Romans 7:14-25

[The Biblicist]

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 am willing and able to prove that the idea of merely a literary use of "I" has no contextual basis but is a prodigy of your presumptive interpretational bias of this chapter.

The emphatic "I" is the conscious self of Paul in his attempt to steer a course according to what He delights in union with his "inward man" but simply lacks "will power" to accomplish that desire - v. 18

The conscious self refers to his conscious intellectual, emotional and volitional self. When he sets this conscious self upon things above (Eph. 5:1) and submits to the power of the indwelling Spirit his actual life reflects the desires of his "inward man." However, when he sets his conscious self upon things below (James 3:15-16) then his actual life reflects the desires of the law of sin in his flesh. This is the same struggle presented in James 3:15-17 and Galatians 5:16-25 and in many other places in scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Wrong! You have conveniently separated this section of scripture from its context. Previously, he made a clear distinction of responsibility in regard to the rise of sin in his whole person and restricted it to but one aspect rather than the whole person. He does this with explicit precision "that is in my flesh" in union with indwelling sin. After making this internal distinction within his person he then proceeds in the text you hand selected to explain what he means by the last phrase of verse 18. The emphatic "I" is the conscious self of Paul that is the object of contrasting principles which wish to dominate it and without reliance upon the powr of the Indwelling Spirit is dominated by the power of indwelling sin. Walking in the Spirit is a conscious determinate yeilding to His power rather than your own will power (v. 18; Rom. 8:12-13).

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.

Not so! He is not merely claiming that his flesh is "tainted" but so dominated that there is NOTHING GOOD whatsover about it but that it is sold under sin and will die and so it shall. Hence there is no partial "taint" at all being implied here but WHOLESALE DOMINATION of "my flesh" by indwelling sin in so much that there is NOTHING GOOD that can be derived from it.

However, this is not true of the emphatic "I" or the conscious self which does aspire to "good" and "Delights" in that which is good. Neither is that true of Pauls "inward man" as that aspact of his nature is completely dominated by good and righteousness. The duality is so defined that in regard to His whole person without recourse to the indwelling Spirit of God that with his flesh he will continue to serve the law of sin and with his mind he will continue to serve the law of God. There is no truce nor is there any cooperation between the two. For one to live the other must die. It is only through the power of the indwelling Spirit that the law of sin or sin operating in the flesh can be mortified or put to death so that the life of Christ can be manifested in the daily life.

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.

Your error here is that simply the term "flesh" does not rightly represent Paul's view here. It is the "flesh" in union with "the law of sin" that rightly represents his view. This peice meal approach will only distort and misrepresent what Paul is actually saying.

 

[Moriah]

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.

Romans chapter 7 is Paul’s testimony, which starts out about his life BEFORE Jesus saved him. Romans 7 is not about Paul as a saved individual, for he speaks about when he tried to follow the law. Paul says he cannot do the good he wants to do, but only the evil he does not want to do. That is not about a Christian. People's testimonies always start out about their life before they are saved. You cannot speak for every believer’s battle. I am a new creation my old nature is dead. They are not in constant conflict with each other. That might be your testimony, but it is not mine. I do not mind repeating everything for you here, since you did not read any of the past posts. Again, Paul was speaking about his condition before Jesus saved him.

 

[Andre]

I am willing and able to prove that the idea of merely a literary use of "I" has no contextual basis but is a prodigy of your presumptive interpretational bias of this chapter.

Paul uses the "I" in Romans 7 to identify himself with Israel - remember his grief expressed in Romans 9. If Paul wants to make an argument about Israel being in slavery to sin here – and I think that he does – the last thing he wants to do is use the term “they” with the strong implication of himself, as a Christian, standing over against them. They are his people and he does not to drive a wedge between himself and them. Thus the use of the “I”.

But there are other more compelling reasons to see that Paul is not speaking of himself as an individual but rather as a representative of his people, Israel:

I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

Paul refers to the event "when the commandment came". That is a clear reference to Sinai and the delivery of the Torah to Moses, more than 1000 years before Paul was even born. You effectively have him saying "when I developed awareness of the commandment". But that is not what Paul is saying - beware the tendency to deform what Paul is saying.

