Romans 7:14-25, Do the unregenerate have inner conflict about God's law?
- Thread starter Ethan1942
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Romans 1 has reference to the born again (regenerate) persons who have turned away from God. Verse 19 & 21 separates them from the unregenerate persons; Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shown it unto them. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
If we cannot see ourselves, at times, by our fleshly nature, in the description of these people, when we commit sins, then we are not humbling ourselves enough.
The unregenerate person, as described in 1 Cor 2:14, can never understand the things of the Spirit, thinking them to be foolishness.
Adam Clarke the Methodist commenting on the parallel passage in Matt. 9:17 -
"Verse 17. New wine into old bottles] It is still the custom, in the eastern countries, to make their bottles of goat skins: if these happened to be old, and new wine were put into them, the violence of the fermentation must necessarily burst them; and therefore newly made bottles were employed for the purpose of putting that wine in which had not yet gone through its state of fermentation. The institutes of Christ, and those of the Pharisees, could never be brought to accord: an attempt to combine the two systems would be as absurd as it would be destructive. The old covenant made way for the new, which was its completion and its end; but with that old covenant the new cannot be incorporated.
Christian prudence requires that the weak, and newly converted, should be managed with care and tenderness. To impose such duties and mortifications as are not absolutely necessary to salvation, before God has properly prepared the heart by his grace for them, is a conduct as absurd and ruinous as putting a piece of raw, unscoured cloth on an old garment; it is, in a word, requiring the person to do the work of a man, while as yet he is but a little child. Preachers of the Gospel, and especially those who are instruments in God's hand of many conversions, have need of much heavenly wisdom, that they may know to watch over, guide, and advise those who are brought to a sense of their sin and danger. How many auspicious beginnings have been ruined by men's proceeding too hastily, endeavouring to make their own designs take place, and to have the honour of that success themselves which is due only to God."
I always consult Adam Clarke and find him excellent. Yet, holding to a distinctively Methodist view of Rom. 7:14, it was Clarke who I had in mind in my post. It seems that the Nazarenes, Pentecostals and Charismatics who followed much of early Methodist beliefs, hold likewise on Rom. 7:14. When I compare the biblical reasoning among the various commentators of old, I find the Reformed and Baptists give the more solid basis to indicate Paul spoke in the present as he experienced conflict as a Christian.
I do my own studies for sure, and I don't hesitate enough to consult men of God who I respect highly, and history shows their commentaries have stood the test of time. I quit listening to just one viewpoint years ago.
"Verse 17. New wine into old bottles] It is still the custom, in the eastern countries, to make their bottles of goat skins: if these happened to be old, and new wine were put into them, the violence of the fermentation must necessarily burst them; and therefore newly made bottles were employed for the purpose of putting that wine in which had not yet gone through its state of fermentation. The institutes of Christ, and those of the Pharisees, could never be brought to accord: an attempt to combine the two systems would be as absurd as it would be destructive. The old covenant made way for the new, which was its completion and its end; but with that old covenant the new cannot be incorporated.
Christian prudence requires that the weak, and newly converted, should be managed with care and tenderness. To impose such duties and mortifications as are not absolutely necessary to salvation, before God has properly prepared the heart by his grace for them, is a conduct as absurd and ruinous as putting a piece of raw, unscoured cloth on an old garment; it is, in a word, requiring the person to do the work of a man, while as yet he is but a little child. Preachers of the Gospel, and especially those who are instruments in God's hand of many conversions, have need of much heavenly wisdom, that they may know to watch over, guide, and advise those who are brought to a sense of their sin and danger. How many auspicious beginnings have been ruined by men's proceeding too hastily, endeavouring to make their own designs take place, and to have the honour of that success themselves which is due only to God."
I always consult Adam Clarke and find him excellent. Yet, holding to a distinctively Methodist view of Rom. 7:14, it was Clarke who I had in mind in my post. It seems that the Nazarenes, Pentecostals and Charismatics who followed much of early Methodist beliefs, hold likewise on Rom. 7:14. When I compare the biblical reasoning among the various commentators of old, I find the Reformed and Baptists give the more solid basis to indicate Paul spoke in the present as he experienced conflict as a Christian.
I do my own studies for sure, and I don't hesitate enough to consult men of God who I respect highly, and history shows their commentaries have stood the test of time. I quit listening to just one viewpoint years ago.
The inspired scriptures of God do not contradict themselves, they rather prove themselves when compared to each other.
Those that Jesus died for, who were given to him by his Father, (John 6:39) were redeemed on the cross, and have the security of an inheritance of heaven. God looks at those that Christ died for as holy and without blame, (Eph 1:4), and says their sins are as far away as the east is from the west.*Psalms 103:12).(Rom 4:7-8) When those that he died for are born again to the new spiritual life, (Eph 2:1-5), they still carry the baggage of their fleshly nature with them, and do oft times yield their bodys to the temptations of sin,(Rom 7:19-25), however these sins that they commit, are not held accountable to them, as far as their eternal inheritance is concerned. (Rom 4:7-8).
They do, however, lose their fellowship with God, until they repent, because God will not fellowship sin, He even turned his back on his Son, during the 3 hours of darkness, while he carried the sins of those that God gave him.
Some born again, sincere, students of the bible, make a mistake in referencing other men's interpretation of the scriptures, when they would be better off, just using the scriptures to prove themselves.
-
1
- Show all
This is one of the reasons I believe there are no true atheists or agnostics. They know God is real. They just choose to not believe (which means to put into practice what one knows in their mind).
Belief in God is the default setting of people. That is why there are no "non-believers" (as in the absence of belief) only unbelievers (as in the unraveling of belief).
Belief in God is the default setting of people. That is why there are no "non-believers" (as in the absence of belief) only unbelievers (as in the unraveling of belief).
-
1
- Show all
That's what I'm trying to figure out. They change the Word and then can't define their own words they changed it too. Habitual sinning make no sense whatsoever because it only too 1 sin to bring the entire human race into hellfire.
A child of God will never, ever, lose there fellowship with God. Nor does a child of God have to repent because repentance has already been given by the Holy Spirit.
A child of God goes astray in their flesh, chastening cometh.
A child of God will never, ever, lose there fellowship with God. Nor does a child of God have to repent because repentance has already been given by the Holy Spirit.
A child of God goes astray in their flesh, chastening cometh.
[
“I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
Luke 13:3 KJV
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
2 Peter 3:9 KJV
“in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”
2 Timothy 2:25-26 KJV
He convinces us it’s alright to keep sinning and Jesus is trying to convince us to acknolwedge the truth and repent before it’s too late
“I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
Luke 13:3 KJV
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
2 Peter 3:9 KJV
“in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”
2 Timothy 2:25-26 KJV
He convinces us it’s alright to keep sinning and Jesus is trying to convince us to acknolwedge the truth and repent before it’s too late
Jesus will not lie to you. When he healed the sick, he said “go and sin no more.” Jesus would not ask you to do something that is impossible for you to do. Paul on the other hand has admitted to lying in order to gain followers.
Paul preaches a different gospel and contradicts the disciples who learned at the feet of Jesus. I believe Paul is the antichrist which John speaks of. Even Peter noted that Paul’s message is hard for even him to understand.
Note also that Paul claims to have private revelations and appearances that no one else could attest to even though Jesus clearly preached that when he comes again everyone will know.
Paul preaches a different gospel and contradicts the disciples who learned at the feet of Jesus. I believe Paul is the antichrist which John speaks of. Even Peter noted that Paul’s message is hard for even him to understand.
Note also that Paul claims to have private revelations and appearances that no one else could attest to even though Jesus clearly preached that when he comes again everyone will know.
