Is Paul arguing for ignorance of the law in Romans 7?

[Brickjectivity]

There are some sinful ideas which most people don't awake to unless we hear about it, first. For example we have all heard of bank robbery, and this inspires in us an imagination of how to rob a bank. What if we had never heard of a bank robbery?

It is a question tangent to Paul's discussions about sin. Romans 7 he says:

[Rom 7:7-11 NIV] 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.​

Is Paul suggesting that Christians need not learn the law? In his opinion is it only going to awaken us to dark deeds, or is this not his opinion? For those who answer I suggest at least reading chapters 7 and 8 before answering. Remember that this was once a single letter, and chapters have only been added after the fact. Thank you.

 

[Estro Felino]

I need to be blunt and outspoken: if I had met Saint Paul, I would have kindly and courteously advised him to try to find peace.
I am not the only one who says that: this person was not at peace. He hadn't found that peace we find in the Gospels. The Gospels are so clear and they are like balm for the soul.

Romans 7:1 is clear at the beginning: he gives the example of the woman, who according to the law, can remarry, if her spouse is dead. We all agree the Law is legitimate and has been created to guarantee order and peaceful coexistence. Then he is assailed by a doubt, as if he had a severed soul (a good part and an evil one) that casts doubts on all the good things he has previously said.
And starts saying that it's because of the Law that men sin, because "repression leads to transgression", which is absolutely false. Because the Romans had no sexual morality, but the absence of "repression" didn't eliminate transgression, since the examples of disordered lifestyles were countless. Nero's sexual life, for example...which is really unspeakable.
The last part of the chapter is really the disclosure of Paul's spiritual peacelessness.
He really denies men's willpower that is what we find in Mary, the apostles, the saints and in Jesus.
I will not deny we are all made of flesh, so we are all weak, but Paul's tragic pessimism really vilifies the strength that Jesus Christ teaches in his parables (I wonder if he has ever read them).

There are people with psychiatric skills and expertise, who will say more exact things than I have right now, reading this passage and above all, the Second Letter to Corinthians.

 

[nPeace]

There are some sinful ideas which most people don't awake to unless we hear about it, first. For example we have all heard of bank robbery, and this inspires in us an imagination of how to rob a bank. What if we had never heard of a bank robbery?

It is a question tangent to Paul's discussions about sin. Romans 7 he says:

[Rom 7:7-11 NIV] 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.​

Is Paul suggesting that Christians need not learn the law? In his opinion is it only going to awaken us to dark deeds, or is this not his opinion? For those who answer I suggest at least reading chapters 7 and 8 before answering. Remember that this was once a single letter, and chapters have only been added after the fact. Thank you.

Paul really explained this matter in a number of his writings.
In Galatians 3, for example, after saying this...
(Galatians 3:10-14) 10 All those who depend on works of law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them.” 11 Moreover, it is evident that by law no one is declared righteous with God, because “the righteous one will live by reason of faith.” 12 Now the Law is not based on faith. Rather, “anyone who does these things will live by means of them.” 13 Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake.” 14 This was so that the blessing of Abraham would come to the nations by means of Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith.

Paul says...
(Galatians 3:19) 19 Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.

What the law (Mosaic Law) did, was show the Jews (God's people) that they were in a sinful state - far removed from God, and thus needed a savior (Messiah).

Paul made it clear that not our righteousness, but God's undeserved kindness (grace) made it possible for us to be redeemed, through that savior.
So it is not dependent on works of law, which was a teacher - a shadow - leading to Christ - the reality.

One would then live by the law of Christ, which involves the law of love, which is based on principle. Matthew 22:37-40; Galatians 5:14

I wanted to explain better, but unfortunately, I have to run.

 

[Estro Felino]

James 1:12
This passage suffices to understand that that's what Jesus would have responded to Saint Paul.

It is devilish to think that God created Law to either test or tempt men. That's not true.

 

[wellwisher]

There are some sinful ideas which most people don't awake to unless we hear about it, first. For example we have all heard of bank robbery, and this inspires in us an imagination of how to rob a bank. What if we had never heard of a bank robbery?

It is a question tangent to Paul's discussions about sin. Romans 7 he says:

[Rom 7:7-11 NIV] 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.​

Is Paul suggesting that Christians need not learn the law? In his opinion is it only going to awaken us to dark deeds, or is this not his opinion? For those who answer I suggest at least reading chapters 7 and 8 before answering. Remember that this was once a single letter, and chapters have only been added after the fact. Thank you.

This insight of Paul has to do with human nature and how the brain writes to memory and the adverse impact of law type memories. When the brain writes to memory emotional tags are added to sensory content. Our memories have both feeling and content. Our strongest and enduring memories will usually have the strongest feeling tones; marriage or trauma. When we think of the Holidays, of days gone by, this trip down memory lane will trigger strong feelings one way or the other.

The problem with law is law is like a binary type memory, since we need to know what to do and what not to do, with the doing right written to memory with a nice feeling and the doing wrong written to memory with a fear feeling. This one binary memory; law, has two conflicting feelings. If I told you do not speed, period, you would ask why? Now I have to explain the value of going slower; safer, and the risk for going too fast; horrible accident. There is a feeling of safe mixed with a feeling of fear due to the law.

Conflicting feelings are not natural for the brain. These can cause a dam. The analogy is being in a love/hate relationship; two conflicting feelings. If one felt just just love you would approach and embrace. Or if you felt just hate you would yell and leave. But when both play together; love/hate, you cannot approach or leave, but will sort of orbit the person at a mid distance. This wastes a lot energy and is not natural. Law does this to the brain on a large scale. All the laws you know add inertial to this orbit; safe and fear.

The way the brain usually deals with this damming of the brain, due to the mixed feelings, is it will repress the dark side of the law; fear so only the good side is more conscious. In the case of love/hate, we may want to remember the good times and ignore the bad times. In the case of law, it will make us feel just and even self righteous, with violation not part of us. The dark side, although unconscious, is still part of the whole and as long as the conflicting feeling memories of law, exists there is still that potential; orbit. In the case of love/hate after you go back by forgetting the bad, you start to argue again; potential appears.

Periodically, the dark side; zone, will express itself to lower the potential. This can occur in dreams and fantasy. It also can spill over into the conscious world. The term ends justifies the means is when you feel righteous, yet resort to the dark side to seek the end you desire. Light and dark merge to lower potential and then the darkness goes back to the unconscious.

Every law you have been exposed to and learned are divided between these two areas; conscious and unconscious, with the conflicting feelings setting a potential between the conscious and unconscious, which then attempts to lower, causing moods and compulsive behavior to help make the two meet or separate so the orbital can stop. Paul said sin taking opportunity through the commandment produces sin of every kind; Satan is a subroutine that mediates this energy flow and since this is really about dammed up energy, it can occur in ways creative ways relative to the law; new violations will appear not yet of the law. More law is added which compounds the potential.

When I was younger sex was much more taboo than today. This law had an adverse impact on some people, causing problems in terms of guilt, fantasy and compulsion; ways to lower the potential. Today the guilt has moderated, but the sex compulsion has gotten even more bizarre. This is due to the broader modern law base, with new compulsions a means to reduce the potential. It will get more and more bizarre without nobody considering the consequences, since the release feels good.

If we decided to just stop law, since the matrix of law memories is still there, in our memory along with the controlling subroutine, it would continue to lower the potential until it runs its course. First the darkness would come out to play; more conscious, so the ego can help the Satan subroutine with the energy flow. Like in the Democrat run inner cities in the USA, law was reduced for the criminals and crime got worse because we did not erase the potential that stills lingers in the criminal brain. We are sort of stuck with law, unless one can reduce their inner potential in a controlled way.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. Fulfill means to reach a goal. What is the goal of law? It is to differentiate good and evil by setting up a contrast of opposites; see light in the darkness, and then only choose the light. Law cannot do this, since its binary nature and conflicting feelings tone are connected to the brain's memory writing. We need to figure out how to get rid of the polarization; forgiveness of sins, while getting people to know only right. This allows the inner potential to run its course until is it done.

 

[nPeace]

James 1:12
This passage suffices to understand that that's what Jesus would have responded to Saint Paul.

It is devilish to think that God created Law to either test or tempt men. That's not true.

Yes. James also explains that God does not tempt anyone with evil things, James 1:13-15 but helps them endure trials and temptations they face in Satan's system of things.

The law served to keep the nation of Israel clean before Jehovah, until the Messiah arrived who would teach them the way.
That law showed up man's defective degenerate state, as no one could keep the law perfectly, due to the fact that they all fall short of the glory of God.
(1 Kings 8:46) . . .there is no man who does not sin. . .
(Ecclesiastes 7:20) . . .there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin. . .

Hence, Paul said, what he did at Romans 7... which would take quite a lot of scripture, and writing to make the point crystal clear.
Careful reading and reflection on Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians will give clarity.

Jesus and Paul are in agreement though, since God's stated purpose is progressive. Jeremiah 31:31-34

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. James also explains that God does not tempt anyone with evil things, James 1:13-15 but helps them endure trials and temptations they face in Satan's system of things.

The law served to keep the nation of Israel clean before Jehovah, until the Messiah arrived who would teach them the way.
That law showed up man's defective degenerate state, as no one could keep the law perfectly, due to the fact that they all fall short of the glory of God.
(1 Kings 8:46) . . .there is no man who does not sin. . .
(Ecclesiastes 7:20) . . .there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin. . .

Hence, Paul said, what he did at Romans 7... which would take quite a lot of scripture, and writing to make the point crystal clear.
Careful reading and reflection on Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians will give clarity.

Jesus and Paul are in agreement though, since God's stated purpose is progressive. Jeremiah 31:31-34

I could also think that he was struggling to forgive himself.
After all...at that time, there were also Pagans who used to practice abstinence and chastity.
We don't know what Paul's life was like before his conversion...but we surely know, that as for Saint Stephen's martyrdom, he was in on it.

So... was he trying to say that no matter how sinless Pagans are, they will never be saved because they didn't believe in Jesus' atonement on the cross?

 

[Harel13]

There are some sinful ideas which most people don't awake to unless we hear about it, first. For example we have all heard of bank robbery, and this inspires in us an imagination of how to rob a bank. What if we had never heard of a bank robbery?

It is a question tangent to Paul's discussions about sin. Romans 7 he says:

[Rom 7:7-11 NIV] 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.​

Is Paul suggesting that Christians need not learn the law? In his opinion is it only going to awaken us to dark deeds, or is this not his opinion? For those who answer I suggest at least reading chapters 7 and 8 before answering. Remember that this was once a single letter, and chapters have only been added after the fact. Thank you.

I am reminded of two things:
The first is a Ducktales episode from the original series where they go to the hidden land of Tralala and discover that the people there have noconect no concept of economics, material value and currency. Scrooge proceeds to teach them and then bad habits appear as people start competing and swindling. Finally, frustrated as their peaceful existence has been ruined, they form a mob and kick out the ducks, or something like that.

But did the introduction of these concepts create these bad habits or were these traits already part of the natures of the Tralalalians? We only get a glimpse into the pre-economy lives of those people, so we have no idea whether they were 100% pure and good prior to the episode. I think an argument could be made that they were not perfectly pure, and this was made evident because of the introduction of a variable into their otherwise consistent and non-changing lives.

The second thing that comes to mind is the longtime question of whether Batman created his villains and is to blame for all of their wrongdoings. This is true for more superheroes, but seems to come up a lot with regards to Batman, perhaps because his rogues gallery is pretty dark and gruesome.

As I mentioned Ducktales, the reboot show has an episode called The Life and Crimes of Scrooge McDuck where this exact topic is debated: Is the titular character to be blamed for his rogues gallery or not? Scrooge's lawyer is able to argue against most of the rogues, but one case proved that Scrooge really was at fault, stressing his character flaws.

With regards to the question of the OP, yes, I think Paul is arguing for being ignorant of law. The problem I see in this is the anarchy that naturally arises from lawlessness. But that's because, unlike Paul, I think it's human nature to be attracted to doing negative things without boundaries. The paradox here is that supposedly, without law, nothing would or could be considered negative. That also means there's nothing positive. There's only some kind of neutral existence, but this isn't necessarily "good", given that there is no good. Everything just "is".

In chapter 8, Paul attempts to argue for a difference between "the law of the spirit of life" and the "law of sin and death". It seems to me that the distinction is arbitrary. Good is defined by, perhaps among other things, the opposite of good. So even if there only one type of law, the law in its nature defines what's against or outside of the law.

 

[nPeace]

I could also think that he was struggling to forgive himself.
After all...at that time, there were also Pagans who used to practice abstinence and chastity.
We don't know what Paul's life was like before his conversion...but we surely know, that as for Saint Stephen's martyrdom, he was in on it.

So... was he trying to say that no matter how sinless Pagans are, they will never be saved because they didn't believe in Jesus' atonement on the cross?

From what the scriptures tell us, we can be sure, Paul was sure of God's mercy and undeserved kindness (grace) toward him, and Paul was exceedingly grateful. That is why he spent himself, or slaved in behalf of the good news.
Romans 7:24-25; Galatians 2:19-21; Romans 15:15; 2 Timothy 4:6-8

Paul understood the riches of the undeserved kindness of God.
Showing that he understood this, he even said, (1 John 3:19-21) 19 By this we will know that we originate with the truth, and we will assure our hearts before him 20 regarding whatever our hearts may condemn us in, because God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. 21 Beloved ones, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have freeness of speech toward God;

Of course, for anyone to be saved, they needed to exercise faith in the sin atoning blood of the Christ, but Paul sought to share the good news with all, that they might be saved. Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

Paul understood that it was not about what a person was, but what they could become.
He illustrated the fact that the pagan could get ahead of the believer, because it depended on not just entering the race, but running it to the finish.
(1 Corinthians 9:24-27) 24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air; 27 but I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow.

 

[DNB]

There are some sinful ideas which most people don't awake to unless we hear about it, first. For example we have all heard of bank robbery, and this inspires in us an imagination of how to rob a bank. What if we had never heard of a bank robbery?

It is a question tangent to Paul's discussions about sin. Romans 7 he says:

[Rom 7:7-11 NIV] 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.​

Is Paul suggesting that Christians need not learn the law? In his opinion is it only going to awaken us to dark deeds, or is this not his opinion? For those who answer I suggest at least reading chapters 7 and 8 before answering. Remember that this was once a single letter, and chapters have only been added after the fact. Thank you.

No, Paul was not speaking about being naive and ignorant, but explaining that through the inevitable knowledge of many atrocities committed by man, humans will find themselves aroused and incited to sin by the notion of these acts. Man cannot escape the awareness of crime nor legislation, thus Paul speaks about the quandary that man is in - how will I escape such an inextricable condemnation? ...Jesus Christ.

Other principles are at hand here also, for, as a Christian, I believe in the abrogation of the Law upon Christ's resurrection (God's acceptance of his sacrifice). Meaning, where there is no law, there is no sin - Christian's are guiltless before God.

Paul's ultimate point is, that all man sin either with or without law, but it is the Law that condemned him for it - made him aware of the egregious nature of sin, and God's disdain for it.

 

[Muffled]

There are some sinful ideas which most people don't awake to unless we hear about it, first. For example we have all heard of bank robbery, and this inspires in us an imagination of how to rob a bank. What if we had never heard of a bank robbery?

It is a question tangent to Paul's discussions about sin. Romans 7 he says:

[Rom 7:7-11 NIV] 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.​

Is Paul suggesting that Christians need not learn the law? In his opinion is it only going to awaken us to dark deeds, or is this not his opinion? For those who answer I suggest at least reading chapters 7 and 8 before answering. Remember that this was once a single letter, and chapters have only been added after the fact. Thank you.

I believe it worked the opposite way for me. When I found out that what I thought was ok was actually sin then I was able to get rid of it.

 

[Muffled]

James 1:12
This passage suffices to understand that that's what Jesus would have responded to Saint Paul.

It is devilish to think that God created Law to either test or tempt men. That's not true.

I do not believe Paul is saying the law causes the sin. He is saying it becomes sin because the law now informs us that it is.

 

[Estro Felino]

I do not believe Paul is saying the law causes the sin. He is saying it becomes sin because the law now informs us that it is.

Could you define what sin is, please?
Thank you.

 

[Muffled]

Could you define what sin is, please?
Thank you.

Sin is what ever God tells us not to do.

 

[Eli G]

There are some sinful ideas which most people don't awake to unless we hear about it, first. For example we have all heard of bank robbery, and this inspires in us an imagination of how to rob a bank. What if we had never heard of a bank robbery?

It is a question tangent to Paul's discussions about sin. Romans 7 he says:

[Rom 7:7-11 NIV] 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.​

Is Paul suggesting that Christians need not learn the law? In his opinion is it only going to awaken us to dark deeds, or is this not his opinion? For those who answer I suggest at least reading chapters 7 and 8 before answering. Remember that this was once a single letter, and chapters have only been added after the fact. Thank you.

It's easy to understand if you compare it with human laws: if you visit a country and you don't know its laws, you may commit an illegal act... but you will never be aware of that, because you did it in ignorance of the laws of the country you were visiting. In your country that act would probably not have been illegal.

The laws that were given to the Israelites demonstrate all the things that are "illegal" from God's point of view. The world in general is unaware of Biblical principles, and abides by human conventions about what is right and wrong. Instead, those of us who worship God have to know exactly what he likes and what he considers wrong.

 

[nPeace]

Sin is what ever God tells us not to do.

Or, in other words, to miss the mark, or fall short of God's righteous standards - true righteousness.

 

[Muffled]

Or, in other words, to miss the mark, or fall short of God's righteous standards - true righteousness.

It seems the Jews had a problem figuring out what the target was. How much work is allowed or not allowed on the Sabbath? What they needed and still need is the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus.

 

[Eli G]

It seems the Jews had a problem figuring out what the target was. How much work is allowed or not allowed on the Sabbath? What they needed and still need is the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus.

That happens today also. In some modern Jews communities they can not even turn off/on the light switcher on Shabbat.

 

[metis]

Is Paul suggesting that Christians need not learn the law?

The law he was referring to in all likelihood was Jewish Law, thus the 613 Commandments: The 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

Thus, he was saying that Gentiles need to not follow them, including new converts to "the Way".

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Ok, I read the two chapters. First of all, I have some trouble here in imagining that behavior, in terms of ethics/morals, are not things which are normatively more emergent in the human organism. I think that all human societies, and groups, that anyone is born into, will socialize the new person, as much as they can. Maybe some people fail more than others, and maybe paul just saw, then, that he was coveting more than other people. Some people also avert their recognition away from whatever it was that they are doing, that they knew was wrong

Whatever the case may be, I can't imagine myself blaming a certain law, if I violated it, for producing that violating action in me. Or at least that seems a very strange way to think about it.

Whatever the new spirit law was, or is, I guess I would say that it seemed to have helped paul, and if it worked for him, to stop coveting, I guess that's fine. I guess it seems like, vaguely, he had to appeal to some kind of a more transcendent, perhaps platonic, understanding of things in order to change whoever it is, that he was. I don't know, I guess some people have to do that

And to return again to what I was saying at first, it does kind of seem like paul was describing a possible perceptual paradox. For instance, when you're learning something, anything, well the fact is, that a person often does not rightly perceive what they are doing, to the fullest extent, at first.

For example, when I learned the guitar as a kid, my ears did not know, at first, if I was in tune or out of tune, a lot of the time. But I was still out of tune, whether I could perceive that mathematical law well, or not. Once I could hear it better, once I had a slightly more musical ear, then my ear was certainly not corrupted.