Classic Romans 7 man quedtion. But a bit more specific

[cw_theology]

Firstly, please only answer this if you are of the perspective that the Romans 7 man is a regenerate man.

I have recently been rereading through the book of Romans. I found something interesting this time. As I'm doing a quicker less deep dive through it. In chapter 6:7,14,22 as well as 7:5-6 there, Paul states clearly that the Christian is not a slave to sin. He explains that the Christian's members produce fruit for righteousness. So in chapter 7 when he writes, "I am of the flesh sold under sin" and that he "doesn't have the ability to carry it out". How should we interpret this in Romans 7 In light of his constantly attested fact, "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace."? I am specifically asking how to interpret those verses in Romans 6, given the fact that Romans 7 is a Christian.

 

[pgwolv]

Rom 6:7 "For one who has died has been set free from sin" - the ESV footnote states that "set free" is literally "has been justified." Accordingly, this is referring to the penalty of sin. I believe the same is true for Rom 6:14 and Rom 6:22.

The Christian as a whole is not a slave to sin, because of the indwelling Spirit that sanctifies him.

In chapter 7, he indicates that, as a Christian, the flesh is not the only aspect to his person; he is both flesh and spirit. The flesh is sold under sin, but the flesh/sin does not reign; thanks to regeneration, the Spirit reigns, and that is not sold under sin. What, therefore, is our instruction? Gal 5:16 "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh."

 

[cw_theology]

Rom 6:7 "For one who has died has been set free from sin" - the ESV footnote states that "set free" is literally "has been justified." Accordingly, this is referring to the penalty of sin. I believe the same is true for Rom 6:14 and Rom 6:22.

The Christian as a whole is not a slave to sin, because of the indwelling Spirit that sanctifies him.

In chapter 7, he indicates that, as a Christian, the flesh is not the only aspect to his person; he is both flesh and spirit. The flesh is sold under sin, but the flesh/sin does not reign; thanks to regeneration, the Spirit reigns, and that is not sold under sin. What, therefore, is our instruction? Gal 5:16 "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh."

Ok, thanks

 

[jduguid]

"...in me - that is, in my flesh..." (7:18)

The referent of I/me changes in different parts of ch.7, and that is one of the things that makes it difficult to interpret. Sometimes "I" = "the flesh," which per Galatians 5:16 is still very much a reality to be resisted for the regenerate. Sometimes the "I" = 'the renewed mind' (or whatever term you want to use) - per 7:17, this "I" doesn't practice sin (!) - a statement we will immediately want to qualify by saying that the sin "dwelling in" this "I" very much does practice sin.

One almost wants to call this passage "dialectical," in the sense that Paul is exploring the different referents of "I", as an attempt to understand the split nature of the "I" (in the regenerate, in my opinion). Every time we see "I/me/my" in the passage, we want to ask careful questions as to which "I" we are referring to in this instance.

Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2025

"...in me - that is, in my flesh..." (7:18)

The referent of I/me changes in different parts of ch.7, and that is one of the things that makes it difficult to interpret. Sometimes "I" = "the flesh," which per Galatians 5:16 is still very much a reality to be resisted for the regenerate. Sometimes the "I" = 'the renewed mind' (or whatever term you want to use) - per 7:17, this "I" doesn't practice sin (!) - a statement we will immediately want to qualify by saying that the sin "dwelling in" this "I" very much does practice sin.

One almost wants to call this passage "dialectical," in the sense that Paul is exploring the different referents of "I", as an attempt to understand the split nature of the "I" (in the regenerate, in my opinion). Every time we see "I/me/my" in the passage, we want to ask careful questions as to which "I" we are referring to in this instance.

I realized I haven't applied this to Romans 6, as you asked. The basic shape of it would be that in ch.6 Paul tells believers they are supposed to think about themselves as dead to sin (v.11), and this should motivate a war against sin's lordship in their members (v.12-13). This actually fits pretty will with the picture in ch.7 - we still need to be delivered from sin's power among our members (7:23), and to fight sin we need to think about the "I" which is the renewed mind as definitive of who we are in Christ, even as we struggle with the continuing reality of the "I" which is the flesh.

 

[MW]

Paul has dealt with the insufficiency of the law for justification in chap. 3 . He then teaches justification by faith alone in chap. 4. "Therefore" initiates the consequences of justification in chap. 5; and chap. 6. opens up how the believer is to live in and with Christ (what we call sanctification). Chap. 7, then, in the main, deals with the insufficiency of the law for sanctification.

If the aim of chap. 7 is to show the insufficiency of the law in a believer's sanctification we can understand why Paul speaks in terms of "utter inability." He is not saying the believer himself is in this state. It is only in relation to the law that he is carnal and a slave. OTOH Paul speaks of himself as a renewed person in that he delights in the law of God after the inward man, hates the sin that he does, and cries out for deliverance in Christ.

The key takeaway, then, is not to see "inability" in terms of regeneration, but in terms of what the law cannot do for the regenerate.