predestination vs freewill

THAT'S exactly what Romans 7 is all about. It begins "to those who know the law" Saul could see his sin by knowing the law but the law doesn't take away sin merely shows it up. When he read the law of God he approved it in his mind but the sin in his members prevented him from doing the good the law required ... You simply can't say this is a description of Paul the apostle, that he desired to do the good but in fact did the evil which he hated.

He cries out "Oh wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from this body of death? thanks be to God through Christ"

Chapter 8 goes on to describe his new life of walking in the Spirit.

Paul speaking of himself says he is not aware of any sin he is doing, everywhere he preaches victory over sin and living in holiness before the Lord.

Sin is in our members sure enough, if we are in sin then there is some area which is not in submission to God. We will only know perfection when we get to heaven.

You can't learn to walk in the Spirit until you receive the Spirit, you can't learn to walk as one set free until you have been set free.
In Romans 7 this was not yet accomplished in the life of the one who cried out "oh wretched man that I am" in Romans 8 it was accomplished.

We are bought with a price, therefore we are called to glorify God with our body and spirit which are not our own, but God’s.

Question, would you think this true-- that without Law, there would be no criteria by which sin could be measured or assessed; without assessment of sin, judgement could not be made; without judgement, punishment could not be levied. So then, would it be correct, logically speaking, that without law, sin cannot exist? Or said another way, by law (but that not the law itself is sinful), that sin was brought to life?

I still think that you are missing several key points in Paul's letter. Let me see if I can explain it further.

First, we have the verbs in the Greek that must be seen and understood. In all of these verses of Rom. 7:14-24, the words translated "I do" and "I do not" are present tense verbs. If Paul had been talking about his past life, he would have been inspired to use past tense verbs. Since these are in the present tense, they should be understood as: "I am doing" and "I am not doing". Used in these two verses for example::

Rom 7:16 But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. (ASV)

If we magnify the present tense verbs, the translation would be like this:

Rom 7:16 But if what I am desiring not, that I am doing, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 So now it is no more I that am doing it, but sin which is dwelling in me.

Each set of words that I have highlighted in "RED" are First Person Singular, Present Active Indicative verbs. The one highlighted in "BLUE" is a Nominative Feminine Singular, Present Active Participle.

Second, what Paul is getting at, is that the sin nature in his body, wars after his mind. Being delivered by Grace and putting on the "new man" (Which is a continual putting on), he desires to always be doing good but finds that he is often unsuccessful. But if he is doing that which is bad or that which he desires not, then he is no longer the one sinning but it is the sin nature that is doing it. In other words, he is not desiring to sin, which was the case in his old nature but now desires to always do good.

No born again Christian desires to sin with his renewed mind but the flesh wars for possession of his mind and if successful, will lead him into sin. This is why we have so many warnings in Scripture, such as:

Rom 6:11 Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof:

This an imperative or command from the Apostle Paul, "Do not let sin reign...." While the believer will sin, he must not let it reign over him. The believer has the tools to subdue sin but he must desire to wield them. (Eph. 6: 13-18).

Finally, Paul ended the discussion of sin and the sin nature with this:

Rom 7:22 For I am delighting in the law of God after the inward man:
- Paul was delighting in the Law of God at the present time. Not in the flesh but in the inward man.
Rom 7:23 but I am seeing (Present Active Indicative) a different law in my members, warring against (Present passive Participle) the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
- Paul was "seeing" (Present tense), at the time of the writing, a law in his members warring against his mind.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! (I am is another present tense) who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?
- He makes this declaration, NOT in the past but in the present. Who shall deliver me.... is a rhetorical question for the benefit of the
- reader.
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, am serving the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
- Paul is thanking God in the present. For What? That which follows. He is serving the Law of God on one hand and on the other the
- law of sin.

Paul in these discussions, clearly divides himself into two different aspects. On the one side, by regeneration, he is a new man, with a renewed mind - the inward man (Rom.7:22), and the other side, the outward man - his carnal flesh. Throughout the Christian life, these two sides will remain at war with one another. This is why in Rom. 6:12, we are commanded to not let sin "reign". The Scriptures often times contrasts walking in the Spirit with walking in the flesh. Weak or deceived believers can be guilty of walking according to the flesh.

However, to deny this fact - the fact that each believer wars with the law of sin in his/her flesh, may mean that this one still does not see the sin as God sees the sin in him/her.

Sorry, but just to butt into this conversation. What about the following?

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

And:

Rom 5:13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. But without Law, sin was not legally imputed to anyone's account.

However:

Rom 5:18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.

Thus, when the Law came in, sin was brought to light but sin already had life. (Rom. 5:13 above)

Just some thoughts - sorry again, to have butted in.

I believe in free will, I also believe in predestination.

I believe where the calvinist goes too far is they take certain things the Bible mentions like God sending Assyria in to punish Israel and God putting it into the hearts of people to give their kingdom over to the beast etc. And they take those things and say: This mean EVERYTHING works this way. Even though only these few events are mentioned in the Bible, it doesn't mean every similar event is the same.

I would suggest, you quit thinking about things based upon John Calvin or Jacob Arminius and start thinking more upon the Doctrines of Election and how God uses Predestination in the subject of Soteriology. In other words, less about the he said but he said and more about what God said.

I believe many points that Calvin brought forward. I also agree with many points Arthur Pink brought forward or John Gill but in the end, it's about what God said.

Every believer should read the great works of men, like the "Bondage of the will", by Martin Luther or "Eternity and Time" by W.E. Best but the first priority should be the Scriptures and everything a man says, should be checked against Scripture.

The use of labels - like Calvinism and so forth, are really just ways for people to circumvent using the Scriptures to prove a point. They dismiss that person because they don't like what that person is saying. Oh, he's just a Calvinist or he's just an Arminian, rather than prove from Scripture the error of their ways.

The Bible clearly says, that true believers are to be ready, in season and out of season, to give reason for their belief, not just label people. Therefore, we should be constantly questioning why one believes what they believe and does what one believe harmonize from Genesis 1:1 to Rev. 22:21.

you are not right, God does not see sin in us, He sees Christ. Our sins have been remitted, our struggle is not with sin.

Our struggle is for faith, for eyes to SEE what Christ has accomplished for us at the cross in putting away our sins and to learn to walk in obedience to this good news.

Paul's message concerning sin in the believer is "put to death that which is earthly in you". Sin shall not inherit the kingdom.

We are never addressed as sinners in the NT but as saints or holy brethren.

You say "ah but we backslide" yes we do but that is because we are not walking according to the truth.

It is absolutely true, we are not under law but under grace. For us the law and it's requirements have been nailed to the cross.

But we can sin against grace and that is a very serious matter

Your not butting in and no problem at all, awelight - I really appreciate your input to my question .

Anyway, I'll attempt to respond to the points you've raised and see if my responses can hold water:

"Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;"

I think we may have different concepts of law in mind. I'll cover that difference in my reply to Rom 2:14 following

"Rom 2:14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);"

What I think Rom 2:14 implies, is that there are multiple sets of laws, each set inherent to different groups of people -- Jews, Gentiles, and one that applies to everyone. What that demonstrates ( to me), is that the law the Jews were under, and the law gentiles were under, were/are tied together beneath a parent law, that parent law being the apex of law itself. It is actually law in concept. I'll call it the law of law -- I think the Bible may refer to it as the law of sin and death. Anyway, the law of law is the one I had referred to in my post but I should have made that distinction clear then.

Anyway, I think that Rom 2:14 & 15 substantiates the existence of a law of law when it says "work of the law written in their hearts". For the work of law to exist, a law has to exist - one cannot exist independent of the other. Yet, the verse tells us they had no law. But, if the gentiles did the things of the law by nature, then in their nature must there also have been a law, or what would have driven them to desire the works of law? So, the law of law must have been that which had been "written" into their hearts, since, in the case of the gentiles, there was no other law. As for the Jews, the law of law was manifested in their hearts, demonstrated by their desire to achieve the works of the law.

[Rom 9:31-32 KJV]
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

"Rom 5:13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. But without Law, sin was not legally imputed to anyone's account."

Actually Rom 5:13 is the crux of my point-- that without law sin could not be imputed; without sin imputed there could be
no judgement; without judgement, there could be no penalty.

And I should clarify this too - that I believe Rom 5:13 is referring to the time before Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sin was not possible for them until eating which brought law - the law of law. At that moment, they were placed under it along with everyone who would ever be born. Because of it, we all, by our nature, pursue the work of the law . That, I believe, is why God is justified in finding guilt in everyone ever born who has not been placed under the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.


"Rom 5:18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.
Thus, when the Law came in, sin was brought to light but sin already had life. (Rom. 5:13 above)"

I don't think it did have life - at least not as far as Adam and Eve (and the rest of us) were concerned - it couldn't have been imputed to anyone without the presence of law. How can sin be imputed if no law was broken? For sure sin was present, but, without law, sin couldn't be imputed. Until Adam and Eve ate, they, and we, were free of it. Rom 5:13 says that sin was present in the world but it doesn't say that it had been or could be imputed - the verses says only that it was present. That is why God warned them not to eat or even touch the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[1Co 15:56 KJV] 56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.

Having read this, you'll probably want to call 9-1-1 on me - if so, I'll understand.

I know I didn't cover everything and I'm not sure I actually understand it all myself, and what I did cover is probably lacking
and doesn't make a lot of sense, but I thought I'd give it a shot anyway. Also as I reread, I'll probably need to revise it somewhat.
If I can clarify anything, of if you find errors, please let me know.
Thanks for reading.

Thank you for your reply. I'll ponder it further

So since, as you say, the law (and its requirements) were nailed to the cross, could we then say that Jesus's purpose for coming into this world was to remove the elect from under the law of sin and death (which law was caused by Satan, Adam and Eve), and place the elect under the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus?

[Rom 8:2 KJV] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The law has exacted it's ultimate sanction which is death upon Christ our Lord the law therefore is fulfilled, it can do no more and since we have been baptised into His death the law can have no further sanction upon us, we have died with Christ both to sin and to the law, we have been buried with Him and praise God when He rose to walk in newness of life we have been raised also.

If being dead unto the law is a reality and it is then being dead unto sin is also a reality. The cross is our only hope. We MANIFEST the truth of these facts by learning and walking in this newness of life in the Spirit which we have received.

There IS no turning back, if we turn back what will become manifest in us [so far as our mortal lives are concerned] is death....even thought our spirits can never die.

In the end, arguing that man has a free will misses the point. Even if the will of fallen humans was entirely free, they would still be in bondage to sin because of what they love, what they do not love, and what they desire.

The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.

Fallen humanity chooses sin because fallen humanity has a sinful heart. A free will in a man with an unclean heart still equals bondage to sin.

Christ said......"one of you is a DEVIL"..
That's Judas.

And choosing something does not in itself enable us accomplish what we choose. Paul said “ what I want to do, I don’t do and what I don’t want to do I do”

The Bible is very clear about man’s inability apart from an ACTIVE Divine Grace.

We live in a world where true holiness is a rarity. Everything about human society alienated from God is polluted in some way, tainted with sin and imperfection. We all have to war against the sin within us. And all of us are in danger of being overcome by sin if we let down our guard. (Romans 7:15-25; 1 Corinthians 10:12)

And if you can speak, read, and write, Koine Greek FLUENTLY, as if its your 1st Language, then you would be that person.
If you can't then you are pretending to be a Greek authority, which is dishonest.

The Grace that delivers from Sin, is not God causing you to do anything.....but rather its God providing the Power to Live Holy.
This is why Paul says...>"it is not I, but Christ who Lives in Me"..
So, that is a born again person, existing in the correct understanding of God's Grace as the Gift of Salvation, that produces in the born again, the Holiness that is perfected Discipleship.

The Born again are told by Paul to " put on the Whole Armor of God".
He does not, as the heretics teach, say that God puts it on you.
See, you have to do it, and that "armor" is found not in self effort, but in God's Grace as this...>"Christ always gives me the Victory".