A reference to the commandment "coming" means what it means – a commandment being delivered. And that happened at Sinai (e.g. “do not covet” as part of the 10 commandments), not in Paul’s lifetime. If Paul had meant to say "when I became aware of the commandment", that's what he would have said. Would we say “when the commandment to not hit our brother came” to denote our developing awareness, say at age 8, that it was not OK to hit our baby brother? No, we would not, and neither does Paul.

The reader may object that I am being too strict here and that Paul could have used such an expression to denote the moment when he became aware of the law. Fine. But this text clearly cannot work with the notion that the “I” is Paul as an individual:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

If the "I" here is Paul we have a huge problem. Note the tense. Paul, in the present as he writes Romans 7 is a wretched man who needs rescue? Of course not - Paul in the present has already been rescued (see Romans 8). I suggest this text alone undermines the possibility that the “I” in Romans 7 is Paul the individual.

But note how this problem disappears if we understand the "I" to be the nation of Israel - even as Paul writes, almost all of them stand outside of the gospel, needing rescue from death as the text says.

I suspect that you will suggest that I am guilty of the very same deforming of Paul’s words that I have criticized when I suggest that Paul uses the term "I" to denote the nation of Israel. Well, we have evidence of Paul using a reference to a single Jew in order to actually refer to the whole nation:

So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

This is an argument about one Gentile and one Jew - at least literally. And yet it is otherwise clear that the Jew here being judged is a representative of Jews in general.

So there is indeed precedent for Paul speaking this way.

 

[Moriah]

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.

I am very interested in what you have to say about what Paul means concerning the flesh. I will be checking from time to time for your posts.
Of course, I agree with your excellent explanation of Romans 7, and I hope we will have many more agreements.

 

[Andre]

Wrong! You have conveniently separated this section of scripture from its context. Previously, he made a clear distinction of responsibility in regard to the rise of sin in his whole person and restricted it to but one aspect rather than the whole person.

You are begging the question at issue by assuming the very thing you need to make a case for - namely that "flesh" denotes a "part" of the human person, when, of course, and in keeping with other uses of the term "flesh" by Paul, he could be using the term to refer to himself, in his entirety - as a fallen human being.

 

[Andre]

Not so! He is not merely claiming that his flesh is "tainted" but so dominated that there is NOTHING GOOD whatsover about it but that it is sold under sin and will die and so it shall.

No. This is not true to the actual details of the text.

18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

The duality position cannot be sustained in light of this text. Consider the statement "I have the desire to do good". From the duality position, this “I” is Paul's "spirit" which serves the law of God. Fine. Now what does Paul say next? He asserts "but I cannot carry it out". Paul is talking about a limitation on his ability to act in the world. On the duality position, we have a Christian with a spirit that wants to do good, but with fallen Adamic flesh that prevents any of the desires of the "spirit" from actually being carried out.

This amounts to a declaration that a Christian is hopelessly stuck in a state where they cannot do good. And that is clearly impossible - Paul cannot be describing a Christian here, even if the duality position is entertained.

Same thing with verse19 - Paul says that the "I" does only evil. How can this "I" possibly be a Christian? Are all acts of Christians evil? Obviously not.

The "I" of Romans 7 cannot be a Christian experiencing a battle between the old “flesh” nature and the new “spiritual” nature.

 

[Andre]

Of course, I agree with your excellent explanation of Romans 7, and I hope we will have many more agreements.

I hope we will agree, but my position on Romans 7 is out of the general mainstream. As you will know if you have been reading my recent posts, I believe the "I" of Romans 7 is not even Paul the individual. This may seem odd since Paul uses "I". Fair enough - I have already made an argument to defend this admittedly unusual position. More will be coming (although perhaps not for a couple of days) - I am swamped at work.

