The Conflict of Two Natures: Part 2, The Conclusion

In my previous post, I was rebutting the belief in Free-Will as a means of an approach to God in theology. I am considering the implausibility of such a thing for it certainly makes the scriptures confusing and in many cases outright contradictory. We're picking up in verse 19 and considering Paul's case of the conflict of two-natures. I think it's important to point out that the author's viewpoint on this passage has changed or at least, he's realized that what has been taught over the years, by way of foolishness has much to do with why he's writing this. That is, this particular passage has been used over and over again to excuse sin. To make man not culpable in his sin and more to the point, it's been wrongly used to describe why free-will fails. It's not because the theology is wrong and blaspheme's God, no rather there is something that is stronger than the sinner, but only at times and occassions unknown to the sinner. So, the result is that the sinner struggles alone or under the grace of God, but in no way has any ability to have victory over sin. In fact, the author would go so far as to say that this passage has been wrongly used to obscure the complete ignorance and illogical argumentation of free-will. For free-will purveyors cannot solve the unanswerable question of why they cannot, in their freedom, stop sinning. Which, on face is rationally enough to question the accuracy of such a position, but to make the point, this passage in particular has been used to demonstrate, that while will is free, so that God can justly hold man responsible, man still fails at obeying God because he is somehow beset with sin because he is not yet perfect. Stated plainly and in complete rebellion to God, I'm not Jesus, that's why I struggle! But, I can overcome sin! It really does sound quite good, if you don't think about it and question it to it's most logical ends, and further more as I plan to demonstrate, apply the definition of words and systematic theology of presuppositionalism. Words have meaning and that's lost in a free-will theology.

^19(F) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 

How is it that Paul cannot do the good that he wants? In what way is his free-will beset so that even though he knows to do good, he's not able? This seems like cognitive dissonance. The holding of two contradictory positions in complete harmony as though there is no contradiction. No one could say that they want to do good, but they just can't. Why can't they? There must be something else they are choosing instead of choosing good and right. And if that is so, is not the will free enough so as to cause them the responsibility for that choice? And, if they have responsibility, why then aren't they guilty of lying as well? For do they not want this evil more than they want good? And doesn't that make them disingenuous? How is it that I can want something good, but then I want something bad more, so I do it, but then hold up the fact that I want the good thing as proof of anything? It's proof that I'm a liar or confused. I want what I do, because I'm free, thefore I do what I want!

²⁰Now if I do what I do not want,^(G) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Hold on Paul, this cannot be what you mean? Now you're giving some unnamed, unspoken, entity inside of you the responsibility? Now, if I went up and punched someone in the face, of my own free-will, I couldn't very well tell the judge..."Your honor, it wasn't me. It's sin inside of me that chooses these things, I'm just and innocent bystanding, while totally free and I freely allow this sin to live within me, I'm not guilty, because technically it's not me". Yeah, that would work. Or, does it make more rational sense that Paul is putting a dividing line between his flesh and his spirit? Remember, Paul said that none seek God. So what can seek God except the Spirit of God? So then, Paul is starting to setup the case of the proof of the Spirit that there is a conflict. He's not excusing sin. He's not saying sin doesn't matter in the sense that you can live in it with impunity and be called a Son of God, rather he's setting up the case as to why you are FREE from it.

 ²¹So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 

Paul is making clear that he's at war! He finds it to be a law, a rule of thumb that when he's seeking God that evil is seeking to destroy that connection and fellowship and that we are to be mindful of our enemy the Devil!

²²For^(H) I delight in the law of God,^(I) in my inner being, ²³but I see in my members^(J) another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

The nail in the coffin. He delights in the Law of God. When he was a Pharisee, did he not delight in the law as he persecuted the church, yet this did not lead to righteousness. But that's not what he's saying. His inner being delights in the law of God. Which is different than his flesh, which does not seek to obey the law of God, nor is it even able to. But, what then, is he free from sin? No, he witnesses the war, the domination, at times of sin in his life. He makes clear there are too laws, the law of sin which leads to death and the law of the spirit, which delights in the law of God, in his inner being. They war against another. Since he's captive in this body, the law of sin dwells in his members. Meaning? He cannot escape sin. He's not free, to not choose it. It's only God himself, through the law of his mind, ie the law of God through Spirit, that actually overcomes sin. 

²⁴Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from^(K) this body of death? 

I've learned that this is a reference to Roman times that when a man murdered another man, what they would do is tie the dead man to the living man until he was consumed, unto death, by the filth of the deadness of the other man. In what way does this represent a freedom not to sin?

²⁵Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Notice Pauls position, Thanks Be to God! Yet in my explanation of this thing that is wretched and insidious to deal with, does he say...yeah, I got it bad and so do you, so deal with it? NO! He says, THANKS BE TO GOD! For even though I may appear to complain, I'm thankful to God that he has ordained these things, since he is the only one wise and no one else is. In final he says, I myself serve the law of God with my mind or inner man which leads to life and peace but with his flesh he serves the law of sin which leads to death. Paul is saying that it is only the power of the law of God in his mind, and the sanctifying work of God, which is God's work alone that he can be free from his sin.

In conclusion, I do not see how you can rationally or logically hold on to a free-will theology, if you dont' intend to make the Apostle Paul out to be a confused, lying, multiple personality victim. The problem with describing the reason you don't sin as being a result of the grace of God and the reason you do to your free-will is that you deny that God has the ability be gracious enough to teach you not to sin, by causing you to sin. If you believe in free-will to the fullest, then offering secondary causes that are certainly under a persons control, as the primary reason why you sin, you are making false the claim, by your very own admission that you have free wiil. Because, if the first cause of your sin, is a secondary cause that's under your control, but you do not control it, then you either lie about having an inner man that doesn't want to sin, or you're confused about the level of control you actually have over the secondary cause. In either case, you're not in control. For certainly free-will can choose not to lie?

Some may say that this conflict of two natures is simply a reference to a desire to do well and not sin, but it's not necessarily including the ability to. In other words, there is a sense in which you can see the right things to do, but through secondary cause, ie guilt, depression, deception, circumstance, etc, you're unable to bring yourself to do right. I say, exactly right. Why then do you say that you freely choose right or wrong? If you see to do right, but cannot, is this not the very definition of the anthesis of freedom?

Freedom can only be defined by something that has the ability of obtain freedom for itself, or have the power to grant it to something lesser. However, in so granting it to something lesser, it's freedom is limited by the grantor. The very necessity of freedom being granted demonstrates the very limitation of that freedom. Afterall, God did not grant you the freedom He himself has He? So, the author asks.

You're free.

To what? From what?

 

 

The Conflict Of Two Natures: Part 1

I was reading this passage this morning. I've felt it necessary to go back through Romans fully and with the hope that God would reveal even greater depths of understanding of this great work. One of the things I seem to contend with other believers about often is the idea of free-will versus predestination. But even that can be further sub-defined, so as to say free-will versus divine providence. That is, the idea that everything that occurs, as the Westminster Confession states in Chapter three, that whatsoever comes to pass was decreed by God. That would include

• 9/11
• The Japan Earthquake
• Hitler
• You Being Wealthy
• You Being Poor
• Your Divorce

Stated plainly, if you believe in free-will of the spirit or the flesh, then you accordingly believe that God did not plan 9/11 or any of the following events. You may believe that God simply foreknew these events and by his own power, you would have to conclude that he didn't stop them either. The point of this post though is not to argue the merits of that, but rather to provide an example of possible erroneous thinking or misapplication of scripture. I will be successful if as a reader you come away from this with at least an alternate perspective. My interest lies predominately in vetting this out for myself in the hopes that what I believe to have been revealed to me is in fact true.

Consider the text of the conflict of two natures as described by brother Paul in Romans 7:14-25.

