How Does a Catholic Read: Romans 10:9

Recently I had the idea to canvas some of my non-Catholic Christian friends and ask, "What verses of the New Testament do you think Catholics simply don't get?  You look at it and think, 'Are Catholics unaware of this verse?  What do they do with this?'"

One passage suggested to me was Romans 10:9 – a text which is often used to support a certain version of the doctrine of justification.  So today we're going to examine the passage, apply it to the controversy... and answer the question:

"What the heck does a Catholic do with Romans 10:9?"

Background on the Controversy:

The verse in question has to do with an area of theology which doesn’t just divide Protestants from Catholics, but divides Protestants from one another.  This area of disagreement is called “Soteriology” – which is a fancy word for the philosophy of how are we saved.

Summarizing this might be a bit … ambitious.  But here I go.


Catholic Soteriology:

The Catholic point of view holds that when a person repents of his sins, believes the Gospel, and is Baptized – the person sins are forgiven, he enters into an adoptive relationship with God, and receives the love of God poured into his heart.

This transforming infusion of grace into the soul makes the person intrinsically acceptable to God.  And because God gives us the grace to love Himself and our neighbors - our decisions about what we do with this grace (our moral choices) are relevant to our salvation.


Lutheran Soteriology:

Martin Luther famously protested this view.  He held that the grace of Baptism is a change in God’s disposition to us, but DOES NOT include the infusion of grace into the soul which makes us intrinsically acceptable to God.  He held that we are made are merely reckoned justified by a declaration, but remain intrinsically unacceptable to God.  

He is often credited with using the image of a dung-heap covered with snow to symbolize how Jesus conceals our true nature from the wrath and judgment of the Father.  And it is for this reason, our moral life is actually irrelevant to our salvation.  We are saved, he said, by faith alone.


Evangelical Soteriology:

Later on there came about another view.  This one essentially holds everything Luther did, but with one key difference.  Unlike Luther, this view says justifying grace is not received in Baptism, but by believing in the truths of the Gospel and placing one’s trust in the saving power of Jesus.  Baptism then becomes a public sign by which you signal your discipleship to the Christian community – but it carries no saving power of its own.

The Passage in Question:

The Bible passage in question, Romans 10:9, is used to support the third view against the Catholic AND Lutheran understanding of salvation.  It reads:

“(9) For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (10) For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. (11) For the scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ (12) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him. (13) For ‘all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.’" – Romans 10:9-13

Drawing on this verse, a person will say:

“I don’t see anything about baptism in there.  I don’t see anything about repentance in there.  I don’t see anything about going to church in there. All one needs is to believe on the Lord Jesus!”

And, to be honest, such a person would be correct.  If you take this verse by itself and make it absolute, that is precisely the conclusion one would draw.

The question is… should that be the way we treat the passage?



The Salvation Verse?:

Here is the question I ask people who treat Romans 10:9 as isolated and absolute:

Do you think Saint Paul intended to give a completely comprehensive doctrine of salvation in this one verse?  

This really brings the matter into focus.  The answer is no.  Paul’s letter to the Romans would have been a bit shorter if that were the case.   But there are at least three ways you can demonstrate this:


1)  The Sorry Fate of Mutes:

Keep in mind the verse says you must believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead AND confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord.  Both are proposed as requirements.

If this passage truly is the only relevant data about salvation, we can conclude that people who suffer from muteness are damned.  Those people who cannot speak also cannot be saved.  Why?  Because they cannot confess with their lips.

One immediately wants to protest:

“Surely God would make an exception for the mute!”

Indeed, but the verse does not grant any exceptions.   If one is to entertain exceptions for these two requirements, one must use data from outside this verse.  But doing so means conceding there is a bigger picture.

2) The Antinomian Problem

Does that seem a bit far-fetched?  OK.  Let’s try something a bit more practical.  Imagine a person who says this:

“I believe Jesus is the Son of God.  I believe Jesus rose from the dead.  I trust in Jesus to forgive my sins and bring me to Heaven.  Therefore I can cheat on my wife, defraud my employees, and ignore the needs of the poor.  I can do whatever I want as long as I put my trust in Christ.   

In fact, my faith is even more sincere than a person who thinks his salvation hinges on his good behavior.  That person is trying to earn his salvation and be his own savior.  So he’s the person who is in trouble, not me.”

Now, most Christians would say this man is tragically mistaken.  But if Romans 10:9 presents the whole picture, the fella described above is absolutely right.  Based on that verse alone, a person could be completely lawless and still be saved.

The common response is:

 “But this person cannot be a true believer!  The letter of Saint James says…”   

…  Exactly.  You need other passages to give a fully fleshed-out doctrine of salvation.


