Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[Drew]

What did sin accomplish? Paul doesn't say sin made him do anything.

I don't believe I ever said that sin "made" Paul do anything, did I?

The concept of sin is a transgression against the law.

Mark, you are begging the very question at issue here - you cannot simply asser that this is what "sin" means in Romans 7. Notice that I do not simply assume, that in Romans 7 at least, sin is a force or power, with no reference to "law-breaking". I argue for this interpretation - I do not simply declare it to be correct.

We are dealing with concepts. The concept of sin implies unrighteousness, law breaking, lawlessness, disobedience, wrongdoing.

Begging the question again.

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

Oh read the Bible? Gee, I wish I had thought of that.......

Mark, please do not patronize me.

 

[Drew]

Law breaking is breaking the law.

I am not denying this.

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.

It is clear from Romans 5, if not elsewhere that sin kills apart from law. So there is no way to support your position by appealing to any kind of argument that sin only causes to the extent that law is being broken.

I see no real counter-arguments to my arguments that we need to see sin, in Romans 7 at least, as a force or agency, not as "law-breaking". We know from Romans 5 that Paul believes that the word "sin" can be used to describe something that exists apart from law.

 

[Drew]

Consider this statement from Romans 8:

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

What was condemned on the cross? Jesus? No - that is not what Paul is saying. It is sin that is condemned on the cross. That is the true enemy, that is the legitimat target of God's condemnatory wrath. Yes, Jesus dies, but God is certainly not punishing His own Sin. Instead he is condemning sin, and Jesus is, yet, the vessel that "holds" that sin. And so He dies. But God was in no sense "killing Jesus" - it was sin that He was after.

Anyway, can "law-breaking" the target of God's wrath? Of course not - that makes no sense. It makes no more sense to condemn "law-breaking" than it does to praise "test-passing".

Look - Paul tells us sin is condemned. The only kinds of things that can be condemned are persons, or other "agents". It makes no sense at all to say that God looks at the judgement that a law has been broken and condemns that.

And yet that is precisely what you have Paul saying here - that God condemned law-breaking. No - what He condemned was sin, here, as in Romans 7, understood to be a force, or agency in the world that is the true legitimate target of God's wrath.

 

[Drew]

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.

You are beggin the question. I have presented numerous arguments that, indeed, Paul, at least in Romans 7 and now the first bit of Romans 8, is using the word "sin" to denote a force or agency in the world.

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?

It was there all along - I believe I have been quite clear about this. But the text says what it says - the Law functions to energize and empower sin.

Paul tells us what he is saying. He is saying sin/wrongdoing/law breaking/lawlessness is inherent in the flesh.

Begging the question again.

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.

All true, but none of this is a challenge to my position that Paul sees "sin" here as an entity - not as the judgement that the Law of Moses has been broken. Look at this text:

For (AI)the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, (AJ)I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

How can a judgement that some standard has been violated dwell inside a person?

How can a judgement that some standard has been violated be responsible for evil? That makes no sense - judgements cannot act. The only legitimate responsible party is that the force or agency that perpetrates the act, with that act also understood to have "broken the law"

Romans 7 is Paul's reflection on the state of the unbelieving Jew under the Law of Moses - that Law energizes and amplifies sin in the Jew. This connects directly with the vessels of destruction in Romans 9 - these are Jews who have been subject to this "dark" effect of the Law of Moses.

And despite the misrepresentations that I expect we will continue to hear from a certain somebody -this is not an anti-semitic position. It is the exact opposite. We Gentiles (although I have a lot of Jewish ancestry) owe the Jews a huge debt of gratitude. Why? Because God used them as the place where the sin of the world was initially concentrated before it was, yes, condemned in the flesh of the one true Israelite - Jesus of Nazareth.

As Paul says in Romans 11: because of their (Israel's) transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

Those Jews that were "tripped up" by the Law of Moses have played a critical and necessary role in God's redemption of the world. And if anyone says that this is "taking the glory from Jesus", I will most assuredly respond with great vigour.

 

[MarkT]

The concept of sin is a transgression against the law.

Mark, you are begging the very question at issue here - you cannot simply asser that this is what "sin" means in Romans 7. Notice that I do not simply assume, that in Romans 7 at least, sin is a force or power, with no reference to "law-breaking". I argue for this interpretation - I do not simply declare it to be correct.

Sin is doing what God commands us not to do. Adam sinned. His transgression was counted as sin. In other words, when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he lost his innocence. So when it became known to him what he had done, he was judged gulity.

There's no need to argue this. It's a matter of common knowledge. There's no question to beg, no theory to prove.

In Romans 7, Paul is talking about the spiritual versus the physical - the spiritual law and the carnal self. He said the law is spiritual, but I am carnal Romans 7:14

He is held captive by the condition of physical being, and so by his physical desires. Being a physical man means we are subject to physical desires. Paul sees nothing good in himself. Why does he still covet when he knows it is wrong? He sees law breaking or sin as being something we must master. He sees our physical desire as belonging to or indwelling the physical body. Man is a creature of instinct. He spends all of his time on himself, looking after his body, and to what end? To seek pleasure. He is always seeking after his own good to pleasure. So Paul associates sinful passion or pleasure with the flesh; something the flesh wants, something the flesh experiences, which drives him to do what he doesn't want to do.

It is clear from Romans 5, if not elsewhere that sin kills apart from law. So there is no way to support your position by appealing to any kind of argument that sin only causes to the extent that law is being broken.

I see no real counter-arguments to my arguments that we need to see sin, in Romans 7 at least, as a force or agency, not as "law-breaking". We know from Romans 5 that Paul believes that the word "sin" can be used to describe something that exists apart from law.

No. It's not. In Romans 7 Paul said sin lies dead apart from the law. That means it doesn't kill apart from the law. It only kills when the law is known. He specifically states sin came into the world because of Adam's transgression, and because of that all men died. In other words, knowing good and evil, they chose to do evil - all men sinned and death came to all men. Knowing it is wrong to kill, to lie, steal, cheat isn't something exclusive to some men. All men know it is wrong. Sin is wrong doing.

 

[MarkT]

Consider this statement from Romans 8:

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

What was condemned on the cross? Jesus? No - that is not what Paul is saying. It is sin that is condemned on the cross. That is the true enemy, that is the legitimat target of God's condemnatory wrath. Yes, Jesus dies, but God is certainly not punishing His own Sin. Instead he is condemning sin, and Jesus is, yet, the vessel that "holds" that sin. And so He dies. But God was in no sense "killing Jesus" - it was sin that He was after.

There was no sin in Jesus, and it would be wrong to think of him as a vessel of sin.

God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, not that there was sin in him, but as a perfect sin offering for our sins, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk in the Spirit.

God condemned wrong doing or sin in the flesh so that wrong doing or sin in the flesh has no power over us, that is, it doesn't have the power of death over us who walk in the Spirit. So whereas before we were slaves to the sinful desires of the flesh, now, since we were crucified with the Lord, we are set free from our dead bodies.

Jesus is the expiation for our sins. You are forgiven for his sake.

Jesus was the sin offering, sent to fulfill the requirement of the law so that all who believe in him may be set free. In Christ we are free from the law of sin and death.

2 Corinthians 5:21 RSV
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[MarkT]

Let's say I tell you not to do something or you will die, and you do it. When you do it, you die. Let's say I don't tell you not to do it, and you do it. When you do it, you die. In the last case, I can't say you were disobedient, because I didn't tell you not to do it. In the first case, I can say you were disobedient.

Before the law was given, men died. However their sin or wrong doing didn't count as sin because there was no law back then. But in both cases wrong doing or sin killed them. Moses was given the law. That's not to say the law was invented on the spot. It suggests God made his law known to Moses, and he gave it to Moses to give to the Israelites.

You might say the law shows sin to be sin, as Paul said in Romans 7:13, and through the law, sin is magnified; sin becomes more sinful.

I never used the word 'judgment', so it appears like you are arguing with yourself.

What does this have to do with the vessels of wrath? Nothing. A vessel of wrath would be someone into whom God pours his wrath. Likewise a vessel of mercy would be someone into whom God pours his mercy. We know them by their fruits.

In Paul's letter to Timothy, we find Paul using the same language. He says Hymenae'us and Phile'tus (they sound like Greek names to me) have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already (not true), but God knows his own, suggesting that these two individuals were false teachers; God doesn't know them. 2 Tim. 2 :17-19

Paul says, "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. 21 If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. 2 Timothy 2:20

Later on he talks about the last days and those men who oppose the truth; men of counterfeit faith, corrupt minded, evil men and imposters. 2 Timothy 3:8 and 3:13

In his letter to the Romans, Paul says the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. Are we not edified by Paul's writings, even though most of us are not of Jewish ancestry? Sure we are.

The vessels of wrath are those men who God created who oppose the truth. And to show his wrath, God gives them over to a base mind and improper conduct.

Nowhere does it say they are unbelieving Jews or that in the last days the false teachers will be of Jewish ancestry. But it says they will be in the church (the great house). But how about those outside the church? Are they also vessels made for destruction? I would say so, especially those who actively oppose the truth; those who say there is no God. What about unbelieving Jews? Those who suppress the truth would be included; the Jewish leadership, the blind guides.

Jesus said beware of false prophets. Peter said, "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1 RSV

 

[Drew]

Sin is doing what God commands us not to do. Adam sinned. His transgression was counted as sin. In other words, when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he lost his innocence. So when it became known to him what he had done, he was judged gulity.

There's no need to argue this. It's a matter of common knowledge. There's no question to beg, no theory to prove.

This is putting the cart before the horse and trying to "tell Paul" how he should be using the word "sin". The proper approach is to see how Paul has chosen to use the word. And to recognize the obvious truth that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

The point is that what Paul says about "sin" in Romans 7 demonstrates that he is using the term to denote a power or force that is at work in the human person. Not to mention Romans 5 where Paul talks about sin being at work in the world even in the absence of a "command".

So this view that "sin" must always denote "doing what God commands us not to do" simply cannot be sustained in light of the textual evidence.

Please - let Paul say what he wants to say and not impose (indefensible) restrictions on him.

 

[savedbygrace57]

The False teachers of jude 1 4 are vessels of destruction or condemnation lets read:

Jude 1:

4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

ps 1:6

For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

2 pet:2:5

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

These [The Ungodly] were predestined to perish in the flood in the time of Noah..

This was of old, ordained of God, written in His eternal counsels of old..

 

[Drew]

In case it was not clear - this thread is really about the term "vessels of destruction" as it is specifically used in Romans 9.

 

[savedbygrace57]

In case it was not clear - this thread is really about the term "vessels of destruction" as it is specifically used in Romans 9.

Thats how its used in rom 9, you just deceived and cant see it. I cant help you with that..

 

[Drew]

Thats how its used in rom 9, you just deceived and cant see it. I cant help you with that..

What you can "help with" is to engage in appropriate, constructive argument.

The assertion that I must be "deceived" since I do not agree with your take on Romans 9 is hardly going to convince any reasonable reader.

 

[Drew]

In Romans 7, Paul is talking about the spiritual versus the physical - the spiritual law and the carnal self. He said the law is spiritual, but I am carnal Romans 7:14

I suggest that there is no evidence for drawing this "physical" vs "spiritual" distinction. Many read a "physical - spirit" dualism into the Bible, but it is not really there. We in the west are the inheritors of Greek dualist thinking - a worldview where "reality" is carved into two spheres, the material and the immaterial.

Paul is not talking about such a dualism here in Romans, as I will now argue.

In Romans 7:7-24a, Paul describes a man who is enslaved to sin and cannot do good. These are false statements in respect to the Christian, since we know that the Christian can go good and the Christian is not enslaved to sin. This alone should eliminate the possibility that Paul is talking about a Christian.

Some will claim that the position that the "I†in Romans 7 is a Christian can be salvaged by introducing a flesh - spirit distinction. On such a view, Romans 7;7-24a addresses how the Christian's "flesh" is still "in Adam", leaving us free to embrace the position that his "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 “duality†position for brevity.

However, note what Paul says here:

18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

The duality position cannot be sustained in light of this text. Consider the statement "I have the desire to do good". From the duality position, this “I†is Paul's "spirit" which serves the law of God. Fine. Now what does Paul say next? He asserts "but I cannot carry it out". Paul is talking about a limitation on his ability to act in the world. On the duality position, we have a Christian with a spirit that wants to do good, but with fallen Adamic flesh that prevents any of the desires of the "spirit" from actually being carried out.

This amounts to a declaration that a Christian is hopelessly stuck in a state where they cannot do good. And that is clearly impossible - Paul cannot be describing a Christian here, even if the duality position is entertained.

Same thing with verse19 - Paul says that the "I" does only evil. How can this "I" possibly be a Christian? Are all acts of Christians evil? Obviously not.

The "I" of Romans 7 cannot be a Christian experiencing a battle between the old “flesh†nature and the new “spiritual†nature.

 

[savedbygrace57]

What you can "help with" is to engage in appropriate, constructive argument.

The assertion that I must be "deceived" since I do not agree with your take on Romans 9 is hardly going to convince any reasonable reader.

I believe its God's will for you to remain deceived, if not, I have plenty of post and threads here that can start you on the path of truth..

 

[Drew]

He is held captive by the condition of physical being, and so by his physical desires. Being a physical man means we are subject to physical desires. Paul sees nothing good in himself. Why does he still covet when he knows it is wrong? He sees law breaking or sin as being something we must master. He sees our physical desire as belonging to or indwelling the physical body. Man is a creature of instinct. He spends all of his time on himself, looking after his body, and to what end? To seek pleasure. He is always seeking after his own good to pleasure. So Paul associates sinful passion or pleasure with the flesh; something the flesh wants, something the flesh experiences, which drives him to do what he doesn't want to do.

As per my previous post, I politely suggest that there simply is no basis for seeing a "physical" - "spirit" dualism in the human person. As should already be clear, such a view simply cannot work anyway if we take Paul seriously in the fine-grained details of what he actually writes. In Romans 7, Paul characterizes the "I" as unable to do good. Well, that hardly seems possible, if the "I" is a Christian. After all, even if it were true that Paul were describing the "instincts of the physical body" doing battle with the Spirit, it certainly is not the case that a Christian cannot do good. A Christian unable to do good? Please.

Again, our Greek heritage betrays us - we look at world through Platonic spectacles. For Paul, the important distinction is not "physical - immaterial", it is "old creature" - "new creature". Look at 1 Corinthians 15 - Paul describes the resurrection body as "spiritual". Does this mean it will be "non-physical"? Of course not - Jesus' resurrection body was decidedly a "physical" thing.

The Biblical worldview is fundamentally Hebrew, not Greek. And the Hebrew mind saw the human person as not divisible into a "body" and a "soul / spirit".

 

[MarkT]

Originally Posted by MarkT 

He is held captive by the condition of physical being, and so by his physical desires. Being a physical man means we are subject to physical desires. Paul sees nothing good in himself. Why does he still covet when he knows it is wrong? He sees law breaking or sin as being something we must master. He sees our physical desire as belonging to or indwelling the physical body. Man is a creature of instinct. He spends all of his time on himself, looking after his body, and to what end? To seek pleasure. He is always seeking after his own good to pleasure. So Paul associates sinful passion or pleasure with the flesh; something the flesh wants, something the flesh experiences, which drives him to do what he doesn't want to do.

As per my previous post, I politely suggest that there simply is no basis for seeing a "physical" - "spirit" dualism in the human person. As should already be clear, such a view simply cannot work anyway if we take Paul seriously in the fine-grained details of what he actually writes. In Romans 7, Paul characterizes the "I" as unable to do good. Well, that hardly seems possible, if the "I" is a Christian. After all, even if it were true that Paul were describing the "instincts of the physical body" doing battle with the Spirit, it certainly is not the case that a Christian cannot do good. A Christian unable to do good? Please.

Again, our Greek heritage betrays us - we look at world through Platonic spectacles. For Paul, the important distinction is not "physical - immaterial", it is "old creature" - "new creature". Look at 1 Corinthians 15 - Paul describes the resurrection body as "spiritual". Does this mean it will be "non-physical"? Of course not - Jesus' resurrection body was decidedly a "physical" thing.

The Biblical worldview is fundamentally Hebrew, not Greek. And the Hebrew mind saw the human person as not divisible into a "body" and a "soul / spirit".

Why does it hardly seem possible? Do you think we are perfect? No. Satan continually accuses us of doing wrong. We do good if we keep the commandments.

Paul said, Romans 7:15, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.â€

I think this is pretty self explanatory. We are weak, and almost as a rule, we crumble in the face of temptation. Not that we cannot resist the devil. We can. But this world isn’t easy. The road is hard, and the gate is narrow. Now, I know exactly what Paul is saying. Sin dwells within us, that is, within our members, and we are almost held captive to the law of sin. We are sinners. That doesn’t mean we cannot do good; that’s not what Paul is saying. He is saying he does the evil he doesn’t want to do. That's different from saying he is unable to do good.

Am I to understand that you reject the soul and the spirit? Because if you do, then you have no understanding at all. Don’t just dismiss the Greek worldview. Paul didn’t. Read the prophets. What you’re saying about the Hebrew mind is kind of ridiculous. Where does that come from? Because I think it comes from Satan; it comes from those scholars you listen to.

Jesus materialized in his physical body. He also appeared and disappeared, something we can't do. He also appeared in another form to two of the disciples. And there are many instances of angels in our form; like the angels who came to Lot. So the spiritual body can materialize. That's not to say the physical body will not be raised at the resurrection. It will. But we will be changed instantly.

 

[savedbygrace57]

mark t

We do good if we keep the commandments.

We do good if Christ has kept the commandments in our behalf, and God reckons that as if we did keep the commandments..

 

[MarkT]

mark t



We do good if Christ has kept the commandments in our behalf, and God reckons that as if we did keep the commandments..

Jesus said, if you love me, you will keep my commandments.

John 14:15 RSV
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

John 15:10 RSV
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

 

[Free]

Am I to understand that you reject the soul and the spirit? Because if you do, then you have no understanding at all. Don’t just dismiss the Greek worldview. Paul didn’t. Read the prophets. What you’re saying about the Hebrew mind is kind of ridiculous. Where does that come from? Because I think it comes from Satan; it comes from those scholars you listen to.

These kind of comments need to stop. This is completely unnecessary, and false. If I am not mistaken, Drew believes what the OT states, namely, that God breathed his spirit into man's body who then became a soul, a "living being." And how do you even know what scholars Drew listens to? One of the scholars he listens to is one of the top scholars today.

People really need to stop saying someone's beliefs are of Satan simply because they disagree.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Jesus said, if you love me, you will keep my commandments.

John 14:15 RSV
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

John 15:10 RSV
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

All for whom Christ died, will keep His commandments. By the obedience [His death] of one [ That being Christ] shall many be made righteous. rom 5:19b

so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The word righteous is the greek word

dikaios: and it means many things, which are:

righteous, observing divine laws

a) in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God

So keeping the commandments of God is a benefit and effect of the obedience of Christ..

All for who He died will be made obedient..

So those who are not, Christ did not die for them..They were always vessels of destruction..