Responding to Romans: A 12-Week Study Guide
About These Study Notes: These are my personal study notes from a Men’s Bible Study in which we used Jared C. Wilson’s Romans: A 12-Week Study (published by Crossway) as our study guide. They include my own answers and observations in response to some of the statements, questions and or Wilson’s conclusions as presented in the study guide. Where appropriate, I also examine alternative interpretations and compare the theological conclusions being discussed with the text of Scripture. These notes are not intended to reproduce or replace Wilson’s study, but simply to share my own study and reflections. Only brief portions of the study are quoted where the exact wording is important to the discussion. Readers should consult the original study for Wilson’s complete questions, explanations, and context.
WEEK 3: GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS IN HIS WRATH AGAINST SINNERS
Re: The Place of the Passage
Consider the statement, “The Gospel has the power to save believing sinners”. At first glance, most Christians would probably agree with it. It sounds thoroughly biblical and very similar to Paul’s words in Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth”. The two statements may very well be intended to communicate the same thing. Nevertheless, there is a small difference in wording that is worth noticing. Paul says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation and then identifies those who receive that salvation as everyone who believes. The theological statement describes the recipients as “believing sinners”.
What Exactly Is a “Believing Sinner”?
There are at least two ways the expression could be understood. The first is perfectly consistent with Romans 1:16. It may simply mean: The Gospel has the power to save sinners who believe (the Gospel). If that is what is intended, there is little disagreement. The phrase is simply describing those who respond to the Gospel in faith. However, within certain theological systems, the expression could also fit an order in which a sinner is first made spiritually alive and thereby enabled to believe before the Gospel exercises its saving power upon him. Some Calvinists describe regeneration as logically preceding faith in this way.
It is important not to assume that Wilson is teaching that doctrine merely because he uses the expression “believing sinners”. The sentence by itself does not establish such an intention. Nevertheless, it provides a useful reminder that theological wording should always be compared carefully with the wording of Scripture itself. Romans 1:16 does not settle the entire debate concerning the relationship between regeneration and faith. It simply says: Gospel → God’s power unto salvation → everyone who believes. Believes what? Believes the Gospel! Paul does not explain in this verse that sinners must first be regenerated in order to believe.
Why Careful Wording Matters
All Christians approach Scripture with things they have previously been taught. Calvinists do this, non-Calvinists do this, and I do it as well. The danger arises when our theological conclusions begin to become so familiar that we no longer distinguish between what Scripture actually says and what we believe follows from Scripture. For that reason, whenever we encounter theological language that sounds almost identical to Scripture, it is useful to ask whether the biblical text actually uses those words, whether the order of the statement has changed, whether an explanatory phrase has been added, whether that additional wording introduces an idea not explicitly stated in the passage, and whether the conclusion is actually taught by this particular passage or is being brought into the passage from a larger theological system. Theological conclusions may certainly be discussed and defended. But we should always distinguish between what Scripture explicitly states and what we conclude from Scripture.
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.
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 one person while applying a different standard to another person with an equal claim. 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. Universal sinfulness is plainly taught in this passage. Whether universal sinfulness must also mean that no sinner can respond to God’s gracious initiative is an additional theological conclusion that should be demonstrated rather than assumed.
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 understood and is in itself enough to give reason and cause for one to seek God. This is precisely why suppressing that truth creates moral accountability.
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.