Romans: A 12-Week Study by Jared C. Wilson — A Biblical and Theological Review
Estimated time to read:
Read this article to me
Reviewing Romans: A 12-Week Study
Romans: A 12-Week Study by Jared C. Wilson, part of Crossway’s Knowing the Bible series, is a useful and often insightful study of Paul’s letter to the Romans. It is also written from within a theological framework that becomes increasingly important as the study addresses grace, faith, human responsibility, election, predestination, and the sovereignty of God. This review examines Wilson’s study week by week, recognizing where I believe he handles the biblical text well while carefully testing his theological conclusions—including his Calvinist interpretations—against the text of Romans and the wider testimony of Scripture.
WEEK 1 — Overview
Romans Within the Whole of Scripture
I agree with Wilson concerning the extraordinary importance of Paul’s letter to the Romans and the tremendous contribution it makes to our understanding of the Gospel, righteousness, justification, faith, sin, redemption, Israel, and God’s plan of salvation. Romans is unquestionably one of the great theological books of Scripture and provides an exceptionally detailed presentation of many foundational Christian doctrines.
At the same time, I would qualify Wilson’s description of Romans as a “grand theological blueprint” for the rest of the New Testament. Romans should never become the theological lens through which every other book of Scripture must be interpreted. Paul’s letter to the Romans does not dictate the interpretation of the other epistles any more or any less than the other epistles dictate the interpretation of Romans. Nor should Paul’s writings be isolated from the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, Revelation, or the Old Testament.
Rather, all of Scripture must be taken together and must harmonize completely. Where our interpretation of Romans appears to conflict with something taught elsewhere in Scripture, our first response should not be to force the other passage to conform to our interpretation of Romans. Instead, we should reconsider whether we have correctly understood Romans, the other passage, or perhaps both. Scripture does not contradict Scripture, although our interpretations of Scripture certainly can.
This becomes especially important when studying subjects such as election, predestination, justification, faith, human responsibility, and God’s sovereignty. Romans contributes greatly to our understanding of these doctrines, but Romans is not the entirety of what Scripture says about them. A theological conclusion should not be considered established simply because an interpretation can be made to fit a passage in Romans. That interpretation must also remain consistent with everything else God has revealed in His Word.
Election, Predestination, Israel, and the Gentiles
Simply identifying election and predestination as subjects Paul discusses does not tell us what Paul means by them. Their meaning must be determined when we encounter the passages themselves, taking into consideration the immediate context, Paul’s developing argument throughout Romans, and the broader testimony of Scripture.
It is therefore particularly important to remember something Wilson himself establishes in his introduction. He places considerable emphasis upon the relationship between Jewish and Gentile believers as part of the historical setting of Romans. He identifies simmering hostility between Jewish and Gentile believers as one of the important circumstances surrounding Paul’s letter. Wilson’s own outline likewise treats Romans 9–11 together under the heading “God’s Righteousness Extended to Israel and to the Gentiles”. These are important contextual observations that should not be forgotten when we eventually reach Paul’s discussions of election, mercy, hardening, Israel, and the Gentiles.
When we arrive at Romans 9–11, therefore, we should not suddenly detach those chapters from the Jew and Gentile questions that Wilson himself has correctly identified at the beginning of the study. Whatever conclusions we eventually reach concerning election, predestination, mercy, hardening, or Israel must make sense within the argument Paul is actually making and within the historical and biblical context in which he makes it.
The Standard Going Forward
While I do not want to begin this study by assuming either a Calvinistic or a non-Calvinistic definition of Paul’s terminology, I recognize that Wilson should be allowed to develop his interpretation as the study progresses. Likewise, alternative interpretations should be allowed to make their case from Scripture. Where Wilson makes a good and well-supported observation, I have no difficulty agreeing with him. Where I believe an interpretation goes beyond what the passage explicitly states, I will attempt to distinguish the words of Scripture from the theological conclusion being drawn from them. That same scrutiny should equally apply to any interpretations I present.
Again, the rule of interpretation must be to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture so that the interpretation fits contextually, progressively and intact throughout the whole council of God. This includes Scripture itself as well as the perfect harmony of God’s natural attributes and character. There should be no exception to this rule meaning any interpretation that contradicts any part of Scripture, God’s perfect nature or His perfect character must be regarded as an incomplete interpretation or a completely wrong interpretation.
With that said. the question throughout this study is not simply whether an interpretation can be made to fit Romans, but whether it fits Romans within the entirety of Scripture. Thus, the study should produce our conclusions; our conclusions should not direct the study.
Week 2 — The Gospel as the Revelation of the Righteousness of God (Romans 1:1–17)
A Strong Beginning
There is much in Wilson’s treatment of Romans 1:1–17 with which I agree. He appropriately places Jesus Christ and the Gospel at the center of Paul’s opening words, emphasizes the bodily resurrection of Christ, recognizes the Gospel as the fulfillment of promises already present in the Old Testament, and emphasizes Paul’s desire that the Gospel extend to all nations. His discussion also correctly recognizes that the Gospel is not merely something by which Christians begin the Christian life and then leave behind. The Gospel remains foundational to the believer’s life and faith.
Wilson also draws attention to Paul’s expression “the obedience of faith” in Romans 1:5, an expression that appears again near the conclusion of the letter in Romans 16:26. I believe this will be important to remember as we continue through Romans. Whatever conclusions we eventually reach concerning faith, grace, calling, election, or human responsibility must account for the fact that Paul speaks not only of God’s saving action but also of believing, faith, obedience, hearing, receiving, and responding to the Gospel.
