Featured Romans 7:14 - Saved or Lost man?

The statement in Romans is a state not an act. Paul was not speaking of himslef as a saved person or he would be disqualified.

 

Absolutely correct, Judith. It is a state, a dual state of flesh and grace through the Spirit that we all live. Paul's writing is in present tense, and it is indicative of the spiritual battle he further described throughout Galatians 5 that everyone faces every day. Sin lives when we allow it.

 

There is no dual state. If Paul was speaking of himself then he was a hypocrite about what he wrote eariler. Shall we sin that grace may abound, God forbid. We are new creations old things pass away and all things become new, not some things.

 

I want you to read Spurgeon's sermon, "The Dual Nature and the Duel Within." It is lengthy, of course, and I have posted only "Roman numeral I" and the opening paragraph of "Roman numeral II" of his sermon, as he always wrote and presented in outline form. He says it much better than I can.

There are 23 points in his outline. Please read them all, at your leisure, of course. Not to toot my own horn, as it isn't my horn, but God's: His sermon confirms everything I said in that earlier lengthy post.

If you doubt Spurgeon, then I have nothing else to offer you. But I don't believe you can successfully argue with him.

And I can't wait for the naysayers who will come along and try to explain that Spurgeon didn't say what he clearly said.

 

Guess that means some will say either he was not a real calvinist, or esle he misunderstood "right doctrine!"

That message hit this whole issue head on!

 

Paul was adressing what others were saying about his Gospel of Grace that Jesus revealed to him!

he would be labeled a "easy belieivism" preacher today!

 

The answer is yes to both questions, but neither has anything to do with this discussion.

 

Now that is a new one. :laugh:

 

I more than doubt Spurgeon on this. I totally disagree with him. I will stick to the bible. We do not have two natures. It goes against the nature of a believer to sin. Sin is a choice born from a lack of faith and love, but it is not our nature and that is why it is so painful once done. We are not battling a nature, but wrestling against the flesh just like the Lord did while here on earth. He did not have two natures and neither do we. Calling the flesh our old nature means Jesus had an old Nature to sin and that is false. He was tempeted in all manner of sin like we but without sin. That is what we get at salvation, but we choose to go against our new nature just like Adam did as Adam did not have two natures prior to the fall and certainly not after it either.
So once again. Paul is not speaking about himself as a saved person in the passage given.

 

Then you are as wrong as everyone else on here who denies the dual nature.I will stick to the bible.

 

... was fully God the Son and fully man. Note: A dual nature!. And we are"conformed to His image." What does that tell you?

Adam was created, not born. Prior to his sin, he was perfect. Read Genesis 5:3. He became a creature of dual nature by his sin, as did his son Seth and every man and woman since born.

 

So are you saying that Jesus the man had a sin nature? One of God and one of sin?

As for Adam if in his creation he had no sin nature how/why did he sin? You are missing the point with Adam. We are born again without a sin nature just like what Adam had prior to his fall.
We do not have two natures. Not prior to salvatiuon and not after salvation. Paul is not saying He was carnal after he was saved. He would be a hypocrite and disqualified to write and teach if he were carnal.

 

strawman fest:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

This is your default position. You can't answer the post, so you immediately yell out: "strawman; strawman; strawman!"
You probably don't know what one is.
Be a man. Answer the post.

 

Spurgeon is wrong. Christians do not have two natures. We have one new nature and we battle the flesh. The flesh is not a nature. If the flesh were a nature then Jesus had a sin nature, but He did not.

 

No. That's a deliberate misunderstanding, one intended to erect the straw man that follows.

He was dual-natured in that He was fully God and fully man. Being fully man meant He was capable of sin, or else His sacrifice could not have been sufficient for our salvaton. But because He was also fully God, He held in check the potential nature to sin. He was born both in the image of His Father, and in the image of Adam. It is important to note, as DHK did, that while Adam sinned, Eve was merely deceived. That is not to say she could not sin, but she did not sin in the sense of deliberately acting against the nature of God within her.

This goes to the other thread where we have discussed God's perfect will vs. God's permissive will. It dictates Adam as having been created with free will to sin. Once he did, he rejected the nature of God and adopted the nature of his flesh.

Utter nonsense. Our birth is in the likeness of Adam. Again, see Genesis 5:3. Only when we believe is God's image restored in us, but both images remain.

I'm sorry, but repeating that over and over again does not make it so. Your belief is incorrect.

 

Jesus did not, does not, and never will have a "sin nature."
But Jesus Himself admitted that he had flesh.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

And this is even after the resurrection!
The flesh, in and of itself, is not sinful. It is the old nature that resides within that is sinful. It has not been eradicated.