Begs the question again. The fact that there may well be laws other than the Law of Moses that share the properties of being "holy" and "just" does not mean that a reference to a law that is "holy" and "just" is necessarily not the Law of Moses. I suggest that context demands that it is, but will not argue the point in this present post.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Romans 7:14-25
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
Keep in mind that Calvin's teaching on the Holy Spirit and on prayer is greatly more important than his teaching on predestination. Calvin never heard of TULIP. It was invented after his death.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
Calvinist theology is sometimes identified with the five points of Calvinism, also called the doctrines of grace, which are a point-by-point response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance (see History of Calvinist-Arminian debate) and which serve as a summation of the judgments rendered by the Synod of Dort in 1619.[6] Calvin himself never used such a model and never combated Arminianism directly. In fact, Calvin died in 1564 and Jacob Arminias was born in 1560, and so the men were not contemporaries. The Articles of Remonstrance were authored by opponents of reformed doctrine and Biblical Monergism. They were rejected in 1619 at the Synod of Dort, more than 50 years after the death of Calvin.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
Calvinist theology is sometimes identified with the five points of Calvinism, also called the doctrines of grace, which are a point-by-point response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance (see History of Calvinist-Arminian debate) and which serve as a summation of the judgments rendered by the Synod of Dort in 1619.[6] Calvin himself never used such a model and never combated Arminianism directly. In fact, Calvin died in 1564 and Jacob Arminias was born in 1560, and so the men were not contemporaries. The Articles of Remonstrance were authored by opponents of reformed doctrine and Biblical Monergism. They were rejected in 1619 at the Synod of Dort, more than 50 years after the death of Calvin.
I am glad to hear you do not believe Calvinism is biblical. However, Romans 7 does make the case.
Calvinists change their arguments as they go along. First, they say no one can do good until they are saved. Then when you tell them about Cornelius and Paul, they claim Cornelius and Paul were already saved from before the creation of the world.
Therefore, you can see how Paul in Romans 7 forces Calvinists beliefs to light, and shows the complete ridiculousness of their beliefs, for the scriptures plainly tell us when these people were saved, and it was not until after they believed in what they heard.
I love Romans 7 how it brings Calvinism to the surface and shows it for the falseness it is. Romans 7 easily makes the case.
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that both are presented in Romans 8:1-4. What Christ did in the flesh obtained our position in Christ - justification but what the Spirit of Christ does in us obtains sanctification.
Yes, this is correct! This is essential to the spiritual growth.
Both are true in Romans 8:1-13.
Consider this. If a person is powerless to do righteousness in his own strength due to an impediment contained within his own nature, would not that require dependence upon the Indwelling Spirit to do righteousness? Is not that exactly what Philippians 2;13 literally states - "For it is God that worketh IN YOU both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure"??
On the other hand, if there is no impedient to doing God's will then there is no need to depend on the indwelling Spirit is there? You have the will power so it is a matter of simply willing it and doing it without God. If that were true then why are we repeatedly exhorted to be filled with the Spirit or walk in the Spirit? Why do that when you are able to do it yourself?
You just do not grasp and retain what has been said many times. People WANT to do good, we are not ALL totally depraved. People want to do good, but they cannot stop sinning without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. People want to do good before they are actually saved is proof that Calvinism’s total depravity doctrine is false.
The book of Romans carefully defines "the law of God" to be inclusive of the Mosaic law but not restricted to it. This is clearly seen in Romans 3:9-20 where the spiritual condition of both Gentiles and Jews (Rom. 3:9) are characterized (Rom. 3:10-18) and "the law" is universally inclusive of all men without exception:
Ro 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Judaism and Mosaic law cannot be restricted to "every mouth"
Neither can "all the world" be restricted to Judaism or Mosaic Law
Neither can "no flesh" be restricted to Jews under the law of Moses.
Furthermore, neither can just Jews be "under the law" as both Jews and Gentiles are said to be "under sin" (Rom. 3:9) and where there is no law there is no sin. Hence, to be under sin is to be under law.
The Law of God includes the Mosaic law but it also includes the law written in the conscience of the Gentile or any external standard of right and wrong that follows the dictates of conscience in gentile cultures.
Finally, the "carnal mind" does not serve the Law of God or delight in the law of God but the mind in Romans 7:25 does serve the Law of God.
Your position is clearly impossible without doing major mental gynastics with the book of Romans and it is the book of Romans that must define "the law of God" as it is the context of Romans 7.
There are no "holy" and "just" laws that do not originate with "the law of God." As previously demonstrated "the law of God" as used in the book of Romans cannot possibly be restricted to merely Mosaic Law or the Old Covenant. Romans 13:7-9 clearly shows the ten commandments find relevance under the New Covenant. Romans 3:9-20 clearly repudiates your restrictive view. Romans 7:25 and the mind that serves God's Law is not the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 that characterizes those who are "in the flesh" -Rom. 8:8 and the only contrast are those "in the Spirit" - Rom. 8:9
Hence, your theory is impossible without doing a major mental gymnastic and revision of Scripture.
