Dear Friends, 

This study continues our examination of Paul’s dialectical debate or conversation with his quite real, but unnamed, critics.  I offer a similar view to that of respected Reformed commentator Albert Barnes in terms of this verse being the belief of Paul’s critics, though I hold to distinctly different theological views to Barnes in terms of salvation.  The fundamental premise outlined in this verse cannot be Paul’s in that Paul earlier in the chapter goes to significant detail to make the case that hearing comes by faith, not the opposite view posited in this verse, that faith comes by hearing.  The distinction between these two views frames the theological issue of countless debates within Christianity throughout the centuries.  It is altogether alive and well today.  

Our simple challenge; will we follow Paul’s conclusion that hearing comes by faith, or will we join Paul’s critics and disagree with inspired Scripture in the errant conclusion that faith comes by hearing?  Ah, that is the timeless question.  God direct and help us to follow Paul and inspired Scripture.  The theological implications are significant! 

God bless,

Joe Holder

Paul and his Critics: What was Their Disagreement?

 
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.  ( Romans 10:17 ) 

            Earlier in this sequence of thought I mentioned that the respected Reformed commentator Albert Barnes interpreted the tenth chapter of Romans as a dialectical argument or dialogue between Paul and his unnamed critics.  Barnes interprets the several verses leading up to, and including, Verse Seventeen as the words of the critic.  I have interpreted the sixteenth verse as being raised by Paul, and our study verse ( Romans 10:17 ) as the response of the critics.  Barnes’ comments on this verse are quite interesting.

So then faith cometh, etc. This I take to be clearly the language of the objector. As if he had said, by the very quotation which you have made from Isaiah, it appears that a report was necessary, life did not condemn men for not believing what they had not heard; but he complains of those who did not believe a message actually delivered to them. Even by this passage, therefore, it seems that a message was necessary, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Divine message. It could not be right, therefore, to condemn those who had not obeyed the gospel, because they had not heard it; and hence not right to make salvation dependent on a condition which was, by the arrangement of God, put beyond their power. The very quotation from Isaiah, therefore, goes to confirm the objection in the 14th and 15th verses.

By hearing. Our translation has varied the expression here, which is the same in two places in the Greek: "Isaiah said, Who hath believed our report. (th akoh). So then, you must admit that faith comes by that report, (ex akohV) and therefore this report or message is necessary." When it is said that faith cometh by hearing, it is not meant that all who hear actually believe, for that is not true; but that faith does not exist unless there is a message, or report, to be heard or believed. It cannot come otherwise than by such a message; in other words, unless there is something made known to be believed. And this shows us at once the importance of the message, and the fact that men are converted by the instrumentality of truth, and of truth only.  (Copied from Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, SwordSearcher Bible software)

While Barnes makes a compelling case for the same basic view that I hold, I offer a simpler and more direct point in support of the idea that this verse comes from Paul’s detractors, not from Paul.  In Romans 10:6-13 Paul makes a strong case for the mirror opposite view of hearing and faith to the view here voiced by his critics. 

Carefully read those earlier verses from Paul.  Repeatedly he affirms what the “righteousness of faith” says.  For Paul faith is the voice that speaks the message heard in the heart, a message that will be confirmed by the gospel when a person hears it preached.  For Paul’s critics the manner in which a person hears and responds to the audible message of the gospel produces faith.  Two ideas could not be more opposite! 

            What are the implications of these two ideas?  The story of historical Christian theology could be written in large part around these two opposing views that define the communication link between God and man in two incredibly diverse ways.  In one case the onus of action resides in the man who preaches and the person who hears.  In the other the foundational premise begins with a divine work of grace in the heart, a work that instills faith in the heart and then speaks God’s words and truths to the heart through the agency of that divinely planted faith.  One view challenges the unregenerate sinner, “If you will have faith, God will save you.”  The other view, Paul’s view, informs the regenerate sinner, “God has saved you and in the process given you a sense of Him and of His glorious Person and character.  Listen to and obey His words.” 

