Defining Total Depravity - Romans 8

[rhutchin]

Yet I am the one who DOES INDEED walk you through the Scriptures - Even in the Greek...

I guess we will see this in future discussions.

[rhutchin]

Neither have you explained how v 22-25 fit into your argument. This is key because, these verses bring to a conclusion that which was said before. Until you are able to do that, your whole argument means nothing.

It seems as if you don't even read what I write. Look what Paul says:

Scripture Verse:

22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

See, here is the problem. One can love the law with their mind, but one is utterly powerless to uphold the law perfectly. What do you call someone who proclaims one thing, yet does another? A hypocrite...or we can say a law breaker.

The man in Romans 7 is a Jew who is finding that as much as he loves the law, and as much as he wants to uphold it..he cant...so here he is coming to find out that he needs something more...He needs Jesus. So the law, although it is powerless to impart life, because of our sinful flesh...it still points us to the One who can impart life...Jesus Christ.

OK. Let's take it a little further.

When we read, "...For I delight...but I see..." does Paul speak of himself here and of that which he currently experiences as regenerate or that which he experienced in the past as unregenerate? Does not the use of verbs in the present tense tell us that Paul is speaking of that which he currently experiences as a regenerate believer? You seem to be arguing otherwise. If so, can you reconcile the use of verbs in the present tense to describe past experiences? Crosswalk us between these verses and that which you explain in your comment above.

[rhutchin]

Christians are not called by God to continue in their sinful way of life, but to enter into a life of repentance from sinning, and this means overcoming their sins. Paul refers to it as "running the race set before you..." IF you are IN Christ, you CAN overcome your sins... IF you are NOT in Christ, you CANNOT...

Your argument suffers from the fallacy of the false alternative, where either we are sinners in our sins, or else we are sinlessly perfect...
The Truth is that we are not given the laver of regeneration so as to continue in our sins, but to overcome them, and this we are doing...
The Truth is that "All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ...", and the doing of the sins of the flesh is over and done...
Yes, we can still fall into ANY sin, but IF we are keeping the commandments of Christ, we will not fall...
And IF we should ever fall, we get up, confess, and repent, and Christ is just to forgive us our sin...

OK. I am not sure that Phat8594 is able to make this argument based on that which he is arguing.

How about giving us your take on v22-25 and the use of verbs in the present tense as they relate to Paul and whether he speaks of his regenerate or unregenerate condition.

[Chappie]

Possibly a silly question, but from ny reading of this thread, a consensus on what the meaning (as well as the rammifications) of what it scripturally means to be "in Christ" appears to be warrented. I use the word "scripturally", because at this juncture I would not be able to entertain conjecture extrapolations or IMHO responses: First as ccriptural foundation and then we can go from there.

Is "In Christ" an area of sinlesness, or more to the point just an area of strength and salvational safety?

I am in no way attempting to define total depravity...

[Phat8594]

When we read, "...For I delight...but I see..." does Paul speak of himself here and of that which he currently experiences as regenerate or that which he experienced in the past as unregenerate? Does not the use of verbs in the present tense tell us that Paul is speaking of that which he currently experiences as a regenerate believer? You seem to be arguing otherwise. If so, can you reconcile the use of verbs in the present tense to describe past experiences? Crosswalk us between these verses and that which you explain in your comment above.

RH, I would love to explain it to you...but since this is supposed to be a dialogue and not an interrogation, I will patiently wait for you to address my questions from my previous post. Until then, I have no way of knowing if you even read or consider what I write. And to be honest it sometimes feels like you do not even read what I write, but rather keep saying the same thing back to me....

So needless to say, I will be happy to answer your question once you have answered mine.

Thanks.

[Phat8594]

OK. I am not sure that Phat8594 is able to make this argument based on that which he is arguing

OK..this is what I am talking about...have you even been reading what I have been writing, or are you already assuming I mean something that I am not writing? What George wrote there lines up totally with what I am arguing.

[Phat8594]

Is "In Christ" an area of sinlesness, or more to the point just an area of strength and salvational safety?

