What Did Paul mean in Romans 1:16?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I have been discussing Romans 1:16 with a freewill Baptist pastor, whose understanding on what Paul meant was that the Gospel when preached has the very power of God behind it to have lost sinners respond/produces faith in them, and saves them.

He ties this into Romans 10:17 also.

What would be an appropriate reply to his understanding on this issue?
 
What was your response in your response in discussions with the freewill believing Pastor, David?

How did you or the Pastor reconcile Romans 1:16, Romans 10:17 with the full counsel of Scripture's teachings concerning the dire state of the non-believer, who...

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
- must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
- cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3;Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
What was your response in your response in discussions with the freewill believing Pastor, David?

How did you or the Pastor reconcile Romans 1:16, Romans 10:17 with the full counsel of Scripture's teachings concerning the dire state of the non-believer, who...

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
- must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
- cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3;Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
Click to expand...
He sees that the power of the Gospel message is sufficient to give the lost sinner the power and means to activate his faith and trust in Jesus to now be saved. I have said to him that the problem is still the natural person cannot even receive the Gospel without the Holy Spirit enabling Him to be able to do that, and that even the faith to get now saved comes from God Himself.
His reply has been that the Gospel is sufficient to be able to save any and all who hear it, as it does not depend upon the person hearing, but the power of the Gospel itself to save sinners.
 
Dachaser said:
His reply has been that the Gospel is sufficient to be able to save any and all who hear it, as it does not depend upon the person hearing, but the power of the Gospel itself to save sinners.
Click to expand...

Then why are not all saved who hear the gospel?
 
Tom Hart said:
Then why are not all saved who hear the gospel?
Click to expand...

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:27-28

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14
 
A reasonable question to ask: where does that power come from?

If it's God himself, you are on familiar ground and have much to discuss from the remainder of Romans.

The practical reality in freewill circles is that the power is generally recognized in the preacher (if I'm persuasive enough ...) or the receiver (I finally saw the light ....) Neither position is supported in scripture.
 
jwithnell said:
A reasonable question to ask: where does that power come from?

If it's God himself, you are on familiar ground and have much to discuss from the remainder of Romans.

The practical reality in freewill circles is that the power is generally recognized in the preacher (if I'm persuasive enough ...) or the receiver (I finally saw the light ....) Neither position is supported in scripture.
Click to expand...
His biggest problem seems to be with contention that God intends to save some, but not all, in His plan of salvation.
 
Dachaser said:
His reasoning was that God wants to save all sinners, and provides what is required, but we still can refuse Him.
Click to expand...

In that case, the gospel (as he presents it) is not so powerful, is it? He's contradicted himself. He has said that it doesn't depend on the person, that the gospel has some supposed inherent power to convert people. How can he claim free will at the same time?

But that's not really the main issue. As has already been pointed out, this man's theological system, whether consistent or not, cannot stand against the unified teaching of Holy Scripture.
 
Tom Hart said:
This kind of stuff makes you wonder if these people have ever even picked up a Bible.
Click to expand...
The approach to scripture is very different. We see scripture as a coherent system. Much of the evangelical world deals with an individual verse as a whole to itself. If you disagree, you don't take scripture literally.
 
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion said:
How does he explain why he chose wisely and his neighbor did not? What was unique between the Pastor and his neighbor?
Click to expand...
He would see it as being that the lord provided equal opportunity for each of them to freely exercise their free will in order to get saved by God.
 
jwithnell said:
The approach to scripture is very different. We see scripture as a coherent system. Much of the evangelical world deals with an individual verse as a whole to itself. If you disagree, you don't take scripture literally.
Click to expand...
His viewpoint seems to be very tightly based around 2 main issues, as in free will , and also God provided equally for all sinners to be able to get saved.
 
Dachaser said:
He would see it as being that the lord provided equal opportunity for each of them to freely exercise their free will in order to get saved by God.
Click to expand...
In other words...

