"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[expos4ever]

accepting Christ does not cause sin to "spring to life".

irrelevant... no-one even hinted it did.

It is you who claims that Romans 7 is a description of the Christian. And one of the things Romans 7 says about the person that is being described is this:

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

In for a penny in for a pound. If you are going to claim that Romans 7 describes the experiences of the Christian, then you have the Christian experiencing sin coming to life and producing death.

This is an event that is impossible for a Christian - the Christian gets life, not death.

And, of course, this is precisely what does happen to the Jew when Torah is received.

This alone closes the door on any possibility that this text is about the experience of the Christian.

clearly false . You still sin.

I have, of course, been clear that I do not disagree with the assertion that the Christian sins. What is at issue is whether Romans 7 makes such a claim. And it clearly does not - Romans 7 cannot be about the state of the Christian - it says too many things that simply cannot be true of the Christian:

- that sin springs to life in the Christian and brings death;
- that the Christian cannot do good.

There can be no doubt - these are not the experiences of the Christian.

 

[expos4ever]

Again, I am not, in this post, commenting on the status of Christian re sin.

how convenient !!!

Because it just might agree with Romans 7 no doubt!

I wouldn't think that I would have to explain the following but it appears that I do. The fact that Romans 7 says things about people sinning does not mean that it is necessarily talking about Christians, even if we all agree that Christians sin. There is another category of persons who also sins.

And that is, of course, non-believers, including that subset of non-believers constituted by Jews under Torah.

The fact is that both Christians and Jews under Torah sin. So please do not make the patently incorrect argument that because the text talks about people sinning, then it must be about Christians because Christians sin. Jews under Torah also sin. And that is what Paul is talking about in Romans 7

 

[AndOne]

This argument in regards to Romans 7 can be settled by looking at the use of the language. The NIV, ESV, KJV, and NASB (the only four I looked up) all have Paul speaking in the present tense - hence obliterating any argument that Paul is talking about his sinful state pre-conversion.

If Paul was speaking of a pre-saved condition why does he not specifically say so in the past tense? Wouldn't verse 18 say: I knew that nothing good lived in me, in my sinful nature. For I used to have the desire to do what is good, but I couldin't carry it out.

That's not what he says though - verse 18 says: "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." The way it is read is in the present tense - hence signifying that he is concerned with and discussing his current nature even after being saved.

Now the only way to confirm this "present" vs "past" tense is to go to the original Greek and see how it is written there. Unfortunely this is something I can't do - but perhaps someone who is knowledgable of the Biblical languages can help us out. I suspect that it is present tense though - seeing as how every English translation that I'm reading has it that way....

 

[expos4ever]

I am merely showing that this Romans 7 text is not describing the experience of the Christian and is therefore not relevant to that question - it is an analysis of the plight of the Jew under Torah. There are several things in the above text that rule out any characterization of the experience of the Christian:

this position is untenable , it has been demonstrated false by many Theologians commentators and demonstrably by Christian experience for generations.

This argument contains both a mere appeal to authority, which is, of course, an invalid form of argumentation. And it makes the mistake of thinking that because Christians sin, this text about people sinning must be about them.
Canadians eat hamburgers. Does that mean every text about people eating hamburgers must be about Canadians? Of course not.

 

[expos4ever]

This argument in regards to Romans 7 can be settled by looking at the use of the language. The NIV, ESV, KJV, and NASB (the only four I looked up) all have Paul speaking in the present tense - hence obliterating any argument that Paul is talking about his sinful state pre-conversion.

Part of the argument is in the present, but part is in the past. This part is in the past:

8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death

This is past tense. And, I agree that part of it is in the present tense:

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

This change of tense is entirely consistent with the argument I am advancing. The material in the past tense describes the historical condition of the Jew living under Torah. The material in the present tense is about the continuing sad state of a non-believing Jew under Torah - an issue Paul returns to in Romans 9.

Besides, we know that the Romans 7 simply cannot be the experiences of a Christian. Paul would never say this about a Christian:

I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

In Romans 8, he makes the case that the Christian can indeed do good.

 

[cygnusx1]

As pointed out in a post that was written subsequent to your post, Paul is using the "I" to denote all of Israel living under Torah - he is not speaking of himself literally. He is making a broad generalization about what happens when the Jews received Torah - the Torah brought nothing but death and judgement to them.

Your reading your view into the text , if Paul is not speaking of himself then how is he separate from "all of Israel" s seeing as he is a Jew ? no your argument doesn't carry .

We have no reason to suppose Paul is not speaking personally , at every point he DOES speak personally , especially when summing up his agony , "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death"? hardly the cry of Israel as a whole !!

But all such things aside, we know that Romans 7 cannot describe the state of the Christian for the simple fact that there is no possible way the following statement Paul makes in Romans 7 can be true of the Christian:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

This is the condition one finds themselves in after being defeated momentarily by sin , a theme all Christians , apart from you it seems , would easily recognise.

This simply cannot be true for the Christian in any state. If a person is a Christian, they have the Spirit - this is Paul's argument in Romans 8. And this gives the Christian the capability to do right.

Not always , the Christian experience is NOT either Romans 7 or 8 , it is largely both!

There is no way that a Christian cannot do what is good. And yet that is precisely what Paul says of the person he describes in Romans 7.

sure there is , there are many ways a Christian cannot do good , one way would be to be unwatchful , another would be to lack praying , another would be to give in to the deeds of the flesh through temptation ....... as with all doctrine there needs to be a balance here , let me illustrate what I mean by balance by quoting A W Pink ;

The Great Change

Not that the minister of the Gospel must swing to the opposite extreme and teach, or even convey the impression, that the Christian can expect nothing better than a life of defeat while he be left in this scene; that his foes - both internal and external - are far too mighty for him to successfully cope with. God does not leave His dear child to cope with those foes in his own power, but strengthens him with might, by His Spirit, in the inner man; yet, he is required to be constantly on his guard, lest he grieve the Spirit and give occasion for Him to suspend His operations. God tells the saint, “My grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Corinthians 12:9), but that grace must be sought (Hebrews 4:16) and used (Luke 8:18); and, if it be sought humbly and used aright, then “He giveth more grace” (James 4:6), so that he is enabled to fight the good fight of faith. Satan is, indeed, mighty, but there is one yet mightier: “Greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4); and, therefore, is the Christian called upon to “be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might” (Ephesians 6:10); and though, while severed from Christ, he can produce no fruit (John 15:5), yet, strengthened by Christ, he “can do all things” (Philippians 4:13). Christians are “overcomers” (1 John 2:13; 5:4; Revelation 2:7).
Thus, we see, once more, that there is a balance to be preserved: Avoiding, at one extreme, the error of sinless perfectionism and, at the other, that of spiritual defeatism. Truth is to be presented in its scriptural proportions, and not dwelt unduly on either its gloomy or its bright side. When one is regenerated, he is effectually called “out of darkness into His marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9); yet, if an unconverted soul reading those words forms the idea that, should God quicken him, all ignorance and error will be immediately dispelled from his soul, he draws an unwarrantable conclusion and will soon discover his mistake. The Lord Jesus promises to give rest unto the heavily-laden soul which comes to Him, but He does not, thereby, signify that such an one will, henceforth, enjoy perfect serenity of heart and mind. He saves His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), yet not in such a way that they will have no occasion to ask for the daily forgiveness of their transgressions (Luke 11:4). It is not that His salvation is an imperfect one, but that it is not completely experienced or entered into in this life, as such passages as Romans 13:11; 1 Peter 1:5 show. The “best wine” is reserved into the last. Glorification is yet future.
​

From: “The Great Change,” by A. W. Pink, in Studies in the Scriptures, Volume XXV, Number 9 (September, 1946), p. 24 in the Chapel Library reprint.

The Christian Examines Himself

This inward looking, this self-examination and self-discipline accomplish two chief ends: First, it humbles the believer into the dust before God - a most salutary experience and necessary daily, if pride and self-righteousness are to be subdued. As the believer makes an increasing discovery of the original corruptions of his soul, as he traces the subtle workings of sin, as he sees it defiling all his best efforts, he cannot but cry, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Leviticus 13:45) and groan, “O wretched man that I am!” (Romans 7:24).
Second, it deepens his assurance and draws out his soul in praise. For, as he looks into the mirror of God’s Word and sees himself both naturally and spiritually, as he compares each of his features with the portrait which the Spirit has drawn of both the sinner and the saint, he discovers his identity therewith. As he finds, within himself, a loathing of sin and self, a hunger and thirst after righteousness, pantings after God and conformity to Christ, he perceives these are what the Spirit has wrought in him; and, as he traces the workings (feeble and spasmodic though they be) of faith, hope, love, meekness, perseverance, he learns that the root of the matter is within him, and he exclaims, “I thank God through Jesus Christ” (Romans 7:25).
​

From: “The Christian Inlook,” by A. W. Pink, in Studies in the Scriptures, Volume XXV, No. 4 (April, 1946). Republished: Pensacola: Chapel Library; text quoted is from page 3 of the reprint.

