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?

__________________
Charles Plauger
Member/Grace Reformed Church
Oakland, MD

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).

__________________
Larry Bray
Training for Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA
http://www.rpcb.org/

Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
"The best Christian is still a poor Christian" - R.B. Kuiper

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:

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."

__________________
B.B.
Elder
GBC

Deo volente

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog

Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements

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!

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.

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:

As to the standing of the child of God:

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

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.

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

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.

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: