Romans 7

Helen,

I have studied more than 300 commentaries on Romans, and I have more that 230 of them in my personal library. Needless to say, I have come across some very weird ideas, but your interpretation is the most jumbled interpretation that I have ever seen.

The first 8 chapters of Romans form a single, cohesive unit in which Paul continues to build upon what he had already written earlier in the epistle, and many commentators limit their comments to those 8 chapters. Some commentators, however, have devoted an entire volume to a single chapter or a portion of a single chapter. The literature on Romans 7 is immense, with many volumes devoted exclusively to the study of that single chapter.

Chapter 7 consists of two parts, each with its distinct theme and argument:

The Jurisdiction of the Law
This part of chapter 7 is an elaboration and explanation of what Paul had written in verse 14 of the previous chapter: “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.”

1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
5. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
6. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The primary purpose of this part of chapter 7 is to establish that Christians are no longer under the Law because we “have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound.” (v. 6)

The Nature and Function of the Law
This part of chapter 7 deals with the question that arises from Paul’s words in verse 5 of this present chapter, “the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law….”

7. What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
8. But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
10. and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
11. for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.
14. 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.
21. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23. but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

The primary purpose of this part of chapter 7 is to establish that “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good,” but when the natural man, in his fallen state, is placed under the jurisdiction of the Law, the result is sin.

Chapter 8 picks up where chapter 7 left off, and Paul tells us that there is, therefore “now condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Why is there now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus? Because “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” That is, we are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law, and therefore we cannot be condemned by it. The Law could NOT justify us, indeed, “the power of sin is the law.” (1 Cor. 15:56) But, “what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” And it is very important to note here that the last clause is not conditional, but consequential. That is, we “do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” because Jesus “condemned sin in the flesh.”

8:1. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

(All Scripture is from the NASB, 1995. Everything else is my own composition.)

 

Hi Helen,

I have often pondered the role of the Holy Spirit in accountability. In my own case, I went my merry self-assured way until I was struck down by the conviction (reproval) of my sin and not just my sin but my very soul/self as a doomed sinner.

I had no need of a Savior until sin was revealed in me by God (I certainly woudn't have caused that misery to myself), then I pleaded for mercy.

Psalm 40
I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.
2 He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.
3 And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.

However, I don't believe everyone has the same strength of conviction imparted to them. Some no doubt, especially children IMO, have a mild experience. God knows exactly the measure to loose the shifting sand of self-assurance.

Mark 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

I believe there can be guilt for sin and even a guilty conscience without this conviction of sin from the Spirit upon which the new birth depends.

So, I suppose my question (or comment) is: Can there be accountability until reproval of sin from the Spirit of God?

John 16
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.


HankD

 

Helen wrote,

Helen, Paul does NOT say that “the law became really known” to him; he says “the commandment came.”

7:9. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

Let’s go back to my outline of Romans 7 of which you wrote,

Chapter 7 consists of two parts, each with its distinct theme and argument:

The Jurisdiction of the Law
This part of chapter 7 is an elaboration and explanation of what Paul had written in verse 14 of the previous chapter: “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.”

1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
5. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
6. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The primary purpose of this part of chapter 7 is to establish that Christians are no longer under the Law because we “have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound.” (v. 6)


Now let’s take a closer, more detailed look at this first part of chapter 7. In verse 6, Paul wrote that we have now “been released from the Law.” And how does Paul say that we have been release from the Law? He says, still in verse 6, that we have “died to that by which we were bound.” But what does Paul mean when he says that that we have “died to that by which we were bound”?

Paul taught us what he meant earlier in the chapter by using an analogy. Under Roman law, “the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.” And then he shows us the application of the analogy:

4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

When a married woman’s husband dies, she is free to remarry; she is completely released from the Roman law pertaining to her first marriage. Likewise, we “were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ.” That is, our first husband, our “old man,” died with Christ on the cross that we may become the bride of Christ. Compare Rev. 21:2.

