Dear Friends, 

“…To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” ( Acts 26:18 ).  These words are from Paul’s narration of his Damascus Road experience before King Agrippa.  They express what should be the passion and heart of every believer, particularly of those who preach the gospel.  A brother or sister in Christ who happens not to agree with our view or belief is not our enemy.  Our objective should not be to attack and demolish them, but to reach out to them and work to save them from their error.  If we consider the likely possibility that the theological and/or practical problems in Antioch ( Acts 15 ), Galatia , and Rome were similar, we reach a rather startling conclusion.  Some of the most intense writings and actions in the life of the Apostle Paul were devoted to reaching these people in error and turning them to the joy-filled, liberating truth of the gospel.  We cannot wholly ignore error in our study or in our preaching.  Nor should we so focus on it as to overlook the primary truth of the gospel that holds the potential to deliver God’s children from their errors.  It is this passion that—I believe—drives Paul in our present context and study.  The primary objective of dialectical rhetoric was never to simply win an argument.  It was to gain the opponent, saving that person from their error to the truth of the alternate view presented.  This literary style lends itself forcefully to Paul’s objective.  We need to learn more about it so that we might practice it in our own efforts to teach God’s children the glorious truth of the gospel.   

In this study I examine a particular theological view that is sadly common in our day, especially among some who claim to believe in the Bible doctrines of grace.  In the seventh chapter of Romans Paul lays the foundation of his whole point on the analogy of marriage.  When a person’s spouse dies, they are free in the eyes of God’s law to marry someone else.  He then applies the analogy to the real lesson at hand.  Through the death of Christ—who now lives!—our “marriage” to the law—not only to Moses’ Law, but to the whole mindset of legalism—is over.  The Law is dead!  We are now free to join ourselves to the Lord Jesus Christ in the intimate, spiritual bond of marriage.  He is not that Law, though He honored it and lived according to every precept it taught.  Ah, but how refreshing is life with Him, compared to our old life with that righteous, but incredibly demanding and stern “husband.”  I am convinced that most of God’s children struggle with this concept more than all the theological errors that have historically invaded the Christian faith since the first century.  A careful study of our context, along with Paul’s Galatian letter, will perform wonders to help us understand more fully the glorious “liberty of the children of God,” and it will help us lay aside the shackles of legalism that haunt every one of us.   

May we discover that liberating joy!

Joe Holder

“But I say…”

 
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.  ( Romans 10:18 )

             In this series of studies I have presented a somewhat different interpretation of the tenth chapter of Romans to the commonplace view.  As I have mentioned, Albert Barnes, respected Reformed commentator, interpreted this chapter as a dialectical argument or dialogue between Paul and his critics, though Barnes held to a distinctly different theological view to the one that I’ve presented.(1)   It should be noted that a respected Primitive Baptist elder from the past, Elder Greg Thompson, also held to a dialectical view of the chapter.(2)  

            A primary evidence that Paul in fact was engaging his critics in dialectical reasoning appears in this verse, “But I say….”  If the words of the prior verse were Paul’s words, why would Paul need to punctuate the beginning of this verse with “But I say…”?  It would be presumed that his words were continuing, making this introductory clause wholly unnecessary.  However, if Paul was interacting with other minds and ideas, giving voice to them in the seventeenth verse, it would be both appropriate and necessary for him to emphasize at the beginning of this verse that he was responding to the ideas of another. 

            There is a distinction in the emphasis between Paul’s ideas and those of his critics.  They allege in Romans 10:16 , “But they have not all obeyed the gospel….”  Their emphasis is on the human response, whether all of God’s elect obey the gospel or not.  Paul’s emphasis, as affirmed in our study verse, is more on their hearing it, not their obedience to it.  We will examine this distinction further. 

            Several years ago I was engaged with a good friend of the Reformed faith in a discussion on the issues related to these verses.  When I raised our study verse to him, he rather obviously ignored Paul’s affirmation in favor of his gospel instrumentality view with this response, “I do not deny that God reveals Himself in nature.  However, I do not believe that the degree of God’s self-revelation in nature rises to the degree of ‘saving knowledge.’”  You see, he could not extract himself from his preconception that God in some way uses the gospel to effect regeneration, even when Paul here affirms in a wholly spiritual context that God in fact does preach the gospel to His children in the natural creation.   The gospel does not convey “saving knowledge” in terms of efficiently or instrumentally effecting regeneration.  It rather proclaims the source and power of the one who causes it by His personal and sovereign power. 

