Practical Sanctfication

IFB, once again, tone it down. You either did not fully read my posts, or you don't understand them.

1. I do in fact believe it was Paul talking. However, you choose to believe he was talking about his after his conversion. I believe it is preconversion. That is what I meant.

2. Perhaps you aren't familiar with my posts, but you will find that I am a staunch defender of inerrancy.

3. The "I" was talking about Paul the pharisee, not Paul the apostle.

4. No, actually I do. I propose you seek to actually understand the different positions before you tell them what they believe.

5. Actually, I use Romans 7 to prove my position. Those who know me know that I never shy away from this discussion.

 

It would seem that a brief survey of different commentators, theologians, and teachers, would prove that Romans 7 still is very much debated. Real proof of a lack of a consensus though comes from my father-in-law, who normally takes very strong and dogmatic stances on nearly every debated position in scripture but hear admits that he is not sure. Some things to think about

versus 7-13 are certainly desribing Paul's Pharasee past . . . however verse 14 seems to change from past to present tense. Many feel this is just stylistic.

Two textual notes, my father-in-law leans towards this being Paul's Christian self because in verse 15 he says, "For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate". Now a non-Christian is not elsewhere in the Bible described as someone who "hates" sin. Also, in verse 22, Paul says he "delight in the law of God in [his] inmost self" which sounds very much like a regenerated man and echos the language of the OT remanant.

However. . . .

Paul also says that [verse 14] "For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, SOLD INTO SLAVERY UNDER SIN" [ephesis mine] and then later says, [verse 25b] "So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a SLAVE TO THE LAW OF SIN" [ephesis mine]. This does not seem to agree with Romans 6:6 where Paul states, "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;"

In Thomas Schreiner's Commentary on Romans [BECNT] he weighs both argurments for pre-Christian and Christian experience (which I haven't gotten back to reading yet, but will soon) but then has an interesting conclusion that neither is in view exclusiviely. I will type it out for you because it is interesting. (I am going to type fast so please ignore the more the usual Pete grammatical and spelling errors.)

"The arguments on both sides are remarkable strong, with some arguments of course being stronger than others. I would suggest that the arguments are so finely balanced because Paul does not intend to distinguish believers from unbelievers in this text. Paul reflects on whether the law has the ability to transform human beings, concluding that it does not. The law puts to death unbelievers who desire to keep it, since they lack the power to keep it. They are in bondage to sin and captives to sin, and when they encounter the law, death ensues. On the other hand, believers are not absolutely excluded from this text either. It would be a mistake to read the whole of Christian experience from the account, for, as chapter 8 shows, believers by the poewr of the Spirit are enabled to keep God's law. And yet since believers have not yet expereinced the consummation of the their redemption, they are keenly aware of their inherent inability to keep God's law. When believers contemplate their own capacities, it is clear that they do not have the resources to do what God demands. In encountering God's demands, we are still conscious of our wrtchedness of inherent inability. The struggle with sin continues for believers because we live in the tension between the already and the not yet. The specific texts daduced above demonstrate that there is tension between inaugurated and consummanted eschatology in believers. Complete deliverance from sin in not availiable for Chsitians until the day of redemption. Christians, preciesly because they have not yet expereinced full liberation from sin, are conscious of the continuing presence of sin in their lives. We should not conclude howver, that believers are utterly helpless under the power of sin, for this would leave out Rom. 6 and 8. . . . (page 390)"

 

Pete, one thing I find interesting is the lack of texts that support a present tense conclusion. This is the only text.

However, I could bring text after text after text about us triumphing over sin in the present state, not to mention the whole argument of chapters 6 and 8.

 

As Schreiner mentions, anyone who has studied Greek knows that its tenses are NOT strict like in English. Everything outside the indicitive mood is controlled only by aspect (type of action) and not tense (time of action), and it is a shame that we refer to them as present or aorist participle (or subjective, imperative, etc) since it is misleading. The Zondervan Greek series exhortes to use the name Continuous and undefined participle (or subjective, etc) for participles (subjectives) build on the present or aorist stems respectivly.

I don't have my GNT on me at the moment, but I am guessing these verbs ARE in the indicitive however (hense not case closed on Greek), but still Greek verbs are not as firm as English.

 

Daniel David,

I have read your posts and do understand your position - I just believe you are flat out wrong and are in denial of the reality of battle that both you and I face each day.

Certainly I believe we can and are many times victorious through the power of Christ over sin in our life. But other times we miserably fail - this is the reality Paul spoke of in Romans 7.

As far as my tone goes, I don't think I have been rude, but I am quite emphatic on this subject as it does not deal with secondary issues such as prophecy or church structure but in fact deals with the core doctrine of our faith - that of Salvation and the nature of it.

As far as you dismissing Romans 7 as Paul speaking of his pre-conversion life, you have no support from the text itself to suggest it - you can only point to other texts which you believe must mean he was talking about his preconversion life.

Have you ever considered another possibility? That Paul is speaking in the present tense of his battle with sin and passages where he speaks of our flesh(or old nature) being crucified are speaking of our Positional Sanctifaction?

In fact, the New Testament makes much more sense when we see many times that Paul tells people they "are holy" - "so be holy", or your old nature has been crucified, so don't follow the desires of the old nature.

If you old nature has been crucified, then why does he have to warn them not follow it, if it is not there? That would make no sense, unless he is speaking of their old nature being "positionally" crucified in that God does not see us as sinners any more after we are saved.

Maybe you should consider that possibility and really the reality - that way you can read Romans 7 and understand in the present tense as it is.

Just a thought

IFBReformer

 

1. The struggle of the Christian is to walk after the Spirit and not the flesh. That is found in Galatians 5.

The struggle Paul is describing in Romans 7 is one that is trying to obey the Law of God (of which he just spent all of 6 proving we are NOT trying to follow).

2. In Romans 7, you don't have a guy who fails, you have a guy who is hopelessly in bondage and slavery to sin. He doesn't know what he is doing and can't find his way. That isn't a Christian.

3. Your little blast about inerrancy getting in my way was uncalled for. I can't believe anyone would accuse me of denying inerrancy.

4. How about this:

a. the strong connection of "ego" (I) with "the flesh" (vv. 14, 18, 25) suggests that Paul is elaborating on the unregenerate condition mentioned in 7:5 being "in the flesh".

b. Ego through this passage struggles "on his/her own (cf. "I myself" in v. 25), without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

c. Ego is "under the power of sin", a state from which every believer is released (6:2, 6, 11, 18-22).

d. As the unsuccessful struggle of vv. 15-20 shows, ego is a "prisoner of the law of sin". Yet Romans 8:2 proclaims that believers have been set free from the same "law of sin (and death)".

e. While Paul makes clear that believers will continue to struggle with sin, what is depicted in 7:14-25 is not just a struggle with sin but a defeat by sin. This is a more negative view of the Christian life than can be accomodated within Paul's theology.

f. The ego in these verses struggles with the need to obey the Mosaic Law; yet Paul has already proclaimed the release of the believer from the dictates of the law (6:14; 7:4-6).

5. I used to believe that. In fact, I was a staunch supporter until I studied Paul's thesis of 5-8.

6. It really doesn't matter how much "sense" a text makes to you or me. What matters is whether or not we are correctly interpreting the text. It can be true if you don't understand it. Truth does not depend on a person's understanding of it.

7. People do not become instantaneously perfect. They still remember sin. That is why we must have our minds renewed, bringing captive every thought to the obedience of Christ. That doesn't mean they still have an "old nature".

Btw, I am not under the headship of Adam. I am under the headship of Christ.

8. I will let you wrestle with this one.

I used to believe what you do. It isn't correct though.

 

David,

I can see you and I will go round and round on this so I will leave you with this.

We have both presented our case and there is really nothing more to be said after this.

I think your statement below summarizes the area of dispute between you and I:

You and I would both agree that Christians can be victorious over sins in their life through the power of Christ.

Where we disagree is that I do believe based on Pauls clear account of his own post-conversion life that Christians can be defeated by sin(sometimes only for a moment, other times it might be for weeks, months or years). There is such a thing as a carnal Christian whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not.

You simply cannot accept Paul's clear language as speaking of his current post-conversion life because it conflicts with you preconceived ideas from other passages he writes.

And I do not wish to debate it with you at this point as I already saw your talking points previously in this discussion and once again you ignore Paul's clear statements.

Its kind of funny to that you mention that you used to think the way I do and then studied it out and came to your current position. The reason is that I used to be closer to your position and then I studied it out and found I had to accept Romans 7 at face value instead of trying to explain it away.

Its been nice discussing this with you - I know that you and I have come to some firm positions on this based on our own studies but hopefully some this will shake some observers of our discussion.

IFBReformer

 

1. Your continued use of "Paul's clear account" doesn't contribute to the discussion. Note that I have ignored nothing and presented quite the argument from Romans 7 alone (of which you said I couldn't do).

Your view doesn't fit the context or argument.

Let us see, Paul preaches victory all through chapter 6 but goes on to say that it really isn't so based on chapter 7. No Larry, you have Paul as an insane person. If this wasn't Scripture, that person would be laughed at. It is your preconceived notions about the Christian that has determined you view.

2. No there isn't. I posted on 1 Cor. 3 and Romans 8. To be carnal is DEATH. Paul pits that against those who have the Spirit. Unless you want to advocate that only some Christians have the Spirit, I would lay off this type of thinking.

3. Actually, I do accept it. The struggle of the Christian is chapter 5 of Galatians. Do you struggle to obey the Mosaic Law? I hope not.

4. No hit-and-run posts, Larry.

5. I do not explain anything away. I just explain it. I gave many reasons why I believe what I do straight from the text.

Although you don't see it, your view is part of the cancer within IFB circles. People have this ridiculous view of salvation and sanctification.

 

Daniel,

I thought I would be able to end this conversation but I am getting pulled back in and would not want to leave a "hit and run post" as you say.

But just out of curiosity, when do you get to end a conversation, I usually end them when the I see things going in circles, many times a conversation will start out going forward, addresing new issues and such, and then at the end it just keeps coming back to the same issues which have already been explained by both sides and then it is time to stop.

But I will address some issues that I think are "new" so to speak to our discussion.

I will be looking at some statements from your last two posts:

Your Statement:

Paul speaks of the potential for victory in Romans 6 not that we will have have the same victories in our lives. And then we lets look at victory - is this victory over one sin? Or over all sin in our life? Is it complete victory, meaning we will never be defeated by that sin again, or is it a day to day victory, some days we have victory and other days we do not? Explain this concept of what you think victory over sin is in the life of believer please.

I think Romans 6:20 is actually the key for understanding Romans chapters 5-8.

"20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness."
Romans 6:20(NIV)

Let me demonstrate for you with a few passages from these chapters:

The very fact that Paul asks "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" implies that we could.

Then he makes the statement "We died to sin", does this mean we don't sin anymore? Of course not. How do we know? Lets take a look at what he says here:

Paul tells us not to "let sin reign" in our mortal bodies or offer the parts of our body to sin. If we are not capable of doing this as Christians than why does he have to tell us not to?

He tells us to "offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness." and here is the kicker - IF YOU DON"T ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE ANSWER THIS - this is where Romans 6:20 comes in, before we were saved and given the Spirit we could not offer ourselves to righteouness as Paul clearly says "When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness." We could not obey righteousness.

Now as a saved individual I have the Spirit of God within me and the power to live right. I can offer myself as a slave to righteousness when before I could not. But as Paul says and warns me not to I can still "offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness".

That is the difference. But do I always offer myself as a slave to righteousness - the reality is no - this is where Romans 7 fits in. I will be interested to here you response to this.

Your Statements:

You see while you and I both acknowledge that Christians can have victory over sin and struggle with sin, you do not acknowledge the reality of the fact that a Christian can be defeated by sin.

In Galatians 5, the passage you site as dealing with "The struggle of the Christian" Paul states:

"1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

As I mentioned before, we can now as Christians indwelled with the Holy Spirit offer ourselves as slaves to righteousness. But we can as Paul states "burdened again by a yoke of slavery" refering to our sinful nature. We can become enticed by our fleshly lusts and desires as Christians. Before we had no choice, we could only obey our flesh, but now we have a choice. That is the "struggle" we face.

Again in Galatians 5 Paul write:

This is one of those "you are holy" "now be holy" passages. Paul tells us in verse 16 "live by the Spirit" so that we "will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature". If the sinful nature is dead and gone, how could we gratify its desires?

And Paul tells us to "live by the Spirit" by the Spirit in verse 16 but then tells in verse 25 that "we live by the Spirit"? How can this be? The only logical answer to this is the difference between Positional and Practical Sanctifacation. We live by Spirit positionally, meaning we are guarenteed eternal life to come and glorifacation because we are indwelled by the Spirit of God. But then Paul tells us to "keep in step with the Spirit" - meaning practical sanctifaction. He wants us to obey the Spirit of God within us.

While I don't think you believe this way, yours would give a new Christian the impression that we struggle and are always victorious. You see naturally in any struggle, there are victories and there are defeats. I think even you would acknowledge this.

For instance, If I am tempted to think a wrong thought about someone that is the struggle. I am victorious if I a do not think that thought. I am defeated if I do.

Lets make it a little more down to earth. Lets say when I accepted Christ I am an alchohlic. I make a commitment to the Lord that I want to give this sin up. So the first day I am tempted to drink and I don't. The temptation to drink is the struggle, and when I don't thats victory. But the second day I am tempted to drink and I give in to my temptation and do so - I am defeated that day.

Now I may have victories and defeats and eventually have complete victory over this sin. But I may not. I may go to my grave an alchohalic Christian. You see this is where the rubber meets the road - you do not acknowledge the fact that this alchohalic Christian can fail.

And some in your camp would say if he does fail to overcome this sin then he just proves he was never saved and you write him off as heathen and unbeliever.

I don't believe you are correct in asserting this passage from Romans 7 is all talking about are inability to obey the Mosaic Law. It is talking about our ability to perfectly obey God's Law period(including the Law of Christ).

It is the reality of that struggle and reality that many time, even daily in many ways we are defeated. While we can have victory has Paul points out in other passages, we can also have defeat.

I look forward to your responses.

IFBReformer

 

That is what I like most about you Brother... You say what you mean... straight up and direct.

 

This quote of yours deserved its own seperate response.

Just because some of us Christians are honest enough to acknowledge the reality that Christians can sometimes be defeated by sin(whether for a moment, a day or a year or even die in defeat) and you do not does not make our view "a cancer".

If anything here is my view of the "cancer" that has been removed:

The Catholic Church for centuries added the "cancer" of works to Salvation. They said works were literally a part of justifacation.

Then the reformers came along, and while they removed a great deal of the "cancer" added by the Catholic Church to the Gospel, they did not remove all of it.

Instead of saying as the Catholic Church did that works were directly a part of justifaction, they said they were "the fruits and evidence" of true salvation.

You see the most dangerous thing to say, especially in a society that was still based upon Church-State government, was that Salvation was completly free apart from works. Because then what would the motive for people living good lives be? Just love of Christ? Just rewards? Just joy of their salvation? That would not be enough - there still had to be an element of fear added so that people would live right.

But now hundreds of years later and in a free society with church-state rule all but oblitherated, all of the cancer, even that left by the reformers has been removed.

Salvation is by Grace through faith alone in Christ. It is love that constrains us to live righteous lives, not fear that we are not saved or that we will loose our salvation. And while I believe that true salvation will produce fruit in the life of a believer, works "may" be an evidence, but they are not always great and visible in the life of a believer. And not all believers progress and keep going forward and upward in their sanctifacation process.

And some believers do fail and give themselves over again to the burden of their former master as Paul writes we can in Galatians 5:1.

IFBReformer

 

Can you back this one up with scripture?

 

Just one other note, I don't think Daniel David point is that we won't sin. This would be loonecy. The question is not whether Christian continue to sin or not but whether THIS particular passage speaks of a pre-Christian or post-Christian experience. For Daniel David, whether or not a Christain continues to sin, he is no longer a slave to sin (6:6) yet here describes the experience as being a slave to sin (7:14). One can "no longer be a slave to sin" in Biblical terminology and still struggle with sin, apparantly.

I think one thing being ignored in this whole conversation of practicial santification is the role of the Holy Spirit. Since all obedience (simply an outworking of real trust in God) is the work of the Holy Spirit, is there scriptural evidence to show the Holy Spirit will stop progressivly changing a person to be more like Christ, or stall, or go backword, etc. Is there Biblical evidence that He will indeed always progressivly transform the believer?

 

Can you back this one up with scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]Sure Pete,

"14For Christ's love compels(in the KJV it was "constraineth") us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."
2 Corinthians 5:14-15(NIV)

"15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
Romans 8:15-16

"33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:33-39(NIV)

IFBReformer

 

I'm not sure why you included the second two examples, neither of which address the issue of righteous living. The first discuesses the spirit's role of assuring ourselves that we are God's children and the second speaks of the impossibility of being seperated from Christ. Perhaps I misunderstood you assertion, I was taking it to mean "We act righteously because of the love of Christ" (I'm not sure if that was Christ's love for us or our love for Him").

The first example is much more arguable, though I don't know if even it says so much. The people being compelled are Paul himself, and his fellow workers, to try to persuade others. Read starting at verse 11. He is compelled BECAUSE he knows One died for all, "and He died for all, SO THAT those who live might live no longer for themsevles. . . " It is clear that no longer living for ourselves is a consquence of Christ dying, and in this passage was even the purpose of Christ dying. But that doesn't mean this holy Living is grounded in looking back to this past act with graditute; it could just as well mean that Christ died so that we could be freed from the power of sin, which results in us no longer living for ourselves. I don't think this passage says one way or another how our "no longer living for ourselves" is a consequence of Christ dying, but just that it is.

I thought you were going to qoute, "If you love me, you will keep my commands". This to me could very well mean which you stated before. I only asked because apparantly John Piper doesn't believe the Bible ever teaches holy living as a result of gratitute for our past act of deliverance.

Certainly, I don't agree with the counter statement you expressed, namely, "be obedient of fear out of losing your salvation or never being saved", though the Bible repeatly warns us to test ourselves. I think the problem here is that people seperate obedience from a actual trust in God, so that there comes some mystical link between the two. We all believe that somehow obedience follows trust for every believer, though it is not the ground of salvation. But how about this, every act of obedience simply is trust, trust in whatever was commanded to be good for us. So we are justified by faith but then are santified by continuing and increasing in that faith. Righteous living is not what follows being saved, it IS being saved. We are being saved from sin to rightous living. God didn't just take the punishment away, he began the process of removing sin from our lives. Heaven will be heaven, not just because of forgiven, but because I sin no more. What is a mystery is why God doesn't do this instantly, but instead does it slowly and over time in a believers life.