It does not matter to a willingly ignorant man.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Romans 7:14-25
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
It does not matter to a willingly ignorant man.
What translation are you quoting from or are you making up your own as you go?
You are incapable of rightly dividing the Word of God and it is self-evident. No amount of Biblical evidence will change your corrupted mind. So it is waste of time to even comment on your absurd remarks.
I have read your advertisement of pure ignorance!
I am explaining to you the scriptures. Now stop only posting to insult me. You do not even include scripture, or anything of the topic, only insults, this should not be.
I have dealt with your ilk many times. It would do no good to offer you a mountain of Biblical evidence against your theory simply because your mind is already made up and you will reject anything and everything presented. So why waste my time? To anyone who has spiritual eyes to see, your error of interpretation of Galatians 5:17 is glaring.
First, we have no basis for discussion, because you restrict the discussion to whatever translation you arbritrarily choose while arbritrarily rejecting any other translation.
Second, you arbitrary selection of a translation is based upon pure ignorance as you have no basis except your own subjective speculations that you arrogantly believe come from God.
Third, you have total disregard for God's Word as God gave it in Greek and Hebrew.
Hence, there is no basis for us to discuss anything RATIONAL!
I am so glad that we agree about Romans 7 being a person who is not yet saved. For Paul to claim, as a Christian, that he could not do the good he wanted to do but only the evil he did not want to do, is definitely about Paul before he was saved.
I understand what Biblicist is claiming. He is claiming that Romans 7 is just about Paul explaining the saved man and the constant battle between the will of the flesh WHILE being a saved person. I do not agree with this at all. I know personally that Biblicist is wrong, for the old sins I used to have do not tempt me anymore at all as they had before I was saved. The Bible tells us “Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God.” According to Biblicists beliefs, even the saved will always have evil human desires. In addition, the Bible tells us, “because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.” Biblicist has Paul giving the freed believer a condition in which it is a struggle, a struggle that believers lose. So much for being freed from sin if it is still a constant struggle not to sin. God called us to live in peace. How much peace is there in Biblicists beliefs? I see no peace in Biblicists understanding.
I would like to hear more about what you are explaining here about the flesh.
It does not matter which English translation you want to use. You are wrong about Galatians 5 and Romans 7. Galatians 5 is about people who are saved and WANT to do BAD but will NOT. Romans 7 is about someone who is not saved and WANTS to do GOOD and CANNOT.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
If your interpretation were correct then there is no need for the first phrase "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh" because you are interpreting the last phrase as though that sentence makes no difference - the child of God does what is right.
The first phrase describes the problem WHY the child of God "cannot do the things they would do". However, your interpretation makes the first sentence completely unnecessary even for Paul to say.
The man in Romans 7 wishes to do good but can't do to a lack of power not due to a lack of desire because by desire he "delights" in the law of God.
Your interpetation is so obviously wrong. However, if you had spiritual capability to discern truth we would not be having this converstation and so obviously you are a spiritual blind man who will mock at any evidence given you.
I have nothing more to say to you.
Now read scripture 16 before 17...
16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Paul is speaking about walking in the Spirit and then we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh…the Spirit is against the flesh, so that you cannot do the things that you would, IF you were not walking after the flesh. This is about NOT sinning. This is about NOT doing the SIN. In contrast, Romans 7, it is about not being able to do good. It is about the unsaved person not being able to do good.
No, I am not interpreting the way you are saying. You are discounting the scripture just before it, and that is about WALKING IN THE SPIRIT. You are the one who is interpreting the last phrase as though the scripture before it makes no difference. The child of God is supposed to do what is right. The child of God is supposed to walk after the Spirit, and if walking after the Spirit, then we will not do the BAD that we wanted to do.
The first phrase does NOT describe why the child of God cannot do the things they want to do!
The first phrase describes a child of God who is thinking about his desires of the flesh, it is not unnecessary for Paul to say that. That is your misunderstanding.
He cannot do the good because he does not have the power, because he does NOT yet have the Spirit! You just said he has no power. However, a saved person has the power of the Holy Spirit to help him not sin.
You falsely judge me. You are guilty of the very thing you falsely judge me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Verse 16 means nothing to you, because you don't believe a child of God can "fulfil the lust of the flesh" anyway, so why does Paul even both to say "walk in the Spirit" because according to your theology Children of God always walk in the Spirit. Hence, Paul's exhortation is a waste of time.
Verse 17 means nothing to you as you deny that within a child of God there is anything called "the flesh" that "lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh" - you deny such a state of war within children of God. You deny there is anything like this existing in a child of God that is "contrary the one to the other." All this is meaningless to your theory as the child of God always walks in the Spirit and so the last part of this verse is perverted by you to simply mean the child of God always lustest for Good that he wants to do rather than "YE CANNOT DO the things ye would."
Why am I wasting my time on you? You couldn't see the broad side of a barn if it was stuck in front of your nose!
According to you children of God ALWAYS "walk in the Spirit" as you make that synonmous with "live in the Spirit" and so Paul wastes his breath by exhorting them:
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
The first phrase refers to our spiritual life while the second phrase refers to our daily life or walk. The words "let us also" demonstrates that a child of God can be spiritually alive but not walking in the Spirit but walking after the flesh and fulfilling the flesh.
However, you have no ability whatsoever to be objective with the scripture or any desire for truth but only to defend your fabricated false doctrine.
After Romans 3:9-20 "the law of God" or "the law" comprehends the righteous demands of God or the standard of God's righteousness regardless if it is expressed by Moses or by conscience.
I have not been following this thread, and am not about to read through 17 pages of material. But I do know this much, Romans chapter 7 is Paul's testimony. The first person singular is used throughout the entire chapter. In it he describes the battle that he, as a saved individual, has with the old nature. Every believer has this battle. We have a new nature and an old nature. They are in constant conflict with each other. This is what Paul was describing here. At the end of the chapter he gives the answer, that is where glorious triumph over the old nature comes from. In no way does this chapter refer nor can refer to an unsaved man.
Consider this text from Romans 7:
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
There is a strong sense of a duality here; Paul clearly discerns some kind of struggle between two elements that are, in some sense at least, “within” him. There should be no controversy that there is indeed such a duality at play. Fine.
Now here is where the controversy lies: identifying what, exactly, these two warring “things” really are.
Many, perhaps most, see the two elements as comprising the following aspects (or dimensions or parts) of a Christian:
1. A physical body that still struggles with sin;
2. A non-physical “soul” that has been redeemed.
And so these two parts of the Christian fight with each other. I think there are problems with this position precisely because (1) scripture nowhere countenances such a distinction, and it is only embraced because of the west’s implicit adoption of Greek ideas about such a distinction; (2) a careful reading of the text, honouring what Paul actually writes, does not support it; (3) we know from other places in Romans that it simply not possible that any “part” of the Christian is in the sad state of the person in Romans 7. I plan to provide the relevant arguments for these problems in subsequent posts.
I suggest the following way of understanding this duality:
1. The “I” in Romans 7 is the entire person – there is no “splitting” of the human person into parts going on here (and yes, I am fully aware that Paul refers to his “flesh” – I will argue later that this does not entail an ontological distinction between “body” and “soul”);
2. The other party in the duality is essentially the power of evil.
Again, the arguments for this will need to wait.
But a critical item of method needs to be underscored: it is simply illegitimate to presume the nature of the two parties at conflict in this passage – one needs to make an actual case for how one identifies the two participants in the battle outlined in the passage.
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
There is a strong sense of a duality here; Paul clearly discerns some kind of struggle between two elements that are, in some sense at least, “within” him. There should be no controversy that there is indeed such a duality at play. Fine.
Now here is where the controversy lies: identifying what, exactly, these two warring “things” really are.
Many, perhaps most, see the two elements as comprising the following aspects (or dimensions or parts) of a Christian:
1. A physical body that still struggles with sin;
2. A non-physical “soul” that has been redeemed.
And so these two parts of the Christian fight with each other. I think there are problems with this position precisely because (1) scripture nowhere countenances such a distinction, and it is only embraced because of the west’s implicit adoption of Greek ideas about such a distinction; (2) a careful reading of the text, honouring what Paul actually writes, does not support it; (3) we know from other places in Romans that it simply not possible that any “part” of the Christian is in the sad state of the person in Romans 7. I plan to provide the relevant arguments for these problems in subsequent posts.
I suggest the following way of understanding this duality:
1. The “I” in Romans 7 is the entire person – there is no “splitting” of the human person into parts going on here (and yes, I am fully aware that Paul refers to his “flesh” – I will argue later that this does not entail an ontological distinction between “body” and “soul”);
2. The other party in the duality is essentially the power of evil.
Again, the arguments for this will need to wait.
But a critical item of method needs to be underscored: it is simply illegitimate to presume the nature of the two parties at conflict in this passage – one needs to make an actual case for how one identifies the two participants in the battle outlined in the passage.
I suggest this is really not workable. Please engage the following argument:
1. The person described in Romans 7 is experiencing a "law" of sin that leads to death:
but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
2. The Christian in Romans 8 is described as having been set free from from this law of sin and death.
2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death
3. If the position that the person in Romans 7 is a Christian is correct, - then we have the following statements:
a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)
b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)
These statements are inconsistent. Therefore, assuming we agree that the statement from Romans 8 is about the Christian, the Romans 7 cannot be descriptive of the experience of the Christian - one cannot be both subject to the effects of a law and yet also released from its effect.
I am prepared to argue that Pual is not actually referring to himself, even though, of course, he uses the "I" pronoun so many times.
A key point: It is manifestly incorrect to use the argument that "I" must, by the very meaing of the pronoun "I", refer to Paul the individual. This argument, although used often, is simply untrue to the demonstrable fact that literary device is used at many places in the Scriptures. Because this is so, one simply presume a "literalist" use of "I" to refer to Paul himself.
Having said this, I am, of course, required to make an actual case that the "I" here does not, in fact, refer to Paul. I am willing and able to do so, but not in this post.
I agree that this is essentially the position that Biblicist is taking. However, I think it ultimately cannot work for reasons I have only begun to elaborate. Please stay tuned for a more full explanation of this, if you are open to a new way of understanding what Paul really means by references to "the flesh". I am awfully busy at work, so my posting may be somewhat spotty, at least for a while.
From Romans 7:
19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
Paul's is talking about his entire person - he is saying that "both spirit and body" practice evil. If Paul, in verse 18, is saying that only his physicality is tainted, then the reader will be left wondering why his "spirit" cannot overcome this purely physical drive to sin. What kind of Christian is in such a horrible state? No - the entire person is at issue here.
At the risk appealing to authority, I believe that scholars are fairly unanimous on this issue - Paul does not use the word "sarx" simply to refer to "physicality", he more typically uses the word "soma" for that.
Paul even uses "sarx" to refer to the nation of Israel in some places (like Galatians 5).
19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
Paul's is talking about his entire person - he is saying that "both spirit and body" practice evil. If Paul, in verse 18, is saying that only his physicality is tainted, then the reader will be left wondering why his "spirit" cannot overcome this purely physical drive to sin. What kind of Christian is in such a horrible state? No - the entire person is at issue here.
At the risk appealing to authority, I believe that scholars are fairly unanimous on this issue - Paul does not use the word "sarx" simply to refer to "physicality", he more typically uses the word "soma" for that.
Paul even uses "sarx" to refer to the nation of Israel in some places (like Galatians 5).
I think you are missing some finer points. The emphatic "I" denies responsibility for the rise of sin within his being but places that responsibillity squarely upon the union of indwelling law of sin "in my flesh." In addition the emphatic "I" is placed in harmony with not merely with the "law of God" but with the law of God that is in union with "the inward man."
Hence, the emphatic "I' stands between two unions. The union of the law of sin with the flesh and the union of the law of God with the inward man. It is the emphatic "I" that is the battle ground of contention between the outward and inward union with opposing laws.
These opposing parties in struggle over the emphatic "I" is exactly what Paul describes in Galatians 5:16-17.
Far too simplistic and far from the reality being expressed in this text. The Physical body is not viewed by Paul simply as "material" in this context but rather in union with the "law of sin" or under the operational dominion of that principle of indwelling sin. Neither is the inward man viewed simply as non-physical but rather in union with "the law of God" or under the operational dominion of that priniciple of indwelling righteousness. Thus two OPERATING PRINCIPLES at work vying to rule over the emphatic "I". Both "lusting" control over the emphatic "I." This is not a battle of mere material verus immaterial, as you would like to represent it, but a battle between two operational laws at work in the redeemed man where one has its seat of operation "in my flesh" whereas the other has its seat of operation in "the inward man."
This state is a consequence of the fact that redemption is not completed act but in stages. Not all of human nature has been "born of God" but only that which is spirit has been born of God. The body therefore remains under the reign and rule of death and will eventually die. What has been born of God ("what born of flesh is flesh but what is born of Spirit is spirit") has been renewed in the image of God in true holiness and righteousness (Eph. 4:24) for the express purpose to serve as the sanctuary in man where the Spirit of God dwells and works in union in this warefare against the flesh as the seat of the law of sin.
Part of the reason that you reject this is because you have a faulty view of the nature of the lost man. You do not see the lost man in complete bondage to sin or under the reign of sin but rather see fallen man still free from complete bondage of sin and that is precisely why you interpet this passage as you do. Your view is mistaken.
- Status