In the previous section I discussed the hermeneutical challenges faced by Calvinists. Here we begin an examination of faith in Romans.
We run up against the phrase “the gospel of God” immediately in verse 1. This is the primary theological theme which must be carefully defined and delineated. What is the precise definition and content of this “gospel of God?” In other words, what is the biblical definition of the word “gospel,” and if you were to tell someone this “gospel,” what precisely would you say to them? We will examine whether the Reformed “doctrines of grace” are coherent with Paul’s exposition of this “gospel of God” throughout Romans. Are the Reformed soteriological doctrines of total depravity or total inability, unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace or an “effectual call” coherent with what Paul teaches us throughout Romans?
In verse 5 we have the phrase “the obedience that comes from faith” (NIV) or “the obedience of faith” (ESV). James Dunn in his commentary on Romans states that, “…what is envisaged primarily is response to a spoken word.” He also states,
“To clarify what faith is and its importance to his gospel is one of Paul’s chief objectives in this letter (πίστις, the noun “faith” and πίστευω, the verb “I am believing” occur 40 and 21 times respectively in Romans; see particularly 1:17 and chap. 4).”
He goes on to say,
“That “the obedience of faith” is a crucial and central theme, structurally important in understanding the thrust of the letter as indicated by its reappearance in the (albeit later added) concluding sentence (16:26), as well as by the prominence of ὐπακοή “obedience” in the letter as a whole (7 times – see above; ὐπακούω “I am obeying” – 6:12, 16-17; 10:16; see further on 6:12 and 11:30-31). For the moment it would have been enough simply to allude to what his readers well understood – their belief in the message about Jesus, their commitment in baptism and the consequent lifestyle determined by that faith (see also on 3:31; 4:12; 6:16; 8:4; 13:8-10)” 1
A question arises here. Within which theological construct is the concept of obedience coherent? Are obedience and disobedience coherent within a worldview of universal divine causal determinism or libertarian free will? “Obedience” implies the possibility of “disobedience” which involves real contingency, which is impossible within the belief system of theistic determinism, but these are logically and morally coherent from within the context of libertarian human freedom. Note Paul’s universal perspective regarding believing and obeying stated in 16:25-26 which Dunn referred to above.
“Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him – to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.” (NIV)
According to Paul the scope for the reception of the gospel and the possibility of faith and obedience to God and Christ is “all nations.” Since the gospel is a message of salvation that ultimately has to do with the salvation of the individual person, “all nations” means all persons everywhere (cf. Acts 17:30 and 34, 18:7-10, “the world” in John 3:16, et al.). God doesn’t save nations. Of course he elects nations as he did with Israel. But this process of election creates the nation of Israel for special service in salvation history, as will be discussed in the next chapter on election. The election of Israel as God’s chosen people was not referring to Israel’s salvation but their role in salvation history. God also elects individuals, but as far as election applies here it also is to special service or a uniquie task (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Saul, David, Paul, etc.). So for Paul, this is a mystery now revealed (Eph. 3:1-13) in order that “all nations might believe and obey him.” The viewpoint here is that the whole world might believe, which ultimately refers to the salvation of the individuals in “all nations.” There is no reason as to why one person would be chosen to be saved and not another. The gospel has an international scope, but it is only individual’s who can believe in and obey Christ. So Paul’s missionary mindset has all nations in view, but in reading through Romans we can see that the gospel is a message that applies to the individual sinner. “All nations” is Paul’s way of saying “all persons without distinction or exclusion.”
Note 1:16 and 17 where Paul says that “the gospel” is the “power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” The question of the nature of faith is raised here. Is Paul saying that everyone, even as fallen sinners, can believe “the gospel?” Is “the gospel” for sinners? If so, how is a distinction between elect and non-elect sinners valid with respect to the possibility of believing the gospel message? Or should we take this statement – “to everyone who believes” – as simply information about the elect, that is, that “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to the elect, whoever they are, evidenced by their believing?” This must be the Calvinist’s interpretation. But of course such an interpretation does not rise from this text itself. It is imposed upon the text from without. It seems to me that the text gives us a sense of universal application, especially when Paul de-qualifies it by saying “to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” which is to say, “all persons.” Note this comment “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” as indicating what is on Paul’s mind and heart for what is to come throughout Romans, especially chapters 9-11.
Note the dynamic between man and God in verses 18-32. First note God’s revelation of himself to men:
a) “…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them” (1:19)
b) “…God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (1:20)
c) “…they knew God” (1:21)
d) “…although they know God’s righteous decree” (1:32)
Note secondly that there is a clear moral responsibility of persons as sinners to God’s revelation of himself to them. Paul states that men:
a) “…suppress the truth” (1:18)
b) “…are without excuse” (1:20)
c) “…neither glorified God or gave thanks to him” (1:21)
d) “…exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images” (1:23)
e) “…exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (1:25)
f) “…did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God” (1:28)
g) “…to do what ought not to be done” (1:28)
h) “…although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death” (1:32)
i) “…they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (1:32)
I contend it is impossible to understand these statements as coherent with the Calvinist’s exhaustive theistic determinism which makes God the cause of all these evil attitudes and actions in men and therefore responsible for them. And this completely undermines Paul’s point that these people are morally responsible for their action and could have done otherwise.
The important point to note is that the dynamic in the relationship between God and man described in chapter 1 is not logically or morally compatible with God having ordained “whatsoever comes to pass.” These passages make no sense in the context of a theistic determinism. Rather, it is indicated that although man is in bondage to sin, it is expected that he respond to God’s revelation in a positive way. Indeed, it is precisely because he is in such bondage, it is imperative that he positively respond to God revelation. Paul will conclude that both Jew and Gentile are “alike all under sin” (3:9). That means that man cannot save himself or make himself right with God via his own plans and purposes. And even though Paul will conclude that both Jew and Gentile are “alike all under sin,” it is because man is made in the image of God that he retains a sufficient measure of human free will that allows for genuine decision-making capability and meaningful choices so as to establish personal and moral responsibility. Such freedom and responsibility is obviously retained and presupposed by Paul. This is where the context of the Jew’s perspective on their priviledged position in salvation history in contrast to the Gentiles being excluded plays a special role throughout Romans. It must be on one’s radar right from the beginning or it will be easy to go astray later in the epistle. The purpose of Paul’s stress on “all have sinned,” and especially his citations from the Old Testament in 3:9ff. along with sin’s universal effects, is not to establish a doctrine of “total inability” that even precludes faith. Rather, he is working towards the fact that because of universal sin, that the righteousness of God, for both Jew and Gentile, cannot come through the law but only “through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (3:21-22, ESV).
This truth is critical to the coherence of the teachings to follow, especially as to the nature of faith. Faith, as the Bible speaks of it, presupposes libertarian human freedom and is therefore inconsistent with a faith that is caused by God in a limited number of persons he predetermined for salvation. Note also the reference to what glorifies God (“honor him as God” (ESV) or “acknowledge him as such” (JBP)). God is glorified, not in a predetermined salvific response for some in which they are “totally passive,” but in the sinner’s active, personal, acknowledgement of God and his way of salvation, thereby honoring God and giving thanks to Him. This passage in Romans highlights God’s response to sinful men which is only coherent given the conditionality and potentiality inherent in personal moral responsibility which presupposes a measure of genuine human freedom. Thirdly, note God’s response to man’s negative response to him:
a) “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts” (1:24)
b) “God gave them over to shameful lusts” (1:26)
The point is that this section of Paul’s argument is incoherent if God predetermined the reactions of men described here. God “gave them over” would make no sense, for it presupposes their moral responsibility. Although man cannot remedy the problem of his sin nature, the passage does not presuppose a theistic determinism but a sufficient degree of human freedom – enough to establish moral responsibility before God. The phrase “so they are without excuse” in verse 20 clearly implies this freedom and responsibility. In contrast, these words are incoherent within theistic determinism. If God predetermined every person’s attitudes, desires, decisions, and actions before they were even created, in what sense then “are they without excuse?” They have the perfect excuse – God made them do it!
Note also in verse 32 we have the phrase, “God’s righteous decree.” (NIV) That “decree” is defined as “those who do such things deserve death” (NIV), or in the ESV, “those who practice such things.” This decree of God involves a divine response to willful human actions otherwise God would be pronouncing sentence upon what he himself decreed to occur. God’s decree is his settled decision about what is to become of those who do such things as described in this chapter (cf. Ps. 49:13-14; Jer. 15:2; 1 Pet. 2:6-8; 1 Thess. 3:1-3, 5:9; 1 Cor. 2:7; Lu. 2:34; Heb. 9:27). So, we see a situation of conditionality and moral responsibility where a certain decision of the person – the refusal to honor God – brings death. It is not a decree defined as God predetermining and causing their refusal to honor God.
We must also note here the incoherence of such a specific decree with the Calvinist’s single, comprehensive decree. How is a specific decree like we have here in v. 32 coherent with a single, comprehensive decree? If there is one exhasutive decree that determines all things, how does a specific, separate decree even exist? An all-encompassing, exhaustive divine decree precludes any other “decree.” This specific decree indicates that there can be no exhaustive decree by which God predetermined all things. If there were such an exhaustive decree, no other decrees like this one would be necessary. Indeed, they would be incompatible. Other lesser decrees would not make sense.
Of course, human freedom is not absolute. It is hemmed in by God’s decrees that remain in effect and will be administered on the basis of man’s response to God. Human freedom is implied in the nature of this decree whereby those who do wickedness “deserve death.” Philosopher C. A. Campbell writes,
“When we reflect on the fact that the supreme being is the source of man’s existence and of the moral law binding upon him, and when we further appreciate that a moral law is completely meaningless for beings who are not free agents, we come to see that man’s relation of ‘dependence’ upon the supreme being must be of a very remarkable sort. It must be somehow at once an absolute dependence, and yet carry with it a genuine independence. Now there would seem to be only one way in which we can think a relationship of this kind, and that is as a relationship of creature to creator, where the creator had endowed the creature with a ‘free will.’” 2
1 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38a, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 17, 18.
2 C. A. Campbell, On Selfhood and Godhood (New York: Macmillan Co., 1957), 413.
The Truth of the Gospel 