"Go and sin no more"

[smaller]

Yes more than we can chew in and of ourselves. But through the Gift of the Gospel we can do all things.

The purpose of Christ sacrifice was the removal of sin. To make the believer cleansed and thereby enabling them to be sinnless through God's indwelling Spirit.

It is probably one of the most common exercises in religious baloney to consider ones self righteous and the other people not. This is the practice of the hypocrite, which Jesus warned us to be wary of. A hypocrite claims to have no sin, even though they know in their own mind that they do have sin 'within' their thought life. But they excuse that working and favor 'acting' like they don't. Hypocrite means ACTOR.

Paul was very precise about his own condition. He had sin indwelling him that he identified as NO LONGER I. The old man Saul had his eyes opened by God to the factual working power of Satan and became the new man, Paul. Even Paul's name translates as SMALL. Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin. So was Saul the king of Israel, a member of the same tribe. The natural king Saul stood head and shoulders above his kinsmen. Saul to Paul was the opposite, SMALL. There is a nice picture there scripted out by God.

Paul also openly admitted the presence of EVIL with him. He did not lie. It's a solid fact. A man in truth has no problem looking at the facts of their own heart. There is no place to hide this matter from God. God sees all the heart. There is no fooling Him. And there is no need for a spiritual man to lie to his Maker.

Paul also had a DEVIL put upon him.

So all the claims of sinless perfection are and will remain utter nonsense when the presence of EVIL, the presence of the TEMPTER, the presence of the DEVIL is within mankind. All of those views are not only lies, they are utter nonsense.

A man can stand forgiven. The tempter not one bit. Therein resides the present dilemma of believers, vainly trying to justify the entirety of themselves and not seeing there is 'internal warfare' that is transpiring in them.

Gird up yourself with The Truth. You'll be well served with that fruit of Him. Jesus did not die for DEVILS. They will 'all' be utterly wiped OUT. No record of them will remain when God in Christ is finished destroying them.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

Paul was quite honest about his own condition when he stated that 'evil' was in fact present with him. (Romans 7:21)

We have been through this before. A careful exegesis, paying attention to the details of the text make it simply not possible that the person described in Romans 7 is a Christian. Now, I am agreeing with you about sin being an invading force, and that Romans 7 strongly supports this position. But and it is important we get this right, it is simply not correct to see Romans 7 as describing the state of a believer.

Here is just one of several arguments:

1. The person described in Romans 7 is experiencing a "law" of sin that leads to death:

but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

2. The Christian in Romans 8 is described as having been set free from from this law of sin and death.

2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death

3. If the position that the person in Romans 7 is a Christian is correct, - then we have the following statements:

a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)

b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)

These statements are inconsistent. Therefore, assuming we agree that the statement from Romans 8 is about the Christian, the Romans 7 cannot be descriptive of the experience of the Christian - one cannot be both subject to the effects of a law and yet also released from its effect.

 

[smaller]

We have been through this before. A careful exegesis, paying attention to the details of the text make it simply not possible that the person described in Romans 7 is a Christian. Now, I am agreeing with you about sin being an invading force, and that Romans 7 strongly supports this position. But and it is important we get this right, it is simply not correct to see Romans 7 as describing the state of a believer.

Drew, I'm only going to go through this factual exercise with you one last time.

A. No believer can truthfully say they 'have' NO SIN. This is 'present tense' have.
B. Sin is of the DEVIL.
C. Paul admitted the presence of EVIL with him.
D. Paul had a DEVIL
E. The DEVIL is EVIL.

Now, when you stop chasing your tail and deal with the facts you will not and can not come to YOUR false conclusion and in fact your conclusion isn't even from YOU as Gods child. So get over it.

s

 

[Drew]

Drew, I'm only going to go through this factual exercise with you one last time.

You have not addressed my argument. I will address your argument - you cannot leave my argument hanging - you need to address it directly. Again, I cannot emphasize the following strongly enough - people routinely evade the argument I posted, and make a different argument for their take on Romans 7. Its perfectly fine to make your own argument - which I will address immediately below - but you cannot, legitimately anyway leave my argument hanging.

My argument is simple, and clear. If it is incorrect, you should be able to show how it is incorrect by engaging it on its own terms. So now to your argument:

It is true that no Christian attains sinless perfection in this life. But that is entirely a different question than the one of who is being described in Romans 7.

Let me be clear: For the present, I assume that the "I" here in Romans 7 is not actually a reference to Paul the individual, it is a reference to his fellow Jews. I can and will defend that view in another post. For now, I will simply show the following: Assuming that the "I" in Romans 7 is not Paul, but rather the Jew under the Law of Moses, the use of the present tense does not create a problem for that view.

Paul begins his treatment of the struggling person of Romans 7 in the past tense:

Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

Paul is speaking about the status of the Jew under Torah in the past. Long before Paul was born - that is to say in Paul's past - the Torah was given to Jews.

Later Paul switches to the present:

but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

The reason that Paul switches to the present is that he wants to make the point that even in the present, even after their Messiah has come - the Jew remains (in the present) in slavery to the Torah.

It is therefore clear that the proposal that Paul is talking about the status of the Jew under the Torah works perfectly well with the "past to present" transition that we get in Romans 7: the Jew was given the Torah in the past and it gave him problems in the past. The Jew who rejects Jesus in the present persists in the problematic state of being under Torah and a slave to sin.

The argument that Paul is talking about the Jew under Torah in Romans 7 makes perfect sense of the "past to present" transition of tenses.

 

[smaller]

You have not addressed my argument. I will address your argument - you cannot leave my argument hanging - you need to address it directly. Again, I cannot emphasize the following strongly enough - people routinely evade the argument I posted, and make a different argument for their take on Romans 7. Its perfectly fine to make your own argument - which I will address immediately below - but you cannot, legitimately anyway leave my argument hanging.

There is no argument to be had Drew. Paul had, just like the balance of us 'have' present tense SIN, which same is of the TEMPTER. You can spin any tales you think you see from there, but there is no avoiding the obvious by any form of 'reasoning.'

s

 

[Drew]

Let me review what I am doing, since it is a little complicated:

1. I have shown that it is simply not possible for the person in Romans 7 to be Paul the believer, since it creates a contradiction to Romans 8. That argument has not been addressed;

2. I have, for the present, simply assumed that the "I" in Romans 7 is the unbelieving Jew under the Law of Moses. I will make the relevant case shortly;

3. I have just argued that the assumption in (2) is not undermined by the use of the present tense in Romans 7.

Now back to my very first argument. Please explain, smaller, where the problem is in the following;

1. The person in Romans 7 is described as subject to a law of sin and death;
2. The person in Romans 8 is described as freed from a law of sin and death;
3. The person in Romans 8 is clearly a Christian;
4. Therefore, since one cannot be both subject to and freed from the same law of sin and death, the person in Romans 7 simply cannot be a believer.

 

[Drew]

There is no argument to be had Drew. Paul had, just like the balance of us 'have' present tense SIN, which same is of the TEMPTER. You can spin any tales you think you see from there, but there is no avoiding the obvious by any form of 'reasoning.'

s

Again, you simply evade the argument. Please address it. Where, and please be specific, is the error in the argument?

You appear to be conceding that since the person in Romans 7 is Paul the Christian, and since you presumably agree that the person in Romans 8 is a Christian, that Paul was both subject to and freed from a law of sin and death at the same time.

Please explain to us how this works.

 

[smaller]

Let me review what I am doing, since it is a little complicated:

4. Therefore, since one cannot be both subject to and freed from the same law of sin and death, the person in Romans 7 simply cannot be a believer.

The difficulty will remain Drew, that we all 'have' sin, which same is of the tempter. There is no fancy fantasy dance past that fact.

We are very much FREE from that working IF we understand 'truthfully' that we 'have sin' but recognize that the operations of same are not from US as Gods children. Thereby I am FREE. But this does not apply to the tempter. The tempter does not cease from temptation. Temptation SIN thoughts ARE sin. They are of and from the TEMPTER and transpire IN us.

Paul OPENLY admitted to the presence of TEMPTATION:

Galatians 4:14
And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

And who is TEMPTATION from? ding ding ding

s

 

[Drew]

Here is one of the myriad of problems with seeing Romans 7 as describing Paul the believer. Note what Paul writes here:

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Paul writes this is a summary of the preceding description of an "I" that is seemingly a prisoner to sin. A Christian who is a prisoner to sin? Not likely - it is precisely this prison from which the believer is delivered.

So how does Paul answer his own question?

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

The logic is clear - Jesus delivers Paul from the sad state described in Romans 7. Romans 7 cannot, therefore, describe the state of Paul the believer - it is the state from which Paul has been delivered.

 

[smaller]

Here is one of the myriad of problems with seeing Romans 7 as describing Paul the believer. Note what Paul writes here:

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Paul writes this is a summary of the preceding description of an "I" that is seemingly a prisoner to sin. A Christian who is a prisoner to sin? Not likely - it is precisely this prison from which the believer is delivered.

So how does Paul answer his own question?

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

The logic is clear - Jesus delivers Paul from the sad state described in Romans 7. Romans 7 cannot, therefore, describe the state of Paul the believer - it is the state from which Paul has been delivered.

Your logic can NOT escape from these facts:

1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:10
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

It is ENTIRELY possible that we as believers can stand righteously in Him and be entirely FORGIVEN. Those measures however DO NOT APPLY to the TEMPTER.

It's quite simple to resolve all of these matters in division. But to say that Paul presented sinless perfection of the flesh, which is subject to TEMPTATION of the TEMPTER is NOT available.

s

 

[Adullam]

If a person is acquitted of a murder charge...does that mean he can now murder without any further consequences in the future?

If a man is forgiven for past sins by Jesus Christ, does that mean he can transgress the law without penalty from now on?

 

[smaller]

If a person is acquitted of a murder charge...does that mean he can now murder without any further consequences in the future?

If a man is forgiven for past sins by Jesus Christ, does that mean he can transgress the law without penalty from now on?

Heaven forbid and absolutely NOT to any of the above.

But let's look at this matter of sin, let's take MURDER as an example.

If we read The Law against MURDER, we say as believers, no, I certainly don't want to break that LAW.

But what happens inside of us when we read of that Law? One day we are confronted with the expression of a most hateful act against us, and we 'think' or 'wish' in our heart to murder that person.

That thought is a sin, prompted by the TEMPTER in trying to TEMPT us to 'break the Law.'

The Tempter in fact will place SIN THOUGHTS in our minds in adverse response to the LAW. That is what the TEMPTER does. The Tempter RESISTS Gods Laws. And every single time we pick up a LAW it will induce TEMPTATION by THE TEMPTER.

Those actions of temptation thoughts ARE SINS and they are so of the TEMPTER who perpetually seeks to BREAK the LAW. This is why we are not to place ourselves UNDER the Law, knowing that it induces the TEMPTER to TEMPT and the THOUGHTS are SIN in us.

There is only one track out of this matter. Paul advised us all exactly how to follow every single LAW and COMMAND in the entire Bible in Romans 13:8-10, showing how to 'cast off' the works of DARKNESS. To do this is to literally WALK THIS EARTH with JESUS in our hearts. The Spirit of HIM moving in us through our lives.

And even in this temptation will not cease entirely, but it will certainly let up it's hold.

s

 

[WIP]

Some of these posts have been getting a little on the aggressive side. Please try to remain objective so we don't get too personal.
Thanks

 

[smaller]

There should be a rule against lying. Why do believers lie about sin?

Here is an exercise to see if anyone is lying, and why there can be adverse reactions from others TO lying.

A. Does the tempter tempt you in mind? y/n
B. Is the tempting thought of sin A SIN? y/n
C. Is the tempter involved in SIN? y/n

When believers start dodging this matter personally, there arises difficulties because we do have the presence of LYING stepping into the format of TRUTHFUL discussions.

It is hard to have discussions with lying. There is no 'reason' to be had with such avoidance of basic scriptural presentations which LEAD to our knowledge and NEED of our Savior.

Of course no one will point to the obvious and call foul on THAT. There is no fruit available in A LIE.

Truth in the heart can STAND under Gods Scriptural Facts. And if not, there is a marked lie and an open and allowed sin of lying.

s

 

[smaller]

Proverbs 6:
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.



3 out of 6 of the things God hates revolve around LYING. And that is A DISCORD that is sown among Gods children.


It is NO SIN to admit temptation sins of the liar, the TEMPTER, ARE sometimes within us, personally speaking.



To say that is not so however IS a LIE.


s

 

[smaller]

If you ever read in the Old Testament about 'the lying spirit' in the mouth of false prophets the actions of that lying spirit were always the same...