From “Faith Comes by Hearing” to an “Irresistible Call”
There is, however, one statement in this section that deserves much closer examination. In discussing Paul’s greeting “grace to you”, Wilson refers to Romans 10:17 and the truth that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. He then describes the Gospel as bringing an “irresistible call of salvation to those who belong to God”.
At this point, we have moved beyond simply repeating what Romans says. Romans 10:17 certainly teaches a relationship between hearing the Word of God and faith. But the verse itself does not say that the call produced through the Gospel is irresistible, nor does it say that the Gospel is effectually directed only toward certain people who already “belong to God”. Wilson has introduced several theological propositions into Paul’s statement: that there is a saving call distinct from the proclamation of the Gospel, that this call is irresistible, and that it is directed specifically toward people who already belong to God. None of those propositions is stated in Romans 10:17.
The problem, therefore, is not simply that Wilson has used terminology commonly associated with Calvinism. The problem is exegetical. A specific theological mechanism has been inserted into a passage that does not state that mechanism. Following the standard established in Week 1, we must distinguish between what Paul actually says and what a theological system says must be occurring behind what Paul says.
Irresistible Grace and God’s Impartial Judgment
Wilson’s statement concerning an “irresistible call of salvation to those who belong to God” also raises a serious biblical problem concerning the impartiality of God. Paul explicitly declares: “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Romans 2:11). It is important to recognize the context in which Paul makes this statement. He is speaking specifically about God’s judgment. Paul has just said that God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6). He then applies the same judgment to Jew and Gentile before explaining why: “For there is no respect of persons with God”.
The Greek word translated “respect of persons” is prosōpolēmpsia (προσωπολημψία), carrying the meaning of partiality or favoritism. The underlying idea concerns showing favor toward the person—the “face”—rather than judging according to a just basis. Paul’s point is not that God gives every human being identical gifts, responsibilities, circumstances, opportunities, or roles. Scripture plainly demonstrates otherwise. Paul’s point in Romans 2 is that God does not judge one person by one standard and another person by another standard because He favors one person over another.
This becomes extremely important when considering the Calvinistic understanding of an irresistible saving call. All sinners stand guilty before God. All therefore face His righteous judgment. None has a claim upon His grace. On that point I completely agree with Calvinism: nobody deserves grace. If grace were something God owed us, it would no longer be grace.
But saying that nobody deserves grace does not resolve the question of partiality. Consider two equally guilty sinners standing under the same righteous judgment of God. Neither deserves salvation. Neither possesses merit that obligates God to save him. If God then unconditionally selects one of those sinners and gives that person the irresistible saving grace without which he cannot believe, while withholding that indispensable grace from the other, we must ask what forms the basis for their different treatment.
Under unconditional election, there is deliberately no condition within the recipients that forms the basis of God’s choice. The distinction does not arise because one was innocent and the other guilty; both are guilty. It does not arise because one deserves grace; neither deserves it. It does not arise because one meets a condition God has established for receiving His gracious provision; unconditional election specifically denies that such a condition forms the basis of God’s selection. The decisive distinction therefore rests entirely upon God choosing to give one guilty sinner the irresistible grace necessary for salvation while choosing not to give that same grace to another equally guilty sinner.
That is precisely where the problem of partiality arises. The fact that neither sinner deserves grace establishes that God is not indebted to either sinner. It does not establish that selectively and unconditionally favoring one of those otherwise equally situated sinners with the indispensable means of escaping judgment is therefore impartial. The absence of obligation is not the same thing as the absence of partiality.
The question is therefore not, “Does God owe grace to everyone?” He does not. The question is: Upon what basis does God give the indispensable and irresistible means of salvation to one guilty sinner while withholding it from another equally guilty sinner? If the answer is that there is no condition whatsoever distinguishing the recipients and that the distinction rests solely in God choosing one rather than the other, then calling the choice “unconditional” does not remove the issue of favoritism. It identifies the very feature that creates the problem.
Whose Standard of Impartiality?
I anticipate that Wilson, or someone who shares Wilson’s theology, might object that I am imposing my own fallen human conception of fairness upon God. If that were what I were doing, I would agree with the objection. God is not accountable to my moral intuitions, and I do not have the authority to establish a moral standard and then require God to conform to it. But that is not the argument I am making. The standard of impartiality being applied here does not originate with me. It originates with God Himself.
God repeatedly describes Himself as impartial. Moses declares concerning God: “For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Jehoshaphat instructed Israel’s judges: “for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts” (2 Chronicles 19:7). Peter likewise declares: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34), and Paul states plainly: “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Romans 2:11).
Nor does Scripture leave impartiality merely as something God says about Himself. God requires the same principle from those who judge and deal with others. Moses commanded Israel’s judges: “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great” (Deuteronomy 1:17). The Law commands: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty” (Leviticus 19:15). James applies the same principle directly to Christians, warning believers against having “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons” and condemning preferential treatment as sin (James 2:1–9).
This is particularly significant because Scripture connects impartiality with righteous judgment. Paul says that God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6), applies that principle to both Jew and Gentile, and then gives the reason: “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Romans 2:11). Peter similarly describes the Father as the One “who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work” (1 Peter 1:17). Paul again says: “he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons” (Colossians 3:25).
Therefore, when I ask whether an interpretation of salvation is consistent with God’s impartiality, I am not placing God beneath a moral standard created by human beings. I am testing a theological description of God against the moral character God has revealed about Himself. There is an enormous difference between saying, “God must act this way because I think it would be unfair otherwise,” and saying, “God has told us that He does not show partiality, has demonstrated that principle in His judgment, and has commanded His people not to show partiality; therefore, any theology describing God’s actions must be consistent with what God has revealed about Himself.”
Indeed, Scripture makes the connection even stronger by commanding human beings not to practice the very favoritism that God Himself does not practice. James does not treat partiality as merely an unfortunate human preference. He says: “if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin” (James 2:9). Consequently, we cannot answer an apparent instance of divine partiality merely by saying that God is sovereign and therefore permitted to do what He forbids human beings to do. God’s sovereignty does not make unrighteousness righteous. Rather, God’s commands concerning impartiality reflect the righteous character of the God who gives them.
The question, then, is not whether God must conform to my understanding of fairness. The question is whether our theology conforms to God’s own revelation of His impartial character. If a theological system describes God as unconditionally favoring one equally guilty sinner over another in the very matter of escaping His judgment, while simultaneously insisting that there is no condition whatsoever forming the basis of that distinction, then it is the theological system—not God—that must explain how its description can be reconciled with God’s repeated declaration that He shows no partiality.
Appealing to “Mystery” Does Not Resolve a Contradiction
Neither can this difficulty simply be resolved by appealing to “mystery.” I readily acknowledge that there are mysteries concerning God that finite human beings cannot fully comprehend. Scripture does not reveal everything about God, and I should never expect my limited understanding to exhaust the mind, purposes, or workings of an infinite God. But mystery and contradiction are not the same thing.
A mystery exists when God has not revealed enough for us to understand fully how something is true. A contradiction arises when our theological explanation requires us to affirm propositions that cannot both be true in the same sense. Appealing to mystery may properly acknowledge the limits of revelation, but it cannot be used to transform a contradiction within our theology into a mystery within God.
In this case, God has not remained silent concerning His impartiality. He explicitly tells us that He shows no partiality, repeatedly connects that impartiality with His righteous judgment, and commands His people not to practice favoritism themselves. Therefore, if a theological system teaches that God unconditionally distinguishes between equally guilty sinners by giving one the irresistible grace necessary to escape judgment while withholding that same indispensable grace from another, the resulting conflict cannot simply be labeled a mystery and set aside.
The appropriate response is to examine the theological premise that created the conflict. Perhaps we have misunderstood what Scripture means by election. Perhaps we have misunderstood calling, grace, faith, regeneration, or predestination. Perhaps distinctions have been introduced into the biblical text that Scripture itself does not require. Whatever the answer may be, our first obligation is to reexamine our theology before declaring the apparent contradiction within that theology to be an incomprehensible mystery within God.
There is also a danger in using mystery selectively. We should not construct a detailed theological system explaining whom God chooses, why faith necessarily follows regeneration, why one call is resistible while another is irresistible, and why salvation necessarily occurs for one group but cannot occur for another, only to appeal to mystery when that same system encounters an apparent contradiction with God’s revealed impartiality. If Scripture provides enough information to construct the theological mechanism, then Scripture should also provide enough information to demonstrate that the mechanism does not contradict what God has revealed about His own character.
At that point, the mystery is not how God can contradict His own revealed character. God does not contradict Himself. The real question is where the theological premise producing the contradiction came from in the first place. Rather than protecting that premise by calling the conflict a mystery, we should return to Scripture and test whether the premise itself belongs there.
A Condition Does Not Turn Grace Into a Wage
This does not mean that salvation must therefore be earned or merited. There is an important difference between a condition for receiving grace and a work that earns grace. Scripture itself makes this distinction. Paul says concerning the Gospel: “for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16). God provides the Gospel. God provides Christ. God accomplishes the saving work. God reveals the truth and extends the offer of salvation. Yet Paul identifies the beneficiary as “every one that believeth”.
Faith does not purchase salvation, create salvation, deserve salvation, or place God under obligation. A condition for receiving a gift is not payment for the gift. If someone freely provides a gift that I could never earn or provide for myself and tells me to receive it, my receiving that gift does not transform the gift into a wage. The provision remains entirely the work and generosity of the giver.
Therefore, God can remain completely gracious while also remaining completely impartial. He can provide salvation that nobody deserves, establish the condition upon which that gracious provision is received, and judge everyone according to the same righteous standard. The distinction between those who are saved and those who are not need not arise because God gives one guilty sinner an irresistible saving ability that He withholds from another. The distinction can arise from the response to the gracious provision God has made available and the condition God Himself has established: faith in Jesus Christ.
What Does Romans 10:17 Actually Establish?
Paul’s statement places the proclaimed Word in an important position: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. Whatever else we eventually conclude about the work of God in salvation, Paul explicitly connects faith with hearing the proclaimed message. Romans 10 develops this relationship even further when Paul asks: “how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14).
The sequence Paul explicitly provides is therefore straightforward: the message is proclaimed → the message is heard → faith comes through hearing the Word. Wilson has inserted an additional mechanism into that sequence—an irresistible saving call directed specifically toward those who already belong to God. Romans 10:17 does not state that mechanism.
This raises several questions that we should carry forward as the study progresses. Does God’s Word itself provide the means through which a sinner is brought to faith? Must an additional act of regeneration occur before the sinner can hear and believe the Gospel in the sense Paul intends? Does Scripture actually divide God’s calling into a universally resistible outward call and a selectively irresistible inward call? If such distinctions are biblical, where does Scripture establish them?
These questions should not be answered by inserting the answers into Romans 10:17 beforehand. Wilson has presented a particular theological explanation of how salvation operates. We can now identify that explanation and test its individual claims as we proceed through Romans and the rest of Scripture.
Scripture Describes People Resisting God
The word “irresistible” itself must also be examined in light of passages where Scripture explicitly describes people resisting God’s activity toward them. Stephen tells his hearers: “Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost” (Acts 7:51). Jesus laments over Jerusalem: “how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37). Romans 1 describes people suppressing truth God has revealed, exchanging His truth for a lie, and refusing to retain God in their knowledge.
Calvinism commonly responds by distinguishing between a resistible external call given broadly through the Gospel and an irresistible effectual call given only to the elect. But that distinction cannot simply be assumed when reading passages that describe people resisting God. If Scripture actually establishes two fundamentally different calls—one that can be resisted and another that cannot—then Scripture must demonstrate that distinction. The distinction cannot be created merely to protect the doctrine of irresistible calling from passages in which God is explicitly resisted.
Faith Is Still Exercised
It is equally important to represent Wilson’s position accurately. Later in this same section, while discussing Paul’s statement that “the righteous shall live by faith”, Wilson speaks of what occurs “when we exercise faith in Jesus Christ alone.” Therefore, it would be inaccurate to suggest that Wilson’s understanding of divine calling eliminates faith or the human act of believing. He clearly affirms both.
The theological disagreement is more precise. The issue is not whether a person believes. The issue is how and why that person is able to believe. Is faith the response that comes through hearing the Gospel God has graciously provided, or must God first perform an additional irresistible work upon particular individuals that necessarily results in their believing? If that additional irresistible work is necessary, why is it given to one guilty sinner and withheld from another equally guilty sinner? Those questions concern the relationship between grace, calling, hearing, faith, regeneration, election, and God’s impartial judgment.
The Issue Is Not Whether God Acts First
Nothing in this objection requires the sinner to initiate salvation independently of God. God acts first. God reveals Himself. God sent His Son. Christ accomplished the saving work. God provides the Gospel. God sends those who proclaim it. God confronts sinners with truth, calls them to repentance, commands them to believe, and provides the message through which Paul says faith comes. The sinner does not create the Gospel, create Christ’s sacrifice, create grace, or create the truth to which he responds.
The question is therefore not whether salvation originates with God. It unquestionably does. The question is whether God’s gracious initiative must include an additional irresistible saving call given only to selected individuals, without which everyone else hearing the same Gospel remains incapable of responding. That is an additional theological proposition, and it is precisely the proposition Wilson has introduced.
A Theological Premise Introduced Too Early
This is precisely the kind of situation discussed in Week 1. We recognized that theological interpretations will inevitably arise throughout any Bible study. The responsibility of the individual student is therefore to guard against allowing an interpretation to become an established premise through which everything that follows is subsequently read.
Wilson has now introduced irresistibility, selectivity, and a category of people who already “belong to God” into a discussion grounded in Romans 10:17. None of those propositions appears in Romans 10:17 itself. More importantly, when understood according to their Calvinistic meaning, they raise substantial questions concerning God’s impartial judgment, the universal proclamation of the Gospel, the biblical descriptions of people resisting God, the relationship between hearing and faith, and the basis upon which one sinner receives the indispensable means of salvation while another does not.
We should therefore not allow the phrase “irresistible call” to pass as though Wilson has merely paraphrased Paul. He has not. He has introduced a theological conclusion that must itself be tested against Scripture.
A Question to Carry Forward
Week 2 therefore gives us our first clear theological proposition to carry forward and test: Does Scripture teach that the Gospel brings an irresistible call of salvation specifically to certain individuals who already belong to God, while that indispensable saving call is withheld from others who stand under the same judgment?
As we continue through Romans, we should watch carefully for what Paul says about calling, hearing, believing, faith, resistance, grace, election, judgment, impartiality, and the work of the Holy Spirit. We should also test those conclusions against the rest of Scripture. If distinctions such as a resistible external call and an irresistible internal call are required, Scripture should establish them rather than our theology supplying them in advance.
For now, what Romans explicitly gives us is the Gospel as God’s power unto salvation to everyone who believes, the proclamation of that Gospel to others, hearing the Word, and faith coming through that hearing. Wilson has added an “irresistible call of salvation to those who belong to God.” That addition is not Paul’s statement; it is a theological claim placed upon Paul’s statement. It must therefore be tested rather than assumed, particularly where its implications appear to conflict with Paul’s explicit declaration that God judges without partiality or favoritism.
Week 3 — God’s Righteousness in His Wrath Against Sinners (Romans 1:18–3:20)
Re: The Place of the Passage
Wilson describes the Gospel as having the power to save “believing sinners.” By itself, I see no reason to object to that expression. It can simply mean sinners who believe the Gospel, which is entirely consistent with Paul’s statement: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16). Although the expression can also fit theological systems in which regeneration logically precedes faith, the words “believing sinners” do not establish that Wilson intends such an order here.
