Romans 8:8

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Because he implied winman "might" be a heretic. Maybe he should avoid making such references. He seems to have trouble debating without bringing it up. The implication of "might" be a heretic is no different than the other.

Thats inconsequential.....the fact of the matter is that BIB did not call anyone on this forum a Heretic.....and a lier as was implied.

 

[Skandelon]

He has a dual nature. However, he has not power in and of himself, or his own will power to over rule indwelling sin, or the law of sin operating in the old nature. His only escape from the character of the fallen nature defined in Romans 7:18-20 and 8:7-8 is by faith to "yeild" to the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6) and to trust in the indwelling Spirit to mortify the fleshly nature (Rom. 8:12-13).

So, let's take the last time you sinned. Were you able to 'escape' that temptation and the 'fallen nature' by faith and "yield" to the Holy Spirit, or not? If not, why not? If so, why didn't you?

 

[The Biblicist]

Thats inconsequential.....the fact of the matter is that BIB did not call anyone on this forum a Heretic.....and a lier as was implied.

What I don't understand is where was the Reverend since I have been reinstated and completely avoided any offensive rhetoric in my posts but yet others have used ridicule and inferences of stupiity toward me and he is as quiet as a mouse, but when I simply draw a defining line that MIGHT apply but is never applied by me to anyone then out of nowhere he emerges with the attack dogs to be unleashed on me??? Some obvious inequity here?

 

[The Biblicist]

So, let's take the last time you sinned. Were you able to 'escape' that temptation and the 'fallen nature' by faith and "yield" to the Holy Spirit, or not? If not, why not? If so, why didn't you?

I sin every day, every minute of the day without stop as I am ALWAYS coming short of the glory of God - sins of omission, I NEVER measure up to the sinless standard of God's righteousness.

In regard to willful sin, yes I was able to avoid it by immediately confessing my own COMPLETE AND UTTER INABILITY to avoid it and by immediately fleeing like a scared rabbit to the Lord for help. His mercy sustained me, upheld me and I gave him the full glory knowing fully well in and of myself I AM TOTALLY AND UTTERLY UNABLE to resist or conqueor anything that is a real temptation.

 

[Revmitchell]

What I don't understand is where was the Reverend since I have been reinstated and completely avoided any offensive rhetoric in my posts but yet others have used ridicule and inferences of stupiity toward me and he is as quiet as a mouse, but when I simply draw a defining line that MIGHT apply but is never applied by me to anyone then out of nowhere he emerges with the attack dogs to be unleashed on me??? Some obvious inequity here?

Oh you must mean like the inequity of the silence by cals on this board when John of Japan was so viciously attacked just in the last few days by a cal. By the way I have defended folks on both sides of the isle on this board at one time or another. There was an occasion even recently. So your implication of me here is unfounded. I do not see every post.

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh you must mean like the inequity of the silence by cals on this board when John of Japan was so viciously attacked just in the last few days by a cal. By the way I have defended folks on both sides of the isle on this board at one time or another. There was an occasion even recently. So your implication of me here is unfounded. I do not see every post.

Ok, I can accept that explanation. No one but God is omnipresent.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So, let's take the last time you sinned. Were you able to 'escape' that temptation and the 'fallen nature' by faith and "yield" to the Holy Spirit, or not? If not, why not? If so, why didn't you?

are these questions, cross examination questions Scan? ......ah, never-mind ....I withdraw the question.

But now Im curious about this, do you not view the HS as enough to thwart the adversary?

 

[preacher4truth]

Are you suggesting that anyone who does not hold to the Calvinist view is not saved?

You'll have to try much harder to get that thing rolling, he said nothing of the sort. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

In regard to willful sin, yes I was able to avoid it by immediately confessing my own COMPLETE AND UTTER INABILITY to avoid it and by immediately fleeing like a scared rabbit to the Lord for help. His mercy sustained me, upheld me and I gave him the full glory knowing fully well in and of myself I AM TOTALLY AND UTTERLY UNABLE to resist or conqueor anything that is a real temptation.

If you were able to avoid it and flee to the Lord for help, why didn't you? You were granted the ability to do otherwise but you didn't, and I'm wondering why you didn't. What stopped you? Did God not give you all that was needed for you to resist? OR did you just freely choose to sin despite God's provisions?

 

[Skandelon]

What I don't understand is where was the Reverend since I have been reinstated and completely avoided any offensive rhetoric in my posts but yet others have used ridicule and inferences of stupiity toward me and he is as quiet as a mouse, but when I simply draw a defining line that MIGHT apply but is never applied by me to anyone then out of nowhere he emerges with the attack dogs to be unleashed on me??? Some obvious inequity here?

Guys, Please don't change the topic of the thread. Handle this through PMs or you can report the post by pushing the little red and black triangle in the top right corner of a post. I'm not the moderator of this forum and while I agree that "both sides" step over the line, this is not the way to handle it.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you were able to avoid it and flee to the Lord for help, why didn't you?

I am somewhat confused by your response here. Are you sure you correctly understood what I said? I said that I did avoid sinning but not due to my own ability but rather by admitting I had no such ability and yeilding to the ability of the Holy Spirit to prevent me from sinning.

 

[Skandelon]

I am somewhat confused by your response here. Are you sure you correctly understood what I said? I said that I did avoid sinning but not due to my own ability but rather by admitting I had no such ability and yeilding to the ability of the Holy Spirit to prevent me from sinning.

And I asked, regarding the last time you willfully sinned, "If you were able to yield and flee to the Lord for help, why didn't you?"

 

[The Biblicist]

And I asked, regarding the last time you willfully sinned, "If you were able to yield and flee to the Lord for help, why didn't you?"

Ok, I misunderstood your question. I thought you asked what happened the last time I was tempted to sin rather than the last time I sinned.

The last time I intentionally sinned, I yeilded to the flesh and allowed the law of indwelling sin to operate in my mind and when the law of sin is operating freely in the mind there can only be one possible outcome - sin.

If we are praying without ceasing we will not be caught off guard. I apparently was not maintaining a yeilded walk with the Lord and therefore I fell.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok, I misunderstood your question

No problem...it happens.

The last time I intentionally sinned, I yeilded to the flesh

But you were able at that time to yield to the spirit, right? You just chose one over the other, correct?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ok, I misunderstood your question. I thought you asked what happened the last time I was tempted to sin rather than the last time I sinned.

The last time I intentionally sinned, I yeilded to the flesh and allowed the law of indwelling sin to operate in my mind and when the law of sin is operating freely in the mind there can only be one possible outcome - sin.

If we are praying without ceasing we will not be caught off guard. I apparently was not maintaining a yeilded walk with the Lord and therefore I fell.

Excellent point.....you just taught me something.:thumbs:
Thanks

 

[Winman]

Biblicist's view is nonsense.

If a person is truly enslaved to sin before he is regenerated, he would ALWAYS without exception do the very worst thing he could do.

If a person can choose the lesser of two evils, then he is not enslaved to sin.

I also disagree with Biblicists (but to be fair, practically all Christians) view that Romans 7:14-25 is spoken from the perspective of a born again Christian.

First, Paul said he is sold under sin in verse 14. No Christian is sold under sin, we have been made free from sin, we have been bought by Jesus Christ himself, we have been redeemed.

Paul said he has been brought into captivity to the law of sin in verse 25. No Christian is captive to the law of sin, Paul clearly says the Spirit has made him free free from the law of sin and death in Romans 8:2.

Paul never mentions the Holy Spirit in chapter 7, not once, but immediately in chapter 8 begins to repeatedly speak of the Spirit.

So, I believe Paul is speaking from the perspective of an unconverted Jew under the law in Romans 7:14-25.

If so, it shows that man is more than simply flesh, he is also the mind, or spirit, which can be absolutely willing to obey God, though it faces continual resistance by the flesh. Being captive to the law of sin simply means the moment you sin you are condemned to death (the wages of sin is death).

See Adam Clarkes commentary on this passage;

But I am carnal, sold under sin - This was probably, in the apostle‘s letter, the beginning of a new paragraph. I believe it is agreed, on all hands, that the apostle is here demonstrating the insufficiency of the law in opposition to the Gospel. That by the former is the knowledge, by the latter the cure, of sin. Therefore by I here he cannot mean himself, nor any Christian believer: if the contrary could be proved, the argument of the apostle would go to demonstrate the insufficiency of the Gospel as well as the law.

It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the Church, or prevailed there, that “the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state.” This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character. It requires but little knowledge of the spirit of the Gospel, and of the scope of this epistle, to see that the apostle is, here, either personating a Jew under the law and without the Gospel, or showing what his own state was when he was deeply convinced that by the deeds of the law no man could be justified, and had not as yet heard those blessed words: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Acts 9:17.

In this and the following verses he states the contrariety between himself, or any Jew while without Christ, and the law of God. Of the latter he says, it is spiritual; of the former, l am carnal, sold under sin. Of the carnal man, in opposition to the spiritual, never was a more complete or accurate description given. The expressions, in the flesh, and after the flesh, in Romans 7:5, and in Romans 8:5, Romans 8:8, Romans 8:9, etc., are of the same import with the word carnal in this verse. To be in the flesh, or to be carnally minded, solely respects the unregenerate. While unregenerate, a man is in a state of death and enmity against God, Romans 8:6-9. This is St. Paul‘s own account of a carnal man. The soul of such a man has no authority over the appetites of the body and the lusts of the flesh: reason has not the government of passion. The work of such a person is to make provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof, Romans 13:14. He minds the things of the flesh, Romans 8:5; he is at enmity with God. In all these things the spiritual man is the reverse; he lives in a state of friendship with God in Christ, and the Spirit of God dwells in him; his soul has dominion over the appetites of the body and the lusts of the flesh; his passions submit to the government of reason, and he, by the Spirit, mortifies the deeds of the flesh; he mindeth the things of the Spirit, Romans 8:5. The Scriptures, therefore, place these two characters in direct opposition to each other. Now the apostle begins this passage by informing us that it is his carnal state that he is about to describe, in opposition to the spirituality of God‘s holy law, saying, But I am carnal.

