Calvinists sometimes quote from Romans 7 as a text which teaches Total Depravity and total inability, for Paul seems to describe a lack of ability to do anything good (Romans 7:15, 19, 24), and refers to being captive and enslaved to sin (Romans 7:14, 23). Paul says that although he wants to do what is right, he ends up doing what is wrong. Romans 7:19 one such verse which sums up the struggle nicely:
For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice (Romans 7:19).
Part of the problem with Romans 7, however, is that people from all streams of Christianity are all over the map about whether Romans 7 describes Paul’s experience as a Christian or as a non-Christian. While everybody agrees that Paul is writing about a struggle with sin, there is little agreement about whether Paul is describing how a Christian struggles with sin or a non-Christian.
1. Paul is Describing His Experience as a Christian
There are many who believe that Paul is describing his own experience as a Christian. It is pointed out that Paul uses the personal pronoun “I” and numerous present tense verbs throughout this passage. Furthermore, Paul references the “inward man” (Romans 7:22) and his “mind” which is at war with his “flesh” (Romans 7:23, 25).
Some argue that only a regenerate person has an inner man or a renewed mind which is able to war against the flesh. Finally, nearly all Christians struggle with sin on a daily basis, and many note that the experience Paul describes seems to fit our own experience perfectly. It is comforting to know that even Paul struggled in this battle against sin.
2. Paul is Describing His Experience as a Pharisaical Jew
Others argue, however, that there are good exegetical reasons to think that Paul may be referring to his past struggle against sin as an unregenerate religious Jew.
For example, although Paul does use first-person pronouns and the present tense, he did not use this sort of grammar in Romans 6, the first part of Romans 7, or on into Romans 8 where it is perfectly clear that Paul is talking about regenerate people. It is suggested that Paul switches pronouns and verb tense in Romans 7:14-20 because he does not want to describe the experience of regenerate people, but describe rather his own personal experience as a religious Pharisaical Jew. He had the law of God, and tried his hardest to obey it, but completely failed.
Finally, many believe that a Christian who is truly indwelled with the Spirit of God should have more victory over sin than what Paul describes in Romans 7:15-20.
Calvinists are not United on Romans 7
Like all other brands of Christianity, Calvinists do not speak with a unified voice in this debate.
For example, J. I. Packer says that,
Grammatically, … the natural way to read it would be as a transcript of Paul’s self-knowledge at the time of writing … (Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit, 264-267).
However, a leading Calvinist professor like Anthony Hoekema declares the opposite:
The mood of frustration and defeat that permeates this section does not comport with the mood of victory in terms of which Paul usually describes the Christian life. The person pictured is still a captive of the law of sin (7:23), whereas the believer described in 6:17-18 is no longer a slave to sin (Hoekema, Five Views of Sanctification, 232).
Yet no matter which view a Calvinist takes, this passage creates problems for their system of theology.
If the Calvinist agrees with J. I. Packer that Romans 7 is a description of the ongoing struggle with sin that every Christian faces (including the Apostle Paul), then this passage creates problems for the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. We will see how in the chapter on that topic.
But if a Calvinist takes the alternate opinion, along with Hoekema, and says that Romans 7 describes the condition and experience of the unbeliever, then this text creates problems for their teachings on total inability.
As seen in earlier posts through numerous quotes from Calvinists, total inability teaches that mankind does not have a will to do anything other than sin. They do not have the will to comprehend, understand, or choose to do the will of God.
Yet Paul writes that he does will to do the good (Romans 7:15, 19, 21). He even delights in the law of God (Romans 7:22) and does not will to do what is evil (Romans 7:19). None of this sounds at all like the total inability described by Calvinists.
Paul’s Point in Romans 7
To understand Paul’s point in Romans 7, it is important to delve briefly into the realm of biblical anthropology, where we learn that man consists of three parts: body, soul, and spirit. (Click the link to read this brief study).
The traditional question regarding whether Paul is talking about his experience as a Christian or a non-Christian can be answered by remember what we learned about the three parts of a person.
Is Paul talking about his experience as a non-Christian or a Christian? Paul is talking about both!
People who became Christians as adults know from experience that prior to believing in Jesus, they often struggled with sin and fought against the desires of their flesh, usually to no avail. Success in one area often came at the expense of greater failure in another.
Yet although Christians gain the illuminating and empowering influence of the Holy Spirit when we first believe in Jesus for eternal life, we all know that the struggle with sin did not cease. It continues daily. Yes, victory is now possible, for greater is He that is in us than He that is in the world, but this does not mean that the struggle against the flesh is gone. We too, along with Paul, often cry “Who will deliver me from this body of death?”
Sin is Always a Struggle, but the Spirit Helps Us
This understanding of Romans 7 once again undermines the Calvinistic doctrine of total inability.
Though it is true that the soul of an unregenerate man cannot do anything good through his dead spirit or dying and corrupted body, the ability to believe in Jesus for eternal life does not depend upon the spirit or the body, but is a function of the soul alone.
Faith, remember, is being convinced or persuaded that something is true. Though the soul often receives bad data from the body and the spirit, and poorly reasons as a result, the soul is still able to believe in Jesus when the offer of eternal life is presented to it.
Romans 7, then, does not teach Total Depravity or total inability, but is rather a description of the constant struggle with sin that all people face, whether regenerate or unregenerate. The Spirit, given to us by God at the moment we believe, helps us gain deliverance from the power of sin in our lives.
If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.
‘I was alive once without the law’ v9. What did Paul mean? Paul is surely making himself representative of Israel which was once alive without the Law. Thus the difficulties he describes in keeping the law are a description of Israel under the Law in the old covenant. But now he has died and he is married to another v4. Now sin has been condemned in flesh of the Messiah so there is now no condemnation to those who walk no longer in flesh but in the Spirit..
Right, I forgot about that view. But even still, speaking of himself as a representative of Israel, isn’t this also in some way, descriptive of Paul’s personal experience?
Paul was describing how the law of the Lord brought sin alive within him. This is before he was born again. He describes the law made him struggle with the things he should not do. He describes someone who believes, but is not born again. Chapter 8 describes what born again means. So Paul no longer struggled with sin because he had the Holy Spirit indwelling. If anyone justifies sin, they are not born again. After I became born again, I left the CRC and Presbyterian church. Predestination makes believers proud and they do not understand how their pride is an abomination and misusing why Jesus came. We are suppose to be God’s earthly hosts to do His will on earth. Noah had his Spirit…..only one out of the world before God destroyed it….God have mercy on us.
When Paul says that the law deceived me and killed me v11 I dont think that he is referring to a specific day in his life when this happened but that rather as a Jew this was his inheritance.
Of course Paul was living with this inheritance as a Pharisee before conversion, and the possibility of walking in this inheritance remained after his conversion hence his exhortations to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Paul’s struggle as a Christians was not with the flesh but to walk in the Spirit.
I struggled with whether to comment on yesterdays (?) post.
It seems clear to me (I have been putting off and coming out of the religion of men for 28 years) that the clear teaching of Scripture is that Man IS a Body AND Spirit in combination — and the experience of this interaction is the ephemeral thing we call Consciousness — “Soul”. The Key Point: “Soul” does not exist independently of the Body and Spirit. When the Father receives His Spirit back the Body succumbs to entropy, and the “Soul” simply CEASES TO EXIST. Thus, out hope is in the Resurrection, and not in the purported “immortality of the ‘Soul'” as espoused by the Greeks.
As the Father saw fit to provide Paul (and us) a certain “cognitive dissonance” as regards the sarx and pneuma — even as He provided such dissonance (?) to Jesus at Gethsemane, it appears to me that it is exceptionally easy for Man to believe Himself to be more than He is. We are simply thus: Earth and God-breathed Life (to wit: Clay and Spirit. The interplay of these factors we experience as Consciousness.
And is this not so?
Good points. I am not sure if the soul ceases to exist. I know that our bodies get remade, and we do not live forever in a solely-spiritual existence. If our current body needs a soul, would not our eternal body as well? Maybe. But maybe not….
It is the soul of a man(Human) that lives for ever. why do you! think that it’s so important to put Sin away, you won’t be in heaven with that same “Old” Mess
Hi Jeremy,
I agree with your conclusion that Paul is talking about the experience of both the non-Christian and a Christian in Romans chapter 7.
I have always viewed unsaved people as having an inherent-free-will, a good nature and an evil/sin nature; and his inherent-free-will is constantly deciding whether to follow the good nature or the evil/sin nature. He never constantly follows the good nature or the evil/sin nature.
I have always viewed the saved person as having an inherent-free-will, a good nature, an evil/sin nature and the indwelling Holy Spirit; and his inherent-free-will is constantly deciding whether to follow the good nature or the evil/sin nature or the indwelling Holy Spirit. He never constantly follows the good nature, the evil/sin nature or the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Thanks for the input. All of this starts to warp my mind a bit as I try to put all the pieces together. I think we will not fully understand how we are made until we receive our new bodies in glorification. Then, once we are “whole” it will all make more sense.
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, we see that he explains at length that we are saved by grace through Christ’s death and no longer by observing the law. Chapter 7 deals specifically with the relationship between law and sin. Here Paul is using himself as an example to describe an inner struggle in which his mind wars against his flesh, which is manipulated by sin. Although he wants to do good, an evil inclination within him sometimes causes him to do things he hates. He ends in verse 25 with the declaration that he does not have in himself the ability to escape this sinful nature, but that deliverance is in Christ Jesus only. It has nothing to do with a war between two separate entities called soul and spirit, respectively.
Bear in mind that the law in their context is not the original Law of Moses (which was difficult to keep in its own right) but the one around which the religious leaders had built fence upon fence – to the extent that Jesus accused them of expecting others to keep to a law that they themselves could/did not. This was the law that defined sin.
Excellent point about the law. You have studied and thought about this a lot! Did you teach through Romans or maybe do a Bible study on it? Any good book recommendations?
Thanks Jeremy. I have not studied the law as a specific topic as I did the human soul, but had to deal with it in the course of my thesis and book on the soul topic. In addition, believers who have left their original denominations (both Calvinistic and Charismatic) for so-called Torah observant groups have come my way regularly. One of them came to me for ‘counseling’ by insistence of his wife who wanted to divorce him. In preparation I had to dig into the Bible and also had to consider various articles.
I also gained a lot of perspective on the cultural background of biblical times from material on the website of Jerusalem Perspective (www.jerusalemperspective.com) as well as http://www.chabad.org. The latter group, of course, is a Jewish mysticism movement. They have been kind to me in answering many questions on various topics. I remember one of their articles explained why they thought the erection of hedges around the Mosaic Law was as important today as it was back then. Unless something changed, there have been and still are 613 such hedges (613 also being the number of pips/seed in a pomegranate – which they base on the pomegranates, for example, on the hem of Aaron’s cloak.
Geerie Malan, you contend that “the law in their context is not the original Law of Moses…but the one around which the religious leaders had built fence upon fence.”
I’m not sure that’s correct considering what the apostle writes in the first seven verses, especially the rhetorical question, “Is the law sin?”, and also vs.12-14: “”the law is holy,” “that through the commandment sin might be utterly sinful,” the law is spiritual”; vs.16: “I agree with the law that it is good,” and the whole tenor of how the law is presented in Romans. These descriptions of the “law” bear no resemblence to man-made “law fences.” I think what the apostle is referring to in Rom 7 and in many parts of the epistle (the first 7 or 8 chapters, at least) is the Law of Moses (and possibly the whole Hebrew Scriptures) and man’s conscience, which is a law unto itself (Rom 2:15).
