Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
He says Romans 6:16 implies humans are “moral agents but not free agents,” created to have masters and to “choose who [their] master is going to be” through obedience; how would early Christians—who openly called themselves “slaves of Christ”—have heard that, and what parts of contemporary Christianity resist that slave/master framework?
Another way to ask: If Romans 6 means we can choose our master but are never truly masterless, how would early Christians who called themselves “slaves of Christ” have heard that? What parts of Christianity today push back against the slave/master idea?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s use of Romans 6:16, early Christians would likely have recognized the slave/master framework as normal Christian self-understanding: you belong to the one you obey. The transcript implies contemporary resistance comes from the desire to view the self as autonomous—wanting Jesus’ benefits without the language of mastery and obedience.
- He quotes Romans 6:16 to define identity through obedience: you are “slaves to obey…whether of sin…or of obedience leading to righteousness.”
- He states bluntly: “man was not created to be a free agent…All men were created to have masters.”
- He notes this is “a very unpopular opinion,” suggesting modern listeners instinctively reject it.
- He keeps a place for responsibility: free will means “the power to choose who his master is going to be.”
- The later destiny section reinforces the categories: some die as “children of Satan…slaves to the father of lies,” others are forgiven and become heirs in Christ’s kingdom.