Is reprobation theological....or isn't it?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Let me try to be more clear. I am not talking about the persons Moses and Jesus I am talking about the teachings of Moses and Jesus. Jesus said that he had not come to destroy the Books of Moses but to complete them… one has no idea what the heck that means if one is not aware of the Books of Moses. I am not addressing the historical Jesus, nor am I interested in examining if Moses really was the sole author of the Torah. Both those pursuits are totally irrelevant to my point. I am speaking to their teachings…

I think I am getting it... You are seeing what I understand as the Oddyssey of the human race after the Fall in its God-led journey back to and beyond the Garden as a progression of teachings that began with Moses and the Pentateuch of teachings, and then unfolded as development [or at least explications] of the initial body of teachings all the way through sacred history right on up through Jesus and to the present time... Am I doing better?

We would have no idea what “captives of sin” means unless we have knowledge of the Fall (Genesis 3). So what you write here has as its foundation the words and teachings of Moses – you refer to “the Promised Land”. You can write those words and I can understand them because we are familiar with the words and teachings of Moses. It is in The Books of Moses that the Promised Land is defined

True enough - For we are speaking here together from a Christian and thereby Old Testament perspective about human experience, from the ontology of our own souls... I grew up outside this acquired frame of reference, btw - I have had to acquire it, insofar as I have been able...

And from that old perspective [eg pre-Christian], I would have told you that there wassimply something very terribly wrong in my soul that I did not understand, and could not make right or get rid of... Having now the metaphor of the Captivity of the Jews in Egypt under Pharoah, I am now able to UNDERSTAND in a helpful way my own personal oddyssey from slavery into freedom...

I mean, the captivity of the People of God under Pharoah is, qua Sacred History, the history of every person, and every family, and every people, in their return and reconciliation and restoration to the condition they had prior to the Fall, of in secular terms, prior to their present condition of soul that is so troubling for them...

If there were no Books of Moses there would be nothing for Jesus to explain. Why bother to even acknowledge the Books of Moses if they were not crucial to Jesus' own teachings?

They spoke of Christ prophetically... And were designed to identify Him to those who were faithful under the Law... I mean, and here is my issue with this, you are presenting Jesus as this great teacher who explained more fully the teachings of Moses, where Moses is the North Star and Jesus is the great pan-creation explicator of the previously established words and teachings of Moses, upon whose shoulders he stands...

And my reply is that while God most assuredly prepares the way for those who are His upon this earth, this does not make Christ in any way dependent upon [eg standing upon the shoulders of - eg having as His foundation] anything at all which He created... That would be the same as saying that He stood on the shoulders of the words teachings of the greatest of all the Prophets, John the Baptist, and this is clearly falsifiable by the Gospels...

And if you see it this way, then you see the ontology of souls being prepared for the Coming of Christ as ideas and teachings, and this ontology is far, far deeper than such a [necessarily superficial] beginning... And while you can ontologically argue that the ontology failed, because the Jews rejected and killed our Savior, can you even begin to imagine such an event taking place anywhere ELSE?? The Jews were looking for, at least the pious among them, the Messiah... They were ontologically prepared for the coming of Christ... No other people was...

It is similar to saying that all writings on psychology and psychoanalysis stand on the shoulders of Freud. Why? Because Freud defined the terms. So when any psychologist refers to the Id or Ego one need understand the writings of Freud to fully understand what they mean.

This elegantly illustrates the trap you are in - What you call the inspirational issue... For Freud was not thus so inspired... And he is, to modern psychology what Decart is to modern philosophy, and that is, a dead end, a backwater that today is not even any longer swirling, but stagnant and growing nothing but slime... And this because, just as you say, they defined the terms, but more importantly, established the ontology of mind, that answers to fallen man, and not to God... fwiw, the same can be said of Homer, who established the Hellenic mind... ""All the philosophers had to answer to him, even 500 years and more after his death... And yet even all this was a part of the preparation of the pagans for the Coming of Christ...

The wretched state of psychology today can be laid at the feet first of Descartes, and second at the feet of Freud... Entering into, and then understanding, the human person in Patristic Terms, which IS a part of the Sacred History of the People of God, was one of the most liberating of the steps in my own path into Orthodoxy... What it means to be a person, and the role of repentance, and our profound need, on a daily and hourly and even second to second basis, for God's Grace, and what brings it into our lives, and what sends it away from us, in terms of behavior and conduct that is either repentant or unrepentant... And the crucial role of genuine and profound humility for the salvation of our souls, and for the reception of the Grace of God...

But none of this could come as a progression of ideas, but had to come ontologically through the actual condition of soul that is ongoing and changing... It cannot be understood as a matter of more and more words and teachings, but of pain, suffering, and defeat...

Ideas and teachings, apart from this, are cheaply heard and easily tossed into the trash...,

But when Christ died, the sun itself darkened...

I will try to give a simple example/exercise:

At the completion of creation in Genesis 1 the Creator proclaims a divine assessment: all that is created is very good. If one is not aware of this divine assessment of creation then one may miss the major thrust of Jesus’ words and teachings. I offer as an exercise to reread the words and teaching of Jesus through the lens of this divine assessment. Perhaps we then might understand better Jesus teachings that we judge not… perhaps we would understand better what is meant by τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν (John 7:24). This is a shallow example, it barely scratches the surface of what I am speaking of… I hope is clarifies more than confuses.

Warmest,
RonC

[greeek]Mh krinete kat oqin [/greek]

Be ye not judging according to surface appearance

[greek]alla thn dikaian krisin krinate[/greek]

but instead the just judgment do ye judge [and not "do ye be judging"]

In order to understand this, and especially to understand it in terms of the goodness of the original creation, and indeed in terms of fallen creation, one must know what [greek]dikaian krisin[/greek] is... And this is an inner matter that does not abide in the outer formulaics of words and teachings, but instead is apprehended by the Grace of God,in an ontology of soul that has been purified in the fiery trials of repentance... And there darkly, but with startling results, for the ver4y shadow of the apostles healed the sick, and gave sight to the blind, for this was the manner in which they judged just judgement...

And you are right, creation was created by God and is good... It is SO good that it FELL wioth the Fall of Adam, to help his offspring in their return to God... And this has relationship with just judgment...

So that it is not the body of words and teachings so much as the ontological preparation of soul, of which words and teachings are but a beginning part, that matters in the understanding of the return of mankind to the Grace and Kingdom of God, and the restoration of our fallen souls...

Arsenios

[Trusty]

You really didn't answer my question. You quoted a Bible verse without explaining how it applies. Then you said a lot of things that you think are not true. Then you went off on Bruce Ware again, and mentioned some guy named Thomas Schreiner.

I did, I even added emphasis for you from the verse.

I was simply trying to enlighten you on who Bruce Ware is, as someone that peddles the very thing Paul refutes, and who he runs with in theological crowds. If you never heard of these guys, all the better for you I think. j/k

[Trusty]

And my reply is that while God most assuredly prepares the way for those who are His upon this earth, this does not make Christ in any way dependent upon [eg standing upon the shoulders of - eg having as His foundation] anything at all which He created... That would be the same as saying that He stood on the shoulders of the words teachings of the greatest of all the Prophets, John the Baptist, and this is clearly falsifiable by the Gospels...

I don't think he is saying that though. The teaching from Christ, as with the foundation laid by Moses, recorded in Scripture are not the same thing as the status and ontology of Jesus in relation to creation.

Jesus said they did indeed point to Him (John 5:31-47...Paul says essentially the same thing in Romans 3:21) as you pointed out in the paragraph above the one I quoted, but that only makes RonC's point. What Jesus teaches is expounded from the common reference He had from His audience during His ministry.

The number of people nowadays that look to Paul to hand them systematic theology for Christianity over the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels is evidence enough that RonC makes a good point to all this.

[RBerman]

I did, I even added emphasis for you from the verse.

You cited the verse, but you did not explain it. I can cite the verse too, since I believe it. Here, I'll even put in in context:

Romans 7:14-25

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Where does that leave us?

[Trusty]

You cited the verse, but you did not explain it. I can cite the verse too, since I believe it. Here, I'll even put in in context:

Romans 7:14-25

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Where does that leave us?

Where we began.

Disagreeing on how to interpret this text.

Disagreement on whether when believers sin, it is, at that moment, exactly what they most want to do.

Both separate issues, though with overlapping themes.

My contention about the text: It does not describe believers.

My contention about committing a sin: when a person does any sin (or any X), it is not necessarily that which they most wanted to do in that instant (regardless of how one wants to apply this text, it still teaches that people do not always do that which they most want to do).

You disagree...I'm fine with that.

[Chappie]

Where we began.

Disagreeing on how to interpret this text.

Disagreement on whether when believers sin, it is, at that moment, exactly what they most want to do.

Both separate issues, though with overlapping themes.

My contention about the text: It does not describe believers.

My contention about committing a sin: when a person does any sin (or any X), it is not necessarily that which they most wanted to do in that instant (regardless of how one wants to apply this text, it still teaches that people do not always do that which they most want to do).

You disagree...I'm fine with that.

Why not?

[Trusty]

Why not?

Well, there are three main options I've seen:

1. It is about unregenerate Jews ( or unregenerate in general)
2. It is about Adam
3. It is about Christians

and then Thomas Schreiner in his Baker commentary goes for the cake and eat it too path of "all the above" more or less.

I think #1 fits the context. Look at my other posts in this thread for my arguments on that.

[RonC]

Please forgive me in that I do not know if my salutation should be to George or to Arsenios... my instinct is that George is your given name and that you relate intimately or aspire to follow the sainted Arsenios who was guided to flee from the world of the flesh and thus became a monk... of coursde, you could take me to task as engaing in Freudian psychobable!

We seem to be as ships passing in the night, so I will not try to correct your misunderstandings of what I wrote, I will rather take responsibility for the misunderstandings as they may well have been due to my lack of clarity.

Here is something simple and clear that I think might address what I am saying, at least in part.

In order to understand this, and especially to understand it in terms of the goodness of the original creation

In my reading of the scripture, there was (is) only one creation and one Creator. The divine assessment proclaimed by that Creator in Genesis 1:31is as true today as it was when first proclaimed by elohiym and/or revealed to Moses-- as far as I am aware -- there was (is) no other creation and there was (is) no other creative force in the universe which can alter divine creation...

elohiym created all and elohiym, upon completion of the creation of all, declared all which was created to be "very good". This is the foundational teaching of the OT. That is why it is the first chapter of the first book. That is why the Greek father's chose to render the Hebrew בְּרֵאשִׁית as ἐν ἀρχῇ... in the beginning/ at the foundation/in first principle... not only the beginning of time/creation, but also in the beginning as in first or foundational principal... that which is the support of all else. The first principle is that בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים -- "God created [all]" ... and this first chapter of this first book on the foundation of creation reveals the divine truth of the essence of that creation: it is very good.

Without this bright star of divine truth as our guide we will wander aimlessly in the desert...

RonC

[Chappie]

Well, there are three main options I've seen:

1. It is about unregenerate Jews ( or unregenerate in general)
2. It is about Adam
3. It is about Christians

and then Thomas Schreiner in his Baker commentary goes for the cake and eat it too path of "all the above" more or less.

I think #1 fits the context. Look at my other posts in this thread for my arguments on that.

Romans 7:14-25
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

I can only reconcile this as pertaining to believers. Let me show you why... First of all this is written by Paul in the present tense. He describes himself as torn between his old nature and his new nature. Unbelievers do not experience this struggle because God has not imparted unto them the new nature through faith in Christ. They are still free to sin without the conscience of the new nature. In harmony with his new nature, Paul's conscience desire is to do the right thing. But even with the impartation of the new nature, the old nature is still present.

The flesh, the old nature is still pulling Paul towards sin. There is no struggle to do good in the unregenerate man. Unregenerate man does not acknowledge his wretchedness and seek a savior as Paul does. "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

Notice Paul's acknowledgement of his two adversarial natures. "I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." Please show me what part of these -passages do you think apply to an unregenerate man, a man still possessed by the old nature alone. Only a believer would call upon the name of Christ as Paul does...

[Trusty]

Romans 7:14-25
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

I can only reconcile this as pertaining to believers. Let me show you why... First of all this is written by Paul in the present tense. He describes himself as torn between his old nature and his new nature. Unbelievers do not experience this struggle because God has not imparted unto them the new nature through faith in Christ. They are still free to sin without the conscience of the new nature. In harmony with his new nature, Paul's conscience desire is to do the right thing. But even with the impartation of the new nature, the old nature is still present.

