I am with you on your position on Romans 7. I believe it to be Paul speaking of himself before conversion in one of the verses he says “when the law came to me” as a believer under grace not under law I have to say Paul is a bit bi-polar from saying:

1.We are free from sin but I am a slave sold under Sin

2.I am slave righteousness but I can’t do what I want to do

3. I am of the flesh but the mind of the flesh is hostile to God

I can continue but I will not. I think most of these flows from a heavy emphasis on justification and a very weak view of regeneration (new birth). I could be wrong so I say that with humilty not wanting to offend those who went before me in this great faith.

Hey your not a Calvinist? I saw your election post! Shame on you Sir! But I guess I can forgive you (I guess I have too Ephesians 4 )

You have a way of expressing your insights that is deep, yet easy to understand. Thank you for being available to the Holy Spirit. There is an atmosphere here that allows for sharing of a variety of positions & thoughts with grace, and the comments are thought-provoking. Thank you to all who share.

It’s great to see you blogging again. I love the title of this post. I agree with most that has been said and, like you, I don’t believe I have a real firm grasp on all of what Scripture is teaching in this area. The only thing I can add is that sometimes we try to reduce the language in the Bible to propositions or truth claims. We forget that language not only makes truth claims but also does things in the listeners. For example, suppose my son steals something from a store. In confronting him I might say that Vicks (my last name is Vick) don’t steal. As a truth claim my statement is clearly false since a Vick just did steal and that’s the whole reason we’re having the conversation. Yet, no one would really accuse me of stating a falsehood. It’s understood that I’m trying to build a pride in my son rooted in his family so that he will see next time he’s tempted that stealing is totally inconsistent with who he is. When John says in I John, “No one who is born of God sins” (the Greek is that strong though many translations try to soften it by bringing out the present tense), I don’t think he’s trying to make an observation about Christians. At many places in I John it’s clear that John knows that Christians sin (1:8 for example). What he’s trying to do, I think, is make us aware of who we really are and to see that who we are is totally inconsistent with sin.

I’ve missed a few comments here, so I will attempt to respond:

Kevin, thank you for your comment. Sorry it got overlooked in the midst of Joel’s comments. I am not familiar with the book you mentioned. Does it express similar sentiments to my post, or is it something that offers a different perspective? I wasn’t sure if you were asking me if I had read it because my thoughts were similar, or if you were recommending it for further thought.

ded, great to see you, brother! I miss your blogging. But June is coming We also need to get together again soon. It’s been too long and we miss our fellowship.

Gordon, great to hear from you, too. You’re about as busy a blogger as I am I’m glad you agree with the main gist of my post, even if you lean toward the trichotomy position. I’m not discounting the trichotomy concept by any stretch. I’m not totally convinced, but I’m not throwing it out.

AussieJohn, I’ll have to meditate some more on your distinction between what God sees and what we know. I think a huge part of it is seeing ourselves the way God does. But maybe that’s what you’re getting at.

Amanda, glad it could be an encouragement to you! Blessings on you as you follow Christ.

Gentlemen, please. I have no idea why this is being discussed on my blog, but I have no desire to be in the middle of this.

I do not delete comments from my blog except under extreme circumstances, but I am shocked and confused as to why this has been brought to my blog.

John, in the past you have demonstrated from what I have seen to be a very gracious man, reflecting the love of Christ. You don’t need to chase someone around the blogosphere. You have attempted many times to correct Lou in the past, and I would strongly urge you and Rose to completely ignore him at this point. But please leave my blog out of it. I am completely baffled as to why you commented about this here in this manner.

Lou, you on the other hand, have not demonstrated the love of Christ in the discussions I have read with you elsewhere. I have observed you calling people names, labeling others as false teachers, and yet not demonstrating any Christlike attitude in your comments. You are not welcome to come here and speak about this matter between you and someone else that does not involve me.

This morning I sent an apology via e-mail to Rose and John. The apology was NOT for having included Rose in a bulk e-mail. My apology was in regard to how I reacted to John’s two paragraph comment that I find disingenuous on several levels.

Never-the-less, my reaction was not right, the Holy Spirit convicted me of it, and I responded to Him. I immediately deleted my reply, posted both a public apology and the e-mail to Rose and John I mentioned above.

Furthermore, in the e-mail apology I also asked for their forgiveness.

Even though both Rose and John have been active in the blogs today, neither of them have acknowledged nor accepted my apology. Neither one has indicated or written to forgive me as I requested.

“And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in Heaven forgive your trespasses,” (Mark 11:25-26).

I did my best following my conscience and the leading of the Holy Spirit to make this right and bring closure. Unless I hear otherwise, it appears Rose and John are not willing to bring closure.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” (1 John 1:9).

As far as I am concerned this is a closed issue and under the blood, whether or not Rose and John will respond appropriately.

LM

I, too, lean towards the trichotomist position (surprise, surprise ), but I don’t think that necessarily breeds too much conflict with what you are writing.

As I see it, there are two realms in which believers interact with God: relationship and fellowship. Relationship is static with God being our heavenly father and eternal life being the key component. Fellowship is the realm in which sanctification occurs. We can indeed become “unconcious” to sin or “dead” to sin. If we do sin, I Corinthians and I John both give us remedies for dealing with such issues.

I would certainly agree with you that our identity in Christ should be the dominant factor in our lives in regard to sin. If we live in the victory that is already in us, (as opposed to trying to keep a set of rules) the power of Christ can enable us to live free from the domination of sin.

Is this not what Gal. 2:20 speaks of?

I hope these comments make sense. It is Sunday night and while my spirit is rejuvenated, my mind is pretty close to being well-done right now.