¹⁴For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh,^(A) sold under sin. ¹⁵For I do not understand my own actions. For^(B) I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ¹⁶Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with^(C) the law, that it is good. ¹⁷So now^(D) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ¹⁸For I know that nothing good dwells^(E) in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ^19(F) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰Now if I do what I do not want,^(G) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

 ²¹So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ²²For^(H) I delight in the law of God,^(I) in my inner being, ²³but I see in my members^(J) another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.²⁴Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from^(K) this body of death? ²⁵Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

¹⁴For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh,^(A) sold under sin. 

I settle on the matter that words have meaning, taking the rules that the explicit defines the implicit and not the other way around as well as the rule of divine inspiration I must consider what this text means.

For we know

This was not simply learned, this was revealed, having been taught by the Father and that resulting in the coming to our Lord Jesus Christ. John 6. 

the law is spiritual but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

The law is not a law of men, manufactured by men, but rather by God alone. We are not spiritual by nature, in that we cannot obey the law. And we are sold. The free-will theology will have difficulty at best describing how I was willinging sold into sin. That is, one might say that you chose to do drugs, or become a prostitute, and that accordingly became your master and that by your own choice. But, this is not what the text says. So say that you sold yourself into sin, when the text does not say that, at least not here, would be to define the explicit by the implicit. The text explicitly says that you were sold. Sex slaves are sold without their permission, animals are sold without their permission, and grapefruit are sold without their permission. The language plainly indicates that you are sold, by an owner and you have no influence in that decision.

For I do not understand my own actions.

What does Paul mean? Which of us does not understand our own actions? We know plainly that when we sin, we desire to sin. And when we seek God, we seem also to believe that we know plainly, we desire to do that. So what does Paul mean? Context and history matter. Paul is a Pharisee, trained of the highest order. He knows plainly the law of Moses and he's obeyed it to the full. A good contemporary example would be a disciplined body builder, who cannot understand why he eats sugar-filled-doughnuts. He knows he has a competition come up. He knows he cannot eat those things and win, yet, seemingly out of his control, he injests them and that even to his chagrin. He not only knows not to, he knows he doesn't want to, yet he does! Modern psychology would call this delusion, for if you do something, you clearly on some level, want to do the thing. But, this is NOT what Paul says.

I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

What is puzzling here is the very idea of free-will would me that this should not occur. For freely you operate and none influence you so much so as to abrogate your freedom to choose sin or not. But, Paul, under divine decree here writes that which I do not want to do, I do. So, then, he knows what not to do, he knows not to do it, he's looking at it and says no, yet he does it. Is Paul delusional? Does he simply not recognize that he REALLY DOES want to do these things, he's just lying to himself? Well, that's where free-will must take you. Why? Simply because, you're free. You choose of your own volition based on knowledge and experience. So then, you actually can't be compelled to do anything that you don't choose to do. So, this text is irrational. Paul is lying or, in the most pleasant light, he's alluding to that which we all understand, that in secret, we really do want to do these things, but it seems far more pious to say that you don't want to do them. Because, who wants to admit that they come to the threshold of sin and with fullness of knowledge and truth say, I LOVE SIN! 

¹⁶Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with^(C) the law, that it is good. 

Meaning, it has rightly condemned me in all ways.

¹⁷So now^(D) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 

Whoa, wait up Paul...if I believe in free-will, how can you say that it is not you who does it? Does not God hold all men responsible for their choices? Who is this you, that is not you, who chooses for you and that not of your free-will and choice? These seems confusing at best...how is it possible that I have a free-will but there is something in me that doesn't appear to, or if it does it always seems to choose what I don't want it to choose?

Paul is making clear that it is not him that does it. Explicitly he states that. Who of you will state that when you sin that it is not you that sins? Paul did.

¹⁸For I know that nothing good dwells^(E) in me, that is, in my flesh.