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them."​

Src: Spurgeon, Sermon on John 5:40 “Free Will a Slave"
The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402. ​

Sigh.
 
Dachaser said:
His main retort as been that I do not think the Gospel is sufficient to save lost sinners.
Click to expand...

Christ's satisfaction is sufficient to save the whole human race. Christ's satisfaction is efficacious for every one who believes. The gospel offers life to anyone who takes hold of it through faith. Could you ask for more?

In many ways, you can both agree on this.

It has been said before, the proponent of freewill has an inflated view of man and a deflated view of God.

My pastor tells a story of someone who met him in his office to debate this issue. In the end they did not agree. As they were cordially parting ways the gentleman said as he was leaving, "my son isn't a believer. Please pray that God would convert him." My pastor said, "do you realize what you just asked?"

When push comes to shove, most freewill advocates recognize that we're better off in God's hands than our own.
 
Last edited:
timfost said:
Christ's satisfaction is sufficient to save the whole human race. Christ's satisfaction is efficacious for every one who believes. The gospel offers life to anyone who takes hold of it through faith. Could you ask for more?

In many ways, you can both agree on this.

It has been said before, the proponent of freewill has an inflated view of man and an deflated view of God.

My pastor tells a story of someone who met him in his office to debate this issue. In the end they did not agree. As they were cordially parting ways the gentleman said as he was leaving, "my son isn't a believer. Please pray that God would convert him." My pastor said, "do you realize what you just asked?"

When push comes to shove, most freewill advocates recognize that we're better off in God's hands than our own.
Click to expand...
Good point, as all Christians when they pray to God to see someone getting saved always are asking for God to change their hearts and minds!
 
Dachaser said:
His main retort as been that I do not think the Gospel is sufficient to save lost sinners.
Click to expand...
I guess that would depend upon what "gospel" means here.

Sentences in the scriptures are not incantations. We are called to press these things into the understanding of our hearers and explain and argue for certain ideas. Consider what must be presupposed in the concise summary statement of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. For example, "sins" presupposes a moral inability; "our" presupposes a marking out of persons, "died for" presupposes particularization of persons; "rose again" presupposes a calling that is effective and provides utmost perseverance.

If you can actually press the "Why you and not your neighbor?" discussion before the other side become frustrated as their cognitive dissonance increases, it will inevitably land in one of two camps, "I was more discerning, more willing" or "God did it, for left to my own devices I would never choose wisely." Most anti-Calvinists, seeking to acquit themselves of "reasons to boast" would claim the latter view, while clinging to their view that God was merely wooing and courting them, while wringing His hands that they would make the right decision.

You might try to correct the misunderstanding held by many anti-Calvinists, that assumes God is doing the actual believing for the "born again". More properly, regeneration (quickening) is wholly monergistic. Once regenerated the person will genuinely not want to not believe, and will inevitably believe of their own volition. That's synergistic.

It is very difficult to let go of our natural fallen inclination that we are captains of our own destinies, merely wounded and still able to grasp the brass ring, versus in need of resurrection from our spiritual death (Eze. 36:26). I would not be surprised that this Pastor considers persons are born in some morally neutral state of affairs, and actually become sinners when they sin, versus exiting the womb as sinners.

In my experience, defective views of what went on in the Garden of Eden lies at the root of the disagreements between libertarian free will proponents and liberty of spontaneity proponents.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I guess that would depend upon what "gospel" means here.

Sentences in the scriptures are not incantations. We are called to press these things into the understanding of our hearers and explain and argue for certain ideas. Consider what must be presupposed in the concise summary statement of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. For example, "sins" presupposes a moral inability; "our" presupposes a marking out of persons, "died for" presupposes particularization of persons; "rose again" presupposes a calling that is effective and provides utmost perseverance.

If you can actually press the "Why you and not your neighbor?" discussion before the other side become frustrated as their cognitive dissonance increases, it will inevitably land in one of two camps, "I was more discerning, more willing" or "God did it, for left to my own devices I would never choose wisely." Most anti-Calvinists, seeking to acquit themselves of "reasons to boast" would claim the latter view, while clinging to their view that God was merely wooing and courting them, while wringing His hands that they would make the right decision.

You might try to correct the misunderstanding held by many anti-Calvinists, that assumes God is doing the actual believing for the "born again". More properly, regeneration (quickening) is wholly monergistic. Once regenerated the person will genuinely not want to not believe, and will inevitably believe of their own volition. That's synergistic.

It is very difficult to let go of our natural fallen inclination that we are captains of our own destinies, merely wounded and still able to grasp the brass ring, versus in need of resurrection from our spiritual death (Eze. 36:26). I would not be surprised that this Pastor considers persons are born in some morally neutral state of affairs, and actually become sinners when they sin, versus exiting the womb as sinners.

In my experience, defective views of what went on in the Garden of Eden lies at the root of the disagreements between libertarian free will proponents and liberty of spontaneity proponents.
Click to expand...
He does not seem to agree that in the fall, God imputed towards all of us the judgment against Adam, as we to him would seem to be born morally neutral, inclined to do bad, but what makes us condemned is our free will choice to reject Jesus to save us.
He seems to get really hung up on issues of fairness and freewill, and sees Calvinists as having a God that takes away from the lost their means to get saved, as in his view, God gives real salvation freely to all, enables all, and up to us to reject/receive.
God has not predestined individuals, but as predestined that those who will receive Jesus are then elected and placed into the Church.
 
Dachaser said:
He does not seem to agree that in the fall, God imputed towards all of us the judgment against Adam, as we to him would seem to be born morally neutral, inclined to do bad, but what makes us condemned is our free will choice to reject Jesus to save us.
He seems to get really hung up on issues of fairness and freewill, and sees Calvinists as having a God that takes away from the lost their means to get saved, as in his view, God gives real salvation freely to all, enables all, and up to us to reject/receive.
God has not predestined individuals, but as predestined that those who will receive Jesus are then elected and placed into the Church.
Click to expand...

So he's a consistent Arminian, or, to use the technical term, a Pelagian.
 
Dachaser said:
I have been discussing Romans 1:16 with a freewill Baptist pastor, whose understanding on what Paul meant was that the Gospel when preached has the very power of God behind it to have lost sinners respond/produces faith in them, and saves them.

He ties this into Romans 10:17 also.

What would be an appropriate reply to his understanding on this issue?
Click to expand...
The reference that the previous verse, Romans 10:16, refers to should be sufficient, particularly the 2nd part. Isaiah 53:1 "Who has believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"

From Calvin, "In this second clause he points out the reason why the number of believers is so small. It is because no man can come to God but by an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit. To suppose that by the word "arm" Christ is meant, is, in my opinion, a mistake. It assigns the cause why there are so few that believe; and that is, that they cannot attain it by the sagacity of their own understanding. This is a remarkable passage, and is quoted by John and Paul for that purpose. "Though Jesus," said John, "had performed many miracles in their presence, they believed not in him, that the saying of Isaiah the Prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" (John 12:37,38) And Paul says, "But they do not all believe the Gospel; for Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?" (Rom. 10:16) Both of them declare that there will be no reason to wonder, if that which was long ago foretold shall happen; and they do so for the purpose of removing offense which might have arisen from the revolt of that nation, which ought to have acknowledged Christ, but obstinately resisted him."
"Isaiah does not include merely the men of his own time, but all posterity to the end of the world; for, so long as the reign of Christ shall endure, this must be fulfilled; and therefore believers ought to be fortified by this passage against such a scandal. These words refute the ignorance of those who think that faith is in the power of every person, because preaching is common to all. Though it is sufficiently evident that all are called to salvation, yet the Prophet expressly states that the external voice is of no avail, if it be not accompanied by a special gift of the Spirit. And whence proceeds the difference, but from the secret election of God, the cause of which is hidden in himself?" - Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah.

And in Romans 10:16,17, Calvin says, Paul "quotes a passage from Isaiah 53:1, where the Prophet...speaks with astonishment of the few number of believers, who appeared to him in the Spirit to be so few, that he was constrained to exclaim, "O Lord, who has believed our report?", that is, the word which we preach...We see now why this exception was by the way introduced; it was, that no one might suppose that faith necessarily follows where there is preaching. He however does afterwards point out the reason, by saying, "To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" by which he intimates that there is no benefit from the word, except when God shines in us by the light of his Spirit; and thus the inward calling, which alone is efficacious and peculiar to the elect, is distinguished from the outward voice of men. It is hence evident, how foolishly some maintain, that all are indiscriminately the elect, because the doctrine of salvation is universal, and because God invites all indiscriminately to himself. But the generality of the promises does not alone by itself make salvation common to all: on the contrary, the peculiar revelation, mentioned by the Prophet, confines it to the elect..."
"...And this is a remarkable passage with regard to the efficacy of preaching; for he testifies, that by it faith is produced. He had indeed before declared, that of itself it is of no avail; but that when it pleases the Lord to work, it becomes the instrument of his power. And indeed the voice of man can by no means penetrate into the soul; and mortal man would be too much exalted, were he said to have the power to regenerate us; the light also of faith is something sublimer than what can be conveyed by man: but all these things are no hindrances, that God should not work effectually through the voice of man, so as to create faith in us through his ministry." - Calvin's Commentary on Romans

And in Romans 1, Calvin says, "...But observe how much Paul ascribes to the ministry of the word, when he testifies that God thereby puts forth his power to save; for he speaks not here of any secret revelation, but of vocal preaching...At the same time, as he works not effectually in all, but only where the Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, "To every one who believeth". The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savour of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness." - Calvin's Commentary on Romans

Blessings!
 
Last edited:
ScottishPresbyterian said:
So he's a consistent Arminian, or, to use the technical term, a Pelagian.
Click to expand...
He agrees that we cannot by ourselves alone accept Jesus, but holds that God had Jesus died in place of all sinners, and provides sufficient grace towards all who hear the Gospel to accept Jesus and get saved.
 
moral necessity said:
The reference that the previous verse, Romans 10:16, refers to should be sufficient, particularly the 2nd part. Isaiah 53:1 "Who has believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"

From Calvin, "In this second clause he points out the reason why the number of believers is so small. It is because no man can come to God but by an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit. To suppose that by the word "arm" Christ is meant, is, in my opinion, a mistake. It assigns the cause why there are so few that believe; and that is, that they cannot attain it by the sagacity of their own understanding. This is a remarkable passage, and is quoted by John and Paul for that purpose. "Though Jesus," said John, "had performed many miracles in their presence, they believed not in him, that the saying of Isaiah the Prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" (John 12:37,38) And Paul says, "But they do not all believe the Gospel; for Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?" (Rom. 10:16) Both of them declare that there will be no reason to wonder, if that which was long ago foretold shall happen; and they do so for the purpose of removing offense which might have arisen from the revolt of that nation, which ought to have acknowledged Christ, but obstinately resisted him."
"Isaiah does not include merely the men of his own time, but all posterity to the end of the world; for, so long as the reign of Christ shall endure, this must be fulfilled; and therefore believers ought to be fortified by this passage against such a scandal. These words refute the ignorance of those who think that faith is in the power of every person, because preaching is common to all. Though it is sufficiently evident that all are called to salvation, yet the Prophet expressly states that the external voice is of no avail, if it be not accompanied by a special gift of the Spirit. And whence proceeds the difference, but from the secret election of God, the cause of which is hidden in himself?" - Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah.

