"Sold Under Sin" - Rom. 7:14

[The Biblicist]

Dude, you are sick. I was in no way trying to twist or pervert scripture, I am simply saying what scripture says, that we have been freed from sin.

Rom 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.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Paul says we WERE (past tense) servants of sin, but we have obeyed the doctrine which was delivered unto us, "being then made free from sin".

You call yourself the Biblicist, but you are a Calvinist fanatic. You will reject any scripture that refutes Calvinism, of which there is volumes. This scripture we are discussing now refutes Calvinism, Paul is clearly speaking from the perspective of a lost man "sold under sin" in Romans 7, but he desires to do what is right, and he delights in the law of God and consents that it is good.

If that destroys your pet doctrine, too bad.

Now you are FLEEING to a different text in a different context. We are talking about Romans 7:14 not Romans 6 which deals entirely with a different subject.

Furthermore, Romans 6 does not teach that OUR FLESH is redeemed from sin and it is quite obvious it is not because it DIES!

So again you are playing eisgesis and not being faithful to the words chosen by the Holy Spirit and that is why you can apply the text as you do.

 

[Winman]

Now you are FLEEING to a different text in a different context. We are talking about Romans 7:14 not Romans 6 which deals entirely with a different subject.

Furthermore, Romans 6 does not teach that OUR FLESH is redeemed from sin and it is quite obvious it is not because it DIES!

So again you are playing eisgesis and not being faithful to the words chosen by the Holy Spirit and that is why you can apply the text as you do.

Seriously dude, you need to take a pill or something. I was simply showing scripture that says Christians have been freed from sin, proving that Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7 because he said he was "sold under sin" in the present tense.

I am not going to keep arguing with you, I have no doubt you would argue endlessly. You think that if you get the last word that proves you are right. Well, it doesn't, and I am not a total fool that is going to keep arguing with you forever.

Again, I will leave it up to the reader to see who is presenting truth and who is not, and who is twisting scripture and who is not.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not going to keep arguing with you, .

There is no argument! You and your scholar have ALTERED the reading of Romans 7:14 to fit your theory. It does not say "the man" or "himself" or "the Christian" but it says "I" and it is contextually defined as ONE of TWO first person singular pronouns because ONLY ONE operates by the LAW OF SIN and SERVES SIN and is RESTRICTED to the OUTWARD MAN "the flesh" "in my flesh" "This body of death."

 

[michael-acts17:11]

No, I originally said I believed Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man because he said he was sold under sin in verse 14. No Christian is sold under sin, we have been freed from sin.

I know that you Calvinists will not listen to a fellow like me who simply reads the scriptures, so I showed some real scholars who just so happen to agree with me, and I showed some of their arguments. Who knows? You might listen to a "scholar"

But I formed my opinion from my own reading, no Christian is sold under sin. And if Paul is telling us about his experience as a Christian, it is a miserable one, he sounds like he is sinning every moment and has absolutely no victory over sin. This is at complete odds with what scripture says about our new life and walk in Christ.

The reason Biblicist and others will not accept that Paul was speaking of an unconverted man here is because it completely destroys the false doctrine of Total Inability, because Paul shows as a lost man that he had a real desire to please and obey God, and that he delighted in God's law, though he found it impossible to keep.

I am not one bit surprised that all you Calvinists will reject this interpretation, YOU HAVE TO.

"You Calvinists"? "All you Calvinists"? From what do you infer that I am a Calvinist. Now you're just lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one big heap. No sir, I am not a Calvinist. However, I do think your position requires you to ignore key passages of Scripture on the dual nature of believers; the spirit & the flesh. I think you believe your scholars to be inerrant because, if your doctrine is true, then they can obtain sinless perfection in this lifetime.

 

[Winman]

"You Calvinists"? "All you Calvinists"? From what do you infer that I am a Calvinist. Now you're just lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one big heap. No sir, I am not a Calvinist. However, I do think your position requires you to ignore key passages of Scripture on the dual nature of believers; the spirit & the flesh. I think you believe your scholars to be inerrant because, if your doctrine is true, then they can obtain sinless perfection in this lifetime.

OK, I am probably wrong to stereotype Calvinists, but perhaps not in this case. The issue here is Total Inability, Calvinism teaches that man is so utterly depraved that he cannot make any true movement toward God. That is not what Paul is saying in Romans 7;

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But 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.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
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.

If Paul is indeed speaking from the perspective of a lost unregenerate man here, this passage utterly refutes the Calvinist/Reformed doctrine of Total Inability. Paul is doing good things here that this doctrine says man is not able to do.

Paul says he would do good in vs. 15, he also says he hates sin

He consents that the law is good in vs. 16

He wills to do good in vs. 18

He speaks of the good he would do in vs. 19

He speaks of when he would do good in vs. 21

He delights in the law of God in vs. 22

He serves the law with his mind in vs. 25

What Paul is really saying here is that he cannot escape sin, he is held captive by it. It doesn't matter how much good you do, if you sin even one time, you are sold to sin and belong to it like a slave in the ancient markets. You can try to escape but it is impossible, you are held captive by sin, and the wages of sin is death.

He would love to do good and earn heaven but he cannot. Try as he might, he cannot break this bondage.

But thank God, when we trust Jesus, we are baptized into his body. When he died to sin, we died along with him, and we are no longer held captive by sin.

Paul also compared it to marriage, as long as a woman is married, she is bound captive to her husband. But if he dies, she is free to marry another.

Likewise, we are dead to sin, we are free from sin and free to marry another, which is Jesus. Now we are under grace and not the law.

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

This is why Romans 7:14-25 cannot be about a regenerate man, because Paul said he was "sold under sin" in the present tense. This can never be said of any regenerate Christian.

Calvinists reject this interpretation, because this passage utterly destroys Total Inability and thus all of TULIP.

There you go, whatever you are.

 

[The Biblicist]

The issue here is Total Inability, Calvinism teaches that man is so utterly depraved that he cannot make any true movement toward God. That is not what Paul is saying in Romans 7;

The issue is NOT total depravity. The issue is does Romans 7:14-25 teach TWO NATURES. The doctrine of total inability is not determined by Romans 7:14-25 but by Romans 8:7-8 in the words "is not...neither indeed can be.....cannot".

So you are approaching Romans 7 with an unjust bias that has nothing to do with this chapter.

Paul says he would do good in vs. 15, he also says he hates sin

He consents that the law is good in vs. 16

He wills to do good in vs. 18

He speaks of the good he would do in vs. 19

He speaks of when he would do good in vs. 21

He delights in the law of God in vs. 22

He serves the law with his mind in vs. 25

Again YOU are replacing the Biblical terms with YOUR OWN terms. None of these say "HE" but uses the first person singular pronoun CONSISTENTLY throughout "I" - ridding this pronoun PERVERTS the text because there are TWO different APPLICATIONS to TWO different aspects of Paul (EXTERNAL versus INTERNAL) and TWO different laws with TWO contradictory outcomes that CO-EXIST in the same Person.

 

[The Biblicist]

If Paul is indeed speaking from the perspective of a lost unregenerate man here, this passage utterly refutes the Calvinist/Reformed doctrine of Total Inability. .

Like your scholar friend you approach the text with a clear stated bias. Try exegesis instead of eisgesis. Don't approach it with a bias but with integrity and honesty to deal with the text for what it clearly teaches.

 

[Winman]

The issue is NOT total depravity. The issue is does Romans 7:14-25 teach TWO NATURES. The doctrine of total inability is not determined by Romans 7:14-25 but by Romans 8:7-8 in the words "is not...neither indeed can be.....cannot".

And you have been proven wrong on this several times. I will try one more time to explain it to you.

If you are staring at a young girl in a bikini, you CANNOT please your wife. You CAN'T do it, it is IMPOSSIBLE, while you stare at that young girl, your wife is not going to be pleased.

But the word "CANNOT" here does not mean UNABLE. It doesn't mean you are UNABLE to do something else. It doesn't mean you are UNABLE to look away from that young girl in the bikini and please your wife.

Now this is simple, any child could understand this, if you do not understand it is because you are stubborn and obstinate, not because the argument does not make perfect sense. You simply DON'T WANT to hear it, because it refutes your view.

So you are approaching Romans 7 with an unjust bias that has nothing to do with this chapter.

