Romans 7

[Helen]

Dale, in response to your question about study and education and such. I responded to that in donnA's thread here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5474.html

My response, the fourth post down, would also apply to your question here.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Blackbird wrote,

This moderator believes that a fellow Sister's intelligence has been publically insulted and that a public apology from Craigbythesea is in order.

"Intelligence" is the ability to learn or understand and is measured by several different standardized tests and expressed in terms of the resulting intelligence quotient, that is, the I.Q. of the person tested. Blackbird posted a quote from me to support his belief that I insulted Helen’s intelligence,

Having studied the writings of hundreds of scholars on this subject, I can confidently say that your interpretation is not only out of the ballpark, put thousands of miles away from it! You are radically misunderstanding the man Paul, the genres of literature that he used, and the entire scope and form and structure of his argument. As to the form and structure of his argument, he writes,

“the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh”

It is expressly clear to me that you are not familiar with the form and structure of Paul’s argument. It is also expressly clear to me that you do not understand Paul’s uses of the Greek word nomos throughout the first eight chapters of Romans. And I highly suspect that you have never read this epistle in the original language or studied even one exegetical commentary on the Greek text of this epistle, and that you do not, therefore, have the necessary knowledge or background for a serious discussion on the subject at hand, so I shall no longer attempt to dialogue with you regarding Romans 7.

Nowhere in this quote did I make any mention of Helen’s intelligence. I simply posted that Helen’s understanding of the seventh chapter of Romans is wildly wrong, having explained in other replies to Helen why her interpretation is wildly wrong. I could post at great length why Helen is wrong, but my experience with discussing Scripture with Helen is that she has no respect for an academic approach to Scriptures that results in an interpretation that is different from her personal interpretation. Indeed, I have interacted with Helen in several threads concerning the interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 in which Charles Meadows and I demonstrated very clearly that her interpretation is very different from the interpretation of the very large majority of Old Testament scholars, but her reaction was to relegate the academic views to a trash heap. I have personally seen, therefore, on a number of occasions in a number of threads that discussing the Scriptures with Helen is futile. I have also personally observed that there is every indication that Helen has never studied Genesis academically nor read it in the Hebrew language. And it has become very clear to me from reading Helen’s posts on Romans 5 and 7 in various threads that she has never studied Romans academically nor read it in the Greek language. Furthermore, Helen has made it expressly clear that she has no respect for an academic approach to the Scriptures and that, therefore, it is a waste of my time, as an academic individual, to discuss the Scriptures with her.

In no way is this necessarily a reflection of her intelligence, and I never suggested that it was. Indeed, if Helen was to choose to academically pursue the study of the Old and New Testaments, I believe that we would find that she has the necessary intelligence to do so. Thus far, however, she has chosen not to make such a pursuit, and my time is much better spent with those who have, and there are a number of them who post to the message board. And now, ***moderator's personal name removed***, you have wasted more of my time and the time of our readers by discussing Helen and I rather than Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

[ September 24, 2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

Thank you, blackbird. I also believe Craig owes my husband a public apology for the public slander of his character and work.

The comments that I made about your husbands work were entirely justified as documented by Ute on this message board and as documented by the academic community at large. And yes, I and others have repeatedly documented that there is more than just a tendency for young earth advocates to seriously compromise both the ethics of academia and Christian morality. I don’t know your husband personally, but it is my belief from studying his works that he has seriously compromised both the ethics of academia and Christian morality due to an obsession with a young-earth interpretation of Genesis and a determination to defend that view at any cost to either science or the Christian faith. That is NOT slander, but an honest and fair appraisal of his work, and I am very far from being alone in making that appraisal.

Randy and possibly one or two other astronomers may agree with you husbands conclusions, but the vast majority of astronomers—many hundreds of them—hold your husbands work in contempt. If you are familiar with their writings, you KNOW that I am telling the truth. If you are not familiar with their writings, I believe that you should familiar yourself with them before concluding that your husband is right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Dale Kesterson wrote,

By the way, the quote by Spurgeon is good as any, but I do not think the was pointing at people like our sister Helen, but Charismatics (or such) who see everything theology as from the devil.

First, you are misrepresenting our brothers and sisters in the Charismatic movement. Secondly, the charismatic movement and mindset did not exist in Spurgeon’s day, nor did it exist for another hundred plus years after Spurgeon penned the words that quoted. Read the quote in context and it will be expressly clear to you what type of individuals he was referring to.

Would you like to discuss the seventh chapter of Romans or continue chasing after jackrabbits?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Dale Kesterson wrote,

Over on another discussion group, we had a good dialogue on the Romans 7 man. I rather enjoyed Martin Lloyd-Jones exposition on it which which is much in common with what you wrote.

Martin Lloyd-Jones believed and expressly taught that Romans 7:14-25 is NOT a description of an unregenerate man before he is saved. Helen believes not only that it can be, but that it necessarily is a description of a man in his unregenerate state, and that the man is Paul. I agree with Helen that Romans 7:14-25 is necessarily a description of a man in his unregenerate state (but that man cannot be Paul for the reasons that I have already posted), but Martin Lloyd-Jones wrote that it is not a description of a man in his unregenerate state,

“Whatever is being taught here, therefore, we can say that this [I am carnal, v. 14] is not a statement about a man who is unregenerate, neither is it a statement about a man who is fully developed as a Christian.” Martin Lloyd-Jones. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7.1-8.4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973. P. 187.

It is very important to note here that Martin Lloyd-Jones was NOT an exegete of Romans; he was an expositor of Romans who held to views that are in conflict with careful exegesis. One such view is his interpretation of the Greek word, sarx, translated very frequently in the New Testament as “flesh”, or “carnal” (when the cognate adjective is being translated).

It is also very important to note here that Martin Lloyd-Jones confuses the use of rhetorical first person pronoun with the “dramatic present.” Paul has already, in vv. 7-13, used the rhetorical first person pronoun, and it is only natural to assume that he is continuing to use it in vv. 14-25, even though he shifts from the plural to the singular form. And the use of the “dramatic present” is foreign to the New Testament. The closest thing to it that we find in the New Testament is the use of the historic present tense used frequently in the Gospels, and this is VERY different from the “dramatic present.” Martin Lloyd-Jones is simply confused on this point. (See pp. 183-184 in his above referenced commentary).

 

[dale kesterson]

Craig, let me try to clear that jackrabbit a bit and then get back on point.

I said Mr. Spurgeon was criticizing people "like" the Chrismatics we see today. I know some Charismatics who are actually academic, but I am speaking of the likes of Word of Faith... Unclear as I usually am. Mr. Spurgeon had his share of weak theology back then with religious liberals...

Craig, thanks for clearing that up with MLJ. I have spent months dwelling in the likes of Romans 7 and all the commentors may have been mixed up. I recall Newell was the one who supported the "unregenerate" position and quoted Darby as siding with him. I did not know how much I could rely on them, but a friend brushed them both off for being Dispensationalits (I found their insight edifying to ponder).

If I recall MLJ position correctly, be saw the Romans 7 man as one under the agony of conviction of the law though regenerate. A friend who was discussing the interpretion of MLJ's Romans 7 Man believed that it was something he would term "beginning regeneration" (this is a confusing term which he defines as regenerate, but experiencing the agony of conviction). We had gone through much of Romans dealing with that theology.

let me ask you, Craig, do you see this "beginning regeneration" as having any fruit to it. let me quote the passage from MLJ's book:

He is a man who has come to see that the Law of God is both spiritual and good; indeed he delights in it. But - and here is the problem - he cannot conform to it either positively or negatively. He desires to do the things it commands, but he finds that he cannot do so. He does not want to do the things it prohibits, but he finds that he does them. He sees clearly the character of the Law but he cannot keep it, the reason being that 'the law of sin' which is in his members is too strong for him.

The Apostle has stated all this quite clearly in the following verses: in verse 17, 'It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me'. This power of sin within him is stronger than myself, so much so that he can make this kind of statenment, In verse 20 again, 'Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.' Sin is too strong for him, it defeats him. But it is still more explicit in verse 23, 'I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.' Now these statements have only one meaning. The 'law of sin' which is in his members, that is to say, indwelling sin, is too strong for him, and brings him into a state of captivity. The final proof of that is the cry in verse 24. He is 'a wretched man', and he breaks out into a cry, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' And, finally, he sums it all up in the second part of verse 25, 'So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.' There is only one conclusion that he can come to about himself; it is the confession he made at the beginning of the whole section - 'I am carnal; sold under sin'. In other words, the business of verses 15-25 is to expound that statement. As so often with this Apostle - and with many other New Testament and even Old Testament writer - he starts with his conclusion and then proves it and demonstrates it. He has told us at the beginning' I am carnal; sold under sin'. That is the only conclusion at which this man can arrive about himself. Not only is there this duality within him, but he is made captive by the law of sin which is in his members. It is stronger than he is, it is defeating him, and he cries out, 'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' That is the essential statement, the vital statement, which is made in this most fascinating paragraph. (Romans 7:1-8:4 pg. 228-229)

This is Calvin's Commentary:

15. For what I do I know not, etc. He now comes to a more particular case, that of a man already regenerated; 3 in whom both the things which he had in view appear more clearly; and these were, -- the great discord there is between the Law of God and the natural man, -- and how the law does not of itself produce death. For since the carnal man rushes into sin with the whole propensity of his mind, he seems to sin with such a free choice, as though it were in his power to govern himself; so that a most pernicious opinion has prevailed almost among all men -- that man, by his own natural strength, without the aid of Divine grace, can choose what he pleases. But though the will of a faithful man is led to good by the Spirit of God, yet in him the corruption of nature appears conspicuously; for it obstinately resists and leads to what is contrary. Hence the case of a regenerated man is the most suitable; for by this you may know how much is the contrariety between our nature and the righteousness of the law. From this case, also, a proof as to the other clause may more fitly be sought, than from the mere consideration of human nature; for the law, as it produces only death in a man wholly carnal, is in him more easily impeached, for it is doubtful whence the evil proceeds. In a regenerate man it brings forth salutary fruits; and hence it appears, that it is the flesh only that prevents it from giving life: so far it is from producing death of itself.

I would value your input as well as others.

In Christ,

dale

 

[Craigbythesea]

Dale,

Before I answer specific questions regarding Rom. 7 and my interpretation, I would like to share with you my testimony regarding Romans 7.

I got saved in an Assembly of God church that taught that Romans 7:14-25 was Paul’s mature Christian experience (not all Assembly of God churches teach this, however) and I continued going to that church for about a year and half while I continued fellowshipping in a Baptist coffee house where that was the commonly understood interpretation. I quickly read through the New Testament twelve times in the KJV and then read through it once in the RSV. Having done that, I read through Romans a few times in the NASB and other translations and never bothered to really look at it closely.

I was then called upon to teach Romans at another church, and I purchased 13 commentaries on Romans to assist me in preparing my lesson notes. However, my schedule was so crowded that I didn’t have the time to use the commentaries very much at all. By the time I got to the 6th chapter of Romans (about 8 months into the study), I didn’t have any time at all for the commentaries and I had to rely exclusively upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit to help me. I spent several weeks (one night a week) teaching Romans 6, and as I got into it, verses like “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace” really stood out, and I could not reconcile them with what I had been taught regarding Rom. 7. Therefore, one night I very seriously brought this matter before God and asked Him what Paul was really teaching in Romans 7.

The Holy Spirit very clearly and definitely showed me in the Scriptures that Paul was writing about a Jewish rather than a Christian experience. But, like many other Christians, I felt like I needed some confirmation that it was really the Holy Spirit that I was listening to. Therefore I read what all 13 of my commentaries said about Rom. 7:14-25. Very much to my consternation, 12 of them expressly said that that Paul was writing about his experience as a Christian, the 13th commentary did not take a stand on the issue one way or another. Therefore, I prayed again, as earnestly as I could, that God would teach me the truth about this matter. And God spoke to me in my heart very clearly and distinctly and rebuked me for my unbelief. This was only the second time in my life when God spoke to me in such a clear manner and I KNEW that it was God speaking to me and I taught Romans 7 accordingly.

Nonetheless, I could not help but be curious as to why those 12 commentators were so mixed up, and that was the catalyst for my academic pursuit of Biblical and theological knowledge. And here we are, more than 20 years down the road, and I now have an extensive education in New Testament exegesis and translation theory and I approach the New Testament from a very academic point of view, but always praying for God to teach me His truths and to protect me from error. I have studied more than 300 commentaries on Romans, and I have more that 230 of them in my personal library, and I now know both personally through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and through my academic studies that Romans 7:14-25 is exclusively a Jewish experience, but definitely not Paul’s experience as Jew.

As I have posted above, Paul was an exceptional Jewish man with very high standards that he managed to live up to, and for anyone to propose that after Paul had his personal, regenerating encounter with Christ he was no longer to live up to the demands of the Law as he had done so well as an unregenerate Jew makes a mockery of the atonement of Christ and Paul’s personal encounter with Christ.

In closing, I should mention that although 12 of my first 13 commentaries on Romans taught that the man in Romans 7:14-25 was a regenerate Christian, those 12 commentaries were by no means an accurate sample of what commentators have taught throughout the history of the Church or what commentators are teaching today.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Dale wrote,

If I recall MLJ position correctly, be saw the Romans 7 man as one under the agony of conviction of the law though regenerate. A friend who was discussing the interpretion of MLJ's Romans 7 Man believed that it was something he would term "beginning regeneration" (this is a confusing term which he defines as regenerate, but experiencing the agony of conviction). We had gone through much of Romans dealing with that theology.

let me ask you, Craig, do you see this "beginning regeneration" as having any fruit to it. let me quote the passage from MLJ's book:

Dale,

I am not at all sure what you are asking here. From Paul’s perspective, we are to reckon ourselves “to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” A dead man can NOT sin—that is an absolute impossibility—therefore there is no struggle against temptation. Also, from Paul’s perspective, we are no longer under the Law, which is the power of sin (1 Cor. 15:56), and therefore sin has no power over us as a Christian and the struggle of the Jew to keep the Law has no place at all in our lives as Christians.

From John’s point of view, in 1 John 3, a man who is fully regenerate can NOT sin,

2. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.
3. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
4. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
5. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
6. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8. the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Jesus taught,

John 8:31. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
32. and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
33. They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
34. Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
35. "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
36. "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians,

1 Cor. 10:13. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

In Christ there is only victory—defeat in the face of temptation is an impossibility. The only “Christians” who are able to experience defeat in the face of temptation are those who walk in the flesh rather than the Spirit, and thereby deny themselves of the power of the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 8:1. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7. because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8. and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Dale wrote,

Craig, let me try to clear that jackrabbit a bit and then get back on point. I said Mr. Spurgeon was criticizing people "like" the Chrismatics we see today. I know some Charismatics who are actually academic, but I am speaking of the likes of Word of Faith... Unclear as I usually am. Mr. Spurgeon had his share of weak theology back then with religious liberals...

Dale,

We are not at all on the same wavelength here, but that is not germane to the topic at hand, so I shall not comment further.

Thank you for participating in this thread. I am looking forward to reading more of your posts here and elsewhere.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Dale,

I have been on the opposite side of the argument with Helen several times regarding Gen. 1-11. She reads the Bible and assumes that she has correctly understood it, and that those who have studied the Bible for many years in an academic setting and who interpret it differently do not understand it. Helen’s interpretation of Romans 7 is not too very bad; the real problem is that she absolutely refuses to learn from those who have a more learned interpretation than she does. If you are interested in learning some of what I have learned about The Epistle to the Romans during the more than 25 years that it has been my primary field of study, and sharing with me what you have learned, I will be glad to dialogue with you; but if you think that you know it all, I don’t have time for you.

Here is the problem Craig.
As far as I know, Helen is a Baptist. You are not (at least not in conviction). Helen uses the Bible as her sole rule of faith and order. You do not. Helen studies and trusts the Bible, and relies on it for her own conclusions. You do not. You rely on a plethora of academia which are usually liberal in their outlook on Scripture, quite often agnostic, and certainly not conservative. You rely on what the Bible calls "science so-called." That is not relying on the Bible, which we are commanded to do in 2Tim.2:15.
The great majority of academia don't make any portion of the Scripture right. In fact it usually means that the academia is wrong. The majority in most cases are wrong. The majority believes in abortion, but they are not right. The majority don't believe in capitol punishment, but I don't believe the majority is right there either. It just may be that the majority is now believing in equal "rights" for sexual preference including homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that the majority is right. Homosexuality is still wrong. Rarely is the majority right. So your argument in using "the majority of ...." doesn't hold any weight with me. What saith the Scripture is the question; not what saith the academia!
DHK

 

[Craigbythesea]

DHK wrote,

Here is the problem Craig.
As far as I know, Helen is a Baptist. You are not (at least not in conviction). Helen uses the Bible as her sole rule of faith and order. You do not. Helen studies and trusts the Bible, and relies on it for her own conclusions. You do not. You rely on a plethora of academia which are usually liberal in their outlook on Scripture, quite often agnostic, and certainly not conservative. You rely on what the Bible calls "science so-called." That is not relying on the Bible, which we are commanded to do in 2Tim.2:15.
The great majority of academia don't make any portion of the Scripture right. In fact it usually means that the academia is wrong. The majority in most cases are wrong. The majority believes in abortion, but they are not right. The majority don't believe in capitol punishment, but I don't believe the majority is right there either. It just may be that the majority is now believing in equal "rights" for sexual preference including homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that the majority is right. Homosexuality is still wrong. Rarely is the majority right. So your argument in using "the majority of ...." doesn't hold any weight with me. What saith the Scripture is the question; not what saith the academia!
DHK

The Word of God – I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original writings, complete as the revelation of God's will for salvation, and the supreme and final authority in all matters to which they speak.

The Trinity – I believe in one God, Creator and Sustainer of all things, eternally divine existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; I believe that these are equal in every distinct perfection and they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence, and redemption.

God the Father – I believe in God the Father: an infinite, personal Spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love. I believe that He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of humanity, that He hears and answers prayer, and that He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ – I believe that Jesus Christ is God's eternal Son, who has precisely the same nature, attributes, and perfections as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. I believe further that He is not only true God, but true man, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. I also believe in His sinless life, His substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven, His priestly intercession on behalf of His people, and His personal, visible, premillennial return from heaven.

Holy Spirit – I believe in the Holy Spirit, His personality and His work in regeneration, sanctification, and preservation. His ministry is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, to implement Christ's work of redeeming the lost, and to empower the believer for godly living and service.

Man – I believe God originally created persons, male and female, in the image of God and free from sin. I further believe all people are sinners by nature and choice and are spiritually dead. I also believe that those who repent of sin and trust Jesus Christ as Savior are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Salvation – I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I further believe that this salvation is based upon the sovereign grace of God, was purchased by Jesus Christ on the cross, and is received by faith, apart from any human merit, works, or ritual. I further believe salvation results in righteous living, good works, and proper social concern.

The Church – I believe that the Church is the spiritual body of which Christ is the head. I believe that the true Church is composed of all persons who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. I believe that this body expresses itself in local assemblies whose members have been immersed upon a credible confession of faith and have associated themselves for worship, for instruction, for evangelism, and for service. I believe the ordinances of the local church are believer's baptism by immersion and the Lord's Supper. I also believe in the interdependence of local churches and the mutual submission of believers to each other in love.

Separation of Church and State – I believe that each local church is self-governing in function and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority. I further believe that every human being is directly responsible to God in matters of faith and life and that each one should be free to worship God according to the dictates of conscience.

Christian Conduct – I believe that the supreme task of believers is to glorify God in their life and that their conduct should be blameless before the world. I further believe that they should be faithful stewards of their possessions and that they should seek to realize for themselves the full stature of maturity in Christ.

The Last Things – I believe in the bodily resurrection of the saved and lost, the eternal existence of all people either in heaven or hell, in divine judgment, rewards, and punishments.

*****************

I wonder just exactly what DHK thinks a Baptist is!

 

[dale kesterson]

Craig said:

The Holy Spirit very clearly and definitely showed me in the Scriptures that Paul was writing about a Jewish rather than a Christian experience.

Ahh, I agree with you on many things, but really need you to elaborate on this. Are you one who believes God has a different plan of Salvation for the Jews than he does for the gentiles (Christians)?

dale

 

[Helen]

The Holy Spirit very clearly and definitely showed me in the Scriptures that Paul was writing about a Jewish rather than a Christian experience.

I could, and as a matter of fact do, claim the Holy Spirit showed me the passage had universal application.

If it was just for Jews, then why not in the book of Hebrews instead of Romans?

 

[Helen]

A dead man can NOT sin—that is an absolute impossibility—therefore there is no struggle against temptation.

Herein lies Craig's error. Death is not a matter of unconsciousness, but of separation. Physical death is separation from the body and spiritual death is separation from God. If spiritual death were spiritual unconsciousness, then hell would have no meaning.

There is a GIANT struggle against temptations for those who are not regenerate. Because they do not have the strength of God, they usually lose, however. But the fact remains that the struggle is there. If it were not, then we would not hear excuses like "Well, the good I do outweighs the bad", or "I'm not nearly as bad as XXXXX." Or similar.

For instance, the VAST majority of the human population has been angry enough with someone at some time to wish them dead or at least in a lot of pain! But very, very few carry through with that idea, regenerate or not. The very fact that in many places the non-Christian businesses have a better reputation for quality and ethics than the Christian businesses shows that the unregenerate are very capable of not cheating and lying despite temptations to do so.

In part, I think, this is because they are depending on some sort of salvation by works, whereas Christians -- some of them -- have this idea that because they are forgiven, anything goes! It is a great disgrace to the Christian community, but it also shows that the unregenerate do desire to behave themselves. They do struggle against temptation.

To whom would Christ be speaking when He invited ALL those who struggle and are heavy laden to come to HIM, for He would give them rest, if not to those who were struggling against temptations daily and trying to 'be good enough for God' whether Jewish or Gentile?

Every religious system in the world is based on the fact that man has something wrong with him and he needs to be improved, or exalted, or reincarnated, or to realize his 'true self', or whatever they want to call it. Only Christianity claims God has done the work for us, and all the others depend on following various rites, rituals, saying the right words, meditating the right way, giving the right amount of money, etc.

They are spiritually dead but obviously VERY aware of the fact that they need to do something about their state of being. They are not spiritually unconscious, but -- at least those who have not hardened themselves totally -- are definitely spiritually desperate.

Which is exactly what Paul is describing in Romans 7:13-24.

It was BEFORE I was born again in Christ that I felt I was 'unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin'. For it was then, one night after looking at my newborn and not wanting him to grow up as confused as I had been (I grew up in a non-Christian home), that I said to God "If you still want me, please take me. If you can do something with this mess that is me, please do."

Since I have been born again, I have not felt I was a slave to sin. I did not find myself doing what I hated to do (except putting down our faithful old Sam dog yesterday -- I HATE death!) and incapable of doing the good I wanted to do. I was able. I was capable through the power of the Holy Spirit to actually start to become the person I had, deep inside, always WANTED to be but couldn't be without Him.

I recognized myself in Romans 7. And I certainly knew the desperate cry of "Who will rescue me from this body of death?"

And I definitely know the joyful praise of "Thanks be to God -- through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Paul knew what he wanted to do and be and was incapable of before the Road to Damascus. That is what he is speaking of in Romans 7. We see the same sensibilities in the Canaanite woman who begged her child be healed because even the dogs get what is under that master's table!

Jesus was astonished at the Centurion's faith in Matthew 8. Was the Centurion not unregenerate, or spiritually dead? Yes, but NOT spiritually unconscious. Were all of the five thousand of Matthew 14 either Jewish or already regenerate? If not, why were they following Jesus and listening to Him without food for the full day? They had no idea He would feed them.

The rich young man of Matthew 19 was obviously not regenerate, yet he was desperately trying to fulfill the law and thus save himself. If he was spiritually unconscious, he would not have been doing that. He would not have cared one way or the other! But he cared, and then was grieved because of what was asked of him. The temptation to keep his wealth was more than he could fight.

In other words, the examples both in the Bible and in the world around us that give evidence that spiritual death is NOT unconsciousness are very, very many.

In John 17:3, Jesus says, "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

If eternal death is the opposite of eternal life, and I have reason to suspect that it is, then eternal death is defined by not knowing the Father and the Son, not by being spiritually unconscious.

To borrow from Plato -- if I live in a cave all my life I may not know the sun, but I do know and react to what IS around me, making wrong suppositions all the way, perhaps, but still thinking, feeling, making decisions. I am not dead to the sun in a manner of being unconscious, but in a manner of being separated from it -- not knowing it. Maybe not even suspecting it!

And so Jesus, in pure compassion, invites,
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Why would all those souls be struggling and burdened from the struggle if they were NOT conscous of the fact that something was dreadfully wrong with them and had to be fixed?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by dale kesterson:
Craig said:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Holy Spirit very clearly and definitely showed me in the Scriptures that Paul was writing about a Jewish rather than a Christian experience.

Ahh, I agree with you on many things, but really need you to elaborate on this. Are you one who believes God has a different plan of Salvation for the Jews than he does for the gentiles (Christians)?

dale </font>[/QUOTE]Dale,

There is not much room for elaboration here. In Romans 7:14-25, Paul is describing the experience of many of his Jewish readers (and listeners, as this letter was read to the church in Rome) who had either not fully accepted the Christian message of salvation by faith apart from the works of the Law, or who had not as of yet fully understood it and its application to them. And Paul wrote this portion of his letter using the first person singular pronoun to aid his Jewish readers and listeners in identifying with the Jew being described—a very devout Jew who loved and treasured the Law of God and who had very much difficulty laying it aside in favor of the grace of God.

Although most scholars of Romans believe that the church at Rome was largely made up of Gentiles, there can be no doubt that many portions of Romans are directed primarily toward Jews. Indeed, the Christian message of salvation by faith apart from the works of the Law has a very strong Jewish rather than Gentile focus because the Law was, at most, relatively unimportant to the Gentiles.

Does God have a different plan of salvation for the Jews than he does for the Gentiles? There is no hint of such a thing in the first eight chapters of Romans, and chapter 7 is between chapter 6 and chapter 8.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

A dead man can NOT sin—that is an absolute impossibility—therefore there is no struggle against temptation.

Herein lies Craig's error. Death is not a matter of unconsciousness, but of separation. Physical death is separation from the body and spiritual death is separation from God. If spiritual death were spiritual unconsciousness, then hell would have no meaning.

There is a GIANT struggle against temptations for those who are not regenerate. Because they do not have the strength of God, they usually lose, however. But the fact remains that the struggle is there. If it were not, then we would not hear excuses like "Well, the good I do outweighs the bad", or "I'm not nearly as bad as XXXXX." Or similar.

Rom. 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

Hi Helen,

It is expressly clear that, up to this point in this chapter, Paul is speaking of physical death rather than spiritual death.

4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

This verse tells us (first person plural pronoun in an English oblique case used partially figuratively and partially theologically—and the theology here is immensely complitcated) that we were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ. Paul is writing here of the physical death of Christ rather than His spiritual death, and Paul argues that we are to reckon the man who was alive (physically—not spiritually) under the Law to be dead, that we might be free from both the jurisdiction of the Law and the consequences of the Law (see my outline of Romans 7 in the early portion of this thread). Upon the death of the old man who was living under Law, and ONLY upon the death of the old man who was living under the Law, can a man be regenerated and become a new creation in Christ Jesus. 2 Cor. 5:17.

Your brother in Christ,

CBTS

 

[Craigbythesea]

I have just now reviewed this thread and I saw that I replied to Helen,

“I shall no longer attempt to dialogue with you regarding Romans 7.”

As a Christian is need to honor my word and I see that I inadvertently failed to do so, and for that I apologize. Should Helen choose, however, to release me from my commitment to her, I may choose the option to reply to some of her posts regarding Romans 7.

 

[dale kesterson]

Craig, I really would advise you to go back to those commentaries and try to understand them again. I am sorry if I sound a bit rude, but I there may be valid reasons they do not agree with you.

Also, test those spirits that tell you to not question yourself. Humility IS a fruit of the Spirit.

This is all for me here for a while. Gotta get back to the living

Love in the Lamb,

dale

 

[Watchman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Dale,

I have been on the opposite side of the argument with Helen several times regarding Gen. 1-11. She reads the Bible and assumes that she has correctly understood it, and that those who have studied the Bible for many years in an academic setting and who interpret it differently do not understand it. Helen’s interpretation of Romans 7 is not too very bad; the real problem is that she absolutely refuses to learn from those who have a more learned interpretation than she does. If you are interested in learning some of what I have learned about The Epistle to the Romans during the more than 25 years that it has been my primary field of study, and sharing with me what you have learned, I will be glad to dialogue with you; but if you think that you know it all, I don’t have time for you.

Here is the problem Craig.
As far as I know, Helen is a Baptist. You are not (at least not in conviction). Helen uses the Bible as her sole rule of faith and order. You do not. Helen studies and trusts the Bible, and relies on it for her own conclusions. You do not. You rely on a plethora of academia which are usually liberal in their outlook on Scripture, quite often agnostic, and certainly not conservative. You rely on what the Bible calls "science so-called." That is not relying on the Bible, which we are commanded to do in 2Tim.2:15.
The great majority of academia don't make any portion of the Scripture right. In fact it usually means that the academia is wrong. The majority in most cases are wrong. The majority believes in abortion, but they are not right. The majority don't believe in capitol punishment, but I don't believe the majority is right there either. It just may be that the majority is now believing in equal "rights" for sexual preference including homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that the majority is right. Homosexuality is still wrong. Rarely is the majority right. So your argument in using "the majority of ...." doesn't hold any weight with me. What saith the Scripture is the question; not what saith the academia!
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[just-want-peace]

What saith the Scripture is the question; not what saith the academia!

Bingo!!

You either trust God as to what and how He said it (whatever the discussion may be about), or you trust man!

Where God has spoken, you cannot trust God AND man when the "testimony" is different.

Where God has not spoken, you may find a little wiggle room, but you still have to follow the "principles" God teaches.