Romans 7 Help!

[Reformed Covenanter]

Somehow, Paisley's denomination got to be real tight with the BobJonesU crowd in this country;

Strange bedfellows, no doubt. I never could figure that connection out, apart from a strong flavor of fundamentalism from both parties.

Ian Paisley's denomination in Northern Ireland are much less Reformed than the church in North America. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is a strange mixture of Presbyterianism and American Fundamentalism; the closest equivalent to it in America is probably the Bible Presbyterian Church.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ian Paisley's denomination in Northern Ireland are much less Reformed than the church in North America. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is a strange mixture of Presbyterianism and American Fundamentalism; the closest equivalent to it in America is probably the Bible Presbyterian Church.

Even in the USA, one seldom hears (as you can hear in the Cairns sermon linked above) a Reformed/Presbyterian preacher identifying with "fundamentalism". For some, it was/is a badge of honor.

Machen did not want to self-identify that way, because "fundamentalism" was both new and reductionistic. His was a full-bodied confessionalism, a well-rounded orthodoxy. His statement of faith was the substantive Westminster, and not 7 (or 12, or some other number) pillars of faith around which evangelicals or conservatives could rally.

Fundamentalists have a "creed" that is as thin and wanting of definition as the Apostle's Creed. Its a decent place to start, but the church has added a lot of definition since the first few centuries.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Bob Jones, Jr. awarded Ian Paisley an honorary doctorate after Paisley was released from prison in 1966. That, along with his 1954 questionable credentials from American Pioneer Theological Seminary, is the basis for him being referred to as 'Dr.'

Alan Cairns was involved in the 1973 presbytery ruling which enabled Paisley and other Free P ministers to pursue political office despite Calvin's stated opposition to ministers holding political office in in the Institutes, 4.11.8.

Source: Clifford Smyth, Ian Paisley: Voice of Protestant Ulster, pp. 19, 46, and Wikipedia.

BTW, I have dear friends who are part of the Free P Church in Greenville, Winston Salem and Indianapolis (on this board).

 

[moral necessity]

I hold to the view that Romans 7 is speaking to the believer. Before coming to the reformed faith, I went to a small Bible institute. In order to graduate, we were required to memorize Romans chapters 5, 6 & 8. They completely skipped Romans 7, and when asked why, they said it didn't apply to us. These were perfectionists, and they taught that the victorious Christian didn't have those kinds of conflicts. In fact, they said if you did have those kinds of conflicts in your life, you might not be a believer. I totally disagree with this point of view, but it is out there.

I agree...it is out there. My former pastor said that Romans 7 is the stumbling and Romans 8 is the victory. To me, that requires too shallow of a view of sin and too small of a view of grace. I am, on my best day, simply a vile, festering pool of sin that oozes wickedness from every pore; yet with a small spark of grace somewhere in the middle, like a tiny candle out in the middle of a dark, deep, and turbulent ocean. I think Rom. 7 is the best it gets here. If it's not, I might as well quit.

 

[Iconoclast]

I hold to the view that Romans 7 is speaking to the believer. Before coming to the reformed faith, I went to a small Bible institute. In order to graduate, we were required to memorize Romans chapters 5, 6 & 8. They completely skipped Romans 7, and when asked why, they said it didn't apply to us. These were perfectionists, and they taught that the victorious Christian didn't have those kinds of conflicts. In fact, they said if you did have those kinds of conflicts in your life, you might not be a believer. I totally disagree with this point of view, but it is out there.

I agree...it is out there. My former pastor said that Romans 7 is the stumbling and Romans 8 is the victory. To me, that requires too shallow of a view of sin and too small of a view of grace. I am, on my best day, simply a vile, festering pool of sin that oozes wickedness from every pore; yet with a small spark of grace somewhere in the middle, like a tiny candle out in the middle of a dark, deep, and turbulent ocean. I think Rom. 7 is the best it gets here. If it's not, I might as well quit.

While Romans 7 speaks of a christian as in A.W.Pinks The Christian in Romans 7, previously posted, I think we must be careful not to isolateRomans 7 from the rest of Romans,or the other scriptures also.
While indwelling sin is vile we are instructed how to mortify sin in Romans 8:1-17. This is not an accident,but rather carefully laid -out vital instruction as to who we are In Christ.
In a very real way Romans 7/8 is almost a real life sermon application of psalm 130:

Psalm 130
1Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD.

2Lord, hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.

3If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?

4But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

5I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.

6My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning.

7Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.

8And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

The psalmist is very sensitive to corruption within vs.3 in reference to a thrice Holy God, as was Isaiah in Isa.6.
Yet, in vs. 4 he calls to mind the abundant forgiveness of God to the objects to His saving love and grace. This great forgiveness,coupled with a reverent fear causes a response among all who are children of God.
The waiting and hoping in the word cause us to seek the Lord in prayer for our daily bread, and as Noah ;

7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

If we focus on Romans 7 alone seperating it from the context of the earlier chaptes in romans , it could lead to a morbid introspection,instead of godly service.
In most churches today this might not be a problem as any self examination is discouraged. But this type of imbalance might be more prevalent among the churches represented here, where sin is constantly confronted by those ministers who are faithful to the preaching and teaching of the word.

 

[moral necessity]

I agree that Romans 7 should not be isolated, but, I have a different take on Romans 8. I don't think Romans 8:1-17 is necessarily teaching us how to mortify sin. I think it is teaching us how God will mortify sin within us, as we keep our focus correctly on Christ and his promise to follow through with what he began in us. A lot has to do with how you take the phrases "live according to the flesh" vs. "live according to the Spirit", and "walk according to the flesh" and "walk according to the Spirit." My explanation here is quick, as it is late, and is therefore probably not detailed enough to be plainly laid out so that it is easily seen.

I think he's speaking in Ch.8 vs.2 about freedom from the condemnation of the law. And, righteousness (imputed) in vs.4 comes by resting and abiding in the finished work of Christ, instead of resorting back to works of the flesh and hoping in it to produce our righteousness. Vs.5-11 compares those who think they live (have eternal life) by fleshly means verses those who think they live (have eternal life) by faith in the work of Christ; and shows what each resort to for their sanctification. Vs.11 says that life or redemption of your your mortal bodies will occur, and that the Spirit gradually gives us life now through his sanctification work within us. Therefore, vs.12-17 shows that the accusation laid against Paul in Ch.6:1 is a false accusation, for grace does not lead to liscentiousness. Rather, it leads to life or sanctification being given to your mortal bodies in this life. Vs.13 shows that sanctification comes by the Spirit alone, and all reliance upon our deeds of the body towards such are to be abandoned. We are not to fear that we will be condemned for our remaining sin, vs.15. We have been adopted, we are his sons, we are heirs with Christ, and we must suffer through the likes described in Ch.7, so that we will be glorified with victory in the future when Christ is glorified.

Paul considers in vs.18 that these sufferings with sin aren't worthy to be compared with the future glory of victory he'll receive later. All of creation waits its redemption from bondage to sin just like we do (vs.19-22). Our deliverance from sin lies in hope, and in this hope we were saved from the laws penalty (vs.23-24). And, we wait for our deliverance from sin with patience (vs.25). In the meantime, vs.26-27, the Spirit helps us with prayers to Christ on our behalf. God is in control of everything, and is causing even our struggles with sin to work together for our good and for his glory (vs.28). We are guaranteed to be glorified, and freed from our sin, since we have already been justified (vs.29-30). There is no break in that link. Vs.31-39 assures us that God will follow through with our sanctification and glorification. Both are guaranteed to us. No charge can be brought against us for our present sin within us. No condemnation, no separation, nothing we face is able to rob us of the promised glorification.

So, I don't think he's switching from discussing our indwelling sin and it's power in our lives in Ch. 7 to a strategy for how we can mortify our sin within us in Ch.8. I think Ch.8 rather continues the same theme as Ch.7, and gives us hope in the midst of a Ch.7 life, while pointing out that the accusation against Paul in Ch.6:1 that started this entire 3 chapter discussion (6,7,8) is a false accusation, for resting and abiding in the finished work of Christ leads to him sanctifying us now, instead of resorting to looking within ourselves and striving with deeds of the flesh. If the Spirit is what made us live in the first place, then we must daily keep the same mindset for our sanctification. That's what he means by "walking by the Spirit". We are to stay rested upon God and relying upon his promise to sanctify us.

So, the Psalm 130 fits well, and vs.5-8 show that we are to wait for God in hope for deliverance from our iniquities.

That's how I see it for now.

Blessings!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Bob Jones, Jr. awarded Ian Paisley an honorary doctorate after Paisley was released from prison in 1966. That, along with his 1954 questionable credentials from American Pioneer Theological Seminary, is the basis for him being referred to as 'Dr.'

Alan Cairns was involved in the 1973 presbytery ruling which enabled Paisley and other Free P ministers to pursue political office despite Calvin's stated opposition to ministers holding political office in in the Institutes, 4.11.8.

Source: Clifford Smyth, Ian Paisley: Voice of Protestant Ulster, pp. 19, 46, and Wikipedia.

BTW, I have dear friends who are part of the Free P Church in Greenville, Winston Salem and Indianapolis (on this board).

As far as I am aware, the Doctorate was for services to Protestantitism.

Clifford Smyth was in the DUP, but was deposed by Paisley because he became a threat to his power. How a man can be a minister, and a member of the British Parliament - especially in these days of near state-totalitarianism - is beyond me. I would suspect that many Free P men now regret the decision to allow ministers to be politicians

But that's enough for now, we are going

 

[KMK]

Here is an interesting thread on the subject: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/who-man-romans-7-14-25-a-5330/

I appreciated Mr. Wylie's comments. It is something that I have been meditating on as I study to teach on 'apprehending' Christ. In Phi 3:3-9, it is quite obvious that before his regeneration, Paul was not struggling with sin.

 

[Neogillist]

Romans 7 does not apply to Arminians

If you consider that in Romans 7 Paul is speaking of someone prior to becoming a believer, then you have adopted the position that James Arminius would take on the subject. Indeed, I think all the Calvinists of the Reformation considered Romans 7 to be referring to the believer, and James/Jacob Arminius adopted the alternative interpretation. It surprises me that Loyd Jones also adopts the Arminian interpretation. It is probably due to his Methodism surfacing; I'll have to say that if you desire to be on the "safe side" of the interpretation of Romans 7, then you can trust that it refers to the believer; besides all the smartest Reformed theologians would take that position.

 

[moral necessity]

I'm shocked about Martin Lloyd-Jones too! Where can I find in Lloyd-Jones' writings that he adopts this view?

 

[DMcFadden]

If you consider that in Romans 7 Paul is speaking of someone prior to becoming a believer, then you have adopted the position that James Arminius would take on the subject. Indeed, I think all the Calvinists of the Reformation considered Romans 7 to be referring to the believer, and James/Jacob Arminius adopted the alternative interpretation. It surprises me that Loyd Jones also adopts the Arminian interpretation. It is probably due to his Methodism surfacing; I'll have to say that if you desire to be on the "safe side" of the interpretation of Romans 7, then you can trust that it refers to the believer; besides all the smartest Reformed theologians would take that position.

I agree with you that it describes the believer. However, Reymond is a pretty smart guy. So are J. A Bengel, H. A. W. Meyer, F. Godet, M. Stuart, W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, J. Denney, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., A. Hoekema, M. Lloyd-Jones. Ridderbos, while not seeing it as autobiographical also denies that it describes the Christian struggle with sin.

 

[bookslover]

I highly recommend Cranfield's commentary on this passage. He lays out all the arguments for each position, takes the view that Paul is talking about a believer, and answers all the objections. Extremely clear (though a bit technical). Good to see Richard quoting him.

Cranfield's entire discussion can be found in 1:340-370. He spends no fewer than 30 pages (out of the total of 444 pages of text in volume 1) on this issue (and immediately contextual issues). He is nothing if not thorough.