Now that is funny. I would say you are the one with a bias. :laugh:

Again YOU are replacing the Biblical terms with YOUR OWN terms. None of these say "HE" but uses the first person singular pronoun CONSISTENTLY throughout "I" - ridding this pronoun PERVERTS the text because there are TWO different APPLICATIONS to TWO different aspects of Paul (EXTERNAL versus INTERNAL) and TWO different laws with TWO contradictory outcomes that CO-EXIST in the same Person.

Paul is saying that he is carnal, sold under sin in the present tense. This is impossible for a regenerated Christian, which proves Paul is speaking of himself from the perspective of a lost unregenerate man.

You can play dumb all you want, scholars everywhere understand this perspective and have written on it for centuries.

 

[The Biblicist]

And you have been proven wrong on this several times.

For example???? Name one place where I did not only answer your arguments but demonstrated they were contextually invalid.

If you are staring at a young girl in a bikini, you CANNOT please your wife. You CAN'T do it, it is IMPOSSIBLE, while you stare at that young girl, your wife is not going to be pleased.

But the word "CANNOT" here does not mean UNABLE. It doesn't mean you are UNABLE to do something else. It doesn't mean you are UNABLE to look away from that young girl in the bikini and please your wife.

Tell me, does this problem stem from the regenerate nature or "inward man" that is "created in righteousness and true holiness" or does this problem originate in "the flesh"?

You see, your analogy simply has no revelence on the regenerated nature and the "flesh" has not been regenerated. "This body" has not been saved and you are DYING due to the effects of sin.

So not only is your analogy OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE and thus outside this context but it is repudiated by this context as the "I" after the inward man NEVER desires anything but "good" (Rom. 7:18b-21).

I do not go to this text with a bias. You admit your bias in black and white.

Paul is saying that he is

There is no "he" in this context! Stop inserting it. Paul says "I" and he is speaking of the "I" that is "flesh" not the "I" of the inward man. He is speaking of the "I" SOLD UNDER SIN as this "I" never wills good (vv. 15-17) and has "NOTHING GOOD" (v. 18) and "serves the law of sin" (v. 25.

You can play dumb all you want, scholars everywhere understand this perspective and have written on it for centuries.

It is not about smarts or absence of smarts it is about HONESTY with God's word. You are DISHONEST as you repeatedly SUBSTITUTE God's Words with YOUR OWN and then twist it the way you like. There is no "he" or "himself" or "the man" or "Christian" in this context but only "I" used TWO DIFFERENT WAYS in connection with TWO DIFFERENT laws, in application to TWO DIFFERENT natures in one person.

 

[Winman]

For example???? Name one place where I did not only answer your arguments but demonstrated they were contextually invalid.

Tell me, does this problem stem from the regenerate nature or "inward man" that is "created in righteousness and true holiness" or does this problem originate in "the flesh"?

You see, your analogy simply has no revelence on the regenerated nature and the "flesh" has not been regenerated. "This body" has not been saved and you are DYING due to the effects of sin.

So not only is your analogy OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE and thus outside this context but it is repudiated by this context as the "I" after the inward man NEVER desires anything but "good" (Rom. 7:18b-21).

I do not go to this text with a bias. You admit your bias in black and white.







There is no "he" in this context! Stop inserting it. Paul says "I" and he is speaking of the "I" that is "flesh" not the "I" of the inward man. He is speaking of the "I" SOLD UNDER SIN as this "I" never wills good (vv. 15-17) and has "NOTHING GOOD" (v. 18) and "serves the law of sin" (v. 25.




It is not about smarts or absence of smarts it is about HONESTY with God's word. You are DISHONEST as you repeatedly SUBSTITUTE God's Words with YOUR OWN and then twist it the way you like. There is no "he" or "himself" or "the man" or "Christian" in this context but only "I" used TWO DIFFERENT WAYS in connection with TWO DIFFERENT laws, in application to TWO DIFFERENT natures in one person.

Once again I was fool enough to argue with you. Believe whatever you want.

 

[The Biblicist]

Once again I was fool enough to argue with you. Believe whatever you want.

Your foolishness has nothing to do with arguing but with repeatedly changing the scriptures to suit your self.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

Paul uses the PRESENT TENSE and makes to claims about "I"

1. "I" am carnal - fleshly
2. "I" am ...sold UNDER SIN.

Here is the declaration and verses 15-25 is the explanation. In the explanation the reader will see not ONE but TWO different uses of the pronoun "I" and only one is related to "the flesh" or is "fleshly" and that pronoun is:

1. "I" sold under sin" - v. 14
2. "I" that operates by "the law of sin" - vv. 22-25
3. "I" that only chooses to do "evil" - vv. 15-17
4. "I" that only serves sin - v. 25
5. "i" of the outward man "the flesh....members....body of death"
6. "I" that contains "NOTHING GOOD" - v. 18
7. "I" that conexists with a contrary "I" - vv. 22-25


This is the "I" of Romans 7:14 the "I" that is fleshly and "sold under sin" because it operates by "the law of sin."

However, there is another "I" in direct contrast to the "I" that is fleshly and sold under sin.

1. "I' that operates under a different "law" - vv. 22-25
2. "I" that delights in the law of God - v. 21
3. "I" that chooses only good - vv. 18b-21
4. "I" that "serves God" - v. 25
5. "I" that cries out for deliverance from the fleshly law - v. 24
6. "I" of the "inward man" or "my mind" - vv. 21,25
7. "I" coexisting with a contrary "I" - vv. 22-25

These two contrasting Laws represent TWO NATURES - one that operates after the "law of sin" and one that operates after the law of God - Rom. 7:25

The "I" that operates after the "law of sin" is the "I" sold under sin, as it serves only sin, loves only sin, does only sin and there is "NOTHING GOOD" in "the flesh" and therefore it is the "I am flesh." - the Unregenerated nature of a born again man whose inward man delights in and operates by the law of God and serves only God.

We have seen two prime examples that the only way to escape the dual nature teaching of Romans 7:14-25 is to simply CHANGE THE SCRIPTURES, remove Biblical terms and use other terms. Then they must ignore two completely aspects of Paul that are in direct contrast and yet co-exist.

In so doing they deny the very problem Romans 8:11-13 resolves by the power of the Holy Spirit as their interpretation resolves it by the power of the human will as illustrated in Winman's "bikini" example when that very power is repudiated by Paul in Romans 7:18b:

for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

The "I am flesh" of Romans 8:14 is carefully defined in the context to be restricted to "the flesh" nature of Paul or the EXTERNAL "I" in direct contrast to the INWARD "I" of the new man which operates by another law.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you are staring at a young girl in a bikini, you CANNOT please your wife. You CAN'T do it, it is IMPOSSIBLE, while you stare at that young girl, your wife is not going to be pleased.

But the word "CANNOT" here does not mean UNABLE. It doesn't mean you are UNABLE to do something else. It doesn't mean you are UNABLE to look away from that young girl in the bikini and please your wife.

Now this is simple, any child could understand this, if you do not understand it is because you are stubborn and obstinate, not because the argument does not make perfect sense. You simply DON'T WANT to hear it, because it refutes your view.

Now this is the best argument that Winman and his side that deny there are two opposing natures within the saved Paul in Romans 7:14-25.

He states is example and then proclaims victory even before he receives any answer.

His whole arguments rests upon the notion that this man CAN stop looking at the girl and he can please his wife by doing so. Hence, Winman believes this is analgous to Paul's teaching in Romans 7:14-8:8.

However, it is not analogous to Romans 7:14-8:8 because Winman's illustration CAN choose to stop sinning but neither the "I" of "my flesh" nor can the "I" of the "inward man" has will power to overrule the law of sin:

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

In the "the flesh" there "dwelleth NO GOOD things" as it "serves the law of sin" and so does not stop choosing sin. Moreover, the "I" of the "inward man" has no will power to stop "the flesh" from its pursuit of sin. So the subject of Paul's discussion has NO WILL POWER to stop sinning while the Bikini of Winman's example does have the will power to stop sinning.

The reason "the flesh" cannot stop sinning is because BY NATURE there is NOTHING GOOD in it - totally depraved. The reason the "I" after the "inward man" cannot stop sinning is because it has POWER OF WILL to stop "the flesh" who "serves the law of sin." This is why Paul concludes "O wretched man that I am" who needs deliverance from some other source than his own will power.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is that the appeal of the Bikini is only to "the flesh" but it has no appeal to the "inward man" who "serves God" and "delights in the Law of God" and always possesses the will to do good but not the power. Because the new "inward man" is "created in righteousness and true holiness" and so the bikini has no appeal to it but only condemnation from it.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is because the sin problem in Romans 7:14-25 results in frustration "O wretched man that I am" but Winman's illustration results only in an alternative choice.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is that it is the powerless will of the Saved man over indwelling sin that calls for the solution in Romans 8:9-13 whereas Winman's solution is simply his own WILL POWER.

Last, Winman's illustration is by his own confession applicable only to the unregenerated man. And in keeping with that application it is the very definition and understanding of the PHARISEES in regard to the natue of sin. It is merely addressed as an OUTWARD problem that temporarly causes INWARD temptation that can be changed by mere will power. However, the Biblical definition of sin is the very reverse. It is the HEART which is the root of sin not the EXTERNAL act or temptation. The fruit is evil because the tree is evil. Merely removal of the temptation or redirection of the mind does no eliminiate sin before God as it is the nature of the heart, its motives that Paul is referring to as "NOTHING GOOD" in it.

Winman looks a sin and the nature of fallen man exactly as do the Pharisees and scribes calling for simple REFORMATION of choice and lifestyle rather than TRANSFORMATION of nature.

 

[Winman]

Now this is the best argument that Winman and his side that deny there are two opposing natures within the saved Paul in Romans 7:14-25.

He states is example and then proclaims victory even before he receives any answer.

You completely misrepresent me, in fact, it is obvious you did not understand me at all. Looking at a girl in a bikini has nothing to do with ability or lack of ability.

What I was saying is that the word "cannot" does not mean "unable".

When you look at a girl in a bikini you "cannot" please your wife. That does not mean you are compelled to look at her continuously, that does not mean you are "unable" to look away.

You can't even follow an argument. :laugh:

His whole arguments rests upon the notion that this man CAN stop looking at the girl and he can please his wife by doing so. Hence, Winman believes this is analgous to Paul's teaching in Romans 7:14-8:8.

However, it is not analogous to Romans 7:14-8:8 because Winman's illustration CAN choose to stop sinning but neither the "I" of "my flesh" nor can the "I" of the "inward man" has will power to overrule the law of sin:

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

This is because Paul is speaking of 100% good. When the scriptures say there is none "good" no not one, it is not saying that man cannot do good, but it is saying man cannot be 100% good like God. That is why the scriptures say for all have sinned and come "short" of the glory of God.

In the "the flesh" there "dwelleth NO GOOD things" as it "serves the law of sin" and so does not stop choosing sin. Moreover, the "I" of the "inward man" has no will power to stop "the flesh" from its pursuit of sin. So the subject of Paul's discussion has NO WILL POWER to stop sinning while the Bikini of Winman's example does have the will power to stop sinning.

Yes, but Paul explains with his mind he serves the law of God. Man is not all flesh, this is what Jesus meant when he said the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

You don't get it, man is not just flesh!

The reason "the flesh" cannot stop sinning is because BY NATURE there is NOTHING GOOD in it - totally depraved. The reason the "I" after the "inward man" cannot stop sinning is because it has POWER OF WILL to stop "the flesh" who "serves the law of sin." This is why Paul concludes "O wretched man that I am" who needs deliverance from some other source than his own will power.

The flesh simply wants what it wants, but the flesh has no power to make choices. Jesus came in the flesh and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is that the appeal of the Bikini is only to "the flesh" but it has no appeal to the "inward man" who "serves God" and "delights in the Law of God" and always possesses the will to do good but not the power. Because the new "inward man" is "created in righteousness and true holiness" and so the bikini has no appeal to it but only condemnation from it.

Again, that was not my argument, my argument was about the definition of the word "cannot". The word "cannot" does not necessarily mean "unable". In some circumstances it could mean unable. In the example I gave, it does not mean unable, you could look away and please your wife. But while you look at this girl, you "cannot" please your wife. A little child could follow this argument, but you cannot.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is because the sin problem in Romans 7:14-25 results in frustration "O wretched man that I am" but Winman's illustration results only in an alternative choice.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is that it is the powerless will of the Saved man over indwelling sin that calls for the solution in Romans 8:9-13 whereas Winman's solution is simply his own WILL POWER.

Last, Winman's illustration is by his own confession applicable only to the unregenerated man. And in keeping with that application it is the very definition and understanding of the PHARISEES in regard to the natue of sin. It is merely addressed as an OUTWARD problem that temporarly causes INWARD temptation that can be changed by mere will power. However, the Biblical definition of sin is the very reverse. It is the HEART which is the root of sin not the EXTERNAL act or temptation. The fruit is evil because the tree is evil. Merely removal of the temptation or redirection of the mind does no eliminiate sin before God as it is the nature of the heart, its motives that Paul is referring to as "NOTHING GOOD" in it.

Winman looks a sin and the nature of fallen man exactly as do the Pharisees and scribes calling for simple REFORMATION of choice and lifestyle rather than TRANSFORMATION of nature.

If your interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 is true, then Paul, who was probably the greatest Christian that ever lived lived in total failure as a Christian. If your view is correct (it isn't) then Paul was sinning every moment of every day.

That alone should tell any intelligent person that Biblicist's view is complete and utter error.

Does anybody really think that being a Christian means you cannot do a single good thing as Paul laments here? Absurd to the extreme.

 

[Winman]

Maybe you will get this (doubtful).

Please observe the following statement;

"You CANNOT diet while you continuously eat hot fudge sundaes."

Is it possible to diet while you continuously eat hot fudge sundaes?

Does this statement mean you are unable to diet?

Please answer these questions.

 

[convicted1]

Brother, I have an honest and sincere question. Why do you repeatedly qute your own posts, and then reply to it?

Winman's source is flawed, with improper interpretations, perversion of the text, ignoring vital details that destroy his intepretation. My OP still stands unscathed.

 

[The Biblicist]

Looking at a girl in a bikini has nothing to do with ability or lack of ability.

What I was saying is that the word "cannot" does not mean "unable".

Look at your first sentence above and then compare it your next sentence above. Can anyone say "contradiction." To be "unable" to do something means you "cannot" do it and that means LACK OF ABILITY to do it or else you "can" do it. The words "can" and "cannot" speak of ability and lack of ability. The flesh has NO ABILITY to do good because there is NOTHING GOOD in it to draw from. Is that too hard to understand???

When you look at a girl in a bikini you "cannot" please your wife. That does not mean you are compelled to look at her continuously, that does not mean you are "unable" to look away.

Your whole argument rests on the word "when" but the fact is "the flesh" has no "when" because it has "NOTHING GOOD" at ANY TIME and it ALWAYS serves the law of sin.

Furthermore, the words "is not" and "neither indeed can" and "cannot" are placed in a context where there is no "WHEN" but rather are describing a continuous STATE of war "enmity" and a continus STATE of resistance "is not subjecct to......neither indeed can be."

So your illustration and twist of terms is futile and silly.


I deal with context, words, arguments, why must you always resort to PERSONAL jabs?

This is because Paul is speaking of 100% good. When the scriptures say there is none "good" no not one, it is not saying that man cannot do good, but it is saying man cannot be 100% good like God. That is why the scriptures say for all have sinned and come "short" of the glory of God.

You don't realize the tree must first be made "good" BEFORE the fruit can be made "good." You have a corrupted tree that you believe and assert is bringing forth "good" fruit.

This is because you do not understand the sin nature. The sin is not merely coming short of 100% but it is the MOTIVE of the heart that produces all thoughts, words, and actions. If the MOTIVE is wrong everything you do in God's sight including helping little old ladies across the street and saving grandpa from chocking is not regarded as "good" in God's sight because the MOTIVE is not "for the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) as all have sinned and "come short OF THE GLORY OF GOD." To be not thankful to God or failure to recognize God in all that you do is SIN!

Therefore there is NO HUMAN whether regenerated or not that is not without sin 100% of the time. The unregenerated nature has "NOTHING GOOD" and that is why it cannot "DO GOOD" because in order to DO GOOD it must first be made GOOD.

Yes, but Paul explains with his mind he serves the law of God. Man is not all flesh, this is what Jesus meant when he said the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak.

The unregenerated man is ALL FLESH but not the regenerated man as they are ONLY "IN THE FLESH" - Rom. 8:8-9 - He has NTHER OPTION. The regenerated man is "IN the Spirit" but is not without "the flesh" OR ELSE there is no use for Romans 8:12-13 is there??????

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 the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

The verbs are PRESENT TENSE and to "live" refers to your "walk."

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

These are regenerated (Jn. 3:6) men with a fallen nature and Jesus said the Spirit was "with" them before Pentecost.

The flesh simply wants what it wants, but the flesh has no power to make choices. Jesus came in the flesh and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

According to Romans 7:14-18 "the flesh" makes ALL THE CHOICES and Paul has no WILL POWER to prevent it and that is why he cries out "O Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me FROM THIS BODY OF DEATH." So your theory simply fails here as well. Paul makes it clear the saved man does not have WILL POWER in and of himself but "it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and to DO of His GOOD..."

Again, that was not my argument, my argument was about the definition of the word "cannot". The word "cannot" does not necessarily mean "unable".

In the Biblical context it of the fallen nature it does mean "unable" as it is the fallen nature being described in Romans 7:18 wherein "NOTHING GOOD" exists. In Romans 8:7 "ENMITY" is UNABLE to be peace. "is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be" speaks of its present and future STATE or CONDITION and that denies even the possibility of abilty to submit to the revealed will of God.

If your interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 is true, then Paul, who was probably the greatest Christian that ever lived lived in total failure as a Christian. If your view is correct (it isn't) then Paul was sinning every moment of every day.

Paul said "I AM the CHIEF of sinners" not "I WAS." John says that only one who is self-deceived believes he is without sin at any time (1 Jn. 1:8-10).

That alone should tell any intelligent person that Biblicist's view is complete and utter error.

I address scriptures, arguments, and positions but you feel the need to make personal attacks. The insinuation that people must be unintelligent if they disagree with you is just another personal attack. Those who cannot deal with the evidence resort to the only weapon they have left - personal attacks.

Does anybody really think that being a Christian means you cannot do a single good thing as Paul laments here? Absurd to the extreme.

You do not understand that everything you say and do is sin in God's eyes if the MOTIVE for saying or doing it "comes short of THE GLORY OF GOD." You do not understand that good fruit cannot be produced from a corrupt tree but that is precisely what you are teaching and defending.

 

[The Biblicist]

Brother, I have an honest and sincere question. Why do you repeatedly qute your own posts, and then reply to it?

For a couple of good reasons. First, other posters attempt to lead the conversation away from the post they cannot answer, so repeating the post brings us back to what they want to run from, ignore or distort.

Second, because when I have shut their mouths and they have given no response, I quote to remind the readers what it is that has shut their mouth and then build upon it from that point.

 

[convicted1]

Hide and watch me.

Maybe you will get this (doubtful).

Please observe the following statement;

"You CANNOT diet while you continuously eat hot fudge sundaes."

Is it possible to diet while you continuously eat hot fudge sundaes?

Does this statement mean you are unable to diet?

Please answer these questions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Maybe you will get this (doubtful).

Please observe the following statement;

"You CANNOT diet while you continuously eat hot fudge sundaes."

Is it possible to diet while you continuously eat hot fudge sundaes?

Does this statement mean you are unable to diet?

Please answer these questions.

Winman's only hope is to lead the reader away from the BIBLICAL CONTEXT where the words "cannot" and "is not" and "neither indeed can be" in order to place them in a manufactured context to support his erroneous views.

However, if we place the words "is not....neither indeed can be....cannot" in their proper Biblical context it makes his illustrations foolish.

Why does it make them foolish? Because he admits that the words "cannot" does not "necessarily" mean inablity which is an admission that in some contexts it most certainly does demand inability. Hence, he takes it out of the Biblical context which does demand that and places it in an unbiblical context to overthrow God's word.

In context the words are associated directly with the STATE of the fleshly "carnal" mindset - Rom. 8:7.

That STATE is demanded by the noun "enmity" which is a STATE OF WAR and by the words "not subject to the Law of God" which is a STATE of resistance as the "state of being verb" is used.

Furthermore, "the flesh" has been already described as having "NOTHING GOOD" (Rom. 7:18) and therefore has "NOTHING GOOD" to draw from to change that described STATE of war and resistance in Romans 8:7.

That is the problem which only the POWER of the indwelling Spirit can change (Rom. 8:9-13) in a saved man but no such power exists in the unregenerated man and "so then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God."