WHY WE DO WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO DO?

THE STRUGGLE TO ADMIT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE WAR WITHIN

Charles e Whisnant         October 09 2011

Romans 7:14-25               #45.91

THE STRUGGLE TO LIVE UP TO WHAT YOU KNOW YOU OUGHT TO BE 15-17

“FOR THAT WHICH I DO I ALLOW¹⁰⁹⁷  NOT;³⁷⁵⁶ FOR WHAT I WOULD, THAT DO I NOT; BUT WHAT I HATE,³⁴⁰⁴ THAT I DO” VS. 15.

THAT WHICH I DO, I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHY I AM DOING IT>”  

·       Paul is saying “I do not understand why I am doing it.  And I do not approve of what I am doing, that is not my understanding of these matters, so that when I do these things I do not understand myself, as it were.  I am doing something which is the opposite of the view I hold.

·       Paul is saying, he is not only simply disapproves of what he does, but he hates it, .

·       Romans 12:9;  Psalms  97:10; 101;3; Proverbs 8:13

We see some “BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOG” here.  Let’s do come Biblical counseling here.

SO WHO IS THIS PERSON IN VERSE 15 TO 25?

IF THEN I DO THAT WHICH I WOULD NOT I CONSENT⁴⁸⁵² UNTO THE LAW THAT IT IS GOOD vs 16  or    

BUT IF I (continually) DO THE VERY THING I DO NOT (continually) WISH TO DO I AGREE WITH THE LAW, CONFESSING THAT IT IS GOOD:

Paul is not talking about his experience as much as he is talking about the Law.   He wants to say that the Law itself is in no way responsible for his failure in practice.   The Law is right and good, and whatever is responsible for Paul’s failure in practice, it is not the Law.

NOW THEN IT IS NO MORE I THAT DO IT vs 17        

Now in verse 17 Paul present another “I”.  The first “I” in verse 16 is a part of the personality of this man who he is describing.   This “I” in vs. 17 is the new inner self,.

This “I”

Paul is saying “There is that in me now” that sees and agrees with the spiritual character of the Law, and therefore dislikes and disapproves the things I Do.

BUT SIN THAT DWELLETH ³⁶¹¹ IN ME vs. 17    

Two things about SIN. First: Sin is something that dwells in us.  Sin is something on the inside of us. Sin is not something that comes to us from the outside and tempts us.   But in reality  we learn that SIN is in our very nature, flesh.  Sin is that which dwells in us

THE STRUGGLE TO COME TO GRIPS WITH REPEATED PERSONAL FAILURE:

MY FLESH RULES  (18-20)

FOR I KNOW THAT IN ME (THAT IS, IN MY FLESH) DWELLETH NO³⁷⁵⁶ GOOD ¹⁸ THINGS: FOR THE GOOD THAT I WOULD I DO NOT; BUT THE EVIL WHICH I WOULD NOT THAT I DO.  NOW IF I DO THAT I WOULD NOT: IT IS NO MORE I THAT DO IT; BUT SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME: 

Paul had just stated that he had a will to do right.  The predicament that he was descdribing could be that of a Jewish legalist trying to become holy by doing works of self-righteousness. It can also be that of any Christian who is trying by his own will power to be holy. The clue to the problem is in the emphasis on “I”.  The flesh thrives on what “I” can do and on what “I” do not do. No believer has to settle for fleshly efforts, bringing the wretched state of doing what he does not want to do. His deliverance is as near as Calvary. 

Paul has discovered something about himself. This is a little complicated:. Here I am, a personality, an body, a being, Okay, I can talk about the “me” and the “me” that are in me. I know complicated. There is a part of “me” that I can say  I can find no good. I am certainly aware that within me there is a part of me that is no good. But at the same time I am certainly aware of another “me” that desires to good, and wills to do good and wants to live right, and godly toward Jesus Christ.“I” Charles e Whisnant, is able to stand here as a person, and see within me there are two other me. And herein in my predicament, to will is present with me, but how to perform I know not.. Let me ask you today, Do you know what Paul was saying?  If you don’t you have not been saved yet.

THE STRUGGLE TO ADMIT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE WAR WITHIN 21-24

FOR I KNOW THAT IN ME (THAT IS, IN MY FLESH) DWELLETH NO³⁷⁵⁶ GOOD ¹⁸ THINGS: FOR THE GOOD THAT I WOULD I DO NOT; BUT THE EVIL WHICH I WOULD NOT THAT I DO.  NOW IF I DO THAT I WOULD NOT: IT IS NO MORE I THAT DO IT; BUT SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME:

Paul had just stated that he had a will to do right.  The predicament that he was descdribing could be that of a Jewish legalist trying to become holy by doing works of self-righteousness. It can also be that of any Christian who is trying by his own will power to be holy. The clue to the problem is in the emphasis on “I”.  The flesh thrives on what “I” can do and on what “I” do not do. No believer has to settle for fleshly efforts, bringing the wretched state of doing what he does not want to do. His deliverance is as near as Calvary. 

Paul has discovered something about himself. This is a little complicated:. Here I am, a personality, an body, a being, Okay, I can talk about the “me” and the “me” that are in me. I know complicated. There is a part of “me” that I can say  I can find no good. I am certainly aware that within me there is a part of me that is no good. But at the same time I am certainly aware of another “me” that desires to good, and wills to do good and wants to live right, and godly toward Jesus Christ.“I” Charles e Whisnant, is able to stand here as a person, and see within me there are two other me. And herein in my predicament, to will is present with me, but how to perform I know not.. Let me ask you today, Do you know what Paul was saying?  If you don’t you have not been saved yet.

THE STRUGGLE TO ADMIT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE WAR WITHIN 21-24

PRAYER

A Week with Eric and Leslie's Daughter

Romans 7:14 r to 23 Who Is This Man?

In Romans 7:14-25 WHO IS PAUL SPEAKING OF IN THESE VERSES

Why We Do What We Don’t Want to Do

Charles e Whisnant      October 02 2011        #45.90

                    
 

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE IS A BATTLE OR IS IT?

One of the biggest disagreements over this text is who this man is. Whose experience is Paul describing? Is this the experience of Paul, the believer? Or is this the experience of Paul, the unbeliever? Christian or non-Christian? Or should we pose the question with more precision: Is this a morally awakened but unconverted Paul? Or is this the spiritually quickened converted Paul who is new and immature in the faith? Or could this be the mature Christian Paul, but in times of lapsed faith and vigilance? I don't think I will tell you today what I think the answer is. I would like you to be thinking and studying this passage for yourselves without being sure what I think.

Do you ever wonder why, when your children do something wrong or fail to do what you told them and you ask them “Why did you do that?” they respond with, “I don’t know” and your response is “What do you mean you don’t know. How could you not know?” 

Here is what we will do with Romans 7:14-23 We will start like we usually do with a passage. We will adopt the inductive method and work up to a conclusion 

.

Vs. 14 Paul makes a opening general statement  about the  position and condition of the man described.  

“WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL: BUT I AM CARNAL, SOLD UNDER SIN.”

Vs. 15 describes that position and condition as shown in practice and in daily life.

‘FOR THAT WHICH I DO I ALLOW NOT; FOR WHAT I WOULD, THAT DO I NOT; BUT WHAT I  HATE , THAT DO IT.”

V s.

16-17 contain two inferences or deductions that can be drawn about this man and his conduct. The first:”IF THEN I DO THAT WHICH I WOULD NOT, I CONSENT UNTO THE LAW THAT IT IS GOOD.” That would be a reasonable assumption.

But there is a second deduction:

‘NOW THEN IT IS NO MORE I THAT DO IT, BUT SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME,.”

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

Vs. 16-17 contain two inferences or deductions that can be drawn about this man and his conduct. 

The first:”IF THEN I DO THAT WHICH I WOULD NOT, I CONSENT UNTO THE LAW THAT IT IS GOOD.” That would be a reasonable assumption. 

But there is a second deduction: ‘NOW THEN IT IS NO MORE I THAT DO IT, BUT SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME,.”

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

“FOR WE KNOW ¹⁴⁹² THAT THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL:⁴¹⁵²  

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Law is spiritual. The Law is not fleshly. Paul had just explained that the Law is holy and righteous and good.  These facts are not question.   The Law is divine, from God. The Law is a reflection of the character of God, which is holy, righteous, and good.

Paul is using a personalizing to express this position of the Law of God. Once a person has come to know Christ he knows that the Law is spiritual. The Law has come from God and there fore spiritual.

BUT I AM CARNAL,^{4559 SARKIKOS}

 

Paul puts it out there at the very beginning. I am carnal. 

Paul is saying “I am continually carnal.  He is not talking of his past unsaved stated but his present state. He is talking about his physical flesh.   The word means    fleshly, carnal

“But I” who is this?  He is someone who is “carnal.”   Who is someone who is “carnal?

·       Would it be a portrayal of a Christian person who has matured as much as it is possible for a Christian to mature and to develop while he is alive on this world?

 SOLD UNDER SIN.”

·       “I am under sin.” What does that mean? (next week or not)

     

Mickey Mantle Interview by Bob Costas

Mickey Mantle on Letterman, 6/23/87

Roger Maris 1961 - 61st Home Run as Called by Red Barber, WPIX-TV, 10/1/...

Note the suits, shirts, and ties on the fans. Something I say.

Fifty Years Ago

1:46 pm. October 1, 2011.

One of the greatest feats in baseball history was accomplished at 1:46 pm on October 1, 1961, as Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s single season record. That’s when Maris walloped his 61st home run at Yankee Stadium in the year’s final regular game. A dramatic race for the record had taken place throughout the season between Maris and teammate Mickey Mantle, who ended the season with 54.
The season did not start well for Maris. He hit .204 in April, with 4 RBI’s and only 1 home run. By that time, Mantle already had 7. A month into the season, on May 16, Mantle was batting .309 with 10 homers and 26 RBI’s, while Maris continued to struggle, hitting a full hundred points lower with only 3 round-trippers.
But at that point, Roger Maris found his timing. He hit 4 home runs in the next 4 games and by the end of May had 12. Then in June, the Yankee star hit 15 homers in less than 3 weeks. In the same month, the team’s ace pitcher Whitey Ford went 8-0, and the team was well on its way to the pennant. Maris found himself ahead of Babe Ruth’s record pace, and 5 in front of his teammate Mantle.

As the “M & M boys” began knocking the ball out of the park with regularity, an increasing number of writers began gathering around their lockers after games. Maris was not comfortable around the press and was portrayed more and more as an arrogant whiner. It did not help him that Mantle was a media darling who would hold court with the press and tell hilarious stories as he recounted his exploits.

In early July, Mickey Mantle caught up with his fellow slugger and thus began a back-and-forth race between them that linked them together in a shared experience that few others could understand. By the All Star game, Maris had surged ahead again, by 4 homers. He was 12 games ahead of Ruth’s pace, while Mantle was just 1 game behind it.

On July 17, both men hit home runs in Baltimore against the Orioles, but they were nullified when the game was rained out before it became official. On that very day, baseball commissioner Ford Frick, self-appointed guardian of Babe Ruth’s record, announced that if Ruth’s record was broken after 154 games (the number of games in a season when Ruth hit 60), then a “distinctive mark” would be placed in the record book to note that 60 home runs was still the true record. Roger Maris was getting accustomed to a lack of respect.


Roger Maris fell into a slump while Mantle got red-hot. He hit 7 home runs in 7 games while his teammate struggled. But then, in a remarkable doubleheader on July 25 against the Chicago White Sox in Yankee Stadium, Maris slugged homers #37, 38, 39, and 40, knocking in 8 runs. It put the outfielder 24 games ahead of Ruth’s pace! He was 1 four-bagger ahead of Mantle. More importantly for the team, they had surged into first place, ahead of Detroit. The Yankees had won 20 of 29 in July.

Maris suffered through another slump from July 26 to August 10 while Mantle advanced past him. In a weekend series in Washington, baseballs flew off both their bats with power that awed even their teammates. They both left the capitol with 45 home runs. In his own book, Roger Maris wrote,

The pressure was beginning to hit both Mickey and me. It became difficult for either of us to deny that the record was on our minds. …The fans talked about it, the papers were full of it. Now we not only had the New York writers who travel with the club, but magazine writers began to come aroud while the out-of-town writers were constant visitors. From here on it became quite a struggle.

Before August ended, he had reached 50. On August 15, Maris homered in his fifth straight game and Mantle would not pass him again. By September 9, he had 56, which tied the record number Hack Wilson had hit in the National League in 1930. #57 and #58 came against the Tigers after a week-long drought. Three days later, in Baltimore, he hit #59 off of Milt Pappas, and six days after that, when the Orioles visited Yankee Stadium, Roger Maris tied Babe Ruth’s record by hitting home run #60.

He had not done it in 154 games like Ruth did, but it actually took Roger Maris three fewer plate appearances to hit his 60 homers. Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in 687 appearances, while Maris did it in 684.

By the end of September, all the games had been played but one.

On Sunday, October 1, with two outs in the fourth inning, at 1:46 pm Boston Red Sox pitcher Tracy Stallard grooved a 2-0 fastball that never reached the catcher’s mitt. As soon as he connected, Roger Maris knew it was #61. Then he jogged around the bases without celebration as was his custom. Watching the video, one who has seen what sports has become is amazed at how low key the moment was. The stands were not even full that day.

After the game, Roger and his wife Pat joined a few friends for dinner. Across the street from the restaurant a Catholic church was holding Sunday evening mass. While their friends waited at the table, the Marises went to the service. However, they left when the priest recognized the ballplayer and began talking about his home run.

After a relaxed celebratory dinner, they visited Mickey Mantle and another teammate who were in the hospital. Mantle laughed when he saw Maris. “I hate your guts!” he kidded.
What a year. What a player. What a feat.
Popout

Source: Roger Maris: Baseball’s Reluctant Hero, by Tom Clavin and Danny Peary