# The Romans 7 Man - who is he?



## MOSES

Who is the Romans 7 man?

Is it Paul before he was a Christian.?

Is it Paul after becoming a Christian?

Is it Paul before becoming a "better" Christian?






> 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
> 
> 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!


 

My answer....It is not Paul at all, it is a hypothetical (relational) man that Paul inserted in as part of his argument from Romans late chapter 5 through chapter 8.


Note: I am not here to promote an exact and specific view, but only to get your opinions, and then defend my "contemplating" of a view and test it up and against your views...and wait for the possible dismantling of what I am contemplating....


----------



## fredtgreco

The classic Reformed (and correct) view is that it is Paul as a Christian. _Viz._ Calvin:



> 14. For we know that the law, etc. He now begins more closely to compare
> the law with what man is, that it may be more clearly understood whence
> the evil of death proceeds. He then sets before us an example in a
> regenerate man, in whom the remnants of the flesh are wholly contrary to
> the law of the Lord, while the spirit would gladly obey it. But first, as we
> have said, he makes only a comparison between nature and the law. Since
> in human things there is no greater discord than between spirit and flesh,
> the law being spiritual and man carnal, what agreement can there be
> between the natural man and the law? Even the same as between darkness
> and light. But by calling the law spiritual, he not only means, as some
> expound the passage, that it requires the inward affections of the heart; but
> that, by way of contrast, it has a contrary import to the word carnal. f217
> These interpreters give this explanation, “The law is spiritual, that is, it
> binds not only the feet and hands as to external works, but regards the
> feelings of the heart, and requires the real fear of God.”
> 
> 15. For what I do I know not, etc. He now comes to a more particular case,
> that of a man already regenerated; f219 in whom both the things which he
> had in view appear more clearly; and these were, — the great discord there
> is between the Law of God and the natural man, — and how the law does
> not of itself produce death. For since the carnal man rushes into sin with
> the whole propensity of his mind, he seems to sin with such a free choice,
> as though it were in his power to govern himself; so that a most pernicious
> opinion has prevailed almost among all men — that man, by his own
> natural strength, without the aid of Divine grace, can choose what he
> pleases. But though the will of a faithful man is led to good by the Spirit of
> God, yet in him the corruption of nature appears conspicuously; for it
> obstinately resists and leads to what is contrary. Hence the case of a
> regenerated man is the most suitable; for by this you may know how much
> is the contrariety between our nature and the righteousness of the law.
> From this case, also, a proof as to the other clause may more fitly be
> sought, than from the mere consideration of human nature; for the law, as
> it produces only death in a man wholly carnal, is in him more easily
> impeached, for it is doubtful whence the evil proceeds. In a regenerate man
> it brings forth salutary fruits; and hence it appears, that it is the flesh only
> that prevents it from giving life: so far it is from producing death of itself.
> That the whole, then, of this reasoning may be more fully and more
> distinctly understood, we must observe, that this conflict, of which the
> Apostle speaks, does not exist in man before he is renewed by the Spirit of
> God: for man, left to his own nature, is wholly borne along by his lusts
> without any resistance; for though the ungodly are tormented by the stings
> of conscience, and cannot take such delight in their vices, but that they
> have some taste of bitterness; yet you cannot hence conclude, either that
> evil is hated, or that good is loved by them; only the Lord permits them to
> be thus tormented, in order to show to them in a measure his judgment; but
> not to imbue them either with the love of righteousness or with the hatred
> of sin.
> 
> 17. Now it is no more I who do it, etc. This is not the pleading of one
> excusing himself, as though he was blameless, as the case is with many
> triflers who think that they have a sufficient defense to cover all their
> wickedness, when they cast the blame on the flesh; but it is a declaration,
> by which he shows how very far he dissented from his own flesh in his
> spiritual feeling; for the faithful are carried along in their obedience to God
> with such fervour of spirit that they deny the flesh.
> This passage also clearly shows, that Paul speaks here of none but of the
> godly, who have been already born again; for as long as man remains like
> himself, whatsoever he may be, he is justly deemed corrupt; but Paul here
> denies that he is wholly possessed by sin; nay, he declares himself to be
> exempt from its bondage, as though he had said, that sin only dwelt in
> some part of his soul, while with an earnest feeling of heart he strove for
> and aspired after the righteousness of God, and clearly proved that he had
> the law of God engraven within him


----------



## MOSES

If Romans chapter 7 is the "christian" man...then who is the Romans chapter 8 man? 

Note: I am not saying that the Romans 7 man is not a christian, per se...but...is only an example of "sin and death" that we can all relate to...he, every christian relates to, as a man held captive...but he is put there on purpose by Paul, not to describe the christian man, but to describe the "LAW" of sin and death..to establish the "two laws" argument. Being content as a Romans 7 man, an example of sin and death, would be a grave error as opposed to the christian commandment of being the Romans 8 man.


----------



## Grymir

MOSES said:


> My answer....It is not Paul at all, it is a hypothetical (relational) man that Paul inserted in as part of his argument from Romans late chapter 5 through chapter 8.
> 
> 
> Note: I am not here to promote an exact and specific view, but only to get your opinions, and then defend my "contemplating" of a view and test it up and against your views...and wait for the possible dismantling of what I am contemplating....



O.k., I'll bite. It is Paul after his conversion. But A hypothetical man? Would this man be Saved or Lost?


----------



## biggandyy

It's me. Romans 7 is a mirror, not a man.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> If Romans chapter 7 is the "christian" man...then who is the Romans chapter 8 man?
> 
> Note: I am not saying that the Romans 7 man is not a christian, per se...but...is only an example of "sin and death" that we can all relate to...he, every christian relates to, as a man held captive...but he is put there on purpose by Paul, not to describe the christian man, but to describe the "LAW" of sin and death..to establish the "two laws" argument. Being content as a Romans 7 man, an example of sin and death, would be a grave error as opposed to the christian commandment of being the Romans 8 man.



What's the reason you're going after this speculative response to the text? Paul seems quite clearly to be speaking of real Christian experience in both Romans 7 and Romans 8 - Romans 7 outlines the sin within, and the struggle of the believer to do what he knows is right despite the fleshly desires that still plague him - he cries out at the end of the chapter, recognizing the only salvation from all that is Christ the Lord alone - and in Romans 8:1 and following we see the true comfort only Christ's finished atonement and imputed righteousness can bring us. Both men are Christian - and they are TRUE men - Paul is both of those men, and in that juxtaposition we see the already-not yet flesh vs. spirit battle that can be won only one way; a battle that rages inside all believers. The fight against sin is daily fought and never completely over until the last day.


----------



## LawrenceU

It is Paul as a Christian and his experience shows us ours as well.


----------



## MOSES

Grymir said:


> Would this man be Saved or Lost?



Is this man Saved...???

Saved from what exactly?

This Rom. 7 man is clearly not saved from sin and death...in fact this man is given as an explicit example of one who is very much bound by the law of sin and death...this man is given as evidence by Paul that there is such a law as the law of sin and death.

23 but I see in my members *another law *
Rom. 7


So again, if by "saved" you mean saved from the law of sin and death...then no, this man is not saved...he is the epitome of one who is bound by the law of sin and death. This man needs deliverence (he shall not be content with his current position).
This deliverence is explained by Paul in Romans 8
and it starts this way:

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has *set you free *in Christ Jesus *from the law of sin and death*

So...if the Romans 7 man were the example of a "delivered" man (or saved man)...then why would Paul suggest that the Rom.7 man needs dileverence?


----------



## LawrenceU

Because we still deal with the flesh. Otherwise you would have to extend your argument to Perfectionism.


----------



## greenbaggins

MOSES said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would this man be Saved or Lost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this man Saved...???
> 
> Saved from what exactly?
> 
> This Rom. 7 man is clearly not saved from sin and death...in fact this man is given as an explicit example of one who is very much bound by the law of sin and death...this man is given as evidence by Paul that there is such a law as the law of sin and death.
> 
> 23 but I see in my members *another law *
> Rom. 7
> 
> 
> So again, if by "saved" you mean saved from the law of sin and death...then no, this man is not saved...he is the epitome of one who is bound by the law of sin and death. This man needs deliverence (he shall not be content with his current position).
> This deliverence is explained by Paul in Romans 8
> and it starts this way:
> 
> 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has *set you free *in Christ Jesus *from the law of sin and death*
> 
> So...if the Romans 7 man were the example of a "delivered" man (or saved man)...then why would Paul suggest that the Rom.7 man needs dileverence?
Click to expand...


A couple of points are necessary here. First of all, the eschatological tension between the already and the not yet factors in here: the conflict between the old age and the new age finds its individual concomitant in the battle in the believer's life between the old man (which is enslaved to sin) and the new man (which is enslaved to Christ). 

Second point: the phrase "inner man" (see verse 22) is ONLY used of true belief in Paul. Therefore, the man in Romans 7 CANNOT be an unbeliever. 

Third point: you are forgetting the summary of chapter 7 in verses 24-25. After asking the question of deliverance, he gives us the answer in vs. 25a, where thanksgiving is given to God above. And THEN, AFTER having thanked God for the deliverance we have in Jesus Christ, he sums up the whole chapter by saying that he is enslaved both to God and to sin at the same time. One CANNOT be enslaved to God without being a true believer. 

Fourth point: Paul throughout uses present tense verbs of being, which strongly points to Paul's present experience. Simul justus et peccator (at the same time just and sinner) was Luther's claim, not that he was happy with the situation. Of course we shouldn't be happy with this situation! That's the whole point! That is why chapter 7 comes after chapter 6. We should ardently desire better things and more holiness.


----------



## BobVigneault

The Romans 7 man is saved from the wrath of God. Still going to struggle with sin, still going to feel an urge to 'return to Egypt' but saved from the wrath of God because of the work of Christ (ref. Gal. 2:20)


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Paul is painting the picture of God's work of sanctification in us as we struggle with the flesh. He is showing that sanctification is by faith also, not just justification. The *saved* man in chapter 7 hates his sin (lost people love sin) and in attempting to overcome it realizes that he can *ONLY* rest in Christ (chapter 8).


----------



## Pilgrim

It seems that the view that the man in Rom 7 is a non Christian, which has typically been an Arminian position, is gaining ground in some Calvinistic circles, especially with some who identify with New Covenant Theology.


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> Paul seems quite clearly to be speaking of *real Christian experience* in both Romans 7 and Romans 8 - Romans 7 outlines the sin within


<--emph. moses'

Why does Paul need to argue the point that Christians (or non Christians) are sinners? Why would Paul need to argue that Christians struggle with sin?

Wow Paul,,,thanks for the great insight, your right, I am a sinner and I struggle with sin...whopdy do!
Perhaps my sarcasm is uncalled for.

But...why would Paul make such an elementary experiential point (that everyone knows) at this part of his very technical argument that runs through chapters 6-8?


----------



## fredtgreco

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul seems quite clearly to be speaking of *real Christian experience* in both Romans 7 and Romans 8 - Romans 7 outlines the sin within
> 
> 
> 
> <--emph. moses'
> 
> Why does Paul need to argue the point that Christians (or non Christians) are sinners? Why would Paul need to argue that Christians struggle with sin?
> 
> Wow Paul,,,thanks for the great insight, your right, I am a sinner and I struggle with sin...whopdy do!
> Perhaps my sarcasm is uncalled for.
> 
> But...why would Paul make such an elementary experiential point (that everyone knows) at this part of his very technical argument that runs through chapters 6-8?
Click to expand...


The same reason that John makes the same argument in 1 John 1. Because people are prone to argue that they are "past sin" as some kind of higher Christian experience. It is what fuels about half of the visible Church this day.

Why would Paul want to make some kind of "hypothetical point" here? What purpose would that serve? It makes no sense to me.


----------



## BobVigneault

Exactly so Manley, Romans 7 is a description of the utter ruin of the flesh and the flesh can do nothing to battle against it. Only the Spirit can cover the weakness of the flesh. There is a great quote from John Owen from "The Mortification of Sin", here it is:



> Mortification from a self-strength, carried on by ways of self-invention, unto the end of a self-righteousness, is the soul and substance of all false religion in the world.





