The man of Romans 7

[Robert]

 

What question? 

I thought the law was our friend?

[Robert]

 

We should follow the teachings of Christ to the best of our ability.  Do you disagree with this? 

The man of Romans 7 is following Christ to the best of his ability, yet you state is unconverted and unsaved.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:Let me take a moment here to let anyone viewing my debate with Pnattmbtc know that I am not against the law as a standard for Christians living under grace.  But, it is not what saves.  Our works of faith will be used in the investigative judgment to prove our faith, not our righteousness.  Once Jesus proves our faith to "the accuser of the brethren" this gives Him the legal right to present us "in Himself" perfect and without blemish.

I think this may be a bit misleading, as the facts presented here have nothing to do with what we are debating.  In fact, I don't know of anyone disagreeing with the any of the statement you've made here.

What we disagree about is the cause of death, the second death.  I've been arguing that the second death is caused by sin, because the essence of sin is to put self first, to separate from God, who alone is the source of life, so that death follows as a natural consequence.

You have disagreed that the second death is the natural consequence of sin, and have asserted that it is the curse of the law.

Our disagreement has been in terms of the function of the law, which I have argued is a positive one, being holy, just and good, to help us see our need for Christ.  You have argued against this.

My position: Sin is responsible for the second death.

Your position: The law is responsible for the second death.

 

This is what we have been debating.

[Robert]

 

You seem to think it's OK to take a verse, out of context,.... Why would you think this is a valid approach?

 

That's your approach.  Clearly the law condemns...it brings wrath, yet you twist the scriptures to state the opposite.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

My position: Sin is responsible for the second death.

Your position: The law is responsible for the second death.

This is what we have been debating.

Yes, sin is the problem.  To be perfectly righteous and under law isn't a problem, but to be a sinner and under law is very problematic.  To be a sinner under law means death.  The OT/OC gives many examples of what happens when one sins under law. 

[pnattmbtc]

Okay, so you should "agape" your enemies because God does.  Is it agape if I cheat on my wife?  No! So verses 27 & 28 apply also.  Is it agape if I hate someone (even an enemy who just wiped out my family)?  No!  So verses 22 & 23 apply too.  So all these verses apply to agape.  

In fact Paul, in Gal 5:4, states: "the entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love (agape) your neighbor as yourself.'" 

So anything outside of agape is sin.  If we are to be perfect as God is perfect then there had better be no self-love.  Is this, perfection, what Jesus is commanding?

"Yes" if you think you can gain heaven by law.

"No" if you understand that Jesus is trying to discourage the Jews, who were heavily influenced by the teachers of the law, from trying to gain heaven by "the works of the law".

I think this is a very negative way of looking at Jesus' discourse, and also not one born out either by textual or historical considerations.  That is, there is no evidence from the text itself that Jesus' primary concern was to discourage the Jews from trying to gain heaven by the works of the law.  I know of no scholar who suggests that, based on the text, this was the motivation behind Jesus' comments.

We can see what Jesus' concerns were by simply reading what He said.  For example, in the text about loving our enemies, Jesus' concern was that we should love our enemies.  It wasn't an argument like this:

1.You are trying to gain heaven by keeping the law.

2.I will prove to you that this is impossible.

3.If you want to gain heaven by keeping the law, what does the law teach?  It teaches that you must do X.

4.X is impossible to do, therefore you cannot gain heaven by keeping the law.

This appears to be how you are interpreting Jesus' words.  There are negative consequences to interpreting what Jesus said in this way, one of which is negating the force of Jesus' words upon the reader, who could reason, "I'm not trying to gain heaven keeping the law, therefore these words to not apply to me."  But the words do apply to us!  It really is the case that God would have us love our enemies that we might "be children of our heavenly Father," as Jesus puts it.

Jesus was teaching another way of looking at the law, not for the purpose trying to show that keeping the law is impossible, to because this is the true and proper way of looking at the law. 

[Robert]

Our disagreement has been in terms of the function of the law, which I have argued is a positive one, being holy, just and good, to help us see our need for Christ.

The function of the law is dual, not singular.

1] The law is used as a tool to point the unbelieving to Christ so they can go from under law to under grace.   To remain under law means death, the 2nd death. (see Gal chapter 3)

2] For the believer the law is used as standard for Christian living.  While it can't condemn (because we aren't under it) it acts a mirror to show us our defects. (see Romans chapter 13)

Edited July 18, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

What question? 

Robert: I thought the law was our friend?

If that's what you thought, you thought correctly.  That doesn't seem like much of a question!  Was there another question implied by that question?  If so, please ask that one. 

[pnattmbtc]

We should follow the teachings of Christ to the best of our ability.  Do you disagree with this? 

Robert: The man of Romans 7 is following Christ to the best of his ability, yet you state is unconverted and unsaved.

I don't think I stated this.  Where did I state this?

You didn't answer my question, which is do you disagree that we should follow the teachings of Christ to the best of our ability? 

[pnattmbtc]

You seem to think it's OK to take a verse, out of context,.... Why would you think this is a valid approach?

 

Robert:That's your approach.  Clearly the law condemns...it brings wrath, yet you twist the scriptures to state the opposite.

That's not my approach at all.  You seem to read your own ideas into what others say a lot, not just me, but Scripture, and most everything you quote, without actually reading what others are saying.  That is, you seem to look for something to disagree with, and then you'll grab a single sentence, or a portion of a sentence, and then react strongly to that, rather than trying to understand what the person is actually trying to communicate.

I never do that.

I'm also trying to understand what the person is saying, whether it's you or any other text.  I may fail and get it wrong, but that's my intent.

I don't think you'll find a single instance where I've taken a single verse or sentence out of context to make some argument, so why make this baseless accusation?  If you really think this is true, quote something I've said for evidence. 

[Robert]

 

I don't think I stated this.  Where did I state this?

You didn't answer my question, which is do you disagree that we should follow the teachings of Christ to the best of our ability? 

I'm sure you stated that the man of Romans was unconverted and lost.  Is this not your position?

The law does grade on the curve.  It demands 100% compliance with no deviations.  So "the best of our ability" is a meaningless question.

[pnattmbtc]

My position: Sin is responsible for the second death.

Your position: The law is responsible for the second death.

This is what we have been debating.

Robert: Yes, sin is the problem.  To be perfectly righteous and under law isn't a problem, but to be a sinner and under law is very problematic.  To be a sinner under law means death.  The OT/OC gives many examples of what happens when one sins under law. 

1.OT/OC is confusion.  These are not the same thing.

2.There is not a single example in the Old Testament of the second death resulting as an effect of sin.  It's not until the cross that the relation between sin and death (the second death) became clear.  If we would understand how the relationship between sin and death works, we should study the cross. 

[Robert]

 

If that's what you thought, you thought correctly. 

Waggoner disagrees that the law is our friend:

"To be 'under the law,' as we have already seen, means to be condemned to death by the law as transgressors."

Edited July 18, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

I don't think you'll find a single instance where I've taken a single verse or sentence out of context to make some argument, so why make this baseless accusation?  If you really think this is true, quote something I've said for evidence. 

A Good example (and I looked for your reply, but couldn't readily find it) was your remarks on Romans 7:13

You used this verse to say that the law is our friend.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

1.OT/OC is confusion.  These are not the same thing.

Never said they were.  The Old Covenant was mainly recorded in the Old Testament and there we can plainly see the results of sinning under law.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

2.There is not a single example in the Old Testament of the second death resulting as an effect of sin.  

Right. Christ, as the son of man, is the only one that has experienced the 2nd death.

Those who died under law were used as an example, a shadow, of what was to come.  

[pnattmbtc]

If that's what you thought, you thought correctly. 

Robert: Waggoner disagrees that the law is our friend:

"To be 'under the law,' as we have already seen, means to be condemned to death by the law as transgressors."

Why would the fact that "under the law" means "condemned by the law" mean the law is not our friend?  The law makes clear our condition, so that we will come to Christ.  You agree that Waggoner teaches this, don't you?  So the law is helping us, but driving us to Christ.  Here's an example of what Waggoner said:

Now since Christ, in whom is peace ("for He is our peace"), is seeking the weary and heavy-laden and calling them to Himself, and since every man has longings that nothing else in the world can satisfy, it is clear that if the man is awakened by the law to keener consciousness of his condition, and the law continues goading him, giving him no rest, shutting up every other way of escape, the man must at last find the door of safety, for it stands open. Christ is the city of refuge to which everyone pursued by the avenger of blood may flee, sure of finding a welcome. In Christ alone will the sinner find release from the lash of the law, for in Christ the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, and He fulfills it in us. Romans 8:4. The law will allow nobody to be saved unless he has "the righteousness which is of God by faith," the faith of Jesus Christ. (The Glad Tidings)

 Here is a better one that makes crystal clear that Waggoner conceived of the law as our friend:

The law pointed out the fact that sin was killing us. “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” We have no more reason to rail at the law than we have to hate the man who tells us that the substance, which we are eating, thinking it to be food, is poison. He is our friend. (Waggoner on Romans)

I've already quoted these multiple times.  Are you reading them?  I don't see how you could be reading these texts and think that Waggoner disagreed with the statement that "the law is our friend."  This statement is an obvious agreement with Wagoner's teachings.  What is it you think Waggoner was saying? 

Edited July 19, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

A Good example (and I looked for your reply, but couldn't readily find it) was your remarks on Romans 7:13

You used this verse to say that the law is our friend.

I'm sure I presented an argument, not a single verse with no comment, similar to the argument I just presented in the post before this one.

[pnattmbtc]

1.OT/OC is confusion.  These are not the same thing.

Robert: Never said they were.  The Old Covenant was mainly recorded in the Old Testament and there we can plainly see the results of sinning under law.

The Old Testament and Old Covenant are two very different things, and to link them together as you did is confusing.  What point are you trying to make?  There is not a single instance of anyone suffering the second death in the Old Testament.  It wasn't until the cross that we could see the results of sin.

Going back to what you stated previously, you stated that living for self results in chaos, and "the soul that sins must die."  This is the case with or without the law.  We don't need the law in order to live selfishly.  But the law points out our condition, which helps us.  There is a great statement by Waggoner regarding your idea that the law makes things worse for us.  I'll see if I can find it.

But simply on the basis of logic, it must be the case that God, who loves us and wants to save us, would not introduce something which would make things worse for us, especially not something incomprehensibly bad such as causing the second death.  Why would God do such a thing? 

[Robert]

 

Why would the fact that "under the law" means "condemned by the law" mean the law is not our friend?  

Hey, earth to pnattmbtc:  "condemned to death"!  Context, please!

Edited July 19, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

I'm sure I presented an argument, not a single verse with no comment, similar to the argument I just presented in the post before this one.

Did you not use Romans 7:13 to say that law is our friend?

[pnattmbtc]

Here's the statement I was thinking of:

No sin can remove itself, neither can it be atoned for by any subsequent good deed. So then there must be some scheme of atonement for sin. Now if sin were imputed for neglect of the ceremonial law, what remedy was provided for that sin? The ceremonial law was simply the ordinances of the gospel. If condemned sinners were still further condemned by the very remedy provided for their salvation, then indeed it must have been a yoke. A man is in a truly pitiable condition when the remedy given him for a sore disease only aggravates that disease. (The Gospel in Galatians)

The context is different, but it is the last sentence that I remembered, "A man is in a truly pitiable condition when the remedy given him for a sore disease only aggravates that disease," as the logic Waggoner is pointing out applies to your position.

God gave the law to help us.

[Robert]

 Here is a better one that makes crystal clear that Waggoner conceived of the law as our friend:

The law is our friend if we are not under it.

In Romans 7:13 Paul had been converted because the law had exposed his self-righteousness through the 10th commandment.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Why would the fact that "under the law" means "condemned by the law" mean the law is not our friend?  

Robert: Hey, earth to pnattmbtc:  "condemned to death"!  Context, please!

Why do you feel the need for sarcasm?  This isn't helpful.

Have you read what Waggoner teaches?  I've quoted a lot of Waggoner.  Waggoner's position is the same as I've been presenting.  He viewed the second death as the natural consequence of sin.

Context indeed!  Consider the argument of Waggoner, and you'll see that it's in agreement with what I've been saying.  Indeed, I've been using his own arguments. 

[pnattmbtc]

I'm sure I presented an argument, not a single verse with no comment, similar to the argument I just presented in the post before this one.

Robert: Did you not use Romans 7:13 to say that law is our friend?

I don't know what specifically you're referring to, but I'm sure I did the same thing I've been doing here, to present the same sort of argument.  The main reason I recall using Romans 7:13 is because it directly contradicts your assertions regarding the law.  You claim the law is responsible for causing our death, whereas Paul asks the question, "Is the law responsible for our death?" and answers his own question negatively, saying, "May it never be!" and argues that it is sin.