# Romans 7 Help!



## madavilla

I am looking for some suggestions on any resources (Puritan or Modern) that explain the position of Romans 7 - Paul as a believer or unbeliever. I hold to the position that Paul is talking about his life as a believer, but I am hearing more and more about the other position as well.

Does anyone have any good resources or Puritan books that deal with this issue? I'm looking for a solid position argued and proven.

Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist

Ryle's _Holiness_


----------



## Pilgrim

Spear Dane said:


> Ryle's _Holiness_


----------



## moral necessity

madavilla said:


> I am looking for some suggestions on any resources (Puritan or Modern) that explain the position of Romans 7 - Paul as a believer or unbeliever. I hold to the position that Paul is talking about his life as a believer, but I am hearing more and more about the other position as well.
> 
> Does anyone have any good resources or Puritan books that deal with this issue? I'm looking for a solid position argued and proven.
> 
> Thanks!



I love talking about Romans 7! It's absolutely my favorite! I very much agree with your position that Rom. 7 is speaking of Paul being a believer.

Try Vol. 6 of John Owen's works, the specific treatise within entitled, The Nature, Power, Deceit, and Prevalency of the Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers, on pp.154-313. The exposition is off of Rom. 7:21 and the surrounding area. This is, by far, one of the best and most thorough treatments that I've come across of what you're looking for! 

Blessings!


----------



## Pilgrim

Ryle on Romans 7:



> [T]he best commentators in every era of the Church have almost invariably applied the seventh chapter of Romans to advanced believers. The commentators who do not take this view have been, with a few bright exceptions, the Romanists, the Socinians, and the Arminians. Against them is arrayed the judgment of almost all the Reformers, almost all the Puritans, and the best modern Evangelical divines. I shall be told, of course, that no man is infallible, that the Reformers, Puritans, and modern divines I refer to may have been entirely mistaken, and the Romanists, Socinians, and Arminians may have been quite right! Our Lord has taught us, no doubt, to "call no man master." But while I ask no man to call the Reformers and Puritans "masters," I do ask people to read what they say on this subject, and answer their arguments, if they can. This has not been done yet! To say, as some do, that they do not want human "dogmas" and "doctrines," is no reply at all. The whole point at issue is, "What is the meaning of a passage of Scripture? How is the Seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans to be interpreted? What is the true sense of its words?" At any rate let us remember that there is a great fact which cannot be got over. On one side stand the opinions and interpretation of Reformers and Puritans, and on the other the opinions and interpretations of Romanists, Socinians, and Arminians. Let that be distinctly understood.
> J.C. Ryle _Holiness_ Evangelical Press, 1979, xxii.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

C Hodge _Commentary_ is very helpful.

My own attitude is that this certainly is a Christian predicament. DM Lloyd-Jones held to a rather odd view, one that typifies the difficulties that have accompanied even good Reformed treatments of the passage--he thought this section must be descriptive of a person _in between_ or moving from death to life.

The resolution which has satisfied me most is to consider the context, and the questions being proposed by Paul's imaginary interlocutors. Now, having established that justification is by grace through faith, and that grace is no license for sin, the temptation as regards sanctification might be to now regard law as the new means of _producing_ godliness. NOT SO. Have you begun by faith, and now propose to finish by works? Impossible, and your frustration will be obvious and apparent to yourself, that you MUST despair of hoping so to gain God's favor. And so, on to chapter 8, which describes the true _source_ of new life in Christ--it is not the law, but the Spirit.


----------



## moral necessity

Here's a link to a digitized version of the Owen work I mentioned above.

The Works of John Owen - Google Book Search

Blessings!


----------



## DMcFadden

Here are some sources . . .

Berkouwer, G. C. (1976). The Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, ch . 13.

Berkouwer, G. C. (1958). Faith and Perseverance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ch 3.

Berkouwer, G. C. (1952). Faith and Sanctification. Grand Rapids,Mich.: Eerdmans, ch 5.

Berkouwer, G. C. (1971). Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ch 6.

Boice, J. M. (1986). Foundations of the Christian faith : A comprehensive & readable theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, ch. 10.

Boice, J. M. (1991-c1995). Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Bloesch, D. G. (1997). Jesus Christ : Savior & Lord. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, pg. 45.

Dabney, R. L. (1996). Systematic Theology (electronic ed. based on the Banner of Truth 1985 ed.). Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation, ch. 25.

Demarest, B. A. (1997). The cross and salvation : The doctrine of salvation. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, Pgs. 408ff on “progressive sanctification.”

de Kroon, M. (2001). The honour of God and human salvation : A contribution to an understanding of Calvin's theology according to his Institutes. Edinburgh; New York: T&T Clark, ch. 2.

Dunn, J. D. G. (2002). Vol. 38A: Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Garlington, D.B. Romans 7:14–25 And The Creation Theology Of Paul. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. (1990). Trinity Journal Volume 11. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 197-235.

Haldane, R. (1996). An exposition of Romans. Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation.

Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953-2001). Vol. 12-13: New Testament commentary : Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Hodge, C. (1993). Romans. The Crossway classic commentaries. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Luther, M. (1999, c1972). Vol. 25: Luther's works, vol. 25 : Lectures on Romans (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

MacArthur, J. (1996). The glory of heaven : The truth about heaven, angels, and eternal life. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, pgs. 120-122.

Morris, L. (1988). The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.

J.I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit (IVP, 1984).

Sproul, R. (1996, c1991). Following Christ. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, ch. 11

“The Christian in Romans 7” E.W. Pink, Anthology of E.W. Pink.

Reymond, R. L. (1998). A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. Nashville: T. Nelson, Appendix F.

Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology (3rd ed.). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., Pgs 804-806.

Smith, M. H. (1996, c1994). Systematic Theology, Volume One : Prolegomena, Theology, Anthropology, Christology. Greenville SC: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press, ch. 34.

Sproul, R. (2000, c1997). Grace unknown : The heart of reformed theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, ch. 6.

Sproul, R. C. (1996, c1988). Pleasing God. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, ch 10.

Whitlock, L. G., Sproul, R. C., Waltke, B. K., & Silva, M. (1995). Reformation study Bible, the : Bringing the light of the Reformation to Scripture : New King James Version. Nashville: T. Nelson.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Very clearly a believer in my humble estimation.

Ultimately, those that believe that a Christian has left behind that conflict and that a man is not justified by faith by imputation but not on the basis of actual righteousness, has rejected Christ's righteousness as the ground for our assurance and has replaced with some variant of inherent righteousness in the person.

As noted by Bruce, Paul's dialogue fits perfectly as he is building the case for the surety of salvation found in God's electing love and grace and _not_ in the quality of our holiness. Paul begins in Romans 5 by reminding all that God justifies the un-Godly - that He justifies _while_ we were enemies. How much more then will He save His friends to the uttermost! 

Romans 7 is a continuation of that thought as the very question always arises in Christians who are facing the wickedness of their hearts and their awakened consciences are stung by the profound evil they hadn't noticed when they were dead in their sins. He gives voice to the despair we all sense as we're doing the exact opposite of our desires. The solution to the despair of our outcry: "Who will deliver me!" is Christ Jesus. 

It is often forgotten, in fact, that Romans 8 is the transitions from this existential angst into the confidence in Christ and that, even in the midst of this cry, His Spirit ministers to our spirit and we cry out "Abba! Father!" It's the cry that only the redeemed can call out with. It's a call that recognizes and remembes that God saved us while we were His enemies and made us His friends - nay, his children! He reminds us that nothing can separate us from that kind of love.

We begin by clinging to Christ with nothing in our hands because the love of God has awakened us to our sin and our need for Christ. We are never in a point where we can leave behind that profound need. We are never at a point where we're standing on our own and free from indwelling sin so we can stand apart from Christ and be justified apart from His righteousness. We are always in need of a savior. Our sin not only brings us the grief of offending our Father but it is a reminder that only Christ is our righteousness now and forever.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Yes, Paul is speaking of the believer in Romans 7. One important reason: only a believer knows, both objectively and subjectively, that he is a sinner. The spiritually dead unbeliever doesn't believe he is a sinner because he rejects the whole concept of sin (as properly defined by Christianity). The unbeliever will say things like "in this life, I'm just doing the best I can and am hoping for the best," and other such locutions.

Only the believer feels the tension between the New Man and the Old Man. Only the believer feels the pull of his sin nature as he consciously, and conscientiously, lives his life in the presence of God, obeying His Word and relying on the Holy Spirit to guide him according to that Word.

The unbeliever knows no such tension at all. Sin is his natural world, as water is for fish.

Only the believer not only understands but feels the tension Paul speaks of in Romans 7.

Here's C. E. B. Cranfield, commenting on Romans 7:25:

_...it sums up, with clear-sighted honesty - an honesty which is thoroughly consonant both with the urgency of the longing for final deliverance expressed v. 24 and also with the confidence that God will surely accomplish that deliverance in His good time reflected in v. 25a - the tension, with all its real anguish and also all its real hopefulness, in which the Christian never ceases to be involved so long as he is living this present life. To read into this sentence any suggestion of a complacent acceptance on the part of the Christian of his continued sinfulness would be quite unfair. For - not to mention the evidence of moral earnestness contained in v. 24 - the words...express clearly enough the Christian's engagement, in the very depths of his personality as one who is being renewed by God's Spirit to God's holy law, his sense of being altogether bound to it. And it is fully congruous with this deep sense of commitment to God's will that this conclusion does not cloak the painful fact of continuing sinfulness, but goes on to acknowledge frankly that the Christian, so long as he remains in this present life, remains in a real sense a slave of sin...since he still has a fallen nature..._ (From his two-volume commentary on Romans: 1:369-370.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks Richard. After I posted, I realized I ought to have noted the fact that only the redeemed feel, acutely, the sting of conscience that they "...do the things they do not want to do and do not do the things they want to do...."

The struggle is a sign of _life_. It's not an excuse to just resign ourselves to sin but we ought to recognize that only the _living_ are aware of their sin in the acute way that Paul is describing.

Now, an objector might point out that even Jews and Roman Catholics feel guilty for their sin and do things they say they don't want to do. The difference is the solution: 

- Man-made religion looks to the self and greater effort and promises that they will, next time, do and obey better. They might not have perfect righteousness yet but they're getting there.

- The Gospel, however, points to Christ as our deliverance. In it, we recognize that our sin is so obvious because we see the full weight of the Law which would only pronounce a curse on us but that Christ has become a curse for us.

Thus, the difference is that the unbeliever might feel shame but it is not the depth of shame because it doesn't touch on the depth of the Law. The believer has eyes to see the depth of the Law and the Gospel that announces to us again our Righteousness.


----------



## Sydnorphyn

see Doug Moo's commentary on Romans. He understands the passage as describing an unbeliever.
JSO


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

If you are looking for those who argue that it refers to an unbeliever (which I think is nonsense), you could consult:

D. Martyn Lloyd Jones on Romans 7

Robert L. Reymond _A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith_

Hermann Ridderbos _Paul: An Outline of his Theology_


----------



## Denton Elliott

Romans 7 is Paul's defense that the Law is only good in showing us that we are sinners in that we have not kept the Law. It also is a treatise of the residual sinful flesh of a believer. It in no way however condones the sins of a believer. A believer should strive not to sin out of gratitude to Jesus' suffering and death and God's kindness to provide a payment for the believers' sin debt.


----------



## jawyman

http://www.1-word.com/commentary/Romans.pdf

Very useful. I hope it helps.


----------



## greenbaggins

I highly recommend Cranfield's commentary on this passage. He lays out all the arguments for each position, takes the view that Paul is talking about a believer, and answers all the objections. Extremely clear (though a bit technical). Good to see Richard quoting him.


----------



## BobVigneault

*THE CHRISTIAN IN ROMANS 7*

_Arthur W. Pink_

In this chapter the apostle does two things:

First, he shows what is not and what is the Law’s relation to the believer—judicially, the believer is emancipated from the curse or penalty of the Law (7:1-6); morally, the believer is under bonds to obey the Law (vv. 22, 25). Secondly, he guards against a false inference being drawn from what he had taught in chapter 6. In 6:1-11 he sets forth the believer’s identification with Christ as “dead to sin.” (vv. 2, 7, etc.) Then, from verse 11 onwards, he shows the effect this truth should have upon the believer’s walk. In chapter 7 he follows the same order of thought. In 7:1-6 he treats of the believer’s identification with Christ as “dead to the law” (see vv. 4, 6). Then, from verse 7 onwards he describes the experiences of the Christian. Thus the first half of Romans 6 and the first half of Romans 7 deal with the believer’s standing, whereas the second half of each chapter treats of the believer’s state; but with this difference: the second half of Romans 6 reveals what our state ought to be, whereas the second half of Romans 7 (vv. 13-25) shows what our state actually is.

