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

[freeatlast]

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.

Well if you believe it is hypothetical then verse 7 must be also and no one is going to be forgiven or cleansed, correct? :thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

Are you claiming this teaches living above sin? If not, then it does not help you at all because it then includes not merely the ability to sin but the fact that all true children of God do sin (I Jn. 1:8-10).

Your problem remains the same. When, not if, you sin, does that require you to confess it and TURN from it???? Is not that TURNING mean that you have not followed the leadership of the Spirit and that you were not filled with the Spirit when committing that sin????

Does not that require you to "put off the old man" or do you attribute that sin to the new man and to the Spirit of God?

Again, the commands to "put on" and "put off" are given to Christians not to lost people. Your position makes those commands meaningless as you claim that was done at the point of salvation. Pray tell, why did Paul waste his breath COMMANDING Christians to do these things as he does use the imperative mode or mode of command making this equally a responsibility to do as being filled with Spirit??????

have to take a step furhter back on this discussion!

Do we ALL agree with the Bible that even though saved and have new natures, HS residing in us, that we all still have ole flesh/sin principle still dwelling in us?

Wonder if FAL holds to us JUST having one nature now as saved persons?

IF so, that might explain his problem reconciling flesh and new natures, as we would JUST have new natures?

 

[freeatlast]

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.

If it is HYPOTHETICAL in 6 then it has to be HYPOTHETICAL in 7. Are you sure you want to go that route? Grammar you know.

 

[The Biblicist]

If it is HYPOTHETICAL in 6 then it has to be HYPOTHETICAL in 7. Are you sure you want to go that route? Grammar you know.

He is simply saying "If" we do A then B will be the consequence. A set of hypothetical actions and consequences.


6 (A) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness
(B) we lie, and do not the truth:


7 (A) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
(B) we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


8 ¶ (A) If we say that we have no sin,
(B) we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 (A) If we confess our sins,
(B) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 (A) If we say that we have not sinned,
(B) we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[freeatlast]

He is simply saying "If" we do A then B will be the consequence. A set of hypothetical actions and consequences.


6 (A) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness
(B) we lie, and do not the truth:


7 (A) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
(B) we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


8 ¶ (A) If we say that we have no sin,
(B) we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 (A) If we confess our sins,
(B) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 (A) If we say that we have not sinned,
(B) we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Why bother is it is hypothetical?

 

[The Biblicist]

Why bother is it is hypothetical?

John presents a hypothetical statement found in verses 6, 8, 10 that demand negative consequences.

John presents hypothetical statements found in the verses of 7 and 9 that demand positive consequences.

The hypothetical nature is that he is neither asserting or denying these things are realities in regard to "we" but simply presenting necessary negative and postive conclusions if they are true.


For example, take verse 6. IF we say we have fellowship with him but in addition to that claim we walk in darkness (the hypothetical assertion) then the necessary NEGATIVE conclusion in regard to "we" is "we lie, and do not the truth.

For example, take verse 7. In contrast ["but"]to that NEGATIVE hypothetical consideration in verse 6 IF the following is true - "we walk in the light" then the necessary postive conclusion is also true - "we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin"


This is the hypothetical pattern he follows in verses 6-10. Verse 6 sets forth the hypothetical contrast followed by a negative conclusion while verse 7 responds in a postive contrast and postive conclusion.

Verse 8 sets forth the hypothetical negative followed by a necessary negative conclusion while verse 9 responds sets forth a postive hypothetical assertion followed by a necessary postive conclusion.

Verse 10 sets forth a hypothetic negative assertion followed by a necessary negative conclusion.


6 (A) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness(B) we lie, and do not the truth:


7 (A) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
(B) we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


8 ¶ (A) If we say that we have no sin,
(B) we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 (A) If we confess our sins,
(B) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 (A) If we say that we have not sinned,
(B) we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[freeatlast]

John presents a hypothetical statement found in verses 6, 8, 10 that demand negative consequences.

John presents hypothetical statements found in the verses of 7 and 9 that demand positive consequences.

The hypothetical nature is that he is neither asserting or denying these things are realities in regard to "we" but simply presenting necessary negative and postive conclusions if they are true.


For example, take verse 6. IF we say we have fellowship with him but in addition to that claim we walk in darkness (the hypothetical assertion) then the necessary NEGATIVE conclusion in regard to "we" is "we lie, and do not the truth.

For example, take verse 7. In contrast ["but"]to that NEGATIVE hypothetical consideration in verse 6 IF the following is true - "we walk in the light" then the necessary postive conclusion is also true - "we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin"


This is the hypothetical pattern he follows in verses 6-10. Verse 6 sets forth the hypothetical contrast followed by a negative conclusion while verse 7 responds in a postive contrast and postive conclusion.

Verse 8 sets forth the hypothetical negative followed by a necessary negative conclusion while verse 9 responds sets forth a postive hypothetical assertion followed by a necessary postive conclusion.

Verse 10 sets forth a hypothetic negative assertion followed by a necessary negative conclusion.


6 (A) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness(B) we lie, and do not the truth:


7 (A) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
(B) we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


8 ¶ (A) If we say that we have no sin,
(B) we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 (A) If we confess our sins,
(B) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 (A) If we say that we have not sinned,
(B) we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Let me ask again.
Why bother if it is hypothetical? Hypothetical means it is possible but not likely. Why would John bother with somehting that is not happening and most likely would not?

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me ask again.
Why bother if it is hypothetical? Hypothetical means it is possible but not likely. Why would John bother with somehting that is not happening and most likely would not?

This is simply a method to teach. The teacher presents a hypothetical case and then responds with necessary negative and postive conclusions. Teachers use this method all the time.

 

[Romans7man]

The human body, and that is what he explicitly identifies as his continuing subject (vv. 18, 24,25) is sold under sin and the proof is that it will die. The saint is not glorified yet and so there is an aspect of his human nature that has not yet been redeemed from the POWER and PRESENCE of sin and death which is the wages of sin proves. Deliverance by Christ from sin in regard to our body is yet future. The flesh is indwelt by sin, corrupting by sin and finally dying and will be buried because of the indwelling presence and power of sin.

I think I understand the problem here. You are going by what YOU see and not how God sees it. In your reality the flesh has not yet been dealt with. In God's reality the flesh "has been" put to death. In other words you are walking by sight and not by faith.
What I don't quit understand is, how one can not understand that as many times as Paul says that.
The old man is crucified. Reckon yourself dead. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. And on and on it goes.
In your reckoning nothing has happened and it is only theoretical that we have been crucified and it is not yet finished as Christ said it was, so we must continue putting the flesh to death daily, rather than walk in God's truth, by faith, and just accept God's word that all this is in our past. It's not for us to see it, but just believe God. For we walk by faith, not by sight.
Romans 8:24; for we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

First, one must recognize they have a problem and know the solution to that problem BEFORE they can be held accountable to deal with that problem. Romans 7:14-25 defines the problem. Romans 8:1-27 defines the solution to that problem. Hence, the responsibility is "put off the old man" and "put on the new man" or "mortify the deeds of the flesh" and be "led by the Spirit."

Only by divorcing verse 24 from verse 25 are you able to maintain your past/present or lost/saved contrast. However, verse 25 proves that both are present.

25a is an interjection of praise. If you don't see it as an interjection then I would see how you might think as you do. From time to time Paul will interject a phrase of praise and even condemnation, as he does in, Romans 1:25, 3:8, and a number of times he gives a simple Amen.

Second, it is "the body of this death" that he is talking about. I personally do not know of any living Christian that will avoid "death" in "the body" as the principle of indwelling sin will rule and reign over this body until Christ delivers it in the yet future from the grave.

There is a period of time between when one is saved (crucified, buried, and raised with Christ) and the actual time the flesh is disposed of. In this period of time we are to walk by faith.

Paul is referring to the ancient custom of Roman guards. When a prisoner became troublesome to the guards, they would take a dead corpse and fasten it to the prisoner, face to face, arms to arms, leg to legs and make that prisoner live attached to that body. This is Paul's analogy of the believer who is still attached to a body where the presence and power of death (disease, decay, and finally physically death) still resides in the human nature. He is expressing in the most graphic way the agony of the believer whose inward man delights in the law of God as opposed to the lost man whose inward man is at enmity with God and not subject to the law of God.