And in Romans 10:16,17, Calvin says, Paul "quotes a passage from Isaiah 53:1, where the Prophet...speaks with astonishment of the few number of believers, who appeared to him in the Spirit to be so few, that he was constrained to exclaim, "O Lord, who has believed our report?", that is, the word which we preach...We see now why this exception was by the way introduced; it was, that no one might suppose that faith necessarily follows where there is preaching. He however does afterwards point out the reason, by saying, "To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" by which he intimates that there is no benefit from the word, except when God shines in us by the light of his Spirit; and thus the inward calling, which alone is efficacious and peculiar to the elect, is distinguished from the outward voice of men. It is hence evident, how foolishly some maintain, that all are indiscriminately the elect, because the doctrine of salvation is universal, and because God invites all indiscriminately to himself. But the generality of the promises does not alone by itself make salvation common to all: on the contrary, the peculiar revelation, mentioned by the Prophet, confines it to the elect..."
"...And this is a remarkable passage with regard to the efficacy of preaching; for he testifies, that by it faith is produced. He had indeed before declared, that of itself it is of no avail; but that when it pleases the Lord to work, it becomes the instrument of his power. And indeed the voice of man can by no means penetrate into the soul; and mortal man would be too much exalted, were he said to have the power to regenerate us; the light also of faith is something sublimer than what can be conveyed by man: but all these things are no hindrances, that God should not work effectually through the voice of man, so as to create faith in us through his ministry." - Calvin's Commentary on Romans

And in Romans 1, Calvin says, "...But observe how much Paul ascribes to the ministry of the word, when he testifies that God thereby puts forth his power to save; for he speaks not here of any secret revelation, but of vocal preaching...At the same time, as he works not effectually in all, but only where the Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, "To every one who believeth". The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savour of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness." - Calvin's Commentary on Romans

Blessings!
Click to expand...
His viewpoint in this discussion would probably be the majority view among Christians, as he gets upset when I mention that the word of the Lord goes forth and accomplishes its assigned task to be used to save the Elect of God, but he sees all sinners as able to become the elect based upon them accepting Jesus Christ.
 
Dachaser said:
He agrees that we cannot by ourselves alone accept Jesus, but holds that God had Jesus died in place of all sinners, and provides sufficient grace towards all who hear the Gospel to accept Jesus and get saved.
Click to expand...

He does not sound consistent at all. You said previously that he rejected the teaching that men are unaffected by Adam's sin, saying instead that men are born morally neutral. (That's Pelagianism.)

So what does he mean now that a man "cannot alone accept Jesus"? After all, a man is born morally neutral, isn't he? He has free will, doesn't he?

To the question "How can man choose God?" Pelagius would give the answer "free will" and Arminius "free will, plus a little prevenient grace". It seems like your pastor friend is caught between the two positions. Both are wrong.
 
Tom Hart said:
He does not sound consistent at all. You said previously that he rejected the teaching that men are unaffected by Adam's sin, saying instead that men are born morally neutral. (That's Pelagianism.)

So what does he mean now that a man "cannot alone accept Jesus"? After all, a man is born morally neutral, isn't he? He has free will, doesn't he?

To the question "How can man choose God?" Pelagius would give the answer "free will" and Arminius "free will, plus a little prevenient grace". It seems like your pastor friend is caught between the two positions. Both are wrong.
Click to expand...
He would agree with the second answer, as he sees that the Lord has made it possible that all sinners can freely exercise their free will once God gives them grace to do so, and that grace comes through the hearing/reading of the Gospel itself. Per him, God has made it so that whosoever hears and wills will be saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RamistThomist
  • Locked
What did Nazianzus mean by monarchia?
Replies
13
Views
2K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
D
  • Locked
What Did Karl barth mean by God Being Wholly other?
Replies
22
Views
6K
Dachaser
D
earl40
  • Locked
Romans 1:11?
Replies
2
Views
1K
earl40
earl40
earl40
  • Locked
1 Chronicles 16:35-37 tie in with Matthew 5:16
Replies
2
Views
1K
earl40
earl40
Jesus is my friend
  • Locked
WestminsterVideo stream 1/15-1/16
Replies
3
Views
1K
KaphLamedh
KaphLamedh
Back
Top