The controversy which has raged over Romans 7 is largely the fruitage of the Perfectionism of Wesley and his followers. That brethren, whom we have cause to respect, should have adopted this error in a modified form, only shows how widespread today is the spirit of Laodiceanism. To talk of “getting out of Romans 7 into Romans 8” is excuseless folly. Romans 7 and both apply with undiminished force and pertinence to every believer on earth today. The second half of Romans 7 describes the conflict of the two natures in the child of God: it simply sets forth in detail what is summarized in Galatians 5:17; Romans 7:14, 15, 18, 19, 21 are now true of every believer on earth. Every Christian falls far, far short of the standard set before him—we mean God’s standard, not that of the so-called “victorious life” teachers. If any Christian reader is read to say that Romans 7:19 does not describe his life, we say in all kindness, that he is sadly deceived. We do not mean by this that every Christian breaks the laws of men, or that he is an overt transgressor of the laws of God. But we do mean that his life is far, far below the level of the life our Savior lived here on earth. We do mean that there is much of “the flesh” still evident in every Christian—not the least in those who make such loud boastings of their spiritual attainments. We do mean that every Christian has urgent need to daily pray for the forgiveness of his daily sins (Luke 11:4), for “in many things we all stumble” (Jas. 3:2, R. V.).

In what follows we shall confine ourselves to the last two verses of Romans 7, in which we read, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with flesh the law of sin” (vv.24, 25).

This is the language of a regenerate soul, and it sums up the contents of the verses immediately preceding. The unregenerate man is wretched indeed, but he is a stranger to the “wretchedness” here expressed, for he knows nothing of the experience which evokes this wail. The whole context is devoted to a description of the conflict between the two natures in the child of God. “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (v. 22), is true of none but born-again persons. But the one thus “delighting” discovers “another law in his members.” This reference must not be limited to his physical members, but is to be understood as including all the various parts of his carnal personality. This “other law” is also at work in the memory, the imagination, the will, the heart, etc.

This “other law,” says the apostle, warred against the law of his mind (the new nature), and not only so, it brought him “into captivity to the law of sin.” (v. 23) To what extent he was brought into “captivity” is not defined. But brought into captivity he was, as is every believer. The wandering of the mind when reading God’s Word, the issuing from the heart (Mark 7:21) of evil thoughts when we are engaged in prayer, the horrid images which sometimes come before us in the sleep-state— to name no others—are so many examples of being “brought into captivity to the law of sin.” “If the evil principle of our nature prevails in exciting one evil thought, it has taken us captive. So far it has conquered, and so far are we defeated, and made a prisoner” (Robert Haldane).

It is the consciousness of this warring within him and this being brought into captivity to sin, which causes the believer to exclaim, “O wretched man that I am!” This is a cry brought about by a deep realization of indwelling sin. It is the confession of one who knows that in his natural man there dwelleth no good thing. It is the mournful plaint of one who has discovered something of the horrible sink of iniquity which is in his own heart. It is the groan of a divinely-enlightened man who now hates himself—his natural self—and longs for deliverance.

This moan, “O wretched man that I am,” expresses the normal experience of the Christian, and any Christian who does not so moan is in an abnormal and unhealthy state spiritually. The man who does not utter this cry daily is either so out of communion with Christ, or so ignorant of the teaching of Scripture, or so deceived about his actual condition, that he knows not the corruptions of his own heart and the abject failure of his own life.

The one who bows to the solemn and searching teaching of God’s Word, the one who there learns the awful wreckage which sin has wrought in the human constitution, the one who sees the exalted standard of holiness which God has set before us, cannot fail to discover what a vile wretch he is. If he is given to behold how far short he falls of attaining to God’s standard; if, in the light of the divine sanctuary, he discovers how little he resembles the Christ of God; then will he find this language most suited to express his godly sorrow. If God reveals to him the coldness of his love, the pride of his heart, the wanderings of his mind, the evil that defiles his godliest acts, he will cry, “O wretched man that I am.” If he is conscious of his ingratitude, of how little he appreciates God’s daily mercies; if he marks the absence of that deep and genuine fervor which ought ever to characterize his praise and worship of that One who is “glorious in holiness;” if he recognizes that sinful spirit of rebellion, which so often causes him to murmur or at least chafe against the dispensations of God in his daily life; if he attempts to tabulate not only the sins of commission but the sins of omission, of which he is daily guilty, he will indeed cry, “O wretched man that I am.”

Nor is it only the “back-slidden” Christian, now convicted, who will mourn thus. The one who is truly in communion with Christ, will also emit this groan, and emit it daily and hourly. Yea, the closer he draws to Christ, the more will he discover the corruptions of his old nature, and the more earnestly will he long to be delivered from it. It is not until the sunlight floods a room that the grime and dust are fully revealed. So, it is only as we really come into the presence of Him who is the light, that we are made aware of the filth and wickedness which indwell us, and which defile every part of our being. And such a discovery will make each of us cry, “O wretched man that I am!”

“But,” inquires someone, “does not communion with Christ produce rejoicing rather than mourning?” We answer, It produces both. It did with Paul. In verse 22 of our chapter he says, “I delight in the law of God.” Yet only two verses later he cries, “O wretched man that I am!” Nor does this passage stand alone. In 2 Corinthians 6 the same apostle says, “As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing” (v. 10). Sorrowful because of his failures, because of his daily sins. Rejoicing because of the grace which still bore with him, and because of the blessed provision which God has made even for the sins of His saints. So again in Romans 8:1 after declaring, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,” and after saying, “The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (vv. 16-17); the apostle adds, “But ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” (v. 23) Similar is the teaching of the apostle Peter, “Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations” (1 Pet. 1:6). Sorrow and groaning, then, are not absent from the highest spirituality.

In these days of Laodicean complacency and pride, there is considerable talk and much boasting about communion with Christ, but how little manifestation of it do we behold! Where there is no sense of utter unworthiness, where there is no mourning over the total depravity of our nature, where there is no sorrowing over our lack of conformity to Christ, where there is no groaning over being brought into captivity to sin; in short, where there is no crying, “O wretched man that I am,” it is greatly to be feared that there is no fellowship with Christ at all.

When Abraham walked with the Lord, he exclaimed, “Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes. (Gen. 18:27) When Job came face to face with God, he said, “Behold I am vile” (40:4), and again, “I abhor myself.” (42:6) When Isaiah entered the divine Presence, he cried, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips.” (Isa. 6:5) When Daniel had that wondrous vision of Christ (Dan. 10:5-6), he declared, “There remained no strength in me: for comeliness was turned in me into corruption.” (v.8) And in one of the last epistles by the beloved apostle to the Gentiles, we read, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief’ (1 Tim. 1:15). These utterances proceeded not from unregenerate men, but came from the lips of God’s saints. Nor were they the confessions of back-slidden believers: rather were they voiced by the most eminent of the Lord’s people. Where, today, shall we find any who are fit to be placed along side of Abraham, Job, Isaiah, Daniel and Paul? Where indeed! And yet, these were the men who were so conscious of their vileness and unworthiness! saying, “The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (vv. 16-17); the apostle adds, “But ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” (v. 23) Similar is the teaching of the apostle Peter, “Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations” (1 Pet. 1:6). Sorrow and groaning, then, are not absent from the highest spirituality.

“O wretched man that I am.” This then is the language of a regenerate soul. It is the confession of the normal (undeceived and undeluded) Christian. The substance of it may be found not only in the recorded utterances of Old and New Testament saints, but as well, in the writings of the most eminent Christians who have lived during the last five hundred years. Different indeed were the confessions and witnessings borne by eminent saints of the past from the ignorant and arrogant boastings of modern Laodiceans! It is refreshing to turn from the present-day biographies to those written long ago. Ponder the following excerpts:

Mr. Bradford, of holy memory, who was martyred in the reign of bloody queen Mary, in a letter to a fellow-prisoner in another penitentialy, subscribed himself thus: “The sinful John Bradford: a very painted hypocrite: the most miserable, hard-hearted, and unthankful sinner, John Bradford.” (1555 A.D.)

Godly Rutherford wrote, “This body of sin and corruption embitters and poisons our enjoyment. Oh that I were where I shall sin no more.” (1650 A.D.)

Bishop Berkeley wrote, “I cannot pray, but I sin; I cannot preach, but I sin; I cannot administer, nor receive the holy sacrament, but I sin. My very repentance needs to be repented of: and the tears I shed need washing in the blood of Christ.” (1670 A.D.)

Jonathan Edwards, in whose home died that remarkable man Mr. David Brainerd (the first missionary to the Indians, and whose devotion to Christ was witnessed to by all who knew him), and with whom he was intimately acquainted, says in his “Memoirs of Mr. Brainerd,” “His religious illuminations, affections, and comfort, seemed to a great degree to be attended with evangelical humiliation; consisting in a sense of his own utter insufficiency, despicableness, and odiousness; with an answering disposition and frame of heart. How deeply affected was he almost continually with his great defects in religion; with his vast distance from that spirituality and holy frame of mind that become a child of God; with his ignorance, pride, deadness, barrenness! He was not only affected with the remembrance of his former sinfulness, before his conversion, but with the sense of his present vileness and pollution. He was not only disposed to think other saints better than he; yea to look on himself as the worst and least of saints; but, very often, as the vilest and worst of mankind.”

Jonathan Edwards himself, than whom few men have been more honored of God, either in their spiritual attainments or in the extent to which God has used them in blessing to others, near the end of his life wrote thus: “When I look into my heart and take a view of its wickedness, it looks like an abyss infinitely deeper than hell. And it appears to me, that, were it not for free grace, exalted and raised up to the infinite height of all the fulness and glory of the great Jehovah, I should appear sunk down in my sins below hell itself; far below the sight of everything, but the eye of sovereign grace, that alone can pierce down to such a depth. And it is affecting to think how ignorant I was, when a young Christian [alas, that so many older Christians are still ignorant of it.—A.W.P.], of the bottomless depths of wickedness, pride, hypocrisy and deceit left in my heart” (1743 A.D.).

Augustus Toplady, author of “Rock of Ages,” wrote thus in his private diary under December 31, 1767—“Upon a review of the past year, I desire to confess that my unfaithfulness has been exceeding great; my sins still greater; God’s mercies greater than both.” And again, “My short-comings and my mis-doings, my unbelief and want of love, would sink me into the lowest hell, was not Jesus my righteousness and my Redeemer.”

Listen to the words of that godly woman, the wife of that eminent missionary A. Judson: “Oh how I rejoice that I am out of the whirlpool! Too gay, too trifling, for a missionary’s wife! That may be, but after all, gaiety is my lightest sin. It is my coldness of heart, my listlessness, my want of faith, my spiritual inefficiency and inertness, by love of self, the inherent and every-day pampered sinfulness of my nature, that makes me such a mere infant in the cause of Christ—not the attractions of the world.”

John Newton, writer of that blessed hymn, “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me; I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see;” when referring to the expectations which he cherished at the outset of his Christian life, wrote thus: “But alas! these my golden expectations have been like South Sea dreams. I have lived hitherto a poor sinner, and I believe I shall die one. Have I, then, gained nothing? Yes, I have gained that which I once would rather have been without! Such accumulated proof of the deceitfulness and desperate wickedness of my heart, as I hope by the Lord’s blessing has, in some measure, taught me to know what I mean when I say, Behold, I am vile. . .I was ashamed of myself, when I began to seek it, I am more ashamed now.

James Ingliss (Editor of Wayrnarks in the Wilderness) at the close of his life, wrote Mr. J.H. Brookes, “As I am brought to take a new view of the end, my life seems so made up of squandered opportunities, and so barren of results, that it is sometimes very painful; but grace comes in to meet it all, and He will be glorified in my humiliation also” (1872). On which Mr. Brookes remarked, “How like him, and how unlike the boastings of those who are glorying in their fancied attainments!”

