If you interpret it wrongly to say works are necessary than you have to discount all of Romans as false and many other scriptures. As I've said many times scripture must be interpreted so that it all agrees, otherwise you have misunderstood.
Read Romans 13:1-6 and tell me Paul was not a crackpot or a Roman agent. If a witness once gives provable false testimony his testimony is no longer accepted.
What the hell are you talking about false testimony? You know what I took from those verses? I'll translate. Those in charge are in charge by God's will so don't be unnecessarily rebellious. I did not take it that it was necessary to follow an ungodly ruler. I assume Paul took that as a given because not having to follow an ungodly ruler is clearly spelled out in other scripture. Paul is just assuming that he doesn't have to explain what anyone who knows scripture should know.
