what is the threat of antinomianism?

[seer]

We were created in the image and likeness of God. That image is damaged from the Fall, but it is still there. Your view verges on Gnostic, not Christian.

Argue with Paul, not me...


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. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

[Teallaura]

We were created in the image and likeness of God. That image is damaged from the Fall, but it is still there. Your view verges on Gnostic, not Christian.

How is that Gnostic?

[One Bad Pig]

Argue with Paul, not me...


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. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

You're taking hyperbole and applying it literally.

[One Bad Pig]

How is that Gnostic?

The Gnostic view is that the material world (including flesh) is evil.

[seer]

You're taking hyperbole and applying it literally.

So you get to decide what is hyperbole? I think Paul was perfectly clear.

[seer]

The Gnostic view is that the material world (including flesh) is evil.

Did I say that the material world was evil? No I said we are evil (or just speaking for myself, I am evil). As Christ said: Apart from me you can do nothing i.e. no good.

[mikewhitney]

Argue with Paul, not me...


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. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

I will eventually be showing that Paul was describing the world as seen by the audience to the Romans epistle. The audience was having trouble getting away from fleshly behavior. Note that it will take more than a forum discussion to explain what was happening. Thomas Tobin has proposed part of this theory -- but he was missing some important details.

[NorrinRadd]

FWIW, here are some relevant comments from Craig Keener's IVP Bible Background Commentary:

The Struggle of Human Effort Under the LawPeople of the Spirit Versus People of the Flesh

[KingsGambit]

To believe just means to accept that he has given you eternal life -- i.e., the very thing you deny.

Your level of intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

[seer]

FWIW, here are some relevant comments from Craig Keener's IVP Bible Background Commentary:

[box]The Struggle of Human Effort Under the Law

I don't think that is correct at all. First, how many times have you as a Christian thought as Paul did: The good that I want to do I don't, the evil that I don't want to do I do. This may not describe your christian walk, but it does mine. Second, Phil 3: If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to righteousness under the law, faultless.

[NorrinRadd]

I don't think that is correct at all. First, how many times have you as a Christian thought as Paul did: The good that I want to do I don't, the evil that I don't want to do I do. This may not describe your christian walk, but it does mine.

Yes, my personal experience does reflect that portion of ch. 7. But even though I am broadly and loosely sympathetic to the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" and the value of "experience," I try to not let it be my primary guide in interpreting Scripture. I tend to agree with Keener (and, FWIW, with Fee & Stuart in How to Study the Bible, Book by Book and Witherington in Paul's Letter to the Romans) that Paul is using rhetorical techniques to compare attempts to achieve righteousness by law sans Spirit in ch. 7 with life empowered by the Spirit in ch. 8.

If you and I find ch. 7 describes us better than ch. 8 does, perhaps we have significant problems to address.

Second, Phil 3: If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to righteousness under the law, faultless.

I'm not sure what your point is in quoting this. It's an isolated verse from an entirely different letter to a different congregation. The church at Rome did not have access to the letter to the Philippians -- not least because it was not yet written -- and in any case would have been expected to understand their own letter on its own terms.

[Obsidian]

I tend to agree with Keener (and, FWIW, with Fee & Stuart in How to Study the Bible, Book by Book and Witherington in Paul's Letter to the Romans) that Paul is using rhetorical techniques to compare attempts to achieve righteousness by law sans Spirit in ch. 7 with life empowered by the Spirit in ch. 8.

He specifically mentions at the end of Chapter 7, and then repeats it in Chapter 8, that the temptations he is describing will remain a problem until the resurrection of the body of death. It doesn't have anything to do with "rhetorical techniques."

[seer]

Yes, my personal experience does reflect that portion of ch. 7. But even though I am broadly and loosely sympathetic to the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" and the value of "experience," I try to not let it be my primary guide in interpreting Scripture. I tend to agree with Keener (and, FWIW, with Fee & Stuart in How to Study the Bible, Book by Book and Witherington in Paul's Letter to the Romans) that Paul is using rhetorical techniques to compare attempts to achieve righteousness by law sans Spirit in ch. 7 with life empowered by the Spirit in ch. 8.

If you and I find ch. 7 describes us better than ch. 8 does, perhaps we have significant problems to address.

I think we all have significant problems when trying to live up to the example of Christ. Thank God for grace through faith...

I'm not sure what your point is in quoting this. It's an isolated verse from an entirely different letter to a different congregation. The church at Rome did not have access to the letter to the Philippians -- not least because it was not yet written -- and in any case would have been expected to understand their own letter on its own terms.

The point is that Paul kept the law. Your quote suggested that Paul "in the context" has been describing his past life under law. Yet He says in Phil. that he was faultless when it came to righteousness under the law.

[Teallaura]

He specifically mentions at the end of Chapter 7, and then repeats it in Chapter 8, that the temptations he is describing will remain a problem until the resurrection of the body of death. It doesn't have anything to do with "rhetorical techniques."

Er, aren't 7 & 8 a chaism?

[Teallaura]

I think we all have significant problems when trying to live up to the example of Christ. Thank God for grace through faith...





The point is that Paul kept the law. Your quote suggested that Paul "in the context" has been describing his past life under law. Yet He says in Phil. that he was faultless when it came to righteousness under the law.

Er, Seer, that literally cannot mean morally pure - he'd have no need to present his sacrifices which as an observant Jew he certainly did. It must mean he was diligent in his observance - which affirms that he did regard himself as having sinned at that time - because he's making atonement at the Temple.

It doesn't mean he regarded following the law as salvic - he refutes that in Romans. The law showed his sin - it didn't cure it, not even when he was scrupulously observant.

And he didn't keep the law as he had previously - he was preaching to Gentiles in their homes.