The man of Romans 7

[Robert]

Rom 7:22 ".... the law of God according to the inward man....."

Rom 7:23  "...I see another law in my members (my body), warring against the law of my mind ....."

"bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 

"with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."

Notice you have 3 laws or forces within the converted man:

1] The law of God written on the mind and heart.  This is the principle of agape written in the heart, i.e., the the new-birth experience

2]  The law of my mind or the will where decisions are made.  The man of Romans 7 desires to do good.  Paul says in Romans 7:18 "For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." Why?

3] The other force within the believer is "the law of sin" in our members (our body). The law of sin is also a force.  The law of sin is our bent-to-self based on the love of self.

So the man of Romans 7 is converted, but he can't defeat or overcome "the law of sin" with his will, i.e., the law of his mind. Notice there's no mention of a forth law, "the law of the Spirit".

So what's is Paul trying to tell us?

Two things:

1] First and foremost there is no condemnation to the believer who has accepted his position "in Christ Jesus". He is complete in Him.

2] That you can't defeat "the law of sin" (your love of self) using your converted will-power (the law of my mind).  For a season, maybe, but ultimately your love of self will defeat your desires to do good.  Therefore your converted will-power can't defeat your love of self.

Is there any hope then in our Christian experience?  Yes, but first we must remember that "there's no condemnation" to the believer struggling and losing his battle with "the law of sin."  The fact one is struggling proves his conversion.

Later, in Romans 8:3,4 we will learn that "the law of the Spirit" can defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love) in the life of the believer as he learns to "walk in the Spirit". 

Edited June 25, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Are you, pnattmbtc, as perfect as God is perfect?  I am bring this to your door and so I'm asking you a serious question.

a] If you say "yes", then John would call you deceived.  Let's look at this:  

1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth (Christ) is not in us (through His Spirit). 

 

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness (in other words Christ our High Priest forgives and presents us in Himself, perfect.  See Col 1:21-23).

 

10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

b] If you say "no", they you agree with Paul when he states that "all have sinned" (past tense) "and fall short" (present continuous tense)  of God's agape love. See Rom 3:23

John  will not contradict John.  Therefore the above cannot mean if we do good, through Christ, we are just as righteous as He is righteous.  John has already stated that none of us are totally free of our bent-to-self (sin).  So, what John must mean is if good works are seen from us this proves our faith is real and allows Christ to represent us positively righteous in Himself in the heavenly places. 

I think you're creating a false dichotomy.  It was John himself who wrote, "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;" and many similar things, for example:

 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. (1 John 2:5)

 Surely John is not contradicting himself.

[Robert]

 

I think you're creating a false dichotomy.  It was John himself who wrote, "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;" and many similar things, for example:

 Surely John is not contradicting himself.

No, but maybe we are misunderstanding John.

Does he mean if I practice doing good that I am as perfect as God?  If so, John is contradicting himself because he says, "If we say we have no sin" we are self-deceived. If we aren't perfect then we aren't as righteous as God is righteous. 

Face it, we fallen human beings can't produce righteousness;  it isn't going to happen.  All we can produce is good deeds outwardly polluted with self. These are filthy rags in comparison to Christ's selfless life.

Now, we can experience righteousness as we rest in His finished work, but to say we are as righteous as Christ is blasphemy.  Who said so?  Ellen White!

Let the recording angels write the history of the holy struggles and conflicts of the people of God; let them record their prayers and tears; but let not God be dishonored by the declaration from human lips, "I am sinless; I am holy." Sanctified lips will never give utterance to such presumptuous words....

Edited June 25, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Are you, pnattmbtc, as perfect as God is perfect?  I am bring this to your door and so I'm asking you a serious question.

I take it that you would rather not answer....? Can't blame you.

[Robert]

Notice you have 3 laws or forces within the converted man:

1] The law of God written on the mind and heart.  This is the principle of agape written in the heart, i.e., the the new-birth experience

2]  The law of my mind or the will where decisions are made.  The man of Romans 7 desires to do good.  Paul says in Romans 7:18 "For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." Why?

3] The other force within the believer is "the law of sin" in our members (our body). The law of sin is also a force.  The law of sin is our bent-to-self based on the love of self.

So the man of Romans 7 is converted, but he can't defeat or overcome "the law of sin" with his will, i.e., the law of his mind. Notice there's no mention of a forth law, "the law of the Spirit".

So what's is Paul trying to tell us?

Two things:

1] First and foremost there is no condemnation to the believer who has accepted his position "in Christ Jesus". He is complete in Him.

2] That you can't defeat "the law of sin" (your love of self) using your converted will-power (the law of my mind).  For a season, maybe, but ultimately your love of self will defeat your desires to do good.  Therefore your converted will-power can't defeat your love of self.

Is there any hope then in our Christian experience?  Yes, but first we must remember that "there's no condemnation" to the believer struggling and losing his battle with "the law of sin."  The fact one is struggling proves his conversion.

Later, in Romans 8:3,4 we will learn that "the law of the Spirit" can defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love) in the life of the believer as he learns to "walk in the Spirit". 

I would like to get back to the context....

[pnattmbtc]

John  will not contradict John.  Therefore the above cannot mean if we do good, through Christ, we are just as righteous as He is righteous.  John has already stated that none of us are totally free of our bent-to-self (sin).  So, what John must mean is if good works are seen from us this proves our faith is real and allows Christ to represent us positively righteous in Himself in the heavenly places. 

This gets back to the principle of controverted vs. uncontroverted passages.  Let's take something from John:

3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. 

From chapter two of 1 John. 

3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Now anybody can understand this.  It means just what it says, and the language is simple enough for a child to understand.  And there's no need to speculate as to what John had in mind, because you can just read the context, and John explains exactly what he was thinking:

9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Chapter three continues the same theme.  Here's a general text regarding obedience:

 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

And here is a specific application:

16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

James and Paul do the same thing.  James speaks about the importance of obedience and writes:

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (James 2)

And one could easily find such texts from Paul.  And Jesus.  And the whole Bible.  The Bible, from beginning to end, is ocncerned about what Ellen White called "practical godliness"; feeding the hngry, taking care of the widow, the orphan; justice for all, not just the rich, and so forth.

Back to 1 John.  The clear passages are the ones listed above, stating that a follower of Christ should walk as He walked.  It is in light of *these* texts, that the text regarding the one who views himself as being without sin is deceived should be interpreted, not the other way around.  You're putting the cart before the horse in your "it must be the case" statement as to what John meant by imputing to John the theory you have from Paul, a theory, based on John's own writings, he wouldn't have had.

That is, consider just John, and you have all of his writings, his Gospel, his epistles, and even Revelation; from these writings establish the idea that what John had in mind was that Christ satisfied a legal requirement by taking our fallen corporate life with his "doing and dying" and so forth, and this is the Gospel message according to John.  If you can't do that, then what basis do you have for your assertion as to what John must have had in mind?

Edited June 25, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

 

 

Yes, but that is not what saves.  Christ saved us.  That's past tense.  Saved from what?  The law!  

Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law....

Christ was born under law.  He was born under the jurisdiction of the law.  And by His doing & dying He fulfilled the law. This is what saves.  Any other gospel is "another gospel".  Those who preach "another gospel", according to Paul,  are to "be eternally condemned!" (see Gal 1:6-8)

Ellen White: "The point which has been urged upon my mind for years is the imputed righteousness of Christ. I have wondered that this matter was not made the subject of discourses in our churches throughout the land, when the matter has been kept constantly urged upon me, and I have made it the subject of nearly every discourse and talk that I have given to the people. FW 18 (MS 36 1890)

1.I don't agree that Gal 4:4 Christ was "born under the law" means "under the juristiction of the law", but before I comment further I'd like to know what you mean by this phrase.  Please flesh this out.  Is this how you understand "under law" everywhere in Paul? (i.e. "under the jurisdiction of the law").

2.What about the resurrection?  This is a problem in looking at the Gospel as a legal problem.  The reusurrection is the cornerstone of Christian faith, which Paul makes clear in 1 Cor. 15, but what place does it have in this gospel?  That you don't even mention it is a hint to your thinking, that it's not so important.

Also when you say the "doing" of Christ, what do you have in mind?  I suspect you have in mind that Christ satisfied the legal requirements of the law by not sinning, but the really important thing He did was to reveal the character of the Father, and put the lie to the claims of the enemy.  Christ overcame the powers of darkness by means of His life, death, and resurrectoin.  That's the heart of the Gospel, which is repeated throughout the New Testament.  What's the most quoted text of the New Testament? (i.e., the text from the Old Testament that New Testament authors most cite)  It's Psalm 110:1, which speaks of Christ's overcoming the powers of darkness (literally, His enemies will be made into His footstool).

3.Regarding "another gospel"

a.According to you, Jesus Christ Himself did not preach the gospel (you said He was the Gospel, but He didn't preach it, but waited for Paul to preach it; however, if you disagree, and think Christ did preach the gospel, please clarify).
b.But in Matt. 24:14 Jesus said, "this gospel" should be preached to all the world, which is the Gospel that Jesus was preaching.
c.So Jesus was preaching some gospel, but it wasn't the gospel that Paul preached.

So would you conclude that Jesus should be condemned?

4.Regarding Ellen White's comment, Yes!!  She wrote this in response to what Waggoner was preaching.  She heard Waggoner preaching, and said, "Every fiber of my heart said Amen!".  But you are rejecting what Waggoner preached, and, if I'm understanding you correctly (hoepfully not) you think he is preaching another gospel and should be condemned.

[pnattmbtc]

 But now, after learning that the law is spiritual, Paul saw himself as a sinner.  This is what converted him. 

What converted Paul, the most important thing, was his meeting with Christ on the road to Damascus.  Sure the law helped him see his need for Christ, but it is the goodness of God which leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). 

[pnattmbtc]

Is there any hope then in our Christian experience?  Yes, but first we must remember that "there's no condemnation" to the believer struggling and losing his battle with "the law of sin."  The fact one is struggling proves his conversion.

Later, in Romans 8:3,4 we will learn that "the law of the Spirit" can defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love) in the life of the believer as he learns to "walk in the Spirit". 

1.What does "losing his battle with 'the law of sin'" mean?

2.Not "the law of the Spirit" can defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love) but "the law of the Spirit" *does* defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love).  Paul isn't saying this is something that maybe happens in the life of the believer, but it is something which does happen.  The carnal mind is enmity with God because it is not subject to the law of God, and cannot be subject to the law of God, so that they that are of the flesh cannot please God.  Paul contrasts this with those who are of the mind of the spirit.  Those who are after the Spirit do the things of the Spirit.  There is a stark contrast here.

To be of the flesh is to not be subject to the law of God.  To be of the spirit is life and peace.

[pnattmbtc]

 "If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law." Galatians 5:18. "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin." Romans 7:14. The flesh and the spirit are in opposition; but against the fruits of the Spirit "there is no law." Galatians 5:22, 23. Therefore the law is against the works of the flesh. The carnal mind is "not subject to the law of God." So those who are in the flesh cannot please God but are "under the law." This is another clear proof of the fact that to be "under the law" is to be a transgressor of it.

"The law is spiritual." Therefore all who are led by the Spirit are in full harmony with the law, and so they are not under it. Here gain we see that the controversy was not whether or not the law should be kept, but how it could be fulfilled. The Galatians were being led astray by the flattering teaching that they themselves had power to do it, while the heaven-sent apostle strenuously maintained that only through the Spirit could it be kept. This he showed from the Scriptures, from the history of Abraham, and from the experience of the Galatians themselves. They began in the Spirit, and as long as they continued in the Spirit, they ran well. But when they substituted themselves for the Spirit, immediately works began to manifest themselves, which were wholly contrary to the law. (Waggoner, the Glad Tidings)

[pnattmbtc]

"That Christ should be born under the law was a necessary consequence of his being born of a woman, taking on him the nature of Abraham, being made of the seed of David, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Human nature is sinful, and the law of God condemns all sin. Not that men are born into the world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy they have no knowledge of right and wrong, and are incapable of doing either, but they are born with sinful tendencies, owing to the sins of their ancestors. And when Christ came into the world, he came subject to all the conditions to which other children are subject. {October 21, 1889 EJW, SITI 631.10} 

[pnattmbtc]

I take it that you would rather not answer....? Can't blame you.

I don't see the relevance of the question. 

[pnattmbtc]

 

No, but maybe we are misunderstanding John.

Does he mean if I practice doing good that I am as perfect as God?  If so, John is contradicting himself because he says, "If we say we have no sin" we are self-deceived. If we aren't perfect then we aren't as righteous as God is righteous. 

Face it, we fallen human beings can't produce righteousness;  it isn't going to happen.  All we can produce is good deeds outwardly polluted with self. These are filthy rags in comparison to Christ's selfless life.

Now, we can experience righteousness as we rest in His finished work, but to say we are as righteous as Christ is blasphemy.  Who said so?  Ellen White!

What John means if very clear by just reading the context.  I explained this another post, so won't repeat myself.

You seem to have only two possibilities in mind, which leads to creating the false dichotomy I spoke of.  You seem to think either:

1.The believer cannot experience victory over sin

or

2.The believer must think he is as perfect as God.

Can you conceive of the possibility of other possibilites than these two?  How about Ellen White herself? You keep quoting her, which is good, to establish the point that believers should not refer to themselves in glowing terms.  Yet she, which even you don't deny, believes in victory of sin.  So here the very person you are quoting is proof that it is possible to view oneself as a sinner in need of Christ, yet believe in victory over sin.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Our history has been that we have believed that it is possible, and indeed necessary, for believers to obey the law.  Our denomination was predicated upon this belief.

Robert:That is a historic, traditional view of Adventism.   It's in harmony with folks like Shepard's Rod and Firm Foundation.  It's the essence of Laodecian pride and blindness. 

 There are two errors here.  One is your lumping historical Adventism, by which I mean that which SDA's practiced and believed during the lifetime of Ellen White, with Shepard's Rod and Firm Foundation.  There are many differences between the two, and especially they have very little to do with what Jones and Waggoner taught.

The second error is labeling what Ellen White and her contemporaries believed as the essence of Laodecian pride and blindness, at least in how you are using the term.

By the way, I firmly believe that God has new light for us, and has been giving us new light, but new light will not contradict old light, and certainly will not lead to labeling the old light as "heresy" or other disparaging terms.  After all, it was God who sent us the 1888 message, and God who communicated with Ellen White.  This isn't arguing for infallibility in the human instrument, but for treating with respect the communications of God.

God welcomes our questioning and honest doubts, but in a spirit of reverence; don't you agree?

[Robert]

I don't see the relevance of the question. 

But of course....Never mind.

[Robert]

You seem to have only two possibilities in mind, which leads to creating the false dichotomy I spoke of.  You seem to think either:

1.The believer cannot experience victory over sin

or

2.The believer must think he is as perfect as God.

I believe that as we rest in Christ's finished work we can experience victory of certain sins like temper and lustful sins, etc.  But just because one has the victory over certain besetting sins doesn't mean he can't fall back into them.  Neither does it mean that all self-love and self-seeking is absent.  Here the Apostle Paul states "we fall short".  Hence we are not as perfect as God as one of your posts suggested.

Victory over certain sins does not make us righteous as God is righteous.  Righteousness is complete compliance with the law of God, period.  Failure in one point is breaking all of them.  See James 2:10

Edited June 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 God welcomes our questioning and honest doubts, but in a spirit of reverence; don't you agree?

Ellen White is not the final word.  Jones and Waggoner are not the final word.  The Bible, and the Bible only, it the final authoritative word.  

[Robert]

1.What does "losing his battle with 'the law of sin'" mean?

2.Not "the law of the Spirit" can defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love) but "the law of the Spirit" *does* defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love).  Paul isn't saying this is something that maybe happens in the life of the believer, but it is something which does happen.

No, God's Spirit will never force.  He will not force agape down your throat.  You must allow him to do so.  It's called walking in the Spirit. That's why we fall short because of the human element.  

By the works of the law no one will be justified in His sight.  Does Paul mean it, or is he only kidding?

[Robert]

 

2.What about the resurrection?  This is a problem in looking at the Gospel as a legal problem.  The reusurrection is the cornerstone of Christian faith, which Paul makes clear in 1 Cor. 15, but what place does it have in this gospel?  That you don't even mention it is a hint to your thinking, that it's not so important.

The gospel is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ and the truth pertaining to what is true of us "in Christ".

Let's look at what Christ already accomplished by His doing & dying:

 

Col 1:13 "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

 

Your corporate humanity is already in heaven in Christ Jesus.  This humanity, not you, Christ presents before the Father's law.  In Him you are complete.

 

 

 

Here's another:

 

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with whichHe loved us, 

5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together withChrist (by grace you have been saved ), 

6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...."

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

2. Not "the law of the Spirit" can defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love) but "the law of the Spirit" *does* defeat "the law of sin" (our self-love).  Paul isn't saying this is something that maybe happens in the life of the believer, but it is something which does happen.

No, let's quote Paul:

Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law (i.e., agape) might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

"Does happen" and "might be fulfilled in us" aren't the same.  So you misspoke. Why "might"? Because "walking in the Spirit" is something we do.  Anytime you have the human element you have uncertainty.  Yes, if God forced us to be righteous (as in infused grace) then "yes", we would be righteous. But then if He forced agape He too would be a sinner because agape, by its very nature, cannot force or coerce. 

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

The carnal mind is enmity with God because it is not subject to the law of God, and cannot be subject to the law of God....

The man of Romans 7 does not have a carnal mind.  He delights in God's law.  This is a converted man, yet he is failing.  Is there any condemnation?  No!  There is no condemnation if we have accepted our position "in Christ". 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

8 He who sins is of the devil, 

Do you sin?  

Edited June 26, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Hence we are not as perfect as God as one of your posts suggested.

I didn't suggest this.  I've not discussed perfectionism at all.  You've brought this up (for reasons I don't know) but I haven't.  I've only responded to your questions. 

[Robert]

I didn't suggest this.  I've not discussed perfectionism at all.  You've brought this up (for reasons I don't know) but I haven't.  I've only responded to your questions. 

No, you are presenting perfectionism.

[Robert]

Do you sin?  

After all, you quoted John in saying "He who sins is of the devil".