One more quotation: this time from a sermon by the late C. H. Spurgeon. Said the prince of preachers, “There are some professing Christians who can speak of themselves in terms of admiration; but, from my inmost heart, I loathe such speeches more and more every day that I live. Those who talk in such a boastful fashion must be constituted very differently from me. While they are congratulating themselves, I have to lie humbly at the foot of Christ’s Cross, and marvel that I am saved at all, for I know that I am saved. I have to wonder that I do not believe Christ more, and equally wonder that I am privileged to believe in Him at all—to wonder that I do not love Him more, and equally to wonder that I love Him at all—to wonder that I am not holier, and equally to wonder that I have any desire to be holy at all considering what a polluted debased, depraved nature I find still within my soul, notwithstanding all that divine grace has done in me. If God were ever to allow the fountains of the great deeps of depravity to break up in the best man that lives, he would make as bad a devil as the devil himself is. I care nothing for what these boasters say concerning their own perfections; I feel sure that they do not know themselves, or they could not talk as they often do. There is tinder enough in the saint who is nearest to heaven to kindle another hell if God should but permit a spark to fall upon it. In the very best of men there is an infernal and well-nigh infinite depth of depravity. Some Christians never seem to find this out. I almost wish that they might not do so, for it is a painful discovery for anyone to make; but it has the beneficial effect of making us cease from trusting in ourselves, and causing us to glory only in the Lord.”

Other testimonies from the lips and pens of men equally pious and eminent might be given, but sufficient have been quoted to show what cause the saints of all ages have had for making their own these words, “O wretched man that I am.” A few words now on the closing verse of Romans 7.

“Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” “Who shall deliver me?” This is not the language of despair, but of earnest desire for help from without and above himself. That from which the apostle desired to be delivered is termed “the body of this death.” This is a figurative expression for the carnal nature is termed “the body of sin,” and as having “members.” (Rom. 7:23) We therefore take the apostle’s meaning to be, Who shall deliver me from this deadly and noxious burden—my sinful self!

In the next verse the apostle answers his question, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” It should be obvious to any impartial mind that this looks forward to the future. His question was, “Who shall deliver me?” His answer is, Jesus Christ will. How this exposes the error of those who teach a present “deliverance” from the carnal nature by the power of the Holy Spirit. In His answer, the apostle says nothing about the Holy Spirit; instead, he mentions only “Jesus Christ our Lord.” It is not by the present work of the Spirit in us that Christians will be delivered “from this body of death,” but by the yet future coming of the Lord Jesus Christ for us. It is then that this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption.

But, as though to remove all doubt that this “deliverance” is future, the apostle concludes by saying, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Let every reader note carefully that this comes after he had thanked God that he would be “delivered.” The last part of verse 25 sums up what he had said in the second part of Romans 7. It describes the Christian’s dual life. The new nature serves the law of God; the old nature, to the end of history, will serve “the law of sin.” That it was so with Paul himself is clear from what he wrote at the close of his life, when he termed himself “the chief’ of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). That was not the exaggeration of evangelical fervor, still less was it the mock modesty of hypocrisy. It was the assured conviction, the felt experience, the settled consciousness of one who saw deeply into the depths of corruption within himself, and who knew how far, far short he attained to the standard of holiness which God set before him. Such, too, will be the consciousness and confession of every other Christian who is not blinded by conceit. And the outcome of such a consciousness will be to make him long more ardently and thank God more fervently for the promised deliverance at the return of our Savior and Lord, when He shall “change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself’ (Phil. 3:2 1); and having done so, He will “present us faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 24). Hallelujah, what a Savior!

It is remarkable that the only other time the word “wretched” (the only other time in the Greek too) is found in the New Testament occurs in Revelation 3:17, where to the Laodiceans Christ says, and knowest not that thou art wretched!” Their boast was that they had “need of nothing.” They were so puffed up with pride, so satisfied with their attainments, that they knew not their wretchedness. And is not this what we witness on every hand today? Is it not evident that we are now living in the Laodicean period of the history of Christendom? Many were conscious of the “need,” but now they fancy they have received “the second blessing,” or “the baptism of the Spirit,” or that they have entered into “victory;” and, fancying this, they fondly imagine that their “need” has been met. And the proof of this is, they are the very ones who “know not” that they are “wretched.” With an air of spiritual superiority they will tell you that they have “got out of Romans 7 into Romans 8.” With pitiable complacency they will say that Romans 7 no longer depicts their experience. With smug satisfaction they will look down in pity upon the Christian who cries, “O wretched man that I am,” and like the Pharisee in the temple, they will thank God that it is otherwise with them. Poor blinded souls! It is to just such that the Son of God here says, “And knowest not that thou art wretched.” We say “blinded” souls for mark it is to these Laodiceans that Christ says, “Anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest SEE!” (Rev. 3:18) It is to be observed that in the second half of Romans 7 the apostle speaks in the singular number. This is striking and most blessed. The Holy Spirit would intimate to us that the highest attainments in grace do not exempt the Christian from the painful experience there described. The apostle portrays with a master pen—himself sitting for the picture—the spiritual struggles of the child of God. He illustrates by a reference to his own personal experience the ceaseless conflict which is waged between the antagonistic natures in the one who has been born again.

May God in His mercy so deliver us from the spirit of pride which now defiles the air of modern Christendom, and grant us such an humbling view of our own uncleanness that we shall join the apostle in crying with ever-deepening fervor, “O wretched man that I am!” Yea, may God vouchsafe to both writer and reader such a view of their own depravity and unworthiness that they may indeed grovel in the dust before Him, and there praise Him for His wondrous grace to such hell-deserving sinners.


----------



## JBaldwin

I hold to the view that Romans 7 is speaking to the believer. Before coming to the reformed faith, I went to a small Bible institute. In order to graduate, we were required to memorize Romans chapters 5, 6 & 8. They completely skipped Romans 7, and when asked why, they said it didn't apply to us. These were perfectionists, and they taught that the victorious Christian didn't have those kinds of conflicts. In fact, they said if you did have those kinds of conflicts in your life, you might not be a believer. I totally disagree with this point of view, but it is out there.


----------



## Denton Elliott

JBaldwin,



> they taught that the victorious Christian didn't have those kinds of conflicts. In fact, they said if you did have those kinds of conflicts in your life, you might not be a believer. I totally disagree with this point of view, but it is out there.



I would say a true sign of a Christian is that you DO have conflict with the flesh! If you don't have conflict with sin in your life, you may not be a believer...


