Bible Study The authority of the law: Romans 7

[smaller]

I do agree with some of the things you have said but this one, not at all. Paul is not saying that he is still a foremost sinner after his conversion. I must respect the language (words) that Paul used.
chief = G4413
prōtos
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.
G4253
G4253
πρό
pro
pro
A primary preposition; “fore”, that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.

superlative adjective -
There are two types of adjectives that are used when comparing two or more nouns These are comparative adjectives and superlative adjectives.
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/p...uperlative-adjective.html#Lvd9rcthW306LTTz.99

So in context - Young's Literal Translation
1Ti 1:15 stedfast is the word, and of all acceptation worthy, that Christ Jesus came to the world to save sinners--first of whom I am;
1Ti 1:16 but because of this I found kindness, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering, for a pattern of those about to believe on him to life age-during:
Paul is saying that Christ came to save sinners and even (comparing himself to other sinners the Christ came to save) he was a foremost sinner, a super sinner when compared to most others. Paul mentions in other places how he persecuted Christians even causing them to be put to death (Stephan), he blasphemed this very Jesus in whom he found kindness, mercy.
He is not saying that he is still, after conversion, the foremost sinner.
He says 'I am' one of those sinners who Christ saved even though my sin was the most sinful. He is making the point that if God in His mercy will save one like him, He will save any sinner.

Paul was exceptionally plain about being the chief of sinners after salvation. Were it NOT so he would have deployed the term "used to be" but instead said simply, I AM chief. No amount of verbiage twisting can turn I AM into "I used to be." They are worlds apart.

 

[Deborah13]

Paul was exceptionally plain about being the chief of sinners after salvation. Were it NOT so he would have deployed the term "used to be" but instead said simply, I AM chief. No amount of verbiage twisting can turn I AM into "I used to be." They are worlds apart.

Present Tense in Greek - under parsing for 'Am' in this verse.
The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense.

Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1ti/1/15/t_conc_1120015

Historical presents are common to Jewish writings and thought. I would give the example of the writings of Josephus but there are many.

I respect that you can have your interpretation that Paul was a foremost sinner after his conversion.
But I don't have to agree with you.

 

[GodsGrace]

Probably would make a good conversation for another thread, but scriptures do address these matters at length. 1 Cor. 15:41-49 for example shows us we are factually planted in weakness, corruption, dishonor in a body that is doomed to die.

There is no question that evil serves Gods Purposes. And that God Is powerful enough to make good come of it, regardless. The early lesson on this one was with Joseph and his brothers. "God meant it for good" even though their actions were evil. I have been treated to a sufficient amount of evil as well, and have seen good come of it on many fronts. Patience and longsuffering are Divine virtues.

Whatever evil does transpire transpires under His Sights without any doubt. So it violates nothing of the Om's. There is a strong fairytale notion in some camps of Christianity that says God can't be in the presence of evil/sin, which to me is absurd.

It's problematic to take our notions of "good" and apply them to God. God Is Perfect. Problem is exactly none of us really know what that means. We are left to our imaginations. I've used this one many times for those who make the scripturally non existing claim that Satan was perfect. Uh, yeah, a perfect devil in all his ways. So putting the word perfect in front of Satan didn't really make Satan perfect in any good senses of the term.

I generally reject this one sided sight, even though I would like to see it that way. It's more complex than that. IF we are bound in the flesh with evil, which we are, then God has every right to treat that evil accordingly regardless, at least in the temporal senses.

As it pertains to this thread we know this about the laws. They were laid upon the lawless and sinners. They were laid upon ALL mankind, not just Israel. They were meant to provoke sin to reveal itself, particularly internally. And they give sin it's power to react adversely. There is a reverse form of power in Gods Words of Law that both Israel and the churches have long overlooked in these matters. The Laws are actually meant to BRING sin and evil to their full discourse in preparation for final judgments of the devil and his messengers.

God IS Willing to show His Wrath. Are we able to go there?

Romans 9:
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

If we know, and we do, that all the worlds ills revolves around sin/evil and the devil and his messengers, then WHY NOT provoke them to the uttermost for THEIR final put away? I think that is perfectly logical myself.

There's much here. Let me say this. Why allow evil then? To provoke satan and messangers for their final put away. It doesn't sound logical at first thought. That would make us be a pawn. Why can't God just put them away now? I think I understand about Joseph and his brothers.

I don't understand what you mean by this:
IF we are bound in the flesh with evil, which we are, then God has every right to treat that evil accordingly regardless, at least in the temporal senses.

We might be getting too far off topic unless the above has to do with the law.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul's flesh served the law of sin after salvation. Romans 7:25. And this, regardless of what else he did. The flesh remains contrary to the Spirit regardless, Gal. 5:17, and it does so because of indwelling sin. Paul disassociated "indwelling sin" to even be himself, and recognized that it was not even him. Romans 7:17-21.

Every believer who vainly tries to justify their entirety is wasting their breath. God does see us as we are regardless. There is no use painting a phony picture in the light of scriptural facts. When we do that indwelling sin has actually WON and turned us into lying hypocrites. Better to stand on the ground of honesty, even if the conclusions are unpleasant to the inherent pride of the flesh which is the spawn of indwelling sin and evil present.

No ones indwelling sin/evil present is about to be responsible or accountable. It's foolishness to think otherwise. See the above. We all have and bear what is contrary to the Spirit, period. And as such this sight of honesty will garner a little more respect for God because He does have the right to deal with us on either side of the ledgers no matter how rosy we paint up our flesh or how good we "act."

Our indwelling sin didn't get a "new nature." If anything the opposite transpires.

We ask God to ignore our sin and punish the sins of others. We ask God to not deal with the fact that we have evil present with us while we whine for justice and judgments about everyone else's evil.

And in all of this we are merely deeper pawns of indwelling sin in lying hypocrisy who can't even see ourselves honestly.

"Oh, my indwelling sin and evil present has a new nature!"

Indeed it does. And not a good one.

Smaller,
I understand what you're saying and agree. But there are little nuances here I'm not sure about.
What does this mean?:
God does see us as we are regardless. There is no use painting a phony picture in the light of scriptural facts. When we do that indwelling sin has actually WON and turned us into lying hypocrites. Better to stand on the ground of honesty, even if the conclusions are unpleasant to the inherent pride of the flesh which is the spawn of indwelling sin and evil present.

If God sees US and our sin, how will we ever be saved? Isn't this what Jesus came to do - to save us from His wrath? To make the ceremonial laws obsolete, to fulfill the Law. Fulfill means to make it more clear, to make it more perfect and precise - Jesus said the Law must be obeyed, but we don't obey it. Then how do you understand salvation through Jesus? I understand that we are covered by Jesus. God sees Him instead of our sinful selves.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

When I read this I thought of the 'Abba Father' scriptures.
I don't agree that as sons/daughters we are the object of God's Wrath. We are the object of His love. He corrects us because He loves us. We love Him because He first loved us. A child who is never corrected is not loved and is not a son.

Yes, we do sin against our Father. Our love is not perfected in our flesh. It takes time, patience, diligence, prayer, and the Word for our flesh to catch up to what God already has done in our spirit when He begot the new creature that we are. "Father, please help me to love others as you have loved me."
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

I'm sorry Deborah
Maybe I misspoke.
I meant that our NATURE, the sin nature, will always be an object of God's wrath. I stick to that.

But we are no longer an object of His wrath after salvation.
He might get mad at us, as a father would in my analogy, but wrath is different.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

I would quote you if your words expressed my own thoughts better than I could myself, which would not be unlikely. I don't always write with clarity.
In this case John Gill expressed my own thoughts better than I could.

That's fine Deborah - although I think you express yourself pretty well and with clarity! I wasn't criticizing you for posting it.
Jethro was referring me to your post of Gill and what would be the use? I could quickly post something to refute it - it becomes a game. That's what I meant.

But, in all honesty, I'd have to say that I would much prefer your own words telling HOW or WHAT you understand Gill to be saying instead of posting some writing of his. This is a personal preference of mine and has no bearing on anything!!

Wondering

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I respect that you can have your interpretation that Paul was a foremost sinner after his conversion.
But I don't have to agree with you.

I agree with you, Deborah13. Paul talked about buffeting his body so he would not be disqualified for the prize (1 Corinthians something?). That hardly indicates to me he was saying he is presently a defeated slave to sin, the foremost of such.

It's interesting that some Christians would think they are still slaves to sin when Paul said we are not. And he said that so we could rise up in faith and say 'talk to the hand, sin, talk to the hand, sin'. So it isn't a problem of still being in bondage to sin. It's a problem of Christians being willing to fight the battle Christ has already won for them, if they would only march in and take the enemy. I know, this is a life time journey of learning to do this in confidence and faith, but it seems some Christians have given up the battle altogether and resigned themselves to a defeated life of sin as if they are still 'in the flesh' (that is, without the Spirit--Romans 8:9 NASB).

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree with you, Deborah13. Paul talked about buffeting his body so he would not be disqualified for the prize (1 Corinthians something?). That hardly indicates to me he was saying he is presently a defeated slave to sin, the foremost of such.

It's interesting that some Christians would think they are still slaves to sin when Paul said we are not. And he said that so we could rise up in faith and say 'talk to the hand, sin, talk to the hand, sin'. So it isn't a problem of still being in bondage to sin. It's a problem of Christians being willing to fight the battle Christ has already won for them, if they would only march in and take the enemy. I know, this is a life time journey of learning to do this in confidence and faith, but it seems some Christians have given up the battle altogether and resigned themselves to a defeated life of sin as if they are still 'in the flesh' (that is, without the Spirit--Romans 8:9 NASB).

Hi Jethro,
I know several types of Christians.
One is the type that knows his scriptures and understands what being saved means, what had to be given up to get salvation, and the whole story, etc. They don't WANT to sin. They know it's a battle - lifetime, as you say.

There's another prevalent type like my 88 year old Aunt that I went to visit yesterday. She has faith. Who knows where it comes from? God. She knows nothing about the bible and knows no scripture. She has lost out in life though because she knows not the power of God, she knows not the power satan has over us in the sense that she's much more open to sin than others - even though we all sin. This is difficult for me to explain. We don't know each other on these forums and what we say could be misunderstood.

The Christians who think they are still slaves to sin at least KNOW ABOUT SIN! There are Christians who are slaves to sin and don't know the whole concept, but, I pray, are still saved because they're trusting God and are "trying" to be righteous. I repeat, those who know the concept do not wish to sin and find the power not to thanks mainly to the Holy Spirit.

Wondering

 

[Deborah13]

I'm sorry Deborah
Maybe I misspoke.
I meant that our NATURE, the sin nature, will always be an object of God's wrath. I stick to that.

But we are no longer an object of His wrath after salvation.
He might get mad at us, as a father would in my analogy, but wrath is different.

Wondering

No worries. We just see things a little differently or word things a little differently. I not sure which, maybe both.
You know how some say, including me, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin? That's how I see it. The Father loves us, even our flesh [soul] and even when "we were yet sinners", but He hates the sin.

 

[Deborah13]

I know, this is a life time journey of learning to do this in confidence and faith, but it seems some Christians have given up the battle altogether and resigned themselves to a defeated life of sin as if they are still 'in the flesh' (that is, without the Spirit--Romans 8:9 NASB).

Yes, and then one can backslide and shipwreck their faith. They are left floating in a sea, barely grasping splintered boards. If God doesn't step in they may very well drown.
Eph 6:11 put on the whole armour of God, for your being able to stand against the wiles of the devil,
Eph 6:12 because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

 

[smaller]

I respect that you can have your interpretation that Paul was a foremost sinner after his conversion.
But I don't have to agree with you.

If you ever come to understand that Apostles are 'singled out' for internal attacks by the tempter, you might understand "how" Paul made his conclusion, because it's not an observation of "just Paul."

I AM the chief of sinners, after salvation, stands precisely because of the other party involved.

 

[smaller]

If God sees US and our sin, how will we ever be saved?

We are forgiven. But that does not apply the devil who is fully involved with our every sin. 1 John 3:8.

Trying to apply forgiveness or grace or mercy to the devil and his messengers is futility in full force.

We are called to NOT be the slaves of the tempter, his works or his ways. But to say we do not have to engage in the wrestling match is also futility. When we are turned into lying hypocrites about being "present tense" sinners or saying our sin is not demonic, we have LOST the battle with honesty and are no longer honest.

Isn't this what Jesus came to do - to save us from His wrath?

If we see ourselves correctly, we'll understand "who" wrath is for. And it strikes much closer to home than any care to look at.

Think of the Word as a Sword that is meant to SEVER us from our adversary in the flesh. On one side of that Sword are the blessings and the good things of God in Christ meant for us. On the other side however there are all the dire and terrifying things that are meant for our enemies, the devil and his messengers.

Rather than flee from wrath, we should take our flesh headlong into it instead because that is precisely where The Word intends to take us.

