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

[freeatlast]

Paul is lamenting, not he Jewish Christians. but, you strike close to articulating a point that I've felt is an underlying intent of Paul's letter to the Roman Church. Their influence in that Church was [at the least] significant, and a whole lot of Paul's message to the Roman Church centers around 'God is no respector of persons' concerning Jew and Gentile, there is no difference between the two in God's eyes.

I fail to see where there's any indication of those Jews 'straddling the fence' as you say. I get the feeling he was trying to subtlely put the Jews on the same plane as the Gentiles at the Roman Church; although there's no indication of any problem in that area. Preemptive on his part, maybe?

it cannot be about Paul because of the wording. Paul says in other passages how he kept the law while under it. He is not now battling sin while under grace.

 

[Greektim]

Let me pose something to you that I feel is a mass misconception in many biblically educated people. First just to let you know I do not disagree with you about the passage dealing with an unregenerate person although I think there is more to it then that. Back to what I wanted to deal with. Here is what you said:
"I agree that the unregenerate man has no desire to do what is right in the sense of general morality and a sense of pleasing God."

I believe that statement is incorrect. It is too absolute. I have known a few Jewish people who are not Christians and they had a passion for God and all He represents in holiness, except the cross. They will tell you that they want to please God. I also know many gentiles who are religious, though not saved and hold a desire to please God. They want please to God even though they are not saved.

You may be very correct about "too absolute." But that was my point. Paul's pre-conversion self was a Pharisee who sought to please God with incorrect methods. And in that way, they do not seek to please God--the method prescribed by God through the cross.

 

[Greektim]

You may be splitting the proverbial hair here. I think it's safe to surmise that there was a significant Jewish contingent at the Church at Rome. Paul seems to be directly addressing Jews at times in the epistle, and in 7:1 he says "Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law)". Perhaps some of this escapes us because we weren't raised up under the law? Just throwing that out there.

But I'm not trying to argue that Paul was speaking to a Jewish audience in this case. My point is that the context before vv. 14ff. were about the Law. Thus Paul's preconversion self would be centered around the Law as a Pharisee. I think with that in mind, it makes perfect sense that he wanted to do good (the law was just called "good") yet was unable. We know that he could not completely keep the Law. It just seems way to difficult to leap through the hoops to say these words are about a saved person. Occom's razor would tell us that the interpretation that is the least difficult is to be preferred. In this case, it seems obvious to me that the unregenerate man is the clear winner. Too many hard statements to square with a saved person.

 

[Romans7man]

Romans 6:16 is about Romans 1:18-3:20.
Romans 6:17 is about Romans 3:21 through the end of chapter 4.
Romans 6:18 is about Romans 5.
Romans 6:19 is about Romans 6 through 7:6. present tense
Romans 6:20 and 21 is about Romans 7:7-25. past tense
Romans 6:22 and 23 is about Romans 8. present tense.

I hope everyone has gone back and made the comparisons, verses to chapters.
I have read everyone's post up to now and see some good points, none I haven't heard before, but I see at least you have studied on this before.

Romans 6:16; Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Here Paul makes a statement of logic that anyone could relate to, just as he does in 7:1.
Here Paul is beginning to reiterate his main points he started in chapter 1. In chapters 1:18-3:20 Paul begins showing us how man has gotten in the mess he has. In these chapters we see man making one choice after another. The first wrong choice is 1:21;Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Our first mistake is when we think we don't need God and we can do just fine without Him. When we know God or know of God and do not glorify Him for who He is and then add insult to injury by not even being thankful for all He has done for us we have broken even our own standard of conduct. Here in the south it is basic understanding that we thank folks for even the smallest of things, such as when someone opens the door or holds the door for even a stranger, but then we don't give thanks to God for all He has done for us? I'm not saying it is a sin to do those things for our fellow man, but when a man will thank another man for things such as this, but then we don't do it for our creator, I would say we have our priorities upside down.
When we turn away from God and are not thankful, where else can a man go but into sin?
Paul goes through a list of things that anyone, well, most anyone, would be in agreement that those that do such things are indeed worthy of death. Paul does this to cause one to judge and condemn others, but then he turns the table on them and says in 2:1;Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Paul reminds us that God's judgement is according to thruth, whereas ours may be biased.
He then tells us in 2:6-11 basically what he has told us in 6:16. It is how one lives their life that determines whether or not they are servants of righteousness or servants of sin. Depending on which one determines life or death.

Romans 6:17;But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Here Paul picks up where he did in 3:21 saying "But now" leading up to what has saved us, faith in Jesus Christ.
Paul makes a contrast between our old lost condition brought on by our works to our new relationship with God. He gives thanks to God that sin is not our master any longer, but that we have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that saved us. That form of doctrine that we believed from the heart and delivered us is faith. When you go back and read 3:21-4:25 we see faith is what God has been trying to get man to come to. So go back and read 3:21-4:25 and 5:1 and 2. Paul picks this up again in 9:30. So read 9:30 through the end of chapter 10.

Romans 6:18;Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Again Paul tells us we are free from sin. We are free from sin because we have been justified by faith, Romans 5:1. We are not servants of sin, but servants of righteousness. Romans 5:21;That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

to be continued..........

 

[Greektim]

I hope everyone has gone back and made the comparisons, verses to chapters.
I have read everyone's post up to now and see some good points, none I haven't heard before, but I see at least you have studied on this before.

Romans 6:16; Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Here Paul makes a statement of logic that anyone could relate to, just as he does in 7:1.
Here Paul is beginning to reiterate his main points he started in chapter 1. In chapters 1:18-3:20 Paul begins showing us how man has gotten in the mess he has. In these chapters we see man making one choice after another. The first wrong choice is 1:21;Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Our first mistake is when we think we don't need God and we can do just fine without Him. When we know God or know of God and do not glorify Him for who He is and then add insult to injury by not even being thankful for all He has done for us we have broken even our own standard of conduct. Here in the south it is basic understanding that we thank folks for even the smallest of things, such as when someone opens the door or holds the door for even a stranger, but then we don't give thanks to God for all He has done for us? I'm not saying it is a sin to do those things for our fellow man, but when a man will thank another man for things such as this, but then we don't do it for our creator, I would say we have our priorities upside down.
When we turn away from God and are not thankful, where else can a man go but into sin?
Paul goes through a list of things that anyone, well, most anyone, would be in agreement that those that do such things are indeed worthy of death. Paul does this to cause one to judge and condemn others, but then he turns the table on them and says in 2:1;Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Paul reminds us that God's judgement is according to thruth, whereas ours may be biased.
He then tells us in 2:6-11 basically what he has told us in 6:16. It is how one lives their life that determines whether or not they are servants of righteousness or servants of sin. Depending on which one determines life or death.

Romans 6:17;But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Here Paul picks up where he did in 3:21 saying "But now" leading up to what has saved us, faith in Jesus Christ.
Paul makes a contrast between our old lost condition brought on by our works to our new relationship with God. He gives thanks to God that sin is not our master any longer, but that we have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that saved us. That form of doctrine that we believed from the heart and delivered us is faith. When you go back and read 3:21-4:25 we see faith is what God has been trying to get man to come to. So go back and read 3:21-4:25 and 5:1 and 2. Paul picks this up again in 9:30. So read 9:30 through the end of chapter 10.

Romans 6:18;Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Again Paul tells us we are free from sin. We are free from sin because we have been justified by faith, Romans 5:1. We are not servants of sin, but servants of righteousness. Romans 5:21;That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

to be continued..........

STill to be continued or are you finished?

 

[Romans7man]

STill to be continued or are you finished?

Sorry about not getting back to this, as I have been very busy. I have dropped in from time to time to see what, if anything has been said. I plan on getting back to this tomorrow and If I get time I would like to start another thread along the same lines, but from another section in Romans. Then maybe (as time will allow) one more from Romans after that and then another from Ephesians chapter 2. There is a LOT to be said, but not a lot of time to say it because of things going on at work and home.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is how it will look.
Romans 6:16 is about Romans 1:18-3:20.
Romans 6:17 is about Romans 3:21 through the end of chapter 4.
Romans 6:18 is about Romans 5.
Romans 6:19 is about Romans 6 through 7:6. present tense
Romans 6:20 and 21 is about Romans 7:7-25. past tense
Romans 6:22 and 23 is about Romans 8. present tense

....... but every time where chapter 7 is listed it is always, without exception, past tense or a lost man condition, always!

Quite an abritrary approach. However, what you are suggesting actually contradicts Romans 7:14-25 as it is found in the present tense instead of the past tense. What you say may be true of Romans 7:6-13 but not Romans 7:14-25.

In my experience in dealing with this issue, those who insist that Romans 7:14-25 refers to Paul in his lost state base this claim primarily on verse 14 where he says:

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

However, it would seem that Paul is merely referring to his temporal unglorified condition or state of existence as a child of God in regard to the continuing principle of death still at work in his body in connection with indwelling sin that will not be removed until Jesus comes and we are delivered from the indwelling death principle at His coming (Rom. 7:24).

I say this because Paul clarifies himself in verses 17-18 where he restricts this problem to what he calls "the flesh" in contradistinction to himself or "in me."

Furthermore, this indwelling sin problem or law characterzing his "flesh" is described as a continuing problem until a yet future deliverance by Christ (v. 24). At the second coming the present body of death will be transformed so that the death principle no longer characterizes it.

Also, in speaking to the Galatians he summarizes the very same problem that presently characterizes those who profess to be Christians:

Gal. 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

The same present tense is found here as well as the same solution to this problem - walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16,18,25; Rom. 8:1-27).

Finally, what true Christian is not involved in this internal struggle on a daily basis?? What true Christian is not involved in a daily war for the mind (2 Cor. 10:5)??

No lost person has an "inward man" that delights in the law of God but rather their inclination is to be at "enmity with God and not subject to the law of God and neither indeed CAN BE" (Rom. 8:7).

However, saved person can walk "after the flesh" just as much as they an "walk in the Spirit" and sin in their lives proves this (1 Jn. 1:8-10).

 

[freeatlast]

No lost person has an "inward man" that delights in the law of God but rather their inclination is to be at "enmity with God and not subject to the law of God and neither indeed CAN BE" (Rom. 8:7).

However, saved person can walk "after the flesh" just as much as they an "walk in the Spirit" and sin in their lives proves this (1 Jn. 1:8-10).

Both are incorrect. No Christian can walk after the flesh. To walk after the flesh is to be lost.
Romans 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Those who Paul was speaking to were those who knew the law, probably Jews, who knew about Christ and had come into the church but were trying to keep the law in their own strength. Thus the war. Paul is trying to set them free from the trappings of the law to walk in the spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Both are incorrect. No Christian can walk after the flesh. To walk after the flesh is to be lost.
Romans 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Those who Paul was speaking to were those who knew the law, probably Jews, who knew about Christ and had come into the church but were trying to keep the law in their own strength. Thus the war. Paul is trying to set them free from the trappings of the law to walk in the spirit.

Is there not a distinction between being "in" the flesh or Spirit:


8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Versus to "walk after" the flesh or Spirit:

Rom. 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It would seem that those "in Christ Jesus" are able to walk "after" both the flesh and the Spirit just as Romans 7:25b states it is possible for the same person to serve the law of sin by the flesh and serve the the law of God by the mind. The "condemnation" would seem to refer to what he just previously described in verses 15-21.

Why call upon saved people to "walk in the Spirit" if they could do nothing but that? Why suggest to saved people they are unable to do what they "would" in Galatians 5:17 if Romans 7:14-25 is not an accurate condition of the unglorified saint?

It would appear to me that "in" describes their spiritual status of lost or saved (Rom. 8:8-9) but "walking after" refers to their current manifest life as determined by what they are currently submitting unto (indwelling sin versus indwelling Spirit). For example, does your current life always manifest being led by the Spirit??? Does the Spirit lead you to sin? Don't you ever sin?

 

[freeatlast]

Is there not a distinction between being "in" the flesh or Spirit:


8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Versus walking "after" the flesh or Spirit:

Rom. 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It would seem that those "in Christ Jesus" are able to walk "after" both the flesh and the Spirit just as Romans 7:25b states it is possible for the same person to serve the law of sin by the flesh and serve the the law of God by the mind. The "condemnation" would seem to refer to what he just previously described in verses 15-21.

Why call upon saved people to "walk in the Spirit" if they could do nothing but that? Why suggest to saved people they are unable to do what they "would" in Galatians 5:17 if Romans 7:14-25 is not an accurate condition of the unglorified saint?

To walk is present tense continual action. No child of God is in the flesh. To be in the flesh is enmity with God and no child of God is at enmity. To be in the flesh is condemnation and no child of God is under condemnation.

The Gal passage you mentioned 5:17 is speaking to those who were teaching law instead of grace. He is telling them that if you get saved by the spirit walk by the spirit, not the flesh. The flesh and the spirit are contrary one to the other.
Paul is not saying in Romans he was losing the battle with sin. He is trying to get those who were trying to walk in the flesh to come all the way to Christ.
Paul is speaking to those who knew,the law, verse 1, and trying to show them that Christ has freed them from the law.

 

[HankD]

Apart from the various views, this portion seems to say that there is a dual nature to those who are "brethren" and a choice to live after:

Romans 7

11 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.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify (present indicative) the deeds of the body, ye shall live.​

HankD​

 

[freeatlast]

Apart from the various views, this portion seems to say that there is a dual nature to those who are "brethren" and a choice to live after:

Romans 7

11 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.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify (present indicative) the deeds of the body, ye shall live.​

HankD​

No, not at all. It is a comparison of two different people, One is of the flesh and one of the spirit. One is of Christ and one is not. Each has a debt to pay and it is levied by what we are associated wiht. The Spirit unto life (eternal life) or the flesh unto death (eternal damnation).
No person has a dual nature. The lost cannot have the nature of the saved and the saved cannot have the nature of the lost. It is one or the other, not both. That is the point.

 

[The Biblicist]

To walk is present tense continual action. No child of God is in the flesh.

You mix "in" with "walk"! The first deal with your spiritual state - lost or saved (vv. 8-9). The latter deals with your present experiential living determined by leadership (vv. 12-14).

The child of God that walks after the flesh shall die. However, all humans "shall die" sooner or later. He is not talking about physical death but experiential death while walking after the flesh or while under the leadership of indwelling sin. In reverse if we walk after the Spirit or under the leadership of the Spirit, then we experience life presently.

To be in the flesh is enmity with God and no child of God is at enmity. To be in the flesh is condemnation and no child of God is under condemnation.

As long as you live, indwelling death/sin/corruption, will always be at enmity to God. Whenever you choose to sin, that portion of your life is at enmity with God. The lost person is "in" that state completely but the child of God only experiences it whenever they "walk after" or follow the leadership of indwelling sin.

The Gal passage you mentioned 5:17 is speaking to those who were teaching law instead of grace.

The immediate context beginning with verse 1 shows he is addressing saved persons not lost persons. He is not addressing the Judiazers nor is the letter addressed to the Judiazers.

 

[freeatlast]

You mix "in" with "walk"! The first deal with your spiritual state - lost or saved (vv. 8-9). The latter deals with your present experiential living determined by leadership (vv. 12-14).

The child of God that walks after the flesh shall die. However, all humans "shall die" sooner or later. He is not talking about physical death but experiential death while walking after the flesh or while under the leadership of indwelling sin. In reverse if we walk after the Spirit or under the leadership of the Spirit, then we experience life presently.




As long as you live, indwelling death/sin/corruption, will always be at enmity to God. Whenever you choose to sin, that portion of your life is at enmity with God. The lost person is "in" that state completely but the child of God only experiences it whenever they "walk after" or follow the leadership of indwelling sin.



The immediate context beginning with verse 1 shows he is addressing saved persons not lost persons. He is not addressing the Judiazers nor is the letter addressed to the Judiazers.

No child of God is at enmity with God. No child of God walks in the flesh, no child of God is warned of death. The passages are speaking of those who know the law and have not come all the way to Christ. They are still trying to walk in the flesh and so they experience what happens to those who are not set free. Paul is seeking to tell them who sets men free.

 

[The Biblicist]

No child of God is at enmity with God. No child of God walks in the flesh, no child of God is warned of death. The passages are speaking of those who know the law and have not come all the way to Christ. They are still trying to walk in the flesh and so they experience what happens to those who are not set free. Paul is seeking to tell them who sets men free.

So are you going to say no child of God sins? No child of God can continue in sin for a moment, hour, day, week, year? What about David? What about Abraham? What about Lot? Did not David continue unconfessed in his sin until he was confronted by Nathan? Did he not "walk after the flesh" during that period of time?

You come back with these absolutes but you do not respond to the scriptures I gave. Is it not true that all human beings "shall die"? Hence, the words "shall die" in Romans 12-14 must refer to something else. It would seem it is placed in contradistinction to "mortify the deeds of the flesh." In other works either one is experiencing death by walking after the flesh or else one is putting to death the deeds of the flesh.

Is not "death" separation from God and does not sin separate you from God, thus if one is currently "walking after the flesh" are they not EXPERIENCING separation from God as long as they walk "after the flesh"?

 

[freeatlast]

So are you going to say no child of God sins? No child of God can continue in sin for a moment, hour, day, week, year? What about David? What about Abraham? What about Lot? Did not David continue unconfessed in his sin until he was confronted by Nathan? Did he not "walk after the flesh" during that period of time?

You come back with these absolutes but you do not respond to the scriptures I gave. Is it not true that all human beings "shall die"? Hence, the words "shall die" in Romans 12-14 must refer to something else. It would seem it is placed in contradistinction to "mortify the deeds of the flesh." In other works either one is experiencing death by walking after the flesh or else one is putting to death the deeds of the flesh.

Is not "death" separation from God and does not sin separate you from God, thus if one is currently "walking after the flesh" are they not EXPERIENCING separation from God as long as they walk "after the flesh"?

Why do you add to what is said? Yes a child of God can sin, but they cannot practice sin. Sin will not be a way of life. 1John 3 Also you cannot point to the OT saints as they did not have the indwelling Spirit as we do as the Spirit had not been given yet according to Jesus.
When the scriptures speak of death ion those passages they are speaking of eternal death (hell).
No believer can ever be separated from God. Jesus said he would never leave us or forsake us.
The passages in Romans 7 are not dealing with the saved. They are dealing with those who knew the law, knew about Christ and was interested, but had not come all the way to Christ. They were trying to satisfy the law by living in the flesh and were experiencing a battle.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why do you add to what is said? Yes a child of God can sin, but they cannot practice sin. QUOTE]

Neither David, Abraham, or Lot made sin their practice as a lifestyle either, but they were caught up in sin for prolonged periods. Are you saying you cannot be caught up in prolonged periods of sin? Have you ever continued in sin for an hour? A day? A week? A month?

Look at Joseph and Daniel and it is difficult to find sin in the record of their life. How do you account for the difference between Joseph/Daniel and Abraham/David/Lot/Solomon?

 

[MB]

Why do you add to what is said? Yes a child of God can sin, but they cannot practice sin. Sin will not be a way of life. 1John 3 Also you cannot point to the OT saints as they did not have the indwelling Spirit as we do as the Spirit had not been given yet according to Jesus.
When the scriptures speak of death ion those passages they are speaking of eternal death (hell).
No believer can ever be separated from God. Jesus said he would never leave us or forsake us.
The passages in Romans 7 are not dealing with the saved. They are dealing with those who knew the law, knew about Christ and was interested, but had not come all the way to Christ. They were trying to satisfy the law by living in the flesh and were experiencing a battle.

I have to disagree on the basis that even you admit you sometimes sin.
This thing called living in sin is what we all do if we are honest. If we sin it is always the same sins over and over. It being habitual is what makes Chapter 7 the battle we all go through for the rest of our lives because it isn't natural for man's flesh not to sin.

Flesh is still natural. Our flesh is not regenerated. Sin still lives with in our flesh which is why Paul trained him self. We have to train our flesh to run the race so to speak.
I've never met anyone who could live long with out commiting some kind of sin.It's why we have an advocate named Jesus Christ proclaiming our innocents because we wear His righteousness.
MB

 

[HankD]

No, not at all. It is a comparison of two different people, One is of the flesh and one of the spirit. One is of Christ and one is not. Each has a debt to pay and it is levied by what we are associated wiht. The Spirit unto life (eternal life) or the flesh unto death (eternal damnation).
No person has a dual nature. The lost cannot have the nature of the saved and the saved cannot have the nature of the lost. It is one or the other, not both. That is the point.

Christians can and often do terrible things. We are given the example of the Church at Corinth where some "slept".

Having an unworthy walk and then coming to the Lord's table even "drunken".

1 Corinthians 11

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.​

Also in the Church at Thyatira the servants of God were committing fornication.

To what do you attribute the source of these sins FAL if not the flesh which had not yet been mortified?

James 1

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.​

It would seem that if there were no flesh nature but only a spiritual nature after being born again then it would be impossible for a child of God to sin at all which some in christendom have believed and taught.

Even these groups make room for repentance after such sins but yet are at a loss to explain how a regenerated being with only a spiritual nature has the ability to sin.

Obviously I disagree.

Thanks
HankD​

 

[MB]

Apart from the various views, this portion seems to say that there is a dual nature to those who are "brethren" and a choice to live after:

Romans 7

11 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.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify (present indicative) the deeds of the body, ye shall live.​

HankD​

Amen Hank that is why we know the person fighting this battle is saved.
MB