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

And, of course, if that first husband, that “old man,” is still alive, we are committing adultery with Christ. (Rom. 7:3)

In this seventh chapter of Romans, Paul is, of course, primarily addressing the Christians in the Church at Rome who had been Jews under the Law because it was absolutely essential that they understand that the Law could NOT save them and that, in Christ, they had been released from the Law.

Helen, I am going to take a break here and ask you if you are still with me. If you are, we can then take a look at how what Paul has said so far in Romans 7 shows us more clearly what he is talking about in the second part of this chapter.

 

Yes and I knew I was secure and was delivered from the pangs of this death from this verse of Scripture:

John 5
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I don't much care for either Calvin or Arminius.

I have the one who delivered me, that is all we need.

HankD

 

Helen wrote,

Helen, let's not get ahead or ourselves, or Paul either. We need now to look at part 2 of Romans 7,

The Nature and Function of the Law
This part of chapter 7 deals with the question that arises from Paul’s words in verse 5 of this present chapter, “the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law….”

7. What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
8. But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
10. and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
11. for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.
14. 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.
21. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23. but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

The primary purpose of this part of chapter 7 is to establish that “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good,” but when the natural man, in his fallen state, is placed under the jurisdiction of the Law, the result is sin.


Now let’s look at this second part of chapter 7 more closely. In our English translations of this passage, the first person singular pronoun, “I,” is used about 28 times. We know from both Greek and English literature that the first person singular pronoun is usually used literally, but sometimes it is used rhetorically. Since it is usually used literally, we can assume that it is used literally in this passage unless there is a reason to question that assumption. In the case of this passage, there are several reasons to question that assumption, three of which are very obvious to most readers.

1. The language used to describe the man designated by the first person pronoun does not even come close to matching the description that we find of Paul in his other epistles or in the writings of Luke in the Book of Acts.

2. The man designated by the first person pronoun is struggling to keep the Law, and this is especially true of the man designated by the first person pronoun in Romans 7:14 – 25 which is written in the present tense, and at the time of writing, Paul was obviously not a Jew struggling to keep the Law, but a Christian living in and by the grace of God.

3. In verse 14 of this passage, the man designated by the first person pronoun is said to be sold unto bondage to sin using the present tense, and of course it is not possible for a Christian to be sold unto bondage to sin.

Let’s take a look at reason #1 first, and then take a look at reason #2, and then reason #3.

In his Epistle to the Philippians, Paul writes of himself at the time of writing,

Phil. 3:2. Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;
3. for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
4. although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5. circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6. as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
7. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
8. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
9. and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
10. that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
11. in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

This passage of Scripture stands in stark contrast with the man designated by the first person pronoun in Romans 7, and this is especially true of the man designated by the first person pronoun in Romans 7:14 – 25 which is written in the present tense. Notice especially these words, “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless,” in v. 6. Notice also these words, “we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,” in v. 3.

And in the Book of Acts we read,

Acts 26:4. "So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem;
5. since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.

Certainly we do NOT find in these passages a man who is desperately trying to keep the Law but failing to do so, only to find himself sinning against the Law. Therefore, the man designated by the first person pronoun cannot be Paul.

 

Now let’s take a look at reason #2.

The man designated by the first person pronoun is struggling to keep the Law, and this is especially true of the man designated by the first person pronoun in Romans 7:14 – 25 which is written in the present tense, and at the time of writing Paul was obviously not a Jew struggling to keep the Law but a Christian living in and by the grace of God. Indeed, the experience described in Romans 7 is a Jewish rather than a Christian experience because:

A. The man designated by the first person pronoun is struggling to keep the Law—Jews are under the Law; Christians are not under the Law and do not struggle to keep it.

B. The man designated by the first person pronoun is trying to succeed through his own efforts, his own works of the Law—Jews try to succeed through their own efforts, their own works of the Law; Christians do not try to succeed through their own efforts but rather they trust in the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.

