Introduction

Last week we considered the classic compromise of total depravity. We used a baseball analogy: the pitcher nods in agreement with the catcher on a fast ball but throws a curve. Likewise, we get a nod of agreement that fallen man is totally unable to believe and then it is said that fallen man is able to believe without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. This is confusing but it sounds very much like the historic/biblical doctrine, which states that fallen man is unable to believe without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit.

It is argued that the ability to believe the gospel is given to all totally depraved sinners. Thus, they were totally depraved as descendents of Adam in the fall but they are given the ability to believe while they remain un-restored and unregenerate. This gift means that they are no longer lacking ability to believe the gospel; it means that though they were once totally depraved they are no longer totally depraved. This is due to the grace of God. But this gift grants something distinct from and prior to the saving work of regeneration. So it is a two-stage view of fallen man in which he was totally depraved and is no longer totally depraved while he remains dead in sin and unregenerate.

What is the flame under the pan on the stove that heats and energizes this classic compromise of total depravity? It is the deep rooted belief in free will, a cherished belief, firmly held, and almost sacrosanct. That is, fallen and unregenerate man is given the ability to believe but whether he actually believes or not is an open question. The choice is in man’s hands whether to believe or not; he is given that ability by God but whether he will exercise that ability or not is a matter of each person’s free will. It is here that a major argument for the compromise view emerges and it is here that the view spills over to every form of opposition to the gospel of grace!

So today I want to discuss this idea of free will from the perspective of the things being addressed in Romans 6:15-23. What we will see is that Paul’s treatment of being set free from slavery to sin stands in direct contradiction to the doctrine of free will. My title is "You Have Been Set Free" (cf. 6:18, 22). Paul looks back but not to dwell there. He reflects on the past in order to direct the church in the present with an eye on the future. In outline of this material we will cover a) The Question of Sin, and b) The Exhortation to Righteousness.

1A. The Question of Sin (15-18)

The section opens with a question: What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace (v. 15)? Being under grace harkens back to verse 14 where the power of grace contrasts with being "under law." Does this open the door to sin? This line of thought is a variation of the thinking of some people that Paul’s doctrine of justification encourages more sin to get more grace (6:1). The question of sin raised in verse 15a is taken up by Paul in 15b-18. The question is answered (15b) and the answer is defended (16-18).

1B. The Question Answered

Can we view our new position under grace as a cause, reason, or excuse for sin (v. 15)? Paul exclaims: "absolutely not." Being justified by grace apart from the works of the law is used to either rationalize sinful conduct or to oppose justification by the free and sovereign grace of God. Either way, free grace is charged with giving a license to sin. To this Paul gives a definitive "by no means." He exclaims, "Don’t even go there in thought for a moment!"

2B. The Answer Defended

A basis is then given for the clear and decisive "by no means" (vs. 16-18).

1C. At first it sounds like his focus is on consequences that should dissuade us from lawlessness (v. 16). However, the consequences of death versus righteousness do not make this point stick. The fact of consequences is not enough to show that being under grace does not lead to sin. With just verse 16 the argument would be moving from apples to oranges. Granted the fact of consequences should deter us from sin but it does not establish the proper relation between grace and sin. Consequences are not unimportant but their place is within the bigger picture of what follows (they lay a background for the exhortation, vs. 19-23).

What point does Paul make in v. 16? He begins with the fact that if your master is sin he will lead you to death. If your master is obedience the he will lead you to righteousness. The question (v. 16) implies that these are things that should be known by his readers. The point Paul stresses is that to whomever you present yourselves as obedient slaves then that person is your master no matter where he leads you. If the person is sin then death is where you will be led. If the person is obedience then you will be led to righteousness.

2C. We have to continue on to verses 17-18 to get clarity on the defense Paul is giving. And in his defense he closes a vice that squeezes out the possibility of the free will doctrine. Consider how this is the case within the larger concerns of the apostle here.

1) First, the believer’s unregenerate past is presupposed, "You were once slaves to sin." Therefore, you (the Romans and us) presented yourselves in obedience to sin as your master to follow him as obedient slaves to death. This is very revealing as to our former state in sin. On one hand, it is described as a state of death (v. 13), which emphasizes our total unresponsiveness to spiritual things. Being dead to spiritual things meant that we were unable to respond to God in repentance and faith (cf. Eph. 2:1-10). In Romans 8, the nature of this inability is expressed in one of the "cannot" passages: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot" (v. 7). On the other hand, our former state is described as one in which we presented ourselves in obedience to sin with such resolve that we were willing to die for this master!

2) Second, the believer’s transition to life and freedom are described: "you have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching" (v. 17) and "you have become slaves of righteousness" (v. 18).

