SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Evan Roberts Quote
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Romans 6, 7 & 8

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
theevangelist
Member



Joined: 2003/8/1
Posts: 82
United States Of America

 Re:

Quote:
Now hold on guys. This may be the way we behave out in the street but were not on the street corner here we are in a family, or so I thought.



You're right brother. Now let's get back to our topic.

The Evangelist

 2004/10/5 15:06Profile
theevangelist
Member



Joined: 2003/8/1
Posts: 82
United States Of America

 Re:

Here's another thing. I'll keep it a little basic so people can actually understand what I'm saying. Why in the world would the Apostle go from Chapters 5 & 6 (dealing with the believer)to chapter 7 (dealing with the unbeliever) then back to chapter 8 (dealing once more with the believer)? Is it because he forgot what he wanted to say to them so he had to bring it back up? Why in the world? That's a whole lot of nonsense. But the way I see it is, you're missing one of the main points of the New Covenant and also a great blessing by believing that this chapter was dealing with the non-believer. Are there not Christian people who are struggling with sin? Yes, there are. And I don't say this from a harsh spirit, I say it out of concern that the reason for it is that they are believing the same lie that you are. Romans 6, 7, & 8 cannot be separated. It's trying to cross a bridge with no middle. It's tring to build a home with no roof. It has leaks and they're coming from somewhere, but where? Exactly my point. Romans 7 is for the believer. If they throw it out, they'll continue to have the same old problems with sin because they are still under the Law of Moses. I know what it is to stumble and get up stumble and get up. But now I'm knowing freedom in the New Covenant and NOT the Old Law. His Blood Still Sets Men Free!!!


The Evangelist

 2004/10/5 15:57Profile
anthonyd
Member



Joined: 2004/10/5
Posts: 2


 Re:

i agree with the evangelists post. that's good stuff. i'd really like to hear more

anthony

 2004/10/5 19:31Profile
Nasher
Member



Joined: 2003/7/28
Posts: 404
Watford, UK

 Re:

Hi theevangelist, in Romans 7:17 it says

and now it is no longer I that work it, but the sin dwelling in me,(YLT)

Can the sin dwell in a person and the Holy Spirit also dwell in a person at the same time?


_________________
Mark Nash

 2005/7/25 6:32Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Why in the world would the Apostle go from Chapters 5 & 6 (dealing with the believer)to chapter 7 (dealing with the unbeliever) then back to chapter 8 (dealing once more with the believer)? Is it because he forgot what he wanted to say to them so he had to bring it back up? Why in the world? That's a whole lot of nonsense.

This is a while ago but it still deserves an answer perhaps. If you read “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
(Rom. 2:12-16, KJVS) you will see a set of parentheses (brackets) beginning at verse 13 and ending with verse 15. We could ask the question; 'why would Paul go back to the theme of judgement last seen in verse 12 when he get to verse 16?'

You will not find these parentheses in the original Greek text? Rom. 2:12 osoi gar anomoœs eœmarton, anomoœs kai apolountai; kai osoi en nomoœ eœmarton, dia nomou kritheœsontai;
Rom. 2:13 ou gar oi akroatai tou nomou dikaioi para toœ Theoœ, all oi poieœtai tou nomou dikaioœtheœsontai. They are not present in Tyndale's version either; And as many as haue synned vnder the lawe shalbe iudged by the lawe. 13 For before god they are not ryghteous which heare ye lawe: but the doers of the lawe shalbe iustified. The reason is that ancient languages did not have parentheses. This has quite serious consequences for translation and interpretation from the originals. If you have ever read old writings by Tyndale or Luther you may have noticed how patterns of thinking from older times are quite different to our modern ones. An average sentence in modern English has less that 20 words. Ephesians 1:15-23 has one sentence with 198 words in it!

Ancient minds were able to hold a clause with several sub-clauses and even sub-sub-clauses. Modern minds struggle with this. Here is an experiment for you. Read this passage and tell me if it makes sense...
“But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

I think you will see that the argument runs pretty consistently through this section scripture. But the passages are Rom. 5:15-21; 8:1-4, [b]I have omitted the whole of chapter 6 and chapter 7.[/b] I would like to suggest that the whole of Chaps 6 and 7 can be read as a parenthesis, illustrating the truth found in Rom 5. In fact, the KJV puts the whole of Rom 5:13-17) into a parenthesis too!

We have a phrase over here that speaks about someone 'taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut'. If you read Paul's letter to the Galatians you will see he proves his point again and again, raining a series of sledgehammar blows on salvation through personal merit. This was his style. It is quite in keeping with Paul's style to regard Rom 6 and 7 and illustrative of the truths of Rom 5. To restrict Paul's to a strict linear chronology here is to misunderstand the pattern of ancient thought and rhetoric.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/25 10:31Profile
Manfred
Member



Joined: 2005/4/4
Posts: 342
Continental Europe

 Re: Romans

I don't usually get involved into theological debates, it's not my "cup of tea". (Having said this, I must say that I do have a large collection of theological works on my shelves - and I do read theology). But two things made me jump off my chair reading this last post.

