You must be speaking of yourself, for I have never been accused of being a liberal, that I'm aware of.
As is the question you asked, also a 'loaded' question, intending, BTW, to elicit a particular theological response. When I responded with some very brief exegesis of and referencing of the word rendered as "serve" in Rom. 6:6. you ignored the response, I believe, if my memory serves. The problem is once again, with the question, as I noted, for the Bible is simply not saying what you are claiming it is saying here.
The exception to this statement is in the English rendering as found in the KJV. (FTR, if you would somehow wish to make some argument for the KJV as being the "default version" somehow, you might wish to open a thread in that particular forum.
) There may have been nothing greatly wrong with the rendering, in the 16th Century, as this was then understood (although I did cite that even then, the TYN rendered this in a better manner than did those who followed him, when he rendered this verse in this manner "This we must remeber that oure olde man is crucified with him alfo that the body of fynne myght vtterly be deftroyed that hence forth we fhuld not be fervauntes of fynne.").
But contrast the MCB rendering (Coverdale incidentally, was not as accomplished in Greek as was Tyndale, although he may well have surpassed him in Hebrew.) and which rendering of this as "we fhulde ferue fynne no more" is basically followed on through the KJV although it is somewhat misleading, IMO. I will assume you can see the difference in the two renderings, although I fear I may well be making a dangerous assumption, here.
The Greek verb is "δουλευω" from "δουλος", or literally a slave, which, as I previously noted carries the force and idea of some "forced bondage" or enslavement. (The 'free' or 'grace word equivalents' if I may perhaps coin a phrase,that carry the idea and force of 'willingly in' service" would be "διακονεω", from "διακονος", which is the root word from where we get 'deacon' or minister.) These two ideas are simply not the same, but I do believe you are attempting to (hopefully) unwittingly combine them, on the basis of English words.
I also note you did not respond to it when I before mentioned Tyndale's rendering, either.
One is no longer any forced slave to sin (the new birth and justification having seen to that), however that does not mean that one cannot give in to sin, and to my knowledge, exactly how much one can 'give in' is not stated in Scripture. How much one should give in is very definitely stated in Scripture, that amount being zero!
Although you have here "changed the question", by the wording (Remember my mentioning that your question was 'loaded"?) as "can" implies a possibility, whereas "do" does not allow for this, but 'makes' it mandatory, as it were, the question is still not one asked or addressed in Scripture, so I am not answering with some false alternative, here.
By no stretch, am I evading the issue. (That is rather difficult to do with almost 9K posts, I'd say.)
And my own stance is extremely clear on the ideas of what is characterized as 'free grace', "Lordship salvation", 'repent(ance) of/from sins(s)', and a host of other issues, which either address this issue, or many of which are little more than some ways to "back-load works" into salvation, somehow, while loudly proclaiming that that is not the case.
With no offense intended to any, I am simply not willing to let you (or any other) define this to suit some theology, as we go along.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