Can you see the vice here that squeezes out the idea of free will? We can bring this out clearly by asking and answering some questions.

a) We must ask, "What explains this obedience from the heart to the gospel (v. 17)?" Fallen man does not have the ability to obey the gospel until he is brought to life (v. 13) and "set free" (v. 18, 22). The free will doctrine must take Paul to be saying that it is because you obeyed the gospel from the heart that you were freed from bondage to sin. But obedience is a free act; it is the act of one who presents himself to God as his master. It is a life-act, the action of one who is alive to God. In terms of Romans 8:7, obedience to God as master means submitting to His authority and thus to His law (cf. "slaves to God, 6:22; presenting yourselves in obedience to the gospel, v. 17, means submitting yourselves as slaves to God and righteousness as masters). But in death and bondage, this obedient/submission to God is something man cannot do ("it cannot, 8:7). Therefore, this obedience from the heart is brought about by "being set free" and brought to life. There is no pre-life life nor is there any pre-freedom freedom as taught in the free will doctrine. It is not that you were set free because you believed but you believed because you were set free.

Further confirmation is given by (1) the fact that your obedience is something for which God is to be thanked. Specifically, the actual obedience is something for which God is thanked and not just the possibility of obedience (it stretches things immensely to read this to mean that God is thanked because His grace is necessary though not sufficient for the believing of those to whom His grace is given). It is also confirmed by (2) the fact that obedience to the gospel is something to which you were committed. (3) We can finally note that it is difficult, even impossible, to square being set free because you obeyed with justification by pure grace apart from obedience to the law (Rom. 3:28; 4:1-5).The only obedience that is critical to justification is the obedience of Christ: "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom.5:19).

b) What can be said of the argument for free will based on human responsibility? This is the argument we did not cover in the previous message on total depravity. The argument for free will is that man must have it or be given it in his unregenerate state because if he is responsible he must be able. This is the accountability entails ability argument for free will. On this ground it is claimed that fallen man must have or be given free will for him to be held accountable ("have or be given" describes the difference between Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism but both use this same argument for free will, cf. the Addendum). Why does this argument fail?

(1) By appeal to the Ten Commandments the argument is shown to be based on a false premise (its first and crucial premise: if responsible, then able). It is false to claim that if man is responsible he must be able. The error is easy to point out by consideration of the Ten Commandments. Is man responsible to keep these commandments? We must reply immediately in the affirmative. But is he able to keep them? For those who may feel some impulse to give another affirmative, the question should be rephrased: "Is man in his fallen state able to keep the Ten Commandments in their true spirit and intent? The answer must be a definite, "no he cannot." Then obviously responsibility does not entail ability. Thus the free will view is based on a false claim. Those who advance this view in turn draw a false inference and use it to reject explicit biblical teaching.

(2) But this argument fails do justice to Paul’s teaching in Romans. Our former state is described as one in which we presented ourselves in obedience to sin with such resolve that we were willing to die for this master. In this state without spiritual life (6:13), in slavery to sin (6:17), and unable to submit ourselves to God as His slaves (Rom. 8:7) until made alive (6:13), set free (6:18, 22), and set free by the law of the Spirit of life (Rom. 8:1, attributing both life and freedom to the Spirit, cf. 8:7-9), we presented ourselves in obedience to sin to death. Remarkably, the only freedom we had was a freedom from righteousness (v. 20). This way of speaking powerfully expresses the fact that in bondage to sin we are responsible because we willingly obey sin. Therefore, we are unquestionably responsible and deserve the death to which it leads, which is eternal death in contrast to eternal life (6:21-23).

Again, to make the point plain, Paul states the moral cannot of slavery to sin and death in the same breath that he affirms human responsibility. The moral inability of man to submit himself to God and righteousness does not deny his accountability. Indeed, it indicates how sinful fallen man is and remains unless God sets him free through Christ by the Spirit.

2A. The Exhortation to Righteousness (19-23)

Verse 19 has two sentences and you have to read to the very end to see the exhortation. The first sentence simply states the need for the slavery analogy (cf. Moo, Romans, 404). It is at the end of the second sentence that the exhortation emerges: "present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification." This is an interesting exhortation in light of the fact that that you have been set free. For emphasis we could say, "You have already become obedient slaves to righteousness" (vs. 17-18). Along with you once were but have become we have what sounds like a "once were but now become" (you once were but now present yourselves to righteousness as slaves). It is as if the exhortation is that you are not but are to become slaves of righteousness, but such an "as if" misses the point.

This "you have already become, now become" language is what is often called the relation of the indicative and the imperative in Paul. The indicative states what is the case and the imperative states what should be the case. Are these opposed to one another or somehow in conflict? Not at all, instead, the imperative is based on the indicative. Paul is exhorting us to present ourselves as slaves to God and righteousness because that is what we in fact are by His grace.

This can be said in different ways. "Be what you are," and "live what you have become" are a couple of ways. Related to baptism, this means: live out your baptismal pledge, you pledged obedience to the triune God so live out your pledge. Some ways are important to cite here in Romans 6. Paul says, "You are dead to sin" (vs. 2-8, death to sin in union with Christ is affirmed in each of these verses!). Then he says, "So you must consider yourselves dead to sin" (v. 11, an imperative!). Based on the fact of being dead to sin (1-11), Paul exhorts us to "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies to obey their passions" (v. 12). The exhortations to present ourselves to God (v. 13) are grounded in the fact that "sin will have no dominion over you" (v. 14, it is not your master!).

