Sunday, May 25, 2008

Romans 10:9-13: Are "Confess" and "Call" Post-Justification? part four

In the last part of this series, I mentioned that Romans 10:9 has a condition represented by the aorist subjunctive with ean with a result the future indicative of sodzo. Since that time, I looked up the same construction varied only by the aorist subjunctive with an, instead of ean. There are four examples of these with the future indicative of sodzo as the result. That enlarges our sample size to 9 examples, and it also gives us some helpful information in understanding Romans 10:9, 13, which greatly buttresses the pre-justification "confess" and "call" view.


If you look at the two charts carefully, you will see a pattern of usage here. When talking about salvation and expressing a condition for salvation with the aorist subjunctive with ean or an, the result is in this lifetime, not something eschatological. I believe they are immediate results. We also can see the aorist relates action that is completed at a point in time, debunking that "call" and "confess" are some post-justification lifestyle espoused by Thomas Ross.

Speaking of the Aorist Subjunctive versus the Present Subjunctive, A. T. Robertson comments on this in his classic, huge grammar (pp. 848, 849): "The contrast between point and linear action comes out simply and clearly here. It is just that seen between the aorist and the imperfect indicative." For those who don't know Greek, when Paul writes "confess with thy mouth," he is speaking of an act that is point action. He does the same in v. 13 when he says, "call upon the name of the Lord." This isn't a durative or linear action in v. 9 and then in v. 13, but punctiliar action. This kind of action does not fit with a lifestyle of confessing and calling. It emphasizes a point in time "confess" and "call" that is corresponds to a pre-justification act.

It is true that on occasion "shalt be saved" is speaking of eschatological salvation, essentially glorification. It is found that way in Romans. However, in these conditional sentences, that isn't what is being communicated, which is why the conditional sentences were used here. These conditions mark a non-eschatological salvation, one that occurs upon the conditions being met, which are not durative conditions, but point-in-time conditions.

9 comments:

Thomas Ross said...

I am thankful for Pastor Brandenburg’s desire to exegete Scripture and get his doctrine from there. That is a great thing, and Baptist fundamentalism would be far better off if all in it sought to get their positions exegetically instead of just assuming they are right all the time. In this, he is greatly to be commended. (This desire to go by Scripture rather than tradition is evident in many highly commendable practices of his church which are not done in far too many others, such as psalm singing.)
Since the first part of this post, dealing with Romans 10:9, makes the same argument as that in Pastor Brandenburg’s post #3, I refer the reader to my reply over there. I don’t believe I need to repeat what was said over there. I am content if those who know Greek read what both of us have written, and consider if the fact that these other three instances don’t, in my view, have the same structure as Romans 10:9 at all is valid. (It is interesting, and something that I providentially came across today in my regular reading of the Greek NT, that Acts 27:31 has ean followed by an aorist subjunctive verb followed by sodzo, and the salvation/physical deliverance in the verse is plainly future, not something that happened instantaneously upon the aorist subjunctive verb happening. I could say more on this, but I actually do not want to countenance the idea that this “pattern” has anything to do with Romans 10:9, because I believe it is unrelated, just about equally unrelated to the examples given in the chart and in Pastor Brandenburg’s post #3, for neither Acts 27:31, nor any of the examples in the first “pattern,” have what Romans 10:9 has, in its two verbs connected by “and” and then a future verb. I could also mention that the “pattern” in the chart does not hold in the LXX; cf. Isa 10:22; 49:24-25; nor in other Koiné Greek, cf. Shepherd of Hermas 39:6. However, this is not at all the main point. The main point is that the “pattern” is not what is in Romans 10:9.). I would encourage the reader who only knows English to see if the three other verses in this “pattern” have two verbs connected by “and” in the condition, or if none of them have what Romans 10:9 contains. I would encourage readers who know Greek well to note that, in the last comment discussion, I demonstrated that both Romans 10:9 and 13 are gnomic, and that all the instances of the Greek word “confess” in the structure of Romans 10:9 are gnomic, as are the great majority of the 45 instances of the structure of Romans 10:13.
The new material in this post is the second chart. Since Romans 10:13 is the verse in question, Acts 2:21 is the same quotation as Romans 10:13, and Mark 8:35 is the same statement by the Lord as Luke 9:24, we have only one independent statement—that of Mark 8:35—to prove this second “pattern” alleged to be in Romans 10:13!
I commend to readers who know Greek a study of the 45 instances of the structure in Romans 10:13 that I listed in my previous post. I believe I proved that the structure of the verse is gnomic, using the 45 examples in the NT. It does not seem wise to me to attempt to create a “pattern” to overthrow what has been observed in 45 verses with one statement, that of Mark 8:35. Pastor Brandenburg commented that “examples of gnomic aorists don’t look like what we see in Romans 10:9, 13.” I commend the reader to my comments on the last post, and encourage him to look up the 45 instances of the structure of Romans 10:13 to see if they are, at least in the overwhelming majority, gnomic. Please also see if, as I, in my mind, proved, the instances of the aorist subjunctive with “confess” found in the NT are all gnomic. I also commend to my reader the evidence I gave from standard Greek syntax works that one would expect a gnomic structure in what one sees in Romans 10:13.
Pastor Brandenburg stated, “people who call and confess pre—justification will continue to call and confess post-justification.” If calling and confessing are saying the sinner’s prayer, does this not indicate that people who are already justified should continue to say the sinner’s prayer over and over again? If not, why does “confess” mean “say the sinner’s prayer” in Romans 10:9, but mean something else (what?) in Romans 10:10?
Please note that Pastor Brandenburg, as far as I can tell, is saying that in Romans 10:10 the verbs indicate a continuing action. Note Romans 10:9-10:
9* 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.
10* For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
It is clear that the “saved/salvation” of v. 9-10 refer to the same thing. Verse 10 is explaining what v. 9 means (“for”). If the “saved” in v. 9 is justification, then the “salvation” of v. 10 is justification. If the “salvation” of v. 10 is justification, then one has to continue to repeatedly pray the sinner’s prayer over and over again before one is justified, since—as both Pastor Brandenburg and I agree—“confess” in v. 10 is a continuing action.
Would it not be better to recognize that the “salvation” of v. 9-14 is ultimate salvation? Pastor Brandenburg admits in this post that this is how the word is used elsewhere in the book of Romans (“ ‘shalt be saved’ is speaking of eschatological salvation, essentially glorification. It is found that way in Romans.”).
I really hope to have the questions I asked in my last (rather lengthy) comment to post #3 answered. In my mind, for example, the fact that the common word “confess” in Scripture never refers to a lost person praying anything in any verse in the Bible—unless Romans 10:9 is the sole exception—is a clear and severe problem with the idea that Romans 10:9 refers to a lost man saying a sinner’s prayer. I hope that we can deal with this and the other questions I brought up about 10:9-10. Until that happens, it is hard for me to even be certain of what exactly Pastor Brandenburg is arguing for in Romans 10:9-10, since some of his affirmations appeared, in my mind, to contradict each other (e. g., some affirmations appeared, to me, to affirm the absolute necessity of confessing words with the mouth to avoid everlasting damnation, while others appeared to argue that this is not the case; it was stated that the sinner’s prayer is faith, but also stated that one can pray it and not have faith, etc.). Other affirmations (e. g., the sinner’s prayer is not a prayer in the theological sense of the word prayer, but only in the connotative sense) are ones that I have never heard of before and do not understand. If we could answer these questions, it would help me greatly to understand exactly what Pastor Brandenburg’s position is, and it might also help alleviate the potentiality of my setting up a straw man, which I do not intend at all to do, but it seems that what has been clear in Pastor Brandenburg’s mind has not made it clearly from his recorded statements into my mind. Of course, this is not necessarily his fault, because my mind is not the sharpest thing ever created at understanding things.
I will present at this point some arguments, which, in my mind, prove Romans 10:13 is the action of a saint, not a lost man. However, I would prefer if we could finish discussing Romans 10:9-11 and deal with the questions I brought up about those verses before we get into Romans 10:12-14. On the other hand, as this is not my blog, I am happy to discuss Romans 10:12-14 at the same time as Romans 10:9-11 if Pastor Brandenburg thinks it is most to the glory of God and the edification of the saints that we do so.
I believe it is appropriate to quote what I wrote in my work on Romans 10:9-14 to demonstrate that v. 13 is not a pre-justification action. I will not reprint the many pages I spent analyzing every instance of calling on the name of the Lord in in the Old and New Testaments, where I demonstrated, in my mind, that every one of these great multitudes of verses refers to the action of a saint, not one of them clearly refers to the action of a lost man, and that people were clearly justified by faith (like Abel) without calling on the Lord (which didn’t start until after he died, Gen 4:26). Of similar weight is the fact, in my view, that Romans 10:14 specifically shows that the calling of v. 13 happens after believing. I refer the reader to my work to study all the “call on the Lord” verses in the OT and NT. The force of the argument will grow upon you if you look them all up. I will reprint other arguments. The reader who is already familiar with what is in my composition on my website may simply stop reading this comment at this point. The reader who has not read my work would do well to read what follows.
The Bible never commands a sinner to pray and ask God to save him; evangelistic imperatives are always to repentant faith (Mark 1:15). Neither the Lord, nor any apostolic soulwinner, tells anyone to pray and ask to go to heaven, promising forgiveness if the lost person sincerely prays. In contrast, almost every modern gospel tract and soulwinning presentation quotes Romans 10:13 and concludes with a command to pray to receive justification. Were prayer necessary for the forgiveness of sins, it is most unfortunate for all who lived before Romans 10:13 was recorded, and all men who lived in the first century in areas far from Rome where access to the letter to the Romans was late in coming; the poor people would have no way to be saved, since all they knew to do from apostolic preaching was repent and believe—the supposed real key to salvation, praying and asking God for forgiveness, this doctrine based almost exclusively upon the solitary testimony of Romans 10:13 (cf. Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians 13:1), would have been hid from them. The jailer at Philippi who asked, “What must I do to be saved?” was told by Paul, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Ac 16:30-31)—today, he would be told to pray for forgiveness instead. A Christian who sought to win souls in the way recorded in the gospels and Acts would be viewed as in need of instruction for leaving out the allegedly essential element of praying for salvation.
Furthermore, for if the true way of salvation is by praying the sinner’s prayer, one must find the way to eternal life by reading modern uninspired books and tracts, since nothing of the kind is found in the book God has specifically inspired to explain the way of salvation, the gospel of John. Under inspiration, John wrote his gospel “that [men] might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing [they] might have life through his name” (John 20:31). However, the modern methodology would require that the apostle did a very poor job. John employs the verb believe (pisteuo) 100 times in his gospel, but he never once commands or even implies that the lost must pray a sinner’s prayer to receive pardon from God. Furthermore, in 1 John, the inspired book written to explain how one can have assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13), having prayed the sinner’s prayer is never mentioned or hinted at. If the modern evangelistic methodology is correct, then the Bible has done a very poor job explaining the way to receive eternal life. People who simply read the Bible without the modern literature would be confused into thinking that all that was required on their part was faith in Christ and His atoning work.
During His three year ministry, the Son of God brought many people to faith in Himself without ever commanding them to pray. (This is not to say that they did not pray to Him; what place prayer can legitimately have in evangelistic methodology will be dealt with below.) Christ said to a sinful woman who, in repentance, came to Him and washed His feet with her hair, “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace” (Luke 7:50, cf. 37-49). The Lord said “her sins, which are many, are forgiven” (v. 47), although no record of her saying a sinner’s prayer is recorded. The Lord said to a Samaritan leper who believed in Him, “thy faith hath made thee whole” (Luke 17:19, cf. 17:15-18), although he had never said a sinner’s prayer. He said to a woman with an issue of blood who, unlike the crowd that surrounded Him physically, came to Him spiritually in faith (cf. John 6:35, 37), “Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole” (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:24-34, Luke 8:43-48), although she had said no sinner’s prayer, or any kind of prayer whatever. The Lord Jesus said “son, thy sins be forgiven thee” to a man sick of the palsy when He “saw their [the sick man’s and his four friends, Mark 2:4] faith” (Mark 2:5, Matthew 9:2, Luke 5:20), with no record of prayer. Zaccheus was converted in a tree (Luke 19:6, 9, cf. 1-10), the Samaritan woman was converted while conversing with the Lord by a well (John 4:1-42), the centurion whose servant Christ healed (Matthew 8:10-13, cf. v. 5-13, Luke 7:1-10), and others, were justified by faith without reciting anything like a sinner’s prayer.
In Acts 10:1-33, Cornelius and “many that were come together” (v. 27) were converted when they believed in Christ while listening to Peter’s sermon. Upon the apostle’s preaching that “whosoever believeth in [Jesus] shall receive remission of sins” (10:43), they trusted the Savior and received the Holy Spirit. When Peter recounted their justification, and the church glorified God over the salvation of these Gentiles, not a word was said about a sinner’s prayer (11:14-18). Peter immersed Cornelius and those with him, recognizing that they were regenerated, although they had said no sinner’s prayer (Acts 10:47-48). The repeated record of conversion in Acts emphasizes that the lost repented and believed the gospel, not that they asked Christ to save them:
Acts 4:4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Note that Philip did not lead the eunuch in a sinner’s prayer).
Acts 9:42 And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Acts 11:21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
Acts 13:12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
Acts 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Acts 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Acts 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Acts 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
Multitudes of people in the Bible were clearly converted without saying a sinner’s prayer. No example is found anywhere in Scripture of a Christian commanding or leading someone to recite one and then telling him that he was justified as a consequence of it. God’s “gospel tract,” the gospel of John, which was written specifically to show how men can have eternal life (John 20:31), employs the verb believe 100 times in 86 verses, but never commands sinners to pray and ask for forgiveness. The modern sinner’s prayer is, indeed, modern—it is not found in the Bible anywhere.
The evidence in the Word of God that “call on the Lord” means “admit you are lost and on your way to hell and ask God or Christ to save you” is as completely absent as are Biblical examples of Christ or the saints leading the lost in sinner’s prayers or commanding them to pray in order to obtain justification. As an examination of the instances of calling on the Lord in Scripture (listed below) demonstrates, other sorts of prayer, such as praying for someone to be healed from physical ailments, asking for a new job, interceding for a backslider, praising and glorifying God, saying grace before meals, and so on, are calling on the Lord. The word “saved” in Romans 10:13 does not refer to justification; 10:14 makes it clear that calling on the Lord is the act of the believer (cf. Luke 18:7) and the evidence of justification, not the means of justification for the unconverted. Even if one concluded that Romans 10:13 stated the means for the lost to receive forgiveness for their sins—were the verse a means of justification for the unconverted—to make “call on the Lord” mean “pray, admit you are lost, and ask God to save you” is to read into the Word of God something it does not declare. If the verse promised that the lost sinner who Biblically “calls on the Lord” received justification, than every sinner who asks God for help in a decision, thanks Him for a meal, prays for the physical healing of another person, or engages in any sort of prayer or petition at all is certain of heaven. . . .
Romans 10:13-15 present, in reverse, the order in which men ultimately enter heaven. The temporal order is send-preach-hear-believe-call-heaven. Men are sent out to preach the gospel, some hear the message, believe it and are justified, and consequently are themselves transformed by it into those who call on the Lord. These enter everlasting glory when they die or at Christ’s return. Verses 16, 17 also evidence that the moment of justification is not at “call,” but at “believe.” To “obey” the gospel is to “believe” it (v. 16). Verse 17 ends the conversion order at “faith,” presenting the word preached, heard, and believed, just as v. 14 presents the order preach-hear-believe. “Calling” in prayer represents the transformed life of the justified saint, whom God will accept, whether Jew or Gentile. . . . An examination of the Biblical uses of epikaleo [“call” in Rom 10:13] demonstrates that nowhere in the NT does calling on the name of the Lord signify a lost, unconverted sinner asking God to save him; the phrase is used of saints praying as a characteristic of their lifestyle, which would include repeated seasons of prayer and periods of time spent praying, not a one-time brief ritual like the “sinner’s prayer.” To state that Romans 10:13 is an example of the phrase speaking of a lost individual praying and asking to be saved as a one time action is to read one’s predetermined view into the text. The natural supposition is that the phrase refers to the same thing it does elsewhere in the New Testament, namely, to the prayers of saints. Very strong contextual evidence would be required to conclude otherwise. However, as already noted, verse 14 specifically states that the calling mentioned is subsequent to belief or faith and consequently to justification. The immediate context, as well as the other references in the New Testament, support the conclusion that Romans 10:13 deals not with those dead in sins praying and asking God to save them as a one time action, but to those alive in Christ praying to their Lord as a characteristic of their new life, an evidence that they will in the future receive the completion of their salvation in God’s everlasting kingdom. . . .
[Note that Romans 10:13 quotes Joel 2:32]. Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
Here we see that prayer characterizes God’s true children. Those who are born of God will call on His name as a characteristic of their lifestyle; here this calling is the action of the elect remnant. These ones are those who will be “delivered,” that is, they will enter into Christ’s millenial kingdom, rather than being put to death like all the ungodly. The word “delivered” in Joel 2:32, the Hebrew verb malat in the Niphal form, is used of physical deliverance from death in: Genesis 19:17, 19, 20, 22; Judges 3:26, 29; 1 Samuel 19:10, 12, 17, 18; 22:1, 20; 23:13; 27:1; 30:17; 2 Samuel 1:3; 4:6; 1 Kings 18:40; 19:17; 20:20; 2 Kings 10:24; 19:37; 2 Chronicles 16:7; Job 1:15, 16, 17, 19; Psalm 124:7; Proverbs 19:5; Isaiah 20:6; 37:38; Jeremiah 32:4; 34:3; 38:18; 41:15; 46:6; 48:8, 19; Ezekiel 17:15, 18; Daniel 11:41 (in all of the above it is translated by a form of “escape”); and in Job 22:30; Psalm 22:5; Proverbs 11:21; 28:26; Isaiah 49:24, 25; Ezekiel 17:15; Daniel 12:1; Joel 2:32; Amos 9:1; Zecheriah 2:7; and Malachi 3:15 (all a form of “deliver”). The only other references to this verb in the Niphal are 1 Sam 20:29 (“get away”) and Ecc 7:26 (“escape”); in both of these verses the idea of escaping in relation to the sparing of physical life is contextually alluded to. All of these references are quite clear; only the references in Proverbs and Job 22:30 might give someone a cause for argument, but here objections would not be sustained. None of these verses refer to the act of justification and the receipt of spiritual salvation. Joel 2:28 informs us that those who have had their sins forgiven and consequently have a life characterized by prayer will enter the Millenium; it is the same idea as that of the deliverance of those who are both the spiritual and physical seed of Abraham in Daniel 12:1, where, as noted in the list above, we also have a Niphal form of malat. Furthermore, when Joel 2:32 states that “in Jerusalem shall be deliverance,” the word rendered “deliverance,” Hebrew peleytah, refers to physical deliverance in all twenty-eight of its appearances in the Old Testament (Genesis 32:8; 45:7; Exodus 10:5; Judges 21:17; 2 Samuel 15:14; 2 Kings 19:30, 31; 1 Chronicles 4:43; 2 Chronicles 12:7; 20:24; 30:6; Ezekiel 9:8, 13, 14, 15; Nehemiah 1:2; Isaiah 4:2; 10:20; 15:9; 37:31, 32; Jeremiah 25:35; 50:29; Ezekiel 14:22; Daniel 11:42; Joel 2:3, 32; Obadiah 17). Furthermore, this “deliverance” is in “mount Zion and in Jerusalem . . . and in the remnant.” To make the “deliverance” a reference to the forgiveness of sins, rather than physical strength to defeat Antichrist’s armies (cf. Zech 12:8), would mean that Tribulation saints, “the remnant,” would be able to absolve men of iniquity, after the pretended manner of Popish priests. The verse necessarily deals with the physical defeat of the Antichrist’s armies, when the elect remnant will enter Christ’s physical kingdom— it does not declare that anyone, Jew or Gentile, is justified by praying to God.
Paul does not take Joel 2:32 out of context when he quotes it in Romans 10:13. The New Testament passage proves that those who are God’s people, people of prayer, will enter His future kingdom, just as Joel intended.

