Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
What is NCAA football?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Old nature vs. New"
- Thread starter Sojourn(f)orTruth
- Start date
You know---don't cha???? Where've you been all your life---certainly not the silly library or the biology lab, huh??? Come on, Bro. Lighten up!!! Relax!!Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
What is NCAA football?
LSU, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, etc.---generally known as the Southeastern Conference---all other conferences are Pee-Wee league!!
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
How does NCAA = Southeastern Conference. Shouldn't that be SEC?
Craig,
You're taking a lot of heat on this elimination of the "old nature" thing! But of course you are correct. Paul's statements in Romans seven were written to illustrate the futility of living in the power of the flesh (something he had done for years as an unbelieving Jew). But Christians live in the power of the Spirit. Through Christ, we need not sin. Now that doesn't mean we don't sin, but we have the power to resist it. We are no longer slaves to sin.
Our "new nature" thirsts after righteousness because it is regenerated by the Spirit. We do not have two natures, but one--which has been changed. We are not schizophrenic, but instead weak, because we still await the redemption of our bodies for complete deliverance from the presence of sin in our lives. Notice I said "sin", not a "sin nature".
Thus the word "flesh" is an appropriate translation for those sections in Romans 6-8, rather than the sometimes substituted words "old nature".
An awful lot of confused preaching has sprung from this misunderstanding, and given a ready-made excuse for many people who have professed Christ under some sort of easy-believism influence, but have never known victory over sin, because in actuality, they have never been saved from it's power.
In Christ,
Tim
You're taking a lot of heat on this elimination of the "old nature" thing! But of course you are correct. Paul's statements in Romans seven were written to illustrate the futility of living in the power of the flesh (something he had done for years as an unbelieving Jew). But Christians live in the power of the Spirit. Through Christ, we need not sin. Now that doesn't mean we don't sin, but we have the power to resist it. We are no longer slaves to sin.
Our "new nature" thirsts after righteousness because it is regenerated by the Spirit. We do not have two natures, but one--which has been changed. We are not schizophrenic, but instead weak, because we still await the redemption of our bodies for complete deliverance from the presence of sin in our lives. Notice I said "sin", not a "sin nature".
Thus the word "flesh" is an appropriate translation for those sections in Romans 6-8, rather than the sometimes substituted words "old nature".
An awful lot of confused preaching has sprung from this misunderstanding, and given a ready-made excuse for many people who have professed Christ under some sort of easy-believism influence, but have never known victory over sin, because in actuality, they have never been saved from it's power.
In Christ,
Tim
Brother James
New Member
Ahh, we have another heretic. What has happened to the Baptists of history? One more time, it is a LAW, it is a WAR, there is no good thing in your FLESH:
Rom 7:18 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.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
You will never be free of the sin nature untill you are DEAD. The reason I know you, as well as I still have the SIN nature is because we all, barring the return of JESUS CHRIST will be put to bed with a shovel. Only Christ will deliver you from the body of this death. You boy's need a reality check. If the stuff that ran through your mind, let alone what you DO were put on a movie screen for all the world to see it would be a horror story that would be XXX. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother concieve me. You boy's sound like a couple of charismatic whacknuts.
Tell me Tim, do you believe in baptismal regeneration and conditional salvation that you can loose as well as Craig? Do you believe you are baptized into Christ with water like Craig? If you do, be honest and join the catholics or the waterdogs from texas. The very fact that you would spout such poison shows what a WICKED sin nature you are dealing with right now. Why don't you junk you fig leaves and come to JESUS right now in faith in his blood atonement alone and he will save you self rightous sinner. Yes you are a sinner like every other living breathing person on the planet.
Rom 7:18 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.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
You will never be free of the sin nature untill you are DEAD. The reason I know you, as well as I still have the SIN nature is because we all, barring the return of JESUS CHRIST will be put to bed with a shovel. Only Christ will deliver you from the body of this death. You boy's need a reality check. If the stuff that ran through your mind, let alone what you DO were put on a movie screen for all the world to see it would be a horror story that would be XXX. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother concieve me. You boy's sound like a couple of charismatic whacknuts.
Tell me Tim, do you believe in baptismal regeneration and conditional salvation that you can loose as well as Craig? Do you believe you are baptized into Christ with water like Craig? If you do, be honest and join the catholics or the waterdogs from texas. The very fact that you would spout such poison shows what a WICKED sin nature you are dealing with right now. Why don't you junk you fig leaves and come to JESUS right now in faith in his blood atonement alone and he will save you self rightous sinner. Yes you are a sinner like every other living breathing person on the planet.
Brother James
New Member
Listen to Spurgeon one more time, it may help you:
If God were ever to allow the fountains of the great deeps of depravity to break up in the best man that lives, he would make as bad a devil as the devil himself is. I care nothing for what these boasters say concerning their own perfections; I feel sure that they do not know themselves, or they could not talk as they often do. There is tinder enough in the saint who is nearest to heaven to kindle another hell if God should but permit a spark to fall upon it. In the very best of men there is an infernal and well-nigh infinite depth of depravity. Some Christians never seem to find this out. I almost wish that they might not do so, for it is a painful discovery for anyone to make; but it has the beneficial effect of making us cease from trusting in ourselves, and causing us to glory only in the Lord."
If God were ever to allow the fountains of the great deeps of depravity to break up in the best man that lives, he would make as bad a devil as the devil himself is. I care nothing for what these boasters say concerning their own perfections; I feel sure that they do not know themselves, or they could not talk as they often do. There is tinder enough in the saint who is nearest to heaven to kindle another hell if God should but permit a spark to fall upon it. In the very best of men there is an infernal and well-nigh infinite depth of depravity. Some Christians never seem to find this out. I almost wish that they might not do so, for it is a painful discovery for anyone to make; but it has the beneficial effect of making us cease from trusting in ourselves, and causing us to glory only in the Lord."
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Tim wrote,
Rom. 1:1. Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
2. which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3. concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
4. who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, (NASB, 1995)
Heb. 4:15. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. (NASB, 1995)
Amen! The "flesh" and the "old nature" are two entirely differently things. Jesus never had an "old nature," but he did have the "flesh" to contend with,
Rom. 1:1. Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
2. which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3. concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
4. who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, (NASB, 1995)
Heb. 4:15. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. (NASB, 1995)
BJ,
First, I don't believe in baptismal regeneration, and I don't believe that is the subject of this thread, nor does it have any bearing on the subject at hand.
Second, when you quote verses about being conceived in sin, I completely agree. We were born with a sin nature, i.e. a natural bent to sin. Before salvation we can only walk according to the flesh. You like quoting Romans 7, so why not let Paul finish his thought?
Romans 8:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free
from the law of sin and death.
3 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:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after
the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the
Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Finally, if Paul was such a dismal failure as a Christian, how could he boldly say "be followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1)? Why follow a man who knows no victory over sin in his life? Paul was not completely sinless, but he did know victorious living.
Tim
First, I don't believe in baptismal regeneration, and I don't believe that is the subject of this thread, nor does it have any bearing on the subject at hand.
Second, when you quote verses about being conceived in sin, I completely agree. We were born with a sin nature, i.e. a natural bent to sin. Before salvation we can only walk according to the flesh. You like quoting Romans 7, so why not let Paul finish his thought?
Romans 8:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free
from the law of sin and death.
3 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:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after
the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the
Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Finally, if Paul was such a dismal failure as a Christian, how could he boldly say "be followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1)? Why follow a man who knows no victory over sin in his life? Paul was not completely sinless, but he did know victorious living.
Tim
Bro Craig and I have been down this road before that through this exegetical rule called the "rhetorical 'I'", Paul is speaking of his days as an unregenerate Jew.
Thus as a practicing sinner, this theory has Paul saying "I delight in the law of God after the inward man".
There are two parts of this statement that Scripture does not appear to support:
1) He "delights" in the thing which brings him into bondage and condemns him to death.
If I were sitting in my prison cell on death row, I certainly woudn't delight in the daily reading of the judge's sentence to have me put to death.
Peter speaking of the pharisees who "believed" and wanted the Law kept under the New Covenant:
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Rather "fear" was the Hebrew's motivating factor in the keeping of the Law of Moses.
Hebrews 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
2)That there is a part of the unregenerate man called the "inward man".
"inward man" - Grk. esos anthropos
Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man (eso anthropon):
2 Corinthians 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward (esothen) man is renewed day by day.
Ephesians 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man (eso anthropon);
IMO, It doesn't add up.
HankD
Hank,
I think that preconverted Paul was somewhat schizophrenic regarding the Law. He DID love it and was zealous for it--YET it condemned him. In a nutshell, that's what Romans 7 describes.
Interestingly, a converted Jewish friend at work told me that he could completely relate to Paul's statements in Romans 7 before he was saved. He took pride in his attempts to obey the Law, yet it was an unbearable burden.
