When Christ's character shall be perfectly reproduced in his people...

[Woody]

Quote:

Makes me want to chew gum.

If you felt it might help your theology ... by all means go for it. But b forewarned ... Ellen White spoke against it and in fact she placed it in the same category as knickknacks.

"Our children should be taught to deny themselves of such unnecessary things as candies, gum, ice cream, and other knickknacks" MS 87, 1908

[Robert]

Are you sure that's all?

No, there's the context of Romans 8

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law [agape] might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

[Robert]

Chapter 7 describes 2 laws.

Correction, 3 laws

1] The law of God

2] the law of my mind

3] the law of sin

a] The law of God, the principle of agape, in and of itself has no power to sinners under the law of sin.

b] The law of my mind is the law written into the believer's heart so that his/her desire is agreement with God's law of love. It is a change of mind...a change of attitude. Before we hated God's agape, but now our minds are in harmony with God's love. However, our mindsets (wills) are out of harmony with the law of sin that dwells in our members (our humanity).

c] At conversion the mind has changed, not the law of sin. The law of sin doesn't change after conversion. It still has the same desires and it appeals to the mind to get its way.

The mind for a season can say "no" to the law of sin, but the human will vacillates. Today you might tell your wife "no cookies, thank you", but then one day your will weakens and you end up eating all the cookies (not just a few). So our human will is not a constant force. The law of sin is....

In order to defeat the law of sin the Spirit (the law of the Spirit) must be allowed to have the law of my mind (the human will). Then, through the Spirit, we can say no to the law of sin. This is walking in the Spirit.

However, the law of sin is crafty...it is deceitful...so if we do no walk in the Spirit minute by minute we are sure to experience the man of Romans 7.

Why minute by minute? Because God isn't a God of force. He must be given permission to have your will.....

[doug yowell]

Quote:

Makes me want to chew gum.

If you felt it might help your theology ... by all means go for it. But b forewarned ... Ellen White spoke against it and in fact she placed it in the same category as knickknacks.

"Our children should be taught to deny themselves of such unnecessary things as candies, gum, ice cream, and other knickknacks" MS 87, 1908

Obviously just a cultural thing. They didn't have Bubbalicious in her day.Besides, I have a hard time discussing theology and chewing gum at the same time.

[Woody]

Quote:

I have a hard time discussing theology and chewing gum at the same time.

I had noticed you were having some trouble.

Let's pray you have better days ahead.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

I have a hard time discussing theology and chewing gum at the same time.

I had noticed you were having some trouble.

So, no more bubba(licious) comments? In deference to Christian courtesy?

[pnattmbtc]

I don't know why, but I feel like having some cookies.

[Robert]

I don't know why, but I feel like having some cookies.

[Overaged]

Quote:

Makes me want to chew gum.

If you felt it might help your theology ... by all means go for it. But b forewarned ... Ellen White spoke against it and in fact she placed it in the same category as knickknacks.

"Our children should be taught to deny themselves of such unnecessary things as candies, gum, ice cream, and other knickknacks" MS 87, 1908

Art thou trying to tell us that Ellen G White is telling us that icecream is a "knickknack?" Maybe you should have disclosed the context of this sentence?

[pnattmbtc]

p:So the clear teaching of scripture is that from the heart flows righteousness. If the heart is right, the rest will follow.

Do you see anything in the teachings of Jesus Christ along the lines of what you're suggesting?

R:You are out of context....We were discussing Romans and Paul. Paul is the main theologian of the NT. He was set aside by God to explain these types of details.

Those verses you quoted are not clear....Romans is clear. Stick with Paul and learn something. Back to Romans 7

This is backwards. Jesus was a better teacher than Paul. To think the reverse would be absurd. Paul would never have suggested such a thing!

Paul is easy to take and twist and make him say whatever you want. People in general make no effort to consider Paul in an historical sense. That is, many suggestions are made as things Paul believed which historically make no sense at all, as these suggestions are not in harmony with the culture in which Paul lived.

Anyway, the whole idea that you would suggest setting Jesus aside in favor of Paul suggests a problem with your theology. Paul didn't teach anything contrary to what Jesus taught. Paul's teachings were based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. It's not the other way around. Jesus Christ comes first. Paul taught, "the Gospel of Jesus Christ," not "the Gospel of Paul."

[pnattmbtc]

p:This is from John: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

R:Sorry, not the context of Romans 7.....Why can't you stay with Paul? You can't, so you start verse jumping to make up your legalistic doctrine.

What I have said is that God will take people to heaven who will be happy there. You said you agree with this. What is legalistic here?

Regarding Paul, all of Scripture is inspired of God. If you have Paul saying things that disagree with other Scripture writers, and with Jesus Christ, then what you have him saying can't be right.

[Woody]

I don't know why, but I feel like having some cookies.

[pnattmbtc]

Paul referred to himself as the "chief of sinners" because he recognized his role in the death of Christ. Any converted person should feel as Paul did.

R:Prove it.

Prove what? That any converted person should feel as Paul did? Consider Peter, who didn't want to be crucified standing up, because he didn't feel worthy to be put to death in the same manner as Jesus Christ.

Or prove that Paul referred to himself as the "chief of sinners" because he recognized his role in the death of Christ and that any converted person should feel as Christ did? If that's what you meant, I think this is something one realizes when one perceives that Christ's sacrifice was an individual one (that is, that Christ died for *me*; each individual "me" can say this).

[Guest]

Regarding Paul, all of Scripture is inspired of God. If you have Paul saying things that disagree with other Scripture writers, and with Jesus Christ, then what you have him saying can't be right.

Exactly!!!

[Robert]

...I think this is something one realizes when one perceives that Christ's sacrifice ....

I didn't asked you how your felt...I ask you to prove it....

Paul simply compared His life to Christ. In that respect he stated that he was the chief of sinners.

[John317]

So, the Rom.7 man,who,with a despairing sense of his own finite weakness,cries out,"O wretched man that I am!Who will deliver me from this body of death?",and who follows by exclaming,"I thank God-through Jesus Christ our Lord!",does not have an Advocate with the Father?Why then is he thanking God?

As I see it, Romans 7: 7-23 is describing a man who has not yet surrendered to Christ. The Holy Spirit is working on his mind and heart to convict him of his sins and to draw him to Christ, but he doesn't accept Christ as the answer to his terrible dilemma until verse 24. That is the reason for the exclamation in verse 25: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

If the man of Romans 7 had come to this conclusion in verse 14, none of the rest of the chapter would have been written. But Paul is writing from the viewpoint of someone (himself?) before they were converted and experienced the Holy Spirit's leading in the life.

At the moment a man submits himself to Christ as Savior and Lord, at that moment he has an Advocate with the Father. But I don't believe the evidence shows the man of Romans 7 does this until the 24th & 25th verses.

Lots of people are moved by the Spirit to have a love of Christ and even of His law, but some fail to make the decision to submit to Him and accept Him as their Master and Savior.

Your thoughts?

[Robert]

he doesn't accept Christ as the answer to his terrible dilemma until verse 24. That is the reason for the exclamation in verse 25: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

And you see with a legalistic, self-righteous theology.

The man of Romans 7 doesn't want to be saved from his besetting sins...no, he goes further than that. He wants to be saved from "his body of death" - body indwelt with sin - a body whose members are bent-to-self. He wants a glorified life.

Also, you miss the main point in verse 25. He calls Jesus "our Lord". If I wasn't a believer and I just accepted Christ I would say "thanks be to God my Lord"....But He doesn't...He says "our lord". He is clearly a believer. There are many other reasons, but it doesn't fit into your holier than thou theology.

[John317]

The man of Romans 7 clearly confesses that he is in the flesh and a slave of sin. He cannot stop sinning and he cannot practice righteousness. Sin dominates his life. It is his ruler. He is not living under grace but under law. He is a slave of the law [power] of sin and death. He lives according to the flesh.

Now compare that with with what Paul says in Romans 6 and 8:

Romans 6:14

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 6:17-18

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, [18] and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:20-23

When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. ....[22] But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Romans 8:2

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

Romans 8:4

... the righteous requirement of the law [is] fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:9

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

NOTE: I find that a comparison of these verses with the description of the man of Romans 7 shows that he is not a converted man. If we say he is converted, then it seems to me we must say that converted people who have the Spirit are slaves of sin and therefore cannot stop sinning and cannot practice rightousness; that they live in the flesh and that their lives are dominated by sin. If we say this, then aren't we denying virtually everything Paul says in Romans 6 and 8, to say nothing of 1 John 2: 1-6 and 3: 1-10?

Having said that, I realize that anyone can attempt to obey God on their own strength, and whenever we do this, we will fail just like the man of Romans 7. So there is a sense in which it doesn't matter whether he is converted or not. Even a truly converted person can temporarily fall back into trying to do it without the Holy Spirit. However, Paul's description doesn't seem to be about a man who has temporarily fallen back into doing things as if under the Old Covenant. He seems to me to be talking about someone who has just "died" because of his consciousness of sin and his inability to do anything about it (v. 9-11). He is painfully conscious of a war going going on in his mind between good and evil, but he hasn't yet accepted Christ as the solution to the problem he faces. He apparently does this for the first time in verses 24, 25.

I see verse 25 not as the words of the man of Romans 7 at the moment he accepts Christ, but as the words of the apostle Paul in praise of Christ who rescues us from this body of death. In verse 25, Paul is acknowledging that apart from the Holy Spirit our service to God will fail and that in the flesh (without the Spirit) we are doomed to serve the law of sin. His words, "I myself," are the same as "by myself."

In Romans 8: 1-- "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus [who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit],"--- Paul is saying that there is no condemnation to those who continue to do what the man of Romans 7 does in verses 24, 25, i.e., accept Christ as his Lord and Savior from sin, the only solution to his dilemma. Paul isn't talking about a one-time dedication to Christ, but rather he speaks of those "who are in [union with] Christ." He's describing a continuous relationsip with Christ.

Any time we find ourselves being overcome by sinful practices (including cherishing sinful thoughts), we need to look seriously at our love relationship with Christ. His not being dominant in our life is always at the center of any problems with sin. The question should always be, then, Am I really committed 100% to Christ, and am I letting Christ and His Spirit rule every aspect and little corner of my life?

[Overaged]

And you see with a legalistic, self-righteous theology.

The man of Romans 7 doesn't want to be saved from his besetting sins...no, he goes further than that. He wants to be saved from "his body of death" - body indwelt with sin - a body whose members are bent-to-self. He wants a glorified life.

Also, you miss the main point in verse 25. He calls Jesus "our Lord". If I wasn't a believer and I just accepted Christ I would say "thanks be to God my Lord"....But He doesn't...He says "our lord". He is clearly a believer. There are many other reasons, but it doesn't fit into your holier than thou theology.

"self righteous" and "holier than thou" are wanton cliches reflecting the very accusation being used to impale the theology not approved of.

Also; it is falsehood to state that we somehow do not believe if we say "my Lord." My Lord is of course corporately, "our Lord," but to me He is a Personal Savior, "I love the Lord because He has heard my voice," (Ps. 116:1), and so it is quite fitting for anyone to call Jesus: "My Lord."

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God

2Ti 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

According to scripture; it is correct to say either.

[Robert]

NOTE: I find that a comparison of these verses with the description of the man of Romans 7 shows that he is not a converted man.

You have to stay with the context, John, instead of cutting and pasting to make it say something it doesn't. Back up to Rom 7:7

7 ....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."

If you look at the last 6 commandment of the moral law there's only one that looks at the motive. Coveting is a desire of the mind - it's not an outward sin. This is where the spirit of the law comes in. Keep in mind the law also demands a perfect motive. And since only "agape" fulfills the law anything outside agape is centered in sin!

So I can keep the Sabbath outwardly (and my church will let me be baptized and have my name on the books), but inside I'm doing it because God commanded me to and if I don't, well, too bad for me. So my motive is fear and hope of reward. Fear that God's going to burn me and reward so I can make it to heaven. Both reason are polluted with self - my bent to self.

When Paul realized that the law even required his motives to be spotless, he said:

9 Once I was alive apart from law [i.e., apart from a deeper understanding of the spirit of the law]; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died (came under the curse). 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

You see as a Pharisee Paul thought he was blameless in performance under the law, but when he became converted he learned different.

That's why the man of Romans 7 calls himself "wretched". Compared to the spirit of the law he's a sinner. In fact he realized that all the good things he did (all his law keeping) was polluted with selfish motives.

So it is within this context that the man of Romans 7 says, "20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin [my bent to self] living in me that does it."

BTW, when you guys preach that Rondo must keep the Sabbath or else, you are teaching him to sin. How so? Because his motive will be fear of hell. His motive will be to save his own skin....It's a very self-centered, egocentric deed. It's polluted with self.

God never gave the law as a means or way of salvation. He gave the law to make sin exceedingly sinful! He gave the law to expose sin...not the letter, but the spirit of the law. He gave it to slam the pride of men in the dust of the ground.

[Robert]

According to scripture; it is correct to say either.

You miss the point. You must return to the context....Stop jumping around for Pete sakes.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

According to scripture; it is correct to say either.

You miss the point. You must return to the context....Stop jumping around for Pete sakes.

I am not "jumping around;" I am addressing specifically a statement that you made. Maybe we are not the ones jumping around - Jesus saves whom He wills; not whoever agrees with Roberts theology. He will save people who think totally differently than you; and there's nothing you can do about it. Calling people or their beliefs "holier than thou" stoops to a level not included in "the doctrine of Christ."

[Overaged]

So I can keep the Sabbath outwardly (and my church will let me be baptized and have my name on the books), but inside I'm doing it because God commanded me to and if I don't, well, too bad for me. So my motive is fear and hope of reward. Fear that God's going to burn me and reward so I can make it to heaven. Both reason are polluted with self - my bent to self.

Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Apparently, all of the Apostles thought that obedience was not optional; rather, they said "we ought to obey God." Robert, for eg., ought to obey God, or he is disobeying God. Would you care to tell us then what this would mean if you are disobeying God, deliberately, because "you won't be saved" by obeying? Does God want us to not obey Him, just because "obedience doesn't save?" You have a lot of explaining to do.

[pnattmbtc]

p:...I think this is something one realizes when one perceives that Christ's sacrifice ....

R:I didn't asked you how your felt...I ask you to prove it....

Paul simply compared His life to Christ. In that respect he stated that he was the chief of sinners.

If you don't perceive your responsibility in relation to the death of Christ, I don't see how I could prove this.

[pnattmbtc]

J:The point is that when people are truly "in Christ," Christ is in them, and it shows in the life.

R:Utterly false! You where "in Christ" 2000 years ago before you existed as an individual. Once again you are presenting "another gospel"....

What's false here? Is it your belief that when people are truly "in Christ" that Christ is not in them, that it won't show in their life?