At the end of our lives or at the end of this present age, the devil and his messengers/the tempter, will be SEPARATED from believers. We will go on to be with the Lord forever. They however will NOT. Some believers in this present life will see this in the death of their flesh, as a reckoned state, and why this needs to be. But most will only pay this lip service and not know why they should see it this way. They still think the flesh is only themselves, or their old man or the sin nature or whatever, but they will NEVER see the flesh as the operational point of the tempter and the cause of our eventual death.

To make the ceremonial laws obsolete, to fulfill the Law. Fulfill means to make it more clear, to make it more perfect and precise - Jesus said the Law must be obeyed, but we don't obey it.

The truth of the matter is that Jesus COMMANDED us to be as Perfect as God Himself.

That is only possible if God Himself is IN US. And this is the SIGHT of faith in Christ.

Will that change our flesh or the operations of the tempter therein? No. That is precisely the situation God put us in so that we come to know His Mercy and Grace as our place of NEED. Our salvation is based on factual weakness. That weakness is KNOWN when we understand our flesh and it's planting in temptations, lusts and deceptions. This Paul gloried in. He did not run away from his present reality in the flesh, but exposed it, openly.

The Law was his revealing instrument, to show him his "real" situation in the flesh, which he delineated at length in the scriptures. It's problematic for most of us to "go there" because it is offensive for us to realize that our sin is in fact demonic. The flesh can not accept this conclusion because of "who" it is subject to.

Then how do you understand salvation through Jesus? I understand that we are covered by Jesus. God sees Him instead of our sinful selves.

Wondering

The devil and his messengers will NOT be getting off the hook for a single sin or a single evil. Gods Justice and wrath WILL be fully served upon THEM ALL.

The Law has sealed their fate in DOOM.

 

[Deborah13]

internal attacks by the tempter

the other party involved

see post #290

 

[smaller]

see post #290

I've tried to point out that you see only Paul. Paul didn't see himself that way.

He knew evil present was with him. Romans 7:21. The sin that dwelt in his flesh was not him. Romans 7:17-20. Paul pinpointed this matter head on in 2 Cor. 12:7 showing a messenger of Satan in his flesh. It was the Law that showed him "how" temptations operated in his MIND and his FLESH. Romans 7:7-13.

So these are not observations of "just Paul." Paul saw himself accurately and spoke truthfully.

This same sight is detailed at length with Paul himself in Romans 7, again expanded on in Romans 9 showing "two" vessels in one lump Paul termed "me." And again in Romans 11 showing the spirit of slumber was "put upon Israel." And in many other places, such as 2 Tim. 2:20-21 which shows that "we" as believers have a vessel of dishonor to purge ourselves from in order to be useful.

 

[GodsGrace]

No worries. We just see things a little differently or word things a little differently. I not sure which, maybe both.
You know how some say, including me, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin? That's how I see it. The Father loves us, even our flesh [soul] and even when "we were yet sinners", but He hates the sin.

God's grace falls on all. God loved us while we were yet sinners. If this were not so, how would anyone come to know the Lord? Yes. He is mad at sin, however. But through Grace and Jesus' sacrifice, we are saved from His "being mad" at us. I think it's words too.

W

 

[Deborah13]

again expanded on in Romans 9 showing "two" vessels in one lump Paul termed "me."

Nope, I don't agree. The two vessels are two peoples from on lump. Israel, Gods chosen, and the nations of the world.
Rom 9:12 `The greater shall serve the less;'
Rom 9:13 according as it hath been written, `Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.'
.............
Rom 9:23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on vessels of kindness, that He before prepared for glory, whom also He did call--us--
Rom 9:24 not only out of Jews, but also out of nations,
Rom 9:25 as also in Hosea He saith, `I will call what is not My people--My people; and her not beloved--Beloved,
Rom 9:26 and it shall be--in the place where it was said to them, Ye are not My people; there they shall be called sons of the living God.'

Just as Paul uses Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah to show the covenant of the Law and the covenant of promise.

 

[smaller]

Nope, I don't agree. The two vessels are two peoples from on lump. Israel, Gods chosen, and the nations of the world.

Didn't expect you to. It is superabundantly clear who has the TWO vessels.

Romans 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

You are welcome to see "nations" where there are none to see. I see "a man," singular asking God the question about "me" singular. Doesn't have a thing to do with nations.