From Calvinism to Adapted Calvinism to Neo Calvinism

In this article I would like to deal with the question “What is Calvinism and who is Calvinist”. Calvinism essentially refers to Calvin’s conviction and philosophy that can be found in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (5 volumes), sermons, and other writings. Calvinism was clearly seen in the model of the Geneva Church that Calvin has established and controlled, and also in the running of the Geneva local government. According to Calvin’s conviction, these two institutions were not independent from one another. The approximation between the church and the state was not only as the result of him being both the ecclesiastical leader and a powerful politician, but also as the result of his conviction that a “national church” was a necessity to counter the Roman Catholic Church. This idea of a “national church” was commonly shared by almost all the reformers.

When Calvinism is defined by Calvin’s conviction and philosophy, and the way in which he managed both the Geneva church and the local government,  defining “Calvinist” would be quite straight forward. Obviously, Calvinist is one who has read and understood Calvin’s writings and sermons and accepted Calvin’s conviction as his own conviction. In this sense, Calvin and his close associates in Geneva and some other parts of Europe were the first Calvinists.

What about the Puritans who subscribed to both the teachings of Zwingli and Calvin? What about the Methodists who were under the leadership of George Whitefield? These believers were regarded as Calvinists by church historians, but were they actually Calvinists? Strictly speaking the Puritans were not Calvinists simply because they did not subscribed 100% to Calvin’s conviction. The fact that the Puritans, while subscribing to Calvin’s teaching, they also included Zwingli as their mentor, speaks clearly that certain part of Calvin’s teaching was not suitable for their struggle. They did not subscribe, but adapted Calvin’s teaching. Similarly, George Whitefield and his associates did not subscribe but adapted Calvin’s teaching for their ministry.

What about reformed faith in general and reformed Baptist conviction (The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith) in particular? I have established  that both the reformed faith and reformed Baptist conviction are no Calvinism in one of  my  articles[i]. Should there be any trace of Calvinism and it should be regarded only as adapted Calvinism at most, because it does not agree totally with Calvinism. This is obvious with reformed Baptist conviction. The word “reformed” is employed and not “Calvinist” simply shows that the early believers did not want to limit themselves with Calvin’s teaching alone. They preferred to have the freedom to select what they deemed as suitable from the other reformers’ teaching. The name “Baptist” suggests an independent local church and this is an obvious break away from Calvin’s and other reformers’ idea of a national church. Its conviction of believer baptism also played a role to distant themselves from Calvin’s permission to allow child baptism. Under such circumstance, do we still insist that reformed faith and reformed Baptists are Calvinists? Judging from history, reformed faith and reformed Baptist conviction is the result of a long process of adoption and adaptation of theological thinking. The whole process is dynamic and it cannot just be equated with Calvinism alone.

Strangely, yet, there is a dispute among the reformed people about Calvinism. At the global level, there is this group of conference speakers, with reformed background, who managed to attract to themselves a good following with their reformed teaching. Unfortunately, they have also attracted to themselves the unnecessary attention and criticism from certain party from within the reformed circle. They called them the New Calvinist because allegedly they have compromised the Calvinist conviction. Alarm has been sounded to the reformed believers to dissociate themselves from these New Calvinists. Such accusation can be heard also among the reformed Baptists locally. Reformed Baptists is such a small group of believers and yet we have fallen into this illogical dispute and division.

The question is, why bother to label another as New Calvinist when Calvinist does not exist? Why a reformed believer should condemns another reformed believer as New Calvinist? Strictly speaking, most of of the reformed believers are adapted Calvinists but never Calvinists. We do not uphold all the teaching of Calvin as the tenet of our faith. We have adapted Calvin’s teaching selectively . Our struggle therefore should not be between choosing either Calvinist or New Calvinist, but a firm commitment to preach the gospel fully as the Bible has taught it. We have to actively preach it to men and women who come from different cultures, different age groups, and different political situations.

---

[i] What is reformed faith?

What is reformed faith?

