# Question regarding power over sin



## moral necessity (Feb 8, 2008)

I was told that Romans 6 proves that sin no longer has power over us, in the sense that we don't have to obey its impulses. And so, we are set free from sin, meaning we no longer have to obey our inward cravings. All we have to do is "apply this scripture by faith" in order to live in victory over our sins. And so, this is called "walking by faith, not by sight", for sight tells you that the sin within you has power to make you act, but faith regards us as being dead to sin as true and acts like it is, even if it doesn't feel like it. The continuing of this sort of walk is the working out of our salvation that God has worked in us, and is our job to do. And, by doing such, by applying the promises by faith, we are sanctified.

Is this view correct?


----------



## larryjf (Feb 8, 2008)

Our "inward cravings" should not be the same after we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In Rom 6 Paul eludes to this by telling us that the things they used to do they are now ashamed of (6:21).


----------



## Herald (Feb 8, 2008)

Charles, I try and avoid terminology such as, "apply this scripture by faith." It is not a matter of applying scripture, it is the reality of the new birth and the fact we are new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17). Romans 6 is a perfect chapter to teach that we are to consider ourselves dead to sin (Rom. 6:11), just as we were once dead to righteousness (Eph. 2:1). It is a daily commitment, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to live righteously and godly in this present age (Tit 2:12). But here's the problem, it does no good just to tell people what they should or should not do. Consider what Paul used as an illustration in Romans 6 in order to give the Romans help in denying sin:



> *Romans 6:3-9 * 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.



Paul used baptism (by the Spirit) and the resurrection in order to teach the why and how of denying sin. He didn't just say, "Don't sin!"; he actually said, 'Don't give into sin; here's the reason why and some things you can do to keep from sinning."


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Our "inward cravings" should not be the same after we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In Rom 6 Paul eludes to this by telling us that the things they used to do they are now ashamed of (6:21).



So, we are now ashamed of our former sins. Are you saying that we no longer have inward cravings towards our former sins after we are regenerated?


----------



## Herald (Feb 9, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Our "inward cravings" should not be the same after we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In Rom 6 Paul eludes to this by telling us that the things they used to do they are now ashamed of (6:21).
> ...



Charles, Larry is not saying this at all. Sin causes shame. The shame and power of sin is nullified in Christ, but we still look back at our sin as identifying with shame, not righteousness. Paul is not saying that we don't have cravings for sin but that we should not have them.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 9, 2008)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Charles, I try and avoid terminology such as, "apply this scripture by faith." It is not a matter of applying scripture, it is the reality of the new birth and the fact we are new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17). Romans 6 is a perfect chapter to teach that we are to consider ourselves dead to sin (Rom. 6:11), just as we were once dead to righteousness (Eph. 2:1). It is a daily commitment, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to live righteously and godly in this present age (Tit 2:12). But here's the problem, it does no good just to tell people what they should or should not do. Consider what Paul used as an illustration in Romans 6 in order to give the Romans help in denying sin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't like that terminology either, that of "applying scripture by faith". I agree with you, that it is not a matter of us applying scripture, but is a matter of the new birth. Are you saying that Romans 6 refers to being dead to sin's power of influence over us, instead of a deadness to it's condemning power over us?


----------



## Herald (Feb 9, 2008)

> Are you saying that Romans 6 refers to being dead to sin's power of influence over us, instead of a deadness to it's condemning power over us?



Charles, no. Sin still yields tremendous influence is this world. But because we are dead to its condemning power (to use your terminology) we are able to use that knowledge to keep from sinning. This is made clear in Paul's reference to baptism by the Spirit and the resurrection in Romans 6. We have something conceptual and real to hold on to in our practical struggle against sin.


----------



## larryjf (Feb 9, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> So, we are now ashamed of our former sins. Are you saying that we no longer have inward cravings towards our former sins after we are regenerated?



Yes, we should no longer crave sins. That doesn't mean that we will not fall into them, but as regenerate believers we crave holiness...though we struggle with sin. That's kind of the point of regeneration...being given a new life, one that craves to seek after the Spirit and not the flesh.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 10, 2008)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> > Are you saying that Romans 6 refers to being dead to sin's power of influence over us, instead of a deadness to it's condemning power over us?
> 
> 
> 
> Charles, no. Sin still yields tremendous influence is this world. But because we are dead to its condemning power (to use your terminology) we are able to use that knowledge to keep from sinning. This is made clear in Paul's reference to baptism by the Spirit and the resurrection in Romans 6. We have something conceptual and real to hold on to in our practical struggle against sin.



Thanks for your reply. I like that take on baptism, as I remember reading it a week or so ago here on the PB. It is quite a blessing to be able to hold onto during our rough times. 

I've just heard many use Rom. 6 to prove that sin no longer has control over our behavior. They use phrases such as "the power chord of sin is now unplugged in a believers life." If you ever read Hannah Whithall Smith's book "The Christians Secret to a Happy Life," you'd get the gist of this view. 

I agree that, as you say, "sin yields tremendous influence in this world," but, some would say that Rom. 6 proves that sin no longer has influence or power in the believer, for Rom. 6 says "we have died to sin". That's why I wonder what kind of death this is that we believers have had to sin.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 10, 2008)

larryjf said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > So, we are now ashamed of our former sins. Are you saying that we no longer have inward cravings towards our former sins after we are regenerated?
> ...



I agree that we should no longer crave sins, but isn't it true that we still do? What do we do with the newly converted alcoholics who still violently tend to relapse into their old habits. I've just seen churches excommunicate them under the banner of "willful sin and rebellion" due to their take on Romans 6. I see the church not being a hospital to these people, for many there have never been where they were and have never had their bodies suffer under that sort of enslavement before, and so they minister to them as they would their own selves.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 10, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> *I've just heard many use Rom. 6 to prove that sin no longer has control over our behavior. They use phrases such as "the power chord of sin is now unplugged in a believers life." If you ever read Hannah Whithall Smith's book "The Christians Secret to a Happy Life," you'd get the gist of this view. *


 
This would be a *quietist* view of sanctification, it's not Reformed. A Google search of this author and the movement she was part of should demonstrate that this "method" doesn't work too well.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 10, 2008)

turmeric said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > *I've just heard many use Rom. 6 to prove that sin no longer has control over our behavior. They use phrases such as "the power chord of sin is now unplugged in a believers life." If you ever read Hannah Whithall Smith's book "The Christians Secret to a Happy Life," you'd get the gist of this view. *
> ...



Thanks for your thoughts! Can you explain the quietist view a little bit? I've read some about the movement via B.B. Warfield. I just see the view still surfacing very often by a casual reading of Romans 6. The expression "dead to sin" has to mean something, as well as "sin no longer has power over you." And, if it's not understood that he is speaking mainly of sin's power to condemn, by a romoval of us from being under the law to being under grace, one is often left to apply these verses to sin's power to influence us. Though sin doesn't dominate believers as a master, these people tend to go farther and say that sin no longer has any power to influence or cause certain behaviors within us. And, we are then told by them to walk by faith and not by sight according to this truth. And, then Romans 7 ends up being applied to an unregenerate state that Paul was formerly in, or a state of failure that he stumbled in and out of.

Blessings!


----------



## turmeric (Feb 10, 2008)

I don't want to get into the theological aspects lest I be exercising authority over men - but the history of the thing seems to be a spinoff of Wesleyan teaching, which the proponents tried to make more palatable for non-Arminians. It suggested the need to come to a point, after conversion, of recognition that one could not overcome sin, then reach a point of total surrender to God, after which one would be filled with the Spirit, Who would then meet temptation through the surrendered Christian, rather than that person having to struggle with sin. It's a kind of perfectionism, from what I understand, and it is taught in various guises throughout the evangelical mainstream.

Maybe Pastor Bill or Rich or someone more qualified can help us with the differences between this model - the Keswick model - and the Reformed view. Bill? Rich? Anyone? _Anyone?_ Bueller?!


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 10, 2008)

turmeric said:


> I don't want to get into the theological aspects lest I be exercising authority over men - but the history of the thing seems to be a spinoff of Wesleyan teaching, which the proponents tried to make more palatable for non-Arminians. It suggested the need to come to a point, after conversion, of recognition that one could not overcome sin, then reach a point of total surrender to God, after which one would be filled with the Spirit, Who would then meet temptation through the surrendered Christian, rather than that person having to struggle with sin. It's a kind of perfectionism, from what I understand, and it is taught in various guises throughout the evangelical mainstream.
> 
> Maybe Pastor Bill or Rich or someone more qualified can help us with the differences between this model - the Keswick model - and the Reformed view. Bill? Rich? Anyone? _Anyone?_ Bueller?!



I laughed out loud with regard to Bueller!  "20 bucks says he's sitting in his car right now, debating whether or not to come over here!"

Actually, your statements reminded me of what the Quietist movement was. It refers to "letting go and letting God"; being in a sense "quiet". You're right, it followed on the heels of Wesley, and involved the "total surrender". But, their take on Romans 6 is what I'm personally familiar with, in regard to what "being dead to sin" means, and "no longer under sin's power." They say, "the power chord of sin is unplugged" in a believer's life, and that we must "believe and apply this by faith". I find this view still being taught. I think MacArthur even presented something similar to it in his earlier book, "Faith Works" in Chapter 7. I don't know if he still holds agrees with what he wrote though.


----------



## Herald (Feb 10, 2008)

turmeric said:


> I don't want to get into the theological aspects lest I be exercising authority over men - but the history of the thing seems to be a spinoff of Wesleyan teaching, which the proponents tried to make more palatable for non-Arminians. It suggested the need to come to a point, after conversion, of recognition that one could not overcome sin, then reach a point of total surrender to God, after which one would be filled with the Spirit, Who would then meet temptation through the surrendered Christian, rather than that person having to struggle with sin. It's a kind of perfectionism, from what I understand, and it is taught in various guises throughout the evangelical mainstream.
> 
> Maybe Pastor Bill or Rich or someone more qualified can help us with the differences between this model - the Keswick model - and the Reformed view. Bill? Rich? Anyone? _Anyone?_ Bueller?!



Meg, the Wesleyan model, which is alive and well in many different forms, is rampant in mainstream evangelicalism. It reared its head about 20 years ago in the Lordship Salvation debate. Jesus is Savior at salvation but becomes Lord of your life sometime later. John MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus" was not the first treatise on the subject but it certainly was the most prolific in stimulating modern debate. At it's the core the debate centered on the scope of what happens to a believer when they come to faith. The Wesleyan model teaches that the process begins but is not complete until there is complete surrender on the part of the individual. Thus, the free will of the individual is active in sanctification as it was in salvation according to the Wesleyan. The Reformed view? Let me quote the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

As to the offices of Christ:



> It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man; the prophet, priest, and king; head and saviour of the church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world; unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.



As to the standing of the child of God:



> All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption, by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God, have his name put upon them, receive the spirit of adoption, have access to the throne of grace with boldness, are enabled to cry Abba, Father, are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him as by a Father, yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption, and inherit the promises as heirs of everlasting salvation.



As to the work of sanctification in the life of the believer:



> This sanctification is throughout the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
> 
> In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed them.



The Wesleyan rightly concludes that Christians sin and need grow in their faith and practice. But they err in that they consider the work of sanctification to be synergistic, just as they do salvation.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 10, 2008)

So instead of "let go and let God" it's more like "Trust the Lord and keep your powder dry!"


----------



## Herald (Feb 10, 2008)

turmeric said:


> So instead of "let go and let God" it's more like "Trust the Lord and keep your powder dry!"


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 11, 2008)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> [The Wesleyan rightly concludes that Christians sin and need grow in their faith and practice. But they err in that they consider the work of sanctification to be synergistic, just as they do salvation.



Excellent word choice in this last sentence! I've been waiting for someone to say that for 2 years now! Synergism in sanctification is just as dangerous as synergism in justification! "We are his workmanship", meaning the entire process of salvation, from election through glorification.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > [The Wesleyan rightly concludes that Christians sin and need grow in their faith and practice. But they err in that they consider the work of sanctification to be synergistic, just as they do salvation.
> ...



Let me just state that we need to be a bit careful in saying that sanctification is monergistic.

I just taught on Galatians 5 yesterday. You might find this helpful:


> Paul states in verse 13: 13For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
> 
> I read an interesting observation the other day and it’s this: Christianity is like a narrow bridge that crosses two dangerous rivers that converge. On the one side of the bridge is legalism. Men who fall into legalism leave the Gospel and deceive themselves, as the Judaizers did, that they can earn salvation from God’s hand by being serious about His law. They deceive themselves about how serious the law is and also about how righteous they are.
> 
> ...



Now, depending upon what you mean by saying sanctification is synergistic it could actually be accurate to state that. When we state that justification is monergistic we are stating that we did nothing prior to God making us alive and giving us faith. However, we really do exercise faith.

When we are united to Christ by faith, then, we die with Christ to the curse of the Law and our slavery therein and are raised in newness of life to be slave of Christ.

In that newness of life we are actors. We are not passive recipients impelled by some force but our dispositions are such that we make moral decisions. We are no longer under compulsion to sin as we were when dead in sin but are, indeed, alive and able to choose the things that please our heavenly Father.

The Wesleyans and other perfectionist schemes fail in treating grace like an infused quality. That is to say that the goal of the Christian life is to strive in such a way as to wait for that critical breakthrough where _I_ will be perfected to the point where sin no longer attracts me. Christians are then sort of waiting around for a second blessing or a moment of breakthrough where they "really let go" and God infuses enough grace in them that they live lives perfectly.

What is lost in this schema of sanctification is the "just while yet a sinner" that is critical to our understanding of the Gospel. Christ justifies the un-Godly. While we are still sinners we stand justified. While we were enemies we received the promise of inheritance and are now His friends.

The goal of Christian obedience (and sanctification) is on a completely different tenor. _We_ are still acting so it is synergistic from that standpoint. But the basis for our desire to obey is gratitude. It is doxology. It is the relationship of a son to his Father. The Gospel precedes our motivation to obey and stays in front of us as the motivation to obey.

We certainly will and do become more holy and more transformed to Christ. We become more crucified to the world and the world becomes more crucified to us. But, always, it is the Gospel that impels and not an evaluation of ourselves that compares our blessing on a spiritual plane of perfection and seeking to attain another disciple's plane of perfection. All our perfection is filthy rags and we will never get to a point where we can hope to stand apart from Christ and His righteousness.

You see, those who are united to Christ by faith are inexorably on a path to glory. It's not that we are trying to be obedient so that we can attain to the victorious life. We have received every spiritual blessing already and His grace now is sufficient for us because, though we sin, we know that God is for us and does not cast aside the children who sometimes fail in their desires for obedience. We weep for our sin because it grieves our Father and as we groan "Who will deliver me from this body of death!" the answer comes swiftly "I thank God through Jesus Christ my Lord!" And then when we've start to wonder, yet again, how God could possibly accept a wretch like us as He did at the first His Spirit testifies with our Spirit that we are sons of God and we cry out: "Abba! Father!"

I don't know how else to put it. I have been placed upright by the Gospel and I love my Savior. But the body of flesh still wars within me and I *must*, with fear and trembling, put that interloper to death! But God has empowered me and is empowering me with the disposition and strength toward that end. I can neither wait around for someone else to do the battle for me when the battle is at hand nor can I give myself credit for the spiritual life and the spiritual armour I have to give the battle. God gets the glory for my life and God gets the glory for where the flesh is conquered.


----------



## biblicalthought (Feb 11, 2008)

We are dead to sin (Rom. 6), but it ain't dead to you (Rom. 7).


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > BaptistInCrisis said:
> ...



Rich, I believe sanctification to be monergistic in that the same grace appropriated to the sinner in conversion is at work in making the believer more like Christ. In no way am I minimizing the responsibility of the individual in the sphere of obedience. But I know that it is Christ working in me for His good pleasure.



> *Philippians 2:12-13 * 12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.



Both aspects are at work in the above verse. We are called on to obey but it is God who at work in us.



> Philippians 1:6 6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2008)

I'm not trying to be pugilistic on this but, technically, in the acknowledgement that the sinner is active and has responsibility in obedience, that is an admission that sanctification is not, strictly speaking, monergistic.

There are erroneous ways to view synergism in sanctification but the Phillipians quote is the perfect example of our our work enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is more than one actor, hence it cannot be said that God is the sole (mono) worker.


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm not trying to be pugilistic on this but, technically, in the acknowledgement that the sinner is active and has responsibility in obedience, that is an admission that sanctification is not, strictly speaking, monergistic.
> 
> There are erroneous ways to view synergism in sanctification but the Phillipians quote is the perfect example of our our work enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is more than one actor, hence it cannot be said that God is the sole (mono) worker.



Rich, I appreciate your view but I suppose we'll just have to agree to view it differently. If the believer must repent and trust Christ (exercise faith) in the ordo salutus, would we then say salvation is synergistic because man is required to do something? No. We would attribute it all to God under the auspices of the effectual call. I see it no differently in sanctification. It is the Spirit that provides the ability for man to obey. Without the Spirit man cannot obey. I can't help but see that being all of God, even though man is not relieved of responsibility.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2008)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not trying to be pugilistic on this but, technically, in the acknowledgement that the sinner is active and has responsibility in obedience, that is an admission that sanctification is not, strictly speaking, monergistic.
> ...



I think you're confusing categories, however. The main component of Justification that enables us to respond (regeneration) is alone the work of God. That's why we say it is monergistic. It is typical Reformed "speak" to talk of the process of sanctification to note that we are acting. We do not act at all in our regeneration.

You're not going to get a disagreement from me that our activity inexorably flows from our union with Christ and that includes faith, repentance, and living unto Him.

It's a definitional point, however, that monergism means there is only one actor. That can be said of some elements of the ordo salutis but not of sanctification.

Our activity is, however, Soli Deo Gloria, and I believe that is what you are trying to note. God makes us alive, God gives us the faculties of evangelical trust, He puts the weapons into our hands and arms us for battle, He strengthens the hand that does battle, and He ensures victory ultimately in the battle. We must, however, note that we are acting in this even as God is getting the glory for all of it and to convey that sanctification is monergistic is not only definitionally incorrect but, pedagogically might confuse people into a quietistic view of sanctification unintentionally.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Feb 11, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> But the basis for our desire to obey is gratitude. It is doxology. It is the relationship of a son to his Father. The Gospel precedes our motivation to obey and stays in front of us as the motivation to obey.



Rich,

I *REALLY* enjoyed your teaching on Galatians. God has endowed you with some serious biblical wisdom, brother. 

The only thing that caught my eye that we might differ on is this statement. But I'm not even sure we do, that's why I wanted to bring it up. While I agree that the basis for our desire to obey is gratitude, I also think that the promises of grace and the power of future grace is the basis for our desire as well. (I think that's what you're saying when you say the Gospel stays in front of us as the motivation to obey????) If it had not been for the Gospel then there would be no promises and power of future grace.

In other words, it's not enough to look back but we must look forward. And the more I read your statement the more I believe that is exactly what you're saying. So, I don't think we differ at all. 

Great post up above. Goes right up there with the top posts I've read on the PB.


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...



Rich, I'll chew my cud on that one for a bit and get back to you. You gave me a few things to consider. Thanks brother.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > But the basis for our desire to obey is gratitude. It is doxology. It is the relationship of a son to his Father. The Gospel precedes our motivation to obey and stays in front of us as the motivation to obey.
> ...



