Misinterpretation of Romans 6:1–2: "Not to Keep Sinning So That Grace May Abound"
Written on 9 July 2026
Misinterpretation of Romans 6:1–2: "Not to Keep Sinning So That Grace May Abound"
A point of discussion within Free Grace theology concerns the interpretation of Romans 6:1–2, particularly whether the Apostle Paul teaches that believers should "not keep sinning so that grace may abound."
The Statement
In the sermon Do People Only Believe Free Grace Because They Love to Sin?, Jacksmack77 states:
> "Paul is simply giving an exhortation not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound."
This statement has been criticized as a misinterpretation of Paul's argument because it attributes to Paul a reason that the text itself does not give.
The Biblical Text
Romans 6:1–2 (KJV) states:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
The phrase "that grace may abound" belongs to Paul's rhetorical question, not to his exhortation.
Paul's Argument
The flow of Paul's reasoning is:
- Romans 5:20 states that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.
- Paul anticipates an objection: "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"
- Paul immediately rejects the proposal: "God forbid."
- He gives his reason: "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
Thus, Paul's stated reason for rejecting continued sin is that believers have died to sin through their union with Christ, not that they should refrain from sin in order that grace may abound.
Why the Interpretation Is Criticized
The criticism is not that Paul exhorts believers to holy living. Romans 6 contains numerous exhortations, such as:
- "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin..." (Romans 6:11)
- "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body..." (Romans 6:12)
Rather, the criticism is directed at the wording:
> "not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound."
This wording transfers the purpose clause ("that grace may abound") from Paul's rejected hypothetical question to Paul's exhortation. In the biblical text, Paul rejects the suggestion that believers should continue in sin for the purpose of increasing grace.
Alternative Paraphrase
A paraphrase that more closely follows the text would be:
> "Paul rejects the idea that believers should continue in sin in order that grace may abound, and exhorts them to live consistently with the fact that they have died to sin."
This preserves the logical structure of Romans 6:1–2 without attributing to Paul a purpose statement that he does not make.
Conclusion
The criticism of the statement "Paul is simply giving an exhortation not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound" is that it does not accurately reflect the wording or argument of Romans 6:1–2. While Paul certainly exhorts believers not to continue in sin, the reason he explicitly gives is that believers are "dead to sin," whereas the phrase "that grace may abound" forms part of the rhetorical objection that Paul immediately rejects with the words "God forbid."
Exchange regarding Romans 6:1–2
In response to Jacksmack77's sermon Do People Only Believe Free Grace Because They Love to Sin?, Disciplemattias posted the following comment:
In this sermon, Jacksmack77 states:
"Paul is simply giving an exhortation not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound."
This statement does not reflect what Paul actually says in Romans 6:1–2. Paul never exhorts believers "not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound." Rather, he asks the rhetorical question, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" and immediately answers, "God forbid." He then gives his reason: "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
Jacksmack77 replied:
"A rhetorical question is purposed to make a statement. And the only way Paul was saying what you have inferred he was, is if no one sins ever. You stupid, unsaved, works-trusting devil!!!!"
The disagreement concerns the interpretation of Romans 6:1–2.
The criticism raised by Disciplemattias was not that Christians never sin, nor that Romans 6 teaches sinless perfection. Rather, it concerned the wording of Jacksmack77's paraphrase of the passage.
In the sermon, Jacksmack77 stated:
"Paul is simply giving an exhortation not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound."
The criticism is that Paul never gives "so that grace may abound" as the reason for his exhortation. In Romans 6:1–2, the phrase "that grace may abound" appears in Paul's rhetorical question:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
Paul immediately rejects the proposition with the words "God forbid" and instead gives his reason for rejecting continued sin: "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
Jacksmack77's reply argues that a rhetorical question is intended to make a statement. However, this does not directly address the criticism. The issue raised was not whether Romans 6 contains an exhortation against continuing in sin, but whether Paul ever states that believers should "not keep sinning, so that grace will abound." According to the criticism, Paul's stated reason is that believers are dead to sin, whereas "that grace may abound" belongs to the rejected rhetorical question rather than to the exhortation itself.
Thus, the disagreement concerns the interpretation of Paul's wording and argument, rather than whether Christians continue to sin after salvation.
Reflection on false accusation
Following the exchange regarding Romans 6:1–2, Disciplemattias reflected on the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:11:
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."
and the words of the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 4:14:
"If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you..."
Disciplemattias maintained that his original comment did not advocate works salvation, nor did it deny salvation by grace through faith. Rather, it was a textual criticism of Jacksmack77's paraphrase of Romans 6:1–2. Nevertheless, Jacksmack77 replied by calling him an "unsaved, works-trusting devil."
From Disciplemattias' perspective, this constituted a false accusation, since the original comment made no statement that implied a works-based gospel or that he was unsaved. As a result, he regarded the exchange as an occasion to reflect upon Christ's teaching concerning those who are falsely accused for His name's sake.
Disciplemattias concluded that if a person is falsely accused while seeking to uphold the wording of Scripture and the gospel of grace, then the promises of Matthew 5:11 and 1 Peter 4:14 provide encouragement to endure such reproach with joy rather than resentment.
Reflection on Romans 6 and the new creature
Following the exchange regarding Romans 6:1–2, Disciplemattias reflected further on the passage and concluded that the disagreement was not necessarily about whether Christians continue to commit sinful acts, but about the believer's identity after the new birth.
Disciplemattias noted that describing Romans 6:1 as a "rhetorical question" is itself an interpretation of Paul's wording. While Paul asks:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"
he immediately replies:
"God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
According to this interpretation, Paul's answer does not necessarily teach sinless perfection, but may instead point to the believer's new identity in Christ.
Drawing upon passages such as Romans 7, 2 Corinthians 5:17, and 1 John 3:9, Disciplemattias argued that the born-again believer has become a new creature through the indwelling Holy Ghost. Although the flesh continues to commit sinful acts, the new man is no longer identified with those sins before God. The believer has received the imputed righteousness of Christ and has been spiritually separated from the flesh through the new birth.
From this perspective, statements such as "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" and "God forbid" are understood in light of what God has accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The believer's standing before God has fundamentally changed, not because the flesh has become incapable of sinning, but because the believer has been united to Christ and is no longer defined by the sins of the flesh.
According to this understanding, the criticism of Jacksmack77's paraphrase of Romans 6:1–2 was not based on a belief that Christians attain practical sinless perfection. Rather, it was based on the view that Paul's argument concerns the believer's new identity in Christ and the doctrine of imputed righteousness, rather than an exhortation "not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound."
Romans 5–6, imputed righteousness, and the rhetorical question
Following the exchange regarding Romans 6:1–2, Disciplemattias further reflected that his use of the term "rhetorical question" should not be understood as implying sinless perfection or a denial of imputed righteousness.
The Epistle to the Romans was originally written as a continuous letter without chapter divisions. Consequently, Romans 6 immediately follows Paul's discussion of justification, reconciliation, and the abundance of grace in Romans 5. Paul concludes the chapter by stating:
"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."
Disciplemattias argued that Romans 6 should therefore be interpreted in the context of Paul's preceding discussion of the believer's standing before God.
According to this interpretation, describing Paul's words in Romans 6:1 as a rhetorical question merely recognizes the literary form of the passage. It does not, by itself, determine the theological explanation for why Paul answers, "God forbid." The term "rhetorical question" does not inherently deny the doctrines of imputed righteousness, the new birth, or the believer's union with Christ.
Disciplemattias further noted that many Independent Baptist and dispensational teachers have emphasized the distinction between the believer's new man and the flesh. According to this understanding, the born-again believer possesses the imputed righteousness of Christ and has become a new creature through the indwelling Holy Ghost. Although the flesh continues to commit sinful acts, the believer's standing before God is no longer defined by those sins because he has been justified and spiritually united with Christ.
From this perspective, the criticism of Jacksmack77's paraphrase was not an argument against grace, eternal security, or imputed righteousness. Rather, it was a textual observation that Paul does not state, "Do not keep sinning, so that grace will abound." Instead, Paul asks, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" and then answers, "God forbid."
Disciplemattias concluded that his use of the expression "rhetorical question" did not logically imply a works-salvation position or the doctrine of practical sinless perfection. Instead, he maintained that Romans 6 can be understood consistently with the doctrine of imputed righteousness when read in continuity with the closing argument of Romans 5.
