"Sold Under Sin" - Rom. 7:14

[convicted1]

Hmmmmmm, maybe. Or, maybe becaue you're unwilling to concede anything on any topic of debate, they bow out? I am not being snooty here, but that's why I bow out of a lot of debates on here. When somone is unwilling to at least see their POV, they're gonna bow out.

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.

 

[Winman]

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

Because the guy is so wrapped up in himself.

He probably reads his own posts over and over and over.

The sad part is that he thinks he knows more than anyone. I showed several scholars that believed Romans 7:14-25 is speaking of Paul as an unregenerate man, he simply blew them off without a second thought.

If you believe Paul is speaking of himself as a saved man here, you would have to believe he was the most unsuccessful Christian ever, that sin and his flesh was in total control and that he could not stop sinning.

This alone easily shows his view to be total error, but he will NEVER admit that. His ego is HUGE.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hmmmmmm, maybe. Or, maybe becaue you're unwilling to concede anything on any topic of debate, they bow out? I am not being snooty here, but that's why I bow out of a lot of debates on here. When somone is unwilling to at least see their POV, they're gonna bow out.

Tell me, why should I bow out to bad arguments that I fully address and which they have no response or just as worse of a response.

For example, in this debate with Winman, he repeatedly changes the Scripture words, purposely avoiding the Biblical language because his whole argument rests upon ignoring what the Biblical text actually says.

Furthermore, he rips Biblical words out of their context in order to place them in an unbiblical context so that his forced meaning of a word can fit.

This is a debate forum is it not? Why bow out when there is no valid reason to bow out?

Tell me, would it make you feel better if I just bowed out every time an opponent believed his argument is unanswerable and starts making personal jabs and insults to everyone who disagrees with him? Sorry, I operate under another set of rules.

 

[The Biblicist]

Because the guy is so wrapped up in himself.

He probably reads his own posts over and over and over.

The sad part is that he thinks he knows more than anyone. I showed several scholars that believed Romans 7:14-25 is speaking of Paul as an unregenerate man, he simply blew them off without a second thought.

If you believe Paul is speaking of himself as a saved man here, you would have to believe he was the most unsuccessful Christian ever, that sin and his flesh was in total control and that he could not stop sinning.

This alone easily shows his view to be total error, but he will NEVER admit that. His ego is HUGE.

Here is a clear difference between us. When he loses an argument he resorts to personal attacks. I have simply answered his objections and provided evidence he avoids and refuses to deal with. That is my method of response.

When a person resorts to personal insults and attacks and characterizations you know he is defeated.

 

[Winman]

Hmmmmmm, maybe. Or, maybe becaue you're unwilling to concede anything on any topic of debate, they bow out? I am not being snooty here, but that's why I bow out of a lot of debates on here. When somone is unwilling to at least see their POV, they're gonna bow out.

You are batting 1.000 Willis!

The guy is so full of himself that it is a total waste of time to talk to him. He thinks he is infallible. I learned a long time ago not to debate him, I don't know why I allowed myself to get sucked into a debate with him again.

He is a legend in his own mind.

Don't fall for that "Biblicist" stuff, he is a fanatic Calvinist to the core, he rejects any view that would refute Calvinism, such as the very passage we are discussing here.

Paul wanted to do good, he delighted in the law of God, but he could not find a way to be perfect, therefore he was brought under subjection and captivity to sin.

All you have to do is sin one time and you are "sold unto sin". Sin owns you and he pays you death. The only escape is through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hmmmmmm, maybe. Or, maybe becaue you're unwilling to concede anything on any topic of debate, they bow out? I am not being snooty here, but that's why I bow out of a lot of debates on here. When somone is unwilling to at least see their POV, they're gonna bow out.

Another reason I do not bow out is that this is my OP and why should I bow out of my own OP especially when winman has supplied nothing substantial to support his position except non-biblical illustrations and human wisdom and total mishandling of God's word??

 

[convicted1]

What I mean Brother, is that in a debate there is give and take. With you, it vis always take and no give.

Tell me, why should I bow out to bad arguments that I fully address and which they have no response or just as worse of a response.

For example, in this debate with Winman, he repeatedly changes the Scripture words, purposely avoiding the Biblical language because his whole argument rests upon ignoring what the Biblical text actually says.

Furthermore, he rips Biblical words out of their context in order to place them in an unbiblical context so that his forced meaning of a word can fit.

This is a debate forum is it not? Why bow out when there is no valid reason to bow out?

