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

[Clete]

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.

Sola Scriptura is the Latin for Scripture Alone.

Anyone here know what the Latin is for "majority of the Christian world"?

:think:

Anyone else here fascinated by how much the Calvinists sound like what the Catholics must have sounded like in Luther's day? It's quite ironic, to say the least.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Paul uses the present tense 'I am..." to describe his state. If this is his present reality as a believer (struggle with sin and victory in Christ), should we consider this grammatical point. He did not say I was, but I am....

 

[Mystery]

Paul uses the present tense 'I am..." to describe his state. If this is his present reality as a believer (struggle with sin and victory in Christ), should we consider this grammatical point. He did not say I was, but I am....

In which verse?

In 14 it is eimi, which can mean present or have been or to be.

In that verse it does not change anything regarding the text. Paul is simply saying that he having flesh is sold into sin, that he is a slave of sin. It is a general statement concerning his condition.

It would be similar to you saying "I am mortal, destined to die". In reality you will die, but in Christ you will never die. Which is where Paul is leading.

 

[godrulz]

In which verse?

In 14 it is eimi, which can mean present or have been or to be.

In that verse it does not change anything regarding the text. Paul is simply saying that he having flesh is sold into sin, that he is a slave of sin. It is a general statement concerning his condition.

It would be similar to you saying "I am mortal, destined to die". In reality you will die, but in Christ you will never die. Which is where Paul is leading.

'ego eimi' is best translated 'I am...' (present active indicative). It is usually a continuous present tense. 'Have been' is a different past tense.

Rom. 7:14, yes. The rest of the context is also about his present experience and seems to indicate a struggle with the flesh, even as a believer, as well as ultimate victory in Christ, as a maturing believer. The language does not sound like a sinless person like Jesus.

 

[Mystery]

'ego eimi' is best translated 'I am...' (present active indicative). It is usually a continuous present tense. 'Have been' is a different past tense.

"usually"? So what? The context will help you determine what Paul is saying.

I gave the proof in both of the posts that follow Paul's testimony.

The rest of the context is also about his present experience and seems to indicate a struggle with the flesh

Yes, because in the flesh, Paul is a slave to sin, and as the wretched man that he is, he is looking to be set free from this death, because he sees himself as a "prisoner of the law of sin". A Christian is not a wretched man, nor is he a prisoner of the law of sin. A Christian does not wonder who is going to set him free from this death! A Christian does not cry out of his wretchedness wondering who will come along and take away his condemnation. Christians do not have to ask WHO?

Man, you're so boneheaded, it's unbelievable!!

The language does not sound like a sinless person like Jesus.

WHAT?????

NO ONE said anything about Paul being "SINLESS"!!!!

I already stated to you that we are going to affirm that ALL people sin pre and post conversion.

You are once again trying to stir the pot, and run to Knight whining and crying about how you are abused by people saying mean things to you.

Go ahead you big :baby:

I don't need to waste anymore time on your worthless life anyway.

 

[godrulz]

Since we are all in the image of God, no life is worthless (argument against abortion and euthanasia). Since Jesus died for me, you cannot say my life is worthless.

When did you change your mind that Christians can sin?

Does it look like I am whining to Knight, the guy who gave me a warning for provoking you?

Are we back to the idea that your spirit does not sin, but your flesh can sin, but it is not really sin, because you are not under the law, etc. etc.?

 

[Mystery]

Since we are all in the image of God, no life is worthless (argument against abortion and euthanasia). Since Jesus died for me, you cannot say my life is worthless.

When did you change your mind that Christians can sin?

Does it look like I am whining to Knight, the guy who gave me a warning for provoking you?

Are we back to the idea that your spirit does not sin, but your flesh can sin, but it is not really sin, because you are not under the law, etc. etc.?

William, I told you, we are not discussing this.

We are talking about Romans 7, which has nothing to do with the subect of being able to sin or not being able to sin.

Either discuss the text, or move on.

 

[godrulz]

William, I told you, we are not discussing this.

We are talking about Romans 7, which has nothing to do with the subect of being able to sin or not being able to sin.

Either discuss the text, or move on.

Disengaging, but how can you say a context about struggling with sin (regardless whether it is pre or post conversion) has nothing to do with sin? Depending which view you take on ability to sin or not will affect your interpretation of the passage.

Am I missing the something?

 

[Mystery]

Disengaging, but how can you say a context about struggling with sin (regardless whether it is pre or post conversion) has nothing to do with sin? Depending which view you take on ability to sin or not will affect your interpretation of the passage.

Am I missing the something?

Besides a brain, yes.

If Paul sins post conversion, it does not change the text, nor does it mean that he struggled with sin post conversion.

Even if I was to say that I still sin, I do not struggle with sin, because I know that Jesus paid for all sin, for all time.

 

[Nang]

Besides a brain, yes.

If Paul sins post conversion, it does not change the text, nor does it mean that he struggled with sin post conversion.

Even if I was to say that I still sin, I do not struggle with sin, because I know that Jesus paid for all sin, for all time.

The work of the cross was not hocus-pocus.

Jesus did not die, and then sin disappeared. The law of sin remains in the earthly members of all Christians, until they are changed from flesh and blood to glorified bodies.

The work of the cross was forensic.

It is the guilt of sin according to Law, and the sentence imposed according to God's earlier ruling of guilt, that has been legally propitiated and removed. The criminal record of the elect for whom Christ died, has been wiped clean, for Jesus Christ met all legalities for His people.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1

Nang

 

[Mystery]

The work of the cross was not hocus-pocus.

You're a stupid :dog:

Jesus did not die, and then sin disappeared.

Never said it did. You are as inept at reading as that AMR jerk.

The law of sin remains in the earthly members of all Christians

Paul says you are a liar...

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."

 

[Nang]

has set you free from the law of sin [/B]and of death."

Right.

And what does the law of sin naturally produce, but the sentence of death.

It is the legal sentence against sin that we are freed from, not the inclination to sin.

If sin were simply removed from our natures, there would be no need for Christ to continually act as Mediator and High Priest at the throne of grace, on our behalf.

The condemnation is gone; the grace is ongoing til the day we physically die.

Nang

 

[Mystery]

Are you a Roman Catholic?

 

[Nang]

Are you a Roman Catholic?

:rotfl:


:dunce:


:nono:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The work of the cross was not hocus-pocus.

Jesus did not die, and then sin disappeared. The law of sin remains in the earthly members of all Christians, until they are changed from flesh and blood to glorified bodies.

The work of the cross was forensic.

Yes.

God redeems and saves the guilty, but He does not clear them. They are still guilty. While we are still sinners, by grace, mercy, and imputing of Christ's righteousness, God justifies us.

 

[Aimey]

God is the

Alpha and Omega,

Beginning and the End.

in the beginning God created......
and it is appointed to each ... a time to die.

God instituted death.

sin is an act of rebellion.

death is the consequence, designed by God.

If I punish my child, I am not committing a sin by doing so.

the sin is in the heart of the offender.

death is the prescribed end of such rebellion, therefore death is good, for it ends sin.

If we beleive that God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end,

is it untrue to say He is
the Way the Truth and the Life........
as well as the Avenger to bring wrath on the evildoer, including forcing the death of all men, each for thier own sin? ( with the exception of Enoch and Jesus.)

 

[godrulz]

Besides a brain, yes.

If Paul sins post conversion, it does not change the text, nor does it mean that he struggled with sin post conversion.

Even if I was to say that I still sin, I do not struggle with sin, because I know that Jesus paid for all sin, for all time.

Are you saying even if he sinned, it was not imputed to him?

Are there any genuine Christians who struggle with sin (lust, gambling, gluttony, gossip, etc.)? Victory is certainly possible, but based on the exhortations to believers in Scripture, it does not seem automatic for everyone. This is why Paul gives principles to walk in the Spirit vs flesh (Rom. 6).

I would not say one wrong thought or motive is a struggle with sin, but an ongoing bondage would be. While believers should not struggle or be in bondage, it seems evident, biblically and anecdotally, some do. Our theology should account for this as well as lead people to their rightful victory over sin in Christ.

Sanctification is a hotly debated topic precisely because too many believers are not walking in victory. This does not mean they are not believers, but it does show that our beliefs and practices do not always line up.

I am thinking about this from a pastoral and theological perspective. If it was as easy as believing the right doctrine, the church today would not be so worldly. We have no end to teaching and seminars, but also have widespread lukewarmness. Truth must be appropriated from head to heart for transformation by the Spirit. If it was so automatic at conversion, we would all be equally mature and victorious.

Did you see my brain? It's that grey thing that is shrinking with age.

 

[godrulz]

Yes.

God redeems and saves the guilty, but He does not clear them. They are still guilty. While we are still sinners, by grace, mercy, and imputing of Christ's righteousness, God justifies us.

We are not guilty and guilty at the same time?

Justification is a declaration of righteousness (legal) where we are treated as if we never sinner. Regeneration is monergistic.

Sanctification is positional (set apart as holy) and progressive (actual transformation) as the Spirit works out the life and character of Christ in us, the fruit of the Spirit. There seems to be a synergistic aspect to this work, as other Reformed scholars have stated.

 

[Mystery]

Are you saying even if he sinned, it was not imputed to him?

That is correct. Even if I sin, or Paul sinned, or any believer in Christ sins, it is not held to their account.

Are there any genuine Christians who struggle with sin (lust, gambling, gluttony, gossip, etc.)?

I am not talking about people struggling or not struggling with what they do. I am talking about people struggling with it as an offense before God as if He is holding them accountable. I'm certain that Paul struggled with his behavior, but he never struggled with the sin issue as a believer. He knew that he had been transferred from the law of sin and death to the law of the spirit of life in Christ. He was well aware that he was no loner a slave of sin, but a slave of righteousness. Sin is no longer his master.

Victory is certainly possible, but based on the exhortations to believers in Scripture, it does not seem automatic for everyone.

This is not an insult, but you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

This is why Paul gives principles to walk in the Spirit vs flesh (Rom. 6).

A Christian is NOT in the flesh, but in the Spirit. That is where they walk. You do not understand Romans 6, because you your entire understanding of the Christian life is gutting it out in the flesh.

I would not say one wrong thought or motive is a struggle with sin, but an ongoing bondage would be.

See what I mean? You really have no understanding what it means to be a Christian. I'm not kidding. If Christianity was a football game, you would be asking me who is up to bat next.

 

[godrulz]

Well, who IS up to bat next?