Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Romans 7:14-25

[Grandfather]

My own opinion is that in Romans 7 Paul describes the struggle of a Pharisee (as he was) under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, beginning to realize that the Law is not physical (as Pharisees believed) but spiritual, and that if this is true then the inner attitude and not merely the outward action is what God looked at. It was this conviction that Paul experienced as his personal wake-up call, enabling him to see himself for what he really was. His use of the present tense dramatically puts the reader into his shoes as he came to the realization that, contrary to everything he had believed up to that point, he was "carnal, sold under sin".

Hi, if Paul is describing his experience as Pharisee then why is it spoken of in present tense? You see the grammatical tense, as I have pointed out dose not support the claim that he was speaking of himself as a Pharisee before salvation, not saying that you or Leon are wrong, its just that Paul not once here says it was a past experience, read it again you will see. Paul does use past tense in other verses but not in theses verses. I see you are using past tense in your reply here like "as he was or "he was carnal, sold under sin", But Paul says "I do" and "I am." So unless someone can explain this, I am on the fence with this and cannot be fully convinced that Paul is referring to a past struggle because the language does not support what you are claiming. It breaks the rules of grammatical tense. Is Paul playing mind games trying to make us guess what he means? Not if you just take it for what the language is saying .

Rocky, I suggest that some people refuse to acknowledge your point because it calls into question a foundational premise they have built their belief system on. It is the same reason they state that some of the statements are those a "saved person" would not make but refuse to acknowledge that there are statements that only a saved person can make. In short they want to eat their cake and to have it as well.

[bibleman]

His flesh tainted by sin. But if Paul crucifies the flesh and follows after the spirit the flesh even though it is still present is not controlling Paul. Should Paul let his guard down the flesh will rear its ugly head and once again Paul must crucify it and let his spirit be in control. You are a big believer in backslidding how do you think that happens unless the flesh gets into control?

Well Ed,

According to you he must have let his guard down!

Romans 7:14 ...I am carnal, sold under sin.

If that be true doesn't it suggest being in a fight. Where else is having one's guard up so important?
Don't you have to keep your guard up? Or is your flesh so perfected it never brings you thoughts of anger, vengeance, over indulgence, sluggishness? You never have to push your tongue against your cheek, or wish you hadn't said that? In your day to day life you never have to seek God's forgiveness?

Paul was detailing, explaining the battle between flesh and spirit. Before being reborn Paul's spirit had a spiritual disease almost to the point of death. So when Paul before he was saved did not feel condemnation, did not feel hopelessness, did not feel a need for repent. But once the Holy Spirit quicken Paul's spirit drawing him into salvation sudden Paul saw what he was free of and had to fight against to prevent it from taking hold of his life again. That is when Paul realized the hopeless state he had been in and unless he would return he had to resist, fight against, and yes even repent of when his guard was let down.

Seeing how you believe that Paul was such a sinful looser.... Do you think we should even read his New Testament writings?

[Grandfather]

His flesh tainted by sin. But if Paul crucifies the flesh and follows after the spirit the flesh even though it is still present is not controlling Paul. Should Paul let his guard down the flesh will rear its ugly head and once again Paul must crucify it and let his spirit be in control. You are a big believer in backslidding how do you think that happens unless the flesh gets into control?

Well Ed,

According to you he must have let his guard down!

Romans 7:14 ...I am carnal, sold under sin.

If that be true doesn't it suggest being in a fight. Where else is having one's guard up so important?
Don't you have to keep your guard up? Or is your flesh so perfected it never brings you thoughts of anger, vengeance, over indulgence, sluggishness? You never have to push your tongue against your cheek, or wish you hadn't said that? In your day to day life you never have to seek God's forgiveness?

Paul was detailing, explaining the battle between flesh and spirit. Before being reborn Paul's spirit had a spiritual disease almost to the point of death. So when Paul before he was saved did not feel condemnation, did not feel hopelessness, did not feel a need for repent. But once the Holy Spirit quicken Paul's spirit drawing him into salvation sudden Paul saw what he was free of and had to fight against to prevent it from taking hold of his life again. That is when Paul realized the hopeless state he had been in and unless he would return he had to resist, fight against, and yes even repent of when his guard was let down.

Seeing how you believe that Paul was such a sinful looser.... Do you think we should even read his New Testament writings?

Mr Bibleman... do you believe that because someone struggles against sin they are a loser? At what point does the struggle become defeat?

[titus213]

My own opinion is that in Romans 7 Paul describes the struggle of a Pharisee (as he was) under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, beginning to realize that the Law is not physical (as Pharisees believed) but spiritual, and that if this is true then the inner attitude and not merely the outward action is what God looked at. It was this conviction that Paul experienced as his personal wake-up call, enabling him to see himself for what he really was. His use of the present tense dramatically puts the reader into his shoes as he came to the realization that, contrary to everything he had believed up to that point, he was "carnal, sold under sin".

Hi, if Paul is describing his experience as Pharisee then why is it spoken of in present tense? You see the grammatical tense, as I have pointed out dose not support the claim that he was speaking of himself as a Pharisee before salvation, not saying that you or Leon are wrong, its just that Paul not once here says it was a past experience, read it again you will see. Paul does use past tense in other verses but not in theses verses. I see you are using past tense in your reply here like "as he was or "he was carnal, sold under sin", But Paul says "I do" and "I am." So unless someone can explain this, I am on the fence with this and cannot be fully convinced that Paul is referring to a past struggle because the language does not support what you are claiming. It breaks the rules of grammatical tense. Is Paul playing mind games trying to make us guess what he means? Not if you just take it for what the language is saying .

Hi Rocky,

I think I explained why Paul used the present tense - as a way of placing us, the readers, more dramatically into the predicament he felt. Remember that people didn't write the same way we do today. We might say "Here's what I thought and felt as I went through that experience back then:" and then switch to the present tense. Ancient writers just didn't do that kind of thing. In fact, the present tense in Greek isn't even like our present tense in English. It doesn't mean "right now", but "at the time I am describing". We sometimes do this kind of thing when we are telling a story, like this: Last summer I was fishing with my son when the hurricane began to stir up the waves. So, I'm sitting in the boat with him and all of a sudden we are taking in water". I use the present tense for an event which was in the past, in order to help give a sense of what it was like.

To me, it just seems crystal clear that as you move into Romans 8 there is a total answer to and deliverance from the issues presented at the end of Romans 7. Chapter 8 is just as much Paul's autobiography as chapter 7, but in stark contrast. It certainly doesn't support the idea that a Christian can be "sold as a slave under sin" and condemned by God. In fact, chapter 8 teaches just the opposite, which is why I said it presents a 180-degree turn from what Paul experienced in chapter 7.

[titus213]

My own opinion is that in Romans 7 Paul describes the struggle of a Pharisee (as he was) under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, beginning to realize that the Law is not physical (as Pharisees believed) but spiritual, and that if this is true then the inner attitude and not merely the outward action is what God looked at. It was this conviction that Paul experienced as his personal wake-up call, enabling him to see himself for what he really was. His use of the present tense dramatically puts the reader into his shoes as he came to the realization that, contrary to everything he had believed up to that point, he was "carnal, sold under sin".

Hi, if Paul is describing his experience as Pharisee then why is it spoken of in present tense? You see the grammatical tense, as I have pointed out dose not support the claim that he was speaking of himself as a Pharisee before salvation, not saying that you or Leon are wrong, its just that Paul not once here says it was a past experience, read it again you will see. Paul does use past tense in other verses but not in theses verses. I see you are using past tense in your reply here like "as he was or "he was carnal, sold under sin", But Paul says "I do" and "I am." So unless someone can explain this, I am on the fence with this and cannot be fully convinced that Paul is referring to a past struggle because the language does not support what you are claiming. It breaks the rules of grammatical tense. Is Paul playing mind games trying to make us guess what he means? Not if you just take it for what the language is saying .

Rocky, I suggest that some people refuse to acknowledge your point because it calls into question a foundational premise they have built their belief system on. It is the same reason they state that some of the statements are those a "saved person" would not make but refuse to acknowledge that there are statements that only a saved person can make. In short they want to eat their cake and to have it as well.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about the people who have built THEIR belief system on the premise that chapter 7 must be the normal Christian struggle against the flesh. You are right that there are statements which don't fit for a born again child of God; and there are some which don't fit for a pagan to make. But Paul was not a pagan, he was a law-abiding Jew (in his own eyes, at least). It simply isn't true that only a SAVED person would desire to keep the Law or regard it as holy. As Paul's own testimony in Philippians reveals, he felt strongly that he was "blameless" before God when it came to the Law.

[Justaned]

His flesh tainted by sin. But if Paul crucifies the flesh and follows after the spirit the flesh even though it is still present is not controlling Paul. Should Paul let his guard down the flesh will rear its ugly head and once again Paul must crucify it and let his spirit be in control. You are a big believer in backslidding how do you think that happens unless the flesh gets into control?

Well Ed,

According to you he must have let his guard down!

Romans 7:14 ...I am carnal, sold under sin.

