The immediate context of Romans 5:17,18 is Paul's argument against the Judaizers. Paul was reasoning with Jews about the role of the Law. Paul was not informing Gentiles they no longer were obligated to behave righteously.

Now we must consult the larger context.

The main question is, are we safe in concluding we are saved by the gift of Divine grace independently of a change of behavior on our part?

The larger context consists of the entire Scriptures, all of which thunder "God would never issue a covenant that does not require obedience to His commandments!"

However, we need go no further than the sixth chapter of Romans. Apparently Paul recognized that his arguments against the Judaizers could be used as a license to sin. The sixth chapter of Romans is a refutation of today's doctrine that faith in Christ frees us from the obligation to keep the moral law.

Now, there must be no confusion here. It is not enough to say "we stand in grace but we ought to try to do good." It is this kind of sloppy thinking that has destroyed the churches in America.

Either our acceptability to God depends on a change in our personality or it does not.

Either there are spiritually fatal consequences to not abiding in Christ or there are not.

Either a new righteous creation is an absolutely essential and integral aspect of salvation or it is not!

Either we shall surely die or we shall not surely die!

There can be no compromise here if we are to arrive at truth!

What, then, does Paul state in the sixth chapter of the Book of Romans?

In the sixth chapter of Romans Paul states clearly and unequivocally that the Christian (not the unsaved but the Christian) has the opportunity to choose to be the slave of sin or the slave of righteousness.

If the Christian chooses to be the slave of sin he or she will reap death.

If the Christian chooses to be the slave of righteousness he or she will reap eternal life.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (Romans 6:1)

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Romans 6:6)

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. (Romans 6:12)

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Romans 6:16)

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. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:20-23)

How could anyone claim these passages are not addressed to Christians?

How could anyone claim these passages do not state that the choice is ours whether to obey righteousness and live or to obey sin and die?

If this is the case, then the conclusion drawn from the earlier chapters of Romans that the gift of Divine grace does not require a corresponding change in our personality toward righteous behavior is ruled out.

Considering the immediate context we must say the argument is pointed primarily toward Jews, telling them they can be righteous apart from the works of the Law of Moses.

Considering a slightly enlarged context we must say the conclusion that the gift of Divine grace does not necessitate righteous behavior if eternal life is to be gained is ruled out.

To be continued.