Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    In other words the majority of the Christian world that understands verses 14-25 to mean Paul is speaking of his daily struggle as a saved man are double-minded and false teachers. And you are correct, the rest of the world is wrong?
    The majority of the Christian world, yes, not the rest. You really do have a reading comprehension problem. However, Calvinists are quite good at perverting what people say, especially people in the bible.

    I will deal (again) with the one verse, because you cannot even get it right, and it is enough to destroy the rest of your house of cards.

    Romans 7:14
    The clause, “sold under sin”, in verse 14 describes an unregenerate person;
    And I agree, that is why Paul is describing HIMSELF, you twit! Hence the words "I am"
    but sin also resides in a believer, who is still subject to sin’s penalty of physical death.
    Has nothing to do with the text. That is just your careless addition.
    As a result, indwelling sin continues to seek to claim what it considers its property even after one has become a Christian.
    Again, nothing to do with the text, or what Paul says. You are just adding your wild interpretation to what Paul actually says. You have exegeted nothing!

    Well, we know that it is not "it's property". We know that neither Paul, or any believer, is a slave to sin. Paul is (present tense) a slave of righteousness, who has been set free from sin Romans 6:18. A believer has been removed from the dominion of sin and death. It is no longer the master of the believer.



    Romans 7:14

    NASB "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. "

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

    The Greek regarding "but I am of flesh / but I am carnal" is egw de sarkinov eimi

    egw

    I

    de

    but

    sarkinov

    fleshly

    eimi

    to be

    Paul describes himself as one who exists in flesh


    The "Greek" regarding "Sold into bondage to sin / sold under sin" is pepramenov upo thn amartian

    pepramenov

    to sell
    of price, one into slavery
    of the master to whom one is sold as a slave

    upo

    under

    thn

    this

    amartian

    to be without a share in
    to miss the mark
    to err, be mistaken
    to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
    to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
    that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
    collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

    Paul understands that the Law is spiritual, but the flesh which Paul exists in was sold to sin, and it is it's slave. The flesh belongs to sin, and therefore Paul needs to be set free from sin, just as Paul was released from the Law Romans 7:6

    "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."

    Before Paul can reveal how he was released from the Law, he had to show how he was bound to the Law, and that is what he does in Romans 7:7-13

    Likewise, Paul shows how he was released from the law of sin and death Romans 7:24-25 Romans 8:1-2, but he first shows how he was it's slave Romans 7:14 and it's prisoner Romans 7:23.


    You have failed to properly exegete these passages, just as you have the rest of Paul's letter.

    You claim that Paul is presently a slave of sin, but Paul says that he is free from sin, and a slave of righteousness.

    You are the liar. Paul tells the truth.

    You say that Paul is presently a wretched man and that he presently practices evil, but Paul says that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, and that he is righteous, holy, blameless.

    You are a liar. Paul is telling the truth.

    Will you now yield your interpretation to the one offered above and recant your accusation of false teaching for these verses?
    I am telling the truth, and you are a godless false teacher, who perverts the message of Christ, just as the godless cult you serve.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
      I will deal (again) with the one verse, because you cannot even get it right, and it is enough to destroy the rest of your house of cards.
      I'm sorry, but you have made the mistake of relying upon a locus classicus to build your interpretation, ignoring the rest of the scripture passage and the surrounding text. The house of cards is of your own construction. Your eisegeses resides with the uninformed minority. My interpretation stands with the "majority of the Christian world" and better minds than you or I who have come to the same conclusion, as I have tried to get to to see for yourself. The lure of being in the minority is seductive and you have been so seduced.
      Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



      Do you confess?
      Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
      AMR's Randomata Blog
      Learn Reformed Doctrine
      I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
      Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
      Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
      The best TOL Social Group: here.
      If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
      Why?


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
        I'm sorry, but you have made the mistake of relying upon a locus classicus to build your interpretation, ignoring the rest of the scripture passage and the surrounding text. The house of cards is of your own construction. Your eisegeses resides with the uninformed minority.
        I haven't ignored anything, you liar.

        I have already laid out the entirety of Romans 7, and you failed to respond with anything of any substance. You simply do not understand what you read.

        I just destroyed your false gospel, and you have exited stage left. You're an inept biblical wimp.

        Nice copout


        better minds than you or I who have come to the same conclusion, as I have tried to get to to see for yourself.
        There is no better mind that mine. I have the mind of Christ. You have the mind of Calvin.
        Last edited by Mystery; October 29th, 2007, 08:48 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
          There is no better mind that mine. I have the mind of Christ. You have the mind of Calvin.
          No, apparently you have the mind of Calvin, too. Barth built his neo-orthodoxy around Calvin's thought.
          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



          Do you confess?
          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
          AMR's Randomata Blog
          Learn Reformed Doctrine
          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
          The best TOL Social Group: here.
          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
          Why?


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
            No, apparently you have the mind of Calvin, too. Barth built his neo-orthodoxy around Calvin's thought.


            You'll believe anything but the bible. Just how gullible are you?

            It was funny, I answered every question in that test that related to Calvin's doctrine with a negative response. Do you seriously think something like that means squat? You're even more a fool, than I thought.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
              You'll believe anything but the bible. Just how gullible are you?

              It was funny, I answered every question in that test that related to Calvin's doctrine with a negative response. Do you seriously think something like that means squat? You're even more a fool, than I thought.
              Someone once said "You really do have a reading comprehension problem." Please re-read previous post. I said "apparently", nimrod.
              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



              Do you confess?
              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
              AMR's Randomata Blog
              Learn Reformed Doctrine
              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
              The best TOL Social Group: here.
              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
              Why?


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                Someone once said "You really do have a reading comprehension problem." Please re-read previous post. I said "apparently", nimrod.
                If you do not give it any credibilty, why bring it up? Is this your way of wiggling your way out of the defeat you suffered on Romans 7?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
                  If you do not give it any credibilty, why bring it up? Is this your way of wiggling your way out of the defeat you suffered on Romans 7?
                  Funny, I read that differently.

                  Your turn. I will give you the last word, as it is clear you want it badly enough. No matter how shrilly you proclaim this or that, it won't change the outcome. Rant on.
                  Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                  Do you confess?
                  Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                  AMR's Randomata Blog
                  Learn Reformed Doctrine
                  I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                  Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                  Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                  The best TOL Social Group: here.
                  If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                  Why?


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                    Funny, I read that differently.
                    I think it is sad that you see things contrary to what Paul said, and what the entire message of Christ claims.

                    No matter how shrilly you proclaim this or that, it won't change the outcome. Rant on.
                    Yep, nothing will change your pride filled heretical views, when the evidence you ignored right here is a just a small piece of evidence against your cultic views.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nang View Post
                      Thus, when you say that death is not evil and justice is not good, you are saying God is a dirty, rotten, unfair Judge.

                      Not too wise to harbor such thoughts about the Judge who will Judge you someday!

                      There is still time for you to repent . . .

                      Nang
                      Could you direct me to when I have ever said:

                      when you say that death is not evil and justice is not good, you are saying God is a dirty, rotten, unfair Judge.
                      When did I ever say Justice is not good?

                      Your view of God REQUIRES evil to exist for goodness to be made manifest. That is why (so it seems to me) you think that "it is good that evil exists".

                      God does not NEED evil to exist. God is good. God existed before evil.

                      There is still time for you to repent . . .
                      According to you one can only repent if God predestined them to repent. You write your posts with little threats scattered within them. I don't know why you are mad at me and threatening me...when it is God who wanted me to write what I write!

                      Remember, Ask Mr. Religion said:

                      "God’s creatures can do what they want, but what they want is determined by God in advance..."
                      Nang, I hope that you view God in such a way that does not require evil to exist for His goodness to be known.
                      fidelis usque ad mortem

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                        I'm sorry, but you have made the mistake of relying upon a locus classicus to build your interpretation, ignoring the rest of the scripture passage and the surrounding text. The house of cards is of your own construction. Your eisegeses resides with the uninformed minority. My interpretation stands with the "majority of the Christian world" and better minds than you or I who have come to the same conclusion, as I have tried to get to to see for yourself. The lure of being in the minority is seductive and you have been so seduced.
                        Sola Scriptura is the Latin for Scripture Alone.

                        Anyone here know what the Latin is for "majority of the Christian world"?



                        Anyone else here fascinated by how much the Calvinists sound like what the Catholics must have sounded like in Luther's day? It's quite ironic, to say the least.

                        Resting in Him,
                        Clete
                        sigpic
                        "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                        Comment


                        • Paul uses the present tense 'I am..." to describe his state. If this is his present reality as a believer (struggle with sin and victory in Christ), should we consider this grammatical point. He did not say I was, but I am....
                          Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                          They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                          I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                          Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                          "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                          The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                            Paul uses the present tense 'I am..." to describe his state. If this is his present reality as a believer (struggle with sin and victory in Christ), should we consider this grammatical point. He did not say I was, but I am....
                            In which verse?

                            In 14 it is eimi, which can mean present or have been or to be.

                            In that verse it does not change anything regarding the text. Paul is simply saying that he having flesh is sold into sin, that he is a slave of sin. It is a general statement concerning his condition.

                            It would be similar to you saying "I am mortal, destined to die". In reality you will die, but in Christ you will never die. Which is where Paul is leading.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
                              In which verse?

                              In 14 it is eimi, which can mean present or have been or to be.

                              In that verse it does not change anything regarding the text. Paul is simply saying that he having flesh is sold into sin, that he is a slave of sin. It is a general statement concerning his condition.

                              It would be similar to you saying "I am mortal, destined to die". In reality you will die, but in Christ you will never die. Which is where Paul is leading.
                              'ego eimi' is best translated 'I am...' (present active indicative). It is usually a continuous present tense. 'Have been' is a different past tense.

                              Rom. 7:14, yes. The rest of the context is also about his present experience and seems to indicate a struggle with the flesh, even as a believer, as well as ultimate victory in Christ, as a maturing believer. The language does not sound like a sinless person like Jesus.
                              Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                              They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                              I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                              Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                              "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                              The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                                'ego eimi' is best translated 'I am...' (present active indicative). It is usually a continuous present tense. 'Have been' is a different past tense.
                                "usually"? So what? The context will help you determine what Paul is saying.

                                I gave the proof in both of the posts that follow Paul's testimony.

                                The rest of the context is also about his present experience and seems to indicate a struggle with the flesh
                                Yes, because in the flesh, Paul is a slave to sin, and as the wretched man that he is, he is looking to be set free from this death, because he sees himself as a "prisoner of the law of sin". A Christian is not a wretched man, nor is he a prisoner of the law of sin. A Christian does not wonder who is going to set him free from this death! A Christian does not cry out of his wretchedness wondering who will come along and take away his condemnation. Christians do not have to ask WHO?

                                Man, you're so boneheaded, it's unbelievable!!

                                The language does not sound like a sinless person like Jesus.
                                WHAT?????

                                NO ONE said anything about Paul being "SINLESS"!!!!

                                I already stated to you that we are going to affirm that ALL people sin pre and post conversion.

                                You are once again trying to stir the pot, and run to Knight whining and crying about how you are abused by people saying mean things to you.

                                Go ahead you big

                                I don't need to waste anymore time on your worthless life anyway.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X