Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[Drew]

No. Paul said, 'For I know nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh.' Paul said it. Paul is the 'I'. Paul is the 'me'. Paul's own words refute your hypothesis. Can't you see you're making Paul say what fits your preconceived idea? No one reading Paul's letter would think Paul meant non believing Jews when he said sin dwelt dwelt within him

Do you think I am so dumb that I do not realize that Paul uses the word "I".

Please do not be so implicitly patronizing. At least one well-respected scholar - NT Wright - believes that the "I" in Romans 7 is not Paul. That does not prove the case, but it suggests that one cannot simply presume a straight literalist, "I equals Paul" reading.

I have already argued that there is a strong plausibility case for Paul using a known literary device - the use of the pronoun "I" to actually refer to a group of persons - in his argument of Romans 7.

At the time Paul wrote Romans 7, this form of literary device was in actual use in other writings. If you need me to "prove" this, I can.

Second, and as I believe I have already argued, just a chapter or two later, Paul refers to lost Jews as "his own flesh":

3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Here we have Paul making a strong identification between himself and his fellow Jew. This strengthens the plausibility that the "I" in Romans 7 denotes Paul's fellow Jew.

And besides, how can the "I" be Paul as a Christian? You have never dealt with these facts:

1. The "I" in Romans 7 cannot do good and is enslaved to sin. That anyone can think this descriptive of a Christian seems very hard to understand;

2. Paul clearly speaks of the "I" being, yes, delivered from the Romans 7 state through Jesus - so the believer has left the Romans 7 state behind them.

 

[Drew]

Good grief! It makes no sense to argue over the meaning of the word 'I'. 'I' is the person doing the speaking or writing.

It makes no sense to turn Paul upside down. It makes no sense to create an entire theology out of an upside down Paul.

As already pointed out, there are indeed cases, in writings of Paul's time, where the "I" is used in the manner I am suggesting. There are even other examples of this in other Pauline letters.

We need to adopt a more sophisticated approach - and not simply assume that every term in the Bible is to be taken "literally". The Bible was written by authors quite familiar with the use of literary devinces.

 

[Drew]

Jesus said love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. He didn't say love God with your body.

Well first of all, this argument begs the very question at issue. To the extent that the term "soul" can, in fact, be used to denote the entirety of the human person, there is indeed an implicit command here to love God with your body. And do I really need to give texts that show that the word "soul" can be used in this way?[/quote]

The point is the body is sinful.

I suggest that you have not presented any evidence (that does not beg the question) that Paul (or any Bible writer) ever suggests that the physical body is sinful, while other "parts" are not.

It's not to say Paul actually murdered anyone. But we are evil. We are capable of evil.

Again, you evade the fine-grained details of the text (and the not so fine-grained ones as well). In Romans 7, the "I" is not described as being simply capable of evil, it is described as hopelessly enslaved to evil. Perhaps you might say that Paul is simply exaggerating to make a general point about how we struggle with evil. Well, that might be plausible were it nor for the fact - and I do not see how your argument survives this - that at the end of chapter 7, Paul clearly suggests that Jesus delivers the "I" in Romans 7 from the awful state that the "I" is in. You have Paul saying "Jesus delivers me from the state of being a Christian". I, on the other hand, am suggesting that if Jesus delivers the "I" from the Romans 7 state, then clearly, the Romans 7 state is not the Christian state.

 

[Alabaster]

As already pointed out, there are indeed cases, in writings of Paul's time, where the "I" is used in the manner I am suggesting. There are even other examples of this in other Pauline letters.

We need to adopt a more sophisticated approach - and not simply assume that every term in the Bible is to be taken "literally". The Bible was written by authors quite familiar with the use of literary devinces.

Precisely, and one of the devices Paul uses for emphasis is the PRESENT TENSE, wherein He speaks that he is the chief of sinners. Of course all other scripture points out that the ungodly are sinners, not the redeemed.

Gotta love literary devices!

 

[Drew]

Precisely, and one of the devices Paul uses for emphasis is the PRESENT TENSE, wherein He speaks that he is the chief of sinners. Of course all other scripture points out that the ungodly are sinners, not the redeemed.

Gotta love literary devices!

The fact that Paul uses the present tense does not force us to conclude that he uses the "I" to refer to himself. And lets be clear: Paul does not refer to himself as the chief of sinners here in Romans 7. The fact that he does so in another letter does not force us to assume that he cannot use the "I" here to refer to his fellow Jews (and not himself).

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.

 

[MarkT]

Do you think I am so dumb that I do not realize that Paul uses the word "I".

Please do not be so implicitly patronizing. At least one well-respected scholar - NT Wright - believes that the "I" in Romans 7 is not Paul. That does not prove the case, but it suggests that one cannot simply presume a straight literalist, "I equals Paul" reading.

I have already argued that there is a strong plausibility case for Paul using a known literary device - the use of the pronoun "I" to actually refer to a group of persons - in his argument of Romans 7.

At the time Paul wrote Romans 7, this form of literary device was in actual use in other writings. If you need me to "prove" this, I can.

Second, and as I believe I have already argued, just a chapter or two later, Paul refers to lost Jews as "his own flesh":

3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Here we have Paul making a strong identification between himself and his fellow Jew. This strengthens the plausibility that the "I" in Romans 7 denotes Paul's fellow Jew.

And besides, how can the "I" be Paul as a Christian? You have never dealt with these facts:

1. The "I" in Romans 7 cannot do good and is enslaved to sin. That anyone can think this descriptive of a Christian seems very hard to understand;

2. Paul clearly speaks of the "I" being, yes, delivered from the Romans 7 state through Jesus - so the believer has left the Romans 7 state behind them.

Doesn't Paul say, 'So then it is no longer 'I' that do 'it', meaning the very thing he hates, 'but sin which dwells within me'? For, he says, 'nothing good dwells within me', that is, to clarify, 'in my flesh'. Sin wrought covetous desire in him. That desire causes him to break the law. So, then, it is no longer Paul, but the desire wrought by sin that makes him do the thing he hates.

In effect, Paul is saying his body can not do the good he wants to do because it is sinful. It is full of covetous desire. It would be good if he could will himself to not covet but he is carnal. His mind is on the Lord, but his body wants things.

He is not saying he can't do good. He knows the good, in this particular case, he knows he should not covet, but he can't will himself to not covet. He says covetous desire makes him do what he doesn't want to do. So Paul is blaming his body. He is saying it is no longer 'I' that do the thing 'I' hate. It is my body which is full of covetous desire now due to the introduction of the law on the flesh - the spiritual on the physical.

The reason you don't understand Paul is because Paul is born of the Spirit. He is using the teaching Jesus gave us - 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' There's the dualism that you reject. Paul is a spiritual man. His soul is the 'I'. His mind is at war with the desire of his flesh. His heart is with the Lord but his body is full of sin - carnal desire.

 

[Drew]

It's not to say Paul actually murdered anyone. But we are evil. We are capable of evil. So Paul said, 'So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.' As long as we are in the physical tent or body, we are susceptible to temptation. Sure we can resist the devil. But the point is the devil uses the weakness of the body to do right to his advantage.

I sympathize with what you are saying but your logic is simply not correct here.

You appear to be arguing thus:

1. It is a clear fact that Christians sin;
2. Romans 7 describes an "I" that sins;
3. Therefore the "I" in Romans must be a Christian.

This is simply not correct logic. There is also the possibility that the person in Romans 7 is a non-Christian - and I trust it is clear that non-Christians also sin.

Again, you are not dealing with the fact that, at the end of Romans 7, Paul strongly asserts that Jesus delivers the "I" from the Romans 7 state.

So the "I" in Romans 7 - whoever it really is - simply cannot be a Christian.

 

[Alabaster]

The 'I' in Romans 7 is Paul, no song and dance.

 

[Drew]

The 'I' in Romans 7 is Paul, no song and dance.

This is simply a declaration, with no supporting argument. No doubt it is a challenge to you to consider the possibility that Paul uses the "I" in Romans 7 to refer not to himself, but rather to his fellow Jews.

Instead of dismissing my arguments, please engage them and answer these questions.

1. The "I" in Romans 7 is described as being "there" when the Law of Moses was given at Mount Sinai (the reference to the "commandment coming"). Was Paul present at Mount Sinai?


2. At the end of Romans 7, Paul writes that the "I" described in Romans 7 is delivered from the Romans 7 state through Jesus. If Paul is describing his Christian experience in Romans 7, we have Paul suggesting that Jesus delivers the Christian from a Christian state. Please explain how this makes sense.

3. At the beginning of Romans 8, Paul describes the Christian as being set free from the law of sin and death. The person in Romans 7 is subject to this self-same law of sin and death. Please explain how a Christian can be both subject to the law of sin and death and set free from it as well.

I have other questions for you, but I will give you the opportunity to address these for now.

 

[Alabaster]

I don't find this passage to be a challenge at all. Why would Paul use the first person singular to refer to anyone but himself, who in his humility doesn't forget the fact that he was responsible for the persecution and murder of many Christians in his Christless past?

I don't bother with such departures as you are entertaimimg from the plain reading of the text.

He, just as we, set free from the law of sin and death, still contend with our own nature.

 

[Drew]

I don't find this passage to be a challenge at all. Why would Paul use the first person singular to refer to anyone but himself,....

I have already explained this in detail in a number of posts in this thread. You are welcome to engage the arguments provided.

I don't bother with such departures as you are entertaimimg from the plain reading of the text.

Not a convincing argument - there are many clear examples of the use of literary device in the Bible. Shall I show you some?":

He, just as we, set free from the law of sin and death, still contend with our own nature.

You are not answering the question.

Let's be clear:

1. The person in Romans 7 is subject to a law of sin and death;
2. The Christian (obviously) in Romans 8 has been set free from this same law of sin and death.

The question is not whether we still contend with sin, the question is how can a person be both subject to, and yet also set free from, the same law.

Please answer this very particular question. No one is denying that the Christian still struggles. But the person in Romans 7 not only struggles, he is utterly defeated. How can such a person possibly be a Christian?

 

[Alabaster]

Paul DOES use a literary device in this passage: present tense. It is used for emphasis.

 

[Drew]

Paul DOES use a literary device in this passage: present tense. It is used for emphasis.

Please answer the questions that I posed to you. Here they are again:

1. The "I" in Romans 7 is described as being "there" when the Law of Moses was given at Mount Sinai (the reference to the "commandment coming"). Was Paul present at Mount Sinai?

2. At the end of Romans 7, Paul writes that the "I" described in Romans 7 is delivered from the Romans 7 state through Jesus. If Paul is describing his Christian experience in Romans 7, we have Paul suggesting that Jesus delivers the Christian from a Christian state. Please explain how this makes sense.

3. At the beginning of Romans 8, Paul describes the Christian as being set free from the law of sin and death. The person in Romans 7 is subject to this self-same law of sin and death. Please explain how a Christian can be both subject to the law of sin and death and set free from it as well.

 

[Alabaster]

Please answer the questions that I posed to you. Here they are again:

1. The "I" in Romans 7 is described as being "there" when the Law of Moses was given at Mount Sinai (the reference to the "commandment coming"). Was Paul present at Mount Sinai?

2. At the end of Romans 7, Paul writes that the "I" described in Romans 7 is delivered from the Romans 7 state through Jesus. If Paul is describing his Christian experience in Romans 7, we have Paul suggesting that Jesus delivers the Christian from a Christian state. Please explain how this makes sense.

3. At the beginning of Romans 8, Paul describes the Christian as being set free from the law of sin and death. The person in Romans 7 is subject to this self-same law of sin and death. Please explain how a Christian can be both subject to the law of sin and death and set free from it as well.

Present tense is for emphasis. Period.

As for the subjection aspect, I don't see the word, 'subject' that you keep using, there. Paul is simply revealing the struggle all believers have with sin---that unbelievers do not share. Their enemy isn't sin. It's GOD.

Read here:
The War Within (Romans 7:14-25) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

 

[Drew]

Present tense is for emphasis. Period.

As for the subjection aspect, I don't see the word, 'subject' that you keep using, there. Paul is simply revealing the struggle all believers have with sin---that unbelievers do not share. Their enemy isn't sin. It's GOD.

Read here:
The War Within (Romans 7:14-25) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

Please answer the questions I have posed. Why are you not answering these questions I have posed?

And it is clear that the person in Romans 7 is "subject to" a law of sin and death in the sense that his life is governed by such a law:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me

 

[Alabaster]

Please answer the questions I have posed. Why are you not answering these questions I have posed?

And it is clear that the person in Romans 7 is "subject to" a law of sin and death in the sense that his life is governed by such a law:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me

As far as I can see, I have answered you.

Paul is speaking in the present tense, rather than the past tense for emphasis, for once we have submitted to Christ, as Paul has done, we begin the process of regeneration. We become a new man in Him.

 

[Alabaster]

No one is denying that the Christian still struggles. But the person in Romans 7 not only struggles, he is utterly defeated. How can such a person possibly be a Christian?

This passage is a reminder about God’s great love. Day after day we see ourselves stumble and fall.
· We know we should not speak those negative words, but we do.
· We know we should not respond in anger, but we do.
· We know we should share the gospel message but we don’t
· We know we should not entertain lustful thoughts but they still fill our mind
· We know we should address a problem but we don’t
· We know we should do some act of service and compassion but we don’t
We are haunted by our repeated sins. We stumble, feel bad, ask for forgiveness, and then we fail again. It happens to all of us. In fact it seems to happen so often that it’s easy to begin to wonder if we really belong to Him.

Max Lucado has written,

"First of all, remember your position—you are a child of God. Some interpret the presence of the battle as the abandonment of God. Their logic goes something like this: “I am a Christian. My desires, however, are anything but Christian. No child of God would have these battles. I must be an orphan. God may have given me a place back then, but he has no place for me now.”

That’s Satan sowing those seeds of shame. If he can’t seduce you with your sin, he’ll let you sink in your guilt. Nothing pleases him more than for you to cower in the corner, embarrassed that you’re still dealing with some old habit. “God’s tired of your struggles,” he whispers. “Your father is weary of your petitions for forgiveness,” he lies.

And many believe him, spending years convinced that they are disqualified from the kingdom. Can I go to the well of grace too many times? I don’t deserve to ask for forgiveness again.

Forgive my abrupt response, but who told you that you deserved forgiveness the first time? When you came to Christ did he know every sin you’d committed up until that point? Yes. Did Christ know every sin you would commit in the future? Yes, he knew that too. So Jesus saved you, knowing all the sins you would ever commit until the end of your life? Yes. You mean he is willing to call you his child even though he knows each and every mistake of your past and future? Yes.

Sounds to me like God has already proven his point. If your sin were too great for his grace, he never would have saved you in the first place. Your temptation isn’t late-breaking news in heaven. Your sin doesn’t surprise God. He saw it coming. Is there any reason to think that the One who received you the first time won’t receive you every time?

It is encouraging that Paul begins chapter 8 with these glorious words, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.

Is this an excuse for sin? Not in any way. This is a motivation for worship. God is more patient with me, than I am. He is more committed to my growth, than I am. He is using the difficult times to teach how to trust Him more fully.


Source:
http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/082904.html

 

[Drew]

This passage is a reminder about God’s great love. Day after day we see ourselves stumble and fall.

True enough, but, again, we need to take Paul at his word in the fine details. The following, from Romans 7 is decidedly not a description of a Christian person who stumbles at times. Remember - the New Testament, not least Romans itself is quite clear - the Christian is indeed able to do good works. In fact, it is our destiny. Now do these words seem to describe a "good works doing Christian who sometimes stumbles"

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am!

I suggest that the above cannot possibly be descriptive of the believer - the believer is decidedly not a prisoner of sin, the believer is decidedly not in a position where he could say 'I cannot do good'.

No - the "I" in Romans 7 cannot be a Christian.

 

[Drew]

As far as I can see, I have answered you.

Paul is speaking in the present tense, rather than the past tense for emphasis, for once we have submitted to Christ, as Paul has done, we begin the process of regeneration. We become a new man in Him.

You are faced with this challenge: The "I" in Romans 7 is described as being present when the Law of Moses was handed down on Mount Sinai. And you would have the reader believe that the "I" here is Paul, a person who lived hundreds, if not more than a thousand years later.

You appear to defend your position by asserting that Paul mysteriously places himself in the ancient past "for emphasis". I politely suggest that you need to explain this more fully.

 

[Drew]

As people who have been following this thread will know, I am making the admittedly unusual suggestion that the "I" does not, as most would naturally imagine, refer to Paul himself, but is rather a literary device used to denote the typical Jew who is living under the Law of Moses.

In defence of this position, I have pointed out that this was a literary device that was in current use at the time Paul wrote. I have not made any case for this yet, but I am confident that I can.

I have also pointed out that Paul, in Romans 9, refers to his fellow Jew as "his own flesh". This strong identification that Paul makes between himself and his fellow Jew is entirely consistent with the proposition that the "I" in Romans 7 is not Paul himself, but rather his fellow Jew. If Paul considers his fellow Jews to be "of his own flesh", it is not that surprising that he might use the term "I" to represent his fellow Jew.

And, what's more, this form of speech re-appears in Romans 11:

if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them

The original Greek uses the word "sarx" or flesh - Paul is saying that his own people are effectively his own flesh. This further supports the hypothesis I have been advancing - if Paul sees his fellow Jew as "his own flesh", it is perhaps not that surprising that he would use the "I" pronoun to refer to his fellow Jew.

And, of course, Paul was not present at Mount Sinai, which the "I" of Romans 7 clearly is. Obviously, Paul's fellow Jews - or at least some them - were indeed present at Mount Sinai. More evidence that the "I" of Romans 7 is used to refer to Jews in general, not Paul as an individual.