A verse of scripture which I personally can never recall being quoted, much less preached from, during the years I spent among the Primitive Baptists was Romans 6:17. This is very interesting to say the least. Why so, you ask? The answer is obvious to anyone who understands that the modern heresy of time salvation was invented in order to combat the biblical assertion of the gospel means pattern for salvation and the perseverance of the saints. Therefore, any verse which seems to suggest of these doctrines must be given an alternate explanation by our moderns. What explanation the proponents of this system have for this particular passage, though, I do not currently know.
Regarding some of these biblical passages which seem to the traditional Calvinist to treat of these doctrines, many of those within this denomination have offered AN explanation and are vocal about what they think it means. It is not THE explanation, but the advocates of time salvation do have an established spin placed upon it in order to avoid what they refuse to believe. It is for that reason that focus in the time salvation “defenses” is always upon those verses which treat of these doctrines. The tenth chapter of Romans, along with individual texts such as Romans 1:16, 1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Cor. 15:1-2, and 1 Peter 1:23 occupy no small space when our modernists are out to promote their anti-means position, and they have been trained in how to address these passages if called upon to do so. That being the case, I have often wondered why Romans 6:17 is scarcely ever mentioned. Perhaps the silence upon the text is due to the fact that it contains no easy buzzwords upon which to place the time salvation twist. I am pretty assured that if the “word of God” appeared, our modernists would persistently claim it a reference to Jesus Christ, and not to the spoken or written word. If “begotten” or some similar expression appeared, they would apply it to some “timely birth”. The term “everlasting”, which has steadily grown into a time salvation buzzword, does occur within the context yet it is declared as something to be received “at the end”, making it very difficult to say that it is speaking of getting a better life “while we live here below”, as the current cliché runs.
The omission of these terms make our text today a formidable challenge to time salvation.
Let’s take it, shall we?
“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death. 22. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23. For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:17-23)
1) Is “the servants of sin” a reference to the unregenerate state?
2) Was the doctrine delivered to the Romans while in this state?
3) Was the doctrine, in some way, connected to the transition between death and life, whether regeneration be considered narrowly or broadly?
4) Did the gospel proclaimers wait for the Romans to be born again, and THEN deliver the doctrine unto them?
5) If they did not wait, were they wrong in doing so?
6) If they did not wait, why do you?
7) Is one made free from sin in regeneration or time salvation?
8) Is being made free from sin necessary or unnecessary?
9) If necessary, does this mean that the doctrine played some role in effecting something necessary?
10) If not necessary, then is it not necessary to receive everlasting life at the end?
11) If the Roman believers were set free by obeying the doctrine presented them, why are not all, seeing that all are “saved the same way”?
12) Is “becoming the servants of righteousness” the necessary effect of being made free from sin?
13) Is the “regenerated heathen” a servant of righteousness?
14) Is everlasting life actually temporal life?
15) Is everlasting life (v.23) the same as eternal life (v.24)?
16) Does one receive temporal life at "the end"?
17) If obeying the doctrine (v. 17) involves time salvation, does Paul pull a switcheroo when he speaks of eternal salvation in verse 23?
No comments:
Post a Comment