Interpreting Romans 6:23 In Context

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ah, God's timing at work! I'm going to be out all day, and have just done a screaming fly-by of the forum to let you know like-wise! It might be a day or so until I find the time to get back to our conversation, but I'm most certainly be back as I am enjoying it! I so very rarely get the opportunity to get to dig into issues with real grit without things getting heated, so I'm so very glad that we can just chat on how we see the passage, rather than feel we must insult each other in our effort to do so! Hope your busy days go well!
I likewise will be offline much of the next four days, hoping to continue!
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Any action done because we must, in order to keep something, to earn something...there is necessarily going to be a little fear, a little begrudgement involved. That's not grace!
Hi Naomi,

That's a very important distinction, I think!

Much love!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Naomi25

Zachary

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
733
179
43
B.C., Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Short synopsis:
Paul is saying grace alone will not save. It takes both grace and obedience to God's will to be saved. If one is not obeying God's will then one is serving sin unto death. It takes obedience unto righteousness and continued obedience for one to become and remain justified. If the Christian quits obeying God then he has turned back to serving sin unto death, returned to being a servant of unrighteousness. Hence salvation requires God's grace and man's obedience and is not by grace alone for again grace will not save those who chose to disobey God for their master is serving sin unto death and not obedience unto righteousness.
Kuddos to you ...
You understand what Paul is saying ... and are open to receive it.
Many "believers" are so hung up in their deceptions, false doctrines, etc.
that they are NOT open to spiritual Truth.
This is a very dangerous place to be!
Grace-only, easy-grace, hyper-grace, easy-believism, etc.
are all from the very pits of hell.
.
 

Zachary

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
733
179
43
B.C., Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I think we'll be pretty far apart on some doctrinces
if you are thinking that a believer can be a slave to sin. You only think you are.
Of course a believer can be a habitual sinner!
I don't think I am a habitual sinner; where did you get that idea?
You must mean: habitual sinners only think they are!
.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Of course a believer can be a habitual sinner!
I didn't say habitual sinner. I was asking if you believe a Christian, born again, can be "a slave to sin"?

Someone who is born again who thinks they are a slave to sin, what I'm saying here is, that they only think they are a slave to sin, and freedom is found in realizing that they've already been freed from sin.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I think you are an habitual sinner. I wouldn't have any idea about that, and I would assume not.

Slave to sin has, in my opinion, a very particular meaning, and makes a very pointed comment about those who are.

Much love!
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Grace-only, easy-grace, hyper-grace, easy-believism, etc.
are all from the very pits of hell.

I've never understood this objection to grace.

Grace is God's gift to bring us into righteous and holy union with Him. Grace introduces us to a life that is impossible for us to live, except that in grace we can live it.

I used to believe as so many seem to. Christian living was composed of an ongoing war against our sin natures, as we disciple ourselves, and find reasons to not sin, and white-knuckle temptations, pushing hard against the lusts of the flesh, resisting, fighting, winning, losing, when what I find that it really is, is to realize we're done with all that. The battle is won, and in faith we walk in victory.

I try and try and try and try to not sin, and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

I stop trying to not sin, and instead, anything that comes to rock my little boat, I just fix my eyes on God, my Faithful Creater, Who loves me, and is with me. And all that fight is just gone, over. He shall keep him in perfect peace, who's mind is anchored on Him. It's true. Anchor your mind on God. And realize that you've been delivered from all that.

And everytime you forget, when you find yourself plagued by thoughts of sin, renew that anchor into God, that sure and steadfast anchor that reaches through the veil, into the unseen, the heavenly realm, where are true life is, where our Savior is, where we find help in time of need.