May the Lord use this discussion to lead His people—including me—into a greater understanding of His truth, that we may love Him more with our minds and hearts, and more effectively preach Him to the lost.

Kent Brandenburg said...

A few things about Brother Ross' "answer" to this post. First, I loved that he found Acts 27:31. It isn't the same exact construction, which explains why I didn't find it. It is the aorist passive infinitive of sodzo, not the future indicative of sodzo. However, even as a conditional sentence, the aorist subjunctive with ean, it shows a condition that is met by an immediate fulfillment. You should judge for youself. He said he didn't want to show it, because it wasn't a pattern. Hmmmmmm. On top of that, you should just believe that it isn't immediate fulfillment. Well, let's look at that one.

"Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved."

Here's the explanation, and I think it is quite simple. If they left the ship, on that occasion, on that particular sailing at that particular time, that is, immediately, they would not be saved.

It is not an eschatological salvation.

Brother Ross says that it is not a pattern. Why? Because he says so. Why? Because he says so. And then a third time. Because he says so. I can't quite wrap my brain around that being a good reason. I would rather believe the 9 uses, and now if you want to count this tenth one, one that he fails to tell you has an aorist infinitive, which one could understand being much different than a future indicative.

A lot of the rest of it is a huge smoke screen, a huge strawman, a gigantic red herring. No one said that confessing Jesus as Lord was "asking God for forgiveness." Who actually said that? Have you heard me say that? Did I write that in this post? No. So what is he talking about?


He gives some wonderful stuff about believing being all over John. Great! Who says it isn't? That's the same argument the Hyles guys use against repentance, the very same argument. In the Spirit of his Catholic parallel with Adam Clarke, I parallel Thomas Ross with Hyles. Let me know how useful that is.

By the way, I'm not to v. 14 yet, because I'm actually taking this a little bit of a time. I think you can follow that. The only reason I even referred to Romans 10:13 here is because it was one of the aorist subjunctive examples. I couldn't help it that it was in the same context, which happens to help this argument.

I know Bro. Ross wants to get to Rom. 10:13, but I'm not really there yet. But he is already in Joel 2:32 and says that it is talking about the prayer life of a believer. You read Joel 2:32 and you tell me if when you read "call" there, you are thinking that we are reading about believers who are involved in a prayer life that results in physical deliverance (BUT NOT SPIRITUAL!!!). I'm not too that verse yet, but this is a rather easy call. I have a long ways to go to get to the number of pages of his paper, but I still have a lot to say. This is still looking at this pattern.

The Hebrew word for deliverance in Joel 2:32 sometimes means physical deliverance. Sometimes salvation speaks of physical salvation. Sometimes justified means vindicated like in James 2. The difference between his pattern, the pattern that he is looking at, the pattern that he sees, is that there exceptions in his pattern. In this aorist subjunctive with ean or an, there are none. It is never eschatological deliverance, and that was the only point I was looking at. Since it isn't ever eschatological deliverance in the now very much larger sample size (10 witnesses) that stands in addition the many other things I'm going to deal with, as some devastating proof.

Regarding my answering his question about confession, it is true that this is my blog and I choose to write posts that deal with it in the order I wish, not when he wants an answer. I think that is fairly understandable.

Anonymous said...

Bro. Ross,

Shalt thou "covet" Bro. Kent's Blog??

That, Sir would be a sin.

Blessings,
ILA

Thomas Ross said...

COMMENTING ON ACTS 27, PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:
Here's the explanation, and I think it is quite simple. If they left the ship, on that occasion, on that particular sailing at that particular time, that is, immediately, they would not be saved.



I DON’T THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE INSTANTANEOUSLY DROWNED THE MOMENT THE SAILORS LEFT THE SHIP. THEY WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN SAVED AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT WHEN THE SHIP WENT DOWN.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

Brother Ross says that it is not a pattern. Why? Because he says so. Why? Because he says so. And then a third time. Because he says so. I can't quite wrap my brain around that being a good reason.

I AM SORRY THAT MY WRITING WAS NOT CLEAR ON MY REASONS WHY IT IS NOT A PATTERN. I HAVE TRIED TO BE CLEAR, BUT I SEEM TO NOT HAVE BEEN SO. BRIEFLY, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE EXAMPLES TO ESTABLISH THE “PATTERN” HAVE TWO CONDITIONS LIKE ROMANS 10:9 DOES. I CUT AND PASTE BELOW FROM PREVIOUS COMMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE TO THOSE WHO WISH TO SEE MY REASONING. I HAD PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN:

NONE OF THESE FOUR VERSES HAS SYNTAX IDENTICAL TO ROMANS 10:9, OR EVEN A PATTERN OF EAN + AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE VERB + KAI + AOR SUB. VERB + FUTURE PASSIVE INDICATIVE VERB.

THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL REASON THAT THE “PATTERN” FOR ROMANS 10:9 DOES NOT EXIST.

FURTHERMORE, WE ARE ASSUMING A TEMPORAL SEQUENCE IN THE WORDS “AND” IN JOHN 10:9. I HAD WRITTEN:

THE “AND”’S IN JOHN 10:9 ARE NOT NECESSARILY TEMPORALLY SUBSEQUENT. DO WE REALLY THINK THAT JOHN 10:9 SAYS: FIRST IN TIME, BE SAVED. SECOND IN TIME, GO IN AND OUT. THIRD IN TIME, FIND PASTURE? THEY EACH ARE CONNECTED WITH “AND.” SO THE SHEEP DON’T HAVE PASTURE UNTIL THEY GO IN AND OUT A FEW TIMES?

I DON’T RECALL EVER SEEING A PLACE WHERE A TEMPORAL SEQUENCE OT THE “AND”’S WAS DEFENDED. THERE ARE ALSO PROBLEMS WITH OTHER REASONS.

IT SEEMS VERY ODD TO ME AS WELL TO TAKE TWO DIFFERENT GREEK PHRASES (ROMANS 10:9, 13) AND ASSUME THAT THE WORDS “AN” AND “EAN” ARE INTERCHANGEABLE, SO THAT A “PATTERN” WILL HOLD FOR EITHER ONE—BUT THEN ASSUME THAT THIS “PATTERN” WILL NOT HOLD UP WITH OTHER GREEK VERBS IN THE FUTURE TENSE (FOR EXAMPLE, MARK 8:38 HAS THE SAME GREEK SYNTAX AS MARK 8:35, BUT THE “PATTERN” OF INSTANT FULFILLMENT OF THE FUTURE TENSE VERB DOES NOT HOLD THREE VERSES BELOW MARK 8:35) NEGLECT TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THE WORD “CONFESS” NEVER REFERS TO A LOST PERSON PRAYING ANYTHING, ETC. I HOPE THAT THE ARGUMENTS I GAVE IN POST #3 WILL BE EXAMINED.

THIS WAS SOMETHING I THOUGHT ABOUT AS WELL IN RESPONSE TO PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S COMMENT ABOUT THE PASSAGES NOT BEING GNOMIC STATEMENTS. (IT’S NOT IN CAPS AS I WROTE IT BEFORE RIGHT NOW, BUT HADN’T POSTED IT YET):
Please note that if one takes away the ean/an + aorist subjunctive as a possibility, because of this “pattern” [IN ROMANS 10:9] the standard way that a gnomic idea is expressed in Greek is eliminated. I would be interested in finding out what Pastor Brandenburg thinks the appropriate way is in Greek to say what I believe Romans 10:9 says. The syntax of Romans 10:13 is certainly what one commonly finds to express a gnomic idea. I think both verses say exactly what one would express to make a gnomic statement. I am not sure how this idea is supposed to be expressed without extreme and unnecessary wordiness if the “pattern” Pastor Brandenburg believes proves that the confessing is pre-justification means that Paul cannot express a gnomic idea using the Greek syntax that is actually found in Romans 10:9.

I LOOK FORWARD TO FINDING OUT HOW PAUL COULD HAVE EXPRESSED A GNOMIC IDEA, IF THE WAY IT IS DONE COMMONLY IN SCRIPTURE (AN + AOR. SUBJ)., IS REMOVED.


PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

A lot of the rest of it is a huge smoke screen, a huge strawman, a gigantic red herring. No one said that confessing Jesus as Lord was "asking God for forgiveness." Who actually said that? Have you heard me say that? Did I write that in this post? No. So what is he talking about?




THIS ILLUSTRATES WHY I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE PASTOR BRANDENBURG TO CAREFULLY DEFINE WHAT HE MEANS BY A SINNER’S PRAYER AND HOW IT RELATES TO HIS ORDO SALUTIS. I HAVE DIFFICULTY INTERACTING WITH A POSITION THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED. I NOW KNOW WHAT I DID NOT KNOW BEFORE HE WROTE THIS—THE SINNER’S PRAYER IS NOT, IT SEEMS, “ASKING GOD FOR FORGIVENESS.” (I HOPE THAT, IN A FUTURE COMMENT OR POST, HE WILL EXPLAIN WHY SAYING “PLEASE SAVE ME, LORD. COME INTO MY LIFE AND TAKE CONTROL” OR SOME SIMILAR THING IS NOT ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS, AND WHY IT IS NOT THIS.) I HAVE ALSO FOUND OUT THAT IT IS NOT A PRAYER IN THE THEOLOGICAL SENSE, BUT ONLY IN THE CONNOTATIVE SENSE, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN. I HAVE NO IDEA IF CONFESSING WITH THE MOUTH IS FAITH, AND SO ALL WHO FAIL TO DO IT ARE DAMNED BECAUSE ALL WITHOUT FAITH ARE DAMNED, JOHN 3:18, OR IF CONFESSING WITH THE MOUTH IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO FAITH, BUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT ONE CAN DO WITHOUT FAITH, FOR BOTH PROPOSITIONS, SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY IN MY MIND, HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED, AND AS I WROTE BEFORE:

I really hope to have the questions I asked in my last (rather lengthy) comment to post #3 answered. In my mind, for example, the fact that the common word “confess” in Scripture never refers to a lost person praying anything in any verse in the Bible—unless Romans 10:9 is the sole exception—is a clear and severe problem with the idea that Romans 10:9 refers to a lost man saying a sinner’s prayer. I hope that we can deal with this and the other questions I brought up about 10:9-10. Until that happens, it is hard for me to even be certain of what exactly Pastor Brandenburg is arguing for in Romans 10:9-10, since some of his affirmations appeared, in my mind, to contradict each other (e. g., some affirmations appeared, to me, to affirm the absolute necessity of confessing words with the mouth to avoid everlasting damnation, while others appeared to argue for something else; it was stated that the sinner’s prayer is faith, but also stated that one can pray it and not have faith, etc.). Other affirmations (e. g., the sinner’s prayer is not a prayer in the theological sense of the word prayer, but only in the connotative sense) are ones that I have never heard of before and do not understand. If we could answer these questions, it would help me greatly to understand exactly what Pastor Brandenburg’s position is, and it might also help alleviate the potentiality of my setting up a straw man, which I do not intend at all to do, but it seems that what has been clear in Pastor Brandenburg’s mind has not made it clearly from his recorded statements into my mind. Of course, this is not necessarily his fault, because my mind is not the sharpest thing ever created at understanding things.

I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY AND EXACTLY WHAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG MEANS IN ROMANS 10:9-10. I HOPE WE CAN HAVE A POST, OR A COMMENT, SOON THAT SPECIFICALLY LAYS OUT WHAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG MEANS BY A SINNER’S PRAYER, WHAT HOW IT IS NOT A THEOLOGICAL PRAYER BUT A CONNOTATIVE PRAYER, WHAT THIS DISTINCTION IS, WHAT HE MEANS BY “FAITH” BEING A SINNER’S PRAYER, THE EXEGETICAL CASE FOR DEFINING “FAITH” AS EVERYTHING A LOST PERSON DOES BEFORE HE GETS SAVED AS HE STRIVES TO ENTER IN, SO THAT THE LOST MAN GETTING CAST OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUE IN JOHN 9 IS NOT WORKING BUT FAITH ALONE, WHEN REGENERATION HAPPENS WHILE SAYING THE PRAYER, ETC. I BELIEVE THIS WOULD GREATLY ASSIST US IN AVOIDING MY, AS IT SEEMS, ALL TOO FREQUENTLY CAUSING OFFENSE BY NOT KNOWING WHAT EXACTLY PASTOR BRANDENBURG BELIEVES, TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT, AND GUESSING WRONG.

I THINK IT ALSO ILLUSTRATES THE VALUE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING. SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS PASTOR BRANDENBURG IS MAKING SEEM TO BE VERY CLEAR IN HIS MIND AND KEY TO HIM, BUT, WHILE HE HAS AFFIRMED THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WHOLE ISSUE MANY TIMES BEFORE, I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE GREAT MAJORITY OF WHAT HE IS SAYING AS AN ARGUMENT FOR HIS POSITION (THEOLOGICAL/CONNOTATIVE PRAYER; SINNER’S PRAYER IS NOT ASKING GOD FOR FORGIVENESS; PATTERN IN ROMANS 10:9; ETC.) FROM HIM OR ANYONE ELSE IN MY LIFE. I SUSPECT THAT, WHILE THEY APPEAR TO BE VERY CLEAR IN HIS MIND, 99%+ OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE LOST PEOPLE ARE JUSTIFIED THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF SAYING THE SINNER’S PRAYER HAVE ALSO NEVER HEARD OF PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S ARGUMENTS, AND I HAVE NEVER READ THEM IN ANY COMMENTARY ON ROMANS TEN, SO IT WILL BE GOOD TO FIND OUT WHAT EXACTLY THEY MEAN.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

He gives some wonderful stuff about believing being all over John. Great! Who says it isn't? That's the same argument the Hyles guys use against repentance, the very same argument.

ONE CAN SEE IN THE CONTEXT OF JOHN THAT FAITH INVOLVES REPENTANCE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN JOHN 3 ALONE, WHILE ONE DOES NOT SEE THE NEW BIRTH, ONE SEES ITS RESULTS (JOHN 3:8), AND THOSE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE WILL FOLLOW LIGHT, NOT DARKNESS (JOHN 3:19-21). “EVERY ONE” THAT IS SAVED WILL FOLLOW THE LIGHT AS A RESULT OF THEIR NEW NATURE (JOHN 3:20-21). WHERE DOES JOHN 3 IDENTIFY CONFESSING WORDS WITH ONE’S MOUTH AS A PREREQUSITE TO JUSTIFICATION? WHERE DOES JOHN’S GOSPEL TEACH OR IMPLY THAT ONE MUST SAY A SINNER’S PRAYER? IF GOD’S “GOSPEL TRACT,” THE BOOK OF JOHN, DOES NOT TEACH A SINNER’S PRAYER METHODOLOGY, SHOULD WE DO SO? I TRUST AS WELL THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG WILL DEAL WITH MY EXPLANATION IN RESPONSE TO POST #3 THAT SHOWED WHY REPENTANCE AND FAITH ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN, BUT SAYING THE SINNER’S PRAYER DOES NOT AT ALL FIT IN THE SAME CATEGORY.


PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

You read Joel 2:32 and you tell me if when you read "call" there, you are thinking that we are reading about believers who are involved in a prayer life that results in physical deliverance (BUT NOT SPIRITUAL!!!).

PLEASE NOTE THAT I BELIEVE THAT ALL WHO ENTER THE MILLENIAL KINGDOM ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN JUSTIFIED, AND NO ONE ELSE. NONETHELESS, THE WORD USED IN JOEL 2:32 IS NEVER USED FOR JUSTIFICATION. JOEL 2:32, AND ROMANS 10:13, AFFIRM THAT THOSE WHO ARE PEOPLE WHO CALL ON THE LORD WILL ENTER THE MILLENIAL KINGDOM. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING AS WELL:

this “deliverance” is in “mount Zion and in Jerusalem . . . and in the remnant.” To make the “deliverance” a reference to the forgiveness of sins, rather than physical strength to defeat Antichrist’s armies (cf. Zech 12:8), would mean that Tribulation saints, “the remnant,” would be able to absolve men of iniquity, after the pretended manner of Popish priests. The verse necessarily deals with the physical defeat of the Antichrist’s armies, when the elect remnant will enter Christ’s physical kingdom— it does not declare that anyone, Jew or Gentile, is justified by praying to God.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

The Hebrew word for deliverance in Joel 2:32 sometimes means physical deliverance. Sometimes salvation speaks of physical salvation. Sometimes justified means vindicated like in James 2. The difference between his pattern, the pattern that he is looking at, the pattern that he sees, is that there exceptions in his pattern.

I TRUST THAT WE WILL FIND OUT WHAT THE EXCEPTIONS ARE IN JOEL 2:32. I HAVE FOUND NONE OF THEM WHEN I LOOKED UP ALL THE REFERENCES. THUS, I BELIEVE THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO WHAT I SAID ON JOEL 2:32, I HAVE MANY EXAMPLES, AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE USE OF ONE WORD, NOT ABOUT TAKING ONE FAR MORE COMPLEX SYNTACTICAL STRUCTURE AND COMPARING IT TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS NOT THE SAME BUT SUPPOSEDLY CLOSE ENOUGH TO CREATE A PATTERN WITH A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF EXAMPLES.

PLEASE NOTE AS WELL THAT WE ONLY GET TO TEN EXAMPLES OF THE “PATTERN” IF WE INCLUDE THE VERSES IN QUESTION, ROMANS 10:9, 13, WHICH LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT IS BEGGING THE QUESTION, INCLUDE TWO DIFFERENT GREEK FORMS, SINCE ROMANS 10:9 AND 13 DON’T HAVE THE SAME GREEK FORMS, INCLUDE REPEATED UTTERANCES THAT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME IN DIFFENT GOSPEL ACCOUNTS AS MULTIPLE USES, ETC. WE HAVE ZERO EXAMPLES OF IS EAN + AOR SUB VERB + AND + AOR SUB VERB + FUT INDIC VERB [SODZO]—WHAT WE HAVE IN ROMANS 10:9. SINCE ZERO EXAMPLES IN THE “PATTERN” HAVE WHAT ROMANS 10:9 HAS, I DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY PATTERN AT ALL THAT CAN BE ESTABLISHED.
PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE NOT, TO THIS POINT, DEALT WITH SEVERAL PATTERNS THAT I THINK HAVE FAR MORE EXAMPLES AND FAR BETTER SYNTACTICAL EVIDENCE THAT FAVOR MY VIEW, WHICH I MENTIONED IN MY COMMENTS TO POST #3.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE READER TO THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT WHAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG IS SAYING ABOUT DEBATE TACTICS AND MY POSITION. IF, DEAR READER, YOU BELIEVE THAT I AM DELIBERATELY ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD YOU AND DISTORT WHAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG IS SAYING, YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS A STRONG NEGATIVE FOR MY POSITION.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Like I said, I'll deal with this in order, in my timing. I do feel sorry for Brother Ross, to some degree, that he wants it in his timing, but I do believe that I'm dealing with this in a reasonable order. Right now it is the aorist subjunctive pattern that I have dealt with.

He says that he wants an answer about the gnomic aorist. I don't think we can fully trust Greek Grammar and Syntax books. Many times the theology of the author affects his syntax. I think we should attempt to recognize when this occurs. This surely occurs with both Daniel Wallace and A. T. Robertson. They are scholarly, yet fallible men. However, that being said, this is a little easier to figure out objectively. Wallace says this about the gnomic aorist (p. 562): "The aorist indicative is occasionally used to present a timeless, general fact." This is not an aorist indicative, but an aorist subjunctive. A gnomic should like something that is customary. Wallace gives two examples and both read like this.

Matt. 23:2---Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.

1 Peter 1:24---Grass withers and the flower fades.

The subjunctive, by nature, isn't customary. It is a condition of possibility or probability, but not custom.

Brother Ross talks like it is my responsibility to tell him what I mean by "confess," but until I do, he gets to make any accusation he wishes as to what I believe that it means. How does that sound?

His word order argument about my pattern makes zero point. I think the word order matters, but it doesn't matter regarding the point that I'm making. We have 10 conditional sentences. They have the aorist subjunctive in the protasis and the future indicative of sodzo in the apodosis.

John 10:9 gives the immediate result---in/out, pasture, immediate privileges as one of the sheep. This isn't difficult.

If the men leave the boat, Paul says, they'll drown. They won't drown in some future storm, but that immediate storm.

Brother Ross says that homologeo never ever is prayer. Never. There are 23 instances of that lemma in the NT. We could call it a small sample size, because sometimes God is the subject, sometimes it is believing men, and sometimes it is even unbelieving men. A text that immediately comes to mind is 1 John 1:9, where I know it is homologeo. Is confession of sin there not prayer in the sense of talking to God?

I've already said that I'll deal with this in good time.

Brother Ross says that he has never ever read what I say in a book. I'll show that isn't true. He doesn't present what they say from books, but he has read it. I do believe that he develops a kind of amnesia about it later, for anything that doesn't support his position. He's read it though, because I've given him copies of it. He proceeds to ignore it and then not include it or deal with it in his presentation (which is unscholarly), but he has read it.

Thomas Ross said...

I HAVE SOME MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS FIRST, AND THEN BELOW THEM A REWRITTEN SECTION DEALING WITH THE GREEK OF ROMANS 10:9 & 13.

Like I said, I'll deal with this in order, in my timing. I do feel sorry for Brother Ross, to some degree, that he wants it in his timing, but I do believe that I'm dealing with this in a reasonable order. Right now it is the aorist subjunctive pattern that I have dealt with.

I AM GLAD THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAS BEGUN TO ANSWER CERTAIN OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED IN REPLY #5.


PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

However, that being said, this is a little easier to figure out objectively. Wallace says this about the gnomic aorist (p. 562): "The aorist indicative is occasionally used to present a timeless, general fact." This is not an aorist indicative, but an aorist subjunctive.

PLEASE NOTE THAT EVERY EXAMPLE IN ALL THE ASPECTUAL CATEGORIES IN WALLACE ON THE AORIST (AND PROBABLY ON THE OTHER TENSES; I DIDN’T CHECK THE OTHERS) INVOLVES THE INDICATIVE MOOD. WE WOULD NOT WANT TO CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT THERE ARE NO ASPECTUAL SIGNIFICANCES TO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE INDICATIVE, OF COURSE. WHETHER ONE WISHED TO CONSIDER THE VERBS AS GNOMIC OR AS CONSTATIVE (THE MOST COMMON AORIST USE, OF COURSE), IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE DECLARATION THAT THESE VERSES ARE SIMPLY AFFIRMING THE FACT THAT WHOEVER FULFILLS THESE CONDITIONS WILL RECEIVE THE RESULT STATED, SALVATION, WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE INTERNAL NATURE OF THE ACTIONS AS CONTINUING OR NON-CONTINUOUS ACTION. I DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS SENSE IS WHAT ONE FINDS ELSEWHERE. PLEASE NOTE THAT, IN THE RE-WRITTEN SECTION AT THE END OF THIS POST, I HAVE CHANGED MY VIEW TO CONSIDER THAT THE AORISTS ARE CONSTATIVE RATHER THAN GNOMIC. I THANK PASTOR BRANDENBURG FOR MAKING ME THINK THROUGH THIS MORE DEEPLY AND COME TO WHAT IS, I BELIEVE, THE CORRECT POSITION ON THE TYPE OF AORISTS INVOLVED. THERE IS A GNOMIC IDEA, THOUGH, IN ROMANS 10:11, AND THE SENSE OF THE CONSTATIVE AORISTS IN ROMANS 10:9, 13 APPROXIMATE THAT OF THE GNOMIC PRESENT IN V. 11, I BELIEVE. PLEASE NOTE IN RELATION TO GNOMIC VERBS, FROM WALLACE’S GRAMMAR:

A gnomic verb typically takes a generic subject or object. Most generics will be subjects (but note the first example below). Further, the present participle, especially in such formulaic expression as pas + ho + present participle and the like, routinely belong here (pg. 524)

There is a second kind of gnomic, slightly different in definition: the use of the present in generic statements to describe something that is true any time (pg. 524)

One key is to add as a general, timeless fact. But this does not cover all situations. Another rule of thumb is to translate the verb as does rather than is doing. Further, one should especially note whether the subject is generic (a common key is the indefinite pronoun tis, substantival participle [especially with pas], or a substantival adjective). (pg. 524)

ONE WHO READS THE ABOVE NOTES THAT IT FITS ROMANS 10:11 VERY WELL, AND IT ALSO FITS THE IDEA OF BOTH ROMANS 10:9 AND 10:13.

PLEASE NOTE AS WELL THAT WALLACE SAYS THE FOLLOWING ABOUT ROMANS 10:9:

One way to look at this text is to consider the confession with the mouth as the ground or evidence upon which the inference “you shall be saved” is based. But it is not the cause. The cause is in the second part of the condition, “If you believe in your heart. . . .” It is not necessary to treat each protasis as bearing the same relationship to the apodosis. (PG. 686)

MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9 IS THUS AFFIRMED AS TRUE BY DANIEL WALLACE IN WHAT IS BY FAR THE THE MOST WIDELY USED GREEK SYNTAX BOOK IN THE UNITED STATES.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG ALSO WROTE:


The subjunctive, by nature, isn't customary. It is a condition of possibility or probability, but not custom.

THIS SENTENCE CONFUSES MOOD (SUBJUNCTIVE/INDICATIVE/OPTATIVE, ETC.) WITH ASPECT AS PART OF TENSE (CONSTATIVE, PROGRESSIVE, GNOMIC, ETC.). THESE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FIELDS OF GRAMMAR. I WOULD OVERLOOK THIS IF IT WAS A TYPO, BUT I DON’T SEE HOW IT COULD BE A TYPO.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

Brother Ross talks like it is my responsibility to tell him what I mean by "confess," but until I do, he gets to make any accusation he wishes as to what I believe that it means. How does that sound?

I AM THANKFUL THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAS STARTED TO DEFINE WHAT HE MEANS BY “CONFESS” IN PART 5 (WHICH I HAVE NOT YET ANALYZED, JUST LOOKED OVER RELATIVELY QUICKLY). WHILE, NOW THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG IS STARTING TO STATE WHAT HE THINKS “CONFESS” MEANS, WE CAN MORE REASONABLY DISCUSS THE ISSUE, I DO NOT THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT VIEW MY STATEMENT THAT A SINNER’S PRAYER IS ASKING GOD FOR FORGIVENESS IN THE MANNER THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG DID WHEN HE WROTE:

A lot of the rest of it is a huge smoke screen, a huge strawman, a gigantic red herring. No one said that confessing Jesus as Lord was "asking God for forgiveness." Who actually said that? Have you heard me say that? Did I write that in this post? No.

I HAD NEVER HEARD, AS FAR AS I CAN REMEMBER, OF ANYONE WHO ESPOUSED A SINNER’S PRAYER METHODOLOGY WHO SAID THAT SAYING THE PRAYER DID NOT INVOLVE ASKING GOD FOR FORGIVENESS, I HAD NO IDEA THAT MY DECLARATION THAT THIS WAS INVOLVED IN THE SINNER’S PRAYER WOULD BE VIEWED AS AN ACCUSATION. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S REPUDIATION OF ASKING GOD FOR FORGIVENESS IN SAYING THE SINNER’S PRAYER PUTS HIM IN THE VAST MINORITY OF ADVOCATES OF SAYING THE SINNER’S PRAYER. IF A READER OF THIS COMMENT HAS HEARD ANYONE ELSE ARGUE THAT THE SINNER’S PRAYER DOES NOT INVOLVE ASKING GOD TO FORGIVE ONE’S SINS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE SUCH A ONE TO COMMENT ON THIS SECTION AND STATE THIS.


PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE, IN RELATION TO MY RESPONSE TO HIS ALLEGED “PATTERN” ARGUMENT IN ROMANS 10:9:

His word order argument about my pattern makes zero point.

IT IS KEY TO PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S POSITION THAT BOTH “CONFESS” AND “BELIEVE” IN ROMANS 10:9 HAPPEN AT THE SAME INSTANT, AND THAT THE “SAVED” IN THE VERSE ALSO HAPPENS AT THE SAME INSTANT. THAT NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF HIS “PATTERN” HAS TWO CONDITIONS IN ITS FIRST SECTION (PROTASIS) MAKES THE “PATTERN” IRRELEVENT FOR ROMANS 10:9. EVEN IF ONE SAID THERE WAS SUCH A “PATTERN” AS HE AFFIRMS IN ROMANS 10:9—WHICH THERE IS NOT—IT WOULD BE A BETTER ARGUMENT FOR THE “BELIEVE” HAPPENING AT THE SAME MOMENT AS THE “SAVED” IN THE VERSE, FOR THE “BELIEVE” IS THE CONDITIONAL VERB THAT ACTUALLY COMES BEFORE THE FUTURE INDICATIVE “SAVED.” THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF GRAMMATICAL LEAPS ONE MUST MAKE TO CREATE HIS “PATTERN” AND MAKE IT RELEVENT TO PROVE HIS SINNER’S PRAYER POSITION.
1.) THE FACT THAT NOT ONE EXAMPLE IN THE “PATTERN” ACTUALLY HAS TWO CONDITIONS, LIKE ROMANS 10:9 DOES, DOES NOT MATTER—ROMANS 10:9 FITS THE “PATTERN” ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT LIKE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF THE “PATTERN.”
2.) THE “PATTERN” PROVES THAT BOTH VERBS IN ROMANS 10:9’S CONDITION TAKE PLACE AT THE SAME MOMENT. IT DOES THIS ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF THE “PATTERN” WITH TWO VERBS IN THE CONDITION.
3.) THE ACTUAL SYNTAX OF ROMANS 10:9, WITH TWO AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE VERBS CONNECTED BY “AND” AND FOLLOWED BY A FUTURE INDICATIVE VERB, DOES NOT INFLUENCE OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE PASSAGE. ALTHOUGH THE “PATTERN” DOES NOT EXIST IF ONE ACTUALLY LOOKS AT THE INSTANCES OF THIS STUCTURE IN THE NT, ONE CAN LOOK AT A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE THAN WHAT ROMANS 10:9 HAS AND ESTABLISH A PATTERN FOR IT THAT IS NOT PRESENT IF ONE ACTUALLY LOOKS AT THE STRUCTURE FOUND IN THE VERSE.
4.) THE FACT MUST BE NEGLECTED THAT THE “PATTERN” HAS ONLY THREE EXAMPLES INDEPENDENT OF ROMANS 10:9.
5.) WE CAN ADD TO THE NUMBER OF ALLEGED EXAMPLES OF THE “PATTERN” BY LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT CONDITIONAL STATEMENT, THAT IN ROMANS 10:13. ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT EVEN HAVE THE SAME CONDITIONAL PARTICLE (AN VS. EAN), AND SO IT DOESN’T EVEN FIT THE “PATTERN,” WE CAN USE IT TO PROVE THE “PATTERN.”
6.) WHILE WE CAN USE A STRUCTURE WITH A GREEK “AN” (ROMANS 10:13) TO PROVE SOMETHING WITH A VERY DIFFERENT CONDITIONAL STRUCTURE IN ROMANS 10:9 (“EAN,” TWO VERBS, ETC.), THE 45 EXAMPLES OF THE EXACT SYNTAX OF ROMANS 10:13 ARE NOT GOING TO BE EMPLOYED FOR OUR HERMENEUTICS. THE 45 EXAMPLES WOULD SUPPORT A GNOMIC VIEW OF THE TEXT, BUT WE WILL CONCLUDE ROMANS 10:13 IS NOT GNOMIC.
7.) WE CAN SAY THERE ARE FOUR EXAMPLES OF PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S “AN” “PATTERN” OF ROMANS 10:13 BY ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION, AND THUS INCLUDING ROMANS 10:13 ITSELF AND ANOTHER QUOTE FROM JOEL 2:32, ACTS 2:21, AND TAKING TWO ONE STATEMENT FROM CHRIST RECORDED TWICE. THUS, ASSUMING THE WHAT IS TO BE PROVED AND ONE STATEMENT FROM CHRIST BECOMES A “PATTERN” OF FOUR EXAMPLES.
8.) THE ROMANS 10:9 “PATTERN” DOES NOT EXIST IN OTHER KOINE GREEK, SUCH AS THE LXX OR THE APOSTOLIC PATRISTICS.

I COULD KEEP GOING, BUT I BELIEVE THESE ARE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE WHY I BELIEVE THERE IS NO SUCH “PATTERN.” I AM NOT PLANNING TO COMMENT ON IT FURTHER, UNLESS THERE IS A STRONG NECESSITY TO DO SO. THE LAST THING I’LL SAY IS WHAT IS BELOW, SINCE IT IS NEW. PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:


If the men leave the boat, Paul says, they'll drown. They won't drown in some future storm, but that immediate storm.

BUT WOULD THEY DROWN INSTANTANEOUSLY? NO. THEY WOULD DROWN AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. ALSO, I AM ALSO NOT SURE IN ACTS 27 IF THE STORM IS STILL EVEN GOING ON AT THAT POINT, OR IF IT WAS THEN OVER. PERHAPS IT WAS STILL GOING ON, BUT, AGAINST THAT POSITION, THEY WERE ABLE TO PUT ANCHORS OUT, KEEP FOOD IN THEIR STOMACHS UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS 14 DAYS WHEN THEY HAD BEEN PITCHING AROUND SO BADLY THAT THEY WOULD REGURITATE IT, ETC.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

Brother Ross says that homologeo never ever is prayer. Never. . . . A text that immediately comes to mind is 1 John 1:9, where I know it is homologeo. Is confession of sin there not prayer in the sense of talking to God?

PASTOR BRANDENBURG SEEMS TO HAVE MISSED THAT I NEVER STATED THAT “CONFESS” IS “NEVER EVER . . . PRAYER. NEVER.” WHAT I STATED IN MY WORK ON ROMANS 10:9-14 IS AS FOLLOWS:

One notes that the passage does not say, “prayer is made unto salvation,” but “confession is made unto salvation.” The verb rendered “confess,” homologeo, is found 24 times in 21 New Testament verses. [Matthew 7:23 (“profess”); 10:32; 14:7 (“promised”); Luke 12:8 (2x); John 1:20 (2x); 9:22; 12:42; Acts 23:8; 24:14; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Timothy 6:12 (“professed”); Titus 1:16 (“profess”); Hebrews 11:13; 13:15 (“giving thanks”); 1 John 1:9; 2:23 (“acknowledgeth”); 4:2, 3, 15; 2 John 1:7.] In at least 23 of these 24 verses, a believer’s public confession before men by is in view, not private prayer. The sole likely exception, 1 John 1:9, unlike the other passages, does in fact deal with the Christian’s prayer to God for forgiveness and restoration of fellowship. The context and the use of the Greek present to indicate continuing action, however, make it clear that no reference to a lost man saying a sinner’s prayer is found in 1 John 1:9. Thus, no homologeo passage refers to a lost man asking God to save him and consequently receiving forgiveness. The specification in Romans 10:9-10 that the confession is “with the mouth” necessitates that the act referred to in these verses is actually confessing Christ with the mouth before men, not praying for justification.


IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE REASON PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE FACT THAT THE WORD “CONFESS” NEVER REFERS TO A LOST MAN SAYING A SINNER’S PRAYER OR ASKING FOR ANYTHING IS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT I HAD NOT NOTICED 1 JOHN 1:9 AND CONCLUDED THAT I WAS SAYING THAT “homologeo never ever is prayer. Never.” I DID NOT MAKE THAT STATEMENT IN MY PAPER, NOR DID I MAKE IT ANYWHERE IN THIS DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY.

WHILE THERE IS ONE VERSE OUT OF THE 24 WHERE “CONFESS” DOES REFER TO A SAVED PERSON REPEATEDLY PRAYING OVER THE COURSE OF HIS LIFE AND GETTING RIGHT WITH GOD AT DIFFERENT TIMES WHEN HE SINS, NO REFERENCE TO THE WORD SPEAKS OF A LOST MAN PRAYING A SINNER’S PRAYER OR PRAYING ANYTHING AT ALL.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED AS WELL THAT ONLY 4% OF THE TIME DOES THE WORD “CONFESS” REFER TO EVEN THE SAVED PERSON’S PRAYERS IN THE NT. THE OTHER 96% OF THE TIME IT IS NOT PRAYER AT ALL. WHILE I HAD NOT EMPHASIZED THIS UP TO THIS POINT IN MY PRESENTATION OF MY POSITION, IT IS WORTH NOTING. COMPARE THIS IDEA IN ENGLISH. IF SOMEONE IN MILWAUKEE SAID “I’M GOING TO SEE THE MILWAUKEE BREWERS,” ONE WOULD IMMEDIATELY ASSUME THAT HE WAS GOING TO A BASEBALL GAME. THIS IS THE OVERWHELMINGLY DOMINANT USE OF THIS ENGLISH PHRASE. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT HE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GOING TO SEE THE UNION OF BEER MAKERS AT A BREWERY IN MILWAUKEE—AND THIS WOULD BE A LEGITIMATE ENGLISH USE OF THE SENTENCE, “I’M GOING TO SEE THE MILWAUKEE BREWERS,” BUT IT IS NOT WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT, AND WITHOUT A STRONG INDICATION FROM THE CONTEXT, THE ENGLISH SENTENCE WOULD BE PROPERLY INTERPRETED AS A REFERENCE TO SOMEONE GOING TO A BASEBALL GAME. SIMILARLY, THE FACT THAT “CONFESS” REFERS TO PRAYER ONLY 4% OF THE TIME IN THE NT MEANS THAT ONE MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 96% OF THE TIME INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD IS NOT POSSIBLE CONTEXTUALLY. THE VIEW THAT ROMANS 10:9-10 IS SPEAKING OF LITERAL CONFESSION WITH THE MOUTH BEFORE MEN, JUST LIKE IN MATTHEW 10:32 AND MANY OTHER VERSES, IS NOT AT ALL CONTEXTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. THUS, THE VIEW THAT PRAYER IS INVOLVED IN ROMANS 10:9-10 IS MADE MOST UNLIKELY EVEN FROM THE 96%-4% DIFFERENCE.
INDEED, THE CONTEXT OF ROMANS 10:9-10 ELIMINATES THE SINNER’S PRAYER VIEW, UNLESS SAVED PEOPLE SHOULD PRAY THE SINNER’S PRAYER CONTINUALLY THEIR WHOLE LIVES, WHICH PASTOR BRANDENBURG DOES NOT BELIEVE. AS I WROTE BEFORE:

Pastor Brandenburg stated, “people who call and confess pre—justification will continue to call and confess post-justification.” If calling and confessing are saying the sinner’s prayer, does this not indicate that people who are already justified should continue to say the sinner’s prayer over and over again? If not, why does “confess” mean “say the sinner’s prayer” in Romans 10:9, but mean something else (what?) in Romans 10:10?
Please note that Pastor Brandenburg, as far as I can tell, is saying that in Romans 10:10 the verbs indicate a continuing action. Note Romans 10:9-10:
9* 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.
10* For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
It is clear that the “saved/salvation” of v. 9-10 refer to the same thing. Verse 10 is explaining what v. 9 means (“for”). If the “saved” in v. 9 is justification, then the “salvation” of v. 10 is justification. If the “salvation” of v. 10 is justification, then one has to continue to repeatedly pray the sinner’s prayer over and over again before one is justified, since—as both Pastor Brandenburg and I agree—“confess” in v. 10 is a continuing action.
Would it not be better to recognize that the “salvation” of v. 9-14 is ultimate salvation? Pastor Brandenburg admits in this post that this is how the word is used elsewhere in the book of Romans (“ ‘shalt be saved’ is speaking of eschatological salvation, essentially glorification. It is found that way in Romans.”).

THE FACT THAT THE WORD “CONFESS” NEVER REFERS TO A LOST PERSON PRAYING A SINNER’S PRAYER, AND THAT IN THE ONE INSTANCE OF 1 JOHN 1:9 IT IS A CHRISTIAN LIFESTYLE OF PRAYER, NOT A ONE TIME ACT OF SAYING THE SINNER’S PRAYER, STILL STANDS. THE WORD “CONFESS” IS NOT AGAINST THE SINNER’S PRAYER VIEW OF 10:9-10 EVEN 96%/4%, BUT 100%/0%.


PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

Brother Ross says that he has never ever read what I say in a book. I'll show that isn't true. He doesn't present what they say from books, but he has read it. I do believe that he develops a kind of amnesia about it later, for anything that doesn't support his position. He's read it though, because I've given him copies of it. He proceeds to ignore it and then not include it or deal with it in his presentation (which is unscholarly), but he has read it.