First, the Romans 15 text does not really support your position, when understood in a broader context. Paul is indeed setting himself in the position of being the apostle to the Gentiles (and thereby setting himself in contrast to Peter). But this does not mean that the letter is written only to Gentiles. In fact, the evidence is strong against such a position.
Here is a summary overview for the case that the book of Romans was written to a church at Rome populated by at least some Jews:
1. The notion that the Roman church was an exclusively Gentile one is at odds with the historical record. Jews were expelled from Rome in 49 AD by Claudius. However, when Claudius died in 54 AD, Jews returned to Rome. The majority of scholars writing on Romans propose the letter was written in late 55/early 56 or late 56/early 57 (Wikipedia). Therefore, there is strong historical plausibility that when Paul wrote Romans, there were indeed Jews in the church at Rome.
2. Here in chapter 2, Paul is clearly writing to a Jew: You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU….” Clearly, Paul is addressing such a rebuke to a specifically Jewish reader.
3. In Romans 7, Paul makes this statement: But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. I suggest it is manifestly clear that this must be the Law of Moses. And who is subject to the Law of Moses? Cetainly not the Gentile. So Paul must be addressing a Jew, at least in this particular case. Do you challenge that the “Law” here is the Law of Moses? That would really stretch credulity. Note that a few breaths later, Paul refers to the “coming of the law” and gives us the commandment “do not covet”. Clearly, this is an allusion to the delivery of the Law of Moses, at Mount Sinai, including the 10 commandments. Besides, to what other written (“oldness of the latter) law could Paul possibly be referring? The US Constitution?
4. In Romans 13, Paul writes this: Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,…” Here there is no doubt at all – Paul is talking about the Law of Moses. The argument here is a little more subtle. What would have to be the case in order for Paul to have written these particular words to an exclusively Gentile Roman church? Obviously, it would have to be the case that such Gentiles were thinking in terms of fulfilling the Law of Moses! But that makes no sense – the Gentile knew full well that the Law of Moses was given to Jews only. So Paul must be addressing at least some Jews here, even though, of course, his injunction to “love one another” is clearly directed all believers.
There are other arguments to be made that the church that Paul is writing to must have contained some Jews.
This argument presumes something that you are, I suggest, reading into the text - this idea that "flesh" refers to physicality as set against "spirit" or "soul". This is the Greek dualism through which we erroneously read the Scriptures. The Hebrew mind knows nothing of this "body-soul" distinction which you use to justify your position. Paul does not view the Christians as "split into two", with a "flesh" part enslaved to sin, and a "soul" that has been set free from this.
No. Paul uses the term "flesh" to denote not physicality per se, but rather a fallen human person. I do not have the time to make the case right now, but it must be acknowledged that this is indeed a possibility. We need to be careful to read "flesh" in a manner faithful to how Paul uses the term elsewhere. And, when I have time, I intend to show that Paul often uses the term "flesh" to denote the entirety of a human being in a fallen state.
I repeat: For Paul, the flesh-spirit distinction is not a "physical - nonphysical" distinction that carves the human being into parts (that is a Greek idea!). It is instead the distinction between fallen humanity on the one hand, and redeemed humanity on the other.
In the text in question Paul is reflecting on how fallen man is enslaved to what is essentially an invading sin presence. That is why he can say "it is not I, but rather sin that is responsible for the fallen state of man.
And there is more evidence for this reading of the text, but I will not get into it in this post.
Agree. Furthermore, The Romans 7 person who wants to do good cannot be a believer precisely because we know the following:
1. The person who has been set free from the law of sin and death in Romans 8 must be a Christian?
2. In Romans 7, Paul describes a person who is so enslaved to sin that he cannot do good. A Christian who cannot do good??? Please - there is obviously no such animal. The poor person in Romans 7 is enslaved to the law of sin and death from which the Christian has been delivered.
So how can the Romans 7 person be a Christian? The Christian in Romans 8 is being conformed to the image of Christ! The person in Romans 7 cannot do good! How they possibly be the same person (that is, how can they both be Christians?).
Note how some will try to avoid this - they will split the human being into a part that is enslaved to sin and a part that is set free from sin. And the only reason they can get away with this is an unfortunate confusion about language combined with the fact that Greek thinking, not Biblical Hebrew thinking, has influenced western thinking for the last 2000 years. They read "flesh" and see this in terms of a Greek dualism of "body vs soul" when, I suggest, Paul is talking about a "fallen humanity" vs "redeemed humanity" distinction.
An important point of method: I concede fully that I have yet to make the case that flesh means something other than "physicality". Fair enough. I invite you and others to hold to accounts for making the case. By the same token, those who see "flesh" as "the body" also have to make that case. If all Biblical language were to be read literally, then perhaps they would have a point. But that is simply not how Bible language works.
I do not want to get into the Calvinist thing in this thread. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about Romans 7 in respect to Calvinism - I just want to focus on making the case that the Romans 7 person cannot be a Christian.
Please see a couple of posts back - I believe the evidence is powerful to the effect that Paul was writing to a readership that indeed included Jews.
