"Sold Under Sin" - Rom. 7:14

[Winman]

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.

I get it. I understand your argument. And I reject it.

Again, you would have to believe that Paul was an absolute failure as Christian if your view is true.

I don't believe Paul or any of the apostles were sinning constantly. I believe they were very holy men who obeyed God most of the time. Did they slip up and sin at times? Of course. But your interpretation of this passage would make Paul to be a continuous sinner with no victory whatsoever over sin.

I reject your view, as have many dozens if not hundreds of serious scholars through the centuries. Not one of the early church fathers until Augustine held your view, not one.

Of course, you MUST hold to your view, because Calvinism depends on it. You are not interested in maintaining the truth of scripture, you are interested in maintaining Calvinism at any cost.

 

[Winman]

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.)

I don't care what other men say, I know Paul is speaking of himself before conversion because he said he was "sold under sin" in verse 14. No Christian is sold under sin, we have been made free from sin.

The only reason I showed other scholars is because none of you Calvinists are going to listen to a layman like me who simply reads the Bible. So I showed scholars from the past who agree with my view, which were many. In fact, all of the early church fathers until Augustine believed this passage was speaking of Paul before conversion.

To believe verses 14-25 are speaking of a regenerate man is to believe Paul was an utter failure as a Christian with no victory over sin. This view is past ridiculous and absurd.

1 Jhn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

No person who is truly born of God sins continuously. If Biblicist's view is correct, all a person can conclude is that Paul wasn't saved. Absurd.

 

[The Biblicist]

I get it. I understand your argument. And I reject it.

Rejecting it is not the issue. Your are REPLACING God's words with your words. You are jerking His words out of their inspired context and placing them in YOUR own context.

Again, you would have to believe that Paul was an absolute failure as Christian if your view is true.

That is the point! Any Christian operating by his own will power will ALWAYS end in defeat and frustration. :BangHead:

That is the point! Otherwise the instruction in Romans 8:11-13 is useless, worthless, if you could overcome the law of sin by your own will power - Rom. 7:18b. :BangHead:

I don't believe Paul or any of the apostles were sinning constantly.

Then you believe they were always sinless constantly as there is no other option. If you are not sinning you are sinless and John says those who take that position are deceived.

In regard to the sins of ommission none are without sin any time of the day as none measure up to sinlessness and sinlessness by definition is "without sin."

Whenever a Christian is not "walking" in the Spirit he is sinning willfully as that is a command he is breaking.

But your interpretation of this passage would make Paul to be a continuous sinner with no victory whatsoever over sin.

As long as you war against sin "after the flesh" (Rom 7:14-25) you never have victory. That is why Romans 8:9-13 is provided so one can have victory over indwelling sin - willful sin. No one can have victory over sins of omission. But no one has victory over sins of commission ANY TIME they are warring against sin after the flesh (Rom. 7).

I reject your view, as have many dozens if not hundreds of serious scholars through the centuries. Not one of the early church fathers until Augustine held your view, not one.

That is your choice and you are free to have it. However, don't expect to defend it and others be silent.

Of course, you MUST hold to your view, because Calvinism depends on it. You are not interested in maintaining the truth of scripture, you are interested in maintaining Calvinism at any cost.

You don't know my motives so why attempt to pretend you do? I was a devout anti-Calvinist before I came to the truth and so if your theory was correct I should still be an Arminian because I always approach scripture simply to defend my own views. Really this is more of a judgement upon you than me as you never held my present view did you???? How does it sound when I say you approach scripture just to defend your Arminianism?????

 

[Dr. Bob]

The op asked this thread be closed since it obviously has degenerated into typical name-calling.

Sometimes I truly wonder about some of you regulars here that spew the same venom over and over.