It is a difficult question to answer, because “reformed faith” means different thing to different people today. The scenario is like a few blind men are asked to explain what an elephant is after they have each got a feel of the animal with their hands. Some would say that reformed faith is a better alternative to evangelical belief. It has nothing in common with the “charismatic teaching”, and this has led some to regard it as narrow and anti Holy Spirit. Some say it is just another denomination, since there are Methodist, Anglicans, Lutheran, Assembly of God, and Gospel Chapel, and so there is the Reformed Church. Some would associate it with the 16^th century Reformation. The Reformed Baptist, in particular would refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith as the authority of their faith.

Prior to answering the question, it is necessary to make a distinction between Reformation and Reformed faith. They are not identical though related. They represent two entirely different developments that belong to two different periods in church history. First of all, the Reformation is also known as Protestantism. It was a sociological, ecclesiastical, and political movement. It began in Germany in the early 16th century as a reaction against medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, especially in regard to salvation, justification, and ecclesiology. The movement was held together by a common desire in denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the  principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth. These tenacious principles eventually became the core belief of more than 30,000 strong protestant followers throughout Europe. These followers, while holding on to this core belief, disagreed with one another on various other doctrinal issues as soon as the movement gained momentum in breaking away from the papal authority.

Then, Reformed faith was believably referring to the core belief of this movement. When the movement was divided by doctrinal dispute, the definition of “reformed faith” soon faded into the chaotic background. Later the name was once again being revived and associated with the teaching of Calvin and Zwingli during the time of the English Puritan in the 17^th century. This time around, the Puritan did not fight against the papal authority, but instead they fought hard to free themselves from the powerful hand of the Anglican authority. While the Reformers sought to deny the papal authority, the Puritan resorted to push for changes from within the Anglican Church. Some left the Anglican fold to pursue a greater freedom. The Puritan saw a greater need to minister to the inner man rather than the political situation. They produced a “pastoral theology” to minister to the spiritual need among the likeminded believers. This association was later confined more to Calvinism in the 18^th century, especially during the time of Methodist Evangelical revival that was under the leadership of George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers.

Reformed faith found its way into Malaysia in the early 20^th century or might be earlier and was commonly known as Calvinism. It was shared by some believers across various denominations. We can trace the influence of Calvinism on Christian thinking in Malaysia from various sources. One of them was the overseas students and Bible students who came home with their Christian learning.  Another one of them would be the Presbyterian Church. Reformed faith did not leave a good impression among the Christian community. The first Reformed Baptist congregation in Malaysia was pioneered by a group overseas student who returned from England, in the later part of 20^th century. This new church was supportive of Calvinism. The negative impression about reformed faith has not improved with the establishment of the first Reformed Baptist congregation.

What is reformed faith? Is it all about conforming to a doctrine that is known as “Calvinism”? Judging from the two periods of the Reformation and the struggle of the Puritan, reformed faith did not appear to be hanging on Calvinism alone. Indeed Calvin had contributed quite a fair share in shaping the movement, but he was not the only one to do that. His teaching was part of the whole movement. “Calvinism” was not the only banner the reformers carried. They were promoting something much larger than Calvinism. They were promoting the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were pursuing the freedom of worship as granted by the gospel. To these believers the gospel was far more important and much larger than just one shade of doctrine.

Only very few would equate reformed faith with Calvinism today. Under the close scrutiny of the Bible study, “Calvinism” has been proven “outdated” as a philosophy, and inaccurate as a piece of theology according to the standard of the gospel.  Moreover, Reformed Baptist believers would not be able to agree 100% with “Calvinism”. Reformed Baptist believers would disagree with Calvinism on the interpretation of the presbytery. Reformed Baptist believers would also find it hard to accept its idea of a “national church”. An acceptance of Calvinism minus any part that is regarded not suitable for present day application would result in an adapted version of Calvinism. An adapted version of Calvinism is no Calvinism.  If the Reformed Baptists can only accept an adapted version of Calvinism, then reformed faith cannot be equated with Calvinism.