Possible connection to the Hyper-Grace controversy
After further reflection, Disciplemattias proposed an alternative explanation for Jacksmack77's response to the criticism of Romans 6:1–2.
Rather than viewing the exchange primarily as a dispute over the wording of Romans 6, Disciplemattias suggested that Jacksmack77 may have interpreted the comment through the broader theological controversy between Free Grace theology and the Hyper-Grace movement.
Jacksmack77 has repeatedly criticized what he identifies as the Hyper-Grace movement, arguing that although salvation is entirely by grace through faith alone, believers still experience temporal consequences for sin, including divine chastisement, loss of testimony, and, in some cases, physical death. According to this understanding, passages exhorting believers to avoid sin should not be interpreted as teaching that grace removes all earthly consequences of sinful conduct.
Disciplemattias observed that his original comment focused narrowly on the wording of Romans 6:1–2:
In this sermon, Jacksmack77 states:
"Paul is simply giving an exhortation not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound."
This statement does not reflect what Paul actually says in Romans 6:1–2. Paul never exhorts believers "not to keep sinning, so that grace will abound." Rather, he asks the rhetorical question, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" and immediately answers, "God forbid." He then gives his reason: "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
Upon further consideration, Disciplemattias suggested that Jacksmack77's statement may not have been intended as a literal paraphrase of Romans 6:1–2, but rather as a general summary of Paul's teaching that believers should avoid sin because sin carries consequences, even after salvation. Such an understanding would be consistent with passages concerning divine chastisement, church discipline, and biblical examples such as David and Samson.
Disciplemattias also noted that the Epistle to the Romans was originally written without chapter divisions. Consequently, Romans 6 follows immediately after Paul's statement:
"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."
He suggested that one possible point of disagreement concerns the interpretation of this statement. According to this hypothesis, Jacksmack77 may understand Romans 5:20 primarily as referring to the accomplishment of the gospel through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, rather than as teaching that believers receive increasing grace in response to post-conversion sins. If so, Jacksmack77 may have interpreted the criticism as reflecting a Hyper-Grace reading of the passage rather than as a textual observation regarding Romans 6:1–2.
Disciplemattias emphasized that this remains a possible explanation rather than a demonstrated fact. Nevertheless, he considered it a more coherent account of the exchange than the assumption that the disagreement arose solely from the wording of a single verse.
Possible influence of previous conflicts
Another possible explanation proposed by Disciplemattias for Jacksmack77's response concerns the history of previous disagreements between the two.
Before the Romans 6 exchange, Disciplemattias had made critical statements about Jacksmack77 in videos whose titles were generally Bible Study. The critical expressions were made within the videos and were not used as their titles.
Among the statements made by Disciplemattias were that "Jacksmack is a retard," that Jacksmack77 could be a reprobate, and criticism of what Disciplemattias described as "the god of Jacksmack," including reference to a Calvinistic representation of God. Disciplemattias also made a video statement describing Jacksmack77 as "being an unsaved devil by attacking the Free Grace preaching Disciplemattias."
Disciplemattias later reflected that, regardless of the theological arguments surrounding those statements, such language may have personally offended Jacksmack77. He therefore considered the possibility that Jacksmack77's later response to the Romans 6 comment was influenced not only by the immediate textual disagreement but also by the history of earlier criticism.
In this connection, Disciplemattias reflected upon Proverbs 18:19 (KJV):
"A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle."
According to this possible interpretation, if Jacksmack77 had become offended by the earlier statements, later comments from Disciplemattias may have been interpreted through that existing conflict rather than considered only on their immediate merits. A narrow criticism of the wording used in relation to Romans 6:1–2 could therefore have been understood as another act of opposition.
Disciplemattias emphasized that this remains a possible explanation rather than an established account of Jacksmack77's motives. Nevertheless, Proverbs 18:19 was considered relevant because it describes how an earlier offense can produce barriers that make later reconciliation or objective discussion more difficult.
AI Disclosure: Parts of this page may have been created, edited, or assisted by artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT or other language models). All AI-assisted content is reviewed by a human before publication. For questions, contact the site administrator.