# Rom. 7:14-25 - Examining the Unregenerate Position



## heartoflesh (Mar 18, 2005)

I had previously posted this in another thread "Who is the man in Romans 7:14-25"--- but have taken the liberty of reposting it here in order to bring closer attention to it and hopefully dissect it. I've also removed it from the other thread.


I just dusted off my Romans commentary by Douglas Moo and was surprised to discover (I guess I had forgotten) that he leans toward the unregenerate position. He offers the following as "tipping the scales" for him: 



> Decisive for me are two sets of contrasts. The first is between the description of the _ego_ as "sold under sin" (v.14b) and Paul's assertion that the believer--_every_ believer-- has been "set free from sin" (6:18, 22). The second contrast is that between the state of the _ego_, "imprisoned by the law [or power ] of sin" (v.23), and the believer, who has been "set free from the law of sin and death" (8:2). Each of these expressions depicts an objective status, and it is difficult to see how they can all be applied to the same person in the same spiritual condition without doing violence to Paul's language. In chaps. 6 and 8, respectively, Paul makes it clear that "being free from under sin" and "being free from the law of sin and death" are conditions that are true for every Christian. If one is a Christian, then these things are true. This means that the situation depicted in vv. 14-25 cannot be that of the "normal" Christian, nor of an immature Christian. Nor can it describe the condition of _any_ person living by the law because the Christian who is mistakenly living according to the law is yet a Christian and is therefore _not_ "under sin" or a "prisoner of the law of sin." Other points are significant also-- the lack of mention of the Spirit, the links with 7:5 and 6:14, and the connections between vv. 7-12 and 13-25-- but I think these arguments are the most important. I do not deny that advocates of other views can marshall good arguments of their own. But when all the data have been weighed, I think that the balance tilts toward the interpretation of the _ego_ in these verses as unregenerate.
> 
> This conclusion does not mean that Christians do not struggle with sin. Paul makes it abundantly clear, both explicitly--for instance, Gal. 6:1-- and implicitly-- by the amount of time he spends scolding Christians in his letters!-- that believers are not delivered from the influence of sin. While "transferred" into the new realm, ruled by Christ and righteousness, believers are still prone to obey those past masters, sin and the flesh. I do not, then, deny that Christians struggle with sin-- I deny only that this passage describes that struggle. For, while the believer continues to be influenced by both "realms," Paul makes it clear that he _belongs_ to the new realm. In identification with Christ, he has _died_ to sin (6:2), been taken out of the enveloping power of the flesh (8:9), been made a slave of God (6:22). Either these assertions or the force of what Paul says about the _ego_ in vv. 14-25 must be watered down to make them "fit" together.
> 
> NICNT, Romans, Douglas Moo pp. 448-449



On page 445 he lists the main points for this position:



> 1. The strong connection of _ego_ with "the flesh" (vv. 14, 18, and 25) suggests that Paul is elaborating on the unregenerate condition mentioned in 7:5; being "in the flesh".
> 
> 2. _Ego_ throughout this passage struggles "on his/her own" (cf. "I myself" in v. 25), without the aid of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 3-18-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm just ducking in and out of here. I've got some other business and cannot spend much time. Moo isn't reformed, as far as I know, but it would be a mistake to say that the reformed community has itself been monolithic on interpreting this challenging passage. The standard view states that Paul must be talking about his struggles with indwelling sin. But even if this is exactly correct, it does not relieve some of the obvious tensions in the passage, tensions that men such as Charles Hodge, John Murray, and D.M. Lloyd-Jones vigorously worked through, and came to different conclusions (even where similar).

I take a view that the reality of indwelling sin in the believer is certainly being addressed here. But the key, I think, to understanding the passage is _first_ to understand the macro-picture of the purpose for chapters 6 *through* 8. In chapter 6 the focus is on the Christian's duty to turn from sin, after all he is now God's slave and no longer a slave to sin. In chapter 8 the way of Spirit-living is presented. The problem presented in chapter 7 is the problem of indwelling sin. It seems to make the Christian life a contradiction.

*This is what I think Paul is saying:* 
"When you were an unbeliever you were condemned by the Law. It killed you even when you were inclined to try and obey it. Now that you are a Christian, you may think, 'OK! Great! _Now_ I can finally obey the Law, and please God thereby!' But, Oh no, you find that in your own strength you cannot obey perfectly and please God. In fact the more you try in your own strength to do so, the greater your frustration. Indwelling sin stands in your way. *Christian! You cannot sanctify yourself!* That is the work of the Spirit as well."

And on to chapter 8.

Thus, I see the "I" in verses 14-25, is partially autobiographical, and partially the everyman Christian, and especially that Christian that begins to try a self-sanctification process. It is easy for even the best of Christians, with the best theological understandings (like Paul!) to find himself seemingly without warning ensnared in such a false trap of thinking and behavior. "Who will deliver me?" It is at the point of frustration and despair that we turn our thoughts back to God, and reliance upon the sanctifying Spirit of his grace.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 18, 2005)

And so one might answer the question (if one were asked on a Candidates exam  ) how do we come by sanctification? "By faith"


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> the key, I think, to understanding the passage is _first_ to understand the macro-picture of the purpose for chapters 6 *through* 8.



I also think that when chaps. 6-8 are viewed as a whole it makes more sense for Paul to be decribing himself as a Christian in vv. 14-25. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for him to be going back to describing "in the flesh" in detail. He's already done that most comprehensively in chaps. 2-3!

The sticking point for me is his phrase "sold under sin" (v.14) and how this can be compatible with "set free from sin" (6:18, 22). One possible explanation is offered by John Piper:



> I am aware that one of the main arguments for a pre-Christian interpretation is that a Christian of the Romans 6 variety cannot be "sold under sin" (7:14, "I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin"). I take "sold" here to be an image of "sold into slavery." But I take it to be a temporary experience of what Paul says not to let happen in Gal. 5:1, "Keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." I think Paul would have said that is what Peter let happen in Gal. 2:12ff. So my understanding is that we are not in constant slavery to sin and that we have been decisively manumitted out of that state and condition, but that we slip back into it from time to time, and sin is spoken of as "enslaving" us in one sense in those times.
> 
> Who is this divided man?


----------



## turmeric (Mar 18, 2005)

Usually by "carnal" Paul means unregenerate, by "spiritual" he means regenerate. Would it be different this time? What if Chapters 6-8 are primarily about justification, not sanctification?


----------



## Bryan (Mar 18, 2005)

I've actually been going back and forth with a person On another message board about this, actually I quoted Fred from on here since he summerized the post-conversion position so well earlier. It's a very interesting discussion. Me and the other person are caught up over how "law" should be interperated. He believes it must be strictly interperated as the Mosaic law and therefore shouldn't give any christian any trouble since they are no longer bound by it.

Bryan
SDG


----------

