Can a Christian Ever Sin Away Salavation? Part I

by Michael Krall

What is the Christians relation to sin? In this article I want to deal with what the Scripture says about the Christian and sin. What I am going to do is give an exposition of Romans 6 . A proper understanding of this portion of Scripture in its context will put an end to two false teachings that are very much alive in professing Christendom. The first is that once saved always saved no matter how you live. If you live in sin after getting saved you are a carnal Christian and will just lose some rewards in heaven. As we will see that not supported by Scripture. Just as wrong is the view that once saved a Christian can fall away and ultimately be lost. This of course is also untrue. Although the first of these is the more dangerous nonetheless they are both refuted in a proper understanding of Romans 6 which clearly teaches the necessity and certainty of living a converted life for one in union with Christ.

To start with let me give a brief introduction leading up to Romans 6 so we can see where we are.

In chapter 3 Paul deals justification and shows how we are justified "freely" which in greek is "doraon" which means "without a cause". This word is used where we read "they hated him without a cause". There is no cause in us that moved God to justify us it is solely upon the obedience of Christ and God's free and sovereign electing love.

Then in chapter 4 he shows that it is by faith, vss1-2; not by works vss.4-7; not by circumcision vss.9-11; not by the law 12-16 and then in the remainder of the chapter he explains what he means when he says "by faith."

In chapter 5 we have the fruits of this free justification. He begins by saying that "having been justified"- an aorist particple not as the KJV has a present particple- we have the immediate blessing mentioned. First "we have peace with God;" next "we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand;" and then we "rejoice in hope of the glory of God".

Now the next verse is very important since it is the driving force of his argument which continues until the end of chapter 8. Here is the fourth blessing of free justification:

3 And not only [so], but we GLORY IN TRIBULATIONS also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

The Christian rejoices in tribulation, why? The next 2 verses explains that. But then he makes a couple of statements that is to give comfort to the Christian in the face of tribulation. These 2 statements alone are enough to show that a true child of God can never be lost. Lets look at them.

After having shown God's great love for his people in that Christ would die for them he says this:

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, WE SHALL BE saved from wrath through him.

Notice the certainty of his statement. I underscore the SHALL BE on purpose to show the certainty of it. There is no potentialiality there. It is a statement of certainty.

Again he says

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, WE SHALL BE saved by his life.

Again arguing from the greater to the lesser. If he died for us and justified us and reconciled us how much more will we be ultimately saved to the end. Keep in mind that this is said in the light of the previous verse "we glory in tribulation". If we can fall away under tribulation then we should not glory in it nor should we count it all joy when we fall into it as James says we should. Why if it might be the cause of out apostazing from the faith?

Then in verses 12-21 he expounds on the statement "saved by his life" which should be "saved IN his life". He now writes about the federal headship of Adam and Christ to further give us the assurance of our being justifiied in the midst of trials that come. What he is doing is showing that because we are in Christ we will ultimately make it. It is as sure as our condemnation was in Adam. Any other interpretation of this portion of Scripture does injustice to the point of Paul's argument of comfort in the midst of trials.

Now after he sets forth the grace of God flowing freely to the sinner on the merits of Christ the next thing he does is anticipate an objection. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"

I ask you at this point if the gospel you preach would ever cause someone to make that objection. If you preach that someone could lose their salvation it is highly unlikely. And if someone did ask that question how would you answer them? As we look at how Paul answers the objection see if in fact what you claim regarding either the losing of salvation or just the merely losing of rewards will be squared with Paul's statements.

Romans 6

1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Paul brings up this objection in response to his statement that "where sin abounds grace will much more abound." What is the meaning of that statement and what was its purpose? Paul is seeking to give assurance in the midst of trials. What is the worst of all possibilities? To so be crushed by tribulations that you ultimately apostatize. But how would that happen? It would happen if sin abounded in the midst of affliction to the point of rebellion. But Paul says in 5:20 that no matter how sin abounds grace will always exceed it. This is actually saying that no matter how much sin there is there will always be more grace to overide it. It is that very statement that causes some to say something like "well if I believed that I would live like the devil". The only thing that would cause someone to think that way is a misunderstanding of the nature of salvation as Paul will expound. That is the very thing Paul says in this first verse.

