PASSIONATE ARGUMENTS ABOUT ROMANS 7 [1840a]

When one feels strongly about something it is hard to remain dispassionate about it, especially if you have put a lot into it, have a lot invested in it so to speak. Yet those who disagree with you can do so from a myriad of viewpoints, from a stack of doctrinal stances, and from a maize of theological and academic backgrounds.

Sometimes, it appears as if that person is coming from such a weird set of thought patterning and pre-disposition to defend their particular doctrinal mindset, again because they have so much invested in defending their position, that it is almost impossible to engage with them on a logical level.

Now, I KNOW how difficult this passage is, and I DO understand the process of connecting arguments in such a way in order to conduct a defense of one’s thinking, so I AM sympathetic re His view. but it is like so many other doctrines based purely on academia instead of Spiritual reality, the complication they introduce is out of necessity to try and make their ideas stand up, instead of being based on scripture and revelation.

Derek J Brown has on the web an article about Romans 7 which is completely wrong and misleading, which falls into the same pattern of error as many others, simply because they are reading it from a biased perspective which is preset by their views on many other doctrines, many of which are also wrong. Scripture requires Spiritual revelation and not just academic analysis, and it is amazing how academics, probably because they have so many brain cells to play around with, are blinded to the simplicity of what Paul is saying, but yes I have already said it is not easy, precisely BECAUSE of preconceived notions about the subject.

But when read with eyes open to what Paul is telling us, it is not really that difficult at all to understand.

As far as going back and forth with arguments that are not actually based on the given text, one verse at a time, it appears useless to do because they are not listening at all to the Spiritual truths being investigated for our benefit and learning.

https://fromthestudy.com/2017/05/02/which-paul-is-it-an-argument-for-pauls-christian-experience-in-romans-714-25/

See also post 1794a

PASSIONATE ARGUMENTS ABOUT ROMANS 7 [1840]

When one feels strongly about something it is hard to remain dispassionate about it, especially if you have put a lot into it, have a lot invested in it so to speak. Yet those who disagree with you can do so from a myriad of viewpoints, from a stack of doctrinal stances, and from a maize of theological and academic backgrounds.

Sometimes, it appears as if that person is coming from such a weird set of thought patterning and pre-disposition to defend their particular doctrinal mindset, again because they have so much invested in defending their position, that it is almost impossible to engage with them on a logical level.

Now, I KNOW how difficult this passage is, and I DO understand the process of connecting arguments in such a way in order to conduct a defense of one’s thinking, so I AM sympathetic re His view. but it is like so many other doctrines based purely on academia instead of Spiritual reality, the complication they introduce is out of necessity to try and make their ideas stand up, instead of being based on scripture and revelation.

Derek J Brown has on the web an article about Romans 7 which is completely wrong and misleading, which falls into the same pattern of error as many others, simply because they are reading it from a biased perspective which is preset by their views on many other doctrines, many of which are also wrong. Scripture requires Spiritual revelation and not just academic analysis, and it is amazing how academics, probably because they have so many brain cells to play around with, are blinded to the simplicity of what Paul is saying, but yes I have already said it is not easy, precisely BECAUSE of preconceived notions about the subject.

But when read with eyes open to what Paul is telling us, it is not really that difficult at all to understand.

As far as going back and forth with arguments that are not actually based on the given text, one verse at a time, it appears useless to do because they are not listening at all to the Spiritual truths being investigated for our benefit and learning.

https://fromthestudy.com/2017/05/02/which-paul-is-it-an-argument-for-pauls-christian-experience-in-romans-714-25/

See also post 1794a

SIN FOUND NEW LIFE BY WHICH TO CAUSE DEATH [1797]

I have been having a to and fro with someone who is convinced that Romans 7:9 proves Paul is speaking as a Christian just because of the one word “revived” which not all translations even use. But because it says sin “revived”, he insists that this means that Paul was a Christian who then fell again under the law, because it says that he was once alive apart from the law, but then when law came (again?) that he died, and he sees that Paul being a believer and then falling into sin again was the only way this could happen.

He, along with others, also seeks to justify and defend the law by emphasising that it is not the law that kills, but sin. While technically correct, part of this also includes defending the law from accusations of being instrumental in creating sin. But 7:5 clearly states that the sinful passions were aroused by the law. We know that because of law, sin actually increases.

There is a verse “For the letter (of the law) kills, but the Spirit gives life”. The message is plainly that sin guilt and death came through law, just as it did with Adam and Eve. And that the law does indeed, “kill”. There is another verse which says that “law brings wrath”, and of course there is much more one could find about this truth. The law certainly was instrumental in bringing about the death of Christians under Saul. (In Romans 7 the law has killed, in Romans 8 the Spirit has given life.)

Before the law was given, sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account where there is no law by which to make it accountable. Paul says that when the commandment came (when he became conscious of sin) “sin revived, and I died”. This word revived is simply that in the time before the law was given, or before one was old enough to have formed any maturity of conscience, sin was not clearly defined, and there was no strong sin consciousness as a result. But when the law was given, conviction of sin brought about strong sin consciousness, especially in the face of attached death penalties inherent in it. This was enough to “kill off” anyone’s remaining conscience which had managed to avoid the crushing condemnation through guilt which now came under the law.

So the “revived” amounts to being given by the law strong new emphasis and power and authority, that suddenly sin had found new identity and means by which to condemn people, under the law. Sin had found new life, energy and activity by which it could kill. Sin was indeed “revived”. 7:9 “And I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive (revived), and I died.” This is the same thing which happened to Adam and Eve, that by failing the commandment, sin consciousness arose, and they “died” under the guilt of it (they were estranged from God). And we all have experienced this in our own lives in some way or another.

More to the law causing sin is in 7:8 “But sin, TAKING OPPORTUNITY BY THE COMMANDMENT, deceived me, and BY IT (the commandment) KILLED ME”. “produced in me coveting of every kind“.  If law had not been given, sin would not have been empowered to condemn (kill) to the degree that it did. That all might be held accountable to God. But of course it was the sin that was directly responsible, and the law indirectly responsible.

[“For the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Christ”.][Law gives sin power][Jesus abolished the law by fulfilling it for us to liberate us from this power of condemnation, in order to reveal God’s mercy, that we might be reconciled to Him by it.]

WELL KNOWN TELE-EVANGELIST TALKS ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES [1651b]

[UPDATE TO BELOW. He still claims that because he is speaking to God, then he is OK to do it at a church service in contradiction of Paul’s plain teaching].

He is Pentecostal and so speaks in tongues. But he starts out by saying how their meetings are criticised because they are all speaking in tongues together, at once, at the same time. To which criticism he responds that, well, they are speaking in an unknown language to God, praising Him, as if to say well, that’s OK then.

But it’s NOT OK, the criticism is valid, is “right on the money”, because it is precisely this situation that is quoted in the bible as being unacceptable and shouldn’t be done. If all speak in tongues and someone unfamiliar with the meetings comes in, they will say that you are mad, nuts, loco etc. Can he not read this for himself? And so, those wishing to speak in tongues should do so at home for their own edification, not speak it in church unless there is one who interprets present, and if there is none to interpret*, he should keep quiet.

This is all plainly to be read in 1 Corinthians 14:23. And Paul is NOT saying that he speaks in tongues more than you all, but that he thanks God more than any of you that he speaks in tongues….”. ‘Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind than ten thousand words in a tongue…’ AND, “Do all speak in tongues?” Obvious answer NO. And the Pentecostal experience was one of KNOWN LANGUAGES of the time. And Paul said he would rather that you prophesied than speak in tongues. Just saying.

*[So “none to interpret” would also mostly disqualify the person themselves from interpreting]

PAUL IS A WRETCHED MAN BECAUSE HE HAS NOT YET BEEN SET FREE [1719a]

It is good how scripture reveals its own answers to the denials set up by man as to its truth. Romans 7:24 declares that Paul’s wretchedness is due to his captivity to his body of sin. “who will release me from it?”. All that has just been spoken of, is leading up to his declaration of wretchedness because of his captivity. It is as Jesus said, “Without ME, YOU can do nothing.