If that be true doesn't it suggest being in a fight. Where else is having one's guard up so important?
Don't you have to keep your guard up? Or is your flesh so perfected it never brings you thoughts of anger, vengeance, over indulgence, sluggishness? You never have to push your tongue against your cheek, or wish you hadn't said that? In your day to day life you never have to seek God's forgiveness?

Paul was detailing, explaining the battle between flesh and spirit. Before being reborn Paul's spirit had a spiritual disease almost to the point of death. So when Paul before he was saved did not feel condemnation, did not feel hopelessness, did not feel a need for repent. But once the Holy Spirit quicken Paul's spirit drawing him into salvation sudden Paul saw what he was free of and had to fight against to prevent it from taking hold of his life again. That is when Paul realized the hopeless state he had been in and unless he would return he had to resist, fight against, and yes even repent of when his guard was let down.

Seeing how you believe that Paul was such a sinful looser.... Do you think we should even read his New Testament writings?

Where do you get Paul was a loser. He was victorious in Christ but he had to struggle to reach the goal. Why else did he use the analogy that we are in a race pressing toward the goal?

[bibleman]

His flesh tainted by sin. But if Paul crucifies the flesh and follows after the spirit the flesh even though it is still present is not controlling Paul. Should Paul let his guard down the flesh will rear its ugly head and once again Paul must crucify it and let his spirit be in control. You are a big believer in backslidding how do you think that happens unless the flesh gets into control?

Well Ed,

According to you he must have let his guard down!

Romans 7:14 ...I am carnal, sold under sin.

If that be true doesn't it suggest being in a fight. Where else is having one's guard up so important?
Don't you have to keep your guard up? Or is your flesh so perfected it never brings you thoughts of anger, vengeance, over indulgence, sluggishness? You never have to push your tongue against your cheek, or wish you hadn't said that? In your day to day life you never have to seek God's forgiveness?

Paul was detailing, explaining the battle between flesh and spirit. Before being reborn Paul's spirit had a spiritual disease almost to the point of death. So when Paul before he was saved did not feel condemnation, did not feel hopelessness, did not feel a need for repent. But once the Holy Spirit quicken Paul's spirit drawing him into salvation sudden Paul saw what he was free of and had to fight against to prevent it from taking hold of his life again. That is when Paul realized the hopeless state he had been in and unless he would return he had to resist, fight against, and yes even repent of when his guard was let down.

Seeing how you believe that Paul was such a sinful looser.... Do you think we should even read his New Testament writings?

Mr Bibleman... do you believe that because someone struggles against sin they are a loser? At what point does the struggle become defeat?

No - someone is not a looser just because they struggle against sin.

They are a looser when they give in to sin and sin controls them as in YOUR belief in what Paul did in Romans 7.

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

According to YOU the devil (sin) so controlled Paul that he could NOT stop himself from sinning - that is a looser!

[bibleman]

His flesh tainted by sin. But if Paul crucifies the flesh and follows after the spirit the flesh even though it is still present is not controlling Paul. Should Paul let his guard down the flesh will rear its ugly head and once again Paul must crucify it and let his spirit be in control. You are a big believer in backslidding how do you think that happens unless the flesh gets into control?

Well Ed,

According to you he must have let his guard down!

Romans 7:14 ...I am carnal, sold under sin.

If that be true doesn't it suggest being in a fight. Where else is having one's guard up so important?
Don't you have to keep your guard up? Or is your flesh so perfected it never brings you thoughts of anger, vengeance, over indulgence, sluggishness? You never have to push your tongue against your cheek, or wish you hadn't said that? In your day to day life you never have to seek God's forgiveness?

Paul was detailing, explaining the battle between flesh and spirit. Before being reborn Paul's spirit had a spiritual disease almost to the point of death. So when Paul before he was saved did not feel condemnation, did not feel hopelessness, did not feel a need for repent. But once the Holy Spirit quicken Paul's spirit drawing him into salvation sudden Paul saw what he was free of and had to fight against to prevent it from taking hold of his life again. That is when Paul realized the hopeless state he had been in and unless he would return he had to resist, fight against, and yes even repent of when his guard was let down.

Seeing how you believe that Paul was such a sinful looser.... Do you think we should even read his New Testament writings?

Where do you get Paul was a loser. He was victorious in Christ but he had to struggle to reach the goal. Why else did he use the analogy that we are in a race pressing toward the goal?

How was he victorious if he was a Christian at the time he said this:

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.
24 O wretched man that I am!...

[Justaned]

My own opinion is that in Romans 7 Paul describes the struggle of a Pharisee (as he was) under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, beginning to realize that the Law is not physical (as Pharisees believed) but spiritual, and that if this is true then the inner attitude and not merely the outward action is what God looked at. It was this conviction that Paul experienced as his personal wake-up call, enabling him to see himself for what he really was. His use of the present tense dramatically puts the reader into his shoes as he came to the realization that, contrary to everything he had believed up to that point, he was "carnal, sold under sin".

Hi, if Paul is describing his experience as Pharisee then why is it spoken of in present tense? You see the grammatical tense, as I have pointed out dose not support the claim that he was speaking of himself as a Pharisee before salvation, not saying that you or Leon are wrong, its just that Paul not once here says it was a past experience, read it again you will see. Paul does use past tense in other verses but not in theses verses. I see you are using past tense in your reply here like "as he was or "he was carnal, sold under sin", But Paul says "I do" and "I am." So unless someone can explain this, I am on the fence with this and cannot be fully convinced that Paul is referring to a past struggle because the language does not support what you are claiming. It breaks the rules of grammatical tense. Is Paul playing mind games trying to make us guess what he means? Not if you just take it for what the language is saying .

Rocky, I suggest that some people refuse to acknowledge your point because it calls into question a foundational premise they have built their belief system on. It is the same reason they state that some of the statements are those a "saved person" would not make but refuse to acknowledge that there are statements that only a saved person can make. In short they want to eat their cake and to have it as well.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about the people who have built THEIR belief system on the premise that chapter 7 must be the normal Christian struggle against the flesh. You are right that there are statements which don't fit for a born again child of God; and there are some which don't fit for a pagan to make. But Paul was not a pagan, he was a law-abiding Jew (in his own eyes, at least). It simply isn't true that only a SAVED person would desire to keep the Law or regard it as holy. As Paul's own testimony in Philippians reveals, he felt strongly that he was "blameless" before God when it came to the Law.

Titus213 do you deny you struggle against the flesh? That temptation don't arise in you? Perhaps you are one that insists that all temptations come from the devil and never from the flesh. What is the difference between our flesh today and our perfected flesh that we receive in the resurrection? Of course we must fight the flesh why else would scripture say we must crucify the flesh?

[Rocky]

My own opinion is that in Romans 7 Paul describes the struggle of a Pharisee (as he was) under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, beginning to realize that the Law is not physical (as Pharisees believed) but spiritual, and that if this is true then the inner attitude and not merely the outward action is what God looked at. It was this conviction that Paul experienced as his personal wake-up call, enabling him to see himself for what he really was. His use of the present tense dramatically puts the reader into his shoes as he came to the realization that, contrary to everything he had believed up to that point, he was "carnal, sold under sin".

Hi, if Paul is describing his experience as Pharisee then why is it spoken of in present tense? You see the grammatical tense, as I have pointed out dose not support the claim that he was speaking of himself as a Pharisee before salvation, not saying that you or Leon are wrong, its just that Paul not once here says it was a past experience, read it again you will see. Paul does use past tense in other verses but not in theses verses. I see you are using past tense in your reply here like "as he was or "he was carnal, sold under sin", But Paul says "I do" and "I am." So unless someone can explain this, I am on the fence with this and cannot be fully convinced that Paul is referring to a past struggle because the language does not support what you are claiming. It breaks the rules of grammatical tense. Is Paul playing mind games trying to make us guess what he means? Not if you just take it for what the language is saying .

Hi Rocky,

I think I explained why Paul used the present tense - as a way of placing us, the readers, more dramatically into the predicament he felt. Remember that people didn't write the same way we do today. We might say "Here's what I thought and felt as I went through that experience back then:" and then switch to the present tense. Ancient writers just didn't do that kind of thing. In fact, the present tense in Greek isn't even like our present tense in English. It doesn't mean "right now", but "at the time I am describing". We sometimes do this kind of thing when we are telling a story, like this: Last summer I was fishing with my son when the hurricane began to stir up the waves. So, I'm sitting in the boat with him and all of a sudden we are taking in water". I use the present tense for an event which was in the past, in order to help give a sense of what it was like.

To me, it just seems crystal clear that as you move into Romans 8 there is a total answer to and deliverance from the issues presented at the end of Romans 7. Chapter 8 is just as much Paul's autobiography as chapter 7, but in stark contrast. It certainly doesn't support the idea that a Christian can be "sold as a slave under sin" and condemned by God. In fact, chapter 8 teaches just the opposite, which is why I said it presents a 180-degree turn from what Paul experienced in chapter 7.

Hi brother thank you for your reply, Koine Greek, also known as Alexandrian dialect, is a grammatical tense language. And the fishing example you just used, you are using grammatical tenses you said "Last summer" So it still does not explain it, your opinion is valid and well thought out though, and I see whatyou are saying. I just disagree with it only because of the grammar and language that Paul is using..