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.
"Sold Under Sin" - Rom. 7:14
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Jul 20, 2013.
Page 2 of 4
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I am not going to keep arguing with you, I have no doubt you would argue endlessly. You think that if you get the last word that proves you are right. Well, it doesn't, and I am not a total fool that is going to keep arguing with you forever.
Again, I will leave it up to the reader to see who is presenting truth and who is not, and who is twisting scripture and who is not. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
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.
If Paul is indeed speaking from the perspective of a lost unregenerate man here, this passage utterly refutes the Calvinist/Reformed doctrine of Total Inability. Paul is doing good things here that this doctrine says man is not able to do.
Paul says he would do good in vs. 15, he also says he hates sin
He consents that the law is good in vs. 16
He wills to do good in vs. 18
He speaks of the good he would do in vs. 19
He speaks of when he would do good in vs. 21
He delights in the law of God in vs. 22
He serves the law with his mind in vs. 25
What Paul is really saying here is that he cannot escape sin, he is held captive by it. It doesn't matter how much good you do, if you sin even one time, you are sold to sin and belong to it like a slave in the ancient markets. You can try to escape but it is impossible, you are held captive by sin, and the wages of sin is death.
He would love to do good and earn heaven but he cannot. Try as he might, he cannot break this bondage.
But thank God, when we trust Jesus, we are baptized into his body. When he died to sin, we died along with him, and we are no longer held captive by sin.
Paul also compared it to marriage, as long as a woman is married, she is bound captive to her husband. But if he dies, she is free to marry another.
Likewise, we are dead to sin, we are free from sin and free to marry another, which is Jesus. Now we are under grace and not the law.
Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
This is why Romans 7:14-25 cannot be about a regenerate man, because Paul said he was "sold under sin" in the present tense. This can never be said of any regenerate Christian.
Calvinists reject this interpretation, because this passage utterly destroys Total Inability and thus all of TULIP.
There you go, whatever you are. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So you are approaching Romans 7 with an unjust bias that has nothing to do with this chapter.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
If you are staring at a young girl in a bikini, you CANNOT please your wife. You CAN'T do it, it is IMPOSSIBLE, while you stare at that young girl, your wife is not going to be pleased.
But the word "CANNOT" here does not mean UNABLE. It doesn't mean you are UNABLE to do something else. It doesn't mean you are UNABLE to look away from that young girl in the bikini and please your wife.
Now this is simple, any child could understand this, if you do not understand it is because you are stubborn and obstinate, not because the argument does not make perfect sense. You simply DON'T WANT to hear it, because it refutes your view.
You can play dumb all you want, scholars everywhere understand this perspective and have written on it for centuries. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
What I was saying is that the word "cannot" does not mean "unable".
When you look at a girl in a bikini you "cannot" please your wife. That does not mean you are compelled to look at her continuously, that does not mean you are "unable" to look away.
You can't even follow an argument. :laugh:
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
You don't get it, man is not just flesh!
That alone should tell any intelligent person that Biblicist's view is complete and utter error.
Does anybody really think that being a Christian means you cannot do a single good thing as Paul laments here? Absurd to the extreme. -
Maybe you will get this (doubtful).
Please observe the following statement;
"You CANNOT diet while you continuously eat hot fudge sundaes."
Is it possible to diet while you continuously eat hot fudge sundaes?
Does this statement mean you are unable to diet?
Please answer these questions. -
Brother, I have an honest and sincere question. Why do you repeatedly qute your own posts, and then reply to it?
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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?
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.
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."
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Hide and watch me. :D
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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."
Page 2 of 4