The Romans Inclusio and Gutless Gracers

Here's the introduction to Romans, emphasis added:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ... (Rom 1:1-6)

And here's the closing:

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen. (Rom 16:25-27)

Paul brackets his magnum opus with this phrase summarizing the purpose of the letter, and in fact his entire ministry: "to bring about the obedience of faith". He starts by saying that's what it will be about, concludes by saying that's what it was about, and in between, well, that's what it's about: the glory of saving faith and the corresponding transformation to Christlikeness.

What this phrase (and the entire rest of the letter!) makes clear is that, to Paul, if there is no obedience, there is no faith.

Yet Romans is the perpetual favorite of those who insist that obedience is merely optional, a nice little extra for the Christian. All that really matters is just saying 'Christ is Lord' once - after that, you can be sanctified and that's great, but you don't need to. You don't even have to keep claiming to be a Christian - just say it once, and you're good. This idea mostly comes from a really, really lazy interpretation of Romans 10:9-10 (hints: what does "Lord" mean, and what would such a confession mean for a 1st-century subject of Caesar?). This interpretation flies in the face of the rest of the letter, where nonchalance towards sin is condemned, sanctification is a necessary result of being a son of God, being conformed to the image of Christ is what we are predestined to, etc.

Romans simply cannot support the Gutless Grace position - it denounces it many times and in various ways - which Paul lets us know with a few little words at the beginning and end. The gospel brings about the obedience of faith; no obedience, no faith.

So What's Your Answer?

In part one, we looked at the numerous blessings that Jesus secured for his people through his death and resurrection.

Part two looked at the tremendous chain of rhetorical questions Paul asked at the apex of his greatest gospel presentation.

Now in part three, I want to issue a simple request. Romans 8:32 asks: He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? In immediate context, "all things" refers to the blessings from 8:28 (that God orders the entire universe so that all things work for the ultimate benefit of his people) to 8:39 (that nothing can ever separate Christ's people from his love). In the broader Biblical context, "all things" includes all the blessings of part one - all the myriad graces Jesus promises for his people. If Jesus died for you, "all things" are surely yours.

But there are numerous Christians, notably Arminians and Amyraldians, who completely disagree with this interpretation. They assert that there are many - the vast majority - for whom Christ died, yet who will not receive "all things", or any of these blessings. I believe Paul is asking this rhetorically, stating that the notion of Christ dying for someone who will not be redeemed/glorified is utterly inconceivable. These brothers, on the other hand, would assert that the question is not rhetorical, and that there must be an answer. They assert that the notion is not inconceivable, but the normal course of things for the vast majority of humanity.

So my request is to Arminians, Amyraldians, TU?IPs, and the like. I have a few questions for you, if you wouldn't mind explaining your position.

1) How do you answer Paul's question?
2) Do you think the other questions in this chain also have answers, or is this the only non-rhetorical in the chain?
3) If it's the only non-rhetorical, how did you come to that determination? If it's not - if the others also have non-zero answers, how would you answer them - who can be against us, who can charge God's elect, who is to condemn, and what can separate us from the love of Christ?

There ya go. Have at it.

Rhetorical, eh?

Part two begins with one of my favorite scenes from The Simpsons. We join as Homer overhears Lisa and Grandma singing a hippie classic:

Grandma: How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?
Homer: Seven!
Lisa: No, Dad, it's a rhetorical question.
Homer: Rhetorical, eh?  Eight!
Lisa: Dad, do you even know what "rhetorical" means?
Homer: Do I know what "rhetorical" means?!

Ahem. Rhetorical questions are a powerful, um, rhetorical device. A particularly strong use implies that the answer is so obvious, only the most ignorant or foolish could possibly disagree. The apostle Paul was a huge fan of this technique, perhaps never more prominently than at the end of Romans 8. You may have heard of the Golden Chain of Salvation from 8:28-30 - that those who are foreknown are predestined, the predestined are called, the called are justified, and the justified are glorified.

What immediately follows that is something I like to call the Golden Chain of Rhetoricals. At the apex of Paul's magnum opus on the glory of salvation, he hammers home the point with a series of five rhetorical questions. For each one, an answer is assumed (and sometimes stated outright, because people as a rule are dense and spare no expense to avoid the undeniable conclusion), and Paul finds it inconceivable that anyone could think otherwise.

1) If God is for us, who can be against us? If God has forknown/predestined you to be called, justified, and glorified, what enemy can possibly stop it? Those whom God has chosen will be born again, come to faith, persevere, and be glorified.

It's worth pausing to reflect on the amazing idea that God could be for you! Consider how this letter starts off back in 1:18ff, where God's wrath is completely and justly fixed on us because of our unrighteousness. Our only hope is to have righteousness - the very righteousness of God - credited to us, which, incredibly enough, God does (1:17). Now that is gospel worth proclaiming without shame (1:16)!

2) He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? I was going to link to Piper's chapter on this verse in Future Grace, but apparently that's not available free online. Bummer. Oh well, go buy the book and read it, it's great.

This question amplifies the previous - there is no way God could be more "for you" than by giving Christ. Paul's point here is that for the Father to send the Son to the cross was the most difficult thing imaginable. Compared to that, giving you all things - which in this immediate context, includes ordering the entire universe so that all things (including persecution and death itself!) work to your ultimate benefit - is trivially easy. If the Father gave Jesus up for you, it is utterly inconceivable that He would withhold anything which is for your good.

3) Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

When God declares someone righteous, which He ultimately does for all He has chosen, who can dispute that? What higher authority exists that can overrule God's declaration?

4) Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died - more than that, who was raised - who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Suppose we skipped the last question, and someone was bold enough to bring a charge against God's elect. What would he find? Jesus, who was delivered up for our tresspasses and raised for our justification (4:25), at the Father's side interceding on our behalf. In order for this accusation to be successful, the Father would have to ignore Christ's death and resurrection on their behalf, and value the accuser's argument over his Son's. This case could never be brought, and even if it could, it could never win.

5) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Amen.

Oddball Verses

Every once in a while, you encounter a paragraph in scripture where one line doesn't seem to entirely fit. Every verse is about one topic, but another verse or sentence is about something else entirely.

Or is it?

For those of us who believe that the Bible is God's Word, we must affirm that the scripture is a coherent piece, and that the seemingly oddball verse is integral to the passage. (Actually, that's just common courtesy to believe of an even slightly competent author - knowing that scripture was written by men as carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21) only solidifies it as an absolute.) The question to axe is not "what in the world is this doing where it doesn't belong?", but "how does this verse inform the meaning of the whole passage?"

An example of this is found in Romans 12:14-21. Here is the passage, minus the seemingly oddball verse 16.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep... Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Over and over again, this passage makes the same point from different angles: When people are evil to you, be good to them. Don't take revenge or do evil in return; trust God, and do good.

And what is verse 16, which doesn't seem at first to fit? "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight." A call to humility and a warning about pride.

So here is where you come in, dear reader. How does verse 16 fit with the rest of the paragraph - actually, how does it form the foundation?