Thomas, if I have posted anything that leaves you with the impression I believe Paul is saying our sinful flesh nature can commit a sin - then, I'm terribly sorry. Please be assured I believe no such thing.

I believe it is obvious that Paul is speaking about the origin and existence of post-conversion temptations. In this case, he is referring specifically to the temptations that originate within us, the ones that our sinful flesh nature generate and communicate to our new man mind.

In my last post I asked a question. Here it is again:

quote:

---

Is Paul blame shifting? Is he blaming sinning on his fallen flesh nature?

---

By asking this question I am not saying I believe Paul is talking about sinning. It's just a question. So, is he, or is he not, referring to sinning? Or, is he talking about the temptations that our sinful flesh nature produces?

Mike

I think I may have missunderstood you here. I thougt this was an excerpt from your dissertation(?) and that you where trying to prove that Paul is only talking about thinking about sin in this chapter. If this is not the case, then my previous post is adressing an imaginary sittuation and pointless to this thread.

/Thomas

Mike, you haven't addressed the quotes originally posted by Rosangela, have you? (I think it's ironic that Mike, a post-lapsarian, thinks Paul is post-conversion, while Rosangela, a pre-lapsarian, thinks Paul is pre-conversion. This is totally backwards!)

That is, the SOP points seem to be clearly referring to pre-conversion Paul, right?

Post-pre-lapsarian what?

"Post-lapsarian" means after the fall. Post-lapsarians believe Christ took the nature of man after the fall; pre-lapsarians believe Christ took the nature of man before the fall. Consider, for example, the question of sexual temptation. A post-lapsarian would be more likely to believe that Christ was tempted sexually, as we are (but did not yield to temptation). A pre-lapsarian would be more likely to believe that Christ was not tempted in this way.

Usually those who believe Christ took the nature of man after the fall believe that the man in Romans 7 is pre-conversion Paul, whereas those who believe Christ took the nature of man before the fall usually believe it is post-conversion Paul. So Mike and Rosangela are using the arguments that are usually used by those who are the other side of the fence respectively in regards to Christ's human nature.

Tom, the quotes Rosangela posted do not explain the following verses:

quote:

---

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing... Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

---

Just because Sister White quoted an expression from Romans 7 doesn't mean she was attempting to explain the verses quoted above. In fact, nowhere in the SOP does she explain them.

Again, Sister White wrote, “The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.”

So, again, in the verses posted above - Is Paul blame shifting? Is he blaming sinning on his fallen flesh nature?

Mike,

What happens is that, in narrating his pre-conversion experience, Paul mentions some universal truths. One of them, for instance, is that "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good." Another one is that "nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh". This is true both in our pre-conversion and in our post-conversion experience.

I agree with what Rosangela just wrote. In fact, I made that very point regarding temptations coming to us through the flesh.

How could there be a discussion about Jesus being tempted since scripture plainly says:
Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.
?

/Thomas

Good question.