Originally posted by Theological Books
Originally posted by Paul manata
Bradford,
Doesn't Paul imply that he is *currently* undergoing certain problems? If so then what would it mean to say that he's talking about OC life? Does it mean that he's desiring to go back to the OC and forget the NC? Just clarifying....
Yes, they are present verbs, but that doesn't necessitate it is a present reality.
The tension between obedience and disobedience is seen throughout the passage. The present tense of the verbs is indeed
strong evidence of a present reality, but it is not the only evidence.
First, the very fact that there is a struggle here points to a sanctified mind. It is a sanctified, regenerate mind that realizes that it is being disobedient. Unless Paul here speaks as a believer, how does he know that the law is spiritual and good, and yet see that he does not keep the law? Moreover, how could Paul be reflecting back and say: "for to will is
present with me (
o. ga.r qe,lein para,keitai, moi), but how to perform what is good I do not find."
para,keitai implies taht something is present before one, and especially when given two alternatives, it is a choice that is present before one, to do one of two things. (e.g. it is before you to fight or to flee)
Second, it is not possible that an unbeliever could say: "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man." It might be possible that an unbeliever would think he had fulfilled all that was required by God, but it is quite another to delight in his law. Psalm 1 makes clear that it is the
blessed man who delights in the law of God (cf. also Ps. 119).
Third, we have the anti-climatic end of the chapter. If Paul were merely recounting the differences between past and present, why go from "I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" in verse 25, to "So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Why not say, in the past I served the law of sin, but now I serve the law of God? The language here is clearly one of present struggle.
Finally, 7:25 has to occur in the context of a redeemed Paul. Why? Because he serves the law of God
with his mind. But Paul, just a few verses later, says that very act is impossible for the unbeliever: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." (Rom. 8:7) So at the same time that he is serving the law of sin with his flesh, he is serving the law of God with his mind. There is nothing to indicate any time or covenantal difference. In order to have Paul talking about two separate points in his life, we must separate what Paul doesn't (Rom. 7:25), and we must have Paul going back and forth (often in the same clause, let alone sentence) between the two descriptions. It is highly confusing, and frankly, very un-Pauline.
