4. Is it wise to assert so positively as some do that the seventh chapter of Romans describes, not the experience of a saint, but the experience of an unregenerate person?
This is a point which has been in dispute ever since the time of Paul. But it must be said that all the Reformers, the Puritans, and many other students of scripture all agree that Paul here describes the experience of a Christian believer. (Ryle indicates a list of names, including Haldane and Owen, who defend the position that Paul is writing of his own present experience.) To disregard the weight of the opinions of such an array of Reformers and Puritans is surely unwise? end quote
Now Kev, please re-read the quote you posted, and observe that it is saying the selfsame thing.
One of today's problems is that young men just will not read slowly enough. Bro, these things demand time. You might enjoy an instant breakfast, and instant communication with Beirut, but holiness and understanding do not come quite so easily. Slow down, man.
Fun sitting at table & listening in. Good stuff 1 elucidation as to why one might use a paraphrase with proviso- Annie's pretty pictures aside, Good News Bible's author Dr Robert Bratcher, denied both inerrancy &infallibility &went so far as to call the evangelical position âheresyâ! From the beginning, significant mistranslations marred it as a serious study Bible.( but I still like the cartoons in it- except for the German edition which tended toward "racy" -1-removes the blood of Christ Acts 20:28, for example, âwhich he made his own through the death of his Sonâ should literally be âwhich he bought with his own blood' -2-equally serious that Rom4:3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22 phrase, âGod accepted him as righteous,â is repeatedly used. This misses the whole point of imputed righteousness. The Greek word used here is logizomai&nowhere can it mean âto acceptâ
Brethren may pick & chose apt paraphrases-but!- Not all know the flaws(& it lies as presenting itself as translation) - There is some of inspired Scripture in all bible versions out there no matter how inferior they may be in so many other ways-gospel is still found in them all &God can use them to bring His people to a saving faith in the Lord Jesus
But downgrades lose&diminish the word "repent" in new versions
Rom 7 is clearly talking about himself in the last part of Rom 7 or do you believe he is talking about an unregenerate man? If JC Ryle canât understand Rom 7 is about a Saint then I wouldnât want to read his book. I tried listening to his book but I got to that point and I stopped.
Rom 7 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 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.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the MIND I myself SERVE THE LAW OF GOD; but with the FLESH THE LAW OF SIN.
He doesnât like this verse. JC Ryle mentions Wesley maybe he believes some of that âChristian perferctionismâ doctrine you brought up awhile back.
There is a very simple solution to illegal immigration. Since 2001, the United States has been at war. The best way to keep our enemies from infiltrating the country is to shoot them dead the moment they invade our country. Extreme? You bet. Effective? Try it for six months and the flood of illegal immigration will slow to a trickle. Do I give a hoot what bleeding heart liberals would think about this idea? Put a twelve-gauge in my hands and see.
Is it wise to assert so positively and violently, as many do, that the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans does not describe the experience of the advanced saint, but the experience of the unregenerate man, or of the weak and unestablished believer? I doubt it. I admit fully that the point has been a disputed one for eighteen centuries, in fact ever since the days of St. Paul. I admit fully that eminent Christians like John and Charles Wesley, and Fletcher, a hundred years ago, to say nothing of some able writers of our own time, maintain firmly that St. Paul was not describing his own present experience when he wrote this seventh chapter. I admit fully that many cannot see what I and many others do see: viz., that Paul says nothing in this chapter which does not precisely tally with the recorded experience of the most eminent saints in every age, and that he does say several things which no unregenerate man or weak believer would ever think of saying, and cannot say.
I donât believe JC Ryle knows what he is talking about. He does injury to scripture because Rom 7 does not fit his theology. It is crystal clear Rom 7 is talking about himself at the present time.
In his book Holiness he sides with the Papist on this text.
Matt Ford wrote: âOnce upon a time, for instance, a campaign-finance law could be justified if there was a concern that money could provide influence or access to officials,â she explained. âThe Supreme Court in recent years has said, âNo, no, no, we donât really care if your campaign contribution gets you access or ingratiation or a whole bunch of favors. We think corruption is much more like quid pro quo and maybe even just cash for votes.ââ
Behind these legal doctrines and prosecutorial theories are questions about the popular legitimacy of the republican systemâabout voters being able to trust that the officials they elect arenât the puppets of the countryâs richest patrons. What McDonnell and other recent public-corruption rulings risk are institutions where cash and favors flow freely, where consequences are exceptional, and where public vice is made indistinguishable from civic virtue. No Americans expect a government of saints, but they expect their government to be able to root out the sinners in its midst.
Good morning Kev, And thanks for explaining what you meant. Sure, God ordains things and permits things. He is responsible for the things ordained, and we are responsible for the things he permits us to do.
The best way to get at truth, is to get it straight from scripture, and analyse experience in light of that. Do it the other way around, and it will be the scripture that suffers.
Now if I misunderstood you on the cause of sin, it may be you are misunderstanding me on progressive sanctification. (p.s my position is that of Ryle, which US posted up links to.)
If to sanctify is to "set apart", then at conversion we are set apart from the world to be vessels of honour for the Master's use.
...there is still much of the world in us, and the lifelong work which the Spirit of God will do in us, is to get the world totally out of our hearts, so that we become more spiritual and less carnal. In backsliding, more of the world gets in, and we allow it. This is a big mistake. We end up fighting against the Spirit, instead of against the world, the flesh and the devil. Thusly, the Spirit is quenched and grieved, we lose contact, we get worse and worse.
Progressive sanctification requires our part in God's work.
Obama learned this shakedown from the masters Revs Jackson and Sharpton. They would scream "racist" at corporations and get them to settle out of court to avoid the public stigma. The money of course would go into the pockets of these ravenous wolves and the coffers of their racist organizations and friends. Obama used this to perfection not only with the EPA but also the depts of Treasury (via the IRS) and Justice (which would shakedown cities and towns crying "racial bias" in their municipal judiciaries and police depts).
And yet, another good roll-back of one of Obama's many evil legal shenanigans unnoticed by the sleeping populous and ignored by mainstream media. When this guy comes back in power on the world stage what he did here in the U.S. will be peanuts in comparison. His deceit and evil schemes will literally be of Biblical proportions; specifically Revelation 13.
Never said God is the cause of sin John I believe he allows them to fall. It clear from the Bible that Christ is our strength to not sin so all God has to do is leave us up to ourselves. He also uses Satan to buffer us like in Job and what me and Lurker are talking about.
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
But God does allow us to fall and every single thing He uses for our good. God is Sovereign.
Doesnât seem like God though He should make Paulâs flesh better and better. 2 Corinthians 12:7-9
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
The above first shows itâs on Godâs timetable and He lets us have weakness to turn to Him.
1Peter 2:2, 3Â As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:Â If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious
2Peter 3:18Â But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen
1John 2:12-13Â I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.Â I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father
Hebrews 5:13Â For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.Â But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Jim is fond of calling the Republicans 'greedy ole' party', it seems the Clintons could be called the GOC - 'greedy ole Clintons' - "If President Trump or anyone even remotely close to his presidency, including his best friend from 2nd grade that he hadn't seen in 40 years, sought to meet with key Russian nuclear officials, in Moscow, just months before the federal government approved a very controversial deal handing Vladimir Putin 20% of U.S. uranium reserves, despite an ongoing investigation into Russian fraud, bribery, extortion and money laundering, it would be the only story played on a 24 x 7 loop on CNN and MSNBC. Ironically, that is exactly what new emails dug up by The Hill show that Bill Clinton did in June 2010, just months before the Uranium One deal was approved by a committee on which his wife, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sat.Â Oh, and did we mention that Bill's Clinton Foundation just happened to collect millions of dollars in bribes donations from Russian sources and Uranium One shareholders shortly after his Moscow meetings? From http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/emails-reveal-bill-clinton-sought-meetings-key-russian-nuclear-officials-just-uraniu
Isn't it strange how this story isn't receiving much attention?
Connor Wrote: "John, I'll be glad to debate you on the subject, "Can atheists have morals?"
John has made this claim many times over time. We are all born with a sense of what's right and wrong, and some things are learned, but morals are not withheld from human beings until they've been born again. Morality is innate, but many choose to fight against it, and to say Atheists are without morals is simply wrong, and not only from a purely logical standpoint, but from experience. An atheist can be more moral than someone who claims to be a Christian, and morality is more about human nature and the choices they make than belief. To claim that an Athiest is without morals, period, is to say that every Athiest is a chronic liar, murderer, adulterer, thief, and generally devoid of any ethics, values, standards, principals, or scruples, etc. Quite the blanket claim.