----------



## Barnpreacher

Contra_Mundum said:


> C Hodge _Commentary_ is very helpful.
> 
> My own attitude is that this certainly is a Christian predicament. DM Lloyd-Jones held to a rather odd view, one that typifies the difficulties that have accompanied even good Reformed treatments of the passage--he thought this section must be descriptive of a person _in between_ or moving from death to life.
> 
> The resolution which has satisfied me most is to consider the context, and the questions being proposed by Paul's imaginary interlocutors. Now, having established that justification is by grace through faith, and that grace is no license for sin, the temptation as regards sanctification might be to now regard law as the new means of _producing_ godliness. NOT SO. Have you begun by faith, and now propose to finish by works? Impossible, and your frustration will be obvious and apparent to yourself, that you MUST despair of hoping so to gain God's favor. And so, on to chapter 8, which describes the true _source_ of new life in Christ--it is not the law, but the Spirit.



Amen, Rev. Buchanan. Dr. Cairns preached the following message on the very thing you just summarized. He also talks about the view held by Dr. Lloyd-Jones in the message. 

SermonAudio.com - The Cry of the Captive


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

I like Calvin's commentary on this chapter. Commentary on Romans | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Barnpreacher said:


> Rev. Buchanan. Dr. Cairns preached the following message on the very thing you just summarized. He also talks about the view held by Dr. Lloyd-Jones in the message.
> 
> SermonAudio.com - The Cry of the Captive



I will add that, listening to Cairns' message, I agree he does an excellent job handling the passage; I wish I could have preached it so well. His is a long sermon--if I had found it necessary to give as much background as he does, I might have preached twice. However, he points out that DMLJ's dissatisfaction with some Reformed views _that Rom 7 is "the Christian life in optimum"_ is a justified skepticism.

When I was required to study Rom7 in seminary, I surveyed the Reformed landscape, and after the "standard position" as espoused by J Murray, et al, then found one or two (Godet was one, I think) on the opposite side--which surprised me, but showed me that there were real exegetical issues that needed to be worked through with care. Lloyd-Jones' expressed doubts only confirmed this sense, although his answers were just as dissatisfactory _to me_ as those that failed him. Charles Hodge was one of the last commentators I read and I found him most helpful and balanced. Cairns said he hadn't read anyone with the position he was setting forth, but Hodge comes pretty close.

All in all, I think Cairns presents what I consider the most judicious, Reformed position, one that takes everything into balanced consideration, and sets the whole in its context. My NT professor in seminary (not the professor who assigned this study, by the way) also pushed me in this direction with his insights. I think he would also commend Cairns' handling of the text.


----------



## timmopussycat

Daniel Ritchie said:


> If you are looking for those who argue that it refers to an unbeliever (which I think is nonsense), you could consult:
> 
> D. Martyn Lloyd Jones on Romans 7



This is a less than fully accurate statement of MLJ's view. For he repeatedly states that the I of Rom.7:13-25 is not unregenerate. "We have seen one thing very clearly, and that is, that here we are not looking at an unregenerate man." (p. 224 Zondervan ed.) Again "this cannot possibly be the unregenerate man" (p.229). Yet he does not believe that Paul is describing mature Christian experience either. (He discusses in detail the contradictions such a view creates with other scriptures.) In his view, (which deserves more attention than it has received) Paul, in this passage, is describing a man under "intense conviction of sin, who has been given to see...the holiness of the law." (p.255). MLJ regards such a man as "being neither the one or the other, neither unregnerate nor regenerate. All we can say for certain is that they are under deep conviction of sin." (p. 256)


----------



## jaybird0827

As a staffer with a certain parachurch ministry many years ago I was encouraged to think of Romans 7 as a description of the "carnal Christian" or "carnal walk".

I thank God for his patience with me and for guiding me through providence to a Scriptural understanding of the passage and seeing it more clearly in the context of Romans 5-Romans 10.


----------



## A5pointer

Sydnorphyn said:


> see Doug Moo's commentary on Romans. He understands the passage as describing an unbeliever.
> JSO



I have seen Moo's position. I think it makes sense of the text. Anyone else read it?


----------



## puritanpilgrim

Reymond has a great section in the back of his systematic book. He believes it is an unbeliever. Additionally Machen and Lloyd Jones hold the same view. There are many strong theologians who hold this view.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Barnpreacher said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> C Hodge _Commentary_ is very helpful.
> 
> My own attitude is that this certainly is a Christian predicament. DM Lloyd-Jones held to a rather odd view, one that typifies the difficulties that have accompanied even good Reformed treatments of the passage--he thought this section must be descriptive of a person _in between_ or moving from death to life.
> 
> The resolution which has satisfied me most is to consider the context, and the questions being proposed by Paul's imaginary interlocutors. Now, having established that justification is by grace through faith, and that grace is no license for sin, the temptation as regards sanctification might be to now regard law as the new means of _producing_ godliness. NOT SO. Have you begun by faith, and now propose to finish by works? Impossible, and your frustration will be obvious and apparent to yourself, that you MUST despair of hoping so to gain God's favor. And so, on to chapter 8, which describes the true _source_ of new life in Christ--it is not the law, but the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, Rev. Buchanan. Dr. Cairns preached the following message on the very thing you just summarized. He also talks about the view held by Dr. Lloyd-Jones in the message.
> 
> SermonAudio.com - The Cry of the Captive
Click to expand...


Slightly  but how do you know Alan Cairns? He is from Northern Ireland originally, though he ministers in the USA, he used to be Ian Paisley's assistant pastor.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Speaking for myself, I've never met him, however, I know people who do know him. He pastors in the city where I went to seminary, Greenville, SC. I've listened to a handful of his sermons, all which were well delivered as I recall. Somehow, Paisley's denomination got to be real tight with the BobJonesU crowd in this country; the IFP is pretty unknown outside those circles. The internet, however, allows good preachers to get a wider audience.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Slightly  but how do you know Alan Cairns? He is from Northern Ireland originally, though he ministers in the USA, he used to be Ian Paisley's assistant pastor.



I found Dr. Carins on the internet a few years back. He is one of the finest ministers I have ever listened to. I almost went to the Free Presbyterian seminary there in Greeneville a couple of years ago, but it wasn't to be according to God's providence.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Contra_Mundum said:


> Somehow, Paisley's denomination got to be real tight with the BobJonesU crowd in this country;



Strange bedfellows, no doubt. I never could figure that connection out, apart from a strong flavor of fundamentalism from both parties.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Barnpreacher said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, Paisley's denomination got to be real tight with the BobJonesU crowd in this country;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange bedfellows, no doubt. I never could figure that connection out, apart from a strong flavor of fundamentalism from both parties.
Click to expand...


Ian Paisley's denomination in _Northern Ireland_ are much less Reformed than the church in North America. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is a strange mixture of Presbyterianism and American Fundamentalism; the closest equivalent to it in America is probably the Bible Presbyterian Church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Ian Paisley's denomination in _Northern Ireland_ are much less Reformed than the church in North America. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is a strange mixture of Presbyterianism and American Fundamentalism; the closest equivalent to it in America is probably the Bible Presbyterian Church.


Even in the USA, one seldom hears (as you can hear in the Cairns sermon linked above) a Reformed/Presbyterian preacher identifying with "fundamentalism". For some, it was/is a badge of honor.

Machen did not want to self-identify that way, because "fundamentalism" was both _new_ and _reductionistic_. His was a full-bodied confessionalism, a well-rounded orthodoxy. His statement of faith was the substantive Westminster, and not 7 (or 12, or some other number) pillars of faith around which evangelicals or conservatives could rally.

Fundamentalists have a "creed" that is as thin and wanting of definition as the Apostle's Creed. Its a decent place to start, but the church has added a lot of definition since the first few centuries.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Bob Jones, Jr. awarded Ian Paisley an honorary doctorate after Paisley was released from prison in 1966. That, along with his 1954 questionable credentials from American Pioneer Theological Seminary, is the basis for him being referred to as 'Dr.' 

Alan Cairns was involved in the 1973 presbytery ruling which enabled Paisley and other Free P ministers to pursue political office despite Calvin's stated opposition to ministers holding political office in in the _Institutes_, 4.11.8.

Source: Clifford Smyth, _Ian Paisley: Voice of Protestant Ulster_, pp. 19, 46, and Wikipedia.

BTW, I have dear friends who are part of the Free P Church in Greenville, Winston Salem and Indianapolis (on this board).


----------



## moral necessity

JBaldwin said:


> I hold to the view that Romans 7 is speaking to the believer. Before coming to the reformed faith, I went to a small Bible institute. In order to graduate, we were required to memorize Romans chapters 5, 6 & 8. They completely skipped Romans 7, and when asked why, they said it didn't apply to us. These were perfectionists, and they taught that the victorious Christian didn't have those kinds of conflicts. In fact, they said if you did have those kinds of conflicts in your life, you might not be a believer. I totally disagree with this point of view, but it is out there.



I agree...it is out there. My former pastor said that Romans 7 is the stumbling and Romans 8 is the victory. To me, that requires too shallow of a view of sin and too small of a view of grace. I am, on my best day, simply a vile, festering pool of sin that oozes wickedness from every pore; yet with a small spark of grace somewhere in the middle, like a tiny candle out in the middle of a dark, deep, and turbulent ocean. I think Rom. 7 is the best it gets here. If it's not, I might as well quit.


----------



## Iconoclast

moral necessity said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hold to the view that Romans 7 is speaking to the believer. Before coming to the reformed faith, I went to a small Bible institute. In order to graduate, we were required to memorize Romans chapters 5, 6 & 8. They completely skipped Romans 7, and when asked why, they said it didn't apply to us. These were perfectionists, and they taught that the victorious Christian didn't have those kinds of conflicts. In fact, they said if you did have those kinds of conflicts in your life, you might not be a believer. I totally disagree with this point of view, but it is out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...it is out there. My former pastor said that Romans 7 is the stumbling and Romans 8 is the victory. To me, that requires too shallow of a view of sin and too small of a view of grace. I am, on my best day, simply a vile, festering pool of sin that oozes wickedness from every pore; yet with a small spark of grace somewhere in the middle, like a tiny candle out in the middle of a dark, deep, and turbulent ocean. I think Rom. 7 is the best it gets here. If it's not, I might as well quit.
Click to expand...


While Romans 7 speaks of a christian as in A.W.Pinks The Christian in Romans 7, previously posted, I think we must be careful not to isolateRomans 7 from the rest of Romans,or the other scriptures also.
While indwelling sin is vile we are instructed how to mortify sin in Romans 8:1-17. This is not an accident,but rather carefully laid -out vital instruction as to who we are In Christ.
In a very real way Romans 7/8 is almost a real life sermon application of psalm 130:


> Psalm 130
> 1Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD.
> 
> 2Lord, hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.
> 
> 3If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
> 
> 4But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.
> 
> 5I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.
> 
> 6My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning.
> 
> 7Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.
> 
> 8And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.


 The psalmist is very sensitive to corruption within vs.3 in reference to a thrice Holy God, as was Isaiah in Isa.6.
Yet, in vs. 4 he calls to mind the abundant forgiveness of God to the objects to His saving love and grace. This great forgiveness,coupled with a reverent fear causes a response among all who are children of God.
The waiting and hoping in the word cause us to seek the Lord in prayer for our daily bread, and as Noah ;


> 7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.


 If we focus on Romans 7 alone seperating it from the context of the earlier chaptes in romans , it could lead to a morbid introspection,instead of godly service. 
In most churches today this might not be a problem as any self examination is discouraged. But this type of imbalance might be more prevalent among the churches represented here, where sin is constantly confronted by those ministers who are faithful to the preaching and teaching of the word.


----------



## moral necessity

I agree that Romans 7 should not be isolated, but, I have a different take on Romans 8. I don't think Romans 8:1-17 is necessarily teaching us how to mortify sin. I think it is teaching us how God will mortify sin within us, as we keep our focus correctly on Christ and his promise to follow through with what he began in us. A lot has to do with how you take the phrases "live according to the flesh" vs. "live according to the Spirit", and "walk according to the flesh" and "walk according to the Spirit." My explanation here is quick, as it is late, and is therefore probably not detailed enough to be plainly laid out so that it is easily seen.