Tim
I think that preconverted Paul was somewhat schizophrenic regarding the Law. He DID love it and was zealous for it--YET it condemned him. In a nutshell, that's what Romans 7 describes.
Interestingly, a converted Jewish friend at work told me that he could completely relate to Paul's statements in Romans 7 before he was saved. He took pride in his attempts to obey the Law, yet it was an unbearable burden.
Tim
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
HankD wrote,
We do not find this particular manner of expression in English as frequently as we do in ancient Greek. However, we do find the use of the rhetorical “we” very frequently in English speaking and writing.
A careful reading of Romans 1-8 with special attention to the form of Paul’s argument makes it very apparent that Paul is speaking rhetorically in Romans 7. Furthermore, the man being depicted by the use of the first person singular pronoun in Romans 7:7-13 is a very different man than the man being depicted by the use of the first person singular pronoun in Romans 7:14-25.
In Romans 7:7-13 we find the precursor of the Jew under the Law receiving the Law and being condemned by it. In Romans 7:14-25 we find the modern day (modern day at the time of writing) Jew delighting in the Law of God in his inward man and therefore struggling to keep it, only to find that he has not the ability to do. That this is the case is born out not only by the descriptions given by Paul of both of these men, but also by his shift from the past tense to the present tense.
I have personally studied hundreds of writing on Romans 7 and I know that is very easy to get confused by the different and often very strong opinions that one encounters. Therefore I encourage my readers to very carefully and very prayerfully read through the first eight chapters of Romans several or more times until he has the whole of these eight chapters clearly in his mind before he begins to examine the individual words and phrases. May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ richly bless you for your efforts and may the Holy Spirit teach you the wonderful truths found in this epistle.
The use of the rhetorical “I” is not an "exegetical rule," it is a manner of expressing one's self in such a manner that the speaker or writer facilitates the identification of the listener or the reader with the concept being expressed while at the same time maintaining the distinction between the concept and the speaker or the writer.
We do not find this particular manner of expression in English as frequently as we do in ancient Greek. However, we do find the use of the rhetorical “we” very frequently in English speaking and writing.
A careful reading of Romans 1-8 with special attention to the form of Paul’s argument makes it very apparent that Paul is speaking rhetorically in Romans 7. Furthermore, the man being depicted by the use of the first person singular pronoun in Romans 7:7-13 is a very different man than the man being depicted by the use of the first person singular pronoun in Romans 7:14-25.
In Romans 7:7-13 we find the precursor of the Jew under the Law receiving the Law and being condemned by it. In Romans 7:14-25 we find the modern day (modern day at the time of writing) Jew delighting in the Law of God in his inward man and therefore struggling to keep it, only to find that he has not the ability to do. That this is the case is born out not only by the descriptions given by Paul of both of these men, but also by his shift from the past tense to the present tense.
I have personally studied hundreds of writing on Romans 7 and I know that is very easy to get confused by the different and often very strong opinions that one encounters. Therefore I encourage my readers to very carefully and very prayerfully read through the first eight chapters of Romans several or more times until he has the whole of these eight chapters clearly in his mind before he begins to examine the individual words and phrases. May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ richly bless you for your efforts and may the Holy Spirit teach you the wonderful truths found in this epistle.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
In every culture that I have studied, we find both the concept of the “inward” man and the concept of the “outward man.” The inward man is what we feel inside; the outward man is our outward behavior—and there is very often a conflict between the two. We find this conflict in Romans 7:14-25 and we find it in the writings of peoples of vastly different cultures throughout the world and throughout recorded history. We find this concept expressed very frequently by these words, “I didn’t want to do that!” In their heart, the deepest part of their inner man, they wanted to do one thing, but what they wanted to do was very different from what they actually did.
In commentaries on Romans* we find many quotes in ancient languages written by people of various cultures expressing this conflict. It is not unique to the Christian; indeed, it has no place in the life of the regenerate man who walks in the spirit rather than the flesh.
*See especially the commentary on Romans by Tholuck.
In commentaries on Romans* we find many quotes in ancient languages written by people of various cultures expressing this conflict. It is not unique to the Christian; indeed, it has no place in the life of the regenerate man who walks in the spirit rather than the flesh.
*See especially the commentary on Romans by Tholuck.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Tim wrote,
“If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” (Phil. 3:4a-6)
And Paul was not entirely alone in succeeding in keeping the Law, and he saw that fact as a seemingly weak point in his argument for the need of justification apart from the works of the Law, and he addressed that point in Rom. 5 where he wrote,
12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Therefore, even if a devout Jew was 100% percent successful in keeping the Law (a rather doubtful proposition), he would still need the atonement of Christ and the grace of God because the sin of Adam is imputed to ALL men.
