Chapter # 6 Paragraph # 1 Study # 1
July 18, 2006
Lincolnton, NC

• I. The Origins of Paul's Question.
  • A. Paul's doctrine of "absolute substitution" tends toward the conclusion that "sin" isn't all that important.
    • 1. We "sin" because of Adam.
    • 2. We are "justified" because of Christ.
    • 3. There is nothing in us that has any direct bearing on either Adam or Christ and their actions and consequences.
      • a. Even our "births" (originally, of Adam, and, then, of Christ) are accomplished without any cognitive participation on our part [though, as soon as the sperm and egg joined there became a "third party participation" in that "we" came into being as distinct individuals from those which provided sperm and egg -- much like we "became" living souls when the body and spirit were united in Genesis 2:7].
      • b. And, for certain, our "natures" were "determined" by our progenitor, not by our participation in the process.
      • c. The complexity arises in that the "new birth" is unlike the "birth of flesh" in that, before the "birth of flesh" we do not exist, but the "new birth" occurs while we are already in existence. This causes many to argue that the "new birth" does involve our participation prior to the event [We may have to figure in the element of involvement between conception and birth, for, certainly, Paul does speak of the issue of "Christ being formed in us" as a "pre-birth" issue].
  • B. Paul's doctrine of "super-abounding grace" tends toward the conclusion that "sin" isn't all that important.
    • 1. It is true that we "sin".
    • 2. But, there is a present, over-abundance, of "grace" to address that reality.
    • 3. So, what is the significance of our "sins"? If "grace" takes care of the problem in "super" provision, what does it matter that we "sin"?
      • a. Since God justifies us so that He does not "reckon sin to us" (Romans 4:8), what does it matter that we "sin"?
      • b. If, in fact, the old man and all of his deeds are destroyed by death, what does it matter how much he accomplishes in this world?
• II. The Context of Paul's Question.
  • A. Time and Eternity are both in view.
    • 1. There is no question that in time, "sin" always creates painful results.
      • a. "Sin" also, however, often creates some pleasurable results (there is pleasure in sin for a season -- Hebrews 11:25).
      • b. Indisputably, also, there is significant pain in doing what is right -- suffering affliction as the people of God is a fact of reality: Hebrews 11:25. So, "painful results" is not the exclusive domain of "sin".
      • c. Thus, it seems a legitimate conclusion that the "suffering of painful circumstances" is not a "sufficient" basis for arguing "against" sin. Interestingly, Paul says nothing about the painful consequences of sin in his argument in Romans 6:1-23. Instead, he argues on the bases of life and death, not pain and pleasure.
      • d. Therefore, we conclude that the issue in time regarding "sin" is "harmonious relational unity with God" that provides "life" in spite of "pain". Joy is what is really at stake.
    • 2. There should be no question that in eternity, "sin" always causes loss.
      • a. This seems to be a legitimate concern for Paul as he indicates in 1 Corinthians 3:15 and 2 Timothy 2:20-21.
      • b. In the setting of eternity, the issue seems to be the "degree to which God can impart the blessings of physical, soulish, and spiritual life". Clearly, there can be no sense of "loss" if everyone receives the same degree of response from God, nor can there be any real sense of "judgment for reward". Invariably, the issue seems to be that one which Jesus faced down in the wilderness when he was offered the kingdoms of this world with their glory while having a promise from God of "the nations as your inheritance" (Psalm 2). The issue is a very limited experience of something that is promised in a greater degree and for a longer "eternity" for those who will "endure" the present time for the "joy" set before them.
      • c. Justification "eliminates" any "condemnation", but it does not "provide" any "blessings".
  • B. Paul argues for "Life" in the face of "Death".
    • 1. Paul's first argument in Romans 6 that we should not continue in sin is that "we are dead to sin".
    • 2. Paul's second argument in Romans 6 that we should not continue in sin is that "yielding leads to bondage" and "bondage leads to a definitive kind of 'fruit'" that brings either "shame" or "eternal life".
• III. The Initial Answer to Paul's Question.
  • A. We are dead to sin.
    • 1. He asks how we can "live in sin" since we are "dead to sin".
    • 2. The question is fraught with "issues".
      • a. Why is the question even raised if we are "dead to sin"?
        • 1) It is obvious that, in some sense, "we" can "live in sin", else the question is moot.
        • 2) It is just as obvious that, in some sense, "we" cannot "live in sin", else we have not really "died" to it.
      • b. The issue is: what does it mean to be "dead"?
        • 1) More fundamentally, what does it mean for "me" to be "dead"?
          • a) If "dead" means to have a loss of capacity ("the body without the spirit is dead"), then, clearly, there must be an "I" who cannot sin (I have no capacity to do so).
            • i. But, if "I" cannot sin, who is it that is "sinning" when sin is proceeding from "me"?
            • ii. There would be no sense to Paul's question of the "continuance in sin" if there is no possibility of it.
          • b) If "dead" has another meaning, then "I" might not be split into various identities since "I" might have a capacity to sin while I am dead to it...but this seems to clash with Paul's question: how can I continue in something to which I am dead?
          • c) Therefore, Paul must mean that there are several "I"s involved.
            • i. There is the "I" that can, obviously, yield to sin and go into bondage (6:15ff).
            • ii. But, there is the "I" that cannot yield to sin because I am dead to it (6:1ff).
          • d) Who am I?
        • 2) The meaning of "dead" is related to "being in Christ" so that whatever is true of Him is also true of us.
          • a) He "died".
          • b) By baptism into Him, we "died".
          • c) If we are "dead", 6:7 says we are freed from sin.
          • d) Thus, the entire issue hinges upon the "strength" of our "baptism into Him".
            • i. If our "baptism" is "absolute", our inability to sin is "absolute".
            • ii. If our "baptism" is "faith-dependent", our inability to sin is "relative to our faith". Paul seems to deliberately imply that this is the issue in that he exhorts his readers to "reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin" -- an exhortation that is meaningless if we are dead indeed unto sin in any kind of "absolute" sense. I, apparently, am as "dead" to sin as I am able to "reckon" myself to be.