# Romans 7:14-25



## Theological Books (Jan 13, 2005)

The two tradition views of Romans 7:14-25 are seemingly the only proposed views. The Arminians (as well as some reformed such as Robert Reymond--see his systematic theology) argue it is the unregenerate man struggling under the condemnation of the law, while the Reformed argue it is the regenerate man struggling with the mortification of the flesh. I would like to propose an alternative (redemptive-historical) view and get your feedback.

Instead of asking the anthropological question, "Is this man regenerate or unregenerate?" I argue the question must be, "Under what covenant is Paul talking about living." Paul is contrasting life under the Mosaic Covenant--a ministry of death and condemnation, and of works--in Romans 7:14-25 and life under the New Covenant--pure gospel with no works principle.

Any thoughts for discussion?


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 13, 2005)

Have you read John Stott's commentary on this passage?


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 13, 2005)

I have heard this argument before. Regeneration does not come into play and Paul is looking at himself and other Jews who struggle under the Mosaic Covenant but also looks to the grace within that Covenant.

Is this an argument that you have developed or have you heard if before? I have to say that I have heard it from NT Wright. I believe it is in his commentary on Romans. Peronally I don't think this view holds up as I think regeneration does come into play as only a regenerate person would be able to identify the inner struggle with sin (the unregenerate man would not based on Rom 1) and look to Christ as the answer.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 13, 2005)

Stott takes the position that Paul is describing the experience of a _regenerate_ Jew struggling under the Old Covenant.


----------



## Theological Books (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I have heard this argument before. Regeneration does not come into play and Paul is looking at himself and other Jews who struggle under the Mosaic Covenant but also looks to the grace within that Covenant.
> 
> Is this an argument that you have developed or have you heard if before? I have to say that I have heard it from NT Wright. I believe it is in his commentary on Romans. Peronally I don't think this view holds up as I think regeneration does come into play as only a regenerate person would be able to identify the inner struggle with sin (the unregenerate man would not based on Rom 1) and look to Christ as the answer.



Well, it isn't something I've come up with on my own. It's been discussed--in some regard--on campus. There are also hints of in Ridderbos' book on pauline theology.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 13, 2005)

I have Ridderbos' book. I'll have to check it out.


----------



## Theological Books (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I have Ridderbos' book. I'll have to check it out.



WSW, he's difficult to pin down. In some areas he alludes to an RH approach, but then designates it as referring to the regenerate man. It is in an acorn form.


----------



## Theological Books (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Bradford,
> 
> Doesn't Paul imply that he is *currently* undergoing certain problems? If so then what would it mean to say that he's talking about OC life? Does it mean that he's desiring to go back to the OC and forget the NC? Just clarifying....



Yes, they are present verbs, but that doesn't necessitate it is a present reality.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



The tension between obedience and disobedience is seen throughout the passage. The present tense of the verbs is indeed _strong _evidence of a present reality, but it is not the only evidence.

First, the very fact that there is a struggle here points to a sanctified mind. It is a sanctified, regenerate mind that realizes that it is being disobedient. Unless Paul here speaks as a believer, how does he know that the law is spiritual and good, and yet see that he does not keep the law? Moreover, how could Paul be reflecting back and say: "for to will is *present * with me (o. ga.r qe,lein para,keitai, moi), but how to perform what is good I do not find." para,keitai implies taht something is present before one, and especially when given two alternatives, it is a choice that is present before one, to do one of two things. (e.g. it is before you to fight or to flee)

Second, it is not possible that an unbeliever could say: "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man." It might be possible that an unbeliever would think he had fulfilled all that was required by God, but it is quite another to delight in his law. Psalm 1 makes clear that it is the _blessed_ man who delights in the law of God (cf. also Ps. 119).

Third, we have the anti-climatic end of the chapter. If Paul were merely recounting the differences between past and present, why go from "I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" in verse 25, to "So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Why not say, in the past I served the law of sin, but now I serve the law of God? The language here is clearly one of present struggle.

Finally, 7:25 has to occur in the context of a redeemed Paul. Why? Because he serves the law of God _with his mind_. But Paul, just a few verses later, says that very act is impossible for the unbeliever: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." (Rom. 8:7) So at the same time that he is serving the law of sin with his flesh, he is serving the law of God with his mind. There is nothing to indicate any time or covenantal difference. In order to have Paul talking about two separate points in his life, we must separate what Paul doesn't (Rom. 7:25), and we must have Paul going back and forth (often in the same clause, let alone sentence) between the two descriptions. It is highly confusing, and frankly, very un-Pauline.


----------



## Theological Books (Jan 14, 2005)

Thanks, guys. I appreciate your opinions.


----------

