The Double Message of Eternal Security.

[Bible Highlighter]

Recently I did find a verse in Romans 7 (8) which brought me to want to investigate thoroughly, so I will do that. The question I have is how we become "dead" to sin. Is it only not being under the law, or because we now have the Holy Spirit creating new desires, and our desires to sin are literally dead. In my own life I found the second to be true.

In Romans 7:14-24: Paul speaking as a Pharisee and he did not know about this NT Law yet and he did not know Jesus yet.

Now, in Romans 7:4, it says we have died to the Law. This is not in view of the New Covenant commands that says for us to "not covet" etc. (the moral law) because Paul says elsewhere that those who covet will not inherit the Kingdom of God (See Ephesians 5:5). In fact, we know that Paul is not referring to us having "died to the law" (Romans 7:4) as in reference to New Covenant Law because he says in Romans 7:6 that we are to serve in newness of Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. To see how this serving of newness of spirit works, see Romans 8:3-4 and then compare with Romans 13:8-10. For one of the fruits of the Spirit is love (See Galatians 5:22).

Peter says this about Paul's writings,
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).

Anyways, here is a summary of Romans 7:

In Romans 7:1-6, Paul is telling Messianic Christians (i.e. those brethren who know Old Testament Law - Romans 7:1) that the Old Law is dead and that they should serve in newness of Spirit (i.e. the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed) and not in oldness of the letter (i.e. the Torah, etc.). This makes sense because Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. This lines up with the temple veil being torn from top to bottom when Christ died (Which started the New Covenant officially). The Old Testament Laws on animal sacrifices was no longer in effect anymore and Jesus Christ was now our passover Lamb or perfect sacrifice. Hence, why Romans 7:2 says, "if the husband [i.e. Jesus] be dead, she [i.e. the body of believers] is loosed from the law [i.e. the Old Law] of her husband."

In Romans 7:7-13, Paul is recounting Israelite history and speaking as a Jew throughout time with the coming in of the Law of Moses and what that was like.

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.

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).

Romans 7:25 is a verse that transitions back to the present day reality as Paul being a Christian. He is thankful that he now has victory in Jesus Christ His Lord who can deliver him from his body of death (Which was a problem before). Otherwise why is Paul thanking Jesus?

Paul asks the question in verse 24.

Who shall deliver me from this body of death?

I like how the Good News Translation answers this question. It says,

"Thanks be to God, who does this through our Lord Jesus Christ! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God's law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin." (Romans 7:25 GNT).

The NTE says,

"...So then, left to my own self I am enslaved to God’s law with my mind, but to sin’s law with my human flesh." (Romans 7:25 NTE).

But Romans 13:14 says,
"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."

I hope this helps.
And may God bless you.

Source used:
Paul is not Talking about Himself: Why I take the "pre-Christian" Reading of Romans 7:14-25

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One wrong view that defends Eternal Security says that Romans 7 is Paul talking as a Christian.
Yet, Paul says, "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 Corinthians 9:27).

The other wrong view that defends Eternal Security says that Romans 7 is talking about how Paul is referring to the moral law as being abrograted in regards to our salvation in Romans 7:14-24 because Paul said earlier that we are dead to the law in Romans 7:4. However, we know this is not the case because Paul clearly tells us else that those who covet, etc. will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 5:5).



...

 

[1stcenturylady]

In Romans 7:14-24: Paul speaking as a Pharisee and he did not know about this NT Law yet and he did not know Jesus yet.

Now, in Romans 7:4, it says we have died to the Law. This is not in view of the New Covenant commands that says for us to "not covet" etc. (the moral law) because Paul says elsewhere that those who covet will not inherit the Kingdom of God (See Ephesians 5:5). In fact, we know that Paul is not referring to us having "died to the law" (Romans 7:4) as in reference to New Covenant Law because he says in Romans 7:6 that we are to serve in newness of Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. To see how this serving of newness of spirit works, see Romans 8:3-4 and then compare with Romans 13:8-10. For one of the fruits of the Spirit is love (See Galatians 5:22).

Peter says this about Paul's writings,
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).

Anyways, here is a summary of Romans 7:

In Romans 7:1-6, Paul is telling Messianic Christians (i.e. those brethren who know Old Testament Law - Romans 7:1) that the Old Law is dead and that they should serve in newness of Spirit (i.e. the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed) and not in oldness of the letter (i.e. the Torah, etc.). This makes sense because Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. This lines up with the temple veil being torn from top to bottom when Christ died (Which started the New Covenant officially). The Old Testament Laws on animal sacrifices was no longer in effect anymore and Jesus Christ was now our passover Lamb or perfect sacrifice. Hence, why Romans 7:2 says, "if the husband [i.e. Jesus] be dead, she [i.e. the body of believers] is loosed from the law [i.e. the Old Law] of her husband."

