Full Refutation of the Protestant Claim Romans 10:9-10 Teaches Sola Fide

 

One very common “proof-text” for Sola Fide is that of Rom 10:9-10:

 

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. (NIV)

 

This is a common “proof-text” for Sola Fide. The argument is that, while works are a necessary fruit of salvation, this passage teaches that one is justified (usually “once-for-all”) by a confession (orthodox, in theology, of course) of Jesus being Lord, and that this teaches some formulation of faith alone theology. However, as with so much of Protestantism, it is, at best, a half-truth. This will be a full refutation of this passage.

The Use of Deuteronomy in Romans 10:9-13 and Its anti-Sola Fide Implications

Paul in Rom 10:5-9 is quoting from a passage in Deut 30:6-16  which includes the necessity of keeping the commandments as a cause of maintaining one's salvation ("covenantal nomism"), not simply a fruit of one’s eternally secure salvation, when Deut 30:16 states: “In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.” Surely Paul would not use a Scriptural quote that teaches one thing, and conclude something totally different from the context of this Deuteronomy passage.

 

That Paul is textually reliant on Deuteronomy 30:6-16 widely accepted by New Testament exegetes. See, for instance, Stanley E. Porter, Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006), 168-69 and Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 77-83. To quote from an Evangelical Protestant source, who provided a useful table for comparison of some of the parallels between Deut 30 and Rom 10:

 

Deut 30:12–14	Paul’s application in Rom 10:6–10
Do not say, “Who will ascend to heaven?” (to bring down Torah, God’s gift, 30:12)	Do not say, “Who will ascend to heaven?” (to bring down Christ, God’s gift, 10:6)
Do not say, “Who will descend into the deep?” (to experience redemption again, crossing the “sea,” 30:13)	Do not say, “Who will descend into the abyss?” (to experience salvation again, raising Christ from the dead, 10:7)
The Word is near you (the Torah, 30:14)	The word is near you (the message of faith we now preach, 10:8)
It is in your mouth and in your heart (30:14; as Torah was to be recited continually [Deut 6:6–7])	It is in your mouth and in your heart: confess with the mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe with the heart that God raised him (10:9–10)

(the above table is taken from Craig S. Keener, Romans [New Covenant Commentary Series; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2009], 126)

As one critic of the various formulations of Sola Fide within Protestantism noted, we here have evidence against such a soteriology:

 

Since this is a direct quote from Dt 30:12-14, we understand that the identity of what is “not too difficult for you” of Dt 30:11 is precisely the righteousness of faith. In other words, no one has to travel great distances (“ascend into heaven”) or overcome great obstacles (“who will cross the sea” in Dt 30:13) in order to know the truth and the means of righteousness. God has already given it to man, it is in his heart and in his mouth, and God is trying to draw it out from him. In Rm 10:9, it is drawn out by confessing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. In the Old Testament, they also confessed with their mouth by believing in him as their Savior (e.g., Ps 106:21; Is 43:3, 11) in anticipation of the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, the way of faith, a way “not too difficult for you,” was expected to be lived out in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. In light of this, it is significant that Dt 30:14 finishes the statement “the word is very near you, it is in your mouth and in your heart” with the clause “so you may obey it,” whereas Rm 10:8 finishes it with “that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming.” Here Paul substitutes “faith” for “obedience” and it is apparent that he understands one as being intimately identified and in full cooperation with the other.

 

Hence, once we oblige ourselves to view these principles from the proper perspective, we must conclude that Paul does not understand the law as antithetical to justification. Faith is commanded by the law, but faith is not law. Likewise, love is commanded by the law, but love is not law. Faith in God is implicit in the Decalogue’s command to love God for one cannot love God unless he believes in him. Thus, faith and love are derived from law but they supersede law. The law can never force one to love and have faith; it can only point one in the direction of these virtues. Hence, we maintain that Paul is condemning law only in respect of contractual obligation, that is, when man attempts to demand payment from God for his works. Outside of the realm of contractual obligation, however, the law, as expressed in virtue, fully cooperates with grace in justification . . .

 

The connection between faith and obedience is further proven in the way Paul continues in Rm 10:16-17: “But not all the Israelites accepted the good news...” We notice that Paul speaks of the Old Testament precepts as “the good news.” This phrase comes from the same word translated as gospel throughout the New Testament (Greek: ευαγγελιον). It is the word the Hebrew writer uses in Hb 4:2, 6 when he indicates that the Israelites had received the same gospel of salvation as those in the New Testament:

 

For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith...those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in...

 

It is clear, then, that Israel had the gospel of salvation delivered to them and could be saved by it just as those in the New Testament are saved. However, most of them did not accept it. Paul records this again in Rm 10:16, 21: “For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’ ...concerning Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my

hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’”

 

Obviously their disobedience showed their lack of faith. They had the message, it was shouted at them, but they pretended not to hear it. This was also apparent in what Moses wrote in the remainder of Dt 30:15-18:

 

See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient...you will not live long in the land...

 

In comparing Deuteronomy 30, Romans 10, and Hebrews 4, we are seeing clearly that Moses and Paul have the same gospel. It is a gospel of faith and obedience. It is a gospel that teaches us to trust God in spite of all the evidence that would cast doubt on him, a gospel that teaches us to love him in spite our wretched circumstances, a gospel that teaches us to love our neighbor with the same intensity that we love ourselves, a gospel that teaches us to repent of sin, to seek God’s forgiveness, and then live as obediently as we can to please God. It is a gospel that is fulfilled not merely by saying a few words accepting Jesus, but living a life of faith and obedience that lasts till the end. This is the gospel of faith that Paul preaches, which is also the gospel of the New Testament. It is all made possible by the grace that issues forth from the death and resurrection of Christ. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 34-35, 92-93)

 

Elsewhere he noted:

 

Some commentators have suggested that the faith and obedience to the law that allowed God to bless them with physical land is on a different level from the faith and obedience necessary to obtain eternal life. We must be careful, not to posit two standards of faith and obedience in God. There is a distinction, however, as to why God gave the physical land to the Israelites: 1) the promise he made to Abraham, and 2) the wickedness of the inhabitants who lived there, not the obedience of the Israelites (cf. Dt 9:4-6). If Israel had truly believed and obeyed God, they could have possessed the land based on that righteousness and also obtained eternal life by the same faith and obedience. (Ibid., 93 n. 118)

 

So when one considers the context of Rom 10 itself, one will not find Sola Fide therein.