            This diverse view of theology appears in almost every area of Christian thought.  For example, in the study of Christian apologetics, the articulation and defense of the gospel (not “apologizing” for our faith), two major schools of thought exist.  Primarily the evidential school of apologetics builds on the ideas proposed by Paul’s critics that we are responsible to make the first step, create faith in the individual, and then motivate the individual to take “saving” steps toward God.  And primarily the presuppositional school of apologetics affirms Paul’s teaching that God must perform the first work of grace in the heart, or all efforts by mankind are futile.  A more Biblical view of apologetics would blend these two schools of thought into a third perspective.  In terms of the necessity for the first work of grace to come from God the presuppositional view is correct.  However, once the work of grace has been performed, those of us who preach the gospel should indeed present convincing and compelling evidences for the truth of the gospel that corroborates with the Holy Spirit’s testimony in the heart, the “righteousness which is of faith” speaking within, assuring the individual who has been so changed by grace that the testimony of God’s grace within, as well as the harmonious testimony of the gospel we preach is indeed true. 

Paul described this principle of an internal hearing of God’s testimony earlier in this letter.

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) ( Romans 2:13-15 )

 Paul’s explanation of how these Gentiles obeyed the law based on inner testimony and hearing reveals a spiritual link of communication by which the Holy Spirit and the regenerate individual’s spirit testify jointly to the divine Law in his/her conscience (a conscience that has been morally changed by virtue of God’s work of regeneration) , which also bears its witness.  Logical thought is produced in the mind as comprehension, which in the case of Gentiles who did not have access to the details of Mosaic Law, were nevertheless able to discern godly moral distinctions between right and wrong.

            In a very real sense most of the theological controversies that surround essential salvation and the individual’s essential relationship with God for over two thousand years have argued these points.  It boils down to a rather simple question.  Is Paul correct—hearing comes from faith—or are Paul’s critics correct—faith comes from hearing? 

            Faith never builds on a vacuum of knowledge.  It builds on credible evidence for a certain belief.  The real question that faces us in our study can be reduced to one simple question.  Where does the evidence, the knowledge, on which faith rests originate?  Does it originate in the message we preach?  Or does it originate with God’s saving grace planted in the heart that generates the voice that speaks within, “…the righteousness which is of faith speaketh…”? 

            Both theological views teach that the individual should respond with rather specific actions.  However one is based on an external list of rules and ideas that can only be drawn to the hearer’s attention by the voice of preaching.  This idea at its heart is a form of the same legalism that Paul confronted in Antioch ( Acts 15 ) and here in Rome .  The other is based on the enlightening grace of God that God sovereignly bestows in regeneration.  It builds on the foundational premise that our knowledge of God and our response to Him grow out of His first act of grace in saving us and bestowing His nature upon us in regeneration. 

            Another fundamental distinction between these two views appears in the motive for the actions commanded.  One view, the legalistic, uses fear (fear that you may really possess salvation, but lose it if you fail to abide in faith and good works; or fear that, if you do not continue living up to a certain level of faith and good works, you “were never really saved in the first place”) to control and motivate its followers to obedience.  Paul’s view, the Biblical view, consistently affirms to the sensitive, regenerate elect that God’s salvation and love are secure—never in doubt or question—( Romans 8:35-39 ). Therefore the motive for faith and good works according to the Biblical view are profound love and gratitude to God for unmerited grace and unquestioned security in Christ. 

            Interestingly these two themes appear clearly in the hymns written and sung by advocates of these two views.  While one view sings “Will there be any stars in MY crown?” the other view sings, “He’s done so very much for me; I want to love Him more!”  To borrow from John in Revelation 4:10 , one system of belief fosters an attitude of personal gain, adding stars to one’s own crown or gaining a higher position of honor in heaven by personal faith and good works, while the other, the Biblical view, “…cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy…!” 

            What are the consequences of these two divergent belief systems?  One instills insecurity, guilt, and fear.  Did I do the right thing?  Did I do enough?  Am I really saved?  The other belief system follows Jesus’ direction to deny self and focus on following Jesus in loving worship and service to Him through unselfish service to His people.  One obsesses in one way or the other on personal gain and self, while the other seeks no personal gain ( 1 Corinthians 13:5 ), but seeks only to do those things that honor and glorify our God and loving Savior.  One view actually cultivates the self-centeredness that sin introduced into the human character, while the other honors the Biblical trait of self-denial, and discovers ultimate and lasting fulfillment through loving worship of God and sacrificial, unselfish service to His people.  One view honors man and man’s accomplishment; the other honors God and His accomplishment.  One view uses Christ and His sacrifice on Calvary as means to honor man and man’s accomplishment; the other uses Christ and His sacrifice on Calvary to honor God and His accomplishment. 

            If in fact the song of praise that we read in Revelation 4:10 to any degree accurately depicts the sentiments of our song of praise in heaven, should we not seek to sing, as nearly as possible, the same song now?  I want to love Him more!  How about you?