I have heard this analogy before, I just don't read it in scripture. But it does sound like something we should implement in our penal system again, it might deter crime.
The only "believer" Paul is referring to here is the Jew that still delights in God's law and is working to please God, in his mind, because he is certainly not pleasing God in the flesh. Sounds just like those Paul made mention of back in 2:1-3:20.

He is thanking God that there is deliverance from this condition for the child of God through Jesus Christ. Ultimately, full deliverance is only at the resurrection when the body is raised without the indwelling principle of sin. However, now there is deliverance through Jesus Christ by "mortifying the deeds of the flesh" through the power of the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom. 8:1-16). There is also deliverance from "the flesh" at physical death when the born again "inward man" is separated from "the body of this death."

However, until physical death occurs, the child of God is stuck in "the body of this death" (v. 25) and there is NO REDEMPTION of the flesh while in this life as it will surely die. Hence, the law of sin shall continue to dominate the flesh right into the grave and the reborn man shall continue to delight in the law of God. This dichotomy will continue to the grave. However, Romans 8:1-27 provides the PRESENT solution for overcoming the power and presence of indwelling sin in "the body of this death." By faith we must put to death the deeds of the body and live by the power of the Spirit. When we do not then we EXPERIENCE death due to manifest sin which SEPARATES us from fellowship with God. Death is separation and sin separates the believer from fellowship with God and thus we EXPERIENCE death (disease, lack of fellowship, lack of joy, chastening, sorrow, etc.).







I am sorry, but that is exactly what it is saying - "I" can't overcome sin, because "I" am carnal and sold under sin. Jesus said the same thing this way, "without me ye can DO NOTHING." Paul is making the case that the believer cannot overcome indwelling sin by his own will power or strength but MUST depend SOLELY upon the Spirit of Christ within him if any victory is to be EXPERIENCED in his life or otherwise he will EXPERIENCE a "wretched state" of frustration and failure every moment he attempts to defeat indwelling sin by HIS OWN ABILITIES.





Paul is simply making the case that the born again man who has been given a new heart that loves and submits to the revealed will of God cannot live the Christian life in HIS OWN STRENGTH and why he cannot. Romans 7 is making the case that the redeemed man is not sanctified by the Law of God any more than he is justified by the law of God. He is making the case that just as the saint received Christ by faith so he must also "walk in him" by faith or else he will not EXPERIENCE victory but only defeat in his battle with indwelling sin. He is making the case that the saved man can "DO NOTHING" in Romans 7 without the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8 in the PROGRESSSIVE CONFORMATION in this life unto the image of Christ.

As long as you believe the believer is "carnal and sold unto sin" you will always see Romans 7 as a Christian, and you will continue to teach it that way. You will NEVER experience the freedom we have been given. If you are the preacher you will preach one sermon after another and see your congregation walk in sin.

 

[freeatlast]

This is simply a method to teach. The teacher presents a hypothetical case and then responds with necessary negative and postive conclusions. Teachers use this method all the time.

You mean Sort of like the government making seat belt laws back in the 1700's to teach the people that driving a car could be dangerous even though there was no such thing as a car, correct? hypothetical! :laugh:

 

[freeatlast]

I think I understand the problem here. You are going by what YOU see and not how God sees it. In your reality the flesh has not yet been dealt with. In God's reality the flesh "has been" put to death. In other words you are walking by sight and not by faith.
What I don't quit understand is, how one can not understand that as many times as Paul says that.
The old man is crucified. Reckon yourself dead. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. And on and on it goes.
In your reckoning nothing has happened and it is only theoretical that we have been crucified and it is not yet finished as Christ said it was, so we must continue putting the flesh to death daily, rather than walk in God's truth, by faith, and just accept God's word that all this is in our past. It's not for us to see it, but just believe God. For we walk by faith, not by sight.
Romans 8:24; for we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?











25a is an interjection of praise. If you don't see it as an interjection then I would see how you might think as you do. From time to time Paul will interject a phrase of praise and even condemnation, as he does in, Romans 1:25, 3:8, and a number of times he gives a simple Amen.



