Romans 7:14 - Saved or Lost man?

[Judith]

if paul would state that he was always Spiritually, in that he was always in tune with submitting to the holy Spirit though, that would make him a liar, per 1 John, and also disqualifiy him, correct?

You do not hold that even when saved, we still can do sins if we refuse to obey the Holy Spirit in us now?

The statement in Romans is a state not an act. Paul was not speaking of himslef as a saved person or he would be disqualified.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The statement in Romans is a state not an act. Paul was not speaking of himslef as a saved person or he would be disqualified.

Absolutely correct, Judith. It is a state, a dual state of flesh and grace through the Spirit that we all live. Paul's writing is in present tense, and it is indicative of the spiritual battle he further described throughout Galatians 5 that everyone faces every day. Sin lives when we allow it.

 

[Judith]

Absolutely correct, Judith. It is a state, a dual state of flesh and grace through the Spirit that we all live. Paul's writing is in present tense, and it is indicative of the spiritual battle he further described throughout Galatians 5 that everyone faces every day. Sin lives when we allow it.

There is no dual state. If Paul was speaking of himself then he was a hypocrite about what he wrote eariler. Shall we sin that grace may abound, God forbid. We are new creations old things pass away and all things become new, not some things.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no dual state. If Paul was speaking of himself then he was a hypocrite about what he wrote eariler. Shall we sin that grace may abound, God forbid. We are new creations old things pass away and all things become new, not some things.

Have you sinned since your profession to be a Christian? Do you believe you can live above sin?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is no dual state.

I want you to read Spurgeon's sermon, "The Dual Nature and the Duel Within." It is lengthy, of course, and I have posted only "Roman numeral I" and the opening paragraph of "Roman numeral II" of his sermon, as he always wrote and presented in outline form. He says it much better than I can.

Spurgeon Sermon: The Dual Nature and the Duel Within (posted on AnswersInGenesis.org)https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/1455-the-dual-nature-and-the-duel-within/https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/1455-the-dual-nature-and-the-duel-within/

1. I question whether any man understands himself, and I am quite certain that no Christian does so. “Great is the mystery of godliness” in more senses than one. The believer is a great riddle to those who observe him; “he is understood by no man.” He is equally an enigma to himself. The frequency of books like Venning’s “Orthodox Paradoxes,” and good Ralph Erskine’s “Believer’s Riddle,” is not at all incredible; for a thousand riddles may be made about the Christian, since he is a paradox from beginning to end. Just as Plato used to say of each man that he was two men, so may we with emphasis say of each Christian that he is two men in one. Often to himself the evil man within him appears to be uppermost, and yet, by the grace of God, it never can be, for the ultimate victory belongs to the new and spiritual life. We see in every Christian what was seen in the Shulamite in the Song, “as it were the company of two armies.” This is not always known by the believer when he begins the new life. He starts knowing that he is a sinner, and that Jesus is his Saviour, but as he proceeds he finds that he is more a sinner than he thought he was. Many surprises await him, and some things which, if he is not prepared for them, will stagger him as though some strange thing had happened to him. Perhaps my discourse on this subject may prevent a new convert from being overwhelmed with unexpected storms, and help him to solve the question which will then arise in his mind, “If I were a child of God, could it be like this with me?”

2. I. Our first point will be, THERE ARE IN ALL BELIEVERS TWO PRINCIPLES. The apostle speaks of the law of his mind, and then of another law in his members warring against the law of his mind. The converted man is a new man in Christ Jesus, but the old nature remains within him.

3. The first life in a Christian in order of time is the old Adamic nature. It is there from the first. It is born by and with the flesh; and it remains in us after we are born by the Spirit, for the second birth does not destroy in us the products of the first birth. Regeneration brings into us a new and higher principle, which is ultimately to destroy the sinful nature, but the old principle still remains, and labours to retain its power. Some imagine that the carnal mind is to be improved, gradually tamed down and sanctified; but it is enmity against God, and is not reconciled to God, neither, indeed, can it be. The old nature is of the earth earthy, and must be crucified with Christ and buried with him, for it is altogether too bad for mending. This old nature lives in our members; that is to say, its nest is the body, and it works through the body. There are certain appetites of ours which are perfectly allowable, indeed, even necessary for existence; but they can be very easily pushed to sinful extremes, and then what is lawful and right becomes a nest for what is unlawful and wrong. It is a commendable thing that a man should seek to provide for his own household, yet how many crimes and how much covetousness come into the world from an inordinate indulgence of that desire. A man may eat and drink, yet it is through those appetites that a thousand sins are engendered. A man, when he is in his right condition, puts a bit into the mouth of his desires, and holds them in as with bit and bridle; his higher nature governs his bodily appetites, but not without great effort, for ever since the fall of Adam the machine works irregularly, and is not properly controlled by what should be the ruling force.

4. I have heard of some professors who dream that sin is utterly destroyed in them, and that they have no more evil tendencies and desires. I shall not dispute their notion. If it is so, I congratulate them, and greatly wish it were so with me. I have, however, had considerable experience with perfect people, and I have generally found them to be the most disagreeable, touchy, and sensitive people in the world, and some of them have turned out to be such detestable hypocrites, that I am rather afraid of a person who has no imperfections. As soon as I learn that a brother states that he has lived for months without sin, I wonder whether his secret vice is lewdness, or theft, or drink, but I feel sure that somewhere or other there is a leak in the ship.

5. The sin which lurks in the flesh, will grow weaker in proportion as the holy principle, of which I have to speak, grows stronger; and it is at no time to be tolerated or excused, but we are to fight against it, and conquer it, and ultimately it is to be destroyed in us, root and branch: yet there it is, and do not let the young Christian be staggered when he finds it there.

6. When we are born again there is dropped into our soul the living and incorruptible seed of the word of God, which lives and remains for ever. It is related to the divine nature, and cannot sin, because it is born by God: it has no tendency to sin, but all its appetites are heavenward and Christward. It never stoops from its high position; it is always aspiring towards heaven. It is at deadly enmity with the old nature, which it will in the end destroy; but, as I have said before, it has its work to do, and it is a work which, assisted even by divine strength, will not be accomplished all at once. It is a warfare which, when it seems ended has often to be renewed, since, after long and victorious campaigns, the routed enemy returns to the field.

7. Now, I would like each Christian to be assured that he has this second principle in him. It may be weak; it may be struggling for an existence; but it is there, my brother. If you have believed in Jesus, you have the life which hates sin, and makes you repent when you have fallen into it. That is the life which cries, “Abba, Father,” as often as it thinks of God, the life which aspires after holiness, and delights in the law of God. This is the new-born principle which will not permit you to be at peace if you should wander into sin, which finds no rest except in the bosom of that God from whom it came, and in likeness to that God from whom it sprang.

8. These are the two principles which make up the dual man: the flesh and the spirit, the law of the mind and the law of sin, the body of death and the spirit of life.

9. II. We notice, secondly, that THE EXISTENCE OF THESE TWO PRINCIPLES IN A CHRISTIAN NECESSITATES A CONFLICT, even as the text says, “Another law in my members warring against the law of my mind.” The lion will not lie down with the lamb in us. Fire will not be on good terms with water. Death will not parley with life, nor Christ with Belial. The dual life provokes a daily duel.

There are 23 points in his outline. Please read them all, at your leisure, of course. Not to toot my own horn, as it isn't my horn, but God's: His sermon confirms everything I said in that earlier lengthy post.

If you doubt Spurgeon, then I have nothing else to offer you. But I don't believe you can successfully argue with him.

And I can't wait for the naysayers who will come along and try to explain that Spurgeon didn't say what he clearly said.

 

[Yeshua1]

I want you to read Spurgeon's sermon, "The Dual Nature and the Duel Within." It is lengthy, of course, and I have posted only "Roman numeral I" and the opening paragraph of "Roman numeral II" of his sermon, as he always wrote and presented in outline form. He says it much better than I can.There are 23 points in his outline. Please read them all, at your leisure, of course. Not to toot my own horn, as it isn't my horn, but God's: His sermon confirms everything I said in that earlier lengthy post.

If you doubt Spurgeon, then I have nothing else to offer you. But I don't believe you can successfully argue with him.

And I can't wait for the naysayers who will come along and try to explain that Spurgeon didn't say what he clearly said.

Guess that means some will say either he was not a real calvinist, or esle he misunderstood "right doctrine!"

That message hit this whole issue head on!

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no dual state. If Paul was speaking of himself then he was a hypocrite about what he wrote eariler. Shall we sin that grace may abound, God forbid. We are new creations old things pass away and all things become new, not some things.

Paul was adressing what others were saying about his Gospel of Grace that Jesus revealed to him!

he would be labeled a "easy belieivism" preacher today!

 

[Judith]

Have you sinned since your profession to be a Christian? Do you believe you can live above sin?

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

 

[Judith]

Paul was adressing what others were saying about his Gospel of Grace that Jesus revealed to him!

he would be labeled a "easy belieivism" preacher today!

Now that is a new one. :laugh:

 

[Judith]

I want you to read Spurgeon's sermon, "The Dual Nature and the Duel Within." It is lengthy, of course, and I have posted only "Roman numeral I" and the opening paragraph of "Roman numeral II" of his sermon, as he always wrote and presented in outline form. He says it much better than I can.There are 23 points in his outline. Please read them all, at your leisure, of course. Not to toot my own horn, as it isn't my horn, but God's: His sermon confirms everything I said in that earlier lengthy post.

If you doubt Spurgeon, then I have nothing else to offer you. But I don't believe you can successfully argue with him.

And I can't wait for the naysayers who will come along and try to explain that Spurgeon didn't say what he clearly said.

I more than doubt Spurgeon on this. I totally disagree with him. I will stick to the bible. We do not have two natures. It goes against the nature of a believer to sin. Sin is a choice born from a lack of faith and love, but it is not our nature and that is why it is so painful once done. We are not battling a nature, but wrestling against the flesh just like the Lord did while here on earth. He did not have two natures and neither do we. Calling the flesh our old nature means Jesus had an old Nature to sin and that is false. He was tempeted in all manner of sin like we but without sin. That is what we get at salvation, but we choose to go against our new nature just like Adam did as Adam did not have two natures prior to the fall and certainly not after it either.
So once again. Paul is not speaking about himself as a saved person in the passage given.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I more than doubt Spurgeon on this.

Then you are as wrong as everyone else on here who denies the dual nature.I will stick to the bible.

It is Scriptural. It is biblical truth. Saying "I will stick with the Bible" and then denying its truth is futile. It is a paradoxical statement that doesn't even make sense.

We do not have two natures.

Then why would Paul write of the war between the flesh and the Spirit -- using the two words 13 times each in Galatians 5?

It goes against the nature of a believer to sin.

It goes against the nature of God within him/her. It does not go against the nature of the flesh. That is where the deniers of the dual nature get it wrong. They do not understand that it is not the flesh that is put to death, but the corruption of the flesh inherited from Adam.

Sin is a choice born from a lack of faith and love ...

So every time you sin, and you and I both know we both do, your lack faith and love? Really? You honestly believe that is the reason?

... but it is not our nature and that is why it is so painful once done. We are not battling a nature, but wrestling against the flesh just ike the Lord did while here on earth. He did not have two natures and neither do we.

You realize, of course, that the statements you make in that last quote argue for the dual nature, not against, right?

The refusal to believe the existence of the dual nature is the result of a simplistic understanding of "flesh" and "nature."

 

[Judith]

Then you are as wrong as everyone else on here who denies the dual nature.I will stick to the bible.

It is Scriptural. It is biblical truth. Saying "I will stick with the Bible" and then denying its truth is futile. It is a paradoxical statement that doesn't even make sense.Then why would Paul write of the war between the flesh and the Spirit -- using the two words 13 times each in Galatians 5?It goes against the nature of God within him/her. It does not go against the nature of the flesh. That is where the deniers of the dual nature get it wrong. They do not understand that it is not the flesh that is put to death, but the corruption of the flesh inherited from Adam.So every time you sin, and you and I both know we both do, your lack faith and love? Really? You honestly believe that is the reason?You realize, of course, that the statements you make in that last quote argue for the dual nature, not against, right?

The refusal to believe the existence of the dual nature is the result of a simplistic understanding of "flesh" and "nature."

So tell me. Jesus was tempted in all manner of sin even as we yet without sin and He was born and had fesh and blood. Did Jesus have a sin nature? Also Adam was created sinless and it was very good. Adam who was flesh and blood Did Adam have a sin nature prior to the fall? Our flesh IS NOT our nature old or new. Spurgeon is WRONG!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So tell me. Jesus ...

... was fully God the Son and fully man. Note: A dual nature!. And we are"conformed to His image." What does that tell you?

... Adam was created sinless and it was very good. Adam who was flesh and blood Did Adam have a sin nature prior to the fall?

Adam was created, not born. Prior to his sin, he was perfect. Read Genesis 5:3. He became a creature of dual nature by his sin, as did his son Seth and every man and woman since born.

 

[Judith]

... was fully God the Son and fully man. Note: A dual nature!. And we are"conformed to His image." What does that tell you?Adam was created, not born. Prior to his sin, he was perfect. Read Genesis 5:3. He became a creature of dual nature by his sin, as did his son Seth and every man and woman since born.

So are you saying that Jesus the man had a sin nature? One of God and one of sin?

As for Adam if in his creation he had no sin nature how/why did he sin? You are missing the point with Adam. We are born again without a sin nature just like what Adam had prior to his fall.
We do not have two natures. Not prior to salvatiuon and not after salvation. Paul is not saying He was carnal after he was saved. He would be a hypocrite and disqualified to write and teach if he were carnal.

 

[DHK]

So tell me. Jesus was tempted in all manner of sin even as we yet without sin and He was born and had fesh and blood. Did Jesus have a sin nature? Also Adam was created sinless and it was very good. Adam who was flesh and blood Did Adam have a sin nature prior to the fall?

Jesus did not have a sin nature because he was born of a virgin. The sin nature is passed down through man via Adam.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Through Adam we are all made sinners; through Christ we will be made righteous (if we believe).

In Post #25, a quote from Spurgeon was posted:

6. When we are born again there is dropped into our soul the living and incorruptible seed of the word of God, which lives and remains for ever. It is related to the divine nature, and cannot sin, because it is born by God: it has no tendency to sin, but all its appetites are heavenward and Christward. It never stoops from its high position; it is always aspiring towards heaven. It is at deadly enmity with the old nature, which it will in the end destroy; but, as I have said before, it has its work to do, and it is a work which, assisted even by divine strength, will not be accomplished all at once. It is a warfare which, when it seems ended has often to be renewed, since, after long and victorious campaigns, the routed enemy returns to the field.

Note that the new nature never sins. It is born of God.
However, "it is at warfare with the old nature which, when it seems ended as often to be renewed, since, after long and victorious campaigns, the routed enemy returns to the field."

From this we can conclude that those who deny the dual nature of man:
1. Deny the depravity of man.
2. Attribute sin to God.
3. Believe in sinless perfection, or that they cannot sin because God cannot sin. We know that this is impossible for all men sin.
4. Plus it leads into other doctrines which are not Biblical like the denial of carnality (the carnal Christian taught in 1Cor.3:1-5).

You don't find this denial in the Baptist Confessions of Faith.
You don't find it in older Baptist commentaries.
You do find it in the holiness movement and among Charismatics.
Why then is it starting to be found in Baptist circles who typically believe in the depravity of man?

 

[Iconoclast]

Note that the new nature never sins. It is born of God.
However, "it is at warfare with the old nature which, when it seems ended as often to be renewed, since, after long and victorious campaigns, the routed enemy returns to the field."

From this we can conclude that those who deny the dual nature of man:
1. Deny the depravity of man.
2. Attribute sin to God.
3. Believe in sinless perfection, or that they cannot sin because God cannot sin. We know that this is impossible for all men sin.
4. Plus it leads into other doctrines which are not Biblical like the denial of carnality (the carnal Christian taught in 1Cor.3:1-5).

You don't find this denial in the Baptist Confessions of Faith.
You don't find it in older Baptist commentaries.
You do find it in the holiness movement and among Charismatics.
Why then is it starting to be found in Baptist circles who typically believe in the depravity of man?
[/FONT]

strawman fest:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

strawman fest:thumbsup::thumbsup:

This is your default position. You can't answer the post, so you immediately yell out: "strawman; strawman; strawman!"
You probably don't know what one is.
Be a man. Answer the post.

 

[Judith]

Spurgeon is wrong. Christians do not have two natures. We have one new nature and we battle the flesh. The flesh is not a nature. If the flesh were a nature then Jesus had a sin nature, but He did not.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So are you saying that Jesus the man had a sin nature? One of God and one of sin?

No. That's a deliberate misunderstanding, one intended to erect the straw man that follows.

He was dual-natured in that He was fully God and fully man. Being fully man meant He was capable of sin, or else His sacrifice could not have been sufficient for our salvaton. But because He was also fully God, He held in check the potential nature to sin. He was born both in the image of His Father, and in the image of Adam. It is important to note, as DHK did, that while Adam sinned, Eve was merely deceived. That is not to say she could not sin, but she did not sin in the sense of deliberately acting against the nature of God within her.

As for Adam if in his creation he had no sin nature how/why did he sin?

This goes to the other thread where we have discussed God's perfect will vs. God's permissive will. It dictates Adam as having been created with free will to sin. Once he did, he rejected the nature of God and adopted the nature of his flesh.

You are missing the point with Adam. We are born again without a sin nature just like what Adam had prior to his fall.

Utter nonsense. Our birth is in the likeness of Adam. Again, see Genesis 5:3. Only when we believe is God's image restored in us, but both images remain.

We do not have two natures.

I'm sorry, but repeating that over and over again does not make it so. Your belief is incorrect.

 

[DHK]

Spurgeon is wrong. Christians do not have two natures. We have one new nature and we battle the flesh. The flesh is not a nature. If the flesh were a nature then Jesus had a sin nature, but He did not.

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.