Nelson, I appreciate your thoughts. One of the greatest crises that the modern church has been polluted with, is the very little importance correct context (in its original meaning) has. Jesus and His apostles lived in an era in which religion replaced the knowledge and worship of God. Therefore God removed the temple of religion from His sight.
Although they still called it the Law of Moses, they have distorted it by their ‘fences’. For example, if a neighbour came to borrow a cup of flour from you on the Sabbath, you were allowed to help him, but your hand was not to move outside the door frame. The moment it did, it was regarded as work and therefore sin. Bear in mind that this is the law the religious leaders, who directed the whole of Jewish community life and not only the religious life, enforced. See how and why Jesus took them to task in this regard – Matthew 15:1-9.
Gerrie, although we may include these “fences” with respect to the apostle’s mention of the law, I am not convinced that was his main emphasis despite your argument that seems based primarily on the culture of his day, which I do not deny in importaince ofingrecognize when dealing with the texts. And although I can agree with you regarding what Jesus’ objections were, neverthless, it still seems to me that Paul was contemplating primarily the Law of Moses (without needing to deny these “fences” and, especially, affirming the conscience), for when he gives an example of how this “struggle” looks, he uses the commandments found in the Law of Moses (cf. Rom 7:7-8); and for this reason, and on the basis of the biblical citations posted in my last comment, I am not convinced your argument that the apostle’s focus when speaking of the law were these “fences”.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position.
Nelson, Certainly Paul used the commandments from the Law of Moses. But they cannot be divorced from the fences put in place by the religious of past generations and of his generation. See my example of work on the Sabbath. The inherent commandment is directly from the ten commandments given by God to Moses. Yet, the religious leaders over the generations had been of the opinion (as they still are today) that they need to ensure the people kept those commandments by adding the fences. These fences were supposed to make it very difficult to break the law. Transgression of that fence of your hand going past the door frame was transgression of the core commandment.
Bear in mind the Hebraic principle of the remez (or hint). Any mention of a part meant reference to the whole.
One may ask whether Paul was addressing Jews or Gentiles. In this regard the record shows that both groups were present all over and although many of them were descendants of the ten lost tribes, one can accept that they (or some at least) still applied the Mosaic Law and rituals.
A thought on Paul: Considering the record of Paul’s background and personality, as well as the content of some letters, it is possible and understandable that he struggled with his temper at times. Perhaps he was even taken to task on that in the same way he took Peter to task for being hypocritical (Gal 2:11-14). Nonetheless, this remains an interesting thought only and is not based on scholarly interpretation.
I cannot see how the reading of Rom 7 would suggest the normal Christian experience, especially interpretetd as descriptive of the persnal experience of the life of the apostle Paul. I cannot see how such a life depicted in Rom 7 can be reconciled with what is descriptive of the Christian life in other passages of Scripture as well as Rom 8.
Maybe, if you have the time, you would consider this: http://atdcross.blogspot.com/2013/08/romans-7-is-bondage-to-sin-experience.html
Thanks for the link.
I think the struggle Paul is describing matches the strange – almost contradictory – statement that John makes in 1 John – cf. 1 John 1:9 with 1 John 3:6, 9
Jeremy, I don’t see any contradiction between these verses.
In 1 Jn 1:9, the certainty of being divinely forgiven is shown to be conditional.
In 2:1, sin is seen as a possibility for the Christian and the writer encourages the certainty, again, of divine forgiveness on the ground of Jesus’ atonement. Note here “if” we sin, which may suggest that although sin is necessarily possible for the Christian to commit, it is not necessarily inevitable (John 8:34-36).
In both cases, forgiveness is possible but, on the one hand, conditional upon man’s repentance and, on the other hand, atonement is available on condition of man’s act of repentance from sin. Again, here I see, while committing sin is viewed as possible but not inevitable, forgiveness is pictured as inevitable on the condition of repentance from sin.
3:6,9: If sin is necessarily possible, although not necessarily inevitable, then one can say that the one in Christ does not sin, sin viewed by John as “transgression of the law” (3:4-5). I don’t think the writer of John is taking our attitude or thinking, things that easily fall prey to temptation, into consideration; but the act of transgressing the law is nhis reference point in determining who is and who is not a child of God (see, 2:3-7). That is, whoever is born of God does not commit sin, that is “transgress the law.” It seems “sin” for the writer is here seen as primarily “transgression of the law/Law.”
That is not to deny there may be inward sins; but it is to suggest that, at least, for the writer of John, a child of God does not commit acts that transgress God’s standard of conduct; however, if by chance one does commit act contrary to that standard, there is provision for reconcilation with God.
It seems, finally, that the emphasis the writer of John wishes to make is not whether or not we can never sin but the certainty of forgivess available if we do sin.
Nelson,
I don’t think there is a contradiction either. I understand the texts in a way similar to what you have stated. I will be publishing a post later this week about these verses, and would appreciate your input on those posts as well. Thanks!
See for consideration: http://atdcross.blogspot.com/2013/08/romans-7-is-bondage-to-sin-experience.html
We must understand that our spirit is born again (not our soul) and become a new creation with the nature of God, which is in war with our soul and body (the flesh, our mind) with his corrupt nature.
Eph 4:22-30 – “you took off…you are being…you put on..you put away…Don’t let…don’t grieve…”
Just one example of Scripture that cries out against the trichotomist view of the human being a spirit, having a soul and living in a body.
This the same with the argument, can I lose my salvation or not. There are many scriptures that tell you that you can, as there are many that you cannot. The bible is like a jigsaw puzzle without a picture to work from; when you finish the puzzle you see the whole picture in detail. The same with the Bible when you study the Bible (not scriptures) you discover his character, then there is no scriptures that cries out. God created Adam as a living soul, a body with a soul (mind) and a spirit within
Let me close my part on this topic with the following. I would have loved to be able to give you my full analysis and conclusion on this matter, as the Bible does not give a clear singular definition of the concept of soul/spirit. Without even remotely implying there are not similar or better studies on the topic, I do venture to say that I have not personally seen such a complete study on this. A blog is unfortunately far too limited a medium to be able to do justice to the topic and it would also go far beyond the blog’s purpose and rules which I always try to honour.
Grace to you.
HisChild, it seems your comment leaves the impression that the Bible is a jigsaw puzzle of contradictions. I don’t think that’s the case, although, I will admit it may seem that way when superficially comparing some verses together. However, what the Bible shows is that one who apostasizes from faith in Christ forfeits salvation while, simultaneously, to the one who remains in the faith, God will keep him from falling away.
… that’s why you need to follow Paul’s admonition to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) ….
Baie dankie ek waardeer dit, laat ons mekaar se standpunte respekteer en in liefde van mekaar leer. Niemand sal ooit alles weet nie, die Gees oopenbaar gedeeltes van God se verborgenhede aan elkeen van ons, sodat ons aleenlik as ‘n liggaam kan funksioneer
Ek doen bediening in lokaal en sentraal Pretoria gevangenis
Blessings
En ek is ‘n oud-adjunk-kommissaris Personeeldienste van die Dept. – 1995 weens uitbranding op vroeë pensioen geplaas. Shalom
(I am an ex deputy commisioner of Correctional Services, who had to take early pension due to burn out).
I don’t think the Jews had such a conception of man being triparte as you suggest. It seems to be the reason why the writer of 1 John can write, “The one who act righteous is righteous.” He made no differentiation between the inward and outer man; what he is inside is what he outside…as the saying goes, “What you see is what you get.” See also, Matt 7:17-18; James 3:11-12.
I’m not confident of the triparte notion of man.
Rom 7:17 (GW) So I am no longer the one who is doing the things I hate, but sin that lives in me is doing them
My take on this about Paul fighting against his flesh is that he was born again. I’m born again and I have never fought so much with my body as I have now. When I didn’t believe I didn’t care if I sinned or not ……. any thoughts on this would be gladly appreciated God bless and peace of Christ to everyone
The author has misunderstood Calvin. Total depravity isn’t the inability to do good, or want to do good. Obviously, Calvin believed he, himself, was doing good.
Total depravity is our inability turn to God of our own will. We only do it in response to God.
For the Calvinist total depravity is the inability to turn to or even believe the gospel. Whereas the Bible teaches you believe and then are born again … the Calvinist teaches you can’t even believe or exercise faith until after you’ve been born again.
I am frustrated how believers come to use Romans 7:20 to remove themselves from any responsibility for sins they commit. “Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” Often, it is said, God doesn’t see our sins, if we are in Christ – past, present or future sins. This is supported in their minds by 1Jn 3:9 “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his [God’s] seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” Now this seems an incredible avoidance of ones responsibility and an absolute mind twist from everyday reality. To me, it seems to be a poor understanding of the process of sanctification involving: being transformed by the renewal of our minds (Rom. 12:2); the working out of our salvation in cooperation with God’s working within us (Phil. 2:12,13) and the obvious necessity of abiding in the “Vine” for the progressive development of the “Fruits of The Spirit” (Jn. 15:1-10) (Gal. 5:16-24). The results of such a view seems to lead to a loss of sorrow for sins past and present – as well as a healthy fear of grieving God in the future. The sense of “mourning, meekness, recognition of ones spiritual poverty, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, developing an attitude of mercy and peacemaking as a result of our own condition seems to be unnecessary. Some proclaim “sitting in Heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6) as though their position in Christ is a done deal. Their struggle, and at times failure, with sin has nothing to do with their relationship with God. In their mind, they approach “boldly the throne of grace” and seem to lack any humility or recognition they would fall flat on the face, as dead, before God. Seems to me they become like the Pharisee who thanks God for his position rather than admit they are like the tax collector who has a hard time raising his head toward heaven. (Luke 18:9-14)
Please help me get it. How is it possible to understand grace unless one understands the severity of ones sins – past, present and future propensity? How is it possible to approach God with the attitude instructed in (Isaiah 66:2b) – “but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my word” when one thinks he can approach God like his pal instead of with great reverence?
You teach about sinful flesh, but that’s not christ, that’s plato.
These are the very arguments within the Christian Church which has confused me and turned me off to Church. I myself relate very well to Paul’s struggle AS A CHRISTIAN to the point I doubt my salvation. I have prayed the prayer of salvation as sincerely as I could be at the time and tried as sincerely as I could to walk the walk and fail miserably. That in itself makes me wonder if the Calvanists have predestination correct (which in my opinion makes NO SENSE) but doesnt make sense that God is not willing that any should parish.
The struggle with sin in the flesh is won by the believer through understanding and believing that there is now no condemnation, even if they sin?
Before you have a fit, allow me to explain.
When a person is born again they are a New creation, a righteous creature who’s nature is no longer sinful but holy and righteous.
It’s true we still have the flesh and still do sin, but knowing that sin is never imputed to the believer in Christ empowers them to cease from practicing sin, and practice as it were, living and walking in the Spirit.
You see the law only strengthens sin and the more we try to cease from sin through obedience to the law, the more prone you are to fail?
For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 2:21b
No, the power to cease from sin comes by knowing that there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.
Exactly. You are closer to God than you know. Remember the one question Jesus asks the woman about to be stoned to death, whose accusers are confronted with their own unworthiness, and depart from her in self-incriminating doubt. “Woman, where are your accusers, is there no one to condemn you now?”
Our earthly bodies and flesh are sinful, because of original sin. This is why we are given translated bodies when Jesus comes again, to judge the living and the dead. His Kingdom, His Divine Sovereignty on Heaven will also be on Earth. The old body, the old flesh is sinful, and will not be allowed to stand before God. We have nothing to worry about, nor should we worry or fear those that can destroy the first body, but fear God, who can destroy both body and soul in Hell, for in that is the beginning of wisdom, and preach the Gospel so that others may know the awesome power and might of God, and fear Him, repent of our sins, believe in Him, worship and serve only Him. This process will lead us to salvation, for there is no other way out of the wages of sin save believing that Jesus Christ is the only Son of the Living and Unseen God.