This is an important distinction. Where Wilson explicitly introduces a theological proposition, as he did in Week 2 with an “irresistible call of salvation to those who belong to God,” that proposition should be examined. Where wording is merely compatible with Calvinism, however, we should not read Calvinism into it. Paul’s explicit statement in Romans 1:16 remains straightforward: the Gospel is God’s power unto salvation to everyone who believes.
Question Set #1: The Unrighteousness of the Gentiles — Romans 1:18–32
Does “God Gave Them Up” Argue Against Meaningful Human Choice?
Romans repeatedly says that God “gave them up” or “gave them over.” The important question is what happened before God did so. Paul first tells us that people possessed knowledge of God, suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, refused to glorify God as God, exchanged God’s glory, exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and did not want to retain God in their knowledge. Only then does Paul repeatedly say that God gave them over. The progression therefore appears to be: God reveals → people know → people suppress, reject, and exchange → therefore God gives them over. This does not require what philosophers call libertarian free will, nor does it establish that human beings possess unlimited independent freedom. But it does appear to show genuine human responsibility and a meaningful freedom to act upon choices placed before them.
God’s giving them over functions as a judicial response to their rebellion. Romans 1 does not describe God first causing people to reject Him and then punishing them for the rejection He caused. Rather, God reveals Himself, people reject what He has revealed, and God judges them by giving them over to the direction they have chosen. The passage therefore emphasizes both human responsibility and divine judgment.
Divine Sovereignty and the Hardening of Pharaoh
The study later connects Romans 1 with the hardening of Pharaoh. Scripture does indeed say both that Pharaoh hardened his own heart and that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. On that point there should be no disagreement. The more important question is: How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart? Simply saying that both God and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh’s heart does not explain the relationship between those two statements. One theological explanation understands God as directly determining or changing Pharaoh’s inward disposition so that Pharaoh necessarily resists Him. There is, however, another way to understand the biblical account.
Pharaoh Was Already Resistant to God
Before the great series of plagues unfolds, Pharaoh declares: “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go?”. Pharaoh is already proud, resistant, and unwilling to obey God. God then proceeds to answer Pharaoh’s question. God reveals who He is through His righteous actions, His judgments upon Egypt, and the demonstration of His power. God knew perfectly well how Pharaoh would respond. Instead of humbling himself before God, Pharaoh became increasingly angry, stubborn, and resolute.
God Did Not Need to Reach Into Pharaoh’s Heart
To say that God hardened Pharaoh does not necessarily mean that God reached inside an otherwise receptive man and created unbelief, pride, or evil within him. God could harden Pharaoh through His own righteous actions toward a man whose heart was already opposed to Him. We commonly understand cause-and-effect language this way. Suppose one person strongly dislikes another and does not want that person to succeed. The second person nevertheless succeeds. We might truthfully say, “His success made the other person jealous.” But his success did not reach inside the jealous person and manufacture jealousy. The successful person supplied the occasion. The jealous heart supplied the jealousy. Another person witnessing exactly the same success might rejoice rather than become jealous. The difference is not found in the good action itself. The difference lies within the heart responding to it.
The same distinction can help us understand Pharaoh. God supplied the righteous action; Pharaoh supplied the sinful response. God knew that revealing His power and bringing righteous judgment upon Egypt would further provoke Pharaoh’s already proud and resistant heart. God nevertheless continued because His actions were righteous and because He intended to accomplish His purposes through them. Therefore, God could truthfully say that He hardened Pharaoh while Pharaoh remained morally responsible for the hardness, pride, anger, and rebellion that arose from within himself.
Foreknowledge Does Not Make God the Moral Cause
God knowing beforehand how Pharaoh would respond does not make God morally responsible for Pharaoh’s response. If I know that doing something good will make an envious person angry, my knowledge does not make me the author of his anger. Likewise, God’s perfect foreknowledge that His righteous actions would provoke Pharaoh’s pride does not require God to be the source of Pharaoh’s pride. This allows us to affirm everything Scripture actually says: Pharaoh hardened his heart, Pharaoh’s heart became hardened, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and God deliberately used Pharaoh’s hardened resistance to accomplish His purposes. These statements do not require us to conclude that God morally caused Pharaoh’s unbelief.
God was the righteous cause of the circumstances that provoked the response; Pharaoh remained the moral cause of his sinful response to those circumstances.
Sovereignty Does Not Automatically Mean Determinism
I therefore agree that God remained completely sovereign over the situation. But saying that God is sovereign does not, by itself, tell us how God exercises that sovereignty. Sovereignty can include God knowing human actions beforehand, permitting them, restraining them, judging them, using them, and accomplishing His purposes through them. None of those things requires God to become the moral author of the sinful desire itself. Therefore, the statement “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” should not automatically be expanded into the statement “God caused Pharaoh to reject Him.” The first is explicitly stated in Scripture. The second is a theological explanation of what that statement means and must itself be demonstrated from Scripture.
Does “Mystery” Explain the Hardening?
Wilson describes the relationship between Pharaoh’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty as existing within the “mystery of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.” Certainly there are aspects of God’s sovereignty that finite human beings cannot fully comprehend. But appealing to mystery does not itself explain how God hardened Pharaoh. Scripture tells us that God hardened Pharaoh and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Calling the relationship a mystery merely restates that both are true without explaining how those truths relate to one another.
Therefore, rather than using mystery to settle the question, we should continue asking what the biblical account itself reveals about how God hardened him. A genuine mystery concerns something God has revealed to be true while withholding sufficient information for us to understand fully how it operates. Mystery should not become a substitute for examining whether a theological explanation of the text is actually required by Scripture.