Those who are of another opinion maintain that by the word carnal here the apostle meant that corruption which dwelt in him after his conversion; but this opinion is founded on a very great mistake; for, although there may be, after justification, the remains of the carnal mind, which will be less or more felt till the soul is completely sanctified, yet the man is never denominated from the inferior principle, which is under control, but from the superior principle which habitually prevails. Whatever epithets are given to corruption or sin in Scripture, opposite epithets are given to grace or holiness. By these different epithets are the unregenerate and regenerate denominated. From all this it follows that the epithet carnal, which is the characteristic designation of an unregenerate man, cannot be applied to St. Paul after his conversion; nor, indeed, to any Christian in that state.

But the word carnal, though used by the apostle to signify a state of death and enmity against God, is not sufficient to denote all the evil of the state which he is describing; hence he adds, sold under sin. This is one of the strongest expressions which the Spirit of God uses in Scripture, to describe the full depravity of fallen man. It implies a willing slavery: Ahab had sold himself to work evil, 1 Kings 21:20. And of the Jews it is said, in their utmost depravity, Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, Isaiah 50:1. They forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and Were Sold to do mischief, 1 Maccabees 1:15. Now, if the word carnal, in its strongest sense, had been sufficiently significant of all he meant, why add to this charge another expression still stronger? We must therefore understand the phrase, sold under sin, as implying that the soul was employed in the drudgery of sin; that it was sold over to this service, and had no power to disobey this tyrant, until it was redeemed by another. And if a man be actually sold to another, and he acquiesce in the deed, then he becomes the legal property of that other person. This state of bondage was well known to the Romans. The sale of slaves they saw daily, and could not misunderstand the emphatical sense of this expression. Sin is here represented as a person; and the apostle compares the dominion which sin has over the man in question to that of a master over his legal slave. Universally through the Scriptures man is said to be in a state of bondage to sin until the Son of God make him free: but in no part of the sacred writings is it ever said that the children of God are sold under sin. Christ came to deliver the lawful captive, and take away the prey from the mighty. Whom the Son maketh free, they are free indeed. Then, they yield not up their members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; for sin shall not have the dominion over them, because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made them free from the law of sin and death, Romans 6:13, Romans 6:14; Romans 8:2. Anciently, when regular cartels were not known, the captives became the slaves of their victors, and by them were sold to any purchaser; their slavery was as complete and perpetual as if the slave had resigned his own liberty, and sold himself: the laws of the land secured him to his master; he could not redeem himself, because he had nothing that was his own, and nothing could rescue him from that state but a stipulated redemption. The apostle speaks here, not of the manner in which the person in question became a slave; he only asserts the fact, that sin had a full and permanent dominion over him. - Smith, on the carnal man‘s character.

I am carnal, sold under sin - I have been the more particular in ascertaining the genuine sense of this verse, because it determines the general scope of the whole passage.

 

[The Biblicist]

But you were able at that time to yield to the spirit, right? You just chose one over the other, correct?

No, it was not a matter of choice. When you are not in a yeilded position you are already "in the flesh" by default and you are sinning. The Christian walk is a "conscious" yeilded condition whereas living after the flesh takes no conscious decision at all but rather just slipping into neutral or taking your conscious eye off the ball.

 

[Skandelon]

No, it was not a matter of choice. When you are not in a yeilded position you are already "in the flesh" by default and you are sinning. The Christian walk is a "conscious" yeilded condition whereas living after the flesh takes no conscious decision at all but rather just slipping into neutral or taking your conscious eye off the ball.

You're avoiding the question....

When you sinned you failed to yield, and seek the help of the Spirit, but YOU COULD HAVE. Why didn't you?

 

[The Biblicist]

You're avoiding the question....

When you sinned you failed to yield, and seek the help of the Spirit, but YOU COULD HAVE. Why didn't you?

I am not avoiding the question. A conscious decision to yeild is necessary to operate in the realm of the Spirit however, simple failure to consciously yeild to the Spirit automatically places you in the realm of the flesh as the automatic default. Any conscious decision to sin cannot occur while under the leadership of the Spirit and so willful sin can only occur after slipping back into the flesh. Conscious yeilding to the Spirit is the only preventive for operating in the flesh.

 

[Skandelon]

I am not avoiding the question. A conscious decision to yeild is necessary to operate in the realm of the Spirit however, simple failure to consciously yeild to the Spirit automatically places you in the realm of the flesh as the automatic default. Any conscious decision to sin cannot occur while under the leadership of the Spirit and so willful sin can only occur after slipping back into the flesh. Conscious yeilding to the Spirit is the only preventive for operating in the flesh.

But, that is not answering the question brother....please hear me out. If you COULD have chosen to yield, which you already said was possible...even above you say, "a conscious decision to yield is necessary." BUT the last time you sinned willingly, you didn't make that choice to yield, but you COULD HAVE...why didn't you?

You say, "Conscious yeilding to the Spirit is the only preventive for operating in the flesh," so why didn't you do that the last time you sinned? Why didn't you yield and 'prevent operating in the flesh?'