Source: http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/05/romans-109-13-are-confess-and-call-post_30.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:48:51+00:00

Document:
20* And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21* And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
Saving faith certainly occurs at a point in time, but at the consummation of a time of repeated believing. This is how it is presented in the NT. Before a man obeys the Lord in saving faith, he will exercise faith that still falls short of saving faith. He must, however, exercise that faith in order to participate in saving faith.
I TRUST THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG WILL DEFINE HOW LISTENING TO THE GOSPEL, ETC. ARE NOT WORKING, SINCE HE ADMITS THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE THINGS OTHER THAN SAVING FAITH THAT A LOST PERSON MUST DO IF HE IS GOING TO GET SAVED.
Romans 10 itself backs this up. Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 in Romans 10:18, right after writing, "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." What is the "word of God" from which faith comes? In Psalm 19:4, it is God's general revelation, His creation that speaks to mankind, that gives man the saving message. Only "open theist" and unitarian types have I heard say that saving faith could come from general revelation without the Bible. And yet, this is the start of man's knowledge of God and he must receive that by faith, if he will ever get the rest of what He must know to be justified.
There His Word is found in creation. Still, man gets saving faith from that.
I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE FIRST PART SAYS THAT SAVING FAITH DOES NOT COME FROM CREATION, AND THE SECOND PART SAYS THAT SAVING FAITH DOES COME FROM CREATION.
The word of God or “report” (10:16) that produces faith is that of the Messiah given by special revelation (10:16, quoting Isaiah 53:1, the suffering servant passage about Jesus Christ, Isaiah 52:13-53:12). This is the “Word of God” of v. 17. It is NOT general revelation.
I believe v. 18 is simply stating that the Gentiles were accountable, not that they had faith in God (and there is no faith that is not in the TRUE God, even non-saving faith—James 2:19’s faith without works is faith in the true God, not in Baal or other Gentile idols, or devils—such evils are never called faith in God in Scripture).
Thus, v. 17, “faith comes by . . . the Word of God” refers to what is revealed through special revelation. Saving faith does not come from general revelation.
What is the confession with the mouth of Romans 10:9? Thomas Ross says that it must be a verbalized, worded confession. . . . Thomas Ross says that it must be lipped and uttered with the mouth because God says that the Word (rhema, same as Rom. 10:18) is found in Romans 10:8. Romans 10:8 is obviously metaphorical. . . . He doesn't have to use lips to actually say those words. He can say them in heart.
I BELIEVE THAT ROMANS 10:9, 10 REFERS TO LITERAL CONFESSION WITH THE MOUTH BECAUSE THE PASSAGE SAYS “IF THOU SHALT CONFESS WITH THY MOUTH.” NOW IN ROMANS 10:8, THE WORDS OF SPECIAL REVELATION ACTUALLY WERE BEING SPOKEN BY THE OT ISRAELITES AS THEY TALKED ABOUT THE LAW OF MOSES, ETC. I DON’T THINK THERE IS A METAPHOR IN 10:8 BECAUSE THE MESSAGE ACTUALLY WAS IN THEIR HEARTS AND BEING TALKED ABOUT WITH THEIR ACTUAL MOUTHS. OF COURSE, IF SOMETHING ACTUALLY IS IN ONE’S HEART AND BEING SPOKEN ABOUT, THEN IT IS ALSO AVAILABLE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE WORDS ACTUALLY WEREN’T BEING SPOKEN BY THEM WITH THEIR MOUTHS OR WEREN’T ACTUALLY IN THEIR HEARTS.
It is not possible to make the text refer to some sort of inward, symbolic “mouth” that is not actually a mouth. When the word “mouth” appears with reference to mankind in the New Testament, reference is made to an actual mouth the overwhelming majority of the time. The only times the word is not literal are the uncommon instances where it is employed as an anthropomorphism for God, synechdochically for words that come from a literal human mouth (Matthew 18:16; Luke 21:15), or used in the Greek idiom for the edge (“mouth”) of a sword (Luke 21:24; Hebrews 11:34). There is nothing in Romans 10:9-10 about God confessing with His mouth—men are in view. There is nothing about a sword, or anything nonliteral, anything other than actual confession with a literal mouth. Therefore, unless one can dismiss out of hand the other 78 uses of the word “mouth” in the New Testament (Matthew 4:4; 5:2; 12:34; 13:35; 15:8, 11, 17-18; 17:27; 18:16; 21:16; Luke 1:64, 70; 4:22; 6:45; 11:54; 19:22; 21:15, 24; 22:71; John 19:29; Acts 1:16; 3:18, 21; 4:25; 8:32, 35; 10:34; 11:8; 15:7; 18:14; 22:14; 23:2; Romans 3:14, 19; 10:8-10; 15:6; 2 Corinthians 6:11; 13:1; Ephesians 4:29; 6:19; Colossians 3:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; 2 Timothy 4:17; Hebrews 11:33-34; James 3:3, 10; 1 Peter 2:22; 2 John 12; 3 John 14; Jude 16; Revelation 1:16; 2:16; 3:16; 9:17-19; 10:9-10; 11:5; 12:15-16; 13:2, 5-6; 14:5; 16:13; 19:15, 21), Romans 10:9-10 refers to a literal confession with a literal mouth.
THE POSITION THAT “CONFESS WITH THE MOUTH” DOES NOT REQUIRE CONFESSION WITH ONE’S LITERAL MOUTH IS THUS NOT TENABLE. IT IS CONTRARY TO ALL 78X THE WORD “MOUTH” APPEARS IN SCRIPTURE.
CAN WE REALLY SAY THAT THERE IS NO CONTRAST BETWEEN “HEART” AND “MOUTH” HERE? CAN WE SAY THIS REALLY IS THE SAME AS “THAT IF THOU SHALT CONFESS WITH THY heart THE LORD JESUS, AND SHALT BELIEVE IN THINE HEART THAT [ETC.] . . . FOR WITH THE HEART MAN BELIEVETH UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND WITH THE heart CONFESSION IS MADE,” ETC.?
Was it a work? No. All of it was God's grace. He didn't come to the end of himself except by the grace of God. He recognized His hopeless condition by the grace of God. He believed all this by the grace of God. He confessed by the grace of God.
WE HAVE A FALSE DICHOTOMY HERE, I BELIEVE. THE FACT THAT GOD’S GRACE IS AT WORK DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMETHING IS NOT A WORK. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR A SAVED PERSON IT IS EXPLICITLY STATED THAT GOOD WORKS ARE A RESULT OF GOD’S GRACE (EPHESIANS 2:8-10). A LOST PERSON ONLY RESPONDS TO LIGHT IN A POSITIVE WAY BECAUSE HE IS BEING DRAWN BY GOD (JOHN 6:44). GRACE ENABLES US TO WILL AND DO WORKS (PHILIPPIANS 2:13), BUT WORKS ARE WORKS. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WOULD SAY THAT WE CAN DO ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO GOD APART FROM GRACE ARE PELAGIANS, AND WE KNOW THAT NEITHER I NOR PASTOR BRANDENBURG IS A PELAGIAN. EVEN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY AND CULTS SUCH AS THE SDA’S SAY THAT GOOD WORKS REQUIRE GRACE FOR THEM TO BE PERFORMED, AND THE BIBLE CERTAINLY DOES SO (PHILIPP 2:13—AND, OF COURSE, WITHOUT THE CULTIC DISTORTIONS). THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WORKS ARE NOT WORKS, BECAUSE GOD WORKS IN US TO DO THEM. . . .
If confession wasn't important, then why is it included in this story?
I TRUST THAT THIS COMMENT IS DIRECTED TO PEOPLE WHO THINK CONFESSION IS NOT IMPORTANT, RATHER THAN TO MY POSITION. I OBVIOUSLY THINK CONFESSION IS IMPORTANT, AND SO DOES PASTOR BRANDENBURG.
"Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Does Luke 23 say that he believed in Jesus? No. He pleads (Luke 23:43), "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." The publican in Luke 18:13 said, "God be merciful to me a sinner." Jesus said afterwards that he went away "justified." It says nothing about his faith.
BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ANSWER CHRIST GAVE TO PAUL. THE QUESTION PAUL ASKED WAS ONE OF A PERSON WHO HAD ALREADY BELIEVED AND BEEN JUSTIFIED. OTHERWISE “ARISE, AND GO INTO THE CITY” WOULD SEEM LIKE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOSPEL, WHEN IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT IT IS NOT.
] indicate his continuing action in prayer, his continuing seeking, until he, through God’s sovereign working, placed his faith in the Savior and received pardon through the blood of atonement.
THUS, LUKE 18:13 DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SINNER’S PRAYER METHODOLOGY WHERE ONE REPEATS THE PRAYER AND THEN BELIEVES HE HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED BECAUSE HE HAS DONE SO. VERY FEW SINNER’S PRAYER ADVOCATES BELIEVE ONE MUST SAY THE PRAYER OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BUT LUKE 18:13 REFERS TO REPEATED ACTION.
PLEASE NOTE WHAT TYPE OF CONFESSION THEY WOULD NOT DO—THEY WOULD NOT CONFESS CHRIST BEFORE MEN BECAUSE THEY FEARED GETTING PUT OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUE. THEY WERE NOT AFRAID TO SAY A SINNER’S PRAYER, SINCE THEY HAD NO IDEA THAT THIS WAS PART OF THE WAY OF SALVATION, SINCE CHRIST AND HIS DISCIPLES NEVER PREACHED IT. JOHN 10:42-43 SHOWS THAT CONFESSION IS PUBLIC CONFESSION BEFORE MEN. IT DEFINITELY SUPPORTS MY VIEW, AND GIVES NO SUPPORT WHATEVER FOR THE IDEA THAT CONFESSING IS SAYING A SINNER’S PRAYER.
Until Thomas Ross, I had never met anyone who believed that "confess" and "call" in Romans 10 were post-justification, except for him and his anonymous scholars. I still haven't met anyone that believes that.
PASTOR BRANDENBURG WOULD RECOGNIZE THE NAMES OF ALL THREE OF THEM, AND HE HAS PREACHED AT THE CHURCHES OF TWO OF THEM, AND HAS ALMOST SURELY HEARD THOSE SAME TWO PREACH HIMSELF. THUS, HE HAS CERTAINLY MET THEM.
FUTHERMORE, MY POSITION IS CLEARLY OUT THERE, AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN—MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-14 IS EXACTLY WHAT IS FOUND IN WHAT IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON COMMENTARY POSSESSED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS, MATTHEW HENRY’S WORK. ALL ONE NEEDS TO DO IS READ MATTHEW HENRY TO GET MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-14. THIS IS NOT TO MENTION THE DOZENS OF WORKS I CITE OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES IN MY PAPER WHICH SUPPORT MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-14.
I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED TO FIND EVEN ONE COMMENTARY, OR ONE PUBLISHED WORK OF ANY KIND BY ANYONE, THAT MENTIONS PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S “PATTERN” AND USES IT AS AN ARGUMENT THAT ROMANS 10:9-10 REFERS TO A SINNER’S PRAYER.
One of his chief contentions is that later in Romans 10:14 that we can't call until we believe. I agree with that. . . . Romans 10:18 talks about faith that comes out of general revelation. This surely precedes later faith that comes from hearing the written Word of God preached. The so-called "ordo salutis" of Romans 10:14 doesn't debunk pre-justification confession and call.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POSITION FOR PASTOR BRANDENBURG TO MAINTAIN. IF “HOW SHALL THEY CALL ON HIM IN WHOM THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED” IN ROMANS 10:14 MEANS THAT SAVING FAITH PRECEEDS THE CALLING, THEN PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S POSITION IS UNTENABLE. HIS ANSWER IS THAT THE BELIEF OF V. 14 IS NOT SAVING FAITH, BUT NON-SAVING FAITH, THE FAITH OF AN UNSAVED PERSON.
THE UNSAVED PERSON HAS INTELLECTUAL UNDERSTANDING, BUT NOT TRUST/RELIANCE ON CHRIST. ONE WHO WANTS A DISCUSSION OF NON-SAVING FAITH VERSUS SAVING FAITH IS COMMENDED TO MY EVANGELISTIC BIBLE STUDY #5, WHICH DISCUSSES THE TWO AND CONTRASTS THEM IN SOME DEPTH, AT HTTP://THROSS7.GOOGLEPAGES.COM/HOME.
One could not argue against this by affirming that Romans 10:14 referred to some sort of belief in Christ that fell short of saving faith but led one to pray a sinner’s prayer and savingly believe at some point while saying the prayer. First, every time the verb believe (Gk. pisteuo) appears in the immediate context of 10:13, it refers to saving faith (Romans 9:33;10:4, 9, 10, 11, 16). Second, pisteuo is never used of the kind of non-saving, merely intellectual acknowledgment of facts, a “belief,” that a lost man can have in Christ (James 2:19) in any of the 21 instances of the verb believe in Romans. Third, pisteuo is never used for the non-saving “faith” in Christ a lost man can have anywhere in the 56 instances of the verb in the Pauline epistles (Romans 1:16; 3:2, 22; 4:3, 5, 11, 17-18, 24; 6:8; 9:33; 10:4, 9-11, 14, 16; 13:11; 14:2; 15:13; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 3:5; 9:17; 11:18; 13:7; 14:22; 15:2, 11; 2 Corinthians 4:13; Galatians 2:7, 16; 3:6, 22; Ephesians 1:13, 19; Philippians 1:29; 1Thessalonians 1:7; 2:4, 10, 13; 4:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:11-12; 1 Timothy 1:11, 16; 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:12; Titus 1:3; 3:8; Hebrews 4:3; 11:6). Thus, Romans 10:14 must of necessity refer to saving faith, which preceeds the calling of Romans 10:13 in time.