I CERTAINLY AM FALLIBLE, AND IF PASTOR BRANDENBURG IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT I SUFFER FROM A “KIND OF AMNESIA” THAT MAKES MY ARGUMENTS “UNSCHOLARLY” FOR NOT “DEALING WITH” AND “IGNORING” WHAT HE STATES, THE READER WOULD DO WELL TO NOTE IT. I CERTAINLY CAN BE FORGETFUL AT TIMES—MAYBE I DO HAVE AMNESIA. THE READER SHOULD TAKE NOTE AND SEE IF I AM IGNORING OR MISREPRESENTING BOOKS, ARGUMENTS, ETC., AND THIS SHOULD INFLUENCE HIS VIEW OF WHAT I SAY.
TO THIS POINT, I HAVE NOT SEEN PASTOR BRANDENBURG DEMONSTRATE THAT I AM TAKING OUT OF CONTEXT EVEN ONE OF THE DOZENS OF COMMENTARIES, JOURNAL ARTICLES, BOOKS, ETC. THAT I QUOTE IN MY PAPER ON ROMANS 10:9-14 AT HTTP://THROSS7.GOOGLEPAGES.COM/HOME THAT TAKE EXACTLY MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-10 OR ROMANS 10:13. IN HIS FAVOR THROUGH POST #4, PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAS CITED BARNES AND ADAM CLARKE TO PROVE THAT HIS VIEW IS PRE-FINNEY, BUT BOTH COMMENTATORS WROTE AFTER FINNEY BEGAN HIS MINISTRY—AND BARNES TOOK MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-10, AND NEITHER BARNES NOR CLARKE TOOK PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S VIEW IN THE COMMENTS FROM THEIR WORKS HE SPECIFICALLY CITED AS EVIDENCE THAT HIS VIEW EXISTED AT THE TIME.
I DIDN’T BRING THIS UP THIS BEFORE, BUT I WILL MENTION IT HERE BECAUSE I DON’T WANT READERS OF THIS DISCUSSION WHO ARE KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT CHURCH HISTORY TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE ON MY PART OF “UNSCHOLARLY” ARGUMENTS OR “AMNESIA” BECAUSE I DID NOT REPLY TO IT AND THUS ACCEPTED THINGS THAT WERE INACCURATE AS TRUE. PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE IN HIS COMMENTS ON POST #3:

Finney didn't have anything published of note until 1840. Clarke didn't get his view of Romans 10:9,13 from Finney. His Systematic Theology didn't come out until 1851.


I DIDN’T COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE, BUT THE FACTS ARE THAT FINNEY WROTE “LECTURES ON REVIVALS” (BOSTON, 1835) WITH MANY EDITIONS AFTEWARDS, AND “LECTURES TO PROFESSING CHRISTIANS” (OBERLIN, 1836) AND, “SERMONS ON IMPORTANT SUBJECTS” (NEW YORK, 1839), BEFORE 1840, AND “LECTURES ON SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (OBERLIN, 1846), EARLIER THAN PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAD STATED. FINNEY’S “LECTURES ON REVIVAL” IS IS ALMOST SURLEY MOST INFLUENTIAL WORK. SO FINNEY HAD MANY IMPORTANT WORKS PUBLISHED BEFORE 1840, INCLUDING HIS MOST INFLUENTIAL BOOK, NOT NOTHING “OF NOTE UNTIL 1840.” FURTHERMORE, PASTOR BRANDENBURG GAVE THE INCORRECT DATE FOR FINNEY’S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY—IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1846, NOT 1851. HAD I LEFT THIS UNREMARKED UPON, IT WOULD HAVE AT LEAST IMPLIED THAT I THOUGHT THESE DATES WERE ACCURATE AND THUS HAVE BEEN EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE STATEMENT THAT MY COMMENTS HERE ARE “UNSCHOLARLY” AND I HAD “A KIND OF AMNESIA,” SO I HAVE MENTIONED IT AT THIS POINT.
WE ALL (ESPECIALLY ME) MAKE MISTAKES, AND ARE NOT INFALLIBLE. THANKFULLY, THE BIBLE IS. WHAT A BLESSING THAT WE CAN STUDY IT AND MEDITATE UPON IT, AND SEEK TO LIVE BY EVERY WORD OF IT.
BY THE WAY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I DO NOT AT ALL WISH TO INSULT PASTOR BRANDENBURG, AND I DO NOT SAY OR INTEND TO IMPLY BY POINTING OUT THESE ERRORS THAT HE HAS AMNESIA (THIS IS OBVIOUS, AND IT SHOULD GO WITHOUT SAYING—I BELIEVE NO SUCH RIDICULOUS THING)—AND I BELIEVE HE IS MORE SCHOLARLY THAN THE DEFINITE MAJORITY OF INDEPENDENT BAPTIST PASTORS. (AND, BY THE WAY, BEFORE A READER THINKS SOMETHING LIKE “HA! LOOK AT THE FACTUAL ERRORS PASTOR BRANDENBURG MADE THERE!” HE SHOULD THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE KNEW THE DATES FINNEY WROTE HIS WORKS, KNOWS THE DATES FOR THE LIFE OF ALBERT BARNES, ADAM CLARKE, ETC.—IF HE DOES NOT, PERHAPS A FINGER POINTED WOULD BE FOUR POINTING BACK AT HIMSELF.) I AM THANKFUL FOR BOTH OF THESE GREAT BLESSINGS OF PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S SCHOLARSHIP AND SHARPNESS OF MIND, WHICH BOTH ARE EVIDENT IN THE HIGH QUALITY OF HIS EXPOSITORY PREACHING. I MENTION THE ERRORS THAT WERE MADE ABOVE SO THAT SOMEONE WHO READ THIS DISCUSSION AND KNOWS CHURCH HISTORY DOES NOT THINK THAT I ACCEPTED SUCH DEFINITE ERRORS AS FACTS.

IN THE LAST COMMENT ON POST #3 DEALING WITH THIS SUBJECT, PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

Mussolini was nice to his dog. What should I do? Certain Moslems don't drink alcoholic beverages. How should I react? The Catholic confession to a priest, Catholic "Hail Marys," so how does this relate? I'm trying to figure that out. It's simply a cheap rhetorical device logically fallacious.

What good is there to assume about Brother Ross' example? If there was anything good about it, I would think it, hope it, and believe it. I don't see anything good in it. That doesn't mean that I don't think highly of Brother Ross. I love him. I hate his example.

THIS APPEARS TO BE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW WHAT IS CLEAR IN MY MIND MUST NOT BE CLEAR IN WHAT I PUT ON PAPER. PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAD AFFIRMED THAT ADAM CLARKE HAD WRITTEN A COMMMENTARY WELL BEFORE FINNEY THAT SHOWED PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S VIEW OF THE SINNER’S PRAYER EXISTED BEFORE FINNEY. I DEMONSTRATED THAT CLARKE DID NOT WRITE WELL BEFORE FINNEY, AND I DEMONSTRATED THAT CLARKE DID NOT TAKE PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S VIEW OF ROMANS 10:13. THE FACT THAT CLARKE THOUGHT THAT ROMANS 10:13 WAS A PRE-JUSTIFICATION PRAYER SIMPLY ILLUSTRATES HIS ARMINIAN/(SEMI?) WORKS-SALVATIONISH IDEA OF HOW ONE IS SAVED. THE FACT THAT CLARKE’S HERETICAL DOCTRINE OF SALVATION INVOLVED PRE-JUSTIFICATION PRAYER DOES NOT PROVE THAT BAPTIST CHURCHES WITH SOUND DOCTRINE, OR TRUE BELIEVERS OR PREACHERS THAT WERE NOT BAPTISTS, WERE TEACHING PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S VIEW OF THE SINNER’S PRAYER WELL BEFORE FINNEY. I ILLLUSTRATED THIS BY THE FACT THAT CATHOLICISM, LIKE CLARKE, TAUGHT THAT PRAYER WAS A MEANS OF JUSTIFICATION WELL BEFORE FINNEY. I DON’T SEE HOW CLARKE HELPS PROVES PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S VIEW WAS IN CIRCULATION BEFORE FINNEY ANY MORE THAN THE VIEWS OF THOMAS AQUINAS OR A POPE WOULD, SINCE NEITHER CLARKE, AQUINAS, OR THE POPES BELIEVED IN PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S VIEW OF SAYING THE SINNER’S PRAYER. HOW IS THIS ILLUSTRATION “LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS,” A “CHEAP RHETORICAL DEVICE,” AND SOMETHING TO “HATE”?
I AM GUESSING THAT PERHAPS PASTOR BRANDENBURG THOUGHT THAT MY ILLUSTRATION WAS INTENDED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE SOMEHOW THAT HE REALLY WAS A CATHOLIC. IF THIS WAS WHAT HE CONCLUDED OR I UNINTENTIONALLY IMPLIED, I ANNOUNCE TO ALL THE WORLD THAT I NO MORE THINK PASTOR BRANDENBURG IS A CATHOLIC THAN I THINK HE IS AN ARMINIAN BECAUSE HE QUOTES ADAM CLARKE OR A PRESBYTERIAN BECAUSE HE QUOTES ALBERT BARNES OR A NEO-EVANGELICAL BECAUSE HE QUOTES DANIEL WALLACE.
ON ANOTHER NOTE, I RECENTLY PERFORMED THIS SEARCH, AND ASK THE QUESTION BELOW:
Not only are there no examples of Christ and the apostles leading anyone to say a sinner’s prayer in Scripture, but an examination of the evidence from the patristic writers in the massive set of the Ante-Nicene writers edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson supplies not a single command for a lost man to pray a sinner’s prayer. Was nobody born again for centuries in the period of the early church?

THIS CONCLUDES MY MISCELLANEOUS COMMENT SECTION. BELOW IS MY UPDATED VERSION OF MY VIEW OF THE TECHNICAL GREEK ASPECTS OF ROMANS 10:9 AND 13. IT IS NOT YET ON THE VERSION OF MY PAPER ON MY WEBSITE, BECAUSE I WILL RE-POST THAT, LORD WILLING, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS DISCUSSION WITH PASTOR BRANDENBURG, AND WILL WAIT TO MAKE ANY/ALL BENEFICIAL CHANGES BEFORE GOING THROUGH THE WORK OF REPOSTING IT ON THE WEB. I THANK PASTOR BRANDENBURG FOR LEADING ME TO THINK IT THROUGH MORE AND MAKE THE CHANGES LISTED. GLORY FOR ALL SOUND EXEGESIS, OF COURSE, GOES TO THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE HOLY TRINITY, THE ONE ILLLUMINATOR OF SCRIPTURE. WHAT IS FOOTNOTED MATERIAL ON MY PAPER ON THE WEB HAS BEEN PUT IN BRACKETS INSTEAD. GREEK AND HEBREW FONTS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE GARBLED.

