» Site Navigation | | | » Online Users: 130 | | 25 members and 105 guests | | austinww, carlgobelman, Chippy, christabella_warren, gene_mingo, Hamalas, jollymommy4, JTB, Mayflower, Michael Turner, refbaptdude, Reformed Thomist, Rich Koster, Richard Tallach, Romans922, smhbbag, Southern Presbyterian, Titus35, toddpedlar, Wanderer | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | 
02-18-2009, 07:55 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,187
Thanks: 700
Thanked 818 Times in 448 Posts
| |
This has been discussed before: Who is the Man in Romans 7:14-25?
Among theologians who have held to Post-Conversion Paul:
John Calvin, J. Fraser, F.A. Philippi, C. Hodge, J. Murray, C.E.B. Cranfield, John MacArthur
Some Pre-Conversion adherents include:
John Wesley, J.A. Bengel, H.A.W. Meyer, F. Godet, W. Sanday, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., Anthony Hoekema, Martin Lloyd Jones, Herman Ridderbos.
This information comes from Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology. Reymond defends the Pre-Conversion perspective.
__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA
| 
02-18-2009, 08:07 AM
|  | The MacDaddy | | Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,394
Thanks: 2,680
Thanked 2,830 Times in 1,466 Posts
| | Puritan Fellowship: Charles Leiter
Yes, I am wrestling through these issues.
| 
02-18-2009, 08:12 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,187
Thanks: 700
Thanked 818 Times in 448 Posts
| |
I assumed you were not merely "stirring the pot." So, I gave you some previous discussion to chew on (in the interim) and answered your question about Reymond.
Last edited by Jimmy the Greek; 02-18-2009 at 08:32 AM.
| 
02-18-2009, 12:07 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 990
Thanks: 48
Thanked 282 Times in 204 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomarus This has been discussed before: Who is the Man in Romans 7:14-25?
Among theologians who have held to Post-Conversion Paul:
John Calvin, J. Fraser, F.A. Philippi, C. Hodge, J. Murray, C.E.B. Cranfield, John MacArthur
Some Pre-Conversion adherents include:
John Wesley, J.A. Bengel, H.A.W. Meyer, F. Godet, W. Sanday, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., Anthony Hoekema, Martin Lloyd Jones, Herman Ridderbos.
This information comes from Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology. Reymond defends the Pre-Conversion perspective. | I don't think Reymond places Lloyd-Jones stance entirely correctly. For MLJ the man of Rom 7 is a special type of preconversion perspective that of a man under conviction.
__________________
In Christ's love and service
Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the son to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -
| | The Following User Says Thank You to timmopussycat For This Useful Post: | | 
02-18-2009, 11:09 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 1,295
Thanks: 371
Thanked 701 Times in 342 Posts
| |
The problems with pre-conversion is that the passage is written by Paul, and is present tense. Those that state it is pre-conversion have to argue that either Paul is speaking in the first person when he does not mean first person, or that he is speaking in historical present. The problem with historical present is that it is not a narrative (it isn't a sequence of events) to which the historical present would apply.
The problem with it being post-conversion Paul is that the passage speaks of him being in bondage to sin (presently). That would tend to go against other passages that clearly state we are no longer a slave to sin.
I will only state that I tend to post-conversion in that I see there is a remnant of corruption throughout the whole man. Quote:
WCF Chapter 13
2. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
| While we are truly sanctified, there is yet a war waging continually between the flesh and the Spirit within true believers.
If one holds to the Westminster standards, there is no real problem with this being a post-conversion Paul ... we see it as "now, but not yet" juxtaposition of what we are in this age and what we will be in the age to come.
__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia
You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.
| 
02-18-2009, 11:41 PM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 7,361
Thanks: 1,495
Thanked 932 Times in 643 Posts
| | |
As you know Pergy at times in the past we have run in the same circles. I have met Bro. Leiter at least as many times as I have met Holmes Moore but have not discussed this issue with him. I have discussed with others in the past and have not been persuaded that the man in Rom. 7 is a lost man.
I haven't read Leiter's book.
| 
02-19-2009, 04:23 AM
|  | The MacDaddy | | Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,394
Thanks: 2,680
Thanked 2,830 Times in 1,466 Posts
| | |
It would be a lot easier for me to be persuaded that the Romans 7 man was not yet converted because I want to translate Lieter's book.
But if I vote post-conversion then I either translate a book that I would conclude reaches the wrong conclusion or else I don't translate an otherwise fine book (or I would need to exclude that chapter from the translated text - something that might give needless offense).
Yes, Paul is speaking present tense so I always assumed the post-conversion stance. But the bondage to sin statement is troubling to me.
| 
02-19-2009, 07:32 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 1,425
Thanks: 556
Thanked 317 Times in 205 Posts
| |
John Piper answered that particiular question thusly: Quote:
7. Sin as a Slave Master
Argument #7 is an attempt to answer the strongest argument against the view that I am defending. I think the strongest argument that Paul is not describing Christian experience here would be the wording of Romans 7:14b, where Paul says, "I am of flesh [or, I am carnal, or fleshly], sold into bondage to sin [literally: sold under sin]." Would Paul really say of a Christian, "I am sold under sin"? The imagery of being "sold" is the imagery of slavery. A slave master seems to have bought him and he is sold. The slave master is sin. Can a Christian ever say, "I am sold under the slave master of sin"?
I admit this is a very good argument. If it weren't for all the other counter-arguments I would be persuaded by it. For example, at least six times in Romans 6 Christians are spoken of as freed from the slave master of sin (verses 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22). Verse 18: "Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."
It is not impossible that Paul could speak of a Christian as temporarily "sold under sin." Paul doesn't have to be saying that the person who sins moves from being a Christian to being a non-Christian. He may only be saying that in the moment of failure, sin got the upper hand, like a slave master temporarily getting control of a person who is not really his.
Isn't this exactly what Paul warns against in Romans 6:12? He says to Christians, "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts." In other words, since you are not really slaves of sin and sin will not have dominion over you, therefore act like it. Stay free. Don't give sin any victories as an alien slave master. Don't sell yourself to sin! But the assumption seems to be: We might for a season "let sin reign," that is, give in to the old slave master.
In Galatians 5:1, Paul says something even more striking and helpful in this regard, suggesting that Christians do need to watch out for slavery. He says, "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." Don't give in to the old ways as Peter did. Why? That would be like going back to slavery. Paul uses the very language of slavery to describe what might happen to the Christian, temporarily, if he is not vigilant. We might for a time "let sin reign" or "submit to a yoke of slavery."
This is what I think Paul is describing in Romans 7:14b when he says, "I am carnal, sold under sin." When he gives in to temptation and does what he does not want to do, he knows that he has temporarily been mastered by sin and he is like a sold slave. So, even though the argument is strong, I don't think it is unanswerable.
| He gives 10 reasons why he believes the man is a Christian. I found that to be helpful as I had a go round with a fella at church some time ago. Hope this helps.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Michael Doyle For This Useful Post: | | 
02-19-2009, 09:43 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Texarkana, Texas
Posts: 301
Thanks: 118
Thanked 64 Times in 42 Posts
| | | Puritan thought
I found this footnote in my Geneva Bible which may show a Puritan view.
but don't we all identify with Paul in this every day? 
"Geneva Study Bible
{9} For that which I do I {10} allow not: for what I {11} would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
(9) He sets himself before us as an example, since he has been regenerated, and in whom may easily appear the strife of the Spirit and the flesh, and therefore of the law of God, and our wickedness. For since the law in a man who has not been regenerated brings forth only death, therefore in him it may easily be accused: but seeing that in a man who is regenerated it brings forth good fruit, it better appears that evil actions proceed not from the law but from sin, that is, from our corrupt nature: and therefore the apostle teaches also what the true use of the law is by reproving sin in the regenerated, unto the end of the chapter: as a little before (that is, from the seventh verse until now) Ro 7:7-15, he declared the use of it in those who are not regenerated.
(10) The deeds of my life, he says, are not in accordance to my will, rather they are contrary to it. Therefore by the consent of my will with the law, and repugnancy with the deeds of my life, it plainly appears that the law and a properly controlled will induce us to do one thing, but corruption, which also has its seat in the regenerated, another thing.
(11) It is to be noted that the very same man is said to will and not to will, in different respects: that is, he is said to will in that he is regenerated by grace: and not to will in that he is not regenerated, or in that he is in the same state into which he was born. But because the part which is regenerated at length becomes conqueror, therefore Paul, speaking on behalf of the regenerated, speaks in such a way as if the corruption which willingly sins were something outside of a man: although afterward he grants that this evil is in his flesh, or in his members."
__________________
Gregg
East Texas
Member Heritage Baptist Church
"I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way
be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so
that now, as always, Christ will be exalted in my
life." Phil 1:20
| 
02-19-2009, 10:06 AM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 795
Thanks: 91
Thanked 495 Times in 254 Posts
| | |
Romans 6:16-18 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
I believe this passage is important. I believe that Romans 7 is post-conversion. Here in vv. 17-18, Paul says, using the past tense, that the Christian is no longer the slave of sin, but is the slave of righteousness. However, v. 16 is in the present tense. Whoever obeys sin is (functionally) the slave of sin. Even those who have been set free from sin de jure can still be de facto slaves of sin simply by sinning. So, I think John Piper is right on the money.
I also think we need to see how emotionally Paul is writing. We tend to read epistles as cold, intellectual treatises, but Paul especially pours out his heart in practically every letter he writes. Here, he is using striking, emotional language to describe what is going on in his life. He has a real, frustrating struggle against sin that isn't really resolved until chapter 8.
__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student
|  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |