A further indication that Romans 2 is not hypothetical is the way in which Paul has arranged the flow of thought from chapter 1 through chapter 5. Protestants maintain that Paul is organizing the chapters in a specific sequential arrangement such that what is proposed as a plausibility in Romans 2 is then negated by the chronological placement of Romans 3-4. In essence, Romans 3-4 corrects, in due time, the “false” view presented in Romans 2 on how to be saved. The problem with this assumption, among other things, is that Paul is not writing these chapters chronologically as much as he is topically. Paul shows this, for example, in his opening statement in Rm 3:9: “...We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin...” We must conclude that somewhere within the first two chapters of Romans Paul “already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.” The first indications of such a “charge” on mankind appear in Rm 1:18-32, in which Paul refers to “all the godlessness and wickedness of men” (vr. 18); and “For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him (vr. 21); and, “they have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity” (vr. 29). In fact, Paul’s description of mankind’s sin in Rm 1:18-32 matches the very language of Rm 3:10-18, in which Paul states “there is no one righteous, not even one” (vr. 10); and “their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness” (vr. 14); and “there is no fear of God before their eyes” (vr. 18). Hence we see that the “charge” against mankind is identical in Romans 1 and Romans 3. Paul also reiterates the “charge” more subtly in Rm 5:12 in which he says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came upon all men, upon which all men sinned.”
Since Romans 1, Romans 3 and Romans 5, all stipulate the same “charge” against sin, it is obvious that Paul has arranged the Roman epistle topically. This structure allows Paul to state the same problem three times and give the same solution, but with an added nuance in each instance. For example, while Paul is levying the “charge” in Romans 1 and 2 against the sin of both Jew and Gentile, he is also offering the solution for that sin in the same context. Paul indicates this solution in Rm 1:16-17:
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in it a righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written: The just man will live by faith.
We note here that Paul presents the gospel in all its flower before he even levies the “charge” of sin against mankind. It is as if he is anticipating the solution before he gives the details of the problem. Presenting the gospel at such an early stage in the Roman epistle does not suggest an arrangement whereby Paul is setting up a hypothetical means of salvation in Romans 2 which is then followed up with the real solution in Romans 3-4. Rather, we understand from Paul’s mentioning of the gospel in Rm 1:16-17 that he has already given us the solution prior to Romans 2 and 3. In effect, Romans 2 takes the next step by completing the instruction and giving the very means of attaining that salvation.
To confirm this interpretation, we must look at two facets of the relationship between Rm 1:16-17 and Rm 2:5-10. First, we notice that Paul specifies the recipients of the gospel in Rm 1:16: “for the Jew first and then for the Gentile.” This is the identical language Paul uses in Rm 2:9-10: “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: for the Jew first, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good: for the Jew first, then for the Gentile.” (The Greek phrasing of Rom 1:16 is identical to that in Rm 2:9 and Rm 2:10 [Ιουδαιω τε πρωτον και ‘Ελληνι]) It would be strange indeed for Paul to use identical
language in both these passages but intend one as real and the other as hypothetical. The two passages are speaking of the same reality, albeit in different ways. Rm 1:16 uses terms such as “gospel,” “salvation” and “faith” whereas Rm 2:9-10 uses terms such as, “does good” and “does evil.” From this we can understand that he who “does good” and receives “eternal life” in Rm 2:6-10 is the same as he who lives by the “faith” of the “gospel” unto “salvation” in Rm 1:16-17. The good works of Rm 2:5-10, then, are in the same salvific category as faith. This is another clear indication that Paul is not opposing works to faith when both are included under the auspices of God’s grace.
As noted previously, Paul makes the connection between Rm 1:16-17 and Rm 2:9-10 even stronger by bridging these two contexts in Rm 2:4: “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?” In this passage we see Paul introducing the aspect of repentance into his discourse. In stating that God’s “kindness leads to repentance,” Paul’s usage of these terms reveals the essential elements of the gospel. “God’s kindness” speaks of his grace. Rather than just obliterating us in his righteous wrath against sin, God shows grace by leading us to repentance from sin. That God is expecting “repentance” from this gracious leading conveys the essence of the gospel. After all, what is the gospel if it is not salvation through repentance from sin?
Right on the heels of this presentation of the gospel of grace and repentance in Rm 2:4, Paul issues the ultimatum in Rm 2:5-10. Those who do not repent will receive God’s wrath. This is noted in vrs. 5, 8, 9:
Because of your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself...but for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger...there will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil...
Next, the logical complement to those who are “unrepentant” would be those who actually do repent. Those who “persist in doing good work” and “seek for glory, honor, and immortality” in vrs. 7 and 10 must then be those who have first repented of their sins. Their “doing good” implies their repentance from sin, since one cannot do good in God’s eyes unless he has repented of sin. That they “seek for immortality” shows, in addition, that their lives are not focused on this earth but upon the heavenly kingdom that provides immortality. One cannot have a belief in immortality if he is still in the blindness of sin and has not responded to the principles of the gospel. God’s grace and the expected repentance of man in Rm 2:4 is followed by either of two responses, i.e., “doing good...seeking glory, honor, and immortality...[for] eternal life” or “self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil [will receive] wrath and anger” in Rm 2:7-8. Thus, it is only logical to conclude that the two responses to God’s calling are indicative of two different responses to the gospel.
If Paul lifts the doing of works for obtaining eternal life to such a height as he does in Rm 2:6-10, what, then, can we conclude about Paul’s understanding of works in relation to salvation? The conclusion must be that works are necessary for salvation, and, in fact, are one of the principle determining factors in whether or not one obtains salvation. We say this with the proviso that Paul outrightly condemns works done with a view toward obligating God to pay the worker with salvation. Man can never put God in the position of being in debt to an imperfect and sinful creature. The only way God can accept our works is through his grace. Works done under the auspices of God’s grace, that is, works done that do not demand payment from God but are rewarded only due to the kindness and mercy of God, are the works that Paul requires for salvation. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 40-43 [print ed.])