Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Romans 7:14-25

[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?

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.

OK that is your opinion.

I, Dake and the Bible disagree.

[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.

OK that is your opinion.

I, Dake and the Bible disagree.

I don't know if Dake disagrees and neither do you, unless you can show where he address the question and shows why he rejects the premise. Simply stating another position and NOT addressing the question does not show disagreement, it shows avoidance. You can call it disagreement if you desire and some people may agree with you. However in the truest understanding it is not. In the arena of discussion/debate stating a position contrary to another is not an invalidation of the position. Only showing why that position is untrue invalidates. Dake does not show why one is untrue, but only why HE prefers one opinion over the other. And he is entitled to his opinion, and you are entitled to agree with his position. But neither his position, nor your agreement with it, invalidates the other, it simply avoids answering it.

Dake's position is that it was a "pre-saved" position is based on his opinion that only a "pre-saved" person can be...... however he, Dake, avoids the very same understanding found in the passage that only a "saved" person can have. Avoiding those difficulties does not make them go away, but that his what Dake has done. And you are doing the same. For me to agree with your position, you have to disprove mine, not simply tell me yours (or Dake's) is correct because Dake said so.

[Grandfather]

OK that is your opinion.

I, Dake and the Bible disagree.

Oh, I forgot, please show me where the Bible says that Romans 7 shows the struggle of a "pre-saved" person.

Please avoid your opinion that a verse relates to this, or show additional insight, but where the BIBLE says it. For as you have said there are portions of this that are typical of a "pre-saved" person. I'll concede that. However, there are also portions that are typical of a "saved" person. You can't only use the portions you want, you must address BOTH!

Now, I'll await your backing up your statement and not avoiding the question by additional questions or statements that avoid the question. Now is the time to back up your statement that "the Bible disagree(s)"

[titus213]

Romans 8 pretty well establishes the fact that Paul was not writing about his experience in Christ Jesus when describing the struggle in Romans 7. Since there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and he clearly did feel condemned by such a struggle, we have the answer to the question.

[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?

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.

OK that is your opinion.

I, Dake and the Bible disagree.

I don't know if Dake disagrees and neither do you, unless you can show where he address the question and shows why he rejects the premise. Simply stating another position and NOT addressing the question does not show disagreement, it shows avoidance. You can call it disagreement if you desire and some people may agree with you. However in the truest understanding it is not. In the arena of discussion/debate stating a position contrary to another is not an invalidation of the position. Only showing why that position is untrue invalidates. Dake does not show why one is untrue, but only why HE prefers one opinion over the other. And he is entitled to his opinion, and you are entitled to agree with his position. But neither his position, nor your agreement with it, invalidates the other, it simply avoids answering it.

Dake's position is that it was a "pre-saved" position is based on his opinion that only a "pre-saved" person can be...... however he, Dake, avoids the very same understanding found in the passage that only a "saved" person can have. Avoiding those difficulties does not make them go away, but that his what Dake has done. And you are doing the same. For me to agree with your position, you have to disprove mine, not simply tell me yours (or Dake's) is correct because Dake said so.

It is simply your opinion.

Dake spoke to the issue clearly and biblicaly.

You have just refused to listen to both Dake and the Bible!

[Justaned]

Romans 8 pretty well establishes the fact that Paul was not writing about his experience in Christ Jesus when describing the struggle in Romans 7. Since there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and he clearly did feel condemned by such a struggle, we have the answer to the question.

Titus213
I usually agree with you on most everything you say but I really don't think you are doing justice when you simply say there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

The text says a lot more.
Romans 8:1 (NKJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

This is exactly what Paul was talking about the battle of the flesh and spirit.

[bibleman]

Romans 8 pretty well establishes the fact that Paul was not writing about his experience in Christ Jesus when describing the struggle in Romans 7. Since there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and he clearly did feel condemned by such a struggle, we have the answer to the question.

Titus213
I usually agree with you on most everything you say but I really don't think you are doing justice when you simply say there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

The text says a lot more.
Romans 8:1 (NKJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

This is exactly what Paul was talking about the battle of the flesh and spirit.

So Ed,...

Do you think Paul was walking after the flesh or after the Spirit?

[Justaned]

Romans 8 pretty well establishes the fact that Paul was not writing about his experience in Christ Jesus when describing the struggle in Romans 7. Since there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and he clearly did feel condemned by such a struggle, we have the answer to the question.

Titus213
I usually agree with you on most everything you say but I really don't think you are doing justice when you simply say there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

The text says a lot more.
Romans 8:1 (NKJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

This is exactly what Paul was talking about the battle of the flesh and spirit.

So Ed,...

Do you think Paul was walking after the flesh or after the Spirit?

I think Paul was crucifying the flesh daily and expressing the spiritual battle that must be fought to do it.

[bibleman]

Romans 8 pretty well establishes the fact that Paul was not writing about his experience in Christ Jesus when describing the struggle in Romans 7. Since there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and he clearly did feel condemned by such a struggle, we have the answer to the question.

Titus213
I usually agree with you on most everything you say but I really don't think you are doing justice when you simply say there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

The text says a lot more.
Romans 8:1 (NKJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

This is exactly what Paul was talking about the battle of the flesh and spirit.

So Ed,...

Do you think Paul was walking after the flesh or after the Spirit?

I think Paul was crucifying the flesh daily and expressing the spiritual battle that must be fought to do it.

Well Ed,

If according to you guys Paul was controlled by the devil... and walking after the flesh... then is there any hope for any of us?

[titus213]

Romans 8 pretty well establishes the fact that Paul was not writing about his experience in Christ Jesus when describing the struggle in Romans 7. Since there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and he clearly did feel condemned by such a struggle, we have the answer to the question.

Titus213
I usually agree with you on most everything you say but I really don't think you are doing justice when you simply say there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

The text says a lot more.
Romans 8:1 (NKJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

This is exactly what Paul was talking about the battle of the flesh and spirit.

No, it isn't. The words, if they belong to verse 1 (there is some doubt) actually make the case even stronger, because they define the person who is "in Christ' as someone who walks according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. And as Romans 8:4-9 point out, believers are not "in the flesh" but "in the Spirit" if they are saved at all. Contrast this with what Paul describes as his experience in Romans 7 where he is "sold under sin", unable to do what pleases God and unable to figure out how to do what pleases God . . . a "wretched man" who longs to be delivered. There is no mention of the Spirit, no sense of any hope at all. Just condemnation. Until the "wretched man" finds Christ, and "in Christ" is set free not only from condemnation, but from the slavery to sin, confusion and despair brought about by the "law of sin and death".

As I said in an earlier posting, I don't doubt that there is a battle of flesh and Spirit which we face as believers, but we don't walk according to the flesh. If we are "in Christ", we walk according to the Spirit. When we stumble, there is "no condemnation". Our experience is not (or ought not to be) what Paul describes as the hopeless, powerless, confused desperation of the condemned.

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".