If we interpret Romans 7:14-25 to be Paul’s Jewish experience, we find an enormous contradiction between Paul’s words in Romans and Philippians.
If we interpret Romans 7:14-25 to be Paul’s Christian experience, we find Paul a very much worse sinner as a Christian than he was as a Jew, making a totally ridiculous mockery of his Epistle to the Romans, the atonement of Christ, and the grace of God.
If we interpret Romans 7:14-25 to be the typical experience of the unregenerate Jew, we find total harmony with no contradictions, and we find that Paul’s argument for the need, by all men, of justification through faith is a brilliant argument with not even the slightest little hole in it.
I must disagree with Tim here. The unregenerate Paul was not at all schizophrenic regarding the Law. He loved the Law, as all devout Jews do, with all of his heart. But unlike most devout Jews, Paul lived an exceedingly rigorous religious life and by doing so he found that he was able to keep the Law. Indeed, he wrote of himself,
“If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” (Phil. 3:4a-6)
And Paul was not entirely alone in succeeding in keeping the Law, and he saw that fact as a seemingly weak point in his argument for the need of justification apart from the works of the Law, and he addressed that point in Rom. 5 where he wrote,
12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Therefore, even if a devout Jew was 100% percent successful in keeping the Law (a rather doubtful proposition), he would still need the atonement of Christ and the grace of God because the sin of Adam is imputed to ALL men.
If we interpret Romans 7:14-25 to be Paul’s Jewish experience, we find an enormous contradiction between Paul’s words in Romans and Philippians.
If we interpret Romans 7:14-25 to be Paul’s Christian experience, we find Paul a very much worse sinner as a Christian than he was as a Jew, making a totally ridiculous mockery of his Epistle to the Romans, the atonement of Christ, and the grace of God.
If we interpret Romans 7:14-25 to be the typical experience of the unregenerate Jew, we find total harmony with no contradictions, and we find that Paul’s argument for the need, by all men, of justification through faith is a brilliant argument with not even the slightest little hole in it.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Hank wrote,
Prov. 29:18. Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law.
and results in life rather than death,
Deut. 8:1. "All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your forefathers.
Lev. 18:5. 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
Rom. 10:5. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
Therefore, the man in Romans 7:22 could not possibly be Paul as a Christian. He is a devout, unregenerate Jew who does not understand the real nature or purpose of the Law.
(All Scriptures NASB, 1995)
Hank is confusing here the perspective of the Law by a Christian with the perspective of the Law by devout, unregenerate Jew. Yes, from the Christian perspective, the Law brings one into bondage and condemnation. Therefore, Paul as a Christian could NOT have delighted in the Law of God. But from the Jewish perspective, keeping the Law is a source of happiness,
Prov. 29:18. Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law.
and results in life rather than death,
Deut. 8:1. "All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your forefathers.
Lev. 18:5. 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
Rom. 10:5. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
Therefore, the man in Romans 7:22 could not possibly be Paul as a Christian. He is a devout, unregenerate Jew who does not understand the real nature or purpose of the Law.
(All Scriptures NASB, 1995)
Craig,
Probably "schizophrenic" is the wrong word to use. I think it's more like Paul was disappointed with his failure, most notably with a sin of the heart, coveting (Romans 7:7-13). An honest Jew would have to admit his failure there when he might not see his heart violation of other commands (as Jesus elaborated in the Sermon on the Mount).
Tim
Probably "schizophrenic" is the wrong word to use. I think it's more like Paul was disappointed with his failure, most notably with a sin of the heart, coveting (Romans 7:7-13). An honest Jew would have to admit his failure there when he might not see his heart violation of other commands (as Jesus elaborated in the Sermon on the Mount).
Tim
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Tim wrote,
Rom. 7:9. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
Paul was NEVER alive apart from the Law! ALL of the Ten Commandments were given long before Paul was born!
The “I” in Romans 7:7-13 was clearly intended by Paul to be interpreted as rhetorical rather than literal. We need to be very careful in reading Paul here to bear in mind that he is primarily addressing Jews rather than Gentiles in this part of his epistle, and we need to interpret him here as a first century Jew in the Church of Rome would have interpreted him.
The "I" in Romans 7:7-13 can NOT be Paul because the man being depicted there predates Paul by thousands of years.
Rom. 7:9. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
Paul was NEVER alive apart from the Law! ALL of the Ten Commandments were given long before Paul was born!
The “I” in Romans 7:7-13 was clearly intended by Paul to be interpreted as rhetorical rather than literal. We need to be very careful in reading Paul here to bear in mind that he is primarily addressing Jews rather than Gentiles in this part of his epistle, and we need to interpret him here as a first century Jew in the Church of Rome would have interpreted him.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Tim wrote,
• The sin of Adam is imputed to ALL men—even men like Saul of Tarsus.
• Paul did not understand the nature and the purpose of the Law that he so vigorously and successfully defended.
Phil. 3:4a: 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.
1 Tim. 1:12. I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
13. even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
14. and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
Paul was NOT disappointed with his life as a Jew. He was very proud of it—and rightly so! He lived an exemplary life of victory over the sins that plagued most other Jews. We find no failure at all in Paul as a Jew. There were only two problems,
• The sin of Adam is imputed to ALL men—even men like Saul of Tarsus.
• Paul did not understand the nature and the purpose of the Law that he so vigorously and successfully defended.
Phil. 3:4a: 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.
1 Tim. 1:12. I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
13. even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
14. and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
Brother James
New Member
Now that you sin nature has been eradicated craig, do you ever sin? If you do do you have to get saved again? Afterall, in previous statements you said that you loose justification if you commit adultery on Christ. Do you have to be baptized again? How many times have you been born again?
Brother James
New Member
The "I" in Romans 7:7-13 can NOT be Paul because the man being depicted there predates Paul by thousands of years.
Rom. 7:9. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
Paul was NEVER alive apart from the Law! ALL of the Ten Commandments were given long before Paul was born!
The “I” in Romans 7:7-13 was clearly intended by Paul to be interpreted as rhetorical rather than literal. We need to be very careful in reading Paul here to bear in mind that he is primarily addressing Jews rather than Gentiles in this part of his epistle, and we need to interpret him here as a first century Jew in the Church of Rome would have interpreted him.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Craigbythesea
I agree with you on concerning the use of the rhetorical statements of Romans 7. You appear to conclude that we might loose our salvation if we choose to return to sin. If so, I strongly disagree. Perhaps I misread you though.
Paul uses a lot of "slave" language in Romans, beginning with v.1 where he identifies himself as "a slave of Christ Jesus". He also personifies sin and death, basically saying that the sin-master "rules" our bodies and then turns us over to the "death-master".
When a slave was freed, a popular expression of that culture was to say things like, "I go where I will, I do what I want" It expressed the ability to make the decisions in your life.
Paul uses these well known expressions to demonstrate how, prior to conversion, people are enslaved to sin. v.19 "For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.....(v.20) I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me."
This demonstrates slavery to sin.
v. 24 "Wretched man that I am!" is the statement of a slave.
"Who will set me free from this (slave) body, belonging to (the) death (master)?
Rhetorically, we have the unregenerate Paul, realizing the sinfulness of his own nature, the futility of trying to observe the law, the certainty of his death and eternal hell, crying out in desparation for someone to free him from the sin that has enslaved him.
v. 25 "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord". There is the answer to his question. Only Jesus can save us.
It seems to me to be clearly rhetorical.
I agree with you on concerning the use of the rhetorical statements of Romans 7. You appear to conclude that we might loose our salvation if we choose to return to sin. If so, I strongly disagree. Perhaps I misread you though.
Paul uses a lot of "slave" language in Romans, beginning with v.1 where he identifies himself as "a slave of Christ Jesus". He also personifies sin and death, basically saying that the sin-master "rules" our bodies and then turns us over to the "death-master".
When a slave was freed, a popular expression of that culture was to say things like, "I go where I will, I do what I want" It expressed the ability to make the decisions in your life.
Paul uses these well known expressions to demonstrate how, prior to conversion, people are enslaved to sin. v.19 "For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.....(v.20) I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me."
This demonstrates slavery to sin.
v. 24 "Wretched man that I am!" is the statement of a slave.
"Who will set me free from this (slave) body, belonging to (the) death (master)?
Rhetorically, we have the unregenerate Paul, realizing the sinfulness of his own nature, the futility of trying to observe the law, the certainty of his death and eternal hell, crying out in desparation for someone to free him from the sin that has enslaved him.
v. 25 "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord". There is the answer to his question. Only Jesus can save us.
It seems to me to be clearly rhetorical.