Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[Drew]

Funny how you can apply that factual principle to the power of SIN in the JEW and avoid it for everyone else who also have 'sin.'

What's really funny is that you do not know that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews only. And since this is so, it can only exert this influence on the Jew.

I shall be watching very carefully for suggestions that I am being anti-Semitic. So please, do not tread over that line, as I am all too happy to report such things.

 

[smaller]

What's really funny is that you do not know that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews only.

We've done this drill before. I understand that is YOUR view. I also believe that what Jesus said IS TRUE, that 'man' not just JEWS, will live BY EVERY WORD of God. Therein we have a basic difference. I believe also what Paul said, that the LAW is for the LAWLESS, not just 'Jews.'

And since this is so, it can only exert this influence on the Jew.

That may be true if you REJECT Gods Words as being applicable to any BUT them. I don't believe that is true by Jesus' statements about that same Word, that 'man' shall live by EVERY WORD. The great difficulty is finding the LIVE in those matters. Many can't seem to get there, and I understand that. I just don't happen to believe that and can't honestly discount Jesus' statements about Gods Words and ALL of them being applicable toward MAN, not just Jews.

I shall be watching very carefully for suggestions that I am being anti-Semitic. So please, do not tread over that line, as I am all too happy to report such things.

Oh, indeed. I am not a fan of selective applicability. Lawlessness is lawlessness in ANY in whom it is found, and NO MAN will be justified thereunder because lawlessness IS found in ALL. Take that for what it's worth.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

We've done this drill before. I understand that is YOUR view. I also believe that what Jesus said IS TRUE, that 'man' not just JEWS, will live BY EVERY WORD of God. Therein we have a basic difference. I believe also what Paul said, that the LAW is for the LAWLESS, not just 'Jews.'

Well you are simply wrong - I suggest no Biblical expert with any sort of training will disagree that the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only. Paul clearly believes this. Consider this statement from Romans 4:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations

This one text settles the matter: the Law of Moses was given to Jews only. Otherwise, this statement by Paul makes no sense.

I am not going to comment on what Jesus meant by the "words of God". But, unless Paul and Jesus disagree, He (Jesus) was not referring to the Law of Moses in its form of a written code.

Another statement by Paul showing the Law of Moses was only given to Jews:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Paul's point is clear: If man were justified by the law, that would mean the Gentiles are out of luck. This only makes sense if the Law of Moses is seen by Paul as being given to Jews only.

 

[smaller]

Well you are simply wrong - I suggest no Biblical expert with any sort of training will disagree that the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only.

As stated prior I 'accept' Jesus' statement about 'every Word' of God being applicable for MAN. If you don't, that's FINE. And if you want to hold my belief in Jesus' statement against me, that's FINE as well. I will however have to go with Jesus' statement in any case of views.

Paul clearly believes this. Consider this statement from Romans 4:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations

This one text settles the matter: the Law of Moses was given to Jews only. Otherwise, this statement by Paul makes no sense.

I don't disagree that GODS WORDS, all, came through the lineage of the Jews. That does NOT make Gods Word any less applicable to believers or to MAN. Those who 'accept' Gods Words do so accept the fact that they came FROM GOD primarily through their lineage, the Law and the Prophets and the Son. These ARE Jewish matters. But as believers MOST DO accept that the Words of the Old Testament ARE Gods Words, and as such I apply Jesus' statement that MAN SHALL LIVE by EVERY WORD of God. There is no way for me to logically avoid that conclusion IF what Jesus said was TRUE.

I am not going to comment on what Jesus meant by the "words of God". But, unless Paul and Jesus disagree, He (Jesus) was not referring to the Law of Moses in its form of a written code.

You are free to view that matter however you please. Paul was clear that the LAW is for the LAWLESS. I don't happen to believe that JEWS are the SOLE CARRIERS of indwelling sin or lawlessness. Sorry. And I doubt any of the scholars you refer to in your opening statement believe that either. IN fact I'd bet MOST believers believe ALL mankind has indwelling sin, which is LAWLESSNESS.

Another statement by Paul showing the Law of Moses was only given to Jews:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Paul's point is clear: If man were justified by the law, that would mean the Gentiles are out of luck. This only makes sense if the Law of Moses is seen by Paul as being given to Jews only.

Drew, we clearly have differences. IF your position is that Jews only have indwelling sin, then we are clearly NOT going to see these matters even REMOTELY closely. And if you say that the LAW is NOT against the lawlessness that indwelling sin brings, well again, the LAW is my ally in pointing out that FACT to all, and not just to JEWS. We could go on, but you are welcome to say that Jews only have indwelling sin and YOU DON'T. I will have to say that is probably NOT the case for you or anyone else.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[MarkT]

You are clearly mistaken. Paul is quite clear at a number of places that the Law of Moses is simply no longer in force:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Do you still maintain that the Law of Moses is still in force. I am talking about the Law of Moses (as is Paul in all the above statements) - the written code which, among other things, prohibits the eating of screech owls and requires adulterers to be stoned. I am not mocking the Law, merely pointing out the implications of your view that the Law is still in force.

Now Paul does indeed speak of a certain "law" being established at the end of Romans 3. But, that is certainly not the Law of Moses. It has clearly been "retired".

The law was abolished in his flesh by his death, because after one dies the law is no longer in effect, but it is not abolished in our flesh. That's why Paul calls the flesh sinful. In Christ, the law is abolished. That's why we are without sin as long as we remain in Christ.

Leviticus 4:1 RSV
"And the LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, if anyone sins unwittingly in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and does any of them, if it is the anointed priest who sins ..."

Leviticus 4:13 RSV
"If the whole congregation of Israel commits a sin unwittingly and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they do any one of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done and are guilty;

Leviticus 5:2 RSV
Or if any one touches an unclean thing, whether the carcass of an unclean beast or a carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, and it is hidden from him, and he has become unclean, he shall be guilty.

Leviticus 5:3 RSV
Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort the uncleanness may be with which one becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it he shall be guilty.

Leviticus 5:4 RSV
Or if any one utters with his lips a rash oath to do evil or to do good, any sort of rash oath that men swear, and it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it he shall in any of these be guilty.

Rather than saying the law energizes sin, I would say the law convicts us of sin and sin produces death. You say the Jews received the law. That's true. But anyone who knows the law is convicted of sin.

In principle, if any one sins unwittingly, when he comes to know it, he shall be guilty. All men sin and the same principle applies to all men. If you know what the law says, and you do it, you are guilty. If it is hidden from you, and you do it, when the law becomes known to you, you are guilty.

You were convicted of sin when you knew the law. I was convicted of sin. The godless are convicted of sin. The law is still in force. Mt. 5:17 Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

 

[MarkT]

I doubt it. Paul isn't actually thinking of himself in this passage even though he does use the term "I". Instead, I suggest that Paul is speaking of the prototypical Jew through history. Paul refers to the "coming" of the law. When did the law come. At Sinai, hundreds of years before Paul was born.

Now I politely suggest that I am honouring what Paul actually says. The law does not come when you learn about it, it comes when it comes! That is to say, it comes when it is enacted or is otherwise given to the people. And that happened at Sinai. Paul uses the "I" as a rhetorical device to refer to all Jews. There is precedent for him doing so, and I can give you the argument if you want.

Besides, Paul cannot be writing about himself in particular in Romans 7. And the reason is this. Towards the end of the chapter, he makes statements about how "he cannot do good" in the present tense. Paul, in the present, unable to do good? Impossible - the Christian most certainly can do good. The "I" in Romans 7 is about the unbelieving Jew living under the Law of Moses.


Mark, he writes what he writes!:

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

This is about taking Paul at his word. The law here is described as a thing which provided an opportunity for sin to produce covetous desire.

The statement is what it is - the Law functions as a catylist that enables and empowers sin. Later on he writes:

For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death

Please accept what the text is actaully saying - the Law give sin the power to deceive Paul and "kill" him. No matter how much we don't like it, if we are to take Paul at his word, we must face the fact that the Law has this strange effect on the Jew - it gives energy and power to sin.

Again, from 1 Cor 15:

"the power of sin is the Law"

The law doesn't produce the desire for other people's things. The law creates the guilt or sin. It produces 'covetousness' which is the sin. When you find out it is a sin to covet, then your desire for other people's things becomes covetous desire.

 

[Drew]

In this part of his letter, Paul is first saying he has great sorrow for his kinsmen by race who did not believe God’s Son, but God’s word had not failed, and he goes on to say how and why God’s word continued. He said it was the children of the promise who were reckoned as descendants. God promised Abraham a son - Isaac. Abraham believed God.

I agree with this, but I suggest that Paul is setting up an argument that another of God's promises had also not failed - the promise that the Jews would be the means by which the nations are blessed - at several points in the Old Testament, God tells Abraham that the Jews will be the means by which the world will be blessed. And, I suggest that the way God used Israel to bless the world is that God gave them the Law of Moses so that the sin of the world would be drawn into Israel, and then into her representative Messiah and condemned on the cross. Now that's a major sweeping theological assertion I have made which I suspect you will question. Well, please do so if you like.

But if I am right - and these ideas are not mine in origin - then a cryptic way to describe how God has indeed used Israel to bless the world in this way is the following passage, with the "vessels of destruction" being understood to denote Jews "tripped up" by the sin-energizing effects of the Law of Moses:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

As I have already pointed out - we know that the general idea of God intentionally doing something to make Israel "stumble" is clearly on Paul's mind - not how he concludes the chapter:

See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,

I suggest that this stone is the Law of Moses - as I have been arguing all along, Paul says in Romans 7 that sin uses the Law to make sin worse, not just to reveal it.

See how this all fits together coherently?

 

[Drew]

Hardened doesn't mean more sinful. The LORD didn't make Pharaoh more sinful. Pharaoh's heart was hardened so that he would not listen to Moses and Aaron. The idea is that Pharoah was unmoved by the word of God. He didn't believe Moses. He said, 'Who is the LORD that I should heed his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover I will not let Israel go. Ex. 5:2

The hardened heart is unrepentant, unable to understand; it does not not see, it will not listen.

All true. But these truths in no way undermine the argument that the Law of Moses empowers and energizes sin, or that the "vessels of destruction" of Roman 9 are Jews who subject to this "dark" side of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

The law doesn't produce the desire for other people's things. The law creates the guilt or sin. It produces 'covetousness' which is the sin. When you find out it is a sin to covet, then your desire for other people's things becomes covetous desire.

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".

 

[MarkT]

I agree with this, but I suggest that Paul is setting up an argument that another of God's promises had also not failed - the promise that the Jews would be the means by which the nations are blessed - at several points in the Old Testament, God tells Abraham that the Jews will be the means by which the world will be blessed. And, I suggest that the way God used Israel to bless the world is that God gave them the Law of Moses so that the sin of the world would be drawn into Israel, and then into her representative Messiah and condemned on the cross. Now that's a major sweeping theological assertion I have made which I suspect you will question. Well, please do so if you like.

But if I am right - and these ideas are not mine in origin - then a cryptic way to describe how God has indeed used Israel to bless the world in this way is the following passage, with the "vessels of destruction" being understood to denote Jews "tripped up" by the sin-energizing effects of the Law of Moses:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

As I have already pointed out - we know that the general idea of God intentionally doing something to make Israel "stumble" is clearly on Paul's mind - not how he concludes the chapter:

See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,

I suggest that this stone is the Law of Moses - as I have been arguing all along, Paul says in Romans 7 that sin uses the Law to make sin worse, not just to reveal it.

See how this all fits together coherently?

Except the stone is the Lord Jesus Christ

1 Peter 2:

2 Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; 3 for you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. 4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God's sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame." 7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner," 8 and "A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall"; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

I know your theory isn't yours in origin. It comes from the scholars. But the truth is hidden from them; they preach another gospel, not mine.

 

[Drew]

Except the stone is the Lord Jesus Christ

Actually I think its both. I was aware of this when I wrote my post but did want to complicate things. There is no reason why the stone cannot refer to two things.

But even I concede, just for the sake of the argument, that the "stone" is Jesus and Jesus only, this does not do any significant damage to my overall argument. The Romans 7 text about the law empowering sin to produce coveting is all that is needed to establish that the law has this "negative" effect.

And it does no damage to the argument about who the vessels of destruction are.

I know your theory isn't yours in origin. It comes from the scholars. But the truth is hidden from them; they preach another gospel, not mine.

Clearly this is not a valid argument - you are simply dismissing those who disagree with you. You have no evidence that the truth is any less hidden from you as it is from them.

Besides, there are scholars who hold the position you hold.

Has the truth been hidden from them too?

Are they, likewise, preaching a false gospel?

I trust the point is clear....

 

[Drew]

Mark, please consider this statement:

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

What is the subject of this sentence?

What is the object of the verb "produced"?

 

[MarkT]

Mark, please consider this statement:

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

What is the subject of this sentence?

What is the object of the verb "produced"?

There's no support for your argument either in word or experience. Let's look at experience.

Let's take the seat belt law, for example. I don't like wearing seat belts. I think I have the right to decide what precautions I need to take. So why am I being punished for not wearing a seat belt? Because the law makes it an offence. Where there was no offence before the law was given, now the law makes my desire to not wear a seat belt the desire to break the law. Now I am aware of the law and I know if I don't wear a seat belt I am breaking the law. So when Paul said sin, he means law breaking. In other words, law breaking finds opportunity in the law. And law breaking or sin turned his normal desire for other people's things into the desire to break the law.

I know this one line is difficult to understand, but one line by itself shouldn't throw you. And you can't use it to create another gospel.

 

[Drew]

There's no support for your argument either in word or experience. Let's look at experience.

A careful analysis of this statement from Romans 7 defeats your argument that the Law simply functions to label or otherwise identify sin.

Of course, the subject of the sentence is "sin". It is "sin" that produces something.

And, equally obviously, the object of the verb "produced" is "covetous desire".

So Paul is saying "sin produced covetous desire". And he clearly says that the Law facilitates that.

 

[Sinthesis]

Let's take the seat belt law, for example. I don't like wearing seat belts. I think I have the right to decide what precautions I need to take.

Actually you don't have that right. A better example would involve texting-while-driving. I'll see about whipping one up, but it's not going to support your position.;)

 

[Drew]

Let's take the seat belt law, for example. I don't like wearing seat belts. I think I have the right to decide what precautions I need to take. So why am I being punished for not wearing a seat belt? Because the law makes it an offence. Where there was no offence before the law was given, now the law makes my desire to not wear a seat belt the desire to break the law.

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.

So when Paul said sin, he means law breaking.

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.

I know this one line is difficult to understand, but one line by itself shouldn't throw you. And you can't use it to create another gospel.

I politely suggest that you are forced to bend this sentence out of shape to preserve your position. The word "sin" is the subject of the sentence, not law-breaking, Mark, but sin. And we already know from Romans 5 that sin exists independent from law. Sin produces covetous desire - that is simply how the sentence reads. And this statement alone, from 1 Cor 15 shows that Paul sees sin as something other than law-breaking - he sees it is a force or power that is energized and empowered by the law:

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law

It makes no sense to read this as:

The sting of death is law-breaking, and the power of law-breaking is the law

Besides, let's go back to Romans 7:

Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law

This statement only makes sense if sin is a "thing" can exist apart from law - law exposes it (but energizes it as well, I might add). If sin is law-breaking here, the sentence makes no sense:

Indeed I would not have known what law-breaking was except through the law

No competent person would write such a thing.

 

[smaller]

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

SIN is LAWBREAKING.

 

[Drew]

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

SIN is LAWBREAKING.

No. Or at least not always. Yes, sometimes New Testament writers use the word sin to denote breaking of the law. But Paul cannot be using that definition in Romans 7, for all the reasons already provided.

You cannot say: "law-breaking seized the opportunity provided by the law". Again, the reason is this: when you say "law-breaking" you are already talking about something in relation to law. Therefore, you cannot say such an activity "seizes an opportunity provided by the law".

Besides, look at what Paul says in Romans 7:

so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

It is a violent violation of logic to read this as:

so that through the commandment, commandment-breaking might become utterly sinful

Or consider this:

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I 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. For 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. 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

I suggest that it is self-evidently true that, here at least, the category of "sin" does not refer to the activity of law-breaking as you and Mark believe, it refers to a power or force that is deeply ingrained in the human individual and that is essentially a foreign "agency" - thus we have the "it is not me who does these things, it is sin".

Yet again, we see the manifest illogic in reading "sin" as "law-breaking" here. This makes no sense at all:

it is no longer I who do it, but it is law-breaking living in me that does it

How can "law-breaking" do anything? It can't. Only an "agency" or force or power can fit the role of "sin" as Paul uses it here - regardless of how the word "sin" is used in other places in the Bible.

"Law-breaking" cannot "do evil things". Only people or other beings or forces can do evil things.

Law-breaking is not an agency capable of acting in the world - it cannot be subject of any sentence of the form: "law-breaking did X in the world." And yet this is indeed what Paul is saying throughout Romans 7: sin seizes opportunities, sin deceives, sin kills, sin does evil, and so forth.

One cannot replace the word "sin" in any of these phrases and get anything sensible.

 

[Drew]

In the interests of fairness, I want to retract statements where I may have implied that "its obvious" what is going on in all these texts. I still think the position I am advocating for is correct, but there is a lot of complexity swirling around. I can certainly understand why its hard to accept the notion that the Law energizes and empowers sin, but I do think its the interpretation that best honours the fine-grained details of what Paul says.

 

[smaller]

No. Or at least not always. Yes, sometimes New Testament writers use the word sin to denote breaking of the law. But Paul cannot be using that definition in Romans 7, for all the reasons already provided.

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;

These facts are REVEALED TO MEN who HOLD THE TRUTH 'in unrighteousness.'

SIN is a FACT for ALL. Therefore we HOLD the TRUTH in that FACT and therein THE WRATH of God is ALSO revealed to MEN IN TRUTH.

Paul was CLEAR about the workings of the 'the scripture' inclusive of LAW in relation to SIN:

Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

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.'

Paul was AGAIN clear in Romans and LONG before 'Romans 7' on this EXACT matter:

Romans 3:9
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

This is one of the most ELEMENTARY facts of Christianity.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 2:
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

There is no NATIONALITY written about SIN. It is UNIVERSAL in ALL mankind except for God Himself in Christ, period.

Whether the LAW shows it or is NOT there to PROVE it, SIN abides in ALL FLESH of MANKIND.

You cannot say: "law-breaking seized the opportunity provided by the law". Again, the reason is this: when you say "law-breaking" you are already talking about something in relation to law. Therefore, you cannot say such an activity "seizes an opportunity provided by the law".

The LAW is written ON THE HEARTS of those who do not have it BLACK on WHITE parchment:

Romans 2:
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

THE LAW in their OWN NATURE by LAW OBEDIENCE will prove GOOD WORKS and will also CONVICT their SIN by VIOLATIONS.

It is NOT required to be UNDER THE WRITTEN LAW to PROVE SIN. It is UNIVERSAL and ALL have same.

Romans 3 (also UNIVERSAL)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good,
no, not one.


This is THEE CONDITION of ALL WHO HAVE SIN and ALL have it.

Besides, look at what Paul says in Romans 7:

so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

It is a violent violation of logic to read this as:

so that through the commandment, commandment-breaking might become utterly sinful

Or consider this:

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I 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. For 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. 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

I suggest that it is self-evidently true that, here at least, the category of "sin" does not refer to the activity of law-breaking as you and Mark believe, it refers to a power or force that is deeply ingrained in the human individual and that is essentially a foreign "agency" - thus we have the "it is not me who does these things, it is sin".

Yet again, we see the manifest illogic in reading "sin" as "law-breaking" here. This makes no sense at all:

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

it is no longer I who do it, but it is law-breaking living in me that does it

How can "law-breaking" do anything? It can't. Only an "agency" or force or power can fit the role of "sin" as Paul uses it here - regardless of how the word "sin" is used in other places in the Bible.

Paul is AGAIN very clear. The POWER OF SIN works CONVERSELY to THE LAW and BREAKS THE LAW every single time

Anyone who says THE SIN IN ME is either NON-existent or OBEDIENT or LAWFUL only serves to OPENLY SHOW a LIAR PRESENT with them.

"Law-breaking" cannot "do evil things". Only people or other beings or forces can do evil things.

The presence of SIN breaks THE LAW either UNDER IT or NOT under it sans writing. It is IN ALL and makes ALL MEN SINNERS, BAR NONE save GOD HIMSELF.

Law-breaking is not an agency capable of acting in the world - it cannot be subject of any sentence of the form: "law-breaking did X in the world." And yet this is indeed what Paul is saying throughout Romans 7: sin seizes opportunities, sin deceives, sin kills, sin does evil, and so forth.

You can look at the VIOLATION and IGNORE the SIN that causes same ALL DAY. It is not the speeding ticket that BREAKS THE LAW, it is THE DRIVER. The ticket serves to PROVE THE POINT. Whether that TICKET is written or not THE DRIVER, if SPEEDING still BROKE THE LAW...the DRIVER, not the speeding, not the ticket, the DRIVER.

One cannot replace the word "sin" in any of these phrases and get anything sensible.

The DRIVER of LAW BREAKING is SIN INDWELLING.

ALL have that DRIVER within their FLESH.

enjoy!

s