Romans 7

Blackbird wrote,

"Intelligence" is the ability to learn or understand and is measured by several different standardized tests and expressed in terms of the resulting intelligence quotient, that is, the I.Q. of the person tested. Blackbird posted a quote from me to support his belief that I insulted Helen’s intelligence,

Nowhere in this quote did I make any mention of Helen’s intelligence. I simply posted that Helen’s understanding of the seventh chapter of Romans is wildly wrong, having explained in other replies to Helen why her interpretation is wildly wrong. I could post at great length why Helen is wrong, but my experience with discussing Scripture with Helen is that she has no respect for an academic approach to Scriptures that results in an interpretation that is different from her personal interpretation. Indeed, I have interacted with Helen in several threads concerning the interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 in which Charles Meadows and I demonstrated very clearly that her interpretation is very different from the interpretation of the very large majority of Old Testament scholars, but her reaction was to relegate the academic views to a trash heap. I have personally seen, therefore, on a number of occasions in a number of threads that discussing the Scriptures with Helen is futile. I have also personally observed that there is every indication that Helen has never studied Genesis academically nor read it in the Hebrew language. And it has become very clear to me from reading Helen’s posts on Romans 5 and 7 in various threads that she has never studied Romans academically nor read it in the Greek language. Furthermore, Helen has made it expressly clear that she has no respect for an academic approach to the Scriptures and that, therefore, it is a waste of my time, as an academic individual, to discuss the Scriptures with her.

In no way is this necessarily a reflection of her intelligence, and I never suggested that it was. Indeed, if Helen was to choose to academically pursue the study of the Old and New Testaments, I believe that we would find that she has the necessary intelligence to do so. Thus far, however, she has chosen not to make such a pursuit, and my time is much better spent with those who have, and there are a number of them who post to the message board. And now, ***moderator's personal name removed***, you have wasted more of my time and the time of our readers by discussing Helen and I rather than Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.



[ September 24, 2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

Helen wrote,

The comments that I made about your husbands work were entirely justified as documented by Ute on this message board and as documented by the academic community at large. And yes, I and others have repeatedly documented that there is more than just a tendency for young earth advocates to seriously compromise both the ethics of academia and Christian morality. I don’t know your husband personally, but it is my belief from studying his works that he has seriously compromised both the ethics of academia and Christian morality due to an obsession with a young-earth interpretation of Genesis and a determination to defend that view at any cost to either science or the Christian faith. That is NOT slander, but an honest and fair appraisal of his work, and I am very far from being alone in making that appraisal.

Randy and possibly one or two other astronomers may agree with you husbands conclusions, but the vast majority of astronomers—many hundreds of them—hold your husbands work in contempt. If you are familiar with their writings, you KNOW that I am telling the truth. If you are not familiar with their writings, I believe that you should familiar yourself with them before concluding that your husband is right and everyone else is wrong.

 

Dale Kesterson wrote,

First, you are misrepresenting our brothers and sisters in the Charismatic movement. Secondly, the charismatic movement and mindset did not exist in Spurgeon’s day, nor did it exist for another hundred plus years after Spurgeon penned the words that quoted. Read the quote in context and it will be expressly clear to you what type of individuals he was referring to.

Would you like to discuss the seventh chapter of Romans or continue chasing after jackrabbits?

 

Dale Kesterson wrote,

Martin Lloyd-Jones believed and expressly taught that Romans 7:14-25 is NOT a description of an unregenerate man before he is saved. Helen believes not only that it can be, but that it necessarily is a description of a man in his unregenerate state, and that the man is Paul. I agree with Helen that Romans 7:14-25 is necessarily a description of a man in his unregenerate state (but that man cannot be Paul for the reasons that I have already posted), but Martin Lloyd-Jones wrote that it is not a description of a man in his unregenerate state,

“Whatever is being taught here, therefore, we can say that this [I am carnal, v. 14] is not a statement about a man who is unregenerate, neither is it a statement about a man who is fully developed as a Christian.” Martin Lloyd-Jones. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7.1-8.4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973. P. 187.

It is very important to note here that Martin Lloyd-Jones was NOT an exegete of Romans; he was an expositor of Romans who held to views that are in conflict with careful exegesis. One such view is his interpretation of the Greek word, sarx, translated very frequently in the New Testament as “flesh”, or “carnal” (when the cognate adjective is being translated).

It is also very important to note here that Martin Lloyd-Jones confuses the use of rhetorical first person pronoun with the “dramatic present.” Paul has already, in vv. 7-13, used the rhetorical first person pronoun, and it is only natural to assume that he is continuing to use it in vv. 14-25, even though he shifts from the plural to the singular form. And the use of the “dramatic present” is foreign to the New Testament. The closest thing to it that we find in the New Testament is the use of the historic present tense used frequently in the Gospels, and this is VERY different from the “dramatic present.” Martin Lloyd-Jones is simply confused on this point. (See pp. 183-184 in his above referenced commentary).

 

Craig, let me try to clear that jackrabbit a bit and then get back on point. I said Mr. Spurgeon was criticizing people "like" the Chrismatics we see today. I know some Charismatics who are actually academic, but I am speaking of the likes of Word of Faith... Unclear as I usually am. Mr. Spurgeon had his share of weak theology back then with religious liberals...

Craig, thanks for clearing that up with MLJ. I have spent months dwelling in the likes of Romans 7 and all the commentors may have been mixed up. I recall Newell was the one who supported the "unregenerate" position and quoted Darby as siding with him. I did not know how much I could rely on them, but a friend brushed them both off for being Dispensationalits (I found their insight edifying to ponder).

If I recall MLJ position correctly, be saw the Romans 7 man as one under the agony of conviction of the law though regenerate. A friend who was discussing the interpretion of MLJ's Romans 7 Man believed that it was something he would term "beginning regeneration" (this is a confusing term which he defines as regenerate, but experiencing the agony of conviction). We had gone through much of Romans dealing with that theology.

let me ask you, Craig, do you see this "beginning regeneration" as having any fruit to it. let me quote the passage from MLJ's book:

This is Calvin's Commentary:

I would value your input as well as others.

In Christ,

dale

 

Dale,

Before I answer specific questions regarding Rom. 7 and my interpretation, I would like to share with you my testimony regarding Romans 7.

I got saved in an Assembly of God church that taught that Romans 7:14-25 was Paul’s mature Christian experience (not all Assembly of God churches teach this, however) and I continued going to that church for about a year and half while I continued fellowshipping in a Baptist coffee house where that was the commonly understood interpretation. I quickly read through the New Testament twelve times in the KJV and then read through it once in the RSV. Having done that, I read through Romans a few times in the NASB and other translations and never bothered to really look at it closely.

I was then called upon to teach Romans at another church, and I purchased 13 commentaries on Romans to assist me in preparing my lesson notes. However, my schedule was so crowded that I didn’t have the time to use the commentaries very much at all. By the time I got to the 6th chapter of Romans (about 8 months into the study), I didn’t have any time at all for the commentaries and I had to rely exclusively upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit to help me. I spent several weeks (one night a week) teaching Romans 6, and as I got into it, verses like “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace” really stood out, and I could not reconcile them with what I had been taught regarding Rom. 7. Therefore, one night I very seriously brought this matter before God and asked Him what Paul was really teaching in Romans 7.

The Holy Spirit very clearly and definitely showed me in the Scriptures that Paul was writing about a Jewish rather than a Christian experience. But, like many other Christians, I felt like I needed some confirmation that it was really the Holy Spirit that I was listening to. Therefore I read what all 13 of my commentaries said about Rom. 7:14-25. Very much to my consternation, 12 of them expressly said that that Paul was writing about his experience as a Christian, the 13th commentary did not take a stand on the issue one way or another. Therefore, I prayed again, as earnestly as I could, that God would teach me the truth about this matter. And God spoke to me in my heart very clearly and distinctly and rebuked me for my unbelief. This was only the second time in my life when God spoke to me in such a clear manner and I KNEW that it was God speaking to me and I taught Romans 7 accordingly.