Much love!
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Let me at least try and get in a few responses now if I can. In this passage the term used is more specifically, "works of the law." Now that is a different thing entirely. They were being seduced into keeping Jewish law, so the discussion here was not a debate over salvation by faith alone but rather over beginning the Christian walk by faith only to succumb to thinking it required keeping things like circumcision, keeping feast days, not eating unclean foods, etc. Different thing.
But is it different? Let's say that you're right and Paul is speaking only about the Jewish laws. He's still making the point that obeying set laws, set expectations of morality, will not, cannot, lead to salvation, or even keep it.
Why would he then turn around and point to a different set of rules, a set of moral expectations, and say that those DO need to be kept for salvation, to keep it. That would seem to me to totally contradict the...ah...rules of play, so to speak, that he just laid down over salvation and how one is to keep it.
We could, perhaps argue that he is allowing for another set of morals rules to be followed, but I would suggest that we would need to find them laid out in scripture as precisely as the OT laws were to know it; our God would not leave us guessing on such a huge issue. As it stands, I think the only set that Paul feels he has to truly address, is the old covenant rules; and once he covers that way of living with a blanket statement that one simply cannot expect to get or retain salvation by works, he feels he's done with it. And indeed it should be. Gal 2:15 states that the Jews full well knew that a person was saved by faith not works. Paul is simply reminding people of how things are...for everyone. Salvation is not earned or kept through works...only faith, only grace.

Ok, this one is a favorite of those who believe a Christian can never lose his or her salvation, but the way they take the expression "I should lose nothing" is out of context with what's actually being said. The full statement is, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." Taken together, what this verse is saying is that He will not lose them to death because He will raise them up into everlasting life. But this applies only to those who are truly His and remain so, enduring until the end. As scripture says, "The Lord knows those who are His" (2 Timothy 2:19), and there are a number of instances in the NT where a believer can indeed commit sins that can cause a believer yo, such as denying Him before men (unless repented of), taking the mark of the beast, blaspheming the Holy Spirit, things like that...
I'm afraid I disagree with you here (surprise!). We can, of course infer that Christ will not loose those who are his to death...or everlasting death, because he redeems them...but here our understanding diverges. You say he will he will only 'not loose and raise up' those who are truly his and remain so. I would say that all who don't make it to that raising were not his to start with. The reason I do is because of verses like John 6:37-40, as discussed, and this one:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.” -John 10:27–30

The promise of assurance comes from the strength and perfection of the one who died for us. To believe that I may do something stupid enough, foolish enough, even disobedient enough to 'jump' out of Christ's hand, means that my sin is 'greater' than Christ's perfection, atoning work and promise to me for eternal life and to 'raise me up at the last day.' In a cyclical sort of way, this promise, this assurance based on love and grace, is what has a sinner forgiven by grace circling back to repentance and growth in Christ. If someone claiming to be a Christian...and their are plenty out there that have never truly understood the gospel, or accepted Christ, for whatever reason, do not turn back to Christ...then we have proof via their fruit that they were 'not of us' truly.

Anyway, I didn't realize you were OSAS, so that would be a long discussion in and of itself.
Um...surprise!!


Uh, oh... this one looks involved... I'll have to give it a good read through later.

God bless, sister! And thanks once again!

:)
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Ok, I understand what you are saying here, but in Romans 6:15-23 the analogy is used not to teach we are more than slaves but rather adopted sons. It is used to warn what will happen if we go back to serving our former master of sin. This is what is suggested by v.15-16, "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid. Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves slaves to obey, his slaves you are to whom you obey; whether [as a slave] of sin unto death, or [as a slave] of obedience unto righteousness?" These sentences imply that we can indeed go back to serving sin, and as Peter said, those who do are like a dog returning to their vomit, or a pig to wallowing in the mud. So, too, is a man freed from enslavement to sin through Christ who returns to serving sin despite being freed from it. And in such a state, not serving the Lord who delivered him but returning to his former master who brought him only shame, his end will be to be paid by the master whom he was truly serving. I understand fully that if we sin we have an advocate with the Father, but at the same time Jesus is not called our Lord in name only. He is to be our Lord in reality, for if He is not, we have no rightful place in His kingdom.

Alright, let me put it this way: when we tell our children not to do something, like put their hands on the stove, or run across the street, do we just say 'don't'...or do we lay out what would happen should they do it? And does the information of what could happen make it surer that they children obey us? For example, kids, like sinful people, have a bent to want to do what we've just been told not to. However, when being told 'don't run across the road or else you'll be run over and die', that sort of lends weight to the place where they're standing...next to their parents on the footpath.
Paul starts Chapter 6 by telling us that we have died to sin, and walk in the newness of Christ. In 6:14 he proclaims that sin will have no dominion over us. With that explicit understanding, he then goes on in the beginning, and weaving throughout of our passage to spell out what the dangers of enslavement to sin looked like in our life before we were set free, the consequences it would have inevitably led to. But then, starting in Vv 17, he again reminds us that we were 'once' slaves to sin and have now become 'obedient'. It goes on, but there is a very clear 'once...now' symmetry within the passage. But if we read carefully, there is no, not once, intimation that Paul fears or expects, any of those he is speaking to to actually fall back into sin. Just like we do not expect our child, once he is old enough to fully understand WHAT will happen should they barrel out onto the street, to do so. The reminder remains fresh, as children get distracted, but no child, or person, acts in a way that places them in deaths path, not unless they have mental issues.
My point being, just because we see Paul listing 'once...now' in the passage...giving us information of what would have happened should we have continued in our enslavement to sin, does not necessarily mean he is voicing his expectation that Christians who do not 'obey' enough will, in fact, fall back into that enslavement. In fact, I would say that it's simply not there.


About the adoption analogy, I think Romans teaches something similar in Chapter 8:
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if you live after the flesh, you shall die: but if through the Spirit you do mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For you have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, "Abba, Father."
16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Now, suppose the adopted son refuses to suffer with Him. Suppose he denies Him before men to avoid enduring persecution. Is he still counted worthy to be called a son? And maybe more to your argument, what about the adopted son who lives after the flesh and does NOT mortify the deeds of the body? As adopted sons we are called to conform to the image of our Father, and that does not mean physically but rather in how we conduct ourselves in our everyday affairs. Would we still be counted worthy to be called His true sons if we never did conform ourselves to His image, but went back to walking in the image of the evil one who formed our behavior before we were adopted?

Here we get into a really messy knotty ball. Because, who can really know? Let's say there a Christian mother over in North Korea. She is quietly faithful in a hard Country, secretly raising her small children to love Christ, doing the best she can in a terrifying dictatorship. But what if she is discovered, and is called on to denounce Christ or watch her children shot in the head. What if in that very second she stumbles out of fear for her kids and does it. And they are all killed as martyrs anyway. Is she any worse than Peter? Who are we to say that she made an unpardonable sin?
Or, what if someone was raised in a Christian home, felt they were a Christian, but married a man who abused her, and used the faith to do it. What if the Church never lifted a finger to help her and she 'turned away' from both Church and Christ for many, many years. So many of us would declare her either apostate or never saved at all. But all the while Christ resided as a small nugget in her heart, waiting, guiding, wooing. And in her 60's, something happens that opens her heart and mind and brings her back. Who are we to judge that in-between period and say she can't be adopted? Why can't she just be a prodigal? Why shouldn't we pray for her heart to be restored?
The fact of the matter is; we can never really know a person's heart or where they stand with Christ. Their fruit can often lead us to speculate, but even then we shouldn't stop praying that their adoption would be made sure. But the thing of it is this: any decent adoptive parent is not going to give up on a rebellious child, a hurting child, a prodigal child, a child that makes mistakes, a child that hurts - from their own sins or sins of another. If you are a parent, you know that that is not something that will ever stop being true. It may grieve you at times, tire you at times, anger you at times, make you broke at times. But they will always be yours.
And after the purchasing price...I simply believe that Christ's promises to me is sure.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
:)
I've heard this argument before, but in the parable the Lord actively forgives his entire debt. It doesn't say that he offers to forgive his debt, it says he forgives it, completely and totally. If the debt represents his sin debt, then this can be nothing other than a Christian who has entered into a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ through grace, having had his sin debt completely forgiven.
Well...can it? I mean let's really think about the transactional nature of salvation. Christ extends forgiveness to all, right? For a person to be fully redeemed, we need to accept Christ as Lord, accept what he did on the cross in our place and repent. Repentance is a major character in the salvific dance. And our protagonist in this parable...he don't have it. He asks for 'forgiveness' of his debts out of fear of consequences alone, and once he believes he's got it, he whistles off into the sunset free and easy to enact evil on others. There is no repentance of his initial need of forgiveness, and certainly no repentance of character that leads to his actions with the other servant.
If we really look at key bits of this parable, we can actually see that it supports the idea that this protagonists was found to not really be saved, and that those who are like him, not truly transformed, are the ones in danger of being tossed into jail, so to speak.
In Verse 32 we see the 'master' summon him and call him a "wicked servant!". Again, that term is never (to my knowledge) used for those Christ owns. We are told that by his own actions he has revealed himself to be a wicked evildoer. Then, in Verse 35 we are told that if we do not forgive "from the heart", we too shall be tossed in jail. This is basically telling us that forgiveness comes from a new heart. Like our discussion on Romans 6, this is not a guarantee that Christians will fail to forgive others, it is just information. Information that tells us that our ability to forgive comes from the new heart our redemption gave us. There are certainly times in our lives where it is hard to forgive. Maybe there are still things we are working on forgiving. This doesn't mean we're headed for the pit. It means in God's grace we are working on it through his Spirit.