There is a need to redefine reformed faith and to distant it away from any thinking that is narrow and does not reflect clearly the gospel of Christ Jesus. It is urgent that close examination should be carried out on every tenet that claims to represent reformed faith. Attention must be given to careful study of the Bible just as the reformers had worked out their philosophy from the Bible to challenge the papal authority. Reformed faith was a faith in Christ Jesus that brought changes into Europe. Can reformed faith give the world the same magic today?

We can now safely conclude that reformed faith is all about the gospel of Christ Jesus and never about Calvin, nor Luther, nor Zwingli. Reformed faith is for careful study of the Bible, and not for lip servicing the slogan that the Bible is the final authority of our belief and practice. Reformed faith is ultimately for radical change according to the demand of the gospel. Reformed faith would not be complete without the “reformed gut”. The good faith was there in the Bible, but without someone who was courageous enough to champion it, it would remain mere words. God had raised a generation of Christians who were courageous enough to do that. These Christians could, in no uncertain terms, said to one another, “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also. The body they may kill; God’s truth abideth still, His kingdom is forever”.

Bible study tools

Proper tools are required to study any ancient literature. The Bible is an ancient book and appropriate tools are required to unlock its message. There are three important tools commonly used by the Bible students. These tools are Biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, and homiletics. These three little words are actually jargons and so  some explanation and illustration is necessary.

Exegesis: It is an art of critical analysis that is used to study the ancient text in its original language, with the purpose of bringing out its original message. It involves text study, sentence structure, and word study etc. A good grasp of the original languages is essential to a good exegetical study because the Scripture was written in different ancient languages. The Old Testament scripture was mainly written in Hebrews with a touch of Aramaic, and a trace to Akkadians and Arabic root. Then there is this Septuagint, which was a translation, and it was written in koine Greek. This Greek translation of the Old Testament was popularly used by the Jews and our Lord. Koine Greek was a common dialect or lingua franca of the Roman Empire since 3^rd century BC and that was slightly different from the classical Greek. The New Testament was also written in Koine Greek with a bit of Aramaic.

Naturally, one has to be well versed with all these languages before he can actually place his hand on these two testaments. Therefore, strictly speaking, Biblical exegesis is a special task that requires professional knowledge. Looking around in the Christian community in Malaysia, there are not many people who can carry out the job. Obviously, there is none among the Reformed Baptist fraternal that can exegete the Biblical texts in its original language. For the few of us who have gone through training in the Bible colleges have merely picked up superficial knowledge about exegesis. This is a fact and we have to humbly admit it. Can we still carry out the task of biblical exegesis? Yes, we can, though not as a specialist. We can still make exegetical observation on the English version of the Bible with the help of good exegetical commentaries. We can come to a closer grasp of the Bible by our critical observation.

Hermeneutics: It is an art of interpreting the original message from the scripture and it is closely associated with exegesis. Biblical interpretation and biblical exegesis are Siamese twins. They would produce accurate search on the scripture when they work hand in hand with one another. When the exegesis is inaccurate the interpretation would be wrong. Yet many Bible students have gone straight into interpreting the scripture without paying any attention to exegetical work. Probably they presume that the two are the same, and if they have done the interpretation they would have done the exegetical work. When exegetical work is ignored, then they have to resort to big doctrinal argument to support their interpretation.

Homiletics: Generally, this is a study on public speaking. Its emphasis is usually on the beauty of the message and on the persuasiveness in the delivery of the message. In the Christian practice, this is an art of public preaching from the scripture. In this sense, expository preaching is closer to the heart of the Christian homiletics. The message comes straight from what the preacher has found from both the exegetical work and the work of interpretation, and then special emphasis is placed on the application of the message.

In the following is an outline of a sermon which I heard some time ago. It is a good example how one can jump straight into interpretation and homiletics without paying sufficient attention to exegesis. It was one of the better messages I have heard, but I still feel that the exegetical work was lacking and the message drifted away from the original intention of the text.

The triumph of God's grace

1. Introduction
2. Focus on the family
3. An abdication of responsibility
4. The desperation of a lady
5. Vindication amidst immorality
6. Reflection ad application

Now, I will show you how I worked out an outline of a message, from Gen.38, by using the three study tools, in the following;

Exegetical observation

This is an outline of Genesis 38. This is a plain story without any interpretation. This is what exegesis supposes to be. It is, of course, a bit tougher when come to controversial text.

1. Judah married a foreign woman and bore three sons. 
2. He then got a wife for the older son
3. God killed him because of his wickedness 
4. Then the second son was ordered to marry the woman.
5. God killed the second son too for his refusal to produce any child with the woman.
6. Then Tamar was told to wait as widow.
7. Judah broke his promise.
8. Tamar used her deception to get herself a son with Judah.
9. Tamar saved herself death penalty with Judah’s signet and cord, and staff.
10. Tamar gave birth to two sons.

Interpretation

In interpretation we should ask as many questions as possible. Why did Moses record the story? Was it about man’s conduct? Was it all about immorality? Was it about the wrongness in human cunningness? Was it about one man's responsibility to reproduce on behalf of his own deceased brother? Or was it about God and His will? The message which I heard seems to focus more on the issue of immorality and how these moral problems being overcame by the Grace of God. But, from the plain exegesis we do not find such passing of judgment on Judah and Tamar in the text, except the two sons who were killed by God. 

It is difficult and inaccurate to judge the conduct in the Old Testament from our perspective. What appears to be wrong to us may not be wrong in the Old Testament. The reason given for the older son’s punishment was his wickedness. The text does not provide further information about the nature of his wickedness. It is a puzzle why did God punish him while they were many people might be worse than him. The conduct of the second son, to us, is definitely not serious enough to be punished. But it was serious enough to God.  From the wider context in Genesis, it is quite safe to say that the two sons’ wickedness has to do with their refusal to have any child with Tamar. His conduct was not a moral issue but was an act of disobedience. Judah’s casual relationship with the prostitute would be a horror to us but it was alright to the society then. As a widow, Tamar’s pregnancy was unacceptable to her society, but it might not be so today. So it is inaccurate to treat the story like this as a teaching material on moral issue.

It is more appropriate to interpret the story as God’s progressive way of revealing His will to the Jews. The larger context in Genesis and the information provided by the gospels would help us to arrive at a clearer interpretation. Jacob had 12 sons and on each he gave his blessing. Judah received his share of the blessing as recorded in Genesis 49.8-12. Judah’s line had a special role to play in God’s salvation plan. Tamar had a special place in God’s plan. Tamar’s son Perez was an important link in the genealogy right up to Jesus Christ. (Mt.1.3; Lk.3.33)!

Homily

Now we have a message from Genesis 38 and we have to present it in a manner that would be relevant and be able to connect to the listeners. Perhaps at this point we have to find out who is actually the leading character in the story. It is very much like directing a film show and the director would normally tell his history by casting the leading and supporting actors or actresses in a distinctive manner. It would not work if all turn out to be leading actors and actresses or all were in the supporting roles. So in our presentation, we have to decide on the leading character and the supporting ones. There must not be any confusion here. Do we have Judah or Tamar as the leading person? I would choose Tamar and use her to tell the story, and the outline will be as the following.

God's will prevailed! 

 Introduction: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts (Is.55.9). It was unthinkable and unbelievable to the Jews that Tamar a foreign woman was chosen as the vessel to bear the seed of Judah.

1. Tamar the passive bride (1-6)
2. Tamar the “black widow” (7-11)
3. Tamar the cunning daughter in law (12-23)
4. Tamar the blessed mother (24-30)

Application: What shall we do when we encounter such a wise and sovereign God who had not only a salvation plan, but also had the power and wisdom to bring the plan to its consummation? Three things we can do when we get to know our God from the story of Tamar;

·         We should humble ourselves before Him and complain no more.

