"Go and sin no more"

[smaller]

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.

Any believer who says they have no sin or that their sin is not connected to the devil, the tempter is in fact utterly deceived by that LIAR. I do not call believers LIAR when the real LIAR is speaking through them....get it?

I've given this example at this forum several times. When Satan spoke through the lips of Peter it was SATAN in Peter who was rebuked by Jesus. Jesus still LOVED Peter. Jesus sees the same way with us. We can loose the battles, we can be a SLAVE of sin and even FALL in this present life. Jesus hates the ENSLAVER of us, but He still LOVES us....get it?

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

I have no idea what incorrect logic you are speaking of.

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

Yeah, unfortunately many believers will go on then to say that their 'temptations' are only from the OUTSIDE and not in their thoughts. That too is A LIE from THEE LIAR. Satan 'in believers' uses any way he can to deceive and not NOT make us factually look into our THOUGHT LIFE, our own hearts. Nope. Satan will always prophesy that you you you are A PERFECT TEMPLE, even though he is within in THOUGHT FORM. Sneaky, very very sneaky.

If Satan was brazen enough to ENTER Peter and speak through Peter right in front of Jesus, that tells you how PROUD Satan is of his PAWNS and his abilities to GAME THEM even in front of Gods Own Face.

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've done this drill with you before Drew. And you just can't get it. Paul repeatedly deploys the exact terms I, and ME there all over that chapter. Yet you think it's not about Paul? Give me a break with that would you? I can read. I don't need imaginations. Paul was talking about himself.

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

I'm responding to your note as I scroll down and voila. There is a fact. Imagine that?

Indeed he does.

Yes, INDEED he does.

And what did Paul say? That is exactly WHY he was a wretched man. He goes on to clear it up quite nicely. I don't find him sanctifying the EVIL PRESENT with him OR his indwelling sin. He DIVIDES himself from those workings that he STILL CARRIED. There certainly is zero presentation of SINLESS PERFECTION of the FLESH of Paul therein. Here was Paul's statements:

"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."

He defines that EVIL as PRESENT with him, not that it IS him.

Understanding this he culminates again quite nicely:

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

This is NOT some nebulous UNbeliever here Drew. That is PAUL speaking TRUTHFULLY.

The EVIL PRESENT with Paul is not about to behave or believe. That evil present is the same EVIL PRESENT that we ALL have and it's the TEMPTER in our minds and hearts.

You can try to defer this and spin it some other way, but if you want to deal with the facts, you should at least land in the logical place, that of the TEMPTER who TEMPTS, is THE DEVIL and IS EVIL. It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

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.

Your arguments make no sense whatsoever. Your claim amounts to saying that only JEWS have SIN or that 'our SIN' is somehow not the same as JEW SIN. It's preposterous Drew. Just preposterous. Not even a slice of credibility.

Sin is sin dude. You and I and JEWS all have the same SIN. And it's ALL of THE DEVIL. Some are just more vile slaves than others. The worst of all sinners are those who claim they are ALL and ENTIRELY SQUEAKY CLEAN in the NAME OF JESUS and have NO SIN. Those types of sinners drive me up the wall because they are such BAD liars. The 'religious' ones. You know, the ones Jesus really really HATED.

s

 

[Drew]

People reading my arguments no doubt have this question: What is the basis for asserting that Paul is making the very unusual move of using the "I" to refer to his fellow Jew (and not to himself)?

Great, important question.

For starters, just look at this, from the beginning of Romans 9 - only a handful of sentences later on in the letter:

I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites,...

It is at least plausible to argue that Paul is so remoreful over the fate of his fellow Jew that he uses this "they of the same flesh as me" language. And this could also be the case in Romans 7 where Paul, deeply identifying himself with his fellow Jew, uses the pronoun "I" to represent his fellow Jew.

Of course, this is by no means the whole case - more to come on this issue.

