Romans 7:14 - Saved or Lost man?

[Judith]

You stated back that you can live above sin, so how do you get to that state then?

Do not sin. :tonofbricks:

 

[Judith]

Did John and peter still sin in the Bible AFTER they were saved?

Yes they did, so did that disqualify them also?

Your question is non responsive to my quote so it requires no response except this one.

 

[DHK]

Paul is NOT speaking of himslef as a believer or he would be disqualified and a hypocrite. We do not have two natures. That is an excuse to deny the sinfulness of our sins.

That is simply a denial of the position without giving any evidence or Biblical justification for it. Demonstrate through Scriptures why you have a valid reason.

Furthermore, if you believe you only have one nature, the new nature, logic would dictate that:
1. You must be sinless.
2. We know that is not true. Therefore any sin you commit must be attributed to the new nature which is from God. Do you always attribute sin to God?
3. Your position is a denial of the depravity or the sinfulness of mankind.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Like I said give me one passage that says we have two natures. Paul was not speaking about himself as a believer. The discription he uses is one that is lost, not saved.

I've given you multiple passages that prove the concept. You blather on spouting the equivalent of "No no no no no."

You give no contextual proof, no exegesis, no supporting evidence. Just "Paul was not ... " "Paul did not ... "" Paul said not ... " That's not proof. That's denial.

Then you stick your fingers in your spiritual ears going "Nahnahnahnahnahnahnah" So be it.

 

[Judith]

That is simply a denial of the position without giving any evidence or Biblical justification for it. Demonstrate through Scriptures why you have a valid reason.

Furthermore, if you believe you only have one nature, the new nature, logic would dictate that:
1. You must be sinless.
2. We know that is not true. Therefore any sin you commit must be attributed to the new nature which is from God. Do you always attribute sin to God?
3. Your position is a denial of the depravity or the sinfulness of mankind.

I already dealt with it from scripture. Let me direct you back through what I wrote prior.

Also to sugest that one must be sinless if they do not have a sin nature disregards Adam who had no sin nature and yet sinned.

 

[Judith]

I've given you multiple passages that prove the concept. You blather on spouting the equivalent of "No no no no no."

You give no contextual proof, no exegesis, no supporting evidence. Just "Paul was not ... " "Paul did not ... "" Paul said not ... " That's not proof. That's denial.

Then you stick your fingers in your spiritual ears going "Nahnahnahnahnahnahnah" So be it.

I gave the scriptural evidence. I cannot help it if you cannt hear it. :smilewinkgrin:
Paul could not be speaking of himself as a believer and still serve God.

 

[DHK]

I already dealt with it from scripture. Let me direct you back through what I wrote prior.

Also to sugest that one must be sinless if they do not have a sin nature disregards Adam who had no sin nature and yet sinned.

It is a total red herring, often used by those Arminians who believe they are born "innocent," can attain sinless perfection, and lose their salvation somewhere along the way.
Adam was born in innocence to be sure. But you weren't. And if you are born again then God has put His Spirit in you. You have God's Spirit residing in you. The same cannot be said of Adam. Adam rebelled strictly of his own accord.
If you do not have an old nature, the "Adamic nature," then sin must be attributed to the only other nature that resides in you, the nature of God, the Holy Spirit. What monstrous thing is it to attribute your sin to God. But that is the logical consequence of denying the depravity of man, which you are doing.

 

[Judith]

It is a total red herring, often used by those Arminians who believe they are born "innocent," can attain sinless perfection, and lose their salvation somewhere along the way.
Adam was born in innocence to be sure. But you weren't. And if you are born again then God has put His Spirit in you. You have God's Spirit residing in you. The same cannot be said of Adam. Adam rebelled strictly of his own accord.
If you do not have an old nature, the "Adamic nature," then sin must be attributed to the only other nature that resides in you, the nature of God, the Holy Spirit. What monstrous thing is it to attribute your sin to God. But that is the logical consequence of denying the depravity of man, which you are doing.

You make my point. I said in other places that the idea that we have two natures is an excuse for our sin. The truth is we like Adam choose to sin on our own. Adam did it without a sin nature and after salvation so do we. Our depravity is totally our own not what another did. Old tyhings have passed away and ALL things have become new. We are overcomers. Yes we are born dead in sin, but we choose to carry our sinfullness.
So Paul is not speaking of himself as a believer because if he was he would be disqualified to teach, preach, or serve in any capacity. Paul is speaking a a religious lost person using himself because he knows what it is like to try and serve the law.

 

[DHK]

You make my point. I said in other places that the idea that we have two natures is an excuse for our sin. The truth is we like Adam choose to sin on our own. Adam did it without a sin nature and after salvation so do we. Our depravity is totally our own not what another did.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
--We will give account of what we do "whether it is good or bad." We are responsible for all of our decisions. The Holy Spirit makes no bad decisions. If the Holy Spirit does not sin or make bad decisions, the only thing left is you, that is, your old nature. Adam wasn't born with one; he was created. Apples and oranges.
We are speaking of the nature of man.

Old tyhings have passed away and ALL things have become new.

Don't take scripture out of context. Learn what it means first. In context it means in the church at Corinth (which was divisive) it didn't matter what background they had (Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, etc.), the past (old things) have passed away because the "new" (we as new creatures in Christ) all start on a level playing field no matter what our background is.
Now that you know the meaning of the verse you don't have to use it as a proof-text and take it out of context any more.

We are overcomers. Yes we are born dead in sin, but we choose to carry our sinfullness.

You are only an overcomer when and if you overcome.
That means you have to apply Biblical principles to your life in order to be one. You can't sit home all day in your rocking chair hoping to overcome. It doesn't work that way. It is not automatic. You must choose to overcome; you must choose to crucify yourself; to deny yourself; to die to self. Paul said "I die daily." Was he deceived?

So Paul is not speaking of himself as a believer because if he was he would be disqualified to teach, preach, or serve in any capacity. Paul is speaking a a religious lost person using himself because he knows what it is like to try and serve the law.

This is your opinion with no basis in fact. Consider what Paul said at the end of his testimony:

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
--If Paul is unsaved how could he say: "I thank God through Jesus Christ my Lord..."

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Don't take scripture out of context

.

she did not.

Learn what it means first. In context it means in the church at Corinth (which was divisive) it didn't matter what background they had (Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, etc.), the past (old things) have passed away because the "new" (we as new creatures in Christ) all start on a level playing field no matter what our background is.

so what...that does not change what the verse means. it is not just the old slate is wiped clean...it means they are new creations in Christ just like she used it. To dismiss it because of one aspect of the verses is false.

 

[DHK]

DHK
she did not.

Yes she did. That is why I took the time to explain the context.

so what...that does not change what the verse means. it is not just the old slate is wiped clean...it means they are new creations in Christ just like she used it. To dismiss it because of one aspect of the verses is false.

I agree that the principle can be found elsewhere in the Bible. My point was that we should not abuse scripture. That is not what that particular scripture was teaching, as so many think.
Either way, it does not give license to any one to deny the existence of the old man, and thus deny the depravity of man. To believe in the eradication of the old nature is a holiness doctrine, and among Baptists a rather novel doctrine. It is amazing to me what Baptists are turning to these days.

 

[Judith]

Yes she did. That is why I took the time to explain the context.

I agree that the principle can be found elsewhere in the Bible. My point was that we should not abuse scripture. That is not what that particular scripture was teaching, as so many think.
Either way, it does not give license to any one to deny the existence of the old man, and thus deny the depravity of man. To believe in the eradication of the old nature is a holiness doctrine, and among Baptists a rather novel doctrine. It is amazing to me what Baptists are turning to these days.

No one is denying the old man. What is being denied is that after we are saved we have an old nature. Old man and old nature are not the same. The old nature teaching is an excuse to deny one total responibiity for sin.

Paul could not have written what he did if he was practicing sin nor could he be serving God.
At salvation we become a new creation, old things pass away and all things become new. Not some things become new. In the passage in question Paul is NOT saying that this was him while saved. He is using himself trying to show what it is like for an unsaved person who is very religious. The fight with the flesh, an they lose. The very thing they want to do they do not and the thing they do not want to do they do. There mind is willing but their flesh is not. They are trapped in this body of sin and cry who will deliver me from this? In chapter 8 he explains how to be set free from that trap.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul is NOT speaking about himself while he is saved.

Yes he is: (1) He changes from past tense in verses 6-12 to the present tense in verses 14-25; (2) He has a willingness to do right but the unregenerated man does not - Rom. 7:15-21 versus Rom. 8:7; (3) He delights in the law after the inward man - Rom. 7:21 - but the unregenerated man does not delight in the law - Rom. 8:7.