1)

Quote:
Why in the world would the Apostle go from Chapters 5 & 6 (dealing with the believer)to chapter 7 (dealing with the unbeliever) then back to chapter 8 (dealing once more with the believer)?



I have read this theory, in a very few places, that Romans 7 deals with the unbeliever. But frankly it doesn't make any sense. Throughout Paul speaks as a believer to believers, (Romans 1: 1, 7). I don't want to enter too much into this, but if you have the opportunity, I would recommend that you read these two excellent sources:

a) In L. S. Chafer's Systematic Theology:

- Volume II, Chapter XXII, part VI, "The Christian's Sin and its Remedy".

- Volume VI, chapter XVI, "Related Doctrines".

b) In C. C. Ryrie's "So Great Salvation", chapter 6, "What is Carnality?"

2)
Quote:
I would like to suggest that the whole of Chaps 6 and 7 can be read as a parenthesis



Brother, we cannot understand the epistle to the Romans, and much less the nature of salvation and the Christian life without these two most important chapters.

To suggest that chapters 6 and 7 can be read as a parenthesis is misleading people, and is lowering the foundamental importance of the whole epistle. I would go as far as to say that Romans 6 is the key chapter so as to be able to understand the meaning of salvation.

But let me add something quickly: chapter 6 can only be seen and not merely understood. That is we need revelation to see the significance of Romans 6, and that is where mere theology fails.

Manfred

 2005/7/25 11:16Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
But let me add something quickly: chapter 6 can only be seen and not merely understood. That is we need revelation to see the significance of Romans 6, and that is where mere theology fails.


OK so what are we saying here? You have revelation but I have mere theology? A parentheses does not imply that it is not important but that the sense can be carried through from either side of the parentheses. As with all the scripture these chapters are vital to our understanding, but the flow of the argument can be captured by flowing from Chap 5 to Chap 8. You will know, of course, that there were no such chapter divisions initially.

I am familiar with the opinion that Romans 7 is Paul's current testimony; I just don't believe it, and am quite prepared to tell you why.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/25 13:52Profile
Manfred
Member



Joined: 2005/4/4
Posts: 342
Continental Europe

 Re: Romans

Quote:
OK so what are we saying here? You have revelation but I have mere theology?



Ron,

I've never implied the above. It wasn't personal, but a general remark that theology is not enough.

Manfred

 2005/7/25 14:15Profile
Manfred
Member



Joined: 2005/4/4
Posts: 342
Continental Europe

 Re: Romans

Quote:
I am familiar with the opinion that Romans 7 is Paul's current testimony; I just don't believe it, and am quite prepared to tell you why.



Ron,

Of course, each one of us here "believe" what he wants, and I am certainly not going to try to make you change your mind; I know too well that some of the things we "believe" are so inwrought in us that change is unlikely.

I have always thought, from my reading and studying of the Scriptures, that Romans 7:12-25 was the experience of a believer. And I have been encouraged by others, as I bought their books over the years, that hold to this interpretation: L. Berkhof, R. Haldane, W. Hendriksen, F. F. Bruce, L. Morris, W. R. Newell, L. S. Chafer, C. C. Ryrie and R. C. H. Lenski; just to mention some of whose writings I have. And there are others, Hendriksen says that Luther and Calvin held this interpretation too.

There are other opinions. Among those who believe that this passage speaks of the unbeliever are: the Pelagians, Arminians, Pietists, Augustine (who popularised this interpretation), and P. Mauro.

Another opinion is the one of W. H. G. Thomas who said that the passage referred to a Jew.

I just cannot see how Paul could suddenly turn from speaking of a believer's experience to that of an unbeliever, especially when we realise that his argument is progressive and heads towards chapter 8.

But as I said, everyone's free to believe as he wishes. And I do accept that I could be wrong, but right now, as far as I got in my spiritual pilgrimage; I understand that Paul speaks here of a believer.

Manfred

 2005/7/25 14:31Profile









 Re: Romans 7

philologos writes

Quote:
I am familiar with the opinion that Romans 7 is Paul's current testimony; I just don't believe it, and am quite prepared to tell you why.

Manfred writes

Quote:
And I do accept that I could be wrong, but right now, as far as I got in my spiritual pilgrimage; I understand that Paul speaks here of a believer.

Are you brothers saying the same thing - that Paul [u]is[/u] a believer in Romans 7 - [u]but[/u], Manfred is saying Paul was still experiencing difficulties and philologos is saying Paul is defining a difficulty he has now solved?

 2005/7/25 15:02





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy