"Sold Under Sin" - Rom. 7:14

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Jul 20, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

    Paul uses the PRESENT TENSE and makes to claims about "I"

    1. "I" am carnal - fleshly
    2. "I" am ...sold UNDER SIN.

    Here is the declaration and verses 15-25 is the explanation. In the explanation the reader will see not ONE but TWO different uses of the pronoun "I" and only one is related to "the flesh" or is "fleshly" and that pronoun is:

    1. "I" sold under sin" - v. 14
    2. "I" that operates by "the law of sin" - vv. 22-25
    3. "I" that only chooses to do "evil" - vv. 15-17
    4. "I" that only serves sin - v. 25
    5. "i" of the outward man "the flesh....members....body of death"
    6. "I" that contains "NOTHING GOOD" - v. 18
    7. "I" that conexists with a contrary "I" - vv. 22-25


    This is the "I" of Romans 7:14 the "I" that is fleshly and "sold under sin" because it operates by "the law of sin."

    However, there is another "I" in direct contrast to the "I" that is fleshly and sold under sin.

    1. "I' that operates under a different "law" - vv. 22-25
    2. "I" that delights in the law of God - v. 21
    3. "I" that chooses only good - vv. 18b-21
    4. "I" that "serves God" - v. 25
    5. "I" that cries out for deliverance from the fleshly law - v. 24
    6. "I" of the "inward man" or "my mind" - vv. 21,25
    7. "I" coexisting with a contrary "I" - vv. 22-25

    These two contrasting Laws represent TWO NATURES - one that operates after the "law of sin" and one that operates after the law of God - Rom. 7:25

    The "I" that operates after the "law of sin" is the "I" sold under sin, as it serves only sin, loves only sin, does only sin and there is "NOTHING GOOD" in "the flesh" and therefore it is the "I am flesh." - the Unregenerated nature of a born again man whose inward man delights in and operates by the law of God and serves only God.
     
  2. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that Paul was writing from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7. Of course, I do not expect you to agree with me, but many theologians do. Here is an article by Reformed theologian Robert L. Reymond listing 10 reasons why he believes Paul was speaking of himself before his conversion in Romans 7.

    Part 1 of 4
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 2 of 4

     
  4. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 3 of 4

     
  5. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 4 of 4

    What does this article prove? It doesn't PROVE anything, but it does show that real scholars, even Reformed scholars disagree with your view and agree with mine.

    I believe Paul was writing from his perspective before he was saved. In his mind he sincerely desired to obey and serve God, but his flesh was weak and warred against his spirit, bringing him into captivity of sin. And that captivity is death, death is the wage of sin. The moment you sin, you are bound and held by sin just as a slave was held in ancient days.

    This does not mean you are always compelled to sin, a slave can disobey his master, a slave can run away from his master. Nevertheless he is owned by that master and brought back into captivity. He is paid the wage his master pays, which in this case is death.

    The problem is that folks do not understand what the scriptures mean when it says we were servants or slaves to sin. This doesn't mean we are compelled to sin at all times, but we are owned and held captive by sin, and the only wage we will receive as a slave or servant to sin is death.

    The moment we accept Christ we are dead to sin and no longer held by it. We are now baptized into the body of Christ and under grace.

    This is why Romans 7:14-25 cannot be about a saved person, no saved person is "sold under sin" we have been set free from sin.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    Oh boy! His interpetation is one false foundation laid upon another false foundation.

    1. Romans 7:7-13 is clearly autobiographical highlighting the facts that sin dwelling within Saul of Tarsus had always been his problem and that the law, while not the source of sin, for it is “holy, just, good, and spiritual” (7:12,14), is impotent relative to the production of good in the sinful heart. The shift of verb tense from the past to the present at 7:14 in no way affects the autobiographical character of 7:14-25.

    The verb shift does not affect the autobiographical character of Romans 7:7-25 however, it is not merely a verb tense shift alone but a shift of content and characteristics as well that does not harmonize with his autobiographical experience in Romans 7:7-13 and neither does the "historical" present account for that shift and its characteristics. I will not only prove this later but demonstrate his exposition is flawed seriously.




    2. The man describes himself as “carnal” (sarkinos, sarkinos; 7:144), which according to 8:65 is descriptive of the state of spiritual death.

    No he does not describe "the man" or "himself" as "carnal" but the pronoun "I" which he defines and distinguishes between another "I" in this context. The "I" of verse 14 has to do with "THE FLESH" the "BODY" the "MEMBERS" whereas the other "I" has to do with the "mind" and "Inward man."

    I imagine he is referring to Romans 8:6 as there is no 8:65. However, his problem is that he removes any problem for the saved man to be resolved in Romans 8:11-13 if he interprets 8:6-8 to be restrictly solely to the lost man. Moreoer, his restriction to the lost Paul does not harmonize with any of the context in Romans 7:18-25 and particular the fact that he can "serve God" due to another "law" which is contrary to the "law of sin."

    3. The man says of himself that he has been “sold as a slave [pepramenos, pepramenos] to sin” (7:144), that is, he is a slave of sin, which is descriptive only of the unregenerate man. Regenerate persons “used to be [hte, ete] slaves of sin” (6:17,206) but now “have been set free from sin” and have now become “slaves to righteousness” (6:18,227). They, “were controlled by
    the sinful nature” (7:58), but now (nuni, nyni; 6:229)


    No, he says "I" am "fleshly" and "sold UNDER sin." However, the "I" he is referring to is distinctly separated from another "I" which is not sold to sin but serves God. The contextual "I" that is sold to sin cannot do "good" as there is "NOTHING GOOD" in the flesh (v. 18) neither can it do "good" (vv. 15-17) but operates soley "UNDER sin" by serving the "LAW of sin."

    No, it is not only descriptive of the "unregenerate man" but also of the fallen nature (Rom. 8:7) as regeneration is of the "spirit" (Jn. 3:6) and not of "the flesh" and this is a FLESHLY nature - "members....this body of death."

    He does not know what he is talking about and a further examination of his reasons in the next post demonstrates he PERVERTS the text to support his false eisegetical thesis.
     
    #6 The Biblicist, Jul 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2013
  7. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    How did I know you would say this former Dean of Faculty and currently Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, was in error! :laugh:

    You think you know more than anybody. You cannot see that you are reading your presupposition of Total Inability into this passage when it is not there.

    Here are yet some other notable scholars that agree with my view that Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7;


    Whether you like it or not, many well known scholars throughout church history, including all of the early church fathers believed Paul was writing from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7.

    Of course, it comes as no surprise that you believe you know more that all of these men. :laugh:
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    4. The man says of himself that his members are being mastered by “indwelling sin” (h oikousaen emoi amartia he oikousa en emoi hamartia; 7:17, 2013). This is not true of the Christian for he is governed by the“indwelling Spirit”; if he is not so governed, he is not a Christian at all (8:9,11 14)!

    False! Regeneration is of the "spirit" not "the flesh." Paul tells the Corinthians he must "beat" the flesh and keep it in subjection because of its sinful nature.

    False! If the saved man were "governed" at all times by the "indwelling Spirit" there would be no need to keep exhorting Christians to "put off the old man" and to "put on the new man" to be "filled with the Spirit" not to "walk after the flesh." These very exhortations demand an internal warefare between "the flesh" and "the spirit" of the regenerated man.

    5. The man says of himself that “in me...dwells no good thing” (7:1815), which is not true of the Christian for the Spirit of God dwells within him (8:9,1114).

    No He does not say that! He qualifies it by saying "that is IN MY FLESH." Here is the first layer of his false foundations.

    6. The man says of himself that a “law [of sin]” within him is “waging war against [antistrateuomenon, antistrateuomenon]the law of his mind [that
    is, his desire to do good] and making him a prisoner [aickmalotizonta, aickmalotizonta] of the law of sin at work within his members” (7:2316). Here again he stresses his slavery to sin which is not true of the Christian (6:1417), for the gospel has “liberated [him] from the law of sin and death” (8:218).


    Here again he ignores the alternative. His mind does not serve sin but the flesh does serve the law of sin. His mind chooses good but the "I" of the flesh never chooses good (vv. 15-18; but "the flesh" serves sin - v. 25. A Second layer of false foundations.


    7. The man says of himself throughout the passage that he does not do the good that he wants to do; rather, he continually does, indeed, actually practices, what he does not want to do (Epictetus, Enchiridion, i. ii. c. 26,
    says something almost identical with that of the apostle here). In sum, the man in this passage is enslaved by indwelling sin and sees his state as “wretched” and his body as the sphere in which sin is operative unto death
    (7:2419). This is not true of the Christian nor can this be descriptive of the Christian.


    False! He NEVER says that of "himself" but only of the "I" who is "fleshly" and "under sin" (v. 14) ruled by the "law of sin" (vv. 22-25) and "serves sin" (v. 25) and NEVER chooses "good" (vv. 15-17). He NEVER says this of the "I" who delights in the Law of God (v. 21) and always has the "will" to choose good but not the power (vv. 18b-21) and which "serves God" - v. 25.

    8. The advocate of the Augustinian view contends that the unregenerate person could not and will not “delight in God’s law after the inward man” as the man in the passage says he is doing (7:2220); only Christians, they urge, can do that. But I beg to differ. Saul of Tarsus, as a Pharisee, did just that. It may legitimately be said that throughout his life as a self-righteous Pharisee he “delighted in the law of God with his mind” –– observance of the law was his very reason for being. He was a “son of the law,” was committed to it, and wanted to obey it. But when the tenth commandment truly “came home” to him at some point with condemning power (had he coveted Stephen’s
    knowledge of Scripture and his exegetical power?) and made him aware of his indwelling sinfulness, the sin which had always dwelt within him “came to life” and he “died” (7:921). Paul also declared that the Jewish nation was “pursuing” a righteousness of its own through law-keeping (Rom. 9:31-3222). Apparently, then, unregenerate people can sincerely desire to be obedient to the law. Their problem, as the passage teaches, is their impotence to do what they want to do or know to be right.


    Here is his real eisgetical motive his hatred of the- "augustinian view." His illustration is false as his previous unregenerated experience denies this (Rom. 7:7-11) and Paul's later testimony regarded his former devotion to the law as "dung" with only a "zeal" but without knowledge.

    Furthermore, the unregenerate has no "INWARD man" that delights in the law of God and Romans 7:14 refers ONLY to the OUTWARD man "flesh" (v. 14) and "in my flesh" (v. 18) and "members" and "this body of death" (v. 24). The "inward man" all of is NOT THE OBJECT OF REGENERATION but is doomed to death.



    9. Some advocates of the Augustinian view contend that Romans 7:25b23, as the conclusion of the argument, describes a condition only true of the Christian: he “is a slave to God’s law with his mind but a slave to the law of sin with his members.” But this radical dichotomy

    Correct. Not "radical" but plainly spelled out by two different laws in connection with two different aspects of man (OUTWARD versus INWARD) and two different applications of the pronoun "I".

    10 Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

    If a saved man ALWAYS walks AFTER the Spirit then Romans 8:11-13 is senseless advice. He does not know the difference between being "IN" the Spirit (our position) versus walking "AFTER" the Spirit (our present practice).


    11 Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

    Note the deliverance is not of YOUR BODY. Second, the service is "IN the NEWNESS of the Spirit" not in the flesh.

    12 Romans 8:4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us | who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    Again, if the child of God ALWAYS walked (practice) according to the Spirit there would be no need for Romans 8:10-13 or any other exhortation to "put on" the new inward man or "put off" the old man.


    13 Romans 7:17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin
    that dwells in me. Romans 7:20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.


    This text demands a distinction between the "I" of the flesh which is under sin in verse 14 which is "in my flesh" verse 18 and the "I" which is after the Law of God, inward man, mind, and serves God. The source of sin is not found in the sphere of the second "I" but only in the sphere of the first "I."
     
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    His next 11 arguments are moot because they are grounded upon the first 12 which are simply misinterpretations, distortions and perversions of the text.
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    Winman's source is flawed, with improper interpretations, perversion of the text, ignoring vital details that destroy his intepretation. My OP still stands unscathed.
     
  11. michael-acts17:11

    michael-acts17:11
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it your position that this man is inerrant; that he could not possibly be wrong because of his education & status? It almost sounds like it. There are highly intelligent men on both sides of the debate. Heck, there are brilliant evolutionists, but that does not make their beliefs correct. It is dangerous to place your faith in men, just because of their education, status, or intelligence. I'm glad Christ did not call the scholars of His day to be His apostles. In fact, it was the religious elites who opposed Him as the Messiah. I am not taking a stance against education, just against putting our faith in them instead of the Word alone.
     
  12. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever dude. I didn't expect you to listen, you already think you know everything.

    I will let others see that none of the early church fathers for the first 300 years interpreted Romans 7:14-25 to be speaking of a regenerate man. Almost without exception, all the early fathers until Augustine believed this was Paul speaking of himself before conversion.

    Of course, no Calvinist will ever accept this as it totally destroys the false doctrine of Total Inability. So, I am not surprised that Biblicist rejects this interpretation at all.

    Time will tell.
     
    #12 Winman, Jul 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2013
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    His interpretations are deeply flawed. He ignores vital details. He makes assumptions and applications contrary to the precise statements found in the text. By his own admission he is biased as he admits he is fighting Augustinianism.

    If a person cannot (will not) see clearly that there are two different applications of the pronoun "I" in Romans 7:14-25 in regard to two different LAWS in regard to two different ASPECTS or natures (INWARD = mind, inward man versus OUTWARD =flesh, this body, members") where one is "UNDER SIN" because it is ruled by "THE LAW OF SIN" and "SERVES SIN" and thus is "SOLD" out to sin and the other is under a different LAW that loves/delights in the law of God and serves God and they are in direct contradiction and opposition to one another, if they cannot see this, it is because they are not really looking to hard at the context.

    The fact that Paul isolates the "I" sold out to sin to be "in my flesh" and DENIES that the other "I" is the source of that sin demands TWO DIFFERENT natures within this man. One that always has the will to chose good and serve God(vv. 18b-22) and one that always operates by the law of sin and chooses to do evil (vv. 14-18a) and both co-exist in one man (v. 25).
     
  14. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    He plainly PERVERTED and IGNORED the text in many places and his doctrine hinges right on those pivotal points. In these cases he substituted his own terms for Biblical terms provided thus changing the meaning of the text. In other places he just ridiculed the obvious without giving basis for his ridicule except to ridicule.

    So it is not a matter of refusing to read him carefully because I did and that is why I can point out serious errors in his thinking and interpretation and applications.
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    Do you really want to trade scholars on this subject??? You have one simple problem - you are committed to your error regardless of the evidence that exposes it as error and no amount of Biblical evidence or scholarship will turn you from your love of falsehood. That is your base problem.
     
  16. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I originally said I believed Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man because he said he was sold under sin in verse 14. No Christian is sold under sin, we have been freed from sin.

    I know that you Calvinists will not listen to a fellow like me who simply reads the scriptures, so I showed some real scholars who just so happen to agree with me, and I showed some of their arguments. Who knows? You might listen to a "scholar"

    But I formed my opinion from my own reading, no Christian is sold under sin. And if Paul is telling us about his experience as a Christian, it is a miserable one, he sounds like he is sinning every moment and has absolutely no victory over sin. This is at complete odds with what scripture says about our new life and walk in Christ.

    The reason Biblicist and others will not accept that Paul was speaking of an unconverted man here is because it completely destroys the false doctrine of Total Inability, because Paul shows as a lost man that he had a real desire to please and obey God, and that he delighted in God's law, though he found it impossible to keep.

    I am not one bit surprised that all you Calvinists will reject this interpretation, YOU HAVE TO.
     
  17. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you sure it is not you that is committed to Calvinism?
     
  18. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    207
    Notice that Winman and his scholar both substitute the pronoun "I" with "man" and "himself" and "Christian" when the immediate context DEMANDS there is a DOUBLE use of the pronoun "I" that are OPPOSED to each other in so much that one "I" can claim to be innocent of the sin committed by the other "I".

    Notice that one "I" is UNDER SIN due to operating by the "LAW OF SIN" and is FLESHLY (v. 14) and restricted to that EXTERNAL aspect of man ("IN my flesh" "this body of death" "my members") while the other "I" is restricted to INTERNAL ("my mind" "inward man").

    This is so self-evident and obvious that Winman and his Schoalr MUST WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY substitute "I" with such terms as "the man" "Christian" "himself" "the unregenerate man."

    CHANGING GOD'S WORD is their first prominent ERROR.
     
  19. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's really funny about that is that Robert Reymond is a CALVINIST LOL:laugh: This just shows you that he, like Icon and many others, simply wants to disagree with anything anyone says for the sole sake of arguing instead of actually getting to the truth of a matter. He will disagree with himself several times in one thread if it means proving his point.
     
  20. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dude, you are sick. I was in no way trying to twist or pervert scripture, I am simply saying what scripture says, that we have been freed from sin.

    Rom 6:17 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.
    18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

    Paul says we WERE (past tense) servants of sin, but we have obeyed the doctrine which was delivered unto us, "being then made free from sin".

    You call yourself the Biblicist, but you are a Calvinist fanatic. You will reject any scripture that refutes Calvinism, of which there is volumes. This scripture we are discussing now refutes Calvinism, Paul is clearly speaking from the perspective of a lost man "sold under sin" in Romans 7, but he desires to do what is right, and he delights in the law of God and consents that it is good.

    If that destroys your pet doctrine, too bad.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...