The flesh, the old nature is still pulling Paul towards sin. There is no struggle to do good in the unregenerate man. Unregenerate man does not acknowledge his wretchedness and seek a savior as Paul does. "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

Notice Paul's acknowledgement of his two adversarial natures. "I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." Please show me what part of these -passages do you think apply to an unregenerate man, a man still possessed by the old nature alone. Only a believer would call upon the name of Christ as Paul does...

I take the passage to refer to the unregenerate Jew. The present is the rhetorical device of "I" called prosopopoeia.The Romans 7 man is at war, the Romans 8 man is at peace, Romans 7 man is in the flesh, Romans 8 man is in the Spirit, etc. The contrasts are striking.

Normally you are better at doing your homework, but I repeated what I've already said briefly here out of charity. For further thoughts of mine on this, go to pages 5 and 6 of this thread.

[Trusty]

Romans 7:14-25
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

I can only reconcile this as pertaining to believers. Let me show you why... First of all this is written by Paul in the present tense. He describes himself as torn between his old nature and his new nature. Unbelievers do not experience this struggle because God has not imparted unto them the new nature through faith in Christ. They are still free to sin without the conscience of the new nature. In harmony with his new nature, Paul's conscience desire is to do the right thing. But even with the impartation of the new nature, the old nature is still present.

The flesh, the old nature is still pulling Paul towards sin. There is no struggle to do good in the unregenerate man. Unregenerate man does not acknowledge his wretchedness and seek a savior as Paul does. "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

Notice Paul's acknowledgement of his two adversarial natures. "I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." Please show me what part of these -passages do you think apply to an unregenerate man, a man still possessed by the old nature alone. Only a believer would call upon the name of Christ as Paul does...

Your understanding seems to hinge on how you understand the outburst at 7: 25 but you should read 7:13 through 8:17 without paying attention to subject headers in your Bible.

I take the passage to refer to the unregenerate Jew. The present is the rhetorical device of "I" called prosopopoeia. Paul is certainly not talking about his personal subjective experience as a beliver. That nonsensical interpretation comes from Luther's personal problems along with his ignorance of 1st century cultural milieu and rhetorical devices. The Romans 7 man is at war, the Romans 8 man is at peace, Romans 7 man is in the flesh, Romans 8 man is in the Spirit, etc. The contrasts are striking.

Normally you are better at doing your homework, but I repeated what I've already said briefly here out of charity. For further thoughts of mine on this, go to pages 5 and 6 of this thread.

[RBerman]

Where we began.

Disagreeing on how to interpret this text.

Disagreement on whether when believers sin, it is, at that moment, exactly what they most want to do.

Both separate issues, though with overlapping themes.

My contention about the text: It does not describe believers.

My contention about committing a sin: when a person does any sin (or any X), it is not necessarily that which they most wanted to do in that instant (regardless of how one wants to apply this text, it still teaches that people do not always do that which they most want to do).

You disagree...I'm fine with that.

1) I disagree with your assessment that this text has no application to believers. Paul is in the middle of a discussion of the lives of believers which began in chapter 5 and continues through chapter 8.
2) If this text is not about believers, then it's not relevant to our discussion of why believers sin. So you still haven't provided an explanation for why you sin if you don't want to sin. You keep saying that it's not because you most want to sin at that moment. But I can't find anywhere that you've explained what the reason is.

[Chappie]

I take the passage to refer to the unregenerate Jew.

You can do that, yet you must disregard what is contextually written in the passages that I posted to do so. That is not in doubt.

The present is the rhetorical device of "I" called prosopopoeia.

Prosopopoeis is not logically applicable here. You just threw it in… I am interested in what evidence you have to support your reason for making that determination.

The Romans 7 man is at war, the Romans 8 man is at peace, Romans 7 man is in the flesh, Romans 8 man is in the Spirit, etc. The contrasts are striking.

If we go back to Genesis, man is very good, if we go forward to Revelations we find that man has been very bad. Nevertheless the contextual integrity of what is written in Romans 7 is unavoidable.
Romans 7, "man at war," {Man, singular, men plural"} perhaps a tad more homework would be advantageous for you also...

