Can someone lose their salvation?

[livingbygrace]

Now I know none of us are going to change our minds here, Christians tend to believe that they know the truth, it has beedn revealed to them, so anyone who disagrees with them has to be wrong
We are such humble people

But to me anyway itr is straightforward

Imagine Paul the strictest of Pharisees. A pure blooded Jew born into the tribe of Benjamen
He would have tried his hardest to obey the law and pinned his hopes of Heaven on obediance to it. He was a zealous Pharisee after all, rounding up Christians, dragging men and women out of their homes and throwing them in prison, and when Steven was stoned he stood their approving of his being stoned to death

But no matter how hard Pasul tried to obey the law he could not do it, he just became a worse sinner Rom 7:7-11, Rom 5:20

And you can bet he tried his hardest to be pure minded, but he just became engulfed in lust and concupiscence
So just imagine how that must have made Paul, the arch Pharisee feel. I believe Rom 7:14-25 gives us the answer.

I also believe this is why despite his persecutions he was such a happy man. Singing hymns in a jail in Phillipi when the blood must have been sticking to his back and the pain must have been excrutiating, five times he received the 39 lashes, he was stoned, shipwrecked and much more besides. But hew knew the guilt and shame he had been rescued from and the Gospel he believed in totally changed him.
He would never have forgotten the mess he had been in in his life and the feeling he was condemned due to the state he was in trying to be good enough by obeying the law

And I believe that may be one of the reasons Christ chose him to be the greatest preacher of grace this world has ever known. He knew from his own bitter experiance he could never be 'good enough' for God

Some balk at the thought Paul could have had issues with lust, but if this was before he became a Christian why should this not have happened to him? Paul was as human as the rest of us. BUT the Gospel of grace totally changed him, and sin would not be his master by following the truth of it

 

[livingbygrace]

Matthew 5:28 Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Was Paul an adulterer ? How do we explain Paul's meaning in this verse ? Was he repeating himself ?

Romans 13:9-10 "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Romans 13:9 KJV)

I'm not trying to make the point that Paul "couldn't have lusted". My admiration for him and his writings would not change either way. But it can be argued that he did in fact "covet". Just seems odd that this distinction was made, no ?

Unless of course Roms ch 7
refers to Paul's life before he became a Christian, otherwise he could be called a hypocrite(WHICH HE WAS NOT) and he must have been demanding of others what he himself often abysmally failed to do

Thank you for bringing those verses to my attention

 

[livingbygrace]

Is Romans 7 the normal Christian life?

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Your weekly dose of Spurgeon[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]posted by Phil Johnson[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The PyroManiacs[/FONT] devote space at the beginning of each week to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive.

This excerpt is from "The Fainting Warrior," a sermon preached January 23rd, 1859, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens. I chose this excerpt today because Spurgeon's text here was Romans 7:24-25, and I'm preaching on Romans 7 this weekend.
​

Of course, one of the tough questions people always raise about that passage is whether Paul was describing his experience as a mature apostle—because if he struggled with sin the way he describes here, there's little hope any of us will attain any kind of perfection in this life. If Paul was calling himself "wretched" as a believer, this text more or less deals a death-blow to perfectionist doctrine of every kind.

Anyway, I like the way Spurgeon basically brushes aside the suggestion that Paul was above struggling with sin and temptation:

IF I chose to occupy your time with controversial matter, I might prove to a demonstration that the apostle Paul is here describing his own experience as a Christian. Some have affirmed that he is merely declaring what he was before conversion, and not what he was when he became the recipient of the grace of God.

But such persons are evidently mistaken, and I believe wilfully mistaken; for any ample-hearted, candid mind, reading through this chapter, could not fall into such an error. It is Paul the apostle, who was not less than the very greatest of the apostles—it is Paul, the mighty servant of God, a very prince in Israel, one of the King's mighty men—it is Paul, the saint and the apostle, who here exclaims, "O wretched man that I am!"

Now, humble Christians are often the dupes of a very foolish error. They look up to certain advanced saints and able ministers, and they say, "Surely, such men as these do not suffer as I do; they do not contend with the same evil passions as those which vex and trouble me."

Ah! if they knew the heart of those men, if they could read their inward conflicts, they would soon discover that the nearer a man lives to God, the more intensely has he to mourn over his own evil heart, and the more his Master honors him in his service, the more also doth the evil of the flesh vex and tease him day by day.

Perhaps, this error is more natural, as it is certainly more common, with regard to apostolic saints. We have been in the habit of saying, Saint Paul, and Saint John, as if they were more saints than any other of the children of God. They are all saints whom God has called by his grace, and sanctified by his Spirit; but somehow we very foolishly put the apostles and the early saints into another list, and do not venture to look on them as common mortals. We look upon them as some extraordinary beings, who could not be men of like passions with ourselves.

We are told in Scripture that our Saviour was "tempted in all points like as we are;" and yet we fall into the egregious error of imagining that the apostles, who were far inferior to the Lord Jesus, escaped these temptations, and were ignorant of these conflicts.

The fact is, if you had seen the apostle Paul, you would have thought he was remarkably like the rest of the chosen family: and if you had talked with him, you would have said, "Why, Paul, I find that your experience and mine exactly agree. You are more faithful, more holy, and more deeply taught than I, but you have the self same trials to endure. Nay, in some respects you are more sorely tried than I."

Do not look upon the ancient saints as being exempt either from infirmities or sins, and do not regard them with that mystic reverence which almost makes you an idolater. Their holiness is attainable even by you, and their faults are to be censured as much as your own.

I believe it is a Christian's duty to force his way into the inner circle of saintship; and if these saints were superior to us in their attainments, as they certainly were, let us follow them; let us press forward up to, yea, and beyond them, for I do not see that this is impossible. We have the same light that they had, the same grace is accessible to us, and why should we rest satisfied until we have distanced them in the heavenly race?

Let us bring them down to the sphere of common mortals. If Jesus was the Son of man, and very man, "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh;" so were the apostles; and it is an egregious error to suppose that they were not the subjects of the same emotions, and the same inward trials, as the very meanest of the people of God. So far, this may tend to our comfort and to our encouragement, when we find that we are engaged in a battle in which apostles themselves have had to fight.

​

I think Romans 7 is a pivotal passage, and I have never quite understood the difficulty some people have with the idea that Paul was describing his own daily experience. If you think the battle with temptation in Romans 7 is something mature Christians shouldn't have to face, your ideas about sanctification probably need an overhaul.


http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/06/is-romans-7-normal-christian-life.html

Thank you for that Zone, but personally I do like to go by the beliefs I am convicted off myself

 

[unclefester]

Unless of course Roms ch 7
refers to Paul's life before he became a Christian,

It doesn't.


otherwise he could be called a hypocrite(WHICH HE WAS NOT) and he must have been demanding of others what he himself often abysmally failed to do

Thank you for bringing those verses to my attention

You're welcome. Now could you kindly address the distinction made between one who covets and one who lusts per adultery in Romans 13:9-10 ? .....or not ?

 

[livingbygrace]

Unless of course Roms ch 7
refers to Paul's life before he became a Christian,

It doesn't.


otherwise he could be called a hypocrite(WHICH HE WAS NOT) and he must have been demanding of others what he himself often abysmally failed to do

Thank you for bringing those verses to my attention

You're welcome. Now could you kindly address the distinction made between one who covets and one who lusts per adultery in Romans 13:9-10 ? .....or not ?

You don't have to commit adultery if you covet, I could covet my neighbours car

I was jiust happy to go with your interpretation of those verses for the purpose mentioned

 

[unclefester]

You don't have to commit adultery if you covet, I could covet my neighbours car

And this ...."otherwise he could be called a hypocrite(WHICH HE WAS NOT) and he must have been demanding of others what he himself often abysmally failed to do"

Using this logic, are Christians that still sin occasionally hypocrites for spreading the gospel ? Are only "sinless" Christians qualified and justified to spread the good news of God's grace through Christ ?

 

[livingbygrace]

And this ...."otherwise he could be called a hypocrite(WHICH HE WAS NOT) and he must have been demanding of others what he himself often abysmally failed to do"

Using this logic, are Christians that still sin occasionally hypocrites for spreading the gospel ? Are only "sinless" Christians qualified and justified to spread the good news of God's grace through Christ ?

Nope, but they should spread the Gospel of grace as Paul wrote it. And I have never once heard all Paul wrote on grace preached in any church I have been in over a thirty year period, that is where the problem lies
Paul showed people the truth of grace

So
In your opinion do you believe as a Christian Paul strove to obey the law and the result was that his mind became full of lust and concupiscence(sexual desire) and he was slew by this and it brought death in him?

 

[unclefester]

Nope, but they should spread the Gospel of grace as Paul wrote it. And I have never once heard all Paul wrote on grace preached in any church I have been in over a thirty year period, that is where the problem lies
Paul showed people the truth of grace

I wouldn't disagree with this. And who better to do so than one who called himself the "chief of sinners" ?

In your opinion do you believe as a Christian Paul strove to obey the law

Yes, I do....as we all should. But when we break the law (sin), we have Jesus Christ as our advocate with the Father.

and the result was that his mind became full of lust and concupiscence(sexual desire) and he was slew by this and it brought death in him?

It is this penalty of which Paul speaks when he says, "we are delivered from the law" (Romans 7:6). In other words, the law itself is not nullified by faith, as Paul explains ("do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid!"). Rather, we are delivered from the penalty for disobedience of that law! How did Paul view the relationship between the law, and the bondage to sin and death which people are under, apart from Christ? What was the role of the law in this bondage? Paul answers, "Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead" (Romans 7:7-8).
Again, for Paul, the law itself was not at fault. The role of the law is simply to define the crime. This is a function that is "holy, just, and good" (verse 12). It is the lust and corruption of sin that is to blame for the transgression: "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under [in bondage to] sin" (verse 14). "For that which I do I allow not [that is, I cannot control]: for what I would do [that is, what I want to do in my mind], that do I not [because of my carnality]; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good" (verses 15-16).
It is sin to which we are in bondage, apart from Christ -- not the law of God. Paul explains, "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" (verse 22). He places the law of God in juxtaposition to "another law": "For I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity [bondage] to the law of sin which is in my members" (verse 23). It is this law, "another law," the law of sin -- not the law of God -- from which we are freed: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2).
The law of God defines sin, and prescribes a penalty for sin. That penalty is death. We are delivered from the penalty of the law by justification through faith in Christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid, Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known LUST, except the law had said
'Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence(in my oxford English dictionary concupiscence means sexual desire. It says the same in a huge Collins dictionary I have as well) For without the law sin was dead
Rom 7:7&8

Also, an American woman told us on another website that half the sex addicts in the US had at one time or another been to 'holiness' churches

Her husband counselled many who had been to churches where they were led to believe they had to stringently live a good enough life(must be according to law) or their salvation was in grave danger, and sexual problems was nearly always the result

The greek word used their is epithymian. It means desire, craving, longing for. A better term known as coveting. Lust is a poor interpretation, He was not desireing sex. He was desiring something, but we do not know what.

ἐπιθῡμία, Ion. -ίη, ἡ, (ἐπιθυμέ&#969 desire, yearning, longing, Hdt., Plat., etc.; ἐπιθυμίᾳ by passion, opp. to προνοίᾳ, Thuc.
2. c. gen. a longing after a thing, desire of or for it, Id., etc.; so, ἐπ. πρός τι Id


Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (292). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

This as apposed to sexual lust.

ὄρεξις, -εως, ἡ, (ὀρέγομαι, q. v.), desire, longing, craving, for; eager desire, lust, appetite:

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (452). New York: Harper & Brothers.

Nothing you wrote there shows Paul lusted after sex.

 

[livingbygrace]

Nope, but they should spread the Gospel of grace as Paul wrote it. And I have never once heard all Paul wrote on grace preached in any church I have been in over a thirty year period, that is where the problem lies
Paul showed people the truth of grace

I wouldn't disagree with this. And who better to do so than one who called himself the "chief of sinners" ?
I agree
Who was BEFORE a blasphemer and a persecutor and injurious

When Paul says he is the chief of sinners do you think he is refering to his life as an Apostle? He is the worst sinner in the world?
I do believe that he told the truth, he had been the worst of sinners, I doubt he meant that he was at the time he wrote to Timothy.

In your opinion do you believe as a Christian Paul strove to obey the law

Yes, I do....as we all should. But when we break the law (sin), we have Jesus Christ as our advocate with the Father.

So Paul strove to obey the writrten law? Why?
The good laws of God he would have us keep have been written on our hearts and minds under the new covenant, meaning that in our hearts we want to live as God would have us live
So why would Paul need the written law?

and the result was that his mind became full of lust and concupiscence(sexual desire) and he was slew by this and it brought death in him?

It is this penalty of which Paul speaks when he says, "we are delivered from the law" (Romans 7:6). In other words, the law itself is not nullified by faith, as Paul explains ("do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid!"). Rather, we are delivered from the penalty for disobedience of that law! How did Paul view the relationship between the law, and the bondage to sin and death which people are under, apart from Christ? What was the role of the law in this bondage? Paul answers, "Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead" (Romans 7:7-8).
Again, for Paul, the law itself was not at fault. The role of the law is simply to define the crime. This is a function that is "holy, just, and good" (verse 12). It is the lust and corruption of sin that is to blame for the transgression: "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under [in bondage to] sin" (verse 14). "For that which I do I allow not [that is, I cannot control]: for what I would do [that is, what I want to do in my mind], that do I not [because of my carnality]; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good" (verses 15-16).
It is sin to which we are in bondage, apart from Christ -- not the law of God. Paul explains, "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" (verse 22). He places the law of God in juxtaposition to "another law": "For I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity [bondage] to the law of sin which is in my members" (verse 23). It is this law, "another law," the law of sin -- not the law of God -- from which we are freed: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2).
The law of God defines sin, and prescribes a penalty for sin. That penalty is death. We are delivered from the penalty of the law by justification through faith in Christ.


Did you write this or cut and paste it?

Please answer the question it pertains to yourself if this is cut and pasted

answers above

 

[unclefester]

The greek word used their is epithymian. It means desire, craving, longing for. A better term known as coveting. Lust is a poor interpretation, He was not desireing sex. He was desiring something, but we do not know what.

ἐπιθῡμία, Ion. -ίη, ἡ, (ἐπιθυμέ&#969 desire, yearning, longing, Hdt., Plat., etc.; ἐπιθυμίᾳ by passion, opp. to προνοίᾳ, Thuc.
2. c. gen. a longing after a thing, desire of or for it, Id., etc.; so, ἐπ. πρός τι Id


Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (292). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

This as apposed to sexual lust.

ὄρεξις, -εως, ἡ, (ὀρέγομαι, q. v.), desire, longing, craving, for; eager desire, lust, appetite:

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (452). New York: Harper & Brothers.

Nothing you wrote there shows Paul lusted after sex.

I am in agreement with you on this matter. Nevertheless, I'm not going to push the point any further.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

In verse 14 Paul says he is a slave to sin

In Rom 6:16 Paul says if a person is a slave to sin it leads to death, but obediance leads to righteousness

But I can only ask you agaiin

Did Paul as a Christian strive to obey the law and the result was that his mind became full of lust and concupiscence? and he was slew by the law and it became death to him

This question is null and void.

WHen I say I AM a slave to sin, It means I am right now. If I say I was a slave to sin, It meant at one time in the past I was a slave.

Paul is saying his spirit is alive because of Christ. But God did not take his old nature away. Thus the flesh remains. And if he lets his flesh win, he is a slave to sin. If he goes in the spirit. He is a not a slave to sin.

Paul never said he coveted. He said he would not have known coveting was coveting if the law did not say it, He used an example. It is a step to think this is the sin Paul dealt with. I think if we look at pauls life, His sin was pride. But this does not even matter. Paul spoke present tense. Not past tense. Language does not allow one to think Paul was speaking in the past. It forces us to understand he was speaking of his life AT THE TIME he was writing this letter.

 

[livingbygrace]

The greek word used their is epithymian. It means desire, craving, longing for. A better term known as coveting. Lust is a poor interpretation, He was not desireing sex. He was desiring something, but we do not know what.

ἐπιθῡμία, Ion. -ίη, ἡ, (ἐπιθυμέ&#969 desire, yearning, longing, Hdt., Plat., etc.; ἐπιθυμίᾳ by passion, opp. to προνοίᾳ, Thuc.
2. c. gen. a longing after a thing, desire of or for it, Id., etc.; so, ἐπ. πρός τι Id


Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (292). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

This as apposed to sexual lust.

ὄρεξις, -εως, ἡ, (ὀρέγομαι, q. v.), desire, longing, craving, for; eager desire, lust, appetite:

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (452). New York: Harper & Brothers.

Nothing you wrote there shows Paul lusted after sex.

That would make the KJV a poor translation I guess, and Paul had already used the word lust in the previous verse. But I find it strange that Christians are so uncomfortable with the fact Paul could have been plagued by such sin. But then as I believe he is speaking of before he became a Christian it is easier for me to accept. And I do have to have a wry smile here. When a Christian is uncomfortable with certain written scripture they go to the Greek. So do you think Paul would never have lusted after a woman?

BTW
I don't think what you have written means Paul could not have suffered from concupiscence, it does seem to be an affliction that many do suffer from
On the one hand I am told that I expect too much from Apostles, on the other people seem to be aghast that Paul could have suffered from concupiscence, it does seem strange to me

 

[unclefester]

answers above

"Did you write this or cut and paste it?

Please answer the question it pertains to yourself if this is cut and pasted"

Both

. I'm watching the hockey game too (sorta) so cut me some slack. What was your question again ? Not sure here what you're asking the way it was worded.

 

[FelishaGodChild]

How can someone lose their salvation? How does someone know if they've lost their salvation.

no you can't loose you salvation , once you ask Lord Jesus in your Heart your Saved, no man is able to pluck you out the Fathers hand, now some ppl can go astray from God but he's always their he's married to the backslider. all you have to do when you know your not livng right is repent ask Lord Jesus for forgiveness and turn away from it. * with Love*

 

[livingbygrace]

"Did you write this or cut and paste it?

Please answer the question it pertains to yourself if this is cut and pasted"

Both

. I'm watching the hockey game too (sorta) so cut me some slack. What was your question again ? Not sure here what you're asking the way it was worded.

Don't worry, I need some sleep soon, it is late in England

But I do prefer you just to say what you think even if it is a lousy answer, like some of mine, much better than cut and paste

 

[unclefester]

Don't worry, I need some sleep soon, it is late in England

But I do prefer you just to say what you think even if it is a lousy answer, like some of mine, much better than cut and paste

For what it's worth, that post explains exactly how I understand Romans 7. Have a good rest

 

[livingbygrace]

For what it's worth, that post explains exactly how I understand Romans 7. Have a good rest

You said that to me once before about another cut and paste you put up

Remember, we must obey the law

Thou shalt noty bear false witness

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That would make the KJV a poor translation I guess, and Paul had already used the word lust in the previous verse. But I find it strange that Christians are so uncomfortable with the fact Paul could have been plagued by such sin. But then as I believe he is speaking of before he became a Christian it is easier for me to accept. And I do have to have a wry smile here. When a Christian is uncomfortable with certain written scripture they go to the Greek. So do you think Paul would never have lusted after a woman?

Paul was a man. I would be a fool to think he never lusted.

This is not the point. Your brought it up. I did not. I proved that the text in question was not talking about sex. But coveting. (which the NKJV uses by the way)

I go to the greek when their is a question, especially when different versions use different words.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[a] NKJV

That is the verse as I have always seen it. So when you used the word lust. I did what everyone should do and questioned it with Greek. But I guess as you say I am uncomfortable with Paul lusting after women (rolls eyes)

BTW
I don't think what you have written means Paul could not have suffered from concupiscence, it does seem to be an affliction that many do suffer from
On the one hand I am told that I expect too much from Apostles, on the other people seem to be aghast that Paul could have suffered from concupiscence, it does seem strange to me

I am not aghast of anything, If Paul lusted women he is a normal man in his flesh. And this shows you do not know me very well!

I am aghast that you are taking the works based interpretation of romans 7. For in order for a works based gospel to stand, they have to take your view of romans 7. The catholic church (maybe orthodox) are the only churches I know which interpret it the way you are. I also heard a church of christ person teach this. But they believed in a works based Gospel also. I am also aghast that you would ignore language structure in order to come up with your interpretation. Make pauls present tense saying mean past tense. Even though Paul spoke in present tense.

How ironic!

 

[livingbygrace]

Paul was a man. I would be a fool to think he never lusted.

This is not the point. Your brought it up. I did not. I proved that the text in question was not talking about sex. But coveting. (which the NKJV uses by the way)

I go to the greek when their is a question, especially when different versions use different words.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[a] NKJV

That is the verse as I have always seen it. So when you used the word lust. I did what everyone should do and questioned it with Greek. But I guess as you say I am uncomfortable with Paul lusting after women (rolls eyes)

I am not aghast of anything, If Paul lusted women he is a normal man in his flesh. And this shows you do not know me very well!

I am aghast that you are taking the works based interpretation of romans 7. For in order for a works based gospel to stand, they have to take your view of romans 7. The catholic church (maybe orthodox) are the only churches I know which interpret it the way you are. I also heard a church of christ person teach this. But they believed in a works based Gospel also. I am also aghast that you would ignore language structure in order to come up with your interpretation. Make pauls present tense saying mean past tense. Even though Paul spoke in present tense.

How ironic!

Well the KJV is a very reputable translation so I will stick with that

I take a works based interpretation of Rom ch 7?

But I don't believe that chapter is of Paul as a Christian, so I don't understand how I am supposed to believe in a works based Gospel

But I do think that some(and I only say some) are upset that I view Rom 7 as before Paul was a Christian for a particular reason
I am sorry I have made you so aghast, but I think you are desperate to believe that Paul of Rom 7 must have been speaking as a Christian, that is how it is coming accross to me

But there is an irony here. On the one hand I have people berating me for believing Paul in Rom 7 was not a Christian for they earnestly wish me to accept Christians suffer from these types of problems, and I am told by some I am speaking of perfection for Christians, but I can tell for a fact that many are at the same time alarmed that Paul could have suffered from concupiscence