# Who is the Man in Romans 7:14-25?



## heartoflesh (Mar 8, 2005)




----------



## Irishcat922 (Mar 8, 2005)

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 (Mar 8, 2005)

I agree; post conversion.


----------



## daveb (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> Why would Paul have such a struggle with sin unless he was a Christian?





Has to be post-conversion.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 8, 2005)

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.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 8, 2005)

Woops. That one pre-conversion vote is me. Got mixed up - meant to vote post!

JH


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 8, 2005)

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?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

glad to know that I had voted in an orthodox manner...


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 8, 2005)

> _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.


----------



## Shane (Mar 8, 2005)

Post conversion Paul all the way. If not I dont stand a chance.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 8, 2005)

For anyone who holds to the view that Romans 7 is about a pre-conversion, how would you handle Philippians 3:3-9?




> 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;



It would certainly appear that Paul wasn't exactly struggling before conversion.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> For anyone who holds to the view that Romans 7 is about a pre-conversion, how would you handle Philippians 3:3-9?



Not sure if this addresses your question specifically, but Robert Reymond writes:



> The advocate of the Augustinian view contends that the unregenerate person could not and will not "delight in God's law after the inward man" as the man in the passage says he is doing (7:22); only Christians, they urge, can do that. But I beg to differ. Saul of Tarsus, as a Pharisee, did just that. It may legitimately be said that throughout his life as a self-righteous Pharisee he "delighted in the law of God with his mind"-- observance of the law was his very reason for being. He was a "son of the law," was commited to it, and wanted to obey it. But when the tenth commandment truly "came home" to him at some point with condemning power (had he coveted Stephen's knowledge of Scripture and his exegetical power?) and made him aware of his indwelling sinfulness, the sin which had always dwelt within him "came to life" and he "died" (7:9). Paul also declared that the Jewish nation was "pursuing" a righteousness of its own through law-keeping (Rom. 9:31-32). Apparently, then, unregenerate people can sincerely desire to be obedient to the law. Their problem, as the passage teaches, is their impotence to do what they want to do or know to be right. *Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, pg. 1129*



[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Mar 8, 2005)

If anyone has Packer's "Keep In Step with the Spirit", he deals extensively with this passage in there!


----------



## turmeric (Mar 8, 2005)

Jacob Arminius also held the pre-conversion view.


----------



## Brian (Mar 9, 2005)

I agree that Paul is speaking about Post-conversion Christianity, but...


> 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?


...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:


> I would suggest that in verses 13 - 25 Paul's experience under the law is in view. Paul shifts in verses 14 - 25 to present tense verbs to depict his spiritual condition, which is captivity to the power of sin... But the passage does not intend to adjudicate between Christian and pre-Christian experience. It centers on the inherent inability of the law to transform. _Verses 7 - 12 portray Paul's transgression and death upon encountering the commandment. Verses 13 - 25 underscore the continuing state of bondage under sin. _
> 
> ***Schreiner evaluates each position for about six pages***
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 9, 2005)

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.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Rick..... 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.




Yes, he devotes an appendix to it-- most of which is a little over my head.


----------



## Theological Books (Mar 10, 2005)

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.


----------



## AdamM (Mar 10, 2005)

> 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.



W.B. I am curious about why you would think "conversion" is the wrong way to look at it?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Definately tongue-in-cheek!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 10, 2005)

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


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 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.



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 (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 11, 2005)

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 (Mar 11, 2005)

Josh,



> Larry, wasn't Jones' major contention with the post-conversion stance the fact that the passage in Romans 7 doesn't mention *as it does in Galatians* the war between flesh and spirit, but rather the war between the man and law?



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 (Mar 12, 2005)

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.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 12, 2005)

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


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 17, 2005)

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


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 18, 2005)

I found this gem also. 

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXI/31-8.htm


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> I found this gem also.
> 
> http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXI/31-8.htm



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.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



Fred: AS I look back, the gem was suppose to be put to another link. My apologies. But it presents ideas in a balanced way I thought. I also have to admit that I do nto due a CIA background check on everything I find on the net. I read it, if it appears genuinely humble, I give it an ear. IF it immediately presents a terrible thought, I close the book

[Edited on 3-18-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Joe,

My criticism was meant of Dunn (for whom I have little patience) and not for you. I actually assume that you had stumbed on the link without a knowledge of who Dunn is. While people certainly should not be expected to know who Dunn is, it also is not a far stretch ("CIA check") that I do. Dunn is one of the big three proponents (along with NT Wright and EP Sanders) of a new model of justification that is seeking to take over the Reformed world, the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). The NPP posits, in a nutshell, that Paul was not concerned with Jews who were seeking their own righteousness. Simply, they say, the Reformers were all wrong about Paul's conflict with Judaism and who the Pharisees were. The Pharisees (according to NPP) weren't legalists or semi-Pelagians. They were just too nationalistic.

That is why Dunn's rejection of the classic view of Romans 7 is no surprise. For Dunn, you keep your salvation by obeying, and in order to have any hope of doing that, he lowers the bar on what you have to obey.

Bad stuff.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...




I did not even look at who wrote it...hahahaha That is what i meant. I do not even know what the classical view of Romans 7 is. Reading this thread, it has been debated forever by learned men within the same traditions. So I assumed it was never considered orthodox either way.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 18, 2005)

There is some measure of debate on the passage; that is why I said "classic" (as in held by Augustine, Luther, Calvin and the Magisterial Reformers) and not "orthodox" (and therefore implying that Lloyd-Jones was unorthodox).

Dunn's views on _justification_ are decidedly unorthodox. He must of necessity take a position on Romans 7 that _allows_ for him to consistently hold his views on justification. The classic view does not allow that.


----------