How does he answer?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

The first words "God forbid" are literally "me genoito" which is "may it no come to pass" or as some translations have it "may it never be". It is the strongest form he can use. But notice he DOES NOT say "God forbid don't you know that this could result in losing your own soul".

In this verse he uses an aorist verb which is literally "who DIED to sin" not as the KJV has it "are dead to sin". He is speaking of a specific act in the past not a state of being. This is important if we are to follow Paul's argument. He is showing that "such ones as we" (which is the literal rendering) "who died to sin". And since we died in a point in the past to sin we cannot live it in anymore. This is quite emphatic. He is making a statement in the form of a question that he goes on to explain in the next verses:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

This verse is one that has caused many to teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation. After all doesn't Paul say that we were baptized into Christ? What can be plainer that to say that at baptism we are put into Christ? For one to come up with that they have to wrench this out of the context of Paul's subject. We cannot seperate this verse from chapter 5 verses 12-21 where Paul speaks of the federal headship of Christ and how all for whom Christ died- died with him. Paul is now taking that doctrinal truth and working it out in a practical way in the life of the Christian.

An interesting thing to note is that all those that believe we get into Christ by baptism believe you can fall from salvation and none of them believe that a rebaptism is necessary to get back in. The fact is that if water baptism is meant then once a person is baptized they would not only be eternally secure but they would most definitely live a converted life. This is what Paul is speaking about. He is saying that to be identifed with Christ, which is the meaning of the word "baptizo," is to be idenitifed in his death. Notice that verse 3 does NOT say "as many of us that were baptized were baptized into Christ and therefore into his death." Now he could have said that but he didn't.

He expounds on this a little more in the next verse.

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

In this verse he says that we were "buried with him" and it is literally "through baptism into death." Since we do not bury someone in order to kill them we see here he is speaking symbolically of our union with Christ that it was into death. To be in Christ is to be identified with his death. We have an example of this where Jesus said "I have baptism to be baptized with," showing us that Jesus was speaking of something he had to be identified with. He is emphasizing our death to sin as stated in verse 2.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:

In this verse we have a further expansion of Paul's statement. The word "if" is not a word of contingency but is better translated "since we have been planted..." What he is showing is what inevitably happens as a result of our union with Christ in his death. Since we were indentified with him in his death we must neccessarily also be identified with him in his resurrection. But is that speaking of merely the future resurrection? Note the next verse:

6 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.

In this verse we have two purpose clauses to show cause and effect. He begins this verse with the word "knowing this" which is the word "ginoskontes" which is a present participle that means to know by experience not merely to perceive. Then the statement of what it is that we know by experience -that our old man WAS CRUCIFIED with him not IS crucified. Again a point in time not a state of being. Tthe old man WAS crucified. It is here that we have our first purpose clause. The old man was crucified IN ORDER THAT. The word is "hina" and it is a word showing cause and effect. When this subordinating conjuction "hina" is with the subjunctive verb "might be destroyed" it is not speaking of something that should happen but might not. What it is showing is a certainty of result.

So what he is saying is that having been planted together with Christ's death, we now live a resurrected life. Since we were crucified with him the result is that the body of sin is destroyed. But notice the next purpose clause. In the next phrase Paul uses a different construction to show result. He uses an articular infinitive. The word "to serve" is an infinitive but it has the definite article coupled with it. When used in this contruction it also shows result. What Paul is showing is that the body of sin was destroyed when we were crucified for the express purpose that we will not serve sin.

Now we have to keep in mind that all this is answering Paul's anticipated objection as to whether or not a child of God can live continually in sin.

What is very pivotal is the next verse because it gives the reason why the result is true:

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Who is the "he" in this verse? It is not only Christ but all that died with him. Why is it true that we cannot serve sin? Because we have been freed from it since we died to sin!

8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

This verse is commonly believed to be speaking of the future but the context won't allow it. He is showing certainty here. Again the verb should not be "we be dead with Christ" but "if we died with Christ". Again it is an aorist verb showing a point in the past not a state. And since this happened we of necessity live with him.

9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

This word "knowing" is a different word than in verse 6 and speaks of perception. Paul has now gone from that which is experimental in our life to the objective truth of Christ's death. This is very important to see what he means because everything that is true about Christ is true about all of his elect. Notice that since Christ was raise from the dead he dies no more. Why? Because when he was raised from the dead death had no more claim whatsoever on Christ. The next verse explains why:

10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

The first thing we notice is that he died ONCE. This word translated "once"is literally "one time never to be repeated". The word is "ephapax" and it appears only 5 times in the NT. Why did Paul use such a strong form of this word? Was it merely to show how Christ is not perpetually sacrificed in a so called sacrifice of the mass? Although this verse is once of the best verses to show that to be a false doctrine that is merely incidental to the context. Since Paul is showing both the union of the believer in the death of Christ and the certainty dominating power of sin being broken in the Christian as a result, it is important that he emphasize the finality of what Christ did regarding sin's dominion.

That brings us to the next thing from this text. We see that Christ's death was not only one time never to be repeated but it was a death to sin. When we see what this in fact means to the one in union with Christ it makes a world of difference as to whether or not a Christian can ever "sin that grace may abound".

After stating the Christians union with Christ he now gives the application of this to the believer:

11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Since this has happened to Christ we are now to reckon this to be the case to us if we are indeed one of Christ's. The construction in the greek here is one where we have the words "men" and "de". When these words are put together in a sentence in the proper construction they mean "on the one hand....on the other hand". Literally this verse says "just as Christ lives unto God so also consider yourselves on the one hand to be corpses in regard to sin and on the other hand living unto God". The word "dead" is "necros" which means corpse. In the light of what has happened to Christ and our union with him in his death and resurrection we are to reckon these to be true about ourselves.

Now he gets into the practical exhortations:

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Once might ask why we are commanded to not let sin reign if it was not possible for it to reign in the Christian. Two things we must note. First, simply because there are warnings and commands to believers does not mean that it is possible for the true believer to ultimately fall away. Warnings are given so the true believers will not fall away. God uses means to accomplish his ends and warnings and exhortations are some of the means to accomplish that end.

Secondlly notice that he does not say "let not sin reign in your heart" for that cannot happen in the life of one united to Christ. Every time a child of God commits an act of sin he has let sin reign in that part of his body for a time. Notice the next verse where he continues the exhortation:

13 Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God.

Here Paul gets more specific showing that to yield our members to sin is to make them instruments of unrighteousness. After giving these exhortations which followed his doctrinal statements about our union with Christ he now gives additional motives for this exhortation:

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

This verse must be look at in the light of verse 12 where we are said we are to not let sin reign. The word in verse 12 for "reign" is different than the one for "dominion" in verse 14. In verse 14 we are told that sin shall not lord it over us. The word for "dominion" is the verb form of the word "lord". The significance is that remaining sin will seek to try to reign in our mortal bodies so that we will respond to its commands. But since we are not under a principle of law but a princple of grace sin is no longer the lord in our lives.

When Paul makes the statement that sin will not have dominion he then tells us why. This verse has been misinterpreted by many because of the weak translation of the KJV. It does not say that we are not under THE law as if to say that the Christian is not under any objective standard as a rule of conduct. What is is saying is that we are not under law but under grace. It is in the prinicple of law "command and obedience" that we are not under. The Christian is now under the gospel principle of grace which is the motivation for obedience.

Now up to this point Paul has been answering the anticipate objection "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" The whole of verses 2-14 is to answer that objection. He will now introduce another objection which he answer in remaining verses:

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

That we will deal with in part 2.

BACK TO MAIN MENU