Question Set #2: The Unrighteousness of the Jews — Romans 2:1–3:8
How Can Paul Say “Jew First” and Still Say That God Is Impartial?
There is really no contradiction. Partiality means showing favoritism toward the person rather than dealing with persons according to a just and relevant basis. The Jews possessed very real advantages. They had received God’s Law, God’s revelation, His covenant history, and His promises. But greater privilege also brought greater responsibility. Paul is saying that knowing more about God does not give someone a free pass to judge others while committing the same sins. The Jews had the Law, but possessing the Law did not excuse disobedience to the Law. God judges according to truth (Romans 2:2) and according to what each person does (Romans 2:6).
That is why Paul can say that trouble comes upon those who do evil, “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile”, while glory, honor, and peace come to those who do good, again “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile”. “Jew first” speaks of historical privilege and priority. It does not mean that God applies a different moral standard to Jews. Paul immediately explains: “For there is no respect of persons with God”. The argument is actually very simple: Do evil → judgment → Jew and Gentile. Do good → glory, honor, and peace → Jew and Gentile. Why? Because God does not show partiality.
“The Doers of the Law Shall Be Justified”
The study asks about Paul appearing to say that obedience will justify Gentiles. I think we should be careful with the word “appears.” Paul actually says: “The doers of the law shall be justified”. The question is not whether Paul said it. He clearly did. The interpretive question is what Paul means by the statement within the larger argument of Romans. This does not mean that Paul is teaching that people earn salvation through perfect law-keeping. Romans 3 will make very clear that all have sinned and that works of the Law cannot provide a basis for boasting before God. Nevertheless, we should begin with what Paul actually says before explaining how that statement fits into his larger argument. Romans 2:15–29 strengthens rather than weakens God’s impartiality. Being circumcised or possessing the Law could not protect a Jew who violated the Law. Likewise, outward religious privilege could never substitute for inward faithfulness toward God.
What Advantage Did the Jews Have?
This naturally leads to Paul’s question in Romans 3:1. If Jews and Gentiles are both accountable before God, what advantage did the Jews possess? Paul does not answer, “none.” He says: “Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God”. The Jews possessed genuine historical and spiritual privileges. But privilege is not the same thing as partiality. Receiving God’s revelation first does not mean receiving immunity from God’s righteous judgment.
Question Set #3: The Unrighteousness of All People — Romans 3:9–20
What Does “No One Seeks for God” Mean?
Paul says: “There is none that seeketh after God”. He is drawing from Psalm 14 as part of a collection of Old Testament passages intended to establish that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin. Paul’s immediate purpose is universal guilt. He is removing any possibility that one group can stand before God and claim natural righteousness over another. The original Psalm is important because it describes people who have “turned aside” and “become corrupt.” Paul then applies this language broadly to fallen humanity. However, there is an important distinction between saying No fallen person, left to himself, naturally seeks God as he ought and saying No unbeliever is capable of responding when God seeks him, reveals Himself to him, confronts him with truth, draws him, or calls him through the Gospel.
Romans 3:11 clearly describes mankind’s sinful condition. It does not explicitly state the second proposition concerning an absolute inability to respond to God’s initiative. That further conclusion would need to be established from Scripture rather than assumed from the words “none seeketh after God.” This distinction also helps us understand passages such as Acts 17:27, where Paul says that God ordered human history so that people “should seek the Lord”. There is no contradiction if Romans 3 describes humanity’s natural departure from God while Acts 17 describes God acting in history so that people might seek Him.
How Does Romans 3:18 Relate to Romans 3:11?
Romans 3:18 says: “There is no fear of God before their eyes”. This helps explain the condition Paul is describing. The failure to seek God is connected with mankind’s attitude toward Him. People have turned aside, become corrupt, and ceased to fear God as they ought. This fits what Paul has already described in Romans 1. People knew God, possessed truth concerning Him, suppressed that truth, refused to glorify Him as God, exchanged His truth for a lie, and eventually did not want to retain God in their knowledge.
The progression throughout Paul’s argument can therefore be understood as: God makes Himself known → people reject and suppress what is known → they turn away → they cease seeking God → they lose the proper fear of God → they stand guilty before Him. That is different from beginning with the theological statement, “They never seek God because they are incapable of responding to Him.” Paul is clearly establishing guilt, corruption, and rebellion. Whether those truths also establish a particular doctrine of total inability is a separate theological question that should be examined from the whole counsel of Scripture.
What Is the “Catch-22” of the Law?
Romans 3:20 says: “For by the law is the knowledge of sin”. The Law is good. It reveals God’s righteous standard and teaches us what is right and wrong. But therein lies the problem. Knowing the standard does not mean that we have kept the standard. The Law can show me what righteousness looks like, but once I violate that Law, merely possessing it cannot erase my violation.
The “catch-22,” if we wish to use that expression, is therefore: The Law shows me what righteousness requires, but in doing so it also exposes the fact that I am guilty. This is precisely where Paul is taking his argument: “That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God”. Romans 3:9–20 is therefore primarily a courtroom argument establishing universal guilt. Paul is demonstrating that neither Jew nor Gentile can stand before God and claim righteousness on the basis of nationality, religious privilege, possession of the Law, or personal merit.
Additional Observations from Week 3
General Revelation
The study’s discussion of general revelation is largely consistent with Romans 1:19–20. Creation reveals enough concerning God’s power and divine nature to leave mankind without excuse. General revelation does not provide the complete Gospel message concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That requires further revelation from God. But Romans 1 does establish that fallen humanity is not completely ignorant of God. Something true about God has been revealed and understood, and that revelation provides sufficient reason and cause for mankind to recognize God and seek Him. This is precisely why suppressing that truth creates moral accountability.
God’s Kindness Leads to Repentance
Wilson appropriately draws attention to Paul’s statement that “the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance” (Romans 2:4). I agree. Repentance does not originate because mankind independently discovers a way back to God. God acts toward sinners first. His revelation, patience, goodness, conviction, and ultimately the Gospel itself call people toward repentance. This is another reason we should distinguish between affirming that God initiates and concluding that His gracious initiative must therefore be irresistible. Romans 2:4 clearly establishes the former; it does not state the latter.
Natural Law
The discussion of Romans 2 and natural law also contains an important truth. Human beings demonstrate an awareness of moral categories even without possessing the written Mosaic Law. Paul speaks of Gentiles showing “the work of the law written in their hearts”, with conscience bearing witness. This again supports accountability. People are not judged for failing to possess revelation God never gave them. They are accountable for their response to the revelation and moral knowledge they actually possess.
The Work of the Spirit
The study also speaks of God’s people as those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells and of the Spirit applying Christ’s work and sanctifying believers. There is much here with which Christians of different theological traditions can agree. However, as we continue through Romans, an important question will be the relationship between the Spirit’s work, faith, regeneration, and salvation. We should allow the study to develop its position before assuming a particular order of salvation from individual expressions. If a later section explicitly argues that regeneration must occur before faith, then that claim can be examined on its own biblical evidence. Until then, language that is merely compatible with Calvinism should not automatically be treated as proof that Calvinism is being taught.
Closing Perspective
The purpose of these observations is not to criticize Jared Wilson personally or to search every sentence for hidden Calvinism. The purpose is to do exactly what Scripture repeatedly encourages believers to do: test what we are taught against the Word of God. Wilson’s study contains many observations that Christians from different theological traditions can affirm. Where theological questions arise, however, it is helpful to distinguish carefully between what Paul explicitly says, what reasonably follows from what Paul says, and what a theological system may add in order to explain what Paul says.
Calvinistic interpretations should be allowed to make their case from Scripture. Alternative interpretations should be given the same opportunity. Neither should be accepted merely because it is familiar, traditional, or presented confidently. Scripture itself must remain the final standard by which both are tested.
Week 4 — The Saving Righteousness of God (Romans 3:21–4:25)
Much With Which I Agree
There is again much in Wilson’s treatment of Romans 3:21–4:25 with which I agree. Paul has established the universal guilt of mankind and now explains God’s gracious provision in Jesus Christ. Wilson appropriately emphasizes that salvation is not earned through works, that justification is a gift of grace received through faith, that Abraham was counted righteous before circumcision, and that obedience follows rather than purchases salvation. His emphasis upon Christ’s atoning work, the fulfillment of God’s promises, and Abraham’s trust in what God had promised all deserve recognition.
But Week 4 also gives us an important clarification concerning the theological questions we have been carefully tracking. In Week 3, Wilson referred to the Gospel saving “believing sinners.” I deliberately refused to interpret that expression as evidence that Wilson was teaching regeneration before faith. I noted that the words could fit within Calvinistic theology, but they could just as naturally mean sinners who hear the Gospel and believe. It would have been unfair to place a theological position into Wilson’s words that he had not actually stated.
We no longer need to make that inference. In Week 2, Wilson explicitly described the Gospel as bringing an “irresistible call of salvation to those who belong to God.” Now, in Week 4, he goes further. While discussing Romans 4:17 and the doctrine of creation ex nihilo—God creating something from nothing—Wilson applies that concept directly to saving faith. He says that by His grace God “creates ex nihilo the faith we need in our hearts to receive Christ.” Wilson has now stated the theological premise plainly enough that we can examine it directly.
Does Romans 4:17 Say That God Creates Faith Ex Nihilo?
The first question should not be whether this statement agrees with Calvinism. The first question should be much simpler: Is this what Romans 4:17 says? Paul writes of Abraham believing God, “who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were”. Wilson takes this description of God’s power and extends it into the proposition that God creates the faith within the sinner ex nihilo. But Paul does not say that.
The context concerns God’s promise to Abraham and God’s ability to accomplish what human circumstances made impossible. Abraham and Sarah were beyond the ordinary possibility of producing the promised child. Yet Abraham believed the God who gives life to the dead and is able to bring into existence what does not presently exist. Paul’s emphasis is upon the power and faithfulness of the God whom Abraham believed, not upon God creating Abraham’s act of believing out of nothing.
Indeed, Paul immediately describes Abraham’s faith in remarkably personal and responsive terms. Abraham “against hope believed in hope” (Romans 4:18). He “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God” (Romans 4:20). Most importantly, he was “fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform” (Romans 4:21).
That final statement is particularly important. Paul identifies both the content and the reason for Abraham’s faith. God made a promise, and Abraham became fully persuaded that God was able to perform what He had promised. Paul does not say that Abraham believed because God first created faith within him from nothing. The object of Abraham’s faith was God and His promise, and Abraham’s persuasion concerned God’s ability to fulfill that promise.
Faith “Out of Nothing” or Faith Through Hearing?
Wilson’s use of ex nihilo creates an additional difficulty when compared with Paul’s own explanation elsewhere in Romans. Paul says: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Faith therefore does not appear in Paul’s argument as something created out of nothing. God has supplied something to be heard. He has revealed truth. He has given His Word. He has made promises. He has provided the Gospel. Faith arises in relation to that revelation.
Abraham provides an excellent example. God did not leave Abraham with nothing and then create faith from nothing within him. God spoke. God promised. Abraham heard. Abraham considered what God had promised. Abraham became fully persuaded that God could perform it. Abraham believed God. The initiative unquestionably belongs to God, but God’s initiative does not require us to redefine Abraham’s response as something God created ex nihilo.
This distinction matters because Wilson’s analogy is stronger than simply saying that faith is made possible by God’s grace. Creation ex nihilo means creation from nothing. The universe contributed nothing to its own creation. It did not hear God, consider His revelation, become persuaded of His truthfulness, and respond to Him. It did not receive a promise and trust the One who made it. If Wilson intends the analogy seriously, he has compared the sinner’s coming to faith with an object being brought into existence without any responsive participation whatsoever. Yet that is not how Paul describes Abraham’s faith.
God’s Initiative Is Not in Question
Once again, the alternative is not that Abraham generated saving truth from within himself or independently found his way to God. God acted first at every essential point. God called Abraham. God revealed Himself. God made the promise. God provided the object of faith. God possessed the power to fulfill the promise. Without God’s initiative there would have been no promise for Abraham to believe. But none of that requires the additional proposition that God also created Abraham’s faith out of nothing. There is an important difference between saying God provides everything necessary for faith and saying God performs the believing by creating irresistible faith within a particular person. The first can be demonstrated readily from the text. The second must be added to it.
Abraham’s Faith Is Repeatedly Presented as His Response
Paul’s language throughout Romans 4 repeatedly attributes the believing to Abraham. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3). His faith was counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5). He is described as the father of “all them that believe” (Romans 4:11). He “believed in hope” (Romans 4:18), “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief” (Romans 4:20), and was “fully persuaded” that God could fulfill His promise (Romans 4:21). None of this makes faith meritorious. Abraham did not earn the promise by believing it. He did not create the promise, accomplish its fulfillment, or place God in his debt. In fact, Paul’s entire argument depends upon distinguishing faith from works. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Paul himself contrasts believing with working. Therefore, treating faith as a genuine human response does not transform faith into a meritorious work.
The Condition Does Not Become the Cause
This also reinforces the distinction we made in Week 2 between a condition and a meritorious cause. God may condition the reception of His gracious gift upon faith without faith becoming the cause, price, or merit of salvation. Romans 4 is especially damaging to the idea that acknowledging faith as a condition somehow compromises grace because Paul deliberately places faith in opposition to earning wages. Paul says: “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt” (Romans 4:4). He then immediately contrasts that person with “him that worketh not, but believeth” (Romans 4:5). Paul therefore does not reason that if believing is something the person actually does, salvation becomes a wage. He explicitly identifies the person as not working but believing. Faith receives what grace provides; it does not earn what grace provides.
Wilson Has Now Confirmed the Theological Framework
This is why the progression from Week 2 through Week 4 matters. In Week 2, Wilson introduced an “irresistible call of salvation to those who belong to God.” In Week 3, I deliberately declined to infer regeneration before faith merely from his expression “believing sinners.” Fairness required allowing Wilson to state his own theology rather than assigning one to him. In Week 4, however, Wilson tells us that God “creates ex nihilo the faith we need in our hearts to receive Christ.”
We therefore no longer have merely an isolated phrase that happens to be compatible with Calvinism. We have an emerging theological sequence: there are those who “belong to God”; they receive an “irresistible call of salvation”; and the faith by which they receive Christ is itself created by God ex nihilo within them. That is a theological framework, and Wilson has now supplied enough of its components that it is appropriate to examine the framework rather than continuing to treat each statement as an unrelated expression.
The problem is that the framework is becoming more detailed than the passages being used to establish it. Romans 10:17 did not say that the Gospel call is irresistible or restricted to those who already belong to God. Romans 4:17 does not say that God creates saving faith ex nihilo. These propositions are being brought to the passages as explanations of what must be occurring behind the text.
We Should Not Allow Theology to Rewrite Paul’s Explanation
This is precisely the danger identified at the beginning of this study. A theological system may become so familiar that its conclusions begin to sound as though they are simply the words of Scripture itself. Eventually we stop noticing where the biblical statement ends and the theological explanation begins.
Paul says faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Wilson says God creates that faith ex nihilo. Paul says Abraham heard God’s promise and became “fully persuaded” that God could perform what He promised. Wilson says God creates the necessary faith within the heart. Paul contrasts the person who works with the person who believes. A theological system should not be permitted to collapse those distinctions simply because its doctrine of human inability requires another explanation for why Abraham believed.
The question is no longer whether Wilson’s wording might be Calvinistic. Wilson has now confirmed the theological framework himself. The question is whether that framework is what Paul is actually teaching. And at Romans 4:17, the claim that God “creates ex nihilo the faith we need in our hearts to receive Christ” is not something Paul says. It is theology placed upon Paul’s words. Our responsibility is therefore not to grant the premise and interpret Romans through it, but to test the premise against Romans and the rest of Scripture.