# Romans 7:14-24



## ~~Susita~~ (Jan 9, 2006)

This has probably already come up, but I would like to know what y'all think.

In Romans 7:14-24, who does Paul describe, a believer or an unbeliever?


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 9, 2006)

I'ts a believer.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Miscellaneous/romans_7.htm


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 9, 2006)

Oh and I don't think I ever said "WELCOME" Susie. Forgive the oversight. I'm so glad that you and your exuberance are here. Blessings!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 9, 2006)

Paul is talking about himself and the struggles he experiences even as a believer. The battle is real.


----------



## ~~Susita~~ (Jan 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Oh and I don't think I ever said "WELCOME" Susie. Forgive the oversight. I'm so glad that you and your exuberance are here. Blessings!



Thank-you! So far I'm really enjoying this board, very thorough and motivating!

And yes, I'm thinking that Paul was talking about a believer. My pastor told us yesterday that he is going to be delving into this in a couple months and to do our homework, so I want a head start!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 9, 2006)

Verse 24-25 sum it up.

As well, the opening passage Paul addresses the 'brethren'.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 9, 2006)

For an argument supporting the unbeliever stance, Robert Reymond dedicates an appendix to the subject in his Systematic.

It has been a while since I read his view, and I am at work away from my books, so I cannot summarize it.

I believe many of us _want _or _hope _Paul to be talking about his present state rather than his preconversion/natural man state.


----------



## ~~Susita~~ (Jan 9, 2006)

Yep, that was a huge part too: "or do you not know, BRETHREN..."

Thanks for the input, fellas!


----------



## heartoflesh (Jan 9, 2006)

Welcome Susie,

I started a couple of threads about this a while back which you can read here and here. 

As for myself, I haven't made up my mind yet. There are good arguments on both sides. I don't believe one's interpretation of this passage is critical to one's view of sanctification either.


----------



## ~~Susita~~ (Jan 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> Welcome Susie,
> 
> I started a couple of threads about this a while back which you can read here and here.
> ...



Okay, thank-you!

If you want, I'll let you know when we get the sermons on our church website so you can go listen; you might learn something new.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 9, 2006)

Those whom hold to preconversion:

What do you do with verses:

Rom 7:5 For *when we were* in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 
Rom 7:6 *But now we are* delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jan 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Those whom hold to preconversion:
> 
> What do you do with verses:
> ...




I don't know. I can't reconclie them. The same way I can't reconcile the following verses with the post-conversion view:

Romans 6:20
For *when ye were the servants of sin*, ye were free from righteousness,

Romans 7:14
...but *I am carnal, sold under sin*


----------



## heartoflesh (Jan 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Those whom hold to preconversion:
> 
> What do you do with verses:
> ...



Actually, I guess I'm not understanding your question. Verses 14-25 are the verses that are debated. There is no debate over either of the verses you posted.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 9, 2006)

There's also a third view, that's Israel's history personified see Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective
Collected Essays and Book Reviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology
by Mark W. Karlberg CHAPTER 7 http://www.twoagepress.org/Karlberg.pdf

VanVos


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2006)

Here is what J.C. Ryle had to say on this passage:



> "[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.



[Edited on 1-15-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## non dignus (Jan 15, 2006)

Not only is he talking about a believer, he's talking about himself.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 15, 2006)

Archibald Alexander, _Religious Experience_, pp. 129-130:



> There has long been a difference of opinion respecting the true interpretation of the Rom 7, in regard to Paul's description of the spiritual conflict, whether he describes the exercises of a converted sinner, whom he personates; or whether he does not rather express honestly the feelings of his own heart, and describe the painful conflict between the powers of sin and holiness which was going on in his own bosom. The latter, undoubtedly, is the obvious meaning, for the apostle speaks in the first person, and gives no notice of introducing a person of another character; and some of the expressions here employed are as strongly descriptive of a regenerate heart as any in the Bible. Who but a regenerate man can say, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man"? [Rom 7:22] And the closing words show clearly enough that the apostle was detailing the exercises of his own soul, for he gives thanks to God for giving him the victory in this severe conflict, but still intimates that the two irreconcilable principles continued, according to their respective natures, to operate within him. "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." [Rom 7:25]
> 
> Arminius began his career of departure from the commonly received opinions of the Reformed churches by writing a book in exposition of Rom 7; and it is a remarkable coincidence that Faustus Socinus in Poland was engaged at the same time in writing a book on the same subject, and to support the same views. This subject is excellently treated in one of President Dickinson's Letters; and more largely by Fraser on Sanctification. The same subject is also treated accurately and judiciously by Dr. Charles Hodge in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. It is understood that the followers of John Wesley hold, in conformity with his recorded opinion, that sanctification is not a gradual and progressive work, which remains imperfect in the best in this life, but that, like regeneration, it is instantaneous, and that the result is a complete deliverance from indwelling sin; so that from that moment believers are perfectly holy, and sin no more"”unless they fall from this high state of grace"”in thought, word, or deed. Here then there can be no similarity between the religious experience of an Arminian, who has attained sanctification, and a Calvinist, who is seeking to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one is conscious of no sin, inward or outward, of nature or of act, and must have perpetual joy"”a heaven on earth; while the other is groaning under a deep sense of inherent depravity which works powerfully against his will, and continually interrupts and retards his progress. His frequent language is, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death"? [Rom 7:24] Here indeed we have a wide difference in the religious experience of professing Christians; and it must be acknowledged that if the experience of the Arminian is in accordance with the Word of God, he has greatly the advantage over the contrite, brokenhearted penitent, whose complaints are so great that they often cause him to wet his couch with tears. How to reconcile these widely different views of our condition as sanctified sinners, I know not. There must be a grand mistake somewhere; and I sincerely pray to God, that if my views on this subject are erroneous, they may be corrected!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 15, 2006)

I think at least part of the answer (and relates to the fact that even good men differ) lies in finding the connection between chapter 6 and chapter 8.

1) After chapter 6 I don't think that it makes any sense to backtrack as if speaking of the unconverted. And much that is said simply cannot be predicated of the unbeliever.

2) In chapter 7 I do think that the issue of indwelling sin is addressed at least partly, and that even mature Christians can find themsleves echoing the closing verses of the chapter.

3) Chapter 8 is describing the Christian "on track", the spirit-filled Christian with his equilibrium.

4) I think that at least part of chapter 7's challenge comes about because in it, Paul has to reitterate a corrective for Christians. The temptation for many people who come to faith in Christ (salvation by grace) is to think that Sanctification is by human effort--by keeping the 10 commandments. "Now that I'm saved I can finally keep the Law! Hooray! I will surely be able to please God now!" Of course this leads to an endless series of frustrations, because sanctification is no less a work of God's free grace than the rest of our salvation. That is the triumph of chapter 8.


----------



## satz (Jan 16, 2006)

I dunno... i always thought that Paul was definitely a saved man when speaking in that passage.

Surely making Paul an unregenerate in this passage is inconsistent with total depravity?

Some unbelievers may struggle against the outward commission of certain sins, but surely none of them ever 'delighted in the law of God' v22, nor would they ever experience the other groanings against sin Paul describes.


----------

