PDA

View Full Version : The flesh



Walstib
Jan 25th 2009, 02:51 AM
What is “the flesh” talked about in these verses?

Do we “hear” it’s desires?

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. (Gal 5:16-17 NKJV)

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.(Rom 13:14 NKJV)

among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. (Eph 2:3 NKJV)

mikebr
Jan 25th 2009, 03:03 AM
What is “the flesh” talked about in these verses?

Do we “hear” it’s desires?

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. (Gal 5:16-17 NKJV)

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.(Rom 13:14 NKJV)

among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. (Eph 2:3 NKJV)


I believe that it is an attempt to keep "the Law." Galatians is a dicotomy of Grace and Works. At least that's the way I read it. I will have opposition I know. ;) Walking in the flesh is opposed to walking in the Spirit. One creates fighting and such the other produces the Fruit of the Spirit. If you don't see Love, Peace, Joy........................... you can bank on it being flesh. I love the Sarah and Hagar verses. Sarah got pregnant because of a promise. Hagar because of a stipulation in the law. Sarah by grace, Hagar by flesh.

mikebr
Jan 25th 2009, 03:14 AM
The type of life and the method of living that life which he here speaks of, Paul had already commended to them in 5:5, in the words "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness." Thus, the secret of victory over sin is found, not in attempted obedience to a law that has been abrogated, but in subjection to a divine Person, the Holy Spirit...........................


Galatians in the Greek New Testament

Kenneth S. Wuest

SeattleSun
Jan 25th 2009, 03:23 AM
I'm not sure what are you asking. You use Galatians first, I use Epheisans first. Its still Paul.

Walking worthy of the Lord is my desire and my struggle. What is my identity -- is it truly in Chirst? Where does the heat come from that makes thorns? It comes from my flesh. And now let's factor in the heart.

My old self is dead and I have a new heart. I'm not a slave to sin anymore. I have never been under the Law and that being said:

Rom. 7:15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.

16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Is this a sin nature thread?

Walstib
Jan 25th 2009, 03:46 AM
I'm not sure what are you asking. You use Galatians first, I use Epheisans first. Its still Paul.The word flesh itself is used in different ways throughout the scriptures. The three verses I posted were to give a focus on what usage I want to explore with everyone. The order of the verses was random.

The "hear" question was directed toward our thought life.

Plus I was trying to draw Yukerboy in to discuss Yukerism point #8 ;)
Is this a sin nature thread?

Definitely part of the topic, the topic being a big one, so different definitions of "sin nature" would just be a part of the discussion and not the focus.

Have to go now, I'll get back later to address the rest of your post.

Peace,
Joe

Spirit Driven
Jan 25th 2009, 04:22 AM
I have the feeling that the opening of Romans Chapter 8 will assist in understanding here.....

Chapter 8
1 Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit,
2 for the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus frees you from the law of sin and death.
3 For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh,
4 that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.
5 For those who are in accord with flesh are disposed to that which is of the flesh, yet those who are in accord with spirit to that which is of the spirit.
6 For the disposition of the flesh is death, yet the disposition of the spirit is life and peace,
7 because the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able.
8 Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God.
9 Yet you are not in flesh, but in spirit, if so be that God's spirit is making its home in you. Now if anyone has not Christ's spirit, this one is not His.

There was a Negro Pastor in the United States a couple of years back...Carlton Pearson.

He was part of a very large ministry, with lots of parishioners, and lots of money, that back fired on him, and he lost virtualy everything, the ministry, freinds, money, he lost the lot, except his family.

God had revealed to him to teach the Good News of the Gospel, the Universal Salvation and Reconcilliation of all mankind, through the attoning sacrafice of Jesus Christ at the Cross.

Anyhow he ended up with nothing.....but while speaking to a group in California, he was invited to speak at a small Church in San Francisco.

The Pastor was a Lesbian Female, and the congregation numbered about 50 people.

Gay couples and singles, aids patients, and home less people.

After speaking to the congregation, at the end of the service a chair was produced and the congregation invited Carlton to sit down.
They took his shoes off and while some wept quietly and others sang softly they began to wash his feet as a group.

Carlton relates that in that moment it was like the room began to spin around, and every person there suddenly turned into a Glorified and risen Christ!

I can remember thinking to myself at the time.... OF Course ! Where else would we find our Lord !

Looking at human History I have noticed that the Main Stream Church has been trying to correct the Flesh for Centuries....and failed miserably, because they are walking after the Flesh....

5 For those who are in accord with flesh are disposed to that which is of the flesh,

Grace and Peace to you all....always!

SeattleSun
Jan 25th 2009, 04:24 AM
Ha! I'm not familiar of the doctine of Yukerism point #8. So its probably best that I watch from the sidelines until I have some sort of understanding.


http://home.no.net/birgif/glis/muching_out.gif

holyrokker
Jan 25th 2009, 05:11 AM
There is only one word used in the Greek New Testament that is translated as "flesh" - that word is "sarx".

It refers to the physical body, as opposed to what is spiritual.

It's the same word used in verses such as Luke 3:6 "...and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

It's also used in John 3:6 when Jesus said; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

After Adam sinned, God drove him from the Garden of Eden, and banned him from the tree of life.

Genesis 3:22-24 "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

As a result, we also do not have access to the tree of life. When we are born, we are separated from God (spiritually).

That why Jesus said; "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' " (John 3:7)

Since we are born physically, not spiritually, we do not have the advantage of the Holy Spirit to direct our hearts and minds. We naturally do what the body desires.

Those desires aren't inherently sinful, though; just natural. (similar to animals?)

So when we begin to be aware of right and wrong, we are already accustomed to choosing whatever pleases the body (flesh).

If we get a sense that maybe giving into a particular desire is inappropriate in a certain instance, it's foreign to us.

That's why James can say:

James 1:14-15 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Once we've made a choice contrary to our conscience, we've sinned.

Romans 2:14-15 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

Once we've sinned, we are guilty, and condemned by our conscience, becoming slaves to sin.

Romans 6:15 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 6:19 For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Spirit Driven
Jan 25th 2009, 07:36 AM
There is only one word used in the Greek New Testament that is translated as "flesh" - that word is "sarx".

It refers to the physical body, as opposed to what is spiritual.

It's the same word used in verses such as Luke 3:6 "...and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

It's also used in John 3:6 when Jesus said; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

After Adam sinned, God drove him from the Garden of Eden, and banned him from the tree of life.

After God caused Adam to Sin, he removed Adam from the Garden, because man still has a million things to experience first...before becoming like God!

Genesis 3:22-24 "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

As a result, we also do not have access to the tree of life. When we are born, we are separated from God (spiritually).

That why Jesus said; "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' " (John 3:7)

Since we are born physically, not spiritually, we do not have the advantage of the Holy Spirit to direct our hearts and minds. We naturally do what the body desires.

Those desires aren't inherently sinful, though; just natural. (similar to animals?)

So when we begin to be aware of right and wrong, we are already accustomed to choosing whatever pleases the body (flesh).

If we get a sense that maybe giving into a particular desire is inappropriate in a certain instance, it's foreign to us.

That's why James can say:

James 1:14-15 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Once we've made a choice contrary to our conscience, we've sinned.

Since when has clay had right over the clay ?

Romans 2:14-15 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

Once we've sinned, we are guilty, and condemned by our conscience, becoming slaves to sin.

1 Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.


Romans 6:15 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

1...Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit,

Romans 6:19 For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

5 For those who are in accord with flesh are disposed to that which is of the flesh, yet those who are in accord with spirit to that which is of the spirit.


May I ask what has led you to believe that being disposed towards the flesh...or what the Flesh does...gives you right standing with God ?

Peace

Sirus
Jan 25th 2009, 09:51 AM
5 For those who are in accord with flesh are disposed to that which is of the flesh, yet those who are in accord with spirit to that which is of the spirit.


May I ask what has led you to believe that being disposed towards the flesh...or what the Flesh does...gives you right standing with God ?

PeaceEither faith or righteousness. All men fail in righteousness, except Jesus. Natural man in natural flesh was created to live by faith in God.

Spirit Driven
Jan 25th 2009, 12:10 PM
Greetings Sirus,

Be assured that I am not here to convince anybody of anything....God is the Great Convincer of men....all Glory goes to him.

As you are probably aware, we are to be in this world but not of it, and when observing the World I have noticed a definite trend.

However you must first understand, that I am nobodys Judge...lest I be Judged, yet I have noticed a...way... of this World.

The way of the World today is....actualy those first seven words should start spiritual alarm bells ringing in the heart of the elect, so I will repeat them.

The Way of the World today seems to be that a heterosexual, will base their right standing with God on their Sexuality or what their flesh does, then Judge sombody of different sexuality at the same time.

A double wammy !

I think it is a very alarming trend indeed.

Grace and Peace to you

Yukerboy
Jan 25th 2009, 03:03 PM
Ha! I'm not familiar of the doctine of Yukerism point #8. So its probably best that I watch from the sidelines until I have some sort of understanding.


http://home.no.net/birgif/glis/muching_out.gif

8. The born again have sin living within their flesh that sins.

We have sin abiding in our flesh, but no sin abides in our spirit. We are our spirit. The flesh is dead, profiting nothing.

Therefore, Paul does not sin when he states, it is no longer he that does it, but the sin living within him.

Bernie
Jan 25th 2009, 05:00 PM
What is “the flesh” talked about in these verses?

Do we “hear” it’s desires?
Good question, Walstib.

I see God's power in all of Scripture at work in a dualistic sense, i.e., that there are simultaneous literal and spiritual meanings underlying it. If I recall correctly, Paul, Jesus and Peter are the three who used the contradistinction of "spirit" and "flesh" in their teachings in the NT. Someone asked if this is a "sin-nature thread", and I don't see how, if one is truly interested in a detailed study of Scripture and its meaning, this could be avoided.

One popular position held is very literal, that the two refer only to literal flesh and literal spirit. This position sounds good on the surface, but quickly falls apart when studied in more depth. Hume pointed out (and his observation stands to this day) that prescriptive value has no attachment to matter. In other words, acts in the physical world are just complex organizations and motions of atoms and molecules, meaningless from a value standpoint except where they are preceded and directed by minds dictating their activities. To say that the spirit is free from sin and that all sin now resides in matter or flesh simply dissolves under close scrutiny because the motions of matter (in matters of sin) is subsequent to consciousness. Jesus confirms this in Mat 5:28: but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart., where sin is concieved in the consciousness quite apart from the physical act.


The verses you used testify to this. Since matter is not capable of embodying sin--again, because "sin" (transgression of the moral law) is a peculiarly consciousness-driven circumstance--the "lust of the flesh" cannot apply to literal flesh; lust is a certain quality inherent to human consciousness. Who ever heard of an arm or leg lusting? Hence, the NT teachers had to have in mind a contradistinction or comparison of certain terms they used to other realities. We "hear" physically by sound waves acting on atoms and we "hear" with the intellect, and the intellect is imho of necessity always in view where spirit and flesh are compared in the Bible unless context demands only its literal use.

My heart's Desire
Jan 25th 2009, 06:58 PM
Personally I think we are all still flesh along with all that is associated with it UNLESS you happen to know someone who is already in their incorruptable, changed new body to match their born again spirit. ;)

Friend of I AM
Jan 25th 2009, 07:06 PM
What is “the flesh” talked about in these verses?

Do we “hear” it’s desires?

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. (Gal 5:16-17 NKJV)

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.(Rom 13:14 NKJV)

among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. (Eph 2:3 NKJV)


We're really walking in a dead perishing body right now. Our flesh is in a constant decaying state..and we are in a dead or perishable form even before our transformation and emergence into God's new kingdom..despite whether or not we act on the flesh's desires or not. Anyone who tells you that they are in a completely perfected state before having been transformed and perfected by God is a liar, and there is no truth within them. Even Christ was made perfect by God, as the Apostle Paul states in Hebrews 2:10.

Sirus
Jan 25th 2009, 07:06 PM
Greetings Sirus,

Be assured that I am not here to convince anybody of anything....God is the Great Convincer of men....all Glory goes to him.

As you are probably aware, we are to be in this world but not of it, and when observing the World I have noticed a definite trend.

However you must first understand, that I am nobodys Judge...lest I be Judged, yet I have noticed a...way... of this World.

The way of the World today is....actualy those first seven words should start spiritual alarm bells ringing in the heart of the elect, so I will repeat them.

The Way of the World today seems to be that a heterosexual, will base their right standing with God on their Sexuality or what their flesh does, then Judge sombody of different sexuality at the same time.

A double wammy !

I think it is a very alarming trend indeed.

Grace and Peace to youWell now I see how you intended 'disposed to', and I agree. Of course those that live after the flesh are not in 'right standing with God'. I don't think anyone would disagree with that and I don't see anything in holyrokker's post that indicated he did either, so I wonder why you mentioned it. Like holyrokker, I was referring to man being made with flesh (Gen 2:7).

You said;
After God caused Adam to Sin, he removed Adam from the Garden, because man still has a million things to experience first...before becoming like God!
God caused Adam to sin? Really? What scripture do you have for that?


Since when has clay had right over the clay ?
Since the clay was made at creation? Who made decisions for the clay in Jer 18?


1 Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.
Condemnation in Romans 8 only refers to the judgment in Adam. It doesn't seem that is how you are using the word so, why do Christians end up in condemnation? 1Co 11:34, 1Ti 3:6, Jam 5:12


1...Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit,
So a Christian cannot walk after the flesh? That's not it says. It says you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if Christ is in you. What they walk after is another story all together.

Just_Another_Guy
Jan 25th 2009, 07:19 PM
We're really walking in a dead perishing body right now. Our flesh is in a constant decaying state..and we are in a dead or perishable form even before our transformation and emergence into God's new kingdom..despite whether or not we act on the flesh's desires or not. Anyone who tells you that they are in a completely perfected state before having been transformed and perfected by God is a liar, and there is no truth within them. Even Christ was made perfect by God, as the Apostle Paul states in Hebrews 2:10.

I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit on this..Job was described as a perfect man by God(Job 1:8), and I think Noah was probably considered to be in the same boat as Job. Christ describes and asks us to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect(Matthew 5:48) Now I don't think Jesus was saying for us to be able to transfigure ourselves like him into new spiritual bodies..I do think he was insinuating that we could indeed reach some sort of spiritual perfection...in this walk and not worry about any stumbling blocks. Think about what John states in his gospel(1 John 3:2) When we see him, we will be like him..everyone who has this hope purifies himself..even as he is pure. So I think we are pure or "perfect" in our walk through our faith in Christ. This doesn't advocate lawlessness though, but it does advocate us to walk in faith and love to produce peace..love, and kindness to others within our walks. God bless.

Friend of I AM
Jan 25th 2009, 07:22 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit on this..Job was described as a perfect man by God(Job 1:8), and I think Noah was probably considered to be in the same boat as Job. Christ describes and asks us to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect(Matthew 5:48) Now I don't think Jesus was saying for us to be able to transfigure ourselves like him into new spiritual bodies..I do think he was insinuating that we could indeed reach some sort of spiritual perfection...in this walk and not worry about any stumbling blocks. Think about what John states in his gospel(1 John 3:2) When we see him, we will be like him..everyone who has this hope purifies himself..even as he is pure. So I think we are pure or "perfect" in our walk through our faith in Christ. This doesn't advocate lawlessness though, but it does advocate us to walk in faith and love to produce peace..love, and kindness to others within our walks. God bless.

I just don't like saying "I'm perfect." I just like to leave judgements like that up to God...that's all I'm saying. I've seen first hand what people with "great faith" can do..sometimes they think their faith can justify just about everything they do...and I don't think that's the type of faith that Jesus was advocating. If you feel comfortable calling yourself perfect in God's eyes that's fine...I'm just going to be a little bit reserved and state that I'll wait until God says something on the matter..and be concious of nothing before the appointed time...that's all I'm saying..grace.

Friend of I AM
Jan 25th 2009, 07:26 PM
Edit..whoops wrong thread..:)

Just_Another_Guy
Jan 25th 2009, 07:37 PM
I just don't like saying "I'm perfect." I just like to leave judgements like that up to God...that's all I'm saying. I've seen first hand what people with "great faith" can do..sometimes they think their faith can justify just about everything they do...and I don't think that's the type of faith that Jesus was advocating. If you feel comfortable calling yourself perfect in God's eyes that's fine...I'm just going to be a little bit reserved and state that I'll wait until God says something on the matter..and be concious of nothing before the appointed time...that's all I'm saying..grace.

Gotcha. Keep on running the race. Love God, and Love one another...and you'll do fine. God bless.

Friend of I AM
Jan 25th 2009, 07:56 PM
Personally I think we are all still flesh along with all that is associated with it UNLESS you happen to know someone who is already in their incorruptable, changed new body to match their born again spirit. ;)

1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

John 11:24-27
Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world."

I think it's possible that some people may be with God right now based on the verses above. I don't know of anyone off hand, but I'm sure it's possible.

Spirit Driven
Jan 25th 2009, 09:41 PM
Well now I see how you intended 'disposed to', and I agree. Of course those that live after the flesh are not in 'right standing with God'. I don't think anyone would disagree with that and I don't see anything in holyrokker's post that indicated he did either, so I wonder why you mentioned it. Like holyrokker, I was referring to man being made with flesh (Gen 2:7).

You said;
After God caused Adam to Sin, he removed Adam from the Garden, because man still has a million things to experience first...before becoming like God!
God caused Adam to sin? Really? What scripture do you have for that?

See my thread, The Incident in the Garden, post there if you like


Since when has clay had right over the clay ?
Since the clay was made at creation? Who made decisions for the clay in Jer 18?

I noticed in Romans 9 that in some Bibles God asks us, for who has resisted his (my) intention....and in some other Bible Translations he states...nobody can resist his (my) will.


1 Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.
Condemnation in Romans 8 only refers to the judgment in Adam. It doesn't seem that is how you are using the word so, why do Christians end up in condemnation? 1Co 11:34, 1Ti 3:6, Jam 5:12

I just take God at his word...Nothing means just that...Nothing, in the same way that all means just that...all


1...Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit,
So a Christian cannot walk after the flesh? That's not it says. It says you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if Christ is in you. What they walk after is another story all together.


Paul speaks of that it was for Freedom that Christ set us Free, so I guess you are dead in your Sins, or Dead to Sin.

To be dead to Sin means you are Free of your Sins in the midst of them, because you are still alive flesh and blood, and sinning less often, because instead of focusing on what your doing, and becomming a slave to that, you are focused on what Christ did right, and are a Slave to that.

You do not stop sinning, because that is not possible for the Flesh, but you Sin less often.

You will never stop sinning entirely, to remind you that your right standing with God will....never.... be because of anything you do or do not do.

Our right standing with God is solely and only because of the actions and deeds of Jesus Christ on our behalf....and for no other reason.


Peace

holyrokker
Jan 25th 2009, 10:42 PM
It refers to the physical body, as opposed to what is spiritual.

It's the same word used in verses such as Luke 3:6 "...and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

It's also used in John 3:6 when Jesus said; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

After Adam sinned, God drove him from the Garden of Eden, and banned him from the tree of life.

Genesis 3:22-24 "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

As a result, we also do not have access to the tree of life. When we are born, we are separated from God (spiritually).

That why Jesus said; "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' " (John 3:7)

Since we are born physically, not spiritually, we do not have the advantage of the Holy Spirit to direct our hearts and minds. We naturally do what the body desires.

Those desires aren't inherently sinful, though; just natural. (similar to animals?)

So when we begin to be aware of right and wrong, we are already accustomed to choosing whatever pleases the body (flesh).

If we get a sense that maybe giving into a particular desire is inappropriate in a certain instance, it's foreign to us.

That's why James can say:

James 1:14-15 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Once we've made a choice contrary to our conscience, we've sinned.

Romans 2:14-15 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

Once we've sinned, we are guilty, and condemned by our conscience, becoming slaves to sin.

Romans 6:15 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 6:19 For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.


5 For those who are in accord with flesh are disposed to that which is of the flesh, yet those who are in accord with spirit to that which is of the spirit.


May I ask what has led you to believe that being disposed towards the flesh...or what the Flesh does...gives you right standing with God ?

Peace

I don’t believe that. What part of my post leads you to think that’s my belief?

Spirit Driven
Jan 26th 2009, 07:21 AM
Since we are born physically, not spiritually, we do not have the advantage of the Holy Spirit to direct our hearts and minds. We naturally do what the body desires.

Those desires aren't inherently sinful, though; just natural. (similar to animals?)

So when we begin to be aware of right and wrong, we are already accustomed to choosing whatever pleases the body (flesh).

If we get a sense that maybe giving into a particular desire is inappropriate in a certain instance, it's foreign to us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not focus on the Flesh at all....you will only become enslaved to it.

Like the Christian that goes to confession twice a day everyday, has become a slave to sin.

Peace

Walstib
Jan 26th 2009, 05:49 PM
The verses you used testify to this. Since matter is not capable of embodying sin--again, because "sin" (transgression of the moral law) is a peculiarly consciousness-driven circumstance--the "lust of the flesh" cannot apply to literal flesh; lust is a certain quality inherent to human consciousness. Who ever heard of an arm or leg lusting? Hence, the NT teachers had to have in mind a contradistinction or comparison of certain terms they used to other realities. We "hear" physically by sound waves acting on atoms and we "hear" with the intellect, and the intellect is imho of necessity always in view where spirit and flesh are compared in the Bible unless context demands only its literal use.

Thanks for your reply Bernie,

You are on the exact focus I was looking at and make many great points I think. The Mat 5:28 verse and points you made speaks toward cutting off an arm if it sins I think. We sin, not something separate from us. That said we don't have to sin either.

Thanks for the stuff to chew on and the new words learned like contradistinction. ;) Seems like I learn one or two a week around here.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Jan 26th 2009, 06:20 PM
Thanks for coming over Yuke!


8. The born again have sin living within their flesh that sins.I can't wrap my head around this concept. Does this sin have a name? A personality? Who is this sin if it is doing something without the person?
We have sin abiding in our flesh, but no sin abides in our spirit. We are our spirit. The flesh is dead, profiting nothing.We are our spirit? I guess I would ask first what you base this conclusion on. Who is our flesh if it is not us?
Therefore, Paul does not sin when he states, it is no longer he that does it, but the sin living within him. To make sure I understand, you believe this whole chapter is Paul speaking from the perspective of a born again person?

Peace,
Joe

holyrokker
Jan 26th 2009, 09:02 PM
Thanks for your reply Bernie,

You are on the exact focus I was looking at and make many great points I think. The Mat 5:28 verse and points you made speaks toward cutting off an arm if it sins I think. We sin, not something separate from us. That said we don't have to sin either.

Thanks for the stuff to chew on and the new words learned like contradistinction. ;) Seems like I learn one or two a week around here.

Peace,
Joe
Matthew 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Is this the passage you were thinking of?

Notice Jesus used the word if then causes. What causes us to sin? Our eyes or hands? Isn't it our own will that causes us to sin?

I take this as saying I need to "cut off" my own will - surrender to His will. That's the only way to be free from sin.

As Jesus said elsewhere "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." Luke 9:23

Walstib
Jan 26th 2009, 09:46 PM
Notice Jesus used the word if then causes. What causes us to sin? Our eyes or hands? Isn't it our own will that causes us to sin?

I take this as saying I need to "cut off" my own will - surrender to His will. That's the only way to be free from sin.Hi holyrokker,

That was the passage. I am in agreement with you I think...

I have seen people say that the flesh does things (does sinful acts) on it's own without "us". As Bernie said "Who ever heard of an arm or leg lusting?". As if we could cut off our hand and it actually solve the desires within us to sin.....

For another couple examples are these literally itching ears and adulterous eyes?

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; (2Ti 4:3 NKJV)

But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. (2Pe 2:12-14 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

holyrokker
Jan 26th 2009, 09:49 PM
Hi holyrokker,

That was the passage. I am in agreement with you I think...

I have seen people say that the flesh does things (does sinful acts) on it's own without "us". As Bernie said "Who ever heard of an arm or leg lusting?". As if we could cut off our hand and it actually solve the desires within us to sin.....

For another couple examples are these literally ears itching and adulterous eyes?

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; (2Ti 4:3 NKJV)

But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. (2Pe 2:12-14 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

I'm pretty certain that we'd be in agreement in saying that the ears themselves aren't itching, nor that the eyes themselves are committing adultery.

These are idiomatic expressions which indicate that those individuals have committed themselves fully to pursuing the sin they desire.

Yukerboy
Jan 26th 2009, 10:09 PM
Thanks for coming over Yuke!

You know me. I'm always up for a discussion about flesh. :)


I can't wrap my head around this concept. Does this sin have a name? A personality? Who is this sin if it is doing something without the person?

The flesh is no longer us. The flesh is the flesh.

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.


We are our spirit? I guess I would ask first what you base this conclusion on. Who is our flesh if it is not us?

The flesh is me, but it is not I. Confusing?

The born again are spiritual. The flesh remains flesh.


To make sure I understand, you believe this whole chapter is Paul speaking from the perspective of a born again person?

Absolutely. Paul states in this chapter "Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. "

For that to be a sinner, then Paul is saying the sinner doesn't sin, but the sin dwelling within his flesh does. If that is a sinner, then Paul has declared sinners to be sinless as it is no longer they that sin.

Walstib
Jan 27th 2009, 03:54 PM
The flesh is no longer us. The flesh is the flesh.Do you think this is common to all people then? An "entity" like the Devil? Or are you saying it is "us" before regeneration but not after?
The flesh is me, but it is not I. Confusing?Very much so. More words to describe what you mean maybe?
The born again are spiritual. The flesh remains flesh.What were the regenerate before being regenerated?

Absolutely. Paul states in this chapter "Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. "

For that to be a sinner, then Paul is saying the sinner doesn't sin, but the sin dwelling within his flesh does. If that is a sinner, then Paul has declared sinners to be sinless as it is no longer they that sin.
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.(Rom 7:23 NKJV)

So the regenerate are still captive?

Peace,
Joe

Yukerboy
Jan 27th 2009, 04:34 PM
Do you think this is common to all people then? An "entity" like the Devil? Or are you saying it is "us" before regeneration but not after?

It is the regenerate.

To be born once is in the flesh, the flesh is where the person abides and sin abides. This is the case for all people, those who will be born again and those who are not.

To be born again is to be born of the spirit. A second birth. The person who is born again then abides in the spirit and no longer in the flesh. This is the case for everyone who is born again.


Very much so. More words to describe what you mean maybe? What were the regenerate before being regenerated?

The regenerate before regeneration was abiding in the flesh. There was no "born again spirit" in the flesh. The flesh is us until we are born again. Once born again, the flesh is no longer where the regenerate are. They have been spiritually born. However, that spirit is still held captive in the flesh.



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.(Rom 7:23 NKJV)

So the regenerate are still captive?

Peace,
Joe


Right. The regenerate are still captive in the flesh. The only way to be released from the flesh is to die. The flesh, which has sin abiding in it, ran amok before we were born again. After regeneration, we work to mortify the flesh. With the mind, the regenerate now serve the law of God (His Holy Spirit controlling the mind), but with the flesh, we still serve the law of sin and death.

The law was made for the unrighteous. While you (being in the spirit) are no longer unrighteous, you (the flesh) is still under law and still condemned for sin. Christ didn't die to save the flesh, but the spirit.

Walstib
Jan 29th 2009, 04:36 AM
Hi Yuke,


To be born once is in the flesh, the flesh is where the person abides and sin abides. This is the case for all people, those who will be born again and those who are not.

To be born again is to be born of the spirit. A second birth. The person who is born again then abides in the spirit and no longer in the flesh. This is the case for everyone who is born again.

I’m just going to start off with saying comparing spiritual to spiritual and earthly to earthly is where I think we differ the most.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (Joh 3:6 NKJV)

One earthly birth one spiritual birth. Notice how the translators capitalize the first Spirit. I would agree “born of” means by a person of the Godhead, this contrasting natural parents. This use of flesh speaking of a literal body.

Then "being in the Spirit" (capital S) would not be us dwelling in our spirit, but resting in Mr. Holy Spirit.

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.(Eph 2:19-22 NKJV)




The regenerate before regeneration was abiding in the flesh. There was no "born again spirit" in the flesh. The flesh is us until we are born again. Once born again, the flesh is no longer where the regenerate are. They have been spiritually born. However, that spirit is still held captive in the flesh.


Right. The regenerate are still captive in the flesh. The only way to be released from the flesh is to die. The flesh, which has sin abiding in it, ran amok before we were born again. After regeneration, we work to mortify the flesh. With the mind, the regenerate now serve the law of God (His Holy Spirit controlling the mind), but with the flesh, we still serve the law of sin and death.

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. (Rom 7:23 NKJV)

Read that verse again and tell me if you don’t think it is “the law of sin” that the person is captive to rather than the flesh being a place one is captive inside.

Here too I believe you have the earthly place (physical body/atoms/temple) switched with the spiritual place (carnal mind/the flesh/fallen nature). All people have both kinds of flesh, one spoken of as a reflection of the other. Like in this example neglect of the physical body and indulgence of the non physical flesh are both spoken of.

"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.(Col2:21-23 NKJV)

The law was made for the unrighteous. While you (being in the spirit) are no longer unrighteous, you (the flesh) is still under law and still condemned for sin. Christ didn't die to save the flesh, but the spirit.
consider..
But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. (Heb 10:39 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Jan 29th 2009, 05:07 PM
We're really walking in a dead perishing body right now. Our flesh is in a constant decaying state..and we are in a dead or perishable form even before our transformation and emergence into God's new kingdom..despite whether or not we act on the flesh's desires or not. Anyone who tells you that they are in a completely perfected state before having been transformed and perfected by God is a liar, and there is no truth within them. Even Christ was made perfect by God, as the Apostle Paul states in Hebrews 2:10.

Hi Stephen,

You speak of the literal flesh decaying and the desires of the flesh. Do you agree that the desires don't come from a "separate consciousness" within the physical?

For example, we don't have our litteral flesh crucified as I see it. What would you say, or anyone for that matter, having our flesh crucified means?

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.(Gal 5:19-25 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

Friend of I AM
Jan 29th 2009, 06:23 PM
Hi Stephen,

You speak of the literal flesh decaying and the desires of the flesh. Do you agree that the desires don't come from a "separate consciousness" within the physical?

For example, we don't have our litteral flesh crucified as I see it. What would you say, or anyone for that matter, having our flesh crucified means?

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.(Gal 5:19-25 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe


Our sinful desires come from the flesh. Though we are not living by the sinful nature that exists within the flesh, our bodies still exist in this dead flesh. So unfortunately our spirit is housed in this dead flesh during our walks, and our bodies groan for the redemption of this dead flesh and for the transformation into something imperishable. (Romans 19:21)

holyrokker
Jan 29th 2009, 09:33 PM
Our sinful desires come from the flesh. Though we are not living by the sinful nature that exists within the flesh, our bodies still exist in this dead flesh. So unfortunately our spirit is housed in this dead flesh during our walks, and our bodies groan for the redemption of this dead flesh and for the transformation into something imperishable. (Romans 19:21)
There is nothing inherently sinful about our desires. God created us with physical bodies which have physical desires. Jesus also experienced these desires.

The sin is in the choosing to fulfill those desires in ways that are wrong. Sin is allowing the desires to dictate our decisons, rather than submitting those desires to the control of the Spirit.

Friend of I AM
Jan 29th 2009, 09:46 PM
There is nothing inherently sinful about our desires. God created us with physical bodies which have physical desires. Jesus also experienced these desires.

The sin is in the choosing to fulfill those desires in ways that are wrong. Sin is allowing the desires to dictate our decisons, rather than submitting those desires to the control of the Spirit.

I'd be careful with that one a bit. I'd agree that we're not inherently guilty of sin due to the sin nature of the flesh anymore due to Christ's sacrafice. God condemned the sin nature in man, and no longer hold man liable for it. But we don't want to get into the habit of thinking that no desire that we have is inherently not wrong. This would be condusive to producing some sort of "passivity" and anarchic behavior within a believer.

I've seen this happen to many in this life. I desire to do something..thus it is good so long as the spirit doesn't convict me. Problem being is that we may be more in tune with the flesh than with the Spirit, and that's when the flesh and the sin nature within it takes the opportunity to deceive me and make me stumble into sin again. It's no longer the me sinning though, it's the flesh and God realizes this. Still we do need to be careful to not feed the flesh..and walk in the spirit of Love. Galations 5:22-23. Walking in the spirit of love will help us to not stumble in our walks. God bless.

Sirus
Jan 30th 2009, 03:16 AM
God condemned the sin nature in man, and no longer hold man liable for it.Jesus condemned sin in the flesh

Rom 8:3 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:

So according to you, God condemned the sin nature in the flesh? I though everyone said the flesh is the sin nature?

Flesh is flesh -sarx- it is not and cannot be a sinful nature. Nature is the essence of a thing and the flesh is just one part of our being. The flesh cannot be a nature by itself. Nothing in the flesh can be a nature by itself. The concept is diametrically opposed to the meaning of the word nature.

To say that someone that has lived their life according to the natural course of and spirit of this world has a sinful nature would be someone who's body soul and spirit has been affected by sin. That's biblical. Notice they are not born with any of this or anything different than Adam. Why single out the flesh? Does the spirit not need to be cleansed of all filthiness (2Co 7:1)? Doesn't Paul pray our "spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Th 5:23). Why single out the flesh?

Dani H
Jan 30th 2009, 04:20 AM
Being in the middle of reading The Spiritual Man, I'm going to try and do the 30,000 foot view of things. Of course Mr. Nee goes into much detail and explains it much better, but here goes:

Before the fall, man was regulated by his spirit telling his soul what's up, and executing that through his body. Spirit in charge (along with God, who is Spirit), soul subject to that, body subject to both. God works from the inside out, Spirit to spirit. The enemy works from the outside in, as you can see the first time he shows up to tempt through a fruit, and is successful. Uses the fruit as a visual hook, then plants a thought into the woman's mind (part of her soul) using her ears (by talking to her) and voila, trouble.

So now after the fall you have the spirit of man cut off from God, with the body pulling every which way and the soul in the middle trying its best to be in charge apart from God's guidance and failing miserably (because, of course, said enemy mentioned above didn't just poof vanish and works the same way he always has, from the outside in, laying traps everywhere and enticing people to sin).

And then when we are born again, it's simply God restoring things to how He intended them to be. No more being controlled by our bodies' constant wants and needs (depending what it's seeing or hearing or picking up through any of our senses at any given moment) nor our souls' egotistical inclinations and emotional or intellectual/logical random wafflings (which are usually dictated by self-this and self-that, me me me, mine mine mine). Our bodies in and of themselves aren't sinful; they are marvelous creations, but can certainly be used as vehicles for sin. Which is why we are admonished to offer them up daily to the Lord as sacrifices to His service. And we certainly will pay the price of sin in our bodies if that is what we use them for. But it is our souls (mind, will and emotions) that must be renewed because spiritual things by account of the fall are strange concepts to it and so it must be taught and trained and rebuilt properly. We renew our minds by studying God's Word. We renew our emotions by making them subject to our spirits and God's commandments instead of being led around by them, and we renew our will by making it subject to the will of God and surrender.

Our spirits are to be in charge, led by the Holy Spirit, with whom we are now united and who should be boss, at all times. Our spirits, by revelation from God and intuition of knowing His will, are to tell our souls what to do, to get our bodies to do it. That is God's order.

I hope that makes sense in any kind of way. Of course there's much more to it, but I promised a 30,000 foot view and so there you have it. :)

Sirus
Jan 30th 2009, 04:32 AM
Watchman Nee? I can literally, for every line of your post, ask for just one verse for support, and have absolute confidence you cannot produce even one. Nee's 'soul life' 'die to self' doesn't exist in scripture. It's just ancient Greek and Gnostic philosophy and dualism perfected by Augustine.

Dani H
Jan 30th 2009, 05:05 AM
Watchman Nee? I can literally, for every line of your post, ask for just one verse for support, and have absolute confidence you cannot produce even one. Nee's 'soul life' 'die to self' doesn't exist in scripture. It's just ancient Greek and Gnostic philosophy and dualism perfected by Augustine.

I'm sorry, but what does that even mean?

Sirus
Jan 30th 2009, 05:09 AM
It means exactly what I said. Greek Gnostic and Eastern philosophy and dualism perfected by Augustine and Nee is anti-gospel and not one line in your post is scriptural.

Dani H
Jan 30th 2009, 05:36 AM
It means exactly what I said. Greek Gnostic and Eastern philosophy and dualism perfected by Augustine and Nee is anti-gospel and not one line in your post is scriptural.

That's a pretty broad statement. I understand what gnosticism is and don't subscribe to any of it. So what do you base this on?

Sirus
Jan 30th 2009, 05:41 AM
So what do you base this on?"not one line in your post is scriptural"

Walstib
Jan 30th 2009, 01:34 PM
"not one line in your post is scriptural"

How about a discussion on it then instead of a one liner? Tis the purpose of the thread. Help out with some points and reasoning. It would help DaniHansen know specifically what to address, it was a bigger post.

I actually found the post did justice to refuting what I would have called the "gnostic ideas" floating around in this thread and look forward to joining in the discussion when I have time.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Jan 30th 2009, 02:10 PM
I was researching about the "all flesh is evil" concept. Maybe agreeing on a definition of this or gnostic would be good for this discussion. I know I am learning here.

peace,
Joe

Sirus
Jan 31st 2009, 02:04 AM
How about a discussion on it then instead of a one liner? Tis the purpose of the thread. Help out with some points and reasoning. It would help DaniHansen know specifically what to address, it was a bigger post.

I actually found the post did justice to refuting what I would have called the "gnostic ideas" floating around in this thread and look forward to joining in the discussion when I have time.

Peace,
JoeAll that is necessary at this point is a one liner. Not one verse with context has been given in support of 'soul death' die to self'. If DaniHansen wanted to know what to address then DaniHansen would have given scripture to support her words in multitude without scripture (you do know what scripture says about much words...).

The post did justice without scripture for us to discuss? Interesting indeed!

It's actually very simple. Deny isn't die. Die is always physical in all case and all contexts. Christ crucified the old man. He's gone man! Dying to self daily is just an religious attempt to hang on to what has God killed. That's futile, and hardly the power of the gospel to make us free in-deed!

Now we can run down ALL passages. I've done it many, many times, and I''ll do it again, not leaving any instances out and not leaving context out. First, lets give the defense against the plain truth a chance to do the same, if the text and context can be shown to speak of dying to self daily.....

Walstib
Jan 31st 2009, 02:43 AM
Hi Sirus,

Sorry we are not on the same page here. I respect your opinion and that of Dani as well. Call me :crazy: but I would enjoy reading a mellow conversation between the two of you. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

About the scripture references...justice.... stuff. It's nothing new for people to disagree around here. Sometimes I just want to say something without posting the hundred or more scriptures that could be posted. right or wrong context. I am just a simple man that agreed with part of DaniHansen's post, and the scripture it made me think of, .....not sure what more to say.

I am still trying to figure out a word to describe thinking the flesh has a mind of it's own and we can blame our sins on this flesh guy. That was my reference to gnostic, and I an still not sure how much that is the right word. I was not trying to chose sides. Trying to figure some stuff out is all.

Peace eh, :)
Joe

Dani H
Jan 31st 2009, 05:31 AM
Gnosticism is an esoterical belief system that maintains that people can have some secret knowledge of God that the "uninitiated" somehow have no access to. This is false. God can be known by anybody through His Son, Jesus Christ. There is nothing secret about being ready to die for the Savior and forsaking everything for Him, no matter what it costs us because He has already given us His very life.

There is no "flesh guy". We're one person. We can neither blame "flesh guy" nor the devil for our behavior, because, well, it's our behavior and we at any given point in time do have control over it. We have to continue abiding in the same Jesus who we entered into when we first confessed our faith in Him and entered God's Kingdom. We have to submit daily, and surrender daily, in any way that God shows us, and leave everything that is not of Him, behind. Now if we find ourselves struggling against obeying a commandment because of something rising up within us that would rather smack another person upside the head with a blunt object than treat them with love, then that's not "flesh guy," that's our soul with its many emotional and mental makeups that are not all compatible with God's ways. We have not because we ask not. We have not, because we ask amiss so that we can spend it on our selfish pleasures. Again, this is why our wills have to be surrendered and our minds have to be renewed and our emotions tempered as we go through various trials sent our way by the God who knows us best and who is bound and determined to shape us into the image of His Son. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. We will never be able to step past what we really believe and what we really think. But if we follow after the Spirit and subject ourselves to God's dealings with us, then we'll be too busy obeying God and learning His ways, rather than moaping about in our own self-involved, self-absorbed ways. There's only 24 hours in each given day. We can either spend them chasing after God, or after what we want. Our choice. :)

P.S. Nowhere in my first post did I say anything about "soul death." Not sure where you would get that from. Nor did I say that I'm 100% subscribed to Mr. Nee's teachings. But he does make a lot of valid points. And, the life he lived and the fruit he bore is something that I deeply respect. I haven't had to spend a single day behind bars for my faith in the Savior. I can't imagine what it must be like spending many years in such a way.

Friend of I AM
Jan 31st 2009, 03:22 PM
Jesus condemned sin in the flesh

Rom 8:3 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:

So according to you, God condemned the sin nature in the flesh? I though everyone said the flesh is the sin nature?

Flesh is flesh -sarx- it is not and cannot be a sinful nature. Nature is the essence of a thing and the flesh is just one part of our being. The flesh cannot be a nature by itself. Nothing in the flesh can be a nature by itself. The concept is diametrically opposed to the meaning of the word nature.

To say that someone that has lived their life according to the natural course of and spirit of this world has a sinful nature would be someone who's body soul and spirit has been affected by sin. That's biblical. Notice they are not born with any of this or anything different than Adam. Why single out the flesh? Does the spirit not need to be cleansed of all filthiness (2Co 7:1)? Doesn't Paul pray our "spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Th 5:23). Why single out the flesh?

Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.(Corinthians 15:50) The flesh is not singled out by me, it is singled out by the gospel. The flesh itself is not the original source of sin, as sin in itself is celestial in nature..being that it was present before the fall.

But sin itself did indeed enter the natural man through Adam, and thus..sin is now present within the flesh as well. If we walk by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit..a spirit of peace, truth, kindness, good will..we will not succumb to the any sin nature that resides within the flesh.

Our soul and body can only be redeemed and transformed into an imperishable form by God. This is why Paul asserts "the creation groans" to be redeemed of it's present decayed position.(Romans 8:22-23) We do not have any transformative power within us to become son's of God and become eternal beings.

Walstib
Jan 31st 2009, 04:12 PM
Our sinful desires come from the flesh. Though we are not living by the sinful nature that exists within the flesh, our bodies still exist in this dead flesh.

I do agree our physical bodies are still part of us while alive on this earth. I am trying to understand what you are saying with bodies existing in flesh. Could you use a few more words for me please so I know what you are saying.


So unfortunately our spirit is housed in this dead flesh during our walks, and our bodies groan for the redemption of this dead flesh and for the transformation into something imperishable. (Romans 19:21)

Romans 8 I am thinking...? great chapter for this discussion

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Rom 8:20-23 NKJV)

As I read it it is we (ourselves) that groan waiting for the redemption of the physical body. Not so much the literal body itself doing the groaning. I'm still not sure if you believe the physical body has a mind of it's own without "us".

Or if you believe our being crucified with Christ is completely literal or something we reckon about ourselves. A spiritual parallel explaining changes in us in us rather then a literal event.

In different words, is our physical flesh crucified and dead or is it something intangible that is being explained?

Peace,
Joe

Sirus
Jan 31st 2009, 04:25 PM
Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.(Corinthians 15:50) The flesh is not singled out by me, it is singled out by the gospel. The flesh itself is not the original source of sin, as sin in itself is celestial in nature..being that it was present before the fall. Sin is not a thing. Therefore it cannot have a nature.
Celestial means in the heavens or heavenly, from the clouds to God’s abode.
The ‘sinner from the beginning’ was on the earth both when he sinned and when he tempted Eve.
Scripture is very clear temptation originates in our flesh. You said this earlier;
“Our sinful desires come from the flesh.”



But sin itself did indeed enter the natural man through Adam, and thus..sin is now present within the flesh as well. If we walk by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit..a spirit of peace, truth, kindness, good will..we will not succumb to the any sin nature that resides within the flesh. Sin is not a thing to enter anything. The thing has the nature, not a nature within its nature.



Our soul and body can only be redeemed and transformed into an imperishable form by God. This is why Paul asserts "the creation groans" to be redeemed of it's present decayed position.(Romans 8:22-23) We do not have any transformative power within us to become son's of God and become eternal beings.Creation was made subject to corruption by God not man (Rom 8:20). The first Adam was a natural corruptible mortal man and it pleased the Lord to make him so (1Cor 15) -it is good.

Walstib
Jan 31st 2009, 04:31 PM
HI Sirus,

Please be patient with me and my slowness. :)


.......God condemned the sin nature in the flesh? I though everyone said the flesh is the sin nature?

Flesh is flesh -sarx- it is not and cannot be a sinful nature. Nature is the essence of a thing and the flesh is just one part of our being. The flesh cannot be a nature by itself. Nothing in the flesh can be a nature by itself. The concept is diametrically opposed to the meaning of the word nature.

Again you can call me crazy but I do think at times the words "the flesh" are used figuratively to speak of the carnal aspect of our mind. I'm not sure that is the best way to put it but consider....

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:5-8 NKJV)

The word carnally bolded in the above verse is the same word in question here. Strong's G4561. I think it hard to argue that the "carnal mind" is literal flesh. Then at the end of the passage it says "those who are in the flesh cannot please God." I think it safe to say there are people who are still "in" literal bodies that can please God. (1Thess 4)
Why single out the flesh? Does the spirit not need to be cleansed of all filthiness (2Co 7:1)? Doesn't Paul pray our "spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Th 5:23). Why single out the flesh?

I agree and part of the reasoning I started this thread. ;)

Peace,
Joe

Sirus
Jan 31st 2009, 04:51 PM
P.S. Nowhere in my first post did I say anything about "soul death." Not sure where you would get that from. I said that because of your reference to the soul -‘mind, will, emotions’, and the need for their surrender. Always said by Nee and the other Christian Life writers of the Keswick movement to be a daily dying to self over a process of time, and you pointed out ‘we do this and we do that’ to make it happen through process.

holyrokker
Jan 31st 2009, 04:56 PM
Romans 8:5-9 "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."

This is the "carnal mind". It is setting your mind on physical pleasure. It is not a "sin nature". It also does not imply that there is something inherently sinful about the flesh. The sin is in setting our minds on what the body craves. It is submitting ourselves to our impulses. It is living as if we are animals, without thought of consequences, and without thought of God.

Just_Another_Guy
Jan 31st 2009, 04:59 PM
I do agree our physical bodies are still part of us while alive on this earth. I am trying to understand what you are saying with bodies existing in flesh. Could you use a few more words for me please so I know what you are saying.


Here's a link to Corinthians 15:40-54 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:40-54;&version=9;)

I think he may have been speaking about what Paul mentions in the verses above about our current bodies..being natural, not our resurrection bodies which are said in scripture to be spiritual.



Romans 8 I am thinking...? great chapter for this discussion

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Rom 8:20-23 NKJV)

As I read it it is we (ourselves) that groan waiting for the redemption of the physical body. Not so much the literal body itself doing the groaning. I'm still not sure if you believe the physical body has a mind of it's own without "us".


In defense of FIA(something I don't like to do too often) I think he just got a word or two wrong in the verse above. I think he meant we ourselves groan. Regarding your second inquiry...My personal opinion is that our bodies in a sense do have "minds of their own" as the Apostle Paul states that it is indeed no longer us sinning(while walking in the spirit) but it is the flesh that is sinning.(Romans 7:17)

Grace,

Matthew

Friend of I AM
Jan 31st 2009, 05:09 PM
Here's a link to Corinthians 15:40-54 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:40-54;&version=9;)
I think he may have been talking to what Paul mentions in the verses above about our current bodies..being natural, not our resurrection bodies which are said in scripture to be spiritual.


You finally actually took what I said in context, instead of just taking a few words of what I said and then turning it into a whole argument..and then defended me accurately while doing so. I didn't though you had that in you. Thanks!(sic)



In defense of FIA(something I don't like to do too often) I think he just got a word or two wrong in the verse above. I think he meant we ourselves groan. Regarding your second inquiry...My personal opinion is that our bodies in a sense do have "minds of their own" as the Apostle Paul states that it is indeed no longer us sinning(while walking in the spirit) but it is the flesh that is sinning.(Romans 7:17)

Grace,

Matthew

You mean we can make mistakes while walking in the spirit? I don't make mistakes bud. I've been transformed. My walk is a walk of perfection. Even when I walk down an icy street with dress shoes on, I never stumble..;)

Just_Another_Guy
Jan 31st 2009, 05:12 PM
You finally actually took what I said in context, instead of just taking a few words of what I said and then turning it into a whole argument..and then defended me accurately while doing so. I didn't though you had that in you. Thanks!(sic)


I make mistakes too you know..:)



You mean we can make mistakes while walking in the spirit? I don't make mistakes bud. I've been transformed. My walk is a walk of perfection. Even when I walk down an icy street with dress shoes on, I never stumble..;)

Your knowledge and spiritual walk/level has of yet not been perfected to mine as of yet. Get some work boots with a lot of tread. I hear those work better.

Sirus
Jan 31st 2009, 05:16 PM
Again you can call me crazy but I do think at times the words "the flesh" are used figuratively to speak of the carnal aspect of our mind. I'm not sure that is the best way to put it but consider....

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:5-8 NKJV)

The word carnally bolded in the above verse is the same word in question here. Strong's G4561. I think it hard to argue that the "carnal mind" is literal flesh. Then at the end of the passage it says "those who are in the flesh cannot please God." I think it safe to say there are people who are still "in" literal bodies that can please God. (1Thess 4)
I don't see how you see flesh used figuratively here. It says they live after the flesh, set their mind on flesh, so are fleshly minded. Their mind is on fleshly things. The fleshly things are lust and desires, not figurative, just not tangible by themselves.

To understand "they that are in the flesh" of v8 you must read v9 that says "but you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwell in you".

This is not figurative either. This is our position in Christ, having been crucified, buried, raised, and ascended with Him, which is believed by faith, trusting because God said so.
Being asked to believe what we cannot see doesn't make it figurative. Especially once you have tasted of the power to come and overcome the world the flesh and the devil by faith, believing you don't have to sin because you are dead. Faith in our position in Christ then becomes evidence and substance for all to see.
The promises to Abraham were not figurative, just not seen.

Walstib
Jan 31st 2009, 05:51 PM
I think he may have been speaking about what Paul mentions in the verses above about our current bodies..being natural, not our resurrection bodies which are said in scripture to be spiritual.

If this was the intention I thank you for helping. I am just an imperfect guy trying to understand people and have a conversation. I am still a bit confused how saying a body exists in the flesh means we have a present and natural body as opposed to a future and spiritual body. No big thing though, the conversation is not forced, just asked for.

There have been posts like "I am me but not I and the me I am is not who that is......." please give a brother some slack in trying to understand where someone is coming from amid this kind of talk.



In defense of FIA(something I don't like to do too often) I think he just got a word or two wrong in the verse above. I think he meant we ourselves groan. Regarding your second inquiry...My personal opinion is that our bodies in a sense do have "minds of their own" as the Apostle Paul states that it is indeed no longer us sinning(while walking in the spirit) but it is the flesh that is sinning.(Romans 7:17)

I am not sure you are right here, I am still thinking he meant the bodies groaned, and has every opportunity to say yes or no and discuss it. I am often wrong and not looking to condemn anybody.

I must say though this "mind of it's own" thing just does not sit well with me. Like I am not ultimately in control of my physical body.

EG... "Oh.. I just murdered someone... well it was just the flesh, it was not really me...I have no control over my actions... no wait... it was sin living in me... that nasty little sin guy.. always getting himself into trouble.... "

Is that not the logical direction to take this concept? I am not responsible for my thoughts or actions after I get regenerated?

My little rant not directed at you specifically, I really appreciate your attempt to help and clarify.

Peace,
Joe

Just_Another_Guy
Jan 31st 2009, 06:09 PM
If this was the intention I thank you for helping. I am just an imperfect guy trying to understand people and have a conversation.


No problem I'm just a man like you, so I understand your dilemma..;) What I said to FIA about being perfect was a bit tongue and cheek. We do that sometimes. I'm not sure entirely what he meant by bodies groaned. It just looked like a mistake of wording..but who knows.



I am still a bit confused how saying a body exists in the flesh means we have a present and natural body as opposed to a future and spiritual body. No big thing though, the conversation is not forced, just asked for.


Our bodies are in a natural state...with the exception of the Holy Spirit that indwells us. At some point we will get new bodies that are entirely spiritual in nature. I'm sorry but unfortunately this any better than this. Paul's synopsis of the different types of bodies in Corinthians 15 explains it better than any other way in which I could explain it.



I must say though this "mind of it's own" thing just does not sit well with me. Like I am not ultimately in control of my physical body.

EG... "Oh.. I just murdered someone... well it was just the flesh, it was not really me...I have no control over my actions... no wait... it was sin living in me... that nasty little sin guy.. always getting himself into trouble.... "


Would you blame your actions on God's Holy Spirit? My thought would be no. One can at times in their walk succumb to the desires of the flesh. If this were not the case, then none of us would have need of repentance during our walks. Scripture states that we do still need to repent though. We repent because we are human, and our bodies have not completely been redeemed into that which is of imperishable. I hope this makes sense to you.

Dani H
Jan 31st 2009, 06:56 PM
I said that because of your reference to the soul -‘mind, will, emotions’, and the need for their surrender. Always said by Nee and the other Christian Life writers of the Keswick movement to be a daily dying to self over a process of time, and you pointed out ‘we do this and we do that’ to make it happen through process.

If there is no process, then why would our minds need to be renewed? Why are we being told to offer up our bodies as living sacrifices? To give us busy work to do? Or for a good reason? Undergoing a process changes nothing in our position with God and the actuality of it. It is because of our position that the process works. Of course we have been crucified and buried with Jesus and therefore resurrected with Him. There is no death without resurrection because that is what God does. If we have been crucified and died with Jesus, then we also live with Him, in that resurrection life. And we must abide and live this thing from God's point of view, not our own. If there is no need for renewal, then where do these ungodly urges come from? Thin air? What do we do about them? Pretend they don't exist? They do, very much so. We at any given moment have the choice to give in to them, or walk after the Spirit and obey God instead. If we're finished products, as you say, then why do we continue to treat each other badly? If our beliefs do not result in fruit, consistently, then there is something wrong with our beliefs, don't you think?

I have found over the past 13 years that whenever I surrender something to God, real deliverance happens, and I never go back and touch that thing again because He really and truly pulls it out of me. That is something I can sink my teeth into and count on, into the nooks and crannies and into the nitty gritty of real life, in all its forms and angles. That there is a real way to deal with my ever-present pullings, and it doesn't have to be a life-long struggle or a pretending that something doesn't exist, when it clearly does. When God touches something, it is completely done. When He brings deliverance, then it is true and lasting. I don't have to talk myself into anything or do religious jumping-jacks, because God is able to deliver, and He does so, daily, whatever I give Him. Ever deeper it goes. And I never have to worry about it again. After surrender, the struggle with that particular thing is over, for good. That is the reality I live in. And, I wouldn't have it any other way. This is neither esoterical nor some secret knowledge, but plain reality. Whom the Son sets free, is free indeed. :)

I've read many of your posts and there is much truth to what you have to say. I pray you take me out of whatever box you seem to have stuffed me in and grant me the same courtesy. It would be much appreciated. We're all here to learn from each other, no?

Walstib
Jan 31st 2009, 06:59 PM
Hi Sirus, I appreciate the dialog. Obviously it's not always easy to express our thoughts in general let alone on this kind of forum.

I don't see how you see flesh used figuratively here. It says they live after the flesh, set their mind on flesh, so are fleshly minded. Their mind is on fleshly things. The fleshly things are lust and desires, not figurative, just not tangible by themselves.
I think we agree for the most part. Figurative is probably not the right word. I am always searching for the right words it seems. I am reasoning that being "in the flesh" here means to be following after these intangible desires that can be said relate to earthly things, of which our literal bodies are, they are earthly things. Practicing going after earthly things one is "in the flesh" rather than practicing going after spiritual things one is "in the Spirit".

Contrasted to being in our literal bodies as people who practice either of these things are still in their present bodies until these bodies are glorified.

To understand "they that are in the flesh" of v8 you must read v9 that says "but you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwell in you".
My point above. If it were a literal body, and we are not in it anymore, where are we?

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a one was caught up to the third heaven. (2Co 12:2 NKJV)

I would say this person was "in the Spirit" according to what is being taught in Romans 8, yet is still "in the body" when not in the third heaven, no? We can be "in the body" yet not "in the flesh". Make sense?


This is not figurative either. This is our position in Christ, having been crucified, buried, raised, and ascended with Him, which is believed by faith, trusting because God said so.
Forget the word figurative.... Has our physical flesh been crucified, buried, raised and ascended with him?

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the circumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.(Col 2:11-14 NKJV)

Earthly circumcision compared to spiritual circumcision. One with physical hands one without hands. This is the concept I am looking at here. Not physically buried, or raised but spiritually.

Being asked to believe what we cannot see doesn't make it figurative. Especially once you have tasted of the power to come and overcome the world the flesh and the devil by faith, believing you don't have to sin because you are dead.
Again that figurative word that is causing most of the problems I think. There is an actual spiritual "burial, baptism and death to the old man" These reflected by the earthly things that mirror them. I think anyway.

Calling both earthly or both spiritual does not seem to me to be dividing things properly. *shrug*

Faith in our position in Christ then becomes evidence and substance for all to see.
The promises to Abraham were not figurative, just not seen.

I think I agree fully with this conclusion and point.

Peace,
Joe

Sirus
Feb 1st 2009, 03:27 AM
If there is no process, then why would our minds need to be renewed?First, I never said there is no process. Maybe you are not too familiar with the Christian Life writers and I wrongly assumed you are? If so, I apologize, I shouldn't have assumed that. I am speaking in their terms simply because you said you were posting in light of a Nee book. In their terms this process is long and hard. Even up to 20 years. There's no power in their gospel. It's philosophy and humanism mixed with Christian principles, plain and simple. Their writings are full of it.

Second, I never said our minds don't need to be renewed. I'm simply challenging the notion it is a long and hard process. Look at the word transformed and it's context.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Is there anything there, the preceeding chapters, or anywhere that indicate a long hard process? Or is it our experience and religion that tells us that? Look at the word elswhere....

Mar 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Do you see a long process? Certainly not! Ephesians 4 is no different. Paul told those on milk they shouldn't be and that they should be on meat. Timothy was told not to let anyone dispise his young age. Could it be 2000 years later the church is full of babies sucking on milk bottles? I think that's rather obvious for a day of apostasy don't you?



It is because of our position that the process works. Of course we have been crucified and buried with Jesus and therefore resurrected with Him. There is no death without resurrection because that is what God does. If we have been crucified and died with Jesus, then we also live with Him, in that resurrection life. And we must abide and live this thing from God's point of view, not our own. Right, and God's point of view is that we are washed, sanctified, dead, buried, and raised.



If there is no need for renewal, then where do these ungodly urges come from?Body, soul, spirit. All have been effected by sin.



What do we do about them? Pretend they don't exist?Believe we are crucified with Christ WITH the affections and lusts (Gal 5:24). No need for counseling. No need for a Christian Life book. Just believe Jesus.



We at any given moment have the choice to give in to them, or walk after the Spirit and obey God instead.Correct, and is why it is called a walk by faith.



If we're finished products, as you say, then why do we continue to treat each other badly?I never said we are finished products here and now, just positionally. See the two different Greek words for perfect in Philippians 3 verses 12 and 15



I pray you take me out of whatever box you seem to have stuffed me in and grant me the same courtesy. It would be much appreciated. We're all here to learn from each other, no? As I sad above, if I have wrongly assumed you were aware of the false gospel writers like Nee propagate I am very sorry. Nee and others say alot of good things. Nee says exactly what I say to a point....problem is, when it gets right down to the gospel of their death in Christ 2000 years ago they stop believing (looking at their experience) and say it must be something they do. No, Christ did it all, I just believe it and let him finish the work he started. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Dani H
Feb 1st 2009, 03:57 AM
Well I do heartily appreciate your clarifications here, and I'm learning. I believe that a disciple can never be greater than his master, and for me personally, I have long resolved (and God has pushed me to that point and will not waiver) to not make my master any human being. I have one Master, and His name is Jesus. I follow no man, because I do believe that in Him, we are all equal, and there is none above and below, so everyone has something to teach us, to help us further down the road. And each one of us has something to contribute to the whole, whatever God has given us to do. Every cell in the body is important, I think, and that is in line with Scripture (of course Paul speaks of body parts as there was no such thing as microbiology back then, and so I think it's the same principle).

I once did believe that my spirit is all sorts of perfect, but I'm coming to the realization that even our spirits can be affected by things and that it is our responsibility to see to it that we indeed always remain in a position where we are able to, with our spirits, communicate with the Holy Spirit and receive His guidance. But I still also believe, and will always believe, that it is our spirits through which God works and speaks. He always speaks to me through my spirit. Always, and without fail. And my spirit seems to be around my stomach area (of sorts) which is why "truth in the inward parts" and so many references the OT makes to how God speaks to us, just completely bless me because I find it to be exactly so. The rest of me just plays catch-up to digest and realize what He said, and incorporates it. Every. Single. Time. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth.

I'm also having second thoughts about this whole flesh thing, and what exactly it is. There is obviously something within us that is completely frail and tends to crumble into the dust when it comes to dealing with spiritual things. I don't know how to describe it. And God doesn't exactly call me to die to myself, but to whichever situation and circumstance I think I want to be in control of and play God in. It usually happens somewhere along the lines of "Lord, what do You want me to do with this?" And the answer is always "You do nothing. You die to it, and you let Me handle it." I don't know if that's a dying to self, or more of a dying to want to play God, I think, when you boil it right down to it. There can only be one God and one who calls the shots and gets to be in control. We're stewards, bondslaves and disciples, never masters. There can only be one Master, and His name is Jesus. We get to reign with Him, but never in His place. We get to be joint-heirs, but He is our inheritance, and all is in Him alone. Surprisingly enough, when that surrender happens, that is when I find rest, and peace, and the correct approach to any given situation because I can just let God be God and walk in the freedom of that.

That's a lot of ramblings and I hope that makes any sort of sense ... :)

Yukerboy
Feb 1st 2009, 04:21 AM
I’m just going to start off with saying comparing spiritual to spiritual and earthly to earthly is where I think we differ the most.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (Joh 3:6 NKJV)

One earthly birth one spiritual birth. Notice how the translators capitalize the first Spirit. I would agree “born of” means by a person of the Godhead, this contrasting natural parents. This use of flesh speaking of a literal body.

Then "being in the Spirit" (capital S) would not be us dwelling in our spirit, but resting in Mr. Holy Spirit.

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.(Eph 2:19-22 NKJV)


As unorthodox as you and many others may think I am, we're not as far off as you think.

That which is born of flesh is flesh (dust of the earth, earthly, of the world). That which is born of the Spirit is spirit (born from above, chosen out of the world, heavenly)

It is our spirit that is born of God. Our flesh is not "reborn", and neither is our spirit. Our corruptible flesh is born once, and the incorruptible spirit is born again.

We were in the flesh, but are now no longer strangers to God. The flesh belongs to the world, but the spirit belongs to God.



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. (Rom 7:23 NKJV)

Read that verse again and tell me if you don’t think it is “the law of sin” that the person is captive to rather than the flesh being a place one is captive inside.


No, I agree with you, and this law of sin resides in my members (flesh). I feel it could be used interchangably.



Here too I believe you have the earthly place (physical body/atoms/temple) switched with the spiritual place (carnal mind/the flesh/fallen nature). All people have both kinds of flesh, one spoken of as a reflection of the other. Like in this example neglect of the physical body and indulgence of the non physical flesh are both spoken of.

"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.(Col2:21-23 NKJV)


Agreed.



consider..
But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. (Heb 10:39 NKJV)


Right. We cannot draw back to perdition for we have been born again. We are no longer our flesh. We are no longer "of the world".

Sirus
Feb 1st 2009, 05:11 AM
Well I do heartily appreciate your clarifications here, and I'm learning.I appreciate the time you have taken as well.




It usually happens somewhere along the lines of "Lord, what do You want me to do with this?" And the answer is always "You do nothing. You die to it, and you let Me handle it." I don't know if that's a dying to self, or more of a dying to want to play God, I think, when you boil it right down to it.No, that's not dying to self IMO. If Christ crucified us we are already dead. The death is always past tense in scripture. My wife and I often say 'I am dead to insert temptation'. I say the same thing when tempted, thank Jesus for crucifying me, the temptation leaves and his Spirit overflows and there is joy unspeakable. If it was a part of me dying, the temptation would never return but they do, just not as often.

"yield not" in Romans 6:13-19
"mortify" (make inoperative) in Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5
is by faith and can be accomplished because we already are dead. A mortician makes inoperative the dead, he does not mortify the living.




That's a lot of ramblings and I hope that makes any sort of sense ... :)Yes, it helped me understand better. Thanks!

BroRog
Feb 1st 2009, 05:26 AM
I don't see how you see flesh used figuratively here. It says they live after the flesh, set their mind on flesh, so are fleshly minded. Their mind is on fleshly things. The fleshly things are lust and desires, not figurative, just not tangible by themselves.

While the term "flesh" can refer to our lust and desires, the term is much broader than that, especially as Paul uses it in Romans 8. When Paul talks about walking according to the flesh, he isn't primarily talking about living in lust.

If we go back to chapter 7, we see how Paul struggled with lust, but his struggle didn't work itself out physically. He wasn't acting on his lust. Rather, his struggle with lust worked itself out internally. He compares is former self-assessment with his current self-assessment, suggesting that once he finally understood the truth behind the law about coveting, he began to see himself differently.

Before the law came, he says, he was alive. But after the law came, he was dead. He didn't actually die. He means his self-assessment changed. He thought of himself as being alive with respect to God's approval. But when he finally understood what God was trying to say to him, he suddenly realized he was dead with respect to God's approval. But he didn't actually change. He was dead all along and just didn't know it.

This new knowledge came about because the Spirit of God was working with him, helping him see the truth about himself, and helping him come to terms with the reality of the situation. This kind of truth is hard to accept and many of us don't want to go there. But by the grace of God, the Spirit helped Paul get past this initial resistance to the truth about himself and helped him come to terms with a realistic view of himself.

He describes his struggle with coveting, not in term of actions that he took, but in terms of his mind set, and the struggle he had coming to terms with the implications this truth had on Paul's own perception of himself. What did his lust say about him as a person?

In that struggle he came to realize that, although his lust proved that he wasn't the person he thought he was, though his lust disqualified him from seeking God's approval on his own merits, his willingness to love God, to love his law, and to see himself for what he is, said something good about him.

Many characterize Romans 7 as Paul's preconversion experience in which he was plagued by sin and disobedience. I think Romans 7 is Paul's post-conversion experience in which he and the Spirit of God are in an active pursuit of the truth. Romans 7 is actually Paul walking according to the Spirit, because he is engaged with the Spirit of God in a joint effort to come to terms with a realistic self-assessement. This engagement itself is the mark of one born of God.

In Romans 8, Paul mentions this as a mark of a person who is "in the spirit."

In Romans 7, Paul is being led by the spirit to understand himself the way he truly is. In Romans 8, he puts it this way.

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

In Romans 7, Paul is coming to realize that even though he has an internal struggle with lust, he also has a true view of God, a true view of the law, and a right assessment of himself as a sinner. In Romans 8, he describes this as,

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God . . .

To walk by the Spirit then, doesn't mean we appropriate the Spirit as a force in order to be sucessful saints and avoid sin. To walk by the Spirit is to walk WITH the Spirit as the two of us engage in an internal dialog, as I come to the truth about myself and obtain a realistic perspective about myself.

holyrokker
Feb 1st 2009, 06:47 AM
Thank you, BrotherRog!

That was one of the clearest explanations of Romans 7 and 8 I've ever read!

Sirus
Feb 1st 2009, 08:32 AM
Yes, I agree, it is very good.
I don't know what it has to do with what I said but.....very good indeed!
BroRog?

Walstib
Feb 1st 2009, 05:05 PM
So now after the fall you have the spirit of man cut off from God, with the body pulling every which way and the soul in the middle trying its best to be in charge apart from God's guidance and failing miserably (because, of course, said enemy mentioned above didn't just poof vanish and works the same way he always has, from the outside in, laying traps everywhere and enticing people to sin).
I agree for the most part. I do think there is a functioning spirit in all men, a functioning conscience no matter how seared or neglected, but with a loss of intimacy after “the fall” and this intimacy restored in regeneration. I think it could be added that we the enemy is not always needed as the desires that are with us still having these natural bodies can be tempting enough without him.

But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. (Jas 1:14 NKJV)

Our bodies in and of themselves aren't sinful; they are marvelous creations, but can certainly be used as vehicles for sin. Which is why we are admonished to offer them up daily to the Lord as sacrifices to His service. And we certainly will pay the price of sin in our bodies if that is what we use them for.
This is where I was trying to focus. We are in control of what our bodies do, they don’t transgress the law without us. We are called to glorify God in our bodies, the temple for the Holy Spirit, not “let it do what it wants” because it is not really us and has a mind of it’s own.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's. (1Co 6:15-20 NKJV)

Our spirits are to be in charge, led by the Holy Spirit, with whom we are now united and who should be boss, at all times. Our spirits, by revelation from God and intuition of knowing His will, are to tell our souls what to do, to get our bodies to do it. That is God's order.
I agree but just word it a bit different. I believe now we have one mind and not three minds. I used to think we had three minds in a way… spirit-mind, soul-mind and flesh-mind, I have thrown that concept out now. God speaks to us through our spirit, which is given of Him, part of Him and belongs to Him. We reason, think and decide in our mind, the thoughts of the flesh not a separate consciousness that speaks to us but the thoughts we have based in satisfying the carnal desires present within us because we have physical bodies in this fallen creation. The enemy may throw his fiery darts at the flesh, but it is not the physical flesh itself we fight against.

He also brought me up out of a horrible pit, Out of the miry clay, And set my feet upon a rock, And established my steps. He has put a new song in my mouth-- Praise to our God; Many will see it and fear, And will trust in the Lord. Blessed is that man who makes the Lord his trust, And does not respect the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies. Many, O Lord my God, are Your wonderful works Which You have done; And Your thoughts toward us Cannot be recounted to You in order; If I would declare and speak of them, They are more than can be numbered.(Psa 40:2-5 NKJV)

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; (Eph 6:11-17 NKJV)

And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man." (Mar 7:20-23 NKJV)

Thanks for participating!
Joe

Walstib
Feb 1st 2009, 05:11 PM
Yes, I agree, it is very good.
I don't know what it has to do with what I said but.....very good indeed!
BroRog?

Do you view the posts in threaded mode Sirus? I know when I do that I get all confused because I have never really figured out why replies show up where they do. I'm just guessing this may be why you think people are replying to you specifically? :hmm:

I use the linear view myself.

Peace,
Joe

Sirus
Feb 1st 2009, 05:46 PM
I'm using linear. I'm not confused about order, just wondering if BroRog quoted me in agreement, disagreement, or to make a particular point only, because I agree with his post.

BTW; I'm still looking over your last post to me (#63). I haven't forgotten you.

Friend of I AM
Feb 1st 2009, 05:49 PM
To say that someone that has lived their life according to the natural course of and spirit of this world has a sinful nature would be someone who's body soul and spirit has been affected by sin. That's biblical. Notice they are not born with any of this or anything different than Adam. Why single out the flesh? Does the spirit not need to be cleansed of all filthiness (2Co 7:1)? Doesn't Paul pray our "spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Th 5:23). Why single out the flesh?


I'm going to adress this again because I dont think it was fully answered by myself.

Roma 8:1 [There] [is] therefore now no condemnation to those who are in the Messiah Yahushua, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

When we walk in the spirit..our earthly walk will be reminiscent of the following..

Galations 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

So I think Paul was speaking of us walking in the spirit, as oppossed to walking in the flesh when he speaks of making sure that we are perserved blameless 2Cor 7:1.

BroRog
Feb 1st 2009, 06:25 PM
I'm using linear. I'm not confused about order, just wondering if BroRog quoted me in agreement, disagreement, or to make a particular point only, because I agree with his post.

BTW; I'm still looking over your last post to me (#63). I haven't forgotten you.

While I'm not sure what to make of this discussion about the "literal verses the figurative" use of the term "flesh", I thought what you said about Romans 8 was good and I wanted to expand on the theme you raised.

Sirus
Feb 1st 2009, 06:57 PM
While I'm not sure what to make of this discussion about the "literal verses the figurative" use of the term "flesh", I thought what you said about Romans 8 was good and I wanted to expand on the theme you raised.Ah, great! Thanks for clearing that up. I wanted to be sure I was not missing you were trying to draw my attention to.

BadDog
Feb 1st 2009, 11:10 PM
What is “the flesh” talked about in these verses?
Do we “hear” it’s desires?
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. (Gal 5:16-17 NKJV)
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.(Rom 13:14 NKJV)
among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. (Eph 2:3 NKJV)
Well, the Greek word is σάρξ, which means:
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
3) a living creature (possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God.

The contrast is between humans and God. Hence the NIV at times translates it as "nature" or "human nature," but I think that simplifies it too much.

"Body" or just "flesh" is safest, IMO, to avoid misunderstanding or wrong ideas. When used in John 1 it refers to Christ becoming a human being. Taking on a human form.

BD

holyrokker
Feb 2nd 2009, 12:13 AM
Well, the Greek word is σάρξ, which means:
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
3) a living creature (possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God.

The contrast is between humans and God. Hence the NIV at times translates it as "nature" or "human nature," but I think that simplifies it too much.

"Body" or just "flesh" is safest, IMO, to avoid misunderstanding or wrong ideas. When used in John 1 it refers to Christ becoming a human being. Taking on a human form.

BD
Exactly! - There's nothing in the use of the word that would indicate that it is refering to any "sin nature".

Living according to the flesh simply means living according to the natural desires of the body; taking no thought as to what may be moral or immoral, paying to attention to the Spirit.

It's the same word used in verses such as Luke 3:6 "...and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

It's also used in John 3:6 when Jesus said; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

It refers to the physical as opposed to the spiritual.

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1957874&postcount=8

Walstib
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:17 AM
hmmm... before I go on here. Can I ask you all to take the time to tell me what you think I am saying. This would really help me out I think.

I am not trying to say anything about an inherited "sin nature" if it sounds like this. Honestly I don't believe this presently.

Thanks,
Joe

BadDog
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:26 AM
Joe,

Whether you hold to an inherited sin nature or not, that is not the idea communicated by σάρξ, as holyrokker says. Also, we should bear in mind that words have a spectrum of meaning, and context is key.

BD

Walstib
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:44 AM
Whether you hold to an inherited sin nature or not, that is not the idea communicated by σάρξ, as holyrokker says. Also, we should bear in mind that words have a spectrum of meaning, and context is key.

I think that is what I am trying to discuss here. If there is a spectrum of meaning, and context determines the intended meaning of the author, what are the different uses of this word in the different parts of the spectrum? Does it always, in every single use, mean exactly the same thing? As I see it now this is not the case.

With honesty,
Joe

BadDog
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:19 AM
I think that is what I am trying to discuss here. If there is a spectrum of meaning, and context determines the intended meaning of the author, what are the different uses of this word in the different parts of the spectrum? Does it always, in every single use, mean exactly the same thing? As I see it now this is not the case.

With honesty,
JoeJoe,

Well, OK, here's what I'm saying...
1) the literal flesh
2) the body
3) a living person/animal as opposed to the spiritual (again, has a fleshly body)
4) the human or earthly nature as opposed to a divine nature

But none of those means "sin nature." Anyway, that's how I've viewed it. I personally do not like how the NIV translates it as "sin nature" at times.

BD

Walstib
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:42 AM
Well, OK, here's what I'm saying...
1) the literal flesh
2) the body
3) a living person/animal as opposed to the spiritual (again, has a fleshly body)
4) the human or earthly nature as opposed to a divine nature

But none of those means "sin nature." Anyway, that's how I've viewed it. I personally do not like how the NIV translates it as "sin nature" at times.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I can't help but feel we are missing each other here, I am "feeling" misunderstood in general. I fully agree "sin nature" is not an intended use of the word. Inherited or otherwise.

I am persistent though. And will try once more with a different angle. :)

Do you think that definition #4 on your list is sometimes intended by Paul in his letters when using the word flesh? That sometimes the word is used to describe something you cannot hold in your hands however that is eventually defined.

Thanks for your patience,
Joe

Sirus
Feb 2nd 2009, 03:08 AM
I don't, because as I have said many times, one part of our nature cannot be a nature unto itself, it's just one part. The spirit and soul are effected by sin too. Flesh cannot be an essence of a thing if that thing has other parts and attributes. So to finish answering your question, "to describe something you cannot hold in your hands" I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by 'hold in my hands'? Literally, body soul and spirit? I can't, but God can.

BadDog
Feb 2nd 2009, 03:17 AM
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I can't help but feel we are missing each other here, I am "feeling" misunderstood in general. I fully agree "sin nature" is not an intended use of the word. Inherited or otherwise.

I am persistent though. And will try once more with a different angle. :)

Do you think that definition #4 on your list is sometimes intended by Paul in his letters when using the word flesh? That sometimes the word is used to describe something you cannot hold in your hands however that is eventually defined.

Thanks for your patience,
JoeJoe,

I came late to this thread, so I am not aware of all the discussion here. I am not implying that you think that σάρξ has the meaning of "sin nature," as the NIV often translates it. I am just pointing out how the NIV often translates this word since IMO they are missing the boat there, and the NIV is the most popular English Bible, and I think that some really weak doctrinal thinking has come about due to the NIV in this case.

Now the 4th idea is of a human nature as opposed to something divine. Here are some passages where Paul may be referring to that, out of over 70 places:

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh

Romans 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

Perhaps these 3. But one could argue that none of these 3 should be translated that way even. IMO σάρξ does not refer to "something which you can't hold in your hands." That is the basic idea - something physical, which can hence be held in the hands. I don't see it being used that way.

Now if you're looking for other words with which to translate σάρξ instead of "flesh," "body" is the one that seems reasonable. "Nature" doesn't. If you get too far from the idea of a body of flesh and blood, you're out of the range of meaning intended, IMO.

Just some thoughts. Take care,

BD

Walstib
Feb 2nd 2009, 06:06 AM
I don't, because as I have said many times, one part of our nature cannot be a nature unto itself, it's just one part.

Exactly! These words like nature and figurative are just getting in the way. Part of the intent with starting this thread was to speak of the unity I believe you are speaking of here. The flesh does not exist by itself, and I agree nature is a poor word to express what I am trying to say. No "separate nature" sins, one way we sin is when we tell the literal flesh what to do contrary to what God desires of us.

Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God? (Mic 6:7-8 NKJV)

So Jesus said, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man." (Mat 15:16-20 NKJV)


The spirit and soul are effected by sin too.

I agree fully.

Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.(2Co 7:1 NKJV)

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1Th 5:23 NKJV)


Flesh cannot be an essence of a thing if that thing has other parts and attributes.

I think this is part of what I mean when I say there is no "flesh consciousness that does stuff without us"


So to finish answering your question, "to describe something you cannot hold in your hands" I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by 'hold in my hands'? Literally, body soul and spirit? I can't, but God can.

We have mortal bodies and there are things that come from this fact. We have desires in us because we have physical bodies, but the desires do not come from a separate mind within these bodies that is not a part of us.

Almost every single use of the word speaks specifically of the literal body. Very, very few places I believe it speaks of a place within us that is not tangible. This "place" one can "dwell in" when following after the desires they have due to having mortal bodies. Consider these two verses for my point.

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.(Gal 2:20 NKJV)

This use I believe is speaking of our literal body 100%. Paul is living "in the flesh". Present tense, Paul having the Holy Spirit indwelling a safe bet I would say. Compare to these verses.

So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (Rom 8:8-9 NKJV)

If this use of "in the flesh" means exactly the same thing as the other verse it does not make much sense at all. Paul would then not be able to please God nor have the Holy Spirit indwelling.

Therefore I conclude that in this second passage "the flesh" is not something you can hold in your hands. Though it relates specifically to the physical because that is the where the fleshy mind gets its influence from. Flesh being the proper translated word in this regard I think, because of this relationship to the physical. Translating it as some sort of nature adds to much meaning to the intent I think. Hence my lack of a single word to box up what I am talking about, I just don't know a good one. :)

Second example.

Here it is said, and rightly so, the regenerate have crucified the flesh. Maybe I am wrong but I don't see this as being my physical body I am typing with now. If completely literal I would need to have been on a cross.

And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal 5:24 NKJV)

To me, if the intent is to speak of a flesh that does not have hands, "a flesh" that represents the "old man" who practiced following after the desires natural to a person with a literal body, it makes sense. And earthly event that shadows a spiritual truth.

I can only hope that this at least explains what I mean better.

Peace,
Joe

Sirus
Feb 2nd 2009, 06:31 AM
Forget the word figurative.... Has our physical flesh been crucified, buried, raised and ascended with him?

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the circumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.(Col 2:11-14 NKJV)

Earthly circumcision compared to spiritual circumcision. One with physical hands one without hands. This is the concept I am looking at here. Not physically buried, or raised but spiritually.

Again that figurative word that is causing most of the problems I think. There is an actual spiritual "burial, baptism and death to the old man" These reflected by the earthly things that mirror them. I think anyway.Sorry to take so long. I was prayerfully meditating on all angles with scripture. I certainly see where you are coming from and understand why, but I keep coming back to these.....

Mar 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

So let me ask you a question. The resurrection, is it physical? Was the resurrected Christ physical? I say both physical and spiritual. The Messiah walked through walls, could translate, and said touch and see I am flesh and bone (not blood), not a spirit. What else am I to conclude?

Christ's glorified body, by which believers are sanctified, is not made with hands.
That's what Col 2:11 says. Jesus was physically buried and physically raised by the Spirit. It was not just spiritual. It was not natural as in earthy or temporal. Physical and earthy are two different things. There are different kinds of flesh. Are not things in 'Heaven' that Moses saw and made the tabernacle after physical?

"Has our physical flesh been crucified, buried, raised and ascended with him?"
That's a tough question. I can only say that it is in believing I am crucified buried and raised that I am delivered of my 'stronghold sins'. With that fruit, substance, and evidence, what do you think I should conclude?

I'm really enjoying this discussion!

Jemand
Feb 2nd 2009, 08:39 PM
Walstib,

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this thread.

In first-century Hellenistic (the cultural background of the New Testament) thought, the σαρχ (flesh) is the material part of man responsible for the desire of such things as food, drink, physical comfort, respect, admiration, love, acceptance, sex, etc. Paul used the word to express that concept, sometimes with emphasis on the material itself, and sometimes with emphasis on the desires for which it is responsible. When these desires were contrary to the desires of God for the man, we find Paul contrasting the flesh with the Spirit, the two often opposing sources of desire. When these desires were contrary to the desires of the intellect, the rational part of man, the νους (mind), we find Paul contrasting the flesh with the mind and its desires (Rom. 7:25).

Christ, in His humanity, shared this material part of man with all men (Rom. 1:3, 8:3), but He never yielded to the desires for which it is responsible. Paul taught that Christians are to identify with Christ through identifying with His death and resurrection, and to yield as Christ did, not to the desires of the flesh that result in sin, but to the desires of the Spirit that result in righteousness.


In first-century Hellenistic thought, the σωμα (body) is the physical seat of life, typically of people and animals, but also of plants, and the instrument of activity—this latter sense being extended to the Church as the “body of Christ.” These concepts are strikingly different from the concept that Paul expressed in Gal. 2:20 using the Greek word sarx. There, the concept is that of the material part of man responsible for the desire of such things as food, drink, physical comfort, respect, admiration, love, acceptance, sex, etc., desires that make a man susceptible to temptation and cause him to be in need of faith in Christ for help with those temptations. Paul has been crucified with Christ, and the man who once gave in to temptations is no longer alive, but the desires of the flesh remain, and Paul now lives victoriously by faith in the Son of God.

20. "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (NASB, 1995)

holyrokker
Feb 2nd 2009, 09:02 PM
Walstib,

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this thread.

In first-century Hellenistic (the cultural background of the New Testament) thought, the σαρχ (flesh) is the material part of man responsible for the desire of such things as food, drink, physical comfort, respect, admiration, love, acceptance, sex, etc. Paul used the word to express that concept, sometimes with emphasis on the material itself, and sometimes with emphasis on the desires for which it is responsible. When these desires were contrary to the desires of God for the man, we find Paul contrasting the flesh with the Spirit, the two often opposing sources of desire. When these desires were contrary to the desires of the intellect, the rational part of man, the νους (mind), we find Paul contrasting the flesh with the mind and its desires (Rom. 7:25).

Christ, in His humanity, shared this material part of man with all men (Rom. 1:3, 8:3), but He never yielded to the desires for which it is responsible. Paul taught that Christians are to identify with Christ through identifying with His death and resurrection, and to yield as Christ did, not to the desires of the flesh that result in sin, but to the desires of the Spirit that result in righteousness.


In first-century Hellenistic thought, the σωμα (body) is the physical seat of life, typically of people and animals, but also of plants, and the instrument of activity—this latter sense being extended to the Church as the “body of Christ.” These concepts are strikingly different from the concept that Paul expressed in Gal. 2:20 using the Greek word sarx. There, the concept is that of the material part of man responsible for the desire of such things as food, drink, physical comfort, respect, admiration, love, acceptance, sex, etc., desires that make a man susceptible to temptation and cause him to be in need of faith in Christ for help with those temptations. Paul has been crucified with Christ, and the man who once gave in to temptations is no longer alive, but the desires of the flesh remain, and Paul now lives victoriously by faith in the Son of God.

20. "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (NASB, 1995)
Jemand,
Thank you for this enlightening information.
Could you please direct me to some sources so I can read more about the views of first-century Hellenistic thought?

RogerW
Feb 3rd 2009, 12:17 AM
Greetings Walstib,

I wonder if the word "flesh" is what's causing you trouble? What if we speak of "our old man" instead of "flesh"? It is called 'our old man' because it is with us from birth and is the old nature received from our father, Adam. It consists of parts and members such as will, mind, affection and actions (Eph 4:22; Col 3:9,10). This old man (nature) can never be improved; it must be destroyed. It is crucified daily by the Spirit and grace of Christ that its reigning power might be sudued. It remains with us until death, but when we are in Christ we shall not indulge it nor make provisions for it, but crucify it (Gal 5:24). We serve Christ, not sin (Ro 6:16).

Many Blessings,
RW

Bernie
Feb 3rd 2009, 12:41 AM
Hi Walstib,

I am having trouble getting my mind around what exactly you're saying. For instance....


I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.(Gal 2:20 NKJV)

This use I believe is speaking of our literal body 100%. Paul is living "in the flesh". Present tense, Paul having the Holy Spirit indwelling a safe bet I would say. Compare to these verses.

So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (Rom 8:8-9 NKJV)

If this use of "in the flesh" means exactly the same thing as the other verse it does not make much sense at all. Paul would then not be able to please God nor have the Holy Spirit indwelling.

Therefore I conclude that in this second passage "the flesh" is not something you can hold in your hands. Though it relates specifically to the physical because that is the where the fleshy mind gets its influence from. Flesh being the proper translated word in this regard I think, because of this relationship to the physical. Translating it as some sort of nature adds to much meaning to the intent I think.
I'm with you on your first and second comments, but you lost me in the last paragraph. The relationship to the physical you speak of sounds very Aquinas-like. If I understand him correctly, he begins all intellectual process with sense experience. I assume you do the same when you say "the fleshy mind gets its influence" from the physical.

The fact that you note that the use of Rom 8:8-9 speaks of an incorporeal "flesh" compared to Gal 2:20 use as literal flesh--a point I understand and can agree with--but then reject the latter as a nature because it adds too much meaning to the intent puzzles me. To my thinking, understanding the immaterial meaning of "flesh" as a fallen nature enhances rather than subtracts from Paul's (and Scripture's, generally) meaning.

I'd be interested to listen if you'd care to flesh out your meaning here. Do you as part of your personal theology reject the idea that human nature is naturally fallen and interpret Paul from this base? Or is there something in the context that you believe fails to support the idea that "flesh" in Paul's--or for that matter, Peter's or Jesus' uses of the comparison of flesh and spirit--understanding does not equate to a bad nature?

Sirus
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:29 AM
Walstib,

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this thread.

In first-century Hellenistic (the cultural background of the New Testament) thought, the σαρχ (flesh) is the material part of man responsible for the desire of such things as food, drink, physical comfort, respect, admiration, love, acceptance, sex, etc. Paul used the word to express that concept, sometimes with emphasis on the material itself, and sometimes with emphasis on the desires for which it is responsible. When these desires were contrary to the desires of God for the man, we find Paul contrasting the flesh with the Spirit, the two often opposing sources of desire. When these desires were contrary to the desires of the intellect, the rational part of man, the νους (mind), we find Paul contrasting the flesh with the mind and its desires (Rom. 7:25).

Christ, in His humanity, shared this material part of man with all men (Rom. 1:3, 8:3), but He never yielded to the desires for which it is responsible. Paul taught that Christians are to identify with Christ through identifying with His death and resurrection, and to yield as Christ did, not to the desires of the flesh that result in sin, but to the desires of the Spirit that result in righteousness.


In first-century Hellenistic thought, the σωμα (body) is the physical seat of life, typically of people and animals, but also of plants, and the instrument of activity—this latter sense being extended to the Church as the “body of Christ.” These concepts are strikingly different from the concept that Paul expressed in Gal. 2:20 using the Greek word sarx. There, the concept is that of the material part of man responsible for the desire of such things as food, drink, physical comfort, respect, admiration, love, acceptance, sex, etc., desires that make a man susceptible to temptation and cause him to be in need of faith in Christ for help with those temptations. Paul has been crucified with Christ, and the man who once gave in to temptations is no longer alive, but the desires of the flesh remain, and Paul now lives victoriously by faith in the Son of God.

20. "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (NASB, 1995)This is a perfect example why we look to Scripture not the roots of Gnostisism ;)

"admiration, love, acceptance"
Are not flesh.

Sirus
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:43 AM
Greetings Walstib,

I wonder if the word "flesh" is what's causing you trouble? What if we speak of "our old man" instead of "flesh"? It is called 'our old man' because it is with us from birth and is the old nature received from our father, Adam. It consists of parts and members such as will, mind, affection and actions (Eph 4:22; Col 3:9,10). This old man (nature) can never be improved; it must be destroyed. It is crucified daily by the Spirit and grace of Christ that its reigning power might be sudued. It remains with us until death, but when we are in Christ we shall not indulge it nor make provisions for it, but crucify it (Gal 5:24). We serve Christ, not sin (Ro 6:16).

Many Blessings,
RWI couldn't help but notice you said lets talk about the 'old man' instead of 'flesh', as if they are different, then quoted a 'flesh' verse (Gal 5:24) and not an 'old man' verse such as Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22, Col 3:9. Why is that? Could it be because all instances of 'old man' are past tense? I don't really think you knew or believed that, I just found it interesting. :hmm:

You are absolutely correct the old man must be destroyed, but Christ did that already, just once. Once was enough. That's why we call it the complete and finished work of Christ. If we could do it we would have, but Jesus had to come for us and do it for us and to us.
Rom 6:6, Rom 7:24-25, Rom 8:3, 2Co 5:14, Heb 2:14

You say concerning the old man/flesh....
"that its reigning power might be sudued"
and I'm sorry but only Christ can and did take care of that. If we could have, we would have. Jesus just asks us to believe in Him and His gospel of what He did to us and for us.

I don't want to derail the thread, so you can post at this link I guess....
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=157001
but crucified daily is totally foreign to ALL Scripture. In fact you posted Gal 5:24 that says we have (past tense) crucified the flesh if we are Christ.

Jemand
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:27 AM
Greetings Walstib,

I wonder if the word "flesh" is what's causing you trouble? What if we speak of "our old man" instead of "flesh"? It is called 'our old man' because it is with us from birth and is the old nature received from our father, Adam. It consists of parts and members such as will, mind, affection and actions (Eph 4:22; Col 3:9,10). This old man (nature) can never be improved; it must be destroyed. It is crucified daily by the Spirit and grace of Christ that its reigning power might be sudued. It remains with us until death, but when we are in Christ we shall not indulge it nor make provisions for it, but crucify it (Gal 5:24). We serve Christ, not sin (Ro 6:16).

Many Blessings,
RW

Eph. 4:22. that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,

Col. 3: 9. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
10. and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him—

The “old man” is nothing other than the old self, the man that we used to be before our redemption and salvation. It is not at all synonymous with the “flesh.” And it is not a material thing that can be inherited from Adam or anyone else. It is not crucified daily any more than Christ is crucified daily.

Rom. 6:6. knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Rom. 6:10. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

(All quotations from Scripture are from the Updated NASB, 1995)

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:45 AM
While the term "flesh" can refer to our lust and desires, the term is much broader than that, especially as Paul uses it in Romans 8. When Paul talks about walking according to the flesh, he isn't primarily talking about living in lust.

If we go back to chapter 7, we see how Paul struggled with lust, but his struggle didn't work itself out physically. He wasn't acting on his lust. Rather, his struggle with lust worked itself out internally. He compares is former self-assessment with his current self-assessment, suggesting that once he finally understood the truth behind the law about coveting, he began to see himself differently.

Before the law came, he says, he was alive. But after the law came, he was dead. He didn't actually die. He means his self-assessment changed. He thought of himself as being alive with respect to God's approval. But when he finally understood what God was trying to say to him, he suddenly realized he was dead with respect to God's approval. But he didn't actually change. He was dead all along and just didn't know it.

This new knowledge came about because the Spirit of God was working with him, helping him see the truth about himself, and helping him come to terms with the reality of the situation. This kind of truth is hard to accept and many of us don't want to go there. But by the grace of God, the Spirit helped Paul get past this initial resistance to the truth about himself and helped him come to terms with a realistic view of himself.

He describes his struggle with coveting, not in term of actions that he took, but in terms of his mind set, and the struggle he had coming to terms with the implications this truth had on Paul's own perception of himself. What did his lust say about him as a person?

In that struggle he came to realize that, although his lust proved that he wasn't the person he thought he was, though his lust disqualified him from seeking God's approval on his own merits, his willingness to love God, to love his law, and to see himself for what he is, said something good about him.

Many characterize Romans 7 as Paul's preconversion experience in which he was plagued by sin and disobedience. I think Romans 7 is Paul's post-conversion experience in which he and the Spirit of God are in an active pursuit of the truth. Romans 7 is actually Paul walking according to the Spirit, because he is engaged with the Spirit of God in a joint effort to come to terms with a realistic self-assessement. This engagement itself is the mark of one born of God.

In Romans 8, Paul mentions this as a mark of a person who is "in the spirit."

In Romans 7, Paul is being led by the spirit to understand himself the way he truly is. In Romans 8, he puts it this way.

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

In Romans 7, Paul is coming to realize that even though he has an internal struggle with lust, he also has a true view of God, a true view of the law, and a right assessment of himself as a sinner. In Romans 8, he describes this as,

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God . . .

To walk by the Spirit then, doesn't mean we appropriate the Spirit as a force in order to be sucessful saints and avoid sin. To walk by the Spirit is to walk WITH the Spirit as the two of us engage in an internal dialog, as I come to the truth about myself and obtain a realistic perspective about myself.
Here is the problem with Romans 7 being about Paul after his conversion to Christ.

He speaks of being in bondage to sin. He had the Law and yet sin still held him in bondage. That in no way, fashion, or form describes any of Paul's writing which explains his freedom now found in Christ and walking in the Spirit (Romans 8). Paul is not speaking of a time when he was a Christian but a time when he was under the Law and the bondage of sin still had hold of him.

BroRog
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:16 AM
Here is the problem with Romans 7 being about Paul after his conversion to Christ.

He speaks of being in bondage to sin. He had the Law and yet sin still held him in bondage. That in no way, fashion, or form describes any of Paul's writing which explains his freedom now found in Christ and walking in the Spirit (Romans 8). Paul is not speaking of a time when he was a Christian but a time when he was under the Law and the bondage of sin still had hold of him.

And yet, he speaks of this freedom from sin as being a future hope. "For who hopes for what he sees?"

RogerW
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:25 AM
I couldn't help but notice you said lets talk about the 'old man' instead of 'flesh', as if they are different, then quoted a 'flesh' verse (Gal 5:24) and not an 'old man' verse such as Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22, Col 3:9. Why is that? Could it be because all instances of 'old man' are past tense? I don't really think you knew or believed that, I just found it interesting.

Greetings Sirus,

Not instead of, but that the 'old man' represents 'the flesh'. I don't agree that all instances of 'old man' are past tense. In fact I see these verses telling us what we are called to do because we NOW can. We could not before we were born again because we did not have the power of the Holy Spirit. Since Christ is residing in us, we too, have been crucified with Him...that is the 'old man' that controlled our minds, hearts and wills before salvation is now controlled by the Spirit. Does this mean that the flesh, or our old man is now altogether without strength? Not at all...if we don't die daily to the lusts thereof. Why else does Scripture tell us we must 'put on' the new man which is created in righteousness and holiness? It is necessary to be renewed in the Spirit of our minds daily if we desire to walk in holiness of life.

Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
Eph 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.



You are absolutely correct the old man must be destroyed, but Christ did that already, just once. Once was enough. That's why we call it the complete and finished work of Christ. If we could do it we would have, but Jesus had to come for us and do it for us and to us.
Rom 6:6, Rom 7:24-25, Rom 8:3, 2Co 5:14, Heb 2:14

Christ crucified the power of the 'old man' we were once held by. In doing so, sin no longer has dominion over us as it did before we were born again. But we have not yet been delivered from our bodies of death, and we will not be altogether freed from all sin until we are clothed upon with our new spiritual incorruptible immortal bodies when He comes again. We must fight against this temptation to sin. We do this by putting on the new man. How do we do this? By renewing our minds through His Word. By not allowing sin to reign in our mortal bodies, nor yielding ourselves as instruments of unrighteousness, as those that are alive from the dead, for sin shall not have dominion over those who are in Christ; those who have been born again.

Ro 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Ro 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.



You say concerning the old man/flesh....
"that its reigning power might be sudued"
and I'm sorry but only Christ can and did take care of that. If we could have, we would have. Jesus just asks us to believe in Him and His gospel of what He did to us and for us.

Christ has not yet taken us from our bodies of death. The cross of Christ freed us from sins power and sway over us, but sin will not be altogether destroyed until the Judgment Day. It is the curse of sin we have been delivered from. If you do not see complete deliverance from sin's curse, guilt and dominion in Christ, sin will continue its hold and reign over you. If you cannot see complete deliverance in Christ, you will open the door to unbelief and doubt and leave room for attacks from legalism and self-righteousness.

'How shall we who are dead to sin, live in sin?' In what sense are we dead to sin? We are not dead to its influence (Ro 7:15,19), nor to its presence (Ro 7:21), nor to its effects (Ro 7:24; Ps 51:3). Our Lord taught us to pray, 'Forgive us our sins' (1Jo 1:9). We are dead to its penalty and guilt; sin cannot condemn us (Ro 8:33,34). We are dead to sin as a master who rules over us; Christ is our Lord. We are dead to sin as a course of life; it is not looked upon as a friend but as an enemy.

We, who have this attitude toward sin shall no longer continue a life of sinning. Living in sin and justifying sin are contrary to the Spirit of Christ and the experience of regeneration. The believer is to be like Christ, not like the world. Therefore we die daily to our 'old man', and daily put on our 'new man'.



I don't want to derail the thread, so you can post at this link I guess....
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=157001
but crucified daily is totally foreign to ALL Scripture. In fact you posted Gal 5:24 that says we have (past tense) crucified the flesh if we are Christ.

Why do we need to be admonished to walk in the Spirit, that we not fulfill the lust of the flesh? What does it mean the flesh (old man) lusts against the Spirit (new man) and the Spirit (new man) against the flesh (old man)? If Christ has altogether crucified our flesh with its affections and lusts when we were born again, why remind us to walk in the Spirit, and to not be desirous of vain glory, provoking and envying one another?

Ga 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Ga 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Ga 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Ga 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Ga 5:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Many Blessings,
RW

Sirus
Feb 3rd 2009, 05:51 AM
Eph 4 says what we have learned about our position in Christ as opposed to our past lives as Gentiles and says nothing about a daily dying process. How can we die if we are already dead? Some say, I am not dead, and I say that's peoples problem, they don't believe the bible that plainly says they are dead. They don't trust in what they can't see simply because God says it's true. That's not enough. Oh it's enough for a sinners prayer for salvation and forgiveness but not enough to delivers them and for them to turn from their wicked ways. They want (not need) more, something that makes sense spiritually to tickle their ears and they search for this through mans false christian religions. However the preaching of the cross is foolishness to the world but the power of God to them that are saved.

Nothing we do crucifies anything. That's Christ's work. He is captain of our salvation. We just believe/yield. No man has crucified himself. You might get one hand and you might get your feet, but you'd never get the other hand.

OK, so once you put on the new man, then what? Can you put off the new man? Then put him back on? So we actually do the putting on and off? Where does it say we are transformed over a long process through his word? What does transformed mean and how is it used in scripture? I mean, you don't believe in the white dog/black dog -which ever feed the most- syndrome do ya?

To say 'we are in our bodies' is completely irrelevant to the victory secured in and by Christ. We walk by faith!

No where does scripture say Christ crucified power, it says flesh and old man, not power. How do you crucify power?

Sin is not a thing to be destroyed.
Scripture never says some thing called sin is destroyed.
Scripture never once says sin is a curse.
You haven't provided any die to self or die to self daily passages.....
deny isn't die

Jemand
Feb 3rd 2009, 06:02 AM
And yet, he speaks of this freedom from sin as being a future hope. "For who hopes for what he sees?"
Rom. 8:23. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
24. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?

No, he does not. The hope written of in Rom. 8:24 is the hope of the redemption of the body (v.23), and in writing of the body, he does not write here of the σαρχ (flesh), but of the σομα (the physical seat of life, typically of people and animals, but also of plants, and the instrument of activity).

Indeed, Paul writes of freedom from sin as already having been accomplished in Christ,

1. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2. May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3. Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4. Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6. knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
7. for he who has died is freed from sin.

Furthermore, Paul never writes of the σαρχ (flesh) as being a power that works in the way that the Spirit does. For example, Paul writes,

Rom 8:13. for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Here, and in Phil. 3:3, Gal. 4:23 and Gal. 5:18, Paul introduces the Spirit or the promise of God using, in the Greek text, the instrumental dative or the instrumental δια, but he never introduces the flesh in either way. The flesh is weak and easily succumbs to temptation, but it has no power over us; the spirit, however, has the power to enable us to put to death the deeds of the body (σομα).

(All quotations of Scripture are from the Updated NASB, 1995)

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:14 PM
And yet, he speaks of this freedom from sin as being a future hope. "For who hopes for what he sees?"Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.
12 ¶So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh --
13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

You see that freedom in the future where exactly? Seems to me that Paul is saying that Christ has already accomplished that part of things. ;)

BroRog
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:53 PM
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.
12 ¶So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh --
13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

You see that freedom in the future where exactly? Seems to me that Paul is saying that Christ has already accomplished that part of things. ;)

Yes, we are free from condemnation, as he says in verse one. The term "death" in verse 2 also speaks of condemnation. The "law" of sin was taking us down the road to the final judgment. The term "life" in verse 2 refers to "eternal life", or "life in the age of ages." The "law" of the spirit is leading us to life.

Verse 3 and 4, speaks about the purpose and intent for the law, which was to bring his people to an awareness of sin and need for a solution to the problem of sin. The Spirit of God brings this awareness.

Verse 5, also highlights the mindset of one in whom the Spirit of God is working to bring about a realistic self-assessment in the believer. Contrary to the opinion that the term "flesh" here speaks about a mind set on lust, Paul is using the term "flesh" in contrast to "spirit" to highlight the difference between how we appear to others and how we are inside. The mind set on the flesh, sets his mind on his outward behavior as the measure of his worth; whereas the mind set on the spirit, sets his mind on his internal struggle.

Verse 6, 7, and 8 describe what I just said above. The reason why a man "in the flesh" can not please God, is due to the fact that this man will not subject himself to the law of God as modeled by Paul in chapter 7. In this context, for a man to subject himself to the law of God is NOT to obey the law. Rather, the law is intended to bring the man to the realization that he is condemned by the law's moral vision. Those who allow the law to critique their moral status before a righteous judge are walking according to the spirit because this moral assessment is an activity of the spirit.

Paul referred to himself as a Pharisee of Pharisees, and as to the Law, blameless. In this he admits to us that he was obeying the law in every external way possible. But it wasn't until Paul engaged the Spirit of God in an internal dialog over coveting that he realized his predicament with regard to his not being right with God.

The law of coveting is a unique and challenging law. As it says, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Whereas one of the Ten Commandments says, "Don't commit adultery.", the Tenth Commandment says, "Don't even want to commit adultery." The mind set on the flesh says to himself, "I'm not committing adultery.", which may be true. As we observe his life from the outside, he appears to be a righteous dude. But the mind set on the spirit says, "I certainly have not slept with my neighbor's wife. But this does not mean I didn't want to."

Now, since I need to go to work, I will jump ahead.

What we have now is the awareness of sin, not freedom from the sinful nature itself. This comes later as he says,

For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

We have the first fruits of the spirit now. In the future, we will be sinless human beings just as Christ was.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:21 PM
Yes, we are free from condemnation, as he says in verse one. The term "death" in verse 2 also speaks of condemnation. The "law" of sin was taking us down the road to the final judgment. The term "life" in verse 2 refers to "eternal life", or "life in the age of ages." The "law" of the spirit is leading us to life.

Verse 3 and 4, speaks about the purpose and intent for the law, which was to bring his people to an awareness of sin and need for a solution to the problem of sin. The Spirit of God brings this awareness.

Verse 5, also highlights the mindset of one in whom the Spirit of God is working to bring about a realistic self-assessment in the believer. Contrary to the opinion that the term "flesh" here speaks about a mind set on lust, Paul is using the term "flesh" in contrast to "spirit" to highlight the difference between how we appear to others and how we are inside. The mind set on the flesh, sets his mind on his outward behavior as the measure of his worth; whereas the mind set on the spirit, sets his mind on his internal struggle.

Verse 6, 7, and 8 describe what I just said above. The reason why a man "in the flesh" can not please God, is due to the fact that this man will not subject himself to the law of God as modeled by Paul in chapter 7. In this context, for a man to subject himself to the law of God is NOT to obey the law. Rather, the law is intended to bring the man to the realization that he is condemned by the law's moral vision. Those who allow the law to critique their moral status before a righteous judge are walking according to the spirit because this moral assessment is an activity of the spirit.

Paul referred to himself as a Pharisee of Pharisees, and as to the Law, blameless. In this he admits to us that he was obeying the law in every external way possible. But it wasn't until Paul engaged the Spirit of God in an internal dialog over coveting that he realized his predicament with regard to his not being right with God.

The law of coveting is a unique and challenging law. As it says, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Whereas one of the Ten Commandments says, "Don't commit adultery.", the Tenth Commandment says, "Don't even want to commit adultery." The mind set on the flesh says to himself, "I'm not committing adultery.", which may be true. As we observe his life from the outside, he appears to be a righteous dude. But the mind set on the spirit says, "I certainly have not slept with my neighbor's wife. But this does not mean I didn't want to."

Now, since I need to go to work, I will jump ahead.

What we have now is the awareness of sin, not freedom from the sinful nature itself. This comes later as he says,

For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

We have the first fruits of the spirit now. In the future, we will be sinless human beings just as Christ was.
WHat he is speaking of in those verses Roger... salvation of our souls. ;) Not freedom from sin. That has already happened and again... the verses that I posted, which you respond to, say that very thing.

Romans 6:20 *For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 *Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.
22 *But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
23 *For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is the beauty of context Roger. Paul has already spoken of freedom from sin. Chapter 7 doesn't because Paul is speaking of the time when he wasn't. Not how he is at that time... now freed from that sin through Christ (chapter 8).

Walstib
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:36 PM
Hi Bernie,
I'm with you on your first and second comments, but you lost me in the last paragraph. The relationship to the physical you speak of sounds very Aquinas-like. If I understand him correctly, he begins all intellectual process with sense experience. I assume you do the same when you say "the fleshy mind gets its influence" from the physical.

I am not sure what Aquinas taught, may be a good read, but I can only speak of myself. All intellectual process... hmmm.. I don't know if I agree. Having counseling from God come to us through our conscience, and this being something included when processing our thoughts, I don't know I would consider this a sense experience. At the very least not of the earthly senses. Then if one would say we "hear" God with our spiritual ears I just might agree. Interesting to consider. I can't think of any reasoning I do that does not originate with some sort of gathered information.

I believe we have one mind, when I say the fleshy mind I refer to the thoughts that relate to the physical that are selfish, the spiritual mind thoughts that relate to the spiritual. Not three minds but one mind, the division just like a category of thought rather then a separate mind.


The fact that you note that the use of Rom 8:8-9 speaks of an incorporeal "flesh" compared to Gal 2:20 use as literal flesh--a point I understand and can agree with--but then reject the latter as a nature because it adds too much meaning to the intent puzzles me. To my thinking, understanding the immaterial meaning of "flesh" as a fallen nature enhances rather than subtracts from Paul's (and Scripture's, generally) meaning.

See I don't really mean incorporeal flesh. I said above "relate to the physical" and that is not a full picture of "the flesh" as I believe it is often used. Some physical needs and desires there is nothing wrong with. Being hungry or tired for example. The division I would say is in the "desires of the flesh" rather than the "needs of the flesh". We need food but we don't need to be gluttons, the first being natural the second being selfish and past needs.

So by nature we have physical needs that are not contrary to Gods desires for us. If we say we have a fallen nature that wants to be a glutton and at the same time have a human nature that just needs food we suddenly have two natures. Thats the main reason I think nature is a word that can have too much meaning, depending on how one defines it personally that is.

So rather than saying incorporeal flesh, I like the way you said an immaterial meaning. Not an immaterial nature but a term to describe the immaterial seat of our selfishness in regards to physical things. When deciding to act upon the desires in this direction of thinking, we end up with works of the flesh. ".........lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath.........." (Gal 5:19-21)

So by leaving it as "the flesh" instead of "some sort of nature" one can gather the intent from the context of the passages without a term that tries to describe it that may be misunderstood. I think Paul could have used the word nature if that was a better way of saying it.



I'd be interested to listen if you'd care to flesh out your meaning here. Do you as part of your personal theology reject the idea that human nature is naturally fallen and interpret Paul from this base? Or is there something in the context that you believe fails to support the idea that "flesh" in Paul's--or for that matter, Peter's or Jesus' uses of the comparison of flesh and spirit--understanding does not equate to a bad nature?

I personally now believe that having freedom of thought and decision making in the mind makes us human. By nature we have the ability to not do what God want of us. Human nature is natural to humans. The decision to eat of the fruit in the garden and transgress the first revealed law came from this ability rather than gave us this ability. I don't see the nature of man ever fell, man himself fell (was disconnected from an intimate relationship with God) as a result of his nature. Eve transgressed before Adam.

Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. (Act 14:13-16 NKJV)

So I don't see a "bad nature" does justice to comparing the ability to be selfish to the ability to be submissive. This is the root of the contrast between flesh and spirit I think. Choose whom you will serve. If we make ourselves a god to serve we are serving the flesh. We are not serving a fallen nature but ourselves in selfishness.

And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Jos 24:15 NKJV)

Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, And the Lord listened and heard them; So a book of remembrance was written before Him For those who fear the Lord And who meditate on His name. "They shall be Mine," says the Lord of hosts, "On the day that I make them My jewels. And I will spare them As a man spares his own son who serves him." Then you shall again discern Between the righteous and the wicked, Between one who serves God And one who does not serve Him.(Mal 3:16-18 NKJV)

This not our literal bodies but the immaterial part of ourselves that lusts and desires contrary to God's will for us. This due to the fact we have physical bodies that are part of the "fallen creation. With glorified bodies in the "next age" this will not be an issue, and we have the empowerment and guidance through the Holy Spirit to serve God in spirit and truth now.

For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal 5:13 NKJV)

Hope that makes sense and answers what you were asking.
Peace,
Joe

Dani H
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:50 PM
I think we can all agree that in the moment we enter into the death and resurrection of Jesus, something drastically changes.


We are made alive unto God and awakened to righteousness, and we are being placed in a position from God's point of view that makes us children, and heirs, and priests, and a holy nation, and fellow laborers with God.


That is so powerful, 13 years later it still flattens me, and probably always will.


That is not a work of man, but something Jesus did that we then enter into and partake of.


Paul in Philippians was yearning of knowing Jesus and the fellowship of His suffering and the power of His resurrection.


Philippians 3:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=57&chapter=3&verse=10&version=50&context=verse)
that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, , and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,


Obviously that is something which continues after we first enter the Kingdom of God under the Lordship of Jesus, or Paul wouldn't refer to it as being something he was still doing and longing for. "Haven't you already being conformed to His death, Paul?"


Maybe he was speaking of glorifying Jesus with his physical death and the physical resurrection to follow, I'm not sure.


Either way, to me, that means it is once done and settled and we enter into it, and then worked out actually as we continue to walk with the Savior and let the Spirit guide us into all truth, with our physical death and resurrection being the "final frontier" so to speak. Because if we do not believe in a risen Savior and have hope for our own resurrection, then what's the point? So if we're going to have that hope, then we evidently must continue on until that point of our physical death (or "change" at His return if we happen to be here when that happens), lest we labor in vain.


We are told to abide in Christ and put Him on and walk after the Spirit, and becoming people who at first have to be nourished by milk and then at some point become mature enough to be switched to meat. That implies infants, children and adults, and a growth process.


1 Peter 2
1 Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, 2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

1 Corinthians 3:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=3&verse=2&version=50&context=verse)
I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;

If you're a believer, then after a certain point, you ought to be able to look back and see how things have truly and honestly changed for you, inside and out, as you continue on with God and He proceeds to touch every single area of our life and sanctify everything unto Himself and purge everything that is not of Him and displeases Him.


2 Corinthians 4:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=4&verse=16&version=50&context=verse)
Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by

BroRog
Feb 3rd 2009, 08:57 PM
WHat he is speaking of in those verses Roger... salvation of our souls. ;) Not freedom from sin. That has already happened and again... the verses that I posted, which you respond to, say that very thing.

Romans 6:20 *For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 *Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.
22 *But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
23 *For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is the beauty of context Roger. Paul has already spoken of freedom from sin. Chapter 7 doesn't because Paul is speaking of the time when he wasn't. Not how he is at that time... now freed from that sin through Christ (chapter 8).

Actually, I don't think chapter 6 is the context for chapter 7 or 8. Beginning in chapter 6, Paul changes the structure of his presentation, which employs a series of questions that a detractor might ask, and for the benefit of his readers, he answers them.

The section you quoted comes as part of an answer to the question, " Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" But before I deal with this question, I want to take us back to chapter 5.

At the end of Chapter 5, Paul points out that under Moses, the Law gave Israel more ways to transgress, and so, in a real sense, sin increased. Nonetheless, Paul says, where sin increased, grace increased all the more.

And so the first objection comes. "Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" This is a question his detractors might raise. Essentially they are saying, "Isn't it a logical implication of your gospel, Paul, that it encourages people to sin since the more they sin the more God's grace will abound?" According to his detractors, Paul's gospel encourages an increase in sin rather than a decrease in sin.

His argument goes something like this. The converts to Christ affirm that Christ's death was the direct result of our sin. These converts acknowledge that what Christ got on the cross, was the punishment that we deserve. Having accepted that premise, the converts would repudiate sin and want to sin less, not sin more. The subsequent decrease in sin is the logical implication of the belief that sin is a bad thing that needs to be solved.

He concludes with this exhortation, "do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness . . ." In this he speaks of what we do with our members, having affirmed that we have begun a new life in service to Christ.

Notice what he doesn't say. He doesn't say anything about what goes on in the mind of the convert. The convert is to present his members to serve righteousness. This is true. But the convert is acting contrary to his own lust. That is, the convert still has the internal struggle against his lust, even as he presents his members to righteousness. He does not say that we are free from the internal struggle against our lust. He says we are free to avoid transgression, but not free of thinking about transgression. We have to "consider" ourselves dead to sin. We have to mentally change our orientation toward sin. But this certainly implies effort, which means that while we are free from the penalty of sin, we aren't free from the struggle against it.

Skip to chapter 7, in which he asks another question. "Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me?" The question is predicated on his previous statement that his encounter with the Law caused his death of a sorts.

His detractors would argue, "your view makes no sense because how can something good, like the Law for instance, cause death? How can the good be the cause of evil?" His answer goes like this.

Don't misunderstand, my new found knowledge of my death was not evil or bad. It was a good thing. The fact that I was not pleasing God through my outward obedience to the Law was unknown to me until the clear implications of the law about coveting finally broke though my thick skull. With this new knowledge about myself, I was free to seek another means to find God's approval, which lead me to Christ. Rather than being a bad thing, this was a good thing.

He goes on to describe himself in terms that my friend Jack Crabtree calls a "righteous subjectivity." That is, once Paul came to terms with the law, he began to get a new perspective about himself. It's as if he was able to see himself objectively, impartially, above himself. He says things like,

But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

In this we have both the "I" and the "me" of Paul. Both are part of Paul himself. The "I" of Paul agrees with the law; while the "me" of Paul feels the lust and the pull to engage the world on those terms. It's as if Paul is able to take an objective point of view of his own subjective condition as it compares with God's moral vision. It's like Paul can stand aloof and at a distance to see himself as God sees him.

This ability to see ourselves as we really are, is a gift of God's spirit working in our deepest inner self to establish this inner dialog in which the "I" of Paul can objectively see the "me" of Paul. This "righteous subjectivity" as Jack calls it, gives us the ability to see ourselves from an objective point of view, to come to the truth about who and what we really are, and to affirm that true view without making excuses or rationalizations about it. This is all the work of the Spirit in a person. And Paul says that if the spirit is working in a person this way, he or she is in Christ.

Paul is talking about his post conversion experience since his objectivity concerning his condition is a work of the Spirit. In contrast with Romans 6, in which the convert is no longer using his members to satisfy his lust, in Romans 7, the convert is coming to the truth about himself, seeing himself from a distance, and admitting that the "me" wants what the "I" knows is wrong.

The non-convert lacks this spiritual perspective.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2009, 09:00 PM
Actually, I don't think chapter 6 is the context for chapter 7 or 8. Beginning in chapter 6, Paul changes the structure of his presentation, which employs a series of questions that a detractor might ask, and for the benefit of his readers, he answers them.

The section you quoted comes as part of an answer to the question, " Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" But before I deal with this question, I want to take us back to chapter 5.

At the end of Chapter 5, Paul points out that under Moses, the Law gave Israel more ways to transgress, and so, in a real sense, sin increased. Nonetheless, Paul says, where sin increased, grace increased all the more.

And so the first objection comes. "Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" This is a question his detractors might raise. Essentially they are saying, "Isn't it a logical implication of your gospel, Paul, that it encourages people to sin since the more they sin the more God's grace will abound?" According to his detractors, Paul's gospel encourages an increase in sin rather than a decrease in sin.

His argument goes something like this. The converts to Christ affirm that Christ's death was the direct result of our sin. These converts acknowledge that what Christ got on the cross, was the punishment that we deserve. Having accepted that premise, the converts would repudiate sin and want to sin less, not sin more. The subsequent decrease in sin is the logical implication of the belief that sin is a bad thing that needs to be solved.

He concludes with this exhortation, "do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness . . ." In this he speaks of what we do with our members, having affirmed that we have begun a new life in service to Christ.

Notice what he doesn't say. He doesn't say anything about what goes on in the mind of the convert. The convert is to present his members to serve righteousness. This is true. But the convert is acting contrary to his own lust. That is, the convert still has the internal struggle against his lust, even as he presents his members to righteousness. He does not say that we are free from the internal struggle against our lust. He says we are free to avoid transgression, but not free of thinking about transgression. We have to "consider" ourselves dead to sin. We have to mentally change our orientation toward sin. But this certainly implies effort, which means that while we are free from the penalty of sin, we aren't free from the struggle against it.

Skip to chapter 7, in which he asks another question. "Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me?" The question is predicated on his previous statement that his encounter with the Law caused his death of a sorts.

His detractors would argue, "your view makes no sense because how can something good, like the Law for instance, cause death? How can the good be the cause of evil?" His answer goes like this.

Don't misunderstand, my new found knowledge of my death was not evil or bad. It was a good thing. The fact that I was not pleasing God through my outward obedience to the Law was unknown to me until the clear implications of the law about coveting finally broke though my thick skull. With this new knowledge about myself, I was free to seek another means to find God's approval, which lead me to Christ. Rather than being a bad thing, this was a good thing.

He goes on to describe himself in terms that my friend Jack Crabtree calls a "righteous subjectivity." That is, once Paul came to terms with the law, he began to get a new perspective about himself. It's as if he was able to see himself objectively, impartially, above himself. He says things like,

But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

In this we have both the "I" and the "me" of Paul. Both are part of Paul himself. The "I" of Paul agrees with the law; while the "me" of Paul feels the lust and the pull to engage the world on those terms. It's as if Paul is able to take an objective point of view of his own subjective condition as it compares with God's moral vision. It's like Paul can stand aloof and at a distance to see himself as God sees him.

This ability to see ourselves as we really are, is a gift of God's spirit working in our deepest inner self to establish this inner dialog in which the "I" of Paul can objectively see the "me" of Paul. This "righteous subjectivity" as Jack calls it, gives us the ability to see ourselves from an objective point of view, to come to the truth about who and what we really are, and to affirm that true view without making excuses or rationalizations about it. This is all the work of the Spirit in a person. And Paul says that if the spirit is working in a person this way, he or she is in Christ.

Paul is talking about his post conversion experience since his objectivity concerning his condition is a work of the Spirit. In contrast with Romans 6, in which the convert is no longer using his members to satisfy his lust, in Romans 7, the convert is coming to the truth about himself, seeing himself from a distance, and admitting that the "me" wants what the "I" knows is wrong.

The non-convert lacks this spiritual perspective.
I assure you that six has plenty to do with both 7 and 8. But I am off to a service here in a little bit and haven't time to get into all of that right now. I'll mark this and get back to your post when I get home... or in the morning. :lol:

Time for some good old fashioned church!!! I shall think of all of you while there! :D

Bernie
Feb 4th 2009, 01:42 AM
Hi Walstib,

Thanks for responding.


So by nature we have physical needs that are not contrary to Gods desires for us. If we say we have a fallen nature that wants to be a glutton and at the same time have a human nature that just needs food we suddenly have two natures. Thats the main reason I think nature is a word that can have too much meaning, depending on how one defines it personally that is.
Firstly, the disposition toward gluttony is a spiritual defect, while the disposition toward satisfying a need for sustenance is a biological urge. Different mechanics, I think. But might not a human simultaneously possess two different natures? I think this is true of spiritual things; any given person holds a variety of often contradictory values. And even in the natural realm, depending on how this duality played out, even natural biological urges can be rendered defective. For example, the defect known as cancer (and numerous other biological disorders) often stifle appetite, a defect which renders a natural urge unnatural.


So I don't see a "bad nature" does justice to comparing the ability to be selfish to the ability to be submissive. This is the root of the contrast between flesh and spirit I think. Choose whom you will serve. If we make ourselves a god to serve we are serving the flesh. We are not serving a fallen nature but ourselves in selfishness.
One chilling facet of spiritual degeneration is its capacity to produce deception in the human mind. Jesus' detractors thought themselves, their theology and religiosity to be the very pinnacle and proprietorship of righteousness. Scary that the human mind holds within it the potential to embrace evil while believing that very evil to be good. It may be for example that placing human ability and power to choose on too high an altar might lead to blinding the mind to the sovereignty of God--and deny Him the proper place in one's inner reflections.


This due to the fact we have physical bodies that are part of the "fallen creation. With glorified bodies in the "next age" this will not be an issue, and we have the empowerment and guidance through the Holy Spirit to serve God in spirit and truth now.
Agreed. At the same time, though, possession of the belief that man is fallen does not automatically--nor even logically, for that matter--lead to a denial that one has the capacity to serve God even in the midst of fallenness.

Thanks for taking the time to correspond.

Jemand
Feb 4th 2009, 04:28 AM
Actually, I don't think chapter 6 is the context for chapter 7 or 8. Beginning in chapter 6, Paul changes the structure of his presentation, which employs a series of questions that a detractor might ask, and for the benefit of his readers, he answers them.

The section you quoted comes as part of an answer to the question, " Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" But before I deal with this question, I want to take us back to chapter 5.

At the end of Chapter 5, Paul points out that under Moses, the Law gave Israel more ways to transgress, and so, in a real sense, sin increased. Nonetheless, Paul says, where sin increased, grace increased all the more.

And so the first objection comes. "Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" This is a question his detractors might raise. Essentially they are saying, "Isn't it a logical implication of your gospel, Paul, that it encourages people to sin since the more they sin the more God's grace will abound?" According to his detractors, Paul's gospel encourages an increase in sin rather than a decrease in sin.

His argument goes something like this. The converts to Christ affirm that Christ's death was the direct result of our sin. These converts acknowledge that what Christ got on the cross, was the punishment that we deserve. Having accepted that premise, the converts would repudiate sin and want to sin less, not sin more. The subsequent decrease in sin is the logical implication of the belief that sin is a bad thing that needs to be solved.

He concludes with this exhortation, "do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness . . ." In this he speaks of what we do with our members, having affirmed that we have begun a new life in service to Christ.

Notice what he doesn't say. He doesn't say anything about what goes on in the mind of the convert. The convert is to present his members to serve righteousness. This is true. But the convert is acting contrary to his own lust. That is, the convert still has the internal struggle against his lust, even as he presents his members to righteousness. He does not say that we are free from the internal struggle against our lust. He says we are free to avoid transgression, but not free of thinking about transgression. We have to "consider" ourselves dead to sin. We have to mentally change our orientation toward sin. But this certainly implies effort, which means that while we are free from the penalty of sin, we aren't free from the struggle against it.

Skip to chapter 7, in which he asks another question. "Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me?" The question is predicated on his previous statement that his encounter with the Law caused his death of a sorts.

His detractors would argue, "your view makes no sense because how can something good, like the Law for instance, cause death? How can the good be the cause of evil?" His answer goes like this.

Don't misunderstand, my new found knowledge of my death was not evil or bad. It was a good thing. The fact that I was not pleasing God through my outward obedience to the Law was unknown to me until the clear implications of the law about coveting finally broke though my thick skull. With this new knowledge about myself, I was free to seek another means to find God's approval, which lead me to Christ. Rather than being a bad thing, this was a good thing.

He goes on to describe himself in terms that my friend Jack Crabtree calls a "righteous subjectivity." That is, once Paul came to terms with the law, he began to get a new perspective about himself. It's as if he was able to see himself objectively, impartially, above himself. He says things like,

But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

In this we have both the "I" and the "me" of Paul. Both are part of Paul himself. The "I" of Paul agrees with the law; while the "me" of Paul feels the lust and the pull to engage the world on those terms. It's as if Paul is able to take an objective point of view of his own subjective condition as it compares with God's moral vision. It's like Paul can stand aloof and at a distance to see himself as God sees him.

This ability to see ourselves as we really are, is a gift of God's spirit working in our deepest inner self to establish this inner dialog in which the "I" of Paul can objectively see the "me" of Paul. This "righteous subjectivity" as Jack calls it, gives us the ability to see ourselves from an objective point of view, to come to the truth about who and what we really are, and to affirm that true view without making excuses or rationalizations about it. This is all the work of the Spirit in a person. And Paul says that if the spirit is working in a person this way, he or she is in Christ.

Paul is talking about his post conversion experience since his objectivity concerning his condition is a work of the Spirit. In contrast with Romans 6, in which the convert is no longer using his members to satisfy his lust, in Romans 7, the convert is coming to the truth about himself, seeing himself from a distance, and admitting that the "me" wants what the "I" knows is wrong.

The non-convert lacks this spiritual perspective.

My friend down in Chattanooga calls these idea “hogwash.”

I have studied Romans chapter 7 in literally hundreds of commentaries on Romans (I have over 230 of them in my home library), including whole volumes devoted exclusively to Romans chapter 7, and very many papers upon that chapter, and it never ceases to amaze how very many readers have made a shipwreck of their hermeneutics when studying and teaching that chapter.

In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul wrote,

Rom. 5:20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

This verse gives rise to a question that is asked in the sixth chapter of Romans,

Rom. 6:1. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

The rest of the sixth chapter of Romans is Paul’s answer to that question, and the answer continues through the first 6 verses of chapter 7,

Rom. 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
5. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
6. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Notice that Paul wrote in verse 4 that we were made to die to the Law (the covenant of Law found in the Old Testament). This verse gives rise to two new questions that are asked in the following verse,

Rom. 7:7. What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?

The rest of verse 7 through verse 12 answers that question but gives rise to another question,

Rom. 7:13a. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me?

The rest of verse 13 answers that question by saying,

Rom. 7:13b. May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

In Rom. 7:14-25, Paul elaborates upon that answer. The real cause of death is not the Law; it is sin, but death is effected through the Law. Paul explains this through an illustration using the Greek rhetorical first person singular in which a Jew who loves the Law attempts to keep it but finds that he is not able to do so because he is made of natural flesh and the Law is spiritual. That is why a man must die to the Law as taught in Romans 6 and be born again.

In Rom. 8:1-4 Paul summarizes what he has been writing,

Rom. 8:1. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.


Many people, including some educated people, have read into Romans 7 their own condition and imagined that Paul was writing about his experience in that condition, but we know from other things that Paul wrote that his condition was never like that,

Rom. 5:8. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Cor. 4:1. Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2. In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.
3. But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.
4. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.
5. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.

Phil. 3:6. as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Phil. 4:9. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

The key to the correct understanding of Romans 7:14-25 is that the man being described is striving to keep the Law but failing to do so. Christians have died to the Law and therefore do not strive to keep it.

All quotations from Scripture are from the NASB, 1995, with my occasional emphasis using underlined type.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2009, 12:05 PM
My friend down in Chattanooga calls these idea “hogwash.”

I have studied Romans chapter 7 in literally hundreds of commentaries on Romans (I have over 230 of them in my home library), including whole volumes devoted exclusively to Romans chapter 7, and very many papers upon that chapter, and it never ceases to amaze how very many readers have made a shipwreck of their hermeneutics when studying and teaching that chapter.

In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul wrote,

Rom. 5:20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

This verse gives rise to a question that is asked in the sixth chapter of Romans,

Rom. 6:1. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

The rest of the sixth chapter of Romans is Paul’s answer to that question, and the answer continues through the first 6 verses of chapter 7,

Rom. 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
5. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
6. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Notice that Paul wrote in verse 4 that we were made to die to the Law (the covenant of Law found in the Old Testament). This verse gives rise to two new questions that are asked in the following verse,

Rom. 7:7. What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?

The rest of verse 7 through verse 12 answers that question but gives rise to another question,

Rom. 7:13a. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me?

The rest of verse 13 answers that question by saying,

Rom. 7:13b. May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

In Rom. 7:14-25, Paul elaborates upon that answer. The real cause of death is not the Law; it is sin, but death is effected through the Law. Paul explains this through an illustration using the Greek rhetorical first person singular in which a Jew who loves the Law attempts to keep it but finds that he is not able to do so because he is made of natural flesh and the Law is spiritual. That is why a man must die to the Law as taught in Romans 6 and be born again.

In Rom. 8:1-4 Paul summarizes what he has been writing,

Rom. 8:1. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.


Many people, including some educated people, have read into Romans 7 their own condition and imagined that Paul was writing about his experience in that condition, but we know from other things that Paul wrote that his condition was never like that,

Rom. 5:8. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Cor. 4:1. Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2. In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.
3. But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.
4. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.
5. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.

Phil. 3:6. as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Phil. 4:9. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

The key to the correct understanding of Romans 7:14-25 is that the man being described is striving to keep the Law but failing to do so. Christians have died to the Law and therefore do not strive to keep it.

All quotations from Scripture are from the NASB, 1995, with my occasional emphasis using underlined type.

I am thrilled to see that others are putting aside the teaching of a lot of folks and seeing that chapter for what it is. This chapter of the Bible has been used for years now to simply excuse living sinful. Ultimately that's what it has become. It is a total misuse of those passages of Scripture and in fact is totally contrary to what Paul teaches.

Walstib
Feb 4th 2009, 01:56 PM
Gnosticism is an esoterical belief system that maintains that people can have some secret knowledge of God that the "uninitiated" somehow have no access to. This is false. God can be known by anybody through His Son, Jesus Christ. There is nothing secret about being ready to die for the Savior and forsaking everything for Him, no matter what it costs us because He has already given us His very life.

Agreeing with this part of it I'll take the opportunity to add.

The calling of matter evil and spirit good is the aspect of Gnosticism that I would refer to specifically. There is a branch of it called Manichaeism that is closer to what I would want to refute in this thread. Different in many ways but the thought that the material world is evil and the spiritual world is good, that there is a "force within matter" that is against "the force within spirit".

This is not what is meant in Galatians with the flesh lusting against the spirit and why the thinking the physical body alone is responsible for the lust not the appropriate way to look at the passage. Thinks I.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Feb 4th 2009, 01:59 PM
This is the "carnal mind". It is setting your mind on physical pleasure. It is not a "sin nature". It also does not imply that there is something inherently sinful about the flesh. The sin is in setting our minds on what the body craves. It is submitting ourselves to our impulses. It is living as if we are animals, without thought of consequences, and without thought of God.

Well put I think, I agree.

Walstib
Feb 4th 2009, 02:19 PM
As unorthodox as you and many others may think I am, we're not as far off as you think.

Unfortunately Yuke as there are many things we do agree on, some of the things that you teach as so far away from what I believe I must say it is not as close as you think it is. Between having no freedom to think for ourselves and your view on sin and forgiveness... well after the cornerstone it seems even our foundations are different. I still love you :hug:


That which is born of flesh is flesh (dust of the earth, earthly, of the world). That which is born of the Spirit is spirit (born from above, chosen out of the world, heavenly)

It is our spirit that is born of God. Our flesh is not "reborn", and neither is our spirit. Our corruptible flesh is born once, and the incorruptible spirit is born again.
Can I just ask you here what you think the soul is.

We were in the flesh, but are now no longer strangers to God. The flesh belongs to the world, but the spirit belongs to God.

I don't think so. The body belongs to God, the world belongs to God, all things were created by and for Jesus. (Col 1)

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's. (1Co 6:18-20 NKJV)

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Rom 8:19-23 NKJV)


Right. We cannot draw back to perdition for we have been born again. We are no longer our flesh. We are no longer "of the world".

The verse I posted was to speak about the soul being saved, not what you have run with here. This may be a better witness of many I could post with the soul being the intended focus, thought there is some stuff about sin in the passage that relates to the general conversation.

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. (Jas 5:19-20 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

BroRog
Feb 4th 2009, 02:42 PM
My friend down in Chattanooga calls these idea “hogwash.”

Is your friend unable to post here? Are you speaking for him or yourself? The reason I asked is because neither he nor you addressed my post or Romans 7 except to say, "the man being described is striving to keep the law but is unable to do so."

Your conclusion that Christians are not obligated to keep the law goes without saying since Christians were NEVER obligated to keep the law.

holyrokker
Feb 4th 2009, 10:42 PM
.

The key to the correct understanding of Romans 7:14-25 is that the man being described is striving to keep the Law but failing to do so. Christians have died to the Law and therefore do not strive to keep it.


Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the man is attempting to be justified by the Law? The Law can only condemn, it cannot justify.

Jemand
Feb 5th 2009, 05:31 AM
Originally Posted by Jemand,

The key to the correct understanding of Romans 7:14-25 is that the man being described is striving to keep the Law but failing to do so. Christians have died to the Law and therefore do not strive to keep it.


Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the man is attempting to be justified by the Law? The Law can only condemn, it cannot justify.

No, absolutely not. There is no mention of, or an allusion to, justification in Rom. 7:14-25. The purpose of this passage is to vindicate the Law by using an illustration in which an unregenerate Jew is striving to keep the Law but failing to do so, not because of any fault in the Law, but because the flesh of the unregenerate Jew makes him susceptible to temptation in the absence of the Holy Spirit, and hence unable to keep the Law.

Notice especially these verses:

Rom. 7:19. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
20. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23. but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

As I posted above,

Rom. 7:13a. Therefore did that which is good [the Law] become a cause of death for me?

The rest of verse 13 answers that question by saying,

Rom. 7:13b. May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

In Rom. 7:14-25, Paul elaborates upon that answer. The real cause of death is not the Law; it is sin, but death is effected through the Law.

(All quotations from Scripture are from the Updated NASB, 1995)

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2009, 01:06 PM
Is your friend unable to post here? Are you speaking for him or yourself? The reason I asked is because neither he nor you addressed my post or Romans 7 except to say, "the man being described is striving to keep the law but is unable to do so."

Your conclusion that Christians are not obligated to keep the law goes without saying since Christians were NEVER obligated to keep the law.But then who is Paul speaking to in this particular part of his writing Roger?

Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?

He is making that very point that Jemand is speaking of. ;)

BroRog
Feb 5th 2009, 02:45 PM
But then who is Paul speaking to in this particular part of his writing Roger?

Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?

He is making that very point that Jemand is speaking of. ;)

Yes, I agree. I'm sorry if my comments were confusing. A few posts back I observed that Paul is answering a series of questions beginning in chapter 6. Here is a list of those questions up to chapter 8 along with verse references.


6:1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

6:15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

7:7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be!

7:13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be!


Verse 7:1 comes in the middle of his answer to question 6:15, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" The objection here goes something like this. "Well Paul, you say your gospel keeps people from sinning, but the Law does a better job of it. Not only does it define God's morality, but there are penalties for disobedience. If you remove people out from under the law, won't this remove a strong incentive to avoid sin?"

The first half of his answer comes at the end of chapter 6. And the second half of his answer comes at the beginning of chapter 7. In the second half of his answer, Paul asserts and defends his position that the Law never could being about the state of "dikaiosune", i.e. justifiedness, for those under the law. He makes his case in the form of a metaphor with marriage.

In his analogy, the law has become like a dead husband in which it never was able to be the means by which the obedient might find favor with God. And so, he says, since the law is a dead issue with regard to seeking God's favor, a person is free to seek God's favor via another means, e.g. through Jesus Christ.

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2009, 03:12 PM
Yes, I agree. I'm sorry if my comments were confusing. A few posts back I observed that Paul is answering a series of questions beginning in chapter 6. Here is a list of those questions up to chapter 8 along with verse references.



Verse 7:1 comes in the middle of his answer to question 6:15, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" The objection here goes something like this. "Well Paul, you say your gospel keeps people from sinning, but the Law does a better job of it. Not only does it define God's morality, but there are penalties for disobedience. If you remove people out from under the law, won't this remove a strong incentive to avoid sin?"

The first half of his answer comes at the end of chapter 6. And the second half of his answer comes at the beginning of chapter 7. In the second half of his answer, Paul asserts and defends his position that the Law never could being about the state of "dikaiosune", i.e. justifiedness, for those under the law. He makes his case in the form of a metaphor with marriage.

In his analogy, the law has become like a dead husband in which it never was able to be the means by which the obedient might find favor with God. And so, he says, since the law is a dead issue with regard to seeking God's favor, a person is free to seek God's favor via another means, e.g. through Jesus Christ.
And then Paul goes on to explain how the law doesn't help him much in that regard.

Romans 7:8 *But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9 *And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died;
10 *and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
11 *for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.
12 *So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 *Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14 *For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
15 *For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16 *But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good.
17 *So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me.
18 *For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19 *For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish.
20 *But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21 *I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.
22 *For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 *but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24 *Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25 *Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Paul makes it clear that the Law has no power at all to free him from sin. It is there and it is holy and good. But it's a tool that simply shows him, no matter how he tries, he's still in bondage to sin.

That's the theme of chapter 7. Move from there into chapter 8 and he speaks of how through the Spirit... I am no longer a slave to sin but instead a slave to righteousness.

Dani H
Feb 5th 2009, 06:12 PM
The best way to get somebody to touch wet paint, is to hang a sign that says "Wet paint; do not touch."

Must .... touch ... the .... paint.

Why?

Because there's a sign there saying "don't do it."

Not because touching paint in and of itself is fun.

That's sin trying to take advantage of the law.

The law doesn't create sin, neither is the law sinful. It simply draws the sin out of hiding because it sees it lurking there, and those urges within us, so that we understand how helpless we are without God, and look to Him for answers and for help. Which is why the law is our tutor because it creates boundaries for us, lest we touch that paint and get ourselves messy plus make a mess for the person who painted the bench or whatever. God understands sin and the power of it, and how it always lurks, waiting to strike. It's a lot simpler to not sin, but first we have to know what sin is, and what it does to us. That's what the law defines. Christ, then, fulfilled the law and we can now seek forgiveness directly from Him, and, what's more (hooray!) obtain His very power to not sin to begin with. Life without sinning is a lot easier, really. Which is the whole point, don't you think?

BroRog
Feb 5th 2009, 07:57 PM
And then Paul goes on to explain how the law doesn't help him much in that regard.


Paul makes it clear that the Law has no power at all to free him from sin. It is there and it is holy and good. But it's a tool that simply shows him, no matter how he tries, he's still in bondage to sin.

That's the theme of chapter 7. Move from there into chapter 8 and he speaks of how through the Spirit... I am no longer a slave to sin but instead a slave to righteousness.

Okay but notice his mental process in Romans 7. The question he asks is, " Is the Law sin?" That is, is it bad? Is the law evil? Is it something to be avoided? In verse 8, I would argue, he begins to inform his readers of the true intent of the Law. God gave the law to serve a purpose. What is that purpose?

Romans 7:8 *But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

He points out that the Law serves to highlight sin in a special way. Not only does the Law define God's moral vision for everyone, but it also paints an existential picture for those who attempt to keep it. One might say to himself, "I can live a life without lust." Then the Law will say to the sinner, "Go ahead and try. See how far you get." The law becomes the opportunity (Paul's word) for the sinner to find out something about himself. Without a law to challenge the sinner, sin isn't a live issue. I could be lusting all the time, but until the Law challenges me to stop, I'll never know if it's actually possible to stop.

And so Paul builds his case for why the Law is actually a good thing and not a bad thing.

9 *And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died;
10 *and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;

That passage describes a moment of discovery Paul experienced when the commandment against coveting finally "came". We might say in our idiom, the Law finally "came home" to me. It finally got to me. It's implications concerning me as a sinner finally settled into my soul such that I was finally willing to admit to myself that I am a sinner.

Out of the Ten Commandments, the Tenth is not doable. It is simply not possible to avoid an inner desire. We can hide it. We can ignore it. We can run around the room, or lift weights, go for a jog, or take a cold shower. But we can not remove our desire. We can avoid murder. We can avoid theft. We can avoid adultery. But we can't avoid WANTING another man's life. We can't avoid WANTING another man's stuff. We can't avoid WANTING another man's wife. And when the Law challenged Paul, "Okay don't want stuff." he found he couldn't comply.

11 *for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.

It must have been the sin of pride and presumption that induced him to take up the challenge of the commandment. It must have looked deceptively easy. But he lost the challenge and in the process he came to the realization that he was dead with respect to his search for God's favor.

I should note here that Paul is revealing his mental process to his readers. In order to arrive at all these conclusions, especially the existential conclusions that he is a dead sinner he must already be in an internal dialog with God in which Paul is open and willing to look afresh at himself, his moral condition, and his standing before God. I would argue that this "righteous" view of himself is the work of the Spirit. Not that he is righteous, but he has the right, rational, true perspective on his condition. Only a child of God is willing to admit to himself that he is a dead sinner. Everyone else makes excuses, justifications, and rationalizations for it.

12 *So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Conclusion: the law serves a good purpose. While a man can not use the Law to gain God's favor through his meritorious efforts; the law is useful as a mirror into which a man might learn to see himself as he really is. If the law is used properly, it is a good thing.

13 *Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Here Paul defends those who would accuse him of saying, "out of good, evil has come." In his defense he points out that it was not the Law that caused his death; rather, it was in the process of his coming to learn the great hold of sin, that he died. In other words, it was the sin, not the law that became the result of his "death."

Remember that Paul is describing a process of self-realization in which he abandons a faulty, distorted view of himself in favor of a more realistic and true view of himself. He refers to this as his "death" because he is speaking in terms of his condemnation -- his being declared guilty and worthy of punishment. Before his eyes were opened, he mistakenly believed he was "alive" -- not subject to punishment. But when his eyes were opened, he came to learn the truth about himself.

He will set out to demonstrate that his "death" was not actually an evil thing but a good thing because in the process of coming to terms with the Law he discovered something else about himself.

14 *For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

We must be careful to understand his phrase "of flesh" in contrast with his assertion that the Law is "spiritual." When Paul says the Law is spiritual, he means the Law is the product of a rational mind, reflecting reason, common sense, what is fitting and what ought to done. So Paul is "of flesh" in exactly the opposite sense that the Law is rational. Paul is subject to the irrational as he goes on to explain.

15 *For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16 *But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good.

Paul admits to being subject to bouts of irrationality. Just like a man sold into slavery, he doesn't always get to do what HE wants to do. Sometimes he does the very thing he hates to do. By comparison to the rational law, he acts contrary to reason, doing the things he doesn't understand. But he concludes, and this is his main idea, if while he is acting irrationally he agrees with the Law, if he is doing what he hates to do while agreeing with what the law says ought to be done, he is confessing that the law is good.

In other words, there is Paul, the one who sometimes acts contrary to good reason, especially as dictated in the law, which is the same guy who also agrees with the law while he does it. He goes on to explain that while he commits sin according to some irrational aspect of himself, he is able to stand aloof and above it all in order to allow the law to be critical of his actions and side with the law as it does.

17 *So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me.
18 *For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19 *For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish.
20 *But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21 *I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.
22 *For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 *but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

And so we see that contained in the nature of a single man, a principle of evil that allows a man to joyfully concur with the Law of God, even as he is doing the very thing he hates and does not wish to do. He finds in himself the ultimate weirdness in that his very own members are at war with his own mind causing him to be a prisoner in his own body. And yet, even in this strange and awful state, he is able to maintain his aloof perspective on himself, the law, and his God. He is able to joyfully concur with the rational, moral vision contained in the law, even as he sees himself a prisoner of his own body.

In my view, the fact that Paul is able to concur with the law, come to agreement about his true nature, lament and mourn over it, is substantial evidence that he is a born again believer. The processes of the inner man having a "dialog" with the Spirit of God as he comes to a true picture of himself and his hunger to be freed from his prison is all evidence that Paul has come to belief. His prayer of thanksgiving to God for the Lord Jesus Christ is also clear evidence of his right standing as a believer.

And I think that all believers can say, without hesitation, that they serve the law of God with the mind, even if they find themselves, at times, serving the law of sin. Has any man truly transcended his sinful nature?

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2009, 08:07 PM
Okay but notice his mental process in Romans 7. The question he asks is, " Is the Law sin?" That is, is it bad? Is the law evil? Is it something to be avoided? In verse 8, I would argue, he begins to inform his readers of the true intent of the Law. God gave the law to serve a purpose. What is that purpose?

Romans 7:8 *But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

He points out that the Law serves to highlight sin in a special way. Not only does the Law define God's moral vision for everyone, but it also paints an existential picture for those who attempt to keep it. One might say to himself, "I can live a life without lust." Then the Law will say to the sinner, "Go ahead and try. See how far you get." The law becomes the opportunity (Paul's word) for the sinner to find out something about himself. Without a law to challenge the sinner, sin isn't a live issue. I could be lusting all the time, but until the Law challenges me to stop, I'll never know if it's actually possible to stop.

And so Paul builds his case for why the Law is actually a good thing and not a bad thing.

9 *And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died;
10 *and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;

That passage describes a moment of discovery Paul experienced when the commandment against coveting finally "came". We might say in our idiom, the Law finally "came home" to me. It finally got to me. It's implications concerning me as a sinner finally settled into my soul such that I was finally willing to admit to myself that I am a sinner.

Out of the Ten Commandments, the Tenth is not doable. It is simply not possible to avoid an inner desire. We can hide it. We can ignore it. We can run around the room, or lift weights, go for a jog, or take a cold shower. But we can not remove our desire. We can avoid murder. We can avoid theft. We can avoid adultery. But we can't avoid WANTING another man's life. We can't avoid WANTING another man's stuff. We can't avoid WANTING another man's wife. And when the Law challenged Paul, "Okay don't want stuff." he found he couldn't comply.

11 *for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.

It must have been the sin of pride and presumption that induced him to take up the challenge of the commandment. It must have looked deceptively easy. But he lost the challenge and in the process he came to the realization that he was dead with respect to his search for God's favor.

I should note here that Paul is revealing his mental process to his readers. In order to arrive at all these conclusions, especially the existential conclusions that he is a dead sinner he must already be in an internal dialog with God in which Paul is open and willing to look afresh at himself, his moral condition, and his standing before God. I would argue that this "righteous" view of himself is the work of the Spirit. Not that he is righteous, but he has the right, rational, true perspective on his condition. Only a child of God is willing to admit to himself that he is a dead sinner. Everyone else makes excuses, justifications, and rationalizations for it.

12 *So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Conclusion: the law serves a good purpose. While a man can not use the Law to gain God's favor through his meritorious efforts; the law is useful as a mirror into which a man might learn to see himself as he really is. If the law is used properly, it is a good thing.

13 *Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Here Paul defends those who would accuse him of saying, "out of good, evil has come." In his defense he points out that it was not the Law that caused his death; rather, it was in the process of his coming to learn the great hold of sin, that he died. In other words, it was the sin, not the law that became the result of his "death."

Remember that Paul is describing a process of self-realization in which he abandons a faulty, distorted view of himself in favor of a more realistic and true view of himself. He refers to this as his "death" because he is speaking in terms of his condemnation -- his being declared guilty and worthy of punishment. Before his eyes were opened, he mistakenly believed he was "alive" -- not subject to punishment. But when his eyes were opened, he came to learn the truth about himself.

He will set out to demonstrate that his "death" was not actually an evil thing but a good thing because in the process of coming to terms with the Law he discovered something else about himself.

14 *For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

We must be careful to understand his phrase "of flesh" in contrast with his assertion that the Law is "spiritual." When Paul says the Law is spiritual, he means the Law is the product of a rational mind, reflecting reason, common sense, what is fitting and what ought to done. So Paul is "of flesh" in exactly the opposite sense that the Law is rational. Paul is subject to the irrational as he goes on to explain.

15 *For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16 *But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good.

Paul admits to being subject to bouts of irrationality. Just like a man sold into slavery, he doesn't always get to do what HE wants to do. Sometimes he does the very thing he hates to do. By comparison to the rational law, he acts contrary to reason, doing the things he doesn't understand. But he concludes, and this is his main idea, if while he is acting irrationally he agrees with the Law, if he is doing what he hates to do while agreeing with what the law says ought to be done, he is confessing that the law is good.

In other words, there is Paul, the one who sometimes acts contrary to good reason, especially as dictated in the law, which is the same guy who also agrees with the law while he does it. He goes on to explain that while he commits sin according to some irrational aspect of himself, he is able to stand aloof and above it all in order to allow the law to be critical of his actions and side with the law as it does.

17 *So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me.
18 *For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19 *For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish.
20 *But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21 *I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.
22 *For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 *but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

And so we see that contained in the nature of a single man, a principle of evil that allows a man to joyfully concur with the Law of God, even as he is doing the very thing he hates and does not wish to do. He finds in himself the ultimate weirdness in that his very own members are at war with his own mind causing him to be a prisoner in his own body. And yet, even in this strange and awful state, he is able to maintain his aloof perspective on himself, the law, and his God. He is able to joyfully concur with the rational, moral vision contained in the law, even as he sees himself a prisoner of his own body.

In my view, the fact that Paul is able to concur with the law, come to agreement about his true nature, lament and mourn over it, is substantial evidence that he is a born again believer. The processes of the inner man having a "dialog" with the Spirit of God as he comes to a true picture of himself and his hunger to be freed from his prison is all evidence that Paul has come to belief. His prayer of thanksgiving to God for the Lord Jesus Christ is also clear evidence of his right standing as a believer.

And I think that all believers can say, without hesitation, that they serve the law of God with the mind, even if they find themselves, at times, serving the law of sin. Has any man truly transcended his sinful nature?
I would have no problem with any of what you say until you get to where most go... and that is you ultimately... it as an excuse to continue in sin as opposed to Paul's point in that thanks be to Jesus... I can be free from even this.

I am not saying at all that the Law of God is bad! God forbid I ever even think such as that. It is what Paul says it is... a teacher that teaches us what sin is. Nevertheless... it has no power to do anything but teach us what sin is. And while folks might think it the catch all end all and all one has to do is follow it.... they are simply setting themselves up for failure because of that nature of man. You cannot do it.

Paul is not talking about being free from the law when he speaks of freedom. He is speaking of being free from the bondage of sin.

Romans 7:23 *but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24 *Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25 *Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.


He goes on to show us how we can even live our life free from the sin which binds the flesh... live by the Spirit and then you won't fulfill the lust of the flesh (enter into Romans 8).

BroRog
Feb 5th 2009, 08:20 PM
I would have no problem with any of what you say until you get to where most go... and that is you ultimately... it as an excuse to continue in sin as opposed to Paul's point in that thanks be to Jesus... I can be free from even this."

Well, we can't base our exegesis on what others might to with it, can we? But if most people think, "aha, Paul is giving me an excuse to sin" then they haven't understood the answers he gave to the first two questions. Of course we shouldn't continue in sin.

But as we stand at the threshold of chapter 8, our difference of opinion seems to be whether Paul sets out to teach us the technique of how to avoid sinning.


I am not saying at all that the Law of God is bad! God forbid I ever even think such as that. It is what Paul says it is... a teacher that teaches us what sin is. Nevertheless... it has no power to do anything but teach us what sin is. And while folks might think it the catch all end all and all one has to do is follow it.... they are simply setting themselves up for failure because of that nature of man. You cannot do it. I totally agree with your perspective that the Law is a teacher, but has no power to do anything else. But the question we might explore is, has Paul set out to show us how to get such a power? I assume we will have different things to say about Romans 8.

(I do wish we were able to get this far in our Romans discussion. :) )


He goes on to show us how we can even live our life free from the sin which binds the flesh... live by the Spirit and then you won't fulfill the lust of the flesh (enter into Romans 8).I would love to. Would we be derailing the thread?

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2009, 08:23 PM
Well, we can't base our exegesis on what others might to with it, can we? But if most people think, "aha, Paul is giving me an excuse to sin" then they haven't understood the answers he gave to the first two questions. Of course we shouldn't continue in sin.

But as we stand at the threshold of chapter 8, our difference of opinion seems to be whether Paul sets out to teach us the technique of how to avoid sinning.

I totally agree with your perspective that the Law is a teacher, but has no power to do anything else. But the question we might explore is, has Paul set out to show us how to get such a power? I assume we will have different things to say about Romans 8.

(I do wish we were able to get this far in our Romans discussion. :) )

I would love to. Would we be derailing the thread?
Shoot no.... go ahead and start. I'll get to it. ;)

Walstib
Feb 6th 2009, 04:23 PM
Sorry to take so long. I was prayerfully meditating on all angles with scripture. I certainly see where you are coming from and understand why, but I keep coming back to these.....

Mar 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

So let me ask you a question. The resurrection, is it physical? Was the resurrected Christ physical? I say both physical and spiritual. The Messiah walked through walls, could translate, and said touch and see I am flesh and bone (not blood), not a spirit. What else am I to conclude?

Christ's glorified body, by which believers are sanctified, is not made with hands.
That's what Col 2:11 says. Jesus was physically buried and physically raised by the Spirit. It was not just spiritual. It was not natural as in earthy or temporal. Physical and earthy are two different things. There are different kinds of flesh. Are not things in 'Heaven' that Moses saw and made the tabernacle after physical?

Before Jesus was manifest in the flesh that was crucified He arguably was seen in OT times and ate with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob..... Though I would say the connection in fullness to the fallen creation was not present. This being the profound difference between a touchable appearance before being born of Mary and after ascension. Honestly I don't know enough to describe it in full, there is a mystery part of this, but the difference is what matters toward the focus of our conversation I think.

So while you can call his resurrected body physical in a way, in another way I would say it was not connected to the the fallen creation in fullness. I don't know really how to put it better right now.



"Has our physical flesh been crucified, buried, raised and ascended with him?"
That's a tough question. I can only say that it is in believing I am crucified buried and raised that I am delivered of my 'stronghold sins'. With that fruit, substance, and evidence, what do you think I should conclude?

I figure that since we still have a full connection to the fallen creation, we are not the same as Christ yet. Like the circumcision in the verse verse below, there are reckonings. We can be circumcised without hands while our physical flesh remains uncircumcised. An actual change in us has happened, we are empowered and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and so much more giving us victory now, but there is still more to come. There are many other spiritual truths about us that are reckoned to us now while we wait and groan within ourselves for the fullness of them to be accomplished. Saved while at the same time being saved and at the same time waiting to be saved. Time is a funny thing. We are crucified with Him and yet still walking up the hill daily with our own cross.

Then one can take word pictures used to describe something intangible to literally. That is part of this I think.

I am also enjoying this conversation, thanks
Joe

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Col 2:11-14 NKJV)

For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. (Rom 8:22-25 NKJV)

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. (2Co 5:1-4 NKJV)

Walstib
Feb 6th 2009, 07:23 PM
Unfortunately Yuke as there are many things we do agree on, some of the things that you teach as so far away from what I believe I must say it is not as close as you think it is. Between having no freedom to think for ourselves and your view on sin and forgiveness... well after the cornerstone it seems even our foundations are different. I still love you :hug:

Yuke,

I trust I did not push you away from the discussion with this comment, the cornerstone is what matters the most and I am sure there are many important things we do agree upon. I think there is a good chance you may be born again ;)

I do still want to keep talking with you about this, not teach you but see if we can find agreement. There is allot of talk on Romans 7 here and rightly so for the topic. I am figuring this part is where we see things the most different.

So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. (Rom 7:17 NASB)

I am thinking you figure sin mentioned here is actually a force or something like that with a power or will of it's own. Is this a fair statement of what you believe? I'm trying to understand your view.

Seeking agreement for the Glory of God,
Joe

Walstib
Feb 15th 2009, 02:58 AM
Hi Bernie,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

Firstly, the disposition toward gluttony is a spiritual defect, while the disposition toward satisfying a need for sustenance is a biological urge. Different mechanics, I think. But might not a human simultaneously possess two different natures? I think this is true of spiritual things; any given person holds a variety of often contradictory values. And even in the natural realm, depending on how this duality played out, even natural biological urges can be rendered defective. For example, the defect known as cancer (and numerous other biological disorders) often stifle appetite, a defect which renders a natural urge unnatural.
I wanted to say here that I think definitions are somewhat personal in the long run. We can mean the same thing using two different terms. I might not call what you are speaking of natures but I do agree with your points here. I think allot of this for me comes from not believing in "total depravity" and how this ties into the term nature as it is often used in theological camps that do believe this. Too often I think people are so rigid on their definitions that they miss the agreement they have with another person. If I were to agree to the term nature I would just qualify that these are within the same person-hood and not defining a separation of self.

One chilling facet of spiritual degeneration is its capacity to produce deception in the human mind. Jesus' detractors thought themselves, their theology and religiosity to be the very pinnacle and proprietorship of righteousness. Scary that the human mind holds within it the potential to embrace evil while believing that very evil to be good.
I agree. I have often said there is "good flesh" but it is still flesh. Makes me think of Mark 10:18.

It may be for example that placing human ability and power to choose on too high an altar might lead to blinding the mind to the sovereignty of God--and deny Him the proper place in one's inner reflections.
I think I understand you here, leading to self righteousness instead of God granted righteousness.

At the same time, though, possession of the belief that man is fallen does not automatically--nor even logically, for that matter--lead to a denial that one has the capacity to serve God even in the midst of fallenness.
I agree again, especially with my not believing in total depravity.

Peace,
Joe