09 - What About Rom_6:6?

What AboutRomans 6:6?

"The most important passage in the New Testa­ment on this aspect of Keswick teaching is Romans 6:1-23. Evan Hopkins once said that in the early days of Keswick there was no passage of Scripture which was more frequently to the front than this chapter. That is true, but it is just as frequently used today. It is doubtful whether a Keswick Convention has ever been held in which one or more speakers did not deal with this chapter. Because of its extreme importance, more than once it has been called the Magna Charta of the Christian. There is no understand­ing of Keswick without an appreciation of the place accorded by it to this chapter in its whole scheme of sanctification. One of the key verses in the chapter is the sixth:

’Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin’."

Steven Barabas. undoubtedly Romans 6:6 has been the main battle-centre in the disagreement of holiness theories. What is its true meaning? That question is of decisive importance; for once we see its true meaning, any seeming complicatedness about holiness begins to clear away like mist before a bright sunrise, and we see the whole landscape in an alluring new light. Look carefully at the text again:

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him [Christ] that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." As we have seen, this is said by some to teach a complete eradication of the so-called "old nature" or "body of sin" in the believer. By others it is limited to the lesser meaning that this hereditary sin-proneness is rendered more or less "powerless" or "inoperative". Yet strangely enough it would seem that when rightly understood, Romans 6:6 does not refer to inward sanctifi-cation at all, as the following pages will endeavour to show.

First, then, this text has been continually misinterpreted through failure to appreciate rightly its location in the total structure of the Romans epistle. We must learn, at long last, to interpret it in agreement with its occurrence in the progressive argument of the whole. It is always good to take a new survey of Romans. Perhaps, as Professor J. A. Findlay said, "For the purpose of systematic theology it is the most important book of the Bible". The epistle has a triform lay-out, (1) The first eight chapters are doctrinal, and their subject is, how the Gospel saves the sinner. (2) The next three chapters are dispensational, and their subject is, how the Gospel relates to Israel. (3) The remaining chapters are mainly practical, and their subject is, how the Gospel bears on conduct. This threefold structure is emphasized by the feature that Paul ends each of the three movements with a culminative climax. If I may be allowed to transplant a page from volume 6 of my own work, Explore the Book, here is the epistle in flat analysis (see across).

Now it is with part one, of course, that we are concerned here, because that is where Romans 6:6, our focus-point, occurs. Observe carefully, then, how chapters one to eight unfold. After a short introduction (Romans 1:1-15) Paul proceeds to elucidate how the Gospel saves the sinner.

How would we expect a Gospel manifesto such as Romans to begin? Would we not expect Paul first to show the deep and urgent need for this Gospel? That is precisely what he does. First he shows us why the Gentiles need it (Romans 1:18-32). They need it for two reasons: (1) they are transgressors, which makes them legally guilty; (2) they are sinners in their very nature, which makes them morally corrupt. Then he shows why the Jews need it (Romans 2:1-29-Romans 3:1-200). They need it for the same two reasons: (1) they are legally guilty— for the very law of Moses in which they boast is that which most condemns them; (2) they are morally corrupt, for their own prophets and psalmists say so—"all gone out of the way", "none that doeth good" (Romans 3:12). Note carefully, then, that with both Gentiles and Jews the plight is twofold:

Both Gentiles and Jews have "sinned"—acts of transgression.
Both Gentiles and Jews are "in sin"—an internal condition.

Transgression is the legal aspect. The inward condition is the moral aspect. As to his transgressions, man is legally guilty and therefore under condemnation. As to his inward condition, man is morally corrupt and therefore perishing. This, let me underscore again, is the human plight: "SINS" (plural) and "SIN" (singular). But now, from chapter Romans 3:21 to the climax at the end of chapter 8, Paul shows how the Gospel answers this double problem of "sins" (transgressions) and of "sin" (inward condition). The Gospel answer as to "sins" (plural) is given in chapters Romans 3:21; Romans 4:1-25; Romans 5:1-11. The Gospel answer as to "sin" (singular) is given in chapters Romans 5:12-21; Romans 6:1-23’ Romans 7:1-25; Romans 8:1-30. This can easily be verified. Up to that break at chapter Romans 5:12 the word, "sin", occurs only three times, whereas after it, to the end of chapter 8, it occurs no less than 39 times. E. W. Bullinger wrote, "No exposition is worthy of the slightest attention which does not mark this division between Romans 5:11 and Romans 5:12". His comment, perhaps, is rather severe, but there is no doubt that the sharp "divide" is really there, and is crucially important to our understanding of the apostle’s argument. Probably most of us have already sensed the switch-over to a new aspect at that Romans 5:12—"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world ..." The Epistle To The Romans The Gospel, the power of God to Salvation.

Introductory Romans 1:15.

1. Doctrinal: How The Gospel Saves The Sinner(Romans 1:1-32;Romans 2:1-29;Romans 3:1-31;Romans 4:1-25;Romans 5:1-21;Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-25; Romans 8:1-39). The Racial Plight——"Sins" And "Sin" (Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:1-29; Romans 3:1-20). The Gentile guilty and sinful (Romans 1:18-332). The Jew guilty and sinful (Romans 2:1-29; Romans 3:1-20). The Gospel Answer—(A) As To "SinS" (Romans 3:21-31; Romans 4:1-25; Romans 5:1-11).

Judicially (Romans 3:21-31; Romans 4:1-25). In experience (Romans 5:1-11). The Gospel Answer—(B) As To "Sin" (Romans 5:12-23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-25; Romans 8:1-39). udicially (Romans 5:12-21; Romans 5:12-213; Romans 1:1-21; Romans 7:1-6). In experience (Romans 7:7-37; Romans 8:1-39).

2. National: How The Gospel Relates To Israel(Romans 9:1-33;Romans 10:1-21;Romans 11:1-36). Does Not Annul The Purpose With Israel (Romans 9:1-33).

Because not all Israel true Israel (Romans 9:7-13). And an elect remnant being saved (Romans 9:27-29).

Rather, It Fulfils The Promise To Israel (Romans 10:1-21). But Israel bent on salvation by works (Romans 10:1-4). And stumbles (9:32) through unbelief (Romans 10:18-12). And Confirms The Prospect Before Israel (Romans 11:1-36).

Israel’s fall made to bless Gentiles (Romans 11:1-24). And all Israel shall yet be saved (Romans 11:25-29).

3. Practical: How The Gospel Bears On Conduct(Romans 12:1-21;Romans 13:1-14;Romans 14:1-23;Romans 15:1-13). The Christian Life As To Social Aspects (Romans 12:1-21). The root—consecration and renewal (Romans 12:1-2). The fruit—service and love to others (Romans 12:3-21). The Christian Life As To Civil Aspects (Romans 13:1-14). Its expression—conscientious submission (Romans 13:1-7). Its foundation—love to one’s neighbour (Romans 13:8-14). The Christian Life As To Mutual Aspects (Romans 14:15). The principle—mutual consider’ateness (Romans 14:1-23). The incentive—the example of Christ (Romans 15:1-13).

Supplementary: Romans 15:1-235 & Romans 16:1-27.

Now significantly enough, in both these sections, i.e. on "sins" (Romans 3:21-31; Romans 4:1-25; Romans 5:1-11) and on "sin" (Romans 5:12-21; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-25; Romans 8:1-39) the apostle follows the same procedure. In both he shows the Gospel answer first judicially, and then the answer experientially.

Take the earlier of the two sections—on "sins", in chapters Romans 3:21-31. Romans 4:1-25; Romans 5:1-11. Paul shows first how God deals with the problem of "sins" judicially (Romans 3:21-31; Romans 4:1-25). Then he shows how God deals with the problem of "sins" experientially, i.e. in our human consciousness (Romans 5:1-11). This is how the section runs: The Gospel Answer As To "Sins" (Romans 3:21-31;Romans 4:1-25;Romans 5:1-11) Judicially(Romans 3:21-31;Romans 4:1-25)

(a) Justification, or imputed righteousness now comes through faith in Christ "set forth as a propitiation" (Romans 3:21-31).

(b) Justification by faith as a principle of divine operation may be seen in Old Testament: David and Abraham (Romans 4:1-25).

Experientially(Romans 5:1-11).

(a) "Therefore being justified by faith, we have ... we have . . . we stand ... we rejoice ... we glory ..." (Romans 5:1-4).

(b) "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us" (5) "We joy in God" (Romans 5:11).

If we now move on to the further section (Romans 5:12-31; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-25; Romans 8:1-39) in which Paul gives the Gospel answer to the problem of "sin" (singular) we find the same procedure. First the apostle shows us how God deals with the problem of sin judicially (Romans 5:12-31; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-6). Then he shows us how the Gospel deals with this same problem of sin experientially, that is, in our subjective, human experience (Romans 7:7-25; Romans 8:1-39). The Gospel Answer As To "Sin" (Romans 5:12-31; JRomans 6:1-23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-25; Romans 8:1-39).

Judicially(Romans 5:12-21;Romans 6:1-23;Romans 7:1-6)

(a) Deliverance from sin as a racial involvement in Adam comes by a similarly inclusive new headship in Christ: "As by one ... sin and death; so by One ... many righteous (Romans 5:12-21). (b) Deliverance from sin as racial slave-master who hands us over to law and death, is by judicial identification with Christ in His once-for-all death to sin and the law (Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-6).

Experientially(Romans 7:7-25;Romans 8:1-39).

(a) "Sin which dwelleth in me" (Romans 7:17, Romans 7:20, Romans 7:23) is now counteracted and overcome by the new "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Romans 7:14-25; Romans 8:1-4).

(b) The indwelling Holy Spirit now imparts victory over the flesh and the body, restores sonship, gives guidance, and all needed teaching, making us "more than conquerors" (Romans 8:5-39).

Now the fact which immediately stands out when we thus see Romans 6:1-23 where it occurs in the progress of the apostle’s argument is, that it does not occur in the experiential section at all, but in the judicial. The much-controverted sixth verse about the crucifixion of the "old man" has hitherto been misapprehended by each of the contending theories through failure to appreciate its connection structurally in the epistle, i.e. not with the experi­ential, but with the judicial. In Romans 6:1-23 Paul is not discussing how God sanctifies you and me inwardly or experientially, but how God dealt once for all judicially with sin as an hereditary evil in man, by putting away the whole Adam humanity repre­sentatively on the Cross.

Once this structural location of the text is appreciated as indicating a judicial, not an experiential reference, various other features immediately rally in confirmation of it. One of these is, that in this passage (Romans 5:12-21; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-6) all the verb tenses which relate to our Lord’s death and the believer’s association with it are either aorists or (in one or two cases) perfects. The Greek "aorist" denotes an act at a definite point in the past, and excludes all idea of present continuousness. The Greek "perfect" denotes an act already done, completely ended, and therefore non-continuing. [The Bagster Analytical Greek Lexicon defines the aorist tense as "strictly the expression of a momentary or transient single action"; and the perfect tense as an act already "terminated in past time" with a resultant "effect in the present".] It is much to be regretted that these verb tenses are not carefully reproduced in our King James Version. Their being loosely misrepresented by our English present tense in Romans 6:1-23 has undoubtedly given rise to much erroneous thinking.

Glance back, then, through the passage (Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-6) and see how true it is that all the verb tenses pertaining to our Lord’s death and our identification with it are aorists or perfects. To save tediousness here we give them all at the end of the chapter. Examine them later there, to verify the accuracy of what we are stating here. Think carefully what it means. Not one of the references to the believer’s union with the death of Christ indicates a death to be died in the present. They all refer to a death away back then. Not one of them speaks of a dying with Him. They all speak of a death completed and over.

What are we to conclude from all this? Let us reflect carefully. Romans 6:6 does not say that "our old man is crucified." Our King James Version has misled us. What Paul says is, that "our old man was crucified", in the sense of a completed and final act of the past. Nowhere in the passage is death to sin, or the death of "our old man", a death which the believer is to die now, but always a past act which took place at the death of Christ; something completely enacted then and there. Therefore, since Paul is thus clearly thinking of it as one completed act of the past, it is obvious that he must be thinking of it as one completed judicial act, quite apart from anything which God does here and now within the believer. Why, even verse n, which has caused many wistful seekers after sanctification to believe that they could inwardly die to sin, and then "reckon" themselves dead in the sense of a continuing condition, guards us against that very thing; for its first word says that we are to reckon ourselves dead to sin "likewise" (ovrcog) that is, in the very same once-for-all judicial sense of the preceding verse.

