Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Paul's evil practices Pre or PostJesus | Rom 7:19 | Whatever | 64102 | ||
Is Paul specifically referring to his current stuggle and condition (practicing evil) even after many years of following Jesus or his condition PRIOR to his conversion | ||||||
2 | Paul's evil practices Pre or PostJesus | Rom 7:19 | Morant61 | 64105 | ||
Greetings Whatever! This is a tough question on which reasonable people can and do disagree. However, my position is that Paul is describing his life apart from Christ and under the Law in Rom. 7:7-25. Here are my reasons. 1) There is a contrast made between Rom. 7:7-25 and Rom. 8:1-17. This is one of the cases where chapter divisions are less than helpful. The person described in Rom. 7 is: a) A slave to sin - Rom. 7:14. b) Subject to the Law of sin - Rom. 7:23 and 25. However, in Rom. 8, the person is described as one who: a) Is not condemned - Rom. 8:1. b) Has been set free from the Law of sin - Rom. 8:2. c) Is not controlled by the sinful nature - Rom. 8:9. So, there is a clear distinction made between the person described in Rom. 7 and the one described in Rom. 8. What is the difference? The one in Rom. 7 is trying to obey the Law apart from Christ and is unable to do so because of their sin nature. The person in Rom. 8 has been made alive by the Spirit of Christ and is now led by the Spirit. 2) The second reason I believe that Rom. 7 cannot refer to a believer is because of Rom. 6. Romans 6 makes statements that cannot be reconciled with the view that Rom. 7 describes a Christians ongoing struggle with sin. Consider the following: a) We have died to sin - Rom. 6:2. b) Our old self was crucified with Christ - Rom. 6:6. c) The body of sin has been done away with - Rom. 6:6. d) We are no longer slaves to sin - Rom. 6:6. e) Sin is not our master - Rom. 6:14. These statements cannot be reconciled with the view that Rom. 7 is speaking of a believer who continually struggles with sin. In particular, Rom. 7:14 says that this person is a slave to sin, but Rom. 6:6 says that believers are not slaves to sin. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Paul's evil practices Pre or PostJesus | Rom 7:19 | Reformer Joe | 64112 | ||
Tim: How do you factor in the mind/flesh distinction that Paul makes in Romans 7. Also, what about the fact that Paul is using the present tense in Romans 7:15 ff.? It is not characteristic of Paul to describe his unregenerate state using the present tense in his other epistles. Also, regarding Romans 6, Paul declares that the Christian has been set free from sin. However, at the same time he tells believers not to let sin reign in their mortal bodies. There is that Pauline paradox we love so much! If it is possible for a believer to let sin reign, it would seem logical that a struggle between the "inner man" and "the flesh" would not be foreign to the Christian at all. Lastly, what do you make of Pauls statement that "But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me"? (Romans 7:16-17) He is distinguishing between himself and his indwelling sin. How do you factor that in? Does not his desire to please God and his love for the law point to the fact that he indeed is a believer at this point? Your ever-friendly, but frequently dissenting brother, --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Paul's evil practices Pre or PostJesus | Rom 7:19 | Morant61 | 64119 | ||
Greetings Joe! I pray that you and yours are doing well! I haven't been on the forum very much lately - too busy! :-) Allow me to address your questions. 1) Mind/Flesh distinction: I see Paul describing himself as a son of the Law and as a pharisee. Even though he was unregenerate, he still had a love for and a committment to the Law of God. The problem was that even though his 'mind or will' desired to keep the Law, his sinful nature would not allow him to be obedient. He found himself doing the things he did not want to do, and not doing the things he wanted to do. 2) Present tense: It is very common in Greek to use what is called an Historical Present, where past events are described with a present tense to impart a sense of vividness or emphasis. I believe that to be the case in this passage. One good indicator of this is the 'but now' of Rom. 8:1. There is a contrast between the description (past) of Rom. 7 and the current description in Rom. 8. 3) Romans 6 paradox: I don't believe that we have to resort to a pardox explanation for Romans 6. Paul never made the case that freedom from the slavery of sin meant that one could never sin again, nor that one would not have to constantly yield to the Spirit. In fact, Rom. 8 makes that very case. Also, Gal. 5:25 makes the case that we must be in step with the Spirit in order to live by the Spirit. That is what I think Paul is talking about in Rom. 6. Prior to Christ, we had no choice but to obey the flesh. After Christ, we have been set free from that slavery, but we can yield to sin again and make it our master. Paul's point in Romans 6 is that those who have died to sin should no longer live in sin (Rom. 6:1). We are slaves to that which we obey (Rom. 6:16). But, as Christians, we have been set free from sin (Rom. 6:18). The major problem I have with seeing Rom. 7 as a description of a believer struggling with sin is that Rom. 7 doesn't say that there is a struggle. The person described is a 'slave'. He does (present tense) what he does not want to do. He cannot do that which he wants. This doesn't describe a Christian constantly striving to do right, but someone who is incapable of doing right. This contradicts everything that Romans 6 says, since there a believer is said to no longer be a slave to sin and is able to obey God. The usual approach to explain this away is to simply say that Paul was writting as a mature believer who realized that even at his best, he fell far short of what God required. Yet, would someone really say that they were incapable of obeying God's Law. I may not live in perfect obedience to God's Law, but I do obey it far more often than not. 4) Finally, Rom. 7:16-17: Again, I would see this as a reference to Paul's desire as a Son of the Law and as a pharisee to obey the Law of God. This does not require regeneration. Regeneration would only be required to actually accomplish this desire, and as Rom. 7 stresses, Paul was not in fact able to obey the Law - hence, he was not regenerated. This is definitely a fun passage to discuss. I have to get ready for work now, so I'll chat with you later my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Paul's evil practices Pre or PostJesus | Rom 7:19 | hobbs | 169402 | ||
Hi Brother Tim, you have listed 4 points in defense of your position. I trust you will not object to my attempt to prove that they are flawed to one extant or another. Your 1st point was: 1) Mind/Flesh distinction: I see Paul describing himself as a son of the Law and as a pharisee. Even though he was unregenerate, he still had a love for and a committment to the Law of God. The problem was that even though his 'mind or will' desired to keep the Law, his sinful nature would not allow him to be obedient. He found himself doing the things he did not want to do, and not doing the things he wanted to do. ---------------------------- The first thing that struck me is "son of the Law". I had not recalled that term ever mentiomed in Scripture. What significanse do you attach to it? We know that David loved the Law, but where do find Paul (or any unregenerate) loving God's Law? Paul himself says that the natural man does nor recieve the things of God for they are foolishness to him...Paul may loved the self -satisfaction he had from keeping 9 of the commandments (at least thought he was keeping them at the time) but the sermon on the mount blew all the pharisees pretentions to bits....None of fallen man's attempts to please God bear fruit, for without faith it is impossible to please Him. The best thing you can say of Paul the Pharisee was that he had great self-esteem! God willing, I will address your 2nd point after work. John |
||||||
6 | Paul's evil practices Pre or PostJesus | Rom 7:19 | Morant61 | 169404 | ||
Greetings John! A 'son of the law' is how every Jewish boy over the age of 12 was described. The signifigance of the phrase is that it reflects how a Jewish man viewed himself. If you were to ask any Pharisee, they would have told you that they loved God's Law. But, Paul knew that he did not live up to the Law - that he was in fact a slave to sin. You wrote: "None of fallen man's attempts to please God bear fruit, for without faith it is impossible to please Him." That is exactly the anguish that Paul is expressing in Rom. 7:14-25. Would you dispute that the Jewish religious leaders loved God's Law - or at least thought they did? ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Paul's evil practices Pre or PostJesus | Rom 7:19 | hobbs | 169412 | ||
Dear Tim, Please for give me, for I have strong feelings about this subject. Matt 16:6 And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." John the Baptist called them a brood of vipers; Jesus called them blind guides! And worst of all, son's of their father the devil!!! How can one love the Law when they can't even perceive it's meaning? Their goal was to replace the Law with the traditions of men. The Pharisees were practicing and teaching an apostate religion. They twisted the Law in the same way as cults today twist the Scriptures. John |
||||||