? They were ignoring what God has done in Christ. By insisting upon gaining a righteous standing with God through the law, they were showing “contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance.” (2:4, NIV) Their whole orientation was wrong in light of what God had done in Christ. Paul is breaking down the conventional distinction between Jew and Gentile on theological grounds with respect to mankind’s essential sinful nature. Both the Jew and the Gentile are sinners before God. Therefore, Romans 2:28-29 anticipates Paul’s gospel and all that Paul will expand upon in the next chapters regarding salvation by grace through faith. In summary Paul writes,
“A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from other people, but from God.” (2:28,29, NIV)
What is to be noted for our purposes is that Paul is presupposing libertarian human freedom when he speaks of the moral and personal responsibility of the Jew who is exhibiting a stubborn and unrepentant heart. Indeed, they are “storing up wrath” against themselves. They were “self-seeking” and were among those who “reject the truth and follow evil.” For such as these there will be “wrath and anger.” (2:8) This is hardly coherent with the idea that God predetermined this behavior that brings about his “wrath and anger.” Paul’s words communicate that the persons themselves put themselves in the position of reaping God’s wrath because they “reject the truth.” (2:8) The description “reject the truth” is only coherent if they were responsible for what they were doing and could do otherwise. The expectation is that they should not reject the truth but accept it and turn from following evil (Isa. 55:6, 7; Jn. 8:24; Acts 28:23-28). We see this presupposition of the ability of contrary choice at key points throughout Romans. The contingency and responsibility we see throughout Romans are only coherent concepts given libertarian human freedom.
The concept of God’s judgment throughout this chapter also presupposes personal and moral responsibility. Divine judgment is incoherent if all that occurs is predetermined by God’s will alone. What is the meaning of “God will judge us” if there is no such thing as the freedom to decide our thoughts and actions? Given Calvinism, God would be judging his own determinations.
Also, the fundamental idea that “God does not show favoritism” (2:11) speaks against Calvinism’s arbitrary exclusivity. This clear statement of Scripture contradicts the Calvinist view that God arbitrarily elects some sinners to salvation while leaving all others to an eternal condemnation for reasons we know not why. I say arbitrarily, not only that God does this for reasons we are not privy to and against what we do know constitutes justice and fairness, but because in this situation all things are equal. Paul has just leveled both the Jew and Gentile as far as sin is concerned. That is, all things being equal, as they are in this case, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23), we are left with the incoherence that God, who is good and just, has decreed to leave a vast multitude of people outside his saving grace. Such a view leaves us at a loss as to the true nature of justice and fairness and therefore at a loss as to the true nature of God. But the fundamental principle in this verse, that God does not show favoritism, informs us of the true nature of God (cf. Acts 10:34; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Tim 5:21; James 2:9). It tells us that both the justice and love of God are not arbitrary and are therefore logically and morally incompatible with the Calvinist’s soteriology. A corollary principle laid out by Paul is that “God will give to each person according to what he has done.” (2:6) More of course will be said about how God can be both “just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (3:26, NIV), but here Paul’s goal is more foundational. He has leveled the playing field for all the parties involved – Jew and Gentile (that is, all persons) – with respect to the internal nature of human sin and the need for salvation God’s way.
The Truth of the Gospel 