ManleyBeasley said:


> Paul is painting the picture of God's work of sanctification in us as we struggle with the flesh. He is showing that sanctification is by faith also, not just justification. The *saved* man in chapter 7 hates his sin (lost people love sin) and in attempting to overcome it realizes that he can *ONLY* rest in Christ (chapter 8).


----------



## ManleyBeasley

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul seems quite clearly to be speaking of *real Christian experience* in both Romans 7 and Romans 8 - Romans 7 outlines the sin within
> 
> 
> 
> <--emph. moses'
> 
> Why does Paul need to argue the point that Christians (or non Christians) are sinners? Why would Paul need to argue that Christians struggle with sin?
> 
> Wow Paul,,,thanks for the great insight, your right, I am a sinner and I struggle with sin...whopdy do!
> Perhaps my sarcasm is uncalled for.
> 
> But...why would Paul make such an elementary experiential point (that everyone knows) at this part of his very technical argument that runs through chapters 6-8?
Click to expand...


Because its *VITAL* for the believer to learn to REST in Christ alone for sanctification. Many get saved and then stop trusting Jesus for holiness and start trying to be holy through fleshly means (perfectionism). The path to holiness is only by knowing that sin is still working in me and clinging desperately to Christ every moment. Consequently, the holiest people always see themselves as the most wicked.


----------



## Grymir

Umm, Needs or Has dileverence? A lost man does not think like the Ch. 7 man. Vs. 25 makes it clear (at least to me) that it's a saved person. Paul talks about serving the Law of God and the law of sin. That is the struggle going on in the previous verses. And the Christian struggle. The lost don't care about sin in the way that Ch. 7 portrays. Plus the present tense of the verbs. Plus, in Vrs. 23 only the Justified would have 'another law' in them. 

But weither the Ch7. man is justified or lost has been raging for centuries. And I ain't gonna add anything to the 'discussion' that hasn't been said already, no matter how brilliant I fancy myself. So I want to also bring up the 'hypothetical' aspect of what you put forth. With Paul using "I" so much, how could that be?

You asked "saved from what?" Saved is a venacular term for Justification.


----------



## JBaldwin

I can see why this discussion would come up. In my days amongst the Keswick folks, Romans 7 was ignored, chopped out, neglected, etc. When we were required to memorize huge portions of Romans, we skipped right over Romans 7 and went straight on to 8 as if it didn't exist. 

I have to agree that Romans 7 is me.


----------



## MOSES

Paul shows that the Romans 7 man is trying to put to death the deeds of the flesh...but this man just cannot do it.

But..look what Paul say's in Romans 8...he tells us to do the very thing that the Rom.7 man could not do.

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.12 So then, brothers, [4] we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you *put to death the deeds of the body, you will live*.

Note: The underlined section is not about a future physical resurrection. It is about the Spirit giving life to our dead sinful mortal bodies NOW.


----------



## MOSES

Please be aware:

It is not my position that the Rom. 7 man should not or does not relate to us as Christians...he most certainly does.
I can say with confidence, I am the Rom. 7 man.

My point is that Paul does not write Rom. 7 so that we can all relate to him...We all already know that we relate to him. There is another reason that Paul gives us the Rom. 7 man.


----------



## Grymir

??? - Scatching my head in a Columobo moment -


----------



## biggandyy

Romans 8:10 answers the salvation question raised about Romans 7 quite nicely I think.



Paul said:


> But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.



We are BOTH. A dead body still pricked by sinful desires and an awakened spirit horrified by the sin that seems to flow naturally from us every waking moment.

This is a snapshot of a Christian on the journey of sanctification. At any one moment we are still sinful in action and desire but working out our salvation (justification) to enslave our flesh to Godly action by the work of the Holy Spirit


----------



## ManleyBeasley

MOSES said:


> Please be aware:
> 
> It is not my position that the Rom. 7 man should not or does not relate to us as Christians...he most certainly does.
> I can say with confidence, I am the Rom. 7 man.
> 
> My point is that Paul does not write Rom. 7 so that we can all relate to him...We all already know that we relate to him. There is another reason that Paul gives us the Rom. 7 man.



I believe the reason Paul wrote it is to teach us that sanctification comes through resting in Christ (faith). He wrote it to teach us how the saved person is sanctified by faith as opposed to fleshly works. The more we see how sinful we are the more we trust Christ and praise Him alone.

If you agree that you are the Romans 7 man then why do you believe Paul wrote it?


----------



## Barnpreacher

One of the best messages I have ever listened to on the topic. It's long, but worth it.

SermonAudio.com - The Cry of the Captive


----------



## Theogenes

Romans 7 is the normal Christian life!


----------



## timmopussycat

greenbaggins said:


> A couple of points are necessary here. First of all, the eschatological tension between the already and the not yet factors in here: the conflict between the old age and the new age finds its individual concomitant in the battle in the believer's life between the old man (which is enslaved to sin) and the new man (which is enslaved to Christ).
> 
> Second point: the phrase "inner man" (see verse 22) is ONLY used of true belief in Paul. Therefore, the man in Romans 7 CANNOT be an unbeliever.
> 
> Third point: you are forgetting the summary of chapter 7 in verses 24-25. After asking the question of deliverance, he gives us the answer in vs. 25a, where thanksgiving is given to God above. And THEN, AFTER having thanked God for the deliverance we have in Jesus Christ, he sums up the whole chapter by saying that he is enslaved both to God and to sin at the same time. One CANNOT be enslaved to God without being a true believer.
> 
> Fourth point: Paul throughout uses present tense verbs of being, which strongly points to Paul's present experience. Simul justus et peccator (at the same time just and sinner) was Luther's claim, not that he was happy with the situation. Of course we shouldn't be happy with this situation! That's the whole point! That is why chapter 7 comes after chapter 6. We should ardently desire better things and more holiness.



One of the problems in discussing this topic is that there are strong indications in the text that *both* the regenerate man and the unregenerate man cannot be what is referred to here. The discussion usually goes along the lines that one side's indicators are stronger and the other side's indicator texts don't really mean what seem to say. Coupled with this is the tendency tread Rom 7 in isolation from what has come before it, particularly Rom 6.1-11.

First point: in Rom 6, Paul teaches that although the old self is dead and we are no longer slaves to sin (vv. 6,7,11), sin is still present in our bodies and we must struggle against it. And Paul argues that it is *because* we are no longer slaves to sin that our struggle against it will ultimately be successful. So if Paul puts all Christians back under sins slavery in Rom 7 he is contradicting what he says in these verses of Rom. 6.

Second point; agreed that the inner man is never used of unbelievers so the man of Rom 7 is not the dead in sin unbeliever. But does that mean that the only alternative is that he must be a believer? Not necessarily. 

Third point: the debate has often tended to forget that Paul's point in 7:13-25 is not primarily that of describing someone's experience. Instead, after having answered v. 13's question "Did that which is good [the law] become death to me?" with a summary answer in vv. 13b" that no it wasn't the law but sin that killed him. And vv. 14-20, a passage that must be linked to v. 13 due to the connective "gar" "(For) we know....", he proves the point by analyzing his own experience from the standpoint of his present Christian experience.

Yet this summary of his experience raises the question: is the man who experiences these things regenerate? Certain things are said of this man that are not true of the unregenerate. He desires to do good and delights in God's law and is slave to it in his mind. So he must be regenerate. Yet he cannot obey it (vv. 18c) so he either cannot be regenerate or he has forgotten something.

This description fits men who are in one of two situations: either one who has been placed under sufficient conviction to see the spirituality of the law without yet seeing the sufficiency of Christ's redemption, or a Christian who has temporarily forgotten that he is now freed from sin's power if not its presence through Christ. If either of these situations was what Paul wanted to describe than the present tense reality makes sense because they are ongoing present realities experienced by many of his readers and the second pehaps he also knew as a temptation.

For those who are interested in exploring this further I recommend DM LLoyd-Jones commentary on Rom. 7. - 8:4.


----------



## MOSES

Theogenes said:


> Romans 7 is the normal Christian life!



in my opinion, this essentially promotes a *gnostic view *of Christianity. That is Christ only accomplishes for us spiritual things and delivers us in a spiritual aspect only. That the gospel has no real effect in the here and now, but only in the life to come.
That the "body" is evil and can only do evil...and that Christ only saves "spiritually".

That is Gnosticism


----------



## ManleyBeasley

ManleyBeasley said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please be aware:
> 
> It is not my position that the Rom. 7 man should not or does not relate to us as Christians...he most certainly does.
> I can say with confidence, I am the Rom. 7 man.
> 
> My point is that Paul does not write Rom. 7 so that we can all relate to him...We all already know that we relate to him. There is another reason that Paul gives us the Rom. 7 man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the reason Paul wrote it is to teach us that sanctification comes through resting in Christ (faith). He wrote it to teach us how the saved person is sanctified by faith as opposed to fleshly works. The more we see how sinful we are the more we trust Christ and praise Him alone.
> 
> If you agree that you are the Romans 7 man then why do you believe Paul wrote it?
Click to expand...

????


----------



## rescuedbyLove

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul seems quite clearly to be speaking of *real Christian experience* in both Romans 7 and Romans 8 - Romans 7 outlines the sin within
> 
> 
> 
> <--emph. moses'
> 
> Why does Paul need to argue the point that Christians (or non Christians) are sinners? Why would Paul need to argue that Christians struggle with sin?
> 
> Wow Paul,,,thanks for the great insight, your right, I am a sinner and I struggle with sin...whopdy do!
> Perhaps my sarcasm is uncalled for.
> 
> But...why would Paul make such an elementary experiential point (that everyone knows) at this part of his very technical argument that runs through chapters 6-8?
Click to expand...


Maybe Paul isn't necessarily *arguing* the point that Christians are still struggling with sin; maybe part of his intent was *to comfort* believers (by showing them that this is a "normal" thing for a Christian to go through, and that even he himself was not perfect yet, and went through the same struggles [and this is great comfort, because he was such a great man of God]).

And maybe the ultimate goal of this passage is *to glorify Christ*. The more sinful and the *weaker* we see that we are, the more glorious Christ will appear in our eyes, because of all of *His perfection* and *His mercy* toward us. And it is humbling, which is wonderful. So even though we "already know" that we still struggle with the law of sin, that shouldn't keep us from talking about it or thinking about it. Pondering his constant, frustrating battle with his flesh is what caused Paul to exclaim, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" with such fervency.

And also, Paul says that we are to imitate him and follow his example...(1 Cor 4:6, 11:1; Phil. 3:17, 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9)


----------



## rescuedbyLove

MOSES said:


> Theogenes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 7 is the normal Christian life!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, this essentially promotes a *gnostic view *of Christianity. That is Christ only accomplishes for us spiritual things and delivers us in a spiritual aspect only. That the gospel has no real effect in the here and now, but only in the life to come.
> *That the "body" is evil and can only do evil.*..and that Christ only saves "spiritually".
> 
> That is Gnosticism
Click to expand...



I could be wrong, I guess (I've been known to err a few times in my life ), but I don't think anyone in here is talking about *bodies*; the issue is *indwelling sin*.


----------



## biggandyy

The body is merely the outlet of our sin nature, or the container of our sin, it is not sin (or evil) itself.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

MOSES,
Let me just say that the particular pedagogy you seem to be pursing in this thread (as in some others) really isn't the way our board is structured. We are much more straightforward here, and this "socratic" dialog isn't nearly as helpful as simply stating a particular view and defending it.

I *think* I understand where you are coming from , and (believe it or not) I *think* my view may be close to what you are promoting. Burrowing about in the archives around here can sometimes be enlightening as to what topics have been talked about before. Not to stifle discussion about an old topic again, I mean, that's basically what we do around here all the time. But if it helps you to see the "manner" in which it's been broached, it might further the discussion better, further, faster.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

MOSES said:


> Theogenes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 7 is the normal Christian life!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, this essentially promotes a *gnostic view *of Christianity. That is Christ only accomplishes for us spiritual things and delivers us in a spiritual aspect only. That the gospel has no real effect in the here and now, but only in the life to come.
> That the "body" is evil and can only do evil...and that Christ only saves "spiritually".
> 
> That is Gnosticism
Click to expand...


You haven't been reading any N.T. Wright NPP stuff have you brother?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Theogenes said:


> Romans 7 is the normal Christian life!



Amen! Spot on brother. 
I can't see how it can be read in any other way. Never having been Arminian/Dispensational, I am not that familiar with their thinking, so I am not sure of the logic/theology behind any other interpretation.
Prasie God for Romans 8! 
Doesn't it just make us long for the day when sin will be no more and He will wipe away every tear from our eyes. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Come quickly!


----------



## Iconoclast

MOSES said:


> Theogenes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 7 is the normal Christian life!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, this essentially promotes a *gnostic view *of Christianity. That is Christ only accomplishes for us spiritual things and delivers us in a spiritual aspect only. That the gospel has no real effect in the here and now, but only in the life to come.
> That the "body" is evil and can only do evil...and that Christ only saves "spiritually".
> 
> That is Gnosticism
Click to expand...


Just the opposite. Because of the indwelling Spirit in the christian,as per Romans 6 and 8, We are now able to diligently keep the heart by seeking to 
* mortify* the * deeds* of the body. Not the body itself as here in Romans 8


> 13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.


 The reigning power of sin is broken Romans 6:1-17. Jesus has freed us from it's dominion,Jn 8:24-32.
While we still have to deal with sin, as Pastor Greco indicated, we are now free to serve God. This theme is all throughout the NT,in particular,as well as many of the OC. promises of the NT. reality.
We are freed to serve Christ, not free to serve sin any longer.


> 28Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
> 
> 29For our God is a consuming fire.


 That was in hebrews 12, and here it is in luke 1


> 72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
> 
> 73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
> 
> 74That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
> 
> 75In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.


----------



## Theogenes

Robert Haldane in his commentary on Romans says this of this passage in Rom.7; "Every Christian has in his own breast a commentary on the Apostle's language. If there be anything of which he is fully assured, it is that Paul has in this passage described his experience; and the more the believer advances in knowledge and holiness, the more does he loathe himself, as by nature a child of that corruption which still so closely cleaves to him."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I really do think that a man who views Romans 7 as an unbeliever before he becomes a Christian has really missed the nature of the Gospel and may not really have ever come in contact with Christ as His righteousness.

In order to understand Romans 7 you have to back up into Paul's argument throughout the Epistle.

Romans 5 really sort of begins a section in Paul's argument where he's trying to assure Christians of God's intent to save them. Why?

Because it seems inconceivable to us, in light of our sin, that God is still our friend at times. Our natural inclination is to believe (as did the Judaizers) that Abraham was chosen and saved on account of his good behavior. No, says Paul, even Abraham believed and was saved by grace and not by works.

"But", say we, "we are so wretched sometimes. I must not be saved because of this sin I just committed."

Paul reminds us in Romans 5 and following that God saved us while we were His enemies and He will surely save us now that we're His friends.

There are, of course, the natural enemies to this idea then that think we can sin all we want because grace abounds where sin abounds. Paul shuts down this idea in Romans 6 to emphasize that we've been united to Christ and that we need not sin. We are Christian and it is against our identity to sin and we can take strength from it.

But, even though we know we are Christian, we have this interloper that we can't shake. We suffer and struggle mightily because a power rages within us and we do the very things we do not want to do and at time we don't do the things we want. Any man who says he's a Christian and think he doesn't do this is either self-deceived or doesn't know what the Law requires of him.

We would surely be crushed by this realization of our shortfall if we keep looking within at our failing and so we cry out with the cry of a child in regular, painful desparation. I believe the groaning that we groan is a calling out to be delivered from the body of death and remembering, in the Gospel, that it's Christ that does this. But, and here's where we start to break down in unspeakable joy, because the Spirit ministers with our spirit in this groaning and testifies that we are sons of God.

Romans 8 reaches a crescendo that always blows me away when I consider how certain my salvation is in Christ Jesus. Paul doesn't reveal this Truth to us about the election of God in order to treat it as a philosophical pet but in order to give real assurance in the storm of our struggle with sin that "if God is for us, who can be against us?!"


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul seems quite clearly to be speaking of *real Christian experience* in both Romans 7 and Romans 8 - Romans 7 outlines the sin within
> 
> 
> 
> <--emph. moses'
> 
> Why does Paul need to argue the point that Christians (or non Christians) are sinners? Why would Paul need to argue that Christians struggle with sin?
> 
> Wow Paul,,,thanks for the great insight, your right, I am a sinner and I struggle with sin...whopdy do!
> Perhaps my sarcasm is uncalled for.
> 
> But...why would Paul make such an elementary experiential point (that everyone knows) at this part of his very technical argument that runs through chapters 6-8?
Click to expand...


Indeed, your sarcasm is completely out of place.

Paul makes this "elementary point" because his hearers need to recognize that our lives will be characterized by a continual struggle against sin, and that our only hope is in Christ. We also need to hear Romans 7 in order to understand that our struggling against the continual temptation to sin is a GOOD sign, not a DAMNING sign. I know a number of people who have missed this, and who honestly believe that their salvation is in jeopardy because they still have sin struggles. The section of chapter 7 in question (14-25 primarily) is strong remedy against that natural conclusion. This is NO elementary point - perhaps you are free of such mental difficulties, but others are often not.


----------



## bookslover

Romans 7 is Paul describing himself as a Christian. Only a Christian experiences and understands the tension in being constantly tempted to sin (the old man) and in wanting to live righteously (the new man). Unbelievers, being spiritually dead, do not sense this tension at all.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think Rom 7 is speaking about the problem of indwelling sin in the *believer*.

I also do not think that Paul is speaking in what one would call strict "autobiography," nor would I call it the "normal" Christian life. I really think we should reserve that language to describe Rom 8. In Rom 7 he could be said to be describing himself, at times in the past, and probably more than a few times to come in the future. But it helps to remember that the bulk of this letter is an argument, and a defense of the gospel.

I think the problem of indwelling sin in the heart of every believer is being addressed in Rom 7 by highlighting the frustration that Christians WILL feel when they come to realize--once again, and for the umpteenth time--the power of sin, and their helplessness in the flesh to effectively combat it.

The connection, as I see it in Paul discussion of sanctification between Rom 6-7-8 is that in Rom 6 the great truths of sanctification are introduced, and the great questions answered. In Rom 7, I think Paul is addressing the confident feeling we all get sometimes, "OK! now I'm a Christian, now I can finally KEEP all those commandments that God always wanted me to keep, and that I thought would MAKE me holy."

Well, it turns out that when we try to keep the law _as Christians_ in order to STAY pleasing to God... guess what--it doesn't work, we fail, miserably, all the time.

We need Rom 8. We need the realization that "life in the Spirit" is also a salvation-gift from Holy Spirit to us. Sanctification by faith. No, not the "let go and let God" model. That's not the message either. But there is a degree of "letting go" that we in our circles, who value and prize the law for the right reasons, need to practice.

It is easier, better for us, and more "natural" to learn to "let go" the law in ways that holding it will not help us. Easier, I say, than the poor misguided, mistaught folks who need to be counseled to take hold of the law again in the proper way, after they were told to jettison it wholesale (once they "made their decision").

In the Romans context, Paul makes short work of the accusation that he teaches that antinomian doctrine. But if he hasn't tossed the law over the side, how does the Christian continue to reckon with it?

It's there mainly to keep driving him to Christ. Which *closeness* will, in the long run, also recreate him in a law-like constitution. In fact, getting nearer to Jesus by the Spirit's work of sanctification, is the ONLY thing that will make a law-keeper of you.


----------



## MOSES

Contra_Mundum said:


> MOSES,
> Let me just say that the particular pedagogy you seem to be pursing in this thread (as in some others) really isn't the way our board is structured. We are much more straightforward here, and this "socratic" dialog isn't nearly as helpful as simply stating a particular view and defending it.



Thank you Bruce.

I understand that though the socratic method may be helpful to me, as a way that I am able to learn best (for some reason), it may not be helpful for everyone else on this board. I realize that incorporating this method is basically being selfish on my part. I will refrain from using this method of reasoning in the future.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think Rom 7 is speaking about the problem of indwelling sin in the *believer*.
> 
> I also do not think that Paul is speaking in what one would call strict "autobiography," nor would I call it the "normal" Christian life. I really think we should reserve that language to describe Rom 8. In Rom 7 he could be said to be describing himself, at times in the past, and probably more than a few times to come in the future. But it helps to remember that the bulk of this letter is an argument, and a defense of the gospel.
> 
> I think the problem of indwelling sin in the heart of every believer is being addressed in Rom 7 by highlighting the frustration that Christians WILL feel when they come to realize--once again, and for the umpteenth time--the power of sin, and their helplessness in the flesh to effectively combat it.
> 
> The connection, as I see it in Paul discussion of sanctification between Rom 6-7-8 is that in Rom 6 the great truths of sanctification are introduced, and the great questions answered. In Rom 7, I think Paul is addressing the confident feeling we all get sometimes, "OK! now I'm a Christian, now I can finally KEEP all those commandments that God always wanted me to keep, and that I thought would MAKE me holy."
> 
> Well, it turns out that when we try to keep the law _as Christians_ in order to STAY pleasing to God... guess what--it doesn't work, we fail, miserably, all the time.
> 
> We need Rom 8. We need the realization that "life in the Spirit" is also a salvation-gift from Holy Spirit to us. Sanctification by faith. No, not the "let go and let God" model. That's not the message either. But there is a degree of "letting go" that we in our circles, who value and prize the law for the right reasons, need to practice.
> 
> It is easier, better for us, and more "natural" to learn to "let go" the law in ways that holding it will not help us. Easier, I say, than the poor misguided, mistaught folks who need to be counseled to take hold of the law again in the proper way, after they were told to jettison it wholesale (once they "made their decision").
> 
> In the Romans context, Paul makes short work of the accusation that he teaches that antinomian doctrine. But if he hasn't tossed the law over the side, how does the Christian continue to reckon with it?
> 
> It's there mainly to keep driving him to Christ. Which *closeness* will, in the long run, also recreate him in a law-like constitution. In fact, getting nearer to Jesus by the Spirit's work of sanctification, is the ONLY thing that will make a law-keeper of you.



I appreciate what you're saying and agree. Do you think our proclivity to fall back into the Law is something that wanes over time with sanctification? I could see where what you're saying might be mis-construed but I see the same transitions you're speaking of and believe that Paul's point is to keep us planted where our hearts ought to be (in Romans 8) but we have hearts that are prone to wander.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Rich,
I think we all find ourselves in the Rom 7 situation. I hope that as we mature in the faith and grown in grace we catch ourselves sooner when we are in Rom 7 mode (not the "realization" at the end, but the mistakes before that), and get our minds and hearts where they ought to be, in Rom 8 mode.

If you find someone who's always affecting Rom 8 mode, there's probably something wrong. Because usually, the more sanctified we are, the more readily we see our remaining sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> Rich,
> I think we all find ourselves in the Rom 7 situation. I hope that as we mature in the faith and grown in grace we catch ourselves sooner when we are in Rom 7 mode (not the "realization" at the end, but the mistakes before that), and get our minds and hearts where they ought to be, in Rom 8 mode.
> 
> If you find someone who's always affecting Rom 8 mode, there's probably something wrong. Because usually, the more sanctified we are, the more readily we see our remaining sin.



I completely agree. I was trying to capture that in my description above and I really liked your description as well. Different analogies to the situation help us all clarify what is ongoing in the Christian's heart.

I think those that believe those that believe they have achieved status where they no longer are driven to their knees in regular recognition of their shortcoming are probably not truly converted.

In fact, I pointed out to my Church a few months ago that our American Evangelical culture tends to put super heroes of the faith on display as the "testimony" of what it means to be Christian. "I was an alcoholic and prayed to God and He gave me no more desire to drink" or "I was a homosexual and he gave me no more desire to lust in sin".

Even Ray Boltz is an example of this theology of perfection where Ray admits his constant frustration that he couldn't be delivered form his sin. Yet, I imagine he was like the millions caught in this cycle of the Law with nobody preaching Christ as the man who delivers from this body of sin. He was convinced, as countless others are, that everybody else has victory and if you just try harder then you can have victory too. It's a sham.

Preaching Romans 7 in the context of the rest of Romans is part of the Gospel: "You're right, Christian, you are wretched. Did you forget that God saved you while you were His enemy?! Remember yet again that Christ is your righteousness and that, in your confidence in the Cross, He's never stopped being your righteousness in the midst of your unrighteousness!" The Gospel of Grace is that God justifies the ungodly!


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

*Let's Remember How to Read*

I know this may come across wrong...but, how is it people forget what they have read in a previous chapter? Paul builds up his arguements like a lawyer, being he was schooled as such.

So, when you read Romans 6, how can we who HAVE died to sin, live any longer therein...and then read Romans 7, a person suddenly believes Paul decided to bounce his arguement back to one who is lost? As if he didn't cover that extensively in Romans 6? Also, in the beginning of Romans 7. Also, in Romans 7 Paul is plainly speaking of himself...it's quite simply stated, "I", "I am", "I", etc, etc.

Remember, Paul refers to himself elsewhere as the chief of sinners. What he of course is saying, is simply that a regenerate man is a conflicted man, in that he desires to keep God's Commandments but cannot for the indwelling sin, as has been mentioned afore in the thread. It is the mindset of the man born of the Spirit, to want to keep the Commandments, though he himself is powerless to do so, hence Romans 8. Unsaved people don't war against sin, because the Spirit isn't there. The new heart God gives His elect, desires to please Him who gave it to him, and yet the man cannot seem to do all that he would to do so, though he painfully tries with all he has, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". 

The one comfort that the Christian has is Romans 8:28, in the final analysis of Paul's arguement...God works ALL things for the good to those who love Him, and are the called according to HIS purpose...showing that indeed, if God be for us, who can be against us...so, Romans 7 man finds his only hope to be in the one he originally found hope in...Romans 7 man comes to the conclusion that he indeed is saved, that he is delighting in the Law of God, which is in it's self, a great comfort to him. The war that rages in him is how he KNOWS he is reconsiled to God, in Christ Jesus. He goes into greater depth of this Understanding in Romans 8.

So, yes! Romans 7 man is in fact Romans 6 man, and Romans 8 man as was Paul's purpose to show, as he built his arguements from Romans 1 on.

Love Romans, especially from 5:20 to the end of Chapt. 8...


----------



## MOSES

Can this be a conclusion by some.
Q: Hey, what is the proof I’m a good Christian?
A: I struggle with sin like the Rom. 7 man

I am not applying the socratic method...this is an honest question which I wil not even respond to.

Note: this post was edited with 95% of it being deleted because it was innapropriate


----------



## Grymir

Now this is good.

(As in this is an interesting development)


----------



## MW

MOSES said:


> Note: I apologize if I have spewed too many words from the heart and perhaps offended some,,,but this issue really has been on my heart and my purpose was not to offend.



 You have offended and your rant is unacceptable. Please change your tone. For what it's worth, I sympathise with what you are trying to say, but the way you are saying it is unlike the Master, who would not break the bruised reed.

I think we all acknowledge that Rom. 7 is not the "idealised" Christian state, which should be one of continual abiding in Christ and bringing forth fruit to the glory of God. But the reality is we fall short even as regenerated people. What is the explanation? It is to be found in Rom. 7, and the fact that the law requires a perfection that the Christian does not possess in himself, and this drives him to Christ and His righteousness.

Is there a measure of comfort to be found in this? Yes; in the fact that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus even in the midst of this struggle to come to terms with a perfect law. The comfort is not in some existantial angst, but in the perfect law keeper and satisfier, Christ Jesus, who delivers us from the condemnation of the law and who brings the righteousness of the law to fulfilment in believers.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Shawn,

I don't see anyone bragging about being a sinner. And that is what I hear you accusing others of saying. I see them saying that they have something in them that the unbeliever doesn't have. And it is more than just a desire to be released from bondage. It is a struggle with sin because of their delight in the law of God. A crack addict doesn't have a dellight in the law of God. We who are born from above have something that the unregenerate doesn't have. We may both desire a release from bondage but the regenerate delights in the law of the Lord as Paul states in Romans 7. The unregenerate does not have this delight in God and suppresses the truth in unrighteousness as Romans 1 says. 

Your rant and accusations about self righteousness are unfounded. We are not antinomians here as you seem to be accusing others of being. 

Go back and read John Owen on Sin and Temptation in which he deals specifically with this text.


----------



## J.C. Philpot

_I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD._

The sinner who is convicted of his sin by the Holy Spirit sais when he looks upon himself "_O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death._". But when he excersises faith in Christ he also sais: "_I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord."_ Martin Luther describes Christians as "simultaneously saint and sinner". His last words were "_We are beggars, that is true_" Let us not think of ourself as more mature in the faith as the apostle Paul or the reformer Martin Luther, and be wise in our own eyes.

A.W. Pink adresses Romans 7:
http://www.pbcofdecaturalabama.org/AWPink/Romans7.htm


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I have often illustrated to my congregation that in Romans 7 we see a man rightly delivered from the mastery and bondage to sin, but still recognizing in himself the scars of that former mastery. Like a slave, he still bears the shackle marks on his wrists and ankles, and the scars upon his back--he carries these things with him. So, when that freed slave is in the marketplace on business of his new master's (Christ) he might hear his old master's voice call to him--It still sends a chill down his spine, and he, because of that former mastery, is inclined, even in his new freedom, to obey his old master, and often does. He forgets or ignores his release from that former mastery of sin, because it was such a powerful mastery and follows when he should not, and doesn't have to any longer. Further, every inclination to follow his old master is recognized by this former slave as a defection from his new master (Christ) for which he has great afection and desire to follow. Making things worse, this former master is always with him, following him, shouting out commands to keep. Finally, when he listens to this former master, his conscience strikes at him, for he so desires to please his new master, and every defection reminds him of his weakness and inclination to hear and follow his former master--he sees in himself the inability to be free from his former master and his constant barking out commands. 

And then comes Romans 8 for the rest of the story...


----------



## BobVigneault

Shawn,
a few thoughts on sanctification:

-the unregenerate person does NOT struggle with sin. The Spirit does not point out the sin nor is there a sensitivity to it. The unregenerate march happily toward Hell. They struggle to self-atone because deep inside they fear there is a God who will demand payment but for the most part their efforts to self-atone blot out the the warnings of God's wrath.

-sanctification is an upward spiral. When first quickened we may struggle with some pretty heinous sins, i.e., thoughts of murder, whoredom, blasphemy, drunkenous. By God's grace and the power of the Spirit we may overcome, in the flesh, these 'big' sins. But as the Lord continues to transform us into his image we see new deficiencies in our character, i.e., gossip, a haughty eye, covetousness. Our culture celebrates these things as virtues and so we've been blind to them but now, thinking God's thoughts after him, has presented new struggles.

We will always struggle with the presence of sin and the mortification of it. The sins, from man's point of view, seem more benign as we grow in grace, but from God's point of view we are every bit as vile as the 'crack whore' and are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. We have been saved from the penalty and power of sin,(we are now free NOT to sin) but as long as we live in the presence of sin (until Glory) we will struggle against it. That's the key, believers don't struggle WITH sin, we struggle AGAINST it.



> Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
> Let me hide myself in Thee;
> Let the water and the blood,
> From Thy wounded side which flowed,
> Be of sin the double cure;
> Save from wrath and make me pure.
> 
> Not the labor of my hands
> Can fulfill Thy law’s demands;
> Could my zeal no respite know,
> Could my tears forever flow,
> All for sin could not atone;
> Thou must save, and Thou alone.
> 
> Nothing in my hand I bring,
> Simply to the cross I cling;
> Naked, come to Thee for dress;
> Helpless look to Thee for grace;
> Foul, I to the fountain fly;
> Wash me, Savior, or I die.
> ---Toplady


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MOSES said:


> Can this be a conclusion by some.
> Q: Hey, what is the proof I’m a good Christian?
> A: I struggle with sin like the Rom. 7 man
> 
> I am not applying the socratic method...this is an honest question which I wil not even respond to.
> 
> Note: this post was edited with 95% of it being deleted because it was innapropriate



Having read the Q & A (and the deleted 95%), I am extremely concerned that everything that preceded could have been understood as you summarized.

Nobody revels in "...being the Romans 7 man...." There is no such thing as the "...Romans 7 man...." There are Christians in need of the Gospel.

This issue is fundamental to the Gospel itself when Paul asks the Galatians in bewilderment: Who has bewitched you?! Having begun in the Spirit are you now becoming perfect in the flesh?!

Believing the Gospel is a very hard thing. It's very hard. It's a simple message but it wars against our inclinations and our sense of things.

I heard what I believe to be a true observation about little children. They are born with an acute sense of justice. They very much want things to be fair and cannot understand things when the bad are not punished or the "good" don't get things equally. If James gets a toy then Anna and Sophia feel as if Justice has been violated if they don't get one.

I believe this is the Law written on men's hearts. It is the Covenant of Works imprinted upon us. We are natural Pelagians convinced that he who would be helped by God must first help himself. Some, who have more tender consciences by the time they become grownups, can see that they are not perfect and so they'll grant to God that He can help make up the rest in what is lacking in them but, still, if we're going to be saved (most reckon) it's because we earned it.

You simply cannot understand Romans 7 and everything we've been talking about concerning the surrounding context and conclude that this is all about being "proud" to be a sinner or being proud that we have angst. Biblical piety, as captured in the Reformed confessions, even warns us to self-examine ourselves lest we deceive. We need to be sober about sin. Our aim is not to be glad that we're miserable about our sin but to be striving to please our heavenly Father.

But (and this is crucial), how we think about our sin when we sin and where it drives us can completely derail our understanding of the Gospel itself. It's the reason why so many Evangelicals today are effectively missing the Gospel. As the White Horse Inn has pointed out, many revival type Churches are engaged in a huge bait-and-switch scheme where salvation is promised upon belief in Christ alone (good, they understand we begin in the Spirit) but then, somehow they completely miss the Apostle Paul and make the Christian's continued participation in Christ a matter of earnestness (becoming perfected through the flesh). Altar calls, rededications, and re-baptisms are evidence of this poverty. Paul calls this no Gospel at all.

It's not that the Christian's aim changes but, when we sin, we have a tendency to fall back into Pelagian mode. We tend to forget that salvation did not begin in the flesh and it's not perfected in the flesh.

Yes, we mourn for sin. Yes, we hate sin. No, sin is not our aim. No, an existential angst for sin is not what makes us Christians primarily.

But, how we view *what* we are when we sin speaks to whether we know what the Gospel is.


----------



## fredtgreco

The truth is, in my opinion, that the Romans 7 experience is normative for the Christian. Why? Because there is never any improvement in sanctification? Because Christians revel in their sin? NO. Because as the Christian moves more and more toward holiness, he sees his sin as more and more heinous - not because of the sin, but because of the *One sinned against.* 

Where previously the new Christian would have looked at something he did as "no big deal," now, the more mature Christian is pricked by his study of the Word, and is horrified at the thought of what he has done. That is why Paul steadily describes himself as worse and worse the more he matures (For example):

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

fredtgreco said:


> The truth is, in my opinion, that the Romans 7 experience is normative for the Christian. Why? Because there is never any improvement in sanctification? Because Christians revel in their sin? NO. Because as the Christian moves more and more toward holiness, he sees his sin as more and more heinous - not because of the sin, but because of the *One sinned against.*
> 
> Where previously the new Christian would have looked at something he did as "no big deal," now, the more mature Christian is pricked by his study of the Word, and is horrified at the thought of what he has done. That is why Paul steadily describes himself as worse and worse the more he matures (For example):
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
> 
> 1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.



 and very excellent point.

Paul, while a Pharisee, considered himself blameless before the Law:

[bible]Phillipians 3:4-6[/bible]


----------



## BertMulder

On a historical note, it was the man in Romans 7, viewed by Arminius as unregenerate, that he build his heresy of Arminianism on...

Saying that unregenerate man had the ability to do things spiritually good, based on Romans 7.


----------



## MOSES

There has been much good that has been said on this thread...I will respond slowly, and to one post's point at a time.



BobVigneault said:


> -the unregenerate person does NOT struggle with sin. The Spirit does not point out the sin nor is there a sensitivity to it. The unregenerate march happily toward Hell



In Regards to Romans 7 -- I have heard many say this again and again. Or that a non regenerate man cannot "delight in the law of God", like the Rom. 7 man is said to do.
But..
This always seems to be taken for granted, as a presumption that needs not be tested. Where does scripture explicitly teach that unregeneate men do not struggle with sin...or that unregenerate men do not delight in some way in the law of God.*


_if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died._
_21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,_ Romans 7


Did Paul only learn the Law, specifically "thou shall not covet", AFTER regeneration?
Paul being a student of the Law of God from his youth, I doubt that anyone would say that he did not learn the law, or even delight in the law until after regeneration.

Again, Paul says:
_For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness._

The commandment brings this about in all men...not just the regenerate. Thus the commandment, which is good, comes...the result is a struggle to not do what the commandment tells us not to do.

Now, I am sure there are pleny of unregenerate men who do not struggle with sin at all...that hate the commandment and disobey it with pleasure. But, look at the unregenerate people that you may know. Are they this way? 
There are plenty who struggle with sin...who do not want to sin...who do understand that the Law is good and that they should obey it, but, like Paul, it is hard, it is a struggle, it brings about death.
(the difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate is that the regenerate have Romans 8...the unregenerate is stuck forever in Rom 7)

Again, unregenerate Paul, at age 8 or so perhaps, learned the law about coveting...what was the result, a struggle with that sin.


My basic point: It seems like a generally accepted, but in my opinion, a false presumption that unregenerate man does not struggle with sin.


Note: Concerning the "delighting in the law" statement of Paul (that only a regenerate man can delight in the law) I am sure he delighted in the law before becoming regenerate. Especially when we look at the Judaistic aspect, and background of Paul...delighting in the law was the way of life for the covenant people (regenerate or not).
The difference between the unregenerate Jew delighting in the Law of God, and the regenerate delighting in the law of God is this:

-The unregenerate work for (and expect) a reward (or wage) from the law that they delight in

-The regenerate put their faith in God; though delighting in his Law, they know that the wages of the law is death, but the gift of God is life.


I will continue looking into the latest posts and consider what has been said...

Note: I was in the "reformed" camp for most of my Christian life in regards to the Romans 7 man. I've read Owens, many other puritans, and plenty of commentary on Rom. 7...so I am not coming from the outside in on this issue, but rather from the inside out (simply said: I am leaving the "reformed" view of Rom. 7....unless I can be convinced not to)

And...Arminianism has nothing to do with my view of Rom. 7. I would be interested to find out if anyone could actually logically connect my view to an arminian understanding of soteriology.
I think the accusation is by relation only and not by logical connection (e.g., There are Arminians that are Denver Broncos fans...I am a Denver Bronco fan, therefore I must be so based on my own arminian leanings)
I'm a supralapsarain with a very high view of God's decrees and hold to a form of double predestination...I've never been accused of being "arminian"....so, I'm really curious to find out how one connects my view of Rom 7 with being arminian.

Thanks everyone


* delighting in the law of God is not a "spiritual good" - struggling with sin is not a "spiritual good"


----------



## MOSES

BertMulder said:


> On a historical note, it was the man in Romans 7, viewed by Arminius as unregenerate, that he build his heresy of Arminianism on...
> 
> Saying that unregenerate man had the ability to do things spiritually good, based on Romans 7.



Do you know what "spiritual good" Arminius may have been refering to in regards to the Rom.7 man?


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> * delighting in the law of God is not a "spiritual good" - struggling with sin is not a "spiritual good"



Huh? Come again?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A still-unregenerate person may struggle "in" sin, realizing it is killing him, but he's like a person fully enclosed in a net that binds him.

The regenerate person is no longer "in" that net, he is essentially escaped from it, however it still clings to him. He struggles "with" it, to keep it (as it were) from overwhelming him again.

A person who is in the midst of undergoing conversion (as Paul went through) will struggle against sin. He's struggling because Holy Spirit is destructive to sin, and Holy Spirit is ALL the power against sin at any time.

The foregoing would also be true, combined with the first proposition, when the subject is a person who is ONLY being affected by the OUTWARD call, that is: a non-elect person who is still being affected by the Holy Spirit's operations. WHY might he be embattled with respect to sin? Only because Holy Spirit is actually combating sin in his presence, NOT because the non-elect person is, in the nature of the case, contrary to the "net" (going back to the first metaphor) that encloses him. But in the end, the divine work is not salvific, and that man will not struggle in any way to victory over his sin. He probably will not even struggle "in" it much, being dead.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is where I get my reference that the unregenerate man can not delight in the law of the Lord as Paul does in Romans 7.



> (1Co 2:11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
> 
> (1Co 2:12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
> 
> (1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
> 
> (1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: *for they are foolishness unto him: *neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



The unregenerate may struggle with his bondage as I noted above.


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> * delighting in the law of God is not a "spiritual good" - struggling with sin is not a "spiritual good"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Come again?
Click to expand...


Is it a "spiritual good" for an Athiest alcholoic struggling with his sin of alcoholism? Perhaps he hates his sin, he wants to forsake it, but cannot. Is that some sort of "spiritual good"?
I don't think so.

concerning "delighting in the law of God":
Was it really a spiritual good for pre-regenerate Paul to "delight in the law of God" that he actually enjoyed trying to obey every jot and tittle, or had so much zeal for it he persecuted what appeared to him to be lawbreakers?
OR...modern example:

How about an unregenerate bible scholar who loves his work...he dlights in the bible, the word of God. He loves to study it, teach it, write about it...but he is still unregenerate. Does this delighting in the word of God for this bible scholar constitute a "spiritual good"?

Spiritual good, in my opinion, is only related to those things that accompany salvation...
*That which is not done in faith is sin.*(and is not a spiritual good)


----------



## biggandyy

MOSES said:


> Is it a "spiritual good" for an Athiest alcholoic struggling with his sin of alcoholism? Perhaps he hates his sin, he wants to forsake it, but cannot. Is that some sort of "spiritual good"?
> I don't think so.


By definition an atheist can not hate sin since sin has no meaning to him. He may hate the _results_ of his sin but he can not hate the sin itself.



MOSES said:


> concerning "delighting in the law of God":
> Was it really a spiritual good for pre-regenerate Paul to "delight in the law of God" that he actually enjoyed trying to obey every jot and tittle, or had so much zeal for it he persecuted what appeared to him to be lawbreakers?


In this example as well, Saul was delighted in the results of his zeal, not in the Law of God.



MOSES said:


> How about an unregenerate bible scholar who loves his work...he dlights [_sic_] in the bible, the word of God. He loves to study it, teach it, write about it...but he is still unregenerate. Does this delighting in the word of God for this bible scholar constitute a "spiritual good"?


_Spiritual Good_ is not so much concerned with our acknowledgment of the good deed but it refers to how God sees that work. All our works are as filthy rags before the Lord, that much is true of the unregenerate man. But for the Saved sinner, with our _posse non-peccare_ restored to us, our actions that we intend for good actually ARE counted as spiritually good by God.


----------



## timmopussycat

MOSES said:


> Note: I was in the "reformed" camp for most of my Christian life in regards to the Romans 7 man. I've read Owens, many other puritans, and plenty of commentary on Rom. 7...so I am not coming from the outside in on this issue, but rather from the inside out (simply said: I am leaving the "reformed" view of Rom. 7....unless I can be convinced not to)



Before you decide which view of Rom 7 you should leave to, I reiterate my recommendation of Lloyd-Jones commentary on this chapter. I suspect it will prove helpful to you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MOSES said:


> There has been much good that has been said on this thread...I will respond slowly, and to one post's point at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> -the unregenerate person does NOT struggle with sin. The Spirit does not point out the sin nor is there a sensitivity to it. The unregenerate march happily toward Hell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Regards to Romans 7 -- I have heard many say this again and again. Or that a non regenerate man cannot "delight in the law of God", like the Rom. 7 man is said to do.
> But..
> This always seems to be taken for granted, as a presumption that needs not be tested. Where does scripture explicitly teach that unregeneate men do not struggle with sin...or that unregenerate men do not delight in some way in the law of God.*
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point on the nature of the struggle. The struggle is a constitutive struggle in Romans 7. Yes, unregenerate men have a terror of the Law. Calvin even notes that the greatest hater of God yet shows that he understands that he is under the Law by his fear of things that remind him of the Creator.

Actually, Sean, I don't think you were every really "in" the Reformed understanding of this issue given the types of questions you are asking given the relatively straightforward Biblical answers to these.



> _if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died._
> _21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,_ Romans 7
> 
> 
> Did Paul only learn the Law, specifically "thou shall not covet", AFTER regeneration?
> Paul being a student of the Law of God from his youth, I doubt that anyone would say that he did not learn the law, or even delight in the law until after regeneration.
> 
> Again, Paul says:
> _For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness._



Yes, he knew the Law in one sense. He knew it as the Pharisees knew it. He studied it, and as I pointed out, was convinced that he was blameless before it.

Why? Because unregenerate man _is_ fearful of the Law but, instead of seeking refuge in Christ, they set up a hedge around the Law. The Sermon on the Mount is replete with examples of how the Jews were able to equivocate on the nature of the Law and convince themselves that it was achievable. Paul labors in Romans and Galatians to note that a person with eyes to see who reads the Law would reasonably conclude that the Law can only bring a curse. 

Thus, it is impossible to delight in the Law of God if you are unregenerate. Oh, you can like what you _think_ is the Law. After all, how many Christians "love" the Law that says you don't drink, chew, or date women that do and conclude they don't commit any of these deadly sins and are blameless? How delightful it is to be free of condemnation before the Law because I've met the righteous demands I set before it.

But, here's the thing that you missed in the portion you quoted. Have you ever wondered why Paul mentioned the 10th commandment? It's very interesting that he mentions covetousness. I believe that's because it's the one commandment that you can't create a hedge around. Oh, you can convince yourself that you haven't committed any of the other 9 commandments as they can be converted to external conformity but covetousness is all about the heart.



> The commandment brings this about in all men...not just the regenerate. Thus the commandment, which is good, comes...the result is a struggle to not do what the commandment tells us not to do.


No, it doesn't bring the same struggle to all men because they're able to do something with this. They self-deceive. When is the last time you heard somebody lament the covetousness in American Society? We actually have an election being decided on the wanton violation of the 10th Commandment being unfolded before our eyes. Covetousness is not something many actually consider.

And, even if they did, they wouldn't do with it what they're supposed to. A fear of the Law that simply causes men to want to get fire insurance is not the essence of a true hatred of sin. They don't hate sin because they love God. They hate it because they know it will only condemn them. The man in Romans 7 doesn't say: "I hate that I do this because I'm sure I'm going to hell because of this." He says: "I hate this sin because this isn't who I really am."




> My basic point: It seems like a generally accepted, but in my opinion, a false presumption that unregenerate man does not struggle with sin.


Your basic point misses what Paul's point is in Romans 7. That unregenerate men struggle with sin is not the issue.



> Note: Concerning the "delighting in the law" statement of Paul (that only a regenerate man can delight in the law) I am sure he delighted in the law before becoming regenerate. Especially when we look at the Judaistic aspect, and background of Paul...delighting in the law was the way of life for the covenant people (regenerate or not).
> The difference between the unregenerate Jew delighting in the Law of God, and the regenerate delighting in the law of God is this:
> 
> -The unregenerate work for (and expect) a reward (or wage) from the law that they delight in
> 
> -The regenerate put their faith in God; though delighting in his Law, they know that the wages of the law is death, but the gift of God is life.
> 
> I will continue looking into the latest posts and consider what has been said...
> 
> Note: I was in the "reformed" camp for most of my Christian life in regards to the Romans 7 man. I've read Owens, many other puritans, and plenty of commentary on Rom. 7...so I am not coming from the outside in on this issue, but rather from the inside out (simply said: I am leaving the "reformed" view of Rom. 7....unless I can be convinced not to)


Well, let me state unequivocally, that there is scarcely anything Reformed in your understanding of the second use of the Law above. There are so many alarming deficiencies. It's not as if you have Romans 5, 6, and 8 correct and we're dealing with a disagreement over Romans 7. At the core, we're dealing with what depravity is/isn't and what God's holiness in relation to it is/isn't.

Here is the Reformed understanding of the issue:



> CHAPTER XIII.
> Of Sanctification.
> I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
> 
> II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth 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.
> 
> III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.



You cannot rip Chapter XIII to shreds and expect to come out of it with the announcement: But at least I'm supralapsarian! Seriously, if you miss this, you've missed the Gospel.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> * delighting in the law of God is not a "spiritual good" - struggling with sin is not a "spiritual good"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Come again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it a "spiritual good" for an Athiest alcholoic struggling with his sin of alcoholism? Perhaps he hates his sin, he wants to forsake it, but cannot. Is that some sort of "spiritual good"?
> I don't think so.
Click to expand...


Right it's not spiritual good. Nor is it struggling as Paul describes
struggling in Romans 7. Paul, in Romans 7, knows the demands
of the Law, and indeed DELIGHTS in the Law. An atheist cannot 
do that. Paul's struggle is that he does what he knows God commands
him not to do - so he laments the fact that he still does it, because
it dishonors God. An atheist cannot do this. 

An atheist therefore cannot and does not STRUGGLE against sin.

He may not like the results of the sin he commits, but this is by
NO means a Biblical struggling that Paul describes. It's apples
and oranges, friend. The atheist who doesn't like the results of
his sin is no more struggling against sin, than he is genuinely
repenting of his sin when he corks the bottle for a while. It's 
just not the same thing. 

The man in Romans 7, though, is genuinely struggling because
he genuinely loves the Law and the writer of that Law. 



> concerning "delighting in the law of God":
> Was it really a spiritual good for pre-regenerate Paul to "delight in the law of God" that he actually enjoyed trying to obey every jot and tittle, or had so much zeal for it he persecuted what appeared to him to be lawbreakers?
> OR...modern example:



What pre-regenerate Paul are you talking about who says
he delighted in the law? Please do explain.

His pharisaical glee in trying to obey every jot in tittle is not
described in Scripture as "delight in the law". Where are you 
finding this pre-regenerate Paul?



> How about an unregenerate bible scholar who loves his work...he dlights in the bible, the word of God. He loves to study it, teach it, write about it...but he is still unregenerate. Does this delighting in the word of God for this bible scholar constitute a "spiritual good"?
> 
> Spiritual good, in my opinion, is only related to those things that accompany salvation...



Right - NEITHER ONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTION IS DONE 
(nor CAN be done) by the unbeliever!

So where's the problem?


----------



## toddpedlar

Semper Fidelis said:


> Your basic point misses what Paul's point is in Romans 7. That unregenerate men struggle with sin is not the issue.



Hopefully this is a helpful clarification that I offer here. 

The issue is not whether non-believers at times have a distaste for the results of their sin. However, they do not, and can not "struggle" with it in the way that Paul describes himself doing in Romans 7. We can call, if you like, what unbelievers do against sin a "struggle" if you like - but we cannot ever equate it to what is going on in Romans 7, because what is going on in Romans 7 is a fight that only a regenerate, spirit-indwelt person can have. They very frequently have angst over what becomes of their sinful decisions - this isn't a Biblical struggle, but a fleshly distaste for particular results that naturally follow on sinful decisions and actions. I see this all the time in people who are certainly no believers. It's just not genuine Biblical spirit-vs-flesh struggle that Paul describes. This is where Shawn is getting into trouble - it's a matter of definitions, and it seems that he has applied the generic definition "struggle" to what an unbeliever does with sin, and equated that struggle to the struggle of Paul in Romans 7 (which isn't right, if you read what Paul actually says about himself in Romans 7 - that's no ordinary "struggle").


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree with you Todd. I'm just not going to necessarily argue over the word "struggle" because they struggle in their own way. They do not struggle as Paul describes in Romans 7 - we agree fully on that point. Nevertheless, as the word goes, I was trying to make sure Shawn understand how he's equivocating on the term.

MOSES,

It occurs to me that this is the common objection that Arminians and those that want to argue over what men can/can't do commonly make. They always look at the statement that men can't do spiritual good or hate God and then they say something like: "But Mother Theresa fed and clothed orphans and said she loved God."

That's not the point.

Before you say "I used to be Reformed but now repudiate the Reformed understanding of Romans 7", you better make real sure you understand what it is you're repudiating. There is much more to being good and struggling with sin than a facile presentation that notes that all men wrestle with these issues.


----------



## MOSES

MOSES said:


> Please be aware:
> 
> It is not my position that the Rom. 7 man should not or does not relate to us as Christians...he most certainly does.
> I can say with confidence, I am the Rom. 7 man.
> 
> My point is that Paul does not write Rom. 7 so that we can all relate to him...We all already know that we relate to him. There is another reason that Paul gives us the Rom. 7 man.



I quote above one of the earlier of my posts on this thread...

I'm not adovating Christian perfectionism...nor am I trying to promote the Rom.7 man as an unregenerate do gooder. 
This is what I am getting at:
It is not a question of "Is the Rom. 7 man saved or un-saved" or is this "Chrisitan Paul or pre christian Paul"

My answers to those questions in regards to Rom. 7 is that they are wrong questions...The romans 7 man is "an argument" in support of Paul's argument from Romans 5-6, and connection to Romans 8.
In my first post I think I called him a "theoretical" man...thus it does not matter if he is saved or not saved...he is just there to prove a point, as part (a word picture, but not an example) of Paul's argument about the law, and the law of sin and death.

Do we all as Christians relate to this man?
Of course, but that is not the Rom. 7 man's purpose (he is not given as an example)...his purpose is to support an argument.

It is easy to say "hey, I'm saved and I'm just like the Romans 7 man...therefore the Romans 7 man must be saved"
But the Rom. 7 man is not given as an example for you to relate to, but rather as a precise part and enforcement of Paul's argument.


Note: I will consider what has been written so far...
I do think that many are prsuming to know what my position is when I have not even laid it out yet...Perhaps assuming that I'm coming from an arminian perspective, or a charismatic victorious christian life perspective, or something.


----------



## MOSES

Semper Fidelis said:


> Before you say "I used to be Reformed but now repudiate the Reformed understanding of Romans 7", you better make real sure you understand what it is you're repudiating. There is much more to being good and struggling with sin than a facile presentation that notes that all men wrestle with these issues.



The only position that I am really intersted in coming to in regards to Rom. 7, is the exegetical one. I can care less which "camp" I fall into, as long as the exegesis is correct.

I am aware that a great number of reformed pastors, and especially the puritans used this section of scripture to preach on the christians great strugle with the flesh. But, many of these sermons, like a lot of sermons, were not strictly exegetical.


Note: *I do appreciate the responses, and the patience and charity that many have shown to me here*.


----------



## Poimen

MOSES said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please be aware:
> 
> It is not my position that the Rom. 7 man should not or does not relate to us as Christians...he most certainly does.
> I can say with confidence, I am the Rom. 7 man.
> 
> My point is that Paul does not write Rom. 7 so that we can all relate to him...We all already know that we relate to him. There is another reason that Paul gives us the Rom. 7 man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quote above one of the earlier of my posts on this thread...
> 
> I'm not adovating Christian perfectionism...nor am I trying to promote the Rom.7 man as an unregenerate do gooder.
> This is what I am getting at:
> It is not a question of "Is the Rom. 7 man saved or un-saved" or is this "Chrisitan Paul or pre christian Paul"
> 
> My answers to those questions in regards to Rom. 7 is that they are wrong questions...The romans 7 man is "an argument" in support of Paul's argument from Romans 5-6, and connection to Romans 8.
> In my first post I think I called him a "theoretical" man...thus it does not matter if he is saved or not saved...he is just there to prove a point, as part (a word picture, but not an example) of Paul's argument about the law, and the law of sin and death.
> 
> Do we all as Christians relate to this man?
> Of course, but that is not the Rom. 7 man's purpose (he is not given as an example)...his purpose is to support an argument.
> 
> It is easy to say "hey, I'm saved and I'm just like the Romans 7 man...therefore the Romans 7 man must be saved"
> But the Rom. 7 man is not given as an example for you to relate to, but rather as a precise part and enforcement of Paul's argument.
> 
> 
> Note: I will consider what has been written so far...
> I do think that many are prsuming to know what my position is when I have not even laid it out yet...
Click to expand...


Why can't Romans 7 be "a precise part and enforcement of Paul's argument" and a picture of the saved man? There is nothing theoretical to Paul's statement in vss. 24-25. "I thank God..." These are the words of Paul's Christian experience and every man, woman and child who loves the Lord. 

On another note we may be presuming your position but then you should lay out clearly what you believe instead of going around in circles and simply repeating your past statements. And you keep arguing with people and then ask many questions in response to what they have written. Neither of these approaches is fruitful or helpful.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MOSES said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please be aware:
> 
> It is not my position that the Rom. 7 man should not or does not relate to us as Christians...he most certainly does.
> I can say with confidence, I am the Rom. 7 man.
> 
> My point is that Paul does not write Rom. 7 so that we can all relate to him...We all already know that we relate to him. There is another reason that Paul gives us the Rom. 7 man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quote above one of the earlier of my posts on this thread...
> 
> I'm not adovating Christian perfectionism...nor am I trying to promote the Rom.7 man as an unregenerate do gooder.
> This is what I am getting at:
> It is not a question of "Is the Rom. 7 man saved or un-saved" or is this "Chrisitan Paul or pre christian Paul"
> 
> My answers to those questions in regards to Rom. 7 is that they are wrong questions...The romans 7 man is "an argument" in support of Paul's argument from Romans 5-6, and connection to Romans 8.
> In my first post I think I called him a "theoretical" man...thus it does not matter if he is saved or not saved...he is just there to prove a point, as part (a word picture, but not an example) of Paul's argument about the law, and the law of sin and death.
> 
> Do we all as Christians relate to this man?
> Of course, but that is not the Rom. 7 man's purpose (he is not given as an example)...his purpose is to support an argument.
> 
> It is easy to say "hey, I'm saved and I'm just like the Romans 7 man...therefore the Romans 7 man must be saved"
> But the Rom. 7 man is not given as an example for you to relate to, but rather as a precise part and enforcement of Paul's argument.
> 
> 
> Note: I will consider what has been written so far...
> I do think that many are prsuming to know what my position is when I have not even laid it out yet...Perhaps assuming that I'm coming from an arminian perspective, or a charismatic victorious christian life perspective, or something.
Click to expand...


Sir,

You make your position very clear when you ask questions about what Paul could/couldn't relate to under the Law in his unregenerate state.

Again, read the WCF above on Sanctification. Do you reject Sections II & III on Sanctification? It seems to me that you just said that these states are merely hypothetical states for a Christian but that not to be considered normal for a Christian.


----------



## NaasPreacher

Romans 6 instructs the saved man. Romans 8 reveals the joy of no condemnation. I don't see any way that Romans 7 could revert back to the old man.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> Do we all as Christians relate to this man?
> Of course, but that is not the Rom. 7 man's purpose (he is not given as an example)...his purpose is to support an argument.



You've complained that reformed pastors don't exegete this passage in order
to come to their positions, but you haven't done so. Please do so.



> It is easy to say "hey, I'm saved and I'm just like the Romans 7 man...therefore the Romans 7 man must be saved"



Can you point to anyone who said that? NOBODY is saying that. There are sound exegetical reasons to believe that Romans 7 is Paul in his regenerate state. We have outlined them. You're apparently not listening, or perhaps with so many posts on this topic, you've missed the fact that what you facetiously say above is a gross mischaracterization of what people here have said. 

Furthermore, you say that you have yet to lay out your position on this matter. (I rather think, though, that you have laid it out by a sequence of all kinds of assertions that "this position is wrong" and "that position is wrong".)

If, though, we accept the statement that you haven't let laid out your position, then: if you have a position, why not just come out and say it??? Just be plain and present your case. That is much preferred to dancing around your position for days without actually saying what you believe. You seem to have put to a lie your initial statement at the outset that you're just "trying to learn".


----------



## MOSES

Semper Fidelis said:


> Again, read the WCF above on Sanctification. Do you reject Sections II & III on Sanctification? It seems to me that you just said that these states are merely hypothetical states for a Christian but that *not to be considered normal for a Christian*.


<--emphasis Moses'

I've said plainly that Christians, as well as myself, all easily relate to the Romans 7 man. So...if we all relate to him in the struggle against the flesh, how could this not be normal? Of course it is normal for a Christian.

Concerning the WCF on sanctification: I whole heartedly agree with it.

But, my main point is this: The Romans 7 man does not come about by Paul for the explicit purpose of giving us an example to relate to (though we do relate to it)...nor is the Romans 7 man given for the explicit purpose of supporting wcf on sanctification, as true as those doctrines may be. The Romans 7 man is given to support Paul's point on the Law of God and the Law of sin and death.

Now, all that we can learn about sanctiifcation and the stuggle with sin from Romans 7 is great...but that is secondary (as true as it may be) to the "why" the Romans 7 man is there.

In regards to sanctification, the war of the flesh and spirit, the inability to keep the law because of sins power, etc...I am probably in agreement with everyone.

Where I am in disargeement is that this simply is not the Romans 7 man's purpose, in my opinion..(but yes...the Romans 7 man is of help on these issues)

Are my conclusions orthodox? I belive that they are....are the ways I come to these conclusions in regards to the Romans 7 man the same way many of you may do it? Obviously No.

I'm accused of advocating unorthodox views in this thread...yet people are still asking me what my view exactly is...

I'll make another post with my explicit view of the Romans 7 man stated as simply and as short as I can. Perhaps some may grant me the charity of NOT accusing me of advocating unrothodox views until that view is fully disclosed.


----------



## Grymir

We have the Rom 7 man, the Rom 8 man, if I was a Rom 11 man, would I be a dispensational Christian man?


----------



## Herald

> Perhaps some may grant me the charity of NOT accusing me of advocating unrothodox views until that view is fully disclosed.



Shawn, herein is the problem. Just state your view without couching it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Perhaps some may grant me the charity of NOT accusing me of advocating unrothodox views until that view is fully disclosed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shawn, herein is the problem. Just state your view without couching it.
Click to expand...


...or accusing the entire history of Reformed exegesis with malpractice before stating it. This is truly breathtaking. You excoriate the board for responding with the orthodox view, using a mixed oath to do so, you state that Reformed ministers have consistently mis-exegeted and applied Romans 7, and then you call us uncharitable for assuming you have an unorthodox view when every argument you present is counter to the orthodox view.


----------



## MOSES

Semper Fidelis said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps some may grant me the charity of NOT accusing me of advocating unrothodox views until that view is fully disclosed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shawn, herein is the problem. Just state your view without couching it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...or accusing the entire history of Reformed exegesis with malpractice before stating it.
Click to expand...


The above is your original post. My response is thus:

Oh come one...anyone who has read ther puritans, and the various sermons of the reformes know that there sermons were not explicitly exegetical.

This is what I said that you are refering to.


Moses said:


> I am aware that a great number of reformed pastors, and especially the puritans used this section of scripture to preach on the christians great struggle with the flesh. But, many of these sermons, like a lot of sermons, were not *strictly* exegetical.



In my above quote I DO NOT accuse the reformers with any malpractice. It is a simple matter of fact that the reformers and puritans sermons were not strictly exegetical.

Then you add this:


Semper Fidelis said:


> you state that Reformed ministers have consistently mis-exegeted and applied Romans 7



Now where do you get that from this statement of mine:


Moses said:


> But, many of these sermons, like a lot of sermons, were not *strictly* exegetical.



I'm sure I can find a large variey of Christians who have read the puritans to agree with this statement.
But you seem to want to turn it into an accusation and ridicule, on my part, of the puritans and reformers.

I am not ridiculing the puritans and reformers....Nor am I accusing them of malpractice.

Note: in my opinion, this is an honest and warranted defense for myself


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shawn, herein is the problem. Just state your view without couching it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...or accusing the entire history of Reformed exegesis with malpractice before stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above is your original post. My response is thus:
> 
> Oh come one...anyone who has read ther puritans, and the various sermons of the reformes know that there sermons were not explicitly exegetical.
> 
> This is what I said that you are refering to.
> 
> 
> In my above quote I DO NOT accuse the reformers with any malpractice. It is a simple matter of fact that the reformers and puritans sermons were not strictly exegetical.
Click to expand...


And many are - and many ARE NOT.

You have come out firmly against the views that have been presented
to you - views that ARE exegetically based. You have come up with
no exegetical response - no counter-exegesis, if you will. You have
given NO Biblical reasons to defend your claims against the position
that has been presented to you.

Why should we take the position you have laid out (believe it or not,
you HAVE laid out a position by your repeated denials of the positions
discussed here) seriously, if on the one hand you repudiate the position
presented here without exegeting the Scriptures unto an alternative, and
on the other hand complaining about the position presented to you as one
that is not based on exegesis of Scripture. (like it or not, that is the
FORCE of your argument, whether or not you intended to excoriate
the position as one based on reasoning OTHER than exegesis of Scripture)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well, then, let me restate precisely then.

You accuse a great number of Reformed pastors and Puritans with using Romans 7 in a manner that is not exegetical. Hence eisegetical. Hence, an improper use of the Scriptures.

A great number of those Reformed pastors are on this board so let's not be too quick to throw bricks when we live in glass houses.


----------



## MOSES

The first thing I would like to do is highlight Paul's main points in his argument through Romans chapters 6-8. 



> *How can we who died to sin still live in it?* 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, *we too *might walk in newness of life.
> 
> 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, *SO THAT* we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin


Romans 6




> 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; *death no longer has dominion over him*. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, *once for all*, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves *dead to sin *and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
> 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life. . *For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law*


Romans 6



> 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.
> 
> 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But *now that you have been set free from sin *and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 *For the wages of sin is death*


Romans 6

NOW...Romans 7


> 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers that *the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives*?
> 
> you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For *while we WERE living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law*, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 *BUT NOW we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive*


Romans 7

Now Comes "the Man"



> 7 *WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY*? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. . The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
> 
> 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good [The Law]


Romans 7

"the Man" here is given as a proof of a point. What is that point? That the Holy Law of God is good.


Sin produced death through the Law.
More of "the man"



> 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
> 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 *but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.* 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [Jesus Christ]



The deliverence that was spoken of in Romans 6 (resurrection life) is now further clarified in Romans 8



> 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of *the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.* 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
> 
> *IF the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.*[REMEMEBER ROMANS 6]


Romans 8


The Romans 7 man comes up right in the middle of Paul's argument from Romans 6 into chapter 8. The Romans 7 man is given as a point to serve another argument.

What is this argument?
I'll expound in another post.

Making an argument about the scriptures without reading those scriptures is vain. Hopefully those who have been following this thread have taken the time and carefully read through the above scriptures while considering the argument and points that Paul is putting together.


----------



## MOSES

The whole argument really begins right here, with a question:

_*How can we who died to sin still live in it*?_ Rom. 6

I will tell you what the answer is not. The answer is not “We can live in sin because the Romans 7 man does”

The answer is:
_6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, *SO THAT we would no longer be enslaved to sin*_ Rom.6

Contrast this with the Romans 7 man:

_I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin_ Rom.7


This Romans 7 man who is held captive to sin and death, who is in need of deliverance, does NOT FIT in harmony and consistency with Paul’s teaching on the resurrected Christian, who is no longer enslaved to sin, but who has died to sin (as a realized truth, though not perhaps as an everyday practice) 
The Romans 7 man does not serve the purpose of Paul’s “how can we live in sin any longer” point or Paul’s “*For sin will have no dominion over you*” point. The Romans 7 man is a contrast, and he serves an entirely different point. What point is that?
Well Paul has just taught that we have been set free from the law, having died to it. Does that make the law bad? Is the law sin? BY NO MEANS.

_7 WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY? That the law is sin? By no means_ Rom. 7

This is where the Romans 7 man comes in. This is the point that he is going to serve. After mentioning the man’s struggle with coveting, not due to the law, but due to sin, what does Paul conclude?

_12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good._ Rom.7


This Romans 7 man is being set up to show that the Law is good…yes we have died to the law (that’s what Paul has been teaching) but not because the law is evil. It is man who is evil. The Romans 7 man then continues to prove that the law is good, but that man is evil and is in need of deliverance, but not through the law…he needs something else.

It does not matter who this Romans 7 man is. Wether a saved man, or a unsaved man, wether it is Paul, or John doe…The point is that the law is good, but man is evil, because within man dwells another law, the law of sin and death (which all men by nature are bound to).

We have died to the law, according to Paul, but the law is not evil, rather man is evil as the Romans 7 man points out. Therefore being man is evil and bound to the law of sin and death, the Law of God is of no use to him for deliverance from sin. The Romans 7 man proves this. So how then can man be delivered? Romans 6 and 8 show this. The Romans 7 man, on the contrary shows why we need to be delivered.

*It is this wretched Romans 7 man that Christ came to save us from.*

Note: Being all men are bound over to the law of sin and death, all men relate to the Romans 7 man (yes we Christians for sure see this)…but, to make this section of scripture a key scripture for the teaching on sanctification, as a saved man growing in holiness through struggle with sin, is to take this verse out of the context of Paul’s argument. The Romans 7 man was not given to primarily serve that purpose (even though we can think of it that way in a secondary manner), he was given by Paul to serve another purpose.


----------



## toddpedlar

Thank you for finally going through the chapters and discussing your view of the Scripture. It would have helped everyone out in this discussion if you had STARTED here, if these were the points you wanted to make, rather than go about it in a roundabout, indirect manner.


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> Thank you for finally going through the chapters and discussing your view of the Scripture. It would have helped everyone out in this discussion if you had STARTED here, if these were the points you wanted to make, rather than go about it in a roundabout, indirect manner.




I know I should have...I got caught up in, as well as did others, on the whole debate of is Romans 7 Paul as regenerate or unregenerate.
That debate brought me off track.

See...that is kind of my point. That debate is irrelevant to Paul's argument in these scriptures. That debate accomplishes only one thing: Taking you off track and away from Paul's main point..(in my opinion)


Note: I did start the thread off that way though...but I said at the start that it was not really important. I then failed to establish why I thought that.


----------



## MOSES

What are your thoughts on this quote?



> it is in this way, I think that we grasp the actual character of Romans 7. It is an unreal, in the sense of non-historical, a hypothetical situation which is called up before us. It corresponds to no actual phase of Jewish-Christian or of Pauline-Christian existence, for in neither of these situations can we suppose the soul's darkness to have been unrelieved by some ray of heavenly grace. St. Paul has set the stage for an enquiry dictated by a purely argumentative necessity. _What is life under the law according to the logic of its nature?_ St. Paul presents the case from the standpoint of Christianity, but a Christianity not present in all its terms. We are contemplating an abstraction developed by dialectic, not the actual situation either of the regenerate or the unregenerate man, but only the hypothetical condition of a Christian under Law.




Romans 7 does depict a man who is under the law. 

Does viewing Romans 7 that way effect your thoughts in regards to who this Romans 7 man is?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

MOSES said:


> The whole argument really begins right here, with a question:
> 
> _*How can we who died to sin still live in it*?_ Rom. 6
> 
> I will tell you what the answer is not. The answer is not “We can live in sin because the Romans 7 man does”
> 
> The answer is:
> _6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, *SO THAT we would no longer be enslaved to sin*_ Rom.6
> 
> Contrast this with the Romans 7 man:
> 
> _I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin_ Rom.7
> 
> 
> This Romans 7 man who is held captive to sin and death, who is in need of deliverance, does NOT FIT in harmony and consistency with Paul’s teaching on the resurrected Christian, who is no longer enslaved to sin, but who has died to sin (as a realized truth, though not perhaps as an everyday practice)
> The Romans 7 man does not serve the purpose of Paul’s “how can we live in sin any longer” point or Paul’s “*For sin will have no dominion over you*” point. The Romans 7 man is a contrast, and he serves an entirely different point. What point is that?
> Well Paul has just taught that we have been set free from the law, having died to it. Does that make the law bad? Is the law sin? BY NO MEANS.
> 
> _7 WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY? That the law is sin? By no means_ Rom. 7
> 
> This is where the Romans 7 man comes in. This is the point that he is going to serve. After mentioning the man’s struggle with coveting, not due to the law, but due to sin, what does Paul conclude?
> 
> _12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good._ Rom.7
> 
> 
> This Romans 7 man is being set up to show that the Law is good…yes we have died to the law (that’s what Paul has been teaching) but not because the law is evil. It is man who is evil. The Romans 7 man then continues to prove that the law is good, but that man is evil and is in need of deliverance, but not through the law…he needs something else.
> 
> It does not matter who this Romans 7 man is. Wether a saved man, or a unsaved man, wether it is Paul, or John doe…The point is that the law is good, but man is evil, because within man dwells another law, the law of sin and death (which all men by nature are bound to).
> 
> We have died to the law, according to Paul, but the law is not evil, rather man is evil as the Romans 7 man points out. Therefore being man is evil and bound to the law of sin and death, the Law of God is of no use to him for deliverance from sin. The Romans 7 man proves this. So how then can man be delivered? Romans 6 and 8 show this. The Romans 7 man, on the contrary shows why we need to be delivered.
> 
> *It is this wretched Romans 7 man that Christ came to save us from.*
> 
> Note: Being all men are bound over to the law of sin and death, all men relate to the Romans 7 man (yes we Christians for sure see this)…but, to make this section of scripture a key scripture for the teaching on sanctification, as a saved man growing in holiness through struggle with sin, is to take this verse out of the context of Paul’s argument. The Romans 7 man was not given to primarily serve that purpose (even though we can think of it that way in a secondary manner), he was given by Paul to serve another purpose.



So, you're saying that though the passage is useful for sanctification (because it speaks to it in a secondary sense), sanctification is not the context of the passage? Just trying to make sure that I'm following you on this.


----------



## MOSES

ManleyBeasley said:


> So, you're saying that though the passage is useful for sanctification (because it speaks to it in a secondary sense), sanctification is not the context of the passage? Just trying to make sure that I'm following you on this.




I do not personally see Paul speaking directly to the issue of sanctification when describing the Romans 7 man, while making the point that the Law is good but the man under the law is evil and bound to sin.

in my opinion, a man could go to Romans 7 to speak indirectly about sanctification, and use the Rom 7 man as an example only in a practical way (not exegetically) to show that we struggle with sin...but this struggle finds victory in Christ, who has fulfilled the law for us, and, it is only in the knowledge of this truth that we grow in sanctification (thus Rom 8 becomes neccessary).

The Romans 7 man, by himself, being a man under the law...will fail in sanctification if not brought to Rom. 8


----------



## ManleyBeasley

MOSES said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're saying that though the passage is useful for sanctification (because it speaks to it in a secondary sense), sanctification is not the context of the passage? Just trying to make sure that I'm following you on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not personally see Paul speaking directly to the issue of sanctification when describing the Romans 7 man, while making the point that the Law is good but the man under the law is evil and bound to sin.
> 
> in my opinion, a man could go to Romans 7 to speak indirectly about sanctification, and use the Rom 7 man as an example only in a practical way (not exegetically) to show that we struggle with sin...but this struggle finds victory in Christ, who has fulfilled the law for us, and, it is only in the knowledge of this truth that we grow in sanctification (thus Rom 8 becomes neccessary).
> 
> The Romans 7 man, by himself, being a man under the law...will fail in sanctification if not brought to Rom. 8
Click to expand...


I guess the application I was making was that it is futile to attempt holy living through fleshly works (legalism ie law). I believe our failure to be able to be godly through our own efforts is what constantly (always) drives us to rest in Christ (Romans 8).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Shawn,

There are some other pieces that you need to pick up that cause some consternation about how you viewed Paul's ability to love the Law before regeneration or unregenerate man's hatred of sin BUT, in the main, the argument that Romans 7 is a connecting argument between Romans 6 and Romans 8 is not earth shattering.

I certainly was not arguing for the notion that Romans 7 does not speak of an awakening to sin of sorts as the man who is regenerate sees his sin for what it is for the first time and then sees the solution to this problem resting in Christ.

But the Book of Romans is not intended to simply be a description of things that occurred once to us so we can put them in our back pocket and "move forward". Paul is explaining what the Gospel is: the righteousness of God delivered from faith to faith that the just shall live by faith. Everything from Romans 3-11 is an ever redounding theme in our Christian walk as we, by the power of the Holy Spirit, have our minds renewed and live in light of it.

The Gospel is central in our progression in sanctification. These aren't simply textbook truths that we file away but living oracles that transform.

To treat Romans 7 as simply a stop along the way at one point in life makes Romans 6 just another stop along the way and makes Romans 8 just another thing that we heard once but won't need to remember and internalize again. The Word is not merely a set of propositions that we receive but it is transformative day by day as we hear it new again and it renew us toward His glory.


----------



## MOSES

Semper Fidelis said:


> Shawn,
> There are some other pieces that you need to pick up that cause some consternation about how you viewed Paul's ability to *love the Law * before regeneration



Never did I say that Paul truly loved the law before regeneration.
but, either way....

Paul said, as would any good Jew who was familiar with rabbinical traditions, the scriptures, and the Psalms of David...
"I delight in the Law"

Wether one is regenerate or not is irrelevant to the teaching, and procamation by all Jews, that "delightng in the Law" was what all those who were under the Law were supposed to do.
"delighting in the Law" -- *IS the law*

Even If Paul was an unregenerate Jew...he would have taught and been taught "Joy in Torah" or, even in regards to the Yoke of the law "Happy is the man whose Yoke is Torah"

And, in my opinion, it is quite fitting for Paul to use the phrase "delight in the Law" when he is showing a man (Rom 7 man) who is under the law.

The expression was used by plenty of unregenerate Jews...they were taught it from their youth. So I am not sure why there is some kind of problem with the whole idea that an unregenerate man cannot say "my delight is Torah", ecspecially when that was what was required of all Jews anyhow.

And as far as Paul's use of "inner man" in regards to his delight in torah..that is also an important part of rabbinical tradition (i.e., it was not coincidental that Paul, a formerly devout Jew, would have mader refence to "delighting in Torah" in regards to the "inner man")
There is a book intitled "the wisom of the talmud" and there is a whole section on "the Law and Inwardness" (i.e, the Law and the inner man)

But this is really a digression, though it may be of some help to clarify.


Note: of course, as I argued above...it is irrelevant to ask wether this Jew who "dlighted in the law" like he was supposed to do, was regenerate or not. I think that the "regenerate or not-regenerate" argument side tracks us from Paul's teaching.

blessings


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MOSES said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shawn,
> There are some other pieces that you need to pick up that cause some consternation about how you viewed Paul's ability to *love the Law * before regeneration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never did I say that Paul truly loved the law before regeneration.
> but, either way....
> 
> Paul said, as would any good Jew who was familiar with rabbinical traditions, the scriptures, and the Psalms of David...
> "I delight in the Law"
> 
> Wether one is regenerate or not is irrelevant to the teaching, and procamation by all Jews, that "delightng in the Law" was what all those who were under the Law were supposed to do.
> "delighting in the Law" -- *IS the law*
> 
> Even If Paul was an unregenerate Jew...he would have taught and been taught "Joy in Torah" or, even in regards to the Yoke of the law "Happy is the man whose Yoke is Torah"
> 
> And, in my opinion, it is quite fitting for Paul to use the phrase "delight in the Law" when he is showing a man (Rom 7 man) who is under the law.
> 
> The expression was used by plenty of unregenerate Jews...they were taught it from their youth. So I am not sure why there is some kind of problem with the whole idea that an unregenerate man cannot say "my delight is Torah", ecspecially when that was what was required of all Jews anyhow.
> 
> And as far as Paul's use of "inner man" in regards to his delight in torah..that is also an important part of rabbinical tradition (i.e., it was not coincidental that Paul, a formerly devout Jew, would have mader refence to "delighting in Torah" in regards to the "inner man")
> There is a book intitled "the wisom of the talmud" and there is a whole section on "the Law and Inwardness" (i.e, the Law and the inner man)
> 
> But this is really a digression, though it may be of some help to clarify.
> 
> 
> Note: of course, as I argued above...it is irrelevant to ask wether this Jew who "dlighted in the law" like he was supposed to do, was regenerate or not. I think that the "regenerate or not-regenerate" argument side tracks us from Paul's teaching.
> 
> blessings
Click to expand...


Would you care to show me any portion of the Scripture, prophet or apostle, where terms like "love" or "delight" are permitted to be equivocated for the sake of tradition?

Are you suggesting that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would have said that the Jews delighted in the Law, in their own way, just like David did in his own way?

Terms like regenerate or not-regenerate do not distract us from Paul's teaching in the least since it falls within the stream of the entire argument and Paul has just finished letting us all know what those fallen in Adam are capable of.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

MOSES said:


> Can this be a conclusion by some.
> Q: Hey, what is the proof I’m a good Christian?
> A: I struggle with sin like the Rom. 7 man
> 
> I am not applying the socratic method...this is an honest question which I wil not even respond to.
> 
> Note: this post was edited with 95% of it being deleted because it was innapropriate



I would like to respond to this by stating that I, personally, have said nothing of being a "good" christian. I am not. I echo Paul's words in saying of sinners, I am chief...and that's no boast, but a shameful realization of my Totally Depravity/ Inability, (that is, in and of myself) to do anything pleasing to Almighty God.

There is NONE righteous, NO not ONE...there is none that DOETH good. Paul mentioned this already in Romans 3...so, what's the hub-bub all about? We are not RIGHTEOUS...but, are IMPUTED righteousness, the righteousness of Christ...which is Romans 7 man's constant hope...HE KNOWS he's a sinner, and that he, as a Christian, cannot even perform the works of the Law, and that is as simplified as one can get. If one's every thought is not of God in every nanosecond of every millisecond of every thousands of a second of every hundredth and tenth of a second of every minute of every hour of everyday, He is NOT loving the LORD his God with all his heart, mind, soul, and strength. Not if you see the perfect holy standard that is set...but, of course as an Elected, adopted, justified man of God, I would think you would like to, desire to, LOVE to, want to live the life that the Commandments require.

The gospel begins and ends with the Commandments. The curse of the Law was (and is) death. Is complete seperation from God and holiness. I can't believe it is so difficult a thing to comprehend, that Romans 7 is in fact, Paul, and his struggle with the will, in keeping the commandments. His whole point is to make it clear to the Jews in Rome, that he isn't saying it is OK to disobey, HATE, God's commandments (antinomianism). He IS saying, O! wretched man that I am, who will deliver me FROM THIS body of death??...what body of death? Is he IN FACT delivered from it in Romans 8? I know he is NOW. 

As for boasting in the acknowledgement of being Totally Depraved, I see a problem. Does one believe because they are saved, here and now, that they have escaped there Depravity? Or do they just UNDERSTAND that they are? What says the Scripture? What about the Confessions in leau of the Scriptures? Let's bring up some of that. Perhaps that will help to shed some better understanding??

Any righteousness I do, is because of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and cannot be otherwise counted. Even the desire to will to do them is because of His work, and the indwelling Spirit...as both Romans 6 and Romans 8 attest to...Romans 7 man is sandwiched between to chapters that both give the glory to God through the indwelling work of the Spirit.

Lastly, where comes the knowledge of sin, that one is a sinner? I mean, how do we know sin is sin? I don't think I need to answer that for anyone in this thread; I hope.


----------

