Dear Friends, 

There are several clues that Paul’s narration in the tenth chapter of Romans is part of a hypothetical conversation he is having with a person—or persons—who do not agree with his teachings.  For example, if the whole of the chapter were Paul’s words in typical written monologue form, there would be no need for him to introduce his thoughts in Verse eighteen with “But I say….”  The conversational, interactive literary form of this chapter was actually a common form of writing in the first century.  In the study of ancient literary forms it is referred to as “dialectical” or as “dialectical rhetoric.”  This literary form is highly effective in revealing the ideas and beliefs that Paul set forth, as well as the contradicting ideas held by his critics.  While the “person” with whom Paul interacts in this chapter may be hypothetical, the ideas with which he interacts by way of his conversation/ argument with this person are altogether real, not hypothetical or imaginary.   

Obscure or ambiguous are adjectives that should never describe the message that any man in the ministry ever presents.  A man who represents himself as a minister of the gospel should go to great lengths to ensure that his hearers understand clearly, correctly, and precisely what he believes and what he is teaching at the moment.  Paul serves as a powerful example in this regard.  When a man repeatedly presents his beliefs in such a form that his hearers cannot clearly know what he believes, he creates a high degree of suspicion and distrust toward him and his message, deserved or not.  We may all have our “off-day” in preaching, but on every opportunity we enjoy to present our beliefs we should strive to make our message as clear, on key, and concise as a member of a band might do with his musical instrument under the direction of the director.  Any note that is not sounded with certainty and clarity is likely a note that fails to follow the musical score before the player.  In our study of this context we’ve observed multiple witnesses to the truth of the gospel message, all of which are in harmony with each other, when the message preached is true.  The multiple witnesses to the truth of a message serve as something of the multiple musical instruments in an orchestra when all the players are well prepared and are following the director.  

When we follow both Paul’s conversation in this context, as well as his hypothetical critic’s, the message becomes increasingly clear.  As we see the wise and timeless direction of the Holy Spirit in the ninth chapter, we find similar timeless truth affirmed in the tenth chapter.  After some two thousand years, critics of Paul’s teachings on election still raise the same objections to the doctrine that Paul surfaces and refutes in the ninth chapter.  May we follow the “Orchestra Leader” in our study of both chapters. 

God bless,

Joe Holder

Paul’s Response

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? ( Romans 10:16 )

  In this verse Paul raises what he perceives to be a flaw or weakness in the reasoning of the unnamed critic who speaks the sentiments of verses 14-15.  They ignored the voice of faith in the heart, claiming that the only way a person can believe in God and in the truth regarding Him is through the preached gospel.  They clearly considered preaching to be verbal, external communication from one man, the preacher, to another man, the hearer.  In their mind no other means of communication existed between us and God.  “How then shall they…” opens their line of reasoning. 

            If we impose something of an acknowledged anachronism (an idea that is out of sync with the time at which Paul wrote these words) onto the passage, we might easily convey the logic of this dialogue between Paul and his unnamed critic into our own time and the theological issues that commonly face us.  Consider the broad theological spectrum of beliefs that exist in our culture and time:

1.         Salvation by works.  Despite all the passages that teach against this idea, advocates still promote the idea that no one can ever gain salvation and see the glories of heaven unless they not only believe the truth regarding Jesus, but also perform various acts of obedience.  In their mind God does some of our saving; that they call grace.  But we must do the remainder of what God didn’t do to complete our final salvation; these acts they refer to as necessary works to earn our ultimate salvation. 

2.         Salvation by “faith alone.”  Advocates of this idea strongly reject that man must “do” anything to gain his/her salvation, but they do require that the individual must believe some elements of the gospel message and in some voluntary way “surrender” their hearts to God.  They define the various activities they impose as acts of faith, and not works.  However, at its heart their belief transforms “faith” into a work itself. 

We shall continue the list, but I observe at this point a common denominator in these two views.  Regardless of the works required or the beliefs required, conversations with advocates of either of these views become quite difficult when the obvious questions are asked.  If a person must “do” something to gain his/her final salvation, what exactly must he/she do?  How much must he/she do to ensure a final favorable verdict?  There is some point at which those folks standing in the line on the Last Day to face the Judge will hear the message, “You did a lot of good things, you made a noble effort, but you simply didn’t do enough.  If you had done just a tiny bit more, I’d allow you to come in, but you didn’t.  Depart!”  The line may be somewhat imaginary, but it nevertheless exists at some point along the spectrum of good deeds performed if in fact our final salvation depends to any degree on what we do.  The “hard question” to ask advocates of the first idea, salvation by works, is rather straightforward and simple, “Exactly how much must I do to ensure my final salvation?  Give me the exact details.  Surely if this method is the Biblical way of salvation, there must be a clear and precise degree of good things that I must do to cross the threshold.  What is it?  Where exactly is that threshold?”  Since Scripture does not teach this method of salvation, no such absolute line of demarcation exists in Scripture, so no straightforward answer is usually offered. 