Confessing the Name of the Lord as a Liturgical Act

For Paul, what does it mean to confess/declare that Jesus is Lord and call upon His name? It is not a mere "confession" as many Protestants understand it to mean--for Paul, it was a liturgical action and was connected with the salvific efficacy of water baptism.

Recounting his conversion and the words of Ananias, Paul is recorded by Luke as having said:

 

And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

 

Confessing/Calling upon the name of the Lord is clearly presented here as a liturgical action, and the instrumental agent of initial justification and one's remission of sins is explicitly taught to be water baptism. Note the following comments from Lenski:

16)       The question: καὶ νῦν τὶ μέλλεις; as in the classics (Liddell and Scott), means: “And now why delayest thou?” Ananias is now encouraging Paul on his own account. He tells him what to do. The two aorist imperatives are causative middles: “get thyself baptized and get thyself washed as to thy sins” (B.-D. 317; R. 808). The action expressed by the aorist participle, “calling on his name,” is either simultaneous with that of the aorist imperatives or immediately precedes it, the difference being merely formal. “The name” is Jesus in his revelation; and to call on this name involves faith (Rom. 10:13, 14). This is one of the cardinal passages on the saving power of baptism; see the others, 2:38 discussed at length; Luke 3:3; John 3:3, 5; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5:26. What makes the present passage unmistakably clear is the second imperative. Why was it not enough to say, “Having arisen, let thyself be baptized, calling on his name”? Why was “and let thyself be washed as to thy sins” inserted if baptism and its water did not do this washing to remove the sins? The answer has yet to be given.

Was Paul to submit to a mere symbolic ceremony? What lay heavy on his conscience was the guilt of his enormous sin of persecuting the Messiah himself (v. 7). With its water that was sanctified by the Word baptism was to wash away all this guilt, all these sins. This washing away is the ἄφεσις of 2:38, and Luke 3:3, the “remission,” the “removal” of sins. To be sure, this washing away is “picturesque language” (R., W. P.); it is figurative, to speak more exactly, and is appropriate in that baptism has water in connection with the Word, Eph. 5:26. But with “picturesque language” R. means that “here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place,” i. e., that is all that baptism does. R. does not seem to see that he contradicts Ananias. Whereas Ananias says, “Let thyself actually be baptized” (aorist), “let thyself actually be washed of thy sins” (again aorist), R. changes the latter and substitutes, “Let a picture be made of the washing away of thy sins.” It may be interesting to enact a picture, but that is about all. As βάπτισαι = a real baptism and not the mere picture of one, so ὑπόλουσαι = a real washing and not the mere picture of one. (Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 909–910). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House)

For another text in Acts of the Apostles that teaches baptismal regeneration (Acts 2:38), see the discussion at Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation. Paul himself, on many occasions, affirmed baptismal regeneration. This will lead us to the next section of our article:

Rom 6:3-7: Water Baptism as the Instrumental Agent of Regeneration

Before one discusses this issue, to avoid any confusion or misrepresentation, let us first discuss different "causes":

Final cause: the purpose or aim of an action or the end (telos) toward which a thing naturally develops.

Efficient cause: an agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change

Formal cause: the pattern which determines the form taken by something

Meritorious cause: the foundation

Instrumental cause: the means/instrument through which the action is brought about; it exercises its influence chiefly according to the form and intention of the principal efficient cause

To give a non-theological example of how some of these causes work together (and are not mutually exclusive), take a small child taking a shower:

Meritorious cause: Paying of the water bill (by the child's parents)

Efficient cause: The payer (parent)/the water

Instrumental: the child turning the taps/faucet

Formal: The child being cleansed of dirt

To translate this into the salvific efficacy of water baptism:

Meritorious cause: the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ

Efficient cause: the Spirit operating through the physical water

Instrumental cause: water baptism

Formal cause: the baptised person being regenerated and receiving a remission of their sins

Final cause: the glorification of God in the salvation of souls

Much of the "either-or" arguments against baptismal regeneration (e.g., "either it is the blood of Christ or water baptism!"), apart from being a false dichotomy, is easily answered once one understands the different causes and how they work together; it is not "either-or." As the instrumental cause of regeneration, baptism is dependent upon (not independent of) the atoning sacrifice of Christ (the sole meritorious cause of salvation) for its efficacy. Belief in baptismal regeneration is not “adding” to the work of Christ—it is the instrumental means of its initial application. This refutes the claim that “baptismal regeneration . . .teaches that the meritorious work of water baptism . . .achieves regeneration” (Edward L. Dalcour, A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, p. 39) and similar arguments by critics of baptismal regeneration.

 

Baptism is not a human work, but one God does. By being baptised, God works through the instrumentality of water baptism and remits our sins (past and then-present) and regenerates us. It is not a case where we are baptised, and as a result, we obligate God to do something for us. Therefore, Paul's condemnation of the Jews who would attempt to legally obligate God to reward them for their works (e.g., Romans 4) is not in opposition to baptismal regeneration.

With that being said, let us examine Rom 6:3-7 in some detail, as this (1) precedes Rom 10:9-10, so Paul has already addressed the instrumental cause of regeneration prior to ch. 10 and (2) for Paul, one is regeneration and even salvifically justified by water baptism.

 

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom 6:3-7)

 

In the symbolic view, baptism is similar to the relationship a wedding ring has to being married—it is an outward sign of something that it did not bring about as one being “in Christ” and justified precedes water baptism. However, Paul’s theology of baptism in this pericope is antithetical to this perspective. The apostle speaks of one being baptised “into [εις; cf. Acts 2:38] Christ,” including being a partaker of his death and resurrection, with baptism being the instrumental means thereof (through use of the preposition δια). Furthermore, Paul, through his use of the conjunction ωσπερ and adverb ουτος, both meaning "just as," likens Christ’s being raised by the Father to our being given, by the Father, newness of life through the instrumental means of baptism. Notice the explicit language of vv. 3-5:

 

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν eis Christon Iesoun) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν eis ton thanaton autou ebaptisthemen)? Therefore, we are buried with him (συνθάπτω synthaptō)  by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον dia tou baptismatos eis ton thanaton): that (γαρ gar) like as (ὥσπερ hosper) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω houto) we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-5)

 

Commenting on the grammar of v. 5, Jarvis J. Williams noted:

 

The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).

