Don’t see any mention of the body there, Steve.
Yes, I meant to give you a different translation which uses the word “flesh” to mean human body…
“For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. [4561 - sarx]
For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.”
Romans 7:18
The word “flesh”, sarx, means “body”.
“Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body [sarx] also will rest in hope.”
Acts 2:26
“…he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body [sarx] see decay.”
Acts 2:31
“Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends,
let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body [sarx] and spirit, perfecting holiness.”
2 Corinthians 7:1
See also Ephesians 2:15, 5:29; Colossians 2:5
Sarx is never simply ‘human nature’ for Paul; nor is it simply a reference to physical humanness as opposed to non-physical aspects, such as soul or spirit. It is always human nature ‘seen as’ corruptible, decaying, ding on the one hand, and/or rebelling, deceiving, and sinning, on the other. “Flesh” always carries negative overtones somewhere on this scale, whereas for Paul being human was not something negative, but good and God-given and to be reaffirmed in the resurrection.
-Wright “The Letter to the Romans”
Paul’s mention of sarx in Romans 7:18 - “nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh [sarx]” would say otherwise…Also, the term is used of Christ’s body: “nor did his body [sarx] see decay.” If sarx is always “‘seen as’ corruptible, decaying, dying on the one hand, and/or rebelling, deceiving, and sinning…”, in what sense was sarx used of Christ, who’s body neither sinned nor decayed?
i don’t think Paul does disagree, first.
It’s saying that a body can sin that just sound weird - does it sin without my consent? If it takes my consent, then of course it can be used for sinful acts. But I think the body itself is just fine.
I don’t see any “free will” either
The body “sins” because all creation has been subjected to futility and death (Romans 8:20). Sin and death are two sides of the same coin.
“As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. [sarx]
For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.”
Romans 7:17, 18
You need to read all of chapters 7 & 8 of Romans…
This free-will choice, to walk according to the Spirit, is granted to us through the act of faith and repentance; “if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you.” I think you need to get a broader knowledge of the scriptures. You appear to be trying to understand through other people’s books and experiences. There is no substitute for the word of God.
As we can see Paul was in bondage. According to verses 24-25 It was Christ who delivered him from the captivity of sin. Paul couldn’t do it. It’s by the Spirit that we choose. Only by God’s grace.
Possibly I have assumed too much, if we simply mean that He was tempted. But what about the results of temptation? What would be achieved in trying to tempt a God/man who didn’t have a total human nature? I’ve heard some say that because of His divine nature it was impossible for Jesus to have sinned. That makes sense to me, for how could such a God/man be persuaded to sin? Wouldn’t it, in fact, be impossible? And if it were impossible, such “temptations” would not have been genuine temptations.
Paul wasn’t in bondage. In Romans 7, Paul wasn’t talking about himself. He was talking the man without Christ who is trying to do things pleasing to God. He uses the first person singular (“I”) hypothetically of such a man. Such a man can serve God only with his mind, but with his flesh he serves the law of sin. Then in chapter 8, he praises God that such a man can be set free from sin through Christ.
Here is a little analogy I made concerning my handwriting, which may give us an insight as to what Paul was getting at.
What an interesting approach.
Yes, I understand the complication. I personally think Christ (God) tasted humanity to sympathize with our weaknesses. He does not need to fall in order to understand the gravity of falling. Every human knows the adrenaline spike or the jitters. Christ would have had hormones and chemicals in His body as we all have. He was just not overwhelmed by them (to the point of sin). Christ certainly felt saddened to the point of tears, and angry to the point of whipping. These are human encounters, and Christ fully experienced them for our benefit. This is partly what is meant by “God so loved the world”. This is fairly impressive that our maker would humble Himself to such an act of exposure. Christ ate food, went to the toilet, coughed, shivered, smelt corpses and rotten food… He did all of this so that we would have greater confidence in Him as our leader. He went through the same battle. He did not just sit back and watch - he immersed Himself to the point of being flogged, spat on, beaten and ridiculed. Who would do that for someone else? God!
As Satan said… “throw yourself down from this mountain…” Now, if Jesus would not have died from “throwing Himself down”, this would have given evidence of the divine in Jesus that Satan was asking Him to confirm; but that does not mean that Jesus would not know that it is a struggle for humans to experience a fall from a horse, or falling off a chair, or breaking a bone, or being hungry, tired or thirsty. Jesus became man!
I think that, following the dogma of God’s simplicity, that the Father had no lack in himself that he needed to fill by becoming human and feeling the effects of biological life. He had no lack at all and did not need to ‘become’.
Steve, I must have been unclear in what I wrote. I most certainly would not support the abandonment of the fourth and fifth century Fathers–quite the contrary. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity cannot be properly understood apart from them.
![](https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/user_avatar/forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/akimel/40/874_1.png)
Steve, I must have been unclear in what I wrote. I most certainly would not support the abandonment of the fourth and fifth century Fathers–quite the contrary.
Hi Akimel,
I didn’t misunderstand you. I think I gathered from other posts that you ascribe to the councils and fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries. That is no problem. Often the Orthodox will try and lead other christians to the early fathers, which is fantastic, but I think their admiration is a sectarian fascination from that particular time (4th and 5th centuries), and their honoring of earlier fathers is merely superficial lip services through fast days and saint days, etc. I am personally disinterested in reinforcing a darker and more sinister fraternity, even though I find some writings from this period to be very interesting. I am particularly blessed by Rufinus, Eusebius, John of Jerusalem, and to a lessor extent, Gregory, Basil’s brother, Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom. I was also impressed by what I read of and about Eunomius. I certainly don’t dislike these people, I just think that they were all made delirious by the same dirty well. A more pure time in the church’s history - and in their doctrines - is found prior to the 4th century. That is where the richest gold is buried.
![](https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/user_avatar/forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/akimel/40/874_1.png)
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity cannot be properly understood apart from them.
I think the doctrine of the trinity became particularly corrupted by these fathers. I believe in the trinity, but the fundamentalist and intolerant spirit which emerged in the 4th and 5th centuries had corrupted a simple and sublime teaching which the earlier fathers were able to grasp. It became a doctrine which was aligned with widespread corruption, bribery, extortion, hate, contempt, violence, intolerance, greed, false teachings, and secular compromise. It was a doctrine, after all, that was suggested by an unbaptized emperor. The Roman church gained a particular dominance over other churches because of their compliance to the emperors hermeneutics. The church soon changed back to become completely Arian after Constantine’s death, and than had swung back and forward like a brothel door. This was the church’s darkest hour, and the doctrines of this time are not worth any more to me than the writings of any other sect. They belong to Christ, naturally, but like the church at Ephesus, they need to repent and “Consider how far you have fallen!” (Revelation 2:5)
The Trinity - as was brought out in the lecture you did not finish - was not necessarily thought of by the ECF (150-300AD) in the way it was subsequently developed. Most EF’s - and I gather there is no remarkable consistency of expression - did believe in the trinity small “t” - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not clear to me that they believed in the Trinity big “T” as in the labyrinthine analytic developments that followed - three persons, one nature, or other terminology.
Chalcedon certainly did nothing to clear it up, but that was later.
![](https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/user_avatar/forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/daveb/40/89_1.png)
The Trinity - as was brought out in the lecture you did not finish
- was not necessarily thought of by the ECF (150-300AD) in the way it was subsequently developed. Most EF’s - and I gather there is no remarkable consistency of expression - did believe in the trinity small “t” - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not clear to me that they believed in the Trinity big “T” as in the labyrinthine analytic developments that followed - three persons, one nature, or other terminology.
That’s correct, Dave. Although most EF’s did not waver from declaring Christ as ‘God’; but that was not in the “T” sense, as you point out. There was a relative freedom of expression in the early church which was completely lost in the 4th century. The excuse is that the 4th century fathers were saving the “T” from corruption. I do not buy this. I think it was a grab for dictatorial power, and the trinity became the football. The papacy won, and now they don’t even care to protect the “T” - for it was power they were after, not purity.
The fathers were being rewarded with money and churches for their patronage to Rome, as the emperor used the Roman church to distribute wealth among the clergy. This was a vision of a new state religion, after all, and the bishops of Rome were willing to play ball. For their patronage they were officially declared the ‘head of churches’, and they were given the same power as the emperor in many cases. This is when the church went down hill. The caution is to try not to fling back the opposite way with too much force, otherwise you only create the same thing in reverse. We need the more moderate approach of Origen to guide us, IMO.
Hmmm…very interesting.
Where do we go from here?
Beats me; I’m just trying to figure out where to even start catching up with the thread!
Um, the original post I guess, with Dave’s categorization followup later…?