More to the point of strength and salvational safety...provided you continue in His goodness. (:

But the point is that if you are in Christ, you are no longer a slave to sin....and you now have the power (through Christ) to put to death the evil deeds of the flesh.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

When we read, "...For I delight...but I see..." does Paul speak of himself here and of that which he currently experiences as regenerate or that which he experienced in the past as unregenerate? Does not the use of verbs in the present tense tell us that Paul is speaking of that which he currently experiences as a regenerate believer? You seem to be arguing otherwise. If so, can you reconcile the use of verbs in the present tense to describe past experiences? Crosswalk us between these verses and that which you explain in your comment above.

How about giving us your take on v22-25 and the use of verbs in the present tense as they relate to Paul and whether he speaks of his regenerate or unregenerate condition.

OK - But ya gotta promise to pay attention this time, OK?

So first, we will let Paul himself tell you what he is doing, his methodology of argument:

1Co_9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
to them that are under the Law, (I became) as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law;

And here, in Rom 7, he shows that he is using it here, to those "under the Law":

Rom 7:1 "I am speaking to those "knowing the Law"..."

So that the table is set... Paul is speaking as one under the Law to those knowing the Law...

So here is Paul AS IF he is under [eg knowing] the Law, and he is saying as one relying on the Law:

Rom 7:21-24 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

You see, this is the pickle, the predicament, of those under the Law...
They know what is holy and good, and yet they cannot do it, and this is a great BENEFIT...
For it makes them VERY aware of their sinfulness...
And for this, He thanks Jesus Christ, for in this wretched state, they desperately NEED Christ...

And THEN he goes on to say in 8:1:
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The KEY WORD here is WALK, for it means that it is one's WALK that matters, and not merely one's THOUGHTS...
Walking after the Spirit is the key, and so is NOT walking after the flesh...
And this those in Christ Jesus CAN DO...
And those under the Law CAN NOT DO...

It is a litmus test: IF you cannot walk the talk, you are not in Christ...
If you delight in Christ and walk in sin, you are not in Christ...
If you delight in the Law, and cannot comply with the Law, you are convicted...
You need Christ so you CAN walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh...

It is abundantly clear...

Paul is not speaking of himself here, but AS IF he were under the Law...
In Christ, the Law is fulfilled, and we are baptized INTO Christ,
And that means into His Death on the Cross...
And the Law does not apply to the dead...
It applies to you your entire life, if yuo are under it,
but it does not apply to you if you are dead,
which is why we are baptized into Christ's Death,
in which He overcame death in His Resurrection...

Is this making sense yet?

Arsenios

[Chappie]

OK - But ya gotta promise to pay attention this time, OK?

So first, we will let Paul himself tell you what he is doing, his methodology of argument:

1Co_9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
to them that are under the Law, (I became) as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law;

And here, in Rom 7, he shows that he is using it here, to those "under the Law":

Rom 7:1 "I am speaking to those "knowing the Law"..."

So that the table is set... Paul is speaking as one under the Law to those knowing the Law...

So here is Paul AS IF he is under [eg knowing] the Law, and he is saying as one relying on the Law:

Rom 7:21-24 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

You see, this is the pickle, the predicament, of those under the Law...
They know what is holy and good, and yet they cannot do it, and this is a great BENEFIT...
For it makes them VERY aware of their sinfulness...
And for this, He thanks Jesus Christ, for in this wretched state, they desperately NEED Christ...

And THEN he goes on to say in 8:1:
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The KEY WORD here is WALK, for it means that it is one's WALK that matters, and not merely one's THOUGHTS...
Walking after the Spirit is the key, and so is NOT walking after the flesh...
And this those in Christ Jesus CAN DO...
And those under the Law CAN NOT DO...

It is a litmus test: IF you cannot walk the talk, you are not in Christ...
If you delight in Christ and walk in sin, you are not in Christ...
If you delight in the Law, and cannot comply with the Law, you are convicted...
You need Christ so you CAN walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh...

It is abundantly clear...

Paul is not speaking of himself here, but AS IF he were under the Law...
In Christ, the Law is fulfilled, and we are baptized INTO Christ,
And that means into His Death on the Cross...
And the Law does not apply to the dead...
It applies to you your entire life, if yuo are under it,
but it does not apply to you if you are dead,
which is why we are baptized into Christ's Death,
in which He overcame death in His Resurrection...

Is this making sense yet?

Arsenios

Powerfully interesting Mr. "A".

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Powerfully interesting Mr. "A".

By that, you sly old fox you, you doubtlessly mean:

!!!LOGICAL!!!

And it is entirely logical, but not logically derived from the text as the only possible logical conclusion...

This is not the first time I have put this accounting forward here...

It answers the first person present tense usage of the verbs by Paul - They do not apply to Paul the Apostle of Christ, but instead to Paul AS IF he were one under the Law, or in this case, with Jewish Christians "knowing" the Law, as if he were one of them, and showing that in Christ, we have escaped the Law and now live in total freedom, even if we are being nailed to a cross or tied to a stake for roasting... We are free... We are living by Grace, for we are dead to the flesh, our own flesh...

So I am waiting for the Hutch - rhutchins - to keep his word here... His whole Scriptural argument has boiled down to this passage and Paul's usage of the present tense in it, and it has been answered fully... One of the frustrations I have with Calvinists is that they tend to pick off an easy line in an argument to reply to, and simply bypass what the main thrust of an argument against them actually IS... Just another wee cross, me-lad... Get the power of their faith on the right track and they make powerful witnesses, for they have great faith... Unlike many of the rest of us more intellectual behemoths...

Arsenios

[Phat8594]

And it is entirely logical, but not logically derived from the text as the only possible logical conclusion...

To be honest...I do not see how Romans 7 could be understood any other way, when taken in context of chapters 6, 8, and how he starts it off in 7. Paul is simply making an argument about the Law. And it makes perfect sense (and people still do it today), when one is making an argument to talk in a first person (and present tense) when describing the futility of something as one who is trying to do that very thing (the thing which is futile...in this case being justified through the works of the law).

As you say, he is talking as one under the law. But we know Paul is not under the law.

However, I might add, that this should be clearly understood even just from Romans alone.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

[QUOTE=Phat8594;3333938]To be honest...[quote]

I always get paranoid when someone starts a sentence with these three words... I mean, how about being honest ALWAYS - It is recommended by several leading authorities!

I do not see how Romans 7 could be understood any other way, when taken in context of chapters 6, 8, and how he starts it off in 7. Paul is simply making an argument about the Law. And it makes perfect sense (and people still do it today), when one is making an argument to talk in a first person (and present tense) when describing the futility of something as one who is trying to do that very thing (the thing which is futile...in this case being justified through the works of the law).

Logically, one can understand anything in any way one wishes to apply one's logic... I have seen every possible argument argued and believed... The problem with logic as a methodology is that it is subject ot proof and disproof, so that what ever one concludes is always subject to revision as more and more data arrive - Which is why we go with the Holy Fathers' writings rather than logical deduction from words written on paper...

As you say, he is talking as one under the law. But we know Paul is not under the law

.

Well, we say that now, and since the Orthodox showed it, it is pretty obvious, yes... But prior to that, if you were going to believe the Bible as it is written, you must believe that Paul is ruled by his flesh in sins which he cannot avoid... If you see the Bible as your ultimate AUTHORITY, then it says what it says... And Calvinists have been believing this wrong understanding for a long time now... And nobody could argue against them - They were able to hold their own logically for hundreds of years... And they could just beat on people with Scripture... And that's the problem, you see... This is not the purpose for which God caused Scripture to be written... To beat people in logical argumentation... Yet that is what the Reformation used it for, to attack what they thought was the Church... It is a fatal flaw...

However, I might add, that this should be clearly understood even just from Romans alone.

Well, logic as the art of context keeping, can easily get confounded, and does... I mean, even one's practice of the Christian Faith will erect expectations or their lack, and the interpretation of Scripture is ALWAYS seen through the lens of one's practice of the Faith, which is why we look to the Holy Fathers who wrote authoritatively from within the praxis of the Faith... This is what Christ meant when He said that the Good Shepherd knows His Sheep, and the sheep know the sound of their Master's voice..." There is a certain way that the Truth sounds in Orthodoxy that is missing elsewhere... The dissonance is not audible, but is loud and blaring for us...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Yet I am the one who DOES INDEED walk you through the Scriptures - Even in the Greek...

I guess we will see this in future discussions.

How about giving us your take on v22-25 and the use of verbs in the present tense as they relate to Paul and whether he speaks of his regenerate or unregenerate condition.

OK - But ya gotta promise to pay attention this time, OK?

1Co_9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
to them that are under the Law, (I became) as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law;

And here, in Rom 7, he shows that he is using it here, to those "under the Law":

Rom 7:1 "I am speaking to those "knowing the Law"..."

So that the table is set... Paul is speaking as one under the Law to those knowing the Law...

So here is Paul AS IF he is under [eg knowing] the Law, and he is saying as one relying on the Law:

Rom 7:21-24 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

You see, this is the pickle, the predicament, of those under the Law...

Powerfully interesting Mr. "A".

It answers the first person present tense usage of the verbs by Paul - They do not apply to Paul the Apostle of Christ, but instead to Paul AS IF he were one under the Law, or in this case, with Jewish Christians "knowing" the Law, as if he were one of them, and showing that in Christ, we have escaped the Law and now live in total freedom, even if we are being nailed to a cross or tied to a stake for roasting... We are free... We are living by Grace, for we are dead to the flesh, our own flesh...

So I am waiting for the Hutch - rhutchins - to keep his word here...

???Hutch???

Silence is a golden thing,
and I trust that you are keeping silence
in order that the prayers you are offering to the Most High God
be answered...

May God answer your prayers, my friend...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I think that the silence is deafening, and it is time to acknowledge that Christianity is a Faith...
And as a Faith, it is not a logically derived system of beliefs...
Those who claim that is is logically derived from Scripture do not reply when confronted with Scripture...
And in their silence we see dogma at work, and not logical derivation...

Orthodoxy is the Home of Dogmatic Theology...
Dogma is the intellectual guardian of the Faith...
Teaching anything at variance with the Dogmatic Tenets of Orthodoxy within the Church is not allowed...
Such a person, if he or she should persist, is expelled...
If such a person is a Patriarch, his Church loses Communion with the rest of the Churches...

But what I think we can conclude from this exchange is the idea that Scripture rules over the Church...
It does not, has not, and will not, because it can not, exercise such rule...
Sola Scriptura, as practiced, results in multi-dogmatics...
These can not be resolved by recourse to argument from Scripture...
BECAUSE Christianity is a Faith, and not a Systematic Theological enterprise...
And it is a Faith that took over the world for a thousand years undivided...
From a small bunch of Jews in Palestine and Jerusalem...
Whose witness to the Faith was not in guns or swords, but in joy and love...
Who embraced their deaths as additional witness to their immortal Faith...
A witness is a martyr, for that is what martyr meand - witness...
The Faith was not PROVEN in a Logics Seminary...
It was proven in lives lived, and deaths embraced...
It is the witness [martyrikon] that shows, but does not prove logically, the Way...
For this is a great Faith, the Faith of God, not restricted to fallen logical derivations...
It is not subject to logical proofs, for such proofs change from day to day...
But is the Faith given ONCE, for ALL, to the Apostles...
And handed down from generation to generation...
Even from Christ Himself, to us all, in His Body, the Church...

May you all have a blessed season of the Nativity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ!
And a blessed Feast Day for Him on December 25th...

Arsenios

[rhutchin]

I think that the silence is deafening, and it is time to acknowledge that Christianity is a Faith...
And as a Faith, it is not a logically derived system of beliefs...
Those who claim that is is logically derived from Scripture do not reply when confronted with Scripture...
And in their silence we see dogma at work, and not logical derivation...

Still, the Bible does give us specific information throughout and this information is consistent from one of Paul's letters to another or from Paul's letters to Peter's letters and with the information in the gospels. In addition, the NT will be consistent with the OT. The claim is that the Bible (i.e., God) does not contradict itself from Genesis to Revelation. The Bible is a collection of documents that is logically consistent in what it says.

Teaching anything at variance with the Dogmatic Tenets of Orthodoxy within the Church is not allowed...
But what I think we can conclude from this exchange is the idea that Scripture rules over the Church...

Scripture always trumps dogma. Doesn't it?