What Kind Of Faith Saves? Series

What kind of faith saves?

It’s an important question.

It’s a critical question because we all know many people who say they believe in Jesus. But there’s virtually nothing in their lives that sets them out as any different from the non-Christian who lives next door. They neither attend church, nor pay any attention to the Bible or make any effort to follow what Jesus said. If faith in Jesus saves, is theirs the kind of faith that saves, or makes a man righteous?

This is the question that Paul now addresses as we continue in the faith chapter of the book of Romans. Paul’s major teaching in Book of Romans is this: Righteousness, a right-standing with God, comes only by faith in Jesus, not by works of any kind. But precisely by what kind of faith does God declare a man righteous?

He will explain that people are made right with God through the same kind of faith Abraham had. It’s the kind of faith that trusts in God’s promises and lives accordingly. If you want to be made right with God, have the kind of faith that Abraham had—trust explicitly in God’s promises and then live your life according to that faith.

Now Paul has told his readers that Abraham was the forefather of all who believe in that He believed God and God reckoned it as righteousness. He has quoted this principle from Genesis 15:6. So since Abraham is the prototype of all who will be declared as righteous through faith, he now explains exactly what kind of faith Abraham had.

First. Abraham explicitly trusted in God’s promises. So the first principle of the kind of faith that saves is this: Trust explicitly in God’s promises. Trust explicitly in in the promises of God’s Word, that they apply to you. Take those promises as your own. That’s what Abraham, the forefather of the Jews did in both Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 and later. And that’s what His spiritual descendants did as well. They trusted in God’s promises as good for them, and it was reckoned to the as righteousness.

Romans 4:13: “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Now, Paul has actually already demonstrated this, but he’s being explicit here. The promises that Abraham would be the father of many nations and that through his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed were actually made in Genesis 12. At that time, Abraham had no descendants whatsoever. Abraham and his wife Sarai were childless. Years later in Genesis 15 God would renew that promise by reassuring Abraham that he would yet have a son, and his descendants would ultimately number as the stars of the heavens. And it was at this point that we see the parenthetical and explanatory statement about Abraham’s relationship with God in Genesis 15:6: “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to Him as righteousness.” Thus the promise that Abraham received that He and his descendants would be heir of the world came on the basis of Abraham’s faith, not on anything else Abraham adherence to the Law. In fact, the Law had not yet been given. It would not be given to the Jews until 430 some years later when it came through Moses. So it was actually impossible that the promise was made to Abraham on the basis of his adherence to the Law since the Law had not even been given to him. And besides, the Scripture explicitly claims that the right relationship that existed between God and Abraham so that He could receive the promises came because of Abraham’s faith, not based on Abraham’s law-keeping.

Paul then continues in verse 14 to make his argument that keeping the Law did not secure the promises that Abraham received. Verse 14: “for if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified.” Paul has already made the point the faith and law-keeping are mutually exclusive. Either you are made righteous by faith or made righteous by the Law. You can’t have it both ways. He makes that same point here but goes a bit further. He demonstrates that if the promise came to those who kept the Law, it would no longer be an unconditional promise. As it is, it is an unconditional promise. A promise that was based on law would be conditional. The condition that would then be necessary for the promise to be fulfilled would be keeping the Law. Then the promise wouldn’t be a promise because it could be nullified or abrogated the first time someone didn’t keep the Law. The Promise then would be nullified by someone’s inability to keep the Law. So as things stand, the promise could only be a promise if it were not conditional if it did not depend on our keeping the Law. And that kind of promise then is only possible if it comes on the basis of a person’s faith, rather than his ability to keep the Law.