One might argue that the use of the Greek aorist tense in 10:13 would indicate point action, and consequently conclude that the verse deals with the lost praying at one point and consequently receiving the forgiveness of sins. Even if we conclude that all the aorists in Romans 10 are point action, while all the present tenses deal with continuing action, [Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, states in relation to the aorist (p. 500), “One error in this regard is to see a particular category of usage (Aktionsart) as underlying the entire tense usage (aspect). This is the error of saying too much. Statements such as ‘the aorist means once-for-all action’ are of this sort. It is true that the aorist may, under certain circumstances, describe an event that is, in reality, momentary. But we run into danger when we say that this is the aorist’s unaffected meaning, for then we force it on the text in an artificial way. We then tend to ignore such aorists that disprove our view (and they can be found in every chapter of the NT) and proclaim loudly the ‘once-for-all’ aorists when they suit us.” However, even given the interpretation of the tenses in Romans 10:9-13 which would be most conducive to the prayer for justification view, the text does not support this teaching, as is demonstrated below.] the conclusion that 10:13 deals with praying for justification would not follow. Both “confess” and “believe” are aorist in verse nine, and both are in the present tense in verse 10; “believeth” is also present tense in verse 11, “call” is a present in verse 12, “believe” is aorist in verse fourteen and “call” is a future indicative. Assuming that all the aorists in this section deal with point action while all the present tenses deal with continuing action, we would conclude that those who truly believe at one point in time and consequently confess at one point in time will continue to be characterized by believing and confessing [It is obvious that the confession of v. 9 and of v. 10 refers to the same sort of action. However, one who wished to affirm that the confession of v. 9 refers to saying a sinner’s prayer because of the aorist tense runs into severe difficulties with the present tense in v. 10, because just about nobody believes that a Christian must, throughout life, continue to repeat the sinner’s prayer, daily saying that he is lost and on his way to hell and asking to become a child of God. Furthermore, the “saved/salvation” of v. 9-10 evidently refers to the same thing. If the “saved” of v. 9 is justification, then the “saved” of v. 10 is also justification, and one must continue to say sinner’s prayers over and over again as a continuing action before one is justified. These problems are eliminated when one recognizes that neither v. 9 nor v. 10 has anything whatever to do with a lost man saying a sinner’s prayer.] since they are new creatures in Christ, and these ones will consequently receive ultimate salvation, that is, glorification, at the Rapture or at death. The fact that verse nine begins with “if” and verse ten with “for” demonstrates that the temporal order is given in the latter verse; verse nine follows the order given in the quotation in 10:8. To take verse nine to mean that one must pray out loud or do some other work which is equated with confessing with the mouth before one can believe and be justified is not only to misinterpret the word “saved” in this verse, but to miss the “if” which begins it and the “for” in the following sentence. It is true that “if” one confesses, even at one point in time, with his mouth, and truly believes at one point in time in his heart, he will be saved. Why? “For (because) with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (he receives imputed righteousness and is justified when he believes with his heart—and he will continue to believe, since he is a new creature, 2 Cor 5:17, and Christ preserves all who truly are partakers of Him, Heb 3:6, 14; Jn 10:27-30) and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (the one who has been justified confesses before men and will receive future salvation upon his death or the return of Christ).” It is true that you will be saved if you believe and confess, just like you will be saved if you believe and are baptized (Mark 16:16), but only the belief is prerequisite for justification. Romans 10:11 demonstrates this—the point made in verse 10 is proved, “For (because) the Scripture saith, ‘Whosoever believeth in him shall not be ashamed.’” Verse 10 is true, Paul proves, because (“for”) the Scripture states that those who believe shall not be ashamed. (Note that there is no mention of confession in this verse at all; belief, and that alone, is all that is needed for justification). Verse twelve validates the “whosoever” of v. 11, “for (because) there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.” The means of justification is no longer the issue at hand, but a proof that the “whosoever” of v. 11 is valid. There is no difference between Jew and Greek because “the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” How can men know that the Lord is rich to the ones who call upon him (a Greek present participle, “the calling-upon-Him-ones,” those who call on Him as a lifestyle)? They know this “for (because) whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” as Romans 10:13, quoting Joel 2:32, states. Verse twelve is proven to be true by the Old Testament, just like verse 10 is validated by the quotation in verse 11. Neither verse 12 nor verse 13 deal with the means or condition of justification—they present the extent within the body of mankind to whom the offer of the kingdom of God is given, namely, “whosoever.” They are not intended to explain the condition of the new birth or the means of receiving it. Those who are able to truly pray to the Lord, even once (if the aorist of 10:13 is taken as point action) and consequently are characterized by calling on Him (v. 12, present tense, cf. Luke 18:7) have already been saved by faith, as verse fourteen makes clear; it is impossible for those to call (future tense) on the Lord in whom they have not already believed (aorist tense). Romans 10:13 does not give a condition for justification at all; it only proves what verse twelve states, that “there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom 2:6-11). Furthermore, a point action idea in Romans 10:13 removes the possibility that an Arminian notion that one must continually pray or one will fall from grace can be entertained. The believer who backslides has not lost his justification—he is still eternally secure, even if, for a season, he supresses the workings of his new nature and fails to seek the Lord in prayer. Romans 10:13 demonstrates that anyone who can truly come to God, because He has Christ as His mediator and is clothed in His righteousness, is certain of future glory; all who call on God, even one time, will receive eternal salvation.
The explanation given above assumes a force for the aorist tenses in Romans 10:9, 13 that are the most conducive to the “sinner’s prayer” view of the passage. However, this is not the true reason for the Greek syntax in the passage. The “whosoever shall call” structure of v. 13, like the “if . . . thou shalt confess” of v. 9, are indefinite relative clauses [“An indefinite relative clause contains a verb in the subjunctive mood plus the particle a‡n (or e˙a¿n) and refers to an unspecified individual or group, or to an event or action (e.g., o§ e˙a»n hØ\\ di÷kaion [whatever is right] in Matt 20:4; o§ß a·n qe÷lhØ e˙n uJmi√n ei•nai prw◊toß [whoever wants to be first among you] in Matt 20:27)” (pg. 661, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace).] with an aorist subjunctive verb, representing a general, constative [“The [constative] aorist normally views the action as a whole, taking no interest in the internal workings of the action. It describes the action in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically. This is by far the most common use of the aorist, especially with the indicative mood. The constative aorist covers a multitude of actions. The event might be iterative in nature, or durative, or momentary, but the aorist says none of this. It places the stress on the fact of the occurrence, not its nature” (Wallace, pg. 557-558).] notion for the promise mentioned—anyone, Jew or Gentile, who is a worshipper of God, who is one who calls on Him, will enter the kingdom of God, just as anyone who has been given a new heart and consequently confesses Christ before men will go to heaven. A one-time or once-for-all action is not the point of the verses—they simply present a summary statement that all those who stand for Christ before men, and worship or call on God, will be received by Him at the end. An analysis of the other uses of the Greek structure found in Romans 10:9 [See Luke 12:8 (cf. Matthew 10:32-33); John 9:22; 1 John 4:15, the only other references in the NT to confessing Christ employing an/ean and an aorist subjunctive verb. Note also the ean + aorist subjunctive uses of believe (cf. Romans 10:9) in John 8:24; 12:47. Note the pattern of ean + aorist subjunctive + kai + aorist subjunctive, found within Romans 10:9, in Matthew 5:19 (clearly summary action, not one single act, with “break” and “teach”; cf. “do” and “teach” with an in the verse); Matthew 18:12 (the man did not have his sheep only for one instant); Mark 8:36 (the point is not that one would gain the whole world only for a split second); John 7:51 (a man on trial was not heard only for one instant); James 5:19 (unfortunately, people err from the truth longer than one instant); etc. Of course, since the event described by a constative aorist “might be interative in nature, or durative or momentary, [although] the aorist says none of this” (Wallace pg. 557), some such aorists do indeed describe the even of a single moment (cf. Luke 12:38, etc.), but the use of the aorist alone by no means proves a verb to be instanteous action. As evidenced by the usages tabulated above, as it is evident that the ean + aorist subjunctive + kai + aorist subjunctive syntax found in Romans 10:9 is employed in many verses where the action is not once-for-all or instantaneous. The complete NT list is Matthew 5:19; 18:3, 12; Mark 8:36; 10:11-12; 12:19; Luke 12:38, 45; 17:4; 20:28; John 6:53; 7:51; 12:47; 14:3; 15:7; 20:25; 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; James 5:19; Revelation 3:20.] and 10:13 is consistent with the view that a “once for all” action is not the point of these texts. [Romans 10:13 has the structure relative pronoun + an + aorist/2nd aorist subjunctive verb. There are 45 other verses in the New Testament which contain this structure (a few of these verses contain it more than one time). These are: Matthew 5:19, 21-22, 31-32; 10:33; 12:32, 50; 15:5; 16:25, 28; 18:6; 19:9; 21:44; 23:16, 18; 26:48; Mark 3:29, 35; 8:35, 38-9:1; 9:41-42; 10:44; 11:23; 14:44; Luke 9:4, 24, 26-27; 10:35; 12:8; 13:25; 20:18; John 1:33; 2:5; 4:14; 14:13; 15:16; Acts 2:21; 3:23; 8:19; James 4:4; 1 John 4:15. Many of these are constative, and some are clearly not a “once for all” action. Would anyone want to affirm that those who do and teach God’s commandments only one time will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19), or that whoever denies Christ once in his life is certain of eternal damnation (Matthew 10:33—in which case the apostle Peter is in hell, Matthew 26:34, 70, 72, 74-75)? If not, is it wise to make the Greek structure of Matthew 5:19 and 10:33 a proof, in Romans 10:13, that a once-for-all sinner’s prayer brings a lost man justification?
One should also note that in what Romans 10:13 is quoting, Joel 2:32’s statement, “whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered,” the “whosoever shall call” (aö∂rVqˆy_rRvSa l¬O;k) phrase does not require (although it is not inconsistent with) an instantaneous, once-for-all action in Hebrew syntax. rRvSa l¬O;k followed by an imperfect verb is clearly not the action of an instant in Leviticus 15:20; 20:25; Deuteronomy 14:26; 20:14; 24:8; 29:8; Joshua 2:19; Judges 7:5; 2 Samuel 3:21; Ecclesiastes 6:2; 8:3; Esther 2:13; etc. One notes as well that kol asher + qara’ (imperfect), as found in Joel 2:32, is rendered with present tense Greek verbs in the LXX of Psalm 145:18; e˙ggu\ß ku/rioß pa◊sin toi√ß e˙pikaloume÷noiß aujto/n pa◊si toi√ß e˙pikaloume÷noiß aujto\n e˙n aÓlhqei÷aˆ.] Romans 10:13 is not a promise that a lost man who prays a “sinner’s prayer” will be justified. Romans 10:9 is not a reference to prayer at all. The verses are promises that anyone, Jew or Gentile, who boldly confesses Christ in the world, and who is a person of prayer—both of which are impossible apart from a prior regeneration at the moment of justification by faith alone, as nobody can call on the Lord without having already been justified by faith, Romans 10:14, and confession is a fruit of justifying faith, Romans 10:10—will enter the everlasting kingdom of God.
Romans 10:13-15 present, in reverse, the order in which men ultimately enter heaven. The temporal order is send-preach-hear-believe-call-heaven. Men are sent out to preach the gospel, some hear the message, believe it and are justified, and consequently are themselves transformed by it into those who call on the Lord. These enter everlasting glory when they die or at Christ’s return. Verses 16, 17 also evidence that the moment of justification is not at “call,” but at “believe.” To “obey” the gospel is to “believe” it (v. 16). Verse 17 ends the conversion order at “faith,” presenting the word preached, heard, and believed, just as v. 14 presents the order preach-hear-believe. “Calling” in prayer represents the transformed life of the justified saint, whom God will accept, whether Jew or Gentile.
I am thankful for the good things and helpful comments by Pastor Brandenburg in this discussion. Praise the Lord.

Kent Brandenburg said...

I can be happy that Brother Ross has decided to go from a gnomic aorist to a constative aorist. Of course, I have to quote Daniel Wallace to see that happen, because he respects the Dallas professor who believes inerrancy is a tertiary issue and denies the doctrine of preservation is in Scripture. And he is a professor.

And later he uses Wallace as a source for his view that "confess" is evidence, not cause, which, of course, contradicts Wallace's own grammar concerning the conditional sentence. And when Wallace does, he says very ambiguously: "One way to look at this text," and "It is not necessary to." So Wallace puts a gigantic disclaimer with his point---it's only one way to look at it and might be a way to see it. I could start showing you how wrong Wallace is in many of the examples that I have read from him over the years. The reason people use him is because he's one of the few guys that have written a grammar. I have thanked him personally for it. However, out of this very weak endorsement of his own preference for Rom. 10:9, Thomas Ross writes: "MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9 IS THUS AFFIRMED AS TRUE BY DANIEL WALLACE IN WHAT IS BY FAR THE THE MOST WIDELY USED GREEK SYNTAX BOOK IN THE UNITED STATES." Wow! Wallace didn't say it was true. He said it was one possible view, a possible view that happens to be wrong, because Wallace didn't look at it closely enough.

I'm not done talking about confess in Romans 10:9, by the way, and not because of this comment, but because I had already written a fairly long post (#5) already. I'll give a hint though. I'm not hindered by a present tense for confess in Rom. 10:10 any more than I am by a present tense of pisteuo in John. However, Bro. Ross should consider the aorist and subjunctive condition in Romans 10:9, as not being a lifestyle of confessing after justification, because it is an aorist!! It is talking about a saving confession.

Brother Ross spends a lot of time talking about the gnomic present, about the generic singular, etc. We're in Romans 10:9 folks. There are exactly zero present tenses in Romans 10:9.

You noticed above all the benefit of a huge amount of doubt that Professor Wallace received. Then you get this from Brother Ross (here's the whole exchange):

"The subjunctive, by nature, isn't customary. It is a condition of possibility or probability, but not custom.

THIS SENTENCE CONFUSES MOOD (SUBJUNCTIVE/INDICATIVE/OPTATIVE, ETC.) WITH ASPECT AS PART OF TENSE (CONSTATIVE, PROGRESSIVE, GNOMIC, ETC.). THESE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FIELDS OF GRAMMAR. I WOULD OVERLOOK THIS IF IT WAS A TYPO, BUT I DON’T SEE HOW IT COULD BE A TYPO."

He is commenting about an analysis that I made, to shoot down his gnomic aorist claim, when the Gnomic Aorist is not in the subjunctive but in the indicative. He lectures me (again) about the Greek. I too have taught Greek 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and 3rd year only three times. But I did it only in the local church. He's doing at a graduate school and Daniel Wallace is doing it at a theological seminary. So then, Professor Ross, why is it that the gnomic is only in the indicative aorist and not the subjunctive aorist? If the mode makes no difference? I was explaining why not. The Gnomic is customary and a conditional mood isn't by nature customary. Can we get outside of written statements in grammar books to think about this? After all, that's what guys do that write grammar books. That's how they get the material to write grammar books---is by thinking about it.

Mr. Ross writes on and on and on and on about one statement that I made, which was: "Finney didn't have anything published of note until 1840. Clarke didn't get his view of Romans 10:9,13 from Finney. His Systematic Theology didn't come out until 1851." OK folks, we are talking about the sinner's prayer methodology. I knew he had the first version (not the one you read today) of Lectures on Revival written before Clarke died. However, we are talking about the establishment of "sinner's prayer" methodology in written material. That's what I was saying about anything of "note," that is, that pertains to what we're talking about. I tried to write it concisely. I do recognize that Clarke is in the theological line of the keswick movement. You could put his face in the family tree, so to speak. However, I was answering one small point and that is the origination of a sinner's prayer not being Finney. I also said I have plenty of other quotes, which we have in #5 and then I have many more pages.

He says that we don't see any sinner's prayer in the patristics. I can't say that I've checked, but I guess I will need to. However, many of the patristics also believed in infant sprinkling, baptismal regeneration, and the presence of Christ in the elements. We start getting a little more untrustworthy in our doctrine in those Roman Catholic preserved writings. I will, however, look for some patristic quotes to aid my historic cause more, if it is possible. At this point, Mr. Ross must argue from the silence of the patristics as a strong historical argument. If I find one patristic, well, that will be a big oooops for the silence argument.

OK, I made a mistake when I said that Mr. Ross said that "confess" is never a prayer. I'm also going to "confess" (that's ironic, huh?) that I did it on purpose. I wanted to illustrate how to say whatever you wanted someone else to say when he didn't say, something Bro. Ross is doing repeatedly with me, and see if he caught me slightly misrepresenting him. No, he gave one example, 1 John 1:9. What he didn't do, however, is tell you how small the sample size was of believers confessing out of the 24 examples of the word in the NT. Unbelievers also do confess in those examples. He is deceptive and misleading with his statistics. Out of the 24, sometimes God is confessing something. So his 96% stuff is really not the percentage, even if it is just one example besides Rom. 10:9 (which I wouldn't concede). He also attempts to make Rom. 10:9 something public while 1 John 1:9 is private. Neither of those passages make that point---total eisogesis---either of them might be public or private, they don't say either way.

Mr. Ross makes a pattern out of his homologeo usages when he has an admitted exception. There are zero exceptions to my pattern. He attempts to make exceptions. You'll have to decide on that. I think his work against that means nothing. We have conditions that end in results in this lifetime in every case. There is no eschatological salvation in any usage of the aorist subjunctive as the condition in a conditional sentence. Ten times we have it. He has his 24 example of confess and he doesn't give the info that it isn't even people confessing in all of those occasions and then some of them are identical occasions of confession too, but that isn't mentioned, and then he has an actual usage that fits a prayer. You decide. I have.

There are a few major factors in his argumentation. One---salvation must be eschatological. We've debunked that despite his protestations. Two---Confession with mouth must be a public confession. He can't prove that, and I eliminate that in my post #5 with the work on "word" in the context. Three---the order of Rom. 10:14 demands his position. I've shown that saving faith consummates at one point in time to a saving belief, but a faith response to revelation occurs all the way up to a confession of Jesus as Lord. Faith does precede confession, but the confession and saving faith go together.

And I'm not through presenting evidence for my position.

Thomas Ross said...

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

And later [BRO. ROSS] uses Wallace as a source for his view that "confess" is evidence, not cause, which, of course, contradicts Wallace's own grammar concerning the conditional sentence.

I WOULD BE QUITE INTERESTED IN SEEING HOW WHAT WALLACE WROTE CONTRADICTS HIS OWN GRAMMAR CONCERNING THE CONDITIONAL SENTENCE. I HAVE NEVER NOTICED THIS CONTRADICTION WHEN I HAVE TAUGHT THROUGH WALLACE.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

And when Wallace does, he says very ambiguously: "One way to look at this text," and "It is not necessary to." So Wallace puts a gigantic disclaimer with his point---it's only one way to look at it and might be a way to see it. I could start showing you how wrong Wallace is in many of the examples that I have read from him over the years. The reason people use him is because he's one of the few guys that have written a grammar. I have thanked him personally for it. However, out of this very weak endorsement of his own preference for Rom. 10:9, Thomas Ross writes: "MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9 IS THUS AFFIRMED AS TRUE BY DANIEL WALLACE IN WHAT IS BY FAR THE THE MOST WIDELY USED GREEK SYNTAX BOOK IN THE UNITED STATES." Wow! Wallace didn't say it was true. He said it was one possible view, a possible view that happens to be wrong, because Wallace didn't look at it closely enough.



I BELIEVE WALLACE’S “ONE WAY TO LOOK” STATEMENT ONLY WAS ABOUT THE FIRST SENTENCE. HE DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS DISCLAMER WHEN HE AFFIRMS [SECOND SENTENCE STARTED WITH “IS”]: “the confession with the mouth . . . is not the cause. The cause is in the second part of the condition, “If you believe in your heart. . . .”

WALLACE MENTIONS NO OTHER VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-10 IN HIS GRAMMAR. AND, SINCE HE IS A NEO-EVANGELICAL, HE LIKES TO PUT IN THESE WEAK STATEMENTS. THE FACT THAT THE ONLY VIEW IN BY FAR THE MOST WIDELY USED GREEK GRAMMAR IN THE UNITED STATES MENTIONS NO OTHER VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-10 THAN MINE IS SIGNIFICANT. FURTHERMORE, I AM NOT SURE WHY PASTOR BRANDENBURG SAYS THAT WALLACE IS “ONE OF THE FEW GUYS THAT HAVE WRITTEN A GRAMMAR.” IN WALLACE’S PREFACE, HE MENTIONS THAT “There are now notable works by Brooks and Winbery, Vaughan and Gideon, Hoffmann and von Siebenthal (though not yet in English), Porter, and Young, to mention a few,” AND GIVES VARIOUS REASONS TO JUSTIFY THE WRITING OF HIS OWN BOOK WHEN THERE ARE ALREADY A BUNCH OF OTHER SOURCES AVAILABLE.
IT SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR THAT MY VIEW OF ROMANS 10:9-14 IS VERY COMMON AND WIDESPREAD.
BY THE WAY, IN RELATION TO THE INCOMPATABILITY OF GNOMIC AORISTS AND THE SUBJUNCTIVE, I DON’T KNOW IF WE CAN SAY THAT THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE, SINCE THERE COULD BE A CONDITIONAL TIMELESS IDEA, BUT I DON’T WANT TO DEBATE THIS (THE DISCUSSION IS ALREADY LONG ENOUGH)! I HAVEN’T STUDIED THIS IN RELATION TO THE POTENTIAL INSTANCES IN THE NT OR IN KOINE IN GENERAL, AND DON’T HAVE TIME TO DO IT RIGHT NOW. I THEREFORE CONCEDE TO PASTOR BRANDENBURG WHATEVER HE REASONABLY WISHES IN RELATION TO THE GNOMIC AORIST. I AM THANKFUL THAT HIS COMMENTS MADE ME STUDY THAT SUBJECT MORE CAREFULLY.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

Bro. Ross should consider the aorist and subjunctive condition in Romans 10:9, as not being a lifestyle of confessing after justification, because it is an aorist!!

PLEASE NOTE THAT I SAID IN MY DISCUSSION OF THE GREEK OF THIS PASSAGE WHICH IS NOT THAT FAR ABOVE THIS THAT THE AORISTS IN ROMANS 10:9 ARE CONSTATIVE. THE AORISTS OF V. 9 NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY A DURATIVE/CONTINUING TYPE OF ACTION. THEY SIMPLY MAKE A STATEMENT OF FACT, WHICH IS THEN EXPLAINED IN V. 10. THUS, IT IS NOT EXACTLY ACCURATE TO SAY THAT I AM AFFIRMING WHAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT THINK HE IS TRYING TO DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENT ME.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

I wanted to illustrate how to say whatever you wanted someone else to say when he didn't say, something Bro. Ross is doing repeatedly with me, and see if he caught me slightly misrepresenting him.

IF I AM MISREPRESENTING PASTOR BRANDENBURG, IS IS UNINTENTIONALLY. I HOPE THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG WILL SOON SAY WHAT HE BELIEVES WHEN HE SAYS “SINNER’S PRAYER” AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN POST #3 SO I DO NOT NEED TO KEEP GUESSING ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY I AM SUPPOSED TO BE INTERACTING WITH. SOME OF THE POSITIONS PASTOR BRANDENBURG HAS TAKEN, SUCH AS THAT THE SINNER’S PRAYER IS NOT A PRAYER IN THE THEOLOGICAL SENSE, AND THAT THE SINNER’S PRAYER DOES NOT INVOLVE ASKING GOD TO FORGIVE ONE’S SINS, ARE ONES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO GUESS, AS I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYONE ELSE MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS, AND HAVE NEVER HEARD PASTOR BRANDENBURG HIMSELF MAKE THEM BEFORE IN THE MANY, FREQUENT, AND ALMOST ALWAYS SUPER INTERACTIONS I HAVE HAD WITH HIM.

PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

What he didn't do, however, is tell you how small the sample size was of believers confessing out of the 24 examples of the word in the NT. . . . . He is deceptive and misleading with his statistics.

I ENCOURAGE READERS TO LOOK UP THE REFERENCES—I GAVE THEM. I DID NOT NOTICE PASTOR BRANDENBURG STATING HOW MANY OF THE EXAMPLES WERE BELIEVERS CONFESSING EITHER. I DON’T THINK THIS IS MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE ON HIS PART, BECAUSE ANYONE CAN JUST LOOK THEM UP. PLEASE NOTICE THAT THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF THE WORD “CONFESS” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WHERE THE WORD REFERS TO AN UNSAVED PERSON SAYING A SINNER’S PRAYER OR PRAYING ANYTHING AT ALL. THIS STILL IS A FACT.


PASTOR BRANDENBURG WROTE:

One---salvation must be eschatological. We've debunked that despite his protestations.

I TRUST THAT MY ARGUMENTS PROVING THAT ROMANS 10:13, PROVING THAT THE IN JOEL 2:32 THE WORD “SAVED/DELIVERED” IS ENTRY INTO THE MILLENIAL KINGDOM AND CANNOT REFER TO JUSTIFICATION, WILL BE DEALT WITH. SO FAR, I HAVEN’T SEEN THEM DEALT WITH AT ALL.

SOME OF THE REST OF PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S REPLY IS EXAMINED IN MY RESPONSE TO HIS POST #5, SO PLEASE GO OVER THERE AND SEE THAT. THANK YOU.

LET ME SAY IN CONCLUSION THAT I APPRECIATE PASTOR BRANDENBURG’S STRONG STAND IN FAVOR OF THE NT BAPTIST CHURCH. I ALSO AGREE WITH THAT POSITION AND INTEND TO STAND WITH THE LORD’S CHURCH OVER NEO-EVANGELICALISM UNTIL THE RAPTURE OR DEATH. I WOULD HOPE, AND I BELIEVE THAT PASTOR BRANDENBURG AND I BOTH HAVE A UNSHAKEABLE COMMITMENT TO THE LORD’S CHURCH, BY HIS GRACE AND FOR HIS GLORY.

Ruth James said...

I think that too often we think that if we "Believe on the Lord" we will find salvation. The key to salvation is to actually follow Him and do His will. Without obedience and commitment to His gospel how can we expect to be saved? Yes, He will save us all. But we have to do work also. Thank you for this great post, it had so much great information.
Ruth James | http://www.crunchinc.com/abtus.html