 

[AndOne]

Besides, we know that the Romans 7 simply cannot be the experiences of a Christian. Paul would never say this about a Christian:

I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

In Romans 8, he makes the case that the Christian can indeed do good.

Why is that not stated in the past tense then? That's my point. The text seems to be inconsistent with the point you are trying to make.

 

[cygnusx1]

This argument contains both a mere appeal to authority, which is, of course, an invalid form of argumentation. And it makes the mistake of thinking that because Christians sin, this text about people sinning must be about them.
Canadians eat hamburgers. Does that mean every text about people eating hamburgers must be about Canadians? Of course not.

You make the same mistake here as you do in post 286 , the fact that sin is mentioned in Romans 7 isn't the issue , suggesting it is is a straw man .

Here is the issue , the fact that inner conflict , as described in such great detail through this passage IS vital , revealing to us who is under discussion throughout Romans 7 , for unregenerate sinners there is no such conflict , but every believer knows from bitter experience the inner daily conflict elsewhere described as a war , a fight , perfectly reflect the truth that Paul IS speaking of the believer NOT the none believer throughout Rom 7 ........ Romans 6 is about Christian experience , Romans 8 is all about Christian experience , but you posit that Paul breaks the flow of his argument and just happens to mention the state of the lost unregenerate sinners who are Jews , who are stuck in sin !

Sorry , but that doesn't work.

 

[expos4ever]

]As pointed out in a post that was written subsequent to your post, Paul is using the "I" to denote all of Israel living under Torah - he is not speaking of himself literally. He is making a broad generalization about what happens when the Jews received Torah - the Torah brought nothing but death and judgement to them.

Your reading your view into the text , if Paul is not speaking of himself then how is he separate from "all of Israel" s seeing as he is a Jew ? no your argument doesn't carry .

We have no reason to suppose Paul is not speaking personally , at every point he DOES speak personally , especially when summing up his agony , "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death"? hardly the cry of Israel as a whole !!

First of all, I am doing nothing different than what you are doing - drawing a conclusion about what group Paul is talking about here. Paul never clearly and explcitly indicates who he is talking about. However, my conclusion is at least a possible one. It is simply not possible for Paul to say this about the Christian, as your position requires:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

Whoever Paul is talking about here, it cannot be the Christian since this statement is obviously not true for the Christian.

Let me ask you directly to answer this question: Is it true that a Christian cannot do good things?

My argument is fine. Paul is a Jew. Paul uses the rhetorical "I" to speak about himself as the typical Jew. The fact that Paul writes the following shows us that he must not be literally speaking about himself only:

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died


Paul is talking about the arrival of the Torah - the commandment "came" when the Torah was given - and that was long before Paul was born. Paul also describes himself as being alive apart from the law - this is a description of the state of the Jew before the arrival of the Torah.

So things are not as simple as you assert. Paul's style is complex and sophisticated. But the text I have just given proves that he cannot be simply talking about himself - Paul was not alive when the Torah was given.

 

[expos4ever]

There is no way that a Christian cannot do what is good. And yet that is precisely what Paul says of the person he describes in Romans 7.

sure there is , there are many ways a Christian cannot do good , one way would be to be unwatchful , another would be to lack praying , another would be to give in to the deeds of the flesh through temptation .......

This does not really work. Paul says that he cannot do the good that he wants to do. This is simply not a possible condition for the Christian to be in. If this were descriptive of the experience of the Christian, then no Christians would ever have any victory over sin - clearly not a tenable position.

You give examples of ways that a Christian can sin. But that is not the point. Your position requires that the Christian cannot be capable of doing good. And that position will not work in light of many other things Paul says.

 

[expos4ever]

Thus, we see, once more, that there is a balance to be preserved: Avoiding, at one extreme, the error of sinless perfectionism and, at the other, that of spiritual defeatism.

