posted by David: Laval
I think a little light just went on. I was trying to figure out what point you were really getting at here; and I think you are trying to say that you see Romans 7 as part of the journey in a believer's life, starting out in bondage, and ending up with freedom in Christ, (Rom.8:1).

Let me know if I am reading you right on that one.
_________
That's right David!

Mike:

The men of Romans 7 and 8 both have sinful flesh. The battle is in the realm of the mind. I agree that the flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God. The man of Romans 7 is a Jew who worships every Sabbath at the Synagogue or a church member today who faifhfully attends Church on Sabbath or Sunday. He has been baptized and been in the church for many years.

Nicodemus was a respected leader of the Jewish nation. He was a religious leader. He had been a "spiritual" leader most of his life. But Jesus said to him, "Nicodemus, you must be born again."

"Here was a man in a high position of trust, a man who was looked up to as one educated in Jewish customs, one whose mind was stored up with wisdom. He was indeed in possession of talents of no ordinary character. He would not go to Jesus by day, for this would make him a subject of remark. It would be too humiliating for a ruler of the Jews to acknowledge himself in sympathy with the despised Nazarene. Nicodemus thinks, I will ascertain for myself the mission and claims of this Teacher, whether He is indeed the Light to lighten the Gentiles, and the Glory of Israel.

"Jesus virtually says to Nicodemus: It is not controversy that will help your case: You must have a new heart, or you cannot discern the kingdom of heaven. It is not greater evidence that will bring you into a right position, but new purposes, new springs of action. You must be born again. Until this change takes place, making all things new, the strongest evidences that could be presented would be useless. The want is in your own heart; everything must be changed, or you cannot see the kingdom of God." T.M.367,368.

Now is this applicable to us today, I mean even to the leaders of the Church who may be holding positions of high responsibility? I believe so. And here is the evidence:

"Nicodemus was converted as the result of this interview. The words of Christ are spoken just as verily to presidents of conferences, elders of churches, and those occupying official positions in our institutions." Ibid, 369,370.

Now, if the words of Jesus applied to Nicodemus, how much more did they apply to the rest of the Jewish nation! And they apply to us today with as much force as they did 2,000 years ago! And it doesn't matter whether we have been in the church for only a few years or for many years, or if we have been held in high esteem as Nicodemus was!

I believe that the experience described in Rom.7 is that of the unwilling sinner! He is doing what he hates against his own will but he is seeking the way to freedom which is in Christ Jesus and have not yet found it. (Let us hope that the majority of us have not become so hardened in sin that we are in the same condition of the willing sinner!)

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

David, I've lost this post twice now. AOL keeps kicking me off line. Yes, I believe we receive the mind of the new man after we crucify the mind of the old man. The old man is our sinful habits and traits of character we develop as we act out the sinful thoughts and feelings generated by our sinful flesh nature. Here's the quotes I believe help establish these insights:

Ephesians 4:22-24 "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

Romans 6:6 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

Walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man enables us to connect to God in a way that empowers us to recognize and resist the unholy clamorings of our fallen flesh nature. Our flesh communicates sinful thoughts and feelings which we must resist like we would any other temptation. But I wouldn't say that the carnal mind of our sinful flesh nature takes a back seat after we experience the miracle of rebirth. But now we can keep it under subjection.

1 Cor 9:27 "But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."

What would this mean to a believer, if what I'm proposing is true? I suppose it would encourage them to stay connected to Christ. The only way we can avoid the "works of the flesh" is by abiding in Jesus so that the Holy Spirit can empower us to exercise our faculties of mind and body to resist the "lusts and desires of the flesh."

1) Is there a difference, spelled out in the Scriptures, between “the flesh” and “sin?”

It appears as though the word "flesh" has several different connotations. Sometimes it means our body, sometimes it means our fallen nature, sometimes it means our relatives, and sometimes it means our sinful thoughts, words or deeds. Usually the context makes it clear which meaning is intended.

2) Rom.7:18 - appears to be saying “in me” is meaning the same thing as “my flesh” Do you agree?

It seems to me that Paul is clarifying what he means by in me. He's making the contrast between the mind of his "inward man" (verse 22) and the mind of his sinful flesh nature.

3) Vs.22 – Is “in my heart” the same as “in me” as mentioned in vs.18?

The KJV uses the phrase "inward man" instead of in my heart. As mentioned above, I would suggest that my flesh and the inward man are two different aspect of the born again believer.

4) Vs.23 – is “the law of sin” the same as “the flesh” in vs.18?

Seems to me that the flesh obeys the law of sin. Therefore they do not seem to be one and the same thing.

5) Vs.25 – how is “the mind” different than “the flesh?”

Paul seems to contrast the two when he writes - "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

6) Is “conscience” (1 Pet.3:16), the same thing as “the new mind?”

I would say that "having a good conscience" is the result of walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man.

7) Are “hidden things of dishonesty”
(2 Cor.4:2), the same thing as “the flesh,” spoken of in Rom.7: 18?

Again, I would suggest that this is the result of embracing the lusts of the flesh, which then becomes the works of the flesh.

8) In order to see clearly what the Bible tells us about “conversion,” (Ps.51:13, Mat.18:3), we need the Biblical layout of what we are born with “in Adam,” 1 Cor.15:22), and what we are born with “in Christ.” (Rom.8:2).

In Adam we are born with a sinful flesh nature. In Christ we are born again with a new man mind and are partakers of the divine nature.

9) What are some possible reasons that the Bible has one specific reference to the phrase “in Adam;” and seventy seven specific references to the phrase “in Christ?”

Perhaps it's to help us focus on Christ and not Adam? What do you think?

AB, I thought you were quoting from Jones, and I was wondering why you forgot to reference the source. His style is absolutely unique. And it often leaves me more confused than enlightened, which is why I had to stop reading his material.

And the Ellen White quotes you referred to do not necessarily disagree with the interpretation I've been advocating. Her application of selected verses from Romans 7 was never intended to explain the entire monologue. She often borrows the language of a passage and applies it to an altogether different context.

AH 127.2 "The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. 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."

Here she says the flesh is the seat of our lower passions. The flesh can only communicate sinful thoughts and feelings. It cannot actually commit sin. How we respond to these sinful suggestions determines our guilt or innocense.

When Paul wrote - No good thing dwells in my flesh - I can only conclude from the pen of inspiration that Paul is talking about the voice of his lower corrupt nature. With or without the influence of Satan we must trust in the power of God to resist the sinful clamorings of our fallen flesh nature.

DA 122.3 "In our own strength it is impossible for us to deny the clamors of our fallen nature. Through this channel Satan will bring temptation upon us."

Our fallen flesh nature is what we inherited from our parents dating back to Adam and Eve. It is not Satan. If the devils were to die right now we would still have the voice of our fallen flesh nature to keep under subjection.

Yes, the evil angels work through our fallen flesh nature to tempt and harass us. And the devils are not limited to our fallen flesh nature. They can tempt and annoy us directly, totally bypassing our nature. Jesus was tempted in both ways, and in all ways.

Paul's use of the present tense "I" is not a reference to a third party person. There's nothing in the account to suggest that he's not talking about himself right then and there. When he wrote the book of Romans he was already a born again Christian, and had been for many years.

How does God "deliver [us] from the body of this death"? "Through Jesus"! And in two ways. First, by empowering us to resist the unholy clamorings of the voice of our fallen flesh nature. And secondly, by replacing our sinful flesh with sinless flesh when He returns in the clouds of glory.

Thus, the "do it" in verses 17 and 20 refers to the voice of our fallen flesh communicating to our new man mind sinful thoughts and feelings. There is no other way to interpret this passage unless we conclude that Paul is blaming sin on SIN when he transgresses the law of God.

Whatever else Paul is trying to convey in this difficult passage he certainly cannot be suggesting that when he sins it's not really him sinning but rather it's his sinful flesh nature that's doing the sinning. We're not talking about Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. This is Paul talking about his present experience.

Which is why in verse 25 he concludes - In the mind of the new man he serves the law of God, even though his flesh serves the law of sin. But so long as he walks in the Spirit and not after the flesh he is not condemned or held personally accountable for the sinful thoughts and feelings communicated by the voice of his fallen flesh nature. See Rom 8:1.

And to settle his point once and for all, Paul cites Jesus as the best example of someone who successfully served the law of God with His mind in spite of the fact that His sinful flesh craved unrighteousness. See Rom 8:3. Jesus condemned the voice of His fallen flesh by always resisting sin and temptation. Never once did He fail, and so it may be with us, is the main point Paul is trying to make.

DA 122.3 "In our own strength it is impossible for us to deny the clamors of our fallen nature. Through this channel Satan will bring temptation upon us. Christ knew that the enemy would come to every human being, to take advantage of hereditary weakness, and by his false insinuations to ensnare all whose trust is not in God. And by passing over the ground which man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way for us to overcome. It is not His will that we should be placed at a disadvantage in the conflict with Satan. He would not have us intimidated and discouraged by the assaults of the serpent. "Be of good cheer," He says; "I have overcome the world." John 16:33."

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Mike Lowe ]

AB, I thought you were quoting from Jones, and I was wondering why you forgot to reference the source. His style is absolutely unique. And it often leaves me more confused than enlightened, which is why I had to stop reading his material.
And the Ellen White quotes you referred to do not necessarily disagree with the interpretation I've been advocating. Her application of selected verses from Romans 7 was never intended to explain the entire monologue. She often borrows the language of a passage and applies it to an altogether different context.
____________________________

Mike, to begin with, I do not understand what you are saying about brother Jones. You are turning away from his writings because they confuse you! How would you answer the Lord if He were to ask you what you did with the testimonies which He sent saying that he spoke "in demonstration of the Spirit," and "in clear, distinct lines?" T.M.91,93.

Please share with me what it is you find confusing in what I have quoted from the 1893 General Conference Bulletin from him on Romans 7.

Second, you say, "And to settle his point once and for all, Paul cites Jesus as the best example of someone who successfully served the law of God with His mind."

Mike! Jesus did not serve the law with his mind only, but with his whole being! The man of Romans 7 makes no such claim! Far from it! The man of Romans 7 serves the law with his mind, yes, but not with his body because he is in bondage. His mind wills to do good but he always ends up doing what he hates. "The will is present with me," said he, "but how to perform what is good, I find not." Rom.7:18. He is an unwilling sinner!

I find Jones and Waggoner's writings very easy and simple to understand. But, I must admit, I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Sorry! I don't mean to offend you, Mike! I believe we need to bring our ideas to the infallible test of the Scriptures. The SOP and even the two delegated messengers of the Lord can help us in our understanding of these Scriptures, can't they? And I do believe that on close scrutiny, the statements from S.C. p.19 and D.A. p.203 and G.C. p.461 confirm that the man of Rom.7 is an unwilling sinner.

"If you reject Christ's delegated messengers, you reject Christ." T.M.97. That goes for all of us!

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

Laval

We need to keep in mind that Jones and Waggoner did apostasize; and as such, careful attention needs to be given, when using their writings.

AB, I guess I didn't mean to say Jesus only served God and obeyed the law with His mind and not with His body also. Thank you for pointing that out.

The reason I have such a hard time with Jones, but not Waggoner or White, is the argumentative style he uses in the context of a question and answer monologue. His rapid fire method and the literary contruction of his material is foreign to my way of thinking.

Also, I'm not so sure that my salvation depends upon my reading and heeding Jones' books and theology. In other words, by avoiding Jones I do not believe I am also avoiding Jesus. Besides, not everything Ellen WHite wrote about Jones was affirming. But I'm sure you are aware of those quotes, where she says that he must be careful how he states things so as not to confuse the people. Note this quote:

FW 111.1 "I was attending a meeting, and a large congregation were present. In my dream you were presenting the subject of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions. The matter was presented in that light that I knew minds would be confused and would not receive the correct impression in reference to faith and works, and I decided to write to you. You state this matter too strongly. There are conditions to our receiving justification and sanctification, and the righteousness of Christ. I know your meaning, but you leave a wrong impression upon many minds."

I'm not suggesting that we should never read Jones or that Ellen White opposed his theology. But at the same time I do not believe that everything he wrote was condoned by her. He eventually became imbalanced and left the church altogether. So whether or not he correctly interpeted Romans 7 is a matter open for debate.

Okay, now for the EGW quotes on Romans 7:

SC 19.1 "It is not enough to perceive the loving-kindness of God, to see the benevolence, the fatherly tenderness, of His character. It is not enough to discern the wisdom and justice of His law, to see that it is founded upon the eternal principle of love. Paul the apostle saw all this when he exclaimed, "I consent unto the law that it is good." "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." But he added, in the bitterness of his soul-anguish and despair, "I am carnal, sold under sin." Romans 7:16, 12, 14. He longed for the purity, the righteousness, to which in himself he was powerless to attain, and cried out, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?" Romans 7:24, margin. Such is the cry that has gone up from burdened hearts in all lands and in all ages. To all, there is but one answer, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29."

NOTE: Her use of these texts confirm what I've been saying. None of us possess the ability to obey the law apart from the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Even Jesus confessed this truth for Himself when He said - "I can of mine own self do nothing." John 5:19,30. Her comments in SC do not offer an objective critique of the issues we're dealing with.

DA 203.2 "There are many who realize their helplessness, and who long for that spiritual life which will bring them into harmony with God; they are vainly striving to obtain it. In despair they cry, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?" Rom. 7:24, margin. Let these desponding, struggling ones look up."

NOTE: Again, this passage addresses the same issues I mentioned above. Nothing here to help in our discussion.

GC 461.1 "They had a sense of the righteousness of Jehovah and felt the terror of appearing, in their guilt and uncleanness, before the Searcher of hearts. In anguish they cried out: "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" As the cross of Calvary, with its infinite sacrifice for the sins of men, was revealed, they saw that nothing but the merits of Christ could suffice to atone for their transgressions; this alone could reconcile man to God."

NOTE: Once again, no definitive explanation of the man of Romans 7. All of us desire freedom from the clamorings of the carnal mind of our sinful flesh nature. And ultimately we look forward to the day when it will be replaced by a sinless flesh nature.

Admittedly Paul's record of the man of Romans 7 is challenging at best. I suppose it was portions of his writings like this one that led Peter to confess:

2 Peter 3:15,16
3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

People today still twist Paul's epistles to support their iniquitous choices and practices in a vain attempt to have their sin and salvation too. No doubt you have met people who cite the man of Romans 7 to justify their often and frequent failures. They usually glibbly say - I'm only human, nobody is perfect - as if man-made lies have more bearing than God-breathed truths.

posted by David Battler:

Laval
We need to keep in mind that Jones and Waggoner did apostasize; and as such, careful attention needs to be given, when using their writings.
___________________

David: How many times I have heard this argument. And every single time this has been my answer:

Have you not read these words:

"It is quite possible that Elders Jones and Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptation of the enemy; but if they should be, THIS WOULD NOT PROVE THAT THEY HAD NO MESSAGE FROM GOD, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. They walk in the sparks of their own kindling, and cannot distinguish between the fire they have kindled, and the light which God has given, and they walk in blindness as did the Jews. I know that this is the very position many would take if either of these men were to fall, and I pray that these men upon whom God has laid the burden of a solemn work, may be able to give the trumpet a certain sound, and honor God at every step, and that their path at every step may grow brighter and brighter until the close of time.--Letter 24, 1892, p.5 (To Elder Uriah Smith, Sept.19, 1892.

Uriah Smith had become a determined opponent of these two brethren and their message. But the Lord rebuked him through the pen of inspiration. Joined in his opposition to the Lord's messengers were G.I. Buttler, the president of the General Conference, and a prominent minister by the name of Morrisson whom Sister White says were the counterparts of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram at the time of the rebellion in the wilderness against Moses!

These leaders and some others were defiant towards the Lord's chosen messengers. Ellen White was sent to Australia against her own will. Waggoner was dispatched to England and the hatred towards Elder Jones was so great that in 1906 the brethren decided to take his credentials away and finally, they pressured the officers of his local church to take his name off their church's record book (which was against their own policy) without giving him a fair trial, while he was 3,000 miles away. The Jews gave Jesus a trial, not a fair trial, but at least he had a trial. The Catholic Church gave Luther a trial and most of the reformers were given an opportunity to appear before their accusers but brother Jones, who was only guilty of giving the Third Angel's message, was judged, condemned, and sentenced all at once and in his absence. He never left the church on his own, that is, if he did!

Let us focus on the message the Lord has sent through them. Let us not allow anyone to distract us from the heaven-sent message brought by these two brethren.

And remember that "If we reject the Lord's delegated messengers, we reject Christ." T.M.97.

Mike: This last statement caught my attention many years ago. And the one I have just quoted in my answer to David is, I believe, most worthy of our attention. Please Mike, do not be so quick in your assessment of brother Jones' commentary on Romans 7. These quotes I have shared with you came from the 1893 G.C. Bulletin. If you turn to Selected Messages, p.130, you will see that Sister White referred to the message he gave in 1893 as "the movings of the Spirit of God," "light from Heaven," "the ministration of His Holy Spirit," "the workings of the Spirit of God," "in clear and unmistakable lines." All this is found in the same paragraph!

In the next paragraph she says, again referring to 1893, that "God has wrought in a marked manner and let no one venture to say this is not the Spirit of God."

It was at this Conference, lecture # 12, that Elder Jones commented on the whole of Romans 7. His presentation was "light from Heaven!"

What excuse do we have to offer? The Lord could never justify our objection that Jones' message was confusing when He Himself has told us that he spoke in demonstration of the Spirit, in clear and unmistakable lines! 1 S.M.130.

I have, like you, for many years, been aware of the statement you quoted. It is also found in 1 S.M. p.377,378. In the light of 1 S.M. 130, 131, and 143, it appears to be an obscure statement since all his lectures on the subject of faith and works, taken from the 1893 General Conference, have absolutely nothing questionable in them! I challenge you both to prove me wrong on that! Show me from his 1893 lectures where he was confusing on the subject of faith and works!

In the one picture, we are told in no uncertain terms that in 1893 Jones was speaking "in demonstration of the Spirit, in clear, unmistakable lines," (1 S.M.130) and in the other, that he was "confusing the minds" in 1893! (1 S.M.378) Which is it?

There is something definitely wrong with one of these two pictures!

P.S. Are you able to explain this discrepancy? As far as I am concerned, I go with the weight of all the evidence. The weight of the evidence goes in favor of God's delegated messengers, not against them. Just read T.M. p.96,97 and all doubts will be removed!

If needs be I will quote the excerpts from the 1893 Bulletin where he spoke on the subject of faith and works so we can see for ourselves whether he was confusing the minds or not!

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

Isn't there also a concept in the Bible and the SOP that some writers in the Bible present truth in one way and others present the same truth in another way. Each mind is able to tune in to various writers more readily than others. What Jones said may be truth but if one mind gets it better through Waggoner and White then Amen! The idea is to get it whether through Amos or through Moses, or through Paul or Peter. Just get it and then apply it through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Greg! Are we to question God Himself? It was needed that the mesage should be spoken "in clear, unmistakable lines." It was spoken in a way for all to understand. In fact, Jones and Waggoner were used by the Holy Spirit to make the writings of the prophets and of the apostles more understandable so there would be no excuse to reject the Heaven-sent light, presented "in demonstration of the Spirit!" T.M.91.

Did you not just read these words: "If you reject Christ's delegated messengers, you reject Christ." T.M.97.

Do these words mean anything to us? Have we all, as a people, gone daft?

What is the matter with us, Lord? Have we become so hardened in unbelief that even the words of your prophet mean absolutely nothing to us any more? Have mercy on us!

"Yet many have listened to the truth spoken in demonstration of the Spirit, and they have not only refused to accept the message, but they have hated the light. These men are parties to the ruin of souls. They have interposed themselves between the heaven-sent light and the people. They have trampled upon the word of God and are doing despite to His Holy Spirit." T.M.91.

It is obvious that "the prejudices and opinions that prevailed at Minneapolis are not dead by any means; the seeds sown there in some hearts are ready to spring up into life and bear a like harvest. The tops have been cut down, but the roots have never been ereadicated, and they still bear their unholy fruit to poison the judgment, pervert the perceptions, and blind the understanding of those with whom you connect, in regard to the message and the messengers. When, by thorough confession, you destroy the root of bitterness, you will see light in God's light. Without this thorough work you will never clear you souls." T.M.467.

P.S. Anyone who carefully goes over # 12 of Jones' lecture in 1893 will see that the very tone of the study implies that the majority of the delegates believed and taught that the experience described in the seventh chapter of Romans was that of a born again Christian!

But the Lord's messenger had a message for them they could not harmonize with any more than they could find any harmony with his commentary on Rev.3 pertaining to the Laodicean Chrurch. (Lectures # 8 and 9.

"To accuse and criticize those whom God is using is to accuse and criticize the Lord who has sent them. All need to cultivate their religious faculties, that they may have a right discernment of religious things. Some have failed to distinguish between pure gold and mere glitter, between the substance and the shadow." T.M.466, 467.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

AB:
But didn't Jesus also give this message in clear and distinct lines through Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus Himself, and Paul? Yet in His great mercy He sent others as well, including Waggoner, Jones, and EGW. And even now you apparently are one of the voices that God is trying to use to communicate to us, isn't that true?