Am I the only one on the planet who understands Romans 7?

[CadyandZoe]

How it's written, the figures of speech used, how the first half of the chapter is different from the bottom half.

Let's review the first half of the chapter and maybe you will see what I mean.

It's important to note the fact that Paul has begun to ask and answer a set of rhetorical questions to defend the Gospel against his detractors.

In chapter 7, the opening verses continue the question that Paul asked in 6:15, "Should we sin because we are no longer under the Law but under grace?" Paul has already emphasized that believers are no longer under the Law but under grace. In the latter half of chapter six and the beginning of chapter seven, he addresses the objection that if we are not under the Law, why should we live a righteous life? This implied objection is dealt with seriously by Paul. The fact that Paul both asks and answers this question indicates its importance.

Romans 7:1-3

Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.​

In this passage, Paul clarifies the law regarding marriage and the death of a spouse. Although he is addressing those who are familiar with the law, he does not assume that his readers are knowledgeable about it. Paul clearly lays out both the law and its implications, which informs both Jewish and Gentile readers. Even those who are unfamiliar with the law are not at a disadvantage because Paul explains the relevant points.

As we read, the question we should be asking in our mind is, "How does this answer the objection?" The passage above isn't intended to work in isolation. Paul will use the information above to draw an analogy, which he explains below.

Romans 7:4-6

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. ​

In this passage, Paul uses the law regarding marriage to draw an inference about the logical consequence of no longer being bound by the law. Those who oppose Paul's teachings argue that one cannot please God or earn His favor if they fail to keep the Law. They claim that Paul's gospel is wrong because no prophet or teacher would suggest that God would show favor to those who disobey His commands.

It is important to note that Paul is not addressing every Jew, but rather specifically the Pharisaical Jews who rely on the laws to gain God's favor. He argues that because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross, the Jewish Pharisees are no longer bound to the laws as a means to attain justification. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ have made it possible for all people, including Law obedient Pharisees, to seek God's favor through faith in Jesus Christ.

The old husband, who represents seeking justification through obedience, has died. As such, the obedient Jew is now free to seek another husband, who represents seeking justification through faith in the cross of Christ.

Paul follows this discussion with the answer to another implied objection. What about those, like Zacharias and Elizabeth who were blameless before the Law? Why can't they find justification through the law Paul? Does Paul seriously believe that there are no blameless Jews?

The latter half of chapter 7 answers that objection.

 

[Peterlag]

Let's review the first half of the chapter and maybe you will see what I mean.

It's important to note the fact that Paul has begun to ask and answer a set of rhetorical questions to defend the Gospel against his detractors.

In chapter 7, the opening verses continue the question that Paul asked in 6:15, "Should we sin because we are no longer under the Law but under grace?" Paul has already emphasized that believers are no longer under the Law but under grace. In the latter half of chapter six and the beginning of chapter seven, he addresses the objection that if we are not under the Law, why should we live a righteous life? This implied objection is dealt with seriously by Paul. The fact that Paul both asks and answers this question indicates its importance.

Romans 7:1-3

Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.​

In this passage, Paul clarifies the law regarding marriage and the death of a spouse. Although he is addressing those who are familiar with the law, he does not assume that his readers are knowledgeable about it. Paul clearly lays out both the law and its implications, which informs both Jewish and Gentile readers. Even those who are unfamiliar with the law are not at a disadvantage because Paul explains the relevant points.

As we read, the question we should be asking in our mind is, "How does this answer the objection?" The passage above isn't intended to work in isolation. Paul will use the information above to draw an analogy, which he explains below.

Romans 7:4-6

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. ​

In this passage, Paul uses the law regarding marriage to draw an inference about the logical consequence of no longer being bound by the law. Those who oppose Paul's teachings argue that one cannot please God or earn His favor if they fail to keep the Law. They claim that Paul's gospel is wrong because no prophet or teacher would suggest that God would show favor to those who disobey His commands.

It is important to note that Paul is not addressing every Jew, but rather specifically the Pharisaical Jews who rely on the laws to gain God's favor. He argues that because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross, the Jewish Pharisees are no longer bound to the laws as a means to attain justification. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ have made it possible for all people, including Law obedient Pharisees, to seek God's favor through faith in Jesus Christ.