Thank you. You and I agree. I didn't mean to imply that all a Christian's joy is looking backward. Inheritance and promise have been received but they will be more fully received for sure. I simply think that Christians need to be reminded that they can stop working as if they're missing out on some blessing that some Christians enjoy but they do not. If you are in Christ then God has already blessed you and given you an inheritance now (and not yet) and it is folly to think that He could possibly do more than He has done for us if we contribute our part.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 12, 2008)

Rich,

In defending a monergistic salvation, I end up being viewed as a quietist by some (not that you viewed me as such, but only cautioned towards it possibly leading to others taking such statements in that way). Yet quietism is the farthest thing from the truth and from my view, as it is from yours. You're right...the solution lies in our definitions. If monergism implies only one actor, and synergism is two actors, then regeneration is monergistic, but everything after that is not. What I see in the definitions of monergism and synergism is something different. I see the difference as being between primary and secondary causes. To me, synergism is defined as having two primary causes acting together for a common end, and monergism is defined as having only one primary cause, and all other causes as secondary causes, with the secondary causes being dependent upon the primary, and caused by the primary (sort of like the first and second domino). So, I do not tend to view sanctification as synergistic, as having two primary causes. I see sanctification as a relationship between primary and secondary causes. God "causes us to will and to do", and so, he causes us to move ourselves, and his causing is irresistible. Yet, we move ourselves, in that he does not violate our beings and make us move against our wills. He renews our nature so that we do will in accordance with his Spirit, and it is irresistible on our part to do otherwise. In Jeremiah, God says that he will "cause them to walk according to my ways." And, Paul prays at the end of Thess. for "God himself to sanctify you entirely." 

So, to me this avoids the problems on the other end. For, when someone says that sanctification is synergistic, they usually end up having to qualify their statements so as to not be like the Arminian, when really all their trying to do is say that we are active in our sanctification, which is true. Yet, Arminians say that sanctification is synergistic also, and yet mean something totally different. For, they mean that we are not only active, but that we are a primary cause of our actions along with God, and that he is dependent upon our cooperation in order to accomplish the desired end. So, I think that a deeper introspection needs to be made into the terms monergism and synergism. If I'm using the terms wrongly, then I think new terms need to be invented to describe the idea of primary and secondary causes. For, to me, this is the difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist with regard to both justification and sactification. And, I think we agree that we are active in sanctification.

Blessings!


----------



## Stephen (Feb 12, 2008)

Charles, Romans six deals with the matter of justification. We who are in Christ are freed from sin and are no longer slaves to it. Paul says we are dead to sin, but sin has not been eradicated. We are called to mortify or put to death the deeds of the body and this is an ongoing thing. The penalty and power of sin is broken but the presence of sin is still with us. We have been freed from sin, so it no longer is our master.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 12, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Charles, Romans six deals with the matter of justification. We who are in Christ are freed from sin and are no longer slaves to it. Paul says we are dead to sin, but sin has not been eradicated. We are called to mortify or put to death the deeds of the body and this is an ongoing thing. The penalty and power of sin is broken but the presence of sin is still with us. We have been freed from sin, so it no longer is our master.



Blessings, Stephen! 

I lean towards this too. I see justification as not being the emphasis in today's commentaries on Romans 6. MacArthur's earlier book, Faith Works, in Chapter 7 (I think), emphasizes a different idea. When you say, "freed from the penalty and power of sin", this is where the confusion arises, at least in my mind. Justification deals with penalty. Sanctification deals with power. Wesley would take the statement that we are freed from sin's power and run with it to perfectionism being theoretically possible. So, specifically explain what you mean by "power is broken" and "sin is no longer our master". Romans 7 seems to say that sin still has power. So, we must reconcile the two passages. For, if sin's power is no more, then there is no explanation for us sinning any longer except out of habit. Unless, Paul is speaking here of sin's power to condemn; or sin's power to have universal dominance over the individual.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2008)

I'm not one to get into long disputes about words as long as, conceptually, the ideas are preserved so we're good to go. I fully agree that there are erroneous views of even how synergism works in our sanctification as if it's a "We do our part and then God will do His." In fact, this is the Purpose Driven Life model of sanctification. It implies that a blessing yet awaits a Christian if he will merely perform the deeds that please God. It seems to start out OK emphasizing that we're saved by Grace but, in fact, it ends up undermining the Gospel because it undermines the fact that our works flow from our vital union with Christ. Union with Christ is not achieved by the works but rather the other way around and is an electing grace. Surely, we work with fear and trembling but the reason we even fear and tremble is a work of grace itself. Thus, I agree with your general idea but still maintaining that it's appropriate to call it synergism because, categorically, we normally reserve the idea of monergism to initial birth as our capacity prior to that new birth makes our cooperation with God impossible.

As for your second interaction with Stephen, I think Paul's admonition to us is that those who are in Christ are, in point of _fact_, freed from bondage to sin. We do not _have_ to sin. He qualifies to point out in Romans 7 that we still do sin because of this war in our members but that a Christian who has been made a slave of Christ is being consistent with his new nature when he obeys and inconsistent with his status as a Christian when he sins. Thus, the call to the Christian when he sins from Paul is not "You've fallen away and now pick yourself back up so that you can become a Christian again..." like some Arminian notions that agree with the RCC that our sins somehow kill infused grace. No. Paul is saying that You're still a Christian when you sin but, remember, you're God's son, you are united to Christ, you are being inconsistent with your nature. You do not _have_ to sin.

This is an important category to remember because it's sort of like Paul is reminding us the same way we'd be reminded in a normal family. It's not as if I tell my son when he disobeys: "You've fallen away now from being my son. Perform acts of contrition and then when you've earned your way back into my favor I'll call you a son again."

Heaven forbid!

Instead, I remind my boy that L.'s don't act that way. You are my son. You are being inconsistent with what it means to be a L.. Time for some discipline but, after we're through, the hands that loved you enough to discipline you for your disobedience are the same arms that embrace you by the man that will always be your father. How much more profound is it, then, that our heavenly Father loves us with an everlasting love?!

To summarize the error of the modern evangelical view, I'll quote a portion of my teaching on 1 Peter where I actually referred to the Romans 7 passage to make a point. You can find the full text here: A Ready Hope (1 Peter 3:13-17) | SoliDeoGloria.com


> Beloved, our hope is not that we have hope. Our hope is not that we have faith. Our hope is not that we once we were sad but now we’re glad. Our hope is much more meaningful. The hope that we’re commanded to share points to something beyond ourselves. Our hope makes a claim on men’s lives that they have to pay attention to. If Christianity is just something that made my life nice then that’s good for Rich but what difference does that make to Steve Jones? Works for Rich, he might say. But, what if our hope was not in ourselves but was fixed upon something else?
> 
> But wait, Rich, this is what we’ve grown up with. You can’t be serious. I mean, come on, who doesn’t love stories of men who were heroin addicts and they prayed to God for deliverance and, Presto!, they never craved the drug again? What about the alcoholic that prayed to God and, Glory!, they instantly hated alcohol and never craved a drink again in their lives? We love those stories. We want to parade them out as our Gospel “superstars”. Look how powerful the Gospel is because they’re happy now and delivered from sin and misery!
> 
> ...


----------



## Herald (Feb 12, 2008)

Rich, I have given your response to my earlier post some thought, study and prayer. Perhaps there is some remnant of my Arminian-Dispensational days that needs purging. I consider sanctification to fall under the umbrella of soteriology. We are saved and we are also being saved. I think we are agreed on justification. I would also be in agreement with you that sanctification requires a work on our part. That work is obedience. But even obedience falls under the larger umbrella of soteriology. God preserves the saints; we persevere. The one who endures to the end will be saved. Of course, the saint WILL endure to the end. Why? Because the work of salvation is wrought by God alone. This is where the quietist view would deviate from an orthodox view of soteriology and sanctification.

Maybe I'm not acquitting myself well by the manner in which I am articulating my view. If we look at our salvation (from regeneration to glory) from a heavenly perspective we will see God's sovereign hand at work every step of the way. At ground level we will also see our obedience (or lack thereof) to his commands. Again, I may be out of the mainstream with my understanding, and if I am, I am certainly open to correction.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 12, 2008)

Blessings, Rich!

I assume your use of the term synergism in sanctification mainly implies activity on our part, and doesn't imply all of the other things that an Arminian would attach to the word, namely, (1)action independent from God's acting which God is dependent upon to complete the desired sanctification and has no absolute control over, and (2)having an ability within us to resist his acting within us towards sanctification. 

With regard to your take on Romans 6 in being freed from sin, I have to ask for clarity on what you mean by "we do not have to sin". I assume you are qualifying your definition of sin in some way to limit it to some controllable external behavior or action of some sort that you have in mind. For surely, it cannot be true in the true sense of the words. For, if it is sin to not love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to not love our neighbors as ourself, then surely we must commit sin for the rest of our lives this side of the grave. If it is sin to look on a woman with strong desire, and to not covet, and to speak only wholesome words that give grace to those who hear, and to only think on what is pure, lovely, honorable and worthy of praise, then surely we must commit sin every day this side of the grave. Surely we do have to sin; as Paul said, "I am carnal, sold as a slave unto sin." And so, his cry is appropriate, "who will rescue me from this body of death?" And, the rescue does not come this side of the grave, which is why he goes on to say in Romans 8, "our salvation (or deliverance) lies in hope."

I agree that sin is inconsistent with the new nature that God has imparted to us. But, the new nature has not totally eradicated and killed the old. It has dethroned it from its absolute domination over us, and it has weakened and impaired it from its former strength in some degree. But, it certainly has not killed it so that we can say that we are dead to it. Our sinful actions are not consistent with our new principle of grace, but they are consistent with law that still abides within our members, that still make us a prisoner to the law of sin. I think we have to lessen the definition of sin and sinful behavior to think otherwise.

Fellowship and blessings in Christ!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2008)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich, I have given your response to my earlier post some thought, study and prayer. Perhaps there is some remnant of my Arminian-Dispensational days that needs purging. I consider sanctification to fall under the umbrella of soteriology. We are saved and we are also being saved. I think we are agreed on justification. I would also be in agreement with you that sanctification requires a work on our part. That work is obedience. But even obedience falls under the larger umbrella of soteriology. God preserves the saints; we persevere. The one who endures to the end will be saved. Of course, the saint WILL endure to the end. Why? Because the work of salvation is wrought by God alone. This is where the quietist view would deviate from an orthodox view of soteriology and sanctification.
> 
> Maybe I'm not acquitting myself well by the manner in which I am articulating my view. If we look at our salvation (from regeneration to glory) from a heavenly perspective we will see God's sovereign hand at work every step of the way. At ground level we will also see our obedience (or lack thereof) to his commands. Again, I may be out of the mainstream with my understanding, and if I am, I am certainly open to correction.



Fully agreed. Our salvation is, begining to end, assured by a work of God. We can only ever obey even in sanctification due to our vital union with Christ.

I think this is why I was saying that we need to maintain the idea of Soli Deo Gloria - to God alone be the glory.

I was actually reflecting a bit on a previous conversation we had on the board about the difference between the elect and reprobate with regard to the saving activity of God. There is complete asymmetry in activity on God's part.

The elect are made alive, made to stand, given new desires for their Savior, adopted as children, etc. He arms us, stregthens us, equips us, and sustains us. Anything that we do is in response to a capacity He has given us in contrast to sin which He does not author.

Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Blessings, Rich!
> 
> I assume your use of the term synergism in sanctification mainly implies activity on our part, and doesn't imply all of the other things that an Arminian would attach to the word, namely, (1)action independent from God's acting which God is dependent upon to complete the desired sanctification and has no absolute control over, and (2)having an ability within us to resist his acting within us towards sanctification.


 I do not have an Arminian notion of sanctification.



> With regard to your take on Romans 6 in being freed from sin, I have to ask for clarity on what you mean by "we do not have to sin". I assume you are qualifying your definition of sin in some way to limit it to some controllable external behavior or action of some sort that you have in mind. For surely, it cannot be true in the true sense of the words. For, if it is sin to not love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to not love our neighbors as ourself, then surely we must commit sin for the rest of our lives this side of the grave. If it is sin to look on a woman with strong desire, and to not covet, and to speak only wholesome words that give grace to those who hear, and to only think on what is pure, lovely, honorable and worthy of praise, then surely we must commit sin every day this side of the grave. Surely we do have to sin; as Paul said, "I am carnal, sold as a slave unto sin." And so, his cry is appropriate, "who will rescue me from this body of death?" And, the rescue does not come this side of the grave, which is why he goes on to say in Romans 8, "our salvation (or deliverance) lies in hope."


What I mean is that the classic formulation is this:

Before the Fall, mankind was
1) Able to sin
2) Able to not sin

After the Fall, mankind was
1) Not able to not sin

In other words, fallen man can only sin.

After our regeneration, those in Christ are
1) Able to sin
2) Able to not sin

This does not imply that our ability to not sin is perfect and our righteousness is always in Christ but we are told to resist the devil and we are not told that we _must_ sin. It is not a self-generated strength to resist but the fact still remains that we are empowered to resist sin in a way that was impossible prior to our spiritual life.

One thing we need to be careful about, in addition to noting that our righteousness is extrinsic, is that we need not be overly morbid about our Christian walk either. God doesn't lie to us when He tells us He has suited us up in armour and strengthened our hands. He doesn't lie in telling us to resist but that we are doomed to fail in every battle against sin. It is an ever reliance upon Him but it is not pious to talk about our walk with Christ as if every step that He enables will surely fail because we're involved in that step.



> I agree that sin is inconsistent with the new nature that God has imparted to us. But, the new nature has not totally eradicated and killed the old. It has dethroned it from its absolute domination over us, and it has weakened and impaired it from its former strength in some degree. But, it certainly has not killed it so that we can say that we are dead to it. Our sinful actions are not consistent with our new principle of grace, but they are consistent with law that still abides within our members, that still make us a prisoner to the law of sin. I think we have to lessen the definition of sin and sinful behavior to think otherwise.



Agreed to a point but read above. I'm not talking about "victory" from the flesh here. I was very careful with my words. I merely stated that the tenor of Romans 6 is that we are NOT slaves to sin anymore. Period. We do NOT have to obey its sinful lusts. This is verbatim. Paul is reminding us who we are a slave to because we need to remind ourselves the same when temptation arises. The battle must be given and one of those things that strengthens feeble hands are the words: "I am not a slave to sin, I am a slave to Christ. I do not have to obey the flesh's sinful passions."

Nobody is arguing for sinless perfectionism here but merely pointing out that union with Christ does produce a disposition and strength for the task. The bottom line is that we have not been redeemed for unrighteousness and we ought never forget it nor paint the fight in morbid terms as if we've been sent on a fool's errand.

Blessings!


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 12, 2008)

Rich!

Didn't mean to sound like I thought you had an Arminian view. Hope you didn't take it like that.

I'm not trying to be morbid, just realistic. Paul says he is still a slave to sin in Rom.7. And yet, he has a view to further sanctification and deliverance, as the principle of grace increases in strength within him, and the principle of sin decreases. The reality is, tomorrow I will exhibit sin because my sanctification is incomplete. Yet, I will also exhibit some degree of holiness, because my sanctification has begun.

Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Rich!
> 
> Didn't mean to sound like I thought you had an Arminian view. Hope you didn't take it like that.
> 
> ...



No, Paul does not say he is a slave to sin in Romans 7. He says he sees another law in his members warring against his desire for good but he does not contradict his explicit statement to the contrary in Romans 6.

I agree our sanctification is incomplete. I don't know how to put it much differently but we cannot enter the battle _convinced_, ahead of time that we _must_ fail. I know you're not necessarily stating it but with the attitude, ahead of time, that we will fail it practically gives us warrant to offer no resistance to sin whatsoever. We are no longer slaves to sin that resistance is futile.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 12, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> No, Paul does not say he is a slave to sin in Romans 7. He says he sees another law in his members warring against his desire for good but he does not contradict his explicit statement to the contrary in Romans 6.
> 
> I agree our sanctification is incomplete. I don't know how to put it much differently but we cannot enter the battle _convinced_, ahead of time that we _must_ fail. I know you're not necessarily stating it but with the attitude, ahead of time, that we will fail it practically gives us warrant to offer no resistance to sin whatsoever. We are no longer slaves to sin that resistance is futile.



Granted that he does not use the word "slave", but he certainly seems to make some sort of case for it. He is still "sold under sin." He "does not do what he wants"; he "does what he hates"; he "does not have the desire to carry out what is right"; he does "the evil that he does not want to do"; the law of his mind makes him "captive to the law of sin that dwells in his members"; he prays for "deliverance"; and with his flesh he "serves the law of sin." 

Yet now, with his mind, he "serves the law of God." So, he has two princiles vying for his service. Sin is dethroned from its former dominance. Grace reigns and will conquer in totality over time. It's like the illustration of Israel taking over the land of Canaan. When God entered the land via Israel, the nations no longer reigned, but they still occupied and controlled much of the territory. Little by little, Israel took over.

Perhaps our use of the word sin is different. When you say that I do not have to sin, my mind runs to the thought that I can now love God with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love my neighbor as myself; instead of only loving God with 50% of my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and not loving him with the other 50%. I see sin as not only giving into the temptation to perhaps view indiscreet material on the internet (for example), but also as even possessing the bent and inclination of desire that leads it to even be a temptation to view such things improperly. So, when I apply what you say, it doesn't work for me, for the inclinations are sin in itself, before it even becomes visible fruit or action or behavior. What you seem to say is that I don't have to act on my sinful impulses, so as to make it become sinful behavior. But, to me, this is only the tip of the iceberg. To me, this is not the main battle we are called to with sin. I think the freedom that God intends in sanctification goes beyond external stifling of sinful cravings, and goes to where the bent and inclinations towards sin are mortified at their root, not at their fruit. When we can say that sin is dead at the inclination level, then we can say that we are no longer in bondage to sin. 

I agree with you that we now have a new option that was never open to us before; and in that sense we are no longer slaves of sin. For before, we only had one option, and that was sin.

Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2008)

Well, I'm trying to remain within the vein of the original post. I've noted that our obedience to the Law is never perfect. That Law demands, in its principle prescribed and restricted activities. We fail at both. The Law is summed up in the command to love God and love neighbor. We fall short.

I assume that when I type something earlier about our status in Christ that the idea will be carried forward. If I believed a righteousness could exist apart from Christ then we could not even proceed to the basis of a Christian's reasonable service in response to it (Romans 12-16). 

If it ever seemed that I implied that our prevailing in limited battles means that we win the whole war then I did not mean to imply it.

Here is WCF Chapter 23 on Sanctification:



> I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,1 by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:2 the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,3 and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;4 and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,5 to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.6
> 
> II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;7 yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;8 whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.9
> 
> III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;10 yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;11 and so, the saints grow in grace,12 perfecting holiness in the fear of God.13


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 1, 2008)

Rich,

Didn't mean to delay in responding. Thanks again for your wisdom and insight, and especially your time in giving thorough responses. I've been thinking through some of your posts, and I see the point more clearly that you were making. We can't see our struggles as hopeless, or else we won't strive against sin. Thanks for emphasizing that. 

Blessings!


----------