3) Other Passages

This leads us to the third reason why Romans 10:9 cannot be The Salvation Verse.  There are other passages of the New Testament which flatly contradict an absolute and exclusive understanding of Romans 10:9.

Take, for instance, this quote from Jesus:

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” - Matthew 7:19-21

Contrast that with the statement: “all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  Jesus seems to say the exact opposite.

Or what about what Paul says to the Galatians about the impact of our behavior on salvation?

"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."  - Galatians 5:19-21

Or what James says about the efficacy of mere belief?

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? […] You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?” - James 2:14,20

To Summarize:

Jesus, Paul, and James say a person can have real belief while still living a despicable life.  But they also say this is not acceptable to God.  Belief must be accompanied by repentance and desire for reform, but you wouldn’t get this by reading Romans 10:9 in isolation.

So when people look that verse and say...

“I don’t see anything about baptism in there.  I don’t see anything about repentance in there.  I don’t see anything about going to church in there.”

... we should keep in mind how Romans 10:9 cannot present a complete doctrine of salvation.  It must be either part of a fuller picture or some kind of abbreviation.



What is Paul Getting At?

Ok… what is Paul really getting at with this verse?

Let’s zoom out and look at the letter to the Romans as a whole.

Paul is writing this letter to a mixed audience of Jewish and Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to Christianity.  His primary goal is sorting out the many issues causing tension between these two groups.  So he’s addressing at questions like:

• What is the status of Gentiles who have no heard the Gospel?
• Can obedience to the Law of Moses reconcile one to God?
• Why was the Law of Moses given in the first place?
• Is there any advantage to having a Jewish background?
• Why was Israel specially chosen by God?
• How does Israel’s rejection of its own Messiah fit into God’s providential plan?

The difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant are stark.  The Old Covenant centered on a particular group of people, in a particular geographic location, following a particular body of law.  The New Covenant is intended for all people, all over the globe, and rejects the need to follow the Law of Moses.  

All throughout the discussion of these questions, Paul is at pains to show the logical continuity between the two seemingly contradictory covenants.  He litters the text with quotations from the Old Testament in an attempt to show how the New Covenant exists in the Old Covenant in seed form.

Beginning in Chapter 9, Paul begins addressing the particular election of Israel to be the chosen people of God.  That is to say, why did God preserve Israel and break other nations like pieces of pottery?  Paul concludes that God’s motivations are somewhat inscrutable, but this election was ultimately for the good of the whole world.

A Universal Message:

So by the time we get to Romans 10:9, Paul is talking about the universality of the Gospel.  He is stressing how salvation is going out to all peoples – not just the Jews – and in a way which does not require obedience to the Mosaic Law.  And he does this while drawing on themes from Isaiah and Deuteronomy.

 This becomes clear just a few verses later, when Paul concludes:

“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him.  For ‘all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.’"

So what you are seeing in Romans 10:9 is an abbreviation of a more detailed doctrine of salvation  - used to express the universality of the Gospel.

Why doesn’t he mention the role of Baptism here?  Because he already mentioned that back in Romans 6, where he says:

 “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” – Romans 6:3-5

Why doesn’t he state the need for repentance?  Because he already covered that in Romans 8:

“Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.” – Romans 8:12-14

Paul is assuming you haven’t forgotten these things before you get to Romans 10.  Nor does he anticipate people parachuting down onto Romans 10:9, building a bunker over it, and shielding themselves from the rest of the letter.

On the Other Hand…

With that said, a person may raise the following objection to belief in the necessity and efficacy of Baptism:

“Suppose a person does come to believe in Jesus and has repented of his sins.  He is on the way to the church to receive baptism ... when he is in a car accident and dies instantly. 

Are you going to tell me God is going to condemn this person because he has not checked off the Baptism box?”

This objection might also be raised with a reference to the Good Thief who was crucified next to Jesus.  The Good Thief found salvation without Baptism, only having professed faith in Jesus' lordship [Luke 23:42].  Doesn’t this prove that Baptism is an optional and merely symbolic gesture?

Well… not necessarily.  Making that strong of an assertion would force you to run roughshod over practically every other verse in the Bible which describes Christian Baptism as efficacious.

What this really shows is how God can make exceptions in exceptional circumstances.  This is something acknowledged in the Catholic catechism, which states:

“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by His sacraments. For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament." - CCC 1258-1259

Taking it All Together:

There is a difference between knowing Scripture and knowing verses of Scripture.  In the former, you learn the books as whole pieces and see how each statement fits into a broader picture.  In the latter, you memorize a favorite verses and assemble them into a makeshift theology.

The Catholic way of reading Romans 10:9 is to not lose sight of Romans 1:1 - 10:8.  The goal is to take all of Scripture together.  To let it speak a complete message with one voice.