The old husband, who represents seeking justification through obedience, has died. As such, the obedient Jew is now free to seek another husband, who represents seeking justification through faith in the cross of Christ.

Paul follows this discussion with the answer to another implied objection. What about those, like Zacharias and Elizabeth who were blameless before the Law? Why can't they find justification through the law Paul? Does Paul seriously believe that there are no blameless Jews?

The latter half of chapter 7 answers that objection.

So far so good. Now release the latter half of chapter 7.

 

[Peterlag]

For someone who claims to know the meaning of Romans 7, you say things that reveal to me you don't actually know what Romans 7 means. Paul never mentions his "old man" anywhere in the passage. And yes, he is talking to Jewish Christians living in Rome. He isn't talking to Jewish unbelievers.

Secondly, if you are NOT interested in Paul's use of language, then you are not interested in his meaning, and if you are not interested in what he means to tell you, then how can you claim to understand what he said?

Your bottom line, it seems to me, is the imaginary message of your own making. I knew this about you, which is why I asked you to explain Paul's analogy, so that you might come to know yourself better. Why? So you have an opportunity to change your mind and allow Paul to teach you.

This is where we part...

1.) Old man or in the flesh... same thing.
2.) There's no such thing as a Jewish Christian in the Bible.
3.) I did not answer you concerning the analogy because it has nothing to do with what I wrote about concerning Romans 7.

Bottom line: You think Paul is talking to Christians. I do not. Christians are not those in the flesh. And again Romans 8 tells you that...

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[rebuilder 454]

actually your last part about john not always being in the SPIRIT is not what that implies .
IT simply implies He was in the SPIRIT , ON THE LORDS DAY . meaning the day of the LORD and what would ential thereon
was shown HIM while He was caught UP in the SPIRIT .

no
that is not what it says.
It says he was in the Spirit FIRST.(on a certain day of the week)
...and while in the Spirit, He turned and saw Jesus.
So you need to re read what it really says.

 

[Peterlag]

no
that is not what it says.
It says he was in the Spirit FIRST.(on a certain day of the week)
...and while in the Spirit, He turned and saw Jesus.
So you need to re read what it really says.

I believe "in the spirit" deals with the Greek word menō translated "abide" that often deals with being in him, which I'm very concerned about when it comes to walking in Christ, which I believe is the same as walking in the spirit. To be in him or to abide in him deals with remaining or continuing to be present. To dwell, live, and be within him to the end that we are operative in him by his divine influence and energy. My first red flag that started me looking into how to do this was when I realized it's the Catholics that teach we are sinners. They teach us to look at ourselves and our sin. I teach that we should look at Christ and to walk in his spirit.

 

[Ritajanice]

I believe the same about you. I too am sorry.

Maybe it’s a spiritual matter...some don’t understand because you speak in the Spirit?

Plus reading a lot of posts , being Born Again, seems to mean very differently for many on here, some seem to think you can read you are Born Again, that’s a definite No,No, becoming Born Again is a Supernatural act that only God can do.

You try explaining “ Spirit gives birth to spirit “ ..just like flesh gives birth to flesh.

Spirit gives birth to spirit.....God makes our spirit Born Again....I agree a Born Again doesn’t sin, because we know that in our spirit, when we became Born Again by the hand of God/ His Spirit.....

Reading posts on here, it’s like they are trying to understand in their intellect....whereas it’s understanding in the Spirit....they lack maturity in the Spirit, they are still understanding in their own intellect....only God can give them the power to understand in the Spirit, providing they are truly Born Again.this is my opinion..

 

[CadyandZoe]

So far so good. Now release the latter half of chapter 7.

Paul is defending the gospel against his detractors by using a series of rhetorical questions. In the previous section, Paul used an analogy with the Law regarding marriage. The Law is to the husband as seeking justification is to the wife. Just as the wife is free from her husband after he dies, a Jewish person is freed from the Law as a means to attain justification if it can be demonstrated that seeking justification through the Law is no longer a viable option.

Paul has yet to provide a defense for his claim that obeying the Law is not a viable means to achieve justification from God. As he is promoting his gospel, which asserts that justification is obtained solely through faith, independent of the Law, he must demonstrate to his readers that the Law was never a viable option.

To sum it up, Paul argues that the law that prohibits coveting is impossible to follow because it goes against human nature. People tend to desire things that are forbidden by God, including other people. Since everyone breaks this law, and it requires perfect obedience, it's impossible to seek justification through obedience in light of our failure to keep the Tenth Commandment.

Paul isn't suggesting that Jewish people have this trait exclusively. All human beings, including Paul, suffer against the same human nature. Through the Holy Spirit we can mitigate and control our lust, but no one, including Paul, can excise lust and coveting from our nature. We are sinners at the core of our being and there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is where we part...

1.) Old man or in the flesh... same thing.
2.) There's no such thing as a Jewish Christian in the Bible.
3.) I did not answer you concerning the analogy because it has nothing to do with what I wrote about concerning Romans 7.

Bottom line: You think Paul is talking to Christians. I do not. Christians are not those in the flesh. And again Romans 8 tells you that...

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1.) Old man or in the flesh... same thing.
Whether or not these two terms mean the same thing depends on the context.

Paul employs the phrase "Old Man" to indicate our former way of life.

Ephesians 4:22
that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,

To "put on" something means to commit to a course of action, while to "put off" something means to abandon a particular course of action. Therefore, to "take off" the Old Man is to make a firm commitment to abandon our former way of life, and to "put on" the New Man is to make a firm commitment to follow Jesus Christ and be led by the Holy Spirit.

You may be thinking of . . .

Romans 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Many people mistakenly believe that Paul employs the term "flesh" to indicate carnality, which isn't true. Rather, Paul employs the term "flesh" to indicate our identity and place in society. Consider the following example, taken from the opening paragraph of the epistle.

Romans 1:1-4

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, ​

Here we see that Paul employed the term "according to the flesh" to indicate Jesus' human lineage. He was born a descendant of David. In this way, Paul makes a distinction between Jesus' human origins and his divine origins. He was a son of David according to the flesh, and was also a son of God according to the Spirit of holiness.

So then, when Paul declares, "while we were in the flesh," he doesn't mean to say, "while we were living a carnal lifestyle." He means to say, "While we presumed on our Jewish lineage (in the flesh) as evidence of God's approval, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death." In other words, Paul and his kinsmen did the latter WHILE he was doing the former. The latter half of Romans 7 is a full explanation of this condition.

2.) There's no such thing as a Jewish Christian in the Bible.
Have you never read that Jesus and the apostles were both Jewish and Christian?

3.) I did not answer you concerning the analogy because it has nothing to do with what I wrote about concerning Romans 7.
I understand, but just so you know, if you don't understand that Paul is defending his gospel against his detractors and how the opening lines of Romans 7 work to support his arguments, then how can you say that you understand Romans 7?

What you said about Romans 7 fails to explain how Paul's statements work to defend the gospel.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Okay it seems people in here don't understand what walking in the Spirit means. They do not understand that term "in the Spirit." And so this gets back to the starting place that Jesus outlined.
Jesus commanded the disciples not to do anything, not to start a Ministry, not to go out and preach, not to do anything until they were endued with power.
So we see the starting place for the believer.
It's not salvation, it's an enduement with power to the ones that are already born again, and saved, that's called the baptism in the Holy Spirit or you can say baptism by the Holy Spirit or however you want to say it, it's a Holy Spirit baptism.
When I got saved it was during the charismatic Revival and I saw Miracles everywhere I saw people caught up and ministered to an awesome ways in the Holy Spirit. The river of God would come and people would be so disarmed it's like they couldn't even move because the power of God was all over them. And so I can tell that most people in here have obviously not had the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They're trying to just Define it in their intellect. It's like taking a swimming class and they've never gotten into the water they know all the concepts or think they do but they can't really talk from experience.
The Bible's never intended to be that way. It's never intended for us to just be spectators, and never experience what they did on the day of Pentecost.
So I think that's why people have no idea what John was really talking about when he said ,"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day"

 

[Peterlag]

1.) Old man or in the flesh... same thing.
Whether or not these two terms mean the same thing depends on the context.

Paul employs the phrase "Old Man" to indicate our former way of life.

Ephesians 4:22
that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,

To "put on" something means to commit to a course of action, while to "put off" something means to abandon a particular course of action. Therefore, to "take off" the Old Man is to make a firm commitment to abandon our former way of life, and to "put on" the New Man is to make a firm commitment to follow Jesus Christ and be led by the Holy Spirit.

You may be thinking of . . .

Romans 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Many people mistakenly believe that Paul employs the term "flesh" to indicate carnality, which isn't true. Rather, Paul employs the term "flesh" to indicate our identity and place in society. Consider the following example, taken from the opening paragraph of the epistle.

Romans 1:1-4

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, ​

Here we see that Paul employed the term "according to the flesh" to indicate Jesus' human lineage. He was born a descendant of David. In this way, Paul makes a distinction between Jesus' human origins and his divine origins. He was a son of David according to the flesh, and was also a son of God according to the Spirit of holiness.

So then, when Paul declares, "while we were in the flesh," he doesn't mean to say, "while we were living a carnal lifestyle." He means to say, "While we presumed on our Jewish lineage (in the flesh) as evidence of God's approval, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death." In other words, Paul and his kinsmen did the latter WHILE he was doing the former. The latter half of Romans 7 is a full explanation of this condition.

2.) There's no such thing as a Jewish Christian in the Bible.
Have you never read that Jesus and the apostles were both Jewish and Christian?

3.) I did not answer you concerning the analogy because it has nothing to do with what I wrote about concerning Romans 7.
I understand, but just so you know, if you don't understand that Paul is defending his gospel against his detractors and how the opening lines of Romans 7 work to support his arguments, then how can you say that you understand Romans 7?

What you said about Romans 7 fails to explain how Paul's statements work to defend the gospel.

Like many words they have many meanings and the word "flesh" in Romans 1:1-4 is not the same "flesh" in Romans 7. God does not write about Jewish Christians. You can and you can write many books about the many Christians you know who are Jewish. But God does not write like that and we are trying to understand what he wrote and not what you write.

 

[Peterlag]

Paul is defending the gospel against his detractors by using a series of rhetorical questions. In the previous section, Paul used an analogy with the Law regarding marriage. The Law is to the husband as seeking justification is to the wife. Just as the wife is free from her husband after he dies, a Jewish person is freed from the Law as a means to attain justification if it can be demonstrated that seeking justification through the Law is no longer a viable option.

Paul has yet to provide a defense for his claim that obeying the Law is not a viable means to achieve justification from God. As he is promoting his gospel, which asserts that justification is obtained solely through faith, independent of the Law, he must demonstrate to his readers that the Law was never a viable option.

To sum it up, Paul argues that the law that prohibits coveting is impossible to follow because it goes against human nature. People tend to desire things that are forbidden by God, including other people. Since everyone breaks this law, and it requires perfect obedience, it's impossible to seek justification through obedience in light of our failure to keep the Tenth Commandment.

Paul isn't suggesting that Jewish people have this trait exclusively. All human beings, including Paul, suffer against the same human nature. Through the Holy Spirit we can mitigate and control our lust, but no one, including Paul, can excise lust and coveting from our nature. We are sinners at the core of our being and there is nothing we can do about it.

Well, then I'm the only one who does not sin in him. I thought Paul figured it out, but you say he did not. I know I figured it out and to help others see it I wrote this last night...

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

I no longer try to get God or Jesus Christ to work with me or to get close to me. I now spend much of my time right inside the spirit as close as I can get right in their face. The Greek word menō translated "abide" often deals with being in him, which I'm very concerned about when it comes to walking in Christ, which I believe is the same as walking in the spirit. To be in him or to abide in him deals with remaining or continuing to be present. To dwell, live, and be within him to the end that we are operative in him by his divine influence and energy. My first red flag that started me looking into how to do this was when I realized it's the Catholics that teach we are sinners. They teach us to look at ourselves and our sin. I teach that we should look at Christ and to walk in his spirit.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Well, then I'm the only one who does not sin in him. I thought Paul figured it out, but you say he did not. I know I figured it out and to help others see it I wrote this last night...

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

I no longer try to get God or Jesus Christ to work with me or to get close to me. I now spend much of my time right inside the spirit as close as I can get right in their face. The Greek word menō translated "abide" often deals with being in him, which I'm very concerned about when it comes to walking in Christ, which I believe is the same as walking in the spirit. To be in him or to abide in him deals with remaining or continuing to be present. To dwell, live, and be within him to the end that we are operative in him by his divine influence and energy. My first red flag that started me looking into how to do this was when I realized it's the Catholics that teach we are sinners. They teach us to look at ourselves and our sin. I teach that we should look at Christ and to walk in his spirit.

The Bible says "walking in the Spirit" with a capital "S". You never put a capital S when you use that same phrase. And apparently you do it with no red flags. But I think it's deeper than that.
I think you got your own set of beliefs and you're trying to make that Bible fit that belief system you got.

 

[Peterlag]

The Bible says "walking in the Spirit" with a capital "S". You never put a capital S when you use that same phrase. And apparently you do it with no red flags. But I think it's deeper than that.
I think you got your own set of beliefs and you're trying to make that Bible fit that belief system you got.

I have my own set of beliefs because I'm an advanced Christian who has studied the Scriptures in detail and so I have a deeper knowledge than your average Christian. Take for example the words "spirit" and "Spirit" that you brought up...

The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.” The Bible says there is one God, and one Lord, who is the man Jesus Christ; and one gift of the holy spirit. Most Christians are aware that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, it's not well known that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have upper-case and lower-case letters, but rather they just have one form for their letters.

Greek does have upper and lower-case letters, but the early Greek manuscripts were all written with only upper-case letters. Therefore, the early manuscripts had no such thing as the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because what was always written was the "HOLY SPIRIT." The capital or lower-case letters are always a translator’s interpretation whenever we read “Holy Spirit” or “holy spirit” or “Spirit” or “spirit” in the English Bible. The difference is usually due to the theology of the translator. The bottom line is we cannot know from the Hebrew or Greek texts whether the Author meant the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because we must decide based on the context and scope of Scripture whether the reference being made is to God or God’s gift.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Like many words they have many meanings and the word "flesh" in Romans 1:1-4 is not the same "flesh" in Romans 7. God does not write about Jewish Christians. You can and you can write many books about the many Christians you know who are Jewish. But God does not write like that and we are trying to understand what he wrote and not what you write.

How are they different?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well, then I'm the only one who does not sin in him.

You never lust?

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

In the text you provided, a scripture is quoted that uses the term "sin" as an action. However, in the final paragraphs of Romans 7, "sin" is described as a noun, referring to who Paul is, rather than what he does. It is important to note that even those who abide in Him do not sin, but they still have sin within them.

Do you understand the distinction?

 

[Peterlag]

You never lust?

In the text you provided, a scripture is quoted that uses the term "sin" as an action. However, in the final paragraphs of Romans 7, "sin" is described as a noun, referring to who Paul is, rather than what he does. It is important to note that even those who abide in Him do not sin, but they still have sin within them.

Do you understand the distinction?

You brought up to points so let me answer both...

1.) The reason I cannot lust in the flesh when following after the spirit is because it's impossible to do so since the spirit of Christ does not lust after the flesh. Religious people don't follow after the spirit, but rather they follow after their flesh and call it spiritual. The religious folks lead with their flesh and call it Christian. The church folks clean up their flesh by making themselves nice. Then they say this is Christian because we are being nice like the way Jesus was.

2.) May I have the verse you are referring to in the final paragraph of Romans 7?

 

[Peterlag]

How are they different?

How are they different you ask? The word "flesh" for an example in Romans 8:9 is not talking about your arm.

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...

 

[CadyandZoe]

You brought up to points so let me answer both...

1.) The reason I cannot lust in the flesh when following after the spirit is because it's impossible to do so since the spirit of Christ does not lust after the flesh. Religious people don't follow after the spirit, but rather they follow after their flesh and call it spiritual. The religious folks lead with their flesh and call it Christian. The church folks clean up their flesh by making themselves nice. Then they say this is Christian because we are being nice like the way Jesus was.

2.) May I have the verse you are referring to in the final paragraph of Romans 7?

I noticed you qualified your response. I asked you whether you lust, not whether you lust when you are following the Spirit. I maintain that you lust just like everyone else.

 

[CadyandZoe]

How are they different you ask? The word "flesh" for an example in Romans 8:9 is not talking about your arm.

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...

I didn't ask you about the definition of "flesh". I asked you how Jews are different than Gentiles with regard to lust. All people lust.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

How are they different you ask? The word "flesh" for an example in Romans 8:9 is not talking about your arm.

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...

Still waiting for you to declare whether or not you commit sin anymore.. A simple yes or no is all that is needed. As Jesus said let your yes be yes and your no be nor, anymore comes from evil.