I, too, agree with Rosangela's last post. However, I hope we can also agree that Sister White did not explain the meaning of the verses I quoted above. I am reposting the question related to those verses (while hoping someone will address it):

quote:

---

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.”

Paul wrote: "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."

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

---

When Paul wrote - "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in sin... Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" - was he talking about committing a sin? Or, was he talking about being tempted by his fallen flesh to commit a sin?

What did he mean when he wrote - "Now..."?

And, what did he mean when he wrote - "I allow not"?

Thomas, Jesus was tempted like born again believers are tempted - not like unconverted sinners are tempted. There is a difference in how both are tempted and how both respond to the temptations that originate from within (fallen nature) and without (evil beings).

Jesus was tempted both like we are tempted and like unconverted sinners are tempted. We shouldn't forget that He was the Lamb of God, bearing the sin of the world.

It's true that Christ never committed any sin, but He took our sin upon Him, and so could be tempted by our sins as if He had committed them. In fact, it was the fact that He took our sin upon Him that made His temptation so difficult. The Spirit of Prophesy repeatedly makes this point.

Mike:When Paul wrote - "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in sin... Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" - was he talking about committing a sin? Or, was he talking about being tempted by his fallen flesh to commit a sin?

What did he mean when he wrote - "Now..."?


Tom:When Paul said "now" he was using it as a conjunction, not an adverb. It was "de" not "ede" (i.e. a conjunction, not an adverb). It is most commonly translated "and" or "but". See http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1161&version=kjv

Mike:And, what did he mean when he wrote - "I allow not"?

Tom: It means this: "20And if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it, but the sin that is dwelling in me." This is a literal translation. The word you have as "allow" is thelo which means to have in mind, to intend, to be resolved or determined to do. See http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2309&version=kjv

Regarding the meaning of Rom. 7:20, the Message translates it "My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time."

That seems not bad! Paul is saying that he knows what he should do, but he doesn't do it. Paul is describing the condition of one who is unconverted but is familiar with the law.

I agree with the points you're making, Thomas. We cannot overestimate how close Christ has come to us, nor how much He sympathizes with and is able to help us in time of need, having passed through the same temptations we pass through.

Tom, how could Jesus be tempted like an unconverted sinner? In what way are believers and unbelievers tempted differently? Does being Spirit filled and led and partaking of the divine nature change the way believers are tempted? Do unbelievers recognize or resist temptations as temptations?

If we replace the word “now then” with “and then” or “but then” in what way does it change the meaning?

Would you agree that the Message and the KJV translate what Paul penned in a way that reflects nearly opposite meanings?

Thomas, I agree that Jesus came to save the lost.

Mike:Tom, how could Jesus be tempted like an unconverted sinner? In what way are believers and unbelievers tempted differently? Does being Spirit filled and led and partaking of the divine nature change the way believers are tempted?

Tom:I'm not sure your motivation in asking these questions. Are you saying there is a difference, or there isn't? If there's not difference in the way that they are tempted, then obviously Christ was tempted as both, since both are the same. If there is a difference, you can state what you're wanting to get at. My point was that Christ took our sin upon Him, so that He was tempted as a sinner is tempted; one who feels the weight of His sin.

Mike:Do unbelievers recognize or resist temptations as temptations?

Tom:At times.

Mike:If we replace the word “now then” with “and then” or “but then” in what way does it change the meaning?

Tom:It changes the meaning of the word "now," which is what you were asking. I perceived your question to be related to "now" being taken as an adverb, in which case it would be oriented to time. That is, you seemed to be implying that "now" meant when Paul was writing, as a born again believer, as opposed to in the past, when he wasn't. I was making the point that Paul was not dealing with time, that one could not make the inference regarding "now" that you were implying.

Mike:Would you agree that the Message and the KJV translate what Paul penned in a way that reflects nearly opposite meanings?

Tom:Nope. They both got it right. The KJV has more room for interpretation however.

Tom, please elaborate on "at times" (posted above). How can an unbeliever "resist" temptations? Do they resist like Jesus did or like believers do?

I don't see how "now then" or "but then" or "and then" can mean anything other than what it means, namely, talking about before and after conversion. I believe Paul is talking about the post-conversion origin and existence of internally generated temptations.

After I was born again I was shocked and surprised that unholy thoughts (i.e., suggestions) and feelings continued to enter my mind, the same as before I was reborn. They totally baffled me. I mistakenly assumed I was guilty of sinning, and I felt rotten about it, because I couldn't stop it from happening. I blamed myself for their existence and presence. I faithfully repented, but they still bombarded me.

Then one day, one glorious day, I discovered the truth about the origin and existence and presence of internally generated sinful thoughts and feelings. It was one of the greatest days of my life. It occurred to me when I was studying Romans 7. Instead of blaming sinning on his sinful flesh, it dawned on me that Paul was talking about being tempted to sin.

But now I no longer blame myself for their presence. I recognize them for what they are - temptations. Nowhere else in the Bible is this truth explained. Only in Romans 7 is the mind and voice of sinful nature so completely exposed for what it is. "Now then" I realize it is not me doing it. I'm not guilty of generating them. It's my sinful flesh nature that's doing it.

Unconverted people do good things at times. Schindler, for example, saved many Jews at personal expense at risk. Unbelievers do all sorts of selfless and self-sacrificing acts. They resist temptations of all sort, which include temptations to smoke, commit adultery, or whatever. When they (or a believer) do anything good, it is by the grace of God. But God showers His grace upon unbelievers just as much as believers. Anybody can law hold of God's power to overcome evil.

If one continually refuses to yield completely to God's Spirit, there will come a time when light will become darkness, and one will be lost to the evil kingdom. But until one has committed the unpardonable sin, God continues to work, and God is able to give even unbelievers victories, to the extent that the allow Him to work in their lives.

"And then", "but then" whatever, are not speaking of before and after conversion, but in terms of continuing the argument. Paul is speaking in terms of when he was still unconverted, which I think the quotes from the Spirit of Prophesy make clear. Even without the Spirit of Prophesy, the flow of Paul's argument in Romans makes it clear. There is a vast difference between Romans 7 and Romans 8.

But let's set that aside for a moment. I'd like to say I really like what you shared in your last post from the third paragraph on. I believe the principle you shared is correct, and a beautiful truth, just as you expressed. However this beautiful truth is not dependent upon interpreting Romans 7 in the way you are suggesting. That's because the principle of how the sinful nature, or flesh, works is the same for believers and unbelievers. So it makes no difference, insofar as the truth you expressed is concerned, whether Paul is speaking before or after conversion. That truth is still true, and present in Paul's writing, regardless on which position one takes on Romans 7.

We've disagreed on so many things, I want to take the opportunity to hearily Amen! when things come up we can agree with. I remember having a similar experience to what you described, and I agree with the principle you described (and think you presented it very nicely).