·         We should bow down and worship Him

·         We should learn to appreciate what the Lord had taught His disciples about “let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Rounding up:

What is the whole purpose of insisting on using the appropriate tools in Bible study? It is all about the science of analytical study. It is proven as the right method to study the Bible and to extract its intended message from the Bible. At the end of the preaching, we have to ask ourselves whether or not we have imparted the accurate grasp of the Scripture to the congregation. We have to ask also whether or not we have delivered the correct homily to the people. It is never an easy task to preach an accurate message that is based on the Bible. Hard it might be, but our calling is not to mislead others by our ill prepared homily.

A journey in bible study

Serdang Church has organized a seminar on Biblical Exegesis in 1986. I was then a fresh graduate from Seminary Theology Malaysia and was posted to Klang Wesley Methodist Church as a pastor in the month of June. I was informed that a delegation of 10 members had signed up for the seminar. I was impressed by the effort initiated by the Serdang church to organize a seminar on such an important subject. I was convinced that organizing such seminar was the right thing to do because it would help Christians to appreciate the right approach to study the Bible. It is always the desire of most thinking Christians to obtain proper Bible knowledge by developing the correct method in Bible study. Such desire is commonly shared by Christians from all denominations. The 10 Methodist members who had signed up for that seminar that was organized by a Reformed Baptist Church simply prove the point. The organizing committee should have made it its aim to promote Bible knowledge by imparting the knowledge of Biblical Exegesis in the subsequent seminars, then it would have been able to reach out to a larger group of Christians in the Klang Valley.

The golden opportunity was given to Serdang Church and it started well, but unfortunately it slipped away into a wrong direction. The subsequent seminars and conferences moved quickly to focus on themes and issues that only interested the Reformed members. The response from other denominations was not so good; at least, the 10 Methodist members did not show up for any seminar after that. Since then, the Reformed Baptists became more and more inward looking and moved into a direction of division by entangling with unending doctrinal dispute. Each one held on to his own interpretation of the Bible. Elders and members from the same fraternal were hard working in proving to one another that who is truly “reformed” and the end result is that many were hurt and disappointed. Elders are pointing fingers at each other and calling each other names that are less than being kind. Elders and churches are afraid to do anything right that is out of the reformed frame work for the fear that they might be branded as un-reformed. The situation is very much like what is reported in Judges; “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (21.25).The strangest thing is that all these took place while we claim that the Bible is our final authority and the 1689 Confession our common consensus. In this sense, the reformed Baptists are not in any way different from the other denominations.

The question now is how to pull the Reformed churches out of this muddy puddle? We have tried the Reformed distinctiveness and it did not work. We have tried waving the 1689 Confession and it became the cause of dispute. We have laid our hands on many other attempts but we have not tried hard enough with the exegetical study of the Bible. Shall we?

Paul’s letter to the church in Rome: An outline

The importance of the gospel was definitely in Paul’s mind when he wrote the letter. He began and ended the letter referring to the gospel. He declared what the gospel was all about, and he expressed he was not ashamed about it and wanted to preach it. He demonstrated how the ultimate will of God was revealed by the gospel. He shaded light on how the gospel has reinterpreted and redefined everything about the Jews and the Gentiles pertaining to their spiritual condition and salvation. In the same context, the gospel assigned a well defined spiritual function to the Law in the saving plan of God. Naturally, the gospel of Christ Jesus would be an obvious entry point to understand the message in the letter.

Greetings (1.1-12)

1.       From Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ, who was set aside for the gospel (1.1-6)

2.       Greetings to the church in Rome (7)

3.       Paul’s thanksgiving because of the church (8)

4.       Paul prayed for the church and made request that he might e able to visit the church (9-12)

The gospel revealed the righteousness and the wrath of God (1.13-18)

1.       Paul expressed that he was indebted to the Gentiles and he was ready to preach the gospel to them.

2.       Paul expressed that he was not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God to save everyone who believes (16).

3.       Paul testified that the gospel revealed the righteousness of God to those who believe (17).

4.       Paul declared that the wrath of God was revealed from heaven against man’s unrighteousness and ungodliness (18a)

The gospel demonstrated the certainty of God’s judgment on mankind (1.18b-2.5)

1.       Because man suppress the truth (what may be known of God is manifest in them) in unrighteousness and God gave them up to uncleanness (18b-24)

2.       Because man exchanged the truth of God for the lie and God gave them up to vile passions (1.25-27)

3.       Because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge and God gave them to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting (28-31)

·         They know who practice such things are deserving of death and yet not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (32)

·         They know God’s judgment is against those who practice such things, and yet they practice the same while making judgment on others (2.1-4)

·         But they are treasuring up for themselves wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (5)

The gospel asserted that God would be impartial in His judgment (2.6-29)

1.       God “will render to each one according to his deeds” (6-11)

·         Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality. But to those who are self seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also the Greek. But glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

2.       For as many as have sinned without Law[i] will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law.(12-29)

The gospel declared that man can only be justified by faith (3.1-31)

1.       The Jew might have an advantage over the Gentiles with the oracles of God, but they are not better than the Gentiles because they are also sinful like the Gentiles. This is confirmed by the word of God (1-18).

2.       Since the Law[ii] merely provides knowledge of sin and it definitely cannot justify anyone (the Jews) based on the deeds of the Law (19-20).

3.       But now the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ is revealed by the gospel, without the help of the Law, to all and on all who believe (21-22b).

4.       For there is no difference; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and all have to be justified freely by His grace through redemption that is in Christ Jesus (22c-26).

5.       {The heart of justification: God had set forth Christ Jesus as a propitiation by his blood, through faith,

·         To demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

·         To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.}

6.       Man can only boast on the ground of faith since man can only be justified by faith without the help from the deeds of the Law (27-28).

7.       Since God is the God of both the Jews and the Gentiles, He will justify the circumcised and the uncircumcised by faith. He cannot justify the Jews by deeds of the Law and then justifies the Gentiles by faith (29-30).

8.       The principle of faith will not make void the Law but instead will establish it[iii]. (31)

The gospel demonstrated how Abraham attained God’s righteousness by his faith (4.1-25)

1.       The scripture says that “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (1-5)

2.       David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from work (6-8).

3.       This blessedness came to Abraham while he was uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of faith (9-12).

4.       The promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith, so that he promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham  (13-16)

5.       Abraham believed that God could give life to the dead and call those things which do not exist as though they did, so that he became the father of many nations (17-18)

6.       Abraham was not disturbed by his old age and deadness of Sarah’s womb, and he did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was able to perform. Because of this firm belief, it was accounted to him for righteousness (19-22).

7.       This experience was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification (23-25).

The gospel affirmed that faith in the work of Christ Jesus justified those who believed (4.25-5.21)

1.       Christ Jesus was delivered because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith (4.25-5.6),

2.       For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly…But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him (7-9)

3.       We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled; we shall be saved by His life. We rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have  now received the reconciliation (10-11)

4.       Grace of God came through Jesus Christ that resulted in justification, but sin and death entered the world through Adam, death spread to all men because all men sinned (12-21);

·         {For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no Law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come}

·         {The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.}

The gospel reminded the believers that life under grace is a life free from sin and enslaved to serve God (6.1-7.6)

1.       Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? (6.1-14)

·         Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?  Those who died in Christ death are no longer slave to sin, but are raised to newness of life in Christ.

·         Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.  

2.       Shall we sin because we are not under Law but under grace? (6.15-7.4)

·         Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?  (An illustration from slavery)

·          Or do you not know, brethren, for I speak to those who know the Law, that the Law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? (An illustration from a marriage)

3.       For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the Law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. Now we have been delivered from the Law so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit. (7.5-6) 

The gospel reminded the believers that it was the power of sin and not the Law that produced death (7.7-25)

1.       Is the Law sin? (7-12)

·         No! On the contrary, the Law is spiritual, holy, and good and with its specific function. It is sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire.

·         It is sin; taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.

2.       Is it the good Law that brings death to me? (13)

·         No! It is the power of sin that produced death in me through what is good.