Paul had been speaking about his “I”, his identity as he was conscious of it, that he [“I”] was in captivity to sin via his flesh, via the law. “For the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory”. There is no victory whatsoever in Romans 7, only defeat. Because Romans 7 is a description of Paul APART FROM CHRIST.

7:14 also is another scriptural denial of Paul being a Christian, of being spiritual, because he SAYS that “I am OF FLESH”, [which has been] “SOLD INTO BONDAGE TO SIN”. He is speaking as one who is OF flesh, (human nature) which is to say, one who was “SOLD INTO BONDAGE TO SIN” He has not [in the narrative] yet been “BOUGHT” by Christ from out of that bondage. This is also reinforced in 7:18 “That is [to say], IN MY FLESH”.

Paul was rendered “dead” in 7:9 and never again ‘comes alive’ in the whole of this chapter. Not until 8:2 is he declared to be set free from law and death. The whole of chapter 7 is a description of the deathly processes brought about by the combination of law flesh sin death.

[Paul’s “I” is the opposite of Jehoshaphat’s “You”]

PAUL IS A WRETCHED MAN BECAUSE HE HAS NOT YET BEEN SET FREE [1719]

It is good how scripture reveals its own answers to the denials set up by man as to its truth. Romans 7:24 declares that Paul’s wretchedness is due to his captivity to his body of sin. “who will release me from it?”. All that has just been spoken of, is leading up to his declaration of wretchedness because of his captivity. It is as Jesus said, “Without ME, YOU can do nothing.

Paul had been speaking about his “I”, his identity as he was conscious of it, that he [“I”] was in captivity to sin via his flesh, via the law. “For the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory”. There is no victory whatsoever in Romans 7, only defeat. Because Romans 7 is a description of Paul APART FROM CHRIST.

7:14 also is another scriptural denial of Paul being a Christian, of being spiritual, because he SAYS that “I am OF FLESH”, [which has been] “SOLD INTO BONDAGE TO SIN”. He is speaking as one who is OF flesh, he is speaking as one who is OF flesh (human nature) which is to say, one who was “SOLD INTO BONDAGE TO SIN” He has not [in the narrative] yet been “BOUGHT” by Christ from out of that bondage. This is also reinforced in 7:18 “That is [to say], IN MY FLESH”.

Paul was rendered “dead” in 7:9 and never again ‘comes alive’ in the whole of this chapter. Not until 8:2 is he declared to be set free from law and death. The whole of chapter 7 is a description of the deathly processes brought about by the combination of law flesh sin death.

[Paul’s “I” is the opposite of Jehoshaphat’s “You”]

THE COMPLIMENTARY CONTRAST BETWEEN JESUS AND PAUL [1712a]

By natural birth they were two very different people. Though of the same “flesh”, they were divided in spirit, Jesus originating from His spirit source which was His Father God: while Paul was intimately connected to the flesh of his natural birth; he was “bonded” to it.

We have to assume it was genetics that came into play in this respect – His Father was perfect, was SPIRIT. His mother was imperfect, was FLESH. Even if His demeanor was as a result of His “godly” surroundings, the only reason for that, had to be because of His peculiar Fatherhood.

So Jesus was always conscious of His Sonship with God as His immediate Father. Paul on the other hand, was immersed in the worldliness of his normal, natural, “fleshly” parentage.

Law to Jesus came naturally, putting aside the distortion introduced by man, the “spiritual law” was working in and through Him. But He was also aware of his human identity, that of “flesh”, calling Himself “Son of Man”.

Paul had no other identity than that of flesh, and his relationship with God was through the knowledge he obtained from his parents and his culture. With his transition from childhood to manhood also came his knowledge of God, but only as the Holy “untouchable” one of Israel.

So under spiritual law Jesus thrived, but Paul diminished and spiritually perished. Jesus lived “ABOVE the law” [He was “Lord of the Sabbath”] whereas Paul died, was dead, UNDER it. Jesus lived “above” His FLESH, lived in the Spiritual, while Paul was captive to his natural fleshly nature and “lived” in it, was immersed in it.

With Jesus, His “flesh” was as a foreign entity, He was always in separation from it, whereas Paul was always in subjection to it.

Jesus could resist and conquer the internal “self” desires that internally arose from within Him, but Paul had no such resistance, and that which he DID manage to muster, was both fleeting and futile: Under Law, the flesh was empowered to SIN.

It seemed that the cold compulsion of it reacted within him in such a way as to provoke a “wounded” response which was in effect, a rebellion against the lack of revealed love, that “knowledge of good and evil” inherent in himself left him “out in the cold” with nowhere to go, with no foreseeable option or alternative. He was a prisoner of his “sinful flesh” nature, and devoid of inherent life.

Paul’s story would have ended there, if it had not been for the continuation of Jesus’ story, which was that He, having inherently the power to do good, was further strengthened by the application of His Father’s Spirit, which enhanced and empowered Him to “take on” His “other nature”, which being the same nature in Paul and us, had us totally defeated, but which position He reversed and defeated “it” and we also can now acquire Him and His victory by way of His Spirit.

Jesus differentiated and separated flesh from spirit, but He operated from the spirit side whereas we and Paul operated from the flesh side. Jesus had His mind set on the Spirit; we and Paul had ours set on and in the flesh side. One was a heavenly being, from and of heaven, the other was an earthly being, from and of the earth. But now by faith we can gain that same separation that Jesus had, and by His Spirit now rise to live from out of the heavenly position and not the earthly one.

THE COMPLIMENTARY CONTRAST BETWEEN JESUS AND PAUL [1712]

By natural birth they were two very different people. Though of the same “flesh”, they were divided in spirit, Jesus originating from His spirit source which was His Father God: while Paul was intimately connected to the flesh of his natural birth; he was “bonded” to it.

We have to assume it was genetics that came into play in this respect – His Father was perfect, was SPIRIT. His mother was imperfect, was FLESH. Even if His demeanor was as a result of His “godly” surroundings, the only reason for that, had to be because of His peculiar Fatherhood.

So Jesus was always conscious of His Sonship with God as His immediate Father. Paul on the other hand, was immersed in the worldliness of his normal, natural, “fleshly” parentage.

Law to Jesus came naturally, putting aside the distortion introduced by man, the “spiritual law” was working in and through Him. But He was also aware of his human identity, that of “flesh”, calling Himself “Son of Man”.

Paul had no other identity than that of flesh, and his relationship with God was through the knowledge he obtained from his parents and his culture. With his transition from childhood to manhood also came his knowledge of God, but only as the Holy “untouchable” one of Israel.

So under spiritual law Jesus thrived, but Paul diminished and spiritually perished. Jesus lived “ABOVE the law” [He was “Lord of the Sabbath”] whereas Paul died, was dead, UNDER it. Jesus lived “above” His FLESH, lived in the Spiritual, while Paul was captive to his natural fleshly nature and “lived” in it, was immersed in it.

With Jesus, His “flesh” was as a foreign entity, He was always in separation from it, whereas Paul was always in subjection to it.

Jesus could resist and conquer the internal “self” desires that internally arose from within Him, but Paul had no such resistance, and that which he DID manage to muster, was both fleeting and futile: Under Law, the flesh was empowered to SIN.

It seemed that the cold compulsion of it reacted within him in such a way as to provoke a “wounded” response which was in effect, a rebellion against the lack of revealed love, that “knowledge of good and evil” inherent in himself left him “out in the cold” with nowhere to go, with no foreseeable option or alternative. He was a prisoner of his “sinful flesh” nature, and devoid of inherent life.

Paul’s story would have ended there, if it had not been for the continuation of Jesus’ story, which was that He, having inherently the power to do good, was further strengthened by the application of His Father’s Spirit, which enhanced and empowered Him to “take on” His “other nature”, which being the same nature in Paul and us, had us totally defeated, but which position He reversed and defeated “it” and we also can now acquire Him and His victory by way of His Spirit.

Jesus differentiated and separated flesh from spirit, but He operated from the spirit side whereas we and Paul operated from the flesh side. Jesus had His mind set on the Spirit; we and Paul had ours set on and in the flesh side. One was a heavenly being, from and of heaven, the other was an earthly being, from and of the earth. But now by faith we can gain that same separation that Jesus had, and by His Spirit now rise to live from out of the heavenly position and not the earthly one.