Confession Unto Salvation

The following is part of a friendly internet debate between Kent Brandenburg and Tom Ross, two men I admire greatly. Kent and I have corresponded.

Kent Wrote:

"Are the "confess" of Romans 10:9-10 and the "call" of Romans 10:13 pre or post justification? Or in other words, is there a "sinner's prayer" in Scripture? I'm not talking about a 1-2-3 pray-with-me easy-believism, but a legitimate cry for spiritual deliverance from sin and Hell through Jesus Christ?

Our friend and brother in Christ, Thomas Ross, says "no" to the above questions. I say "yes." What says Scripture?

So far, we've mainly looked at how the context of Romans 10:9-13 supports the pre-justification confess or call. Now we'll get into the actual text of the verses.

A pivotal point for the post-justification confess or call, one that buttresses its entire argument, is that "saved" in these verses is ultimate salvation, not immediate salvation. When I say "ultimate," I mean final salvation, that is, deliverance from the penalty and presence of sin, from God's eternal wrath and punishment at His judgment (Mt. 10:22; Mk. 13:13; 13:20; 16:16; Acts 15:11; Rom. 5:9-10; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 3:15; 1 Cor. 5:5). When I use "immediate," I mean the deliverance the very moment that someone believes in the Lord from a position outside of Christ, a position of sinfulness, and from the power of sin unto the sure prospect of ultimate salvation (Lk. 8:12; 9:56; 17:19; John 3:17; Acts 4:12; 16:30-31; Rom. 11:14; 1 Cor. 7:16; 9:22; 2 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:4).

It is true that the word translated "saved" (sodso) can be something other than immediate salvation. When the term is used in the past tense (aorist; Rom. 8:24; Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5) or the present tense (1 Cor. 1:18; 15:2) it isn't ultimate salvation.

Here in Romans 10:9-13, we see the future tense, so the question here is whether the future tense is immediate or ultimate salvation. Some times the future tense is speaking of immediate salvation and other times it is talking about ultimate salvation. Some of those times it is easy to tell from the context which it is, but other times it is more difficult.

As do I, Thomas Ross hates easy-prayerism. He starts into this passage looking through the lens of that hatred, resulting, I believe, in a rush to judgment. He misses what I am about to show you that obliterates his position. In his paper, An Exegesis and Application of Romans 10:9-14 for Soulwinning Churches and Christians, he misses the key grammatical issue to determine whether Romans 10:9-13 are ultimate or immediate salvation. My hope is that his sincere desire for the truth will cause him to abandon his post-justification confess or call position.

The verb form for "saved" (sodso) in this verse is future indicative passive. This form occurs twenty times in the New Testament. The twenty occurrences can be divided into the two categories of ultimate and immediate salvation. Romans 10:9 has a conditioned statement as its dependent clause, which contains the third class condition (ean) and two subjunctive verbs ("shalt confess" and "shalt believe"). Four other references share the same construction and clearly refer to immediate completion of the main verb upon the fulfillment of the condition (cf. Matthew 9:21; Mark 5:28; John 10:9; and 1 Timothy 2:15). Six of the references use the future indicative passive form of sodso and clearly speak of final salvation. However, each of those six is communicated with an aorist participle (cf. Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; 16:16; Romans 5:9-10). The five references with the aorist subjunctive are always immediate. If Romans 10:9-10 is ultimate, it would be an exception. What we have here, however, are two patterns. The aorist subjunctive pattern is immediate salvation. The aorist participle pattern is ultimate salvation.

Against the grammatical pattern, in a completely exceptional way, Thomas Ross identifies "thou shalt be saved" as ultimate salvation. Because of the grammatical construction, it can't be. It must be immediate salvation. If you read his above paper, you will see that he misses this in his study. I have more evidence to come for immediate salvation, but in the meantime, I call on him to abandon his ultimate salvation position for the immediate salvation view of Romans 10:9.

My comment (the first) to brother Brandenburg was as follows:

Dear Brother Brandenburg:

I will be reading the article by Tom. I am interested in this issue and how it relates to the ongoing debate over the "ordo salutis." I think "shall be saved" may refer to regeneration, justification, sanctification, and to final glorification. I am also interested in this topic of "easy believism" and the praying of the sinner's prayer.

I think people are going way too far in decrying the sinner's prayer and condemning "easy believism."

God bless

Stephen

Tom Ross wrote:

"SINCE ONE DOES NOT NEED TO CONFESS CHRIST PUBLICALLY BEFORE MEN, OR SAY ANYTHING WITH ONE’S MOUTH, IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED, BUT ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE, THE CONFESSION IS POST-JUSTIFICATION. (AS A. T. ROBERTSON TERSLY SAYS ON ROMANS 10:9, “Faith precedes confession, of course.”) BUT ONE WHO DOES NOT CONFESS WILL NOT GO TO HEAVEN, BECAUSE ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED HAVE BEEN GIVEN A NEW HEART AND SO THEY WILL CONFESS CHRIST BEFORE MEN."

Brandenburg said:

"I'm asking here if confess and call are pre or post justification, something very specific. If "saved" is immediate, then his argument falls at this point. This is where all his verbiage, which forms a gigantic cloud here tends toward confusion.

The better question would be: Is saving faith one that does not confess Jesus as Lord? Brother Ross says that making confessing Jesus as Lord a prerequisite to justification means salvation by works. I will deal with this, however, all in future posts, as I had already planned.

I believe it is faith alone that is a pre-requisite, which is confessing, is drinking, is eating, is confessing, is calling, and is repenting—those all make up the composite of faith that we see in the coherency of the gospel message. None of those are works. Those are all the grace of God. Christ also tells the unbeliever to count the cost (Luke 14:28). Jesus also says we must lose our life (Matthew 16:25). That isn't a work either, but based on Brother Ross' interpretation, these are all works that must precede justification in addition to the non-work of faith in order to be justified. This is important, because here is a clear difference on this issue from Brother Ross and me. He says that an unbeliever must work for justification. I don't believe so. I believe those are all the work of the mercy and grace of God—none of ourselves." (Are "Confess" and "Call" Post-Justification? part 3)


http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/03/romans-109-13-is-confess-and-call-post.html

(Highligting mine - SG)

Of course, I agree with brother Kent Brandenburg. I do respect Tom Ross and his able written defenses of Calvinism, but I think he shows leanings towards hyperism, however, in his view that the "salvation" that follows upon "calling upon the Lord" and "confessing" him as "Lord," with the heart and mouth, is some post regeneration/justification experience, some "salvation" other than initial salvation and rebirth.

I believe that the very moment a soul believes in Jesus he yells out, from his heart, to all who are around him, "Eureka!" It is automatic, spontaneous, and instantaneous.

Besides, I believe it is part of the preparatory work of the Spirit, in "drawing" the elect, to first teach them and give them understanding, and then, to either immediately, or at some later point in time, to cause them to cry out from their souls "Eureka!"

Also, I am thinking of making a list of all the texts that show, like Romans 10, how the Lord brings sinners to the point of sincerely asking to be saved, born again, forgiven, etc., prior to their actually being saved. But, clearly Romans 10 does justify us in telling dead alien sinners to call upon the Lord for regeneration.

For, it is obvious, that if the "salvation" that results from "calling" and "confessing Christ as Lord" cannot be regeneration, then this exhortation is only for the already justified and regenerated. Such a view says it is not scriptural to tell sinners to call upon the Lord to change their hearts.