In verses 20-23, Paul then encourages action on the path of obedience by returning to the fact of consequences. Look at the fruit of the former way and the fruit of the new way for encouragement to obedience. The former way brought shame and its end was death. The new life involves being slaves of God as slaves of obedience and slaves of righteousness (v. 22a). Its fruit is sanctification and its end is eternal life as the free gift of God (v. 22b-23).

Conclusion

1) The moral inability of man to submit himself to God and righteousness indicates how sinful you and I were without the grace of God that set us free. This is a specific for praise and worship. We can be very precise here and say with Paul "thanks be to God" that though we were dead, willfully disobedient, and totally unable to return to God we obeyed the gospel from the heart because He set us free.

2) We need to think and rethink the fact that we have been set free for the purpose that from the heart we commit ourselves as slaves to God by being slaves to righteousness (and slaves to obedience). We are to consider ourselves dead to sin instead of dead in sin. We are to lay firm hold on the fact that because we are under grace sin will have no dominion over us. Instead, "under grace" means that we are slaves to righteousness. This does not mean we have a choice to be slaves or not; we made that choice when we were brought to life and set free. The point is that we in fact are slaves to righteousness and slaves to God. We have a new standing; we have been raised with Christ for newness of life. We demonstrated this new life in the obedience of baptism.

3) In light of this great mercy of God and what He has done by grace, we are to take this knowledge, these facts, and the gratitude of our worshiping hearts and turn them into an ongoing presentation. These references to present (Rom. 6:13, 16, 19) are the same word for the offering on the altar of dedication to God that is reasonable service (Rom. 12:1). Now believer-priest place yourself on the altar as a slave. Give your very body and all its members to the service of God and righteousness.

Addendum: The distinction between Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism on free will

1) Free will refers to the power or ability of alternative choice. It means to be able to either say yes or no to something. Centrally, it means man has the power to do either one; he has the power to say yes and he has the power to say no. To state this in relation to moral actions, it means that a person has the same power to choose good that he has to choose evil. Free will is the teaching that fallen man in his state in the fall is able to good or evil. Applied to the issue of saving grace and the demand of faith, free will means that fallen man in his state in the fall is able to believe the gospel or not believe it (the key is in the or: "able to or not").

2) This view of free will was held by the Arminians at the time of Dort. Listen to the errors that are rejected by the Canons (3^rd and 4^th Heads of Doctrine):

…the will itself is able to will and to choose, or not to will and not to choose, all manner of good which may be presented to it. This is an innovation and an error, and tends to elevate the powers of the free will contrary to the declaration [s] [of Scripture] (par. 3)

…the unregenerate man is not really nor utterly dead in sin, nor destitute of all powers unto spiritual good… (par. 4)

…it therefore remains in man’s power to be regenerated or not (par. 8)

…that God does not efficiently help the will of man unto conversion until the will of man moves and determines to do this (par. 9)

3) Thus some nod in agreement to the biblical teaching of total depravity. Yes, they say, in his fallen state man is unable to repent or believe the gospel. But they throw us a curve by saying that fallen man is brought supernaturally to a condition of being able to believe or not believe. This view is not as Wesley put it, "a hair’s breath" from Calvinism. Instead, it is simply a variant form of  the Arminianism of the time of Dort. The classic total depravity compromise is just Wesleyan Arminianism since it agrees with all the claims of the Arminians cited above. The difference is that the Arminians did not hold to a two-stage view of fallen man. But the similarity is in their common commitment to free will meaning that is must be "in man’s power to be regenerated or not." The man who is dead in sin must have the ability to allow Christ to make him alive (Wesley, Sermon on Free Grace, par. 29).

Remarkably however, the only freedom we had was a freedom from righteousness (v. 20). This way of speaking powerfully expresses the fact that in bondage to sin we are responsible, we are free to sin, we are free in sin. On the other hand, it is not a true freedom since in this state in sin we are free of righteousness. Righteousness is pictured as a master or slave owner. We are pictured as slaves. This is personification. Let’s name the people involved. The slave owner’s name is Righteousness. The slave has no name so let’s call him "Freeman." We pick up the story in the middle. Somehow Freeman has escaped from Righteousness. How that came about we are not told. We simply see him traveling life’s journey outside of the rule of Mr. Righteousness. Mr. Righteousness cannot lay his hands on the slave. He has no power over the former slave whatsoever! Mr. Freeman is traveling along the road that is free from righteousness. All spectators say, "My, my, isn’t this man’s name a true indication of his happy state for he is truly a free man." To be sure, we can speak of this condition in life as being free but we have to put "free" in quotes for this is only a play on words. Is it a happy state of affairs? Is he really free? He is free from righteousness but that means that the road he is on is the road of sin, bondage, and death. Mr. Freeman is better called Mr. Bondslave for in his "freedom" from righteousness he is a slave to sin traveling a road that leads to eternal destruction (6:13, 21-23). This is a "freedom" in which he cannot submit himself in obedience to God as His slave (cf. Rom. 8:7). He must be set free by the work of the Spirit (Rom. 8:2; 6:18) in order to "become obedient from the heart" to the gospel (6:18).