Moving beyond Romans 6 into the higher calling of Christ.

[Episkopos]

If we are born again of the Spirit, we have entered into the race of faith...whether we are willing participants or not. We are not to change God's ways to feel secure at whatever stage we are at.

The error that so many make is to pit righteousness against holiness, instead of seeing these as complimentary....as in..."From righteousness unto holiness." Instead, these will claim to be something they are not. Losing both holiness AND righteousness in the process.


We see the progression of a faithful believer "from righteousness unto holiness," or at least God expects us to discover, through faith and humility, what the race of faith is all about. Nobody goes into Romans 8 without the humiliation of realizing we are unable to advance just by wanting to. That is by fully taking in the Romans 7 experience of futility. For many, Romans 7 is a dead end…like the Israelites coming up against the Red Sea. It will take a miracle to proceed.


So we are to progress from Romans 6 to Romans 8...or we should be honest and try to do so.


Romans 6 is about a change of lifestyle, from sin to righteousness, that we can assume everyone here has experienced at least .... through redemption and regeneration of the Spirit. But the flesh is yet to be fully dealt with by the cross.


Romans 6:19 "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness."


Moving forward, Romans 7 is about being honest about a lack of power to fully overcome sin. Paul is honest about it. He lays out the scandal of desiring to do what is right but falling short...missing the power to fulfill what he so ardently desires to do. Most people in our time are not honest about this. Instead they will claim that Romans 6 is sufficient, since there is no such thing as the higher walk. When these encounter the same difficulties as Paul did...they will elevate the Romans 6 walk by pushing out all the righteous, to have it for themselves...rather than admit their own weakness and move forward BY FAITH.


Romans 8 is about the walk in the victory of Christ...above sin. So few have experienced that level of walk so as to make it that a kingdom man is as rare as the gold of Ophir...as was prophesied. Where is the faith?


So many are as the servant who buried his talent. Instead of moving forward into the deeper walk...most will remain smug and begin to judge others unrighteously...holding the truth but in unrighteousness....naming and claiming to have all they need in a state of destitution and poverty. Claiming to be rich, they are made blind and poor. They end up serving themselves and defending their status instead of humbling themselves and being instructed in righteousness. The regeneration for these, rather than helping them forward becomes a stumbling-block because of a reliance on the flesh and the unrenewed mind. They don't enter into the kingdom realm of the Spirit because of unbelief. And they will not tolerate correction of any kind. They will use the bible as an excuse to be smug and to not walk out what they have begun with by the grace of God. They remain unchanged in their stubborn reliance on vain religion rather than on the Lord.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Its sad that people focus on how good they are, or how good they think they are and miss the whole purpose of the roman road (romans 1 - 7) altogether.

It is typical of pharisees to pump their chest while rejecting the true believers like the tax collector who was not even able to look up. and cried out for mercy.

it was he who went home justified. not the religious pharisee.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by his mercy he saved us.

We need to be saved first. by the washing and new birth of God. The God changes us from the inside out.

 

[Hepzibah]

As far as most believers know, two interpretations of Romans 7 have dominated church history and are, the so called Primitive (pre Christian) and the Post-Primitive (normal Christian). Augustine held to the Primitive in his early years but he changed his position to the Post-Primitive at a later date. The reason that he changed his position was because of the heated discussions with Pelagius. There is another view held from the start but it says that perfection or Theosis is not only possible, but expected 1Cor 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1Thes 4:3 For this is the will of God even your sanctification 1Peter 1:16 Be ye holy for I am holy.

This view was always held in the minority and was the opposite of the view held by Augustine until he changed to the new third way. There are only three interpretations of Romans 7 and which one we accept shows our whole attitude and position about this important doctrine. It is explaining the struggle of a man before coming to Christ or a man afterwards and the man afterwards, is either unable to stop sinning or perfect or rather, being purified.

The Primitive view is that Romans 7 describes the salvation experience and Paul is writing as an unregenerate soul. Augustine said “It is understood that man is here described who was never under grace” on Romans 7, Homilies. This is the view that Augustine held until Pelagius challenged him over his view that man is totally depraved.

