The "law" of Sin - Rom. 7:

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 7:23 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.

What is "the law" of Sin? How would we define the term "law"?

1. Moral or Judicial Statute?
2. Created principle found in nature - "law of gravity"?
3. Operational function or manner by which something always operates?

I believe the third is the proper choice in regard to sin. The "law" of sin is the manner in which sin ALWAYS operates. What is that "law" by which sin always operates? I believe it is the law of "separation."

1. In regard to the material and immaterial aspect of human nature sin always "separates" one from the other ending in physical death.

2. In regard to immaterial human nature in relationship with the immaterial God sin always "separates" one from the other ending in spiritual death.

3. In regard to the whole of fallen man (material and immaterial) in relationshp with a sinless God and a sinless creation sin always "separates" one from the other ending in eternal death.

The doctrine of total spiritual inability is inherent in the "always" of the "law of "sin" in regard to "separation." Sin "always" separates and NEVER unites God with man - this is the irreversable aspect in this operational "law" of sin.

For example, the "carnal" mindset is a CONDITION or STATE of SEPARATION from God spiritually. The state of "enmity" is incapable of unifying two parties but is an ANTAGONISTIC SEPARATION. The state of insubordination to the revealed will of God is a RESISTANT STATE OF SEPARATION from the Law of God. This is the "law" of sin that ALWAYS separates from God and therefore it is irreversable by human ability because it is the "law" that operates in the fallen or "carnal" mindset. There is no salvation of this "law" of sin but only destruction and deliverance from by the power of God.

Jesus clearly teaches universal human inability to reverse this "law" of sin when he said, "no man can" - Jn. 6:44

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 7:23 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.

What is "the law" of Sin? How would we define the term "law"?

1. Moral or Judicial Statute?
2. Created principle found in nature - "law of gravity"?
3. Operational function or manner by which something always operates?

I believe the third is the proper choice in regard to sin. The "law" of sin is the manner in which sin ALWAYS operates. What is that "law" by which sin always operates? I believe it is the law of "separation."

1. In regard to the material and immaterial aspect of human nature sin always "separates" one from the other ending in physical death.

2. In regard to immaterial human nature in relationship with the immaterial God sin always "separates" one from the other ending in spiritual death.

3. In regard to the whole of fallen man (material and immaterial) in relationshp with a sinless God and a sinless creation sin always "separates" one from the other ending in eternal death.

The doctrine of total spiritual inability is inherent in the "always" of the "law of "sin" in regard to "separation." Sin "always" separates and NEVER unites God with man - this is the irreversable aspect in this operational "law" of sin.

For example, the "carnal" mindset is a CONDITION or STATE of SEPARATION from God spiritually. The state of "enmity" is incapable of unifying two parties but is an ANTAGONISTIC SEPARATION. The state of insubordination to the revealed will of God is a RESISTANT STATE OF SEPARATION from the Law of God. This is the "law" of sin that ALWAYS separates from God and therefore it is irreversable by human ability because it is the "law" that operates in the fallen or "carnal" mindset. There is no salvation of this "law" of sin but only destruction and deliverance from by the power of God.

Jesus clearly teaches universal human inability to reverse this "law" of sin when he said, "no man can" - Jn. 6:44

Let me put it this way. Sin by nature is inclusive of death (separation) from God because God is holy. So the issue is not whether God designed the penalty of sin but the fact that sin by its very nature is inclusive of that penalty and therefore inseparable from that penalty - sin separates the doer of sin from a Holy God. That is the "law" of sin - separation and contained in the very nature of that "law" is the doctrine of total spiritual inability.

 

[Winman]

So the issue is not whether God designed the penalty of sin

I beg to differ, it is a HUGE issue whether God designed the penalty of sin. If the penalty of sin is inability, then God punishes men for inability that he imposed on them.

You believe that every man is born with inability to choose Jesus. Man did not choose this inablility, it was imposed upon him the moment he was conceived.

You have said in another thread that this is JUST. How can this be just? How can it be just to impose a sentence for a crime a man did not voluntarily take part in?

The realistic theory cannot be admitted. The assumption that we acted thousands of years before we were born, so as to be personally responsible for such act, is a monstrous assumption. It is, as Baur says, an unthinkable proposition; that is, one to which no intelligible meaning can be attached...We did not then exist. We had no being before our existence in this world; and that we should have acted before we existed is an absolute impossibility...The doctrine, therefore, which supposes that we are personally guilty of the sin of Adam on the ground that we were the agents of that act, that our will and reason were so exercised in that action as to make us personally responsible for it and for its consequences, is absolutely inconceivable.

No thinking person can believe we participated in a sin before we existed, such a thought is preposterous.

 

[The Biblicist]

I beg to differ, it is a HUGE issue whether God designed the penalty of sin. If the penalty of sin is inability, then God punishes men for inability that he imposed on them.

Let me once again explain what I said as you completely misunderstood me.

God is not the author of sin or its penalty! The penalty of sin is INHERENT in the nature of sin itself and so to sin is to bring its penalty upon yourself.

God simply defined what sin is and its consquences.

Let me say it another way. God is holy by nature and sin is unholy by nature so the twain CAN NEVER MEET = separation. Thus to sin is to separate yourself from LIFE which has its source in God. What ever is characterized and controlled by sin is IRREVERSIBELY SEPARATED from God as God and sin can NEVER be united or harmonized. The lost man is in the "bondage" of sin and the carnal mindset is dominated by sin and thus sin by nature IRREVERSABLY SEPARATES from God. Man has no ability to reverse that SEPARATION which exists due to the nature of sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

That statement was directed at all of us, not just you. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'll ask Winman to remove that...


You didn't answer my True False questions...

Someone had to design the nature of sin in relation to mankind, unless you just believe it evolved or something? I'm just trying to get you to own your view and you are doing everything in your ability to avoid it...I wonder why...actually I know why. Its what caused me to walk away from Calvinism a decade ago and I don't blame you for not wanting to face it.

Sin does not have to be designed by anyone as it is the necessary opposite to righteousness, whatever is not righteous is sin. Sin is the absence of righteousness. Any definition of righteousness automatically presumes the definition of sin to be its opposite.

God neither authored sin or its penalty but simply declared what they are by their very nature. The penalty of sin is found in its own inherent nature - separation from that which is holy as cause is inseparable from effect.

When Satan and man sinned the penalty was inherent within the nature of sin as God is holy and sin is unholy and therefore SEPARATION (death) from the source of life is inherent it its very nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sin does not have to be designed by anyone as it is the necessary opposite to righteousness, whatever is not righteous is sin. Sin is the absence of righteousness. Any definition of righteousness automatically presumes the definition of sin to be its opposite.

God neither authored sin or its penalty but simply declared what they are by their very nature. The penalty of sin is found in its own inherent nature - separation from that which is holy as cause is inseparable from effect.

When Satan and man sinned the penalty was inherent within the nature of sin as God is holy and sin is unholy and therefore SEPARATION (death) from the source of life is inherent it its very nature.

Before this thread is closed let me further demonstrate why complete spiritual inability is contained in the very essence of what sin is by nature.

Sin by nature SEPARATES from God. Whatever the "law" of sin rules over, that something is in "the bondage of sin" meaning it cannot overule the power of sin (Rom. 7:18; 8:7). Therein likes total spiritual inability as fallen man cannot UNITE what sin SEPARATES as long as fallen man is under the "law" of sin or in its "bondage." Enmity is divisive by nature. Resistance to the revealed will of God is divisive by nature and sin is the root of this divisiness that controls the "carnal mind" or mind of the fallen man under the "law" of sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

Before this thread is closed let me further demonstrate why complete spiritual inability is contained in the very essence of what sin is by nature.

Sin by nature SEPARATES from God. Whatever the "law" of sin rules over, that something is in "the bondage of sin" meaning it cannot overule the power of sin (Rom. 7:18; 8:7). Therein likes total spiritual inability as fallen man cannot UNITE what sin SEPARATES as long as fallen man is under the "law" of sin or in its "bondage." Enmity is divisive by nature. Resistance to the revealed will of God is divisive by nature and sin is the root of this divisiness that controls the "carnal mind" or mind of the fallen man under the "law" of sin.

God is not the author of sin or its penalty. Sin is the response of a creature to violate anything God says is righteous and so sin orignates with the sinner. So no one designed sin. Sin is simply the absence of righteousness in attitude or action.

 

[Skandelon]

Rom. 7:23 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.

What is "the law" of Sin? How would we define the term "law"?

1. Moral or Judicial Statute?
2. Created principle found in nature - "law of gravity"?
3. Operational function or manner by which something always operates?

I believe the third is the proper choice in regard to sin.

And who designed it to operate or function in that manner?

 

[The Biblicist]

And who designed it to operate or function in that manner?

I have answered this question at least four different times. Sin needs no designer as it IS the absence of righteousness. To define righteousness is to define sin as sin is the necessary opposite. Sin IS oppositon to holiness and thus sin IS separation from holiness and therefore sin IS separtion from God the author of life and thus SIN contains its own penalty by it very nature as it SEPARATES (death) from God.

 

[Winman]

I have answered this question at least four different times. Sin needs no designer as it IS the absence of righteousness. To define righteousness is to define sin as sin is the necessary opposite. Sin IS oppositon to holiness and thus sin IS separation from holiness and therefore sin IS separtion from God the author of life and thus SIN contains its own penalty by it very nature as it SEPARATES (death) from God.

Wow, Biblicist is saying something exists outside of God.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[Skandelon]

I have answered this question at least four different times. Sin needs no designer as it IS the absence of righteousness. To define righteousness is to define sin as sin is the necessary opposite. Sin IS oppositon to holiness and thus sin IS separation from holiness and therefore sin IS separtion from God the author of life and thus SIN contains its own penalty by it very nature as it SEPARATES (death) from God.

So this force, this power that makes men unable to respond is beyond God's design of creation? He didn't design it within his creation? It just surprised him? Or did he know it would inevitably happen and just permit it? Was he able to prevent sin from having this kind of effect on mankind, or was it just beyond His control? Or more importantly, was God able to craft an appeal that would enable those affected by this force to respond freely?

 

[The Biblicist]

So this force, this power that makes men unable to respond is beyond God's design of creation?

It is first a definitive principle. It is second a course of action. It is third defined by its consequences in relationship to God.

Unable to respond by overcoming, or otherwise the words "bondage to sin" and "under sin" and "no man can" have no meaning.

God gave sin meaning by defining righteousness, as sin is the absence or opposite or opposition to righteousness. Moral Creatures gave existence to sin by motives pursuant to acts without righteousness. The essence of sin is opposition/separation to whatever is righteous. God is righteous and the source of life and thereby inherent in sin is its own penalty - death - and so sin is defined by its own necessary consequences - penalty.

He didn't design it within his creation? It just surprised him? Or did he know it would inevitably happen and just permit it?

God did not author it or design it other than by designing it by contrast when revealing and defining what is righteous. Sin is the absence of, the opposition to and separation from what is righteous. Sin is by necessary permission as there is no free will without necessary alternative option to righteousness. However, God's permission of sin never overrules His positive decree to establish righteousness (Psa. 76:10). The consequences of sin are within the confines of God's justice system "whatsoever ye sow that shall ye also reap."

 

[The Biblicist]

I think this has more to do with how one understands the concept of "hate" as used in the scripture. If one is "under wrath/law" they might be considered 'hated' because they have not come under Grace (i.e. love) of the Father through faith. That doesn't mean God doesn't care for them, or have affection for them, or doesn't want better for them as those created in His Own image.

Scripture is clear that he loves people and desires all to come to repentance. He does not desire the perishing of anyone. He loves mankind with a kind of love we cannot even begin to understand.

In other words "bondage" does not mean "bondage" and thus "freedom" does not mean "freedom" and "no man can" means "all men can" and therefore the GENTILES who were not under the Jewish law were not "under sin" either??????????????? In other words Roman 7:18 is a mistake as the will power is present and he could do what he wanted and just was brainwashed??????? I have never heard such a far fetched dodge ball acrobatic gymnastic explanation like this in my life!

 

[Skandelon]

It is first a definitive principle. It is second a course of action. It is third defined by its consequences in relationship to God.

Unable to respond by overcoming, or otherwise the words "bondage to sin" and "under sin" and "no man can" have no meaning.

I think you misunderstand our view.

We believe men are in bondage to sin, we just also affirm the biblical teaching that the truth can set men free.

We believe men are under sin, we just also affirm the gospel of forgiveness for whosoever asks.

We believe that no man can save himself, which is why we rejoice in the truth that God hasn't left us alone, but pursues us with his truth and appeal to be reconciled to him by Grace through faith.

God gave sin meaning by defining righteousness

So the power to restrain, enslave, and totally disable men's response to God Himself was beyond God's control? Yes or no?

 

[The Biblicist]

Scripture is clear that he loves people and desires all to come to repentance. He does not desire the perishing of anyone. He loves mankind with a kind of love we cannot even begin to understand.

God loves "snners" but he did not send Jesus to save "the righteous" or those who continue in their sinfulness. He came to save "ALL the Father gave him (Jn. 17:3; 6:37-39) and "every man" the Father teaches.

 

[Skandelon]

God loves "snners" but he did not send Jesus to save "the righteous" or those who continue in their sinfulness. He came to save "ALL the Father gave him (Jn. 17:3; 6:37-39) and "every man" the Father teaches.

John 17:3 is in reference to the twelve that were given to Christ by the Father. Christ, in the same chapter, also prays for all those who believe in their message.

God loves all mankind and desires all to come to repentance. That is one of the most biblically supported truths in all of scripture. It is such an established and undeniable truth that many Calvinists have created the "two wills of God" theory in the attempt to combat it.

 

[Winman]

God loves "snners" but he did not send Jesus to save "the righteous" or those who continue in their sinfulness. He came to save "ALL the Father gave him (Jn. 17:3; 6:37-39) and "every man" the Father teaches.

Well, Paul said Jesus came to save "sinners" and that would include ALL men.

1 Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

If you are a sinner, then Jesus came into the world to save you.

Jesus said he came to save that which was lost;

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

If a man is lost, Jesus came to save that man.

Anybody want to bet what Biblicist will ask next? :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

John 17:3 is in reference to the twelve that were given to Christ by the Father. Christ, in the same chapter, also prays for all those who believe in their message.

No, John 17:3 concerns "all flesh" and "as many as" the Father gives the Son to give eternal life to including the twleve as well as all in the future who shall be saved. They are the "as many as" were given to the Son, along with all who lived before the 12 lived from Adam right up to all the rest of the saints in addition to the twelve presently living when he said this. However, only the twelve were present in the room.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, Paul said Jesus came to save "sinners" and that would include ALL men.

1 Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

If you are a sinner, then Jesus came into the world to save you.

That is not his meaning as all do not see themselves as sinner and Jesus did not come to save the righteous but sinners only. Only the elective grace of God makes sinners see themselves as sinners and until you can see that there is no need for salvation. Until you can see you are "lost" there is no salvation needed for those who see themselves as "just" and as a son who "never sinned at any time" against the Father.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think you misunderstand our view.

We believe men are in bondage to sin, we just also affirm the biblical teaching that the truth can set men free.

We believe men are under sin, we just also affirm the gospel of forgiveness for whosoever asks.

We believe that no man can save himself, which is why we rejoice in the truth that God hasn't left us alone, but pursues us with his truth and appeal to be reconciled to him by Grace through faith.

So the power to restrain, enslave, and totally disable men's response to God Himself was beyond God's control? Yes or no?

We all beleive that God can set them free. However, we all don't beleive the reason they cannot set themselves free is due to be in "the bondage" of sin and that is total spiritual inabilty to come to Christ for freedom "No man can come to me". We all beleive they can come to me if the Father draws but we all do not beleive they are without ability to come on their own accord.