Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Rom 5:9-11 NRSV)
Because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. (Rom 10:9-10)
Commenting on the above two texts that have been often used by Evangelicals to support forensic justification, and the relationship between the δικαι-word group and σωζω, one scholar wrote:
If the δικαι- terms refer to acquittal, then Rom 5:9-11 makes little sense. If the δικαι- terms indicate an acquittal at the Last Judgment, then what is the reason for trying to prove that the acquitted one will be saved also? This salvation should be assumed, since no difference exists between being approved at the Last Judgement and being saved (cf. Rom 2:6-7). However, does not the nature of Paul’s argument qua an argument a minor ad maius dictate against the two ideas being virtually equivalent?
Also, there is a perceivable difference in the temporal nature of the verb tenses with regard to δικαιοω and σωζω. By his use of verb tenses, Paul indicates that the gift of righteousness is an initiating event, whereas salvation remains future, even if the believer is already recorded in the book of life (Phil 4:3). Although Paul is not thoroughly consistent, δικαιοω as an effect of Jesus’ death is generally in a past or present tense, whereas σωζω is generally future. With regard to δικαιοω,the only exception is Rom 3:30 (Gal 5:5, which I have already treated, could be included here also); yet in light of the three present tense forms in 3:24, 26, and 28 this verse is a good example of a gnomic or logical future. With regard to σωζω the only true exception appears at Rom 8:24 where the aorist tense occurs. As Fitzmyer says, it has “an unmistakably future connotation” because the verb is governed by the prepositional phrase τη ελπιδι. A few cases in the present tense occur (1 Cor 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15), but these indicate only that the process of salvation has began, as one would expect, not that it is completed in any sense. If the δικαι- terms refer to an acquittal, meaning a specific acquittal at the Last Judgment, then, this data seems difficult to reconcile. For this reason, it is common to regard the acquittal as proleptic. But this conclusion is simply a conjecture based on the tenuous notion that the δικαι- terms in Paul are forensic . . . the phrase δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι in 5:9 [would not] make sense if the verb refers to acquittal. As at 3:25 (where the phrase is connected with ιλαστηριον), “by his blood” refers to Jesus’ death as a sacrifice. The purpose of a sacrifice is to deal with sin. Δικαιοω is used elsewhere in connection with sin in a way it clearly cannot be rendered as referring to an acquittal. Furthermore, since the καθαρ- terms are employed in the same fashion, it only follows that δικαιοωis roughly synonymous with καθαριζω when used to describe the removal of sin The passage only further verifies that Paul uses the δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι (Rom. 5:9 BGT) terms to describe the normal and expected effects of an expiatory sacrifice. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2006], 330-32)