Read 2 Corinthians 5:
“5 For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. 2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. 4 While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life. 5 God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit.”
Praise God from whom all blessings flow!
JS
Somehow I don’t picture Paul as a man wrestling with his inner nature as a Pharisaical Jew while he stood there guarding the coats of his colleagues and watching them stone Stephen to death. Then I don’t consider him by his aggressive actions taken to destroy the church as someone filled with self doubt or doubt about his relationship with God. Acts 8:1-3, 9:1-2. If he was anything like his fellow Pharisees he was probably pretty self righteous and certain of his relationship with God through strict obedience to the law. He admits his previous confidence in such things in Philippians 3:1-11.
Did Apostle Paul struggle with sexual sin? Seems like satan has a strong grip even with Christians that struggle with this ?
Please provide the chapter and verse that teaches “The Spirit, given to us by God at the moment we believe” Thanks !
I looked at your doctrine/belief statement. Everything sounded good except when your belief in eschology promoted by John Darby. This locks you into a belief system which promotes the very thing you profess to be rid of by your teaching not to follow determinate denominations. This view is very controversial and divisive.
He is obviously speaking in the present tense because he describes to natures. Theologically there is no way to have two natures until you’re born again. You have the new nature and the old fallen flesh nature. Before salvation there’s only one nature; the fallen nature. So I don’t know what the argument is about it’s obvious he’s speaking about his Christian experience and struggles.
The unbeliever who had two natures as depicted in Rom.7:17 is now supposed to have the one nature as a believer. 7:25 states the doublemindedness of the unbeliever under the law, be that Mosaic or one’s own conscience – that the mind is in agreeance with [and pursues but does not apprehend] the law of righteousness but the flesh agrees with the law of sin [which it pursues and does fulfill]. These two laws are the dual nature of all men and is why they are always in internal conflict (to varying degrees), only to be resolved in Christ by the one Spirit.
Unredeemed [particularly under law] man has two natures in conflict as displayed in verse 25, redeemed man has the one mind of the Spirit [let thine eye be single][let no man be double minded]. Galatians is Spirit versus flesh, always won by the Spirit. Romans 7 is the mind in conflict with the flesh, always loses. Defeat in Romans 7, victory in Romans 8. No Christian has to ask the name of his deliverer as does Paul in verse 24. Everything prior to v24 was said without him knowing Christ. [This chapter like the others, was written by Paul the Christian apostle about why the covenant had to change from law to grace, but he speaks using himself as an example of how human nature reacts under law. Paul himself is in the Spirit but speaking as one in the flesh, he simply says he is “of” flesh like all of us, even Jesus was “of” flesh, just not “in” it.]
IF we think we have power to save ourselves and we have some good in us. Then we do not understand the condition of man. You use Romans 7 to make some sort of point.???????. I’m confused there are so many other verses that affirm our fallenness. Romans 3-23. But the list is considerable. By the way I am not a Calvinist. I am a Christain and follow the teachings of Christ. Read John where it is clear. Jesus has come to save the many that his father has given him. Which infers Jesus went to the cross for those that were given to him. Not all. But we can talk about this for a live time plus. I would end this with a thought. How is it in my life and yours we think there’s enough good in us to find salvation under our own power. When for example Paul spend most his time talking about having nothing good in him or us.?? But Blessings. Its ok to disagree. We must open the word up not looking for what we want it to say but be in wonder of what it will say. Presuppositional studies are of no value. The word becomes fresh when we open it with wonderment in our spirits.
Believers do not have to ask the question “who will deliver me” as Paul asked in Rom.7:24. Right up to then he has not known the name of Christ, has not known Christ. Christians are not “wretched men” under the wrath of the law. (“Law brings wrath”).