Difficult Bible Passages: Romans 2:4
The whole structure of Romans 1-8 shows us how Paul first reveals our condition as sinners under the law, and then how we can find grace in Christ to rescue us from this nasty situation. The opening chapters condemn us all—Jew and Gentile alike—while the following chapters tell us of the way out of the mess that we are in.
One mistake Christians can often make is to single out and highlight one biblical text and act as if it was the only scriptural passage that can be brought to bear on a particular issue. Yes, there might now and then be a verse which seems to be all rather unique. But on all the key biblical truths, such as something like salvation, there would be numerous passages to consider. All of them must be taken into account when trying to understand an important biblical doctrine.
Let me offer a case in point. Recently on the social media someone shared a meme about how the good news of the gospel must be preceded by the bad news of the gospel. That is, before we can tell people that they can be saved, they first must understand that they are lost. To tell people that they can have their sins forgiven and be delivered from divine punishment requires that they first know that they are indeed sinners, and are now under the wrath of God.
And this is quite correct, biblically speaking. But someone came along seeking to dispute all this. He did so by quoting one passage—or part of one passage—thinking this had just refuted everything this meme was seeking to teach. He had shared part of Romans 2:4. The NKJV puts it this way: “the goodness of God leads you to repentance.”
So this fellow, on the basis of one text—or really, one partial text—sought to argue that we must start (and end) with God’s love, goodness and mercy. So who is right? Should we just ignore the bad news of the gospel and only share the good stuff with non-Christians?
Obviously this is not a ‘difficult’ passage as such, but as with many verses I have studied in this series, it can be misunderstood and misused. So let me discuss this further. The first step, as always, is to put the text into its context. Romans 2:1-4 (in the ESV) puts it this way:
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
There can be differing views on who exactly is being addressed here by Paul. Some commentators see the Jews as being in view, while others think this is about morally superior Gentiles. Either way, Paul is dealing with those who judge others yet are doing the same thing.
They may think they deserve God’s goodness, kindness and patience, yet they are not showing it to others. Yes, God is kind and patient, but these divine attributes which are lacking in us are meant to show us our need of repentance. So it is this Gentile hypocrisy Paul is focusing on here. But the overall argument of the epistle makes it clear in what direction he is moving.
The whole structure of Romans 1-8 shows us how Paul first reveals our condition as sinners under the law, and then how we can find grace in Christ to rescue us from this nasty situation. The opening chapters condemn us all—Jew and Gentile alike—while the following chapters tell us of the way out of the mess that we are in. John Stott in his commentary on Romans puts it this way:
-
What Is a Woman?
For Christians to truly hold fast to what is good, to truly seek the good of their neighbors, then they must hate what is evil. They must hate the evil lies promoted by transgender activists. Out of love for others and love for the truth, Christians must refuse to speak the lies of transgender ideology.
On Matt Walsh’s New Documentary
At the very beginning of the Bible we are instructed about the division of the sexes: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). There are only two, male and female, and nowhere does God’s Word indicate that men can become women, or women men. In fact, the Bible explicitly condemns attempts to live as the opposite sex. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that “[t]he woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” The Bible is abundantly clear about the nature of sexual division within the created order.
In “What is a Woman?,” Matt Walsh’s new documentary about the transgender movement and its critics, Walsh nowhere appeals to the Bible, but instead uses common-sense, rational questioning to investigate transgenderism’s attempt to overthrow nature—God’s “second book” of revelation. Walsh’s documentary reveals how the transgender movement has exchanged the truth about humanity for a lie. No lie conforms to reality, yet Walsh shows how this lie is especially incoherent and detached from reality. Over and over, licensed doctors, college professors, practicing pediatricians, and sitting politicians fumble through Walsh’s interviews (or end the interview, refusing to answer his questions) thereby exposing their gender ideology for the nonsense that it is. Walsh directs each of his interviewees to a concluding question, one that transgender activists were unable to answer in a direct or logical way: What is a woman? Responses ranged from “Great question” and “I’m not a woman, so I don’t know,” to “Why do you want to know?” and “A woman is someone who claims to be a woman.”
One particularly striking interview was with Dr. Patrick Grzanka, Professor in a University of Tennessee Program for Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. Walsh begins by asking Grzanka if sexuality and gender are different. In a long and circuitous way, Grzanka answers that the concepts are distinguishable yet interrelated. When Walsh presses Grzanka, asking if we can identify a person with male physical characteristics who identifies as a transgender woman as in fact male due to his biology, Granzka demurs. This leads to one of the most eye-opening exchanges in the film. Grzanka asks Walsh why he cares so much about identifying someone’s biological sex, and Walsh says he wants to understand reality, to “start by getting to the truth.” Grzanka reacts, claiming that he is deeply uncomfortable with the language of “getting to the truth,” and that such language is “deeply transphobic.”
