Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am sympathetic with this, but I am sure you realize the slope you are on when you take a statement like "I cannot do good" and deform into a statement like "I feel like I cannot do good". Or a statement like "I am sold in slavery to sin" and transform it into "I feel like I am a slave to sin". In such cases, I think it is much better to look for an explanation that can make sense of the text without such bendings of meaning. And if Paul is describing the experience of the Jew under Torah, then we can read these statements as is.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.
But Paul does not say "I without Jesus". In fact by the very terms of the position that you hold - that this is a description of the experience of the Christian, Paul would not be alone - he would have the Spirit. From many other texts, we know that Paul sees God as carrying through the work he started - He will not withdraw His Spirit as you seem to be implying He could.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....
No. What I am saying is perfectly coherent and I have already explained this. When Paul speaks in the past tense, he is describing the history of the Jew under Torah. That this is so is evidenced by clear allusions to the giving of the Torah. When Paul speaks in the present tense, he is describing the present (continuing) state of the non-believing Jew under Torah - still rejecting Jesus and still being killed by Torah. Paul echoes this concern in Romans 9: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.
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.
repeating yourself is a sign of uncertainty and pushiness......... and what you are pushing will not sell. Observe that what Paul is referring to is not a case of a Jew , he speaks about being alive without the Law , address that issue , because he was a Jew from birth , ONLY the Christian is set free by Christs death from The Law ... Romans 7 :1-6.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
The statement isn't meant to be taken as an absolute statement ; it isn't that Paul so struggled as a Christian that he never did any good , and it certainly isn't any inner conflict of an unregenerate Jew , they don't have any inner struggle.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 if a Jew cannot do any 'good' things !!Let me ask you directly to answer this question: Is it true that a Christian cannot do good things?
Your repeating yourself without answering my objections ...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
ahhh so he wasn't really alive , even though he said he was ... some stretch , no I don't buy what your pushing , If he meant the Jews he quite simply could have said The Jews , he has no trouble in many other Chapters.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.
*trust me , I am a doctor*So things are not as simple as you assert. Paul's style is complex and sophisticated.
Paul wasn't alive when Torah was given , but Paul didn't DIE when it was given ! you are flipping from Moses to the time of Paul forgetting Paul could keep the Law very well as a JEW and he didn't die for sinning against God's Law...... you want to have your cake and eat it too !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.
You seem to be arguing that the "part of me that is me cannot do good but the part of me that is Jesus can". That does not line up with much other Pauline and gospel thinking - when a person becomes a believer, Jesus does not simply move in "alongside" us. We are transformed, we are reborn, we become a new creation.
And that new creation cannot then claim that it cannot do good.
When Paul speaks in the past tense, he is describing the history of the Jew under Torah. That this is so is evidenced by clear allusions to the giving of the Torah. When Paul speaks in the present tense, he is describing the present (continuing) state of the non-believing Jew under Torah - still rejecting Jesus and still being killed by Torah. Paul echoes this concern in Romans 9:
I agree with your characterization of the experience of the Christian. But the evidence suggests that Romans 7 is not talking about the experience of the Christian. In high level terms:With in every believer we have the war inside of us. Why? Because we now have a new nature created in Christ Jesus. Before we were born again this war was not within us because sin was natural. Now that we have been born again we abhor sin. This is why we can all state with Paul oh wretched man that I am because knowing we cannot within ourselves walk as we should.
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.
I have already explained how it makes sense in detail in post 302. Please tell me what you do not agree with from that post.What I don't understand is how you come to this conclusion. It is not coherent at all - despite your statement that it is. I just doesn't make sense that Paul is talking about the condition of the non-believing Jew.
If you were reading the text for what it says, you would acknowledge that Paul is talking about the Torah - a matter of relevance to the Jew, not the Gentile. I have already explained the tenses - the giving of the Torah produced death for the Jew. That is in the past. Continuing to live under the Torah still produces death for the Jew in the present.Look - I'm reading the text for what it says in the clearest of terms. If Paul were using himself as an example of the non-believing Jew than it makes no sense whatsoever that he shifts to the present tense.
You seem to be arguing that because the Christian indeed still struggles with his sinful nature, the text must therefore be about the Christian. But the non-believing Jew also has the sinful nature. Paul is describing how a Jew zealous to do Torah, finds that he cannot really "do good" because his sinful nature wins out over his desire to do good.Why does Paul talk about the sinful nature then? You've already agreed that the Christian still sins after conversion. Why is that? Chapter 7 explains why - because of the sinful nature. If Paul is talking about a pre-converted Jew then why even bring up the sinful nature? Why does it even have to be explained as such?
Originally Posted by expos4ever
Clearly, neither of these characterizations can true of the Christian.
drew said: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.
If you were really taking the text at face value, you would say that this is a description of Paul and Paul alone. Paul never explicitly says that he is talking about any particular group. So, when you infer that he is talking about Christians in general, you are indeed "reading into" the passage.cygnus said:The difference between us is obvious , I take "O wretched man that I am " at face value , you think he means all Israel ! You are the one reading into this passage a nation , not me.
Excellent post here.. AmenThe issue is this: We are, by virtue of the New Birth (Regeneration) new men living in the old man's body. It is that old man's body that still wants to sin, still enjoys sin, still cries out for its wants, needs, and desires to be met. The "sin nature" is not some nebulous "thing", it is the old man's physical body. Paul says, "I know that in my flesh (physical body) dwells no good thing."
When Christ returns, these bodies will be changed, transformed into incorruptible bodies, and the so-called "sin nature" will disappear.
As has been said many times:
I was saved, from the penalty for sin
I am being saved from the power of sin
and I will be saved from the presence of sin.
drew said:It is simply not possible for Paul to say this about the Christian, as your position requires:
drew said:
drew said:For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out
I am only repeating myself since you continue to make the same incorrect arguments. When Paul refers to being alive without the Law, he is, of course, referring to the state of the Jew before the Torah was given. This fits perfectly with the proposal I am putting forward. Note the things that Paul says about the Torah here:cygnus said:repeating yourself is a sign of uncertainty and pushiness......... and what you are pushing will not sell. Observe that what Paul is referring to is not a case of a Jew , he speaks about being alive without the Law , address that issue , because he was a Jew from birth , ONLY the Christian is set free by Christs death from The Law ... Romans 7 :1-6.
drew said:Whoever Paul is talking about here, it cannot be the Christian since this statement is obviously not true for the Christian.
You are trying to convince us to back off taking this verse literally;cygnus said:The statement isn't meant to be taken as an absolute statement ; it isn't that Paul so struggled as a Christian that he never did any good , and it certainly isn't any inner conflict of an unregenerate Jew , they don't have any inner struggle.
I have already explained how it makes sense in detail in post 302. Please tell me what you do not agree with from that post.
If you were reading the text for what it says, you would acknowledge that Paul is talking about the Torah - a matter of relevance to the Jew, not the Gentile. I have already explained the tenses - the giving of the Torah produced death for the Jew. That is in the past. Continuing to live under the Torah still produces death for the Jew in the present.
You seem to be arguing that because the Christian indeed still struggles with his sinful nature, the text must therefore be about the Christian. But the non-believing Jew also has the sinful nature. Paul is describing how a Jew zealous to do Torah, finds that he cannot really "do good" because his sinful nature wins out over his desire to do good.
Again, the fact that chapter 7 decscribes a struggle between sin and the desire to do good, does not mean that this is a text about the Christian.
Madonna probably struggles with getting up early in the morning. Does this mean every text about an unspecified person struggling to get up in the morning is about Madonna? Of course not.
If you were really taking the text at face value, you would say that this is a description of Paul and Paul alone. Paul never explicitly says that he is talking about any particular group. So, when you infer that he is talking about Christians in general, you are indeed "reading into" the passage.
But your conclusion, unlike mine, cannot survive the actual details. Paul is clearly talking about the Torah here - something that does not apply to the life of the Christian.
And he makes statements that need to be badly deformed to fit with your position. When Paul says that he "cannot do good", your position requires this to be revised to something like "I struggle to do good", or "I feel like I cannot do good".
All men have the sinful natures. All men are evil and corrupt from birth..
It is Paul the apostle, who was not less than the very greatest of the apostlesit is Paul, the mighty servant of God, a very prince in Israel, one of the King's mighty menit is Paul, the saint and the apostle, who here exclaims, "O wretched man that I am!"
I am only repeating myself since you continue to make the same incorrect arguments. When Paul refers to being alive without the Law, he is, of course, referring to the state of the Jew before the Torah was given. This fits perfectly with the proposal I am putting forward. Note the things that Paul says about the Torah here:
but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died
This is clearly a statement about the giving of Torah. The chapter has been introduced as being about Torah (I have already made this case in an earlier post). When the Torah arrives in Israel, what is the first thing that happens? It condemns the Jew as Moses descends and they are breaking Torah by building the golden calf.
And what says about the advent of Torah bringing death is supported by other statements like this one from Romans 4;
because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
So there is no problem at all with Paul speaking about the Jew being alive before the giving of the Law.
You are trying to convince us to back off taking this verse literally;
For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
You really interpret this in a manner that takes too many liberties. Paul says that he "cannot do good". You say "it isn't that Paul so struggled as a Christian that he never did any good ". Well, which is it? Your take on what Paul is saying is simply not reconcilable with the claim "I cannot go good". We all know that Paul, as a Chrstian, did plenty of good.
But even if I agree that Paul is engaging in exaggeration as you must claim that he is, and I am open to that - the fact that the entire chapter is about the Torah means that it must be specific to the Jew. So the main body of the chapter cannot be a transcript of Christian experience even if we grant the liberty of treating "I cannot do good" as an exaggeration.
Of course, my position both respects the subject Paul is talking about - the Torah and it takes Paul seriously when he says he is a slave to sin who cannot do good. Those things are true at face value for the Jew under Torah.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?