Here you might have a stronger argument, only again the master gives him something (suggesting a relationship has been formed); something which he gave to the other two as well, only in a lesser quantity. Interpreters debate what that something represents. Judging by the context of the surrounding text, I believe the talents represent wisdom and revelation from God they were to increase in, so as to be able to teach His people and give them something "to eat." (see Matthew 24:45 and Matthew 25:35). But whatever it represented, this parable again describes a servant not responding properly to his Lord, as the others had done.
I think that the main point of the parable is being faithful with what God has entrusted into our care; be that wisdom, or be that family.
And while the last, lazy servant may indeed still call the master his master, let us not forget that Christ is Lord of all, regardless of their heart intent towards them. And again, we see in Verse 26 that he is called a 'Wicked' servant...not something that Christ would label his own.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
This is a common interpretation, yes. But now I'm glad you brought this up because there is an error I see many make when it comes to interpreting passages like this: They have this way of applying statements made to a specific group of individuals 2,000 years ago to all Christians everywhere at all times, in all circumstances, regardless of what lives they lead. But Paul was writing to this group of people specifically, and describing their spiritual history and their spiritual state as it now existed at the time of writing:

17 But God be thanked, that you were the slaves of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, you became the slaves of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the weakness of your flesh: for as you have yielded your members slaves to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members slaves to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when you were the slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit then did you have in those things whereof you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and having become slaves to God, you have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.


Thus, these were not theoretical statements. They actually HAD obeyed from the heart the teachings of the apostles. Paul would not have written these things to them in such a way if they had not obeyed from the heart the doctrine that had been delivered them, simply to teach a theoretical truth. So yes, to answer your question, it had indeed "passed and now was." But the question is, has it come to pass in our lives and now is, just as it came to pass in theirs. If we have not obeyed from the heart the doctrines delivered to us, then we are in a different set of circumstances then they were.
Well...two things I think. Paul may have indeed be writing to them at that time, and they may have indeed been obeying. But, we also know the early Church was full of mistakes and stumbling Christians. They, like us now, don't have it all together. So, we shouldn't understand all passages like this as pointing to the early church and going 'they had it all together...we need to be like them to be okay'.
The second thing is...assuming that the bible is only a history book takes the divine nature out of it. 2 Tim3:16-17 tells us that ALL scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness and that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. That doesn't just apply for the early church, but for the church as a whole throughout history. The truth of our stance in Christ under grace, our freedom from sin, is just as true as their stance. What Paul told them about obedience and freedom applies to us as well. And since Paul speaks so often about our standing in Christ, about grace and justification and the law, we must recognize that there is not, cannot, be a divide in those general status' between the Christian and Christ. Because I very much doubt things have changed a great deal between then and now. People still struggled with sex, pride, greed, envy, anger...all those things Paul talks of. And yet like the churches he addressed then, we too are under grace, not law. We too are slaves to righteousness, not sin. That is why we can turn our back on those things we struggle with. It's not easy, but we have this glorious future and promise to look towards. We have the Spirit's help.
No...I don't think we can claim with any sort of validity that Paul was only really talking to them. It divorces too much else from past to future, and that just starts a tectonic divide within scripture that won't stop.


