From: Ronald Wong (
Date: Sun Feb 23 1997 - 17:40:27 EST

Jonathan Robie wrote:
> At 03:19 PM 2/23/97 -0500, Ronald Wong wrote:
> >Though I see where you're going...I don't think that Paul is looking
> >"from without," separating himself from "hH OIKOUSA EN EMOI hAMARTIA"
> >and "TON ESW ANQRWPON." Though both are seemingly persons within him.
> >We see that the phrases deal with two natures:
> > 1. what _I_ desire (QELW)
> > 2. What _I_ do (POIEW)
> To me, Paul is clearly separating himself from hH OIKOUSA EN EMOU hAMARTIA
> when he says:
> Roma 7:17 (GNT) nuni de ouketi egw katergazomai auto alla h oikousa en emoi
> amartia.
> This sin lives in Paul, but Paul does not identify with it. It isn't his
> true self. I don't know how else this passage could be read (though I'm open
> to other possiblities).

> hO ESW ANQRWPOS, however, could be interpreted in at least two ways.
> 1. Many medieval mystics believed in a faculty they called "the spark of the
> soul" which is designed to let us see God. I use the term faculty the way it
> is used in modern cognitive psychology: the visual faculty includes not only
> the eyes, but a whole network of nerves and regions of the brain which
> automatically process visual cues. A faculty "has a life of its own" - you
> don't go through a conscious process when you recognize your grandmother,
> this happens automatically. hO ESW ANQRWPOS might mean a similar faculty
> which is designed to recognize God; we can pay attention to this faculty or
> ignore it, but it is there.
> 2. Carl says that Bultmann saw hO ESW ANQRWPOS as something which I
> interpret as quite similar to the ego in clinical psychology, "the knowing,
> deciding, determining subjective part of selfhood which one might well call
> the "I" in distinction from the SWMA which is the external self or objective
> self--the "me" of selfhood which one's "I" may contemplate (and discern
> going its own way contrary to the will of the PNEUMA)".
> >I would say...let me say guess instead...that Paul knows what he desires
> >to do...but what he actually does isn't that!
> Certainly.

How does the tension work in Paul then? He sees it objectively and
continues to live both lives? :)
If Paul doesn't identify with the then v 21? :)
If the both nature within his self are not identified, why the struggle,
if there is a struggle? :)

"What is voluntary? do we have many wills within us? can we want many
things at the same time? to what extent can we make our actions subject
to the will of God's spirit within us?"

--We can want for many things at the same time...this isn't a sign of
MPD but maybe a sign of a lack of maturity.
--I think repentance is the ultimate extent we can make our actions
subject to the will of God's spirit within us.

So what must be decided then is not based on the text but rather in the
other exegetical questions, right?
being an amateur in greek doesn't help me at all here. :)

more ramblings....

Ronald Wong
O'Brien, FL.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:07 EDT