Poster | Thread |
Croref Member
Joined: 2008/3/18 Posts: 334
| Re: | | by proudpapa on 2012/11/10 6:57:12
Hi Croref
Croref wrote ///No,no. Bro. Re-read a few more times///
I have read it hundreds of times! practicaly have it memorized, it is a first person narrative of a past tense event.
Indeed__it is a "past tense" event__one Paul got the "first person"al victory over. He then sets out to reveal how it can be done IN us if we are truly IN Christ.
The word, "Abide" somehow comes to mind. . )) |
|
2012/11/10 10:05 | Profile |
proudpapa Member
Joined: 2012/5/13 Posts: 2936
| Re: | | start at verse 9 (For I was alive without the law once) that is Paul saying once upon a time,(past tense) He than goes into describing His (past life,Past tense)life before conversion before Grace being brought up under the law. He end with the conclusion (who shall deliver me from the body of this death?) and than gives the solution to that question (I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.)
Romans 7 is unarguably a man under the Law not A Christian under Grace |
|
2012/11/10 10:07 | Profile |
Croref Member
Joined: 2008/3/18 Posts: 334
| Re: | | by proudpapa on 2012/11/10 7:07:37
Romans 7 is unarguably a man who WAS ONCE under the Law and not a Christian, who came into the knowledge of Jesus Christ, became a Christian and, in the process of learning Christ, moved out of condemnation and into His life.. |
|
2012/11/10 10:16 | Profile |
proudpapa Member
Joined: 2012/5/13 Posts: 2936
| Re: Croref | | Hi Croref
If Romans 7 is speaking of the Crucifying prossess or learning of Christ. Than Paul would not have started the narrative at his Birth as what he did in verse 9 |
|
2012/11/10 10:36 | Profile |
Croref Member
Joined: 2008/3/18 Posts: 334
| Re: | | Whatever Proudpapa. It's all there I see as being the case. I don't believe I am wrong. |
|
2012/11/10 10:41 | Profile |
proudpapa Member
Joined: 2012/5/13 Posts: 2936
| Re: | | D.M. Lloyd Jones,Commentary on Romans,Zondervan,1980,pp 251,252 All the scripture in their accounts and descriptions of the regenerate man teach the exact opposite of what we find here in Romans 7.But we must go further.I suggest that to interpet Romans 7 in terms of the fully regenerate man-Paul at his best-is indeed to place the regenerate man at his best in an inferior position to the saints of God under old testament teaching... 'To appoint unto them that mourn in zion,to give them beauty for ashes,the oil of joy for mourning,the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.' In such words Isaiah had already answered Romans 7 nearly eight centuries beforehand. These are the blessings of the gospel dispensation-beauty,joy,praise! It is the very antithesis of 'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' "Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that if you interpret Romans 7 as referring to the regenerate man you are really excluding the doctrine of sanctification altogether.Or if not that, It certainly excludes the possibility of any growth in sanctification... So it comes to this,that the more Christian a man becomes the more miserable he becomes,and the highest point he reaches will mark the greatest depth of his misery..."
|
|
2012/11/10 10:43 | Profile |
proudpapa Member
Joined: 2012/5/13 Posts: 2936
| Re: | | The reason I am so adamantly opposed to the doctrine of sin nature and Romans 7 taught as the normal Christian life is because I was once inslaved to gross habitual sin and I excused it in my mind with these beliefs, It was not untill I had these views challenged did I truly come to a relization of my own personal depravity and my true need of a savior.
edit: I am going to change the word 'understanding' to 'beliefs' to more accurately articulate my point |
|
2012/11/10 10:51 | Profile |
Croref Member
Joined: 2008/3/18 Posts: 334
| Re: | | by proudpapa on 2012/11/10 7:51:29
The reason I am so adamantly opposed to the doctrine of sin nature and Romans 7 taught as the normal Christian life is because I was once inslaved to gross habitual sin and I excused it in my mind with these understandings, It was not untill I had these views challenged did I truly come to a relization of my own personal depravity and my true need of a savior.
You just told me you didn't read a word of my replies for understanding __and now I know why. Thank you. |
|
2012/11/10 11:08 | Profile |
Croref Member
Joined: 2008/3/18 Posts: 334
| Re: | | by proudpapa on 2012/11/10 7:43:33
D.M. Lloyd Jones,Commentary on Romans,Zondervan,1980,pp 251,252 All the scripture in their accounts and descriptions of the regenerate man teach the exact opposite of what we find here in Romans 7.
Throw out your commentaries, especially him and others like him who write from a position of unbelief and protectionism of their doctrine, read your bible and write your own. |
|
2012/11/10 11:10 | Profile |
proudpapa Member
Joined: 2012/5/13 Posts: 2936
| Re: Croref | | Hi Croref
I do not use commentaries for any other reason than to see if any of them has came to the same conclusion as I have, I believe for the most part that they muffle the Word of God. As in this case I only use it to show that my perspective is held by others than just myself and since they often times are better at articulating the belief, You keep speaking of Chambers and others so do not take a position as though you only read your bible.
|
|
2012/11/10 11:38 | Profile |