Are We Racist or Prejudice?

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."

(Acts 17: 26, KJV) 

 

 Recently, I had read a two paragraph comment about a so called "racial term" applied to a rock band that a female acquaintance on face book had used on her subject she wrote about on her face page. According to her profile she is a relationship expert. I commended her for the good job she did on her comment condemning such prejudices against certain people. However, later I went back to her face page and wrote a follow up comment. For the terms "race" and "racial bullying" did not sit well with me. For the terms are misleading. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it defines the word "racism" as follows: "a belief that some races are by nature superior to others; discrimination based on such belief -- racist." (pg. 593).  However the term is a misnomer. For there is no such thing as "races," "racial" or "racism." There is only one race on earth, the human race. In response to my female acquaintance on face book, my comment is as follows:  

"How easy it is to misunderstand the meaning of terms, when we don't think about their actual meaning.  Been thinking about the term "racial." The term of course refers to a particular race, or various races. However, this is wrong. There is no such thing as "races" within the human race. Ethnicities and nationalities are not different races. To dislike such people is prejudice, not a racial statement. Because there is only one race--the human race. Whether black, white, Asian, or Indian, all such ethnicities are apart of one race, not different races. For example: the human race is one race of people, whereas if aliens actually existed, they would be considered another race of beings, and disliking them would be racism. Despite popular belief, since the term's first use, there's no such thing as "racism." The correct terminology would be "prejudice." So "racial bullying" would make better sense to say "prejudice bullying."  

In response to the quote I wrote above on face book. Her friend Simon commented as follows: 

"Jerry - while I agree that there are limitations to "race" or "races," the fact of the matter is that people treat others based on characteristics which society has recognized as race. As Time Wise puts it "As an ideology, racism is the belief that population groups, defined as distinct “races,” generally possess traits, characteristics or abilities, which distinguish them as either superior or inferior to other groups in certain ways." The system perpetuates this though by creating more opportunities for some but not to others." 

I followed with this response back: 

"Simon, I agree with what you are saying. It is unfortunate that people feel the need to demean or make other people groups inferior to themselves by such prejudice terms. The fact is such terms as "races" or "racism" is a misnomer. To judge other people such as Chinese as "chinks" blacks as "niggers" whites as "honkies," etc. is certainly offensive. Which is another reason why I strongly disagree with "racism" because it promotes hatred and violence towards others. In regards to ethnicities and nationalities, all people groups are EQUAL, for we are all human beings who belong to one race. No particular group of people are more superior then another group. Yet, sadly, as you said, "that people treat others based on characteristics which society has recognized as race." Then you added an accurate definition on racism by "Time Wise," even though the term is misleading and does not really apply to the human race. Race as a singular term I can accept, but as a plural term, definitely not. Which is why "racism" does not apply. Since we all belong to the one race of human beings, to demean or be prejudice towards another person because of their skin colour, weight, or characteristics is in a sense offending one's own person. I can't speak for you Simon, but I do not allow society to dictate to me how I should view others of different nationalities. The problem with so many people is that they allow society to think for them, instead of thinking for themselves. It's so easy to get caught up in stereotyping people without really taking the time to get to know them. I'm sure at some point in our life, we have all been guilty of being "prejudice" towards others in some way. I say screw society and screw the urban dictionary. For such thinking only leads to division instead of unity." 

Now as for the term "prejudice." We are all prejudice in some way or form. The word is defined: "Damage; esp: detriment to one's rights or claims; an opinion made without adequate basis; to damage by a judgment or action esp. at law; to cause to have prejudice." (pg. 567). In a sense, it is prejudging someone without full hearing or examination of the matter or person in question. Indeed, to be prejudice towards someone is ugly. Even more importantly, it is wrong! Yet, people do it every day in some subtle or major action or form. People are "prejudice" not "racist" against other ethnic groups of people when they demean or treat them as inferior to themselves. God made from our original parents, Adam and Eve all the nations and peoples of the world. As today's text puts it, "And [the Lord] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." (Acts 17: 26). This Scripture text points out clearly that all ethniticies and nationalities belong to one race of people, the human race. This is why it doesn't make sense to refer to black people as one race and white people as another race. Whether black, white, Asian, Indian, or any other groups of people, all are fellow human beings who belong to the same human race. Just as there are different characteristics and traits in dogs within the same species, so there are various characteristics and traits in human beings within the human race. The human race does not consist of many different races. Yet the young woman who I conversed with on her face page argued that the human race consists of many races of people. She gave this definition on racism to argue her point:  

"She wrote: "I actually have to disagree with "race" being used to describe humans with oneness: race2 [reys] Show IPA noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology . a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race." 

Whatever text book or dictionary she got this definition from is in error. There is no such thing as "the Slavic race' or "the Dutch race" within the human race. A race within one race is definitely a contradiction in terms. So I argued back with this comment: 

"I really appreciate where you are coming from, because I used to believe what dictionaries and scientific definitions about the term "racism" and "races" would tell me; until I began rethinking what I believed about the term racism, and what it actually means and applies to humanity. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I can accept the term "race" as a singular term in relation to all of mankind. For instance, consider the various kinds of animals. Since a "dog" is one of the best known pets to mankind. I will use it as an example. There are many different types of dogs within the species. A close friend of mine who is a research writer, explained it this way: "Dogs are a species. They differ from cats, monkeys, and elephants. All of these are rightly termed "species." However, Poodles are not a species, Chihuahuas are not a species, and Saint Bernards are not a species. They are different "kinds" existing within the single "species" of dog. When bred together, the result is a dog." So it is with mankind. Again, my friend says: "White people and black people are simply different skin colours existing within the single race of men. When bred together, the result is a human being." Yes, humankind can be divided into different ethnicities such as Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negro, Asian, etc. But they are different kinds of people within the human race. The only way "racism" would apply is if there were races of Elves or Aliens as opposed to Mankind."