In Romans 7:7-13, Paul is recounting Israelite history and speaking as a Jew throughout time with the coming in of the Law of Moses and what that was like.

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.

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).

Romans 7:25 is a verse that transitions back to the present day reality as Paul being a Christian. He is thankful that he now has victory in Jesus Christ His Lord who can deliver him from his body of death (Which was a problem before). Otherwise why is Paul thanking Jesus?

Paul asks the question in verse 24.

Who shall deliver me from this body of death?

I like how the Good News Translation answers this question. It says,

"Thanks be to God, who does this through our Lord Jesus Christ! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God's law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin." (Romans 7:25 GNT).

The NTE says,

"...So then, left to my own self I am enslaved to God’s law with my mind, but to sin’s law with my human flesh." (Romans 7:25 NTE).

But Romans 13:14 says,
"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."

I hope this helps.
And may God bless you.

Source used:
Paul is not Talking about Himself: Why I take the "pre-Christian" Reading of Romans 7:14-25

...

Jason, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read this, only because I can't study on my own with an open mind if I go in with my own preconceived opinions (which are the same as yours anyway, so in my case you are preaching to the choir). stuart Lawrence and I are going to be reading through Romans through Jude with as open a mind as possible and just let the Spirit speak to us.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read this, only because I can't study on my own with an open mind if I go in with my own preconceived opinions (which are the same as yours anyway, so in my case you are preaching to the choir). stuart Lawrence and I are going to be reading through Romans through Jude with as open a mind as possible and just let the Spirit speak to us.

But are you not going to listen to what Stuart has to say (whereby you will put preconceived ideas into your mind, too)?

I would be very skeptical of what Stuart Lawrence has to say because while he says he believes the moral law is still in effect, he does not believe that keeping the moral law relates to his salvation in any way. He is basically saying that the words "a law of righteousness" is in reference to keeping the moral law as a part of our salvation does not apply. He saying you can break the moral law and still be saved. While it is true that the Pharisees turned God's grace into a set of laws alone without seeking His forgiveness, they also did not keep the moral law. Stuart will no doubt say that the reason they did not keep this law was because they did not just believe in God as their Savior in love (while thinking that keeping moral law did not relate to their salvation). But Jesus says in John 8 that those who hear him are those who keep God's Word and those who seeked to kill him were those who did not listen to God's Word in the first place.


...

 

[stuart lawrence]

But are you not going to listen to what Stuart has to say (whereby you will put preconceived ideas into your mind, too)?

I would be very skeptical of what Stuart Lawrence has to say because while he says he believes the moral law is still in effect, he does not believe that keeping the moral law relates to his salvation in any way. He is basically saying that the words "a law of righteousness" is in reference to keeping the moral law as a part of our salvation. While it is true that the Pharisees turned God's grace into a set of laws alone without seeking His forgiveness, they also did not keep the moral law. Stuart will no doubt say that the reason they did not keep this law was because they did not just believe in God as their Savior in love (while thinking that keeping moral law did not relate to their salvation). But Jesus says in John 8 that those who hear him are those who keep God's Word and those who seeked to kill him were those who did not listen to God's Word in the first place.


...

The religious, who did not practice what they preached sought to kill Jesus.
They reeled off the letter of the law pat from their heads, demanding the people fully obey it, while they themselves did not. They demanded of others what they did not demand of themselves. Sadly such an attitude is as alive today as it was then.
Jesus reserved his harshest words for such people

 

[stuart lawrence]

In Romans 7:14-24: Paul speaking as a Pharisee and he did not know about this NT Law yet and he did not know Jesus yet.

Now, in Romans 7:4, it says we have died to the Law. This is not in view of the New Covenant commands that says for us to "not covet" etc. (the moral law) because Paul says elsewhere that those who covet will not inherit the Kingdom of God (See Ephesians 5:5). In fact, we know that Paul is not referring to us having "died to the law" (Romans 7:4) as in reference to New Covenant Law because he says in Romans 7:6 that we are to serve in newness of Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. To see how this serving of newness of spirit works, see Romans 8:3-4 and then compare with Romans 13:8-10. For one of the fruits of the Spirit is love (See Galatians 5:22).

Peter says this about Paul's writings,
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).

Anyways, here is a summary of Romans 7:

In Romans 7:1-6, Paul is telling Messianic Christians (i.e. those brethren who know Old Testament Law - Romans 7:1) that the Old Law is dead and that they should serve in newness of Spirit (i.e. the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed) and not in oldness of the letter (i.e. the Torah, etc.). This makes sense because Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. This lines up with the temple veil being torn from top to bottom when Christ died (Which started the New Covenant officially). The Old Testament Laws on animal sacrifices was no longer in effect anymore and Jesus Christ was now our passover Lamb or perfect sacrifice. Hence, why Romans 7:2 says, "if the husband [i.e. Jesus] be dead, she [i.e. the body of believers] is loosed from the law [i.e. the Old Law] of her husband."

