Law was an impossible system to keep

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, I wasn't saying a Christian can't fall into a Romans 7 experience. I think all if us could attest to that happening at least once in our lives, more likely more than once. But I do not think it describes the "normal Christian life".

Did you ever read that book entitled THE NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE, btw?

Question: Why does Peter call it "tempting God" to do what Moses did? If the unbearable yoke is simply the old covenant, how is it tempting God to promote it when that is what God himself did for some 1500 years?

Maybe this is another case of definitions being mixed up?

First of all, we have to ask what it was that Peter said they and their forebears could not keep. I claim it's Mosaic law, and in that spirit I see Paul writing Romans 7.

But was tempting God meant the act of implying God made an error in giving Cornelius the Holy Ghost, by demanding their circumcision? IOW, to circumcise the Gentiles would be implying that God should not have given them the Spirit because the reception of the Spirit means they were cleansed by God and fit for His Spirit before any circumcision took place.

[mfblume]

Here's my more thorough response.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I see a distinction. But let's say there is no distinction, they are the same. That would mean that 'will power' is nothing more than merely wishing or desiring something, and does NOT include the actual choosing or doing of something, correct? So then you would be saying a person can wish all day long but nothing is going to happen until the cross does its work in their heart. Would be a fair representation?

Ok, you're right. I should not have solely used the idea of will power. So, here is more accurately what I meant. Paul desired and willed to obey the law of God, but found he did not possess the power to fulfill that desire.

Romans 7:18 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.

He willed and desired to do good. But he did not personally possess the ability to perform what he willed to do. Most think so long as there's a will there's a way, but Paul proved that to be error. He had the will but not the way. And the good he willed to do was the keeping of the law.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Paul said the problem is not with law. It's as holy as holy can be! But he, personally, was sold under sin. Being under law is somehow associated with being under the power of sin. But anyway, law was not the problem.

Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Above he says he did things he personally did not allow. We all did what we did not want to do but were unable to resist it. That's what Paul meant. He was distinguishing his will from his actual behaviour. He wanted his behaviour to do the good of the law. But he did not have the ability to perform the law. He just didn't.

Now, I know you asked several times what law can we not obey, as though anyone can obey any given law. So it seems that reasoning may be clouding your perception of what Paul is saying here. So, consider that Paul was not saying no one cannot keep any given law, but he is talking about over time maintaining such an obedience. That's why I said consistently keeping it, for we do good for a while, but then blow it, since sin inside us will rise up eventually and mar out consistent ability to keep law.

Romans 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

So we are obviously meant to know by this last phrase above that the good he willed to do was obedience to law. And he distinguished his personal will and desire to fulfill it from his actual ability to carry it out. What he did was in contrast to what he wanted to do. And anything someone wants to do is what they ATTEMPT to do. In Paul's case his attempts failed. This implies he tried.

Romans 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

And since his will was to do the good of the law, and no matter how hard he tried to do it he failed, his analysis concluded that it was not him forcing himself to do wrong, as though one has to will to do wrong if one does wrong. he said he willed NOT to do wrong. And by the way he phrased all of this, we can only conclude Paul was saying sin was a force in him that made him do things other than his will desired to do. That force was irresistable. In this case, SIN is not a disobedient act as we normally understand sin. IT IS A FORCE. The force of SIN causes us to commit the disobedient acts of SINS. SIN was like an assassin, which is not an unlawful ACT. SIN can be defined two ways. Paul uses it in the singular in Romans 7 as A COMPELLING FORCE. Some call it the SIN NATURE. I'm not sure if that's the best term, but some do.

Romans 7:18 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.

He substantiates his claim that it is not him that is the source of the urge to commit sins, but something distinct from him known as the force of sin by saying HE willed to do good, but did not find the ability within himself to actually carry that out. That is why I said law is an impossible system to keep.

Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

When he used the phrase, "that I would", he meant he attempted to carry out his will to obey law. Good things he wanted to do were not done despite his efforts.

Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

He puts the blame on the force of sin and not himself for doing sinful things, after having analyzed the fact he willed to obey law but found himself committing instead. If this is merely saying that he simply did not CHOOSE TO FULFILL godly desires and chose instead to commit sin, why would he say it was not him that did those acts, but the force of sin?

I think this can only mean that he actually tried to put into action what he willed to do, but found a force moving his hand that was stronger than his natural power to fulfill the law, and he committed sin instead. And I claim we've all experienced this. We know we must not get angry with someone, but though we fight that temptation to get angry, we get angry, anyway!

Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

So Paul realized there was a SECOND LAW at work. In THIS case, the LAW he mentions in verse 21 is not the Law of Moses. It is a predicable pattern of cause and effect, much like the law of gravity. In this case, he said it happens everytime.... when HE WOULD DO GOOD --- using natural power to keep laws -- evil was there to ruin it all and compel him to instead do wrong. A force rose up and fought him.

That's what he said happened earlier in the chapter.

Romans 7:8-11 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (10) And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

It's like saying, "They should have never told me to NOT DO THAT. I would have likely had not problem refraining from THAT, but as soon as they commanded me to NOT DO THAT something rose up inside me and I did it."

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Then he explains what he already said, again. His will is to obey the law of God.

Romans 7:23 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.

But he said ANOTHER LAW was at work. One law in MY MIND was great and wonderful. The Law of God. But ANOTHER LAW existed, which he referred to in verse 21. It activated the force of sin in him every time he willed to do good, until at some point, like a pressure cooker increasing its pressure until it finally blows, we cannot take it any more and we sin instead of maintain a sinless lifestyle.

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

It was so irresistable Paul figured he had to leave his body in death to be free of the miserable force he discovered was in that flesh. I disagree he was talking about an alleged criminal judgment by putting a dead body on the killer's back to let it rot away on top of him as an allegory Paul used. I think Paul literally called his flesh the body of death since it housed the force of sin that compelled him to violate law.

The bolded part is where we disagree. What do you mean 'use natural energy'? A person can want all day long, but they will get nowhere until they actually do, that is, until they actually 'exercise their will'.

Right. Natural energy is all we have apart form the Spirit of God to carry out obedience to the will we desire to fulfill. It's like Israel trying to face giants and walls on their own, not leaning on the supernatural power of God to be with them and have them win.

So I claim exercising his will but failing anyway is what Paul meant in verses 18 and 21. He was brought into slavery... that is bondage against one's will. And that's more than wanting to do good BUT CHOOSING not to.

By 'exercise their will' I do not mean 'strain to accomplish something' like trying to push a car that turns out to be too heavy for you. What I mean is 'actually choose' a course of action. People will not choose a course of action to obey God sincerely until and unless the Spirit of God motivates them.

Ok.

I believe that is not what Paul is talking about.

And the Spirit operates via the cross, for both the Spirit of God and the cross are said to be the 'power of God unto salvation'.

I do not understand Paul, in Romans 7, to be speaking about a regenerate person's experience.

I believe it covers both. What I am proposing is that Paul teaches us that when we use natural energy alone to exercise our wills, sin is in our flesh and is too hard to resist, and we sin. Only by the power of the Spirit's help -- divine empowerment -- can sin as a force be overcome. And when Gal 5 said we won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh sol ling as we walk after the Spirit, I believe he is saying we can overcome only so long as we stop relying on natural power exercising our wills and instead leaning on God's Spirit for empowerment.

I believe he is speaking metaphorically (using himself as the 'example'), and is describing the experience of an unregenerate Jew.

I agree IN PART.

Paul did struggle personally according to verse 9-10. Some scholars believe being alive without the law means pre-bar-mtzvah when a boy was not responsible for keeping law.

If a Christian is experiencing Romans 7, it is either because they are Christian in name only, or they have backslidden, or they are the victim of some seriously faulty teaching, or they have failed to 'do the word' even if they have 'heard the word' properly explained. Romans 7 is NOT the 'normal Christian life'.

I disagree. I believe Romans 7 is any believer's experience -- MOST CHRISTIANS btw -- because they have never been taught to rely on the Spirit's strength other than for talking in tongues. lol

They cannot consistently live without committing sin.

So let's take it from here

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here's my more thorough response.



Ok, you're right. I should not have solely used the idea of will power. So, here is more accurately what I meant. Paul desired and willed to obey the law of God, but found he did not possess the power to fulfill that desire.

Romans 7:18 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.

He willed and desired to do good. But he did not personally possess the ability to perform what he willed to do. Most think so long as there's a will there's a way, but Paul proved that to be error. He had the will but not the way. And the good he willed to do was the keeping of the law.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Paul said the problem is not with law. It's as holy as holy can be! But he, personally, was sold under sin. Being under law is somehow associated with being under the power of sin. But anyway, law was not the problem.

The key to the whole thing is right there: 'sold under sin'. He was a bond-slave of sin. He repeats this towards the end when he says the following:

Romans 7:23 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.

So the issue is his enslavement to the law (rule, dominion, the 'will' of sin, as it were). But we are not left to guess anything about what he means, because he already explained this in the prior chapter. This is why I taught through the entire epistle of Romans, from chapter 1 to the end, verse by verse, in response to a request to teach on chapter 7. I knew that taken in isolation, without the context of the rest of the epistle, this chapter gives rise to all sorts of errors. Which is something Peter warned us about regarding Paul's writings, by the way.

Look at what Paul said in chapter 6:

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
(Romans 6:16-19 KJV)

Bondage or enslavement to sin is the result of YIELDING ONESELF to sin. You are the BONDSLAVE of whoever you YIELD yourself a servant to obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness. In other words, Paul already explained what constitutes and causes being in bondage to the rule or dominion of sin. It is the act of YIELDING to sin. And JUST AS we once yielded ourselves to sin, to obey it, we are now to yield ourselves to righteousness, to be servants of righteousness. He said 'as', which means 'just as, that is, exactly like' according to Strong's. So, he said 'exactly like you have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, so now yield yourselves servants to righteousness unto holiness.'

So, after Paul declares the voluntariness of moral action, whether of sinfulness or of righteousness, he then goes on in chapter 7 to describe the condition of the individual who finds themselves a bondslave to sin, in spite of their mental acknowledgment that God's commands are best. But we already know from chapter 6 that when Paul says he finds himself 'sold under sin' and a slave to sin, captured by sin, controlled by sin, etc., we already know that he believed and taught that such enslavement to sin results from YIELDING oneself to sin.

Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Above he says he did things he personally did not allow. We all did what we did not want to do but were unable to resist it. That's what Paul meant. He was distinguishing his will from his actual behaviour. He wanted his behaviour to do the good of the law. But he did not have the ability to perform the law. He just didn't.

This contradicts the rest of the epistle, especially his clear and unambiguous statements in the immediately preceding chapter about the voluntariness of moral action. Now, if we keep chapter 7 in context, and allow his preceding doctrine in chapter 6 to explain his parabolic excursus in chapter 7, we get a different understanding. Paul is saying that what he does violates his conscience, in short. I don't know anyone except maybe sociopaths who have not had this experience. But this does not mean that the bad thing is 'irresistible'. It does not mean that sin is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid, as a natural, inherent, constitutional inability to do the right thing.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The key to the whole thing is right there: 'sold under sin'. He was a bond-slave of sin. He repeats this towards the end when he says the following:

Romans 7:23 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.

So the issue is his enslavement to the law (rule, dominion, the 'will' of sin, as it were).

Right.

But we sell ourselves under sin as Christians when we yield to it. It's a choice, that many don't know they even have.

Rom 6:15-16....What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. ..(16)....Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Gal 5:1....Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Paul would not have said this to believers if it was not possible for them to yield to sin. And I claim those who do not understand how to walk after the Spirit so as to see the Spirit empower them are the ones who sell themselves under sin as much as a person under Mosaic Law is in bondage to sin.

But we are not left to guess anything about what he means, because he already explained this in the prior chapter. This is why I taught through the entire epistle of Romans, from chapter 1 to the end, verse by verse, in response to a request to teach on chapter 7. I knew that taken in isolation, without the context of the rest of the epistle, this chapter gives rise to all sorts of errors. Which is something Peter warned us about regarding Paul's writings, by the way.