I agree that Paul is specifically talking about the Law of Moses. However, I am not sure how this supports your position - and I share this position - that the "I" in Romans 7 is not a Christian. I think this text you quote can be used to support the notion that Paul is talking about a Jewish I but, again, I do not see how this text makes the case that the "I" is not believer. But, as we agree, other texts later in the passage do indeed make this case.
No one is denying there are "some Jews" at Rome. However, Romans 14-15 proves there are a great deal of Gentiles as well. Hence, my previous argument still stands. The Law of God is more comprehensive than merely the Mosaic law but inclusive of the law written upon the conscience of the Gentile as well. You have yet to deal with my post on Romans 3:9-20.
Andre, put aside the philosophizing and deal with the facts of the texts. The text clearly and explicitly demands opposing aspects within the personage of Paul.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Verse 17 is an explicit denial that "it is no more I that do it" while explicitly identifying precisely defining the guilty party that did do it "but sin that dwelleth in me."
Verse 18 further defines the phrase "but sin that dwelleth in me" to be "in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing."
However, that condemning description is not true of "I" as he goes on to say that "I" does choose that which is "good" while "my flesh..dwelleth no good thing."
He is declaring a civil war existing within his being and that civil war is explicity stated in verse 25:
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Honesty with the text demands Paul has a schizophenic condition within him and he explicitly identifies both aspects over and over again. Hence, in this context, the term "my flesh" clearly does not "denote the entirety of a human being in a fallen state" for several contextual based reasons.
1. Doing good by "I" is not a lack of desire in this man but a lack of will power - v. 18
2. "I" delights in the "law of God after the inward man" and with the mind "I" serves the Law of God (v. 25) but that is not true of the "carnal mind" in the lost man (Rom. 8:7-8).
The text does not make a "physical - nonphysical" distinction. The text simply identifies the "law of sin" to be operational in and through the physical in contrast to the law of God operational within the "inward man."
You come to the text with presuppositions that do not allow you to be objective or honest with the text. Until you set aside that bias, you will not be able to be objective or honest in dealing with what the text actually and literally says. You need to set aside your Greek philosophical bias and simply deal with the text without prejudging the text.
No, he is not dealing with how a "fallen man is enslaved to what is essentially an invading sin presence" because fallen man is enslaved to sin already, already condemned (Jn. 3:18). He is no more dealing with a "fallen man" here than he is in Galatians 5:17:
Gal. 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law....25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Lost people do not need to be exhorted to "walk in the Spirit" and he is addressing professed believers in the congregations of Galatia and the above verses are introduced as directed explicitly toward the saved:
13 ¶ For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
As any reader can see, the immediate context of verses 16-17 is directly addressed to "BRETHREN" and the antecedent for "ye" in verses 16-17 is "brethren" in verse 13 as the continued use of "ye" between verse 13 and 16 proves beyond dispute.
The immediate context of Galatians 5:13-25 is as opposed to your theory as is the immediate context of Romans 7:14-8:13.
Galatians 5:13-25 provides a second witness by Paul to precisely what describes in Romans 7:14-25 and that is precisely stated when he says:
"These are contrary the one to the other; so that ye CANNOT DO the things YE WOULD."
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul says, “…for I am speaking to those who know the law…”
This shows that Paul is speaking to Jews.
As for this proving the “I” is an unbeliever, it is because in Romans 7, Paul is speaking as one still under the law. If one is still under the law, then they are not yet a believer.
It is worth pointing out that since Romans 7 is about an unbeliever, and as such disproves Calvinism, a Calvinist will fight all the harder to go against your argument. It is always good to expose false doctrines, and it is important to show that Romans 7 disproves total depravity.
I think you need to go back to Romans 2:6-3:20 and realize that "the law of God" is inclusive of both and not merely the Mosaic Law. Romans 3:9-20 proves "the law" cannot be restricted to Moses as both the Jew and Gentile said to be both equally "under sin" (Gal. 3:9) and therefore both equally "under the law" (Gal. 3:19) both which reveal "the righteousness of God" (Rev. 3:21-22).
That both are inclusive in his use of "the law" is proven by the universal terms "no flesh" "all the world" "every mouth" (Rom. 3:19-20).
Thus from that point forth "the law" and "the law of God' are equally applicable to Mosaic law as to the law written upon conscience because it is the SAME LAW written on DIFFERENT MATERIAL.
Therefore, simply addressing those who know the Mosaic law in regard to the law of marriage and the tenth commandment (Rom. 7:1, 8) simply illustrates what is true with "the law of God" in general whether it is written on stone or on the human heart.
Right there, you quote Galatians 5:17 that says, “so that you do not do what you want.” THAT is about a saved person! That is about a saved person who does not do the sin that they want to do. You try to compare it to Romans 7:15; HOWEVER, Romans 7:15 says, “ For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” That is about someone NOT doing the GOOD that they want to do.
You misunderstand who Paul is speaking about in Romans 7, and you misunderstand what Paul is speaking about in Galatians 5. Again, Galatians 5 is about a person not doing the BAD they WANT to do, but in Romans 7, it is about a person NOT doing the GOOD they WANT to do.
Galatians 5 is about believers. Romans 7 is about the condition of the unbeliever.
It does not matter, for the Law of Moses was for the Jews.
- Status