Ahh, the linchpin of the entire passage. Paul is referring back to the case that he's already made in Romans 3:10-19. None are righteous, not even one, and so forth. It would appear two things clearly emerge in Pauls theology. 1. Paul is not good, he's totally depraved, utterly wicked, completely turned aside, ready to kill at a moments notice. 2. That condition persists in the flesh even after he is made alive in Christ. So then, free-will would say what to this condition of being utterly sinful in the flesh? Some have said that there is enough goodness in man, though he is mostly evil, to choose God. Some have also said that, man is entirely wicked, but God has extended a balloon of prevenient grace that they must simply pop and allow it to wash over them. Yes, how does one do any of these things if, they are as Paul says, wicked? Wouldn't any act that leads to godliness, be in itself godly and therefore righteous? How does a wicked body do anything righteous when Paul says it cannot?! Not only this, but Paul is merely repeating the words of the prophet Isaiah and King David. No, Paul clearly understands that sin so abrogates the will that if you are free, you are free only to choose it!

For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Is Paul contradicting himself? He says that he can't do good, yet he has a desire to carry out that which is good, yet he is unable? Or is Paul simply referring to the fact that he knows the law perfectly, something we cannot even come close to identifying with, and his conscience is assailed constantly with the knowledge that even in his great learning of God's Holy Law, he cannot obey it. Even in his desire, let us call this human desire, he desires to obey God's law, but is simply unable. For what is the cause of this conflict?

Continued In Part 2

 

Not By Will Or By Might, But By Mercy

If you speak with me about God for any length of time you'll find out that I believe that He decrees all things to occur by his own authority, according to the counsel of his own will, which he says will stand.

The westminster confession says this of God's Eternal Decree: Chapter 3, it's in it's entirety at the bottom of the post.

 

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3] II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5] III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]

 

As I read this morning in Psalms, 22:30-31

Posterity will serve Him; it will be told of the Lord to the coming generation. They will come and will declare His righteousness, to a people who will be born, that He has performed it.

So you see, God is the performer of faith. We are not. God instills faith in us, for he grants it by his own gift to us, thereby making Him the Author of it. Furthermore, He perfects it and finishes it, by the sustaining work of the Holy Spirit, in which we have been marked/sealed until the day of judgement. You will say to me, how then does he hold me into account, for who resists His will? Who are you oh man so speak back to God? You will not tell the potter he has no right over the clay or that he doesn't know what he's doing will you? ~ Paul in his letter to the Romans, on the chapter 9 and of the verses 16 and following.

Are you saying that people desire to go to Heaven but God rejects them?

No!

The scriptures say that if you confess and believe you will be saved!

What then can be reasoned by this?

Simply that man in his first estate, truly and irrevocably of his own volition hates God, even though he can be taught language that seems to suggest an understanding of the precepts of the Lord God Almighty. Even a child who is wholly disobedient to parents can utter correctly the words "I'm sorry" so as to avoid the certain and necessary punishments of them. Yet none would stand in defense of this child as having uttered words as being as weighty as believing them to be true and certain. This is the same effect of so called believers who have been utterly decieved by the soft-peddaling of the scriptures and even so called false teachers. The making wide of the road that leads to salvation, calling the True God of Heaven, a God of Love before He is God. That even his first natures of justice and authority, divinitiy and omnicience must be abrogated by his second natures of mercy, loving kindness and grace. Foolishness! 

This has created the situation where we have people saying some of the same things that we say, participating with us in worship, wholly wearing the uniform of Christianity and yet, we're ill equipped to reason in the matter of what clearly seems to be out of place. That is, apostate believers who deny Christ by their actions, yet are in no way held to the minutest level of accountability.

Don't judge we're told. You don't see a yellow stripe up their back do you? Would a court convict you of being a Christian? 

We do not judge by unrighteoussness, but by ungodliness. For we are all unrighteouss. Godliness is one who is lawful. One who desires the richness of God's words, to be taught his precepts, and to desire obedience. One who LIVES by FAITH! The saved man does not desire autonomy from the living God! No! He desires to be ruled by God! Even to the furthermost reaches of his own will; to be governed without prejudice.

Narrow is the way that leads unto salvation and there are few that find it. I say read your Bibles and pray that God would lead you, by His Spirit into all truth.

 

 

 

 

<------->

The confession in it's entirety.

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3] II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5] III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8] V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11] VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16] VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.[17] VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]