            In First Peter 1:23 Peter affirmed that we are born again by the “…Word of God.”  Peter qualifies that “Word of God” as the incorruptible Word of God who “…liveth and abideth for ever.”  Paul affirms that the gospel can indeed be corrupted.  Do we need to question this fact?  Every time a false teacher offers a Scripture with an errant interpretation and uses it to deceive and mislead those who hear the message we witness this fact! 

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. ( 2 Corinthians 2:17 , KJV )

However, we note that the “Word of God” by which Peter affirms that we are born again is “incorruptible.” 

The word translated “incorruptible” means

1 uncorrupted, not liable to corruption or decay, imperishable. 1A of things. 2 immortal. 2 A of the risen dead.(3) 

Notice the emphasis—“…not liable to corruption or decay, imperishable….”  The preached gospel is commonly presented in a corrupted, decayed, and perishable form.  However, Jesus, God’s eternal, living Word (Restudy the prologue of John’s gospel for an intense examination of Jesus as the exclusive, incorruptible, and eternally living “Word” of God. 

            Peter will further affirm the distinction between Jesus, God’s eternal, living Word who personally, sovereignly, and directly effects regeneration or the new birth, and the message of the gospel that proclaims the good news regarding Him and His finished and perfectly efficient and efficacious work. 

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. ( 1 Peter 1:25 , KJV )

Do not overlook the crucial point that Peter makes in these words, “…this is the word which by the gospel is preached….”  The gospel is not the regenerating “Word,” but rather the gospel proclaims the identity of that living, eternal, regenerating Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.  If Peter had intended to affirm that the gospel itself effected regeneration, there would be no purpose served by his carefully chosen “...by the gospel…” qualifier.  John Gill’s thoughts regarding this lesson from First Peter (in his Body of Divinity) are quite clear, especially when you understand that Gill’s common “It might be this, or it might be that…” style actually is presenting ideas that he knows, but does not believe.  Once Gill moves past these “might be” ideas offered by other people, his reasoning clearly affirms the direct, sovereign, effective work of Jesus, God’s eternal, living Word in our regeneration. 

            As we take these thoughts back to our study verse, we observe Paul’s objection to the points made by his critics leading up to this protest, a protest/refutation that he will continue to the end of the chapter without further citations from these critics. 

            A major advancement in Paul’s reasoning appears in this verse, especially when weighed against the contradictory ideas of his critics voiced in earlier verses.  Whether we impute full gospel instrumentality, as depicted above, onto these people (likely far too anachronistic to be correct) or we simply impute the more likely idea that they rejected the role of faith in godly discipleship, preferring legalism to faith, Paul leaves these people in a logical dilemma.  If the only way a person obtains rich spiritual blessings is by external legalistic rites, not by faith, advocates of the errant view must wrestle with the Biblical passages and personal cases that simply defy their view.  What do you do with the sincere believer who does not obey?  Paul affirmed in Romans 10:16 that they have not all obeyed the gospel.  Now in our present study verse he affirms that they have all heard.  So we face the embarrassing dilemma.  We have in Scripture (by no means limited to this passage) the case of the legitimate believer who has heard—Paul here affirmed it—and believed, but has not obeyed.  What do you do with this person?  Do you contradict Scripture and send him to hell?  Do you embrace antinomian heresy and pretend that obedience is irrelevant?  Or do you agree with Paul and affirm the simple—and altogether observable—fact that some who truly believe the gospel do not obey it?(4)  

