Romans 10:8-9

[Daniel M.]

8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
9 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. - Romans 10:8-9 (ESV)

In discussing unconditional election, I sometimes use this verse to explain that there is no way that genuine belief in Christ is not given us by God.

I say this because of Scripture's indictment of the condition of the human heart and Paul's views on total depravity in Romans 3. Scripture tells us the human heart is so corrupt that we simply cannot originate right faith in ourselves.

I have also used this verse in encouraging against the practice of altar calls to "accept Jesus into your heart", explaining that "head knowledge" is not the same as "heart knowledge". I may, for example, know in my head as a historical bullet point that King George III was a Hanoverian king. Great. I know it, use that knowledge here and there, and move about my life. This is not, however, heart knowledge.

I feel that many casual churchgoers find a false sense of security in their "head knowledge" of Christ. "I know Jesus died for sins and rose from the dead" - well, yes, but do you know it the way you know George W. Bush was President from 2000-2008, or do you know it in your heart, where "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks"?

So, how can you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord despite a wicked, depraved and helpless heart? Thus, being led in a repeated "sinner's prayer" prayer does not constitute a real confession, because the one leading it cannot commandeer the repeater's heart to overflow with confession.

Surely then, if the mouth works the way Jesus said it does, and if no good resides in us the way Paul vehemently argues, then does it not follow that the regenerate heart that must precede confession must be given to us by God, the originator of all good things?

After all, Christ did not say, "Because you do not listen to me, your are not my sheep." Rather, Christ says "Because you are not my sheep, you do not listen to me."

Being a "sheep" is not conditional upon whether we heed the words of God; heeding the words of God is conditional upon the status given you by God.

I write this to ask: are these points sound and do they make a strong argument for our total depravity and the source of a regenerate man's faith? If there are holes in this reasoning, or if I'm using these verses out of context, please show me as I do not want to perpetuate unsound support for sound doctrine.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I like your presentation, generally; and offer the following improvement, if you can use it.

Rather than speaking in terms of "head" vs. "heart" knowledge--which is imprecise wording; and grants the post-modernistic tenet that lowers factual apprehension and logical accord to an equal value with emotional and affectionate attachment, for truth determination--

instead, it might be better to define faith as the Reformed did in the days of Reformation and Confession-writing. Faith, classically defined, has three parts: knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia).

Knowledge pertains to data; no one can believe without some alleged fact in the head. The so-called knowledge could be false, people can have confidence in errors put forth as fact. For saving knowledge, the source of data is the Bible.

Assent pertains to the will; "a man convinced against his will/ is of the same opinion still." One may be in possession of data, not be able to overturn it with better facts, and grudgingly go along. This is not assent. Neither is possession that is ambivalent, as to those demands possibly related to the data. Our assent to saving knowledge must be a true agreement, conviction accompanied by new concern to have the rest of our factual complement cohere with immovable scriptural truth.

Trust also pertains to the will; but has added to it the act of commitment. This is the goal of saving faith, where we actually depend on the power of Christ to save, and to be our whole Mediator: prophet, priest, and king. Trust is the faith made tangible, and visible. The demons can believe, but they can never trust; they don't even have the opportunity.

I sometimes use the illustration of a chair. We first learn the chair is present, and what a chair is for. We consider the chair, and the benefit of rest it may supply, and perhaps evaluate its construction. Then, whether greater or less detail, we admit the chair for what its worth. But finally, we must commit to the seat, or else our belief in the chair is incomplete. We trust the chair to hold our weight principally when we put our backside on it and rest our full weight carelessly on its strength to hold us.

In any case, the division of knowledge into head-vs-heart "types" concedes a point which I think should be challenged.

***********************

Eph.2:8-9 tell us that faith (along with everything else spoken of) is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God.

Php.1:29 tells us that it has been granted (gifted, graced) by God to believe. This is the verb cognate to "faith/belief," the noun.

1Cor.2:14 says the natural man is not able to know the things of God. 3:9 says God has made them (believers) whatever they are. 4:7 asks, "What do you have [of spiritual value] that you did not receive?" which answer is: nothing.

Jn.6:65, Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the Father." According to v37, the Father will grant, and those will come.

Jn5:40, Jesus says, "You will not [you refuse] to come to me." None can change his own mind.

 

[KeithW]

Personal anecdote - when I first believed it was in a Pentecostal Church over 30 years ago. I went forward to several altar calls. Aside from the free will stuff I still remember Rom. 10:9 being stressed. For me the most difficult thing of all was "confess Jesus as Lord" because I intuitively understood that "Lord" was not merely a title but it meant that I would be placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And that is a difficult thing for the sin nature which dwells in us to accept. I now have come to believe that one definition of the sin nature is that anything and everything that God is and says, the sin nature is set against it.

 

[Daniel M.]

I like your presentation, generally; and offer the following improvement, if you can use it.

Rather than speaking in terms of "head" vs. "heart" knowledge--which is imprecise wording; and grants the post-modernistic tenet that lowers factual apprehension and logical accord to an equal value with emotional and affectionate attachment, for truth determination--

instead, it might be better to define faith as the Reformed did in the days of Reformation and Confession-writing. Faith, classically defined, has three parts: knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia).

Knowledge pertains to data; no one can believe without some alleged fact in the head. The so-called knowledge could be false, people can have confidence in errors put forth as fact. For saving knowledge, the source of data is the Bible.

Assent pertains to the will; "a man convinced against his will/ is of the same opinion still." One may be in possession of data, not be able to overturn it with better facts, and grudgingly go along. This is not assent. Neither is possession that is ambivalent, as to those demands possibly related to the data. Our assent to saving knowledge must be a true agreement, conviction accompanied by new concern to have the rest of our factual complement cohere with immovable scriptural truth.

Trust also pertains to the will; but has added to it the act of commitment. This is the goal of saving faith, where we actually depend on the power of Christ to save, and to be our whole Mediator: prophet, priest, and king. Trust is the faith made tangible, and visible. The demons can believe, but they can never trust; they don't even have the opportunity.

I sometimes use the illustration of a chair. We first learn the chair is present, and what a chair is for. We consider the chair, and the benefit of rest it may supply, and perhaps evaluate its construction. Then, whether greater or less detail, we admit the chair for what its worth. But finally, we must commit to the seat, or else our belief in the chair is incomplete. We trust the chair to hold our weight principally when we put our backside on it and rest our full weight carelessly on its strength to hold us.

In any case, the division of knowledge into head-vs-heart "types" concedes a point which I think should be challenged.

***********************

Eph.2:8-9 tell us that faith (along with everything else spoken of) is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God.

Php.1:29 tells us that it has been granted (gifted, graced) by God to believe. This is the verb cognate to "faith/belief," the noun.

1Cor.2:14 says the natural man is not able to know the things of God. 3:9 says God has made them (believers) whatever they are. 4:7 asks, "What do you have [of spiritual value] that you did not receive?" which answer is: nothing.

Jn.6:65, Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the Father." According to v37, the Father will grant, and those will come.

Jn5:40, Jesus says, "You will not [you refuse] to come to me." None can change his own mind.

Thank you, Reverend Buchanan - I have never considered what constitutes faith, and your illustration has opened a new avenue of study.

The defining of faith certainly does appear to be a more sound avenue. I can definitely see an unbeliever or a non-Reformed person marveling at its depth and thinking "Whoa, there is no way all that can come from me."

Would you mind expounding on the specifics of the "post-modernistic tenet" you mentioned? I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I have a feeling I can learn something about how we should view the thinking of those who hold the modern philosophies we are challenged to refute.

 

[Daniel M.]

Personal anecdote - when I first believed it was in a Pentecostal Church over 30 years ago. I went forward to several altar calls. Aside from the free will stuff I still remember Rom. 10:9 being stressed. For me the most difficult thing of all was "confess Jesus as Lord" because I intuitively understood that "Lord" was not merely a title but it meant that I would be placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And that is a difficult thing for the sin nature which dwells in us to accept. I now have come to believe that one definition of the sin nature is that anything and everything that God is and says, the sin nature is set against it.

I too come from the Pentecostal tradition. My grandparents are still AG Pentecostals, convinced my next big screw up will cost me my salvation.

I can recount with a joyful heart the genuine faith granted many by God in that sphere, but when I think about my own blindness as I blatantly ignored or brushed off important theological questions in favor of experiential nonsense, I can't help but feel embarrassed. Thank God for His timing and purpose.

Thanks for sharing, Keith.