The Errors of Errancy, Part VI: The Abuse and Misuse of Romans 1 and 2

When one reads certain statements in Romans 1 and 2, he or she may think that the Enlightenment had a point that humans can discover the truth and morality through reasoning and intuition, since God has given humanity the ability for both. In vv. 19-20, the text indicates that God has given an ability to man to understand him through reason applied to the book of nature. It states:

Because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 

In 2:14-15

For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them,

The problem with applying both of these ideas to the errancy debate, arguing that humans can judge the Bible's reliability by what they know through reason and intuition is that the context indicates that both are not only insufficient, but have brought men to a state of falsehood and depravity, not truth and righteousness. 

The whole text of Romans 1 states that even though God gave this natural revelation to humans (specifically the nations here), they "suppressed the truth in unrighteousness" (v. 18), meaning they argued against the truth in order to accommodate their sin. Hence, God did not give them greater understanding through it, but established their lies they believed as truths further by giving them over to sin that would cause them to become entrenched in their falsehoods. Hence, what men did with the light of nature was as follows:
  
For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless thoughts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (vv. 21-23)

Because of this, God gives them over to their sin, and as a result they further "exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen (vv. 24-25).

Likewise, the idea that Romans 2:14-15 are talking about unregenerated unbelievers who can discover morality on their own, even if true, does not support the idea that this morality is contradictory to the one found in special revelation. Indeed, the passage actually affirms that when Gentiles do these things (it does not say that they actually do them completely), they are doing the things of the Jewish moral law, meaning that they are one and the same, not two different laws, one which can judge the other. 

Second to this, Romans 1 has just established that unbelieving Gentiles do not obey the law, and that Jews also break the law, even though they may have it. This is the entire point of Romans 3 when Paul concludes that both Jews and Gentiles (all of them) are under sin and are in need of redemption. There is not a single one of them (Jew or Gentile) that does what is righteous and good. Hence, Paul is either using a hypothetical in order to make the point in Chapter 2 that one could consider even a Gentile righteous when he does some of the things that are in the law, even though he does not have them, and hence, having the law does not make one righteous (which is the actual point being made), or he is referring to God-fearers in Old Testament times who evidence some of the things in the law in their character. Either way, the point is not to argue that humans can discover a reliable morality through conscience/intuition, but rather that humans sometimes stumble upon it. Whether they do, however, cannot be known unless one has a reliable source of morality to judge whether they have stumbled upon it, as Romans 1 makes clear that they seem to stumble a whole lot more upon immorality and consider it moral instead. As 3:11 states, "There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks for God."

But what of the regenerated believer? Does he possess a reliable source for his knowledge of truth and morality apart from special revelation? The answer to this must be, No. The reason why it is impossible is due to the dual nature of the believer. He is not regenerated completely, but now has two minds, one of the spirit and one of the flesh. The mind of the flesh may work to convince him that falsehoods and immoral behaviors are true and moral. Hence, even if he has the mind of the spirit as part of his new makeup, it cannot function as a reliable source to confirm to his mind which is which at any given time. This is especially true if his religious culture has convinced him of the truth and good of an untruth or immoral behavior. For example, if love is defined in such a way so as to be all-inclusive, it is doubtful he will exclude certain behaviors that are considered immoral by the Bible, precisely, because he is trying to be loving as God commands. Hence, he is still wholly reliant upon the Scripture to judge the matter as to what love really is and how it should be expressed.

Hence, John argues that every spirit is not to be believed, but rather tried by the apostolic witness that we today now have in Scripture (1 John 4:1-6). Hence, the light of nature through reason and the light of conscience or intuition is not sufficient to function as a reliable source due to the sinful nature of man, whether believers or not.