C. The man designated by the first person pronoun is under the Law rather than the grace of God— in Romans 7:14-25, the word “law” is found 9 times; the word “grace” is not found at all.

D. The Holy Spirit and His power are not involved in Romans 7:14-25—in this passage the Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all, but three times we find the word “flesh.”

E. The man designated by the first person pronoun is said to “joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man.” Only a Jew joyfully concurs with the law of God—to the Christian, the law of God is the power of sin,

1 Cor. 15:56. The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

The experience described in Romans 7:14-25 is a Jewish rather than a Christian experience. Therefore, the man designated by the first person pronoun in the present tense cannot be the Apostle Paul. The experience described in Romans 7:7-13 is that of the coming of the Law (“when the commandment came”). Since we know that the “I” of Romans 7:14-25 is rhetorical, there is no reason to believe that the use of the “I” in Romans 7:7-13 is literal rather than rhetorical, especially considering that the expression, “when the commandment came,” very much more closely fits the concept of the giving of the Law by God through Moses than it does Paul as a young child reaching an age when he is able to comprehend, and become accountable to, the teachings of the Law. Therefore the experience described in Romans 7:7-13 is that of the coming of the Law, not to Paul as a child, but to the Jews.


Now let’s take a look at reason #3.

In verse 14 of this passage, the man designated by the first person pronoun is said to be sold unto bondage to sin using the present tense, and of course it is not possible for a Christian to be sold unto bondage to sin. And the very man who was said to “joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man” is said in the very next verse to “see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.” And of course it is not possible for a Christian to be “a prisoner of the law of sin.” Jesus himself said,

John 8:31. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, {then} you are truly disciples of Mine;
32. and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
33. They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
34. Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
35. "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
36. "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

 

Helen wrote,

I did NOT miss anything. As I have already posted, the writings of Paul and his theology have been my primary field of study for more than 25 years and I have carefully and prayerfully studied several hundred volumes of literature on the Epistle to the Romans and the theology that Paul presented to his readers in that epistle and his other writings. Yes, Paul would very likely have delighted in the Law of God, but the struggle with sin depicted in Romans 7:14-25 is in stark contrast to what we know about the Apostle Paul from his other writings and from the writing of Luke in the book of Acts. And more than that, Paul's personal experience here is irrelevant to his presentation. Paul is clearly using the rhetorical first person present describing the experience of his readers, rather than his own experience, so that they can identify with his words.

You are speaking of a genre of literature that entirely foreign, not only to Paul in this epistle, in which it would be ridiculously inappropriate, but to Paul in all of his letters and the entire body of literature that makes up our New Testament.

Having studied the writings of hundreds of scholars on this subject, I can confidently say that your interpretation is not only out of the ballpark, put thousands of miles away from it! You are radically misunderstanding the man Paul, the genres of literature that he used, and the entire scope and form and structure of his argument. As to the form and structure of his argument, he writes,

“the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh”

It is expressly clear to me that you are not familiar with the form and structure of Paul’s argument. It is also expressly clear to me that you do not understand Paul’s uses of the Greek word nomos throughout the first eight chapters of Romans. And I highly suspect that you have never read this epistle in the original language or studied even one exegetical commentary on the Greek text of this epistle, and that you do not, therefore, have the necessary knowledge or background for a serious discussion on the subject at hand, so I shall no longer attempt to dialogue with you regarding Romans 7.

 

Helen, wonderful exposition of Romans 7. As Craig said, there are many other interpretations on it, but I hold pretty much to what you wrote. Many will disagree with you, but I also see Paul writing about himself before he was born again eventhough it was in present tense. Many use what is called "dramatic present" when trying to make points and that is what Paul was doing.

Over on another discussion group, we had a good dialogue on the Romans 7 man. I rather enjoyed Martin Lloyd-Jones exposition on it which which is much in common with what you wrote.

dale

 

Craig said:

Craig, The phrase "knowledge puffs up" in 1 Cor 8:1 really comes to mind when reading your post. It ends with "but love builds up. Take note.

Craig, do you realize that godly men who have studied longer than you and who read from the original Greek better than you may disagree with your interpretion? But when a laywoman who actually agrees with one of these scholars discusses her interpretion, you say she is not worthy of your intelligence.

Do you think an apology is in order?

Just a thought from an unworthy sinner.

dale

 

Helen,

Let’s tell it like it really is.

I have NEVER ridiculed anyone for a simple reading of any text in the Bible. I did the very same thing myself before I had the opportunity to get a good education.

There is an obvious and vast difference between the Bible explaining the Bible and a lay person’s interpretation of the Bible explaining a lay person’s interpretation of the Bible. Do you really believe that a lay person is as qualified to interpret the Bible as a highly educated scholar? Take for example Ernest De Witt Burton. He was a professor of New Testament Interpretation in the University of Chicago, one of the world’s most elite and expensive institutions of higher learning that pays it faculty among the highest salaries of any university in order to attract and retain the very finest scholars.

Ernest De Witt Burton is internationally known for two very important works,

Moods and Tense in New Testament Greek

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Galatians.

In his preface to his commentary on Galatians he wrote, “In the quarter of a century in which I have made this commentary the chief centre of my work as a student of the New Testament, I have called to my assistance in the collection of material and to a certain extent in the study of it, a goodly number of those who have been studying in my classes, chiefly Fellows of the University of Chicago.”

A quarter of a century to study one short book of the New Testament? No, a quarter of the century “confining [himself] to a few of the several lines of study which an interpreter might properly and profitable undertake.”

Very few laymen have any concept at all of the enormous amount of information that has been collected about the Bible and the individual books it contains, information that is essential to its accurate interpretation. Ernest De Witt Burton’s 541 page commentary on Galatians was published 85 years ago, and a tremendous amount of research has been directed toward that book of the Bible during the past 85 years, making Burton’s work seriously outdated.

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans has been the subject of a vastly larger number of studies that most lay persons have no knowledge of whatsoever. They read through an English translation of Romans and think that by doing that they can interpret it as accurately as anyone else. If they are right about that, why did Ernest Käsemann spend 50 years studying that epistle before he undertook the writing of his commentary on Romans?

 

Dale,

I have been on the opposite side of the argument with Helen several times regarding Gen. 1-11. She reads the Bible and assumes that she has correctly understood it, and that those who have studied the Bible for many years in an academic setting and who interpret it differently do not understand it. Helen’s interpretation of Romans 7 is not too very bad; the real problem is that she absolutely refuses to learn from those who have a more learned interpretation than she does. If you are interested in learning some of what I have learned about The Epistle to the Romans during the more than 25 years that it has been my primary field of study, and sharing with me what you have learned, I will be glad to dialogue with you; but if you think that you know it all, I don’t have time for you.

Charles H. Spurgeon expressed this thought more eloquently,

“In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”

 

Moderator note:

Let the readers of this forum be reminded of the Baptist Board's posting rules

Rule #3 Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it, but be slow to offend and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are "earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

This moderator believes that a fellow Sister's intelligence has been publically insulted and that a public apology from Craigbythesea is in order.

Blackbird

 

Craig, I have read countless commentators and love their godly interpretion of Scripture, however I do not accept them as God-breathed. Study, conscience and prayer play a large role in my discernment. Sometimes I just accept that both sides have possiblities and consider the wisedom of both. However, just because someone says such does not mean our conscience will immediately concede "defeat". It is not a competition we have here, it is for edification.

Let God be truth but every man a liar (Rom 3:4)

By the way, the quote by Spurgeon is good as any, but I do not think the was pointing at people like our sister Helen, but Charismatics (or such) who see everything theology as from the devil.

"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. (Mat 7:6 ESV)

Do not misunderstand me, I enjoy reading your posts. It is just that the approach could have been handled better.

In Christ,

dale