Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

[godrulz]

I fail to see how one could view the murder of Jesus by Jewish and Roman authorities as anything but evil.

There is a difference between heinous, godless evil contrary to the will of God and God Himself coming as the Lamb of God to bring redemption to man through His death in line with His character and will.

 

[godrulz]

They meant it as evil, but God meant it for good.

Spiritual and Biblical principle:

Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28.

Look these Scriptures up! Read them for yourself! The answer is found, therein.

Nang

Proof texts that must be exegeted properly, not from a Calvinistic viewpoint.

 

[godrulz]

Mystery: Romans 7 deals with sin. You cannot divorce exegesis of Romans 7 from harmartiology, the study of the doctrine of sin. Your understanding of sin and sinners, flesh vs spirit, nature of man, etc. will affect your interpretations. Since the chapter deals with sin, I will not get off the thread because I am reinforcing this obvious truth.

A-t-i-v-a-n cools your jets.:surf:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Verses 14-16
The majority of the Christian world claims that Paul is speaking here of his position in Christ and his daily struggle, but that would be quite odd for him to say that he is in bondage to sin, when he just spent all of chapter 6 speaking of his release from it. As much as you would like to pervert what Paul has said, he cannot be free from sin and in bondage to sin at the same time. Only a double-minded false teacher would make that claim.

In other words the majority of the Christian world that understands verses 14-25 to mean Paul is speaking of his daily struggle as a saved man are double-minded and false teachers. And you are correct, the rest of the world is wrong?

Let's look at the passage one more time.

Romans 7:14
The clause, “sold under sin”, in verse 14 describes an unregenerate person; but sin also resides in a believer, who is still subject to sin’s penalty of physical death. As a result, indwelling sin continues to seek to claim what it considers its property even after one has become a Christian.

Romans 7:15-17
At the start Paul confessed, I do not understand what I do (lit., “what I am producing I do not know”). A person’s actions are at the dictate of someone or something besides himself that he really does not understand and cannot explain. Paul continued to present this quandary he faced: For what I want to do I do not do (lit., “For what I am wishing, that I am not doing,” prasso[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]) and conversely, What I hate I do (lit., “What I am hating that I am doing,” poio[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]). No difference of emphasis can be put in this verse on the two Greek verbs translated “do” (even though such difference is significant elsewhere), because the occurrence of those two verbs is reversed in Romans 7:19. Yes, this statement can possibly be made by an unregenerate person in his highest moral and ethical moments, but it can also be said by a regenerate person. There is no reason to conclude that Paul was not describing his experience as a believer at that time. Paul said, I agree that the Law is good. Here the Greek word for “good” is kalos, “beautiful, noble, excellent,” whereas in the previous passage describing Paul's pre-Christian experience, Romans 7:12 the word used it is agathe[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT], “useful, upright.” Note the difference. Because of this evidence, Paul concluded, It is no longer I myself who do it (lit., “no longer am I myself producing it”; cf. Romans 7:15) but it is sin living in me (lit., “but the dwelling-in-me sin”). This does not mean Paul was avoiding personal responsibility for his actions; he was speaking of the conflict between his desires and the sin within him.

Romans 7:18-20
Paul’s experience convinced him that “the Law is good” kalos, “beautiful, noble, excellent, (Romans 7:15). But he also concluded, I know that nothing good lives in me. Then he hastened to explain that by the phrase “in me” he meant in my sinful nature (sarki, “flesh”; cf. Romans 7:5; Romans 7:25). This is not literal physical or material flesh, but the principle of sin that expresses itself through one’s mind and body.

As support for this conclusion Paul explained, For I have the desire to do what is good (“For to wish is present with me” [or “is lying beside me”]), but I cannot carry it out (lit., “but to produce the good is not”). Paul then repeated in slightly different words the statement of Romans 7:15, and then in Romans 7:20 he repeated in effect his statement in Romans 7:17. Paul recognized that even as a believer he had an indwelling principle of sin that once owned him as a slave and that still expressed itself through him to do things he did not want to do and not to do things he desired to do. This is a problem common to all believers.

Romans 7:21-23
Paul was a person who tried to learn from his experiences, so now Paul concluded, I find this law at work. This is not the Mosaic Law, of course, but a principle drawn from experience. Also in Romans 8:2 “law” (nomos) means principle. This law or principle is the reality of ever-present evil in an individual whenever he wants to do good. Paul held fast to the fact that, as he said, In my inner being I delight in God’s Law (cf. Romans 7:25). “In my inner being” is literally, “according to the inner man.” (The “inner man” is used in the Greek NT also in 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Ephesians 3:16.) Delight in God’s Law was the psalmist’s response, stated repeatedly in Psalms 119:1-176, for example, see verses 16, 24, 47. Because of regeneration, a believer has a new nature or capacity for loving spiritual truths. Yet, recognizing the facts of experience, Paul said he saw another law or principle at work within him. This is the principle of sin. Paul called it “sin living in me” (Romans 7:17, Romans 7:20), “evil” right there with me (Romans 7:21), and “the sinful nature” (Romans 7:5; Romans 7:18; Romans 7:25).

This principle is continually doing two things: waging war against the law of the believer’s mind and making him a prisoner of the law of sin at work within his members. The indwelling principle of sin is constantly waging war against the new nature, trying to gain victory and control (cf. “slave” in Romans 7: 14; Romans 7:25 and “slaves” in Romans 6:17, Romans 6:19-20), of a believer and his actions. The new nature is called “the law” of the “mind” (noos; cf. Romans 7:25) because it has the capacity for perceiving and making moral judgments. Further, despite a believer’s identification with Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection and his efforts to have Christ-honoring attitudes and actions, he cannot in his own power resist his indwelling sin nature. In and of himself he repeatedly experiences defeat and frustration.

Romans 7:24-25
Paul expressed that frustration in his exclamation, What a wretched man I am! Significantly Paul’s description of himself is part of John’s picture of the church of Laodicea — “wretched” (Revelations 3:17). The apostle then asked, Who will rescue me from this body of death? Paul recognized that as long as he was in his mortal body he would face the conflict with the indwelling sin principle and would have defeat in his own strength. Here he wrote of the “body of death”; in Romans 8:6 Paul wrote of the “body of sin.” These mean that sin works through one’s human body (cf. Romans 6:6, Romans 6:12-13, Romans 6:19; Romans 7:5, Romans 7:23), bringing death (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:21, Romans 6:23; Romans 7:10-11, Romans 7:13; Romans 8:10).

Paul’s answer to this question was triumphant and immediate: Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ our Lord! Paul in this answer was looking to the final triumph of Jesus Christ for His people. Just as believers are identified with Him in His death and resurrection by faith here and now, so they will join their resurrected and exalted Lord for all eternity in new bodies, free forever from the presence of sin (Romans 8:23; Philippians 3:20-21). Meanwhile, in this life, Paul concluded, I myself in my mind (noi; cf. noos in Romans 7:23) am a slave (lit., “am serving as a slave”) to God’s Law, but in the sinful nature (sarki, “flesh”; cf. Romans 7:5, Romans 7:18, where sarki, from sarx, is also translated “sinful nature”) a slave to the law of sin (cf. “slave to sin,” Romans 7:14). While awaiting freedom from the presence of sin, believers still face conflicts between their regenerated minds (or new natures or capacities) and their sin natures or capacities.

In summary,

0. We must look to the Greek text for difficult passages in the NT. For the passage in question, the differences in the Greek versions of "good" being used between the two passages in question. (v. 12, v. 15) clearly indicate a shift in context. Likewise, the Greek reveals that the "law" being described in verses 21-23 is not the Mosaic Law referred to (capitalized 'Law'); instead this law or principle is the reality of ever-present evil in an individual whenever he wants to do good. See also the numerous literal Greek renderings of some of the key phrases above.

1. You ignore the explicit change of tense between verses 7-13 (imperfect and aorist tense) and 14-25 (present tense). The former section (7-13) relates to Paul's pre-Christian experience and the rest of the chapter to his post-conversion experience. Obviously Paul was describing his present conflict as a Christian with indwelling sin and its continuing efforts to control his daily life.

2. The progress of thought in Romans needs to be taken into consideration. Paul has passed beyond his description of the unsaved state and is now giving attention to sanctification and its problems; so the theme is really relevant only to believers.

3. That conflict of the sort described here can and does characterize the Christian life is apparent elsewhere in Paul, especially in Galatians 5:17.

4. The power of self-diagnosis at the penetrating level found here (see verses 22, 23) is beyond the capacity of the natural man.

6. A person desiring holiness of life, as pictured here, could only be a believer, for the unsaved person does not long for God but is hostile toward him.

7. The close of the chapter, in terms of the text as it stands and without attempted rearrangement, acknowledges the deliverance in Christ, yet goes on to state the very problem sketched in verses 14-24 as though it continues to be a problem for one who knows the Lord.


From the above it should be clear that I stand with the "majority of the Christian world" that you condemn as false teachers about the state of Paul being described in Romans 7:14-25.

Will you now yield your interpretation to the one offered above and recant your accusation of false teaching for these verses?

 

[Lon]

Nice exegesis Mr. AMR sir.

 

[godrulz]

Some people don't care about Greek, grammar, context, etc.

Don't confuse me with the facts if my mind is made up?

AMR: I see 'flesh' as a metaphor for sin (yielding the will to bodily desires instead of the Spirit in obedience Rom. 6:13-14; Rom. 6:19; 2 Cor. 7:2; I Peter 1:13-16). I do not believe that moral depravity is genetic (causative Adamic nature back of the will). I do believe we have inherited physical depravity, including death and a propensity to put flesh/body above Spirit/spirit.

You probably reject Watchman Nee, but you and mystery seem to have his spirit-flesh understanding.

Whether you or mystery is right on Romans 7 (I appreciate your effort, if nothing else), it is not a salvific issue. For mystery to negate my salvation for not agreeing with all of his views shows his lack of understanding of the gospel he claims to have the corner of truth on.

AMR: Would you say your view is uniquely Calvinistic, or is it also held by Arminians and most believers (I suspect the latter)?

The context does seem to be about sanctification/believer (Rom. 6-8) with some verses referring to an unregenerate state. It is about a struggle with sin and victory in Christ (that is not automatic, as evidenced in Corinth, Ephesus, etc. and all of church history).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Whether you or mystery is right on Romans 7 (I appreciate your effort, if nothing else), it is not a salvific issue. For mystery to negate my salvation for not agreeing with all of his views shows his lack of understanding of the gospel he claims to have the corner of truth on.

It is not salvific. Wrong understandings can and do lead to creation of false notions of God, ultimately idolatry.

AMR: Would you say your view is uniquely Calvinistic, or is it also held by Arminians and most believers (I suspect the latter)?

The latter for sure.

The context does seem to be about sanctification/believer (Rom. 6-8) with some verses referring to an unregenerate state. It is about a struggle with sin and victory in Christ (that is not automatic, as evidenced in Corinth, Ephesus, etc. and all of church history).

Probably both. Believers, as Paul was describing himself in Romans 7:14-25 struggle with sin as they walk the path of sanctification.

 

[SOTK]

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was evil brought forth from hatred in the hearts of men towards God; however, in the hands of God, the death of Jesus Christ was the greatest good.

God's justice performed is good.

God judging sin is good.

God overcoming sin, evil, death, and the crucifixion of His Son, by His power and grace, which is shared with His elect . . .is good.

Nang

:thumb:

Pretty simple...at least it should be!

 

[Mystery]

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was evil brought forth from hatred in the hearts of men towards God;

I asked if His death was evil, not what led to it.

however, in the hands of God, the death of Jesus Christ was the greatest good.

That is because the death of Jesus was a result of Him giving His life, of His obedience. The obedience of Jesus is not evil.

"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." John 10:17-18

"And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

 

[Clete]

The death of Jesus WAS NOT EVIL!

The MURDER of Jesus was, but not the act of dying itself for Jesus said that no one takes His life from Him but that He lays it down Himself. He had the power to lay it down and the power to take it up again.

Is there anyone here smart enough to understand the difference between death and murder, or are Mystery and I the only two left with a brain in their heads?

 

[Mystery]

In other words the majority of the Christian world that understands verses 14-25 to mean Paul is speaking of his daily struggle as a saved man are double-minded and false teachers. And you are correct, the rest of the world is wrong?

The majority of the Christian world, yes, not the rest. You really do have a reading comprehension problem. However, Calvinists are quite good at perverting what people say, especially people in the bible.

I will deal (again) with the one verse, because you cannot even get it right, and it is enough to destroy the rest of your house of cards.

Romans 7:14
The clause, “sold under sin”, in verse 14 describes an unregenerate person;

And I agree, that is why Paul is describing HIMSELF, you twit! Hence the words "I am"

but sin also resides in a believer, who is still subject to sin’s penalty of physical death.

Has nothing to do with the text. That is just your careless addition.

As a result, indwelling sin continues to seek to claim what it considers its property even after one has become a Christian.

Again, nothing to do with the text, or what Paul says. You are just adding your wild interpretation to what Paul actually says. You have exegeted nothing!

Well, we know that it is not "it's property". We know that neither Paul, or any believer, is a slave to sin. Paul is (present tense) a slave of righteousness, who has been set free from sin Romans 6:18. A believer has been removed from the dominion of sin and death. It is no longer the master of the believer.



Romans 7:14

NASB "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. "

KJV "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."

The Greek regarding "but I am of flesh / but I am carnal" is egw de sarkinov eimi

egw

I

de

but

sarkinov

fleshly

eimi

to be

Paul describes himself as one who exists in flesh


The "Greek" regarding "Sold into bondage to sin / sold under sin" is pepramenov upo thn amartian

pepramenov

to sell
of price, one into slavery
of the master to whom one is sold as a slave

upo

under

thn

this

amartian

to be without a share in
to miss the mark
to err, be mistaken
to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

Paul understands that the Law is spiritual, but the flesh which Paul exists in was sold to sin, and it is it's slave. The flesh belongs to sin, and therefore Paul needs to be set free from sin, just as Paul was released from the Law Romans 7:6

"But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."

Before Paul can reveal how he was released from the Law, he had to show how he was bound to the Law, and that is what he does in Romans 7:7-13

Likewise, Paul shows how he was released from the law of sin and death Romans 7:24-25 Romans 8:1-2, but he first shows how he was it's slave Romans 7:14 and it's prisoner Romans 7:23.


You have failed to properly exegete these passages, just as you have the rest of Paul's letter.

You claim that Paul is presently a slave of sin, but Paul says that he is free from sin, and a slave of righteousness.

You are the liar. Paul tells the truth.

You say that Paul is presently a wretched man and that he presently practices evil, but Paul says that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, and that he is righteous, holy, blameless.

You are a liar. Paul is telling the truth.

Will you now yield your interpretation to the one offered above and recant your accusation of false teaching for these verses?

I am telling the truth, and you are a godless false teacher, who perverts the message of Christ, just as the godless cult you serve.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I will deal (again) with the one verse, because you cannot even get it right, and it is enough to destroy the rest of your house of cards.

I'm sorry, but you have made the mistake of relying upon a locus classicus to build your interpretation, ignoring the rest of the scripture passage and the surrounding text. The house of cards is of your own construction. Your eisegeses resides with the uninformed minority. My interpretation stands with the "majority of the Christian world" and better minds than you or I who have come to the same conclusion, as I have tried to get to to see for yourself. The lure of being in the minority is seductive and you have been so seduced.

 

[Mystery]

I'm sorry, but you have made the mistake of relying upon a locus classicus to build your interpretation, ignoring the rest of the scripture passage and the surrounding text. The house of cards is of your own construction. Your eisegeses resides with the uninformed minority.

I haven't ignored anything, you liar.

I have already laid out the entirety of Romans 7, and you failed to respond with anything of any substance. You simply do not understand what you read.

I just destroyed your false gospel, and you have exited stage left. You're an inept biblical wimp.

Nice copout :loser:

better minds than you or I who have come to the same conclusion, as I have tried to get to to see for yourself.

There is no better mind that mine. I have the mind of Christ. You have the mind of Calvin.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

There is no better mind that mine. I have the mind of Christ. You have the mind of Calvin.

No, apparently you have the mind of Calvin, too. Barth built his neo-orthodoxy around Calvin's thought.

 

[Mystery]

No, apparently you have the mind of Calvin, too. Barth built his neo-orthodoxy around Calvin's thought.

:rotfl:

You'll believe anything but the bible. Just how gullible are you?

It was funny, I answered every question in that test that related to Calvin's doctrine with a negative response. Do you seriously think something like that means squat? You're even more a fool, than I thought.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You'll believe anything but the bible. Just how gullible are you?

It was funny, I answered every question in that test that related to Calvin's doctrine with a negative response. Do you seriously think something like that means squat? You're even more a fool, than I thought.

Someone once said "You really do have a reading comprehension problem." Please re-read previous post. I said "apparently", nimrod. :chew:

 

[Mystery]

Someone once said "You really do have a reading comprehension problem." Please re-read previous post. I said "apparently", nimrod. :chew:

If you do not give it any credibilty, why bring it up? Is this your way of wiggling your way out of the defeat you suffered on Romans 7?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If you do not give it any credibilty, why bring it up? Is this your way of wiggling your way out of the defeat you suffered on Romans 7?

Funny, I read that differently.

Your turn. I will give you the last word, as it is clear you want it badly enough. No matter how shrilly you proclaim this or that, it won't change the outcome. Rant on.

 

[Mystery]

Funny, I read that differently.

I think it is sad that you see things contrary to what Paul said, and what the entire message of Christ claims.

No matter how shrilly you proclaim this or that, it won't change the outcome. Rant on.

Yep, nothing will change your pride filled heretical views, when the evidence you ignored right here is a just a small piece of evidence against your cultic views.

 

[chatmaggot]

Thus, when you say that death is not evil and justice is not good, you are saying God is a dirty, rotten, unfair Judge.

Not too wise to harbor such thoughts about the Judge who will Judge you someday!

There is still time for you to repent . . .

Nang

Could you direct me to when I have ever said:

when you say that death is not evil and justice is not good, you are saying God is a dirty, rotten, unfair Judge.

When did I ever say Justice is not good?

Your view of God REQUIRES evil to exist for goodness to be made manifest. That is why (so it seems to me) you think that "it is good that evil exists".

God does not NEED evil to exist. God is good. God existed before evil.

There is still time for you to repent . . .

According to you one can only repent if God predestined them to repent. You write your posts with little threats scattered within them. I don't know why you are mad at me and threatening me...when it is God who wanted me to write what I write!

Remember, Ask Mr. Religion said:

"God’s creatures can do what they want, but what they want is determined by God in advance..."

Nang, I hope that you view God in such a way that does not require evil to exist for His goodness to be known.