Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[MarkT]

All true, but the sentence simply cannot be made to fit where you want to take it, unless you bend it all out of shape.


Impossible. Then we would have Paul saying this entirely illogical thing:

But law-breaking, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire

Do I have to explain how this cannot work grammatically and logically? In theory one could write this:

But law-breaking produced in me every kind of covetous desire

This is an assertion that the act of breaking the law gives rise to covetous desire. This is, of course, a possible state of affairs.

But when we add the "seizing the opportunity afforded by the law (the commandment)" clause, we get a big problem. The reason is this: when you say "law-breaking", you already have implicitly committed to the existence of a law. So you cannot then say that "law-breaking" seizes an opportunity provided by the law" - you are already breaking the law.

You can think of sin as law breaking or disobedience or wrongdoing or lawlessness. "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4 "All wrongdoing is sin" 1 John 5:17

James tells us desire, when it is has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. James 1:15

Paul said "Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness" You could substitute the words 'lawlessness' or 'disobedience' for sin. ie. Let not 'lawlessness' reign in your mortal bodies - meaning keep the commandments. Don't let sin make you obey your members; speaking of the flesh. Paul refers to the presence of lawlessness (sin) in his flesh, that is, nothing good dwells in him. He can't do what he wants to do. He does the very thing he hates. Romans 7:16-24

The RSV renders Romans 7:8 as, "But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness." You could substitute 'lawlessness' or 'disobedience' or 'wrongdoing' for sin ie. But 'wrongdoing', finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness.'

It means sin, or the wrongdoing in him, made him want what other people had. This is consistent with my understanding that man is evil.

He sees wrongdoing in his mortal body; the desire for things makes him want to satisfy the desire. It makes him covet.

Paul is essentially saying he was a wrongdoer, and the law, when it came in, convicted him of wrongdoing or covetousness RSV or covetous desire NIV. That's what any law does - it convicts the wrongdoer. The knowledge of the law made his desires covetous.

Sin isn't just breaking any law. It is breaking God's law. So there was this war going on inside him. Wrongdoing in his flesh and the delight in God's law in his mind.

 

[Drew]

Paul in Romans preached to both JEW and GENTILE, the GOSPEL:

Romans 1:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

etc.

Not relevant to my point, which is that Paul sometimes uses the word sin to denote something other than law-breaking. There really can be disagreement about this. This text alone proves that Paul does not always use the word "sin" to denote law-breaking:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— or before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

 

[Drew]

You can think of sin as law breaking or disobedience or wrongdoing or lawlessness. "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4 "All wrongdoing is sin" 1 John 5:17

Citing examples of the use of the word "sin" refers to denote law-breaking or disobedience is not an argument that the word is not otherwise used to denote a force or power that indwells the human person. There are examples of the use of the word "bat" to denote an implement used in baseball. This does not, of course, mean that the word "bat" cannot refer to a small flying mammal.

My argument is that there is no sensible way to read "sin" as law-breaking in Romans 7 - if you do, the sentences make no sense. For example, it is not sensible to say "But law-breaking, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire"

James tells us desire, when it is has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. James 1:15

True, but this does not require us to understand "sin" in these texts as law-breaking.

Paul said "Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.

Exactly - this particular statement suggests that Paul uses the word "sin" to denote an indwelling force or power, not the activity of breaking a law.

Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness" You could substitute the words 'lawlessness' or 'disobedience' for sin. ie. Let not 'lawlessness' reign in your mortal bodies - meaning keep the commandments.

I don't think you can make this substitution. You need to remember the kind of "thing" law-breaking is - it is the judgement that a law has been broken. Now, how such a "judgement" function to "make you obey your passions" as Paul says "sin" can indeed do? This makes no sense at all, in my view.

A judgement that action X violates standard Y is a neutral "determination" that something has happened. This kind of thing - a determination - simply cannot "reign in your body" or "cause you to obey passions". The only "kinds" of things can do such things are agencies, powers, or forces.

And this is precisely my argument. In Romans 7, as elsewhere, "sin" does not referring to stepping over some line - it refers to power or force.

Determination, judgements, and assessments that an action has violated a law simply cannot act in the world. They cannot "make you obey your passions"

Can passing a test "make" do you do something? Of course not. This is because, like law-breaking, it is a judgement or an assessment, not an agency present in the world. I know this may seem overly philosophical, but I trust you are seeing my point.

 

[Drew]

The RSV renders Romans 7:8 as, "But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness." You could substitute 'lawlessness' or 'disobedience' or 'wrongdoing' for sin ie. But 'wrongdoing', finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness.'

Disagree. In order to "wreak" covetousness, the "thing" doing the wreaking has to be understandable as an agent that can act. Judgements cannot act. And if you say "sin" = "law-breaking" you are talking about a "judgement".

 

[Drew]

This matter is SETTLED. ALL have SIN. ALL ARE UNDER SIN by the conclusion of scripture. Whether one 'places such sin' under LAW to verify it is there or not, the SCRIPTURE has made the conclusion REGARDLESS and FOR ALL, not just in 'JEWS.'

Not this again.

You appear bound and determined to repeatedly misrepresent me. As any careful reader will know, I have never suggested that only Jews are "sinners".

I realize it may serve your position to make this implication, but it is entirely unfounded and cannot be substantiated in anything I have posted.

 

[Drew]

The ONLY thing that DOESN'T make SENSE in your postings is your insistence that ANY of these matters apply to JEWS ONLY.

You are making a statement.

I provided an argument (many, actually). And the argument is that the Law of Moses functions to energize the sin in the person who is under it. And it is, of course, Jews that are under the Law of Moses.

 

[smaller]

You are making a statement.

I provided an argument (many, actually). And the argument is that the Law of Moses functions to energize the sin in the person who is under it. And it is, of course, Jews that are under the Law of Moses.

"The scripture has concluded all under sin."

But let's not look at any contrary scripture to the Jew only position and call it conversation in behalf of Drew.

s

 

[MarkT]

Disagree. In order to "wreak" covetousness, the "thing" doing the wreaking has to be understandable as an agent that can act. Judgements cannot act. And if you say "sin" = "law-breaking" you are talking about a "judgement".

Who said anything about judgment. Sin implies law breaking. There's no reason to think Paul doesn't know that, or that he is using the word to mean something else. He said, "But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness." But then he sees this covetousness in his members. It's there. Did sin enter his flesh, or was sin already there waiting for an opportunity to present itself?

The problem here is that you're taking one line out of context.

Paul tells us what he is saying. He is saying sin/wrongdoing/law breaking/lawlessness is inherent in the flesh. He sees this lawlessness in his members making him do what he doesn't want to do. He said don't let lawlessness overcome you and make you obey the flesh. He sees in himself a war against the lawlessness in his flesh. He calls the flesh disobedient. It doesn't submit to God's law. He sees in the mortal body this desire for things, and this desire gives birth to sin. Wrong doing found opportunity in the law to kill him, in the law that says, "You shall not covet". Opportunity implies a chance. Sin was given a chance to kill him. The opportunity presented itself when Paul came to know what it was to covet. As the scripture says, "when he comes to know it, he is guilty."

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew

And the argument is that the Law of Moses functions to energize the sin in the person who is under it.

If they were elect [or of the election of grace] and regenerated. Paul did not understand the spiritual purpose of the law until regenerated:

Rom 7:

7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Before Paul was made alive, He was confident that he kept the law in his flesh, he did not realize his lust and covetousness.

Phil 3:


4Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Paul now knows that the Law was a schoolmaster[ spiritually] to bring the elect to Faith in Christ !

Gal 3:

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Before regeneration, Paul thought he was already justified before God and His Law apart from Christ.

The same applies to the gentile elect, the natural dictates of Gods Law, same Law, just not written on tables of stone to them, God used to slay the regenerated gentile elect and bring them to Faith in Christ, perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch is an example.

 

[Drew]

"The scripture has concluded all under sin."

But let's not look at any contrary scripture to the Jew only position and call it conversation in behalf of Drew.

s

You simply have no argument here - I never denied that all are under sin. All I ever stated was that the Law of Moses functions to energize sin in the Jew. I really should not have to explain this. Are you intentionally being contrary?

Look. Suppose I was making posts about how Pharoah was hardened. Would it be sensible for you to protest that I am saying only Egyptian rulers are under sin? Think, man, think!

 

[smaller]

You simply have no argument here - I never denied that all are under sin. All I ever stated was that the Law of Moses functions to energize sin in the Jew. I really should not have to explain this. Are you intentionally being contrary?

The 'scripture' has made the conclusion for ALL. IF SIN is in all, it is likewise empowered by that LAW and not in Jews alone.

The workings of SIN in relation to LAW transpires between THOSE WORKINGS. The nationality of the carrier of SIN is completely IRRELEVANT.

Sin is a universal condition of mankind, all.

The LAW said DO NOT EAT...

SIN entered into ADAM and thusly into ALL. ALL of us down to the LAST PERSON were IN ADAM.

THE ONLY exemption was Jesus Christ IN WHOM was no SIN because The Seed of His Flesh was GOD HIMSELF.

SIN is the working of THE DEVIL in men. The DEVIL is an Anti-Christ spirit who is ACTIVATED into resistance by THE LAW.

The 'relationship of THE LAW is that which is HOLY, JUST, SPIRITUAL and GOOD in ADVERSE REACTIONS with a working that WE CAN NOT SEE, that being THE DEVIL, prompted INTO ACTION each and every time in each and every PERSON.

ALL have sin.

ALL have SINNED.

The DEVIL has SINNED in ALL.

Look. Suppose I was making posts about how Pharoah was hardened. Would it be sensible for you to protest that I am saying only Egyptian rulers are under sin? Think, man, think!

YOU continue to see ONLY MAN in your equations, therefore your equations are insufficient to deal with these matters because those positions ARE BARREN of FACTS and in that such positions can not POSSIBLY be 'correct,' period.

You have a math equation without the required integers.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

Hello smaller - I see no use in continuing this particular sub-issue. So you get the last word, and I will invite the other readers to judge whether my posts say that "only Jews have sinned".

 

[smaller]

Hello smaller - I see no use in continuing this particular sub-issue. So you get the last word, and I will invite the other readers to judge whether my posts say that "only Jews have sinned".

And you will continue to MISS THE POINTS made, nearly entirely.

The day you come to realize that MAN IS NOT ALONE in OUR SIN, you will have the OTHER PARTY on the table for RIGHTFUL VIEWING.

Those IN WHOM that PARTY controls ARE NOT allowed to see him by that same party. These types of SCRIPTURE VIEWERS will remain BLINDED by the god of this world and they will DEMONstate FALSE judgments continually and they will also EXNONERATE themselves. This 'activity' is part of the MARK OF THE BEAST in their own minds.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

Those IN WHOM that PARTY controls ARE NOT allowed to see him by that same party. These types of SCRIPTURE VIEWERS will remain BLINDED by the god of this world and they will DEMONstate FALSE judgments continually and they will also EXNONERATE themselves. This 'activity' is part of the MARK OF THE BEAST in their own minds.

Ah the familar refrain of someone who has no actual argument - suggest that the other party is blinded by Satan.

 

[smaller]

Ah the familar refrain of someone who has no actual argument - suggest that the other party is blinded by Satan.

We were ALL once blinded by the 'god of this world' and ALL of our sin is CONNECTED to the DEVIL, Satan.

SOME do FALL back into his clutches, even whilst claiming to be 'in the light.'

I say at that point there really are TWO PARTIES standing in the light of that man.

 

[MarkT]

Citing examples of the use of the word "sin" refers to denote law-breaking or disobedience is not an argument that the word is not otherwise used to denote a force or power that indwells the human person. There are examples of the use of the word "bat" to denote an implement used in baseball. This does not, of course, mean that the word "bat" cannot refer to a small flying mammal.

My argument is that there is no sensible way to read "sin" as law-breaking in Romans 7 - if you do, the sentences make no sense. For example, it is not sensible to say "But law-breaking, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire"


True, but this does not require us to understand "sin" in these texts as law-breaking.


Exactly - this particular statement suggests that Paul uses the word "sin" to denote an indwelling force or power, not the activity of breaking a law.


I don't think you can make this substitution. You need to remember the kind of "thing" law-breaking is - it is the judgement that a law has been broken. Now, how such a "judgement" function to "make you obey your passions" as Paul says "sin" can indeed do? This makes no sense at all, in my view.

A judgement that action X violates standard Y is a neutral "determination" that something has happened. This kind of thing - a determination - simply cannot "reign in your body" or "cause you to obey passions". The only "kinds" of things can do such things are agencies, powers, or forces.

And this is precisely my argument. In Romans 7, as elsewhere, "sin" does not referring to stepping over some line - it refers to power or force.

Determination, judgements, and assessments that an action has violated a law simply cannot act in the world. They cannot "make you obey your passions"

Can passing a test "make" do you do something? Of course not. This is because, like law-breaking, it is a judgement or an assessment, not an agency present in the world. I know this may seem overly philosophical, but I trust you are seeing my point.

It might make me go out and celebrate. But this not like passing a test. Law breaking is breaking the law. The law says you will die if you break the law. So the punishment for breaking the law is written into the law. Certainly breaking the law kills the law breaker. Sin causes death. In fact, Paul sees sin as the agent of death - the sting of death is sin. So we might see sin as the agent or mechanism of death that is producing death in him. Coveting is death. I don't think there is anything mysterious about this concept.

Is Paul saying sin makes you sin? I don't think so. James said our passions are at war in our members. You desire and do not have; so you kill. You covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war. James 4:1-2 Paul isn't saying anything different. However various things are implied. The flesh is lawless and disobedient. So you could say sin rules. It's not to say coveting makes you covet, but coveting does bear fruit for death ie. wars. That's not to say we should not resist the devil because sin rules. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

 

[MarkT]

I'll retract that last statement. I think the devil uses sin to kill. Murder in your heart, or lust, though it is a sin, doesn't always translate into murder and adultery. However it can. Therefore sin can cause sin.

 

[MarkT]

No - you are not respecting the actual text. Again, you try to say that the Law labels, identifies, or reveals your sin. This is all true, but it is not what Paul says here:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire

At a certain point you are going to have to admit that you are bending Paul's words into something other than what he is saying. This is decidedly not a statement that when the Law comes along, you merely discover that your desire for other people's stuff falls under the "legal label" of "coveting".

That is simply not what this sentence is asserting, and I suggest you need to face this.

The sentence is what it is - a statement that sin leverages the opportunity provided by the Law in order to generate sinful desires.

The above statement is of this form:

But "A", seizing the opportunity afforded by "B", produced in me "C"

Was C simply "revealed" by A through B? No. The word "revealed" is not a synonym for the word "produced".

Was C simply "identified" or "labelled" as C through B? No againb. The concepts of "identifying" and "revealing" are not the same as the concept of producing.

To produce means to generate or create, not to reveal or identify.

The greek word Paul uses (translated as "produced" in the NIV) has as it definition to "perform, accomplish or ahieve". This is not the same idea as to "reveal" or "to label".

What did sin accomplish? Paul doesn't say sin made him do anything. He says sin produced something in him. Something is produced in him. What is produced? Covetousness or covetous desire. You might say covetous desire as opposed to innocent desire maybe? You decide. The concept of sin is a transgression against the law. So sin doesn't do anything but convict. The law does the rest.

We are dealing with concepts. The concept of sin implies unrighteousness, law breaking, lawlessness, disobedience, wrongdoing. So you can use the word 'sin' to suggest any of those things. I'm not saying you should substitute words as you do, but if you're reading Romans 6:12, disobedience and unrighteousness come to mind, because Paul speaks of obedience and righteousness Romans 6:16 If the Spirit is in you, then these things should come to you in the course of reading the Bible.

Don't look for evidence for preconceived ideas. Read the Bible.

 

[MarkT]

The meaning of things is found in the context of the whole. The body doesn't consist of one finger or a toe; one line or a verse. Everything must be stored in the heart. I'm not saying memorize the Bible. I'm saying understand. If it's not in the Bible, then it's not coming from a good place. If you fear God, you will keep his commandments.

 

[Drew]

The meaning of things is found in the context of the whole. The body doesn't consist of one finger or a toe; one line or a verse. Everything must be stored in the heart. I'm not saying memorize the Bible. I'm saying understand. If it's not in the Bible, then it's not coming from a good place. If you fear God, you will keep his commandments.

Of course, I entirely agree with this. But I am not sure how this is useful in establishing the Biblical position on the matter we are discussing. Obviously I agree with the principles you describe above. And it is my detailed study of the Bible that has led me to hold the position that I hold.

One qualifier - knowledge that is "not in the Bible" is clearly not to be dismissed. Understanding the culture and history of the times is extremely valuable as part of the package that helps us understand what the Bible is teaching.