Latest / Reformed Thinking / Why Romans Matters: Calvin Introduces Paul’s Greatest Letter | John Calvin

Transcript

Why Romans Matters: Calvin Introduces Paul’s Greatest Letter | John Calvin · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to Reformed Thinking. For the next stretch, we're
• 0:03
  going to be doing a deep dive into some really influential
• 0:07
  theological writing. We are.
• 0:09
  Our source material is coming straight from the introductory
• 0:11
  sections of John Calvin's classic commentary on the
• 0:15
  Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans.
• 0:17
  And this is more than just looking at an old book, isn't
• 0:19
  it? Oh, absolutely.
• 0:20
  This is about getting to the theological heart of the
• 0:23
  Reformation and doing it through the one text that was really the
• 0:26
  hinge for the whole thing. Paul's letter to Rome.
• 0:29
  Right is the letter that changed Augustine, then Looter, then
• 0:33
  Wesley. So to get Romans is to get the,
• 0:36
  well, the spiritual and intellectual engine of the 16th
• 0:38
  century. OK, so our mission for this is
• 0:40
  pretty straightforward. We want to understand why this
• 0:43
  epistle is seen as the the very entryway to all of Scripture.
• 0:47
  Yeah. And to do that, we have to look
• 0:49
  at how the earliest commentators handed it, what the big
• 0:52
  scholarly fights were about during the Reformation.
• 0:55
  And then what Calvin's specific contribution was, especially
• 0:58
  when it came to that central conflict, salvation by works
• 1:02
  versus salvation by faith. We'll lay out the history of the
• 1:05
  letter, the scholarly debates around it, and then walk through
• 1:08
  the logical argument Paul is making all through Calvin's
• 1:11
  eyes. So for you, this gives you a
• 1:14
  kind of shortcut to understanding the deepest
• 1:16
  mechanics of Reformed thought. So let's start with that
• 1:20
  historical overview, Paul's letter to the Romans.
• 1:24
  I mean, it drew serious intellectual fire from the very
• 1:27
  beginning. It did.
• 1:28
  This was never just another letter.
• 1:30
  It was seen almost immediately as a theological declaration of
• 1:34
  war against, well, human effort. And the sheer amount of
• 1:37
  commentary on it over the centuries is it's really
• 1:40
  something. It is striking.
• 1:41
  Yeah. The Fathers of the church they
• 1:42
  study needed intensely origin back in the 3rd century.
• 1:46
  He wrestled with Romans, then Jerome, Chrysostom, and of
• 1:50
  course Augustine. They all relied so heavily on it
• 1:52
  in the 4th century. And Augustine is the big one,
• 1:54
  right? For sure, his whole doctrine of
• 1:56
  grace is built on his reading of Romans, and that interest just
• 1:59
  keeps going, you know, through Theodore in the 5th century and
• 2:02
  then figures like Ecumenius and Theophilac much later.
• 2:05
  But then something changes in the 16th century.
• 2:08
  The commentary landscape just explodes.
• 2:11
  That's right, because before the Reformation, a lot of
• 2:13
  commentators were trying to harmonize the text with church
• 2:16
  tradition or just give practical advice.
• 2:19
  But then the stakes get raised. Hugely, the reformers are
• 2:22
  claiming Scripture as the sole authority, and Romans is, you
• 2:26
  know, the sharpest tool in their doctrinal toolbox.
• 2:29
  So suddenly you get these comprehensive commentaries from
• 2:32
  men like Bollinger and Booser. And then right after them, in
• 2:35
  1539, comes Calvin's work from Strasbourg.
• 2:38
  So he's writing into an argument that's already happening.
• 2:40
  He is. The whole point was to get back
• 2:43
  to what Scripture actually said, which meant these commentaries
• 2:46
  became a theological battleground.
• 2:47
  Especially against the Roman Church's scholasticism, right?
• 2:51
  You look at a scholar like Perius, a very learned man.
• 2:54
  He wrote this major work specifically to refute the
• 2:57
  arguments and what the source calls the sophistries of Popish
• 3:00
  writers. And he had a specific target in
• 3:03
  mind, didn't he? Bellarmine, he did.
• 3:05
  The source describes Bellarmine as the the cutest, the subtlest,
• 3:09
  and the most learned Jesuit of his age.
• 3:11
  So a real theological heavyweight?
• 3:14
  What does it mean that Perrius was fighting his sophistries?
• 3:18
  Well, it means Bellarmine was defending the Roman Catholic
• 3:20
  view on tradition, on the sacraments, and most of all on
• 3:24
  the role of human merit in justification.
• 3:26
  So he was subtle. Very he understood the Reformers
• 3:29
  points, so he would build defenses that look scriptural
• 3:33
  but still carved out of space for human cooperation and church
• 3:35
  authority. So Perry has had to be
• 3:37
  incredibly thorough to take that apart.
• 3:40
  And he wasn't just fighting on one front, the source says.
• 3:42
  He also had to address the perversions of Sicilianism.
• 3:46
  For someone listening today, what was that?
• 3:48
  Sicilianism was basically an early Unitarian movement, and it
• 3:51
  was a huge threat because it challenged the very foundation
• 3:54
  of Christian doctrine. They rejected the Trinity, the
• 3:56
  deity of Christ, and original sin.
• 3:59
  And if you get rid of original sin.
• 4:00
  The whole argument of Romans just falls apart.
• 4:03
  Paul's entire point that everyone is under condemnation
• 4:06
  and needs grace from a substitute just evaporates.
• 4:09
  So Piraeus is fighting A2 front War, One against the system that
• 4:14
  adds human works, and one against the system that removes
• 4:17
  the need for Christ's divine work.
• 4:19
  It just shows you how central Romans was to defining what
• 4:22
  Christianity even was at that time.
• 4:24
  And that fight kept going. The source mentions later
• 4:27
  figures who held to Calvin's doctrine even as things started
• 4:30
  to shift a bit in Protestantism. Yeah.
• 4:33
  Take Turton in Geneva, early 18th century.
• 4:35
  He was generally orthodox, but the source notes that doctrine
• 4:39
  had sort of degenerated a little in his time.
• 4:42
  His work showed a leaning that might compromise the essentials,
• 4:46
  at least in his way of explaining things.
• 4:48
  A deviation in the mode of explanation, or what does that
• 4:50
  usually signal? A move toward rationalism,
• 4:53
  maybe. Often, yes, an attempt to soften
• 4:55
  the harder edges of doctrines like predestination to make them
• 4:58
  more acceptable to, you know, a secular reason.
• 5:01
  It's moving from theological certainty toward a more
• 5:03
  philosophical approach. And you can contrast him with
• 5:05
  someone like Ellen Parr, an English commentator, right?
• 5:09
  His style is described as quaint, but his beliefs were
• 5:12
  completely in line with the reformers.
• 5:15
  He represents that stream of doctrinal purity outside the
• 5:18
  academic pressures you saw on the continent.
• 5:21
  So you see this tension continue right into the 19th century in
• 5:24
  America. You have commentators who are
• 5:26
  all considered orthodox, but they have very different ways of
• 5:29
  handling the text. The source names 3.
• 5:32
  Professor Stewart is called the most learned, the most versed in
• 5:35
  criticisms. So he's focused on the language,
• 5:38
  the history, the context. Then there's the Reverend A
• 5:40
  Barnes. He's the fullest, the most
• 5:43
  detailed, going line by line. But like Turton, he sometimes
• 5:47
  deviated in his mode of explanation.
• 5:49
  Maybe. Leaning a little more Armenian
• 5:50
  on some points. That's usually what it implies,
• 5:52
  yes. A slight softening of the
• 5:54
  Reformed view on atonement or human freedom.
• 5:56
  And the third is Professor Charles Hodge of Princeton.
• 5:59
  And Hodge is described as the cutest, the most concise, and
• 6:03
  this is the key part, liable to no charge of deviation from
• 6:06
  strict orthodoxy. So he had the scholarly depth
• 6:09
  without giving up the Reformation principles.
