Romans 7, understanding Romans 7:7-25 from chapter 6:16-23

[freeatlast]

please read the contex of first chapter by Apostle John is that he is addressing little children . AKLWAYS used to refer to Christians in bible, and that he wrote verses 8/9 to make sure that they would keep fellowship with God the father by work/thru jesus Christ!

NOT the Gnostics that might be among them!

I said he was writing to Christians but he is addressing the problem of Gnosticism that had crept into the church. Verse 8 and 9 do not apply to the saved, No saved person need to "cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We are already clean. 1Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed.
However there were those who were Gnostics in the church. In fact there are some in most churches and even some here on this BB.

 

[The Biblicist]

First 1Jhon 1:8 is not speaking about a Christian. FONT]

Your interpretation cannot be exegetically supported.

1. The pronoun "we" has been used consistently from verse 1 to refer to no one but Christians and there is no insertion of any other noun as an antecedent for that pronoun between verse 1 and verse 8 - Hence, your interpretation is grammatically impossible.

2. Your interpretation is wrong. Verse denies the presence of sin whereas verse 10 denies ever having sinned.

3. Regardless or not whether John is disputing agnostics, they are not the grammatical subjects of this immediate context.

If you cannot find another noun for "we" to modify then your interpretation is simply false as it contradicts the immediate context of verses 1-10.

 

[freeatlast]

Your interpretation cannot be exegetically supported.

1. The pronoun "we" has been used consistently from verse 1 to refer to no one but Christians and there is no insertion of any other noun as an antecedent for that pronoun between verse 1 and verse 8 - Hence, your interpretation is grammatically impossible.

2. Your interpretation is wrong. Verse denies the presence of sin whereas verse 10 denies ever having sinned.

3. Regardless or not whether John is disputing agnostics, they are not the grammatical subjects of this immediate context.

If you cannot find another noun for "we" to modify then your interpretation is simply false as it contradicts the immediate context of verses 1-10.

Who said anything about John disputing agnostics? John is dealing with the problem of the teachings that Gnostics had. This is why he says what he says in the first three verses. The Gnostics taught that God and flesh could not meet. So John is saying we touched Him and we heard Him and so on. Then John deals with the false teaching that they had never sinned.
You can read here about Gnosticism and why John wrote the letter.
http://www.bibleone.net/print_tbs61.html

 

[preacher4truth]

Your interpretation cannot be exegetically supported.

1. The pronoun "we" has been used consistently from verse 1 to refer to no one but Christians and there is no insertion of any other noun as an antecedent for that pronoun between verse 1 and verse 8 - Hence, your interpretation is grammatically impossible.

2. Your interpretation is wrong. Verse denies the presence of sin whereas verse 10 denies ever having sinned.

3. Regardless or not whether John is disputing agnostics, they are not the grammatical subjects of this immediate context.

If you cannot find another noun for "we" to modify then your interpretation is simply false as it contradicts the immediate context of verses 1-10.

He's been told this several times, but unfortunately he cannot accept this, as it does not fit his stern view of others, that is, that if a person struggles with sins, sins daily, then ones salvation is called into question by implication, according to his interpretation.

Freeatlasts philosophy is that Christians are to go through extended periods of time with no sin, or, they are practicing sin. To him this is up to a four day roll personally, as he has spoken concerning himself how he goes for four days at a time with no sin whatsoever. I don't see any person in Scripture in the NT bragging about extended periods without sin. In fact, I see those writers of NT Scriptures having quite an opposite opinion of self. They rely instead upon the grace of Christ, calling themselves chief of sinners, 1 Timothy 1:15 (in the present tense). There is much more humility stemming from the writers of these epistles. Humility, lack of presumption, reliance on mercy, grace, acknowledgment of weakness, sin, inability &c.

Anyone falling short of this, or at the very least who sins each day is caste as one who is "practicing" sin. Thus, if they are practicing sin under his misinterpretation, they in fact cannot be true believers. There needs to be more grace stemming from freeatlast in my opinion, as frankly I see such a disposition as prideful, which in itself is sinful.

The context does not make a transition from believers to unbelievers in this text. Nothing in its context supports this. He's been told this and shown this many times, but this is his "sugar-stick" philosophy. His philosophy here is unbiblical and not supported by Scripture. It's his opinion, not exegesis or Biblical truth. It is unscriptural.

- Peace

 

[freeatlast]

He's been told this several times, but unfortunately he cannot accept this, as it does not fit his stern view of others, that is, that if a person struggles with sins, sins daily, then ones salvation is called into question by implication, according to his interpretation.

Freeatlasts philosophy is that Christians are to go through extended periods of time with no sin, or, they are practicing sin. To him this is up to a four day roll personally, as he has spoken concerning himself how he goes for four days at a time with no sin whatsoever. I don't see any person in Scripture in the NT bragging about extended periods without sin. In fact, I see those writers of NT Scriptures having quite an opposite opinion of self. They rely instead upon the grace of Christ, calling themselves chief of sinners, 1 Timothy 1:15 (in the present tense). There is much more humility stemming from the writers of these epistles. Humility, lack of presumption, reliance on mercy, grace, acknowledgment of weakness, sin, inability &c.

Anyone falling short of this, or at the very least who sins each day is caste as one who is "practicing" sin. Thus, if they are practicing sin under his misinterpretation, they in fact cannot be true believers. There needs to be more grace stemming from freeatlast in my opinion, as frankly I see such a disposition as prideful, which in itself is sinful.

The context does not make a transition from believers to unbelievers in this text. Nothing in its context supports this. He's been told this and shown this many times, but this is his "sugar-stick" philosophy. His philosophy here is unbiblical and not supported by Scripture. It's his opinion, not exegesis or Biblical truth. It is unscriptural.

- Peace

Almost all that is a lie!

 

[preacher4truth]

Almost all that is a lie!

Nothing I've said here is a lie. I seriously am astounded that you call people on the BB liars, lying, &c.

What I've said is a rather accurate view of you, freeatlast. Quite accurate indeed.

You've bashed others with this accusing of lies. Why not stop it? You really need to refrain from such prattle.

You've stated several times about your own surpassing holiness, concerning your days in a row without sin. Others who have spoken of sinning daily have been rebuked. Your opinion is that a person who sins daily is practicing sin by your implication. Own up.

Your interpretation (misinterpretation rather) of 1 John 1:8-10 has been show incorrect by many on the BB. There is no transition from believers to unbelievers in this context. Thus, it doesn't support your philosophy.

The fact is, fellowship of believers is hampered by sin, and confessing this restores communion and fellowship with God. The context supports this. Your view is in error.

- Peace

 

[freeatlast]

Nothing I've said here is a lie. I seriously am astounded that you call people on the BB liars, lying, &c.

What I've said is a rather accurate view of you, freeatlast. Quite accurate indeed.

You've bashed others with this accusing of lies. Why not stop it? You really need to refrain from such prattle.

You've stated several times about your own surpassing holiness, concerning your days in a row without sin. Others who have spoken of sinning daily have been rebuked. Your opinion is that a person who sins daily is practicing sin by your implication. Own up.

Your interpretation (misinterpretation) of I John 1:8-10 has been show incorrect by many on the BB. There is no transition from believers to unbelievers in this context. Thus, it doesn't support your philosophy.

The fact is, fellowship of believers is hampered by sin, and confessing this restores communion and fellowship with God. The context supports this. Your view is in error.

- Peace

I never say someone has lied unless they lie and you lied.

 

[preacher4truth]

I never say someone has lied unless they lie and you lied.

Your interpretation and doctrine here is error. You've been admonished by several concerning said fallacious teaching which you espouse.

Nothing I've said is a lie, but is rather an accurate view of you freeatlast.

 

[freeatlast]

Your interpretation and doctrine here is error. You've been admonished by several concerning said fallacious teaching which you espouse.

Nothing I've said is a lie, but is rather an accurate view of you freeatlast.

No you lied.

 

[preacher4truth]

No you lied.

:laugh: :laugh:

Not at all. Your philosophy on this passage is well known on the BB. It is interpretational error on your part.

 

[The Biblicist]

Who said anything about John disputing agnostics? John is dealing with the problem of the teachings that Gnostics had. This is why he says what he says in the first three verses. The Gnostics taught that God and flesh could not meet. So John is saying we touched Him and we heard Him and so on. Then John deals with the false teaching that they had never sinned.
You can read here about Gnosticism and why John wrote the letter.
http://www.bibleone.net/print_tbs61.html

My mistake, I was thinking one thing and wrote another. However, that does not change the grammatical and contextual facts that I gave you. Those are the facts of grammar and grammar does not choose sides and does not lie. Your interpretation of this passage is simply false and has no exegetical basis whatsoever.

 

[freeatlast]

:laugh: :laugh:

Not at all. Your philosophy on this passage is well known on the BB. It is interpretational error on your part.

Like I said you lied.

 

[freeatlast]

My mistake, I was thinking one thing and wrote another. However, that does not change the grammatical and contextual facts that I gave you. Those are the facts of grammar and grammar does not choose sides and does not lie. Your interpretation of this passage is simply false and has no exegetical basis whatsoever.

You have misinterpreted the Greek and the passage. Again John is dealing with the problem of Gnosticism that had crept into the church. Here are the passages in question.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John uses the word “we” to keep himself in touch with the reader and the readers are Christians for the most part. It is like saying to someone how are “we” doing today? In this case John wants to make sure he is seen as a sin confessor as all real believers are to help support what he is going to say. The idea is to make sure that the false teachings do not become part of the believers doctrine and then destroy the truth of the gospel as well as deal with anyone who might be in the mist who holds the false teachings of the Gnostics.
The Gnostics heresy held we do not have any principle of sin within us since matter is evil and the soul is not contaminated with or by sinful flesh. Thus claiming to have never sinned. So John proceeds do deal with that false teaching.
In 8 the word "sin" is singular (no sin) in number and is used without the definite article, pointing to the fact that the nature is referred to, not acts of sin. Here we have a denial of total depravity of man passed on from Adam. This is what Paul is dealing with.
Look at the emphatic position of the pronoun "ourselves." Sin is evident in the life for all to see and yet this person is denying they have ever had any sin at all and there is no ability to sin. Thus while everyone else sees the truth "we" deceive ourselves through the false teaching being dealt with.

In 9 John continues on to show that there is a remedy for this condition. Remember in 8 "sin" is dealing with the denial of the nature that has passed from Adam on to all men.
He is saying instead of holding that we have no sin ever at all in our lives if we will confess our sins, if we are the sin confessors, He is faithful to cleans us from all unrighteousness.

So yes John is speaking with the saints, but about a false teaching and he is reminding them that sin confessors are forgiven and sin deniers are not. You see that in verse 10. So the intent is to make sure no believer adopts any part of the false teaching and that any person who is of the gnostic belief sees that they need to be a sin confessor.
This is why I am saying this is not dealing with believers. It is speaking to believers to deal with a false teaching. The passage is not simply to get believers to confess their sin. Believers know they sin from time to time. The passage is dealing with the false teachings of the Gnostics but it speaks to and through the believer. Remember the believer is already forgiven of all past present, and future, sins but this is dealing with those who deny, verse 8 "sin" never having any sin in their lives ever. Then we see the warning in verse 10 if the person "WE" do not confess our sins.
In 10 there is a denial of specific acts of sin. The verb is in the perfect tense which refers to an action completed in the past having present results. So the denial is that no sin has ever been committed in the past with the idea that none are able to be committed in the present as well as there is no consequences. That was the Gnostic belief and John is dealing with that teaching to make sure it did not get into the church and if it had those who held it would see that they are sinners and confess both the nature of their sin and the acts.

 

[preacher4truth]

Like I said you lied.

Any person can take a look at your fallacious intepretation of this passage on the BB. You've been admonished by several good people here on the BB about your error in interpreting this passage.