Christians are not carnal by nature and neither do they practice sin 1John 3:9

That text says only that which is born of God sinneth not - your body has not been born of God. It is your "spirit" which is born of God (Jn. 3:6). Hence, the redeemed man is NOT COMPLETELY REDEEMED, which leads me to your next objection.

Notice what Paul says;
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

This man needs to be set free. This is NOT a saved person. Paul is talking about someone who is walking after the flesh.

Judith is your body still subject to death?? Yes, Does it need to be delivered from death? Yes it does. Was it redeemed from death when you were born again? No! It is not delivered until the resurrection/rapture - 1 Cor. 15:51-58

Now, notice that from verse 18 forward, the redeemed Paul who delights in the law of God after the "INWARD MAN" claims that the law of sin is dwelling in "my flesh" (v. 18) "my members....THIS BODY of death."

Last, you never gave any substantial response (evidence) to the internal conflict (which you called hypocrisy) which is quite evident in Paul in verses 15-25. He said that his "INWARD MAN" delights in the law of God and yet no lost man can say that as Paul clearly proves in Romans 8:7. So is Paul a hypocrit? or is there a dichotomy wherein two aspects of Paul's being is at war within him and it is "no longer I that sin.....but the law of sin" that is "in my flesh"???

Please, don't respond in general platitudes but give an exegetical or at least an expository contextual based response as your opinion is worthless.

Look at chapter 8
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

In chapter 7 Paul is using himself as an example prior to his salvation of any religious person who goes through this battle when they seek freedom through the law, and in 8 he shows how we can be set free from it through Jesus Christ instead of the law.

This is simply not contextually true. His struggle as a lost man with the law is stated in past tense language in Romans 7:6-12. He changes to present tense terms in Romans 7:14-25. No lost pan "delights in the Law" especially "after the inward man" as the lost man has no INTERNAL DELIGHT in God's law as Paul plainly states in Romans 8:7 "the carnal [Gr. sarkos = fleshly) mind IS AT ENMITY WITH GOD and is NOT SUBJECT to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE. So they that are IN THE FLESH cannot please God."

So Judith here are your problems:

1. Romans 7:14-25 is a PRESENT TENSE REALITY - present tense verbs

2. Romans 7:14,24 the body of the believer, "my flesh....this body" is not yet delivered from sin.

3. Romans 7:15-21 there is a schizophenic state being described between Paul's "flesh...this body...my members" and "I" and His "inward man."

4. Romans 7:18 Paul present tense has willingness to obey God but is only without power to overcome the indwelling law of sin.

Romans 8 defines where the POWER is provided. The power is not found in Paul's will (Rom. 7:18). Nor is it found in his "inward man" (v. 21) and therefore he has no power in himself to deliver himself from "this body of death" due to indwelling law of sin but it must be found "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:9-13). By faith he must depend upon the Spirit to mortify the deeds of his body (Rom. 8:12-13) and even you can't deny Romans 8:12-13 and the putting to death "the flesh" is speaking of a redeemed man, the same redeemed man incapable of putting to death the "flesh" in Romans 7 in his own strength.

 

[Yeshua1]

No one is denying the old man. What is being denied is that after we are saved we have an old nature. Old man and old nature are not the same. The old nature teaching is an excuse to deny one total responibiity for sin.

Paul could not have written what he did if he was practicing sin nor could he be serving God.
At salvation we become a new creation, old things pass away and all things become new. Not some things become new. In the passage in question Paul is NOT saying that this was him while saved. He is using himself trying to show what it is like for an unsaved person who is very religious. The fight with the flesh, an they lose. The very thing they want to do they do not and the thing they do not want to do they do. There mind is willing but their flesh is not. They are trapped in this body of sin and cry who will deliver me from this? In chapter 8 he explains how to be set free from that trap.

the flesh/old nature was dealt with by the Cross, and once saved we can NOW have the means to daily keep it crucified to us, but the truth is that God Himself keeps us still with that nature, and we will have it purged when glorification happens!

 

[Yeshua1]

DHK
.

she did not.



so what...that does not change what the verse means. it is not just the old slate is wiped clean...it means they are new creations in Christ just like she used it. To dismiss it because of one aspect of the verses is false.

The flesh/old nature was NOT what was made new, as God does not change that, but will destroy that aspect of us when glorified!

Our spirit was made anew, that aspect of us that died in the fall of adam!