The Romans 7 Man - who is he?

[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]

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]

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

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]

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.