I think he's speaking in Ch.8 vs.2 about freedom from the condemnation of the law. And, righteousness (imputed) in vs.4 comes by resting and abiding in the finished work of Christ, instead of resorting back to works of the flesh and hoping in it to produce our righteousness. Vs.5-11 compares those who think they live (have eternal life) by fleshly means verses those who think they live (have eternal life) by faith in the work of Christ; and shows what each resort to for their sanctification. Vs.11 says that life or redemption of your your mortal bodies will occur, and that the Spirit gradually gives us life now through his sanctification work within us. Therefore, vs.12-17 shows that the accusation laid against Paul in Ch.6:1 is a false accusation, for grace does not lead to liscentiousness. Rather, it leads to life or sanctification being given to your mortal bodies in this life. Vs.13 shows that sanctification comes by the Spirit alone, and all reliance upon our deeds of the body towards such are to be abandoned. We are not to fear that we will be condemned for our remaining sin, vs.15. We have been adopted, we are his sons, we are heirs with Christ, and we must suffer through the likes described in Ch.7, so that we will be glorified with victory in the future when Christ is glorified.

Paul considers in vs.18 that these sufferings with sin aren't worthy to be compared with the future glory of victory he'll receive later. All of creation waits its redemption from bondage to sin just like we do (vs.19-22). Our deliverance from sin lies in hope, and in this hope we were saved from the laws penalty (vs.23-24). And, we wait for our deliverance from sin with patience (vs.25). In the meantime, vs.26-27, the Spirit helps us with prayers to Christ on our behalf. God is in control of everything, and is causing even our struggles with sin to work together for our good and for his glory (vs.28). We are guaranteed to be glorified, and freed from our sin, since we have already been justified (vs.29-30). There is no break in that link. Vs.31-39 assures us that God will follow through with our sanctification and glorification. Both are guaranteed to us. No charge can be brought against us for our present sin within us. No condemnation, no separation, nothing we face is able to rob us of the promised glorification. 

So, I don't think he's switching from discussing our indwelling sin and it's power in our lives in Ch. 7 to a strategy for how we can mortify our sin within us in Ch.8. I think Ch.8 rather continues the same theme as Ch.7, and gives us hope in the midst of a Ch.7 life, while pointing out that the accusation against Paul in Ch.6:1 that started this entire 3 chapter discussion (6,7,8) is a false accusation, for resting and abiding in the finished work of Christ leads to him sanctifying us now, instead of resorting to looking within ourselves and striving with deeds of the flesh. If the Spirit is what made us live in the first place, then we must daily keep the same mindset for our sanctification. That's what he means by "walking by the Spirit". We are to stay rested upon God and relying upon his promise to sanctify us.

So, the Psalm 130 fits well, and vs.5-8 show that we are to wait for God in hope for deliverance from our iniquities.

That's how I see it for now.

Blessings!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Bob Jones, Jr. awarded Ian Paisley an honorary doctorate after Paisley was released from prison in 1966. That, along with his 1954 questionable credentials from American Pioneer Theological Seminary, is the basis for him being referred to as 'Dr.'
> 
> Alan Cairns was involved in the 1973 presbytery ruling which enabled Paisley and other Free P ministers to pursue political office despite Calvin's stated opposition to ministers holding political office in in the _Institutes_, 4.11.8.
> 
> Source: Clifford Smyth, _Ian Paisley: Voice of Protestant Ulster_, pp. 19, 46, and Wikipedia.
> 
> BTW, I have dear friends who are part of the Free P Church in Greenville, Winston Salem and Indianapolis (on this board).



As far as I am aware, the Doctorate was for services to Protestantitism. 

Clifford Smyth was in the DUP, but was deposed by Paisley because he became a threat to his power. How a man can be a minister, and a member of the British Parliament - especially in these days of near state-totalitarianism - is beyond me. I would suspect that many Free P men now regret the decision to allow ministers to be politicians 

But that's enough for now, we are going


----------



## KMK

Here is an interesting thread on the subject: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/who-man-romans-7-14-25-a-5330/

I appreciated Mr. Wylie's comments. It is something that I have been meditating on as I study to teach on 'apprehending' Christ. In Phi 3:3-9, it is quite obvious that before his regeneration, Paul was not struggling with sin.


----------



## Neogillist

*Romans 7 does not apply to Arminians*

If you consider that in Romans 7 Paul is speaking of someone prior to becoming a believer, then you have adopted the position that James Arminius would take on the subject. Indeed, I think all the Calvinists of the Reformation considered Romans 7 to be referring to the believer, and James/Jacob Arminius adopted the alternative interpretation. It surprises me that Loyd Jones also adopts the Arminian interpretation. It is probably due to his Methodism surfacing; I'll have to say that if you desire to be on the "safe side" of the interpretation of Romans 7, then you can trust that it refers to the believer; besides all the smartest Reformed theologians would take that position.


----------



## moral necessity

I'm shocked about Martin Lloyd-Jones too! Where can I find in Lloyd-Jones' writings that he adopts this view?


----------



## DMcFadden

Neogillist said:


> If you consider that in Romans 7 Paul is speaking of someone prior to becoming a believer, then you have adopted the position that James Arminius would take on the subject. Indeed, I think all the Calvinists of the Reformation considered Romans 7 to be referring to the believer, and James/Jacob Arminius adopted the alternative interpretation. It surprises me that Loyd Jones also adopts the Arminian interpretation. It is probably due to his Methodism surfacing; I'll have to say that if you desire to be on the "safe side" of the interpretation of Romans 7, then you can trust that it refers to the believer; besides all the smartest Reformed theologians would take that position.



I agree with you that it describes the believer. However, Reymond is a pretty smart guy. So are J. A Bengel, H. A. W. Meyer, F. Godet, M. Stuart, W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, J. Denney, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., A. Hoekema, M. Lloyd-Jones. Ridderbos, while not seeing it as autobiographical also denies that it describes the Christian struggle with sin.


----------



## bookslover

greenbaggins said:


> I highly recommend Cranfield's commentary on this passage. He lays out all the arguments for each position, takes the view that Paul is talking about a believer, and answers all the objections. Extremely clear (though a bit technical). Good to see Richard quoting him.



Cranfield's entire discussion can be found in 1:340-370. He spends no fewer than 30 pages (out of the total of 444 pages of text in volume 1) on this issue (and immediately contextual issues). He is nothing if not thorough.


----------

