What does apeitheo mean (John 3:36)?

[Hupomone10]

And there you have it, both positions.

Those of you who feel you're in the Romans 7 experience, if the latter view is correct as has been insinuated ("incorrect interpretation of Romans 7:14-25"), you're left with the situation that maybe you're not regenerate.

The key to the correct understanding of Romans 7:14-25 is that the man being described is striving to keep the Law but failing to do so.

Amen. And that is true, regardless of whether the person striving to keep laws, standards, rules, is regenerate or non-regenerate. One's view of Romans 7 doesn't change the principles of deliverance from sin laid out in ch's 6 and 8. And Paul's answer to living according to the principle of law is that we died to that, and should live according to the principle of Christ within, and walking in the Spirit rather than the mind set on the flesh.

Christians have died to the Law and therefore do not strive to keep it.

Unfortunately, that is not true. That is what should be true. I've known countless Christians living and striving to keep the law. In fact, that is the problem of the Galatian Christians, and Paul's answer to them was the same.

If anyone wants to see a clear description of Paul's view of himself in reference to the Law prior to coming to Christ, see Philippians 3:3 - 13, particularly v. 4-6

4 "although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless."

This was the view he had then of his keeping of the law. Since the letter to Philippi was only a couple of years after Romans, the thought cannot contain substantially different revelation; and if I were a visitor to Philippi from Rome, if I understood Romans 7 as supposedly "the pre-nicene fathers" I would ask Paul "what gives? You just told us you considered yourself prior to Christ as "blameless" concerning the law; and now you tell us that it convicts you that "what yo would do you can't do." What gives?" To which I'm quite sure he would say, "this is how I looked at the law prior to salvation, the Romans section (of the letter) is after years of walking with Christ and struggling with attempts to keep the law out of my zeal. In other words, the Romans section is after my revelation of indwelling sin. I did give you the answer to that in the next section (ch 8) didn't I?"

But who knows? If your'e a believer and find yourself in Romans 7, look to Romans 8 rather than questioning your salvation.
H.

 

[Tzaousios]

Most unfortunately, however, Calvin accepted as true Augustine’s later and incorrect interpretation of Romans 7:14-25, probably because his own spiritual state was very much like that of the man in that passage.

Hmm...I wonder what this is trying to get across? I hear echoes of accusations that Augustine and Calvin were closet Manicheans coming back.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

And there you have it, both positions.

Those of you who feel you're in the Romans 7 experience, if the latter view is correct as has been insinuated ("incorrect interpretation of Romans 7:14-25"), you're left with the situation that maybe you're not regenerate.

Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy
The key to the correct understanding of Romans 7:14-25 is that the man being described is striving to keep the Law but failing to do so.

Amen. And that is true, regardless of whether the person striving to keep laws, standards, rules, is regenerate or non-regenerate. One's view of Romans 7 doesn't change the principles of deliverance from sin laid out in ch's 6 and 8. And Paul's answer to living according to the principle of law is that we died to that, and should live according to the principle of Christ within, and walking in the Spirit rather than the mind set on the flesh.

Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy
Christians have died to the Law and therefore do not strive to keep it.


Unfortunately, that is not true. That is what should be true. I've known countless Christians living and striving to keep the law. In fact, that is the problem of the Galatian Christians, and Paul's answer to them was the same.

Yes, there are some Christians who are very confused and do not understand that they should have died to the Law, and have not done so. However, Paul certainly was not one those confused Christians.

If anyone wants to see a clear description of Paul's view of himself in reference to the Law prior to coming to Christ, see Philippians 3:3 - 13, particularly v. 4-6

4 "although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless."

This was the view he had then of his keeping of the law. Since the letter to Philippi was only a couple of years after Romans, the thought cannot contain substantially different revelation; and if I were a visitor to Philippi from Rome, if I understood Romans 7 as supposedly "the pre-nicene fathers" I would ask Paul "what gives? You just told us you considered yourself prior to Christ as "blameless" concerning the law; and now you tell us that it convicts you that "what yo would do you can't do." What gives?" To which I'm quite sure he would say, "this is how I looked at the law prior to salvation, the Romans section (of the letter) is after years of walking with Christ and struggling with attempts to keep the law out of my zeal. In other words, the Romans section is after my revelation of indwelling sin. I did give you the answer to that in the next section (ch 8) didn't I?"