• 6:11
  He really did, and this whole comparison just shows you that
• 6:15
  interpretation is a minefield. One tiny shift in how you
• 6:19
  explain a Greek word can alter the whole doctrinal structure of
• 6:23
  Romans. And we can't forget Doctor
• 6:25
  Chalmers in Scotland. He's described a bit
• 6:28
  differently. He is.
• 6:28
  He's called a philosopher of the highest grade, but with the
• 6:31
  heart of a humble Christian. The source says he could
• 6:35
  expatiate over the whole field of truth with the eye of an
• 6:38
  eagle and the docility of a child.
• 6:40
  That's quite a description. It is.
• 6:42
  It means he had the huge intellect to see the big
• 6:44
  picture, but the humility to submit all of it to what
• 6:48
  Scripture said. He could make these abstract
• 6:50
  ideas concrete and memorable without ever going beyond
• 6:53
  revelation. So this whole history, from the
• 6:56
  early fathers all the way to the 19th century, it all proves one
• 6:59
  thing. That grappling with Romans has
• 7:00
  always been the defining task of orthodox biblical Christianity.
• 7:04
  OK, let's shift from the commentators to the text itself.
• 7:07
  The origins, the style. When and where was Romans
• 7:10
  written? The general agreement is that it
• 7:12
  was written from Corinth, probably at the end of 57 AD or
• 7:16
  the very beginning of 58. Which makes it the 5th letter
• 7:19
  Paul wrote after Thessalonians, Galatians and 1st Corinthians.
• 7:23
  That's right. Now before we get into the
• 7:25
  style, we have to tackle this huge historical dispute, the
• 7:28
  idea that Peter Co founded the church at Rome.
• 7:31
  Or even that he was its Bishop for 25 years.
• 7:33
  Right. That tradition was a massive
• 7:36
  pillar for papal authority, and the reformers had to
• 7:39
  systematically take it apart. And the evidence from Paul's own
• 7:42
  writing is just devastatingly against it.
• 7:45
  I mean, just think about the basic etiquette of writing
• 7:48
  letters back then. First, when Paul writes to the
• 7:52
  Romans in 57 or 58, he sends greetings to a whole list of
• 7:55
  people, but he sends no greeting to Peter.
• 7:58
  If Peter was the Bishop, the most prominent Christian in the
• 8:01
  city, that silence is just deafening.
• 8:04
  That's a good point. And what about when Paul
• 8:06
  actually gets to Rome? It gets even clearer.
• 8:08
  He's a prisoner there from about 61 to 63 AD and he writes 4 or 5
• 8:12
  letters from there. He never once mentions Peter.
• 8:14
  Not in Philippians, not in Colossians.
• 8:16
  Nowhere again. If Peter is the established
• 8:19
  leader, there's a giant hole in Paul's letters.
• 8:22
  And the final piece of evidence is maybe the most powerful.
• 8:25
  It is during his last imprisonment, right before he's
• 8:27
  executed. Paul writes to Timothy and says
• 8:30
  all forsook him. All forsook him.
• 8:32
  If Peter, the supposed chief apostle and Bishop of Rome was
• 8:36
  there, that statement makes Peter out to be a coward, which
• 8:41
  is just impossible to believe given Peters story after
• 8:44
  Pentecost. So the source we mentioned
• 8:46
  Parias, he actually proved this chronologically.
• 8:49
  He. Did meticulously.
• 8:51
  He used acts in Galatians to show that Peter was in Judea at
• 8:54
  the exact times tradition puts him in Rome.
• 8:57
  He was in Judea when Paul was converted.
• 8:59
  He was there three years later. He was imprisoned by Herod in
• 9:02
  Jerusalem in 45 AD. And at the Jerusalem Council in
• 9:04
  49. Right, the timeline just doesn't
• 9:06
  work. The 25 year Bishop claim is
• 9:09
  physically impossible. So the conclusion is that Peter
• 9:11
  was the apostle to the circumcision ministering to
• 9:13
  Jews. And that the tradition of him
• 9:15
  founding the Roman Church is what Perius calls a fable,
• 9:18
  something that grew up with the superstitions of the time to
• 9:21
  support institutional claims. OK, let's turn to Paul's writing
• 9:25
  style. The source mentions some
• 9:27
  scholars who tried to make Paul sound like a classical Greek
• 9:30
  writer, an eloquent rhetorician. Yeah, and the source rightly
• 9:33
  calls that a labor not wisely undertaken.
• 9:37
  Because it just wasn't true. Not at all.
• 9:39
  Paul's writing is definitively not classical.
• 9:42
  His style is Hebraistic. He was a Hellenistic Jew,
• 9:45
  trained under Gamaliel, steeped in the Old Testament.
• 9:48
  And that detail changes how you have to interpret everything.
• 9:52
  It does. It means when Paul uses a Greek
• 9:54
  word, you have to look for its meaning in the Septuagint, the
• 9:58
  Greek translation of the Old Testament, not in what Plato or
• 10:01
  Demosthenes meant by it. Can you give an example?
• 10:03
  Sure, the Greek word for righteousness, the kyosene.
• 10:07
  In the classics that means civic justice or moral virtue.
• 10:10
  But Paul is using it to translate the Hebrew concept
• 10:13
  sedak, which is this rich covenantal legal status that God
• 10:17
  declares. If you miss that Hebrew istic
• 10:19
  route, you miss the entire doctrine of justification.
• 10:22
  So this raises A theological point.
• 10:24
  Why did God use an apostle whose style wasn't considered, you
• 10:28
  know, eloquent or classical? Well, Paul himself says he
• 10:31
  disclaimed Excellency of speech for a reason.
• 10:34
  He didn't want the message of the cross to be made of no
• 10:37
  effect. So it was a deliberate choice.
• 10:39
  A deliberate choice by God. The idea was that faith
• 10:42
  shouldn't rest on the wisdom of men, on some clever speech, but
• 10:46
  on the work of God. The content had to stand on its
• 10:49
  own. It's like the source says, the
• 10:51
  external casing the shell wasn't made of fine materials.
• 10:54
  Less people be attracted by the shell and neglect the Colonel
• 10:57
  inside. If the apostles had sounded
• 10:59
  better than the greatest Greek orators, people might have
• 11:02
  credited their conversion to good rhetoric, not to the Holy
• 11:05
  Spirit. Let's get back to Calvin himself
• 11:07
  and his method, which really set the standard for Protestant
• 11:10
  commentary. He lays it all out at the start,
• 11:13
  driven by this philosophy he shared with his friend Simon
• 11:16
  Grinneas. Lucid brevity.
• 11:18
  Lucid brevity. What does that mean in practice?
• 11:21
  It means Calvin saw the main job of an interpreter is just laying
• 11:25
  open the mind of the writer. That's it.
• 11:27
  You're there to unlock the text, not to bury it under your own
• 11:30
  genius or endless side notes. To lead readers away from the
• 11:34
  writer's mind is to fail. Right.
• 11:36
  So we aimed for conciseness, clarity, and he wanted to carry
• 11:40
  1 unbroken chain of reasoning throughout.
• 11:43
  So he's not so much an expounder of words as he is of principles.
• 11:47
  That's a great way to put it, the source says.
• 11:49
  He could light up a whole passage with a single clear
• 11:52
  sentence. It's the difference between a
• 11:54
  word study and a real logical synthesis.
• 11:57
  And Professor Stewart notices too, he said Calvin's commentary
• 12:00
  had this fundamental investigation of the logic and
• 12:03
  course of thought, but with very little verbal criticism.
• 12:07
  Yeah, Calvin solves a lot of problems, almost incidentally,
• 12:10
  without showing off his learning, just because he's so
• 12:12
  locked into Paul's main point and how the argument is moving.
• 12:16
  And to really appreciate this lucid brevity, you have to see
• 12:19
  it next to his contemporaries like Boozer.
• 12:21
  Oh yeah. User had this incredible mind,
• 12:24
  but it was almost a liability. He had so many insights on every
• 12:28
  verse that he just didn't know when to stop writing.
• 12:31
  So the commentary ends up being too much for the average person.
• 12:34
  Way too much, too long for a businessman to read and too deep
• 12:37
  for a simple person to follow. He just gave you everything and
• 12:40
  it buried the main point. And then you have Milanthon, who
• 12:43
  did the opposite. Right.
• 12:44
  Milanthon focused on the main theological points, but he would
• 12:47
  skip over a lot of the details that a normal reader might find
• 12:50
  difficult. So you got a good theological
• 12:52
  summary, but not a full on explanation of the text.
• 12:55
  So Calvin found the sweet spot between them.
• 12:58
  He did. He knew that a simple reader
• 13:00
  might get confused trying to decide between Buser and
• 13:03
  Melanchthon, so his goal was to relieve them of that burden, to
• 13:07
  just point out the best, clearest, most logical
• 13:10
  explanation. And there's a real humility in
• 13:13
  his approach to differing interpretations, too.
• 13:16
  He accepts that we're not all going to agree on every little
• 13:19
  detail. He sees it as part of God's
• 13:21
  design. God hasn't given any one person
• 13:24
  perfect knowledge of everything, and that's supposed to keep us
• 13:27
  humble and encourage us to, you know, talk to each other and
• 13:30
  keep studying together. Which sets a really high bar for
• 13:33
  anyone who wants to write a commentary or critique someone
• 13:36
  else's. It does, he says.
• 13:37
  You should only dissent from your predecessors when you are
• 13:40
  constrained by necessity alone and by the motive of seeking to
• 13:43
  do good. That's a powerful phrase.
• 13:45
  It's a warning against just wanting to be novel or being
• 13:48
  driven by ambition. Exactly.
• 13:50
  Calvin saw those as huge dangers that lead people to just twist
• 13:54
  Scripture however they please. His view was you're a servant of
• 13:58
  the text, not its master. All right, let's shift to the
• 14:01
  theological core of the epistle itself.
• 14:04
  The source calls Romans a text with an Excellency that can
• 14:07
  never be sufficiently appreciated.
• 14:09
  Because once you get it, it opens an entrance to all the
• 14:12
  most hidden treasures of scripture.
• 14:15
  It's the key that unlocks the whole library.
• 14:17
  It's really the systematic theology of the New Testament.
• 14:20
  It is. It lays out two things for us
• 14:22
  clearer here than almost anywhere else, the righteousness
• 14:25
  of man and the righteousness of God.
• 14:26
  Or put it another way, merit and grace, salvation by works and
• 14:31
  salvation by faith. And on that basic point, the
• 14:33
  source argues that spiritually minded people have always been
• 14:36
  unanimous. Salvation is from first to last
• 14:39
  by grace, not by works. Which brings us to a huge
• 14:42
  spiritual puzzle. If the language of Romans is so
• 14:45
  plain, so decisive on this, why is there such a fight over it?
• 14:49
  Why do people try to distort its teaching?
• 14:51
  And the answer is unsettling. It's not about a lack of
• 14:54
  intelligence. It's about the unrenewed human
• 14:57
  nature. The natural.
• 14:58
  Man, the natural man, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
• 15:01
  God and cannot know them. That's from First Corinthians.
• 15:04
  So this explains why you can have incredibly smart people who
• 15:08
  just completely miss the point of scripture.
• 15:10
  Right. The learned scribes were blind
• 15:12
  leaders of the blind, and the source suggests it's no
• 15:15
  different today. Without spiritual enlightenment,
• 15:18
  the message of free grace just sounds like foolishness.
• 15:21
  And the specific reason for fighting it is pride.
• 15:25
  Simple as that. The entire system of salvation
• 15:28
  by grace comes into violent, constant contact with the
• 15:32
  strongest principle in our fallen nature.
• 15:34
  Pride. We naturally want to cling to
• 15:36
  our own righteousness, our own effort.
• 15:38
  It's humiliating to admit you're spiritually bankrupt and whether
• 15:41
  someone claims salvation is purely by their own merit or and
• 15:45
  this is more subtle, by an amalgamation of faith and works
• 15:48
  a little bit of. Grace, a little bit of me.
• 15:50
  Right, that still admits the principle of merit.
• 15:52
  It sounds pious, like Christ did most of it.
• 15:54
  But I did my part, and that's maybe the more dangerous
• 15:57
  version. It is, and Paul just crushes
• 15:59
  that idea in Romans 11.6. If it is by grace, it is no
• 16:03
  longer on the basis of works. Otherwise grace would no longer
• 16:07
  be grace. The two principles just can't
• 16:10
  coexist. If I earned even 1% of it, it's
• 16:13
  not grace anymore. And you see this impulse
• 16:15
  throughout the history of religion.
• 16:17
  You do. The source points to the
• 16:19
  heathens striving to earn salvation through their
• 16:22
  ceremonies, their sacrifices, their austerities.
• 16:26
  And Israel fell into the same trap.
• 16:28
  They took God-given rituals that were meant to be aids to faith
• 16:32
  and turn them into meritorious performances.
• 16:34
  They. Just kept multiplying them,
• 16:35
  thinking the sheer quantity of their religious acts would make
• 16:38
  them more secure. And the source says this exact
• 16:40
  same problem crept into the Christian Church.
• 16:43
  Tragically, yes. The accumulation of ceremonies,
• 16:45
  all the rules about fasting, penances, pilgrimages, that's
• 16:49
  all evidence that salvation, salvation by faith was being
• 16:51
  lost. Outward acts become a substitute
• 16:53
  for interchange. A substitute for the grace that
• 16:56
  changes the heart and the living faith that unites you to Christ.
• 17:00
  When people overvalue external privileges and just performing
• 17:03
  religious duties, it's a dead giveaway that they don't really
• 17:06
  get salvation by faith. So the remedy Paul provides in
• 17:10
  Romans is twofold, and the order is critical.
• 17:12
  It is first he has to show what every single person is by nature
• 17:17
  a Sinner under condemnation, guilty before God, Jew and
• 17:21
  Gentile everyone. And only after he establishes
• 17:24
  that universal guilt. Can he reveal the second part,
• 17:27
  God's way of salvation, which is entirely by grace through faith,
• 17:31
  no human effort involved. Because you have to feel the
• 17:34
  sickness to want the cure. That's it.
• 17:36
  The person who is convinced of their sin, who feels its weight,
• 17:39
  that's the only person who can truly grab onto a free
• 17:41
  salvation. As the source says, the whole
• 17:43
  don't need a physician and but the sick do.
• 17:46
  OK, so let's get into the structure of the epistle itself.
• 17:48
  It's not just a random collection of thoughts, it's a
• 17:50
  methodical logical argument. A brilliant one, yeah, and the
• 17:53
  analysis from Professor Hodge and others breaks it down into
• 17:56
  three main parts. So Part 1, The Doctrine of
• 18:00
  Justification and its consequences that covers the 1st
• 18:03
  8 chapters. Right.
• 18:05
  This whole first section is about demonstrating the
• 18:08
  necessity, the nature, and the results of God's solution for
• 18:11
  sin. And he starts by establishing
• 18:13
  the necessity. He really laborers this point
• 18:15
  from chapter one, verse 18 all the way to chapter 3, verse 21.
• 18:19
  Why so long? To make sure that all human
• 18:22
  boasting is completely removed, he has to prove meticulously the
• 18:27
  sin and guilt of both Gentiles and Jews.
• 18:30
  So the Gentiles go first. They don't have the written law,
• 18:33
  but Paul says their own conscience condemns them.
• 18:35
  Exactly. It served as an internal law.
• 18:38
  They suppress the truth they knew, which made them morally
• 18:40
  inexcusable. But the Jews did have the
• 18:43
  written law, and for them, Paul argues, it just made their
• 18:45
  situation worse. Right.
• 18:47
  Instead of being a source of righteousness, the law becomes a
• 18:50
  witness against them. They had the standard but didn't
• 18:52
  keep it, which makes their sin even greater.
• 18:54
  So by the time Paul gets to 3.20, his conclusion is just
• 18:58
  crushing. By works of the law, no human
• 19:00
  being will be justified. The whole world is silenced
• 19:03
  before God. So once that universal guilt is
• 19:05
  established, he moves on to explain the nature of
• 19:08
  justification by faith alone. And chapter 4 gives those two
• 19:13
  killer examples from Jewish history.
• 19:14
  Abraham and David. Abraham's the ultimate case.
• 19:18
  Paul shows he was justified by faith before he was circumcised.
• 19:21
  Which proves that this blessed status, this Felicity, is for
• 19:25
  Gentiles too, since it came before the national sign of the
• 19:27
  covenant. Right.
• 19:28
  And David also speaks about the blessedness of the man to whom
• 19:31
  God credits righteousness apart from many works.
• 19:34
  OK, so then chapters 5 through 8 cover the effects or the fruits
• 19:38
  of this justification. Yep.
• 19:40
  Chapter 5 starts right away with the first fruit, peace with God,
• 19:44
  then access to grace and hope. He makes that great argument, If
• 19:48
  God loved us enough to justify us when we were his enemies, how
• 19:51
  much more will he keep us safe now that we're reconciled?
• 19:54
  Then Chapter 6 tackles that big objection.
• 19:56
  So if salvation is all by grace, should we just keep sinning?
• 19:59
  The antinomian charge, Yeah, and Paul's answer is a resounding
• 20:02
  no. You cannot partake of Christ's
• 20:04
  righteousness for justification without also beginning the
• 20:07
  reality of sanctification. And baptism symbolizes this.
• 20:11
  This participation you're buried with Christ to be raised to
• 20:15
  newness of life. The logic is regeneration has to
• 20:19
  follow justification. Then Chapter 7, which can be a
• 20:22
  confusing chapter for people. It's about the law's real
• 20:25
  purpose, right? Paul says the law is good and
• 20:28
  holy, but because of our sin it can only condemn us.
• 20:31
  It turns to death. And this is where he describes
• 20:33
  that famous inner conflict, the Spirit versus the flesh and the
• 20:37
  children of God. That agony of the believer who
• 20:40
  still has these remnants of sin. The good that I want to do, I
• 20:43
  don't do. It's such an honest picture of
• 20:45
  the Christian life. And that struggle sets the
• 20:47
  incredible consolation of Chapter 8.
• 20:49
  It does after that confession of imperfection, Yeah.
• 20:52
  Chapter 8 comes in to say there is therefore now no condemnation
• 20:56
  and this freedom is only for the regenerated.
• 20:58
  Confidence is secured by the Spirit's testimony.
• 21:01
  Even suffering, Paul says, actually works to promote our
• 21:04
  salvation. And the chapter ends with that
• 21:06
  amazing, triumphant conclusion over everything Satan can throw
• 21:09
  at us. If God is for us, who can be
• 21:12
  against us? OK, that brings us to Part 2.
• 21:15
  God's dealings vindicated, Chapters 9 through 11.
• 21:19
  This feels like a shift in topic.
• 21:21
  It is the first eight chapters laid out the doctrine.
• 21:24
  Now Paul has to address the huge theological crisis that the
• 21:28
  Jews, the original covenant people, rejected their own
• 21:31
  Messiah. He has to defend God's
• 21:33
  faithfulness. So in Chapter 9 he deals with
• 21:35
  this idea that God's covenant failed.
• 21:38
  And he responds by saying not all physical descendants of
• 21:41
  Abraham are the spiritual seed. It all depends on God's
• 21:45
  sovereign election. Jacob and Esau being the primary
• 21:47
  example. The irrefutable example.
• 21:49
  The choice rests on God's mercy alone, not human worthiness, And
• 21:53
  conversely, rejection rests on God's sovereign will.
• 21:57
  But then chapter 10 gives the human side of the story the
• 22:00
  immediate cause of Israel's failure.
• 22:02
  Right. It wasn't arbitrary.
• 22:03
  It came from their blind confidence in their own works.
• 22:05
  They tried to establish their own righteousness instead of
• 22:08
  submitting to gods. They missed the whole point of
• 22:10
  the law. They did, and this righteousness
• 22:12
  of faith is offered to everyone, but it's only received by those
• 22:15
  whom the Lord illuminates by special favor.
• 22:17
  Then Chapter 11 gives the final reassurance God hasn't
• 22:21
  permanently passed away his people, no.
• 22:24
  There is a remnant, just like in the days of Elijah, those who
• 22:28
  are freely predestinated. And then there's a warning to
• 22:31
  the Gentiles. A big one.
• 22:32
  Don't get arrogant. Don't boast over the rejected
• 22:34
  Jews because you're just a wild olive branch grafted in by free
• 22:38
  favor. And it concludes with that
• 22:40
  promise that God will ultimately gather all Israel to himself.
• 22:44
  A future restoration, right? And that leads us to the final
• 22:47
  section, Part 3, practical exhortations and duties from
• 22:52
  chapter 12 to the end. Yep.
• 22:53
  After all that deep doctrine, Paul shows how a justified
• 22:57
  person is supposed to live. So chapter 12 has these general
• 23:00
  commands about Christian life, devotedness, love, using your
• 23:04
  gifts. Then chapter 13, it's very
• 23:06
  specific about obedience to magistrates.
• 23:08
  Because some people thought Christian liberty meant they
• 23:10
  could just ignore the civil government.
• 23:12
  Exactly, Paul says no submission to civil authority is part of
• 23:16
  what love requires. Chapter 14 deals with
• 23:18
  forbearance toward weak brethren, especially about
• 23:21
  things like Mosaic rights and dietary laws.
• 23:24
  This is a big issue. You had superstitious people
• 23:27
  condemning others, and then you have the others who understood
• 23:30
  their freedom may be ridiculing this simple.
• 23:32
  And Paul tells both sides to moderate.
• 23:34
  He does. Christian liberty has to be used
• 23:37
  within the boundaries of love and edification.
• 23:39
  Then chapter 15 sort of concludes the argument, saying
• 23:42
  the strong have to bear with the weak.
• 23:45
  Paul mentions his travel plans. Right, his plan to visit Rome
• 23:48
  after he delivers the alms to Jerusalem.
• 23:50
  And chapter 16 is mainly salutations and a final prayer.
• 23:55
  Wrapping up this incredible logical masterpiece.
• 23:58
  So after going through all that, what does this deep look at
• 24:01
  Calvin's introduction to Romans really mean?
• 24:05
  I think it means that the epistle itself is a perfect
• 24:07
  instrument. It's designed with this
• 24:09
  incredible logic to just dismantle every form of human
• 24:13
  pride and to exalt divine grace. We've seen how Calvin, by
• 24:17
  sticking to that lucid brevity, just follows Paul's argument.
• 24:20
  He strips away any confidence in our own works, ceremonial,
• 24:24
  moral, whatever, to force us to rely completely on Christ's
• 24:27
  righteousness, which we get by faith.
• 24:29
  And the history shows that the fights over this letter, whether
• 24:32
  it was with Bellermine or the Sicinians, they were always
• 24:35
  spiritual battles over the very nature of salvation.
• 24:37
  It wasn't just about intellect. Which is why just being smart
• 24:40
  wasn't enough to get it. For you, the learner, I think
• 24:42
  the key take away is that the structure of Romans is so
• 24:45
  intentional. Paul has to start with universal
• 24:49
  guilt to show why Christ is necessary.
• 24:52
  As the source says, it's impossible for someone to really
• 24:55
  grab onto grace without a real deep knowledge of their own sin.
• 24:58
  So a final thought for you to consider, building on that deep
• 25:01
  analysis of human pride. If our natural impulse is always
• 25:05
  to contribute something to our own salvation, what are the
• 25:08
  subtle ways you might be using right now to substitute outward
• 25:12
  acts or moral efforts for a full and absolute reliance on
• 25:15
  Christ's free salvation? That's the persistent spiritual
• 25:19
  question Romans demands we answer.