rescuedbyLove
Puritan Board Junior
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.
The Romans 7 Man - who is he?
- Thread starter MOSES
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Professor
21st Century Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
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.
That was in hebrews 12, and here it is in luke 1
Theogenes
Puritan Board Junior
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."
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?!"
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
Iron Dramatist
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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 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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
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 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
Puritan Board Freshman
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...
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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
Last edited:
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Puritan Board Junior
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...
And then comes Romans 8 for the rest of the story...
BobVigneault
Bawberator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
Saying that unregenerate man had the ability to do things spiritually good, based on Romans 7.
MOSES
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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"
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"
Last edited:
MOSES
Puritan Board Freshman
Do you know what "spiritual good" Arminius may have been refering to in regards to the Rom.7 man?
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Huh? Come again?
- Status
