The Conviction of Fleshly Man
Can you critique this and tell me the good and bad of this article? Thoughts?
Can you critique this and tell me the good and bad of this article? Thoughts?
The Conviction of the Fleshly Man
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
I think he's making a mistake here. Because I'm seeing him looking at salvation only in the past-tense with regard to the Christian. This is a fundamental mistake, because Sanctification is just as much an element of our salvation as Conversion or Justification.
Where is this question: "Is this passage describing the way a Christian's life looks when he's pursuing sanctification-by-law?
Answer: yup. Which is why the effort leads Paul, or anyone else to the point of frustration. This is an easy trap for any of us to fall into because (to quote MSH) Pelagianism is the "default mode" for all of us.
This position I'm offering is neither the position of the article's author (obviously), nor is it the "carnal Christian" view, or the "ordinary Christian life" view that the author seeks to confute.
He is wrestling with the familiar exegetical conundrums in the passage, and is uncomfortable with where many (most) of the "post-conversion" views seem inadequate. However, the arguments in favor of the post-conversion reality are really the better ones.
And most who fall back on the pre-conversion position as the safest have not yet (in my opinion) grappled seriously enough with the problem of indwelling sin. If Paul doesn't deal with it in this passage, where does he deal with it?
Perg,
I think the reason most Reformed exegetes hold that the passage is speaking of a converted Paul, describing himself at his worst moments, is 1) exegetically, it really does appear to be the most defensible position; and 2) it resonates with the personal struggles that we know.
Reformed defenders of other views (if I recall) included Godet (holding the unconverted man view) and DMLJ (who formulated an idiosyncratic approach, that interpreted the whole passage as a man in the midst of his conversion experience).
I do not know what sort of resurgence the non-standard view is getting. You may know more new defenders than I've heard of, but certainly Lloyd-Jones books (BoT) get plenty of reads. The points he makes might move some away from at least as staunch a defense of the "traditional" view as they might have made. In other words,, the words "well, he has a point..." might be understandable.
Certainly, for me it was reading Hodge after reading Murray that moved me away from a strict "autobiography" position, or the "normal Christian life" view (yes, I know the struggle with indwelling sin is normal, but Paul does more than simply live every moment of his life in the errors of thinking present in parts of Rom7).
I was quite surprised to read Godet defend the opposite view ("how could a Reformed thinker go that way?!?" I asked). But between Godet and DMLJ, after Hodge, I could understand what they were seeing, even when I could not agree with their conclusions.
And that may account for what you seem to have encountered. Its easy to dismiss some Arminian who thinks this is a pre-conversion man description, and not actually read his points as having the beginnings of validity. Its another thing when an acknowledged Reformed authority explains why he is unsatisfied with Murray's defense. And there may be others now (since the mid-20th century)
Otherwise, for "why", I'm just left thinking that even Reformed people don't really understand our hearts well enough. They certainly don't get catechized enough as children. And they might want to defend Rom8 as "the normal Christian life" (do we need a "normal"?).
I think the reason most Reformed exegetes hold that the passage is speaking of a converted Paul, describing himself at his worst moments, is 1) exegetically, it really does appear to be the most defensible position; and 2) it resonates with the personal struggles that we know.
Reformed defenders of other views (if I recall) included Godet (holding the unconverted man view) and DMLJ (who formulated an idiosyncratic approach, that interpreted the whole passage as a man in the midst of his conversion experience).
I do not know what sort of resurgence the non-standard view is getting. You may know more new defenders than I've heard of, but certainly Lloyd-Jones books (BoT) get plenty of reads. The points he makes might move some away from at least as staunch a defense of the "traditional" view as they might have made. In other words,, the words "well, he has a point..." might be understandable.
Certainly, for me it was reading Hodge after reading Murray that moved me away from a strict "autobiography" position, or the "normal Christian life" view (yes, I know the struggle with indwelling sin is normal, but Paul does more than simply live every moment of his life in the errors of thinking present in parts of Rom7).
I was quite surprised to read Godet defend the opposite view ("how could a Reformed thinker go that way?!?" I asked). But between Godet and DMLJ, after Hodge, I could understand what they were seeing, even when I could not agree with their conclusions.
And that may account for what you seem to have encountered. Its easy to dismiss some Arminian who thinks this is a pre-conversion man description, and not actually read his points as having the beginnings of validity. Its another thing when an acknowledged Reformed authority explains why he is unsatisfied with Murray's defense. And there may be others now (since the mid-20th century)
Otherwise, for "why", I'm just left thinking that even Reformed people don't really understand our hearts well enough. They certainly don't get catechized enough as children. And they might want to defend Rom8 as "the normal Christian life" (do we need a "normal"?).
- Status
Similar threads
