Justification and Sanctification ?

[AbbaLove]

Without getting into a debate the vast majority of Christians agree on the following explanation ...

​

Justification means being declared righteous, "(just as if we'd never sinned); while sanctification means growing in righteousness.​

Some may differ on interpretation, but the purpose of this thread is your interpretation of Romans 7 - especially verses 17-20. Do you interpret Romans 7:17-20 that Paul is as much as saying that he finds it difficult to stop sinning even after (not before) his "born again" conversion (Titus 3:5).

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.​

How does one grow in righteousness if they can't seem to stop their sinning ... "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” (John 5:14) and "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ... from now on sin no more." (John 8:10-11).

He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but because of His own compassion and mercy, by the cleansing of the new birth (spiritual transformation, regeneration) and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)​

 

[HTacianas]

Without getting into a debate the vast majority of Christians agree on the following explanation ...

​

Justification means being declared righteous, "(just as if we'd never sinned); while sanctification means growing in righteousness.​

Some may differ on interpretation, but the purpose of this thread is your interpretation of Romans 7 - especially verses 17-20. Do you interpret Romans 7:17-20 that Paul is as much as saying that he finds it difficult to stop sinning even after (not before) his "born again" conversion (Titus 3:5).

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.​

How does one grow in righteousness if they can't seem to stop their sinning ... "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” (John 5:14) and "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ... from now on sin no more." (John 8:10-11).

He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but because of His own compassion and mercy, by the cleansing of the new birth (spiritual transformation, regeneration) and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)​

If you look at the sins of the writer you find that he is not describing intentional sins, or even acts of sin. He goes to great length in describing the sins he is guilty of and they are sins of the mind. He sees things that he wants. He covets. It is the "lust of the eye" that he is describing. Basically, as much as he wants to control his desires, his mind wanders. Nowhere in it does he describe any act of sin, but some want to use it as just that. As if to say "it is not me that is committing murder but sin living in me". Paul goes on to say to the Corinthians what his penalty would be if he in fact committed an intentional sin:

1 Cor 9:27: But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

Go back to where the writer begins, at Romans 7:7 and you'll see what he means:

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

 

[Clare73]

Without getting into a debate the vast majority of Christians agree on the following explanation ...

​

Justification means being declared righteous, "(just as if we'd never sinned); while sanctification means growing in righteousness.​

Agreed. . .

Some may differ on interpretation, but the purpose of this thread is your interpretation of Romans 7 - especially verses 17-20. Do you interpret Romans 7:17-20 that Paul is as much as saying that he finds it difficult to stop sinning even after (not before) his "born again" conversion (Titus 3:5).

I see Paul as clearly referring to his life in Judaism prior to his conversion to life in Christ (Ro 7:25).
Nor are we sinless in Christ (1 Jn 1:8-10).

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.​

How does one grow in righteousness if they can't seem to stop their sinning ... "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” (John 5:14) and "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ... from now on sin no more." (John 8:10-11).

"Can't stop sinning" is prior to new birth. They do much better after new birth.
But we are not sin free after the new birth (1 Jn 1:8-10). That comes only in glory.

He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but because of His own compassion and mercy, by the cleansing of the new birth (spiritual transformation, regeneration) and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)​

 

[timothyu]

Romans 7:17-20

We are born with our animal instincts which we can never overcome.

How does one grow in righteousness if they can't seem to stop their sinning

By putting God's will ahead of our own.

 

[bling]

Without getting into a debate the vast majority of Christians agree on the following explanation ...

​

Justification means being declared righteous, "(just as if we'd never sinned); while sanctification means growing in righteousness.​

Some may differ on interpretation, but the purpose of this thread is your interpretation of Romans 7 - especially verses 17-20. Do you interpret Romans 7:17-20 that Paul is as much as saying that he finds it difficult to stop sinning even after (not before) his "born again" conversion (Titus 3:5).

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.​

How does one grow in righteousness if they can't seem to stop their sinning ... "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” (John 5:14) and "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ... from now on sin no more." (John 8:10-11).

He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but because of His own compassion and mercy, by the cleansing of the new birth (spiritual transformation, regeneration) and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)​

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?



Romans 7 is similar to Mark’s whole Gospel of Christ’s war against satan’s follows of this world” and is Paul’s war and victory over sin.



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?

 

[BurningBush84]

I think Paul agreed with what James 2:10 says. Paul said in Galatians 5, "Walk by the spirit, and you will not carry out what the sinful flesh desires. For the sinful flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the sinful flesh. In fact, these two continually oppose one another, so that you do not continue to do these things you want to do.".

You will never get rid of your sinful nature/old Adam until you enter Heaven. So its gonna be a battle/struggle.

 

[AbbaLove]

You will never get rid of your sinful nature/old Adam until you enter Heaven. So its gonna be a battle/struggle.

Are you saying that applies to all "born again" (1 Peter 1:22-23) Believers or just those that are justified, but not yet fully sanctified?

1 Peter 1:22-23 seems to imply that it's possible to become a New Creation in Christ (born again) while still on earth (before heaven).

22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart.​

23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God.​

Is it your belief that Titus 3:5 doesn't take place while a faithful Christian on earth, but rather only as a new creation in Heaven ...

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,​

Your post comes across as believing that Paul (Romans 7:17-20) is referring to himself while he's still on earth spreading the Good News (Gospel) now as a Follower of Christ Jesus being instructed by the Holy Spirit. ... Is that correct?

 

[BurningBush84]

Are you saying that applies to all "born again" (1 Peter 1:22-23) Believers or just those that are justified, but not yet fully sanctified?

1 Peter 1:22-23 seems to imply that it's possible to become a New Creation in Christ (born again) while still on earth (before heaven).

22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart.​

23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God.​

Is it your belief that Titus 3:5 doesn't take place while a faithful Christian on earth, but rather only as a new creation in Heaven ...

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,​

Your post comes across as believing that Paul (Romans 7:17-20) is referring to himself while he's still on earth spreading the Good News (Gospel) now as a Follower of Christ Jesus being instructed by the Holy Spirit. ... Is that correct?

Yes I believe in Romans 7 that Paul was describing his daily struggle with his sinful nature/old adam. Some people believe that the "washing" in Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism. Baptism signifies that the old Adam in us is to be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, and perish with all sins and evil lusts; and that the new man should daily come forth again and rise, who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

 

[AbbaLove]

Yes I believe in Romans 7 that Paul was describing his daily struggle with his sinful nature/old adam.

Just to be clear ... is it your belief that even though instructed by the Holy Spirit that it still wasn't possible for Paul to stop his daily struggle with sin after being born again (1 Peter 1:22-23) ? These words by Jesus suggest it is possible to stop sinning.

Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” (John 5:14)​

Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you. Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:10-11)​

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)​

It sounds like you believe that Paul was unable to submit himself to God. Is this why you believe he struggled daily with sin?
A Christian that is unable to submit themself to God makes it difficult for them to stop sinning.

 

[Lost Witness]

Not sure about other people but sadly I'm becoming a professional at stumbling.

 

[BurningBush84]

Just to be clear ... is it your belief that even though instructed by the Holy Spirit that it still wasn't possible for Paul to stop his daily struggle with sin after being born again (1 Peter 1:22-23) ? These words by Jesus suggest it is possible to stop sinning.

Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” (John 5:14)​

Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you. Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:10-11)​

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)​

It sounds like you believe that Paul was unable to submit himself to God. Is this why you believe he struggled daily with sin?
A Christian that is unable to submit themself to God makes it difficult for them to stop sinning.

I don't know how often Paul sinned. Probably not much. But James 2:10 says if you break just one, your guilty of breaking all of it. 1 Peter 1:22 says "you have purified your souls by obeying the truth". Paul obeyed what Jesus (the Truth) commanded in Matthew 6:9. If we confess our sins (even the ones we are not aware of) God will purify us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

 

[Hammster]

Without getting into a debate the vast majority of Christians agree on the following explanation ...

​

Justification means being declared righteous, "(just as if we'd never sinned); while sanctification means growing in righteousness.​

Some may differ on interpretation, but the purpose of this thread is your interpretation of Romans 7 - especially verses 17-20. Do you interpret Romans 7:17-20 that Paul is as much as saying that he finds it difficult to stop sinning even after (not before) his "born again" conversion (Titus 3:5).

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.​

How does one grow in righteousness if they can't seem to stop their sinning ... "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” (John 5:14) and "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ... from now on sin no more." (John 8:10-11).

He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but because of His own compassion and mercy, by the cleansing of the new birth (spiritual transformation, regeneration) and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)​

I think he’s referring to pre-conversion. I think he really wanted to be a good follower of the law, but just couldn’t do it.

 

[AbbaLove]

I think he’s referring to pre-conversion. I think he really wanted to be a good follower of the law, but just couldn’t do it.

Don't we all agree that Paul was born of God ? Pa ul writing to Timothy says (1 Timothy 1:15) that among sinners he iwas "chief" or "foremost". Wouldn't one assume he has to be referring to his pre-converson (pre-born again)?

 

[AbbaLove]

If you look at the sins of the writer you find that he is not describing intentional sins, or even acts of sin. He goes to great length in describing the sins he is guilty of and they are sins of the mind. He sees things that he wants. He covets. It is the "lust of the eye" that he is describing. Basically, as much as he wants to control his desires, his mind wanders.

"If you look at the sins of the writer" ... What sins are you referring to after Paul's born again conversion? Paul's persecution of Jewish Believers/Followers of Israel's Messiah (Lamb Of GOD) was before Paul's born again conversion followed by supernatural Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Is it not possible that Paul is referring to his pre-conversion (pre-born again) when he says, ...

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." (1 Timothy 1:15)​

​

 

[Hammster]

Don't we all agree that Paul was born of God ? Pa ul writing to Timothy says (1 Timothy 1:15) that among sinners he iwas "chief" or "foremost". Wouldn't one assume he has to be referring to his pre-converson (pre-born again)?

He could be referring to the Christian struggle with the flesh, which is the view I used to hold.

 

[timothyu]

When one repents of the traditional ways of human behaviour, the world of man turns against that person for rejecting the system. The culture of the Kingdom is a counter culture to the culture of the world man has made in our own image. It creates hardships not only for those struggling with their own self will, but for those bucking the establishment built upon self will. Jesus said to care for those who would be our enemies to show we are a threat to the system but not to fellow man who are sinful as we but have no yet determined we are the cause of our own woes.

 

[HTacianas]

"If you look at the sins of the writer" ... What sins are you referring to after Paul's born again conversion? Paul's persecution of Jewish Believers/Followers of Israel's Messiah (Lamb Of GOD) was before Paul's born again conversion followed by supernatural Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Is it not possible that Paul is referring to his pre-conversion (pre-born again) when he says, ...

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." (1 Timothy 1:15)​

​

Romans 7:7-25. He begins:

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

Rom 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.

He continues:

Rom 7:15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.

The thing he does is that he covets. He desires things. He hates that he desires things but he still does.

 

[timothyu]

The thing he does is that he covets. He desires things. He hates that he desires things but he still does.

Yes that is another way of saying he puts self before others, sometimes seeking personal gain at another's personal expense. Everybody does it starting with Eve when she put her will ahead of the will of God, to something simple as an example like anyone who doesn't let someone merge into their lane.

 

[AbbaLove]

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?

Your post that 22 out of 24 commentaries support the belief that Paul considered himself to be "chief/foremost" of sinners tells me that there are as many or more nominal theologians than mature Christians. Also, not once but twice Jesus says, "Stop sinning" and "Go and sin no more."

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

I have more faith in the Words of Jesus than those of so-called scholars. Exactly why Jesus didn't choose even one scholar (scribe) to be one of His twelve Disciples? If He had it's more likely than not likely that a scribe would have always be questioning Jesus and offering Jesus his 2cents, even debating or arguing with Jesus and the other disciples that a scribe most likely would have looked down on. the disciples Jesus had chosen. A scribe may have even tried to persuade Jesus to get rid of some of his uneducated disciples to be replaced with educated scribes.

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?

Typical theological thinking. Ya gotta wonder if they even take to heart the Words of Jesus when he says, "Stop your sinning" or "Go and sin no more". If Jesus had any scribes among His disciples they were probably weeded out ...

65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”​

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.​

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.​

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.​

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.​

When Jesus says "you people" He is undoubredly referring to the most educated in the Hebrew Bible and yet they were blind. FWIW, after 78yrs i've come to the conclusions that theologians have learned to come across as humble pie; while bursting at the seams with what they think they know (religious pride).

 

[bling]

Your post that 22 out of 24 commentaries support the belief that Paul considered himself to be "chief/foremost" of sinners tells me that there are as many or more nominal theologians than mature Christians. Also, not once but twice Jesus says, "Stop sinning" and "Go and sin no more."

I have more faith in the Words of Jesus than those of so-called scholars. Exactly why Jesus didn't choose even one scholar (scribe) to be one of His twelve Disciples? If He had it's more likely than not likely that a scribe would have always be questioning Jesus and offering Jesus his 2cents, even debating or arguing with Jesus and the other disciples that a scribe most likely would have looked down on. the disciples Jesus had chosen. A scribe may have even tried to persuade Jesus to get rid of some of his uneducated disciples to be replaced with educated scribes.

Typical theological thinking. Ya gotta wonder if they even take to heart the Words of Jesus when he says, "Stop your sinning" or "Go and sin no more". If Jesus had any scribes among His disciples they were probably weeded out ...

65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”​

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.​

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.​

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.​

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.​

When Jesus says "you people" He is undoubredly referring to the most educated in the Hebrew Bible and yet they were blind. FWIW, after 78yrs i've come to the conclusions that theologians have learned to come across as humble pie; while bursting at the seams with what they think they know (religious pride).

Most of Mark is written in the “Historic Present Tense”, but all the translators change it to the past tense, since we all know it is not being recorded as it happens. I am saying we should do the same with Ro. 7:14-24.

Yes, none of the original twelve were scholars, but Paul was. Paul would not have fit in to the original twelve at their time with Christ, so he was not part of the original twelve.

I have pointed out from context why Paul would use the historic present tense to describe his battle and the fact it reference when he first came to understand coveting which would be in his youth not the present time.

I do not depend on scholars, but scripture has to be translated in light on context, context, context, context and context.