Ah... please don't misunderstand me here, Naomi, as this is I believe at the very heart of why a teaching like the one I present in this thread might be rejected by some: It is NOT about Christians being rejected by God for committing one little sin. You are correct in saying that's not what I would teach, and I pray no one reading this thinks it would be. But what I believe these parables teach is that a persistent refusal to obey God in certain matters will ultimately lead to damnation. A lot of time apparently passed in the parable of the talents, because it says "after a long time the master of those servants returned" (Matthew 25:19). So the wicked servant continued for a very long time in sins that, by his own admission, he was being convicted of, in deciding to bury his lord's talent. He had a long time to repent but refused to.

In the parable of the unforgiving debtor, persistent refusal to forgive is implied by his refusing to forgive even after the man pleaded and begged him to be patient and give him time. Then he had the man thrown in prison "until he should pay back the money," which I believe would have been impossible, since he would not be able to make any money in prison, and he currently did not have the money to pay him or he would have. So you have here a person who was declaring by his actions that he was intent on never forgiving the debtor, ever.

But no. I am absolutely opposed to anyone teaching that one little sin would have the capability of causing a Christian to lose their salvation. Some may think me nonsensical, but I'm not that crazy, LoL.
But...would you not say that anyone who 'persistently refuses to obey god' is probably not interested in loving him and following him anyway?
Truly....answer me this: why do YOU follow and obey Jesus? Is it because you are worried that if you don't you'll miss the heaven train and end up in hell? Or, is it because you love him. Because you are just overwhelmed by what he's done for you, the sacrifice he made for you, the grace he's shown you?
If it's the first, I'll pray for you! But I'm fairly sure, given what I know of you, that it's the second! And for most born again believers it is too. When we have our eyes opened to what Christ did for us...all that he did, our mouths just drop in astonishment. The enormity of that sacrifice, the love it showed. It is impossible NOT to respond in kind with love and with action that shows our love. Turning away from sin and following Christ every day, that is a natural consequence of love, gratitude and just wanting to be like him, with him.
Those who, by your own admission, grimly refuse over a long period of time...ultimately, I suppose, til their death and judgement, to obey Christ, to follow him, by definition, I would say, did not love him, did not understand or accept what he had done for them. I cannot see in any way how they could have, at any point, truly known what he was as a Savior.
In fact, any person 'persistently refusing to obey God' sounds like the definition of an unbeliever to me!
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Sorry, no kapische!
The passage clearly says these believers ARE slaves of sin NOW.
.
Ah...yeah...nah.


What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. -Romans 6:15–23

Sorry, absolutely nowhere does it say we are slaves to sin now. It say we were once slaves to sin. It says we can remember the fruit of sin, which we are ashamed of. It says we have been set free of sin NOW. Like I said to HIH....this passages is positively dripping with "once...now" statements. We were once slaves to sin. We are now slaves to righteousness.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm just gonna quote that passage again, cause I find it helps to be looking at something when I'm talking about it!

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. -Romans 5:1–5

You say that we have 'peace with God' through the Holy Spirit. However, it doesn't actually say that. It says we have peace with God through 'our Lord Jesus Christ'. That it is in him we have obtained access 'by faith'. Now, I understand that necessarily the Holy Spirit is a part of our justification; it is He that wakes the dead heart to see the beauty of Christ, replaces stone with flesh.
However, I do not believe this passage at all speaks about justification being an 'open door' for the outpouring, or that salvation is or is not guaranteed.

Ok, maybe I can get some work in today. I'm behind by two whole pages now, LoL.

About this, I didn't actually say we "have peace with God through the Holy Spirit." I was saying the Holy Spirit coming upon us is proof that we have peace with God through faith in Christ Jesus, and that justification through faith in His blood is what opens the door to it. This is what is referred to in Ephesians Chapter 2, where Paul said concerning the outpouring among the Gentiles:

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Ephesians 2:13-18)

In other words, Jesus IS our peace because through faith in Him we have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.-Romans 5:9–11

I'm not sure how to express what I'm thinking here, so forgive me if this comes across as clunky. You say Paul uses 'future tense' to describe 'potential' salvation, but present tense for 'reconciliation'. The problem with this is that 'reconciliation' IS salvation. It IS justification. And there is nothing that stops something we have now, from being a future tense as well. It doesn't mean we have to earn it...loose it and regain it, or any such thing. It may only suggest that what we have now, we still have possession of in the future.
So, rather than attempting to wiggle a potential doctrine over what might fit in-between the unspoken present and future (which it doesn't not state), should we not focus on what the texts actually say? Which is that we DO have justification. That that justification means we SHALL be saved from the wrath of God. That if God SAVED us by the death of his own son while we were complete enemies, how much more will he bring us to glorification with the life of his son! This suggests an extreme mercy and grace on God's behalf, and to the contrary of what you're suggesting, tells us that we are not saved only to then by asked to play for our supper.

That depends if you read Romans 6:15-23 in the light of triumph or not. As I pointed out in my other post, Paul clearly is writing that passage as one who has stepped from chains into freedom. He writes that the Christian IS NOW free, that they are NO LONGER slaves to sin. He uses clear comparisons of what was to what now is.

Ok, you reference Paul here. That's good. Let me show you something from what he wrote to Timothy:

1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus... endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.... 10 I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.

Now notice how salvation is contingent upon something here. Paul tells Timothy, "IF we suffer [with Him], we shall also reign with Him, but IF we deny Him, He will deny us." He was telling this to Timothy, which means Paul was readily acknowledging that both he and Timothy could potentially deny Christ. Hence his encouragement to Timothy to keep enduring hardships as a good soldier of Christ. Now we have documents saying that by the time of Trajan (110 A.D.) those whom the Romans coerced into denying Christ were forced to curse Him, and worship the pagan images instead to save their lives.

So the argument becomes this: If Paul and Timothy were both capable of denying Christ (as Paul's own words suggest), I would think all believers are capable of doing so, and that means that salvation is still in flux in believer's lives until the end. If a man denies Christ and curses Him to His face, how can he still be saved? He is utterly renouncing Him, and proclaiming to the whole world that He is unquestionably NOT God. :confused:

So then reconciliation is not a permanent state, nor is justification. They are contingent upon if we abide in Christ until the end, and not fall away out of fear of men and what they can do to us. This is why it says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
Okay...I can't say I really understand that, especially as there doesn't appear to be any mention of Hades anywhere in or near that verse. But, okay then. I still think the verse stands quite well by itself.

Maybe we can get to that later. Like I said, it would be a lot of work, LoL. :)


 
Last edited:

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm not sure that it matters, exactly. Whether 'guarantee' or 'down payment' for the greater to come...we still are bearers of the Holy Spirit, God within us. Even if we forget that Christ told us that what is his he will never let go of

I forget where I dealt with this one now, but I believe the interpretation of that passage is taken out off context. Maybe I hadn't posted that yet when you wrote this. That's the trouble with these long, drawn-out discussions. Can't remember who said what when, LoL : )
even if we forget that Hebrews tells us that Christ himself is both author AND finisher of our faith

For this one here, the better translation is "Author and Perfecter of our faith." It means that just as he was persecuted and crucified but then resurrected to the right hand of the Father (i.e. kingship in eternity), so too can believers follow in his footsteps and receive the same reward, although He fulfilled this pattern perfectly, whereas you and I emulate and follow His example, but do so less perfectly (to varying degrees).
There is a clear line in the order of things: justification, sanctification and then glorification. And of course scripture is going to speak of future expectation yet to come; we have not yet been glorified. It is in this hope that we have been saved (Romans 8:23-24). But just because there is something clearly waiting for us in the future, does not mean that it is our salvation that is lacking or that we must work to keep it.

Yes, the pattern is faith, justification, sanctification, glorification. But now again, I don't teach that we have to work to keep it. I teach we simply have to keep from completely screwing it up, which is a different thing, LoL. The work is entirely His, but if we deny Him and denounce Him before men, refusing to any more acknowledge that He is God, this is one of a short list of ways we can foul the whole thing up.
Well, as I showed, there is a clear cross over in the verses that speak of salvation and redemption. Some clearly speak of 'redemption' in salvific light, while others speak of 'that day'.

Again, this entails dealing with Paul's teaching on how the OT saints were delivered from the Underworld up to being seated with Christ in heavenly places, and our being seated with them because we are all one body together in Christ. We'll get to it eventually, but that's getting farther and farther off subject, and I have two pages of posts to try and catch up on.
Ha...sorry. I don't mean to be difficult, although I often get the feeling that I am. But, you know...isn't that what doctrinal debates are for?? But...worry not...you're making my brain sweat too, if that's any consolation!!

I knew what I was in for, LoL. There's a saying in the boxing world about "going 15 rounds" with someone. With you, I can plan on it being more like 25, LoL!
 
Last edited:

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And if a Christian cannot tie justification by grace through faith with the free gift of eternal life, SHAME ON HIM OR HER.

We are seeing some bizarre and absurd notions being presented in this thread, and generally in Christendom today (concerning other matters also).

I fully tie justification by grace through faith with the free gift of eternal life. It must be something else you were referring to being bizarre and absurd.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hello @Hidden In Him,

I have printed off the posts you have mentioned (#37, #47, #65), and will come back to you concerning them asap.

In Christ Jesus
Chris
Hello @Hidden In Him,

Having read through your interpretation of Romans 6:15-23, I find myself in disagreement with you.

In the opening section of Romans 6, we have been shown that sanctification operates within a new sphere - in 'newness of life' in Christ, and presupposes justification as an accomplished fact. Justification brings, 'peace with God', and, 'access by faith into the grace wherein we stand' (Romans 5:1-2). This new sphere necessitates a new condition - 'oneness with Christ'. It is impossible to think of newness of life and union with Christ, and at the same time of a state of bondage; therefore we have seen that there is a new state also - freedom from bondage:- 'For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace' (Romans 6:14).

Yeah, Chris, it appears you take the position that justification is an inalterable state. This sort of puts us at loggerheads. I could ask you to respond to the second half of Post #134 if you like, but I don't think it would likely get us anywhere. Very tough for two people to see eye-to-eye when they are approaching a discussion from two diametrically opposed positions.

Blessings in Christ, sister, and glad you are posting just the same : ). If you would like to respond to that one, I'd be interested to hear what you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charity

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Hey, marks. I'm reading through your posts, and there are some things I could comment on. But I think the crux of our disagreement would be over the question of is being under grace a permanent and inalterable state.

If you were wishing to discuss things, what would be your answer to the second half of Post #134? But if you were just wanting to post your exegesis of the passage for others to read, that's good, too.

Blessings in Christ, and hoping you have a pleasant Thanksgiving.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'll most certainly be back as I am enjoying it! I so very rarely get the opportunity to get to dig into issues with real grit without things getting heated, so I'm so very glad that we can just chat on how we see the passage, rather than feel we must insult each other in our effort to do so! Hope your busy days go well!

Absolutely, Naomi! I really enjoy it, too. This is the way it is supposed to be done. It's just that some people get really defensive sometimes. I think it takes humility, because there's always a risk of being made to look foolish sometimes, and on forums like this, one's enemies will be quick to pounce in and shame you before everyone for making a mistake...

But the Lord knows those who are His, and those seeking only to build each other up will be rewarded in due time. Those seeking to humiliate and "correct" others, despite maybe thinking they are serving God, are usually just tearing down rather than building up, and a time is coming when those who are content to be continually at war with fellow believers will come under judgment for it.

But I've always seen you as someone who was on the right side of that fence, and I hope you never change. You are a pleasure to discuss the scriptures with : )

Your brother in Christ, as always.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Since these believers are slaves of sin,
how could they possibly be slaves of righteousness (v.17)?

Since these believers are slaves of sin,
how could they possibly be slaves of God (v.22)?

Greetings, Zachary. I was skimming your posts and this part confused me. V.17 says they were slaves of sin but had become slaves of righteousness, yes? If you can, clear this up for me. I don't quite follow what you were saying here.

Blessings in Christ, and hope you are having a great day : )