Tell me, would it make you feel better if I just bowed out every time an opponent believed his argument is unanswerable and starts making personal jabs and insults to everyone who disagrees with him? Sorry, I operate under another set of rules.

 

[Winman]

What I mean Brother, is that in a debate there is give and take. With you, it vis always take and no give.

You are speaking 100% truth here Willis, but he won't listen to you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul wanted to do good, he delighted in the law of God, but he could not find a way to be perfect, therefore he was brought under subjection and captivity to sin.

If anyone believes this line of reasoning then I have ocean property for sale in Nebraska that I know I can sell you.

1. He was a sinner long before he figured out he was not perfect (Rom. 7:7-12) and it was the tenth commandment that convicted him of sin, not the desire to be perfect.

2. As a saved person he desirese to be sinless - Philip 2:10-14 and so the desire to be sinless is consistent with being saved.

3. There is NO WILL POWER to do "good" if it is from the perspective of God's Law and that is the context (vv. 13-14 "holy...just...good" "I know the Law IS SPIRITUAL") and so just "one sin" defines all you do in the Law's sight as sin because to violate in ONE point is to violate ALL POINTS in the sight of God's law. The context is how the Law define's "good" not how Winman or men define it.

All you have to do is sin one time and you are "sold unto sin".

You don't have to sin to be a sinner but you sin because you are a sinner. Remember Jesus said it is ONLY a "corrupt" tree that brings forth evil fruit. Your soteriology is the very reverse you have a "good" tree bringing forth "evil" fruit AFTER the fall of man.

 

[Winman]

If anyone believes this line of reasoning then I have ocean property for sale in Nebraska that I know I can sell you.

1. He was a sinner long before he figured out he was not perfect (Rom. 7:7-12) and it was the tenth commandment that convicted him of sin, not the desire to be perfect.

2. As a saved person he desirese to be sinless - Philip 2:10-14 and so the desire to be sinless is consistent with being saved.

3. There is NO WILL POWER to do "good" if it is from the perspective of God's Law and that is the context (vv. 13-14 "holy...just...good" "I know the Law IS SPIRITUAL") and so just "one sin" defines all you do in the Law's sight as sin because to violate in ONE point is to violate ALL POINTS in the sight of God's law. The context is how the Law define's "good" not how Winman or men define it.

You don't have to sin to be a sinner but you sin because you are a sinner. Remember Jesus said it is ONLY a "corrupt" tree that brings forth evil fruit. Your soteriology is the very reverse you have a "good" tree bringing forth "evil" fruit AFTER the fall of man.

I am glad to see Willis has caught on to you dude. Nobody can tell you anything, you are hopeless.

I bet even your own family can't stand you.

 

[The Biblicist]

What I mean Brother, is that in a debate there is give and take. With you, it vis always take and no give.

You said your question was sincere but it looks to me you had already made up your mind and simply used it to make an assault - fair enough?

There is no "give" when it comes to perverting God's Word. The only time you "give" is when you are wrong and are proven to be wrong.

Do you see Winman "giving" in? No! And the evidence proves he is wrong. Why should anyone of sound mind in a debate forum give in to error and ridicule of truth?

YOu have that option but please don't force me into your mold. I may be wrong, as motives are hard to read at times, that I fully admit, but it seems your "sincere" question was merely a tool to attack. May I suggest that you "give" up this argument and allow me to follow my own conscience.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am glad to see Willis has caught on to you dude. Nobody can tell you anything, you are hopeless.

I bet even your own family can't stand you.

Again, why reduce this discussion to personal insults. Is that the only way you can feel good about yourself? Do you have to win so badlly that you will resort to insults and lying?

You said you were not going to respond to my posts any more and that was a long time back. But contrary to your own testimony here you are again, with no substance but hot air and insults. Take your own advice if you can't deal substantively with the arguments then you have no business on this thread. I will ask you to please stop trying to derail this thread by reducing it to personal insults and personal matters. Please!

 

[Winman]

Again, why reduce this discussion to personal insults. Is that the only way you can feel good about yourself? Do you have to win so badlly that you will resort to insults and lying?

You said you were not going to respond to my posts any more and that was a long time back. But contrary to your own testimony here you are again, with no substance but hot air and insults. Take your own advice if you can't deal substantively with the arguments then you have no business on this thread. I will ask you to please stop trying to derail this thread by reducing it to personal insults and personal matters. Please!

I wasn't going to respond until you misrepresented what I really said, then I felt a need to defend myself.

Dude, you are oblivious to your own problem. You are an ego-maniac so wrapped up in himself you cannot see just how messed up you really are. Nobody can tell you anything.

If there's one thing I know about Willis, it's that he is a nice guy who does not try to offend anyone. If he tells you that you do not listen to others, you should take heed, he is telling you the truth.

But why am I telling you anything? You are so stubborn and obstinate, nobody can get through to you.

 

[The Biblicist]

I wasn't going to respond until you misrepresented what I really said, then I felt a need to defend myself.

Dude, you are oblivious to your own problem. You are an ego-maniac so wrapped up in himself you cannot see just how messed up you really are. Nobody can tell you anything.

If there's one thing I know about Willis, it's that he is a nice guy who does not try to offend anyone. If he tells you that you do not listen to others, you should take heed, he is telling you the truth.

But why am I telling you anything? You are so stubborn and obstinate, nobody can get through to you.

Again you are resorting to personal attacks just to win an argument that you cannot win substantively. I realize you think you have won it substantively, however, the facts that I pointed out in your scholars treatise are the very same errors you base your own position on.

This kind of response is the usual response I have read not merely against myself but DHK, Dr. Bob and many others who are obstacles to those who approach the Bible as you do and there are several. Save your breath because you are wasting it.

I am going to ask you kindly again, and with respect, Please stop deraling this OP with "personal" attacks. If you want to deal with substance then I will be more than ready to match substance with substance and more than willing if you can prove that I am in error to admit error, but not with what you have been writing as it is full of holes which I have taken the time to point out and you keep ignoring them.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

This thread has gotten ridiculous with all the juvenile "dude" this & "dude" that & personal attacks. Convicted1 seems to have jumped in solely for the personal attacks. When someone turns to personal attacks, it is generally because of a lack of maturity, a weak argument, or both. Only the persons using personal attacks know for sure. The rest of us can only speculate.

 

[The Biblicist]

This thread has gotten ridiculous with all the juvenile "dude" this & "dude" that & personal attacks. Convicted1 seems to have jumped in solely for the personal attacks. When someone turns to personal attacks, it is generally because of a lack of maturity, a weak argument, or both. Only the persons using personal attacks know for sure. The rest of us can only speculate.

Yep! I have asked Dr. Bob to shut it down because they are derailing by their "personal attack" agenda.

Winman won't respond to the specifics that I have pointed out because those specifics simply neuter his whole theory. Instead, he takes up the only other available tool - personal attack.

 

[Winman]

This thread has gotten ridiculous with all the juvenile "dude" this & "dude" that & personal attacks. Convicted1 seems to have jumped in solely for the personal attacks. When someone turns to personal attacks, it is generally because of a lack of maturity, a weak argument, or both. Only the persons using personal attacks know for sure. The rest of us can only speculate.

I don't know if you are aware or not, but Willis has been leaning toward Calvinism for about the last month, so if he called Biblicist out, it is legit.

I am not a nice guy, I tell it like it is whether you like it or not. But if Willis says you don't listen, he is telling the truth.

I will say the same to you as I said to Biblicist, if you think Paul is describing himself as a Christian in Romans 7:14-25, then you would have to believe Paul was an absolute failure as a Christian. You would have to believe that Paul is saying sin and his sin nature has total control over him and that he could not obey God even with the help of the Holy Spirit. As Adam Clarke, the famous theologian said;

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….That all that is said in this chapter of the carnal man, sold under sin, did apply to Saul of Tarsus, no man can doubt: that what is here said can ever be with propriety applied to Paul the Apostle, who can believe? Of the former, all is natural; of the latter, all here said would be monstrous and absurd, if not blasphemous.2

Any truly intelligent person would reject Biblicist's view, it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Winman]

Again you are resorting to personal attacks just to win an argument that you cannot win substantively. I realize you think you have won it substantively, however, the facts that I pointed out in your scholars treatise are the very same errors you base your own position on.

This kind of response is the usual response I have read not merely against myself but DHK, Dr. Bob and many others who are obstacles to those who approach the Bible as you do and there are several. Save your breath because you are wasting it.

I am going to ask you kindly again, and with respect, Please stop deraling this OP with "personal" attacks. If you want to deal with substance then I will be more than ready to match substance with substance and more than willing if you can prove that I am in error to admit error, but not with what you have been writing as it is full of holes which I have taken the time to point out and you keep ignoring them.

I don't care if you talk nice to me, I believe you are teaching absolute error. I consider you an enemy of truth.

You can report me, whatever. I really don't care if you are offended or not.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't care if you talk nice to me, I believe you are teaching absolute error. I consider you an enemy of truth.

You can report me, whatever. I really don't care if you are offended or not.

You can't see yourself. You are doing and acting exactly how you have been accusing me.

This thread is not about you or me but about Romans 7:14 and its contextual application.

Your theory depends upon taking Biblical terms out of the Biblical context and fabricating your own context to make them mean something impossible if left in their Biblical context.

Your theory depends upon ignoring the dual use of the personal pronoun "I" but replacing it with your own terminologies "the man" "himself" etc.

Your theory depends upon ignoring the contextual identification of the "I" in verse 14 with verses 15-18 where it is explicitly is the restricted "I" of "the flesh" which is "sold under sin" as it serves the law of Sin and there is "NOTHING GOOD" and yet it controls the power of the will over the opposite restricted "I" of the "inward man" who is not sold under sin, who does not serve the law of sin, and always chooses "good" even though it is powerless to overule indwelling sin thus producing frustration in a man who always sins in this condition.

You don't want to deal with issues because you can't and so you attack the person of the messenger.

 

[agedman]

Again, why reduce this discussion to personal insults. Is that the only way you can feel good about yourself? Do you have to win so badlly that you will resort to insults and lying?

Let me see if i have the argument correct.

Biblicist states that Paul is contending within himself, because the flesh has desires and influences that must be constantly beaten down. Further, he presents that Paul is speaking in the present tense showing the use of "I" (exposing his personal struggle).

Winman considers this a biographical statement of Paul before conversion, and no longer applies to Paul as a believer. He referenced a supporting source, yet, Winman also sees Paul's struggle as common in believers. (I am doing this totally by memory - so if I have not been true to Winman's thinking, I apologize.)

Two considerations for those who are reading the thread.

First, Paul makes the statements as the war of flesh and Spirit as his current condition - not in the past tense.

Paul concludes with the cry "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" This is placing the eye upon the future.

Then, Paul immediately goes back to the present tense and answers his own question, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."

BUT Paul doesn't stop there, he goes on bringing practical application to the believers, too, "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."


Often folks separate these two chapters when they are to be taken entirely together. The "Therefore" continues the conclusion of the struggle between the "law of the flesh" and the "law of the Spirit."

When will the final victory over the flesh occur? Look only to what has caught Paul's own gaze, "Who will set me free from the body of this death?" Even though the answer is first presented in chapter 7, the clarification and application of the answer continues throughout chapter 8.


At the end of Chapter 8, there is this outstanding declaration in answer to the question of Chapter 7 that Paul uses in the present tense.

"38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

​

Because the present tense is used throughout this part of Romans (exceptions noted) there is no support for the claim that this is to be considered biographical.

HOWEVER, it is important to note that the life BEFORE conversion will set up patterns of behavior and thought that establish trails to sin that the believer can so easily find.

No doubt, Paul often recalled and regretted his life before conversion which can also be why he struggled in the flesh and the statements of Romans 7. Therefore, it isn't a completely invalid point. A point in which EVERY true believer knows and has personal witness in the battle.



Secondly, there isn't a true believer who has not had this struggle, this war of the worlds, taking place in them self from the moment of first Godly conviction.

I know Winman doesn't hold to "sinless perfection," HOWEVER, one could read this section of Roman's and conclude that Paul is stating that the believer is made already perfect in the eyes of God. That the account of the flesh is paid in full.

To some this thinking presents the license to sin.

BUT Paul dealt with that question BEFORE presenting the battle of "wills" so that there would be NO mistake as to not being granted such a license. (see chapter 6)

Personally, (this is my own view) I find it so very refreshing that Paul had this struggle, too. That this man of superior intellect fought, just as I and all true believers. It isn't how smart, gifted, talented, or whatever that prevents this struggle, it is and will continue.

BUT are believer's (like Paul stated) "convinced..."

Often in the war of wills there is a resignation to the flesh, a tiredness or weariness of battle.

In that time, Paul would state, "I am convinced..." Present tense, right now, in this world, among all the pressures and pleasures it has to offer, "I am convinced..."

Believer, is there something that you consider would separate you from the "love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord?" Paul said, "I am convinced... NOTHING can separate US ...."

I love the way Paul included ME in that statement - so very thoughtful!