But, and this is where I often invoke the "Sunday School teachers need to be slapped" line, we need to stop thinking like little children, insisting that the Bible is a simplistic, always literal document that never appeals to literary devices like metaphor, allegory, and quite possibly, the use of the first person singular pronoun to represent a person with whom Paul so closely identifies.

More later, I hope.

 

[Drew]

Any believer who says they have no sin or that their sin is not connected to the devil, the tempter is in fact utterly deceived by that LIAR. I do not call believers LIAR when the real LIAR is speaking through them....get it?

Not the point. The simple facts are these: To deny that Romans 7 in particular is a treatment of the state of the believer is, of course, not a denial that Satan tempts believers.

So I am not lying in pointing out the obvious: The conceded fact that Christians are subject to the tempter does not mean that Romans 7 is a discussion about the Christian.

I will keep reminding you - and others who may reading along - that you have yet to respond to the argument that I provided in post 102.

That argument is, if I may say so myself, a slam-dunk against the position you are supporting. And I suspect that this is why you ignore it.

 

[smaller]

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.

This was 'his Christian state' from his own lips:

2 Cor. 12:
7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Now, 1000 readers will read that and say, "oh, I WONDER what it was?" And they go on to speculate about all kinds of nonsense, sickness, bad eyesight yada yada yada. Paul says right there was it was:

A MESSENGER OF SATAN. That would be A DEVIL.

Paul also said he had TEMPTATION in his flesh. Nah, the DEVIL certainly couldn't TEMPT? Nooooo.

Seriously, Satan and his messengers blind believers by the SCORE.

s

 

[Drew]

I've done this drill with you before Drew. And you just can't get it. Paul repeatedly deploys the exact terms I, and ME there all over that chapter. Yet you think it's not about Paul? Give me a break with that would you? I can read. I don't need imaginations. Paul was talking about himself.

If we want to talk about "obvious" things, let's talk about your refusal to deal with post 102. You do realize, don't you, how damaging that is to your position.

It is a short, properly written, Biblical argument? Why will you not deal with it.

Let me get back to the question of why Paul would use "I" to refer to someone other than himself.

Paul uses the "I" in Romans 7 to identify himself with Israel - remember his grief expressed in Romans 9. If Paul wants to make an argument about Israel being in slavery to sin here – and I think that he does – the last thing he wants to do is use the term “they†with the strong implication of himself, as a Christian, standing over against them. They are his people and he does not to drive a wedge between himself and them. Thus the use of the “Iâ€.

But there are other more compelling reasons to see that Paul is not speaking of himself as an individual but rather as a representative of his people, Israel:

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." 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.

Paul refers to the event "when the commandment came". That is a clear reference to Sinai and the delivery of the Torah to Moses, more than 1000 years before Paul was even born. You effectively have him saying "when I developed awareness of the commandment". But that is not what Paul is saying - beware the tendency to deform what Paul is saying.

A reference to the commandment "coming" means what it means – a commandment being delivered. And that happened at Sinai (e.g. “do not covet†as part of the 10 commandments), not in Paul’s lifetime. If Paul had meant to say "when I became aware of the commandment", that's what he would have said. Would we say “when the commandment to not hit our brother came†to denote our developing awareness, say at age 8, that it was not OK to hit our baby brother? No, we would not, and neither does Paul.

The reader may object that I am being too strict here and that Paul could have used such an expression to denote the moment when he became aware of the law. Fine. But this text clearly cannot work with the notion that the “I†is Paul as an individual:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

If the "I" here is Paul we have a huge problem. Note the tense. Paul, in the present as he writes Romans 7 is a wretched man who needs rescue? Of course not - Paul in the present has already been rescued (see Romans 8). I suggest this text alone undermines the possibility that the “I†in Romans 7 is Paul the individual.

But note how this problem disappears if we understand the "I" to be the nation of Israel - even as Paul writes, almost all of them stand outside of the gospel, needing rescue from death as the text says.

I suspect that you will suggest that I am guilty of the very same deforming of Paul’s words that I have criticized when I suggest that Paul uses the term "I" to denote the nation of Israel. Well, we have evidence of Paul using a reference to a single Jew in order to actually refer to the whole nation:

So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

This is an argument about one Gentile and one Jew - at least literally. And yet it is otherwise clear that the Jew here being judged is a representative of Jews in general.

So there is indeed precedent for Paul speaking this way.

 

[smaller]

Not the point. The simple facts are these: To deny that Romans 7 in particular is a treatment of the state of the believer is, of course, not a denial that Satan tempts believers. .

If this is a fact for believers, which is SURELY is, then there is EVIL PRESENT, just as Paul said for himself.

s

 

[Drew]

If this is a fact for believers, which is SURELY is, then there is EVIL PRESENT, just as Paul said for himself.

s

You are using incorrect logic.

Again: The fact that Paul the believer indeed struggles with sin does not mean that every reference to an "I" struggling with sin must be (1) a believer - this is obvious; (2) Paul the individual, if there are valid arguments that Paul could be using "I" as a literary device (as I have been arguing).

 

[Drew]

Just to show readers that I am not alone in my take on the "I" in Romans 7, consider this from the blog of a Phd candidate at a seminary (I added the bold):

Paul portrays a severe struggle with following the Law of Moses in Romans 7. He says that God’s law arouses the sinful passions (7:5). When God says, “Do not do such-and-such,†that prohibition provokes rebellion in the human heart to engage in the forbidden behavior. Forbidden fruits are the sweetest, as the cliche goes.

But there are indications in Romans 7 that the “I†probably does not refer to Paul-the-Christian struggling with his sin. Now, I know that is the traditional interpretation (“Paul is portraying how he wants to follow God’s will as a Christian, but sin still tempts him and enslaves him–hence the ongoing battle that believers have with sinâ€).

Now, I won’t deny that believers battle against sin. They do, and they must. BUT, look at 7:14: “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.†Are believers sold as slaves to sin? Romans 6:18: “You [believers here] have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.†ALSO, look at 7:18b: “For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.†It would have been one thing if Paul had said “I do not carry it out,†because that is sometimes true of believers…but to say “I cannot carry it out†is a different story. Don’t believers have the capacity to obey God now? In fact, “Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God†(Rom 8:8)–and only unbelievers are controlled by the sinful nature. FINALLY, look at 7:25b: “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.†But see what Paul says only two verses later: “Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death†(Rom 8:2).

These are essentially some of the same arguments I have made about this issue in this, and other threads about this famous passage.

 

[Drew]

There is some irony here. You (smaller) and I actually agree on something that probably a lot of Christians will disagree - that there is a real force of evil in world "invading" people - including possibly believers.

The thing we are disagreeing over is whether the "I" in Romans 7 is a Christian. I will keep pointing out the obvious: The fact that believers struggle with sin does not mean that non-believers are not subject to its influences, and that, therefore, the "I" in Romans 7 could be a non-believer, if, repeat if, a case can be made that it is at least plausible that Paul would use "I" to refer to his fellow Jews, and not to himself. I have recognized this is unusual, but have already made part of my case about this.

 

[Drew]

Here is another quote from that other person who agrees with me that the "I" cannot be Paul the Christian. Note that this is the same argument I came up with in post 102, and which, interestingly, has not been addressed:

Perhaps the fatal blow to the “Paul-as-a-Christian-struggling-with-his-sin†interpretation is Romans 7:25b: “I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.†Paul ensures that this is not true of believers: “Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death†(Rom 8:2). So believers cannot be slaves to, imprisoned by, ruled by, or captive to sin. Believers have been released, freed, transferred, given victory, been made slaves of righteousness, and are no longer controlled by the flesh (Rom 8:9).

Will this be ignored as well? If not, please tell us where the error of reasoning is here.

 

[smaller]

The idea you employ, that Paul is using a literary device talking about somebody else is belied by the fact that Paul had sin, evil present and temptation by the tempter.

There was no need to employ a 'literary device' to explain his own condition. He's as straight forward as he could be about it. There was no personal 'literary device' employed to deflect his obvious factual condition nor was one even necessary. The same sin and evil present that applied to Paul applied to Jews or to you and I. The only difference is we get to see the 'reasons' why.

Blind men can not see these matters personally because the power of Satan still rules their own minds and BLINDS them to the facts of the tempters presence. Such can not be 'truthful' to the facts. The power of darkness RULES in such and even speaks through them.

s

 

[smaller]

Here is another quote from that other person who agrees with me that the "I" cannot be Paul the Christian. Note that this is the same argument I came up with in post 102, and which, interestingly, has not been addressed:

Perhaps the fatal blow to the “Paul-as-a-Christian-struggling-with-his-sin” interpretation is Romans 7:25b: “I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” Paul ensures that this is not true of believers: “Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2). So believers cannot be slaves to, imprisoned by, ruled by, or captive to sin. Believers have been released, freed, transferred, given victory, been made slaves of righteousness, and are no longer controlled by the flesh (Rom 8:9).

Will this be ignored as well? If not, please tell us where the error of reasoning is here.

You continue to view yourself with only ONE EYE. The fact is that if the tempter TEMPTS in the mind of believers, NONE of what you say above APPLIES to that working whatsoever. There is no GRACE to SIN. There is no MERCY to the TEMPTER. There is no forgiveness to the tempter or the actions of the tempter played out in his pawns. NONE. ZERO.

So it is not just 'you and I' as believers we are discussing here. We are free when we are not PAWNED. None of what Christ gave us applies to the TEMPTER within our minds and hearts.

It is pointless to spread that which Christ gave US unto the DEVIL and we can not say that the tempter does not operate against us in our minds and hearts.

You can claim exemption, but it is quite funny to see you acknowledge the fact of temptation at the same time. The fact is none of us escape temptation and yes, that is of the devil and places the presence of EVIL with us. We are not the same as that working. The sooner we figure it out, the sooner we stop being pawned.

s

 

[elijah23]

Jesus told people to go and sin no more, but how can that be possible if we are sinful in nature as most churches preach? Did Yeshua give us more than we can chew?

No one is forcing us to sin.

 

[Drew]

Paul also said he had TEMPTATION in his flesh. Nah, the DEVIL certainly couldn't TEMPT? Nooooo.

Seriously, Satan and his messengers blind believers by the SCORE.

s

I agree - the devil tempted Paul, as a believer.

But, as should be clear, this does not mean that when Paul refers to an "I" being tempted in Romans 7, that this "I" is Paul the believer.

The basic problem you face is this: If one reads the details of chapter 7, and chapter 8, you get literally overwhelmed with the incoherence of seeing the "I" as Paul the believer - there is simply too much clear evidence against it.

Now, to be fair, I, too, have a problem. I am saying that the "I" is not Paul even though Paul is the author. But there is a huge difference between us: I am making a case that a literary device, where "I" represents the nation of Israel, is being used by Paul here.

And note how all the incoherences go away if this is indeed the case. Sure, it takes a little imagination to overcome the fundy indoctrination that there are no literary devices used in the Bible. But once you escape from that matrix of thinking, and realize that Paul knows a good literary device when he sees it, we see how much sense such a reading makes of the rest of the text.

 

[Drew]

The idea you employ, that Paul is using a literary device talking about somebody else is belied by the fact that Paul had sin, evil present and temptation by the tempter.

This is simply incorrect logic. The fact that Paul the believer has a tempter does not mean that the "I" in Romans 7 is Paul the believer, given the possibility that Paul could use "I" to refer to Israel.

This is simple, clear, incontrovertable, hard, naked logic.

Yes Paul refers to an "I" in Romans 7.

Yes, that "I" struggles with sin in the present.

But, and this is absolutely vital, if a case can be made that a literary device is being used where "I in the present" = "Israel in the present", then your argument fails.

And, indeed such a case can be made.

But more to the point - and again I point out your blanket refusal to engage post 102, which is absolutely fatal to your view - there are massive problems with seeing the "I" as "Paul the believer".

And you have addressed none of these problems.

 

[Drew]

You continue to view yourself with only ONE EYE. The fact is that if the tempter TEMPTS in the mind of believers, NONE of what you say above APPLIES to that working whatsoever.

False logic, for reasons already repeated ad nauseum. I have little doubt you are unable, or unwilling to see the error in your logic. But, mostly for the sake others who may be following this, I will continue to point out the problem:

The fact that Satan tempts believers clearly does not mean that any talk of Satan tempting people must be talk of Satam tempting believers - Satan also creates problems for non-believers (as per Romans 1, for example)

It is pointless to spread that which Christ gave US unto the DEVIL and we can not say that the tempter does not operate against us in our minds and hearts.

Strawman to the max. I have repeatedly affirmed that the devil indeed does operate against believers. But, obviously, this does not mean that Romans 7, in particular, is about believers.

As we have seen, this is simply not possible, not least for the clear, unassailable argument of how the Christian in Romans 8 is described as having been delivered from the exact law of sin and death to which the "I" in Romans 7 is enslaved.

Of course, you do not deal with that argument - it is right there in post 102.

You talk about a "rule" against lying. I would agree that you see some lying in this forum. But I would suggest another rule - that moderators simply not allow posters to ignore arguments.

If, repeat if, the moderators were paid to do their jobs and if their mandate was to promote entirely legitimate debate, your evasion tactic would simply not be countenanced.

But, understandably, you cannot expect volunteers to do the careful work of confirming that a particular argument is being intentionally ignored. So, understandably enough, moderators - who are not paid - can only monitor so many things.

But let us be clear: it is manifestly unacceptable - if we are talking about responsible debate - to habitually evade a clear argument that you have been challendged with.

So, again, how is it that a Christian is both set free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8), while, at the same time, enslaved to it? This is the question you must answer if you are going to maintain that the "I" in Romans 7 is a believer (Paul or anyone else).

You can claim exemption, but it is quite funny to see you acknowledge the fact of temptation at the same time. The fact is none of us escape temptation and yes, that is of the devil and places the presence of EVIL with us. We are not the same as that working. The sooner we figure it out, the sooner we stop being pawned.

s[/QUOTE]

 

[jasoncran]

drew there is a forum that im on as a member that doesnt allow dishonesty in debates. the athiests are few in number there.

 

[lightbearer]

Paul was very precise about his own condition. He had sin indwelling him that he identified as NO LONGER I.
smaller

You misunderstand Paul and the Gospel.

God said through Paul just after his testimony in chapter 7. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

This same freedom Jesus talked about in John 8 He said,"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. (In bondage too.)
And the servant (sinner) abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. His flesh.
Condenming it to death on the cross in His flesh. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity (sin) captive, and gave gifts unto men. For ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. For it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged of sin they should have had no more conscience of sins. The inner man should of been changed.

But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. A figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience (the inner Man);
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.The reforming of the inner man.

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption (freedom from the bondage of sin) for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge (cleanse) your conscience (the inner man)from dead works (acts that lead to death. Sin, For the wages of sin is death) to serve the living God?
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, For what cause?

To cleanse the inner man so we can serve the Living God.

What is the new testament? It is the fulfilment of the New covenant.

For God hath said, for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. For it is I which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. This is and was only Possible through the cleansing blood of Jesus. We had to be cleansed and purged of the old Man. For God hath said,"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For he that is dead is freed from sin.".

