Romans 7:14-25 lost or saved?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    The primary reason why many deny that Romans 7:14-25 refers to the regenerated Paul is verse 14:

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

    When this verse is simply taken by itself and isolated from the following context I would admit that they have a good argument.

    However, it is not given as an isolated text with no context. Verses 15-20 go on to explain a dichotomy where on aspect is repeatedly identified as "the flesh" or "carnal" described as "evil" and NOTHING GOOD in it but in direct opposition to another aspect that is consistently described as "good" and delights in the law of God.

    Verse 14 uses the word "carnal" as that aspect "sold under sin" and identified as "my flesh" where there is "NOTHING GOOD."

    In addition the end of this "flesh" aspect is that it does not change in regard to its evil nature and it is the body "of death" while the "good" aspect is said to present tense continuing to "serve God"

    Some of the reasons I believe this section refers to Paul as a regenerated man attempting to overpower the law of indwelling sin without the power of the Holy Spirit are as follows:

    1. Paul changes from the past tense in verses 7-13 to the present tense in verses 14-25.

    2. Paul restricts the origin of evil within him to "the flesh" or what he further describes as "the law of sin" in his members in direct contrast to "I" who delight in the Law of God after the inward man. The lost man has no inward man that delights in God's Law because that requires an act of creation (Eph. 4:24,Col. 3:10; Eph. 2:10) within man where God writes the law upon the heart (2 Cor. 3:3; 4:6).

    3. Paul in this condition finds deliverance from this problem in Jesus Christ without disolving this dichotomy - vv. 24-25

    4. In this dichotomy he claims he can still "serve God" (v. 25) which the lost man cannot do in an unregenerate condition.


    My point is that verse 14 is isolated and interpreted apart from the explanatory context that immediately follows where only one aspect of Paul fits this description while the other aspect does not fit this description but is the exact opposite.
     
  2. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, more of an EXCELLENT argument. No Christian is sold under sin, we have been set free of sin.

    This is all you reading your presupposition into scripture. You say an unregenerate man cannot delight in the will of God or be willing to do the will of God when that is the very issue up for debate.

    Much scripture shows an unregenerate man can be willing to do the will of God. Cornelius was not saved, yet he was very devout, prayed always, and did many good works that were recognized by God. The Philipian jailer could not have been regenerated, because he had not believed, yet he sincerely desired to be saved.

    Jesus himself said his disciples were willing to obey him, but their flesh was weak.

    Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

    The disciples had not received the Holy Spirit yet (John 7:39), but they were willing in their natural spirit to obey Jesus, however they struggled against the flesh. This is exactly the condition Paul is explaining in Romans 7.

    You simply ASSUME your view is true, and then argue anyone who disagrees with your view has been proven wrong. Absurd.
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    There is no salvation for the fallen nature (v. 25) only deliverance FROM "this body of death" (v. 24).



    Your interpretation requires you to JERK this text from its context. That is a presuppositional interpetation. My interpretation is based upon the FACTS that are spelled out in the following verses (Rom. 7:15-25) which you totaly IGNORE!

    1. FACT - there are TWO different aspects of Paul spelled out - vv. 15-18
    2. FACT - one aspect is called "the flesh" = "carnal"
    3. FACT - He says there is NOTHING GOOD in "the flesh" aspect
    4. FACT - He says the flesh aspect does evil
    5. FACT - He says the flesh overpowers the will of "I" aspect which delights in the law of God and wils to do good
    6. FACT - He wants deliverance from "THIS BODY OF DEATH"
    7. FACT - In this condition the "I" can serve God but the flesh cannot serve God
    8. FACT - the "carnal mind" is incapable of pleasing God - mind controlled by the unredeemed "flesh" = "Carnal"
    9. FACT - there is no redemption of the fleshly nature - it must be destroyed in physical death or by glorification


    You cannot use debatable examples to overturn doctrinal passages

    This proves my point. These are believers, regenerated men (Jn. 3 demonstrates regeneration priror to Pentecost) with inward battle as in Romans 7.

    The reception of the Holy Spirit here has nothing to do with personal salvation but with the institutional new house of God made up of born again Spirit indwelt believers as in 1 Cor. 3:16 in direct contrast to 1 Cor. 6:19.

    Your interpetation is PURE ASSUMPTION due to jerking a text out of context. My exposition is solidly built upon the immediate context, which you offer no response whatsoever simply because there can be no honest response and YOU KNOW IT.
     
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207

    1. FACT - the "carnal" and "flesh" in this context refer to the same thing - THE FALLEN NATURE - The greek term translated "carnal" [sarkikos] is the adjective form of the Greek term translated "flesh" [sarxs]

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

    18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
    25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


    2. FACT - the terms "carnal....flesh" are used in this context for the CARNAL NATURE "this body of death, ....law in my members...law.....law of sin.....sin that dwelleth in me"


    14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
    17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
    18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not..
    20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
    21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
    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.
    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. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

    3. FACT - This "carnal" NATURE is EVIL and in opposition to another Nature which is GOOD. This INTERNAL opposition is spelled out:

    15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
    16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
    17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
    18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
    19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
    20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
    22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
    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.
    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. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

    4. FACT - Paul denies that He himself or the aspect that delights in the law of God is where sin originates within him

    14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
    17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
    18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
    20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

    CONCLUSION: Therefore it is perfectly legit for Paul to say "I am carnal, sold under sin" as it is or him to say "It is not more I that do it...." showing that "I" can speak for TWO different INTERNAL natures in contraditory terms. Thus the same person can say "I know that IN ME (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" where in direct contrast also in me there is a mindset tthat is good and wishes to do good in keeping with an "inward man" that delights in the law of God. There are TWO LAWS operating within this man at the SAME TIME an there is no redemption for the LAW OF SIN but only DELIVERANCE FROM it and yet he declares that the opposing NATURE delights in the Law of God which is not possible for a lost man.
     
  5. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everything you said is essentially true:

    But it doesn't prove your point...it still is a big fat non-sequitor.
    Every "PREMISE" you suggest may indeed hold true...
    But they don't require us to take the same conclusion you want.

    This Calvinism thingy matters a lot to you...and your wrenching of these verses (even if your exegesis is 100% correct) proves simply NOTHING.

    In short: The immediate response to everything you've be-labored is:

    "So what"?
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    use your mind! If everything I said is true then that PROVES that verse 14 refers only to the contextually defined "I" of the fleshly nature wherein there is NOTHING GOOD which means it cannot refer to the "I" of the "inward man" who delights in the law of God and is "GOOD" - This fact demands my position is the ONLY possible interpetation as the only other alternative is totally invalidated by these facts. The only "I" sold to sin is the "I" of the FALLEN NATURE which NEVER is redeemed, which never has ANYTHING GOOD, but is appointed to "death" or removal at glorificaiton when the corruptible puts on incorruption.
     
    #6 The Biblicist, Jul 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2013
  7. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Arminians agree with everyone of these "facts"....and yet...they still prove absolutely nothing.
     
  8. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is because he continues to make several category fallacy errors by concluding inability when he's actually defining total depravity. Until he can come to grips with the terms of his own theology it's rather pointless to keep explaining the same things to him over and over again. That's why he's beating himself over the head in frustration because he's explaining things out of Romans 7 that even most Non Cals and Arminians already believe, but then attempts to pull out the "wallah, why can't you all see the total inability in that".

    When he figures out how to define total depravity and defend total depravity, and then define total inability and defend total inability, then a rejoinder may be possible.
     
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    You are missing the point. These facts contradict the interpretation that Romans 7:14-25 refers to the unregenerate man. They demand the man in view has TWO UNALTERABLE LAWS stemming from TWO UNALTERABLE NATURES one of which can produce NOTHING GOOD while the other can produce NOTHING BAD as it operates under the LAW OF GOD according to an "inward man" created in righteousness and true holiness - regenerate nature.
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    Look, if you can comment here then you can comment on the other Romans 8:7 thread where I deal with your objection directly in my last two posts - Go there to deal with it not here as here the OP concerns a totally different subject. However, Total INABILITY is total DEPRAVITY as they are inseperable as my other thread PROVES - go there and defend you objection.

    However, here the OP is to prove Romans 7:14-25 refers to the regenerate man. If you believe then stop trying to derail this thread by introducing another subject. If you don't believe then deal with the evidences I provide in this thread. I am just asking you to be a gentleman and respect the subject of the OP.
     
  11. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    37
    What is man?

    When was it determined that the above man would need to be regenerated?

    What was required of the first man Adam for the following which by the way was determined before the first man Adam was created;

    But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:19,20

    Why would the man to be created, the first man Adam need to be redeemed even before he was created? Does not the answer lie in the following;

    Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Hebrews 2:14,15

    O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7:24 (The first man Adam, the living soul.) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Cor. 15:50

    What took place that accomplishes this?

    And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all he might have the preeminence. Col. 1:18
    In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col. 1:14,15

    But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Hebrews 2:9
    Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:21
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    Percho, you need to open up your own thread if want to deal with all these subjects. My OP deals exclusively with Romans 7:14-25. Please stick to the OP and stop trying to derail this thread.
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    Come on where are you defenders of the idea that Romans 7:14 refers to an unregenerated person???? Where are those who will HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY deal with the evidences I have presented in the last four posts???????
     
  14. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    And there in lies the problem as I suspected and already pointed out:

    In Calvinist thought, inability and depravity DEPEND on each other, but they are NOT the same thing. Each one has different facets that distinguish them individually with separate evidences for each. Your other thread was answered clearly in the thread I created on Romans 8:7, it went over your head so to speak because you are arguing from a different perspective that produces a conclusion based on a premise that proved depravity not inability. That's why very few of even the die-hard Calvies on here are jumping in because although they would hate to admit that any Non Calvie is right, they know it's true, they just don't want to correct you in front of us.
     
  16. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    37
    I believe it does deal with your OP. Paul is speaking of himself as one who has been given the Holy Spirit and even after having received the Holy Spirit in his flesh he can not please God. The very reason he gives us Galatians 2:20

    I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

    Actually I believe it is Christ living in him.

    And as you go on into chapter 8 you will see at a point in the future it will be the Spirit in you that will quicken the mortal flesh. Change it to spiritual flesh and bone.
     
    #16 percho, Jul 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2013
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
     
  18. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    Ok, technically you are correct. They do depend on each and they are inseparable from each other but they are not identical to each other.



    In your previous thread you did respond to me and I was in the midst of responding to your thread when it was shut down before I could respond. That is why I opened up the new thread to deal with that SPECIFIC argument. In that new thread I responded to your argument and demonstrated why it cannot possibly fit the context and you have yet to respond to the evidences I put forth.

    I will simply my argument. You basically attributed to the UNregenerated man the very ability that the regenerated man is incapable of performing without the ADDITIONAL indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). Hence, your position is simply impossible as it makes the unregenerated man SUPERIOR in power than the regenerated man.

    However, instead of turning this thread into that subject, please go to the other thread and continue this discussion and allow this thread to deal with its specific OP.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    We have proven there is two different expressions of the pronoun "I" in this passage.

    1. The "I" under the dominion of "the flesh" or the "law of sin" wherein there is "NOTHING GOOD" and which "serves sin" and is condemned to "death" - Rom. 7:14,18,24-25

    2. The "I" who resists "the flesh" and desires to do "good" and who "delights in the law of God after the inward man" and who with "my mind" by the power of another "law" (the law of the indwelling Spirit) does "serve God" and cries out for and by that "law" finds deliverance "FROM" this body of "DEATH" - Rom. 7:18b-25

    Romans 7:15 has reference to the first "I" or the dominion of indwelling sin, the flesh, "the law of sin" for which there is no redemption but only deliverance "from" as it is condemned to "death" (v. 24).

    It is this same "I" while under the dominion of sin that is called the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 of which completely dominates the WHOLE PERSON of those "in the flesh" so they cannot please God (Rom. 8:8).

    Is this same "I" while under the dominion of sin that is called the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 of which completely frustrates those "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:9 so that they cannot express their desire to do good except one way and that is through the power of the indwelling Spirit in Romans 8:10-13.

    CONCLUSION: The same fallen nature "the flesh...the law of sin...this body of death" is found in both the lost ("in the flesh") and in the saved ("in the Spirit") preventing both from doing "good" but only the saved ("in the Spirit") have the solution to overule that "law" by another "law" which operates by the power of the indwelling Spirit to do "good."
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    Another contrast in Romans 7:15-25 are TWO LAWS whereby the same personal pronoun "I" operate under.

    1. One is called "the law of sin" - vv. 22-25
    2. The other is called the "law of my mind" - vv. 22-25

    1. The law of sin operates in "the flesh" or in "this body of death. - v. 24
    2. The other law operates in "my mind" - vv. 22-25

    1. The law of sin overules the will to produce only evil - vv. 15-20
    2. The law of "my mind" only chooses to do good - vv. 18-25

    1. The law of sin represents the fallen nature or "the flesh" in which there is "NOTHING GOOD" - v. 18
    2. The law of "my mind" represents the inward man who delights in the law of God. - v. 21

    1. The law of sin or "the flesh" serves sin - v. 25
    2. The law of my mind "serves God" - v. 25

    1. There is no redemption/salvation for the law of sin but only "death" - v. 24
    2. There is deliverance "from" this internal fallen nature operating in the flesh for the "I" after the inward man - v. 24

    1. There is no eradication of the law of sin now - v. 25
    2. The only freedom to serve God is through this "law" of my mind now - v. 25

    1. There is deliverance "from" this law of sin now only through "Jesus Christ" - v. 24; Rom. 8:9-13
    2. This deliverance "from" the law of sin comes only through death - v. 24; Rom. 8:12-13

    1. "The Flesh" of the pronoun 'I" is "sold under sin" - v. 14
    2. "The Flesh" chooses only sin - v. 25
    3. "The flesh" serves only sin - vv. 15-20.
    4. "The flesh" is condemned to "death" - v. 24
    5.. "the law of sin" is unredeemable due to the fact it is the "LAW of SIN"
     
    #20 The Biblicist, Jul 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...