In anticipation of such, Paul said, "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?" In so doing, Paul is addressing the notion that - if salvation is entirely of God in that it came to us when we were "yet without strength" and "ungodly" (Rom 5:6), then why not just "sin up a storm" so that grace will all the more abound? (Rom 5:20) His answer establishes that this antinomian response is as incorrect as it is anticipated. Perhaps more interesting is the question of whether Paul's expected reaction could be logically expected in response to the "gospels" we find in the Christian marketplace today. Consider the following:
Q: Could anyone ever legitimately accuse the works salvation of Arminianism of antinomianism?
A: No. If one must DO something for salvation, then they must not be entirely against the notion of law.
Q: Could anyone ever legitimately accuse Lordship Salvationists of antinomianism?
A: No. Since they must prove their total commitment through obedience or else be declared a dead-faith, false convert, they cannot be regarded as antinomian.
Examples could be multiplied but I would summarize the point with the following statement:
If the gospel you preach has never resulted in an accusation of antinomianism, it is entirely possible that the gospel you are preaching is NOT the gospel of sovereign grace taught by the apostle Paul, because he both anticipated this reaction and built an argument against it in Romans 6.
Primitive Baptists are no strangers to the accusation of antinomianism. It is because we preach the same gospel that Paul preached.