It was me. But it wasn't me.

Romans 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Had an epiphany years ago about these two passages.
Are they saying what it says they're saying?

I believe these two verses are priceless to those who've struggled to explain the sinful nature they have while in churches that have implicitly expected sinless perfection and deny the doctrines of grace.

Any thoughts on what Paul is teaching and reteaching in these two verses?

Thanks for this discussion folks. Good stuff. I'm so thankful for the book of Romans.

Many Christian are concerned with “how”. “Please give us procedures, plans, programs,” they say, not realizing those things only produce perpetual struggle. The flesh always cries, “How?” The Bible always answers, “HIM!”

Amen. It took me a long time to realise this. The power to overcome sin rests in Christ alone, not in us. The enemy is constantly trying to disrupt our relationship with Him. The closer we get to the Lord, the more we know His power in overcoming sin.

There's a danger these verses can be misconstrued however, especially by younger believers. The conclusion that we are not responsible for our sin (as the thread title suggests) is true in the sense that it's our old nature that causes us to sin. This old nature has been crucified with Christ. It rises up from time to time and causes us to sin. If we succumb it causes a believer great distress.

I believe that our responsibility lies in drawing closer to Him hence enabling us to overcome the sin that troubles us. Paul lays out this great truth in the preceding chapter. Romans 6:1-3

Paul had discovered that sin was a principle
within. It is hard to fight principle. The
Spirit enables and empowers us to follow and
serve GOD. He who lives and walks in the Spirit
finds life; he who serves the flesh finds
death.

There's a danger these verses can be misconstrued however, especially by younger believers. The conclusion that we are not responsible for our sin (as the thread title suggests)

That's a good point.
Personally, I had been struggling with the sin nature for years and had come to the point where I began to doubt if I was even saved.
Growing up in church where all had the best clothes on, people only smiled and said 'things couldn't be better', didn't line up with the struggles I was having.
Church leaders wisely encouraged us to walk with God but never admitted any shortcomings.
I found myself wondering if I was saved because I knew I had some myself.
One night I cried out to God and demanded an answer to the hardest question I've ever asked,
'God! Am I even saved? How can I be saved and struggle with these tendencies? Am I saved!?'

His answer came so clear it was as if He was in the seat beside me. The answer I heard was, 'Is it you?'
I was immediately prompted to read Romans 6 and 7 as I drove down the highway. When I came to these verses it was the most euphoric experience I think I've ever had as a believer (I was a believer). I sang the whole way home. The greatest weight lifted from me.

I had confused the 'flesh', or 'body of death' that the believer carries with being the 'natural man'. I had never understood what being a new creation meant and what it didn't mean.

I love these verses.

For one who struggles with guilt and condemnation as opposed to pride, these verses are a great encouragement.

ceedub wrote:
Romans 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Any thoughts on what Paul is teaching and reteaching in these two verses?

[b]Romans 7:17[/b] [color=990000]So now it is no longer I who do it, but my own fleshly desires dwelling in me.[/color]
See:
[b]Romans 7:5[/b] [color=990000]When we were [b]in the flesh[/b][/color] (not walking after the Spirit as the unsaved do) [color=990000], our sympathy for our unlawful affections which the law revealed, animated our members[/color] (we acted upon those unlawful affections) [color=990000]to bring forth fruit unto death.[/color]

The flesh is not sentient & can not have a will (desire) of its own. The flesh is a tool, if you will. What matters is how we choose to use our flesh & what we choose to put or affections (desires) on.
The flesh will give pleasure because of the senses. The flesh is amoral; it takes pleasure in what ever & however, good or bad, morally or immorally for it has no mind to discern. This is unchangeable, it will remain the same even after we are saved; the flesh needs to be done away with. That will happen in the resurrection.

[b]Romans 7:20[/b] [color=990000]Now if I habitually do what I actually prefer not to do, it is no longer I who am doing it, but my own fleshly desires that dwell within me.[/color]

[b]Romans 7:21[/b] [color=990000]I find then a standard, that when I desire to do good, corruption[/color] (weakness & inability of the flesh) [color=990000]is right there with me.[/color]
The "evil" is not "[b]in[/b]" him, but "with" him as being the flesh (the flesh is that "evil" or "coruption")

The key is Verse [b]23:[/b] [color=990000]But now, I see different set of requirements, and they are in my body parts, warring against the standard of my moral conscience, and bringing me into captivity to those "requirements of my own fleshly desires"[/color] (law of sin) [color=990000]which are/is in my body parts.[/color]

The "law of sin" in this verse is the demands of our own fleshly desires & affections against known law that bring us in opposition to God which separates us from Him.
The "law of sin" or "requirements of my own fleshly desires" includes the inability of the flesh to deny its own fleshly desires apart from the Spirit & faith in HIM.

The flesh is not sentient & can not have a will (desire) of its own.

But would you agree that the flesh is fueling the will with desires that the born again man would not have otherwise?

ceedub wrote:

The flesh is not sentient & can not have a will (desire) of its own.

But would you agree that the flesh is fueling the will with desires that the born again man would not have otherwise?

The born again are susceptible to the same and just as much as the unregenerate.

If one puts himself in a situation that he knows is bad because of temptation, it does not matter who you are, the temptation is stil there.

However, temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite (the flesh) in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way." (Paris Reidhead)

Everyone is tempted. However, one being [b]led astray[/b] and enticed by his own desires will produce sin. And the sin, after being perfected, brings death (James 1:14-15).

So, the situations/enviroment where there is temptaion to satisfy the flesh in a forbidden way has a potential to lead anyone astray; it is the going astray that leads to sin, not the temptation.

So how would you peg the garden of Eden, pre fall? As far as environment goes?

Logic wrote (quoting Paris Reidhead)

Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite (the flesh) in a forbidden way.

I've been trying to get my head round this. This is the first time I've heard 'the flesh' described as a 'good appetite'. The thing which interests me is the following verse

Romans 7:18

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,)[b]dwelleth no good thing[/b]: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Perhaps I'm misreading this or it may be a bad translation, but doesn't this contradict what Reidhead is saying?

I'd say yes and no.
What Logic was saying in referring to 'good appetite' was that the desires that the flesh has in and of themselves are not bad, ie sleep, food, sex etc.
The flipside is that the 'flesh' has no use for any regulation or restraint whatsoever, therefore the flesh is always viewed in the negative because it will demand satisfaction far beyond the parameters of what God has laid out that is lawful and good for man.

So the appetites are not sinful, but the flesh will always seek to indulge far beyond what God has decreed to be enough.

Adam had these desires and they were 'good'. It was when he followed the flesh instead of God, when the desires demanded more than God had graciously given, that he fell.

ceedub wrote:
So how would you peg the garden of Eden, pre fall? As far as environment goes?

As I said, "the inviroment fuels the will with desires".
[b]Gen 3:6[/b] [color=990000]And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be [b]desired[/b] to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.[/color]

Eve had a good appetite for wisdom (and food), however, she chose to satisfy it in a forbidden way.
The inviroment of the Garden of Eden still had temptation, the serpent only induced it.

BTW, thanx for explaing to [b]davym[/b] a good answer.

However, you said "the flesh will always seek to indulge far beyond hasto be enough."

The flesh can notseek anything, it does not have a mind to do so.
To better explain it:
To walk according to the flesh to indulge it beyond what God gives liberty for...etc... (Rom 8:5a)

I should have explained my point a little better. What I was trying to get at is that the garden of Eden cannot be blamed in any regard for the temptation. To say that Eden was a tempting environment would be a great leap.

Adam and Eve stood in the middle of paradise, everywhere seeing beautiful perfection with no need unmet. And with Paradise surrounding them, all Eve could see was that one tree. All the gifts of grace were but a hazy blur behind this one tree.

The tree was tempting, not because of the tree, but because of the flesh and its desires that know no limits. Eve took of the one fruit because the lust of the eyes, flesh, and pride of life screamed out for satisfaction. The law, the one and only law, acted as fuel on a fire, causing it, the desires of the flesh, to burn out of control.

As Paul says in Romans 7, the strength of sin is the law. No fault of the law, just a revealer of what the flesh is really like.

And you're right, the flesh is not a soul unto itself. But the flesh, in scripture is described as having a will of its own because of its incredible force on our will.

1 Peter 2:11
Gal 5:17

I don't mean to insult you with these things that you're perfectly aware of, but the flesh is somewhat of a mystery how it can produce desires contrary to the new man, while taking residence in our members.

ceedub wrote:
I should have explained my point a little better. What I was trying to get at is that the garden of Eden cannot be blamed in any regard for the temptation.

To say that Eden was a tempting environment would be a great leap.