Look at what Paul said in chapter 6:

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
(Romans 6:16-19 KJV)

Bondage or enslavement to sin is the result of YIELDING ONESELF to sin. You are the BONDSLAVE of whoever you YIELD yourself a servant to obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness. In other words, Paul already explained what constitutes and causes being in bondage to the rule or dominion of sin. It is the act of YIELDING to sin.

Right, and people yield to it when they try to exert natural power to serve God and keep the law of God, rather than do what Romans 6:13 says to do, and yield to God. These Romans did not even know they were dead with Christ so they could yield themselves to God as those already alive from the dead. how many believers present themselves to Gdo like people whom they know are alive from the dead if they don't even know the ramifications of being dead with Christ to sin?

And JUST AS we once yielded ourselves to sin, to obey it, we are now to yield ourselves to righteousness, to be servants of righteousness.

And do it in the way Romans 6:13 says, and not many do that.

He said 'as', which means 'just as, that is, exactly like' according to Strong's. So, he said 'exactly like you have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, so now yield yourselves servants to righteousness unto holiness.'

So, after Paul declares the voluntariness of moral action, whether of sinfulness or of righteousness, he then goes on in chapter 7 to describe the condition of the individual who finds themselves a bondslave to sin, in spite of their mental acknowledgment that God's commands are best. But we already know from chapter 6 that when Paul says he finds himself 'sold under sin' and a slave to sin, captured by sin, controlled by sin, etc., we already know that he believed and taught that such enslavement to sin results from YIELDING oneself to sin.

And Paul was saying people don't realize they are freed from sin, so they can yield to God consciously as people who are alive from the dead and be empowered by His Spirit. Why do you think we are to yield ourselves to God as people dead to sin? I teach my congregation to learn what it means to be alive to God, which first requires us to understand we died to sin with Christ and can now live without the burden of sin's power over us. They need to be taught this or they won't see themselves as alive to God and dead to sin. Preachers have not taken an indepth look at this chapter, and have taught their people that we can live above sinful living, but only if we follow Paul's walkthrough of understanding from Romans 6:1 through to 11, and then do what 6:13 tells us to do.

This contradicts the rest of the epistle, especially his clear and unambiguous statements in the immediately preceding chapter about the voluntariness of moral action. Now, if we keep chapter 7 in context, and allow his preceding doctrine in chapter 6 to explain his parabolic excursus in chapter 7, we get a different understanding. Paul is saying that what he does violates his conscience, in short. I don't know anyone except maybe sociopaths who have not had this experience.

No, it is far more common than that and I think you arrive at your conclusion about sociopaths due to a misunderstanding of this chapter.

But this does not mean that the bad thing is 'irresistible'. It does not mean that sin is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid, as a natural, inherent, constitutional inability to do the right thing.

It is irresistable if we face it with natural life alone and not empowerment.

Let's continue to talk about this.

[Aquila]

Isn't the Law designed to back one into a corner wherein they have to accept the Gospel or be condemned?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Isn't the Law designed to back one into a corner wherein they have to accept the Gospel or be condemned?

I think so!

It's like the old saying goes.... law was a mirror showing all our flaws, and grace supplies the water, soap and facecloth.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think so!

It's like the old saying goes.... law was a mirror showing all our flaws, and grace supplies the water, soap and facecloth.

I like that. Good stuff.

[Esaias]

And, as for "no man can keep the law", which commandments of God CANNOT be kept? Back in say Moses' day? I still haven't figured that out.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And, as for "no man can keep the law", which commandments of God CANNOT be kept? Back in say Moses' day? I still haven't figured that out.

I already clarified that. It is CONSISTENT keeping that is the issue. We can do good ONLY SO LONG, but the moment we fail, we broke it all from the start. No one can CONSISTENTLY live a life of keeping law flawlessly, without breaking any of them ever. THAT is what I believe Peter meant by a yoke none can bear.

[Aquila]

Hey, will power was mentioned above. Here's a verse that came to mind....

Colossians 2:20-23 King James Version (KJV)
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

I think Paul's point is that a lot of outward standards, be they traditions of men or outward law keeping, look wise and serve to demonstrate will power, look all humble, and appear to deny the flesh.... but they don't actually quench the inherent desires of the flesh.

I don't know, I feel like I don't really know a lot about this stuff sometimes.