Normally you are better at doing your homework, but I repeated what I've already said briefly here out of charity. For further thoughts of mine on this, go to pages 5 and 6 of this thread.

Been there, done that. Makes no sense to me there either: If you are too busy, I understand:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? "Wretched man "I" am. {Oh what wretched men the Jews are.} Does this sound like a reference to men at war to you? Upon what premise can you render this statement as plural. Your exegesis is illogical.

I took exception to your remark about me normally being better at my homework. Scriptural was written and given to edify the simple as well as the intellectual: If you are discerning scripture properly, Romans 6 & 9 as well as Genesis & Revelations will edify the contextual integrity of what is written in Romans 7, not negate it...

[Chappie]

1) I disagree with your assessment that this text has no application to believers. Paul is in the middle of a discussion of the lives of believers which began in chapter 5 and continues through chapter 8.
2) If this text is not about believers, then it's not relevant to our discussion of why believers sin. So you still haven't provided an explanation for why you sin if you don't want to sin. You keep saying that it's not because you most want to sin at that moment. But I can't find anywhere that you've explained what the reason is.

Paul's desire not to sin is so strong {The inward man} That God caiuses him to say, it is not I that sin, but sin that dwells in me... Paul is deemed to be innocent of this sin, because his strongest desire is not to sin against God.The strongest desire thing does not work. Further evidence of this is provided when Paul asks Christ to save "him" from his body of death...

[Trusty]

You can do that, yet you must disregard what is contextually written in the passages that I posted to do so. That is not in doubt.

Wrong my friend. Start in 7:4. When we get to verse 7, Paul explains verse 6 from 7:7-8:17 and Paul describes being under the law, in the flesh. Then, in 8:1 is describes being in the Spirit in which the person in 7:7-7:23 was in the flesh. One at war, the other at peace.

Prosopopoeis is not logically applicable here. You just threw it in… I am interested in what evidence you have to support your reason for making that determination.

The dramatic "I" device is not something I am making up, it is fairly obvious Paul is describing the Jew in the flesh under the letter of the Law for effect. Common enough that George is familiar with it, and most commentators outside the Reformed camp acknowledge it.

If we go back to Genesis, man is very good, if we go forward to Revelations we find that man has been very bad. Nevertheless the contextual integrity of what is written in Romans 7 is unavoidable.
Romans 7, "man at war," {Man, singular, men plural"} perhaps a tad more homework would be advantageous for you also...

Well, I have several commentaries I use that suggest I have done my homework. I think Ben Witherington makes this case well for the rhetorical nature of this passage, but he ascribed the drama as "Adam", though I think the "unregenerate Jew" is more likely.

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? "Wretched man "I" am. {Oh what wretched men the Jews are.} Does this sound like a reference to men at war to you? Upon what premise can you render this statement as plural. Your exegesis is illogical.

I have no intention of making the statement "plural", I have every intention of correctly understanding it as a representative man in the plight Paul describes for dramatic effect, just as much as I have every intention of recognizing that Paul's response to the singular "man" who answers back to God in Romans 9:20 is a representative man of any typical Jew objector that would ask the diatribal question Paul writes in Romans 9:19.

I took exception to your remark about me normally being better at my homework. Scriptural was written and given to edify the simple as well as the intellectual: If you are discerning scripture properly, Romans 6 & 9 as well as Genesis & Revelations will edify the contextual integrity of what is written in Romans 7, not negate it...

1. I meant doing your homework by reading my previous posts. I apologize if you took it as a reference about your Biblical studies. I did not mean that at all.

2. I agree with most everything you said in that last paragraph and think it makes far MORE sense under my interpretation, especially that of Romans 9, since Paul is mainly addressing the history of Israel's formation to bring about the Messiah who is God, and Jewish according to the flesh, who became a stone of stumbling for ethnic Israel, who sought righteousness by works and thus have no redemption and freedom from the letter of the Law and remain in the flesh, rather than in the Spirit by faith in Christ who is the telos of the law for those who believe and now walk in the new way in 7:6 fleshed out in Romans 8:1-17 to demonstrate the contrast...so, as a result of their rejection of Christ, they are caught in the sin matrix of the Romans 7:7-23 man.