But carry on with your name-calling, OK? We all know what name-calling means, it means you've lost my friend and have been exposed. Anyhow, your doing so will further prove that you're not walking sinlessly days at a time (up to 4 days in a row as you've implied.) Nothing I've said is a lie. It looks apparent to me who is shirking the truth here, and is angry, and it's not me my friend.

 

[freeatlast]

Any person can take a look at your fallacious intepretation of this passage on the BB. You've been admonished by several good people here on the BB about your error in interpreting this passage.

But carry on with your name-calling, OK? We all know what name-calling means, it means you've lost my friend and have been exposed. Anyhow, your doing so will further prove that you're not walking sinlessly days at a time (up to 4 days in a row as you've implied.) Nothing I've said is a lie. It looks apparent to me who is shirking the truth here, and is angry, and it's not me my friend.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with what I believe. I do have a big problem with anyone adding to or changing what I say. Like I said you lied.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have misinterpreted the Greek and the passage. Again John is dealing with the problem of Gnosticism that had crept into the church. Here are the passages in question.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John uses the word “we” to keep himself in touch with the reader and the readers are Christians for the most part.

You cannot just abritrarily demand the pronoun "we" has this intent in this passage without some kind of basis in the preceding context leading up to that verse. Where does "we" or "you" in the preceding context take on this idea?

1. Did this transition happen in verse 1?

1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;


2. Verse 3?

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

3. Verse 4-7?

4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5 ¶ This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

So where in the above 7 verses does this transition from "we" who actually saw and touched Jesus Christ turn into another kind of "we" who did not see and touch Jesus Christ? Where does this transition from "you" and "ye" change to some other ones than those described in verses 1-7?

If you cannot find any transition point in the preceding context then your interpretation is without any contextual basis and thus FALSE!

 

[freeatlast]

You cannot just abritrarily demand the pronoun "we" has this intent in this passage without some kind of basis in the preceding context leading up to that verse. Where does "we" or "you" in the preceding context take on this idea?

1. Did this transition happen in verse 1?

1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;


2. Verse 3?

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

3. Verse 4-7?

4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5 ¶ This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

So where in the above 7 verses does this transition from "we" who actually saw and touched Jesus Christ turn into another kind of "we" who did not see and touch Jesus Christ? Where does this transition from "you" and "ye" change to some other ones than those described in verses 1-7?

If you cannot find any transition point in the preceding context then your interpretation is without any contextual basis and thus FALSE!

Here is an example from what you gave.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


Notice in 6 the "WE" are those professing to walk wiht God but they are walking in darkness (lost). In 7 the "WE" are those who are walking in the light so they are have been cleansed (saved). The "WE" is interchangable depending on context. What I said about the text is correct.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with what I believe. I do have a big problem with anyone adding to or changing what I say. Like I said you lied.

I've not changed a thing you've stated, unless you're copping out because I haven't quoted you verbatim, which is being deceitful on your part, is lame, and is in fact what you're doing here, copping out.

I've described you perfectly, and the description is notoriously you.

Your broad brush denial is in itself telltale that you aren't being truthful. Not one thing I said was erroneous, it is a very accurate and indicting description of you Gerald.

 

[freeatlast]

I've not changed a thing you've stated, unless you're copping out because I haven't quoted you verbatim, which is being deceitful on your part, is lame, and is in fact what you're doing here, copping out.

I've described you perfectly, and the description is notoriously you.

Your broad brush denial is in itself telltale that you aren't being truthful. Not one thing I said was erroneous, it is a very accurate and indicting description of you Gerald.

Like I said you lied.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is an example from what you gave.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


Notice in 6 the "WE" are those professing to walk wiht God but they are walking in darkness (lost). In 7 the "WE" are those who are walking in the light so they are have been cleansed (saved). The "WE" is interchangable depending on context. What I said about the text is correct.

The text says no such thing! He introduces verse six with the word "IF" which represents the subjunctive mode to consider something HYPOTHETICALLY not actually or realistically. Sorry, but that is the grammar.