            Occasionally in this study I have mentioned a teaching that I refer to as “lordship perseverance.”(5)   This view contradicts both Paul’s teaching in our present study context, and it equally contradicts multiple other passages, notable among them the account of the young man from Mark’s gospel.   Rather than accepting the teaching of Scripture that refutes the notion, typically advocates of this errant view simply redefine either the meaning of Scripture or the meaning of their terminology.  It has been my personal observation that the typical believer in this error appears to be controlled by guilt (never feeling as if they’ve done enough to really be sure of their salvation) and fear (regarding both his/her personal spiritual state and the spiritual state of others; sometimes this fear expresses itself as a judgmental doubt about a person’s salvation).  Not only do they miss the joy-based blessings of liberating Biblical truth, but they also at times seem almost compulsive in their desire to imprison others in their self-made prison of hopeless failure and spiritual insecurity.  The typical conclusion of this view is that, unless a person to some never-clearly- defined degree “holds on his way,” he is “…not really saved at all.”  Advocates of this view seek to champion Abraham and his exemplary faith, something that Scripture surely deserves in the Biblical record, but they fail to interpret Abraham’s faith according to Scripture.   Based on the contemporary teaching of “lordship perseverance,” let’s see if even Abraham in fact exemplifies this errant view.  In fact, even Abraham in the common evaluation of this view would be rejected!  Read the final description of Abraham’s life immediately prior to his death. 

And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.  But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. ( Genesis 25:5-6 , KJV )

Apparently after Sarah’s death, Abraham not only married another woman, not in Scripture at all condemned, but, according to the inspired record of Scripture in these two verses, he also embraced the common practice of his day to take concubines in addition to his wife.  Abraham didn’t “…hold on his way!”  Some might rationalize that Abraham was merely following the commonly accepted norms of society, but I would ask the obvious question, Where—ever in Scripture—does God waive His fixed moral commands in favor of commonly accepted societal norms that contradict His fixed moral code?  The idea is patently preposterous!  New Testament inspired Scripture affirms God’s true moral directive.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. ( Romans 12:2 , KJV )

…be not conformed…!  We need not attempt to justify Abraham’s final lapse—or any other believer’s sin for that matter.(7)   Nor, if we follow Scripture, do we need to question Abraham’s eternal state.  We may simply conclude—rightly from the example and teaching of Scripture-that God’s regenerate children, Abraham as just one among a countless and consistent number of similar examples, experience a lifelong struggle against sin.  At times we overcome; at other times we fail. 

            The fierce internal struggle described in the seventh chapter of Romans describes our lifelong Christian experience.  Based on Paul’s development of this point in that context, our struggle with sin is compromised, not enhanced, by a legalistic outlook. Paul directs us to live according to the facts; through our Lord Jesus Christ, the Law is dead to us, so that we “…should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God” ( Romans 7:4 ).  The mood of the verb “should bring” in this verse is subjunctive, describing potential or possibility.  We only bring forth fruit to God and move toward victory in this struggle to the extent that we live, not as if married to the Law—any law for that matter—but with the joyful, conscious knowledge of our present guilt-removed, redeemed, joy-filled “marriage” to the Lord Jesus Christ!  Do not overlook the attitudinal impact of Romans 6:11-12 in this context.  Never does Paul instruct us to live with the attitude of doubting defeatists, but rather as “…dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 

            Our eternal salvation is not contingent on our attitudinal success!  Our salvation is solely contingent on Jesus’ finished work and purpose of grace and love.  If advocates of the typical “lordship perseverance” view of our time were talking with Abraham, they’d leap into a long moralistic lecture to him, “Abraham, if you choose to forsake God’s way and take concubines to yourself, I cannot give you any assurance that you are really saved at all.”  Let them wrestle with Abraham and with Scripture, but let us not follow this fear-driven, never-comforted, torture chamber of insecure doubt about the effects of God’s grace.  Paul is focused on refuting the foundational legalistic, non-faith foundations of such an attitude.  Its insidious erosion of Christ-centered, secure-in-God’s-grace faith explains why he so intently confronts it and rejects it.  So should we!

            I have known several sincere and quite conscientious believers who embraced this view.  I love them for Jesus’ sake.  I can sincerely join Paul’s confession in our study context, “…my heart’s desire and prayer to God…” for them is that they might be delivered from the gray, joyless prison of this idea.  The joy-killing effects of this belief are amazing!  Advocates of the idea see “joy” in the Scriptures and speak of it, but it is the most elusive trait in the Bible for them to experience.  They suffer with a near-constant obsession regarding whether they themselves are “really saved” or not, as well as question the salvation of those around them.  They often praise God for sovereign grace, but then, almost in the next breath, they obsess regarding their own fears and uncertainties regarding their own salvation.  This deep emotional uncertainty about their own personal state seems to drive them to view others with equal scrutiny regarding their salvation. 