 

Tony Costa, who himself is a Reformed Protestant and one who, confessionally, rejects baptismal regeneration, discusses the salvific nature of water baptism in Paul's theology in Rom 6 thusly in a section entitled, "Baptism as Identification":

The first thing we note is that Paul equates being baptized into Christ as being baptized into his death (Rom 6:3). Here Paul employs a metaphor. The believer does not necessarily die in baptism in a physical sense, but he or she is described as dying with Christ by way of spiritual analogy. They have died to their old self (cf. 2 Cor 5:17). Here we see baptism functioning as an identity marker in that the believer in baptism is identified with Christ in his death. Another metaphor that Paul includes with baptism is that of the believer in baptism being identified with Christ in his burial (Rom 6:4), but again this is not literal but metaphorical. Paul proceeds to use a third metaphor in relation to baptism to show that as Christ was raised from the dead to a new life by the glory of the Father, so believers have been identified with him to walk in a new life on a spiritual plane (Rom 6:4). This new life vis-á-vis baptism is often marked by calls and exhortations to ethical living . . . Paul reasons that since Christian believers are united by baptism with Jesus in his death, they will also consequently be united with Jesus in the resurrection. What happened to Christ on a physical plane is applied metaphorically to the believer on a spiritual plane. In tying baptism to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, Paul is identifying and associating believers via baptism to Christ in his salvific work. The essence and heart of the gospel upon which believers are saved according to Paul is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:14). These are the very three points with which believers are identified with Jesus in baptism. Thus Paul presents baptism first and foremost as an identification of the believer with Jesus in his death, burial, and resurrection. The idea of identity with Jesus in baptism is similarly stressed by Paul in Gal 3:27, ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε//”As many of you as were baptized into Christ, you have clothed yourselves with Christ.” The idea of identification in baptism in Gal 3:28 is seen in the metaphor of being clothed with Christ. (Tony Costa, Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], 219-220)

 Commenting on the idea of baptism εις Χριτον (“into Christ”), Robert Tannehill noted:

 

The interpretation of this phrase has been the subject of considerable controversy. Some interpreters feel that it is necessary to give the εις a local sense, while others see it as an abbreviated form of εις το ονομα, and so as a formula for transfer for ownership, or as an indication of the constitutive factor for the nature of the baptismal act or an indication of the goal of this act. The latter kind of interpretation is insufficient. Any interpretation of baptism εις Χριστον must be able to explain how Paul can move from this idea to the related idea of baptism εις τον θανατον αυτου, and then interpret this as participation in Christ’s death, as he does in Rom. 6 3 ff. Baptism εις τον θανατον αυτου, does not simply mean that one is baptized “in the name of his death” or “for his death” or “with reference to his death.” Paul explains in vs. 4 that it means that “we were buried with” Christ and in vs. 5 that “we were united with the form of his death.” This clearly means that the believer shares in this death, is included in this death. Baptism εις Χριστον must be understood in the same way. It means through baptism the believer has come to share in Christ. Through baptism he has been included in Christ. He has entered Christ as the corporate person of the new aeon. Thus we should translate: “We were baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 1967], 22)

 

The very fact that Costa, who rejects baptismal regeneration, would admit the above shows the over-whelming exegetical evidence from Rom 6 that Paul is indeed teaching the salvific efficacy of water baptism.

In Rom 6:7, the KJV reads:

 

For he that is dead is freed (δεδικαίωται, dedikaiōtai) from sin.

 

The Greek of this verse is not speaking of being “freed” merely but justified—Paul uses the third person indicative perfect passive of δικαιοω, the verb meaning "to justify.” In Paul's theology, God not only simply "frees" a person from sin, but they are "justified/made righteous" through the instrumentality of water baptism. Don’t take my word for it; here are some scholarly resources:

 

The other, more likely explanation seeks to interpret the vb. [δικαιοω] not as “free,” but as “justify, acquit” in the genuine Pauline sense, and [sin], not in the sense demanded above (something like “obligation to the Torah”), but in its Pauline sense, an act against the will of God (so Lyonnet, Romains, 89; Cranfield, Romans, 310–11): the one who has died has lost the very means of sinning, “the body of sin,” so that one is definitively without sin; one has been freed of the fleshy, sin-prone body. In either case, a change of status has ensued; the old condition has been brought to an end in baptism-death, and a new one has begun (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 437, emphasis in bold added)

Commenting on the relationship between justification, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of Jesus, Brandon Crowe wrote:

[H]ow does the resurrection related to the forgiveness of sins and the law of Moses in 13:38-39? Does Luke’s account of Paul’s speech shed light on the doctrine of justification, perhaps even in a way that is consistent with Paul’s letters? In verses 38-39 Luke speaks of being justified by faith in Jesus (en toutō pas ho pisetuōn dikaioutai), in contrast to what it was not possible to be justified (dikaiōthēnai) from (apo) by the law of Moses. Despite the preference of many modern English translations, the language of dikaioō in verses 38-39 is best translated in terms of being justified, rather than being freed. From what is a person justified? It must be from sin. Paul uses similar language in Romans 6:7: “For the one who has died has been justified [dedikaiōtai] from [apo] sin.” The Lukan Paul in Acts 13 correlates justification by faith (v. 39) with the forgiveness of sins (v. 38). Significantly, this good news derives from Paul’s exposition of the resurrection, which is apparent from oun and dia touto in Acts 13:38. These refer back to Jesus, who was raised and did not see decay (vv. 36-37).

But how close is the Pisidian Antioch speech in Acts to the Pauline doctrine of justification? Has Luke misunderstood, or only half understood Paul? Although Paul does speak of justification in contrast to the law of Moses (e.g., Gal. 2:16; 3:11; 5:4), it is objected that Paul speaks less clearly about the correlation of forgiveness of sins to justification. However, if the “we” passages in Luke are taken at face value to indicate that Luke accompanied Paul on some of his travels (which remains the best view), then it beggars belief to think that Luke has misunderstood this key theological emphasis of an apostle he knew personally. A better view is that Acts 13:38-39 provides another angle on the (“Pauline”) doctrine of justification and one that supports the “older” perspective on Paul—namely, that one’s right standing before God does not depend on one’s adherence to the law of Moses and that justification entails the forgiveness of sins.

Particularly pertinent for the present discussion is the relationship in Acts 13 between justification and Jesus’s resurrection. The casual link between Jesus’s resurrection and believers’ justification in Paul’s Pisidian Antioch sermon recalls similar connections in Paul’s letters. For example, in Romans 4:24-25 believers are justified because of Jesus’ resurrection. Thus Romans speaks of justification on the basis of Christ’s resurrection, in addition to justification on the basis of Christ’s death (cf. 3:24-25). This variety of emphasis in Paul further encourages readers of Acts not to misconstrue Luke’s understanding of the atoning work of Christ—justification is not based upon either the death of Christ or his resurrection; it is based on Christ’s entire work.

It is also noteworthy that Paul relates the resurrection of Christ to Adam in both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In both cases, the obedience of the last Adam leads to life for those with faith in Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-49). These passages relate the obedience of Christ to his resurrection, which Luke also does. Not only does Luke clearly view Christ as a new Adam (cf. Luke 3:38), but Jesus is consistently identified as the Holy and Righteous One (using the dik- word group; see Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14-15) who did not see decay. Jesus’s resurrection in Acts is predicated in large measure upon his perfect obedience (see the use of Ps. 16 in Acts 2:24-36; 13:34-37; cf. 13:22), which is similar to Paul’s Adam Christology (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Luke and Paul agree that justification comes through the resurrection of the perfectly righteous one. (Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 63-64, emphasis in bold added)

 

To quote 3 Roman Catholic NT scholars:

Paul himself ties justification to baptism. This is evident, for example, in 1 Corinthians:

You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)

In this verse, Paul makes a direct connection between being “washed” [apolouō] and being “justified” [dikaioō]” (1 Cor 6:11). Some commentators dispute a baptismal reading, insisting that the language is simply intended as a metaphor rather than an allusion to ritual immersion. This is unlikely. First, not only does the New Testament indicate that baptism was widely practiced in the early church, we know that the ritual had an important place in the communal life at Corinth. Its significance was apparently so well established that it became the basis of quarrels that Paul felt forced to address at the very outset of this epistle (cf. 1 Cor 1;11-17). Second, the language of 1 Corinthians 6:11 uses terminology employed in other Pauline texts where baptism is in view. Believers are said to be “washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” language which envokes the baptism controversy Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 1, which specifically swirls around the “name” into which believers have been “baptized” (1 Cor 1:13-14). In addition, the washing described in 1 Corinthians 6:11 is also associated with the “Spirit,” who is identified with baptism later in the same epistle: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13). As other interpreters recognize, 1 Corinthians 6 even goes on to use the language of “members” (1 Cor 6:15), anticipating the discussion of Christians as “members” of Christ’s body later in the letter (cf. 1 Cor 12:14-27). Given these connections to baptismal passages, to insist that the language of washing involves a mere metaphor seems like special pleading. Finally, physical baptism is linked to spiritual washing in other texts (cf. Acts 22:16; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22). First Corinthians 6 is thus best read as an early Pauline expression of this theology.

Paul also talks about baptism in other places where justification is in view . . .we noted Paul’s teaching that “whoever has died is justified [dedikaiōtai] from sin” (Rom 6:7 NRSV, slightly adapted . . . this “justifying death” appears related to baptism:

What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like this, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is justified from sin. (Rom 6:1-7 NRSV, slightly adapted)

This is an extremely significant passage, for it shows that baptism not only causes one to be “in Christ” but that Paul also views the sacrament in terms of co-crucifixion and justification. For Paul, baptism justifies because it is a real participation in the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (Brant Pitre, Michael P. Barber, and John A. Kincaid, Paul A New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2019] 202-3, emphasis in bold added)

Interestingly, many of the translations that render this term "freed" in Rom 6:7 use "justified" to translate δικαιοω in Acts 13:39 where it would be just as appropriate for them to use "freed." The NET, for instance, renders the verse as:

And by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you.

"Justified" in this verse is δικαιωθῆναι, the infinitive aorist passive of δικαιοω.

It is clear that, for Paul, water baptism is not a mere symbol; it is the instrumental cause of being united to Christ, regeneration, and justification.

The Connection between δικαιοω and σωζω in Romans 3, 5 and 10

 

In a section of the same title, scholar Chris VanLandingham noted the following about Rom 5:9-11 and 10:9-10, and how they do not support a forensic model of justification:

 

Several passages demonstrate a close relationship between “being made righteous” and “being saved”:

 

Therefore it is much more the case since we have now been made righteous by his blood that we shall be saved through him from (God’s) wrath. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, it is much more the case since we were reconciled that we will be saved by his life. Yet not only that but also we boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom now we have received reconciliation (Rom 5:9-11).

 

. . . because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved: for it is believed in the heart for righteousness, and it is confessed in the mouth for salvation (Rom 10:9-10).

 

Almost a priori one would assume a close connection between righteousness and salvation, otherwise there would be no point to Jesus’ death. Often, even outside of Paul, the δικαι- terms (or their equivalents) form the basis for salvation. Outside of Paul whenever the δικαι- terms (or their equivalents) provide the basis for salvation in its various forms, the δικαι- terms are never forensic. Likewise, in Paul there is no overwhelming reason that the δικαι- terms should be forensic and thus contrary to tradition and normal usage. Although Paul attributes righteousness to the effect of Jesus’ death, for him righteousness is righteousness no matter its source or medium, whether εκ νομου or εκ πιστεως (Rom 10:5, 6). For this reason righteousness εκ πιστεως can also lead to salvation.

 

If the δικαι- terms refer to acquittal, then Rom 5:9-11 makes little sense. 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 Judgment and being saved (cf. Rom 2:6-7). However, does not the nature of Paul’s argument que an argument a minor ad malus 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 . . .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 (Fitzmyer, “The Biblical Basis of Justification by Faith: Comments on the Essay by Professor Reumann,” in Reumann, “Righteousness” in the New Testament, 213). 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 begun, as one would expect, not that it is completed in any sense (the idea of salvation as a present process is supported by 2 Cor 3:18 and 4:16. The future aspect is most clear at Rom 13:11). 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 . . . In light of . . .the meaning of righteousness as an effect of Jesus’ death, would the phrase δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι in 5:9 make any 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 where it clearly cannot be rendered as referring to an acquittal (Ps 72:13; Sir 26:29; T. Sim. 6:1; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 6:7). Furthermore, since the καθαρ- terms are employed in the same fashion, it only follows that δικαιοω is roughly synonymous with καθαριζω when used to describe the removal of sin (The καθαρ- terms are used with απο αμαρτιας/ων at Lev 16:30; Ps 18:14; 50:4; Sir 23:10; 38:10; Job 7:21; Tob 3:14; Josephus, Ant. 19.315; Hem. Vis. 2.3.1; Sim. 6.3. The δικαι- terms are synonymous or closely related with the καθαρ- terms at 2 Kgdms [= 2 Sam] 22:21, 25; Job 4:17 [MT only]; 15:14-15; 17:8-9; 25:4; 33:9 and 12; Ps 17:21, 25; Prov 12:27-28; 25:4-5; Sir 23:10-11; Josephus, Ant. 16.187; Philo, Virtues 189). This passage only further verifies that Paul uses the δικαι- terms to describe the normal and expected effects of an expiatory sacrifice. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgement and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006], 329-31)

 

Commenting on the use of δικαι- terms in Romans,  VanLandingham noted:

I contend that even if on occasion δικαι- terms are forensic, in Paul at least, the terms do not refer to the Last Judgment. Paul does not, in fact, use δικαι- terms (in conjunction with “faith”), however, does not evoke any judgment that determine one’s eternal destiny. The issue does not need to be whether the terms (in conjunction with “faith" are forensic, but whether they refer specifically to the Last Judgment. Paul’s use of the δικαι- terms to embrace both the notions of (1) forgiveness, cleansing, and purification of past sins and (2) an emancipation from sin as a ruler over humanity. The various δικαι- terms all refer to the same quality or effect of Jesus’ death on the believer. In other words, despite their grammatical distinctions, δικαιοσυνη, δικαιος, δικαωσις, and even δικαιοω all have the same sense; therefore, the best rendering of δικαιοσυνη is “righteousness,” of δικαιος, “righteous,” and of δικαιοω, “make righteous.” (Ibid., 245-46; emphasis added; see the entire chapter, Chapter 4: “Justification by Faith”—A Mistranslated Phrase and Misunderstood Concept [pp. 242-332] for a full-length refutation of the historical Protestant understanding of “justification”).

Commenting on a long-standing “proof-text” for sola fide, Rom 3:21-26, VanLandingham writes that:

The verb δικαιοω can be causative, because aside from the fact that the –οω verbs normally are (as φανερω in 3:21), the verb most often renders the causative hip’il of  צדק in the Septuagint. In this case, it would mean “to make δικαιος.” Admittedly, δικαιοω does not often have this sense; however, as previously stated, this rendering fits very well in Ps 72:13 (LXX); Luke 18:14; Rom 4:5; 1 Cor 6:11; and Jas 2:21, 24, 25, and with a nearly synonymous meaning in T. Sim. 6:1; Sir 26:29; and Acts 13:38-39. The causative sense also works well; but considering that Paul uses the verb synonymously with the δικαι- terms (δικαιος, δικαιοσυνη) that occur in the proof-texts of Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6, it makes the most sense that here δικαιοω means “to make δικαιος.” Paul uses the verb as a convenient way to indicate the transferal of believers from a state of unrighteousness to the state of righteousness. This transferal, of course, is precisely what Paul says in Rom 5:19: “By means of obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous” (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται) (Ibid., 320-31)

Such a view of the δικαι- word group (and its Hebrew equivalent, the צדק – word group) can be found all throughout the Hebrew OT and the LXX and Greek NT. Consider, for example, Psa 73:13 (LXX 72:13 [referenced above by VanLandingham]):

Verily I have cleansed (δικαιοω) my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.

Similarly, the Hebrew term “to justify” (צדק), which is the word usually translated with δικαιοω in the LXX, can also mean “purify”:

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (צדק).

With respect to the verb "to justify" (Greek: δικαιοω), modern lexicography and other scholarship refutes the Protestant/forensic understanding that requires the verb and its cognates to be emptied of any transformative meaning, as well as a meaning where the judicial declaration is based on an intrinsic reality. For example, the renowned lexicographer Ceslas Spicq wrote the following about δικαιοω and how, even in the context of Rom 4:5, it is transformative, not declarative merely:

Several times St. Paul uses dikaoō in its forensic OT sense, “declare or acknowledge to be just,” especially when he is quoting the OT, but it would be wrong to extend this meaning to all the texts. In the first place, this would be to forget that “verbs in –oō mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaoō should properly mean ‘make just.’ This meaning is not found in secular Greek for rather natural reasons.’”[86] In the second place, it would overlook the fact that St. Paul, as a converted Pharisee, perceived as no one else did the opposition between the new covenant and the old covenant, law and grace, circumcision and baptism, and perhaps especially the inefficacy of the old legal dispensation compared to the efficacy and realism of the dispensation of salvation centered on the cross of Jesus. The consequence is a radical change in ideas concerning righteousness/justification, as is seen in the frequent linking of the verb “justify” with faith in Christ and in the explicit contrast between justification and the works of the law; there is a different scheme or process for attributing justice/righteousness in the new covenant than in the old covenant. The apostle gives dikaoō a causative sense, as appears from Rom 3:24—“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:21); (henceforth) they are justified (present passive participle, dikaioumenoi) freely by his grace, through the redemption (apolytrōsis) that is in Jesus Christ.” God has shown his mercy, but not by pronouncing acquittal pure and simple; through Christ a price was paid, a ransom (lytron) with expiatory value (cf. verse 25: hilastērion), so that “sinners” have become just, have been made truly righteous.[87] Another clear text is Rom 3:26-“to show his justice/righteousness (his salvific action), so that (it might be established that) he himself is just and that he justifies (present active participle, dikaiounta) the one who has faith in Jesus”: the just God communicates his justice/righteousness and makes just.[88]

Notes for the Above

[86] M.J. LaGrange, La Justification selon saint Paul, Revue Biblique 1914, p. 121

[87] “The sacrifice of Christ has satisfied once and for all the demands for outward justice which God had deposited in the Law, and at the same time it has brought the positive gift of life and inward justice which the latter was unable to give” (P. Benoit, Exégèse et théologie, vol. 2 p. 39 n. 2); c. Rom 5:18—“justification gives life.” The best commentary is the Trinitarian baptismal text on the “bath of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:7), “so that having been justified by the grace of this (Jesus Christ) our Savior (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become . . . heirs . . . of eternal life”: the aorist passive participle denotes the present state of this new and internal righteousness that permits entry into heaven, where nothing impure may go in. C. H. Rosman, “Iusticicare (δικαιουν) est verbum causalitatis,” in Verbum Domini, 1941, pp. 144-147.

[88] Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.”

Source: Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 1:340-42.

With respect to -οω verbs, there is further support for Latter-day Saint theology.  Philip Schaff, himself a Protestant and proponent of forensic justification, wrote the following in his 8-volume history of Christianity:

Modern exegesis has justified this [declarative] view of δικαιόω and δικαίωσις, according to Hellenistic usage, although etymologically the verb may mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in όω (e.g. δηλόω φανερόω, τυφλόω (i.to make manifest, etc.) (History of the Christian Church, 7:104 n. 139)

This has been proven rather problematic for many. Indeed, in an attempt to get around this linguistic issue, Leon Morris, in a very good work defending that propitiation, not expiation merely, is biblical (contra C.H. Dodd in The Bible and the Greeks [1935] and others), wrote the following which is fraught with error:

It is necessary to say a word or two more about the verb δικαιοω which in the New Testament is translated ‘to justify’ but which has been understood in more ways than one. Since verbs in –οω commonly express a causative idea it is urged by some that δικαιοω must mean ‘to make righteous’. But in the first place verbs of this class denoting moral qualities do not have the causative meaning (e.g. αξιοω means ‘to deem worthy’ not ‘to make worthy’ and similarly with ομοιοω, οσιοω, etc.) (Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [3d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965], 252)

The problem with Morris’ analysis is that when –οω verbs are used, they are used to describe the intrinsic reality of the person/thing being discussed (e.g, a blind person would be described using the verb τυφλόω as they are not merely declared to be blind—they are in reality blind). The same for other verbs. Indeed, αξιοω supports this, too. In Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the KJV reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

The Greek of this text reads:

ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.

Literally, John is commanding the people “to do” (ποιεω) works that are “worthy” of repentance. The Greek adjective translated as “worthy” is αξιος. In New Testament soteriological contexts, it is always used to describe the reality of someone or something; it is not a mere legal declaration; in other words, something is counted/considered worthy because they/it are intrinsically worthy.  For a fuller discussion of -οω verbs, see the discussion at:

Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification"

Rom 5:19 vs. Forensic Justification

That we “become” righteousness, and not merely declared to be righteous based on an imputation of righteousness from an alien source can be seen in Rom 5:19:

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (δικαιος).

The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made (καθιστημι) ruler over this household, to give them meat in due season? . . . Verily I say unto you, That he shall made (καθιστημι) ruler over all his goods. (Matt 24:45, 47)

And delivered [Joseph of Egypt] out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him (καθιστημι) governor over Egypt and all his house . . .But he that did his neighbour wrong trust him away, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge over us? . . .This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge? The same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush (Acts 7:10, 27, 35)

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained (καθιστημι) for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb 5:1)

For the law maketh (καθιστημι) men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb 7:28)

Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labelled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.

Catholic priest and theologian, Patrick Boylan (no relation!) who was a professor of Eastern Language at University College Dublin and Sacred Scripture and Oriental Languages at the Pontifical University of Ireland (my alma mater) wrote the following about Rom 5:19 and how καθίστημι is not forensic as Protestants need it to be for their theology to stand up to biblical scrutiny:

 

Paul here elucidates v. 18—explaining the meaning of παραπτωμα and δικαιωμα, and of κατακριμα. The παραπτωμα is Adam’s παρακοη—or sin of disobedience: opposed to it is the υπακοη, the obedience, of Christ (= the δικαιωμα; for,, Christ as υπηκος, cf. Phil. ii. 8; Gal. iv. 4).

 

The κατακριμα is elucidated by αμαρτωλοι κατεσταθησαν οι πολλοι and the δικαιωσις ζωης by δικαιοι κατασταθησοναι οι, πολλοι.

 

Καθισταναι does not indicate a mere forensic or juristic result. As men were actually made sinners by Adam’s disobedience, so they are made just by Christ’s obedience. When Paul says that all are made just by Christ’s death, he does not imply that each individual human being is actually justified through the death of Christ. It is to be remembered that Paul is here making a contrast . . . The future κατασταθησονται does not imply that the justification is purely eschatological, but that it is a process which goes on continuously among men. There may be in the future tense, also the hint of an eschatological aspect—a hint, that is, of the official manifestation of the just at the Great Judgment. (Patrick Boylan, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: Translation and Commentary [Dublin: M.H. Gill and Son, Ltd., 1934, 1947], 92-93, emphasis in bold added)

Some may appeal to Phil 3:9 as “proof” of monergism, as some are wont to do:

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

The Greek reads:

καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

Some argue that this verse proves that Paul did not believe any righteousness within him will avail anything of God, but instead, he teaches reliance upon an imputed righteousness. However, what Paul is actually teaching is that the source of his (intrinsic, not imputed) righteousness which will avail before God will not come from the Law/Torah, but from his faith in Christ (or “the faithfulness of Christ”; the translation of the Greek term πιστεως Χριστου is debated in many circles and won’t be discussed here). Paul is not teaching monergism nor is he teaching that he will be declared “justified” based on the imputation of an alien righteousness.

This can be seen when one examines the literature contemporary with Philippians, including the following:

My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency (δικαιοσυνη) was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt (Dan 6:22 [6:23, LXX])

"For you were found righteous (δικαιος) before God, and he did not permit you to enter here, otherwise you see the evil that happened to the people by the Babylonians. (4 Baruch 7:25)

Noah was found perfect and righteous (δικαιος); in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange [for the world;] therefore was he left as a remnant unto the earth, when the flood came. (Sirach 44:17)

For Paul, he is concerned about the origins of the righteousness within him. He is not teaching an alien imputation of forensic righteousness in this text.

Rom 10:9-10 (cf. 4:24-25) Disproves Naive Abuses of John 19:30 to Support Forensic Atonement

For a fuller discussion, one should pursue my article Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30.

In Rom 10:9-10, and 4:25 (see below), according to the apostle Paul, the Father raised Christ for our justification:

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for (δια here has a causal sense [i.e. for the sake of]) our justification (Rom 4:25)

On the salvific importance of the resurrection of Jesus, Reformed apologist Tony Costa, critiquing the likes of Leon Morris and other Reformed authors, wrote the following:

Paul usually couples the death of Jesus with his resurrection (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3-4), but here in Rom 10:9 he focuses primarily on his resurrection, for as Paul asserts in 1 Cor 15:14, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then all Christian faith is vain and futile, which includes the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death . . . Following Rom 10:9 where Paul lays down the confession of Jesus as Lord and the belief in his resurrection from the dead, Paul goes on to introduce his points in Rom 10:10-13 with the preposition γαρ beginning in each of the verses, which is intended in these cases to denote a reason or explanation of the preceding statement. Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 386-88. The preposition γαρ of course never stands first at the beginning of a sentence. (Tony Costa, Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], p. 375 notes 107 and 109)

Morris is therefore incorrect to maintain that the gospel of God’s Son, which Paul announces (Rom 1:9), “centers on Christ’s atoning act. Without that there would be no gospel.” Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 58. On the contrary, without the resurrection of Jesus the gospel would be rendered superfluous and empty (1 Cor 15:12-20). The atoning act of Jesus is only validated by the resurrection, for it is the resurrection of Jesus itself that gives the cross any soteriological significance. (Ibid., 319-20, n. 39)

One conservative Reformed theologian, W.E. Best, wrote the following on the "finished" and "unfinished" aspects of Christ's salvific work:

Salvation is finished and unfinished. The Lord’s statement on the cross in John 19:30, “It is finished,” means that it was completed, executed, concluded, finished, and accomplished. What was accomplished? Jesus Christ finished the work of offering Himself for the sins of the elect, the purpose for which God sent Him into the world: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4). God had sent Christ into the world not to be a teacher, although He taught. He did not send Him to be a healer, although He healed. God sent His Son to give Himself, an offering for sin. He sent Him to stand in the place of those the Father had given the Son in the covenant of redemption. The Lord Jesus Christ accomplished that work.

Believers stand between Christ’s two statements: “It is finished” and “It is done” (John 19:30; Rev. 21:6). The latter statement does not occur until all things are made new (Rev. 21:5). We stand between the finished work of Calvary and making all things new.

The finished work of Christ is typified by (1) the covering of coats of skins (Gen. 3:21), (2) Abel’s more excellent offering (Gen. 4:4), (3) Noah’s sheltering ark (Heb. 11:7), (4) the offering of Isaac (Heb. 11:17), (5) the blood of the passover lamb (Ex. 12:1-14), (6) the life-giving fountain (Ex. 17:6), and (7) the serpent of brass (Num. 21:9).

The finished and unfinished works of Jesus Christ include the following things: (1) His work as Redeemer is finished, but His work as Restorer will remain unfinished until the perfection of every elect person. (2) Christ’s work as Saviour at the cross is finished, but His work as Sustainer is unfinished. Those who have been reconciled to Christ are saved or sustained by the living Christ (Rom. 5:10). “Saved” is added to “saved.” (3) His work as Atoner is finished, but His work as Advocate is unfinished. Provision is made for the sinning believer (I John 2:1). (4) Christ’s work as Sanctifier is both finished and unfinished. The elect are positionally sanctified at regeneration, progressively sanctified in their Christian lives, and shall be ultimately sanctified in the presence of Jesus Christ. (5) The Saviour’s work of putting away sin “from” the believer is finished, but His work of putting away sin from “within” the believer is unfinished. Sin was judicially put away from the elect in the death of Jesus Christ. Sin is put away from within the believer by Christ’s living at the right hand of the Father and the Holy Spirit’s living within the believer. (6) Christ’s dying to destroy sin’s penalty in the elect of God is finished, but His living to destroy sin’s power over him is unfinished. (W.E. Best, The Savior’s Definite Redemption: Studies in Isaiah 53 [Houston: W.E. Best Book Missionary Trust, 1982], 18-19)

Note also the following from N.T. Wright (Anglican) and Raymond E. Brown (Catholic) on John 19:30:

So Jesus is executed as the ‘king of the Jews’. All four gospels report that this phrase was written out and nailed above his head on the cross. Just as condemned criminals in early modern Britain used to carry a placard telling the onlookers of their crime, so the Romans would put such a notice on the cross, as a warning to others. The gospel writers, of course, see the sign over Jesus’ head as heavily ironic, charged with meaning of which the Roman governor and his soldiers were ignorant—just as John sees Caiaphas’s statement about Jesus dying for the people (11.50). Pilate’s words point, despite his cynical intention, to the reality: the ‘king of the Jews’ must complete his scripturally rooted vocation by giving his life for his people, for the world, expressing and embodying the saving, healing, sovereign love of Israel’s God, the world’s creator. He should die, say the Jewish leaders, because ‘he made himself the son of God’ (19.7), just ass in Mark and elsewhere the bystanders at the cross mock Jesus and challenge him to come down from the cross if he is the son of God. But John’s readers and Mark’s readers know by now that it is because he is son of God that Jesus must go to the cross, that he must stay there, that he must drink the cup to the dregs. And he must do so not in order to rescue people from this world for a faraway heaven, but in order that God’s kingdom may be established on earth as in heaven.

That is why, in John’s account, the last words of Jesus are reported as being, ‘It’s all done’ (19.30), in other words, ‘It’s accomplished’, or ‘It’s completed.’ The echo is of Genesis: at the end of the sixth day, God completed all the work that he had done. The point was not to rescue people from creation, but to rescue creation itself. With the death of Jesus, that work is complete. Now, and only now, and only in this way can new creation come about. (Tom Wright, Simply Jesus: Who he was, what he did, why it matters [London: SPCK, 2011] 179-180, italics in original, bold added for emphasis)

The cry “It is finished” (vs. 30), which constitutes Jesus’ last words in John, has often been contrasted with the agonized “My God, my word, why have you forsaken me?” which constitutes Jesus’ last words in Mark/Matthew. (John is closer in tone, at least, to the last words reported by Luke: “Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit.”) . . . If “It is finished” is a victory cry, the victory it heralds is that of obediently fulfilling the Father’s will. It is similar to the “It is done” of Rev xvi 17, uttered from the throne of God and of the Lamb when the seventh angel pours out the final bowl of God’s wrath. What God has decreed has been accomplished.

The very last words of vs. 30 are so phrased as to suggest another theme in Johannine theology. Although Matthew and Luke also describe Jesus’ death in terms of his yielding up his life spirit. John seems to play upon the idea that Jesus handed over the (Holy) Spirit to those at the foot of the cross, in particular, to hiss smother who symbolizes the Church or new people of God and to the Beloved Disciple who symbolizes the Christian. In vii 39 John affirmed that those who believed in Jesus were to receive the Spirit once Jesus had been glorified, and so it would not be inappropriate that at this climactic moment in the hour of glorification there would be a symbolic reference to the giving of the Spirit. I such an interpretation of “he handed over the spirit” has any plausibility, we would stress that this symbolic reference is evocative and proleptic, reminding the reader of the ultimate purpose for which Jesus has been lifted up on the cross. In Johannine thought the actual giving of the Spirit does not come now but in xx 22 after the resurrection. (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi) [AB 29A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970], 930, 931, italics in original)

Thomas Torrance (1913-2007) was a well-respected Protestant theologian, an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland, and was professor of Christian dogmatics at New College, Edinburgh for twenty-seven years. He wrote the following which captures the internal inconsistencies within some Protestant (especially Reformed/Calvinistic) understandings of the justification vis-à-vis the resurrection of Jesus and the nature of the atonement:

A purely forensic doctrine of justification bypasses the resurrection, and is empty without an active sharing in Christ’s righteousness.

When, therefore, the Protestant doctrine of justification is formulated only in terms of forensic ‘imputation’ of righteousness or the non-imputation of sins in such a way as to avoid saying that to justify is to make righteous, it is the resurrection which is being bypassed. If we think of justification only in light of the crucifixion as non-imputation of sins because of what Christ has borne for our sakes, then we have mutilated it severely. No doubt we can fill it out with more positive content by relating it to the incarnate life of Christ and to his active obedience, that is, fill it out with his positive divine-human righteousness—and that would be right, for then justification becomes not only the non-imputation of sins but the clothing of the sinner with the righteousness of Christ. Nevertheless, that would still be empty and unreal, merely a judicial transaction, unless the doctrine of justification bears in its heart a relation of real union with Christ. Apart from such a union with him through the power of his Spirit, as Calvin puts it, Christ would remain, as it were, inert or idle [Institute 3.1.1]. We require an active relation to Christ as our righteousness, an active and an actual sharing in his righteousness. This is possible only through the resurrection—when we approach justification in this light we see that it is a creative event in which our regeneration or renewal is already included within it. (Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Robert T. Walker [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009], 224)

Elsewhere, (Ibid., 127-28), Torrance wrote:

The resurrection is the ground of justification

Had Christ succumbed to the death of the cross, that would only have indicated that his union of God and man was not real, that it had not actually been achieved, and therefore that the ethical or legal relation, with its gap between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ and its order of distance from God, still stood valid and therefore that every moral or other objection in regard to it was valid. Had Christ succumbed to the death of the cross, its substitutionary sacrifice would have been the most immoral deed in all the universe and, and the only doctrine that would be got out if would be the pagan idea of humanity placating an angry god by human sacrifice. That is partly why Paul lays such stress upon the resurrection as the ground of justification. He speaks of Jesus being put to death for our trespasses and raised for out justification [Rom 4.25], and asks rhetorically, ‘who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead’? [Rom 8.34] It is because of this resurrection out of the death of the cross that God and humanity have been reconciled in Christ, and therefore that our life has been set on a wholly new basis. (Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Robert T. Talker [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009], 127-28)

Finally, commenting on Rom 4:25 (cf. 2 Cor 5:14-15), Catholic theologian F.X. Durwell noted:

That the death of Christ also plays a leading part in Paul’s soteriology, no-one ever doubted. We find the importance of the two events balanced in a text which contrasts their two roles in the strictest parallelism: “It is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice, but also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead, who was delivered up for [δια] our sins and rose again for [δια] our justification” (Rom. iv.23-5.)

The distinction for the Apostle makes between two aspects of the one salvation is curious. And many attempts have been made to dispose of the difficulties it creates and restore the monopoly of the Redemption to Christ’s death alone . . . For Christians, according to St. Paul, Christ’s resurrection is not merely a motive of credibility, a miracle that elicits faith; it is the object of their faith: “If thou . . . believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. x. 9.) And if this faith has power to save us, surely that power must come from its object.

Considering the effectiveness the parallel phrase attributes to Christ’s death, and since the context does not allow of a restrictive interpretation, we must admit a direct connection between the Resurrection and our justification. But since the death of Jesus is of itself sufficient to expiate sin, some exegetes have fixed upon the one relationship which in no way robs the death of its monopoly, the lowest form of causality—exemplar causality. The death of Christ, they say, is an image of our death to sin, the Resurrection if the exemplar of our justification. Some see only an exemplar causality in the opening words, “He was delivered up for our sins”; others destroy the balance of the sentence by letting our Lord’s death bear all the weight of our salvation, while allowing his resurrection no more than the value of an example. That Christ in his glory is an example is frequently stated by the Apostle. (Rom. vi. 4; I Cor. xv. 47-9). But it is a very arbitrary exegesis that sees no more than that here. Christ’s death makes expiation for sin, declares the text; it is not also fully serious in saying that the Resurrection effects our justification? If we are to be faithful to the parallelism of the statement, we must place our Lord’s resurrection beside his death as fully effective for our salvation . . . to this major text we may add another, not at first very striking but most significant: “The charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, not if one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all; that they also, who live, may not now live for themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.” (2 Cor. v. 14-15.) The death and resurrection of Jesus are both working towards our salvation. Each plays a different part in it. If Christ is dead, we who are united to Christ are also dead. This death signifies the end of our life according to the flesh (16ff.) We now have no right to live for ourselves, for this would be to live according to the flesh. Henceforward we shall live for him—and here the Apostle suddenly brings in a new element, Christ’s resurrection—who died and rose again.

This new lie must be linked with the resurrection of Christ, for the Apostle cannot mention one without the other. Our death stands alongside his death; therefore when our new life is spoken o, his resurrection must be, too. Paul leaves it to us to understand his train of thought: “And if one is raised up or all to a new life, we are all raised to that life.” Dead to ourselves in his death, brought to life by his resurrection, we live from now on for him who, for our salvation, died and rose again. (F.X. Durrwell, The Resurrection: A Biblical Study [2d ed.; trans. Rosemary Sheed; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960], 25, 26-28)

Rom 4:5-8 and David's Re-Justification: Another Text in Romans that is Problematic for Protestantism in the Epistle to the Romans

In Rom 4:5-8, Paul uses King David as an example of a justified person:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Reformed soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, 253)

Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This disproves the Reformed view that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.

For a fuller discussion of Rom 4 itself and other topic relating to the debate about imputation, see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Conclusion

When one examines Rom 10:9-10 in light of (1) its context and Paul's use of Deut 30; (2) the liturgical background of Rom 10:9-10 in light of Acts 22:16; (3) Paul's affirmation of baptismal regeneration in Rom 6:3-7; (4) various linguistic issues about δικαι- and other terms in Romans and (5) how Rom 10:9-10 refutes the common Protestant interpretation of John 19:30 (6) other passages in Romans (e.g., 4:5-8) which soundly refute Protestantism, we see that those who use Rom 10:9-10 as evidence for any formulation of Sola Fide are guilty of eisegesis.