None of us would dare to argue seriously that his or her "old nature" was actually crucified with Christ on the cross of Calvary, nineteen hundred and more years ago; for those of us now on earth were not then alive. It is common, however, to hear it argued: "I may not have been actually alive then, but I died to sin then and there in the reckoning of God; and what happened positionatty there, God will now make real in my experience, if I will let Him." But this fond idea that God will "make it real" in present experience is mere wishful presumption; for if Romans 6:6 does not teach it (and it does not) where else in the Word do we find it? Some of us have been so thoroughly brought up on that illusory theory that it is hard for us now to think in any other way. Yet where, I ask again, does the Word teach it? The answer is nowhere. But next, having seen how all the relevant verb-tenses in Romans 6:1-23, as well as its structural location, betoken a judicial viewpoint, notice how the same judicial aspect is indicated by recurrent words and phrases. The full passage covers chapter Romans 5:12-21; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-6. Observe the recurrence of the word, "law", meaning usually the law of Moses.

Romans 5:13 "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law."

Romans 5:20 "Moreover, the law came in that the trespass might abound... ."

Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?"

Romans 7:1 "Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?"

Romans 7:2 "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth; but if the husband shall have died, she has become discharged from the law of the husband."

Romans 7:3 "She is free from the law. ..."

Romans 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law. . . ."

Romans 7:5 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins which were through the law...."

Romans 7:6 "But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held." Does not this repeated reference to the law add further evidence that the main drive of the context is legal, or judicial?

Added to this is the feature that all the characteristic words of the passage are those which have to do with the judicial aspect of salvation.

Romans 5:13 "Sin is not imputed where there is no law."

Romans 5:14 "After the likeness of Adam’s transgression. . . ."

Romans 5:15 "If b\ the trespass of one. . . ."

Romans 5:16 "For the judgment came of one unto condemnation’, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification."

Romans 5:17 "They which receive the gift of righteousness. . . ."

Romans 5:18 "So then, as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation’, even so by one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification."

Romans 5:19 "Through the obedience of the One shall the many be accounted righteous."

Romans 5:21 "Even so might grace reign through righteousness. . . ."

Romans 6:7 "For he [the Christian] that hath died is justified. . . ." (not "sanctified"!) Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Romans 6:5 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law....?"

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life."

Romans 7:1 "The law hath dominion over a man. . . ."

Romans 7:2 "Discharged from the law. . . ."

Romans 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law."

Romans 7:6 "But now we have been discharged from the law.. .."

If all this does not denote that Paul has the objective, judicial aspects of salvation predominantly in mind, then indeed we are strangely mistaken. But again, if (as is usually supposed) Romans 6:1-23 teaches a subjective treatment of the "sinful nature" in the individual believer, then the chapter contains strange incongruities of phrase­ology. Take Romans 6:14, for instance. It says, "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Now if Romans 6:6 teaches the crucifixion of the "old man" (as a supposed something inside us) and the destruction of a "body of sin" in the believer; and if Romans 6:11 means that we are to "reckon" ourselves "dead to sin" in the sense of an inward death to it (as is usually taught) then surely Romans 6:14 would have said, "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for the body of sin within you has been done away, and ye are now inwardly dead to sin." How weak and disappointing (apparently) is what Paul actually does say, i.e., "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law"\ If, however, we see that the reference is racial and judicial, not individual and internal, the words, "for ye are not under the law" are exactly in keeping. Is it not plain that the "dominion" of sin to which Paul here refers is legal dominion, not inward and moral? Or again, take Romans 6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." How strange is this in Romans 6:12, if Romans 6:6 and Romans 6:11 teach that the evil "nature" within has been done away, and that the believer is now inwardly "dead" to sin! How could sin "reign" if it is "doneaway"? How could there be "lusts thereof" in one who is "dead" to it? If Romans 6:6 and Romans 6:11 do indeed teach such a doing away of indwelling evil, and such a death to it, then that twelfth verse is an anti-climactic exhortation to maintain something far less than that!

Or, refer to Romans 6:7 again: how extraneous, how disappointing it seems (if Paul is thinking of inward, individual sanctification) that he should say, "For he who has died [i.e. to sin] is justified from sin"! Surely, one would have expected something such as, "For he who has died is freed from indwelling sin and its tyranny." Or further, in Romans 6:13, does not the injunction, "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin", seem contradictorily feeble after the assertion (as is supposed) that sin, with all its desires, has been completely "done away" from the heart?

Why, even Romans 6:13, "Yield yourselves unto God", seems a strange injunction to be addressed to those who (supposedly) were now inwardly dead to sin. If inward death to sin had truly taken place in those Roman believers, how could they be any less than already "yielded" utterly to God?

Or, just once more, if the theme of Romans 6:1-23 is inward sancti­fication through eradication or counteraction of sin in the heart, does not the last verse of the chapter seem lamely off the track?— "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ Our Lord." Think carefully: this last verse is an interim culmination-point to which the foregoing verses lead. To what, then, has the (supposed) teaching of inward death to sin now led? It has led merely to a statement of salva­tion in its judicial aspect, as a deliverance from penalty (the "wages of sin"), and not to some triumphant statement of salva­tion in the inward sense of death to "sin that dwelleth in me". (Of course, the last verse of chapter 6 is precious in itself. What we are pointing out is, that if Romans 6:1-23 teaches an inward spiritual surgery of sanctification, as is commonly held, then that last verse is a strange anticlimax.) Is it not already clear, from its structural location, and from its punctiliar verb-tenses and from its terminology, that Romans 6:1-23, when it speaks of our union with Christ in his death, refers not to a subjective, present-tense experience, as is usually assumed, but to something objectively enacted in the past, with a once-for-att judicial finality!

We might take many more pages proving that Romans 6:1-23 does not refer to our inward sanctification, but perhaps it will suffice if we submit just four more confirmatory factors.

Non-mention of the Holy Spirit A noticeable feature of the New Testament is that our Lord’s atoning work/or us is uniformly associated with the Cross, while His sanctifying work in us is just as definitely attributed to the Holy Spirit. This Romans epistle itself illustrates it. Where is its first reference to the Holy Spirit? It is Romans 5:5, which is the epistle’s first reference to salvation inwardly experienced. All the objective aspects of our salvation centre in the Cross. All the subjective and inward is the work of the Holy Spirit. Romans 6:1-23 and Romans 7:1-25 and Romans 8:1-38 onform to that. In chapter 6, as we have shown, there is salvation in a judicial sense. Then Romans 7:1-25 shows a further problem—"sin that dwelleth in me." Then Romans 8:1-38 tells the great deliverance—the Holy Spirit being mentioned no less than nineteen times. Let the non-mention of the Holy Spirit in Romans 6:1-23, therefore, confirm what we have said as to its objective and judicial nature.

Contradicted by Experience

Again, if Romans 6:1-23 teaches, as many suppose, a present, inward crucifixion and death to sin, then how strange it is that not one of those who so interpret the chapter can honestly measure up to its actual wording! Look again at Romans 6:10, which is the pivotal declaration of the chapter concerning our Lord’s death on Calvary.

"For in that He died, He died unto sin once (Gr. e<pdnai, once for all) but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God."

How, then, can a believer’s union with Christ in that "once-for-all", judicial death to Sin as an external Exactor, two thousand years ago, be a present-day inward crucifixion and death to sin in the believer’s nature? Who would dare to say that he had died to inward sin in that once-for-all way? We respectfully challenge any man, whether eradicationist or counteractionist: If you claim that your union with Calvary is one of present experience, then your inward death to sin must be a ONCE-FOR-ALL death, as His was; but is it? Can you honestly say that even the slightest sinward tendency once-for-all expired, with never a fleck remaining? A Significant Illustration

There is reason to regret the break between Romans 6:1-23 and Romans 7:1-25. We must not allow it to blur the continuity of Paul’s reasoning. The fact is, that what he states in chapter 6 he illustrates in the early verses of Romans 7:1-25; and the illustration is meant to picture the kind of death which we died with Christ.

"Are ye ignorant brethren, how that THE LAW hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth? For the woman that hath a husband is BOUND BY LAW to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is DISCHARGED FROM THE LAW of a. husband. . . . Wherefore, my brethren, YE ALSO WERE MADE DEAD TO THE LAW through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to Him who was raised from the dead ..." (Romans 7:1-4).

Surely, that illustration is enough to show how erroneous is the theory that Romans 6:1-23 teaches a present, inward crucifixion and death to sin. See how Paul himself applies it in his final comment on it (Romans 6:6).

"We were discharged [aorist] from the LAW, having died [in the past: aorist] to that wherein we were held." The Baptismal Burial

Another factor which indicates that the death to sin which Paul teaches in Romans 6:1-23 is not an inward, experiential death, but solely a positional death, is that he links it back, in the past tense, with the initiatory rite of baptism. It is not a death effected now, but a death professed then. See again the opening verses of the chapter, which I quote from the A.S.V. because the King James Version blurs the aorist tenses:—

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who DIED to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who WERE BAP­TIZED into Christ Jesus WERE BAPTIZED into His death? We WERE BURIED therefore with Him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life."

How decisive, then, are those past tenses: "We who DIED to sin ... we who were BAPTIZED . . . into His DEATH. We were BURIED with Him through baptism into DEATH". Surely it is plain that the believer’s death in Romans 6:1-23 is not a death which has yet to be effected inside the believer. Even less can it be a continuous dying. It is a death as completely past and done with as our Lord’s own crucifixion. Therefore it must be a judicial death, and cannot be a present-tense experience. (On this see Professor William Barclay’s enlightening annotation in Appendix, P- 245). A Contradictory Misfit

Still another significant pointer to the real meaning of Romans 6:1-23 is that "wretched man" at the end of chapter 7. If Romans 6:1-23 teaches, as is supposed, either the eradication or the "rendering inoperative" of the "old nature" or "old man", why do we find forlornly following it that "wretched man" groaning over unrelieved bondage to "sin that dwelleth in me", and crying, "Oh, wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me?" The fact is, that the "wretched man" passage is an inexplicable misfit, an enigmatical contradiction of all that Paul has just said—if chapter six teaches inward death to sin. (For a full discussion of this see our companion volume, His Deeper Work in Us).

New Testament Testimony

Another factor which has a decisive bearing on our interpre­tation of Romans 6:1-23 is that not once, anywhere in the New Testa­ment, is the believer’s death with Christ, or death to sin, spoken of as taking place in the present, or as being a continuous dying. Here are all the references, with the truer rendering of the verb-tenses in the E.R.V. and A.S.V. (I have not included 1 Corinthians 15:3. 1 Corinthians 15:31^or2 Corinthians 4:9-10, as the reference there is solely to physical dying.)

Well, so far as I know, there we have all the data; and what must we deduce? Is it not provenly clear that Romans 6:1-23 does not teach a present, experiential death or dying to sin in the believer? Is it not equally clear that the usual holiness formulas based upon that chapter are wrong and harmful?

Perhaps, to some readers, eager for more positive light on the way into holiness, this critical examination of Romans 6:6 and its context may seem an impeding delay. Others of us, however, will by now be seeing how misleading are those usual misinter­pretations, and how necessary it is to disentangle our thinking from such fallacies if we are ever to grasp with unhesitating hand the true promise of holiness.

It is a regret, let me say again, that our earlier chapters in this book have to be occupied with this demolition of error on the subject of sanctifkation. The enchanting hopes, however, which the eradication and counteraction theories have held before enquirers, only to leave them eventually disillusioned and bewildered, have necessitated it. We are quick to appreciate all that Wesley and others have meant for good in so many ways; yet that cannot blind us to these seriously aberrant teachings on Christian holiness. All of us, indeed, have reason enough to ask continually for guidance direct from our Lord through the Holy Spirit who inspired the sacred Scriptures.

Lord, lead me into truth, I pray, Anoint my eyes to see;

Lest into error’s maze I stray, And somehow, Lord, miss Thee. For Thou Thyself hast plainly said, "The truth shall make you free";

Yea, more, Thy very blood was shed To bring that truth to me.

Oh, teach me from Thy written Word The truth, the truth indeed;

Until, from sin and error, Lord, My heart is wholly freed.

Aorist And Perfect Tenses InRomans 6:1-23

This use of either the aorist or the perfect in every reference to our Lord’s death and our association with it is the more striking because of the continuous tenses used in other appropriate con­nections (see "walk" and "serve" and "live" and "reign" and "obey" and "held", in Romans 6:4, Romans 6:6, Romans 6:8, Romans 6:12, Romans 6:16-23’ Romans 7:1-6, respectively; and other verses).