Impossible to Perfectly Keep the Law? No such excuse!

TibiasDad

Well-known member
I’m sorry, Doug, but I cannot agree. Sin cannot be defined apart from the involvement of the will. If I overpower you, put a gun in your hand, point it at someone and use your finger to pull the trigger, are you guilty of shooting him? Only if you were complicit. Mens Rea. Neither do I find in Scripture that the sin nature forces anyone to sin without some involvement of the will. It is the moral nature itself that is corrupted, and the moral nature is the seat of the moral will. The idea of a poor sinner who wants with all his heart to not sin but is forced to do things against his will is a myth.
Ken,

I am not saying the will is not involved, nor am I saying that we are "held at gunpoint" to do something that we would not normally desire to do. Neither do I imply that we do not have culpability for what we do. This said, we have to take scripture for what it says, and Paul clearly states a complete bondage of will in so much that his desire to do otherwise is overcome.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24What a wretched man I am!...

The whole purpose of this final volley is to put a final nail in the coffin of the "we are saved by works" argument. Who then "...will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Paul's purpose is not to explain how or why we are culpable, but rather why obedience to the law is incapable of saving us! There is a paradoxical tension here because we are held captive yet still held responsible. Perhaps, and I am thinking out loud here, there is a Stockholm syndrome kind of thing here in which our total allegiance to our captor is developed from birth, but the divine remnants of the Imago Dei, when confronted by the truth of God's reality, holds us necessarily responsible for our action because we were not created to be sinful, yet have chosen, without full understanding, to wilfully sin?


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
A strange conversation:
Jim: “My strongest desire was to do A; but I did B instead.”
Jack: “We’re you dragged, kicking and screaming?”
Jim: “No, I just decided to do B.”
Jack: “Then, you’re strongest desire was to do B—else you would’ve done A. Stop making excuses.”
This is the error of being too simplistic. You are discarding the fact of being captive to sin.

Jim: “My strongest desire was to do A; but I did B instead.”
Jack: “We’re you dragged, kicking and screaming?”
Jim: “No, I was convinced by my captor that doing B would not be wrong, and would benefit me, so I decided to do B.”
Jack: “Then, you’re strongest desire was to do B—else you would’ve done A.
Jim: No, for my captor had kept me from the full truth, and thus deceived me into believing his lie about the choice between A and B. Thus, while I chose B willingly, I did so under false pretenses. It was my captor that caused my choice by his deception! "It was no longer I that did it, but sin living in me!"


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
No, that's wrong. Demons can force people to do things.

Think of the man who kept cutting himself, you're insane if you think he wanted to do that, he immediately stopped doing it.

Plus I can't "will" to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul and strength.

Trust me I tried for 30 years.



I see that as a false dichotomy.

Paul can be speaking both hypothetically AND historically, that is not a logical impossibility.
There is no subjective mood to the passage. It is present tense indicative throughout.


Doug
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
A strange conversation:
Jim: “My strongest desire was to do A; but I did B instead.”
Jack: “We’re you dragged, kicking and screaming?”
Jim: “No, I just decided to do B.”
Jack: “Then, you’re strongest desire was to do B—else you would’ve done A. Stop making excuses.”

EDIT Petty Bickering
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

guest1

Guest
That doesn't prove anything. It's not like a (I assume you mean) subjunctive mood is necessary.

Never heard of a "subjective" mood.



There was no "bait and switch." I didn't bait you with anything, and nothing was switched.

Don't throw out fallacies you can't even prove... that's called a "red herring." I gave you a verse already.



If you can't put a simple logical point together, do you really think me reiterating it will make you persuaded?

The hypocrisy is that he wouldn't accept a form of argumentation he himself is using.



Constantly explaining such simple points is not enjoyable or profitable for me.

I hope you all enjoy your continued conversations.

Peace.
Chapter and verse I’m still waiting where the devil is responsible for a believers sin.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
That doesn't prove anything. It's not like a (I assume you mean) subjunctive mood is necessary.

Never heard of a "subjective" mood.
In Greek, the subjunctive mood is what is used when depicting or to depict a hypothetical or potential situation. There will be the telltale "if" within the immediate context of the intended hypothetical element. Moreover, it is always in the future tense, not in the past or present. (This is not to say that the subjunctive isn't used in the past or present tense, but my understanding is that a "hypothetical" scenario is always a future tense.)

Also, if I am understanding properly, εἰ (if) is typically used in the indicative mood, and ἐάν (if) is typically used for the subjunctive mood. The only use of "if" in Rom 7:14-25, is verse 16, "And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good", in which
"if" is the indicative mood's εἰ, not the subjunctive's typical ἐάν.

And it is the subjunctive mood...I think the spellchecker changed it and I missed it, my bad!


Doug
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
If sin reigns through Adam how is he in some sense not responsible for our sin nature?!!

Does he somehow become not responsible because he hurt other people?

I don't think so.
If, as Augustine said, “we all were that one man,” having been propagated from him in the entirety of our nature—moral, spiritual and physical—then how can we not share in Adam’s responsibility for that one sin? (Google “A strong Argument for Traducianism.”)
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Because we didn't exert Adam's free will decision, we are not sharing guilt specifically for his committed sin.

People are victims to Adam's failed delegated responsibility to be a good shepherd.
If our moral will is the will of our moral nature, and if that nature was not created out of nothing —brand new—for each of us, but was passed down through the generations from Adam to us, then the moral will of Adam was the moral will of all of us and we participated in his free will decision—not as victims but as joint perpetrators.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Nice bait n switch.

Now show me one born again believer in the bible who sinned because the devil made them do it ?

Chapter and verse please ?
If one takes Rom 7:14-25 as Paul being a Christian then that is precisely what he says! Fortunately, I do not, so I can’t answer your question!

Doug
 
G

guest1

Guest
For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. (Rom 7:22 NKJ)

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Rom 8:7 NKJ)
Do you know the meaning of the historical present tense ?
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. (Rom 7:22 NKJ)

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Rom 8:7 NKJ)
Is a Christian ever sold as a slave to sin? Is a believer ever completely unable to break the control of the sinful nature?

In Rom 6 & 8 Paul says we have been set free from the sinful nature’s control, and we are both able to fulfill all the righteous requirements of the law and are admonished that continuing to live under sins authority is to something a believer cando! How can Paul be a slave to sin in Rom 7?

Here again is Wallace’s explanation of the historical present tense:

“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.” (Romans 7:5) When Paul was formerly a slave to sin, he says, “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment … slew me.” (Romans 7:11.) So the sin, by the commandment, killed him. As Paul continues in his narrative he takes us to that exact experience in his past and gives us the account of his own history, whilst that sin was killing him, when he says: “Was that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, κατεργαζομένη (present tense – “IS WORKING”) death in me by that which is good.” (Romans 7:13) It is in this instance when the present tense begins to be used to describe his past experience. The KJV translates κατεργαζομένη as “working,” but other versions completely conceal the verb tense here by presenting it as a past tense verb (NKJV, NIV, HSCB, etc.). The reason why Paul switches to the present tense is to take us back, as it were, so that we may watch this past event as it unfolds. This is normal in Greek and is referred to as the Historical Present Tense. “The historical present is used fairly frequently in narrative literature to describe a past event. … The reason for the use of the historical present is usually to portray an event vividly, as though the reader were in the midst of the scene as it unfolds. … The historic present may be used to describe a past event, either for the sake of vividness or to highlight some aspect of the narrative.” – Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 531


Doug
 

Carbon

Well-known member
I’m sorry, Doug, but I cannot agree. Sin cannot be defined apart from the involvement of the will. If I overpower you, put a gun in your hand, point it at someone and use your finger to pull the trigger, are you guilty of shooting him? Only if you were complicit. Mens Rea. Neither do I find in Scripture that the sin nature forces anyone to sin without some involvement of the will. It is the moral nature itself that is corrupted, and the moral nature is the seat of the moral will. The idea of a poor sinner who wants with all his heart to not sin but is forced to do things against his will is a myth.
Yes, we sin because we want to. It’s not against our will
 
Top