What is the difference between being justified and being saved?

Explanation:

Paul writes that one believes unto righteousness and confesses unto salvation. At first, it seems like he makes a distinction between righteousness and salvation, suggesting that belief leads to righteousness and confession leads to salvation. But by noticing what Paul writes in Romans 10:9, we can detect that he is using a chiastic literary device, which suggests that there is no difference between righteousness and salvation in this context.³

To notice this chiastic structure, we observe what Paul writes in Romans 10:9, which he repeats and reverses in Romans 10:10. In Romans 10:9 he writes that if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, you will be saved. Then in Romans 10:10 he repeats these ideas but switches the order—first believing leads to righteousness, then confession leads to salvation. By flipping the order, Paul shows that believing and confessing go together, and that righteousness and salvation go together. He is not describing two steps, but one united act of faith and one united result from God.⁴

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that the parallelism between Romans 10:9 and Romans 10:10 is related to believing and confessing, not righteousness and salvation. In other words, Paul wants us to notice that the chronological order of believing and confessing are two sides of the same coin, which is why their order can be reversed without theological consequence. Still, that believing and confessing are two sides of the same coin does not abolish the distinction between righteousness and salvation. It could be that believing leads to righteousness and confessing leads to salvation.

Response to counterargument:

True, the chiasm that reverses confession and belief does not in itself show that there is no distinction between righteousness and salvation. Still, we can see that Paul’s literary choices have led him down a certain road that lends to the notion that righteousness and salvation are the same. For the reason Paul refers to confession and belief in this section is that he initially quotes from Deuteronomy 30:12–14 to explain the nearness of the gospel. Deuteronomy 30:12–14 refers to the heart and mouth, leading Paul to utilize the notions of belief and confession. Of course, believing and confessing are really two sides of the same coin, which Paul indicates by developing a chiasm in Romans 10:10. It would be strange if Paul used a chiasm to say, Believing with the heart leads to salvation and confession with the mouth leads to salvation, so he reintroduces the term righteousness, which has been prevalent in the letter. So it is not that Paul wants to make a theological distinction between righteousness and salvation, but that Deuteronomy 30:12–14 introduced the concepts of belief and confession, and the chiastic structure motivates Paul to put these categories to literary use.

Explanation

There is a parallelism in Romans 10:10, which suggests that there is likely no difference between righteousness and salvation. The parallelism is as follows: First Paul writes that with the heart one believes and is justified [εἰς δικαιοσύνην], then he writes that with the mouth one confesses and is saved [εἰς σωτηρίαν]. Given the parallelism, as evidenced by using the same preposition followed by the accusative singular noun, likely these terms mean roughly the same thing.⁵ One believes and is justified, which is to be saved, and one confesses and is saved, which is to be justified.

Counterargument

The simple use of parallelism does not in itself imply that the terms used in the parallelism are not distinct. That is, while it is the case that Paul uses parallelism between righteousness and salvation, this alone does not imply that righteousness and salvation have different meanings. Rather, Paul could use the parallelism for two reasons, namely, that it is a clever literary device and because belief leads to righteousness, which is distinct from confession leading to salvation.

Response to counterargument

The point of this counterargument is well-taken, except that we might also note that Paul seems to blur the distinction between righteousness and salvation earlier in the letter. In particular, in Romans 1:16–17 Paul explains that the gospel is the power of God for salvation, before noting the righteous shall live by faith. In fact, the reason Paul sees righteousness and salvation as interchangeable terms in some contexts, is that it was common in Jewish writing, such as the Psalms, to use these terms interchangeably.⁶ So while the parallelism alone does indicate that righteousness and salvation are equivalent in this context, we know from the Old Testament, and Paul’s own statements in Romans 1:16–17, that these terms are closely correlated.

The weakness of this view is that it is not difficult to make a theological distinction between righteousness and salvation that would align with Paul’s writings. For example, righteousness could be the righteousness where one is counted legally justified before God for the sake of Christ. Salvation, on the other hand, could refer to escaping the day or judgment, or spending eternity with God. So the terms righteousness and salvation do imply theological distinctions that align with Paul’s broader thought.

Explanation

When Paul writes that belief leads to righteousness and confession to salvation, he presents us with the positive and negative aspects of salvation. The positive aspect of salvation is that Christ imputes his righteousness to us, so that we are made holy. The negative aspect of salvation is that anyone who is not made righteous will face God’s wrath, but those who are made righteous will escape judgment.⁷ So those who believe are made righteous and those who confess will be saved from God’s wrath.

Counterargument

The reason Paul distinguishes righteousness and salvation here is likely because he quotes Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Romans 10:6–8.⁸ Quoting Deuteronomy 30:12–14 leads to the distinction between confession and believing, which leads Paul to present righteousness and salvation as distinct concepts. But likely, these concepts are only distinct insofar as they are useful to Paul because he quotes Deuteronomy 30:12–14, not because there is a theological distinction between these.

Response to counterargument

Using Deuteronomy 30:12–14 might lead Paul to distinguishing believing and confessing, but it has no bearing on the distinction between righteousness and salvation. Righteousness is related to becoming holy and right with God, while salvation is a future event which has to do with escaping God’s judgment. Given that there is a distinction between becoming holy and escaping God’s judgment, there is an obvious difference between righteousness and salvation.

Explanation

Paul writes that belief leads to righteousness and confession to salvation. The reason Paul distinguishes these is that he does not want to cheapen the gospel. That is to say, if all one does is present the fact that through Christ we are made righteous, we fail to present the fact that sin ought to be punished. By distinguishing righteousness and salvation, Paul does not make this mistake, for he makes it clear that the gospel contained the positive aspect of being made holy, and the negative aspect of escaping God’s judgment on sin. So if Paul did not distinguish these, the gospel would be cheapened.⁹

Counterargument

While it might be unwise to cheapen the gospel by failing to explain that it involves both being made holy, and escaping God’s judgment, this is simply not relevant to Paul’s point in Romans 10:10. His point is to explain that the gospel is near and easy to believe (Romans 10:9). Explaining the nearness of the gospel means relaying that the gospel involves belief and confession, not works. Of course, to explain the nearness of the gospel without mentioning that it involves holiness and escaping God’s judgment is not to cheapen the gospel. Rather, it is to explain one aspect of the gospel, without explaining every aspect of the gospel.

This view is not wrong for noting a distinction between righteousness and salvation, for these could be distinct theological concepts. At the same time, these are also closely related, especially in the Psalms and Isaiah, so it is not unlikely that no theological distinction is implied. Since distinguishing these is not imperative to Paul’s overall point that the gospel is near, it is not likely that there is a significant theological difference between these in this verse.