The tree was tempting, not because of the tree, but because of the flesh and its desires that know no limits.

The law... acted as fuel on a fire, causing it, the desires of the flesh, to burn out of control.

Even with out the law, Eve could have lusted, it just wouldn't have been unlawful.

Anyhow, are you saying that the law is fuel for the flesh, & the flesh is fuel for the will?

As Paul says in Romans 7, the strength of sin is the law. No fault of the law, just a revealer of what the flesh is really like.

[b]1Corinth 15:56[/b] [color=990000]The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.[/color]
IWO, What kills you is sin; that which lets you know what sin is, is the law.

And you're right, the flesh is not a soul unto itself. But the flesh, in scripture is described as having a will of its own because of its incredible force on our will.
1 Peter 2:11, Gal 5:17

I don't mean to insult you with these things that you're perfectly aware of, but the flesh is somewhat of a [b]mystery[/b] how it can produce desires contrary to the new man, while taking residence in our members.

The only "mystery" there is, is the Mystery of Iniquity
Paul does not define the Mystery of Iniquity in 2Thes. 2:7, though it could be 3 to 4 verses above the mention of it...
[b]2Thes. 2:4[/b] [color=990000]Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.[/color]
To sum it up - Man acting as god, and thinking he is a god, which is from "The Lie" from the beginning.
This Mystery of Iniquity should also conclude to the denial that Christ came in the flesh which is indeed the denial Mystery of Godliness. The Mystery of Godliness opposes the Mystery of Iniquity. Scripture would confirm this precise definition.

Concerning man acting as god, and thinking he is a god:
Any time we sin, we are dethroning God, elevating ourselves over God and putting ourselves in His place.
Virtually not trusting God calling Him a liar, stating by our actions that God can not be trusted and that He is no authority to make any boundaries.
Proclaiming that God is not good in providing what is needed for staying within His boundaries.

Whenever anyone sins, they are transgressing what they know to be true (that there is a law which is being broken) which proclaims that they are autonomous, self governing and in no need of support from anyone &/or anything apart from them selves.
They are basically saying, "I am that I am". Doing this they are opposing and exalting themselves above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that they deem themselves as God (2Thessalonians 2:4).

Now, for this "mystery of how the flash can produce [b]desire[/b]s contrary to the new man:

The disire is called an [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appetite]appetite[/url]. The fleah does not "produce" appetites, it always had/has appetite from the begining.
The appetites which are contrary to the new man are not "produced, but come from the old man.
[b]Colos 3:9[/b] [color=990000]Do not lie to one another, having put off the old man with his practices,[/color]
The term "old man" makes for a word play of "body of sin".
The "old man" would be the person that Paul was before salvation.

Our old man (or who we were before we were saved) is the one that walked after the flesh in regards to our former behavior (Eph 4:22), having been corrupted according to the deceitful lusts.

Our soul which was ruled by the flesh & its passions was crucified with Christ, that the (whole) body of those passions might be nullified, so that we no longer serve those passions. [b]Rom 6:6[/b]

Much of what you say here is what I would say but from a different angle or in a different way.

The rest is over my head because it's one twelve am. I'm sure it's awesome but I can't understand it right now.

I bet I will tomorrow.

Thanks for the responses. Much appreciated.

David

Hello ceedub , First and formost we need to understand that Paul is not speaking of His personal condition at the time He wrote this chapter.WE all are NATURALLY ABLE to be conformed to all the will of God . Grace does not make us able to obey God and be conformed to all His will , Grace shows us where we are able to conform to Gods will . Paul was not a man gripped with the ever perpetual struggle of carnality ,or in minding his flesh , at the time he wrote romans . Paul was a perfect man in His abiding in Christ and His will giving wholely to God at the time he wrote this . This must be the case or paul was an extravagant boastful liar ! and we all know that paul did not lie . Paul was a PERFECT MAN and these are scriptures where he and others say this , 1 thess 2:10 , 2 cor. 6:3-7 , 2 cor 1:12 , acts 24:16 ,2 tim.1:3 , gal.2:20 , gal. 6:14 , phil. 1:21 ,acts 20:26 ,1 cor 2:16,17 , 1 cor 11:1 ,phil 3:17,20 , phil 3:9 , . I shall exsplain what romans 7:14-24 are saying tomorrow , i know that some of you exspecially waltern will disagree ,but paul is not speaking of himself and his syate of strife with his flesh at the time he wrote romans . We need to search for wisdom and understanding that is first pure and unadulterated with our own thoughts, and without leaning to our own understanding , most men do this when it comes to this portion of scripture , God bless , be back tommorow , Clint .

Hello , now the follow up exsplaination of the passage of romans 7;14-24 . romans chapter 7 and romans ch.8 are an example of two seerate way of living and a person cannot be living in the same exsperiences of these at the same time , this is impossible . in romans ch7 paul is giving an illustration of the influence of the law upon the carnal mind . This is a case in which sin had the entire dominion , and overcame all the resolution of obedience . That he is use of the singular pronoun , and in the first person , proves nothing in regard to the point, wether or not he was speaking of himself, for this is common with him , and with other writters , when using illustrations . He keeps up the personal pronoun , and passes into the eigth chapter; at the beginning of which , he represents himself, or the person of whom is speaking , as being not only in a different , but in an exactly opposite state of mind . Now , if the 7 ch. contains paul exsperience, whose exsperience is is this in the 8th ch.? are we to understand them both as the exsperience of Paul ? If so , we must understand hima sspeaking of his exsperience before , and then after he was sanctified. He begins the eight chapter by saying there is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh , but after the Spirit;" and assigns as a reason ,that " the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets us free from the law of sin and death" . But now it appears that Paul had passed into a staein which he is made free from this INFLUENCE of the flesh, - is emancipated and dead to the worldand to the flesh , and in a stae in which there is no condemnation" Now if there was no condemnation in the state in which he then was , it must be because he did not sin,or , if he did sin , because the law did not condemn him ; or because the law of God was repealed . Now , if the penalty of the law was set aside in his case, then he could sin without condemnation . But as the law cannot , and was not set aside , its penalty cannot be so abrogated , as not to condemn every sin . If Paul lived without condemnation , it must be because he lived without sin ! .to me it does not appear that paul speaks of his own exsperience in the 7 ch. of romans , but that he mearly supposes a case by way of ILLUSTRATION , and speaks in the first person , and in the present tense, simply because it was convenient and suitable to his purpose . His object manifestly was , in this and in the beginning of chapter 8 ch., to CONTRAST the INFLUENCE of the LAW and of the GOSPEL - to describe in the seventh chapter the state of a man who is living in sin , and every day condemned by the law , covicted and consantly stuggling with his own corruptions , but constantly overcome, - and in the eight ch. to exhibit a person who in the ENJOYMENT of the GOSPEL LIBERTY , where the righteousness of the law was fufilled in the heart by the grace of Christ . The seventh chapter may well aply to a person in a backslidden state , or to a convicted person who had never been converted . The eight chapter can clearly only be applicable to none but those who are in a state of ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION . ROMANS 6:14 says, " For sin shall NOT have dominion over you; for you ARE NOT under the law but under Grace . " this exsplaination is taken from Charles Finneys' theology . I my own view those who hold to the theory that Christians can be parly sinful and parly Holy , at the same time , have trouble interpreting many passages of scripture that speak of the difference between someone that is sanctified and one who is not . All of the Gospel pepresents one that is living life in Christ and walking in the liberty and righteousness of Christ , as one who knows NO CONDEMNATION . NOW , the gospel also represents one who is not walking wholeheartedly in the glorious liberty of Christ , by willful disobedience to Christ , as one who is constantly condemned . As long as he so chooses to not turn and repent of his willful disobedience to Christ and the law of liberty he provides us when we adhere to Him and walk in Him . It is so sad to me how many confuse the gospel and think that we who are Christians will always is some form or another, exsperience the comdemnation of sin that the wretch in romans ch. 7 exsperienced , and this is our lot because we will always have sin in some form , until we die physically . This is a ruiness and false notion , and leaves little hope of freedom from condemnation . If the devil can keep us guessing and not on FULLY PERSUADED ground that Christ gives , then we are of little use in the Good fight of faith , and consequently have Little Victory . remember FAITH IS THE VICTORY THAT >>> OVERCOMES

clintstone:

Could you please edit & format your last post to make it easyer to read?

Maybe into paragraphs & stuff

I got an f in punctuation, because i always skipped class . I do , however , have an I. Q . of 140 . if anyone wants to know the truth they will find it when they seek with all thier heart , even if it is not punctuated correctly by someone like me . sorry for the inconvenience ofmy messy writing . Clint