In my defence, and to give appropriate credit, my position on the "I" in Romans 7 is based entirely on the work of respected British theologian NT Wright.

In any event, I am more than happy that you are reading my posts and at least giving open-minded consideration to what I am saying. I will endeavour to read your posts carefully as well.

 

[Andre]

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."

This begs the question yet again.

It is important that none of us simply assume the very things we need to make a case for. In this case, you assume that when Paul refers to his "flesh", he is referring to a "part" of himself.

I believe otherwise. And hitherto, I have really only asserted my position.

So we each have work to do - we each need to justify how we read "flesh" in Romans 7. Neither of us can simply assume our interpretation is correct.

Now, perhaps I have missed something. Perhaps, in some post somewhere in this thread, you provide a non-circular argument that "flesh" denotes only a "part" of Paul. Please point us to such an argument, if there is one.

 

[DHK]

I am a new creation my old nature is dead.

Is this an admission that you are sinless?

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[Moriah]

Is this an admission that you are sinless?

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Why do you keep asking me if I am sinless? You have asked me that before in another thread. I have only quoted scripture, so why do you have a problem with my quoting scripture? I am a new creation. I have died in the flesh. You have a problem with that then you have a problem with God.

 

[DHK]

Why do you keep asking me if I am sinless? You have asked me that before in another thread. I have only quoted scripture, so why do you have a problem with my quoting scripture? I am a new creation. I have died in the flesh. You have a problem with that then you have a problem with God.

You just denied that you have an old nature. You said you have only a new nature. The conclusion is that without the old nature, the new nature will not sin. Why should it? The reason that we are prone to sin is that we have a sin nature. Therefore why shouldn't you be sinless?

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul uses the "I" in Romans 7 to identify himself with Israel - remember his grief expressed in Romans 9. If Paul wants to make an argument about Israel being in slavery to sin here – and I think that he does – the last thing he wants to do is use the term “they” with the strong implication of himself, as a Christian, standing over against them. They are his people and he does not to drive a wedge between himself and them. Thus the use of the “I”.

This is plain conjecture without any basis from the context. Not one verse in this context even hints that Paul is personifying the nation of Israel. If this is the way you interpret scriptures then there is no hope of any kind of agreement. You cannot make leaps over two chapters dealing with entirely different subjects and read something like that back into a previous chapter when not one word even suggests it from the context of that previous chapter. This is absurd! In both cases he is expressing his own personal views but with two different topics. You are fabricating as you go - this is absurd!

But there are other more compelling reasons to see that Paul is not speaking of himself as an individual but rather as a representative of his people, Israel:

I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

Paul refers to the event "when the commandment came". That is a clear reference to Sinai and the delivery of the Torah to Moses, more than 1000 years before Paul was even born. You effectively have him saying "when I developed awareness of the commandment". But that is not what Paul is saying - beware the tendency to deform what Paul is saying.




A reference to the commandment "coming" means what it means – a commandment being delivered. And that happened at Sinai (e.g. “do not covet” as part of the 10 commandments), not in Paul’s lifetime. If Paul had meant to say "when I became aware of the commandment", that's what he would have said. Would we say “when the commandment to not hit our brother came” to denote our developing awareness, say at age 8, that it was not OK to hit our baby brother? No, we would not, and neither does Paul.

The subject material in Romans 7 is still in response to the question in Romans 6:1. There is not even a hint that Paul is dealing with any NATION in Romans 1-8. He has been and is dealing with PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL relationship to the law and grace and in particular what role the justified man has in relationship to the law and sin.

IF this the kind of interepretational nonsense you are going to resort to then you can make black mean white and hot mean cold. This is purely speculative alleogorical nonsense that has not one shred of contextual evidence.

The reader may object that I am being too strict here and that Paul could have used such an expression to denote the moment when he became aware of the law. Fine. But this text clearly cannot work with the notion that the “I” is Paul as an individual:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

If the "I" here is Paul we have a huge problem. Note the tense. Paul, in the present as he writes Romans 7 is a wretched man who needs rescue? Of course not - Paul in the present has already been rescued (see Romans 8). I suggest this text alone undermines the possibility that the “I” in Romans 7 is Paul the individual.

You are manufacturing a problem that exists nowhere but in your own mind simply because you refuse to acknowledge what the text literally states.

Common sense would dictate that if there is a civil war going on within a person who is impotent to do what he wants to do it would be a wreteched state. Moreover, he explicitly identifies the problem again that he needs deliverance from and it is not his whole person but "THIS BODY OF DEATH" or where the law of sin is operating.

Furthermore, this cry for deliverance is recognition that he has no power in and of himself to overcome the very problem he has so articulated to be indwelling sin in his flesh, my member, this body of death.

So when will Christ deliver the child of God from this body of death? At the future resurrection for sure. However, there is present deliverance that is not found with the emphatic "I" or the "inward man" but rather with the indwelling Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:12-13).

But note how this problem disappears if we understand the "I" to be the nation of Israel - even as Paul writes, almost all of them stand outside of the gospel, needing rescue from death as the text says.

This is so bizzare and contrary to the context that it needs little if any debate. In Romans 9 he tells you immediately he is speaking about Israel but in Romans 7 there is NOT ONE WORD. You are fabricating this concept in order to avoid the actual and literal wording of the text.

So there is indeed precedent for Paul speaking this way.

What right does the context give you to assume such a claim? There is not one syllable in this context to support such a wild claim. Provide a contextual basis that demands Paul cannot be speaking about the very person he claims to be speaking about - himself??????

 

[The Biblicist]

You are begging the question at issue by assuming the very thing you need to make a case for - namely that "flesh" denotes a "part" of the human person, when, of course, and in keeping with other uses of the term "flesh" by Paul, he could be using the term to refer to himself, in his entirety - as a fallen human being.

There is no assumption necessary as Paul explicitly and clearly states it in unambiguous terms.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Three times he emphatically states that there is "sin" dwelling "IN ME" and then he explicitly define where "in me" sin abides "that is IN MY FLESH" and throughout the context repeatedly states "IN MY MEMBERS" and "THIS BODY"

No assumption is necessary as Paul clearly and explicitly and literally states that there is an internal civil war within his nature and explicitly define what aspect he is talking about.

YOU ARE BEGGING THE ISSUE as you are denying what Paul explicitly and literally states to be fact.

 

[Moriah]

You just denied that you have an old nature. You said you have only a new nature. The conclusion is that without the old nature, the new nature will not sin. Why should it? The reason that we are prone to sin is that we have a sin nature. Therefore why shouldn't you be sinless?

You could not handle it when I said two things, that I was a new creation and dead in the flesh. What are you going to do after reading all these scriptures?

I am a new creation, the old has gone the new has come!

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

I was buried with him through baptism into death, I live a new life.

Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

My old self was crucified with him so my body of sin might be done away with. I am no longer a slave to sin.

Romans 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin--

I have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

Galatians 5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

I do not live according to the sinful nature. By the Spirit I put to death the misdeeds of the body.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

I put to death whatever belongs to my earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed.

Colossians 3:5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

 

[The Biblicist]

No. This is not true to the actual details of the text.

18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Now you gone from personification and ignoring the literal text to changing it to suite yourself and your imposed interpretation. The Greek word is "sarx" or "in my sarx" and the context repeats it differently so there can be no mistake what he means "in my MEMBERS" and "THIS BODY" and "with the flesh." Hence, there can be no mistake about that the physical body in union with the principle of indwelling sin is real and in veiw here.

The duality position cannot be sustained in light of this text. Consider the statement "I have the desire to do good". From the duality position, this “I” is Paul's "spirit" which serves the law of God. Fine. Now what does Paul say next? He asserts "but I cannot carry it out". Paul is talking about a limitation on his ability to act in the world. On the duality position, we have a Christian with a spirit that wants to do good, but with fallen Adamic flesh that prevents any of the desires of the "spirit" from actually being carried out.

This amounts to a declaration that a Christian is hopelessly stuck in a state where they cannot do good. And that is clearly impossible - Paul cannot be describing a Christian here, even if the duality position is entertained.

You are manufacturing a problem that does not exist IF you stay with the context. The emphatic "I" represents Paul's conscious self and this is seen in the terms that modify it "desire" and "will." The conscious self (intellect, will and emotions) desires "good" in connection with the "inward man" or that which God has created in true holiness and righteousness (Eph. 4:24).

The problem is spelled out repeatedly and it is the expression "I would" and "I would not" or the impotence of the human will (v. 18 - "to will is present with me but HOW to perform I find not". This is the frustration of attempting to overcome sin by your own WILL POWER rather than by another INDWELLING POWER which is discussed in Romans 8:1-13.

Same thing with verse19 - Paul says that the "I" does only evil. How can this "I" possibly be a Christian? Are all acts of Christians evil? Obviously not.

The "I" of Romans 7 cannot be a Christian experiencing a battle between the old “flesh” nature and the new “spiritual” nature.

Again, your failing to consider the details of this context. It is the "flesh" that Paul explicitly says there is no good not the emphatic "I." On the contrary the emphatic "I" is repeatedly said to choose good but simply lacks power to overcome indwelling sin in the flesh. It is "the flesh" that is purely devoted to evil and in which there is NOTHING GOOD, not the emphatic "I." To the contrary the emphatic "I" always struggles to do good and always struggles against evil but fails because "to will is present but HOW to perform I find not" because Paul is looking to his own WILL POWER - ("I would....I would not...").

There is a external union between "my members" and the indwelling principle of sin and an internal union between the principle of righteousness (the law of God) and the "inward man" and the emphatic "I" stands in between - the conscious self.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why do you keep asking me if I am sinless? You have asked me that before in another thread. I have only quoted scripture, so why do you have a problem with my quoting scripture? I am a new creation. I have died in the flesh. You have a problem with that then you have a problem with God.

If you are a new creation and you have died in the flesh, then, does the new creation sin? IF not then, can you resurrect what you have died to or the flesh and can it sin? Where would sin come from IF you do sin? If it cannot come from the new creation and if it cannot come from what has died in the flesh, then where can it come from?


Can you answer these questions without simply quoting scriptures? If you are going to quote scriptures can you apply them to each question so as to answer the question? Or do you simply wish to play games???

 

[DHK]

You could not handle it when I said two things, that I was a new creation and dead in the flesh. What are you going to do after reading all these scriptures?

I am a new creation, the old has gone the new has come!

The old has not gone. You are still a sinner with an old nature.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

This is a greatly misunderstood verse. It does not stand alone. You must quote the context to understand the meaning.

2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
--Most important know that Christ died for all. Because he died for all, all men who receive him are equal, one in Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
--This truth is emphasized here. We don't know anyone after the flesh, that is after who they were in their former life. It doesn't matter if they were rich or poor; Jew or Gentile. We don't know them that way any longer. We are equals. We are one in Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
--Therefore (look at what has just been said). Therefore, we are new creatures. Those old things are passed away--old positions, race, differentiations according to color, size, wealth, position, caste, etc. All of that is passed away. We are now one in Christ. There are no more "cliques." The rich is one with the poor. There is no more differentiation.
--This is what the verse means, not what you think it means.

I was buried with him through baptism into death, I live a new life.

When you got baptized you got wet! So what!
Did the angels of heaven come down and surround you? No. You got wet!

Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

That is all symbolic, just as it is described. You didn't see Jesus, or God in his glory, or the angels of heaven didn't surround you, etc. You simply got wet. Right?
It was all symbolic. Nothing supernatural happened to you.

I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live.

Then who is typing at the keyboard of that computer on the other side of this WEB. An angel?? No, it is you? It is you in your flesh. It is not your spirit that is doing this. You are very much alive. And you only quoted part of the verse.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

My old self was crucified with him so my body of sin might be done away with. I am no longer a slave to sin.

You don't understand the meaning of this verse. If you are no longer a slave to sin (100%), then you are sinless, correct? But you are not sinless. You still obey the lusts of your flesh, the pride of life, and the lusts of your eyes.

Romans 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin--

I have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

--All the time? You are perfect? Sinless?

Galatians 5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

I do not live according to the sinful nature. By the Spirit I put to death the misdeeds of the body.[/quote]
Is 1John 2 meaningless to you?

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--If any man sin...
It was apparent to John that men would sin.
He also wrote:

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
--There is a daily need for confession of sin. But you think you are sinless, or at least imply as much.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

I put to death whatever belongs to my earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed.

Colossians 3:5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

Do you always put to death these things? Are you perfect therefore and sinless. Read again 1John 1:8,10.
You contradict Scripture.

 

[Andre]

This is plain conjecture without any basis from the context. Not one verse in this context even hints that Paul is personifying the nation of Israel.

There is a whole argument I have yet to provide that supports my position. I never intended what I posted to be seen as the entire argument. But I believe I have made a solid argument (in another post) that the "singular" Jew can be sometimes used to represent the entire nation.

To repeat: So far I have simply stated where I am going - the meat of the argument will be provided later.

If this is the way you interpret scriptures then there is no hope of any kind of agreement. You cannot make leaps over two chapters dealing with entirely different subjects and read something like that back into a previous chapter when not one word even suggests it from the context of that previous chapter. This is absurd!

It is not absurd. Do you think Paul is incapable of weaving the same theme through different parts of the letter? I will argue that he indeed does this and that there is an important connection between Romans 7 and Romans 9. Such a possibility cannot be dismissed before all the arguments have been made.

In both cases he is expressing his own personal views but with two different topics. You are fabricating as you go - this is absurd!

....

IF this the kind of interepretational nonsense you are going to resort to then you can make black mean white and hot mean cold. This is purely speculative alleogorical nonsense that has not one shred of contextual evidence.

You are drifting into the rude, dismissive, and ungenerous rhetoric that one sees very often in these boards.

Please treat me with the respect that I am treating you with. Either way, you should probably know that I will not be dissuaded by such language. I am going to make my case whether you insult me or not. But, feel free, to go the "insults" route if that does something for you.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is a whole argument I have yet to provide that supports my position. I never intended what I posted to be seen as the entire argument. But I believe I have made a solid argument (in another post) that the "singular" Jew can be sometimes used to represent the entire nation.

The reason that personification is a biblical application is because the immediate context makes it clear that such is the case. There is no such contextual basis in Romans 7.

Romans 7:1-5 explicitly deals with the relationship of the individula believer "in Christ" to the law.

Romans 7:6-13 explicitly deals with the relationship of Paul as a lost man to the law proving the law has no power to justify a lost man

Romans 7:6-13 explicitly deals with the relationship of Paul as a saved man with the law proving that the law has no power to sanctify a saved man.

Romans 8:1-13 explicitly deals with the Holy Spirit and How it is his power that justifies the lost man and sanctifies the saved man and not the law.

It is not absurd. Do you think Paul is incapable of weaving the same theme through different parts of the letter? I will argue that he indeed does this and that there is an important connection between Romans 7 and Romans 9. Such a possibility cannot be dismissed before all the arguments have been made.

The issue is not what Paul can do but what he actual states. There is not one word in Romans 7:1-25 that DEMANDS that Paul is personifying the Nation of Israel in his own person.

You cannot suggest such an interpretation on the grounds of similar language used between chapters but you must provide hard evidence that DEMANDS that he is personifying himself as Israel IN THIS CONTEXT.

If you cannot provide hard evidence that DEMANDS it, then such a tactic could be used for any scripture in any context merely because of similarities of terms.

Also, you will have to prove that the description in Romans 7:6-13 cannot be applied to Paul as a lost man. If it can fit the literal langauge then it is inexcusable to insist it must be applied to something the context never makes any direct mention to.