            The “Abraham” example presents us with a realistic and balanced view of God’s moral grace and sovereign goodness.  Yes, without question, Abraham deserves the honored position of Scripture as a “man of faith.”  However, he no less exemplifies in Scripture our own struggle with sin and our occasional failures, a struggle that shall remain with us till our dying breath. 

Sadly this joyless prison is self-imposed and wholly contrary to God’s Biblical design for his beloved children.  “…we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous….”  ( 1 John 2:1 )

            Will you join me in praying for God’s dear children who are caught in this joyless prison?  Will you join me in working intently for their “prison break”?

(1)        Barnes held to the common Reformed view that God uses the gospel as an instrument to regenerate the elect, rather than, as I view it, a proclamation of good news to regenerate elect.  It would be inaccurate to accuse Barnes and this Reformed view of holding that the gospel “causes” the new birth, but it is wholly accurate to state that they believe that God uses the gospel as a necessary instrument, so that He either cannot or will not effect regeneration apart from the gospel.  If in fact God never effects regeneration apart from the instrumentality of the gospel, we are faced with the challenge of explaining how God regenerates a dying infant, an elect person born with severe mental retardation, or an elect person who lives in a region where the gospel has never been preached.  The usual Reformed response to the first two exceptions is—simply stated—that God makes an exception in these cases and regenerates the dying infant or the mentally handicapped by other “instrumentality” or by a direct operation of grace.  Their usual reaction to the question of the elect person living in a region where the gospel is not known is that God will send a gospel preacher to that person, even if the gospel was not formerly preached there. 

            A major problem with this explanation should be obvious to the studious believer; In John 3:8 b Jesus categorically concluded that every person born of the Holy Spirit is born the same way.  God’s way of regenerating dead sinners is sufficiently efficient that He has no need of a “Plan B” for exceptions.  Praise God for comprehensive and secure regeneration of all His elect by the Holy Spirit, the same way, not by a patchwork of various ways. 

             The defining distinction between this Reformed view and the—I believe—more Biblical view held by Primitive Baptists can be stated rather simply.  They hold that our act of faith effects regeneration; we hold that the Lord Jesus Christ, the object of our faith, effects regeneration.  To avoid the tension of this view some Reformed believers will agree with us that God effects regeneration directly, efficiently, and sovereignly in all of His elect, but they will then affirm that God sends the message of the gospel “…almost immediately thereafter…” to those whom He has regenerated. 

(2)        You may read a sermon on this passage in Elder Thompson’s in his book, The Primitive Preacher. 

(3)        James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order., electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), G862.

(4)        As just one such example, we find inspired Scripture stating in Mark 10:21 that Jesus beheld a young man who came to Him with a question and “…loved him….”  However, the only reliable source of information we have regarding this young man—inspired Scripture—affirms that the young man listened to Jesus’ words, refused to obey them, and went away grieved at his conscious decision not to do what Jesus directed him to do.  We cannot deny the inspired record—Jesus loved him!  Nor can we deny the equally inspired record—he walked away from Jesus, refusing to do what Jesus directed him to do. 

(5)        Having lived in southern California for almost fifty years, I have listened to one of the leading advocates of this view on the radio for well over thirty years.  I have enjoyed godly conversation with students in his seminary and read his works.  I cannot doubt either this man’s sincerity, nor can I deny the equal sincerity of the many students who attend his seminary.  They generally impress me as conscientious, devoted, and sincere.  However, they also impress me as living under the joy-killing burden of the ideas with which I here wrestle. 

(6)        Almost without exception, they view Genesis 15:6 as the Biblical record of the moment of Abraham’s “salvation experience;” to borrow their term, the moment Abraham exercised “saving faith.”  When confronted with Hebrews 11:8 that categorically states that Abraham’s exemplary walk of faith began when he left Ur some ten to fifteen years earlier, not at the point of Genesis 15:6 , they attempt to justify their belief rather than simply accepting the categorical testimony of Hebrews 11:8 .  Genesis 15:6 records God’s response to one of His already-saved children seeking assurance and confirmation of a prior promise.  It does not record Abraham’s “saving faith,” nor do any New Testament inspired writers use this event in such an errant manner. 

(7)        Scripture never rationalizes a believer’s sin!  According to Scripture, if we name the name of Christ, we are commanded to “…depart from iniquity” ( 2 Timothy 2:19 ).