Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Romans 7:14-25

[Ironman]

Hi mate.

"How can a person be rightious and sinful at the same time?
How can a person be holy and sinning continualy all the time?

1 thess. 5:23; makes no sense to these statements above"

.

Can a righteous person fall into sin, thereby making him as sinner and cut off from God, then this sinner repents and is forgiven and brought back into the fold?

I know these conditions are not possible at the same time, one is either one, a sinner cut off, or the other, righteous and in Jesus, but when I read of what Peter did, cursing and denying Jesus three times, then repenting and being forgiven, doesn't, 1 Thess. 5:23, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." make the repentant sinner blameless until he sins again?

"“a righteous man falls seven time, but gets up again.” Is the number 7 times the limit? What if a man falls 70 X 7 times, after being baptized, and repents 70 X 7 times, does that make him un-holy for ever, without hope?

[Rocky]

Everyone has great points and insight in to this. But again the grammatical tenses cannot be denied. Early on in the same chapter Paul does speak in past tense, but then when we get to verse 14-25 it is present tense. This causes my hang up, and fully accepting it as a past experience because Paul speaks of the past in the verses before the verses that this thread is about. Here is what I a talking about, bare with me for a second: Here is verses 5-13
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Notice the past grammatical tense of these verses that I have underlined. Now we know Paul here is trying to refute some that were trying to make the Roman Christians adhere to the law and Paul is explaining the purpose of it. To me verses 5-13 is Paul's experience as a Pharisee trying to keep the law, but the law only brought death and he was unable to keep it. And we get to the scriptures at hand that are of a present grammatical tense . May be Paul is saying he still struggles with keeping the law to perfection and that he is wreathed with out Jesus and must be completely reliant on him for justification and is his provision for being in right standing with God, because the law and even his behavior at times cant do it. Not that he lives in sin, but still has this struggle at times with his behavior. I mean look at the verse 24 he stated O wretched man that I am! it does not read "the wretched man that I was". So when Paul says "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I". It seem there is no past tense implied here like in the previous verses that I gave. Paul seem to be talking about himself in a present tense according to the grammatical tense of the language that he is using..

[titus213]

Trying to please God in the flesh is something Paul experienced as a Pharisee, but also as a believer. He could therefore speak of it in both the past tense and the present tense.
I have found in the years of walking with the Lord every area where I had confidence in my flesh God has allowed me to fall, to show me that I don't have the strength, the ability, the power, the capacity that I thought I had.

For as long as I am still in this body of flesh, I am going to have emotions of the flesh and sin. Thank God I don't have to yield to them anymore. Thank God I can have victory and power over it. Thank God if I do yield to the flesh there is no condemnation because I am in Christ Jesus. It doesn't mean that because there is no condemnation I just go out and willfully live after the flesh. God forbid. But if I stumble, I don't fall. The Lord picks me up; the Lord sustains me.

[bibleman]

Everyone has great points and insight in to this. But again the grammatical tenses cannot be denied. Early on in the same chapter Paul does speak in past tense, but then when we get to verse 14-25 it is present tense. This causes my hang up, and fully accepting it as a past experience because Paul speaks of the past in the verses before the verses that this thread is about. Here is what I a talking about, bare with me for a second: Here is verses 5-13
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Notice the past grammatical tense of these verses that I have underlined. Now we know Paul here is trying to refute some that were trying to make the Roman Christians adhere to the law and Paul is explaining the purpose of it. To me verses 5-13 is Paul's experience as a Pharisee trying to keep the law, but the law only brought death and he was unable to keep it. And we get to the scriptures at hand that are of a present grammatical tense . May be Paul is saying he still struggles with keeping the law to perfection and that he is wreathed with out Jesus and must be completely reliant on him for justification and is his provision for being in right standing with God, because the law and even his behavior at times cant do it. Not that he lives in sin, but still has this struggle at times with his behavior. I mean look at the verse 24 he stated O wretched man that I am! it does not read "the wretched man that I was". So when Paul says "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I". It seem there is no past tense implied here like in the previous verses that I gave. Paul seem to be talking about himself in a present tense according to the grammatical tense of the language that he is using..

Hi rocky,

OK so the gramatical tense cannot be denied as you say...

Based on that Paul is:

14 carnal, sold under sin.
15 what I hate, that do I.
16 I do that which I would not,
17 sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing
19 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 evil is present with me.
23 But I see another law in my members, ...bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am!
25 I myself serve ...flesh the law of sin.

Are you sure you want to read the writings in 14 books of the New Testament from such as man as one who lives in and controlled by sin? (big smile)

[Rocky]

Everyone has great points and insight in to this. But again the grammatical tenses cannot be denied. Early on in the same chapter Paul does speak in past tense, but then when we get to verse 14-25 it is present tense. This causes my hang up, and fully accepting it as a past experience because Paul speaks of the past in the verses before the verses that this thread is about. Here is what I a talking about, bare with me for a second: Here is verses 5-13
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Notice the past grammatical tense of these verses that I have underlined. Now we know Paul here is trying to refute some that were trying to make the Roman Christians adhere to the law and Paul is explaining the purpose of it. To me verses 5-13 is Paul's experience as a Pharisee trying to keep the law, but the law only brought death and he was unable to keep it. And we get to the scriptures at hand that are of a present grammatical tense . May be Paul is saying he still struggles with keeping the law to perfection and that he is wreathed with out Jesus and must be completely reliant on him for justification and is his provision for being in right standing with God, because the law and even his behavior at times cant do it. Not that he lives in sin, but still has this struggle at times with his behavior. I mean look at the verse 24 he stated O wretched man that I am! it does not read "the wretched man that I was". So when Paul says "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I". It seem there is no past tense implied here like in the previous verses that I gave. Paul seem to be talking about himself in a present tense according to the grammatical tense of the language that he is using..

Hi rocky,

OK so the gramatical tense cannot be denied as you say...

Based on that Paul is:

14 carnal, sold under sin.
15 what I hate, that do I.
16 I do that which I would not,
17 sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing
19 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 evil is present with me.
23 But I see another law in my members, ...bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am!
25 I myself serve ...flesh the law of sin.

Are you sure you want to read the writings in 14 books of the New Testament from such as man as one who lives in and controlled by sin? (big smile)

I don't see at as Paul being controlled by sin but more of a man that is human and had his struggles like the rest of us. To me it shows that Paul was very much human . I am not saying that you are wrong, I just have my hang ups about this. And I think this is the only thing that I even remotely disagree with Dake on. If it just wasn't for the way it was written I would not have any hang ups and would probably 100% agree with you, right now I am about 50% in agreement with you lol. But don't you find yourself doing things and behaving in ways you don't like at times?

[bibleman]

Everyone has great points and insight in to this. But again the grammatical tenses cannot be denied. Early on in the same chapter Paul does speak in past tense, but then when we get to verse 14-25 it is present tense. This causes my hang up, and fully accepting it as a past experience because Paul speaks of the past in the verses before the verses that this thread is about. Here is what I a talking about, bare with me for a second: Here is verses 5-13
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Notice the past grammatical tense of these verses that I have underlined. Now we know Paul here is trying to refute some that were trying to make the Roman Christians adhere to the law and Paul is explaining the purpose of it. To me verses 5-13 is Paul's experience as a Pharisee trying to keep the law, but the law only brought death and he was unable to keep it. And we get to the scriptures at hand that are of a present grammatical tense . May be Paul is saying he still struggles with keeping the law to perfection and that he is wreathed with out Jesus and must be completely reliant on him for justification and is his provision for being in right standing with God, because the law and even his behavior at times cant do it. Not that he lives in sin, but still has this struggle at times with his behavior. I mean look at the verse 24 he stated O wretched man that I am! it does not read "the wretched man that I was". So when Paul says "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I". It seem there is no past tense implied here like in the previous verses that I gave. Paul seem to be talking about himself in a present tense according to the grammatical tense of the language that he is using..

Hi rocky,

OK so the gramatical tense cannot be denied as you say...

Based on that Paul is:

14 carnal, sold under sin.
15 what I hate, that do I.
16 I do that which I would not,
17 sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing
19 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 evil is present with me.
23 But I see another law in my members, ...bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am!
25 I myself serve ...flesh the law of sin.

Are you sure you want to read the writings in 14 books of the New Testament from such as man as one who lives in and controlled by sin? (big smile)

I don't see at as Paul being controlled by sin but more of a man that is human and had his struggles like the rest of us. To me it shows that Paul was very much human . I am not saying that you are wrong, I just have my hang ups about this. And I think this is the only thing that I even remotely disagree with Dake on. If it just wasn't for the way it was written I would not have any hang ups and would probably 100% agree with you, right now I am about 50% in agreement with you lol. But don't you find yourself doing things and behaving in ways you don't like at times?

Hi Rocky,

Above you said: "I don't see at as Paul being controlled by sin..."

Notice:

19 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.

Isn't Paul saying that he is being controlled by sin?

[frenchie]

Please suffer my litle intrusion here. This made me check Mr. Dake's take on Phil.3:12 when Paul says that he have'nt yet attain perfection:

Notes For Verse 12
a [either were already perfect] Two things Paul had not yet attained:

1. The resurrection or the prize (Php. 3:11-12,14). This is another way of saying he had not finished his course and was not yet glorified (Php. 3:20-21).

2. Perfection. Greek: teleioo (GSN-<G5048>), to make a full end; consummate (Php. 3:12). Translated perfect (Php. 3:12; Lk. 13:32; Jn. 17:23; 2Cor. 12:9; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:19; 9:9; 10:1,14; 11:40; 12:23; Jas. 2:22; 1Jn. 2:5; 4:12,17-18); fulfill (Lk. 2:43; Jn. 19:28); and finish (Jn. 4:34; 5:36; 17:4; Acts 20:24). This kind of perfection refers to the complete and glorified state. It does not imply that he was lacking in spiritual experience; that he was deficient in grace; that the body of sin was still cleaving to him; that he was yet struggling with an "old man" in him; that he was not yet sanctified.
Dake's Annotated Reference Bible.

[Grandfather]

Bibleman,

Is there a reason you don't answer questions but simply respond with another question? I've read that in the "art of persuasion" a practice of never acknowledging the questions of another is a practice that is encouraged. Along with that they encourage a slight change in subject on content. Now in worldly methodology this works very well, but I would like to think you are above worldly methods to accomplish a spiritual goal.

If indeed your point of view is correct, then why are you running away from directly answering the questions I've put forth. Your failure to respond only gives me reason to doubt your position further.

[bibleman]

Bibleman,

Is there a reason you don't answer questions but simply respond with another question? I've read that in the "art of persuasion" a practice of never acknowledging the questions of another is a practice that is encouraged. Along with that they encourage a slight change in subject on content. Now in worldly methodology this works very well, but I would like to think you are above worldly methods to accomplish a spiritual goal.

If indeed your point of view is correct, then why are you running away from directly answering the questions I've put forth. Your failure to respond only gives me reason to doubt your position further.

Hi Grandfather,

On answering questions....

I have replied by telling you what Dake said about the passage.

You have rejected that. That is your choice. Not a problem.

Did you have another question?

[Grandfather]

Bibleman,

Is there a reason you don't answer questions but simply respond with another question? I've read that in the "art of persuasion" a practice of never acknowledging the questions of another is a practice that is encouraged. Along with that they encourage a slight change in subject on content. Now in worldly methodology this works very well, but I would like to think you are above worldly methods to accomplish a spiritual goal.

If indeed your point of view is correct, then why are you running away from directly answering the questions I've put forth. Your failure to respond only gives me reason to doubt your position further.

Hi Grandfather,

On answering questions....

I have replied by telling you what Dake said about the passage.

You have rejected that. That is your choice. Not a problem.

Did you have another question?

I don't know why my previous response was not posted, but the fact remains. Avoiding an answer by responding with a question is not an answer. And while Dake's comments may shed light on what Dake believes, they too failed to address the question.

Dake's own comments pose a problem. IF the passage is Romans is from the perspective of a unsaved man because of the passage Dake sites, then what does Dake do with the other passages that can only be written/experienced from the position of one who has experienced salvation? You cannot, fairly, take one perspective and avoid the other. To do so is being intellectually dishonest.