Featured "Sold Under Sin" - Rom. 7:14

Now you are FLEEING to a different text in a different context. We are talking about Romans 7:14 not Romans 6 which deals entirely with a different subject.

Furthermore, Romans 6 does not teach that OUR FLESH is redeemed from sin and it is quite obvious it is not because it DIES!

So again you are playing eisgesis and not being faithful to the words chosen by the Holy Spirit and that is why you can apply the text as you do.

 

There is no argument! You and your scholar have ALTERED the reading of Romans 7:14 to fit your theory. It does not say "the man" or "himself" or "the Christian" but it says "I" and it is contextually defined as ONE of TWO first person singular pronouns because ONLY ONE operates by the LAW OF SIN and SERVES SIN and is RESTRICTED to the OUTWARD MAN "the flesh" "in my flesh" "This body of death."

 

The issue is NOT total depravity. The issue is does Romans 7:14-25 teach TWO NATURES. The doctrine of total inability is not determined by Romans 7:14-25 but by Romans 8:7-8 in the words "is not...neither indeed can be.....cannot".

So you are approaching Romans 7 with an unjust bias that has nothing to do with this chapter.

Again YOU are replacing the Biblical terms with YOUR OWN terms. None of these say "HE" but uses the first person singular pronoun CONSISTENTLY throughout "I" - ridding this pronoun PERVERTS the text because there are TWO different APPLICATIONS to TWO different aspects of Paul (EXTERNAL versus INTERNAL) and TWO different laws with TWO contradictory outcomes that CO-EXIST in the same Person.

 

Like your scholar friend you approach the text with a clear stated bias. Try exegesis instead of eisgesis. Don't approach it with a bias but with integrity and honesty to deal with the text for what it clearly teaches.

 

For example???? Name one place where I did not only answer your arguments but demonstrated they were contextually invalid.

Tell me, does this problem stem from the regenerate nature or "inward man" that is "created in righteousness and true holiness" or does this problem originate in "the flesh"?

You see, your analogy simply has no revelence on the regenerated nature and the "flesh" has not been regenerated. "This body" has not been saved and you are DYING due to the effects of sin.

So not only is your analogy OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE and thus outside this context but it is repudiated by this context as the "I" after the inward man NEVER desires anything but "good" (Rom. 7:18b-21).

I do not go to this text with a bias. You admit your bias in black and white.

There is no "he" in this context! Stop inserting it. Paul says "I" and he is speaking of the "I" that is "flesh" not the "I" of the inward man. He is speaking of the "I" SOLD UNDER SIN as this "I" never wills good (vv. 15-17) and has "NOTHING GOOD" (v. 18) and "serves the law of sin" (v. 25.

It is not about smarts or absence of smarts it is about HONESTY with God's word. You are DISHONEST as you repeatedly SUBSTITUTE God's Words with YOUR OWN and then twist it the way you like. There is no "he" or "himself" or "the man" or "Christian" in this context but only "I" used TWO DIFFERENT WAYS in connection with TWO DIFFERENT laws, in application to TWO DIFFERENT natures in one person.

 

Your foolishness has nothing to do with arguing but with repeatedly changing the scriptures to suit your self.

 

We have seen two prime examples that the only way to escape the dual nature teaching of Romans 7:14-25 is to simply CHANGE THE SCRIPTURES, remove Biblical terms and use other terms. Then they must ignore two completely aspects of Paul that are in direct contrast and yet co-exist.

In so doing they deny the very problem Romans 8:11-13 resolves by the power of the Holy Spirit as their interpretation resolves it by the power of the human will as illustrated in Winman's "bikini" example when that very power is repudiated by Paul in Romans 7:18b:

for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

The "I am flesh" of Romans 8:14 is carefully defined in the context to be restricted to "the flesh" nature of Paul or the EXTERNAL "I" in direct contrast to the INWARD "I" of the new man which operates by another law.

 

Now this is the best argument that Winman and his side that deny there are two opposing natures within the saved Paul in Romans 7:14-25.

He states is example and then proclaims victory even before he receives any answer.

His whole arguments rests upon the notion that this man CAN stop looking at the girl and he can please his wife by doing so. Hence, Winman believes this is analgous to Paul's teaching in Romans 7:14-8:8.

However, it is not analogous to Romans 7:14-8:8 because Winman's illustration CAN choose to stop sinning but neither the "I" of "my flesh" nor can the "I" of the "inward man" has will power to overrule the law of sin:

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.

In the "the flesh" there "dwelleth NO GOOD things" as it "serves the law of sin" and so does not stop choosing sin. Moreover, the "I" of the "inward man" has no will power to stop "the flesh" from its pursuit of sin. So the subject of Paul's discussion has NO WILL POWER to stop sinning while the Bikini of Winman's example does have the will power to stop sinning.

The reason "the flesh" cannot stop sinning is because BY NATURE there is NOTHING GOOD in it - totally depraved. The reason the "I" after the "inward man" cannot stop sinning is because it has POWER OF WILL to stop "the flesh" who "serves the law of sin." This is why Paul concludes "O wretched man that I am" who needs deliverance from some other source than his own will power.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is that the appeal of the Bikini is only to "the flesh" but it has no appeal to the "inward man" who "serves God" and "delights in the Law of God" and always possesses the will to do good but not the power. Because the new "inward man" is "created in righteousness and true holiness" and so the bikini has no appeal to it but only condemnation from it.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is because the sin problem in Romans 7:14-25 results in frustration "O wretched man that I am" but Winman's illustration results only in an alternative choice.

Another reason that Winman's illustration is invalid is that it is the powerless will of the Saved man over indwelling sin that calls for the solution in Romans 8:9-13 whereas Winman's solution is simply his own WILL POWER.

Last, Winman's illustration is by his own confession applicable only to the unregenerated man. And in keeping with that application it is the very definition and understanding of the PHARISEES in regard to the natue of sin. It is merely addressed as an OUTWARD problem that temporarly causes INWARD temptation that can be changed by mere will power. However, the Biblical definition of sin is the very reverse. It is the HEART which is the root of sin not the EXTERNAL act or temptation. The fruit is evil because the tree is evil. Merely removal of the temptation or redirection of the mind does no eliminiate sin before God as it is the nature of the heart, its motives that Paul is referring to as "NOTHING GOOD" in it.

Winman looks a sin and the nature of fallen man exactly as do the Pharisees and scribes calling for simple REFORMATION of choice and lifestyle rather than TRANSFORMATION of nature.

 

Look at your first sentence above and then compare it your next sentence above. Can anyone say "contradiction." To be "unable" to do something means you "cannot" do it and that means LACK OF ABILITY to do it or else you "can" do it. The words "can" and "cannot" speak of ability and lack of ability. The flesh has NO ABILITY to do good because there is NOTHING GOOD in it to draw from. Is that too hard to understand???

Your whole argument rests on the word "when" but the fact is "the flesh" has no "when" because it has "NOTHING GOOD" at ANY TIME and it ALWAYS serves the law of sin.

Furthermore, the words "is not" and "neither indeed can" and "cannot" are placed in a context where there is no "WHEN" but rather are describing a continuous STATE of war "enmity" and a continus STATE of resistance "is not subjecct to......neither indeed can be."

So your illustration and twist of terms is futile and silly.


I deal with context, words, arguments, why must you always resort to PERSONAL jabs?

You don't realize the tree must first be made "good" BEFORE the fruit can be made "good." You have a corrupted tree that you believe and assert is bringing forth "good" fruit.

This is because you do not understand the sin nature. The sin is not merely coming short of 100% but it is the MOTIVE of the heart that produces all thoughts, words, and actions. If the MOTIVE is wrong everything you do in God's sight including helping little old ladies across the street and saving grandpa from chocking is not regarded as "good" in God's sight because the MOTIVE is not "for the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) as all have sinned and "come short OF THE GLORY OF GOD." To be not thankful to God or failure to recognize God in all that you do is SIN!

Therefore there is NO HUMAN whether regenerated or not that is not without sin 100% of the time. The unregenerated nature has "NOTHING GOOD" and that is why it cannot "DO GOOD" because in order to DO GOOD it must first be made GOOD.

The unregenerated man is ALL FLESH but not the regenerated man as they are ONLY "IN THE FLESH" - Rom. 8:8-9 - He has NTHER OPTION. The regenerated man is "IN the Spirit" but is not without "the flesh" OR ELSE there is no use for Romans 8:12-13 is there??????

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

The verbs are PRESENT TENSE and to "live" refers to your "walk."

These are regenerated (Jn. 3:6) men with a fallen nature and Jesus said the Spirit was "with" them before Pentecost.

According to Romans 7:14-18 "the flesh" makes ALL THE CHOICES and Paul has no WILL POWER to prevent it and that is why he cries out "O Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me FROM THIS BODY OF DEATH." So your theory simply fails here as well. Paul makes it clear the saved man does not have WILL POWER in and of himself but "it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and to DO of His GOOD..."

In the Biblical context it of the fallen nature it does mean "unable" as it is the fallen nature being described in Romans 7:18 wherein "NOTHING GOOD" exists. In Romans 8:7 "ENMITY" is UNABLE to be peace. "is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be" speaks of its present and future STATE or CONDITION and that denies even the possibility of abilty to submit to the revealed will of God.

Paul said "I AM the CHIEF of sinners" not "I WAS." John says that only one who is self-deceived believes he is without sin at any time (1 Jn. 1:8-10).

I address scriptures, arguments, and positions but you feel the need to make personal attacks. The insinuation that people must be unintelligent if they disagree with you is just another personal attack. Those who cannot deal with the evidence resort to the only weapon they have left - personal attacks.

You do not understand that everything you say and do is sin in God's eyes if the MOTIVE for saying or doing it "comes short of THE GLORY OF GOD." You do not understand that good fruit cannot be produced from a corrupt tree but that is precisely what you are teaching and defending.

 

For a couple of good reasons. First, other posters attempt to lead the conversation away from the post they cannot answer, so repeating the post brings us back to what they want to run from, ignore or distort.

Second, because when I have shut their mouths and they have given no response, I quote to remind the readers what it is that has shut their mouth and then build upon it from that point.

 

Winman's only hope is to lead the reader away from the BIBLICAL CONTEXT where the words "cannot" and "is not" and "neither indeed can be" in order to place them in a manufactured context to support his erroneous views.

However, if we place the words "is not....neither indeed can be....cannot" in their proper Biblical context it makes his illustrations foolish.

Why does it make them foolish? Because he admits that the words "cannot" does not "necessarily" mean inablity which is an admission that in some contexts it most certainly does demand inability. Hence, he takes it out of the Biblical context which does demand that and places it in an unbiblical context to overthrow God's word.

In context the words are associated directly with the STATE of the fleshly "carnal" mindset - Rom. 8:7.

That STATE is demanded by the noun "enmity" which is a STATE OF WAR and by the words "not subject to the Law of God" which is a STATE of resistance as the "state of being verb" is used.

Furthermore, "the flesh" has been already described as having "NOTHING GOOD" (Rom. 7:18) and therefore has "NOTHING GOOD" to draw from to change that described STATE of war and resistance in Romans 8:7.

That is the problem which only the POWER of the indwelling Spirit can change (Rom. 8:9-13) in a saved man but no such power exists in the unregenerated man and "so then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God."