Those lying spirits only prophesied GOOD and SMOOTH things to the people, in effect LYING to them.

s

 

[Drew]

The difficulty will remain Drew, that we all 'have' sin, which same is of the tempter. There is no fancy fantasy dance past that fact.

I probably will agree with you that the believer is still subject to the actions of the tempter.

But, please, do not make the mistake of making the following clearly incorrect argument:

1. Christians are tempted by the devil;
2. Romans 7 describes a man tempted by the devil;
3. Therefore, Romans 7 describes a Christian.

This is simply not correct logic, as I trust I need not explain. Even if points 1 and 2 are correct - and I believe they are - point 3 does not logically follow.

Are you, or are you not, going to deal with post xx?

 

[smaller]

I probably will agree with you that the believer is still subject to the actions of the tempter.

It's impossible to disagree with the obvious isn't it? :yes

But, please, do not make the mistake of making the following clearly incorrect argument:

1. Christians are tempted by the devil;
2. Romans 7 describes a man tempted by the devil;
3. Therefore, Romans 7 describes a Christian.

Look, if Paul was speaking 'truthfully;' which I certainly believe he was, and said he had a messenger of satan, A DEVIL, put upon him and also said he had TEMPTATION in his flesh, it just doesn't take a genius to connect those dots either.

If you want to say Romans 7 isn't about sin, which we ALL have as a fact, you would also be very very very off course. A course that I have no interest in.

We 'all' have sin and Romans 7 undoubtedly is a teaching about that fact. IF you say it's only for O.T. Jews, you are in effect saying only they have sin, which is beyond any credibility. You're probably going to have to just sit down and get real with what Paul taught us there, OR, you can keep dodging the fact that you have sin just as Paul describes therein.

I have no reason to deny the obvious matters or entertain imaginations. Paul wrote about himself in Romans 7 and what he wrote there is for all believers as well.

You are welcome to go down whatever rabbit trail you think you see, but it ain't there Drew. Sorry.

s

 

[Drew]

There should be a rule against lying. Why do believers lie about sin?

I agree - there should be such a rule. I have basically hinted that there should be such a rule, although I realize how hard it would be to enforce.

For your sake, however, I really hope you are not suggesting I am a liar.

If so, how does your incorrect logic make me a liar?

Look: I have agreed with you that the Christian has to deal with the influence of Satan.

But, and I really should not have to explain this, this fact does not, of course, mean that every reference to a person being tempted by Satan has to be a reference to a Christian. How do you know the Romans 7 person is a Christian?

I suspect you will say that you believe this because Paul uses the "I" terminology and the present tense.

Indeed he does. And I have raised the possibility that Paul uses the "I" as a literary device to refer, not to himself, but to his fellow Jew. I have yet to make the argument, but you cannot, legitimately anyway, simply dismiss this possibility that I have set forth.

Based on arguments you have yet to deal with, it is clear to me that the person in Romans 7 cannot be a believer.

 

[Drew]

Look, if Paul was speaking 'truthfully;' which I certainly believe he was, and said he had a messenger of satan, A DEVIL, put upon him and also said he had TEMPTATION in his flesh, it just doesn't take a genius to connect those dots either.

Well, such a "genius" would be making a clear error in logic. Again, the fact that Paul, even as a Christian, suffered from temptation from the devil, does not, of course, mean that every statement about Paul being tempted by the devil is a statement about being tempted in his Christian state.

If you want to say Romans 7 isn't about sin, which we ALL have as a fact, you would also be very very very off course. A course that I have no interest in.

Strawman - I have been crystal clear that sin is indeed at the very heart of Romans 7. I have shown, however, that it simply cannot the sin of a Christian.

And, again, you have simply ignored the argument that makes this case.

Have you no sense at all how this casts discredit on your position? How can you expect the reader to see your position if you simply ignore an argument that challenges it?

We 'all' have sin and Romans 7 undoubtedly is a teaching about that fact.

No. You have no justification for this statement - no where in Romans 7 is there a statement that the "I" is either representative of all people, or, more importantly, that this "I" represents a Christian

IF you say it's only for O.T. Jews, you are in effect saying only they have sin,.....

Again, this is manifestly incorrect reasoning on your part. It is, of course, entirely possible that Paul is talking about the particular challenges a particular group faces in respect to sin, without denying that other people face sin challenges as well.

With all due respect, it is difficult to keep up with so many errors of logic.