Romans 7:14 - Saved or Lost man?

[Judith]

Jesus did not, does not, and never will have a "sin nature."
But Jesus Himself admitted that he had flesh.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

And this is even after the resurrection!
The flesh, in and of itself, is not sinful. It is the old nature that resides within that is sinful. It has not been eradicated.

There is no old nature residing in us. We are new creations, not old creations or old new creations. On this topic Paul is not speaking about himself as a saved person. Paul makes it clear that a carnal person cannot serve the Lord or hold an office. The only other option is that we must assume Paul was a hypocrite for not following his own words which would mean he was not hearing from the Lord when he wrote what he did.

 

[Van]

Several issues were presented in the OP:

1) Was Paul talking about his life before being born anew or after? All Calvinists will say after, because if before, then an unregenerate man can seek God.

2) All of us, lost or born anew, have an outer man - our physical body of flesh, and an inner man - our human spirit.

3) After we are born anew, becoming a new creation created for good works, we still battle the flesh. This phase of our life in Christ is called by some theologians, "Progressive Sanctification" where we strive to grow more Christ-like as we serve Christ as His ambassadors.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is no old nature residing in us. We are new creations, not old creations or old new creations. On this topic Paul is not speaking about himself as a saved person. Paul makes it clear that a carnal person cannot serve the Lord or hold an office. The only other option is that we must assume Paul was a hypocrite for not following his own words which would mean he was not hearing from the Lord when he wrote what he did.

When you actually offer some contextual evidence for this, it would be worth reading. Simply repeating the same error over and over again doesn't prove anything.

 

[The Biblicist]

The answer is yes to both questions, but neither has anything to do with this discussion.

It has everything to do with this issue. If you claim there is no indwelling law of sin at work in your "members, this body of death...my flesh" then either you live above sin or you must trace the source of sin to something other than what is inside you as what is "created in righteousness and true holiness" cannot sin. Your body has not been "created in righteousness and true holiness." It was not your body that was born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:6). Your body is still subject to death, and if to death, it is still under sin as "death by sin" (Rom. 5:12).

Obviously if you have sinned since being a Christian then you have not lived above sin since you have been a Christian.

Furthermore, if you claim to live above sin it is either because you have redefined the definition of sin, or redefined the standard which defines sin.

How do you define sin then? What standard of righteousness does the Law demand to avoid sin then? Above the righteousness of the best of men (Mt. 5:20)? Equal to the righteousness of God (Mt. 5:48)? Can you sin in one point without violating all points of the law? Thus does not that require you to keep all points of the law to avoid violating one point? (James 2:10).

 

[The Biblicist]

The only other option is that we must assume Paul was a hypocrite for not following his own words which would mean he was not hearing from the Lord when he wrote what he did.

Romans 7:15-20 does clearly and explicitly describe a contradiction in the Person of Paul. This is so plain that it requires intentional blindness to ignore his words:

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

So, you believe that Paul is being a hypocrit by this lanuage???? He is certainly claiming the good he wants to do he does not, and what he does not want to do that he does. There is certainly a contradiction within Paul. You would call that hypocrisy????

He says he has the will to do good, so it is not a problem of willingness to do good - "For to will is present with me" - v. 18b

So Judith, if He is willing to do good then what is the problem keeping him from doing good? Does he define that problem and give a specific location where it is? He claims the he "delights in the law of God after the inward man" and so the problem is not located with the "inward man"! What is the "inward man" Judith, do you know?

 

[percho]

It has everything to do with this issue. If you claim there is no indwelling law of sin at work in your "members, this body of death...my flesh" then either you live above sin or you must trace the source of sin to something other than what is inside you as what is "created in righteousness and true holiness" cannot sin. Your body has not been "created in righteousness and true holiness." It was not your body that was born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:6). Your body is still subject to death, and if to death, it is still under sin as "death by sin" (Rom. 5:12).

Obviously if you have sinned since being a Christian then you have not lived above sin since you have been a Christian.

Furthermore, if you claim to live above sin it is either because you have redefined the definition of sin, or redefined the standard which defines sin.

How do you define sin then? What standard of righteousness does the Law demand to avoid sin then? Above the righteousness of the best of men (Mt. 5:20)? Equal to the righteousness of God (Mt. 5:48)? Can you sin in one point without violating all points of the law? Thus does not that require you to keep all points of the law to avoid violating one point? (James 2:10).

Will our body ever be born of the Spirit? And if yes. how so?

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Phil 3:21

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Romans 8:11

And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor 15:49

Is it our body (soma), vile as it may be be, that is the temple of the Holy Spirit or is that verse speaking of another body, as maybe the body of Christ, the church? I know you have posted on that verse but I have not understood exactly what you have said concerning it.

Is it not the vile body of death, the saved man Paul, wants to be delivered from?

 

[percho]

Of course he does. And so he says of himself, as a saved man:
Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

He is a carnal Christian. He is sold under sin. It is the law that is spiritual not Paul. There are times when his old nature gets the best of him, and it is at those times when he refers to himself as carnal, not unsaved, but carnal.

Was he (man, Adam) created spiritual of carnal? Did he sell himself under sin and could he have done so had he been created spiritual? Was it his being created natural (ψυχικός soulish), carnal, that allowed him to be sold?

See 1 Cor 15:45,46

BTW my answer is carnal.

 

[DHK]

Was he (man, Adam) created spiritual of carnal? Did he sell himself under sin and could he have done so had he been created spiritual? Was it his being created natural (ψυχικός soulish), carnal, that allowed him to be sold?

See 1 Cor 15:45,46

BTW my answer is carnal.

Adam was created not born. He did not inherently have a sin nature. Neither did he have a "new nature." He never had to be born again. He never was born in the first place. He had complete and total free will. I don't believe it is a fair comparison when one is speaking of the struggle of two natures within man, when Adam didn't have either one at creation.

 

[Judith]

When you actually offer some contextual evidence for this, it would be worth reading. Simply repeating the same error over and over again doesn't prove anything.

I have given scripture but you reject it. 2Cor 5:17 is one. Give me one passage that says we have two natures in one person. So again, Paul is not saying he was carnal after he was saved. Nor is he saying he practiced sin after he was saved. That passage is NOT about a saved person. For Paul to be speaking literally about himself after his salvation he would be a hypocrite and disqualified to teach or serve.
Also answer the question how many natures Adam had when he sinned his first sin?

 

[Judith]

Adam was created not born. He did not inherently have a sin nature. Neither did he have a "new nature." He never had to be born again. He never was born in the first place. He had complete and total free will. I don't believe it is a fair comparison when one is speaking of the struggle of two natures within man, when Adam didn't have either one at creation.

Here is the problem. The reason that Adam is being refered to is that some are trying to claim the flesh is the old nature. If that is correct then Adam certainly did have a sin nature at creation as he was flesh and blood although created as well did the Lord who was also flesh and blood and was born of woman.

However the proof that we do NOT have an old sin nature after salvation is Adam as well as Christ. As you point out Adam was created. So are we at the new birth. We are a new creation 2Cor 5:17 and we like Adam we are not created with an old sin nature.

As for Christ He too was tempted even as we yet He did not have a sin nature. So even though we are still tempted and battle sin after salvation it is not grounds to say we have an old sin nature. Those are two examples discredit any claim of two natures in one person.

So as I have pointed out prior, Pau is NOT speaking of himself once he was saved. One cannot be carnal and practice sin and serve the Lord as they are a hypocrite and disqualified and Paul was no hypocrite nor disqualified.

 

[Judith]

It has everything to do with this issue. If you claim there is no indwelling law of sin at work in your "members, this body of death...my flesh" then either you live above sin or you must trace the source of sin to something other than what is inside you as what is "created in righteousness and true holiness" cannot sin. Your body has not been "created in righteousness and true holiness." It was not your body that was born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:6). Your body is still subject to death, and if to death, it is still under sin as "death by sin" (Rom. 5:12).

Obviously if you have sinned since being a Christian then you have not lived above sin since you have been a Christian.

Furthermore, if you claim to live above sin it is either because you have redefined the definition of sin, or redefined the standard which defines sin.

How do you define sin then? What standard of righteousness does the Law demand to avoid sin then? Above the righteousness of the best of men (Mt. 5:20)? Equal to the righteousness of God (Mt. 5:48)? Can you sin in one point without violating all points of the law? Thus does not that require you to keep all points of the law to avoid violating one point? (James 2:10).

I mean you no disrespect but I am lost in your logic. I answered your questions honestly and they are correct. The fact that you have not figured out why you or any of us still sin after salvation does not mean you can claim it is because you have a sin nature. That is an excuse as well as incorrect. Tell me, was Adam created with a sin nature and if not why did he sin? If you answer correctly it is the same reason we sin after we are saved.

 

[Judith]

Romans 7:15-20 does clearly and explicitly describe a contradiction in the Person of Paul. This is so plain that it requires intentional blindness to ignore his words:

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

So, you believe that Paul is being a hypocrit by this lanuage???? He is certainly claiming the good he wants to do he does not, and what he does not want to do that he does. There is certainly a contradiction within Paul. You would call that hypocrisy????

He says he has the will to do good, so it is not a problem of willingness to do good - "For to will is present with me" - v. 18b

So Judith, if He is willing to do good then what is the problem keeping him from doing good? Does he define that problem and give a specific location where it is? He claims the he "delights in the law of God after the inward man" and so the problem is not located with the "inward man"! What is the "inward man" Judith, do you know?

Are you saying that no lost person ever desires to do good from their inward parts/heart? Also many times the very thing that they know is evil they do anyway? Paul is NOT speaking about himself while he is saved. Christians are not carnal by nature and neither do they practice sin 1John 3:9
Notice what Paul says;
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

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

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

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

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I have given scripture but you reject it. 2Cor 5:17 is one.

If you had read that quite lengthy post from yesterday you would know why that doesn't say what you believe it says.

Give me one passage that says we have two natures in one person.

I've given you numerous such passages. I suggest you go back and reread this again.

So again, Paul is not saying he was carnal after he was saved.

Your interpretation. An incorrect one. we've explained that to you, and all you do is persist in repeating it without giving an exegesis of the verse that would prove your point.

Nor is he saying he practiced sin after he was saved.

Paul was not sinless. This is a ludicrous contention.

That passage is NOT about a saved person.

Again, stomping your foot -- or using the posting equivalent of using all-caps -- does not prove that, and you cannot show it to be true.

For Paul to be speaking literally about himself after his salvation he would be a hypocrite and disqualified to teach or serve.

Again, Paul was not sinless. Only Christ was sinless. Sin does not disqualify a pastor or missionary -- nor did it disqualify the apostles.

1 Corinthians 9, NASB
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified. ​

Why would a man who didn't have to worry about his "old man" rising up want to "discipline [his] body, and make it [his] slave"? It isn't because he had only the perfect nature of Christ in Him!! This is why Paul disciplined himself:

Galatians 5
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self control; against such things there is no law.​

Tell me how the Spirit and the flesh could be set against one another if one is not present? In speaking of "the flesh" Paul uses the word sarx which in such context "denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God" (Zodhiates' Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament). Do you deny a Christian can commit the sins of vv. 19-21? You are dreadfully wrong if you do. As I said in the post I relinked above, "I would submit to you that all sin is habitual." Walking under the influence of "the flesh" leads to all sin, Christian or lost. But was as Christians have a choice. We can walk in the Spirit. We are fleshly (carnal) creatures walking around in a body also occupied by the Divine Spirit of God. Our choice of behavior is based on our choice of which to walk in. That, Judith, like it or not, is two natures in one man.

Also answer the question how many natures Adam had when he sinned his first sin?

I would ask you, in turn, by what nature was Adam created? And by what nature did he sin? He was created in the image of God. But he adopted the image of the corrupt and passed on to his offspring.

Genesis 5:3
3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image [emphasis added] and named him Seth. ​

Where did that likeness come from, Judith? Is it the image God created him with, or is an image of his own making, a result of acting in disobedience on the temptation of Satan? And what became of the image of God that he bore at his creation? Answer those question, you'll have the answer to your question.

 

[DHK]

Here is the problem. The reason that Adam is being refered to is that some are trying to claim the flesh is the old nature. If that is correct then Adam certainly did have a sin nature at creation as he was flesh and blood although created as well did the Lord who was also flesh and blood and was born of woman.

However the proof that we do NOT have an old sin nature after salvation is Adam as well as Christ. As you point out Adam was created. So are we at the new birth. We are a new creation 2Cor 5:17 and we like Adam we are not created with an old sin nature.

As for Christ He too was tempted even as we yet He did not have a sin nature. So even though we are still tempted and battle sin after salvation it is not grounds to say we have an old sin nature. Those are two examples discredit any claim of two natures in one person.

So as I have pointed out prior, Pau is NOT speaking of himself once he was saved. One cannot be carnal and practice sin and serve the Lord as they are a hypocrite and disqualified and Paul was no hypocrite nor disqualified.

Paul is speaking of himself when he uses the first personal pronoun "I." He is giving his testimony.
The definition of "flesh" depends on the context in which it is used.
Perhaps this will help you.

What is carnality? According to the Greek dictionary, it means to have the nature and characteristics of the flesh (or more simply, it means "fleshly"). What, then , is the flesh? Sometimes it refers to the whole material part of man (1 Corinthians 15:39; Hebrews 5:7), and based on this meaning, carnal sometimes relates to material things like money (Romans 15:27) or to the opposite of our weapons of spiritual warfare (2 Corinthians 10:4). But the word flesh also has a metaphorical sense when it refers to our disposition to sin and to oppose or omit God in our lives. The flesh is characterized by works that include lusts and passions (Galatians 5:19-24; I John 2:16); it can enslave (Romans 7:25); and in it is nothing good (Romans 7:18). Based on this meaning of the word flesh, to be carnal means to be characterized by things that belong to the unsaved life (Ephesians 2:3).
Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation, Victor Books, 1989, pp. 59-60.

 

[Yeshua1]

The answer is yes to both questions, but neither has anything to do with this discussion.

How can and do you live above sinning?

have you become a super saint, reaching sinless perfection?
The new nature cannot sin, nor can the Spirit, so what causes you to sin, or have you stopped doing that now?

 

[Judith]

How can and do you live above sinning?

have you become a super saint, reaching sinless perfection?
The new nature cannot sin, nor can the Spirit, so what causes you to sin, or have you stopped doing that now?

Your question does not justify a response other than this one because it does not deal with my response to the original question.

 

[Judith]

Paul is speaking of himself when he uses the first personal pronoun "I." He is giving his testimony.
The definition of "flesh" depends on the context in which it is used.
Perhaps this will help you.

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

 

[Judith]

If you had read that quite lengthy post from yesterday you would know why that doesn't say what you believe it says.I've given you numerous such passages. I suggest you go back and reread this again.Your interpretation. An incorrect one. we've explained that to you, and all you do is persist in repeating it without giving an exegesis of the verse that would prove your point.Paul was not sinless. This is a ludicrous contention.Again, stomping your foot -- or using the posting equivalent of using all-caps -- does not prove that, and you cannot show it to be true.Again, Paul was not sinless. Only Christ was sinless. Sin does not disqualify a pastor or missionary -- nor did it disqualify the apostles.

1 Corinthians 9, NASB
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified. ​

Why would a man who didn't have to worry about his "old man" rising up want to "discipline [his] body, and make it [his] slave"? It isn't because he had only the perfect nature of Christ in Him!! This is why Paul disciplined himself:

Galatians 5
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self control; against such things there is no law.​

Tell me how the Spirit and the flesh could be set against one another if one is not present? In speaking of "the flesh" Paul uses the word sarx which in such context "denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God" (Zodhiates' Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament). Do you deny a Christian can commit the sins of vv. 19-21? You are dreadfully wrong if you do. As I said in the post I relinked above, "I would submit to you that all sin is habitual." Walking under the influence of "the flesh" leads to all sin, Christian or lost. But was as Christians have a choice. We can walk in the Spirit. We are fleshly (carnal) creatures walking around in a body also occupied by the Divine Spirit of God. Our choice of behavior is based on our choice of which to walk in. That, Judith, like it or not, is two natures in one man.I would ask you, in turn, by what nature was Adam created? And by what nature did he sin? He was created in the image of God. But he adopted the image of the corrupt and passed on to his offspring.

Genesis 5:3
3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image [emphasis added] and named him Seth. ​

Where did that likeness come from, Judith? Is it the image God created him with, or is an image of his own making, a result of acting in disobedience on the temptation of Satan? And what became of the image of God that he bore at his creation? Answer those question, you'll have the answer to your question.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Your question does not justify a response other than this one because it does not deal with my response to the original question.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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

Yes they did, so did that disqualify them also?