CTME sounds a lot like Koy...

Ish

There is a distinction between 'feeling guilty' and 'acknowledging guilt'. When Paul acknowledges that he is a sinful man he is not providing a commentary on his emotional state. He is describing the depth of his need for HELP from this state.

As Christians, we do not seek forgiveness so we can continue sinning, but so that we can be free from the power sin has over our lives. Repentance is turning towards God more so than feeling guilty over sin. When you recieve forgiveness for your sin and love despite it, it's the relationship with God which holds you back from sinning again.


Paul is CLEARLY torn apart by the conflict in his soul about what he WANTS to do for God and Spiritual reasons and what his flesh would rather do. But Romans isn't written to be read in bits an pieces. To understand more fully the purpose of this passage, you have to read the next chapter... or a least a bit of it. Paul gives his testimony about his sinful nature SO THAT he can give his testimony about the freedom FROM it which is found in Jesus. Notice in Pauls writing he goes from the last scripture you quoted to a 'therefore' meaning that because this is so... then this is so...

Elsewhere Paul says the law doesn't bring us righteousness but makes us aware of sin. Being aware of sine but having no forgiveness or power to stop sinning is what brings guilt.

So we are not being told it's okay to sin, so long as we are forgiven, but rather that being hostile to God and his laws rather than submissive signifies that we are not livign according to the Spirit we have been given.

What this is saying is NOT that we will never sin again once we become Christians but rather that we are free from the burden of guilt and the oppression that sinning brings. We don't obey out of GUILT or FEAR of God but rather, out of his love for us.

We aren't to look on the law and our ability to follow it as determining our salvation, but rather God's calling us as his children.

The entire chapter is awesome, but I'll skip a bit and get to the end so I don't loose too many people...


Pauls point in testifying to his sinfulness is to show that the worst among us can be redeemed by the love of God. To demonstrate that we should obey God's laws NOT because it is what saves us but because he loves us SO much.

Children in good relationship with their parents, who trust in their parents love are MUCH more obedient than those who don't understand that love. And children who only obey out of fear miss out on the love part. Pauls message is first that God loves you no matter HOW awful your sin is, that God wants to set you free from guilt, to turn to him and his love so that his love can sustain you and free you from disobedience and sin.


Epitome


[This message has been edited by Epitome (edited April 17, 2001).]

Good Catch, Ish. Very discerning.

Thanks. That'll save me a lot of time.

No doubt Paul was aware of his own guilt. My reaction was, and remains, to the "racked" part.

On a semi-related note: I was just participating in a discussion about how Paul's sexual anxieties in I Corinthians ch. 7 laid the foundations for the dogma (via St. Jerome) of Mary's perpetual virginity, with all the misogyny and female guilt that came in its wake.

That is very imaginative.

People, first of all, the word is
*wracked*, not "racked". "Racked" is an illiteracy.

Second, as to Paul, I think he was simply a crackpot ideologue. He says pretty plainly that he tried to take his crackpot ideas to the Jews, who rejected him. Imagine being rejected by your own people! It must've had a pretty profound effect on him.

Paul also tells us very directly that he was a liar who believed the ends justified the means. He tells us this when he tells us that he said whatever he had to say to others, in order to convert them. Belief that the end justifies the means is a common belief among zealots and crackpots. Paul was just a sicko--he was probably nothing more than an opportunist who saw a chance to gain some power by associating himself with this new movement. That's hardly uncommon behavior.

Well said. Now support it.

In particular:

What evidence do you have that Paul was rejected by Jews prior to his conversion?

Where does Paul say that he was a liar?

Where does he say he will say whatever it takes to convert someone?

Why would Paul have thought that he could gain power by joining the new cult? Moreover, what evidence do you have that he was thus motivated?

Well, I'd admit (and it was acknowledged in the discussion) that Paul's recommendation for virginity over matrimony may have been inspired by eschatological anxieties rather than sexual ones. However, St. Jerome explicitly referenced I Corinthians ch. 7 to support the "necessity" of believing in Mary's perpetual virginity, and his writing really did set in stone what had previously been a disputed doctrine.

===========================================
1. I cannot and will not give you specific cites for this. I know the material but not the cites, and in any case I'm not going to fall into your trap. You know they're there, find them yourself.

Paul says, somewhere, that he tried to take his crackpot message to the Jews but they rejected him. It's all there in your bible. I think we can well understand how crushed he would have felt, being rejected by his own people when he was trying to "help" them.

2. Understandably, Paul does not say outright "I lied". But he tells us he lied when he tells us that he became all things to all men "..that I might save some". How about *you* go find the cite for us? You know it's there. "All things to all men" means "I lied, I said whatever I had to, it was a desperate situation, I tried to save whoever i could, by whatever means I could".

3. Paul boasts about his zeal and his prowess with the bible, yes? He never even met Jesus face to face, and in addition, as you know, some scholars believe he may have killed Peter. We have his own words that he was a zealot. Look around the world, and you will see that zealots are willing to do whatever it takes, even undergo jail and torture, if they can get their message out. On balance, everything Paul tells us about himself leads a reasonable person to believe he was nothing more than a slimy opportunist who was power-hungry.