3.       Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin dwells in me. (14-20)

4.       The law of the mind wills to do good, but the law of the flesh warring against it, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?(21-24)

5.       I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord (because He will deliver me)! (25)

The gospel asserted that there will be no condemnation to those who are in Christ, who walk according to the Spirit, and as children of God they would be ensured of God’s love (8.1.39)

1.       There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.(7.25-8.1)

2.       For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made the believers free from the law of sin and death.  And they are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in them. (2-11)

3.       Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.  For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.  (12-17)

4.       For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.  (18-27)

5.       And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.   (28-30)

6.       For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,  nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.(31-39)

The gospel provided the first reason why the Jews did not attain God’s righteousness (9.1-29)

1.       Paul wished that he himself be accursed from Christ for his countrymen who were given the rich promise of God, but have not attained righteousness. (1-5)

2.       But it is not that the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.   (6-13)

3.       God will save the remnant of Israel. God show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. (14-29)

The gospel provided the second reason why the Jews did not attain God’s righteousness (9.30-10. 21)

1.       (An irony): The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have obtained the righteousness of faith. But Israel who pursued the Law of righteousness did not obtain it, because they did not seek it by faith. (9.30-33)

2.       Paul prayed that the Jews might be made right with God, but they preferred to establish their own righteousness out of their ignorance of God’s righteousness. (10.1-3)

3.       Two things about the righteousness of faith; (10.4-13)

·         Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

·         The righteousness of the law says, “The man who does those things shall live by them.”

But the righteousness of faith says, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”  

4.       God has done everything possible to bring them in, but they refused. On the other hand, when God turned to the Gentiles with the gospel and they obeyed. (14-21)

The gospel provided the third reason why the Jews did not attain God’s righteousness (11.1-36)

1.       God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (1-10)

2.       But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. This is a mystery that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.  For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.(11-36)

The gospel calls for a commitment to a body life (12.1-21)

1.       Believers should present themselves to God as a reasonable service. (1-2)

2.       Believers should commit themselves to the  ministry to one another with multiple gifts (3-21)

The gospel demands a civil and social responsibility from the believers (13.1-14)

1.       Be subject to the governing authorities (1-7)

2.       Owe no one anything except to love one another (8-14)

The gospel demands the strong to take care of the weak (14.1-15.7)

1.       Receive one who is weak in the faith (1-23)

2.       We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak (15.1-7)

3.       This attitude of the strong fending for the weak is very much the grand achievement of the mission of Christ Jesus; “Jesus Christ has become a servant to circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy”. (8-14)

Paul’s personal plan and greetings to those who were in Rome (15.15-16.27)

1.       Paul reminded the believers of the grace of God that was upon him; (15.15-16)

·         That he might be a minister to the Gentiles.

·         That the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

2.       Paul expressed his confidence in Christ Jesus for He had accomplished through him in word and deed, in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to make the Gentiles obedient, and for that reason he had fully preached the gospel from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum. (17-19)

3.       Paul shared that he would not duplicate the gospel work of others and for that he was prevented from coming to Rome. He was ready to visit them after he planned to move on to Spain. (20-24)

4.       But he had to go to Jerusalem first to deliver aid to the saints and he would visit them when he had finished the task before going to Spain (25-29)

5.       Paul requested their prayer for the task in Jerusalem (30-33)

6.       Personal greetings (16.1-24)

7.       Doxology: Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began……To God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen. (25-27)

---

[i] The word “Law” with the capital letter “L” refers to the Law of Moses and the word “law” with the small letter “l” will be interpreted differently according to the context.

[ii] This is the chief function of the Law defined and assigned by the gospel of Christ Jesus, to bring the knowledge of sin to those who knew the Law (Jews and the proselytes) by magnifying the sinfulness of sin in them.

[iii] The word “establish” has the connotation of “confirming” in the present context. It is more reasonable to interpret that the Jews have confirmed by their faith in Christ Jesus that the Law was assigned to them specifically to convince them of their sins and bringing them to Christ. In other words, it is an acknowledgment of the fact that the Law was assigned by the gospel of Christ Jesus.