There is a period of time between when one is saved (crucified, buried, and raised with Christ) and the actual time the flesh is disposed of. In this period of time we are to walk by faith.



I have heard this analogy before, I just don't read it in scripture. But it does sound like something we should implement in our penal system again, it might deter crime.
The only "believer" Paul is referring to here is the Jew that still delights in God's law and is working to please God, in his mind, because he is certainly not pleasing God in the flesh. Sounds just like those Paul made mention of back in 2:1-3:20.





As long as you believe the believer is "carnal and sold unto sin" you will always see Romans 7 as a Christian, and you will continue to teach it that way. You will NEVER experience the freedom we have been given. If you are the preacher you will preach one sermon after another and see your congregation walk in sin.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

You mean Sort of like the government making seat belt laws back in the 1700's to teach the people that driving a car could be dangerous even though there was no such thing as a car, correct? hypothetical! :laugh:

I simply mean it is a very common method used in teachng and that is what John is doing - teaching.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think I understand the problem here. You are going by what YOU see and not how God sees it.

If that were remotely true, I wouldn't be using God's Word to make my points but simply giving you my personal observations. Get real!

In your reality the flesh has not yet been dealt with. In God's reality the flesh "has been" put to death. In other words you are walking by sight and not by faith.

No, you are in denial of your own reality while confusing two equally Biblical truths. Let's deal first with your own reailty. Are you sinless? If reality is that all your sins have been taken care of completely and fully then you should be sinless. Will you escape death? If sin and all of its power has been taken care of completely at the cross in regard to your reality then you should never suffer PHYSICAL death.

So obviously, that is not your reality is it? You are not sinless. You are suffering consequences of sin (aging, disease) and you will physically die won't you?? So my reality is your reality.

Now, let's talk about God's reality. God sees things from three different perspectives. First he sees us as we really are - still unfinished and in the process of becoming transformed to the image of Christ. Second, He sees us how we will become after glorification due to his purpose. Third, he sees us POSITIONALLY in Christ.

Romans 7 introduces our LEGAL position in Christ in regard to the Law. In Christ we are dead to sin, positionally we are already "seated in heavenly places IN CHRIST Jesus." However, that is not our current PERSONAL reality is it?

Now lets take a look at your abuse of Scriptures:

The old man is crucified. Reckon yourself dead. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. And on and on it goes.

Note the word "reckon"! That word would be unnecessary if you were actually dead to sin in regard to your own person in time and space reality. Just as it would be silly to tell Christians to "put on the new man" or "put off the old man" if that had no actual practical application to their reality as persons in time and place.

 

[freeatlast]

I simply mean it is a very common method used in teachng and that is what John is doing - teaching.

So you say, but you are side stepping my question. What good is a teaching it if the thing mentioned is not a problem or most likely will never be a problem? And on what you say is the positive side what good is it if those things are not happening?

 

[The Biblicist]

So you say, but you are side stepping my question. What good is a teaching it if the thing mentioned is not a problem or most likely will never be a problem? And on what you say is the positive side what good is it if those things are not happening?

Because all who profess do not possess (1 Jn. 2:19). This epistle is written so that the reader might "know" they are saved and might "know" how to recognize those who profess Christ but are lost.

 

[freeatlast]

The Biblicist you say If that were remotely true, I wouldn't be using God's Word to make my points but simply giving you my personal observations. Get real!

You are pointing to God's word but you are still giving personal observations that do not agree with the word.

No, you are in denial of your own reality while confusing two equally Biblical truths. Let's deal first with your own reailty. Are you sinless? If reality is that all your sins have been taken care of completely and fully then you should be sinless. Will you escape death? If sin and all of its power has been taken care of completely at the cross in regard to your reality then you should never suffer PHYSICAL death.

Why does everyone jump on the sinless wagon? No one even suggests we are sinless. I think You do that to confuse the issue. You are not understanding the scriptures. Do you remember the teaching about putting new wine in old wine skins. Well that is what has happened to us. We are new creatures in these old wine skins and one day they will burst asunder (we will die). Though the flesh has been crucified it is not redeemed. So until that time we do not have to sin. All our sin is a choice.

1Cor. 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

So obviously, that is not your reality is it? You are not sinless. You are suffering consequences of sin (aging, disease) and you will physically die won't you?? So my reality is your reality.

Like I said the flesh has been crucified with Christ, but it has not been redeemed.

Now, let's talk about God's reality. God sees things from three different perspectives. First he sees us as we really are - still unfinished and in the process of becoming transformed to the image of Christ. Second, He sees us how we will become after glorification due to his purpose. Third, he sees us POSITIONALLY in Christ.

Romans 7 introduces our LEGAL position in Christ in regard to the Law. In Christ we are dead to sin, positionally we are already "seated in heavenly places IN CHRIST Jesus." However, that is not our current PERSONAL reality is it?

Romans 7 is speaking to those who know the law. Your exegesis is really an eisogetes

Now lets take a look at your abuse of Scriptures:

Note the word "reckon"! That word would be unnecessary if you were actually dead to sin in regard to your own person in time and space reality. Just as it would be silly to tell Christians to "put on the new man" or "put off the old man" if that had no actual practical application to their reality as persons in time and place.

You do not understand the Greek word translated "reckon." Here is what it means;
This word deals with reality. If I reckon (logizomai) that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers more to fact than supposition or opinion.

Then Paul says since you now know this;
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God.
That is reality!

 

[freeatlast]

Because all who profess do not possess (1 Jn. 2:19). This epistle is written so that the reader might "know" they are saved and might "know" how to recognize those who profess Christ but are lost.

But you said it was hypothetical! What you are saying cannot be true if it is hypothetical since it is not happening. Hypothetical means it has not happened and is not happening. How does somehting that is not happening and not going to happen justify writing the verses you claim are hypothetical?

 

[The Biblicist]

But you said it was hypothetical! What you are saying cannot be true if it is hypothetical since it is not happening. Hypothetical means it has not happened and is not happening. How does somehting that is not happening and not going to happen justify writing the verses you claim are hypothetical?

Can you see into the heart of anyone? No! So how do you tell the difference between the true beleiver and the false professing beleiver? You cannot make any direct charge so you set forth principles in a hypthetical fashion and "IF" they fit they fit and "IF" they don't they don't. People who fit these principles are people who profess but do not possess.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, you are in denial of your own reality while confusing two equally Biblical truths. Let's deal first with your own reailty. Are you sinless? If reality is that all your sins have been taken care of completely and fully then you should be sinless. Will you escape death? If sin and all of its power has been taken care of completely at the cross in regard to your reality then you should never suffer PHYSICAL death.

Why does everyone jump on the sinless wagon? No one even suggests we are sinless. I think You do that to confuse the issue. You are not understanding the scriptures. Do you remember the teaching about putting new wine in old wine skins. Well that is what has happened to us. We are new creatures in these old wine skins and one day they will burst asunder (we will die). Though the flesh has been crucified it is not redeemed. So until that time we do not have to sin. All our sin is a choice.

Here is where you whole theory breaks down. Instead of dealing with this actual and real problem you simply brush it off and go on as though it does not ACTUALLY and REALLY describe your present reality in time and space.

You in reality do sin and you in reaity do die. Hence, sin in regard to its presence and power IN YOUR OWN LIFE in time and space has not been removed by the cross and won't be until your are glorified. THAT IS YOUR REALITY whether you like or not or admit it or not and that is the archilles heel of your whole theory. You are no more free from the presence and power of sin right now in time and space as your are actually and really already "seated in heavenly places." You POSITIONALLY are in heaven "in Christ" and you POSITIONALLY have died with Christ at the Cross.

 

[freeatlast]

Can you see into the heart of anyone? No! So how do you tell the difference between the true beleiver and the false professing beleiver? You cannot make any direct charge so you set forth principles in a hypthetical fashion and "IF" they fit they fit and "IF" they don't they don't. People who fit these principles are people who profess but do not possess.

So we need to have hypothetical scripture for this? Now that is rich! You might want to take a rest as I can tell you are getting low on ammo and may even be a little shell shocked because you ain't thinking straight. :laugh: