Salvation and Obedience: Can you have one without the other?

[Our Lord's God]

Hmmm... If I say, "You obviously need to learn how to read and you obviously need how not to change the subject," do you find that a polite, respectful, cogent 1 Cor. 13:4-7 kind of argument? Your response did not address a single point I made. The first-person and present-tense language was completely ignored. Paul can easily move back and forth past, present and/or future in chapter 6, or 8 or 99,000 and still use the first-person and present tense in chapter 7. Your argument is a false dichotomy, NOT a sound exegesis of the Romans 3-8 narrative.

I'm not the one ignoring the facts am I?

The person in Romans 7 is a slave to sin and your interpretation flies in the face of Paul's words in Romans 6.

And if you can't keep the posts about the posts and not the posters don't expect further replies from me. Keep your posts topical, not personal.

 

[Josheb]

I'm not the one ignoring the facts am I?

Yes, you are.

The person in Romans 7 is a slave to sin and your interpretation flies in the face of Paul's words in Romans 6.

You might give consideration to using a formal translation instead of a dynamic one. I recommend the NAS. The Greek simply states, "having been sold under sin." So, once again, the evidence proves your views wrong, and indisputably, irrefutably so. Stop reading the text doctrinally and read it exactly as written.

Then form doctrine.

Paul had been sold under sin. As a consequence, he was "unspiritual." The problem of not understanding his own behavior persisted even after conversion (as is the case here in this thread with you). He did things he didn't want to do and he didn't do things he wanted to do. He desired to do good (not something an unregenerate desires). The epistolary is filled with examples of Christians sinning. One man is having sex with his father's mother and the entire congregation tolerates it! (1 Cor. 5:1). Paul called these people, "the church of God," "those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy," and "saints by calling." In other words, saints who had been called out by God (ekklesia) that Paul labeled "sanctified by Christ," "called to be holy," AND "saints" tolerated a violation of Lev. 20:11 within their ranks. This is evident in nearly every single one of the epistles.

Which means your rendering of Romans 7 (and 6) contradicts the precedents set in almost every other epistle.



So you can post ad nauseam protests all you like but my reply will be the same: look at the text as written and read it that way. Paul used the first person singular and wrote in the present tense through most of chapter 7. He was writing about himself as a Convert of more than 20 years. Blessedly, the problems he described in Romans 7 are addressed in the very next chapter where we learn despite those problems there is now no condemnation for those in Christ. The problems of the mind of flesh verses the mind of the Spirit persist but that is a vast improvement over the prior state when all a non-convert had was his flesh, his sinfully sinful dead and enslaved unregenerate flesh. After conversion, not only can a convert have a mind of the Spirit, but he can also have confidence there is now no condemnation, God works all things for good according to His purpose, and nothing can separate him from the love of God found in Christ Jesus. If this were not the case, then verse 33 would be meaningless; there'd be no charges to bring. Paul brings Romans 5:9 forward to conclude the five-chapter narrative with "It is God who justifies," and all the wonderful things Jesus does on our behalf (like intercession). If this were not the case the James 2:24ff is meaningless and there is no need for further confession, repentance, mercy, grace, forgiveness, or reconciliation after conversion.

Just read the text as written.

 

[Josheb]

Yes he has been sold under sin. And Paul tells us that he had been set free from being a slave to sin.

Then you agree the previous post was incorrect when it stated, "The person in Romans 7 is a slave to sin." That is NOT what the text states. Your post was wrong. Your view of the scripture is wrong. Now, instead of acknowledging the error you're changing the point.

Coward.

Or are you ignorant...

And I find ad hominem just as cowardly.

The person he described (himself) is NOT a slave to sin as you previously claimed. I meant what I said. Read the text exactly as written. Paul uses first person singular and present tense language in that chapter. He uses much more diverse language leading up to and following that chapter, but in that portion of his five-chapter narrative he is explicitly, undeniably, irrefutably, objectively, demonstrably using first-person singular and present-tense language.


Read the text as written.

Adjust your thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly. And then be just as critical of those who teach differently as you are of my posts. Be an equal opportunity critic.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Then you agree the previous post was incorrect

edit per mod

Paul was a slave of sin. When he wrote Romans, he was no longer a slave of sin because he had been set free.

when it stated, "The person in Romans 7 is a slave to sin." That is NOT what the text states. Your post was wrong. Your view of the scripture is wrong. Now, instead of acknowledging the error you're changing the point.

Coward.

And I find ad hominem just as cowardly.

I think you find whatever it is your personal desires want to find.

The person he described (himself) is NOT a slave to sin as you previously claimed.

Paul was no longer a slave to sin.

No born again believer is.

I meant what I said. Read the text exactly as written. Paul uses first person singular and present tense language in that chapter.

He sure does.

He uses much more diverse language leading up to and following that chapter, but in that portion of his five-chapter narrative he is explicitly, undeniably, irrefutably, objectively, demonstrably using first-person singular and present-tense language.


Read the text as written.

Adjust your thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly. And then be just as critical of those who teach differently as you are of my posts. Be an equal opportunity critic.

I don't need to adjust the facts.

 

[Josheb]

No, are you deaf man?

No, I am not. You have repeatedly been asked not to be rude or disrespectful, and to keep the posts about the posts.

EDIT PER MOD- Do not attempt to correct the behavior of board posters.

 

[Our Lord's God]

That is also ture but it is also irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the text of Romans 7. Romans 7 does not say he IS a slave to sin. Romans 7 does NOT state the person he is describing IS a slave to sin. That is NOT what it states. What Romans 7 does state he IS fleshly, HAVING BEEN sold under sin. The slavery to sin is past tense. The fleshliness is present tense. Having previously been sold under sin he IS fleshly. Those are the facts of the text.

Were you honestly expecting this absurd claim to somehow work?