dongiovanni1976x

In Chapter 6 of Paul's letter to the Romans, he tells his audience that, He claims that without the law proscribing certain acts as forbidden he learned what sin was. Paul then goes on to say that, So the knowledge of right and wrong filled him with desire for sin (yes/no) akin to Adam and Eve??
He then adds that sin is dead when it is apart form the law...Presummably that where the law is silent there is no right and wrong and hence no sin?
And then finally the most confusing part that I need help with, So the Law is holy, righteous and good, presumably because it highlights sin which augments grace (previous chapter, i.e. Rom 6:1)? How did sin seize an oppurtunity? Is sin alive? How many different equivocations is Paul guilty of here with regards to the use of this word sin? Or is it static throughout and I am just lost with regards to what he is trying to convey...

Any thoughts?

Nuwanda

I think the verses you are using are actually in chapter 7, for anyone else who is having trouble locating the quotes.

There needs to be a little articulation of the law here. There is a universal moral law that is written on the hearts of men and women. Paul speaks of gentiles who naturally perform the requirements of the law without even knowing the law - these "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them" (Rom 2:15). Then there is the law that was written specifically for the Jews, such as ceremonial law - offerings, feasts, sabbath, dietary regulations, etc. These are not in any way "obvious" to someone without the Mosaic Law.

So, parts of the law are obvious and are known by most people because it is already written into their being by their Creator. Then, there are specific laws that pertain to a specific group of people - the Jew.

Yes, knowing what the righteous requirements of God allows an extra drive for sin, inside a person, to act. Once the standard is set the temptation to avoid or deny the standard also increases. If you have kids, I challenge you to forbid them to eat their lima beans. Even though they probably hate them they will find this inner urge to defy you simply because it's in our nature to do so.

Will I be arrested in America for hiring a hooker while on vacation in Amsterdam?

Likewise, just because the law in Holland allows me to smoke pot, hire prostitutes and pee in the streets doesn't mean it's morally right. The law was introduced to show mankind what God's standards are. He could have never given the law and child abuse would still be wrong.

Paul personifies sin, I believe, because it has a force and a nature behind it. It is not stagnant idea as some think. It is the nature that rules within a man until Christ becomes Lord, "... but I am carnal, sold under sin" (7:14). Once Christ is Lord of one's life their nature changes due to the indwelling presence of God (Rom 8:9,10). The rest of chapter 7 and 8 speak more on this.

Elijah

For me, I always took it as Paul talking about Mosaic Law and saying that telling people what not to do teaches them the very thing you are trying to prevent.

For example: Telling kids not to have premarital sex gets them thinking about sex and then next thing you know they are doing it. (Kind of like the lima bean reference from the above poster.)

Telling the masses not to sin teaches them about sin and to judge others of sin.

I think of Paul as a sin abolitionist or reformist. Meaning he didn’t believe in the concept of sin how it stood and thought of Jesus as trying to change the notion of what drives a person’s actions.

Chili

The answer here is so easy that you may be looking too far for the right answer.

Romans 7 it is where Paul states that the Law is needed to make sin known. IOW, no law equals no sin, for which the law was given to Moses to convict man of sin and thus not to stop 'the orgy' but to have it continue even after it was forbidden by the Law so that the Law may convict one as sinner and bring him/her to eternal life after the sin nature died.

Don't forget here that Paul speaks of his own death that came his way after the Law had roused in him all kinds of evil desires probable because the 'forbidden fruit' is sweeter than wine (eg. it would be futile to make a law against eating 'liver burgers' on Sunday).

When Pauls says that the law came "alive in him" he is telling us that he stood convicted as sinner which was the intent of the law to start with. That is why I hold that God loves a cheerful sinner who someday will stand convicted before God on his own to be judged and given the rewards that are due to him, wherefore the Law is holy and just and good. IOW we do not judge but let God be the judge.

When William Woodsworth said "to me alone there came a thought of grief" it was because the Law came alive in him [alone].

The message here is much like "the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only" who once set free from the law are also free from the conviction of sin (Gal. 5:1-4 and 1Jn.3:9).

dongiovanni1976x

My apologies...you are correct
How does one determine which one Paul is speaking of when he says LAW or COMMANDMENT? Romans 1:20 seems universal kinda like your mention of "written on their hearts" but when I hear that phrase I think of Jeremiah (31:33-34) who seems to still be talking about GOD"S PEOPLE (i.e. the Jews) but I presume one could stretch that to say God's people are Chistians if you start with the assumption that Jesus some how fullfilled this promise in Jer 31.

I think this is a fair assessment.



Excellent analogy. :notworthy:



I was following you on this one until you said: You seem to be equivocating the legality of an act and the morality of an act. When Paul says that "apart from the law sin is dead" and you use the example that in Amsterdam the sin (i.e. moral wrong) of prostitution is dead because there is no law (i.e. Caesar's decree, or some secular social contract dictating right and wrong in legal terms etc) stating that it is wrong (again in a secular/legal sense) but then say that it is still morally wrong (sinful) you seem to be contradicting what Paul is claiming. Is sin dead apart from the law if you are claiming it is still sinful when there is no law against prostitution?
I liked where you were going with this but I got lost when I saw this apparent equivocation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

dongiovanni1976x

I am curious what you think Paul's concept of sin was and how it differed from others in his day...?

dongiovanni1976x

I assume that since Paul wrote this and to write you must be alive then his death was a metaphor for something...What do you think this death was and did it occurr on the road to Damascus?


I think you are on to something here...If we are supposedly born, as Paul says, slaves to wickedness and only the grace of God transforms us to slaves to righteousness then we must obey our master- sin, which results in death and Jesus, which provides for eternal life. The grace of God is the power that enables a believer to become a child of God and Children of God CANNOT sin (Just like the scripture you pointed out- 1 John 3:9)

Paul clearly agrees. Since he says that believers [Christians] have been "baptized into Christ Jesus" and thus "baptized into His death" (6:3) And "were buried with Him through baptism into death" (6:4) Therefore, "knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin" Thus Paul clearly teaches in accord with 1 John 3:9 which states that, "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."

Nuwanda

Here's a perfect example of taking an analogy too far, sorry. I was only trying to show that legality and morality are not inextricably linked. The lack of a law does not negate whether something is right or wrong. Likewise, when Paul says that before the law came he was alive, but afterwards, when it came, he died - it was not because sin did not exist, rather Paul's conscience of sin was not strengthened until the law came. He could be refering to when he was a child and did not know the law he was "alive" but when he came of age and was able to separate right from wrong he was introduced to the law. The knowledge of right and wrong "killed" him. So, the law, though it was righteous, served as a standard whereby sin could be strengthened in his nature.

dongiovanni1976x

So when Paul says he died, you think he means he died inside because he felt bad about being a sinner? Does this fit with the way he describes being "baptized into Christ Jesus" and thus "baptized into His death" (6:3)? Does it fit into himself being "buried with [Christ] through baptism into death" (6:4) Does it follow that, "knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin" (6:6)?

Elijah

Sin is just an old obsolete concept to explain human behavior. Sin isn’t anything tangible in the person or in the action; it’s just a concept or idea and a bad one at that. There are two ways at looking at people today and then; either people are sinful and evil or they are stupid and ignorant. As Jesus said, “forgive them for they know not what they do”. There is no such thing as sin in the world just in our perception of it. The whole plank in the eye bit.