Hi Scott
Thank you for your reply.
he is using a grammatical construct called the "Historical Present" for emphasis.
Agreed.
The context of Romans 7 must be considered as well as the specifics
of what Paul discusses when coming to an understanding of what he is
speaking about.
Romans 6 basically covers the gift of God which is eternal life THROUGH Jesus Christ (
Rom 6:23) and the methodology of how one enters into Christ via repentance and faith wehreby one is set free from sin (
Rom 6:4-7) and thus walks in this free state (
Rom 6:8-13) whereby righteousness is produced (
Rom 6:16) due to yielding to God (
Rom 6:17-18) which bears the fruit of holiness (
Rom 6:19) the end of which is eternal life (
Rom 6:22). The whole dynamic being a gift of God which works through Jesus Christ (
Rom 6:23).
Romans 7 then opens with a description of how one moves from the "law" to "Christ" and Paul uses the illustration of marriage (
Rom 7:2-4). He is also writing to those who "know the law" (
Rom 7:1)
and then proceeds to defend the law from the perception that one might
deem the law to be bad due that it empowers sin to kill (
Rom 7:5-13).
Agreed. The man described believes that he is required to keep the law but tries in his own strength.I made this mistake but it was not my experience of it being before Christ apprehended me, I thought that I was as good as the next man. I did not grieve for my sins. Then one day the truth was revealed to me that Christ died for my sins. I had never been struggling before that. When I heard the good news I understood that I was a sinner and I felt relieved and grateful for what He gave me as a gift. I did not feel I had to earn it or try.
But consider this - how few in the church have ever been brought to the Lord with the full gospel. They are told that Christ will slowly sanctify them. This is what I was told and why I eventually came to a point of despair as what went on inside me was not what the scriptures told me should be going on. I wanted to be obedient but something stopped me yet I believed in Christ and that He alone could save me. Many have also been through this..
Rom 8:1 There is therefore
now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For
the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Verse 2 above is the solution for the wretch. One must enter into the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ. This occurs via
Rom 6:4-7 (ie. repentance and faith) whereby one is raised up by the power of God (
Col 2:12), refreshed (Act 3:19) and quickened (
Eph 2:5) whereby ALL THINGS have become new (
2Cor 5:17).
So
basically Romans 6, 7 and 8 all harmonise for Paul is simply getting
deep into the methodology and reasoning of being born again. Rom 6 is
the HOW. Rom 7 is the WHY. Rom 8 is the RESULT.
Agreed, but there was a gap in there for me as I had not been taught the full gospel. And until the full gospel had been revealed to me by Christ himself, I consider that I was a believer but not yet a `little Christ` and walking as He walked.
I ask you to consider this.
"Arminus taught that until Augustine, the most common view of Romans
7 was the one he was teaching. Arminius taught that becoming a
Christian delivered a person from the power of the law and the dominion
of sin and where this did not occur, neither did regeneration (2
Corinthians 5:17).
Ironically, Vic Reasoner points out that Augustine changed his
views on Romans 7. Early on Augustine held the same view as Arminius
over the person of Romans 7, mainly that Paul was describing a man under
the law and dominion of sin. He published his views under the title
Exposition of certain Propositions in the Epistle to the Romans. In
the book, Augustine wrote that this chapter (Romans 7) must be
understood as relating to a man under the law and that this and not to a
man under grace. However, Augustine over-reacted to the Pelagian heresy
(where Pelagius was teaching sinless perfection through human free will
and rejected the Augustine theory of original sin and total depravity)
and he begin to teach that Romans 7 was to be understood as the highest
state of Christian experience (and obvious over-reaction to Pelagius who
was teaching that Romans 7 described an unsaved man). Augustine reacted
by retracting the second position (that the person of Romans 7 is not a
man under grace) but not the first. Augustine then made the sin in
Romans 7 to be sexual desire and he reduced original sin to sexual
desire and thus he made the human body sinful and even regenerated
persons would be struggling with sin their entire lives thereby.
http://arminiantoday.com/2009/07/12/arminius-on-romans-713-25/"
The writer is wrong here - Pelagius did not preach that it was an unsaved man. If that was what he taught then he and Augustine would not have been in dispute about it. As said, Augustine did an about turn and brought into the church a new interpretation known now as Calvinism.
What you are saying was not what Pelagius taught but it was the teaching of the majority of the church before the dispute. Pelagius was teaching holiness doctrine which was in the minority as always, Because the church does not teach this doctrine, many come to Christ as believers but are not yet saved. They hear the truth, if they are blessed to come across it that sin has no place in the life of a true disciple, and they cry out in desperation as they know they cannot keep the law because they have tried that is, if they have not become reprobate. They have not understood that the Spirit gives power to live a holy life and instantly once they believe it.
I have another question - do you believe that unintentional sin is allowed?
Just to make it clear ;
Calvinsim - the man is a normal Christian
Arminianism - the man is an unbeliever
Traditional Holiness before Pentecostalism - the man has come to a crisis whereby he has been serving God in his own strength because he did not know any better. This is where Pelagius stood as there is no other way to interpret Romans 7 apart from the ways mentioned.