Grzanka and other transgender activists believe in their ideology despite what they see. The external world has no necessary connection with reality for the believer in transgender ideology. Instead, each individual’s deliberate choice decides whether he is a man or a woman. Transgenderism thus requires its adherents to deny the concept of stable, accessible, absolute truth, as well as stable human nature. As Grzanka and numerous other interviewees of Walsh made clear, they recognized “my truth” or “your truth” but not the truth.
Walsh’s interview with Gent Comfrey, a gender affirming therapist, reveals the extent to which the transgender understanding of truth and the world blurs the lines between men and women. This blurring makes even knowing one’s own gender uncertain. Comfrey explained that modern research has shown that sex and gender are not mere binaries and are not restricted by biological sex differences. She claimed that “some women have penises…some men have vaginas.” When pushed by Walsh to explain how that claim is known, Comfrey said that she learned it by talking with transgender people who identify as the opposite of their biological sex. Walsh then asked the logical follow-up: if these concepts are fluid, how can Walsh know whether he might be a woman or not? Walsh explained that he likes scented candles and watched Sex and the City. Could Walsh be a woman? Comfrey did not dismiss the idea but encouraged Walsh to ask the question with curiosity to start his journey of gender identity development.
Walsh interviewed one person who had taken the concept of individualized truth to its logical extreme. Naia Okami claimed to be both a transgender woman and a wolf therian. A therian is “someone who identifies as a non-human earthen animal either spiritually or psychologically.” Okami told Walsh about how he (she?) discovered his inner wolf-ness at around age 10 when watching an anime cartoon. Apparently Okami then went on to spend time at many wolf preserves, communicating with wolves in non-verbal ways.
Read More
Related Posts: -
What Happens When a Society Abandons Christianity?
Written by Rev. Calvin Robinson |
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
The choice is not a Christian society or a secular society. The choice is increasingly becoming between a woke society and an Islamic society, both of which are oppressive. If we truly want to be free, and live lives in truth, beauty, and goodness, the only option is to return to a Christian society. That means Christians need to stand firm in the faith.What does a post-Christian West look like? Liberals argue that it is a secular society free of the “antiquated oppressions” of religion. Conservatives might argue that we get our moral compass from Christianity, and without it, we have a limited understanding of truth, beauty, and goodness.
Either way, I’m not convinced we’re entering a period of agnosticism or atheism. It seems to me as Christianity shrinks away into the corners of Western society, another faith is being promoted to take its place as the default.
I would argue that liberals are handing over the reins to Islam.
In the Midlands of England, Bradford Cathedral made the news for hosting a large Iftar event. Iftar is the breakfast meal of Muslims who are fasting throughout Ramadan. For a place of Christian worship to be hosting such an event will be held up by liberals as inclusive. But to Christians, it may be seen as offensive, to the point of sacrilege, especially if prayers are said during the event. Some Christian leaders seem to have lost all sense of the sacred and instead focus on temporal matters, worshipping the god of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity over our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Read MoreRelated Posts:
-
Omniscience
I’d like to talk about omniscience.
What would you do if you knew absolutely everything, even things that hadn’t yet happened? I imagine many people would pop into their nearest 7-Eleven and choose the winning lottery numbers. But for me—honestly, just once in my life, I’d like to join the fastest-moving line at my local branch of Target.
Unfortunately for my plan to triumphantly reach the checkout before other people, omniscience is one of God’s so-called “incommunicable” attributes, meaning that it’s an attribute that we do not share with Him. (We looked at two other incommunicable attributes in two earlier episodes of Simply Put when we thought about God’s omnipotence and His omnipresence.)
The word omniscience comes from the Latin omnis meaning “all” and scientia meaning “knowledge.” So literally, omniscience refers to the fact that God has all knowledge. There’s nothing hidden from Him—past, present or future—so there’s nothing that would surprise or confuse Him. And as well as knowing everything about the world and everything about Himself, He also, unlike us, knows how everything appears from every possible point of view.
Psalm 139 says:
O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways…Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord.
The Lord searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought (1 Chron. 28:9).
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account (Heb. 4:13).
What difference does this make? How does knowing that God knows everything make a radical difference to a person’s life?
Let me suggest three ways that’s God’s omniscience changes our lives for the better.
Read More
