Our culture teases regularly each year at this time about New Year’s resolutions.  If we accept the statistical data, resolutions abound, but consistent lifestyle changes do not follow such resolutions.  Good intentions alone are not sufficient to alter our conduct.  In this week’s study passage Paul challenges us to be as consistent in our practice of godliness as we were in our former practice of sin. 

The secret to life changing habits is not in self-generated resolutions that we forget almost as quickly as the ink dries on the paper where we write them down.  Nor is the secret to godly change to be found in a passive deterministic decree that ordains everything good that we do.  Advocates of this view are hard pressed to explain our broken resolutions and half-hearted obedience.  If God in fact decrees every act of acceptable righteousness that we perform, why did He not decree more of them instead of leaving so many of our choices muddled with sin and half-hearted responses.  In fact we must search carefully to find any single act of obedience in us that matches God’s flawless rule for obedience.  So does God decree obedient conduct that is less than flawless?

As we face the New Year, Paul’s incredible challenge to us is that we now practice righteous conduct with the same consistency that we demonstrated in sinful conduct prior to His miracle of saving grace.  Now this is a resolution worth making—and keeping! 

God bless, Joe Holder
 

A Servant: Christian Ethics
 
I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.  For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.  What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.  But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.  (Romans 6:19-22)
 

A review of the context of these verses puts them in clear focus and affirms the nature of Christian ethics-the delightful epitome of a true servant.  While it is sadly true that many who profess to be Christians reject this role and "pick and choose" which Bible teaching they will obey and which they will ignore, they cannot do so with Paul's approval.  Even this incredible man whom the Holy Spirit used to write approximately thirty per cent of the New Testament consistently referred to himself as the Lord's servant, choosing a word in the language of the day that referred to a slave, not an employee.

Occasionally people fall prey to errant thinking that imputes the active or immediate cause of everything that occurs onto God.  The obvious problem with this idea is that it logically blames God for sin, so advocates must creatively find ways to hold to their error but contradict their own logical belief by saying that God causes everything except sin.  So is sin not part of "everything"?

A permutation of this excessive view of predestination holds that God effectually and irresistibly causes righteousness but not sin.  Advocates of this idea attempt to make every act of faith and obedience the result of a divine decree that rejects any sense of a voluntary act on the part of the obedient believer.  Logically this teaching reduces the obedient disciple to something of a robot, mechanistically and irresistibly responding to the divine decree, making even the believer's willingness itself the result of a divine decree.

Paul draws a parallel in our study verses that refutes both of these errant teachings.  He reminds the Romans of a time when they were "free from righteousness," certainly not free from the moral laws of God, but free in terms of their cognitive sense of sin and free from any moral inclination to resist it.  During this time prior to the work of God's saving grace in them, the Romans quite willingly chose sin over righteousness.  They chose it because of their sinful nature.  They chose it because of their insatiable appetite for sin.  They were not divinely decreed to sin. They were not predestinated by divine ordination to sin.  They willing chose sin over righteousness.

Surprisingly Paul draws logical parallels between this past time in the life of the Romans and their present state in the grace of God.  He commands that now they be just as insatiable in their pursuit of righteousness as they once were in the pursuit of sin.  "…as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity" describes the Romans' past attitude toward sin.  They did not "yield" to a divine decree in their willing and insatiable choice of sin.  They responded to their fallen nature and to their lack of a moral and spiritual conscience toward God.  Paul now commands them to do the same thing toward righteousness.  In order for Paul's parallel to hold we must consider the motive and character of their sinful actions so as to discover Paul's rather unusual parallel.

"…even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness."  These words describe a personal, voluntary, and cognitive decision to do something-something altogether righteous.  "…yield" is in the active voice; it requires a conscious decision by the Roman believers.  It does not describe an involuntary response to a divine decree.  Further Paul attributes both past sin and present righteousness to a common logical (certainly not moral) choice by the Romans.  If we accept that their (our) sins were not the result of an irresistible divine decree, we must accept that their righteous conduct was also not the result of an irresistible divine decree.  Otherwise the "as…even so" parallel cannot hold.

The obvious point that Paul makes should be simple to follow.  Notice his introduction to this lesson, "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh."  Despite clear teaching to the contrary, at least some of the Roman Christians either came to a different conclusion or they charged Paul with holding to a different view ( Romans 3:1-8 ).  If Paul held to the mechanistic view of divine cause that they charged against him in this passage from the third chapter of the letter, he could not write the exhortation now urged upon them in our study verses.

The moral quality of their past conduct and the spiritual and ethical quality of the conduct that Paul now exhorts the Romans to follow with such consistency as to consider themselves "servants" to righteousness are moral opposites.  Conscious and voluntary choice is the driving force of our lesson.  What motivated the Romans to pursue sin so enthusiastically as to be termed "servants" of sin, literally its slaves?  Was it a mechanistic response to a divine decree?  No!  It was a conscious and voluntary choice to practice that conduct.  It was based on their dominant nature at the time, depraved and godless sinners.  What distinguishes them now from what they were then?  Now they have been born of God.  They now possess two natures, one the same nature that drove their former appetites for sin, and one a new spiritual and moral nature that they received in the new birth.  It is not automatic or the result of an irresistible divine decree, but the result of cognitive and willing choices that Paul now commands them to make their new spiritual and moral nature the dominant nature in their present conduct.

In the Colossian letter Paul equates these two natures to an "old man" and a "new man" ( Colossians 3:5-17 ).  In that context Paul commands the Colossians to put off the "old man" and his deeds, and to put on the "new man" and his deeds.  The two passages present a parallel lesson that reveals the necessity of a willing, voluntary, and cognitive choice in our conduct.  Neither their former nor their present conduct was the consequence of an irresistible divine decree. Both lifestyles-despite being moral opposites-were the consequence of individual voluntary and conscious choices.

In the context of our study verses from the sixth chapter of Romans Paul has already examined two compromises and rejected them.  In the first two verses of the sixth chapter Paul raised the question of a person rationalizing the continued and sadly consistent habit of sinning on the abominable and false premise that in some mystical way the more we sin the more we cause God's grace to abound.  In the fifteenth verse of the sixth chapter he raises the question of our rationalizing occasional lapses into sin because "…we are not under the law but under grace."  Paul categorically rejects both attitudes toward sin with the strongest negative answer that language could frame, "God forbid!"  Our study verses strongly reinforce this consistent ethical principle.

"The devil made me do it" we clearly understand as an inexcusable rationalization for sin.  However, Paul rejects "God made me do it" as fully as he rejects the first false premise.  His argument to the Romans frames both sinful conduct and righteousness conduct around a conscious, voluntary, and responsible decision in our choice of actions.  Paul does not predict or guarantee righteous conduct based on an irresistible divine decree; he bases the Romans' present righteous conduct on their choices, knowingly and willing made.

There are lingering consequences to every decision-every choice-that we make.  For example, Paul identifies that the Romans' prior choice of sin only predicted a deeper commitment to more sin, "…iniquity unto iniquity."  He distinctly rejects the "Let us sin so that we may have more grace" immoral mindset.  His true teaching defines the mirror opposite of that sinful attitude.  Equally there are lingering consequences to righteous conduct, "righteousness unto holiness."  We predict our future habits, either of sin or of righteousness, by our daily choices in the here and now.  Rationalized sin, even the smallest of sins, today lays the foundation for future rationalizations of far greater sins.  And habitual practice of righteousness today lays the grounds for future depths in holiness and God-honoring consistency in godly actions.

A servant, literally a slave, was required to obey the commands of his master or face his master's wrath.  He was not compelled irresistibly to obey.  He might rebel and merely do as little as possible to avoid his master's wrath, or for that matter he might seek opportunity to escape and run away as Onesimus ran away from Philemon.  In this analogy of slavery to Christian service Paul urges that the moral choices of our conduct have already been decided by God; He did not consult with us for input before deciding His own moral character.  Once we choose to become God's "servants" we are directed to implement God's commandments faithfully, voluntarily, and consistently.  Paul framed his teaching in this lesson as a commandment, an exhortation, not as a divine guarantee based on an irresistible divine decree.  Paul urges us to be as consistent in our pursuit of righteousness as we were formerly in our pursuit of sin.  Only as we understand and accept our role as God's servants can we ever discover the incredible liberty of being God's free men ( 1 Corinthians 7:22 ).  We discover our incredible liberty in Christ only to the extent that we choose to be His faithful servants.

A balanced view of Biblical discipleship includes the concise and understandable communication of God's instructions to His people through the work of regeneration (God's law written in the heart), the leadership of the Holy Spirit through the believer's conscience, the divinely preserved writings of Scripture, and the preaching of the gospel.  Paul's teaching regarding the necessity of a cognitive and voluntary response by us to faith and obedience in no way diminishes these divine influences.  Rather his teachings apply all of these witnesses to our conscious minds and inform the right choices that we are commanded to make.  None of these responses are described in Scripture as guaranteed or divinely and irresistibly ordained.  Scripture teaches that this willing obedience from the heart of the servant is our only correct response to the divine influence.  Our conscious and willing obedience is the result of our knowledge of-and response to-these divine influences.  Rejection of this willing and voluntary response to the leadership of God irresistibly decreed our righteous acts so "God gets all the credit" is in fact a straw man logical fallacy to the teaching of Scripture that distinctly requires such a willing response.

The stubborn and self-serving attitude of "selective obedience" that so many professing Christians practice in our time is not logically or morally distinct from open rebellion, depicted in Scripture as the equivalent to witchcraft ( 1 Samuel 15:22-23 ).

In his farewell address to Israel Joshua commanded the people to put away the idolatrous practices of their former lives and to fear and serve God in truth.  Only those people who rejected this commandment to fear and to serve God were given the option to "…choose ye this day whom ye will serve…."  ( Joshua 24:14-15 )  In this teaching Joshua revealed the heart of a servant whose mind was set to obey and to honor God his Lord.  The conscious and willing decision to serve God settles all other choices for us.  We have no desire or need to choose among the endless list of false gods that are available in every culture and every age.

We face similar choices in our own personal discipleship.  Will we play the role of the rebel and selectively choose which of God's commandments we will respectfully obey and which of His commandments we will consciously reject and ignore?  Or will we embrace the role of a willing servant who knowingly, willingly, and joyfully chooses only to do those things which glorify God?  Will we be as consistent in our righteous choices as we formerly were in our sinful choices?  Paul charges us to consider nothing less.