THUS, THE POSITION THAT ROMANS 10:14 REFERS TO A LOST MAN’S NON-SAVING “FAITH” IS UNTENABLE. THIS IS NOT A USE OF THE VERB “BELIEVE” FOUND IN PAUL’S EPISTLES. SINCE ROMANS 10:14 IS SAVING FAITH, THE CALL OF ROMANS 10:13 IS POST-JUSTIFICATION.
and shall believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for this article of Christ's resurrection includes the several other articles of faith: it supposes his death, and that supposes his life, and the obedience of it; and his life implies his being here on earth, and that his coming down from heaven to do the will of his Father; and this is the rather mentioned, which is here ascribed to God the Father, though not to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, because that Christ is risen again for our justification, with which true faith is principally concerned; for such a faith is intended, not which lies in a mere assent to the truth of this, or any other article of the Christian religion; but which is concerned with Christ for righteousness, life, and glory; and with such a faith salvation is certainly and inseparably connected.
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. This is to be understood not of confession of sin, though that is proper and requisite to be made, both with respect to the participation, and enjoyment of salvation, particularly pardoning grace and mercy, and to an admission to Gospel ordinances; but of confession of Christ, as appears from the preceding verse, which lies in a frank and open acknowledgment of what Christ is in himself, as that he is truly and properly God, the Son of God, the true Messiah, the Mediator between God and man, and the only Saviour of lost sinners, and of our faith in him, with respect to ourselves, to our pardon, justification, acceptance and salvation in him and through him; in ascribing the whole of our salvation to him, and giving him the glory of it; in declaring to the churches of Christ what he has done for our souls, and in subjecting ourselves to his ordinances. This confession must be made both by words and facts, must be open, visible, and before men; and also real, hearty, and sincere, the words of the mouth agreeing with the experience of the heart; and such a good profession made before God, angels, and men, highly becomes all that believe with the heart. This was the practice of the primitive saints; yea, all nations own, acknowledge, and profess the God they worship; and should not we confess our God, Saviour and Redeemer? Christ himself confessed a good confession before Pontius Pilate, and is the Apostle and High Priest of our profession. So to do, makes both for the glory of God, and for our own real good and advantage. Yea, it is "unto salvation"; not as a cause of it, for Christ alone is the author of eternal salvation; but a sincere and well made confession of Christ points out to all that know us where and from whom we expect to have salvation; it is what lies in the way, and is to be taken up by all that believe in Christ, and to be held fast without wavering until we receive the end of our faith, even the salvation of our souls.
THUS, JOHN GILL BELIEVES WHAT I BELIEVE ON ROMANS 10:9-10, NOT WHAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG BELIEVES. I BELIEVE GILL IS IN FAVOR OF MY POSITION ON ROMANS 10:13, AND HE DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING I WOULD DISAGREE WITH, AS FAR AS I CAN RECALL (HAVING LOOKED AT HIM YESTERDAY) WHICH ONE CAN SEE IF HE READS HIS COMMENTS ON ROMANS 10:12-14, BUT I WON’T REPRINT THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE GILL IS VERY PROLIX, AND PRINTING ONLY A PORTION OF HIS COMMENT COULD EASILY LEAD TO MISUNDERSTANDING OF HIS VIEW. BESIDES, THIS RESPONSE IS ALREADY LONG ENOUGH!
SO JOHN GILL DOES NOT AGREE WITH PASTOR BRANDENBURG ON ROMANS 10:9-14. WHAT ABOUT JOHN OWEN, WHO PASTOR BRANDENBURG CITED AS SUPPORT FOR HIS VIEW ON ROMANS 10:13?
“[T]he whole work of faith in obedience is denonimated from this duty of prayer, for so it is said that ‘whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,’ Romans 10:13; for invocation or prayer, in the power of the Spirit of grace and supplication, is an infallible evidence and fruit of saving faith and obedience, and therefore is the promise of salvation so eminently annexed unto it, or it is placed by synechdoche for the whole worship of God and obedience of faith. And it were endless to declare the benefits that the church of God, and every one that belongeth thereunto, hath thereby.” [A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, Chapter 9, elec. acc. in the John Owen Collection, Christian Library Series vol. 9. Rio, WI: AGES Digital Software, 2005.
THUS, OWEN BELIEVES WHAT I BELIEVE ON ROMANS 10:13.
THE QUOTATIONS PASTOR BRANDENBURG CITES DO NOT CHANGE THE PLAIN STATEMENTS OF OWEN AND GILL THAT I HAVE ALREADY CITED. IN THE FIRST SECTION PASTOR BRANDENBURG QUOTES, OWEN IS TALKING ABOUT HOW FAITH IS “CONFIRMED” AND ABOUT “THE EXPERIENCE OF ALL WHO KNOW WHAT IT IS TO PRAY,” NOT ABOUT AN UNSAVED PERSON SAYING A SINNER’S PRAYER IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT, IN THE WORDS OF PASTOR BRANDENBURG, “we don't participate in the benefits of the mediation of Christ until after this prayer, so Owen says pre-justification.” OWEN SAYS THAT WE “participat[E] [IN] the benefits of the mediation of Christ” THROUGH PRAYER. I AGREE WITH THIS. OWEN DOES NOT CONTRADICT WHAT HE PLAINLY AND CLEARLY STATED ABOVE, WHERE HE AFFIRMS, ACTUALLY QUOTING ROMANS 10:13 (WHICH OWEN NEVER DOES IN THE SECTION PASTOR BRANDENBURG REFERENCES), THAT HE BELIEVES WHAT I BELIEVE ON ROMANS 10:13. I AGREE WITH WHAT GILL SAYS IN LUKE WHICH PASTOR BRANDENBURG QUOTES AS WELL, JUST LIKE I BELIEVE WHAT GILL SAYS WHEN HE ACTUALLY IS COMMENTING ON ROMANS 10, WHICH I QUOTED. I ALREADY COMMENTED ON THE PRAYER OF THE PUBLICAN ABOVE, AND NOTED THAT IT DOES NOT PROVE A SINNER’S PRAYER METHODOLOGY; NEITHER DOES THE QUOTE FROM GILL.
UNLESS WE ARE GOING TO ASSUME THAT GILL AND OWEN CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES, SO THAT IN PASSAGES WHERE THEY ARE NOT QUOTING ROMANS 10:9-14 THEY CONTRADICT WHAT THEY SAY WHEN THEY ACTUALLY REFERENCE AND COMMENT UPON ROMANS 10:9-14, BOTH GILL AND OWEN AGREE WITH ME ON ROMANS 10:9-14, AND NEITHER OF THEM TAKES PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S POSITION ON THE PASSAGE.
I AM NOT TRYING TO EMPLOY, IN THE WORDS OF PASTOR BRANDENBURG, “name-calls, these ad hominems.” IT IS POSSIBLE THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG KNEW THAT OWEN AND GILL TOOK MY VIEW ON ROMANS 10:9-14, JUST LIKE BARNES DID WHEN PASTOR BRANDENBURG QUOTED HIM, AND HE WAS CITING THEM FOR SOME REASON THAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND. HOWEVER, I DON’T BELIEVE, AT LEAST, THAT IT WAS CLEAR FROM HIS QUOTES OF CLARKE, BARNES, OWEN, AND GILL THAT THEY ALL DISAGREE WITH HIM AND THAT BARNES, OWEN, AND GILL AGREE WITH ME. HOPEFULLY THIS RESPONSE WILL CLEAR UP TO THE READER WHAT I ASSUME COULD POTENTIALLY ALREADY HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S MIND—FOR WHATEVER PASTOR BRANDENBURG WAS THINKING, I DON’T THINK THAT THE TYPICAL READER OF HIS POST WOULD KNOW THAT OWEN AND GILL AGREED WITH ME AND DISAGREED WITH PASTOR BRANDENBURG. I AM NOT SURE WHAT CITING WRITERS WHO DISAGREE WITH HIS POSITION OR SUPPORT MY POSITION CONTRIBUTES TO HIS CASE, HOWEVER. THIS IS SOMETHING I REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND, NOT MY TRYING TO EMPLOY “name-calls, these ad hominems . . . cheap rhetorical device logically fallacious,” ETC.
FURTHERMORE, I HOPE THAT THE QUESTIONS I ASKED IN RESPONSE TO HIS POST #3 WILL BE ANSWERED SOON.
I AM THANKFUL FOR PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S WORK AND WILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS THESE THINGS. TOO MANY PEOPLE WOULD NOT EVEN BOTHER. MAY WE BE BLESSED BY THE LORD WITH EYES THAT HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE WONDERFUL THINGS IN HIS LAW BY THE TIME WE HAVE PUT INTO THIS DISCUSSION.
These are two other fundamental Baptists who have articles on the web against the sinner's prayer.
I'm going to deal with some of this now while I have a moment. So Jesus wasn't teaching doctrine from the parable of the prodigal son? I believe we get doctrine from parables. We can't make a doctrinal point from every detail of a parable, no, but it was one way that Jesus taught doctrine.
Regarding the order, I believe that faith comes before confession and faith comes after confession. Just because Romans 10:14 says that we don't call until we believe doesn't mean that call is after saving faith. I recognize that Owen and Gill take it that way, but, of course, my point that I was clearly making, was THAT THEY BELIEVED IN A SINNER'S PRAYER!!!! I can't think that it looks good when you don't concede this historic point. They don't take it in Romans 10, but there are other areas that Gill and Owen and I disagree. However, this is a historic point. THEY BELIEVED IN A SINNER'S PRAYER!!! The quotes are a sinners prayer.
I do believed we are saved by faith but I have already explained and Romans 10 shows that faith in Romans 10 also precedes saving faith. It can be non-saving faith that precedes a call that is akin to saving faith---it is repentant faith. That's how I've always read and understood Romans 10:14. I haven't taken it as---here is the official order: "you hear and then you believe (then you are justified, even though it doesn't say; you just have to read that into the text) and then after you are justifed, then you call and call must be the prayer life of a believer."
I'd like to argue with your three anonymous scholars too. I'd love to hear them say that "call" is the prayer life of an already justified person.
I don't doubt that Matthew Henry takes this skewed view of Romans 10, but I've rarely ever used him for preaching. He is mainly a devotional writer. When I do use him, I use him for historic theology. And this does seem to be a common view among these reformed men. I think it is definitely reading into the text.
Regarding justification and salvation, we are saved by grace, so I look at all of salvation as by grace. Brother Ross has wondered and now I answer Him. We hear by grace, we respond to hearing by grace and hear more by grace, and then believe more by grace, then believe enough to call by faith out of grace. Now I'll wait for his salvation by works verses.
Brother Ross seems to be taking from the parable of the prodigal son that the father received the son back without repentance. I believe his confession was part of his repentance, which came because he believed. Both are necessary and they include with it a confession.
My statements about Romans 10:18 weren't contradictory, just could have been worded better, which I had another word in there in my mind "get to saving faith," but I reworded it to make it clearer. However, I would rather he deal with my point, which he didn't, instead, he pounced on the perceived contradiction.
You would just have to accept that what Mr. Ross says about "mouth" in all its usages to go with what he says. In this case, I'm not going to look up all of his usages. If I was going to write a book, I might do that, but in this case, I can see what is happening in Romans 10. God put words in Israel's collective mouth. Of course, that is not a real mouth, but is a euphemism for proximity, accessibility. Then in v. 9, he says that simple plan that is available, that is, that Jesus Is Lord, should be confessed by you, that is, agreed upon by you. This is a key point with Mr. Ross. He must have Rom. 10:9 mean a particular out-loud, enunciated statement, so he can make praying the sinner's prayer a work. That means we that believe that are works-salvation guys. If it is an agreement that someone is willing to state with his mouth, that he agrees with, then it isn't a work, and he has a problem then in his mind with his ordo salutis. This whole thing is more simple than this, which is ironically the point of this whole section. It's not that hard---you don't have to go to the depths or the heights---you just have to confess and believe. And we know that is grace.
That's all I have time for right now, but I'll write some things in my next post too.
I wouldn't be using Mike O'Neil to bolster my position. Read his paper on repentance and you'll see why.
I recognize that Owen and Gill take it that way, but, of course, my point that I was clearly making, was THAT THEY BELIEVED IN A SINNER'S PRAYER!!!! I can't think that it looks good when you don't concede this historic point. They don't take it in Romans 10, but there are other areas that Gill and Owen and I disagree. However, this is a historic point. THEY BELIEVED IN A SINNER'S PRAYER!!! The quotes are a sinners prayer.
I HOPE PASTOR BRANDENBURG WILL DEFINE WHAT HE MEANS SOON BY “SINNER’S PRAYER,” SINCE IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SAY IF OWEN OR GILL BELIEVED IN IT IN THE SENSE THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG DOES WHEN WE HAVE NOT DEFINED WHAT EXACTLY HE BELIEVES THE SINNER’S PRAYER IS, WHEN REGENERATION HAPPENS DURING PRAYING IT, HOW IT IS NOT A PRAYER IN ONE SENSE BUT IS A PRAYER IN ANOTHER, ETC.
SINCE I WROTE IN MY PAPER, AS QUOTED ABOVE, THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A LOST PERSON DOING WHAT THE PUBLICAN DID IN LUKE 18:13, ONE COULD SAY THAT I AM ALSO AN ADVOCATE OF THE SINNER’S PRAYER, IN A CERTAIN SENSE. IT IS A GREAT THING IF LOST PEOPLE ARE BEATING THEIR BREASTS AND REPEATEDLY CRYING OUT TO GOD FOR MERCY, ALTHOUGH, OF COURSE, IT WILL NOT JUSTIFY THEM UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY BELIEVE, AT WHICH POINT THEY ARE JUSTIFIED, PRAYER OR NO PRAYER. HOWEVER, I RATHER DOUBT (IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!) THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG WOULD WISH TO CITE ME, OR MY PAPER, AS EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF HIS SINNER’S PRAYER POSITION.
I DO NOT SEE HOW CITING PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH MY THEOLOGY OF SINNERS AND PRAYER, AND MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-14, MAKES SENSE TO PROVE THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S POSITION WAS AROUND AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CITING ME, AND CITING JOHN OWEN, WHO, IF I HAVE READ HIM CORRECTLY, AGREES WITH ME? HOW DOES THIS PROVE THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S POSITION ON THE SINNER’S PRAYER WAS EXTANT?
PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAS CITED ADAM CLARKE, WHEN CLARKE BELIEVED THAT THE LOST PERSON ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS, WAS (TEMPORARILY) FORGIVEN, THEN LOST HIS SALVATION WHEN HE SINNED, THEN ASKED AND GOT IT BACK AGAIN, THEN SINNED AND LOST IT, THEN ASKED AND GOT IT AGAIN, ETC. I AM CERTAIN THAT THIS IS NOT THE MEANING THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAS WHEN HE EMPLOYS THE TERMS “SINNER’S PRAYER.” JOHN OWEN’S QUOTE DOES NOT, I BELIEVE, IN CONTEXT DEAL WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING—ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH OWEN IN WHAT HE ACTUALLY IS SAYING—AND JOHN GILL’S QUOTE IS ONE THAT I AGREE WITH.
THE CONTENT OF WHAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG MEANS (AS FAR AS I CAN EXTRAPOLATE IT, SINCE HE HAS TO THIS POINT NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED KEY ELEMENTS OF WHAT HE BELIEVES ON THE SUBJECT) WHEN HE SAYS “SINNER’S PRAYER” IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OF THESE QUOTES—THEY DO NOT ESTABLISH THAT THESE MEN BELIEVED THAT PRAYER WAS AN OR THE INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION, RATHER RESERVING THAT FOR FAITH ALONE. THERE WERE PLENTY OF PEOPLE BEFORE FINNEY WHO TOLD SINNERS TO PRAY FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS. I MYSELF, HAVING WRITTEN WHAT I WROTE ON ROMANS 10:9-14, SOMETIMES POINT THE LOST TO LUKE 18:13. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT CITING ME SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF THE SINNER’S PRAYER AS ADVOCATED BY PASTOR BRANDENBURG. NO MORE DOES CITING PEOPLE WHO TOOK MY POSITION ON ROMANS 10:9-14, OR WHO TOOK NEITHER PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S NOR MY POSITION ON THE LOST AND PRAYER, DEMONSTRATE THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S THEOLOGICAL POSITION EXISTED BEFORE FINNEY.
I don't doubt that Matthew Henry takes this skewed view of Romans 10, but I've rarely ever used him for preaching. He is mainly a devotional writer. When I do use him, I use him for historic theology. And this does seem to be a common view among these reformed men.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE ADMISSION! I APPRECIATE IT. I AM THANKFUL THAT YOU ARE HONEST WITH THE FACT THAT I DO HAVE STRONG HISTORICAL SUPPORT FOR MY POSITION, AND BARNES, GILL, HENRY, ETC. TAKE MY VIEW ON ROMANS 10:9-10, AND SO FORTH.
I ALSO APPRECIATE IN GENERAL THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG KNOWS THAT WHEVER HE SEES THE BIBLE TEACHES, IT IS INCUMBANT UPON US TO PRACTICE IT. THIS IS WHY HIS CHURCH DOES AND DOES NOT DO MANY COMMENDABLE, BIBLICAL THINGS WHICH ARE WRONGLY DONE OR NOT DONE BY MANY IN FUNDAMENTALISM. THE HONESTY WITH WHAT COMMENTATORS SAY, AND THE DESIRE TO DO WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS, IS A BLESSING.
Regarding justification and salvation, we are saved by grace, so I look at all of salvation as by grace. Brother Ross has wondered and now I answer Him. We hear by grace, we respond to hearing by grace and hear more by grace, and then believe more by grace, then believe enough to call by faith out of grace.
Now I'll wait for his salvation by works verses.
