Romans 7: Now vs Before

[Josheb]

Now means now.

(crickets chirping)

Now means now.

(more crickets chirping)

Now means now.

(Still more silence so profound the crickets can be heard chirping)

Bye

Bye-bye.

"Now" means now.

 

[Ghada]

Verse 4 is not a proof text

A proof text is language that can only be read one way.

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Past history, not present.

God does use simple grammar in His Bible.

and it can and should be read in context of the whole commentary,

This shows the unbeliever's view of the Bible, who believes they can adjust it to their own will. The Bible is not 'commentary', that can be adjusted another's own commentary.

The Bible is the written truth in simple grammar for normal children to understand. And readers either believe the plain words or they don't.

Commentary on the Bible may be good, but it's not the Bible. Therefore, adjusting commentary on the Bible can also be good. But the Bible itself is not commentary to be adjusted.

Child like faith in the Bible believes what is plainly written in normal words and grammar. The unbelievers look at the Bible as mere commentary on the things of God, that are just the ideas and speculations of other writers.

Therefore, it's the unbelieving abnormal children of disobedience, that seek context as commentary to be adjusted to their own ideas. Such as adjusting 'we were' to mean 'we are', and 'did work' to mean 'does work'. Their own commentary demands a present tense for continued unrepented works of the flesh, and so they make context of the Bible into just another person's own commentary. They then proceed to adjust their commentary with their own, so as that they adjust past tense to present.

The unconditional gospel for unrepented and stiffnecked trespassers, is not only the delusion of we can believe like a son of God, while acting like a child of the devil. Rather than believe and obey God in all things, it's the old promise to transgress and believe as everlasting gods, whether doing good or evil things.

The strength of the delusion extends to dysfunctional arguments for unconditional salvation, by even trying to change word meanings and grammatical rule.

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws:

We see how such gods believing in themselves, try to change the very laws of nature, including that of times and normal words. The past is not the past, but is the present, where 'were' means 'are', and 'did' means 'does'.

In order to justify oneself of unrepented sins and trespasses, someone may even forsake the wholesome light of intelligence, that Christ lightens every little child with coming into the world.

There is no sensible argument with such delusional stuff, but it is interesting to see how such things fulfill the prophetic and timely warnings of God. God already sees this kind of 'darkened light' within the self-justifiers, and we get to see it in action before our very eyes.

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

I would say from the prophecy and conclusion of Scripture, alongside the example at hand, that 'dark light' is the perversion of sound intelligence into the intellectual insult of changing grammatical rule and standard meaning of words.

And we see a very real and precise case study of it here. Rather than just acknowledge the truth written in Romans 7:5 is that of the past life of repented saints, there is strong persistence in trying to make it the present life for all Christians.

Why? Because that is their own willing life of unrepented walking after the flesh, and they want every other Christian, including the Bible writer 'commenting' on doing the same.

 

[Ghada]

(crickets chirping)

(more crickets chirping)

(Still more silence so profound the crickets can be heard chirping)




"Now" means now.

Once you make were mean now, then there is no more meaning for were nor now.

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws:

The practice of historical narrative spoken in present tense is called the 'historical present'.

But, that's only standard literary instruction for teachable children and adults. It's not for the unteachable who refuse to even make simple difference between were and now.

Unless there is something new brought out, I'll be ending this dystopian dance now.

 

[Josheb]

A proof text is language that can only be read one way.

Never in contradiction to other scripture.

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Past history, not present.

Now means now. Verse 5 is past. That has already been agreed upon. Fixating upon one verse and refusing to acknowledge ALL else that is said due to a failed understanding of a proof text is wrong. The word "now" means now.

God does use simple grammar in His Bible.

And nothing is simpler simple than the word "now" meaning now.

Romans 7:5, 14-17
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.................. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For 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. 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. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 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.

The word "were" means were, and the word "now" means now. He was in the flesh but is NOW no longer doing good or bad; sin that dwels in him is doing the doing. While verse five may have been a comment about his former self the fact remained, the sin dwelling in him NOW caused him not to do what he wanted to do and do what he wanted not to do. The title and the opening post do not say one verse was in the past; it argued the entire chapter is in the past and that is self-evidently not the case because "now" means now. God often uses simple language, and nothing is simpler than "now" meaning now.

Once you make were mean now, then there is no more meaning for were nor now.

Never happened. Go back and re-read the posts.

 

[Ghada]

Never in contradiction to other scripture.

Exactly. Proof texts are the verses that must not be contradicted by

Anyone preaching a created christ is contradicting the Word was God. Anyone preaching Paul was speaking of being both free from the sins of the old man, and still committing the sins of the old man, is going to either bypass him speaking of his past altogether, as an unrepented sinner himself.

Or, is going to ignore the common practice of speaking in the historical present, where the narrator speaks of the past in present tense, but is certainly not speaking of the present.

It certainly is possible to speak of the past and present being the same, with both past and present tense; however, that cannot be in Romans 7, because God is not self-decieved into agreeing anyone can now be righteous by faith, while still being unrighteous by works in the past and present.

Now means now. Verse 5 is past. That has already been agreed upon. Fixating upon one verse and refusing to acknowledge ALL else

This is better. Actually engaging the argument is good. It causes both sides to be exact in what is written. However, you've begun with only a half-truth.

Vs 5 is not the only narrative of the past, but is only the beginning. Vs 5-13 is all past. Within vs 13 the past narrative becomes present doctrinal truth, that applies at all times in past, present, and future.

V5 begins his narrative of the past, which ends in Vs13. In Vs 13 begins eternal doctrinal truth spoken in the present tense.

He does not go from present to past and back to present, but rather from present to past and back to present tense.

Vs1-4 is present day. Vs5-13 is past days. Vs 13-25 is present doctrine now spoken in present tense.

And once again, it doesn't matter if someone can or wants to understand such historical narrative in the present tense.

Because there is no such thing with the true God as being free from the old man of sin in Vs1-4, while also doing the sins of the old man in Vs 5-13.

 

[Josheb]

Exactly...........

The word "now" means now.

 

[Ghada]

The word "now" means now.

Exactly. All unrepented sinners that hear the word and do it not, are now double hearted workers of iniquity, more condemned than the sinners that have not heard.

Congratulations to you and your apostle and gospel.

 

[Josheb]

Exactly. All unrepented sinners that hear the word and do it not, are now double hearted workers of iniquity, more condemned than the sinners that have not heard.

Congratulations to you and your apostle and gospel.

Ad hominem noted.

The word "now" means now and nothing you have posted proves otherwise. Romans 7 was about Paul at the time he wrote the epistle and he couched his current experience in terms of his past and future. This is self-evident in his present-tense language and temporal markers. "Now" means now.

 

[Ghada]

Romans 7 was about Paul at the time he wrote the epistle

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

At the time of writing any Scripture of God, the prophets and apostles were holy men of God, not unrepented workers of iniquity.

If any of them were double hearted at any time in their lives, it was not at the time of writing God's holy Scriptures.

Paul certainly spoke of himself in the past, when he was a hearer only and not a doer of the word, but certainly not when writing about double heartedness as a holy man of God.

and he couched his current experience in terms of his past and future. This is self-evident in his present-tense language and temporal markers. "Now" means now.

Your wish is granted. You have your very own apostle for your very own gospel of unrepented double hearted sinners.

And you can even make him the worst of sinners for your example, if you like.

Do you also follow his bad example and do worse by sinning more?

 

[Josheb]

Do you also follow his bad example and do worse by sinning more?

ROTFLMBO!

Yes! And so too did you! The entire op is a testimony of you doing so eighteen times!!! The word "now" means now. Anything else Paul wrote in ANY of his letters must be read in cohesion with that "now," NOT in conflict or opposition with it. Every time the posts were made personal they violated the tos and proved Paul's Roman 7 "now" correct right here and..... now .

"Now" means now.

 

[Ghada]

ROTFLMBO!

Yes!

If you say so. There are plenty in the Christian religion that brag about being hardened unrepentant sinners.

They also make a religion out of it from an apostle of their own making.

 

[Josheb]

If you say so. There are plenty in the Christian religion that brag about being hardened unrepentant sinners.

They also make a religion out of it from an apostle of their own making.

Do you believe a person is made sinlessly perfect when they convert to Christ?

Do you believe a person can become sinlessly perfect after converting to Christ prior to their physical death?

 

[Ghada]

Do you believe a person is made sinlessly perfect when they convert to Christ?

Not sinning, but not sinless. Jesus was the only man not to sin from childhood unto death.

We repent of our sinning for Jesus's sake, and now go and sin no more, being newborn with His same promised Spirit and heart and life.

Not perfect as God on the throne. .

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:

Newborn sons and brethren of Jesus, are also tempted like Him, yet without sinning

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Unrepented sinners justify themselves with continued trespassing, by falsely claiming that not sinning is being sinless as Jesus was on earth, and perfect as God is in heaven.

prior to their physical death?

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

He that is committing sin is of the devil; for the devil is sinning from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Everything about the promises of God to repent and be saved from sinning, pertains to this life.

Only the promised reward of resurrection unto life and reigning with Christ, pertains to after the grave.

Unrepented sinners also falsely claim they would 'really love' to live sin free, but not in this life. It's a nice ideal in heaven, but not realistic on earth. And so, they preach repenting and becoming newborn sons of God without sinning, only after the grave.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,

They only preach the new creature with all things now being of God, for after the grave. Which is what God now commands and promises only before the grave. Some however go so far as claiming they are resurrected forever unto life before the grave, which is only promised to repented saints after the grave.

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

[Josheb]

Do you believe a person is made sinlessly perfect when they convert to Christ?

Not sinning, but not sinless. Jesus was the only man not to sin from childhood unto death. We repent of our sinning for Jesus's sake, and now go and sin no more, being newborn with His same promised Spirit and heart and life. Not perfect as God on the throne.

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:

Newborn sons and brethren of Jesus, are also tempted like Him, yet without sinning

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

That's not an actual answer to my question. You say we repent and go and sin no more does scripture show a person who never sinned after their conversion? Have you ever sinned in any way after you came to salvation in Christ? In other words, your post does not answer my original question and it begs further questions. These two questions are not about sinning. They are about perfection. They are worded as yes or no questions on purpose.

Do you believe a person is made sinlessly perfect when they convert to Christ?

Do you believe a person can become sinlessly perfect after converting to Christ prior to their physical death?

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

He that is committing sin is of the devil; for the devil is sinning from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Everything about the promises of God to repent and be saved from sinning, pertains to this life. Only the promised reward of resurrection unto life and reigning with Christ, pertains to after the grave.

That does not answer the question asked, either. It's a yes or no question. Do you believe a person can become sinlessly perfect after converting to Christ prior to their physical death? yes or no, please.

 

[Ghada]

You say we repent and go and sin no more

God and Jesus do. I only teach the Bible.

does scripture show a person who never sinned after their conversion?

Does Scripture show everyone sins after conversion?

The Scripture is written that we sin not.

Your doctrine is written to sin more.

Have you ever sinned in any way after you came to salvation in Christ?

Not today.

Have you ever not sinned on any day?

These two questions are not about sinning. They are about perfection

And I answered both.

. They are worded as yes or no questions on purpose.

They are worded as an entrapment. I corrected it into a real question for anyone still living on earth. If you want another answer more sutibable to you, then go to other unrepented sinful Christians like you.

Your effort to force sin and guilt out of every Christian is the fool's way of justifying himself by numbers.

The flood proves the numbers of the unrighteous do not justify unrighteousness.

 

[Mr GLee]

The truth is that to be justified, there needs to be a standard to which we are justified, and for God that is his law. The law stands at the center of grace. On onside it shows us our deep need for mercy and justification and on the other side it shows us that we have been justified by God's grace and love.

If we remove the law, there is no need for repentance or the cross and the universe is then in chaos. Sin is lawlessness. God did not come to this world to abolish his law: He came to abolish lawlessness and thus abolish sin.

The standard to which we are justified, for God, is his law found in the book of law the bible (sola scriptura)

It as the living word of God alone that is the final authority in matters of faith.

The unseen eternal things of God .

 

[Josheb]

God and Jesus do. I only teach the Bible.



Does Scripture show everyone sins after conversion?

The Scripture is written that we sin not.

Your doctrine is written to sin more.


Not today.

Have you ever not sinned on any day?



And I answered both.



They are worded as an entrapment. I corrected it into a real question for anyone still living on earth. If you want another answer more sutibable to you, then go to other unrepented sinful Christians like you.

Your effort to force sin and guilt out of every Christian is the fool's way of justifying himself by numbers.

The flood proves the numbers of the unrighteous do not justify unrighteousness.

Now means now.