Dear Friends,

  Many years ago I first encountered convincing evidence that Paul wrote many of his letters, particularly the Roman letter, in the ancient literary form of a dialectical discourse.  In ancient dialectical rhetoric the writer acknowledges the presence of other ideas and, through a series of questions and answers, interacts with the opposing view.  The writer effectively carries on a conversation with a hypothetical advocate of the opposing view.  This literary style is generally traced as far back as Plato and Socrates.  Prior to their influence much of Greek philosophy was based on fanciful sophistry, not on clear and responsible reasoning and dialogue.  We readily notice Paul’s use of questions and answers, but we seldom fully appreciate the highly structured form of his reasoning in such passages.  The objective of dialectical argumentation was not to beat up on an absent critic by means of proverbial “straw man” empty arguments or other deceitful forms of rhetoric.  It was rather to interact with one’s critics so accurately and fairly that, however deep the disagreement—the critic would be compelled to congratulate Paul for being so accurate in his description of the opposing viewpoint.  The real objective was to win the person not the argument.  Ah, how much we could learn from this perspective.

  It is for this reason that I quoted extensively in prior studies from the Society of Biblical Literature and other sources to affirm this literary style in the tenth chapter of Romans.  If we understand this literary form, we will more fully appreciate the clarity of Paul’s teaching in this chapter.  The passage before us—I believe—is in fact the voice of Paul’s critics, not his own.  After Paul develops the vitality of the reasoning voice of the “righteousness of faith” in the verses leading up to this lesson, he understands that his critics will not agree.  Thus Paul here gives voice to his critics’ point of view.  “How then…” logically introduces an opposing idea.  “If what you say is true, how then do you explain…?”  

  Our study here examines the opposing view to Paul’s affirmation regarding the dynamic voice and teaching of the “righteousness of faith,” a voice of spiritual, intelligent reasoning that was resident in Paul’s audience, and to which Paul appealed in his writings here.  We do well to follow Paul’s reasoning and teachings without reservation or compromise.

  Blessings,
Joe Holder

 

The Critic Responds

 
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!  ( Romans 10:14-15 )  

             Based on our dialectical approach to the Roman letter, these words come from Paul’s critic, not from Paul.  “How then…” frames an objection.  It voices a rejection of the prior view, “If you believe that, how then can this be true?”  Albert Barnes makes the following point in his commentary on these verses:

  The objection was, that they could not call on him in whom they had not believed; that they could not believe in him of whom they had not heard; and that this was arranged by God himself; so that a large part of the world was destitute of the gospel and in fact did not believe… The objection is, that in order to our calling on one for help, we must be satisfied that there is such a being, and that he is able to aid us. This remark is just, and every man feels it. But the point of the objection is, that sufficient evidence of the Divine mission and claims of Jesus Christ had not been given to authorize the doctrine that eternal salvation depended on in him, or that it would be right to suspend the eternal happiness of Jew and Gentile on this.^[1]

 

Barnes, though Reformed in his general theology, held to the idea of gospel instrumentality for regeneration, so for him to interpret these verses as the critic’s objection to Paul, rather than as Paul’s words is notable.  In keeping with his view Barnes interprets calling on the name of the Lord and being saved in this context as eternal salvation, not salvation from legalism, ignorant zeal and subsequent shame. 

            In a study of error it is essential that we understand the nature of Satan’s strategies.  If a man advocated such aberrant ideas that everyone clearly understood them as being errant, he could hardly deceive anyone.  Does Satan himself appear to people in the comic-book image of a red suit, pitch fork in hand, with a sharp pointed tail?  Consider Paul’s description of this highly successful satanic strategy.

 

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. ( 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 , KJV )

 

Notice the specific terms that Paul employs here, “false apostles,” “deceitful workers.”  They practice “…transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”  Satan’s ministers (Yes, that is what Paul said!) cloak their true disposition so as to appear to be “…the ministers of righteousness.” 

            How is it that a “minister of Satan” can appear to be an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ or as a “minister of righteousness”?  During the wilderness temptation, Satan clearly demonstrated his intimate familiarity with Scripture.  Knowing Jesus’ disposition, Satan tried to use Scripture to convince our Lord to compromise His character and mission.  Should we be surprised if Satan or people under his control use the same tactics against us?  I’ll never forget a time during my naïve youth when I thought that any man who professed to believe in the doctrines of grace had to be an honest, honorable person.  I happened to meet a man from a different church fellowship that holds to many of the doctrines of grace similar to my beliefs.  He reached out to me under the guise of helping me accomplish something that I dearly wanted.  Over time and through significant disappointment and pain I discovered that this man was nearly shameless in his objective of convincing me to part with my money for his benefit.  Subsequently one of his associates demonstrated a true Christian character and provided the assistance that I needed, but this man shamelessly used his position and supposed belief in the doctrines of grace to exploit me. 

            Satan is an incredible deceiver!  Scripture clearly attributes omniscience, omnipotence and many of the other incommunicable divine attributes to God alone. Satan is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.  However, he is a good student of human behavior, and he has an incredible memory!  Thus he can use what attributes he does possess in a highly effective strategy of deceit against the family of God.  He will quote Scripture and even reason from Scripture so as to make us think we are hearing the very words of God. 

            Paul never questions the sincerity of the unnamed critic with whom he interacts in the Roman letter.  We might reasonably conclude that they are Jews who embraced the gospel, but who attempted to create a hybrid Law-Grace gospel instead of preserving the truth that Jesus and His apostles taught.  

            In the context of our study “How then shall they call on him…?” contradicts Paul’s strong affirmation that God is quite capable of communicating Himself to His chosen and beloved children directly and effectively, both in the work of regeneration and in subsequent communications through the “righteousness of faith” that “speaks” to us. 

            Effectively Paul’s legalistic critics were advocating a form of human-divine synergy that left no room for faith in its proper and Biblical role.  They refused to acknowledge that the “righteousness of faith” held any significant transforming or communicative abilities whatever. 

            Let me illustrate this point.  Several years ago I was having lunch with a man who held to many of the doctrines of grace, but he still believed that man has an integral role in finalizing his eternal salvation, specifically in terms of the gospel’s role.  He believed that the gospel is necessary to communicate the new birth and all subsequent information to one of God’s elect.  I asked how he reconciled his view with John 5:25 .

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. ( John 5:25 , KJV )

 

My friend responded that the only way anyone ever hears the voice of the Son of God is through the gospel!  He could not distinguish the “voice” of the Son of God from the “words” of the Son of God.  We may well speak equivalent words to the words that Jesus spoke during the Incarnation.  Effectively the “red letter words” of a red letter edition of the New Testament points us to those words.  However, that is not the point that Jesus made in this passage.  He did not say that the dead would hear the “words” of the Son of God; He said that the dead would hear the “voice” of the Son of God.  He further stated that the very act of their hearing that voice would produce life.  Our Lord demonstrated this incredible power of His “voice” when He raised Lazarus from the dead.  In the context of John 5:25 Jesus further affirmed this point in his reference to the literal bodily resurrection at the Second Coming.  “…all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth….” ( John 5:28-29 ) 

            The view that I set forth here—I believe the view that Paul taught in this lesson—in no way should be interpreted as to diminish or belittle the Biblical role of the gospel as God’s message to instruct and to equip His family in their lives.  Neither in this context nor elsewhere in his inspired writings does Paul ever belittle the gospel’s role as God’s chosen vehicle to instruct and to inform His regenerate children.  He rather affirms that it is God’s power revealed to save believers ( Romans 1:16-17 ), but he never indicates that it is God’s power to transform unregenerate people into regenerate people, nor that it is God’s power to save unbelievers.  We previously examined Titus 2:11-15 as further affirmation of this truth.  While Paul clearly teaches that the same divine grace that saves us also teaches us, he also affirmed that Titus was to “…speak, exhort, and rebuke with all authority.”  ( Titus 2:15 ) 

            Some will question this teaching, “If God’s grace teaches us, why do we need the gospel?”  Scripture urges us to verify truth by multiple testimonies or witnesses.  The incredible truth of the gospel, when preached in God’s power to a regenerate elect, will resonate with the pre-existing witness of the indwelling grace, God’s Law written within, and with the testimony of the “righteousness of faith” that Paul here discusses.  Thus the validity, the confirmed testimony, of the gospel becomes far more convincing because the words we hear in the gospel harmonize with the indwelling teaching of the Holy Spirit through all of the above influences in us. 

            While I could comfortably agree with my friend that the gospel is a noble declaration of God’s truth, I could not agree with him that it is God’s one and only vehicle of communication between God and His regenerate children.  According to the Biblical record, God is never speechless!