Obedience Comes by Fear, but Faith by Hearing!

[Bro.T]

I am not saying, unfortnutely, "I quit sinning", but I do say: "I have been given the power and Love not to ever sin again", in the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love. I, to frequently, quench the Spirit go out on my own and sin.
Do you not consider it "Good News" to know you do not have to sin again? Ro. 7 section is writen in the "Historic Present Tense".

For me the mission is not to sin at all, but like Paul says in Romans 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?

So this is a struggle on a day to day basis, and we have to put on the whole armour of God daily, like like Paul says in Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. As long as sin is in the world and we living in the flesh, it's going to be a struggle.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Those definitions work: “a return of evil for evil” which is what we are told not to do, so is God a hypocrite?

Not everything that applies to God applies to us.
God is to be worshiped but man is not to be worshiped.
God can return evil for evil if He sees fit. In fact, that is what Romans 12:19 says that God will repay in regards to vengeance. God does hold back His wrath and judgment and He gives many people space and time to repent. So I am not sure why you think I don't believe that.

“The indulgence of revenge tends to make men more savage and crueller”, so is God our example of being savage and cruel?

God is able to do things that we cannot do.
Jesus died on the cross for men's sins, we cannot do that.

How would it ever be possible for an act against man satisfy what man has done against God?

Does God get satisfaction out of sending people to hell?

Let us look at Romans 12:19 says,

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,

but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written,

Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”

First off you have to look at the whole passage: Ro. 12: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

You appear to be against God repaying others for their evil deeds but that is what Romans 12:19 says (of which you bolded the words). So this actually still refutes your previous statement that God does not take revenge.

Sins are really against God and not us personally, so we are to help the sinner to stop sinning, but never take revenge against the sinner.

You are preaching to the choir. I am a New Testament Non-Restistant Christian. I don't believe in taking up violence for any reason. So nowhere did I ever suggest that believers are to take revenge against sinners. I only stand by Romans 12:19 whereby God repays those who do evil. Vengeance belongs to the Lord.

Sins against God are really punished with hell and nothing less. Christians are disciplined, but the nonbelieving sinner does not correctly accept God’s discipline, so punishment is left.

Yes, I agree that sin is ultimately done towards God, but I also believe sin can be done towards others, too. As for Christians: I do not think all Christians get a free pass to sin. I don't think discipline by God may not apply to every professing believer and or a believer may go beyond God's correction.

“Punishment”/ “wrath” by God of His children (all people) in this life should be accepted as Loving discipline.

The greatest hurt and anger (hatred), I feel, is when one of my children intentionally hurts another one of my children, but I sure do not want the child hurt to take revenge on the child who hurt them. My job as a parent is to help resolve my children’s issues and their actions reflect on my parenting. God has done the very best with us, so our actions do not reflect on His parenting, but He does what He can to help us resolve our issues.

I prefer not to talk about your family and make it personal. Lets talk about a hypothetical family.
Now, hypothetically speaking: If a father's son turned out to be Hitler, and this son desired to kill their own father and his own family that he would be considered as a son by his father and that he would be willing to welcome home to fellowship with his family over a meal. Why would the father do that if the son was seeking to hurt him and his other loved family members. Such a son would show that he is no longer a beloved son of the family because such a son would destroy the family's existence. You cannot have a family if they are dead and gone.

In other words, sins have destroyed families before. It could have been drunkard who gets angry at his child and he beats him to death. It could be a drunkard who drove drunk and killed their entire family.
There are all sorts of sins that are destructive and can be destructive. That is why believers must repent and turn from their evil ways. God knows that sin can be destructive to others and hurt them in ways that is beyond our imagining. So while God can chasten believers, I would not rely on the chastening card or teach that we can float through life in not worrying about sin because God will just chasten us. I wouldn't trust in that. There are believers who thought they were good with God, but they did not make it (See: Matthew 7:22-23).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would say: “God does not Love dead people, but those who have gone through the second death are dead.” God is the God of the living.

The second death is the Lake of Fire and the wicked in hell have not been cast into that place yet.

If I knew what one of my children was going to do in the future, I could not help but treat them differently. They would thus be able to look back from their future state of evil and say: “It is my dad’s fault for the way I am, because he treated me differently”, even if it was not my fault, my child would be right about my treating him/her differently. Can anyone blame even in part someway their going to hell, being God’s fault (satan’s fault, Adam & Eve’s fault, bad luck, evil in the world).

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here.

Can Judas say: “I am in hell because Christ selected me, did not warn me, would not forgive me after I betrayed Him, did not Love me or treated me differently then the way he treated the other 11?”

I am strongly against all 5 points of Calvinism. So you are preaching again to the choir. I believe Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world as a way to offer them the gift of eternal life and to then be responsible with that gift (eternal life). If they receive that gift, and remain faithful to it, they will be saved. But those people in Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8 are an exception to the rule. I don't believe Jesus died for those who will worship the beast in the future because these verses say that their names are not in the book of life since the foundation of the world.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Did Christ “Love” others conditionally?

I would say... yes.
For if Christ's love was all unconditional, then He would not have judged the Pharisees and call them serpents, etc.

God Loving others unconditionally does not mean they will all accept that Love as pure unconditional, undeserved charity. Love is a transaction, where the receiver of the Love has a part to play (humble acceptance), so some are not saved, but it is not the result of God not Loving them.

Show me in Scripture where God loves those in whom He destroys or those in hell, or those that will be thrown in the Lake of Fire in the future, etc.; Yes, I believe God may have loved some of them while they were alive (by giving them space to repent, etc.), but I believe love ends if they refuse it by using up all their last chances in this life. But only God knows that point. I say this because Scripture does speak about how God abhors and hates.

Salvation come with the condition of us just being willing to accept God’s charity as pure undeserved charity.

Scripture does not say: “God quit Loving King Saul”, but does say God took His Spirit away from Saul.

Even if Saul had repented, did Saul then deserve to have the Spirit with him?

Yes, it might be to late for Saul to truly learn anything from God’s Spirit being taken from him, so it was not taken from him to help Saul, but it does help all of us.

God's actions in not hearing Saul's cries means God no longer loved Saul anymore because of the depths of evil Saul had chosen for himself.

True repentance is a heart thing, so did Saul ever truly repent?

I would imagine he did in the beginning. At the start: Saul was a changed man in becoming the king of Israel and he won his first battle by being favor with God. It was only later by Saul's continual line of disobedience that kept making things worse for him. Saul ended up committing suicide in the end. A man of God. Yet, just because he was once in favor with God and he was a man of God does not mean he was saved in the end. Saul started off good, but he ended badly. This should be a warning to all believers.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not saying, unfortnutely, "I quit sinning", but I do say: "I have been given the power and Love not to ever sin again", in the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love. I, to frequently, quench the Spirit go out on my own and sin.
Do you not consider it "Good News" to know you do not have to sin again? Ro. 7 section is writen in the "Historic Present Tense".

For me the mission is not to sin at all, but like Paul says in Romans 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?

So this is a struggle on a day to day basis, and we have to put on the whole armour of God daily, like like Paul says in Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. As long as sin is in the world and we living in the flesh, it's going to be a struggle.

In Romans 7:14-24, Paul is recounting his experience as a Pharisee before he became a Christian. Paul (Saul) is describing his experience of what it is like to struggle in keeping the Old Covenant Law that did not include Jesus Christ.

Now, it is true that the use of first-person present verbs in the passage (“I am” “I practice” “I want” “I hate” “I do”) sounds like Paul is talking about his present experience. But Paul sometimes uses “I” in a rhetorical sense to describe generic experience rather than his own present experience (1 Corinthians 10:30; 1 Corinthians 13:2-3, 1 Corinthians 13:11). In at least one other place, Paul uses a first-person present verb to describe his opponents’ experience (Galatians 2:18).

Anyways, here are 8 reasons in Scripture that show us that Paul is indeed talking as a Pharisee (recounting his past experience) and he is not talking in the present tense as a Christian in Romans 7:14-24.

#1. In Romans 7:6, Paul says we should serve in newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter (Which is the Old Law and not the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed). We are told to SERVE. How do we serve? Do we just do our own thing? No. We follow God's commands in the New Testament. This talk of the Old Law is the context of verses 14-24.

#2. We are dead to the Law by the body of Jesus Christ (Romans 7:4). Would this be the Old Law or ALL law? 1 John 3:23 is a commandment that says we are to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a New Covenant Law. So obviously we are not dead to this Law or Command. The Scriptures also say, "but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30). Are we dead to this Law? Surely not. Jesus said "repent or perish." (Luke 13:3). Peter told Simon to repent (by way of prayer to God) of his wickedness of trying to pay for the gifts of the Holy Spirit so that he may be forgiven (Acts 8:22). Sin is merely transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). All this lets us know that men of God can break God's laws and they can be separated from GOD because of it. So surely some kind of Law of God is still in effect and has dire consequences for any person's soul who commits them. For Jesus said that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven by the Father (Matthew 6:15). If Jesus was talking to unbelievers, this would not make any sense. They would first need to accept Christ. So the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is talking to believers in Matthew 6:15. You do not forgive (i.e. you sin or break this law of God) and you will not be forgiven or saved. 1 John 3:15 says if you hate your brother you are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in them. Again, you hate your brother (which can be a one time act) and you do not have eternal life. It's that simple. Also, Paul condemns circumcision several times. Galatians 5:2 is the biggest verse that condemns circumcision salvationism. Circumcision is an Old Covenant Law and it is not a New Covenant Law. Paul uses the word "law" when he speaks against circumcision. So we have to conclude that Paul is saying we are dead to the Old Covenant Law and not all Law. So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#3. Paul says, "For without the law sin was dead." (Romans 7:8). He also says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Romans 7:9). This type of saying is nonsensical from a present tense reading as an adult Christian. The only way it sort of works is if Paul is referring to himself as a baby who had no knowledge of God's laws yet. But there are two problem with even that interpretation. One, this view does not seem as consistent with the phrase, "For without the law sin was dead" because even though Paul as a baby did not have any knowledge of the Law yet, the rest of the adult world would have the Law and sin would still be alive to them. Second, Paul says, "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." (Romans 7:10-11). Okay, so if Paul grew up and became aware of the Law one day, how could the commandment be ordained to life at this point in his life? The commandment was ordained for life back in the time of the Law of Moses. Also, Paul found that "the commandment" was death unto him and that it slew him. There are no death penalties attached to the commands given to us under the New Testament. Death penalties are only associated with the Laws given to us in the Old Covenant. This is how the Law slew him. For breaking the Old Law could be a loss of his own physical life. So this is talking about the Old Law (and not all Law). So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#4. Paul says, "But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). Okay. Let's break this down. Paul says, "But sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR SIN, works death in me." (Romans 7:13). Now, how can sin make it appear like it may not be sin? Well, if Jesus was raised and Saul (Paul) was still a Pharisee striving to obey the Old Law when the New Covenant Law was still in effect, the sin that Saul (Paul) was struggling with as a pharisee during that time would not really technically be sin in every case. For if Paul disobeyed certain Old Covenant laws while the New Covenant and it's laws were in effect, then Saul (Paul) is not really breaking any real commandments from God in every case. Hence, why Paul said, "...sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR (as) SIN." (Romans 7:13). The beginning of verse 13 is a foreshadow of what is to come in verses 14-24. Paul is stepping out for a brief moment as speaking as an Israelite living throughout history to speak of his condition as a Pharisee when he says, "...sin, that it might appear sin." In the second half of verse 13, Paul says, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). This is saying that when God provided the written Law of Moses to his people, there would be a double accountability to keeping God's laws because they are written for all to see now. So an Old Testament saint would feel exceedingly sinful or guilty for breaking God's law back in the Old Testament times because he had in his possession a written down visual law clearly telling him what is right and wrong. So again, Paul is referring to the Old Law here and not all law. This talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#5. Paul says in Romans 7:14 that he is carnal and is sold under sin; And yet in Romans 8:2, Pauls says he is free from sin. So unless Paul is contradicting himself, he is talking from two different perspectives.

#6. In Romans 7:25, Paul asks the question: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Asking this kind of question as a Christian does not seem consistent with Paul's following statement if he is already delivered thru Jesus Christ as a Christian. If a believer is delivered by Jesus, and is thankful of that fact, there would be no cry to ask any question that says, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?"

#7. Here is the final nail in the coffin for this argument. Romans 8:3-4 says,
3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).

So which Law did God send His Son for so as to condemn sin in the flesh?
It was the Old Covenant Law.
For when Jesus died on the cross, the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom letting us know that the Old Testament laws were no longer valid because the Old Laws on the animal sacrifices and the priesthood were no longer acceptable.
Jesus Christ was now our Passover Lamb.
Jesus Christ was soon be our Heavenly High Priest (after He ascended to His father after His resurrection 3 days later) so He can be our mediator between God the Father and man.

Romans 8:4 says, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

This is saying that the righteous part or aspect of the Old Law can be fulfilled in us.

Paul says elsewhere,
8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

(Romans 13:8-10).

So loving your neighbor is the righteousness of the Old Law!
We fulfill this law by walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh (i.e. sin).

So we see a consistent theme here. The word "law" used in general (with no actual description attached to it) is in reference to the Old Law in Romans 7 and Romans 8. This helps us to understand that Paul is telling us his past experience or life as a Pharisee in struggling to keep the Old Law unsuccessfully because he did not have Jesus Christ yet (in verses 14-24).

#8. In addition, in Romans 8:2, we see the mention of how there are TWO laws. We also learn from this verse that keeping one of these Laws helps us to be set FREE from the other one.

In Romans 8:2, we see:

Law #1. - Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
This is a New Covenant Law that we are still under. What is this Law?
It is fulfilling the righteousness of the Law (i.e. to love your neighbor - Romans 13:8-10) by walking after the Spirit (See Romans 8:3-4).

Law #2. Sin and Death.
This is in reference to the Old Covenant Law as a whole (i.e. the 613 Old Testament Commands within the Torah). It is called the Law of Sin and Death because you could physically be put to death by not obeying this Law.​

What is the relationship of these two laws in Romans 8:2?

Keeping the New Law helps us to be free of the Old Law.
For there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1).​

Source used for a small paragraph within this write up:
Paul is not Talking about Himself: Why I take the "pre-Christian" Reading of Romans 7:14-25

 

[bling]

For me the mission is not to sin at all, but like Paul says in Romans 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?

So this is a struggle on a day to day basis, and we have to put on the whole armour of God daily, like like Paul says in Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. As long as sin is in the world and we living in the flesh, it's going to be a struggle.

First off: Our mission while on earth is not: "not to sin". If you are constantly working with the Spirit doing good stuff, the Spirit will not sin, so you will not sin. You have to quench the Spirit to sin. If you are constantly doing good stuff, you will not have time to sin.

This discussion on Romans 7 verses 14-24 are typical of most of the 24 commentaries I read. Two did use the approach that Paul was speaking of his previous life as a non Christian and gave some (what I call) soft evidence to support the idea. Mostly just saying, how it would be inconsistent to the rest of Romans especially chp. 8 to say that was the pitiful state Paul was in at the time. I was interested in what hard evidence you came up with that explains why Paul would switch from the past tense to the present tense in these 10 verses?


Similar to this Roman section on (the war and victory over sin) is Mark’s whole Gospel of Christ’s war against satan’s follows of this world”.


The Gospel of Mark was mimicking the messages that were sent out by the Roman generals after winning a great battle. These messages went with messengers to dramatically present the battle with the victory at the end, to the cheers of the crowd. They were always in the present tense and we have some copies that were written in stone under the battle monuments that were spread throughout Rome. The Gospel of Mark is written in the style of these Victory Messages sent by the Roman General to the Roman Empire and Mark’s is very much a victory message. Do you think, Paul in keep with the Roman culture of the day, would have written His victorious battle over sin in the present tense to the Romans in Rome?


It is called the “historic present tense”, by scholars and would fit what Paul was saying to the Romans.


This topic and the use of Romans 7: 14-24 come up a lot and a lot has been written on it.


The context helps and you need to address these questions:


1. When did Paul learn about “coveting”?

2. When did this problem start for Paul?

3. Does Paul continue in the misery and what would relief this misery?

4. Is “just being forgiven” a good solution to the problem?

5. When did Paul obtain the solution?




A lot is made of the fact Paul switched to the present tense in these verses, but was there a reason that the Roman reader might pick up on? We are reading other peoples mail to Romans in Rome during the first century, so what would be the best way to communicate a huge victory over sin to them?





What Mark describes in his Gospel is a great battle with a climatic victory with Christ rising in the “historic present tense”.

What Paul is describing in Romans 7: 14-24 is a great battle and final climatic victory over sin in the “historic present tense”.

Sin has purpose for the nonbeliever, but what “purpose” does it have in the believer life?

When Deity dwelled unquenched in a human (Christ) it did not sin, so does deity dwell within Christians, so the problem is really the quenching of the Spirit?

 

[bling]

Not everything that applies to God applies to us.
God is to be worshiped but man is not to be worshiped.
God can return evil for evil if He sees fit. In fact, that is what Romans 12:19 says that God will repay in regards to vengeance. God does hold back His wrath and judgment and He gives many people space and time to repent. So I am not sure why you think I don't believe that.



God is able to do things that we cannot do.
Jesus died on the cross for men's sins, we cannot do that.

Not everything that applies to God applies to us.
God is to be worshiped but man is not to be worshiped.
God can return evil for evil if He sees fit. In fact, that is what Romans 12:19 says that God will repay in regards to vengeance. God does hold back His wrath and judgment and He gives many people space and time to repent. So I am not sure why you think I don't believe that.



God is able to do things that we cannot do.
Jesus died on the cross for men's sins, we cannot do that.



You appear to be against God repaying others for their evil deeds but that is what Romans 12:19 says (of which you bolded the words). So this actually still refutes your previous statement that God does not take revenge.

Just because you take your “wrath” (repay/revenge) out on your child that hurts another one of your children, does not mean you are going to torture them (they might think it is torture), but you are going to Lovingly discipline them (punish them, using the words found in scripture).

I prefer not to talk about your family and make it personal. Lets talk about a hypothetical family.
Now, hypothetically speaking: If a father's son turned out to be Hitler, and this son desired to kill their own father and his own family that he would be considered as a son by his father and that he would be willing to welcome home to fellowship with his family over a meal. Why would the father do that if the son was seeking to hurt him and his other loved family members. Such a son would show that he is no longer a beloved son of the family because such a son would destroy the family's existence. You cannot have a family if they are dead and gone.

In other words, sins have destroyed families before. It could have been drunkard who gets angry at his child and he beats him to death. It could be a drunkard who drove drunk and killed their entire family.
There are all sorts of sins that are destructive and can be destructive. That is why believers must repent and turn from their evil ways. God knows that sin can be destructive to others and hurt them in ways that is beyond our imagining. So while God can chasten believers, I would not rely on the chastening card or teach that we can float through life in not worrying about sin because God will just chasten us. I wouldn't trust in that. There are believers who thought they were good with God, but they did not make it (See: Matthew 7:22-23).

Ro. 12: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:


“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]


21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

There just are not that many Hitlers around and I do not think even Hitler wanted to kill his parents?

Yes, for many reasons parents can hate their children even wishing they had never been born, but they still need to Love those children, like Jesus Loved all those who crucified Him to the very end.

 

[bling]

I don't believe Jesus died for those who will worship the beast in the future because these verses say that their names are not in the book of life since the foundation of the world.

All those who went to hell or are going to hell do not have their names in the book of life from the foundation of the world.
This all has to do with predistination, election, time, forknowledge and God being omnipresent.
The first thing you have to determine is: “How does God know miraculously the future perfectly?”

If I know unquestionable a truly free will choice you made yesterday that choice is fixed and cannot be changed since it is history. The fact I know your free will choice of yesterday, does not keep it from being a free will choice.

History cannot be changed even if God was the only one to know about something that has happened, since it still happened. Since God does everything right perfectly the first time, there is no reason to do it over again.

God is outside of time and omnipresent throughout time, so God at the end of time knows everything historically that has happened throughout time, making it unchangeable (fixed). Yet again just because God at the end of time knows all things that happened throughout time perfectly, does not mean human autonomous free will choice could not have been made.

God at the end of time is the same God existing within Himself at the beginning of time and thus has historically all the foreknowledge of what happened throughout time, but again that does not mean humans could not have made autonomous free will choices.

God did not present this miraculous method of “how” He knows the future, but that is not unusual and communicates to man from man’s perspective is also God’s way.

There are other ways God can know stuff, but would God, if He is outside of time, has to know everything historically throughout time?

God at the foundation of the earth, can write historically the results of human actions throughout time.

 

[bling]

I would say... yes.
For if Christ's love was all unconditional, then He would not have judged the Pharisees and call them serpents, etc.

Just because you call bad people bad, does not mean you do not Love them. I tell my children when they are acting badly, “bad”, but that is to help them and my other children. Did Christ telling the Pharisees they were bad, when they knew they were bad, show Love for them and others?

Show me in Scripture where God loves those in whom He destroys or those in hell, or those that will be thrown in the Lake of Fire in the future, etc.; Yes, I believe God may have loved some of them while they were alive (by giving them space to repent, etc.), but I believe love ends if they refuse it by using up all their last chances in this life. But only God knows that point. I say this because Scripture does speak about how God abhors and hates.

We have Jesus asking God to forgive all those who crucified Him.

I do not see God being hypocritical and asking us to Love unconditionally and Him not.

Jesus is just like God the Father and we are to be like Jesus.

Abhorring and hating does not mean God still do not, “Love” them.

God's actions in not hearing Saul's cries means God no longer loved Saul anymore because of the depths of evil Saul had chosen for himself.

God looks at the heart of each one of us and our word do not always reflect our thoughts, but our actions down the road will reveal what is on our heart. Saul asked for forgiveness before, seemed to repent and changed his actions for a while, but his heart does not seem to follow. God would know when Saul would not ever really change, from knowing Saul’s heart.

I would imagine he did in the beginning. At the start: Saul was a changed man in becoming the king of Israel and he won his first battle by being favor with God. It was only later by Saul's continual line of disobedience that kept making things worse for him. Saul ended up committing suicide in the end. A man of God. Yet, just because he was once in favor with God and he was a man of God does not mean he was saved in the end. Saul started off good, but he ended badly. This should be a warning to all believers.

I would agree, but God may never have stopped Loving Saul, it was Saul who kept leaving God and doing his own thing.

 

[bling]

In Romans 7:14-24, Paul is recounting his experience as a Pharisee before he became a Christian. Paul (Saul) is describing his experience of what it is like to struggle in keeping the Old Covenant Law that did not include Jesus Christ.

Now, it is true that the use of first-person present verbs in the passage (“I am” “I practice” “I want” “I hate” “I do”) sounds like Paul is talking about his present experience. But Paul sometimes uses “I” in a rhetorical sense to describe generic experience rather than his own present experience (1 Corinthians 10:30; 1 Corinthians 13:2-3, 1 Corinthians 13:11). In at least one other place, Paul uses a first-person present verb to describe his opponents’ experience (Galatians 2:18).

Anyways, here are 8 reasons in Scripture that show us that Paul is indeed talking as a Pharisee (recounting his past experience) and he is not talking in the present tense as a Christian in Romans 7:14-24.

#1. In Romans 7:6, Paul says we should serve in newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter (Which is the Old Law and not the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed). We are told to SERVE. How do we serve? Do we just do our own thing? No. We follow God's commands in the New Testament. This talk of the Old Law is the context of verses 14-24.

#2. We are dead to the Law by the body of Jesus Christ (Romans 7:4). Would this be the Old Law or ALL law? 1 John 3:23 is a commandment that says we are to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a New Covenant Law. So obviously we are not dead to this Law or Command. The Scriptures also say, "but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30). Are we dead to this Law? Surely not. Jesus said "repent or perish." (Luke 13:3). Peter told Simon to repent (by way of prayer to God) of his wickedness of trying to pay for the gifts of the Holy Spirit so that he may be forgiven (Acts 8:22). Sin is merely transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). All this lets us know that men of God can break God's laws and they can be separated from GOD because of it. So surely some kind of Law of God is still in effect and has dire consequences for any person's soul who commits them. For Jesus said that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven by the Father (Matthew 6:15). If Jesus was talking to unbelievers, this would not make any sense. They would first need to accept Christ. So the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is talking to believers in Matthew 6:15. You do not forgive (i.e. you sin or break this law of God) and you will not be forgiven or saved. 1 John 3:15 says if you hate your brother you are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in them. Again, you hate your brother (which can be a one time act) and you do not have eternal life. It's that simple. Also, Paul condemns circumcision several times. Galatians 5:2 is the biggest verse that condemns circumcision salvationism. Circumcision is an Old Covenant Law and it is not a New Covenant Law. Paul uses the word "law" when he speaks against circumcision. So we have to conclude that Paul is saying we are dead to the Old Covenant Law and not all Law. So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#3. Paul says, "For without the law sin was dead." (Romans 7:8). He also says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Romans 7:9). This type of saying is nonsensical from a present tense reading as an adult Christian. The only way it sort of works is if Paul is referring to himself as a baby who had no knowledge of God's laws yet. But there are two problem with even that interpretation. One, this view does not seem as consistent with the phrase, "For without the law sin was dead" because even though Paul as a baby did not have any knowledge of the Law yet, the rest of the adult world would have the Law and sin would still be alive to them. Second, Paul says, "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." (Romans 7:10-11). Okay, so if Paul grew up and became aware of the Law one day, how could the commandment be ordained to life at this point in his life? The commandment was ordained for life back in the time of the Law of Moses. Also, Paul found that "the commandment" was death unto him and that it slew him. There are no death penalties attached to the commands given to us under the New Testament. Death penalties are only associated with the Laws given to us in the Old Covenant. This is how the Law slew him. For breaking the Old Law could be a loss of his own physical life. So this is talking about the Old Law (and not all Law). So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#4. Paul says, "But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). Okay. Let's break this down. Paul says, "But sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR SIN, works death in me." (Romans 7:13). Now, how can sin make it appear like it may not be sin? Well, if Jesus was raised and Saul (Paul) was still a Pharisee striving to obey the Old Law when the New Covenant Law was still in effect, the sin that Saul (Paul) was struggling with as a pharisee during that time would not really technically be sin in every case. For if Paul disobeyed certain Old Covenant laws while the New Covenant and it's laws were in effect, then Saul (Paul) is not really breaking any real commandments from God in every case. Hence, why Paul said, "...sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR (as) SIN." (Romans 7:13). The beginning of verse 13 is a foreshadow of what is to come in verses 14-24. Paul is stepping out for a brief moment as speaking as an Israelite living throughout history to speak of his condition as a Pharisee when he says, "...sin, that it might appear sin." In the second half of verse 13, Paul says, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). This is saying that when God provided the written Law of Moses to his people, there would be a double accountability to keeping God's laws because they are written for all to see now. So an Old Testament saint would feel exceedingly sinful or guilty for breaking God's law back in the Old Testament times because he had in his possession a written down visual law clearly telling him what is right and wrong. So again, Paul is referring to the Old Law here and not all law. This talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#5. Paul says in Romans 7:14 that he is carnal and is sold under sin; And yet in Romans 8:2, Pauls says he is free from sin. So unless Paul is contradicting himself, he is talking from two different perspectives.

#6. In Romans 7:25, Paul asks the question: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Asking this kind of question as a Christian does not seem consistent with Paul's following statement if he is already delivered thru Jesus Christ as a Christian. If a believer is delivered by Jesus, and is thankful of that fact, there would be no cry to ask any question that says, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?"

#7. Here is the final nail in the coffin for this argument. Romans 8:3-4 says,
3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).

So which Law did God send His Son for so as to condemn sin in the flesh?
It was the Old Covenant Law.
For when Jesus died on the cross, the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom letting us know that the Old Testament laws were no longer valid because the Old Laws on the animal sacrifices and the priesthood were no longer acceptable.
Jesus Christ was now our Passover Lamb.
Jesus Christ was soon be our Heavenly High Priest (after He ascended to His father after His resurrection 3 days later) so He can be our mediator between God the Father and man.

Romans 8:4 says, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

This is saying that the righteous part or aspect of the Old Law can be fulfilled in us.

Paul says elsewhere,
8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

(Romans 13:8-10).

So loving your neighbor is the righteousness of the Old Law!
We fulfill this law by walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh (i.e. sin).

So we see a consistent theme here. The word "law" used in general (with no actual description attached to it) is in reference to the Old Law in Romans 7 and Romans 8. This helps us to understand that Paul is telling us his past experience or life as a Pharisee in struggling to keep the Old Law unsuccessfully because he did not have Jesus Christ yet (in verses 14-24).

#8. In addition, in Romans 8:2, we see the mention of how there are TWO laws. We also learn from this verse that keeping one of these Laws helps us to be set FREE from the other one.

In Romans 8:2, we see:

Law #1. - Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
This is a New Covenant Law that we are still under. What is this Law?
It is fulfilling the righteousness of the Law (i.e. to love your neighbor - Romans 13:8-10) by walking after the Spirit (See Romans 8:3-4).

Law #2. Sin and Death.
This is in reference to the Old Covenant Law as a whole (i.e. the 613 Old Testament Commands within the Torah). It is called the Law of Sin and Death because you could physically be put to death by not obeying this Law.​

What is the relationship of these two laws in Romans 8:2?

Keeping the New Law helps us to be free of the Old Law.
For there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1).​

Source used for a small paragraph within this write up:
Paul is not Talking about Himself: Why I take the "pre-Christian" Reading of Romans 7:14-25

Read my post 46

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just because you take your “wrath” (repay/revenge) out on your child that hurts another one of your children, does not mean you are going to torture them (they might think it is torture), but you are going to Lovingly discipline them (punish them, using the words found in scripture).

The wrath of God abides on those who refuse to repent and or change their evil ways.
God can be loving and patient with many and allow them space and time to repent. But we should not have the mindset that God will chasten us and so we can just run out and sin freely. Such a view would not be consistent with many other verses that warn us against how sin can destroy our souls.

Ro. 12: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:


“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]


21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Right, the beginning part of Romans 12 deals with the teaching of New Covenant Non Resistance. I am not for physical attack upon my enemies. That was Old Testament. But the passage in Romans 12:19 is telling us (in part) how God will repay and vengeance is His.

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19).

So God can take vengeance (Which is a form of revenge or the fulfilling of justice).
But this is only if people refuse to repent in this life.

There just are not that many Hitlers around and I do not think even Hitler wanted to kill his parents?

My point was to illustrate the destructive nature of sin. It could be a person caught up in being a drunkard or a sex offender. The point is that sin destroys people's lives and it hurts them and it prevents them in having peace among themselves. Jesus says, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” (John 15:14). This implies that Jesus is not our friend if we do not obey Him.

Yes, for many reasons parents can hate their children even wishing they had never been born, but they still need to Love those children, like Jesus Loved all those who crucified Him to the very end.

In regards to most sinners (and not all sinners): I would see it a a very lower form of love. God loved them in the sense that He did not want to see them perish and He died for their sins (so as to offer them the free gift of life if they accept it and they are faithful with that gift), and God loves them in the fact that He gives them space and time to repent, but God will not love them with the same kind of love as spoken about in John 14:15, and John 15:10. Jesus says:

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” (John 15:10).

So the opposite of this verse if if we do not keep His commands, we are not going to abide in Christ's love. This means we will not have the true fullest love of God whereby it would create fellowship and salvation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Read my post 46

I see that we are on the same page on this point.
This is rare. Most believers I have ran into today like to see Paul as a person who justified sin (unfortunately). But I see the over emphasis on God's love without a healthy balance of the fear of God can also be just as equally problematic. We need a proper picture of the whole counsel of God's Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just because you call bad people bad, does not mean you do not Love them. I tell my children when they are acting badly, “bad”, but that is to help them and my other children. Did Christ telling the Pharisees they were bad, when they knew they were bad, show Love for them and others?

I believe the Lord told us to love, pray, and do good towards our enemies.
I believe Jesus was able to call them harsh things and condemn them because He is the Lord God Almighty who knows things that we cannot possibly know. But this does not mean that God loves those in hell or God's love still abides on the wicked when they are being judged by God with physical death.

We have Jesus asking God to forgive all those who crucified Him.

I do not see God being hypocritical and asking us to Love unconditionally and Him not.

He does love them unconditionally in the fact that He died for their sins, and He gives them space and time to repent. But if God's love was 100% unconditional love, then nobody could ever end up in hell or be judged by God.

Jesus is just like God the Father and we are to be like Jesus.

In moral conduct only of course. We are only created beings and we cannot be God in the fact that God is to be worshiped, and in the fact that God has unlimited power, etc.

Abhorring and hating does not mean God still do not, “Love” them.

I think it depends on the context. Some passages this may be the case, and other passages I think this is not the case. If they are being judged by God in that they can no longer repent, or they are being killed, and or they are in hell, then the love of God has left them. I know it's not something that is pretty, but it is the truth.

God looks at the heart of each one of us and our word do not always reflect our thoughts, but our actions down the road will reveal what is on our heart. Saul asked for forgiveness before, seemed to repent and changed his actions for a while, but his heart does not seem to follow. God would know when Saul would not ever really change, from knowing Saul’s heart.

I believe Saul repented in the beginning and he started out good, but Saul is not a case whereby he never was not saved. Saul is said by God that he would become a new person. This means he was born again. Even the Spirit of God departed from Saul showing that God was once in favor of Saul by abiding with him for a good amount of time (and not just in some kind of temporary quick impartation of the Spirit).

I would agree, but God may never have stopped Loving Saul, it was Saul who kept leaving God and doing his own thing.

I don't see it that way. If such were the case, then Saul's cry forgiveness would have been heard. Something was not right in his heart at a certain point later in his life whereby it alienated him from God. His sin (no doubt) took root to a point in his heart that he was beyond saving anymore. It could be that he wanted things to be like before, but it just was not in him anymore to be sorrowful over his sin like he used to be. Also, if God truly loved him, He would have prevented Saul from committing suicide. For suicide is a one way ticket to hell. God let Saul go. This shows by God's actions in this situation that the love of God had left Saul.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All those who went to hell or are going to hell do not have their names in the book of life from the foundation of the world.
This all has to do with predistination, election, time, forknowledge and God being omnipresent.
The first thing you have to determine is: “How does God know miraculously the future perfectly?”

If I know unquestionable a truly free will choice you made yesterday that choice is fixed and cannot be changed since it is history. The fact I know your free will choice of yesterday, does not keep it from being a free will choice.

History cannot be changed even if God was the only one to know about something that has happened, since it still happened. Since God does everything right perfectly the first time, there is no reason to do it over again.

God is outside of time and omnipresent throughout time, so God at the end of time knows everything historically that has happened throughout time, making it unchangeable (fixed). Yet again just because God at the end of time knows all things that happened throughout time perfectly, does not mean human autonomous free will choice could not have been made.

God at the end of time is the same God existing within Himself at the beginning of time and thus has historically all the foreknowledge of what happened throughout time, but again that does not mean humans could not have made autonomous free will choices.

God did not present this miraculous method of “how” He knows the future, but that is not unusual and communicates to man from man’s perspective is also God’s way.

There are other ways God can know stuff, but would God, if He is outside of time, has to know everything historically throughout time?

God at the foundation of the earth, can write historically the results of human actions throughout time.

I am not a Calvinist. I believe we have free will to choose God.
I believe all five points of Calvinism are unbiblical.

 

[Bro.T]

First off: Our mission while on earth is not: "not to sin". If you are constantly working with the Spirit doing good stuff, the Spirit will not sin, so you will not sin. You have to quench the Spirit to sin. If you are constantly doing good stuff, you will not have time to sin.

This discussion on Romans 7 verses 14-24 are typical of most of the 24 commentaries I read. Two did use the approach that Paul was speaking of his previous life as a non Christian and gave some (what I call) soft evidence to support the idea. Mostly just saying, how it would be inconsistent to the rest of Romans especially chp. 8 to say that was the pitiful state Paul was in at the time. I was interested in what hard evidence you came up with that explains why Paul would switch from the past tense to the present tense in these 10 verses?


Similar to this Roman section on (the war and victory over sin) is Mark’s whole Gospel of Christ’s war against satan’s follows of this world”.


The Gospel of Mark was mimicking the messages that were sent out by the Roman generals after winning a great battle. These messages went with messengers to dramatically present the battle with the victory at the end, to the cheers of the crowd. They were always in the present tense and we have some copies that were written in stone under the battle monuments that were spread throughout Rome. The Gospel of Mark is written in the style of these Victory Messages sent by the Roman General to the Roman Empire and Mark’s is very much a victory message. Do you think, Paul in keep with the Roman culture of the day, would have written His victorious battle over sin in the present tense to the Romans in Rome?


It is called the “historic present tense”, by scholars and would fit what Paul was saying to the Romans.


This topic and the use of Romans 7: 14-24 come up a lot and a lot has been written on it.


The context helps and you need to address these questions:


1. When did Paul learn about “coveting”?

2. When did this problem start for Paul?

3. Does Paul continue in the misery and what would relief this misery?

4. Is “just being forgiven” a good solution to the problem?

5. When did Paul obtain the solution?




A lot is made of the fact Paul switched to the present tense in these verses, but was there a reason that the Roman reader might pick up on? We are reading other peoples mail to Romans in Rome during the first century, so what would be the best way to communicate a huge victory over sin to them?





What Mark describes in his Gospel is a great battle with a climatic victory with Christ rising in the “historic present tense”.

What Paul is describing in Romans 7: 14-24 is a great battle and final climatic victory over sin in the “historic present tense”.

Sin has purpose for the nonbeliever, but what “purpose” does it have in the believer life?

When Deity dwelled unquenched in a human (Christ) it did not sin, so does deity dwell within Christians, so the problem is really the quenching of the Spirit?

Do you think, Paul in keep with the Roman culture of the day, would have written His victorious battle over sin in the present tense to the Romans in Rome?

I believe when the Holy spirit came upon Paul to write that's when he wrote. As long as you in this fleshly body there a battle. Like Paul says in Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

For example in Matthew 16: 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

[Bro.T]

In Romans 7:14-24, Paul is recounting his experience as a Pharisee before he became a Christian. Paul (Saul) is describing his experience of what it is like to struggle in keeping the Old Covenant Law that did not include Jesus Christ.

Now, it is true that the use of first-person present verbs in the passage (“I am” “I practice” “I want” “I hate” “I do”) sounds like Paul is talking about his present experience. But Paul sometimes uses “I” in a rhetorical sense to describe generic experience rather than his own present experience (1 Corinthians 10:30; 1 Corinthians 13:2-3, 1 Corinthians 13:11). In at least one other place, Paul uses a first-person present verb to describe his opponents’ experience (Galatians 2:18).

Anyways, here are 8 reasons in Scripture that show us that Paul is indeed talking as a Pharisee (recounting his past experience) and he is not talking in the present tense as a Christian in Romans 7:14-24.

#1. In Romans 7:6, Paul says we should serve in newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter (Which is the Old Law and not the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed). We are told to SERVE. How do we serve? Do we just do our own thing? No. We follow God's commands in the New Testament. This talk of the Old Law is the context of verses 14-24.

#2. We are dead to the Law by the body of Jesus Christ (Romans 7:4). Would this be the Old Law or ALL law? 1 John 3:23 is a commandment that says we are to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a New Covenant Law. So obviously we are not dead to this Law or Command. The Scriptures also say, "but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30). Are we dead to this Law? Surely not. Jesus said "repent or perish." (Luke 13:3). Peter told Simon to repent (by way of prayer to God) of his wickedness of trying to pay for the gifts of the Holy Spirit so that he may be forgiven (Acts 8:22). Sin is merely transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). All this lets us know that men of God can break God's laws and they can be separated from GOD because of it. So surely some kind of Law of God is still in effect and has dire consequences for any person's soul who commits them. For Jesus said that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven by the Father (Matthew 6:15). If Jesus was talking to unbelievers, this would not make any sense. They would first need to accept Christ. So the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is talking to believers in Matthew 6:15. You do not forgive (i.e. you sin or break this law of God) and you will not be forgiven or saved. 1 John 3:15 says if you hate your brother you are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in them. Again, you hate your brother (which can be a one time act) and you do not have eternal life. It's that simple. Also, Paul condemns circumcision several times. Galatians 5:2 is the biggest verse that condemns circumcision salvationism. Circumcision is an Old Covenant Law and it is not a New Covenant Law. Paul uses the word "law" when he speaks against circumcision. So we have to conclude that Paul is saying we are dead to the Old Covenant Law and not all Law. So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#3. Paul says, "For without the law sin was dead." (Romans 7:8). He also says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Romans 7:9). This type of saying is nonsensical from a present tense reading as an adult Christian. The only way it sort of works is if Paul is referring to himself as a baby who had no knowledge of God's laws yet. But there are two problem with even that interpretation. One, this view does not seem as consistent with the phrase, "For without the law sin was dead" because even though Paul as a baby did not have any knowledge of the Law yet, the rest of the adult world would have the Law and sin would still be alive to them. Second, Paul says, "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." (Romans 7:10-11). Okay, so if Paul grew up and became aware of the Law one day, how could the commandment be ordained to life at this point in his life? The commandment was ordained for life back in the time of the Law of Moses. Also, Paul found that "the commandment" was death unto him and that it slew him. There are no death penalties attached to the commands given to us under the New Testament. Death penalties are only associated with the Laws given to us in the Old Covenant. This is how the Law slew him. For breaking the Old Law could be a loss of his own physical life. So this is talking about the Old Law (and not all Law). So again, this talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#4. Paul says, "But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). Okay. Let's break this down. Paul says, "But sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR SIN, works death in me." (Romans 7:13). Now, how can sin make it appear like it may not be sin? Well, if Jesus was raised and Saul (Paul) was still a Pharisee striving to obey the Old Law when the New Covenant Law was still in effect, the sin that Saul (Paul) was struggling with as a pharisee during that time would not really technically be sin in every case. For if Paul disobeyed certain Old Covenant laws while the New Covenant and it's laws were in effect, then Saul (Paul) is not really breaking any real commandments from God in every case. Hence, why Paul said, "...sin, that it MIGHT APPEAR (as) SIN." (Romans 7:13). The beginning of verse 13 is a foreshadow of what is to come in verses 14-24. Paul is stepping out for a brief moment as speaking as an Israelite living throughout history to speak of his condition as a Pharisee when he says, "...sin, that it might appear sin." In the second half of verse 13, Paul says, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Romans 7:13). This is saying that when God provided the written Law of Moses to his people, there would be a double accountability to keeping God's laws because they are written for all to see now. So an Old Testament saint would feel exceedingly sinful or guilty for breaking God's law back in the Old Testament times because he had in his possession a written down visual law clearly telling him what is right and wrong. So again, Paul is referring to the Old Law here and not all law. This talk of the Old Law plays into verses 14-24.

#5. Paul says in Romans 7:14 that he is carnal and is sold under sin; And yet in Romans 8:2, Pauls says he is free from sin. So unless Paul is contradicting himself, he is talking from two different perspectives.

#6. In Romans 7:25, Paul asks the question: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Asking this kind of question as a Christian does not seem consistent with Paul's following statement if he is already delivered thru Jesus Christ as a Christian. If a believer is delivered by Jesus, and is thankful of that fact, there would be no cry to ask any question that says, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?"

#7. Here is the final nail in the coffin for this argument. Romans 8:3-4 says,
3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).

So which Law did God send His Son for so as to condemn sin in the flesh?
It was the Old Covenant Law.
For when Jesus died on the cross, the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom letting us know that the Old Testament laws were no longer valid because the Old Laws on the animal sacrifices and the priesthood were no longer acceptable.
Jesus Christ was now our Passover Lamb.
Jesus Christ was soon be our Heavenly High Priest (after He ascended to His father after His resurrection 3 days later) so He can be our mediator between God the Father and man.

Romans 8:4 says, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

This is saying that the righteous part or aspect of the Old Law can be fulfilled in us.

Paul says elsewhere,
8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

(Romans 13:8-10).

So loving your neighbor is the righteousness of the Old Law!
We fulfill this law by walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh (i.e. sin).

So we see a consistent theme here. The word "law" used in general (with no actual description attached to it) is in reference to the Old Law in Romans 7 and Romans 8. This helps us to understand that Paul is telling us his past experience or life as a Pharisee in struggling to keep the Old Law unsuccessfully because he did not have Jesus Christ yet (in verses 14-24).

#8. In addition, in Romans 8:2, we see the mention of how there are TWO laws. We also learn from this verse that keeping one of these Laws helps us to be set FREE from the other one.

In Romans 8:2, we see:

Law #1. - Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
This is a New Covenant Law that we are still under. What is this Law?
It is fulfilling the righteousness of the Law (i.e. to love your neighbor - Romans 13:8-10) by walking after the Spirit (See Romans 8:3-4).

Law #2. Sin and Death.
This is in reference to the Old Covenant Law as a whole (i.e. the 613 Old Testament Commands within the Torah). It is called the Law of Sin and Death because you could physically be put to death by not obeying this Law.​

What is the relationship of these two laws in Romans 8:2?

Keeping the New Law helps us to be free of the Old Law.
For there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1).​

Source used for a small paragraph within this write up:
Paul is not Talking about Himself: Why I take the "pre-Christian" Reading of Romans 7:14-25

That was pretty good! Even with us keeping the Royal law (Commandments) we have always stay strong in the word of God like Paul says in Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

 

[bling]

I believe the Lord told us to love, pray, and do good towards our enemies.
I believe Jesus was able to call them harsh things and condemn them because He is the Lord God Almighty who knows things that we cannot possibly know. But this does not mean that God loves those in hell or God's love still abides on the wicked when they are being judged by God with physical death.

Paul speaks harshly about Judaizing teachers that want Gentile Christians to be circumcised by saying Gal. 5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

So did Paul not Love some fellow Jews?

He does love them unconditionally in the fact that He died for their sins, and He gives them space and time to repent. But if God's love was 100% unconditional love, then nobody could ever end up in hell or be judged by God.

Wow! Now we get to your real problem with God’s Love, by saying: “then nobody could ever end up in hell”. Godly type Love is a huge topic with books being written on it. You might read CS Lewis’ book “The Four Loves”.

Godly type Love, forgiveness, charity, and atonement are all transactions and not just one sided. Both parties have a part to play, but it is not “work” to correctly receive a gift. Not correctly receiving the gift is not God’s fault and does not take anything away from God.

Think about the prodigal son story:

If the son never returns to the father (cruelly dies in a hell on earth), does that show the father did not Love the son?

The father would have known what the son would do with the money (he represents God), but sending servants after the son to drag him home would not help the son fulfill his earthly objective of becoming like his father. The son has to reach the point of being humbly willing to accept totally undeserved pure charity (Love) from his father. Being willing to accept the father’s forgiveness (which the father was always wanting to do) allowed the father to shower him with unbelievable gifts. This will result in the son obtaining unbelievable Love (father type Love, as Jesus taught us Luke 7 “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…).

In moral conduct only of course. We are only created beings and we cannot be God in the fact that God is to be worshiped, and in the fact that God has unlimited power, etc.

You know what I am talking about

I think it depends on the context. Some passages this may be the case, and other passages I think this is not the case. If they are being judged by God in that they can no longer repent, or they are being killed, and or they are in hell, then the love of God has left them. I know it's not something that is pretty, but it is the truth.

If the son never returned to the father in the prodigal son story, when did the father quit Loving the son?

 

[bling]

I believe when the Holy spirit came upon Paul to write that's when he wrote. As long as you in this fleshly body there a battle. Like Paul says in Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

For example in Matthew 16: 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

We are on the offencive and have the power to win every battle.

 

[bling]

I am not a Calvinist. I believe we have free will to choose God.
I believe all five points of Calvinism are unbiblical.

Agree

 

[HIM]

Obedience Comes by Fear, but Faith by Hearing!
.

And yet....
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: