Who is the Man in Romans 7:14-25?
- Thread starter heartoflesh
- Start date
- Status
Irishcat922
Puritan Board Sophomore
Why would Paul have such a struggle with sin unless he was a Christian? In his unconverted Jewish state he would have had no struggle because he assumed he was keeping the law. A pagan on the other had would not have a conscience of sin because he would have no sense of why his actions would be wrong. Therefore the struggle here is a Christian Conscience, i.e an awakened conscience, a renewed heart, that understands the righteousness of God.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I agree; post conversion.
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
I'd go with Post-Conversion too.
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, M. Stuart, W. Sanday and A.C Headlam, J. Denney, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., Anthony Hoekema, Martin Lloyd Jones, Herman Ridderbos.
This information comes from Robert Reymond's "New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith". Reymond defends the Pre-Conversion perspective.
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, M. Stuart, W. Sanday and A.C Headlam, J. Denney, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., Anthony Hoekema, Martin Lloyd Jones, Herman Ridderbos.
This information comes from Robert Reymond's "New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith". Reymond defends the Pre-Conversion perspective.
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
Woops. That one pre-conversion vote is me. Got mixed up - meant to vote post!
JH
JH
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
I included the "other" category because I have heard that Thomas Schreiner takes a somewhat "not one or the other" perspective. I don't have his commentary on Romans, so I don't know exactly how he comes up with this. Does anyone happen to have Schreiner's commentary that can shed some light on his view?
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
glad to know that I had voted in an orthodox manner...
I'm not sure if you mean that tongue-in-cheek, (I think you do) but both views are orthodox and defendable. Guys like Lloyd-Jones, Ridderbos, Hoekema and Reymond would not defend the pre-conversion perspective without good reason. Even if it is a pre-conversion Paul we are dealing with, it is by no means sufficient evidence to disregard the plain teaching on indwelling sin taught abundantly elsewhere in Scripture.
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
Not sure if this addresses your question specifically, but Robert Reymond writes:
[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Rick Larson]
alwaysreforming
Puritan Board Sophomore
If anyone has Packer's "Keep In Step with the Spirit", he deals extensively with this passage in there!
Brian
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree that Paul is speaking about Post-conversion Christianity, but...
Here's more from Schreiner:
In summary, I think Schreiner is very good and nuanced, and also very political and distanced. I think he is attempting to protect Rom. 7 from misinterpretations of both powerlessness before the veracity of sin; and triumphant, higher-living Christianity on the other hand. Frankly, I don't think Rom. 7 needs to be defended in such a manner. Also, all of the defenses he lists for pre-Christian experience (there are eight of them) are not that strong - i.e., I can quickly think of a reasonable, Scriptural rebuttal to each of them. Why he thinks they're so strong is beyond me, but oh well. He's the one with the PhD and exceptional thinking, not me. And I think he's probably earned the right to do a little posturing here and there. Overall, I think Schreiner is very good.
Hope this was helpful,
BRIAN
...I agree with Schreiner that the crux of what Paul is attempting to drive home in 7.13-25 is the exceeding sinfulness of sin and his relationship to sin and the law. There is nothing conceivable the prohibits Paul from using ego to refer to pre- and post-conversion Paul. Despite this, its clear that Paul is referring to a regenerate "I."
Here's more from Schreiner:
In summary, I think Schreiner is very good and nuanced, and also very political and distanced. I think he is attempting to protect Rom. 7 from misinterpretations of both powerlessness before the veracity of sin; and triumphant, higher-living Christianity on the other hand. Frankly, I don't think Rom. 7 needs to be defended in such a manner. Also, all of the defenses he lists for pre-Christian experience (there are eight of them) are not that strong - i.e., I can quickly think of a reasonable, Scriptural rebuttal to each of them. Why he thinks they're so strong is beyond me, but oh well. He's the one with the PhD and exceptional thinking, not me. And I think he's probably earned the right to do a little posturing here and there. Overall, I think Schreiner is very good.
Hope this was helpful,
BRIAN
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Rick,
The problem I see with Reymonds analysis is that he is assuming that Paul was somehow convicted by the 10th commandment (which there really is no biblical evidence of), but in the Philippians passage, Paul says that he was "blameless" before the law.
I have not read Reymond, but I would hope that he has more than what you wrote to support his position, because to me its a real stretch.
The problem I see with Reymonds analysis is that he is assuming that Paul was somehow convicted by the 10th commandment (which there really is no biblical evidence of), but in the Philippians passage, Paul says that he was "blameless" before the law.
I have not read Reymond, but I would hope that he has more than what you wrote to support his position, because to me its a real stretch.
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, he devotes an appendix to it-- most of which is a little over my head.
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
Other. I think "conversion" is the wrong way to look at it. However, IF PRESSED, I would side with John Stott that it is a believer under the Mosaic Law.
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Rick Larson
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
glad to know that I had voted in an orthodox manner...
I'm not sure if you mean that tongue-in-cheek, (I think you do) but both views are orthodox and defendable. Guys like Lloyd-Jones, Ridderbos, Hoekema and Reymond would not defend the pre-conversion perspective without good reason. Even if it is a pre-conversion Paul we are dealing with, it is by no means sufficient evidence to disregard the plain teaching on indwelling sin taught abundantly elsewhere in Scripture.
Definately tongue-in-cheek!
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Post-conversion, it is painfully obvious given the context of Romans and with similar statements in Galatians concerning the battle of the flesh and the Spirit. ML Jones' position on this has always perplexed me given most of his other literature I've read.
Concerning adherence of pre-conversion, I'd like to sit and talk with them and hear first hand the perfection they believe they themselves have reached.
lh
Concerning adherence of pre-conversion, I'd like to sit and talk with them and hear first hand the perfection they believe they themselves have reached.
lh
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
We can't assume anyone holds to perfectionism based on their view of this passage alone.
If they would deny 1 John 1:8-- that's another story.
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
First, let me be clear. Even IF I see Rom 7:14ff as something other than an anthropological statement of the believer struggling sinfulness, it IS clearly (and less debatably) taught in many other (and Pauline) areas. Agreed? So, no doctrine is "lost" if someone disagrees with a "conversion" view in Rom 7:14ff.
Second, Adam, I think Paul is primarily discussing life as a Jew under the bondage of the Mosaic Covenant of law. The Jew was "married" to the law (see Rom 7:1ff. analogy). Paul is speaking of the misery of living under the Law, that to which they wanted to return with the practice of circumcision or being Jewish, as a covenant, opposed to the New Covenant, which is described in Romans 8. This is opposition of law/works and grace/faith (Rom 1:5; 3:27; 6:14; 16:26) in Romans 7 and 8. Paul is describing the misery of being under the law as a covenant with its commands, and the gloriousness of the new covenant which has no works principle like the Mosaic.
Third, Adam, it is therefore the wrong question to ask in order to understand what Paul is focusing upon and wants to teach primarily (so thinks I). It doesn't matter if it is or is not a believer, for this is not a treatise on the nature of man, sin, the fall, depravity, etc. (anthropology proper).
Fourth, BUT, if I am pressed to reconcile the "anthropological" statements with my Calvinism, which I don't think Paul is asking you to do (because that isn't the intention of the passage), I am FORCED to say it is a "believer" under the Mosaic Covenant.
no1special18
Puritan Board Freshman
I am post conversion myself, but my friend is not, and I am so far unconvinced (obviously) by his arguments. His arguments are basically the ones that have been touched on above, so I was wondering what you guys think are the strongest arguments for the pre-conversion?
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Josh,
Yes that is true and as much as I love MLJ (truly) and as much as his intellect towers over mine such to make mine none existent, I am not moved by his position in the least...not even budged the slightest. Nor anyone that takes that position.
To that point. But the flesh wars with the Law unmitigated to the point that its opposition has no redirect in favor of the Law what-so-ever, especially at the spiritual level. For even if the flesh externally performs the Law it truly hates the Law even though it may perform it externally, and God sees and judges the heart not the externals.
Affection toward the Law, at all, which Romans 7 manifestily shows, can only be possessed by those who have the Spirit. These truly desire to do the Law from the heart but battle the flesh. Again, the unregenerate cannot do this. The Spirit loves the Law, exudes it freely with no resistance what-so-ever, and wars not with it but with the flesh who opposes the Law. The flesh loves not the Law, that which the Spirit loves, and wars with the Law and hence the Spirit. The point of contact for this battle is the Law. For where else do we indeed battle except at the point of the Law?
The flesh wars by either openly sining against the Law or hypocritically, mockingly pretending to fulfill it - this is its war with the Law. The Spirit bears witness to Christ to the believer, Who is grace and mercy that all righteousness is fulfilled in Him and received by simple faith by the believer. Thus, the Spirit disarms the enemy flesh for now there is no condemnation of those in Christ Jesus (End of Romans 7).
Paul begins this contrast when he opens with, "...the Law is spiritual..." No such battle exists in the unregenerate. That is why there are two contrasting principles or laws in that passage.
If one takes that passage as the believer position in opposition to a pre-believer position, then from that perspective (believer position) to believe the later (pre-believer position) is perfectionism. The passage is ultimately black or white.
ldh
Yes that is true and as much as I love MLJ (truly) and as much as his intellect towers over mine such to make mine none existent, I am not moved by his position in the least...not even budged the slightest. Nor anyone that takes that position.
To that point. But the flesh wars with the Law unmitigated to the point that its opposition has no redirect in favor of the Law what-so-ever, especially at the spiritual level. For even if the flesh externally performs the Law it truly hates the Law even though it may perform it externally, and God sees and judges the heart not the externals.
Affection toward the Law, at all, which Romans 7 manifestily shows, can only be possessed by those who have the Spirit. These truly desire to do the Law from the heart but battle the flesh. Again, the unregenerate cannot do this. The Spirit loves the Law, exudes it freely with no resistance what-so-ever, and wars not with it but with the flesh who opposes the Law. The flesh loves not the Law, that which the Spirit loves, and wars with the Law and hence the Spirit. The point of contact for this battle is the Law. For where else do we indeed battle except at the point of the Law?
The flesh wars by either openly sining against the Law or hypocritically, mockingly pretending to fulfill it - this is its war with the Law. The Spirit bears witness to Christ to the believer, Who is grace and mercy that all righteousness is fulfilled in Him and received by simple faith by the believer. Thus, the Spirit disarms the enemy flesh for now there is no condemnation of those in Christ Jesus (End of Romans 7).
Paul begins this contrast when he opens with, "...the Law is spiritual..." No such battle exists in the unregenerate. That is why there are two contrasting principles or laws in that passage.
If one takes that passage as the believer position in opposition to a pre-believer position, then from that perspective (believer position) to believe the later (pre-believer position) is perfectionism. The passage is ultimately black or white.
ldh
Canadian Baptist
Puritan Board Freshman
A couple years ago, I put down some thoughts on this passage. I submit it to your scrutiny:
Romans 7 describes the 2nd use of the Law in action, not the 3rd use of the Law in frustration.
Chapter 6 explains at length how we are dead to sin; crucified with Christ
that the "body of sin" might be done away with v.6; no longer slaves to sin;
freed from sin; etc. Paul tells us not to present our members to sin, and that
it does not have dominion over us. Then, as far as I can tell, he spends ALL
of chapter 7 talking about the Law. He is talking to "those who know the
law"(v.1) and saying things like: "you are dead to the law" (v.4); "we are
delivered from the law" (v.6).
Verse 5 should be the heading written right above the section of verses13-25.
Paul is describing an unconverted Jew or at least a law keeper before their conversion
who genuinely wants to obey the law of God. Just as Paul himself said that he did as a
Pharisee and also described other lost Jews with a zeal for the law:
(See Acts 22:3; 26:4-5; Phil.3:4-9; Rom.10:2-4; Gal.1:14).
He describes in 7:13-25 how the law exposed sin but
couldn't produce righteousness. He is not describing the "normal Christian
life". He says "when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were
aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death."(7:5) That
is exactly what was happening to Paul when he was "carnal, sold under sin."
He said he was "in captivity to the law of sin"(7:23) whereas, in chapter
6:17-18, 6:22 and especially in 8:2 he explicitly says that "the law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." Is Paul (the Christian)
both captive to the law of sin and free from the law of sin at the same time? Understand,
I am not denying he is simultaneously both sinner and righteous. We are at war but we are not captives. In
7:22 he says he delights in the Law of God inwardly but outwardly fails to
keep it, THOUGH TRYING DESPERATELY to do so. This is not the Christian
trying to walk in sanctification! Paul has already established that the law
brings only wrath (4:15) and brings the knowledge of sin (3:20) and that
righteousness comes from God apart from the law (3:21). Is Sanctification
the Christian's lifelong losing battle to the law of sin in his flesh (7:25b)
and obeying God only in his mind as described in these verses? The scripture
opposes such a pathetic scenario. Also, Paul never leads the
believer to "œdelight in the Law" in the hope of producing any righteousness.
Ahh, chapter 8, as did chapter 6, comes rushing in to rescue this poor,
wretched law keeper in response to the cry "WHO WILL DELIVER ME" (7:24). And
deliver He has! "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (8:8) but
"you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit!" In 8:13 he says "if by the
Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." The man in
7:13-25 was not able to do this because he did not have the Spirit but was "œin the flesh"! This
should never produce a theology of perfectionism or special levels of
sanctification or a denial of indwelling sin, for that would be focusing on the performance of the
flesh. The flesh will always lust against the Spirit (Gal.5:17), but it will
not reign in a Christian. We do sin and are unclean in our motives and behavior more than we could imagine. But we place no confidence in the flesh, nor do we look to
the law for help. But we take our seat in heavenly places in Christ and His righteousness, abide
in Him which brings us back to where I started this discussion, in Romans
6:1-2. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
No longer slaves! No longer captives! Sinners, yes.
Captives to sin, no! Slaves to righteousness!
Then in beautiful summary, Paul speaks confidently of his deliverer from the law of sin : "If God is
for us, who can be against us?" (8:31). "Who shall bring a charge against
God's elect?" (8:33). "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ."
(8:35). "We are more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (8:37). Does
this sound like the fettered captive of 7:13-25? I submit to you that Romans
7 is about the weakness of the flesh in keeping the law (Rom 8:3), and our inability to
please God thereby, and is not teaching about the Christian's normal walk in the
Spirit.
Romans 7 describes the 2nd use of the Law in action, not the 3rd use of the Law in frustration.
Chapter 6 explains at length how we are dead to sin; crucified with Christ
that the "body of sin" might be done away with v.6; no longer slaves to sin;
freed from sin; etc. Paul tells us not to present our members to sin, and that
it does not have dominion over us. Then, as far as I can tell, he spends ALL
of chapter 7 talking about the Law. He is talking to "those who know the
law"(v.1) and saying things like: "you are dead to the law" (v.4); "we are
delivered from the law" (v.6).
Verse 5 should be the heading written right above the section of verses13-25.
Paul is describing an unconverted Jew or at least a law keeper before their conversion
who genuinely wants to obey the law of God. Just as Paul himself said that he did as a
Pharisee and also described other lost Jews with a zeal for the law:
(See Acts 22:3; 26:4-5; Phil.3:4-9; Rom.10:2-4; Gal.1:14).
He describes in 7:13-25 how the law exposed sin but
couldn't produce righteousness. He is not describing the "normal Christian
life". He says "when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were
aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death."(7:5) That
is exactly what was happening to Paul when he was "carnal, sold under sin."
He said he was "in captivity to the law of sin"(7:23) whereas, in chapter
6:17-18, 6:22 and especially in 8:2 he explicitly says that "the law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." Is Paul (the Christian)
both captive to the law of sin and free from the law of sin at the same time? Understand,
I am not denying he is simultaneously both sinner and righteous. We are at war but we are not captives. In
7:22 he says he delights in the Law of God inwardly but outwardly fails to
keep it, THOUGH TRYING DESPERATELY to do so. This is not the Christian
trying to walk in sanctification! Paul has already established that the law
brings only wrath (4:15) and brings the knowledge of sin (3:20) and that
righteousness comes from God apart from the law (3:21). Is Sanctification
the Christian's lifelong losing battle to the law of sin in his flesh (7:25b)
and obeying God only in his mind as described in these verses? The scripture
opposes such a pathetic scenario. Also, Paul never leads the
believer to "œdelight in the Law" in the hope of producing any righteousness.
Ahh, chapter 8, as did chapter 6, comes rushing in to rescue this poor,
wretched law keeper in response to the cry "WHO WILL DELIVER ME" (7:24). And
deliver He has! "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (8:8) but
"you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit!" In 8:13 he says "if by the
Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." The man in
7:13-25 was not able to do this because he did not have the Spirit but was "œin the flesh"! This
should never produce a theology of perfectionism or special levels of
sanctification or a denial of indwelling sin, for that would be focusing on the performance of the
flesh. The flesh will always lust against the Spirit (Gal.5:17), but it will
not reign in a Christian. We do sin and are unclean in our motives and behavior more than we could imagine. But we place no confidence in the flesh, nor do we look to
the law for help. But we take our seat in heavenly places in Christ and His righteousness, abide
in Him which brings us back to where I started this discussion, in Romans
6:1-2. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
No longer slaves! No longer captives! Sinners, yes.
Captives to sin, no! Slaves to righteousness!
Then in beautiful summary, Paul speaks confidently of his deliverer from the law of sin : "If God is
for us, who can be against us?" (8:31). "Who shall bring a charge against
God's elect?" (8:33). "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ."
(8:35). "We are more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (8:37). Does
this sound like the fettered captive of 7:13-25? I submit to you that Romans
7 is about the weakness of the flesh in keeping the law (Rom 8:3), and our inability to
please God thereby, and is not teaching about the Christian's normal walk in the
Spirit.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Josh,
I understand that many may question if it is limited to the believer only. However, in the end either the fallen nature has no ability or desire toward the Law (ala Calvin and Luther) nor can rise in the least toward it, or the believer has some ability - all other man-centered views. This makes it ultimately black and white.
V22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
This verse alone is in direct opposition to a non-believer position. Why? Because it is not the externals of the Law that being done that fulfill the Law. Hypothetically, one could perform all the the externals of the Law flawlessly their entire life and yet it is still not fulfilled - worse all was in vain and sin. Why? For as Paul says the Law is spiritual and thus spiritually fulfilled. What does this mean? It means fulfilled from the heart that freely loves to fulfill it without ANY resistance against it what-so-ever. This is contained very obviously in the Great Commandment to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. One doing the works of the Law is merely a hypocrit for their heart is against it in spite of the externals, though the externals may be great in the eyes of men. This is also shown later when Paul in the same epistle tells us that apart from faith all is sin. The same is stated in Hebrews.
Proof of this: Tell a man that his good works do not earn him heaven and worse are filthy rags before God and even worse are nothing but sin and he still remains under the wrath of God, even if he almost gave his own life to save another. This man will then begin to rage against such a notion that his 'good works' earn him nothing and worse he remains condemned apart from faith in Christ. And at length he will reveal that his heart actually hated the very outward deed he did and would have done otherwise (murder by inaction in this example) since it gains him nothing and the wrath of God still abides upon him. Such a person shows he really hated "the good work" he outwardly did and his heart will then reveal its true nature. This is what God sees and judges. Thus, the Law is spiritual.
And thus, no unregenerate man can or does "...joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man". Nor can a non-believer rightly be spoken of as desiring to do good, that is good as the Law which is spiritual means - true and absolute good.
Larry
I understand that many may question if it is limited to the believer only. However, in the end either the fallen nature has no ability or desire toward the Law (ala Calvin and Luther) nor can rise in the least toward it, or the believer has some ability - all other man-centered views. This makes it ultimately black and white.
V22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
This verse alone is in direct opposition to a non-believer position. Why? Because it is not the externals of the Law that being done that fulfill the Law. Hypothetically, one could perform all the the externals of the Law flawlessly their entire life and yet it is still not fulfilled - worse all was in vain and sin. Why? For as Paul says the Law is spiritual and thus spiritually fulfilled. What does this mean? It means fulfilled from the heart that freely loves to fulfill it without ANY resistance against it what-so-ever. This is contained very obviously in the Great Commandment to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. One doing the works of the Law is merely a hypocrit for their heart is against it in spite of the externals, though the externals may be great in the eyes of men. This is also shown later when Paul in the same epistle tells us that apart from faith all is sin. The same is stated in Hebrews.
Proof of this: Tell a man that his good works do not earn him heaven and worse are filthy rags before God and even worse are nothing but sin and he still remains under the wrath of God, even if he almost gave his own life to save another. This man will then begin to rage against such a notion that his 'good works' earn him nothing and worse he remains condemned apart from faith in Christ. And at length he will reveal that his heart actually hated the very outward deed he did and would have done otherwise (murder by inaction in this example) since it gains him nothing and the wrath of God still abides upon him. Such a person shows he really hated "the good work" he outwardly did and his heart will then reveal its true nature. This is what God sees and judges. Thus, the Law is spiritual.
And thus, no unregenerate man can or does "...joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man". Nor can a non-believer rightly be spoken of as desiring to do good, that is good as the Law which is spiritual means - true and absolute good.
Larry
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
[Edited on 3-18-2005 by Rick Larson]
This is no gem. Dunn is wholly unreliable, being one the of major - and worst - proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. This is an example of his reworking of a text to bolster his own conclusions.
Do not go to the link for anything more than information on how an unorthodox scholar reads Paul.
- Status