I AM SORRY THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN CLEAR. I BELIEVE IN JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE, NOT BY WORKS. I AGREE WITH PAUL’S ANATHEMA ON ALL WHO BELIEVE IN JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS, GAL 1:8-9. PERHAPS THIS COMMENT IS LIKE THE ONE WHERE HE SAID HE MISREPRESENTED WHAT I SAID ABOUT 1 JOHN 1:9 TO “see if [I] caught [Pastor Brandenburg] slightly misrepresenting [me],” TO PROVE A CERTAIN POINT AND ILLUSTRATE SOMETHING, SINCE I WOULD TEND TO BELIEVE THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG KNOWS THAT I DON’T BELIEVE IN OR WISH TO DEFEND SALVATION BY WORKS.
Brother Ross seems to be taking from the parable of the prodigal son that the father received the son back without repentance.
I AM SORRY THAT I AM HAVE NOT BEEN CLEAR ON THIS. I BELIEVE THAT THE LOST MUST REPENT, LUKE 13:3. I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE MOMENT WHERE THE SON WAS FORGIVEN IN THE PICTURE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, AS FAR AS WE CAN GET IT FROM A PARABLE, IS EXPRSSED IN THE CLAUSE, “AND HE AROSE, AND CAME TO HIS FATHER,” IN LUKE 15:20a. IF PASTOR BRANDENBURG WISHES TO AFFIRM THAT LUKE 15:21 IS SAYING A SINNER’S PRAYER AND GETTING FORGIVENESS, THEN WE HAVE GOD THE FATHER DOING THIS TO A LOST PERSON IN V. 20: “when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him” THIS SOUNDS LIKE A SAVED PERSON TO ME. HOWEVER, THIS IS A PARABLE, AND WE CAN’T PRESS THE DETAILS TOO FAR.
I AM NOT THE SMARTEST CAR TO GO AROUND THE BLOCK, AND WITHOUT THE CLARIFICATION, I DON’T WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S VIEW OF ROMANS 10:17FF, GET HIM WRONG, AND MISREPRESENT HIM. I AM NOT SURE WHERE THE “GET TO SAVING FAITH” IS SUPPOSED TO GO IN, WHAT WAS REWORDED, ETC. I AM SORRY, BUT I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION. I WAS NOT TRYING TO “POUNCE” ON ANYTHING, BUT AM TRYING TO AVOID MISREPRESENTATION.
You would just have to accept that what Mr. Ross says about "mouth" in all its usages to go with what he says. In this case, I'm not going to look up all of his usages.
PLEASE CONSIDER THAT THIS MEANS THAT MAKING “MOUTH” NON-LITERAL WOULD RUN CONTRARY TO 78 USES OF THE WORD. THIS IS A STRONG ARGUMENT THAT “CONFESS WITH THE MOUTH” MEANS “CONFESS WITH THE MOUTH.” I LOOK FORWARD TO PASTOR BRANDENBURG DEALING WITH THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTEXT, THAT MOUTH AND HEART ARE ACTUALLY CONTRASTED IN ROMANS 10:9-10 SO THAT ONE COULD NOT SAY “IF THOU SHALT CONFESS WITH THY heart THE LORD JESUS, AND BELIEVE IN THINE HEART,” ETC. AND MEAN WHAT PAUL INTENDED UNDER INSPIRATION. THE WORDS OF THE LAW WERE LITERALLY BEING SPOKEN ABOUT AND THUS WERE IN THE LITERAL MOUTHS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AS WELL. THAT IS WHY THE WORDS WERE AVAILABLE.
That means we that believe that are works-salvation guys. If it is an agreement that someone is willing to state with his mouth, that he agrees with, then it isn't a work, and he has a problem then in his mind with his ordo salutis.
HERE ALSO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG IS SAYING. IS THE FIRST SENTENCE ABOUT ME, ABOUT HIS POSITION, ABOUT PEOPLE IN ROME, ETC? I JUST MENTION THIS BECAUSE I AM NOT TRYING TO IGNORE IT, JUST I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.
I WILL WAIT FOR A MORE EXTENSIVE RESPONSE TO THE OTHER THINGS THAT I WROTE IN THIS AND PREVIOUS COMMENTS IN FUTURE POSTS/REPLIES.
THANKS FOR THE COMMENT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I WOULD BE CLOSER TO SOMEONE LIKE MATTHEW HENRY ON ROMANS 10:9-14 THAN SOME FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS. NEVERTHELESS, I AM NOT EVEN THE ONLY FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST WHO STILL BELIEVES WHAT HAS BEEN A VERY COMMON POSITION FOR A LONG TIME.
THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BE WITH YOU ALL, AMEN.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V.