"Faith without works is dead".............lets get the scripture right.

[Drew]

Here is something about Romans 7:

In Romans 7:7-24a, Paul describes a man who is enslaved to sin and cannot do good. Yet we know that theChristian can do good and the Christian is not enslaved to sin. So how can Paul be talking about a Christian?

Some who believe that the "I†in Romans 7 is a Christian appeal to a flesh- spirit distinction. Others appeal to a “me†vs “Jesus in me†distinction. The obvious goal: Fend off the criticism that Romans 7 cannot be a description of a Christian (because, obviously, a Christian in his totality cannot possibly be in the state described in the text).

On the first of these two views, Paul describes the Christian's "flesh" (represented as the “Iâ€) as still "in Adam", with the implication that the "spirit" is not. Therefore, it is only the "flesh" that is in the hopeless state described in these verses. There is a superficial plausibility to such a reading. Let us call this view the “flesh vs spirit duality†position for brevity.

On the second of these two views, the relevant distinction is that between (1) the believer “himselfâ€; and (2) Christ who indwells the believer. In this case, it is the believer himself who is in the bad state, with the indwelling Jesus, again by implication, rising above the desperate state described in Romans 7. Once more, this view, which I will call the “me vs Jesus in me†position, has the ring of plausibility.

Upon reflection, it should be clear that one can discern a certain amount of overlap between these two positions – they are closely related.

What goes unnoticed, however, is the decidedly odd maneuver of introducing a distinction that the text itself does not introduce. Imagine if I turned to my friend and asserted “I cannot do anyof the good deeds I want to doâ€. It would be very strange indeed for my friend to interpret this as a statement of what is true of only a part of me. Now, to be fair, one can perhaps try to make the case that Paul’s statements are made in a context where the issue of a “flesh vs spirit†or a “me vs Jesus in me†is already front and center. I will argue (elsewhere) that this is not the case. For the moment, I am simply pointing out that one cannot simply assume a distinction that has not been explicitly stated.

In other posts, I will argue that neither the “flesh vs spirit†nor the “me vs Jesus in me€ arguments do justice to the text.

 

[Danus]

Here is something about Romans 7:

In Romans 7:7-24a, Paul describes a man who is enslaved to sin and cannot do good. Yet we know that theChristian can do good and the Christian is not enslaved to sin. So how can Paul be talking about a Christian?

Some who believe that the "I” in Romans 7 is a Christian appeal to a flesh- spirit distinction. Others appeal to a “me” vs “Jesus in me” distinction. The obvious goal: Fend off the criticism that Romans 7 cannot be a description of a Christian (because, obviously, a Christian in his totality cannot possibly be in the state described in the text).

On the first of these two views, Paul describes the Christian's "flesh" (represented as the “I”) as still "in Adam", with the implication that the "spirit" is not. Therefore, it is only the "flesh" that is in the hopeless state described in these verses. There is a superficial plausibility to such a reading. Let us call this view the “flesh vs spirit duality” position for brevity.

On the second of these two views, the relevant distinction is that between (1) the believer “himself”; and (2) Christ who indwells the believer. In this case, it is the believer himself who is in the bad state, with the indwelling Jesus, again by implication, rising above the desperate state described in Romans 7. Once more, this view, which I will call the “me vs Jesus in me” position, has the ring of plausibility.

Upon reflection, it should be clear that one can discern a certain amount of overlap between these two positions – they are closely related.

What goes unnoticed, however, is the decidedly odd maneuver of introducing a distinction that the text itself does not introduce. Imagine if I turned to my friend and asserted “I cannot do anyof the good deeds I want to do”. It would be very strange indeed for my friend to interpret this as a statement of what is true of only a part of me. Now, to be fair, one can perhaps try to make the case that Paul’s statements are made in a context where the issue of a “flesh vs spirit” or a “me vs Jesus in me” is already front and center. I will argue (elsewhere) that this is not the case. For the moment, I am simply pointing out that one cannot simply assume a distinction that has not been explicitly stated.

In other posts, I will argue that neither the “flesh vs spirit” nor the “me vs Jesus in me” arguments do justice to the text.

Here is something about Romans 7:

In Romans 7:7-24a, Paul describes a man who is enslaved to sin and cannot do good. Yet we know that theChristian can do good and the Christian is not enslaved to sin. So how can Paul be talking about a Christian?

A fantastic question.

In the opening to Romans 7 Paul addresses his audience and the subject of the Law, as we've discussed. he makes a clear distinction between the law and grace. Then in verse 7 he starts talking about the law and sin, again making a distinction.

Paul understands that his salvation is not of himself, but of God onto him and that his is living the Christan life is by the spirit of God and not himself. The "I" is him, but it's also you and me and anyone else in this sense.

God is the one who is good, God is the only one who does anything good. This is why You, Me, Paul, "I" do not do anything good. Like the Jews/Christians Paul is addressing, we could not even do good under the law....because we did not get it. The Law was there to show us what SIN is..... The law only convicts us by pointing sin out. For example, if there is no stop sign at an intersection then my running it is not illegal since there is no law, but if there is a sign and I run it then I have broken the law, because the sign is there to point out the law.

Same with God's law to man. It exist because man is sinful and man will not know if the law does not exist. The law points this out to a sinful man, and just because he attempts to follow it does not mean he's not sinful because as we know man can not follow the law, and if he's guilty of any of it, he's guilty of all of it.

So, it's purpose is to point out the sin nature of man and that's what Paul says...............14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 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.

Bottom line is that Paul is not good. He does not do good, nor can he. He's highlighting this fact that he is a wretched sinner who's only hope is in Christ Jesus, not int he law, not in anything he does and therefor he is not Good, It is Christ and only Christ who is Good.

Paul is asking that we not give him any credit, because he does not deserve any and nether do we. So How can Paul be talking about a Christian? Because there are no good Christians! There are no Good people on this earth and just because some follow Christ does not make them Good, if anything those are the ones who know full well they are not, just as Paul does.

One last this on this. Slavery. Slave to sin or slave to righteousness?

We are freed from slavery to sin through our salvation, but does that mean we don't sin? No. It means we do not serve sin. We are still slaves and in that we serve only one master; sin, or righteousness.

The key point is servitude. We do not own ourselves or anyone else. We can not serve ourselves righteous, and Paul already points out our slavery to sin. Our salvation is a new type of servitude that frees us from the bondage to sin so that we are not serving it, but serving God who is the opposite of sin.

Where the early Jewish Christians and even Christians today get confused is in thinking that we are outside of a nature of sin and that we simply choose one or the other by effort. So, Paul trys to illustrate this using the the analogy of slavery.....but I wonder if that even get's through.

So the law points out the sin nature of man, and the fact that man fails to even follow the law should heighten his awareness that he is sin in nature. Christ offers the way out of that bondage from that nature to a new nature where we serve righteousness, not DO righteousness.