            A similar question might be asked of anyone who holds to the second view.  “If I must exercise a measure of faith—if I must believe a certain amount of truth about Jesus—exactly what is that line or measure of faith that makes the difference?  What is the amount of truth that I must believe to ensure my final salvation?”  Interestingly advocates of the second view will find a concise and clearly defined answer to this question almost as difficult as the advocates of the first view. 

            The common thread appears in the underlying similarity of the two views.  They are simply different lines on the same spectrum.  Both views require some form of human synergy with God to accomplish one’s final salvation. 

            Now let’s look at some hybrid views.

3.         God saves you by grace, but He uses your faith as an “instrument” by which to deliver saving grace to you.  Unless you “trust” Him for your salvation—unless you use the available instrument—you will never be truly saved.  Faith doesn’t actually save you, but it serves as the instrument or vehicle that delivers saving grace to you. 

4.         “Lordship salvation.”  On more than one occasion I have heard John MacArthur actually make the point described in the third point.  Each time he used the analogy of a person seeing a chair in a room and deciding to sit down in the chair.  Only if this person “believes” that the chair will safely support his/her weight, will that person actually sit down.  Advocates of MacArthur’s “lordship salvation” expand this idea to teach that anyone who does not repeatedly sit in the chair, act on their faith, is in all likelihood “not really saved at all,” one of their favorite clichés.  According to this view, the only way to “be assured” of your salvation, something that advocates of this view functionally describe as actual salvation, not simply cognitive assurance of it, is for you to “persevere” in your faith and good works from your profession of faith till your dying breath. 

As with the first two views, these two views actually have a lot in common.  Both seek to avoid the obvious fault of salvation by works, but both ideas still impose conditions to be met by the individual if one is “truly saved.”  Quite often advocates of these two views use their perception of the gospel as a means of control by threat and fear in their hearers.  “If you fail to hold out faithful to the end, I can’t assure you that you were ever really saved at all.”  Assurance by the teacher of these ideas becomes fully equal with the ultimate reality of salvation.  Thus, while denying that they are passing judgment against people, they in fact are constantly passing judgment, and they use this threat of judgment to motivate people out of fear of “not really being saved” into a fear-driven obedience, not a joy-driven obedience of love. 

            Given the nature of our “human condition,” even after regeneration, there is not a living person who has actually, literally persevered to the perfect degree, either in duration or degree. Consider for example, Gideon, who at the end of his life made a golden ephod ( Judges 8:28-33 ) and led Israel in idolatry; or Solomon with whom God was rightly angry at the end of his life (1Kings 11:1-9); or perhaps Jonah whose last account describes him as angry with God ( Jonah 4:1-11 ).  And finally, of all men, consider Abraham at the end of his life ( Genesis 25:6 ), hardly the dying image of a “persevering” saint and man of faith!  The list could go on, but the point is made.  None of these notable servants of God perfectly persevered in faith, and, according to scripture, they all struggled with issues of faith in the last moments of their lives.  The wise instruction of Scripture to the godly seeker of truth prepares us for the reality that we live and face every day.  As long as we live, even up to the moment of our departure from this world, we will struggle with sin and engage our—and God’s—arch-enemy in battle against sin, especially against sin’s presence within us.  This morphed view of “lordship” perseverance fails to address the fact that Gideon, Solomon, Jonah, Abraham, and others did not and were not persevering in faith in the Scriptural account of the final moments of their lives.  At this point, advocates of these two views face almost as much difficulty as advocates of the first two views, if asked to define the minimum degree of perseverance they consider acceptable to “assure” someone of their salvation. 

            Consider the following definition of “perseverance” from the Oxford English Dictionary.

The fact, process, condition, or quality of persevering; constant persistence in a course of action, purpose, or state; steadfast pursuit of an aim….

The online contemporary Oxford dictionary identifies the word’s origin:  “… — ORIGIN Latin perseverare ‘abide by strictly’.(1)

Notice the emphasis; “…constant persistence…steadfast pursuit….”  This definition refutes the subjective and highly relativistic view of “lordship” perseverance that I described above.  Even the strongest advocates of “lordship” perseverance will not assert that they are constant and steadfast in their pursuit of godliness and without any moment of faltering.  There is no basis in the historical meaning of the word for this relativistic view of perseverance; “Oh, you will stumble and falter at times, but you will never wholly forsake your faith or your faithfulness in good works.”  In fact the historical meaning of the word refutes this idea.  The moment a person falters or stumbles, his/her “perseverance” ceased!  The historical view of perseverance, that God “perseveres” in grace by preserving His elect so that none shall finally be lost, honors the correct and historical definition of the word, for God never at any time or to any degree forsakes His declared intent of preserving His chosen people against final loss ( John 6:37-39 ; John 10:27-29 ; and more relevant to our present study, Romans 8:31-39 ).  The morphing of this idea in “lordship” perseverance imputes to regenerate believers a trait similar to God’s in that it claims that the “really saved” person will persevere so as not to fall utterly away from faith.  However, considering the indisputable fact of human frailty, it abandons the historical meaning of the word—and God’s faithful “persevering” in His eternal design to preserve all of His elect—in its embracing a relativistic and compromised view of perseverance that in fact contradicts the fundamental and historical meaning of the word.  You can’t “persevere” more or less,” “some of the time, but not all of the time.”  The historical definition above leaves no ground for relativistic perseverance to some never-clearly- defined degree of faltering faithfulness.  God wholly “perseveres” in His preserving grace so that not a single one of His elect shall be lost.  He continues “…in a course of action in spite of difficulty…” so that not even one of His beloved and chosen children shall be finally lost.  Thus the morphed “lordship” perseverance view violates both the word and the historical belief stated in respected confessions of faith, not to mention the greater fact; it violates Scripture.  There should be no debate over the Biblical truth that in writing His law in our hearts God makes a permanent change in our moral character, but this Biblical truth is never in Scripture associated with any derivative word related to “perseverance.” 

            What is the relevance of all this to the dialogue between Paul and his critics in the tenth chapter of Romans?  It is timeless!  Paul clearly stated a foundational truth; confession with the mouth and belief in the heart, exemplified by Paul in Romans 10:9 as belief in Jesus’ literal resurrection does indeed “save a person.”  However, in the tenth verse Paul defined the salvation, “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”  Interestingly, Paul’s definition of salvation in this context ensures “salvation” from shame, not salvation from hell!  Further, in this context Paul has already described the people under consideration as having the indwelling principle of faith “…which speaketh…” in the various points made earlier in this chapter.  Paul is not addressing lost, unregenerate sinners with a proposition of potential salvation if they will meet certain conditions.  He is rather addressing saved people with a reasonable, rational (the literal meaning of the word translated “reasonable,” “…which is your reasonable service…” in Romans 12:2 ) exhortation to listen to the indwelling, speaking testimony of faith that is presently speaking or witnessing God’s truth to them. 

            Paul likely understood the flaws in the errant beliefs of his critics, and he exposes one of those flaws in our study verse.  The critic has made a case that no one can call on the Lord apart from hearing and believing the gospel.  However, the critic has carefully limited his argument to the faith-response to the gospel, not at any point hinting that the faith response must be followed with works that provide concrete evidence of that faith.  What is Paul’s point?  It is incredibly relevant to the four contemporary theological errors mentioned above.  Let’s accept the errant views for a moment.  Are we willing to state without caveat or equivocation of any kind for any individual person or class of persons that every single person who hears the gospel and believes it is “assured of salvation” based on that sincere belief?  Although dealing with a different concept of salvation, that was clearly Paul’s point in the earlier verses of this chapter, and his critics didn’t object to that point; they rather objected to Paul’s teaching regarding the indwelling presence and testimony of faith, replacing that function with a legalistic view of the gospel as God’s only vehicle to communicate with His elect.  If this be so, we must answer Paul’s objection.  Simply stated, if Paul’s critics were/are correct, we cannot be so categorical and unequivocal in our claims that every single person who sincerely believes the gospel will experience that “salvation.” That is precisely Paul’s point, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel.”  Whether people hold to errant view Number One, Two, Three, or Four, how can they reconcile their errant view with Paul’s clear points regarding the saving benefits of confessing and believing?  The question boils down to a logical point.  “What will you do with the sincere believer who, by your assessment, fails to ‘obey’ the gospel up to your minimum criteria?”  Assume the obvious.  He/she really does believe from the heart; he/she really confesses belief in Jesus’ resurrection with the mouth.  Yet he/she does not “obey” the gospel up to the threshold set by advocates of all the errant views outlined above.  Is such a person really “saved” or really “lost”?  Paul even quotes Isaiah 53:1 , a double question the prophet asked as he contemplated the “suffering Messiah”.  First century Jews, according to some authorities, struggled with the “suffering Messiah” prophecies of the Old Testament and concluded that God had actually predicted the coming of two distinct Messiah’s, one the “suffering Messiah,” and one the “conquering, victorious Messiah.”  Paul interpreted those passages as uniformly being fulfilled in one—and only one—Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.  To claim, as advocates of some of these errant views do, that no such person exists, that everyone who “truly” believes will “truly” obey, contradicts Paul’s categorical statement.  They have not all obeyed!  If you hold to any one of these views, what will you do with the disobedient believer?  Ah, that is indeed the question.

            By this dialectical assessment of Paul’s message to the Romans, we have discovered timeless truth that clearly defines both our eternal security in God’s faithful Surety, the Lord Jesus Christ, and we have also discovered the rich and glorious truth of the testimony of faith that communicates God’s will and truth to us in ways that transcend any external message that attempts to supplant, deny, or replace it.  This truth in no way diminishes the value or truthfulness of the preached gospel, for, unlike the false gospel preached by Paul’s critics, the true gospel message corroborates the message of faith in the heart, the true Biblical source of God’s authentic “assurance” to us of our salvation, and of His truth.  I’ll take God’s way of assuring me over man’s every time!