“In his argument, Pelagius referred to the passage under consideration, saying that this was a palpable case in which, by the universal assent of the church, the state and character of the unregenerate man is described. He then asked, if approving the right, and hating the the wrong, and 'delighting in the law of God' did not imply that there was something good even in such a man?

Augustine could not deny the fact, the case being so palable, of the universal agreement of the church in the deduction that it was the unregenerate man referred to in the passage; nor did he perceive how, admitting the correctness of the universally received exposition, he could meet the argument of his opponent. Under such perplexity, Augustine denied the validity of his own and the universal, and adopted the few and before, unheard of, exposition, a most needless resort and a most calamitous one for the spiritual good of the church” J Schmidz (Romans 7)


Augustine did not change to Pelagius’ view:
Pelagius taught that man could stop sinning. Pelagius was trying to show Augustine that Romans 7 was not the so called Primitive view but the Apostolic view.. Augustine realised his first view was untenable that Paul described the unregenerate but the second view was untenable for Augustine because it says that man can indeed stop sinning as we clearly see in Romans 6 and 1 John.

Pelagius taught the Apostolic view which is that Paul is speaking about the (carnal) believer in Romans 7 but is not the normal condition of a man which is the stance Augustine changed to. Those who do not accept the view that it is a (carnal) Christian speaking point to the fact that there is no mention of grace or of the work of the Holy Spirit in the chapter. But this is not because there is no Holy Spirit or grace. Far from it. The opposite is true actually. But the person describing the event is not aware of it. It seems as though God has deserted actually, as the person comes to an extreme point because God is convicting the man of his sinfulness, which is known in revivals.

Paul is discussing experience here not doctrine. He came to a point of time when he saw himself as God saw him as he sought righteousness through the works of the law, even good practices. And all Christians seek to do this unless they adopt Augustines’ position and excuse their sin which is the position held by Calvinists.

In the Bible, salvation sanctification and justification are all one event but describing the differing aspects of it. This means that one is not really saved until they are perfected which is the Orthodox view. Jesus came to save us from our sins and until this is done, then we are still in them and not saved even though we have been given 'The power to become the son's of God' as a possibility but not yet an actuality until the provision of sanctification through the cross, is appropriated by man and he is delivered from not just the penalty from sin but also the power and the presence.


To say that Romans 7 cannot be the experience of a (carnal) Christian only means that the person has not experienced it themselves. Many saints have and this is why they say along with Pelagius that this is the experience of the (carnal) Christian, under the hand of God, being shown the utter utter inability of man to be righteous by obeying His law whilst still in the flesh. The crisis experience described by Paul, has to be gone through in order to come out in Romans 8, walking in the Spirit and pleasing God at last.

This Apostolic view has been rejected by most of the church through the ages and the reason why Pelagius has had such treatment. By his dispute with Augustine and his understanding of Romans 7, it is my contention that he did not teach that the Christian could stop sinning on his own accord. Far from it. It needed the divine interaction of God to bring about the change needed to get Paul from Romans7 to Romans 8.

Perhaps some are misled to think that Pelagius’ denial of original sin means that the man born innocent remains so. This is a presupposition. All men fall just like Adam and become sinners in need of salvation. It is thought that it occurs somewhere around the fourth year of life.

 

[Episkopos]

As far as most believers know, two interpretations of Romans 7 have dominated church history and are, the so called Primitive (pre Christian) and the Post-Primitive (normal Christian). Augustine held to the Primitive in his early years but he changed his position to the Post-Primitive at a later date. The reason that he changed his position was because of the heated discussions with Pelagius. There is another view held from the start but it says that perfection or Theosis is not only possible, but expected 1Cor 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1Thes 4:3 For this is the will of God even your sanctification 1Peter 1:16 Be ye holy for I am holy.

This view was always held in the minority and was the opposite of the view held by Augustine until he changed to the new third way. There are only three interpretations of Romans 7 and which one we accept shows our whole attitude and position about this important doctrine. It is explaining the struggle of a man before coming to Christ or a man afterwards and the man afterwards, is either unable to stop sinning or perfect or rather, being purified.

The Primitive view is that Romans 7 describes the salvation experience and Paul is writing as an unregenerate soul. Augustine said “It is understood that man is here described who was never under grace” on Romans 7, Homilies. This is the view that Augustine held until Pelagius challenged him over his view that man is totally depraved.

“In his argument, Pelagius referred to the passage under consideration, saying that this was a palpable case in which, by the universal assent of the church, the state and character of the unregenerate man is described. He then asked, if approving the right, and hating the the wrong, and 'delighting in the law of God' did not imply that there was something good even in such a man?

Augustine could not deny the fact, the case being so palable, of the universal agreement of the church in the deduction that it was the unregenerate man referred to in the passage; nor did he perceive how, admitting the correctness of the universally received exposition, he could meet the argument of his opponent. Under such perplexity, Augustine denied the validity of his own and the universal, and adopted the few and before, unheard of, exposition, a most needless resort and a most calamitous one for the spiritual good of the church” J Schmidz (Romans 7)


Augustine did not change to Pelagius’ view:
Pelagius taught that man could stop sinning. Pelagius was trying to show Augustine that Romans 7 was not the so called Primitive view but the Apostolic view.. Augustine realised his first view was untenable that Paul described the unregenerate but the second view was untenable for Augustine because it says that man can indeed stop sinning as we clearly see in Romans 6 and 1 John.

Pelagius taught the Apostolic view which is that Paul is speaking about the (carnal) believer in Romans 7 but is not the normal condition of a man which is the stance Augustine changed to. Those who do not accept the view that it is a (carnal) Christian speaking point to the fact that there is no mention of grace or of the work of the Holy Spirit in the chapter. But this is not because there is no Holy Spirit or grace. Far from it. The opposite is true actually. But the person describing the event is not aware of it. It seems as though God has deserted actually, as the person comes to an extreme point because God is convicting the man of his sinfulness, which is known in revivals.

Paul is discussing experience here not doctrine. He came to a point of time when he saw himself as God saw him as he sought righteousness through the works of the law, even good practices. And all Christians seek to do this unless they adopt Augustines’ position and excuse their sin which is the position held by Calvinists.

In the Bible, salvation sanctification and justification are all one event but describing the differing aspects of it. This means that one is not really saved until they are perfected which is the Orthodox view. Jesus came to save us from our sins and until this is done, then we are still in them and not saved even though we have been given 'The power to become the son's of God' as a possibility but not yet an actuality until the provision of sanctification through the cross, is appropriated by man and he is delivered from not just the penalty from sin but also the power and the presence.


To say that Romans 7 cannot be the experience of a (carnal) Christian only means that the person has not experienced it themselves. Many saints have and this is why they say along with Pelagius that this is the experience of the (carnal) Christian, under the hand of God, being shown the utter utter inability of man to be righteous by obeying His law whilst still in the flesh. The crisis experience described by Paul, has to be gone through in order to come out in Romans 8, walking in the Spirit and pleasing God at last.

This Apostolic view has been rejected by most of the church through the ages and the reason why Pelagius has had such treatment. By his dispute with Augustine and his understanding of Romans 7, it is my contention that he did not teach that the Christian could stop sinning on his own accord. Far from it. It needed the divine interaction of God to bring about the change needed to get Paul from Romans7 to Romans 8.

Perhaps some are misled to think that Pelagius’ denial of original sin means that the man born innocent remains so. This is a presupposition. All men fall just like Adam and become sinners in need of salvation. It is thought that it occurs somewhere around the fourth year of life.

Amen. God is trying to win us over into a deep spiritual intimacy. But most just want to justify themselves for believing that Jesus came to do good. What good? They don't know. Salvation is what their self-interest tells them...even begs them to have. They just trust that by affirming Christ and giving him lip-service...even going so far as to "point to him"...that this in itself, without the spiritual kingdom walk, is enough for God to smile on them on judgment day.

Don't change or repent...just point. That will justify a person?

And if this was done in humility...rather than trying to take away from the higher walk...that would be commendable.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

But most just want to justify themselves for believing that Jesus came to do good. What good?

Who teaches this nonsense?

Please post someone saying this