crossroman

Yes, so how does that tie in with Paul not knowing Christ in 7:24 if he has supposed to have known him from the beginning of this chapter, why would that crop up again if it was understood that he was already liberated from law sin and death and that he has not yet been freed from the body of his death as just described with all its negative detail of law sin and death and captivity and the production of evil? Everything said is in the context of the law that Jesus died for so that we also could die to it, that is what being a Christian is. Law is mentioned many times here but Spirit only once, and that not in the context of law. "Law brings wrath" and it is the outworking of this inner wrath that is being displayed, as the righteousness of the law confronts the unrighteousness of the natural man under law. (man in the flesh). For those seeking truth there is a very good explanation of this in an article titled "Clinging to a Counterfeit Cross" on the web. Again, how is it that Paul himself (I, of myself, in my mind...)(apart from Jesus) does not know Christ in 7:24 and also does not know he has already been released from captivity to all the obligations of death and sin under the law? It is because he has taken up the narrative from 7:7 forward to explain that the law was not sin but that sin takes opportunity through the law and kills him 7:10 and all he says from then on is from the perspective of a dead man 7:5. He is here explaining the fruit of that death under law. From 7:14 onward he explains why man's natural nature cannot handle being under the law which he also calls "the ministry of condemnation" and "the ministry of death" and how evil is present in him which he cannot control with his mind as "for the good that I wish I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish" 7:19. So he is bound to sin and is its slave "...free in regard to righteousness"6:20 Who is going to clean up this mess? Thanks be to God...! He makes the point that natural man who is OF flesh is always operating IN (from) the flesh whereas a Christian operates IN the Spirit. ALL men are of flesh, even Jesus was, but He was IN the Spirit as indeed Paul also operates when he is not teaching people about the law flesh sin and death of Romans 7. He says that the law comes to him with spiritual demands which of his natural nature he is spiritually bankrupt to obey. No one has yet addressed the twin issues of not knowing Christ (It has to be said that if Jesus met Paul in this condition he would say 'depart from me you worker of evil, (7:19) I never knew you'.) Just as Paul does not here appear to know Jesus. And the other issue of not being set free which is a question of faith being exercised in the sin sacrifice of Jesus' body that we no more be servants of the sin we have been freed from, whereas in R7 sin is all he is presented as doing, although this is another false insinuation because Paul never is said to actually BE sinning, what is explained is the PROPENSITY for sinning, not sinning itself. So Paul starts with 7:1 addressing "those who know the law", then he explains how the change of covenant can legally take place because "we died to the law" to 'marry Jesus'7:4. because 7:5 while we were IN the flesh (being OF it) the law aroused sin to death. 7:6 now being RELEASED from the law by which we were BOUND we no longer serve in oldness of letter. Then he goes on to explain what effect serving under that oldness of letter had on the natural, unspiritual man terminology such as Paul uses while narrating his own past journey under the law (of sin and death). 7:11 having been deceived and killed through the law by sin, he concludes that the law itself is indeed good and says 7:12 it was not the law but sin which was the problem, that sin through the law might be seen as utterly sinful. This is the schoolmaster which is about to bring him to Christ. 7:14 PRESENT TENSE The law is spiritual but I AM NOT [of course Paul is spiritual as can be read elsewhere but he speaks of his natural nature (flesh) here]. "FLESH" (all flesh) has been sold into bondage to sin (Jesus was of flesh but not IN the flesh Rom.8:9). Paul then continues the narrative about law. 7:18 Nothing good dwells in me, THAT IS TO SAY, IN MY FLESH. Etc. He is building up of course to the release from all these problems of just being flesh in his exclamation of verse 25, but of course before that he gets to verse 24 where he has no clue as to either his deliverer or his deliverance. And in desperation, says so.

Or it and he are misunderstood

Thanks Kwikphilly/oversight I had nearly finished my little composition when you posted, so am out of sequence. But never mind, thanks for the feedback!

I still cannot view where my original post (title topic heading) said that "...as one under law". It is listed as "Paul was not speaking as a Christian in Romans 7". But putting that aside, the issue here is Rom.7:24. Paul is not speaking as a Christian, true or false? In order to shorten this now, it seems the issue may revolve around when one considers that they have already been set free from their body of death, or only see this as happening when Christ returns. This then would hinge on your understanding of "first resurrection" as being tied to being "born again" or not. My argument is (1) that in 7:14 Paul has plainly stated he does not know Christ the one who will (already has) set him free, and (2) that he plainly asserts that he has not yet been set free. But this means that he has not then yet been freed from sin, from law, or from death. Meaning that his captivity to sin still remains and he is still under the power of the law to condemn in all of the foregoing chapter of 7. If we stopped there without proceeding to 7:25 it should be plain that 7 is the chapter of complete failure under the Mosaic law which empowered sin. Paul then exclaims thanks be to God (that there IS an answer to this) but which is not revealed until 8:2 where freedom from the law of sin is announced. Paul here has been explaining why the old covenant of law had to be replaced with the new covenant by the Spirit, so that the law of love might control us in place of the written law. It has always been controversial, but clearly understood when his narrative is followed through at face value, that he is explaining why there had to be a covenant change, for the benefit of those who were converts from the law 7:1. He speaks as one under the law so he can reveal the process of sin and temptation and the resulting spiritual death which is incurred under law. His final summation is that natural man under law is subject to two laws, the one of his mind trying to follow god's law, and the other of his indwelling sin nature which always, under law, overpowers his good intentions. Then Romans 8 explains how we are now freed from that law of sin in 7:25.

I still cannot view where my original post (title topic heading) said that "...as one under law". It is listed as "Paul was not speaking as a Christian in Romans 7". But putting that aside, the issue here is Rom.7:24. Paul is not speaking as a Christian, true or false? In order to shorten this now, it seems the issue may revolve around when one considers that they have already been set free from their body of death, or only see this as happening when Christ returns. This then would hinge on your understanding of "first resurrection" as being tied to being "born again" or not. My argument is (1) that in 7:14 Paul has plainly stated he does not know Christ the one who will (already has) set him free, and (2) that he plainly asserts that he has not yet been set free. But this means that he has not then yet been freed from sin, from law, or from death. Meaning that his captivity to sin still remains and he is still under the power of the law to condemn in all of the foregoing chapter of 7. If we stopped there without proceeding to 7:25 it should be plain that 7 is the chapter of complete failure under the Mosaic law which empowered sin. Paul then exclaims thanks be to God (that there IS an answer to this) but which is not revealed until 8:2 where freedom from the law of sin is announced. Paul here has been explaining why the old covenant of law had to be replaced with the new covenant by the Spirit, so that the law of love might control us in place of the written law. It has always been controversial, but clearly understood when his narrative is followed through at face value, that he is explaining why there had to be a covenant change, for the benefit of those who were converts from the law 7:1. He speaks as one under the law so he can reveal the process of sin and temptation and the resulting spiritual death which is incurred under law. His final summation is that natural man under law is subject to two laws, the one of his mind trying to follow god's law, and the other of his indwelling sin nature which always, under law, overpowers his good intentions. Then Romans 8 explains how we are now freed from that law of sin in 7:25.

Sorry, I can't see that on the topic heading as displayed on my screen, does that mean it has been shortened? But this is the issue at hand. In Romans 7:24 is Paul speaking as a Christian? Truth or lie?

Ok but it did read as though the topic title had been changed.

Thought I answered this already somewhere, sorry, no that is not what I am saying.

OK

Thanks Anne Getting mixed up here Thanks were to intended to kwiikphilly but ended up to Anne, sorry, yes I knew the time difference was the problem but thought I may as well get the ball rolling, no criticism intended. Yes the wording was "AS a Christian" which is really the whole point of it, that though he WAS a Christian at the time, that he was not speaking as one. I am beginning to get the idea that many people here on this forum have strong ties to the law

Did I say in my topic heading "as one under the law"?

I do not understand the inference behind your "welcome" comment but the smiley face gives me encouragement that you are indeed being 'welcoming', thank you. I stopped at 24 for the same reason I have already posted, that it is this verse which was the intended subject of discussion. I am surprised if you are not familiar with this subject as being "difficult" and that it is the first time you heard of it, it has been around for a very long time.

Have I not been misquoted? I thought my heading of topic read "In Romans 7 Paul was not speaking as a Christian" with nothing said about being under the law?

You said "Why did you stop at verse 24 and not continue with the very next verse? Let's please read in context: For I know that in me..." Sorry if I misunderstand, but "For I know that in me..." is not the next verse. The reason for me stopping at verse 24 is because this is the verse I am speaking about at the moment.