 |  |
Let us ponder the relation of these two sections. Take the two statements. The first
stresses the difference between "sin" and "grace", the second the difference between
being under "law" and under "grace". There is evidently a close connection between sin
and law. This we know to be the fact, and we are to meet the argument in Rom. 7: 7-12
and 13-25. Observe the two questions. The first says:--
"Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound" (Rom. 6: 1).
The second says:--
"Shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace?" (Rom. 6: 15).
Two errors are here exposed, the first being that we must not misunderstand the grace
of God. It has already been stated that this superabounding grace "reigns through
righteousness" (Rom. 5: 21), which is a complete refutation of the idea of continuing in
sin "that grace may abound". The second error is that freedom from law means freedom
to sin. This is countered by the apostle's argument which includes the words: "Being
then made free from sin, ye became the bond slaves of righteousness" (Rom. 6: 18).
In the two answers that occupy the bulk of each section, 6: 3-14 and 6: 16 - 7: 6,
we have a parallel development of doctrine. In the first the dominion of sin and death is
touched upon, whilst in the second it is the dominion of law that is explained. These are
brought together in chapter 8: 2 as "the law of sin and death".
Both the body of sin and the law are next associated by the use of the word katargeo
in the following passages:--
"That the body of sin might be destroyed" (Rom. 6: 6).
"Now we are delivered from the law" (Rom. 7: 6).
These two passages throw light upon each other as we shall see.
Finally, both sections stress "newness". In the first, where the fact of sanctification is
the theme, we learn that it operates in a sphere of newness of "life" (6: 4). In the second,
where liberty contrasted with licence is the theme, we have service in "newness of spirit"
(7: 6). All these features are so inter-related, that we trust no reader will begrudge the
time spent in making the relationship manifest. It is apparent to all who will but read the
statements and questions of this new section, that the erroneous teaching combated by the
apostle largely arises out of a misconception of "grace".
Our doctrinal attitude has sometimes been explained by others as being somewhat
"Calvinistic". We do not subscribe to any creed or system of theology, but it is evident to
most readers that there is much in the attitude of the Reformation to the doctrines of grace
that is characteristic of our own. We yield to none in the advocacy of the sovereignty of
that grace which has saved us, of its free and unmerited bestowal, of the total
incompatibility of a salvation by grace and by works. All this is but expressing the
doctrine of Romans itself. Nevertheless, the same scripture that leaves the reader without