Do you believe there is any significance to the fact that Romans 7 does not mention of the Holy Spirit in Romans 7: 7-25?

Also, is Romans 7 describing God's plan for the Christian life or is Romans 6 and 8? That is, how does God will for us to live?

Romans 7 is describing a man who is carnal and is a slave of sin and who cannot do what is right. He is practicing sin and is helpless to stop. He lives and walks after the flesh. He cannot submit to God's law. In his mind, he knows the law of God (v. 22) is right and even delights in it, but he cannot keep it. The Holy Spirit does not dwell in him and therefore he is not a son of God. He cannot please God.

But Romans 6 and 8 describe those who have the Spirit as being free from sin and practice righteousness. They are slaves of righteousness. He lives after the Spirit. He walks after the Spirit. He submits to the law. He is free to obey the law of God. Christ is in him. He is spiritually minded. He is at peace. The Spirit of God dwells in him. He is a son of God.

I know the struggles of Romans 7 well. I lived that way for over 30 years, until about 3 years ago. The reason is that I didn't totally surrender my entire life to Christ. I always kept something in reserve. I had sins (homosexual sins, etc.) that I refused to give up to Jesus Christ. For most of that time I didn't think that God could give me victory over those sins, and so I really gave up for a very long period and didn't even resist or try to resist. I thought it was useless.

But I didn't have the Holy Spirit leading me or dwelling in me. The Holy Spirit would work on my heart and give me a desire to do right, and it would give me even a love and admiration for God's law, but I knew I couldn't obey it.

I really believe that this is what is going on with the man of Romans 7. I wasn't converted at that time.

I see nothing in Romans 7 that indicates he has been born of the Spirit.

1 John 3: -10 and 1 John 5: 2-4, 18 show that those who are truly born of God do not willfully and intentionally continue practicing sin. (See Amplified Bible.) (None of this should be taken to mean that believes who are born from above never sin or that they don't fall short of God's glorious ideal. 1 John 1 and 2: 1-2 are givens.)

Here is the bottom line:
1 John 1: 6, 7--

6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Here's a review of a book produced by Seventh-day Adventists which explores the question whether it is sinful:

Source: http://www.sdagayperspectives.com/

Review by David Potter, Australia

Are same-sex relationships natural? Do homosexuals and heterosexuals deserve equal treatment in the church? Is sexual preference chosen, or is it biologically determined? Are the Leviticus 18 and 20 edicts timeless moral laws that apply equally to Christians as to Israel? Do Paul’s comments on “unnatural” relations (Romans 1) cover all same-sex relations, or only the perverse practices of the godless Gentiles? These questions and many more are addressed in this book.

Most of the 18 papers in the book were presented at a 2006 conference organised by Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International, an organisation set up in the 1970s to nurture gay and lesbian Adventists. Eight were written by current church academics. Most question aspects of the traditional church position on same-sex relations. The reader faces two challenges: firstly, to properly assess the growing body of literature that suggests homosexuality is a predisposition, not a choice; and secondly, to re-examine what Paul is really saying in Romans 1.

Part one is biographical, presenting the stories of Sherri Babcock, the great-great-granddaughter of one of the founders of Atlantic Union College; Leif Lind, former SDA pastor and missionary; and Paul Grady, son of a church pastor, missionary and administrator. All three are gay. According to Lind, coming out of the closet was “the hardest thing I have ever done.” Lind lost his marriage, his career, and his respect and acceptance in the church – a terrible price. But he had to be honest about who he was. “Who would choose to pit themselves against all odds and make life as difficult as possible if it were really a matter of choice or sexual ‘preference’? Not too many people I know,” writes Lind.

Part two examines biomedical perspectives. Research continues to suggest that homosexuality has a genetic predisposition and is biologically determined, a conclusion that was widely resisted. One of the last impediments was removed in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association unexpectedly declared that homosexuality was not an illness. As Fulton asks, if homosexuality is neither a choice nor an illness, how is the church going to deal with its anti-gay bias?

Part three presents insights from behavioural science. Change ministries have failed repeatedly. The church that has called itself “the caring church” and a “welcoming church” has not given evidence of these claims in its treatment of gay members and workers, most of whom have been forced to live deeply closeted, lonely lives. To come out risks ostracism and dismissal. To express sympathy is to be treated with hostility.

The church attempted to distance itself from Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International when in 1987 the General Conference filed suit for “breach of trademark.” The church lost. Later, in 1994, the GC administration committee voted that GC personnel were not to speak to gatherings of homosexuals. As Lawson notes, the official church position was becoming more polarising at a time when law courts were recognising the equality of homosexual and heterosexual persons.

Part four examines scriptural and theological perspectives. Jones writes, “Romans 1:24-27 contains the Bible’s only substantive consideration of homosexual conduct.” But it is not a complete discussion. It is a preliminary comment that serves to introduce Paul’s thesis that Jews and Gentiles are equally lost in sin and in need of salvation. Those that read Leviticus 18 and 20 literally, bring a preformed perspective that distorts Paul’s message. Homosexuality is not the central issue in Romans 1. Furthermore, in discussing homosexuality, it is not clear that Paul’s conceptual horizon and ours coincide. Indeed, there has been a serious confusion of categories.

For Guy, “It is Scripture as a whole that is properly the ‘rule of faith and practice.’” Applying this principle leads him to conclude that “Scripture does not condemn all same-sex love.” Gane’s literal interpretation of Leviticus does not let him entertain pro-gay views. Nevertheless, he concludes that the church has some work to do to restore itself as “the trusted friend rather than the enemy of sinners.” Rice notes with approval that in recent years the church has “become more open to the complexity of human sexuality and willing to consider more helpful responses.”

Part five contains four papers on Christian social perspectives, in which the writers press the church towards greater fairness and compassion, towards becoming the “just, open, caring” community it should be. “God puts a tremendous value on human freedom.” We must do no less.

We all have our responses. Perhaps these are well-informed; on the other hand, they could be tainted by prejudice or by misuse of Scripture. Whatever your current view, this book will inform and challenge your understanding.

I find Lev 18 to be "instructive" on this point -



Pagan nations were judged for this abomination - and no argument at all about "well they did not read the Bible that way" or "they did even have access to the Bible" -- because in the Romans 1 explanation of this same point - we find that nature itself was telling them this was wrong.

In John 16 we have this "the Spirit of TRUTH convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" not just the saints.

in Christ,

Bob

The fact that "well meaning" people find reason to defend homosexual sin is astonishing, but Biblically predicted. It is impossible to estimate the evil results of removing landmarks that are set by the word of God. Those who are unwilling to obey its requirements work to overthrow its authority.

This is the dark soul of the homosexual agenda.