Chapter # 8 Paragraph # 5 Study # 6
June 10, 2008
Lincolnton, N.C.

• I. Paul's Biblical Justification of His Thesis.
  • A. The "thesis" is actually 8:37: "we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us."
    • 1. This thesis was introduced by the question of 8:35 -- "Who shall separate us from the love of the Christ?" --, but its final form is Paul adamant denial in 8:37.
    • 2. This thesis is about our being "more than conquerors".
      • a. This is not about us being "more than conquerors" on the foundations of our loyalty to Christ. Every time men wish to pervert the Word of God, there is a rather massive, but subtle, shift of the biblical text. Those in the "free will" camp who believe that, because of the notorious vacillations of the human will, men who gained salvation by the exercise of their "free will" can also then lose it by the same means are blind to this text. This text has nothing to say about our being conquerors by reason of our loyalties to Christ.
      • b. This is about being "more than conquerors" on the foundations of the loyalty of Christ to us. A "conqueror" is one who comes out of a conflict without having been vanquished. The word does not say that he was not wounded in the battle; it does not even say that he was much of a participant in the battle. It is a fact that, in any given battle, some of the participants are incapacitated early in the fight -- they may have been rendered unconscious for the rest of the battle -- but they are still among those considered "conquerors" when the battle is over and their "side" won. Thus, being a conqueror does not necessarily mean that one has even put forth much of an effort. It only means that he was on the winning side once the battle was over. In this text, Christ is the One Who made sure of the victory and, therefore, all who are Christ's are conquerors without regard for how much, or how little, they had to do with the battle. Actually, any other form of success as a "conqueror" is a subtle form of salvation by human effort. Paul's doctrine is that we are justified by Christ's labors on our behalf and anyone who wishes to add to what He did is simply trying to achieve his/her own righteousness by reason of his/her own efforts.
  • B. The biblical justification for this thesis is Psalm 44:22.
    • 1. In this psalm, the author claims that "we have not forgotten Thee, neither have we dealt falsely in Thy covenant" (44:17).
    • 2. His statement of verse 22 is actually a description of the historical reality that has caused the psalm to be written, and it is, in at least some ways, a complaint that this treatment is not "fair". The very next verse accuses the Lord of being asleep, the verse after that accuses Him of hiding His face from His loyal subjects, and the cry of the following verse is for God's "mercies" to be allowed to make Him "arise for our help".
    • 3. Paul's use of this psalm has a two-fold point.
      • a. First, Paul wants it to be as clear as it can be that "suffering" the unjust behavior of the wicked is the "norm" in this world. It has nothing to do with the question of whether God loves us, or not. It has always been the case that the people of God have been subjected to injustice in all of the forms identified by Paul in Romans 8:35. Thus, no one should "believe" that being subjected to these forms of injustice means a lack of love for us on God's part.
      • b. Second, Paul wants it to be as clear as it can be that he, just like the author of Psalm 44, does not believe that our privileged position before God in Christ has anything to do with our skills, abilities, or performances. Psalm 44:3 pointedly says "...they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou hadst a favor upon them." It is this truth in the psalm that lays the foundation for the appeal in the psalm for deliverance from the enemies.
    • 4. Paul's overall point is this: being treated badly in this world is designed to drive a wedge between us and God, but it cannot work because God does not "love" us because we are particularly adept at doing what He wants us to do. The injustices may drive a wedge between us and God on the basis of our love for Him, but that is not the point. The question was not "Who shall separate Christ from our love?", it was "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?".