If we sin it is because we want to or have not received the repentance which is from God. Not because we can't live without sinning. But we are right With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Greater is he that is in us than he that is in this world. For it is God that worketh in us both to will and do His good pleasure. As God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them; for we are the temple of the living God. Therefore there hath no temptation taken us but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that we may be able to bear it.
And that way is through His Spirit. The power that we have available to us as the Body of Christ. God's Holy Temple.
Have Faith. Ask and we will receive. Knock and it will be open to us.
Ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Continue to Pray. Let us not doubt in our hearts, but believe that those things which we saith shall come to pass; and we shall have whatsoever we saith.
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever we desire, when we pray, believe that we receive them, and we shall have them.
Jesus said unto us, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to them that believeth.
And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
So how does one combat unbelief? As with any temptation. Prayer and With a hardy thus saith the Lord!!
Jesus are example, when tempted in the wilderness meet each temptation with a," Get behind me Satan, It is written".
So when we are tempted and as we tarry here waiting on the Lord we can meet each avenue in life and each temptation with the same mind set. Through God’s Holy Spirit.

 

[Eventide]

Old and the New

Excellent commantary imo..

I certainly see Romans 7 as a very 'real' and factual condition of the Christian life.. and imo, one of the reasons why this might be hard to understand is because of the dual nature of the Christian life..

The OLD MAN and the NEW MAN..

When a person is born again by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, they have CHRIST birthed in them, in their frail earthen vessel.. we are told that our old man is crucified with Christ and that we can now walk in newness of life because of the Spirit of Christ which is in us... and although our old man is to be reckoned (considered) dead in a positional sense.. he remains very much within us in a practical sense.. Paul makes this obvious in teaching that we are to PUT OFF this old man who IS (not was) corrupt according to deceitful LUSTS..

IMO a problem arises because many think that God is making us (the old man) better.. but he is not.. our old man IS corrupt, and he always will be.. we're carrying him around with us and he often gets the best of us.. BUT that old man (our Adamic nature) is never going to change, he is never going to improve in any way.. and this is why we're to reckon him dead..

SIN can only reign in our OLD NATURE, it cannot reign in CHRIST.. the new man, that's impossible.. and when a Christian realizes this vital truth, then it's a matter of who we choose to serve so to speak... will it be our old man who is corrupt or will it be the new man who is created in us in righteousness and true holiness..

It's not Christ AND me.. it's CHRIST IN ME.. that's our hope of glory.

 

[Eventide]

So let's try to look at the things which are in play here..

For a Christian there is;

The OLD MAN which is our Adamic nature, who we are through our parents when we were born naturally into this world.

The NEW MAN which is Christ in us, when we were miraculously born again into the family of God by the Holy Spirit of God.. Paul says that this was when we trusted in Christ, after hearing the gospel of our salvation, and that after we believed, we were sealed by the Holy Spirit..

Smaller has expounded greatly upon the matter of SIN and how that it is NOT US.. so that's clearly another element in play.. and SIN is of the DEVIL.. no doubt about it.. these are scriptural facts imo and I'll add that I agree with smaller in this matter and appreciate his diligence in discussing it as a very 'real' aspect of life as we know it..

So look at what this breaks down to..

The old man (us), the new man (Christ), within the same lump of clay.. literally two forces which are contrary to one another.. the old man is going to die physically, that's a cold hard fact for every last man in Adam, with the exception of Enoch and Elijah I think..

The god of this world can only influence the old man.. he has nothing in Christ.. and so when we're being carnal we're serving the old man.. and any Christian who has been in Christ for a couple decades starts to see that there's a huge struggle going on.. and we're not getting any better.. our old man remains corrupt and deceitful and if anything, the true light shining in us should AMPLIFY just how corrupt we really are.. that there is truly nothing good in me, that is, in my flesh..

IMO this is exactly what Paul is teaching the Christian.. that the LAW AMPLIFIES how corrupt our old nature IS, and always will be..

CHRIST in us cannot be influenced by the god of this world.. and He is already PERFECT.. there's never a need to make our new man better because it can't get any better than CHRIST IN YOU.. our only need is to agree with God in that He alone is good and that we can do all things through HIM..

Infinitely easier said than lived..

I think that another problem is that many do not believe that Satan is currently the god of this present evil world.. but that imo is a scriptural fact which cannot be denied.. and we should be able to see that Day approaching.. the Day of the LORD, the Day of Jesus Christ.. which shall come as a thief in the night, as travail upon a woman with child..

Amazing times..