It's Your Fault People Are Homosexual

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Paul said SIN was the culprit NOT HIMSELF:

Romans 7:19-20 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Why was it no more Paul? That is because Paul will to do good. So, the old saying is a lie when it says WHERE THERE'S A WILL THERE'S A WAY. Paul had the will. But could not find the ability to perform it.

How is Paul then guilty of committing sin, when it is not him doing it?

And, why do we tell sinners "you have sinned" when we should be telling them "it's not you, it's not your fault, it's not even a case of the devil made you do it, why, you didn't even do it anyway! It's this invisible, mystical, force of sin that is acting out through your body, just like a demon possessed man! Why, you don't need repentance, you just need us to lay hands on you and have God bestow deliverance and healing on you!"

If we take Paul literally and exactly to mean that he himself DID NOT SIN but rather "sin did it", then we must take him literally and exactly when he says he was ALIVE before he learned the commands of God. We must also take him literally that all this described Paul AT THE TIME HE WROTE.

If however, we acknowledge that Paul was not describing his THEN CURRENT CONDITION, and further when we acknowledge that Paul was not literally "alive" before he learned God's law, then we have no need whatsoever to take him to mean that individuals are not the ones committing their sins. Instead, we can understand him - IN LIGHT OF ALL HE SAID IN CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 6 PREVIOUSLY, and in CHAPTER 8 FOLLOWING - we can understand him describing the condition of the unregenerate who acknowledge mentally the superiority and rightness of God's commandments, but who are still in bondage to the law of sin and death, which bondage they entered into BECAUSE THEY YIELDED TO SIN (ch 6), JUST AS the woman who is married is bound to her husband until one of them DIES.

When Paul says "to will is with me" he does not mean he actually exercises his volition to obey God. Rather, he means he intellectually acknowledges the rightness of God's ways and in fact he may have desires to obey God and do his commandments. But he does not actually DO them. which means he does not WILL them.

I think you are using the word "will" in two different ways and not recognising the differences in meaning. To will something is to actually choose something, to choose a course of action. It is not merely to wish, or desire, something. A person can "wish" they were a Christian and yet never become one.

Take a drunk. He knows drinking is wrong. He knows it's bad. He "wants to quit", he wishes he was a sober man. He can honestly say "to will is present with me", but suppose he never puts forth any actual volition to get off the drink? Suppose he never actually DECIDES to STOP DRINKING. Suppose he never actually CHOOSES to say no to alcohol. Instead, he repeatedly CHOOSES to get drunk. He has not actually "willed" to quit, in the sense of actually choosing to be sober. And suppose the temptations are so great that he melts in defeat and surrender at the slightest thought of alcohol? He FAILS TO GO TO GOD FOR HELP. He fails to pray. He fails to seek mercy from God, he fails to allow Christ to sanctify him by faith. Why? Because he REALLY chooses the drink, not sobriety. He wishes, he daydreams, his reason tells him the right thing to do... but he desires to get drunk at all costs, even the cost of his soul.

Is such a man a slave? Absolutely! and he will earn his slave wages, which is death. Why? Because he has NOT DIED TO HIS SIN. What does it mean to "die to sin"? What does it mean to "crucify the flesh"? What does it mean that the "old man is dead"? It means the WILL or CHOICE to practice sin is no more, replaced with the will or choice to obey God. As Paul said, "AS you have yielded yourselves to sin... so now yield yourselves unto God" (ch 6). And according to chapter 8, Christ's death on the cross is what will produce in the hearts and lives of those who receive Him by faith the actual performance of the will of God, through the Spirit.

"To will is present with me" does not mean he actually WILLS to obey God in the sense of actually CHOOSING, actually putting forth the volitions of obeying God. Rather it means that he knows the right thing to do, and may even want to do the right thing. But he also desires to sin, and sin is his master, so he must obey sin rather than God. Why? Because he has yielded himself to obey sin (ch 6).

Chapter 6 contains the clear and unambiguous doctrine of Paul on the nature of sin and righteousness as it manifests in a person's life. Chapter 7 cannot be isolated from what is said in chapter 6. The popular "sin did it, not me" interpretation is the result of taking ch 7 out of context. It also leads to that favorite hiding place of sinners - "I can't help it. It's not MY fault! And therefore I AM NOT TO BLAME."

[jediwill83]

If it wasn't our fault,God couldn't send us to Hell for it....

[Aquila]

There's also the doctrine of Original Sin.

The doctrine of original sin is that the entire human race was condemned through Adam's sin. This was no great moral question in ancient times, because most ancient cultures believed in some form of ancestral sin. In a book titled, Ancestral Fault In Ancient Greece (Renaud Gagne, 2013), Celsus is quoted as attributing to "a priest of Apollo or of Zeus" the saying that "the mills of the gods grind slowly, even to children's children, and to those who are born after them."

Of course, this often insults our modern sensitivities because in our culture there is a sense of justice for the individual. The notion of being punished for another's sin is repugnant.

However, Paul explained Adam's sin this way,

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

...and...

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

There are multiple ways to communicate this spiritual idea. Here's how I have explained it in the past...

Imagine a 20ft glass statue of Adam. Now imagine that this 20ft glass statue of Adam falls... and shatters into billions of glass shards. Each glass shard will be individual and unique. However, each shard (both individually and collectively) is... Adam.

So, yes, we are born guilty of Adam's sin. This is because... we are Adam.

[Evang.Benincasa]

No one is born a homosexual

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

How is Paul then guilty of committing sin, when it is not him doing it?

First of all, the question is what did Paul mean that it was not him that was the issue, but sin in him. Did he say it or not? What did he mean by it?

Reading the context carefully, he realized his will was intact as far as wanting to do good. But when he tried to do what he wanted to do, he found he could not succeed. Sin was the reason he could not do good, not himself, personally.

Now, that does not mean we're not responsible.

And, why do we tell sinners "you have sinned" when we should be telling them "it's not you, it's not your fault, it's not even a case of the devil made you do it, why, you didn't even do it anyway!

No one said it's not OUR FAULT. Stay faithful to my words I use.

It's this invisible, mystical, force of sin that is acting out through your body, just like a demon possessed man! Why, you don't need repentance, you just need us to lay hands on you and have God bestow deliverance and healing on you!"

Sin is in the flesh and you cannot cast our flesh. But you are not explaining what Paull actually meant if you disagree with my words.

If we take Paul literally and exactly to mean that he himself DID NOT SIN but rather "sin did it", then we must take him literally and exactly when he says he was ALIVE before he learned the commands of God. We must also take him literally that all this described Paul AT THE TIME HE WROTE.

Paul SINNED. No one is denying that. But THE CAUSE of him comitting sin was this irresistable force inside him.

If however, we acknowledge that Paul was not describing his THEN CURRENT CONDITION, and further when we acknowledge that Paul was not literally "alive" before he learned God's law, then we have no need whatsoever to take him to mean that individuals are not the ones committing their sins. Instead, we can understand him - IN LIGHT OF ALL HE SAID IN CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 6 PREVIOUSLY, and in CHAPTER 8 FOLLOWING - we can understand him describing the condition of the unregenerate who acknowledge mentally the superiority and rightness of God's commandments, but who are still in bondage to the law of sin and death, which bondage they entered into BECAUSE THEY YIELDED TO SIN (ch 6), JUST AS the woman who is married is bound to her husband until one of them DIES.

No no no. I already addressed this way back when we discussed it before, and you never responded. Gal 5 says the same thing! Gal 5 proves this applies to both born again people AND unregenerate people. The difference is that born again people DO NOT HAVE TO see this continue, like unregenerate people do.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

We all agree not all born again people walk after the Spirit all the time. WHEN THEY DO, they will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. But when they slip away from walking in the Spirit, THEY WILL SIN. The force will overpower them.

And this is exactly what Paul described in Romans 7. The reason Romans 6 is written is so that the dilemma of Romans 7 can STOP. But it will not STOP so long as people never learn WHY they do not have to be pushed around by this force of sin. And unless a believer learns what Romans 6 says, THEY WILL fail.

Romans 7 is NOT restricted to unregeneate people alone. Otherwise you can never say you wanted to do good as a believer and yet failed. Have you ever wanted to do good but failed? I have! But when I learned the truth of Romans 6 and understood Paul's depths of teaching in that chapter, it happened less and less.

Summary of Romans 6: We have to first KNOW we do not have to sin, because of our deaths with Christ. Then we have to reckon, or apply that to us individually and very personally. then we have to PRESENT ourselves to God in faith that we are dead to sin and have the right to call on Him for empowerment to stop sinning. Know (Rom 6:3, 6, 9), Reckon (Rom 6:11) then YIELD (Rom 6:13).

It is walking after the Spirit when we RELY on the Spirit's power to overcome sin by yielding to God as someone who clearly knows they are qualified for God to empower them in this manner.HARDLY ANY believer really knows this since it's rarely ever taught. But it is walking after the flesh when we try to do our human best to obey God's law without faith for God to empower us and help us.

And if we do not yield to God in faithful prayer for empowerment, we will fail like Romans 7 describes it.

When Paul says "to will is with me" he does not mean he actually exercises his volition to obey God. Rather, he means he intellectually acknowledges the rightness of God's ways and in fact he may have desires to obey God and do his commandments. But he does not actually DO them. which means he does not WILL them.

No. He meant he wanted to obey God. Seriously, bro consider what I am saying. I may be onto something, as I honestly think I am.

I think you are using the word "will" in two different ways and not recognising the differences in meaning. To will something is to actually choose something, to choose a course of action. It is not merely to wish, or desire, something. A person can "wish" they were a Christian and yet never become one.

Paul had the WILL to do good. That's what the context says. He actually tried to fulfil it. He found he failed. "When I would do good, evil is present with me." And that brings condemnation. One would not be condemned if one did not honestly want to do good and failed. That is why he cried out in misery for deliverance. Without the will to do good one would not feel condemned nor cry out. And I argue that is the condemnation for Rm 8:1.

Watch carefully:

Romans 7:25-8:1 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Paul sums up the dilemma by saying that his mind served God's law. That is an explanation of what he meant as follows:

Romans 7:15-22 For that which I do I allow not (ALLOWING NOT, MEANS HE DID NOT WANT TO DO EVIL - HE ALLOWED IT NOT IN HIS INTENTIONS): for what I would (THE GOOD HE WANTS TO DO IN REAL LIFE), that do I not (=HE FAILS TO DO); but what I hate (HE ONLY HATES DOING EVIL IF HE WILLS TO NOT DO THE EVIL), that do I (HE DOES WHAT HE HATES TO DO. HE WOULD NOT HATE DOING IT IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE WILL TO NOT DO IT). (16) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good (ONE ONLY AGREES WITH LAW IF ONE WANTS TO OBEY THAT LAW, SHOWING PAUL SINCERELY WANTED TO DO RIGHT AND FAILED). (17) Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me (KNOWING HE WANTED TO DO GOOD BUT COULD NEVER SUCCEED SHOWS HE -- HIS REASON AND CHOICE -- IS NOT THE PROBLEM. SIN POSES ANOTHER PROBLEM ASIDE FROM CHOICE AND DESIRE). (18) For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me (WHAT HE SAID ABOUT HATING WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID AND CHOOSING NOT TO DO IT BUT DOING IT ANYWAY, PROVES THIS TERM "WILL" IS SPEAKING OF AGREEMENT AND ACTUAL DESIRE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT); but how to perform that which is good I find not. (19) For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. (22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Take a drunk. He knows drinking is wrong. He knows it's bad. He "wants to quit", he wishes he was a sober man. He can honestly say "to will is present with me", but suppose he never puts forth any actual volition to get off the drink? Suppose he never actually DECIDES to STOP DRINKING.

This is where I think you miss it. Paul actually DECIDED to not sin. He would not say HE HATED sinning if he did not actually decide to not do it, but failed instead.

Suppose he never actually CHOOSES to say no to alcohol. Instead, he repeatedly CHOOSES to get drunk.

An addiction can be so strong you cannot stop doing something you are addicted to doing. Your flesh is physically in need of that now, so it's interesting you use alcoholism as an example.

He has not actually "willed" to quit, in the sense of actually choosing to be sober. And suppose the temptations are so great that he melts in defeat and surrender at the slightest thought of alcohol? He FAILS TO GO TO GOD FOR HELP.

If you adjusted this picture and said tying our human best in all choice and decision to actually do it will fail, unless we go to God for miraculous intervention, you'd have it right I believe.

He fails to pray. He fails to seek mercy from God, he fails to allow Christ to sanctify him by faith. Why? Because he REALLY chooses the drink, not sobriety. He wishes, he daydreams, his reason tells him the right thing to do... but he desires to get drunk at all costs, even the cost of his soul.

Is such a man a slave? Absolutely! and he will earn his slave wages, which is death. Why? Because he has NOT DIED TO HIS SIN. What does it mean to "die to sin"? What does it mean to "crucify the flesh"? What does it mean that the "old man is dead"? It means the WILL or CHOICE to practice sin is no more, replaced with the will or choice to obey God. As Paul said, "AS you have yielded yourselves to sin... so now yield yourselves unto God" (ch 6). And according to chapter 8, Christ's death on the cross is what will produce in the hearts and lives of those who receive Him by faith the actual performance of the will of God, through the Spirit.

"To will is present with me" does not mean he actually WILLS to obey God in the sense of actually CHOOSING, actually putting forth the volitions of obeying God.

Sorry, the words Paul used saying HE HATED doing the things he did prove to me otherwise. One cannot say they HATE doing something they do, if they truly did not choose to NOT do it, and that was the only problem that existed.

Rather it means that he knows the right thing to do, and may even want to do the right thing. But he also desires to sin, and sin is his master, so he must obey sin rather than God. Why? Because he has yielded himself to obey sin (ch 6).

We yield to sin without choice to do so, because choice cannot be made unless we realize we have a choice! It's like healing amongst those who think healing days are over. They do not know GOD still heals. So they don't think they have a choice to believe God for it. Likewise, people do not think they have a choice to STOP SINNING. Partly this is so, because they misread Romans y7 and think Paul was talking about believers never being able to overcome sin.

Chapter 6 contains the clear and unambiguous doctrine of Paul on the nature of sin and righteousness as it manifests in a person's life. Chapter 7 cannot be isolated from what is said in chapter 6.

Of course it cannot be isolated. But the fact is that unless believers expressly KNOW and clearly UNDERSTAND the teaching of Romans 6, they will inadvertently fail and be slaves to sin without realizing they do not have to be.

The popular "sin did it, not me" interpretation is the result of taking ch 7 out of context. It also leads to that favorite hiding place of sinners - "I can't help it. It's not MY fault! And therefore I AM NOT TO BLAME."

You did not get what I meant. Paul said "SIN , NOT ME". And it is not the context you are speaking against, either.

[mfblume]

All the stories of the Old Testament relate truths of the new testament to us in object lesson form.

Esther solved the problem of Haman's plans to destroy the jews... so she thought.

Initially Haman was hanged on the gallows made for Mordecai. That alludes to the cross where satan's desire to destroy Christ actually brought his own destruction.

But after Haman was gone, the law the man set forth to destroy Jews on Adar the 13th was still in effect. Haman was hanged but his law still existed.

This is precisely the dilemma of believers. The devil's power is subjugated b the cross. But the law of sin and death still hangs out there over too many believers' heads. Esther's answer was provided by the king. The law cannot be undone. But it can be overcome by a higher law. Use the king';s name for a HIGHER LAW and render the law of Haman ineffective. But if you do not use this higher law and the King's name, suffer the consequences.

This is like the law of sin and death. It will mess believers up unless they live by the HIGHER LAW of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. So long as one trusts in God in faith and relies on His spirit to empower us, the law of sin and death cannot prevail. But stop living like that, and succumb to the law of sin and death.

This is how Romans 7 can affect a Christian.

[Esaias]

http://www.gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/...experience.htm

"III. I will lay down some principles and facts, that have a bearing on the elucidation of this subject.

1. It is true, that mankind act, in all cases, and from the nature of mind must always act, as on the whole they feel to be preferable.

Or, in other words, the will governs the conduct. Men never act against their will. The will governs the motion of the limbs. Voluntary beings cannot act contrary to their will.

2. Men often desire what, on the whole, they do not choose.

The desires and the will are often opposed to each other. The conduct is governed by the choice, not by the desires. The desires may be inconsistent with the choice. You may desire to go to some other place to-night, and yet on the whole choose to remain here. Perhaps you desire very strongly to be somewhere else, and yet choose to remain in meeting. ... In all cases, the conduct follows the actual choice.

3. Regeneration, or conversion, is a change in the choice.

It is a change in the supreme controlling choice of the mind. The regenerated or converted person prefers God's glory to every thing else. He chooses it as the supreme object of affection. This is a change of heart. Before, he chose his own interest or happiness, as his supreme end. Now, he chooses God's service in preference to his own interest. When a person is truly born again, his choice is habitually right, and of course his conduct is in the main right.

The force of temptation may produce an occasional wrong choice, or even a succession of wrong choices, but his habitual course of action is right. The will, or choice, of a converted person is habitually right, and of course his conduct is so. If this is not true, I ask, in what does the converted differ from the unconverted person? If it is not the character of the converted person, that he habitually does the commandments of God, what is his character? But I presume this position will not be disputed by any one who believes in the doctrine of regeneration.

A moral agent is one who possesses understanding, will, and conscience. Conscience is the power of discerning the difference of moral objects. It will not be disputed that a moral agent can be led to see the difference between right and wrong, so that his moral nature shall approve of what is right. Otherwise, a sinner never can be brought under conviction. If he has not a moral nature, that can see and highly approve the law of God, and justify the penalty, he cannot be convicted. For this is conviction, to see the goodness of the law that he has broken and the justice of the penalty he has incurred. But in fact, there is not a moral agent, in heaven, earth, or hell, that cannot be made to see that the law of God is right, and whose conscience does not approve the law.

5. Men may not only approve the law, as right, but they may often, when it is viewed abstractly and without reference to its bearing on themselves, take real pleasure in contemplating on it.

This is one great source of self-deception. Men view the law of God in the abstract, and love it. When no selfish reason is present for opposing it, they take pleasure in viewing it. They approve of what is right, and condemn wickedness, in the abstract. All men do this, when no selfish reason is pressing on them. Who ever found a man so wicked, that he approved of evil in the abstract? Where was a moral being ever found that approved the character of the devil, or that approved of other wicked men, unconnected with himself? How often do you hear wicked men express the greatest abhorrence and detestation of enormous wickedness in others. If their passions are in no way enlisted in favor of error or of wrong, men always stand up for what is right. And this merely constitutional approbation of what is right may amount even to delight, when they do not see the relations of right interfering in any manner with their own selfishness.

...

He goes on, "For that which I do, I allow not; for what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that do I."

Here you see the application of the principles I have laid down. In the interpretation of this word "would," we are not to understand it of the choice or will, but only a desire. Otherwise the apostle contradicts a plain matter of fact, which every body knows to be true, that the will governs the conduct. Professor Stuart has very properly rendered the word desire; what I desire, I do not, but what I disapprove, that I do. Then comes the conclusion, "If, then, I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law, that it is good." If I do that which I disapprove, if I disapprove of my own conduct, if I condemn myself, I thereby bear testimony that the law is good. Now, keep your eye on the object the apostle has in view, and read the next verse, "Now then it is no more that I do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Here he, as it were, divides himself against himself, or speaks of himself as possessing two natures, or, as some of the heathen philosophers taught, as having two souls, one which approves the good and another which loves and chooses evil. "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." Here "to will" means to approve, for if men really will to do a thing, they do it. This every body knows. Where the language will admit, we are bound to interpret it so as to make it consistent with known facts. If you understand "to will" literally, you involve the apostle in the absurdity of saying that he willed what he did not do, and so acted contrary to his own will, which contradicts a notorious fact. The meaning must be desire. Then it coincides with the experience of every convicted sinner. He knows what he ought to do, and he strongly approves it, but he is not ready to do it. Suppose I were to call on you to do some act. Suppose, for instance, I were to call on those of you who are impenitent, to come forward and take that seat, that we might see who you are, and pray for you, and should show you your sins and that it is your duty to submit to God, some of you would exclaim, "I know it is my duty, and I greatly desire to do it, but I cannot." What do you mean by it? Why, simply, that on the whole, the balance of your will is on the other side.

...
"I find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is present within me." Here he speaks of the action of the carnal propensities, as being so constant and so prevalent that he calls it a "law." "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Here is the great stumbling-block. Can it be said of an impenitent sinner that he "delights" in the law of God? I answer, yes. I know the expression is a strong one, but the apostle was using strong language all along, on both sides. It is no stronger language than the prophet Isaiah uses in chapter lviii. He was describing as wicked and rebellious a generation as ever lived. He says, "Cry aloud, spare not; lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." Yet he goes on to say of this very people, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God; they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they TAKE DELIGHT in approaching to God." Here is one instance of impenitent sinners manifestly delighting in approaching to God. So in Ezekiel xxxiii. 32. "And lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not." The prophet had been telling how wicked they were. "And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness." Here were impenitent sinners, plainly enough, yet they loved to hear the eloquent prophet. How often do ungodly sinners delight in eloquent preaching or powerful reasoning, by some able minister! It is to them an intellectual feast. And sometimes they are so pleased with it, as really to think they love the word of God. This is consistent with entire depravity of heart and enmity against the true character of God. Nay, it sets their depravity in a stronger light, because they know and approve the right, and yet do the wrong.

So, notwithstanding this delight in the law, he says, "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Here the words, "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord," are plainly a parenthesis, and brake in upon the train of thought. Then he sums up the whole matter, "So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."

It is as if he had said, My better self, my unbiased judgment, my conscience, approves the law of God; but the law in my members, my passions, have such a control over me that I still disobey. Remember, the apostle was describing the habitual character of one who was wholly under the dominion of sin. It was irrelevant to his purpose to adduce the experience of a Christian. He was vindicating the law, and therefore it was necessary for him to take the case of one who was under the law. If it is Christian experience, he was reasoning against himself, for if it is Christian experience, this would prove, not only that the law is inefficacious for the subduing of passion and the sanctification of men, but that the gospel also is inefficacious. Christians are under grace, and it is irrelevant, in vindicating the law, to adduce the experience of those who are not under the law, but under grace.

(cont in next post)

[Esaias]

(cont from previous)

http://www.gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/...experience.htm



...
"REMARKS.
I. Those who find their own experience written in the 7th chapter of Romans, are not converted persons. If that is their habitual character, they are not regenerated; they are under conviction, but not Christians.

II. You see the great importance of using the law in dealing with sinners, to make them prize the gospel, to lead them to justify God and condemn themselves. Sinners are never made truly to repent but as they are convicted by the law.

III. At the same time, you see the entire insufficiency of the law to convert men. The case of the devil illustrates the highest efficacy of the law, in this respect.

IV. You see the danger of mistaking mere desires, for piety. Desire, that does not result in right choice, has nothing good in it. The devil may have such desires. The wickedest men on earth may desire religion, and no doubt often do desire it, when they see that it is necessary to their salvation, or to control their passions.

V. Christ and the gospel present the only motives that can sanctify the mind. The law only convicts and condemns.

VI. Those who are truly converted and brought into the liberty of the gospel, do find deliverance from the bondage of their own corruptions.

They do find the power of the body over the mind broken. They may have conflicts and trials, many and severe; but as a habitual thing, they are delivered from the thraldom of passion, and get the victory over sin, and find it easy to serve God. His commandments are not grievous to them. His yoke is easy, and his burden light.

VII. The true convert finds peace with God. He feels that he has it. He enjoys it. He has a sense of pardoned sin, and of victory over corruption.

VIII. You see, from this subject, the true position of a vast many church members. They are all the while struggling under the law. They approve of the law, both in its precept and its penalty, they feel condemned, and desire relief. But still they are unhappy. They have no spirit of prayer, no communion with God, no evidence of adoption. They only refer to the 7th of Romans as their evidence. Such a one will say, "There is my experience exactly." Let me tell you, that if this is your experience, you are yet in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity. You feel that you are in the bonds of guilt, and you are overcome by iniquity, and surely you know that it is bitter as gall. Now, don't cheat your soul by supposing that with such an experience as this, you can go and sit down by the side of the apostle Paul. You are yet carnal, sold under sin, and unless you embrace the gospel, you will be damned."

[Esaias]

I posted the above because I think my own communication skills are notoriously lacking.

[Evang.Benincasa]

What's up with the ice sculpture of Brother Ronnie Sexton? Must of been done before he shaved his beard off?