Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 to unbelievers?

[janxharris]

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.

I ask because there seems to be some ambivalence amongst Calvinists. Either way, please explain your reasoning.

If you would prefer, post your answer here (where the issue has come up):
http://www.christianforums.com/t7827988/

 

[AndOne]

Since you have no interest in being a Calvinist, understanding Calvinism, and are just bent on belittling it I will refrain from answering.

 

[janxharris]

Since you have no interest in being a Calvinist, understanding Calvinism, and are just bent on belittling it I will refrain from answering.

If you tell the world that Christ did not die for all men then you should expect to be challenged hard. That is what I am doing. And this is a debating forum.

I asked a simple question.

 

[janxharris]

Of course Paul preached v.9 to unbelievers - he says in v.8b-9, 'the word of faith that we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.'

If Paul had placed a restriction on its being preached to unbelievers then we would have two gospels for we know that Paul did preach to the unsaved:

Romans 15:20-21
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”

We also know that Paul called for the preaching of the gospel in Romans 10:14&15 - just five verses after proclaiming it in v.9.

 

[Shane R]

In the context of the epistle he is writing to those already in the church. He begins in 10:1 by addressing 'brethren'. Then in 10:4 he mentions 'everyone that believeth'. However, it would be absurd to argue that he did not convey the message of 10:9 to those already in the community because it is framed as an essential part of being in the community.

What I think is more fascinating are the tenses and the way in which the apostle uses the verb 'confess'. I believe his usage gives a thoroughly Orthodox insight on salvation as a process rather than an event as the Evangelical community has re-cast it. Paul did not use the past tense or passive voice; he instead calls for confession now - really an ongoing confession of faith.

 

[janxharris]

In the context of the epistle he is writing to those already in the church. He begins in 10:1 by addressing 'brethren'. Then in 10:4 he mentions 'everyone that believeth'. However, it would be absurd to argue that he did not convey the message of 10:9 to those already in the community because it is framed as an essential part of being in the community.

What I think is more fascinating are the tenses and the way in which the apostle uses the verb 'confess'. I believe his usage gives a thoroughly Orthodox insight on salvation as a process rather than an event as the Evangelical community has re-cast it. Paul did not use the past tense or passive voice; he instead calls for confession now - really an ongoing confession of faith.

I agree that it should be an ongoing confession.

 

[janxharris]

And let's not forget the Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:3,4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

v.11
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

 

[janxharris]

Since you have no interest in...understanding Calvinism...

I have asked for the Calvinist's position regard v.9 so I guess I am interested in understanding Calvinism. I remain without understanding though because no one has responded.

 

[Hammster]

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.

I ask because there seems to be some ambivalence amongst Calvinists. Either way, please explain your reasoning.

If you would prefer, post your answer here (where the issue has come up):
http://www.christianforums.com/t7827988/

I'm sure that we haven't covered this.

Yes. It's the truth. So it was preached.

 

[Hammster]

I'm glad that's cleared up.

 

[hedrick]

Obviously Rom 10:9 was written to believers. The whole letter was written to believers. But later in 10 it speaks of preaching. It seems reasonable to think that Rom 10:9 is part of what Paul would have preached.

It's also not a passage that would cause any problems for Calvinism. There are places in Scripture that say that Christ died for all. There are long debates about just what that "all" means. But this isn't one of them. Rom 10:9 says that if you confess that Christ rose from the dead, you will be saved. There's no issue with preaching this to a mixed group. Only those we are elect will confess that Christ rose from the dead. Nothing is said here about whether Christ died for all or for the elect.

 

[janxharris]

I'm sure that we haven't covered this.

Yes. It's the truth. So it was preached.

So notwithstanding the fact that you have said it was addressed to Roman Christians (I'm not disagreeing with you), you concur that Paul preached it to unbelievers?

Why do you say Paul did so?

 

[janxharris]

Obviously Rom 10:9 was written to believers. The whole letter was written to believers. But later in 10 it speaks of preaching. It seems reasonable to think that Rom 10:9 is part of what Paul would have preached.

Indeed, that is what Paul says - the word of faith we preach (v.8).

It's also not a passage that would cause any problems for Calvinism.

Paul apparently (not my view) establishes unconditional election in the previous chapter but preaches v.9 (of Romans 10) to unbelievers and quotes Moses who says it is, 'bot too difficult or beyond your reach.' Unconditional election puts it beyond their reach. Add to this Paul's heartfelt desire for the salvation of his kinsmen...

How is this not a problem as you say?

There are places in Scripture that say that Christ died for all. There are long debates about just what that "all" means. But this isn't one of them. Rom 10:9 says that if you confess that Christ rose from the dead, you will be saved. There's no issue with preaching this to a mixed group. Only those we are elect will confess that Christ rose from the dead. Nothing is said here about whether Christ died for all or for the elect.

Preaching belief in an event that was never intended for one's salvation is misleading. If Christ did not die for you then His resurrection is equally irrelevant is it not? And yet we are to preach belief in it.

 

[janxharris]

Obviously Rom 10:9 was written to believers. The whole letter was written to believers. But later in 10 it speaks of preaching. It seems reasonable to think that Rom 10:9 is part of what Paul would have preached.

...because Paul explicitly says that it is, 'the word of faith we preach'?

Why is it reasonable to think he and others preached this?

 

[janxharris]

I'm sure that we haven't covered this.

Yes. It's the truth. So it was preached.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-69/#post64553340 :

janx:
Would you say to a crowd of unbelievers:
On the third day, Christ rose again from the dead, according to the scriptures. What glorious good news this is indeed folks!
and then not proceed to qualify what you have just said? If you would actually qualify it, how would you word it?

hammster:
That's irrelevant since Paul didn't say that to a group of unbelievers. He was writing to believers.

(The context was 1 Corinthians 15 - the gospel of vv.3&4).

Which is true? Paul did or did not preach Christ's resurrection to unbelievers?

 

[Hammster]

So notwithstanding the fact that you have said it was addressed to Roman Christians (I'm not disagreeing with you), you concur that Paul preached it to unbelievers?

Why do you say Paul did so?

He says it's the message they proclaimed.

 

[Hammster]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-69/#post64553340 :

Which is true? Paul did or did not preach Christ's resurrection to unbelievers?

You're mixing contexts again.

 

[janxharris]

He says it's the message they proclaimed.

Then why do you deny that 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 was preached to unbelievers? Paul explicitly says, 'this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.'

 

[janxharris]

You're mixing contexts again.

Please explain?

In Romans 10 we have Paul addressing his letter to Christians, delineating the gospel and affirming that he and others preach it. In 1 Corinthians 15 we have Paul addressing his letter to Christians, delineating the gospel and affirming that he and others preach it. You won't have it that Paul preached the Corinthian gospel to unbelievers but you accept that the Roman one was despite the fact that you have said that Paul did not say 'On the third day, Christ rose again from the dead, according to the scriptures' to unbelievers (since, you say, 'he was writing to believers').

You are contradicting yourself aren't you?

 

[Hammster]

Then why do you deny that 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 was preached to unbelievers? Paul explicitly says, 'this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.'

He doesn't say that he preached that to unbelievers.