I agree with this statement. But this very argument works against your position. Paul says that "cannot" do the good he wants to do. That falls squarely into the "spiritual defeatism" category that this quote suggests is an unacceptable extreme position for the believer to occupy.

 

[expos4ever]

Besides, we know that the Romans 7 simply cannot be the experiences of a Christian. Paul would never say this about a Christian:

I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

In Romans 8, he makes the case that the Christian can indeed do good.

Why is that not stated in the past tense then? That's my point. The text seems to be inconsistent with the point you are trying to make.

As I have already shown, the material in Romans 7 is in both tenses. I produced extracts to prove this. Part of Paul's exposition in Romans 7 is in the past tense. Here it is again:

For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Clearly multiple uses of the past tense.

 

[Rightglory]

expos4ever,

As a sinner - this reply doesn't give me much hope. Are you sure you want to use this as your definition of the gospel? It doesn't really define WHAT it is. Can't you tell me?

It is the definition of the Gospel. You didn't ask what was the Gospel message. There is a difference. If you don't understand what constitutes the Gospel, how can you give the message. A synonym would be revelation. God's revelation to man.

 

[expos4ever]

Here is the issue , the fact that inner conflict , as described in such great detail through this passage IS vital , revealing to us who is under discussion throughout Romans 7 , for unregenerate sinners there is no such conflict , but every believer knows from bitter experience the inner daily conflict elsewhere described as a war , a fight , perfectly reflect the truth that Paul IS speaking of the believer NOT the none believer throughout Rom 7 ........ Romans 6 is about Christian experience , Romans 8 is all about Christian experience , but you posit that Paul breaks the flow of his argument and just happens to mention the state of the lost unregenerate sinners who are Jews , who are stuck in sin !

Sorry , but that doesn't work.

The unregenerate Paul obeyed Torah 100 %. He delighted in it and was zealous for it:

6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

This is why it makes sense for Paul to describe the Jew under Torah as "delighting in God's law in his inner being;

Paul, as non-Christian Pharisee was able to keep Torah. This means that
he had to have been passionate and motivated to keep it.

Besides, I will continue to repeat a point that your position cannot countenance. It is simply not possible for the following to be true of the Christian:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

All other considerations aside, this cannot be true about the Christian. Therefore, Paul cannot be talking about the Christian in Romans 7.


And the only reason why you see my take on Romans 7 as a "break in the argument is, I suggest, that you do not actually discern Paul's true argument. Torah is all over the place in Romans.

In Romans 3:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

In Romans 5:

The law was added so that the trespass might increase

In Romans 6:

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace

In Romans 7:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law

Paul's argument in chapters 5 to 8 is not simply a treatise on the Christian. He is also weaving an argument about Torah into his thinking. There is a thread about how Torah hardens Israel. It is there in Romans 5, it is there in 7 in the text you think is about the Christian, and it is there in 9 where Paul concludes that the Jews have indeed been hardened for the sake of God's true "Jew+Gentile" family:

"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

This passage, widely mis-used to endorse the pre-destination position, is in fact a continuation of the "Torah hardens Israel" strand of his argument, started in Romans 5 and then amplified in Romans 7. If you do not see this strand - and it is clearly there - then of course you would see a treatment of the Jew under Torah as a break in the argument.

And this thread reaches explicit expression in Romans 11, where Paul make it clear that God has indeed been hardening Israel:

7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear

 

[nobdysfool]

The question that begs to be asked here is, of what possible benefit is it for Paul to launch into a discourse on the law and the Torah to Gentile Christians? After all, the epistle is to the Romans. There would be few, if any, who would have had much knowledge of the Jewish Torah, and the Law.

I believe Paul was illustrating the dilemma one would find himself in, even if he were to obey the whole Torah, and keep the whole Law (as Paul said he did). He illustrates the inner conflict that even the most zealous law-keeper would have, and the seeming hopelessness of it. That is culminated in the last verse of chapter 7 and the first verse of chapter 8. Tension, and release.

 

[expos4ever]

The question that begs to be asked here is, of what possible benefit is it for Paul to launch into a discourse on the law and the Torah to Gentile Christians? After all, the epistle is to the Romans. There would be few, if any, who would have had much knowledge of the Jewish Torah, and the Law.

Good question. First, I think that if you check the history, at the time Paul was writing, many Jews had returned to Rome after being kicked out. So Paul was indeed writing to a Jew plus Gentile church at Rome. So many of his readers would be Jews, familar with Torah.

And we know - of course - that Romans 7 really cannot be about the experience of the Christian anyway. I politely suggest that none of you will want to go on record as agreeing that this statement can be true of the Christian:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

I think the primary reason that Paul writes Romans 7 is that he wants the Gentile Christians to understand that God has hardened Israel in order that they can be saved. Thus, Paul says this very thing in Romans 11:

Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in

So Paul has every motive to entreat the Gentile Christians in the Roman church to understand that the Jews are not to be looked down on because so many Jews have rejected the Messiah precisely because God actively hardened them for the very benefit of the Gentiles. Thus Paul writes this in Romans 11:

do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

The branches that were broken off were the hardened Jews. The branches who are grafted in are the Gentile Christians. One can almost hear the hush descend on the Gentile members of the Roman church as Paul delivers this stern warning not to look down on the Jewish Christians (or even more generally on non-believing Jews).

So there is unity in Paul's treatment - he is indeed motivated to give the explanation he does in Romans 7 about how God hardened the Jew under Torah - for the benefit of the Gentile.

 

[expos4ever]

I believe Paul was illustrating the dilemma one would find himself in, even if he were to obey the whole Torah, and keep the whole Law (as Paul said he did). He illustrates the inner conflict that even the most zealous law-keeper would have, and the seeming hopelessness of it. That is culminated in the last verse of chapter 7 and the first verse of chapter 8. Tension, and release.

I think I agree with this, as long as you are talking about "Paul the Pharisee prior to conversion". Again, this material cannot be about the Christian since Paul characterizes himself as being unable to do good and as being "sold in slavery to sin".

Clearly, neither of these characterizations can true of the Christian.

 

[nobdysfool]

I think I agree with this, as long as you are talking about "Paul the Pharisee prior to conversion". Again, this material cannot be about the Christian since Paul characterizes himself as being unable to do good and as being "sold in slavery to sin".

Clearly, neither of these characterizations can true of the Christian.

Actually, I believe it can be taken in the sense of anyone trusting in their own efforts to be at peace with God, and to please Him. What you're taking in a literal sense, may have been more in the emotional sense. He's discussing the inner conflict that is felt, even by Christians. The conflict of knowing what is right, and having this struggle over actually doing it.

I think you're taking in a absolute sense what Paul meant in a comparative sense. When one despairs of a situation, their description of it is likely to be far more hyperbolic than it actually is. By describing the inner conflict, he is setting up the solution, which he also alluded to in chapter 6 (and remember, Paul didn't write in chapters and verses). He returns to the primary point that he is trying to drive home, that the Christian is dead as far as sin is concerned, judicially beyond the penalty for sin, such that sin has no power over him, unless he allows it to do so. That is a change from the condition he was in before conversion, where he was powerless to avoid sin. While I can see the way you are looking at this, I don't see it as "either/or", but rather as "this/and also that". I think there is dual application, such that it isn't a matter of you being right and we being wrong, or vice-versa. We're just looking at different parts of the "elephant", so to speak

In chapter 7, Paul speaks of the condemnation one feels over sin, and verse 1 of chapter 8, he makes the clear statement of solution: There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. That is a key concept, a key understanding, a key Truth.

 

[AndOne]

I politely suggest that none of you will want to go on record as agreeing that this statement can be true of the Christian:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

I for one will go on record and say it is true of the Christian. I "alone" cannot carry it out - the strength to do good does not come from within me but from Christ. And that is the point of Romans 7 in a nutshell....

 

[AndOne]

[/color]


As I have already shown, the material in Romans 7 is in both tenses. I produced extracts to prove this. Part of Paul's exposition in Romans 7 is in the past tense. Here it is again:

You don't need to show me that it is in both tenses - I can see it for myself. You aren't addressing the inconsistency that you have here adequately. The only solution that will support your view here is if the Greek was wrongly interpreted into the English. That is the only way I'm getting sold on your point-of-view here.

What you are saying simply doesn't make sense - if Paul's exposition was regarding himself pre-conversion it makes no sense for him to switch tenses. It only makes sense if he is referring to himself presently - post conversion. You need to see it for what it says - not for what you think it says.