Not able to respond to what I said above, she then threw at me this short response, "Dogs =/= wolves." I rebutted it with this response below: 

"Good question Alice. Actually dogs and wolves are of the same species. For it has been shown that they can interbreed with each other. Years ago, I remember having a friend who owned a large dog that was part wolf. Try interbreeding a dog with a monkey, it can't be done, due to the fact they are two distinct species within the animal kingdom. No doubt the ancestry of dogs can be traced back to an original species of dog. Some have argued that the Mastif, which exists today is considered to be the original dog, while others have argued that wolves are. Whatever that actual species looked like in very ancient times, we can only guess. Since you mentioned dogs =/= wolves, why not mention dogs =/= wild dogs; dogs =/= coyotes; or dogs =/= foxes as well. Wolves are the cousins of dogs that branched off from the original dog kind within the ancestry of the species. Wolves are wild in nature, whereas dogs are tamed. However, scientific experimentation has proven that they can be tamed. Foxes also have been proven to be tamed as well. They also can be bred together as well. Why? Because they are all of the same species within the dog family. Having said that, wolves, coyotes, and foxes for example are distant cousins due to the fact that they live in the wild, whereas dogs live with mankind. They are two branches of different kinds of dogs within the same species. We just call dogs, dogs because of their companionship with us, whereas wolves and coyotes are called such for their distinction to dogs in their relationship to man. For all we know, wolves could have been the original kind that dogs have branched off from." 

Annoyed and angry, she arrogantly retorted back: 

"You are attempting to argue with someone who possesses a degree in biology and your failure to understand the point is amusing. At any rate, stop going off tangent. This has nothing to do with the original point, which you have completely missed." 

After I rebutted that, she followed up with this comment: "Go off on a tangent when I have asked you to stay on topic and I will be forced to remove comment privileges for you. Sorry." Since she has a degree in Biology, I challenged her with scientific research information that was conducted on dogs. That's when she deleted me. That became obvious when I tried to post my last comment as follows: 

"Alice, out of respect that this is your face page I am writing on, this will be my final comment on the topic. You say I have been off the "topic." I disagree with you on that for these reasons: (1.) In my original comment I had commended you for what you had written about in regards to racial terms considered offensive, yet used by such bands as "The Ni****s" and "The Slants." I could have ran with that topic. But since I agreed with your comments, why further elaborate on it? (2.) Then in my second response, I focused on certain words in your original comment about "racism" and "racial bullying," which was apart of your comment and the topic at hand. Though my primary focus was on the meaning of the term "racism/races." So as you can see, I was responding on topic to what you have originally said. With that said, I respectfully close the issue." 

What astounds me is the fact that nothing offensive was said to cause her to "delete" me. Her warped sense of reasoning to delete me was her accusation that I was "off the topic." Which I proved in the above comment was not true. I was on topic. Her problem was she did not like the truth I was challenging her with. So she accused me of going on "tangents," "failure to understand the point," and my personal favorite, "This has nothing to do with the original point, which you completely missed." If she had read and understood what I had stated in my original two responses, she would have known I was on topic. Because she was unable to rebut what I said in my responses, she resorted to calling my logical responses going on "tangents," "not understanding the point," and "missing the point altogether." Really? I don't think so. I do not possess a degree in Biology like she does, but I do know what I am talking about in regards to the terms "races" and "racism." This was an opportunity for her to learn something that she had not considered before. Instead, she allowed her pride of education get in the way of facing the facts she was presented with.

 

Watching Our Words

"Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth."

(Ephesians 4: 29, NKJV)

 

In today's modern evangelical Church, there has been a popular trend that has been occurring in some parts of the Church in regards to using foul language in the pulpit as well as out of the pulpit. Only a short while ago the Church frowned upon such bad language being used in everyday conversations, let alone the pulpit where the Word of God was to be reverenced and taught to the congregation. Yet today, there are some Church leaders who don't even bat an eye or even blush at the unholy language, coarse jesting, and crude jokes that proceed out of their mouths when they preach. Now some believers may be shocked to hear that such fowl language is ever used by Christians. Such believers who have not been subject to such irreverent speech in the pulpit are very blessed. However, this is nothing new to the Church. For this was also a problem in the early Church as well. Regular Daily Bread writer Marvin Williams confirms this: 

"Unwholesome speech was a problem even in the apostle Paul's day.  He reminded the Christians at Ephesus that they should put away vulgarity, lewdness, slander, and obscene talk from their lives (Eph. 5:4; Col. 3:8). These were expressions of their old lives (1 Cor. 6: 9-11), and it was now out of place with their new identity in Christ. Instead, their lives were to be characterized by wholesome  speech. Their good or wholesome words would give grace to the hearers (Eph. 4:29). The Holy Spirit would help guard their speech, convict of any filthy talk, and help them to use words to benefit others (John 16: 7-13)."[1] 

In other words, the life under the control of the holy Spirit will produce wholesome speech that will both edify the hearers and bring glory to God; but the believer's life that is controlled by the flesh will infect the hearers and bring dishonor to the Lord. Indeed, today we need to watch our words that we say to others. In Scripture Christians are to be "the salt of the earth" (Matt. 5: 13). Which means we are to have salt in our speech. Paul’s words are fitting here: "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man" (Col. 4: 6, KJV).

---

[1] Marvin Williams, Our Daily Bread, (Radio Bible Class [RBC], Grand Rapids, MI, 2013), Wed. Jan. 23.

Does God Remember Our Sins?

"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."

(Hebrews 8: 12, NASB) 

Sometimes during conversations between Christians about God forgiving our sins, the question gets raised, "When God forgives our sins does He remember them anymore?" Such a question gets asked because sometimes we have doubts to whether our sins have really been all forgiven. We wonder, when we die and face the Lord or when He returns at His Second Coming, will He remember our sins and reject us? These are some thoughts that sometimes trouble believers. The question is, is there really any merit to such nagging questions that arise?  

This of course deserves an answer. Because if God does remember our sins, that is not very reassuring for Christians who have placed their faith in God's forgiveness for their sins. There are a few Bible verses that come to bear on this subject before us on whether God remembers our sins or not. These Scripture passages are as follows: Isaiah 43: 25; Jer. 31: 34b; Heb. 8: 12; 10: 17. Let us consider each one of these Scripture passages briefly. 

1. "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 43: 25, KJV). The Lord identifies Himself as the one who blots out our transgressions. The word "blotteth out" means "to wipe off; to blot out; be removed, to put away, etc." The phrase "for mine own sake" indicates that it is not by our own merits, but by the divine goodness and free mercy of God that He has removed our sin. However it does not end there. For the Lord then goes on to say I "will not remember thy sins." There is a threefold progression seen here: (1.) The Lord identifies Himself as the one who initiates the action against our sin; (2.) He is the one who chose to "remove, wipe off, erase" our transgressions according to his mercy and grace; (3.) then finally, He chooses not to ever remember our sins.  

2. "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer. 31: 34b, KJV). We see here in Jeremiah chapter 31, verses 27-40 the foretelling of the "New Covenant" (Heb. 9: 15) in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. This "New Covenant" includes both Jew and Gentile. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 28, KJV, see also Rom. 3: 22; 10: 12;  1 Cor. 12: 13; Eph. 2: 11-22; Col. 3: 11). Concerning Jeremiah 31: 34, Matthew Poole makes this comment: 

"Ver. 34. This must not be so interpreted as if under the gospel there should be no more need of ministerial teaching, for Christ himself sent out his apostles to preach; nor yet as if there should be no more need of brotherly teachings, by instruction or conception; the contrary is commanded, Col 3:16. It is only an expression signifying the increase of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord, that should be after the pouring out of the Spirit: we have such expressions 1Jo 2:27. The learned author of our English Annotations thinks this phrase signifies, that under the gospel there should be a greater measure of means of knowledge, and of knowledge got by that means, and of clearness of understanding in persons, or ability to conceive things revealed, and a greater number of persons that should be enlightened with the saving knowledge of God. Others say, that by knowing the Lord is to be understood the first knowledge of God; Christians should not need be taught the first rudiments: but the apostle speaks otherwise, Heb 5:12. Others by knowledge understand the fear of the Lord. God saith, they should all know him; but it must not be understood of the same degree and measure, but in a degree of sufficiency for the duties which God expected from them upon their notion and apprehension of God. God makes the root of all this grace to be the free pardon and remission of their sins."[1] 

Now as for the phrase, "and I will remember their sin no more" is a promise under the "New Covenant" that is assured to each born again believer. The text does not say "I will forget their sin," no, it says "I will remember their sin no more." To suggest that God "forgets" our sin is to entertain the idea that the Lord is imperfect like us. The fact is, He is NOT us, for He is perfect, righteous, and holy. He cannot forget. However, God does something far better. He chooses not to "remember" our sin, which is far more reassuring. 

3. "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more" (Heb. 8: 12, KJV). So what does God choose to not remember anymore? Our unrighteousness, (Gr. Adikia: not meeting God's righteous standard; falling short of God's holy standard) sins, (Gr. Hamartia: an offense committed against God; the guilt associated with having broken God's law) and iniquities, (Gr. Anomia: the transgression of God's law). Daily Bread writer, Joanie Yoder gives this insightful comment: 

"The idea that God forgets my sins isn't very reassuring to me. After all, what if He suddenly remembered? In any case, only imperfection can forget, and God is perfect. God doesn't say He'll forget our sins--He says He'll remember them no more! His promise not to remember them ever again is stronger than saying He'll forget them. Now that reassures me!"[2] 

4. "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more" (Heb. 10: 17, KJV). This verse we have here further reinforces the truth of chapter 8: 12. This further reassures us of God's promise to not remember our sin anymore. Like links in a chain, each of the four passages of Scripture is a reference that corresponds to one another (see Isa. 43: 25; Jer. 31: 34; Heb. 8: 12; 10: 17). Another writer made this statement in reference to Hebrews 10: 17: 

"We are often told to "forgive and forget." But God does not forget; He chooses not to remember. Forgetting is a lapse of memory; choosing not to remember is an act of the will. How wonderful to know that our God has chosen to completely put our sins out of His mind, to love us so dearly that He does not call them to His remembrance. Let us emulate His example."[3] 

Is this not wonderful news, that when God redeems a sinner He no longer chooses to call to His remembrance our offenses against Him. Though we had greatly sinned against Him, He no longer holds our sins against us. Yes, we deserve God's eternal punishment for our sins, but instead we are forgiven of our sins and destined for heaven. Now that's amazing grace!

---

[1] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power Bible CD 5.2).

[2] Joanie Yoder, Our Daily Bread, (Radio Bible Class [RBC], Grand Rapids, MI, 2006), Dec. 11.

[3] Author Unknown, Choice Gleanings: 2008, (Gospel Folio Press, Port Colborne, Ont., 2008), Tues. Dec. 9.

Witnessing the Good News of the Gospel!



The Great Commission that the Lord has entrusted to his Church is the Good News of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, today Christians here in North America have departed from their responsibility to not only present the gospel to the lost, but to also speak the message clearly and soundly to non-christians. In this blog I will be dealing briefly with encouragement in witnessing and when not to witness to someone. My thoughts are as follows.

Reaching our Neighbours with the Gospel

For many Christians today, witnessing can be quite discouraging. I think the root of our discouragement comes from either our lack of faith in God saving the people we witness to, or our trusting too much in our ability and powers of persuading the lost to come to Christ for salvation. (A Work in Progress... Stay tuned!)

Be Approved To God, Not Unto Men!

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

(2 Timothy 2: 15, NASB)

 

 

The importance of cultivating a close relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ should be every saint's primary focus. Unfortunately it is not. Many Christians today do not want to read God's Word, nor do they want to spend time in prayer and meditation. consider these three examples: (1.) For many, their idea of getting close to God is to listen and follow popular preachers and teachers of God's Word. The sad reality is that many of these so called popular teachers of the Bible are false teachers. (2.) Another popular way that some saints like to get close to God is through popular Christian Rock bands. But again, many such Christian bands are known to promote messages in their lyrics that contradict the message of the Scriptures. (3.) Then finally, there are popular Christian books and magazines that some Christians substitute in place of reading their Bibles and praying. I am sure I could list a number of other things that some believers use as a means of getting closer to God instead of adhering to the sound teachings of God's Word, study, meditation, and prayer. Noted author, Oswald Chambers gives this interesting assessment of such Christians who do not want to study and struggle to know the truths of God's Word.

"If you cannot express yourself well on each of your beliefs, work and study until you can. If you don't, other people may miss out on the blessings that come from knowing the truth. Strive to re-express a truth of God to yourself clearly and understandably, and God will use that same explanation when you share it with someone else. But you must be willing to go through God's winepress where the grapes are crushed. You must struggle, experiment, and rehearse your words to express God's truth clearly. Then the time will come when that very expression will become God's wine of strength to someone else. But if you are not diligent and say, "I'm not going to study and struggle to express this truth in my own words; I'll just borrow my words from someone else," then the words will be of no value to you or to others. Try to state to yourself what you believe to be the absolute truth of God, and you will be allowing God the opportunity to pass it on through you to someone else.

Always make it a practice to stir your own mind thoroughly to think through what you have easily believed. Your position is really not yours until you make it yours through suffering and study. The author or speaker from whom you learn the most is not the one who teaches you something you didn't know before, but the one who helps you take a truth with which you have quietly struggled, give it expression, and speak it clearly and boldly."[1]

As you can see from the comments by Oswald Chambers above, there is no easy way to learn the truths of God and to develop a close relationship with Christ. It takes work, struggles, and study to really know intimately the truths of God. Hence, many Christians would rather make a holy show of themselves, rather than truly showing themselves to be holy. Many would rather be "approved unto men," or "approved unto themselves," instead of seeking to be "approved unto God." (2 Tim. 2: 15). However, such standards are not of God, but of men. God's standard is always holiness. Peter writes, "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1 Peter 1: 16; Lev. 11: 44). How can such holiness be applied to our lives? By obedience to God's Word, Will, and Ways.

Perhaps one of the reasons why a lot of Christians don't want to really get close to God is because they do not want to change. They want to live unto themselves instead of unto God. They want to outwardly show they are Christians without an inward change. The fact is, such believers end up living with the guilt of not being authentic about the faith they profess to have in the Lord Jesus Christ. Another reason is spiritual laziness. Many such Christians do not want to work and study the truths of God until it becomes their own. Hence, there attitude is like what Oswald Chambers said in his comment above: "I'm not going to study and struggle to express this truth in my own words; I'll just borrow my words from someone else." So we see here that many believers are really just "spoon fed" saints who seek to live off the hard work and convictions of other Christians who have taken the time to struggle to make the truths of God their own. Sure, such Christians may believe what their favorite Christian authors teach, and such teachings may well be biblically solid. But such believers have never really made the effort to make such teachings their own convictions by study and struggle as their favorite authors have done. May God help us to take His Holy Word seriously by taking the time to study and struggle to know the truths and make them our own!

---

[1] Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest, (Discovery House Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992), Dec. 15.

Are People Really Happier Going to Church?



 

Today I read a devotional article in Turning Points Magazine by well known Christian author David Jeremiah. The article gave statistics on how Church going people are more happier than non-Church going people. The article is entitled "Seriously Cheerful." Part of the devotional is as follows: 

"According to an article in The Journal of Religion and Health, people who regularly attend church are 56 percent more likely to have an optimistic view of life and 27 percent less likely to succumb to depression. The study was based on a sample of nearly 100, 000 women and was funded, in part, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Imagine! The U.S. Government funding a study demonstrating that Church attenders are happier, more optimistic, and less depressed than people who don't go to church. We could have told them that without spending a penny. Joy is the instantaneous response of a heart that's filled with God's blessings."[1] 

The article is encouraging no doubt, perhaps Church has been a positive experience for some, but unfortunately it is not the experience for many of God's dear children who have been anything but happy going to Church. For many of God's dear ones, attending a local Church has caused them to "succumb to depression." and has robbed them of any true happiness and optimism. Now I am not saying here that God is to blame, but rather we as Christians are really the ones to blame. For a lot of Churches here in my home country of Canada are filled with believers who are middle class people with families. These Christians who are supposed to represent Christ live comfortable lives with their social clicks within the congregation, while outside the Church they are wholly taken up with work and family events. Even most ministries within the local Church are primarily geared towards families, while single people (primarily the middle age and elderly) are left out of such ministries unless they are family members. Sadly, many such Christians are left to fend for themselves, which usually results in many single middle aged saints leaving. Then there are those saints who are either on welfare or are not working for some reason or other. Instead of fellow Christians drawing along side such believers to see if they can help them; they instead look down on their fellow brethren, resulting in ignoring, belittling, or judging them in their situation without even getting to know them as people. Sometimes when a fellow brother or sister in Christ is brave enough to call such fellow believers on their demeaning and snobby behavior, they usually use such tactics as straight out denial of their behavior or they will accuse such believers as being negative and judgmental, which results in the dear brave soul being silently labelled as a trouble maker to be avoided in their midst. So usually no one ends up saying anything, which results in the bad behavior among Christians to continue on unabated in the local congregation. Hence, the Holy Spirit is grieved and the blessing of God witheld.

In my own personal experience and in talking with many unchurched people as well as former church members over the years who had left a local congregation, seem to all share in common stories of the lack of love, friendliness, and coldness they were met with in such congregations. Recently, I had one of those God moments in witnessing to a dear woman at Chapters Bookstore who was a former member of a local congregation here in town. After speaking to her for around a half hour she revealed to me the bad behavior she had experienced at the local Church she had attended. Sadly, such stories are all too common today. I know that one cannot expect Christians to be perfect. For they are sinners saved by God's grace. However, such believers are rightly expected to be different in their behavior than the non-christians in the world. Though redeemed sinners, they are expected to behave like saints!

I have even heard sad stories of such local congregations having so much strife, backbiting, arguments, and conflicts that it got so bad that some erupted into voilence that nearby neighbours had to call the police to the scene, which resulted in the doors of the building they worshipped in  being closed and locked forever. This no doubt breaks the heart of God, but do we as the people of God take this to heart? We really need to take this serious, that these are some of the reasons why people do not go to Church. For such problems in local Churches turns people off from wanting to go. So the question can be asked: "Are people really Happier going to Church?" Maybe for some, but for many "No!" For more and more Christians and non-christians who had or still attend a local congregation are disatisfied and unhappy with the present state of the Church. My own personal experience within the Evangelical Church over the past 20+ years has been anything but pleasant. It has not made me a more happier and optimistic person. Sadly, the only times I have been most happy is when I was away from the local Church and was home spending time alone with God. In the three Churches I have attended over the years, I have never found genuine Christian love and acceptance which should be evident among God's people. At present, I am happy and optimistic because God used some friends and secular sources to help me regain the happiness, confidence, and optimism that my fellow Christians had robbed from me. I thank the Lord for helping me, because God can use anything. (To see more about this, refer to my blogs: "Contending with Loveless Churches" Part 1&2: Friday and Tuesday July 27, 31, 2012).

Now having said the above, I can almost hear some Christians saying "Dear brother, you need to get your eyes off of the people and get them on the Lord Jesus Christ." This of course is true to an extent, but it just compounds the problem, instead of seeking a solution to it. What one is really saying by this quote is ignore the problem and it will eventually go away. Of course, as experience has shown me, it never does! Yes, we are to get our eyes on the Lord Jesus Christ. We can tell the Lord in prayer about the problems in the Church. Yes, the Lord may even change us personally as a result, which is wonderful. But if the local Church persists in its problems unmoved and unchanged, it still poses a problem for God's suffering saints! Ignoring the problems in the Church doesn't solve them! A local Church as the collective body of Christ needs to acknowledge the sin problems in their midst, and repent of it, and embrace the solution. Only then will such persistent problems in a local congregation be resolved, which will result in revival. God will be glorified and the saints blessed!

A local Church should be a strong tower for the righteous to run into, a safe haven for the lone and lost, and a hospital to help the wounded and hurting souls of the world. Instead, local congregations have become homes to those who rise to leadership and are hungry for power and control. Such are like "Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them,..." (3 John 9, NASB). Unfortunately, it has been a place where God's people have been oppressed, suppressed, and even persecuted, while the poor, destitute, and the wounded have been turned away. Yet, the attitude of such leaders and brethren within today's Church is "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,..." However, God's assessment of them is "...and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked" (Rev. 3: 17, NASB).  Indeed, sad is the present state of the Church! May God help us! May He send revival!

No, It is not going to Church that has made me happier; it is the personal relationship I have with my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ that has made me truly happy and joyful in life! May you, my friend, find your happiness in Him as well!

---

[1] David Jeremiah, Turning Points Magazine, (David Jeremiah Ministries, Jan., 2013), pg. 42.

The Rich Man's Request

"And he cried and said, Father Abraham have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."

(Luke 16: 24, KJV) 

 

In Luke 16: 19-31 we have the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. I find verse 24 of particular interest. How can the Rich Man in hell ask for Lazarus to dip his finger in water and cool the Rich Man's tongue, seeing the Rich Man's body in hell was spiritual in nature, while his physical body was buried on earth? Since water is a physical substance that can only satisfy and sustain a physical being, how then can such water cool and satisfy a spiritual being?

 

Is Luke 16: 19-31 a Parable?

Often this passage of Scripture on the Rich Man and Lazarus gets mistaken for a parable. Cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh day Adventist, and even some parts of the Church believe and teach that Luke 16: 19-31 is a parable. I believe the reason why such cults and some Christian groups want to believe Luke 16 is a parable, is because they want to dismiss the reality of a literal hell for those who reject Christ. Nevertheless, the question can still be raised, Is Luke 16: 19-31 a parable? A simple answer to that question is no. Here is the reason why. (1.) Luke 16: 19-31 is not a parable because it is never mentioned to be one; whereas parables are usually mentioned in the illustration given (see Matt. 13: 18, 24, 31, 33, 21: 33; 24: 32; Mark 12: 1, 12; 13: 28; Luke 5: 36); (2.) Recognizable names are  actually used in Luke 16; (3.) And finally, the Lord Jesus teaches truth, not falsehood. Former Jehovah's Witness turned Christian, Lorri MacGregor agrees:

 

"This account is not a parable, since proper names of recognizable Bible characters are used, whereas Jesus never used proper names in His parables, and generally indicated when He was teaching in a parable. Even stretching the point and allowing that Luke 16 could be a parable, it teaches a spiritual truth, and Jesus taught truth, not falsehoods."[1]

 

What Water did the Rich Man in Hell Thirst For?

So as we can see, Luke 16 is NOT a parable as many falsely claim it to be. Now that we got that out of the way. Let us now come back to the original question at the beginning of this blog. "How can the Rich Man in hell ask for Lazarus to dip his finger in water and cool the Rich Man's tongue, seeing the Rich Man's body in hell was spiritual in nature, while his physical body was buried on earth?" Physical water CANNOT nourish a spiritual being. Since the Rich Man was conscious of his present state in hell, could he have been aware that physical water would not satisfy him? Perhaps. However, the Scriptures are clear on the matter of what the natural [physical, fleshy] man desires as opposed to what the spiritual man desires (1 Cor. 2: 14; Rom. 7: 23; 8: 5-10; Gal. 5: 17). If it was a physical body, it would crave physical water; whereas a spiritual body would crave "living water." I believe the water that the Rich Man craved was living water! Hence, Lazarus' words in our text: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."  Though "living water" is not specifically mentioned in this text, it certainly is implied. An example of this "living water" that I am talking about can be seen in the discussion that the Lord Jesus had with a Samaritan woman at Jacob's well in John 4. A comparison is given in this passage of Scripture between natural water that causes us to thirst again, because it does not satisfy as opposed to the living water that Jesus offers that will satisfy completely (see John 4: 10-15; Isa. 12: 2-3).

 

So what can we learn from all that has been said? Well, since the Rich Man was in hell in his spirit form, his craving would naturally be for the "living water" that Jesus was speaking of in John 4. The Rich Man was consciously aware of his plight after realizing that Lazarus was enjoying his salvation, whereas he was in torment, and that he was in need of God's water of salvation. Being in torment he came to realize it was too late for him. How fitting are the words:

 

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mark 8: 36-37). 

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation" (Heb. 2: 3).

 

Let us be wise like Lazarus who though he was poor in earthly goods, he made preparations to be rich towards God; whereas the foolish Rich Man was wealthy in earthly goods, but made no preparations to meet God. Therefore, he died and found himself in hell. Dear friend, God loves you, so if you have not made preparation to meet God when you die. I encourage you to be wise like Lazarus and receive God's "living water" of salvation and trust the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior today, make no delay!

---

[1] Lorri MacGregor, Christadelphians & Christianity, (MM Outreach, Nelson, BC, 1998), pg. 23.

How Can A Man Find True Happiness? (Part: 2)

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

(Philippians 4: 8, KJV)

 

In my last blog entry I wrote about a quote I had recently written on my face page on Facebook. It had to do with the practice of disciplining our minds to think correct thoughts that affect our hearts and lives. Then I referred to God's Word as one of the best ways of doing that. From there I mentioned two people who objected to the quote I had written on my face page, which lead to a couple exchanges. Anyway, read my previous blog and you will see for yourself what I am talking about. Now in this blog I will be briefly looking at Philippians 4: 8 and briefly considering what we can learn from this wonderful verse from God's Word.

 

"True" -- or genuine, honest, and sincere. We should concentrate on honesty in all our dealings, for, "God is true" (John 3:33), and Christ said, "my record is true" (John 8:14). 

"Honest" -- or better, honorable toward all. Strive to "lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Timothy 2:2). 

"Just" -- or equitable. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal" (Colossians 4:1). 

"Pure" -- without spot or stain. "Neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure" (1 Timothy 5:22). 

"Lovely" -- literally, "towards love," i.e., those things which demonstrate love or a response of love. This word only appears here in the New Testament. 

"Of good report" -- that which elicits praise. 

"Virtue" -- a standard of righteousness. He "hath called us to glory and virtue" (2 Peter 1:3). 

"Praise" -- our speech should be to "the praise of them that do well" (1 Peter 2:14).[1]

 

As we can see from Dr. Morris' exhortation above, we need to get our thought life under control. We need to learn that we "have been bought with a price...[we] are not your own" (1 Cor. 6: 20, 19). This means our thoughts are not our own. We are answerable to someone and that Someone is God! So if we are truly Christians, that means we do not live unto ourselves, but rather we are to live unto the Lord our God. Hence, the command is issued at the end of the verse in this verb tense "think on these things" which means we are to cultivate a daily habit and make meditating on whatever is honoring to God in our thought life a way of life. May the Lord help us do that daily.

---

[1] John D. Morris, Days of Praise, (ICR, Saturday Nov. 3, 2012).

How Can A Man Find True Happiness?

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true ,whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”

(Philippians 4: 8, NASB)

Over the past year or two I have made it a practice to write inspiring quotes to post on my facepage to encourage those who visit my page on facebook. To me, it is a simple way to minister to people and to bring glory to my great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Sometimes people will hit the "like" button or write a comment. However, every once in awhile I will get a comment that disagrees with my quote I posted. I enjoy such criticisms, for there is always something that can be learned from the response. Of recently, two people responded to a recent quote I had posted. Before I mention their responses; here is the "quote" I had posted:

"Many people think happiness is dependent on the state of our mind. Just feed our mind with enough positive thoughts and we will be happy. So we are told by positive thinkers. However, what they don't take into account is that it takes discipline to train your mind to think good thoughts, and if such positive thoughts never reach and reside in the heart and become a way of life for us, then they remain trapped in the bubbles in our minds, which eventually floats away and pops into oblivion. In other words, good thoughts are useless if they remain in our minds, but if such thoughts reach deep down into our hearts and take root and bear fruit, then happiness and joy will be a way of life for us; because we allowed positive thoughts to affect the state of our heart. The best way to do this is to meditate on God's Word (see Phil. 4: 8-9; Psalm 119: 11; Prov. 23: 7; 1 Pet. 2: 12)."

One fellow gave this brief comment, "Not convinced thinking helps at all." In which I responded, "Not convinced, then what would you suggest then? For usually the way we think leads to an action..." He never responded back, but deleted his response a few moments later. Now the second gentleman wrote twice in a brief, but friendly exchange we had in regards to my quote. His response is as follows:

"I've never considered any god's words, but I'm happy all the time simply because I recognized that I COULD be, and that my happiness was purely within my control, utterly and always."

I responded to his comment as follows:

"That's true, [my friend], for I know alot of people who are happy apart from meditating on God's Word. For people can discipline themselves to think good and positive thoughts by simply approaching life with the right attitude. However, "Happiness" is something we have to continually work at; for happiness is always in a state of flux because it is dependent on "happenings." Whereas the joy that one derives from the Word of God is not dependent on shifting circumstances, but relies on the "peace" that only God's promises from his Word can give."

 

Then he followed up with this last response:

"Actually, you're entirely mistaken, Jerry - Happiness is ENTIRELY internally generated, and completely independent of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. If it helps you to meditate/pray on "Gods Word", then by all means, go with it! :)

Just try to appreciate that it is NOT a requirement for anyone else's happiness, and it can/will ONLY provide happiness to those who FIRSTLY believe it will, like any placebo."

The exchange ended there with my next response to what he said:

"[My friend], I appreciate where you are coming from. Really I do. I never force what I believe or have convictions about on others. The reason I write such quotes above is to encourage others in ways - like the example above - to have a more positive mindset. For right thinking leads to right living. Nevertheless, I do find this part of your comment interesting: "Happiness is ENTIRELY internally generated, and completely independent of the circumstances in which we find ourselves." If what you mean by "internally generated" refers to "right thinking being produced entirely from oneself." Then to a point you are correct. However, in order for right or positive thinking to be "ENTIRELY internally generated" as you quoted, there has to be a source. So where do you draw "your source" from...?"

He never responded back to my comment above. I believe it was the question at the end of my comment that no doubt stopped him in his tracks. For he well knew the only response he could give was that he originally drew his "happiness" from a "source" outside himself. Which of course would have contradicted what he had said in his previous response: "Happiness is ENTIRELY internally generated, and completely independent of the circumstances in which we find ourselves." This of course, is hard to believe, because everyone who has any life experience in the real world knows they are not happy all the time. Hard "circumstances" do come into our lives that seems to drain us of any joy or happiness we may have had. For example, a death of a loved one, losing a job we really depended on, a spouse who we deeply cared about leaves us for someone else, etc. I am sure my readers get the point. We all would love to be happy all the time, but when the reality of life kicks in, for most of us, we know we cannot be happy all the time. Now I am not saying we need to stay in a depressed state when tragedy strikes us. Not at all. Like a boxer who takes a blow from his opponent in the ring. He doesn't just give up, he fights a good fight until one of them wins. Paul's words are helpful here, "Fight the good fight of faith..." (1 Tim. 6: 12). So we are to do the same in life. Like I said earlier, we cannot be happy all the time, but we certainly can strive to be MORE joyful than we were before! Dear reader, let us work towards that end, to be a more happier person.

If we have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, then we have all the reason in the world to be a more joyful person! "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8: 28). In closing, here is my last response to the second guy's comments to me:

"[My friend], now as for referring to God's Word as some "placebo." To begin with, for those who may read this, a "placebo" is "an inert medication used for its psychological effect or for purposes of comparison in an experiment" (Merriam-Webster). No, God's Word cannot be reduced to some quick fix to medicate our mind with some pleasant and positive thoughts, nor is it some sort of psychological drug that we experimentally prescribe to others to help them think good thoughts. If it helps, good, but if it doesn't then let's try something else. That option is not left for us to decide how we want to judge and dismiss God's Word as some cheap placebo. However, God's Word has been written by holy men of God as they were directed by the Holy Spirit (see 2 Peter 1: 20-21). One of the main reasons why a lot of people do not want to read the Bible is because they do not like what it says about their sin. So they reject it without ever considering the "solution" that it has about our sin problem and God's love and provision. I well know what I am saying is NOT POPULAR in today's culture, but is frowned upon. For such people do not like the fact that God's Word points out their sin and judges it to be wrong. People today find this offensive. But we must remember (which draws us back to the topic at hand), our sinful actions can always be traced back to its root, which is our thought life. "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" (Proverbs 23: 7). Having said all this, it is your CHOICE whether you accept or reject the Word of God. But know this, there are consequences to the choice we make in regards to the message of God's Word. You are probably NOT going to respond to this message, Johnny, Lol. That's okay by me, I understand. I do appreciate your comments and I sincerely do wish you all the best my friend."

So What's Really Up With Romans 7? (Part Three)

By Stephen Altrogge

I know, I know, I’ve been on this Romans 7 soapbox for a couple posts now. I’ve been ranting and raving, saying that Romans 7:7-25 is not about Christians at all. I promise I’ll get down after this post and the tendons in my neck will go back to normal levels, non-fanatical levels. But there’s one question that seems to linger in the air when I talk about Romans 7:7-25:

Why do so many people think the passage is about Christians?

I mean, come on, I’m disagreeing with John Piper, J.C. Ryle, John Owen, and a lot of other dangerously smart, godly guys. Yes I am. I humbly and respectfully think that they’re wrong. But I can understand why they, and so many others, think that Romans 7:7-25 is about the Christian.

First, in some ways, the passage seems to describe what we experience as Christians. When Paul describes, in the present tense (“didn’t Stephen’s mom ever teach him about grammar?”), the internal battle of wanting to obey God, yet finding himself disobeying, we can relate to that. The battle against sin is hard and feels like a struggle! Fighting against sin can be exhausting! We do fail and stumble. We all can relate at some level to the struggle that Paul is describing.

But does Paul speaking in the present tense mean that he is describing the Christian experience? I don’t think so. Gordon Fee helpfully says:

What Paul describes throughout is what it was like to live under the law; and whatever else is true of the Christian Paul, he did not consider himself to be under the law. What he describes from his now Christian perspective, is what it was like to live under law before Christ and the Spirit. The use of “I” and the present tense of the verbs only heighten the intensity of his feelings toward the utter helplessness of the law to do anything about the real problem of sin. (Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, pg. 134)

The second reason so many people think this passage is about Christians is that we in the Reformed circles tend to lean pretty heavily on the Puritans, and nobody was more introspective about sin than the Puritans. I mean, seriously, they named their kids things like “Killing Sin” and “Fighting the Devil”.

John Owen, who was basically the Captain America of the Puritans, wrote some incredibly helpful things about the fight against sin. He believed that Romans 7:7-25 described the Christian experience and a portion of his writings flowed out of that perspective. His writings have shaped the way we Reformed folks think about the doctrine of indwelling sin.

Now, it’s quite possible that I could be wrong in my interpretation of Romans 7:7-25. After all, lots of ninja smart guys disagree with me. But I do think it’s important to sort through this question. If we interpret the passage as describing the Christian then it makes failure in our battle against sin much more acceptable. After all, if Paul felt this way, then surely I will too. But if it is describing a person without the Holy Spirit, it gives me much more faith that the Spirit will empower me in my battle against sin. As Paul says, I will be delivered from this body of death.

Okay, now I’ll step down.

Romans 7 Is Not About Christians! (Part Two)

By Stephen Altrogge

Yesterday I had the chutzpah (I love that word) to claim that Romans 7:7-25 was not about Christians. I ruffled a few feathers and bloodied a few theological noses, but overall everyone, including those who disagreed with me, was gracious and kind. Today I’ll give you a second reason why I think Romans 7:7-25 isn’t about Christians. As usual, please keep the comments civil, don’t make any references to Hitler, and please don’t use the words “logical fallacy”. Thank you.

The second reason I believe that Romans 7:7-25 is not about Christians is the content of chapters 6 and 8. If Romans 7 is about the Christian, then Paul must have had a serious mental meltdown (I wanted to say “brain fart”, but come on, that’s immature) while he was writing the chapter.

In Romans 6 Paul is celebrating the fact that we have died with Christ and been set free from the power of sin. In verse 14 he says these incredibly encouraging words:

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Sin will have no dominion over me! Why? Because I’m not under the law any more. I’ve died to the law of Moses. The law of Moses did not give me power to obey God’s commands, it only informed me of God’s commands. But I’m not under the law any more, I’m under grace, and God’s grace is pulsing with power. God’s grace at work within me ensures that sin will have no dominion over me.

Then, in Romans 7:6, Paul says:

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

I am released from the law and I now serve in the new way of the Holy Spirit. The old written code (The Law of Moses) could not empower obedience, but the Holy Spirit does empower obedience. I’m released from the old code and I serve in the new way of the Spirit. Yes Paul, yes, I’m with you. I’m free, just like you!

Then the strangeness begins. In verse 7 Paul begins writing as one who IS under the law. He comes face to face with the Mosaic command “You shall not covet” and he suddenly finds himself unable to stop coveting. It’s like coveting takes over his life! He has the desire to do what’s right but he can’t carry it out (vs. 19). The commandment which was good actually ended up killing him (vs. 10)

In verse 25 he says:

So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

In other words, he desires to obey the law of God in his mind, but is simply unable to do it. He does not have the power to do what the law commands. He is “captive to the law of sin [note that phrase] that dwells in his members”. That sounds like the experience of a religious Jewish man seeking to obey God’s law, yet unable to do what he desires.

Then, in Romans 8:2-3, Paul says these wonderful words:

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin [have you seen this phrase before?] and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.

Wonderful, sweet, life-giving words! The law of the Spirit of life has set us from the law of sin that Paul mentioned in Romans 7. The law of sin, which captivated us, has been overpowered by the law of the Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit God has done what the law could not do: given us both the desire and the power to obey. We don’t serve the law of sin anymore, we serve with new life in the Spirit.

So why does Paul write Romans 7 in the present tense? Stay tuned…same Bat time, same Bat channel.

Romans 7 Is Not About Christians! (Part One)

By Stephen Altrogge

I used to think that Romans 7:7-25 was describing the Christian experience of the battle against sin. I don’t think that anymore. In fact, I don’t the passage is talking about Christians at all, and in the next several posts I hope to show you why.

But before I rush headlong into this thorn bush of a passage, let me issue a few disclaimers. First, lots of Christians, including some ultra-smart (like, able to bend spoons with their mind kind of smart) believe that this is talking about Christians. So I’m in the minority here. Second, these posts are not going to be a place for theological cage fighting. I would love to hear your perspective and be sharpened by your thoughts, but there won’t be any comment bashing on this blog. If your comment stinks, I’ll probably delete it.

And, I realize that there are a lot of questions that this post and future posts will raise. I’ll try to answer them as they come up, but I can’t promise that I can answer every question.

Let me tell you right up front who I think Romans 7 is talking about (that’s a terribly constructed sentence, but it’s 9AM and the coffee hasn’t kicked in yet). Romans 7:7-25 was written to describe the experience of a pious Jew, possibly Paul himself before conversion, who is seeking to obey the law, yet finds himself unable to obey apart from Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is not written about a Christian trying to follow Jesus and constantly failing.

NO HOLY SPIRIT!

The first and primary reason I believe that this is not about Christians is the complete lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit in these verses. In Romans 7:6 Paul says:

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

This pretty much sums up Paul’s thinking on pursuing holiness as a Christian. We serve in the new way of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in us, empowering us to overcome and to conquer sin. We are no longer slaves, we are sons. Under the law we were powerless to obey God and his commands, but under the new covenant we have the law written on our hearts.

In Galatians 5:16, Paul says:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

There is such certainty in this verse! If we walk by the Spirit we absolutely will not gratify the desires of the flesh. We won’t be dominated by our desires, we will have victory over them by the power of the Spirit.

But in Romans 7:18-19, Paul says:

For I know that nothing good dwells 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. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

That statement simply does not line up with everything else Paul says about living the Christian life. As a Christian, he does have the ability to carry out the desire to what’s right. As a Christian, he does not have to keep doing the evil he does not want to do. He is a new creation in Christ, with the law written on his heart.

As Gordon Fee says regarding Romans 7:7-25:

The person here described never wins. Being under the helpless law, in the face of the more powerful flesh and sin, means being sold as a slave under sin, and thus incapable of doing the good thing the law demands. Such a description is absolutely incompatible with Paul’s view of life in Christ, empowered by the Spirit. (Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, pg. 134)

Paul is not describing his life as a Christian. He’s describing what it was like to be a Jew who genuinely sought to obey the law of God, yet felt himself to be powerless apart from the Spirit.

The hard thing about this passage is that it describes many of our experience in the battle against sin. What are we to make of that? More on that later.