# Romans 7 - saved or unsaved? Please critique these articles.



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2009)

Thoughts On The Way: Charles Leiter on Romans 7

Thoughts On The Way: "Justification and Regeneration" - A Personal Review

Milpitas Bible Fellowship :: Library:


Is the Romans 7 man a saved man or an unsaved man at the point where he is doing the things he doesn't want to do?

Doesn't Robert Reymond agree with Charles Leiter and affirm that the Romans 7 man is unsaved?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 18, 2009)

This has been discussed before: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/who-man-romans-7-14-25-a-5330/

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, W. Sanday, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., Anthony Hoekema, Martin Lloyd Jones, Herman Ridderbos.

This information comes from Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology. Reymond defends the Pre-Conversion perspective.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2009)

Puritan Fellowship: Charles Leiter

Yes, I am wrestling through these issues.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 18, 2009)

I assumed you were not merely "stirring the pot." So, I gave you some previous discussion to chew on (in the interim) and answered your question about Reymond.


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 18, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> This has been discussed before: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/who-man-romans-7-14-25-a-5330/
> 
> Among theologians who have held to Post-Conversion Paul:
> 
> ...



I don't think Reymond places Lloyd-Jones stance entirely correctly. For MLJ the man of Rom 7 is a special type of preconversion perspective that of a man under conviction.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 18, 2009)

The problems with pre-conversion is that the passage is written by Paul, and is present tense. Those that state it is pre-conversion have to argue that either Paul is speaking in the first person when he does not mean first person, or that he is speaking in historical present. The problem with historical present is that it is not a narrative (it isn't a sequence of events) to which the historical present would apply.

The problem with it being post-conversion Paul is that the passage speaks of him being in bondage to sin (presently). That would tend to go against other passages that clearly state we are no longer a slave to sin.

I will only state that I tend to post-conversion in that I see there is a remnant of corruption throughout the whole man.


> WCF Chapter 13
> 
> 2. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.



While we are truly sanctified, there is yet a war waging continually between the flesh and the Spirit within true believers.

If one holds to the Westminster standards, there is no real problem with this being a post-conversion Paul ... we see it as "now, but not yet" juxtaposition of what we are in this age and what we will be in the age to come.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 18, 2009)

As you know Pergy at times in the past we have run in the same circles. I have met brother. Leiter at least as many times as I have met Holmes Moore but have not discussed this issue with him. I have discussed with others in the past and have not been persuaded that the man in Rom. 7 is a lost man. 

I haven't read Leiter's book.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 19, 2009)

It would be a lot easier for me to be persuaded that the Romans 7 man was not yet converted because I want to translate Lieter's book. 

But if I vote post-conversion then I either translate a book that I would conclude reaches the wrong conclusion or else I don't translate an otherwise fine book (or I would need to exclude that chapter from the translated text - something that might give needless offense).


Yes, Paul is speaking present tense so I always assumed the post-conversion stance. But the bondage to sin statement is troubling to me.


----------



## Michael Doyle (Feb 19, 2009)

John Piper answered that particiular question thusly:


> 7. Sin as a Slave Master
> Argument #7 is an attempt to answer the strongest argument against the view that I am defending. I think the strongest argument that Paul is not describing Christian experience here would be the wording of Romans 7:14b, where Paul says, "I am of flesh [or, I am carnal, or fleshly], sold into bondage to sin [literally: sold under sin]." Would Paul really say of a Christian, "I am sold under sin"? The imagery of being "sold" is the imagery of slavery. A slave master seems to have bought him and he is sold. The slave master is sin. Can a Christian ever say, "I am sold under the slave master of sin"?
> 
> I admit this is a very good argument. If it weren't for all the other counter-arguments I would be persuaded by it. For example, at least six times in Romans 6 Christians are spoken of as freed from the slave master of sin (verses 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22). Verse 18: "Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."
> ...



He gives 10 reasons why he believes the man is a Christian. I found that to be helpful as I had a go round with a fella at church some time ago. Hope this helps.


----------



## coramdeo (Feb 19, 2009)

*Puritan thought*

I found this footnote in my Geneva Bible which may show a Puritan view.
but don't we all identify with Paul in this every day? 
"Geneva Study Bible

{9} For that which I do I {10} allow not: for what I {11} would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

(9) He sets himself before us as an example, since he has been regenerated, and in whom may easily appear the strife of the Spirit and the flesh, and therefore of the law of God, and our wickedness. For since the law in a man who has not been regenerated brings forth only death, therefore in him it may easily be accused: but seeing that in a man who is regenerated it brings forth good fruit, it better appears that evil actions proceed not from the law but from sin, that is, from our corrupt nature: and therefore the apostle teaches also what the true use of the law is by reproving sin in the regenerated, unto the end of the chapter: as a little before (that is, from the seventh verse until now) Ro 7:7-15, he declared the use of it in those who are not regenerated.

(10) The deeds of my life, he says, are not in accordance to my will, rather they are contrary to it. Therefore by the consent of my will with the law, and repugnancy with the deeds of my life, it plainly appears that the law and a properly controlled will induce us to do one thing, but corruption, which also has its seat in the regenerated, another thing.

(11) It is to be noted that the very same man is said to will and not to will, in different respects: that is, he is said to will in that he is regenerated by grace: and not to will in that he is not regenerated, or in that he is in the same state into which he was born. But because the part which is regenerated at length becomes conqueror, therefore Paul, speaking on behalf of the regenerated, speaks in such a way as if the corruption which willingly sins were something outside of a man: although afterward he grants that this evil is in his flesh, or in his members."


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 19, 2009)

Romans 6:16-18 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 

I believe this passage is important. I believe that Romans 7 is post-conversion. Here in vv. 17-18, Paul says, using the past tense, that the Christian is no longer the slave of sin, but is the slave of righteousness. However, v. 16 is in the present tense. Whoever obeys sin is (functionally) the slave of sin. Even those who have been set free from sin _de jure_ can still be _de facto_ slaves of sin simply by sinning. So, I think John Piper is right on the money.

I also think we need to see how emotionally Paul is writing. We tend to read epistles as cold, intellectual treatises, but Paul especially pours out his heart in practically every letter he writes. Here, he is using striking, emotional language to describe what is going on in his life. He has a real, frustrating struggle against sin that isn't really resolved until chapter 8.


----------

