Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[Alabaster]

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
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.

Nevertheless, Paul was talking about himself.

 

[Drew]

Nevertheless, Paul was talking about himself.

This is simply an assertion. Do you feel no obligation to defend your position as I am defending mine (that is, with an actual argument)?

 

[Alabaster]

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.

Of course, the text does not say that! Perhaps you are being a bit hyperliteral?

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.

Paul doesn't place himself anywhere, least of all at Sinai! He was a great orator. I suppose for you, it is a case of, 'I guess you had to be there' in order to understand him? It's too bad that you cannot see the simplicity of this passage.

 

[Alabaster]

This is simply an assertion. Do you feel no obligation to defend your position as I am defending mine (that is, with an actual argument)?

When Paul says, "I", he means "I". There should be no argument. Therefore, it is a confident assertion based on the word of God.

 

[Drew]

Of course, the text does not say that! Perhaps you are being a bit hyperliteral?

The text does say that the "I" was present at Sinai!

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

Paul has just previously making explicit reference to the 10 commandments - part of the Law of Moses, given, yes, at Mount Sinai hundreds of year before:

I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.â€

I know you do not like this, Alabaster, but it is what it is. We know that Paul is writing about the Law of Moses - he explicitly refers to one of the 10 commandments. And then the "I" goes on to write about what happened to him "when the commandment came"

When did the commandment come? In Paul's lifetime? No! At Mount Sinai hundreds of years before.

Please take the text seriously.

And do you have nothing to say about my case that, in Romans 9 and 11, Paul draws a basic identification between himself and his fellow Jew - using the notion that his fellow Jews are "my (Paul's) flesh". This strongly supports the idea that Paul might use the "I" term to refer to his fellow Jews.

 

[Drew]

When Paul says, "I", he means "I". There should be no argument. Therefore, it is a confident assertion based on the word of God.

Clearly, not a valid argument. And here is why. Consider this text from Isaiah:

mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you,And all the trees of the field will clap their hands.

If I were to use your line of reasoning, I would say this" "when Isaiah says that the hills will shout with joy, and that the trees will clap their hands, there should be no argument - we should expect the hills to actually shout and trees to literally clap their branches together"

Please - there are plenty of examples in both Old and New Testaments where literary devices are used.

So it is certainly possible that the "I" in Romans 7 might not actually refer to Paul.

 

[Alabaster]

The text does say that the "I" was present at Sinai!

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

Paul has just previously making explicit reference to the 10 commandments - part of the Law of Moses, given, yes, at Mount Sinai hundreds of year before:

I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

I know you do not like this, Alabaster, but it is what it is. We know that Paul is writing about the Law of Moses - he explicitly refers to one of the 10 commandments. And then the "I" goes on to write about what happened to him "when the commandment came"

When did the commandment come? In Paul's lifetime? No! At Mount Sinai hundreds of years before.

Please take the text seriously.

And do you have nothing to say about my case that, in Romans 9 and 11, Paul draws a basic identification between himself and his fellow Jew - using the notion that his fellow Jews are "my (Paul's) flesh". This strongly supports the idea that Paul might use the "I" term to refer to his fellow Jews.

That means nothing of the kind! You use a kind of hyperliteralism as well as a bit of creativity to deduce something that is easily discernible with the ready help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Alabaster]

Clearly, not a valid argument. And here is why. Consider this text from Isaiah:

mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you,And all the trees of the field will clap their hands.

If I were to use your line of reasoning, I would say this" "when Isaiah says that the hills will shout with joy, and that the trees will clap their hands, there should be no argument - we should expect the hills to actually shout and trees to literally clap their branches together"

Please - there are plenty of examples in both Old and New Testaments where literary devices are used.

So it is certainly possible that the "I" in Romans 7 might not actually refer to Paul.

You have a very strange way of discerning truth, friend.

 

[Drew]

That means nothing of the kind! You use a kind of hyperliteralism as well as a bit of creativity to deduce something that is easily discernible with the ready help of the Holy Spirit.

No Alabaster - the text is what it is. You clearly do not like it, but there really is no doubt about what Paul is saying if we actually honour what he writes. This is what it all boils down to in so many of these arguments - people have positions that fall apart when we pay careful attention to the texts. One more time:

Paul writes about the "I" as being made aware of a command. What command is it?

I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Is it really "hyper-literalism" to accept that Paul is writing about the Law of Moses, through the specific reference to one of the 10 commandments?

Of course not - it is taking Paul seriously in the details. So far, your position is safe - you can indeed claim that Paul, the individual, learned about how the Law of Moses said "do not covet". Fine, so far.

But then, Paul goes on to write about what happened to the "I" when the law came:

For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died


Paul says what he says! He describes the "I" as having been alive before the arrival of the Law of Moses. Was Paul, the individual, alive before the Law of Moses? Of course not!

Paul says what he says! He then describes the "I" experiencing death with, yes, the arrival of the Law of Moses. Was Paul, the individual, alive when the Law of Moses was given? Of course not!

The text says what it says. The issue is not "hyperliteralism" - whatever that means - it is about taking Paul seriously in all the fine-grained details. Tempting as it might be to take the simple route of assuming that the "I" is Paul, it is clear that, not least for reasons elaborated in this post, simply not a workable position.

 

[Drew]

You have a very strange way of discerning truth, friend.

Is this your response to my Biblically grounded critique of your "rule" of presuming that we must always take texts literally?

You said that if "Paul says 'I', he means 'I" - there should be no argument". Well I have pointed out something that Isaiah said - that the trees will clap their hands.

What is so strange about suggesting that Isaiah did not intend to be taken literally?

And therefore that it is at least possible that the "I" in Romans 7 is not to taken at face value, that is, as referring to Paul.

 

[Alabaster]

No Alabaster - the text is what it is. You clearly do not like it, but there really is no doubt about what Paul is saying if we actually honour what he writes. This is what it all boils down to in so many of these arguments - people have positions that fall apart when we pay careful attention to the texts. One more time:

Paul writes about the "I" as being made aware of a command. What command is it?

I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Is it really "hyper-literalism" to accept that Paul is writing about the Law of Moses, through the specific reference to one of the 10 commandments?

Of course not - it is taking Paul seriously in the details. So far, your position is safe - you can indeed claim that Paul, the individual, learned about how the Law of Moses said "do not covet". Fine, so far.

But then, Paul goes on to write about what happened to the "I" when the law came:

For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died


Paul says what he says! He describes the "I" as having been alive before the arrival of the Law of Moses. Was Paul, the individual, alive before the Law of Moses? Of course not!

Paul says what he says! He then describes the "I" experiencing death with, yes, the arrival of the Law of Moses. Was Paul, the individual, alive when the Law of Moses was given? Of course not!

The text says what it says. The issue is not "hyperliteralism" - whatever that means - it is about taking Paul seriously in all the fine-grained details. Tempting as it might be to take the simple route of assuming that the "I" is Paul, it is clear that, not least for reasons elaborated in this post, simply not a workable position.

Ridiculous. Paul simply speaks about himself. It isn't that hard to grasp, is it?

When one is perplexed as to the meaning of a passage, he needs to take a few minutes before opening the Scriptures and ask Holy Spirit to guard his mind to error and to open his mind to the truth. Only Holy Spirit can teach you.

 

[Drew]

Ridiculous. Paul simply speaks about himself. It isn't that hard to grasp, is it?

This is not an argument. I have already shown that there is Biblical precedent for "literal device". Can you do no better than to simply insist on the correctness of your position when I have already shown that not is it an over-simplification to assume that things are to always be taken literally.

Besides, I have also showed that, later in the letter, Paul repeatedly uses the term "my flesh" to refer to his fellow Jews. As I suspect you know all too well, this way of speaking about his fellow Jew supports the idea that the "I" in chapter might indeed refer to Paul's fellow Jew, not Paul the individual.

And you have not faced the force of the argument about how the "I" in Romans 7 is described as having been present at the time of the giving of the Law of Moses. Was Paul the individual present at that time?

And you have not challenged me on the fact that, at the time of Paul's writing of Romans 7, other writers used the "I" to refer to a set of people.

And, as I intend to demonstrate shortly, there is direct evidence, from the rest of Paul's writing, that he sometimes does indeed use the "I" to refer to people other than himself.

When one is perplexed as to the meaning of a passage, he needs to take a few minutes before opening the Scriptures and ask Holy Spirit to guard his mind to error and to open his mind to the truth. Only Holy Spirit can teach you.

Code for: Alabaster is either unwilling or unable to challenge Drew's arguments, so Alabaster will simply presume that Drew is not listening to the Holy Spirit. Clearly this is the easy way out - when confronted with compelling, Biblically-grounded arguments that challenge one's position, simply claim that the other person is not in touch with the Spirit.

Please respond to the content of my arguments, and do not be so patronizing - you, of course, have precisely zero evidence that I am not listening to the Holy Spirit.
[/QUOTE]

 

[MarkT]

[/B]
This is not an argument. I have already shown that there is Biblical precedent for "literal device". Can you do no better than to simply insist on the correctness of your position when I have already shown that not is it an over-simplification to assume that things are to always be taken literally.

Besides, I have also showed that, later in the letter, Paul repeatedly uses the term "my flesh" to refer to his fellow Jews. As I suspect you know all too well, this way of speaking about his fellow Jew supports the idea that the "I" in chapter might indeed refer to Paul's fellow Jew, not Paul the individual.

And you have not faced the force of the argument about how the "I" in Romans 7 is described as having been present at the time of the giving of the Law of Moses. Was Paul the individual present at that time?

And you have not challenged me on the fact that, at the time of Paul's writing of Romans 7, other writers used the "I" to refer to a set of people.

And, as I intend to demonstrate shortly, there is direct evidence, from the rest of Paul's writing, that he sometimes does indeed use the "I" to refer to people other than himself.


Code for: Alabaster is either unwilling or unable to challenge Drew's arguments, so Alabaster will simply presume that Drew is not listening to the Holy Spirit. Clearly this is the easy way out - when confronted with compelling, Biblically-grounded arguments that challenge one's position, simply claim that the other person is not in touch with the Spirit.

Please respond to the content of my arguments, and do not be so patronizing - you, of course, have precisely zero evidence that I am not listening to the Holy Spirit.

Drew

The law was introduced into the world through Moses. The introduction of a law is also the introduction of a trespass. It goes without saying that it wouldn't be a crime to smoke pot if there wasn't a law that says, 'You can not smoke pot.' This is what Paul is saying. Now we know there is a law ie. 'You shall not covet'. We have the knowledge of it. We know all men will be judged by this law. The law is good. This is what Paul said. It's a blessing to those who keep the law; obedience counts as right, but it is also a curse to those who do not; disobedience counts as wrong.

You have to be able to discern when a figure of speech is being used. You can not just say a figure was used when the LORD spoke through the prophets, or Jesus used a figure, therefore Paul was speaking in figures. Where in the Bible is 'I' ever used as a figure? No one uses 'I' as a figure. I've never heard anyone use 'I' as a figure. No one in the history of the universe has ever used 'I' to refer to anyone or anything other than himself.

The 'flesh of my flesh' can be used to mean your offspring. But my flesh is my flesh. Your flesh is your flesh. The flesh refers to the physical body; flesh and blood. Paul never refered to the Jews as his flesh (that would imply the Jews were his descendants). The Jews were his kinsmen by race.

 

[Free]

The law was introduced into the world through Mooses.

I normally don't make fun of peoples' spelling mistakes but this is classic. :D Laughing with you Mark.

 

[MarkT]

I normally don't make fun of peoples' spelling mistakes but this is classic. :D Laughing with you Mark.

You got me. We need a spell checker Free.

 

[MarkT]

[/B]
This is not an argument. I have already shown that there is Biblical precedent for "literal device". Can you do no better than to simply insist on the correctness of your position when I have already shown that not is it an over-simplification to assume that things are to always be taken literally.

Besides, I have also showed that, later in the letter, Paul repeatedly uses the term "my flesh" to refer to his fellow Jews. As I suspect you know all too well, this way of speaking about his fellow Jew supports the idea that the "I" in chapter might indeed refer to Paul's fellow Jew, not Paul the individual.

And you have not faced the force of the argument about how the "I" in Romans 7 is described as having been present at the time of the giving of the Law of Moses. Was Paul the individual present at that time?

And you have not challenged me on the fact that, at the time of Paul's writing of Romans 7, other writers used the "I" to refer to a set of people.

And, as I intend to demonstrate shortly, there is direct evidence, from the rest of Paul's writing, that he sometimes does indeed use the "I" to refer to people other than himself.


Code for: Alabaster is either unwilling or unable to challenge Drew's arguments, so Alabaster will simply presume that Drew is not listening to the Holy Spirit. Clearly this is the easy way out - when confronted with compelling, Biblically-grounded arguments that challenge one's position, simply claim that the other person is not in touch with the Spirit.

Please respond to the content of my arguments, and do not be so patronizing - you, of course, have precisely zero evidence that I am not listening to the Holy Spirit.

Paul explains what he said if you read him in context. He said, 'Once I was alive apart from the law'. That doesn't mean the law didn't exist. It just means he didn't know the law. The commandment came when he came to know sin. Like he said, 'I should have not known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

Ask yourself if you were alive before the commandment came to you; you discovered it was wrong to covet.

 

[Alabaster]

Paul explains what he said if you read him in context. He said, 'Once I was alive apart from the law'. That doesn't mean the law didn't exist. It just means he didn't know the law. The commandment came when he came to know sin. Like he said, 'I should have not known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not."

Exactly!

 

[Drew]

Paul explains what he said if you read him in context. He said, 'Once I was alive apart from the law'. That doesn't mean the law didn't exist. It just means he didn't know the law. The commandment came when he came to know sin. Like he said, 'I should have not known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

This is a circular argument. And it is precisely context that works against your position here.

You presume that the "I" is Paul and then interpret the "coming of the commandment" to refer to when Paul, the individual, understood what sin was. Well, that might be possible, but I suggest that a reference to the commandment "coming" is best understood as a reference to the actual arrival of the commandment - which was at Mount Sinai.

Now about matters of context: Here are some of the many problems with seeing this text being about Paul's personal experience:

1. We know from Phillipians that Paul, the individual, was blameless in respect to obeying the Law of Moses - hardly the case for the "I" in Romans 7;

2. If the "I" really is Paul, and since he is writing this material from his position as a Christian, why, then, would he write this:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Clearly, Paul the Christian sees himself as not being in the state that the "I" in Romans 7 is in - Paul the Christian has already been delivered from that state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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