We are clear passed through the Red sea [a picture of baptism] Pharoah and Egypt are behind us forever.
....only in their minds could the Jews go back.
....only in their minds could the Jews go back.
Visitor Message
- Thread starter Romans7:19
- Start date
The fight we have is to BELIEVE these things...the fight of faith as Paul says
Captures the daily struggle Paul and all believers struggle with every day.
I like it. Takes me back a few years, too.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1562708#post1562708
The thread then goes sideways for a while with other non-relevant topics, and picks back up here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1564503#post1564503
More interludes occur, then there is this:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1565384#post1565384
Afterwards the thread degenerates. Those were the days.
AMR
TOL was hoppin back in those days for sure AMR, and that thread was a good one. :thumb:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have not read carefully what I have done:
In particular, that portion in red above is not saying you do this. It is saying, via reductio ad absurdum, that if you believe you are no longer struggling with sin, then to be consistent you must also embrace sin without seeing a need for repentance and all that entails from the rest of my post.
Of course it is absurd, which is the point of my use of the reductio ad absurdum argumentation—to point out to you what your view ultimately implies when taken to its logical conclusion. It should shock the senses and drive you study the matter more fully. I am not saying you actually do believe this, rather I am hoping that what I noted as the logic of such a view will cause you to re-examine what you are claiming.
AMR
Romans7:19
New member
Oh dear, can I change my username?
No
No AMR it is YOUR doctrine which embraces sin, it is your doctrine which accepts besetting sin as the standard Christian experience.
The life long struggle without ever attaining the victory. Your doctrine holds up Romans. 7. as your excuse..."see" you say "even the great Apostle struggled mightily against his besetting sin...he had a pet [you say] which he besought the Lord three times" [when people do not use this scripture to mean sin it comes in handy for sickness too]
But the Lord smiled upon Paul's sin and said "My grace is sufficient for you"
Well you say and I have often heard people reason away their sin using Romans.7. if Paul struggled thus and failed we may certainly allow ourselves a few minor peccadillos.
Spurgeon believed as you do, he came to his conclusion as a 15 year old young man, barely a week saved. On the basis of his deduction he promptly joined himself to that system of theology which not only supports it but re-enforces it....I do not blame him for that, it is the better theology and I am a Spurgeon lover but here I must disagree.
He did what YOU are doing.
He laid aside a reasoned examination of scripture to find the answer but instead went by his own personal experience, and that of a 15 year old young man barely a week saved.
He reasoned since his personal struggle with sin only began since he was saved then the struggle Paul speaks about in Romans.7. must apply to the saint. In fact before he was saved dear Spurgeon did always struggle against sin and was an extremely melancholy young man...which of course was what the preacher picked up on the day he was saved.
I say the struggle comes because the revelation of the cross has not yet become warp and woof with us, God has removed sin from us as far as the east is from the west....how then are you struggling with it?
It is the devil.
He is trying to get us off from Calvary ground, back onto obeying commands, back on to works, back onto self reliance. He comes with an almighty SHOVE. He comes with our favourite sin, he tempts us...then he screams "you must not lust after it[desire] it is forbidden"
Didn't you read Pilgrims encounter with Apolyon?
And immediately the flesh rises up in hot rebellion against that which is forbidden...and you sin...that's it, you've been conned. Conned into believing the devil's lie. Now you see why so many fall back into works salvation, the obedience of severe holiness doctrines [what Paul calls will worship] in an attempt to defeat sin which they perceive is still active in them.
They only perceive that because the devil conned them.
Paul we are dead to sin
Peter said we are dead to sin
John said we have overcome the devil
Isaiah said He hath borne our sins
God said as far as the east is from the west so far is our sin removed from us.
But we believed the devil...his voice is the more familiar voice to us when we are first saved. God's voice [in the scripture] is the one we have to learn.
Resist the devil, draw nigh unto God and He will draw nigh unto thee and the devil will flee from you. When the devil comes tell him to take a hike, remind him that our sins are put on Jesus, they are buried in death with Him...we walk now NOT after the flesh to obey it's demands...we walk after the Spirit.
It is what John said we overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony
Last edited:
Romans7:19
New member
I agree, I have enjoyed reading both of your sides on the issue of my username.
Patrick was right, it is a strange username for this type of setting.
No, we like it now. It's you
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I would not look to Paul's physical affliction as you caricatured. It was not a sin of Paul's but rather the hard providence of God serving to keep Paul humble.
Persons that use this passage we have been discussing to reason away sin are sinning by so doing no matter what one's view of the passage may be. In other words, using how folks may pervert Scripture as a reason to interpret Scripture this or that way is error.
I have provided extensive interpretation of the passage in links previously given. Your disagreements have not interacted with my position at the textual level. How is my iron to be sharpened when all I have to work with from you is your assertion I am wrong without engaging my provided analyses of the passage?
AMR
I am so very thankful that I picked up not long after I was saved "Tramp for the Lord" by Corrie ten Boom.
For reasons I have shared this title was very meaningful to me and from her picture on the cover, although Corrie was 50+ years my senior I WITNESSED that she had what I have, she was a Holy Ghost person.
I learned so much from Corrie...simple things or profound truths put in simple ways.
For example she says that as a child she became aware of her father watching her as she squashed insects against a wall....she adored her father Opa ten Boom. He said nothing, but she suddenly felt so dirty and ashamed doing this meaningless and cruel thing.
When I was the same age, I lobbed a great heavy stone upon a sparrow..killed it dead. A I held it in my hand, still warm, so soft, so BEAUTIFUL I remembered the saying of Jesus "a sparrow does not fall to the ground but the Father knoweth" there it is, I felt the same shame, dirtiness.
The sparrow got a full Christian funeral, but I spent many hours pondering that inner darkness.
Before we are saved we [think] we sin in the dark, but when we are saved we realise we sin in the light in the full view of God. And we see the sin as the bible describes it in the saint...it is folly, it is unworthy of us...so we quit doing it.
For reasons I have shared this title was very meaningful to me and from her picture on the cover, although Corrie was 50+ years my senior I WITNESSED that she had what I have, she was a Holy Ghost person.
I learned so much from Corrie...simple things or profound truths put in simple ways.
For example she says that as a child she became aware of her father watching her as she squashed insects against a wall....she adored her father Opa ten Boom. He said nothing, but she suddenly felt so dirty and ashamed doing this meaningless and cruel thing.
When I was the same age, I lobbed a great heavy stone upon a sparrow..killed it dead. A I held it in my hand, still warm, so soft, so BEAUTIFUL I remembered the saying of Jesus "a sparrow does not fall to the ground but the Father knoweth" there it is, I felt the same shame, dirtiness.
The sparrow got a full Christian funeral, but I spent many hours pondering that inner darkness.
Before we are saved we [think] we sin in the dark, but when we are saved we realise we sin in the light in the full view of God. And we see the sin as the bible describes it in the saint...it is folly, it is unworthy of us...so we quit doing it.
I have given you PLENTY scripture....but my opening one should have been enough.
You cannot believe that Paul as Apostle served the law with his mind but sin with his body...IMPOSSIBLE
If I wanted to describe hypocrisy that is how I would describe it...in fact in the opening chapters of Romans Paul says to the law teachers "you who teach it is wrong to steal do YOU steal?"
It would have made Paul the very essence of double mindedness...serving two masters, neither of whom was Christ.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When an interpretation is put forward along with conclusions if you disagree you need to deal with them in particular and substantively. To do otherwise is but what intellectual freeloaders like Arminians, etc., do in the waving off of material presented and just basically retorting, "no, I disagree because I think a verse here and there says otherwise".
If you are inclined and want the discussion to proceed, please dig in and interact with my exegetical analysis of the passage versus a quote salad of other verses. If we are to learn together you need to show in detail how your position can mount a defense against my analysis versus just telling me you disagree with my conclusions (which are drawn from my exegesis of Romans 7:14-25).
AMR
*
No, you expound the scripture...put aside your intellectual freeloading.
You will never convince me that the Apostle Paul of Romans.6. and Romans.8. is the Paul of Romans.7.
Are we then to sin because we are under grace and not under the law? ....God forbid AMR...how can we who are dead unto sin still live therein?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4571463#post4571463
You have not.
Thus endeth the discussion.
AMR
Captures the daily struggle Paul and all believers struggle with every day.
I like it. Takes me back a few years, too.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1562708#post1562708
The thread then goes sideways for a while with other non-relevant topics, and picks back up here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1564503#post1564503
More interludes occur, then there is this:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1565384#post1565384
Afterwards the thread degenerates. Those were the days.
AMR
I never read Paul say "brethren I struggle with sin every day" nor do I see him counselling "brethren strive to be sanctified.....let us fight the corruption in our flesh" that is pure Catholicism
His message is always "we are....we have been"
We are speaking about gross sin, we are not speaking about the more subtle things of the flesh like pride for which purpose Paul did pommel his body.
The WHOLE argument that Romans.7. is concerning the saved but unsanctified is based upon personal experience and common perception and not based upon scripture.
The scripture says the Saviour is the Sanctifier, He is our Salvation, He is our Sanctification. He has sanctified for ALL TIME by a single offering those who come to Him by faith.
The devil teases the new believer telling him he must achieve what God has already done in him....
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am going to let this end now. No progress is being made as relates to my interpretation of the actual verses in question.
As I concluded in a response to another who holds to odd Exchanged Life concepts...
One who disagrees by thinking Paul is speaking pre-conversion, should find Paul's anti-climatic ending odd. For if Paul is simply remembering differences between his past and present state, why bother to start with, in verse 25, "I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" to "So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." One would think, if they believed Romans 7:14-25 described pre-conversion Paul, he would stated "in the past I served the law of sin, now I serve the law of God"?
I assume you do not advocate sinless perfectionism, that is, unless you deny 1 John 1:8. Yet, your "pre-conversion Paul" view is one that these Exhanged Life types adopt looking at this passage in Romans. In fact, all Arminians do the same.
The thrust of Romans seven deals with how the law now relates to the believer. So consider what the bridge is between the contrast of sanctification and license in Chapter 6 and life in the Spirit in Chapter 8. How is it we have these behavioral issues if we are Christians? Do we not assume we could finally obey the law, being able to please God in all things? Is not my sanctification my responsibility? Rather, Paul already knows the law cannot, does not, sanctify. Paul also knows that these questions and issues above are the sort asked by new believers. Paul, as an more seasoned believer, also knows that reality must be rehearsed from time to time, since we tend to be forgetful of the gospel. Paul's use of the first-person pronoun is on point and not simply because he has been at that place in the past. It is used because even on occasion Paul has found himself at that place and the gospel has to come fresh to him also. So Paul relates a common, Christian problem in this passage (Romans 7:14-25).
Thanks be to God for inspiring Paul to make us all face the reality of indwelling sin that crushes the foolish expectation that we could maintain fellowship with God by law-keeping, or doing more good than bad. We need no confidence in the flesh, even after we've been saved. We need to understand that the life of the believer is lived only through the power of God, and sanctification is still essentially God's work (God the Holy Spirit's work) in each of us, even if we are joining in the effort. Would that we all fix our gazes on our Guide, Heb.12:2, and then be certain we are heading the right direction.
AMR
As I concluded in a response to another who holds to odd Exchanged Life concepts...
One who disagrees by thinking Paul is speaking pre-conversion, should find Paul's anti-climatic ending odd. For if Paul is simply remembering differences between his past and present state, why bother to start with, in verse 25, "I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" to "So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." One would think, if they believed Romans 7:14-25 described pre-conversion Paul, he would stated "in the past I served the law of sin, now I serve the law of God"?
I assume you do not advocate sinless perfectionism, that is, unless you deny 1 John 1:8. Yet, your "pre-conversion Paul" view is one that these Exhanged Life types adopt looking at this passage in Romans. In fact, all Arminians do the same.
The thrust of Romans seven deals with how the law now relates to the believer. So consider what the bridge is between the contrast of sanctification and license in Chapter 6 and life in the Spirit in Chapter 8. How is it we have these behavioral issues if we are Christians? Do we not assume we could finally obey the law, being able to please God in all things? Is not my sanctification my responsibility? Rather, Paul already knows the law cannot, does not, sanctify. Paul also knows that these questions and issues above are the sort asked by new believers. Paul, as an more seasoned believer, also knows that reality must be rehearsed from time to time, since we tend to be forgetful of the gospel. Paul's use of the first-person pronoun is on point and not simply because he has been at that place in the past. It is used because even on occasion Paul has found himself at that place and the gospel has to come fresh to him also. So Paul relates a common, Christian problem in this passage (Romans 7:14-25).
Thanks be to God for inspiring Paul to make us all face the reality of indwelling sin that crushes the foolish expectation that we could maintain fellowship with God by law-keeping, or doing more good than bad. We need no confidence in the flesh, even after we've been saved. We need to understand that the life of the believer is lived only through the power of God, and sanctification is still essentially God's work (God the Holy Spirit's work) in each of us, even if we are joining in the effort. Would that we all fix our gazes on our Guide, Heb.12:2, and then be certain we are heading the right direction.
AMR
So you believe that it was Paul the Apostle who
23-25
delighted in the law of God after the inward man but saw another law at work in his members
bringing him into captivity to the law of sin which was in his members
What a wretched fellow...thank God through Jesus he was delivered from such a body of death
All the fancy footwork in the world would not persuade me......
23-25
delighted in the law of God after the inward man but saw another law at work in his members
bringing him into captivity to the law of sin which was in his members
What a wretched fellow...thank God through Jesus he was delivered from such a body of death
All the fancy footwork in the world would not persuade me......
glorydaz
Well-known member
I agree. Paul was explaining the purpose of the law...how it worked and what's it's purpose was. He was replying to the Jews who claimed he wanted to do away with the Law. The purpose of the Law was never to make men holy....in fact sin (took occasion) used the law as a means of "forbidden fruit"...actually causing men to lust the harder they tried not to.
Paul thanks God that we WERE servants of sin..."
Romans 6:17-18
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. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
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. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
How could Paul say we had been made free from sin, became SERVANTS of righteousness, and then turn around and say he served sin with the flesh? AND then turn back around and say in Romans 8 that believers are not in the flesh?
When Paul says, "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord", it was because he was overcome by thankfulness that we have been freed from the law of sin and death...not that he served the law of sin with his flesh. Not possible.
Romans 7
(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.
(25b) So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
(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.
(25b) So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Then he makes clear why he went to such lengths in Romans 7....What the LAW COULD NOT DO. Righteousness could never come through the law...it's why those who tried to keep the law for righteousness did what they hated and couldn't do what they wanted. Paul was speaking as one who was using the law unlawfully....not as one who was no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit.
Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh.
Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Totally
Paul's whole purpose in 7 is to show the effect the law has on the carnal man, the only argument they put up who oppose this is to say..."but none but the regenerate man cares about sin"...that is not true, the religious but unsaved man cares about sin.
But Paul leads us on to show that we are not indebted to the flesh to walk after the flesh but we walk in the Spirit. That IS the deliverance we have from sin. We live according to an inner life....if we do we surely will not sin.
But if we go back to trying to make our carnal man obey the law then hey presto the old struggle is with us again...the flesh will NEVER obey the law, it will ALWAYS be corrupt.
If the truth were known the whole book of Hebrews is trying to teach the same thing, it is not about damnation as people think but about the futility of going back to the law and ordinances