Paul tells us in Philippians 3:6 that “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, [he was] found blameless.” Are we to suppose that after his miraculous encounter with Christ himself, he lost his ability, for a period of “years,” to obey the law, was “sold into bondage to sin” (Rom. 7:14), and became a “wretched man” (Rom. 7:24). I don’t think so!

Let us not forget that Paul’s letter to the church in Rome was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians born, raised and educated in an ancient Hellenistic culture, and that the Early Church Fathers who were also born, raised and educated in that ancient Hellenistic culture interpreted the man in Romans 7:14-25 to be an unregenerate Jew (as proven by the writings of Origen (184-254), Chrysostom 347-407), and Theodoret (393-458)). The very early Latin Church Father, Tertullian (160-223), also interpreted the man in Romans 7:14-25 to be an unregenerate Jew. None of the Early Greek Church Fathers interpreted the man in Romans 7:14-25 to be Paul. The Early Latin Church Fathers who believed that the man in Romans 7:14:25 was Paul include,


Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (315-368)
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430)
Gregory (I) the Great, Pope (540-604)

 

[Hupomone10]

Yes, there are some Christians who are very confused and do not understand that they should have died to the Law, and have not done so. However, Paul certainly was not one those confused Christians.



Paul tells us in Philippians 3:6 that “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, [he was] found blameless.” Are we to suppose that after his miraculous encounter with Christ himself, he lost his ability, for a period of “years,” to obey the law, was “sold into bondage to sin” (Rom. 7:14), and became a “wretched man” (Rom. 7:24). I don’t think so!

Let us not forget that Paul’s letter to the church in Rome was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians born, raised and educated in an ancient Hellenistic culture, and that the Early Church Fathers who were also born, raised and educated in that ancient Hellenistic culture interpreted the man in Romans 7:14-25 to be an unregenerate Jew (as proven by the writings of Origen (184-254), Chrysostom 347-407), and Theodoret (393-458)). The very early Latin Church Father, Tertullian (160-223), also interpreted the man in Romans 7:14-25 to be an unregenerate Jew. None of the Early Greek Church Fathers interpreted the man in Romans 7:14-25 to be Paul. The Early Latin Church Fathers who believed that the man in Romans 7:14:25 was Paul include,


Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (315-368)
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397)
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430)
Gregory (I) the Great, Pope (540-604)

I have certainly lost a little respect for them. Maybe they should have read Paul's letter to Philippi where he described his opinion of himself before he got his revelation of what Self really was capable of (and not capable of) and of indwelling sin.

I know that I have never heard a single unsaved sinner say to me the essence of Romans 7 verses that this is how they felt. I've seen people burdened over sins, but never come to a realization that indwelling sin would keep them from pleasing God and that they were led to depend totally on the Spirit of God to live this pleasing-to-God life.

They all live according to a legalistic standard; and when they can't measure up, they lower the standard.

And when they come to Christ, it is not due to indwelling sin, but a conviction of sins, actions done outside of His will.

Because of this, right down to the last, they hit the ground of the Christian life running with zeal and the belief that they can do a great thing for God. "He gave His all for me, I need to give my all and do a great work for Him." Until they, like Paul, run face to face into the flesh's lack of ability, face to face with Self. If we continue to walk with the Lord, this devastating revelation of Self and the flesh is one we all will have; and Paul was no exception.

His testimony as to how he was the chief of sinners was not due to coveting, the sin he identified in Romans 7, but a conviction that he had been fighting against the very Lord of glory, Jesus Christ. Coveting, and no doubt others, got him later as he in his zeal (like all of us) tried to do a great work for God and found out that his sanctified self-effort went only so far.

He then laid this out to us in chronological order in Romans 3-5 (deliverance from the penalty of sins), Romans 6 (deliverance from the power of sin), Romans 7 (deliverance from the Law, both in command and principle), and final deliverance in Romans 8 from our own sanctified self-effort into walking with the mind set on the Spirit and total dependence on Christ, not Self.

(IMHO)