In Romans 7:7-13, Paul is recounting Israelite history and speaking as a Jew throughout time with the coming in of the Law of Moses and what that was like.

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.

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).

Romans 7:25 is a verse that transitions back to the present day reality as Paul being a Christian. He is thankful that he now has victory in Jesus Christ His Lord who can deliver him from his body of death (Which was a problem before). Otherwise why is Paul thanking Jesus?

Paul asks the question in verse 24.

Who shall deliver me from this body of death?

I like how the Good News Translation answers this question. It says,

"Thanks be to God, who does this through our Lord Jesus Christ! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God's law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin." (Romans 7:25 GNT).

The NTE says,

"...So then, left to my own self I am enslaved to God’s law with my mind, but to sin’s law with my human flesh." (Romans 7:25 NTE).

But Romans 13:14 says,
"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."

I hope this helps.
And may God bless you.

Source used:
Paul is not Talking about Himself: Why I take the "pre-Christian" Reading of Romans 7:14-25

...

Still insisting rom 7:4-6 doesn't include: Thou shalt not covet, despite the fact that particular commandment was given as the example in the next five verses as to why Paul had to die to the law.
Oh well. If you insist on relentlessly showing blatant error, who am I to try and stop you?

 

[Dan61861]

In Romans 7:14-24: Paul speaking as a Pharisee and he did not know about this NT Law yet and he did not know Jesus yet.

Now, in Romans 7:4, it says we have died to the Law. This is not in view of the New Covenant commands that says for us to "not covet" etc. (the moral law) because Paul says elsewhere that those who covet will not inherit the Kingdom of God (See Ephesians 5:5). In fact, we know that Paul is not referring to us having "died to the law" (Romans 7:4) as in reference to New Covenant Law because he says in Romans 7:6 that we are to serve in newness of Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. To see how this serving of newness of spirit works, see Romans 8:3-4 and then compare with Romans 13:8-10. For one of the fruits of the Spirit is love (See Galatians 5:22).

Peter says this about Paul's writings,
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).

Anyways, here is a summary of Romans 7:

In Romans 7:1-6, Paul is telling Messianic Christians (i.e. those brethren who know Old Testament Law - Romans 7:1) that the Old Law is dead and that they should serve in newness of Spirit (i.e. the New Testament Scriptures that were still being formed) and not in oldness of the letter (i.e. the Torah, etc.). This makes sense because Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. This lines up with the temple veil being torn from top to bottom when Christ died (Which started the New Covenant officially). The Old Testament Laws on animal sacrifices was no longer in effect anymore and Jesus Christ was now our passover Lamb or perfect sacrifice. Hence, why Romans 7:2 says, "if the husband [i.e. Jesus] be dead, she [i.e. the body of believers] is loosed from the law [i.e. the Old Law] of her husband."

In Romans 7:7-13, Paul is recounting Israelite history and speaking as a Jew throughout time with the coming in of the Law of Moses and what that was like.

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.

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).

Romans 7:25 is a verse that transitions back to the present day reality as Paul being a Christian. He is thankful that he now has victory in Jesus Christ His Lord who can deliver him from his body of death (Which was a problem before). Otherwise why is Paul thanking Jesus?

Paul asks the question in verse 24.

Who shall deliver me from this body of death?

I like how the Good News Translation answers this question. It says,

"Thanks be to God, who does this through our Lord Jesus Christ! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God's law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin." (Romans 7:25 GNT).

The NTE says,

"...So then, left to my own self I am enslaved to God’s law with my mind, but to sin’s law with my human flesh." (Romans 7:25 NTE).

But Romans 13:14 says,
"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."

I hope this helps.
And may God bless you.

Source used:
Paul is not Talking about Himself: Why I take the "pre-Christian" Reading of Romans 7:14-25

...

I know Paul said it, it isn't what Paul meant though...Is that it Jason?

In Christ
Daniel

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Still insisting rom 7:4-6 doesn't include: Thou shalt not covet, despite the fact that particular commandment was given as the example in the next five verses as to why Paul had to die to the law.
Oh well. If you insist on relentlessly showing blatant error, who am I to try and stop you?

And you have to ignore Ephesians 5:5 to make this wrong interpretation of yours work. So around and around we go.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I know Paul said it, it isn't what Paul meant though...Is that it Jason?

In Christ
Daniel

Paul says you can deny God by a lack of works (Titus 1:16). Paul says,

"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 Corinthians 9:27).

Paul says in Romans 7:14 that he is sold under sin; And yet in Romans 8:2, he says is free from sin. So either Paul is speaking from two different perspectives or he is contradicting himself.

Ephesians 5:5 makes it clear that the keeping of moral law does relate to our salvation.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The religious, who did not practice what they preached sought to kill Jesus.
They reeled off the letter of the law pat from their heads, demanding the people fully obey it, while they themselves did not. They demanded of others what they did not demand of themselves. Sadly such an attitude is as alive today as it was then.
Jesus reserved his harshest words for such people

Not true. John 8 says they seeked to kill him because they did not keep God's Word. Read the chapter again.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The religious, who did not practice what they preached sought to kill Jesus.
They reeled off the letter of the law pat from their heads, demanding the people fully obey it, while they themselves did not. They demanded of others what they did not demand of themselves. Sadly such an attitude is as alive today as it was then.
Jesus reserved his harshest words for such people

Also, you are not God to know my life. So your false accusations are just that. False accusations.

...

 

[stuart lawrence]

And you have to ignore Ephesians 5:5 to make this wrong interpretation of yours work. So around and around we go.


...

I don't actually, neither would you if you understood Pauls gospel message
I will happily repeat again.

Following on from rom7:4-6 Paul gave an example from his own life as to why he had to die to the law. The example he gave was: Thou shalt not covet, law you insist he was not speaking about.
You don't just twist scripture, you claim what is plainly written is not in the verses.
Tis amusing at times on these sites

 

[stuart lawrence]

Also, you are not God to know my life. So your false accusations are just that. False accusations.

...

I didn't mention you, just responded to your point about the Pharisees. Stop being so touchy. Or maybe your conscience was pricked

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I didn't mention you, just responded to your point about the Pharisees. Stop being so touchy. Or maybe your conscience was pricked

Not at all. You have accused me falsely in the past and I thought you were doing so again. But we both know you are implying it because you are now talking about my conscience possibly being pricked.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't actually, neither would you if you understood Pauls gospel message
I will happily repeat again.

Following on from rom7:4-6 Paul gave an example from his own life as to why he had to die to the law. The example he gave was: Thou shalt not covet, law you insist he was not speaking about.
You don't just twist scripture, you claim what is plainly written is not in the verses.
Tis amusing at times on these sites

Ephesians 5:5. Deal with it.


...

 

[stuart lawrence]

I don't actually, neither would you if you understood Pauls gospel message
I will happily repeat again.

Following on from rom7:4-6 Paul gave an example from his own life as to why he had to die to the law. The example he gave was: Thou shalt not covet, law you insist he was not speaking about.

Not at all. You have accused me falsely in the past and I thought you were doing so again. But we both know you are implying it because you are now talking about my conscience possibly being pricked.


...

Possibly I said.
But you do preach what you don't practice, as you insist on discusing it. For on the one hand you say if we love Christ we will obey his commandments, yet you yourself do not even try to obey them all.
Before you respond. You do believe Unrepentant lying will cause you to be condemned to hell dont you?

 

[stuart lawrence]

Ephesians 5:5. Deal with it.


...

I have to ask myself, why does Jason go to any lengths to refuse to admit he is wrong, especially when it is so very plain to anyone he must be.

I have to admit, just being honest, pride is the only answer I can come up with

 

[stuart lawrence]

Following on from rom 7:4-6 Paul states:
Is the law sin? God forbid, nay, i had not known sin but by the law. For I had not known lust except the law had said: Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence
Verse 7

However, Jason is adamant, the preceding three verses do not include coveting in what is stated.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And I was just called prideful.

Okay.
I guess we are back to being falsely accused again.

Oh and where is the explanation on Ephesians 5:5?


...

 

[1stcenturylady]

But are you not going to listen to what Stuart has to say (whereby you will put preconceived ideas into your mind, too)?

I would be very skeptical of what Stuart Lawrence has to say because while he says he believes the moral law is still in effect, he does not believe that keeping the moral law relates to his salvation in any way. He is basically saying that the words "a law of righteousness" is in reference to keeping the moral law as a part of our salvation does not apply. He saying you can break the moral law and still be saved. While it is true that the Pharisees turned God's grace into a set of laws alone without seeking His forgiveness, they also did not keep the moral law. Stuart will no doubt say that the reason they did not keep this law was because they did not just believe in God as their Savior in love (while thinking that keeping moral law did not relate to their salvation). But Jesus says in John 8 that those who hear him are those who keep God's Word and those who seeked to kill him were those who did not listen to God's Word in the first place.


...

No, I said I am going to read with an OPEN mind. I regularly do this.