No, I think that is a separate concept Paul is communicating there in Romans, and unrelated to this one. This is more related to the "thorn" in his flesh which he thrice asked God to be free of, as told in 1 Corinthians:



Blessings,

Green Cochoa

GC, how does your post address the following comments:

i realize youre making a point so will refrain from adding my 2 cents.

Mike,

I may have been confused by your comments there, but it appeared that you were saying that Paul had resigned himself to a sinful state. There are many who think this to be the case. I was just trying to point out that the thing he had resigned himself to was not a sin issue, but a different sort of weakness in his flesh. Loss of eyesight is not sinful. I don't find any of Paul's writings stating that we must sin, and cannot stop.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, do you agree that the following post says Paul was not talking about being so full of sin that it is impossible to "go and sin no more"?


Do you agree that this is what Paul had in mind when he wrote the following:

Romans
7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

That is, do you agree that the "do it" in this passage is referring to what sinful flesh does, namely, tempt us from within to be unlike Jesus (as opposed to the " do it" referring to us sinning and blaming it on the sin that dwells in us)?

Mike,

The quote implied that most people believe Paul was speaking of sinning. I was responding to the implication, not your explicit statement to the contrary. In other words, I was disagreeing with that majority of people who may believe Paul was speaking of sinning, as implied here: "As you know, not everyone believes Paul was referring to sinning."

As such, I was not countering you nor your belief, only the implication you brought forward along with it.

As for the latter reference to Romans, indeed I do believe in this case Paul was speaking to the fact that the "spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." And I think Paul was clear that he stumbled and fell. I do not, however, take this to mean that such is inevitable and unavoidable.

(And the more times I read your original statement, the more convinced I am that I was answering a separate, but related, question, and that in this particular case, I should have merely agreed with you. I had assumed you to be speaking of the "thorn" in Paul's flesh, and it appears now that you were not.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What part of Rom 7:13-25 do you think describes Paul sinning?

Verse 19 basically says he does evil even though he wishes not to.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think these two pages illustrate why this weeks study is so important, especially among SDA. Here we have a study and thus every incentive to follow up on the 'new commandment' of Johns gospel and his first letter. But the discussion thus far gets bogged down in the mire of the old commandments yet again. Last week I was challenged as having an erring focus when trying to look at the practical side, the new commandment side, instead of only looking at the ideal of sinless perfection. The same has happened here. Eyes are so firmly set on the questions of sinless living and perfect lawkeeping that the whole point of this entire weeks study gets lost in the fray. If it were to turn out that the ideal can only be reached through the practical, how many who who are so concerned with the ideal that they for all apparence have no time for the practical will in the end be bitterly dissapointed.

Daryl, when you lead this weeks study, it will in my oppinion be your chief duty to keep your group focused on what is acctually this weeks theme. These other themes discussed above have most likely been discussed and will no doubt be discussed agian many times in the future. This weeks study does propably not share the same fate and would therefore need all help you can give it.

Romans
7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.


But he went on to say, "It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." He is blame shifting? Is he blaming his sinful behavior on the sin that dwells in him, that is, in his sinful flesh? Can the flesh sin? Ellen White asked and answered this question:

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. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness. {AH 127.2}

She relates the whole issue to resisting the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh. She wrote:


In other words, we must fight to resist fulfilling the lusts and desires of sinful flesh. But being tempted from within is not a sin.