I had posted the following response on another board to help someone there deal with an argument made by a Roman Catholic apologist. The Roman apologist was contending that, when Paul speaks of being justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law in Romans 3:28 and elsewhere, he was only referring to ceremonial aspects of the law, and not the moral aspect of God's holy law. Some folk on this other board found this explanation helpful, so I thought I would post it here in the hope that it might be helpful to others as well...
********************************************
All of Paul's argument from Romans 1:18 through 3:20 sets the stage for What Paul goes on to say in Romans 4. It is very clear that Paul is addressing Jews, in particular (if not before), from Romans 2:17-3:8. Paul addresses both ceremonial and moral aspects of the law, such as ethical commandments and the ceremonial aspects of circumcision. If Paul does not include the moral aspect of the law, then your opponent is going to have to do some theological gymnastics to get around...
Paul's whole argument from 1:18 through 3:20 is to demonstrate that Gentile and Jew alike are morally bankrupt before God. In Romans 2:17-3:8, Paul demonstrates that all the special privileges (indeed God-given privileges), in which the Jews gloried, would not save them or provide them with a righteousness before God that He would accept. Paul exposes their hypocrisy because the Jews thought, with all their privileges, advantages, blessings, that God would never judge them, let alone condemn them (e.g. Jer 23). But Paul pursues the Jews into every corner of their retreat, from their boasting of the law without obeying it to their pride in circumcision, and concludes all under sin.
In fact, Romans 1:18 through 3:20 is, as it were, one extended courtroom scene where all humanity (Gentile and Jew alike) is in the dock, and Paul is acting as God's counsel for the prosecution. To miss this reality is to demonstrate one's utter inability to read Romans 1:18-3:20 intelligibly.
That's why when Paul comes to Romans 3:28 and into chapter 4, declaring that a man is justified apart from the works of the law, it will not do simply to beg the whole question of what Paul has labored to set forth for 2 1/2 chapters prior to his teaching in Romans 4. To dismiss Paul's preface here to his doctrine of justification is to miss his entire argument that establishes the need for sinners to be justified by the work of another.
DTK
********************************************
All of Paul's argument from Romans 1:18 through 3:20 sets the stage for What Paul goes on to say in Romans 4. It is very clear that Paul is addressing Jews, in particular (if not before), from Romans 2:17-3:8. Paul addresses both ceremonial and moral aspects of the law, such as ethical commandments and the ceremonial aspects of circumcision. If Paul does not include the moral aspect of the law, then your opponent is going to have to do some theological gymnastics to get around...
Paul's whole argument from 1:18 through 3:20 is to demonstrate that Gentile and Jew alike are morally bankrupt before God. In Romans 2:17-3:8, Paul demonstrates that all the special privileges (indeed God-given privileges), in which the Jews gloried, would not save them or provide them with a righteousness before God that He would accept. Paul exposes their hypocrisy because the Jews thought, with all their privileges, advantages, blessings, that God would never judge them, let alone condemn them (e.g. Jer 23). But Paul pursues the Jews into every corner of their retreat, from their boasting of the law without obeying it to their pride in circumcision, and concludes all under sin.
In fact, Romans 1:18 through 3:20 is, as it were, one extended courtroom scene where all humanity (Gentile and Jew alike) is in the dock, and Paul is acting as God's counsel for the prosecution. To miss this reality is to demonstrate one's utter inability to read Romans 1:18-3:20 intelligibly.
That's why when Paul comes to Romans 3:28 and into chapter 4, declaring that a man is justified apart from the works of the law, it will not do simply to beg the whole question of what Paul has labored to set forth for 2 1/2 chapters prior to his teaching in Romans 4. To dismiss Paul's preface here to his doctrine of justification is to miss his entire argument that establishes the need for sinners to be justified by the work of another.
DTK