Nonetheless, I could not help but be curious as to why those 12 commentators were so mixed up, and that was the catalyst for my academic pursuit of Biblical and theological knowledge. And here we are, more than 20 years down the road, and I now have an extensive education in New Testament exegesis and translation theory and I approach the New Testament from a very academic point of view, but always praying for God to teach me His truths and to protect me from error. I have studied more than 300 commentaries on Romans, and I have more that 230 of them in my personal library, and I now know both personally through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and through my academic studies that Romans 7:14-25 is exclusively a Jewish experience, but definitely not Paul’s experience as Jew.

As I have posted above, Paul was an exceptional Jewish man with very high standards that he managed to live up to, and for anyone to propose that after Paul had his personal, regenerating encounter with Christ he was no longer to live up to the demands of the Law as he had done so well as an unregenerate Jew makes a mockery of the atonement of Christ and Paul’s personal encounter with Christ.

In closing, I should mention that although 12 of my first 13 commentaries on Romans taught that the man in Romans 7:14-25 was a regenerate Christian, those 12 commentaries were by no means an accurate sample of what commentators have taught throughout the history of the Church or what commentators are teaching today.

 

Dale wrote,

Dale,

I am not at all sure what you are asking here. From Paul’s perspective, we are to reckon ourselves “to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” A dead man can NOT sin—that is an absolute impossibility—therefore there is no struggle against temptation. Also, from Paul’s perspective, we are no longer under the Law, which is the power of sin (1 Cor. 15:56), and therefore sin has no power over us as a Christian and the struggle of the Jew to keep the Law has no place at all in our lives as Christians.

From John’s point of view, in 1 John 3, a man who is fully regenerate can NOT sin,

2. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.
3. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
4. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
5. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
6. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8. the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Jesus taught,

John 8:31. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
32. and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
33. They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
34. Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
35. "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
36. "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians,

1 Cor. 10:13. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

In Christ there is only victory—defeat in the face of temptation is an impossibility. The only “Christians” who are able to experience defeat in the face of temptation are those who walk in the flesh rather than the Spirit, and thereby deny themselves of the power of the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 8:1. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7. because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8. and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

Dale wrote,

Dale,

We are not at all on the same wavelength here, but that is not germane to the topic at hand, so I shall not comment further.

Thank you for participating in this thread. I am looking forward to reading more of your posts here and elsewhere.

 

Here is the problem Craig.
As far as I know, Helen is a Baptist. You are not (at least not in conviction). Helen uses the Bible as her sole rule of faith and order. You do not. Helen studies and trusts the Bible, and relies on it for her own conclusions. You do not. You rely on a plethora of academia which are usually liberal in their outlook on Scripture, quite often agnostic, and certainly not conservative. You rely on what the Bible calls "science so-called." That is not relying on the Bible, which we are commanded to do in 2Tim.2:15.
The great majority of academia don't make any portion of the Scripture right. In fact it usually means that the academia is wrong. The majority in most cases are wrong. The majority believes in abortion, but they are not right. The majority don't believe in capitol punishment, but I don't believe the majority is right there either. It just may be that the majority is now believing in equal "rights" for sexual preference including homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that the majority is right. Homosexuality is still wrong. Rarely is the majority right. So your argument in using "the majority of ...." doesn't hold any weight with me. What saith the Scripture is the question; not what saith the academia!
DHK

 

DHK wrote,

The Word of God – I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original writings, complete as the revelation of God's will for salvation, and the supreme and final authority in all matters to which they speak.

The Trinity – I believe in one God, Creator and Sustainer of all things, eternally divine existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; I believe that these are equal in every distinct perfection and they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence, and redemption.

God the Father – I believe in God the Father: an infinite, personal Spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love. I believe that He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of humanity, that He hears and answers prayer, and that He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ – I believe that Jesus Christ is God's eternal Son, who has precisely the same nature, attributes, and perfections as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. I believe further that He is not only true God, but true man, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. I also believe in His sinless life, His substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven, His priestly intercession on behalf of His people, and His personal, visible, premillennial return from heaven.

Holy Spirit – I believe in the Holy Spirit, His personality and His work in regeneration, sanctification, and preservation. His ministry is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, to implement Christ's work of redeeming the lost, and to empower the believer for godly living and service.

Man – I believe God originally created persons, male and female, in the image of God and free from sin. I further believe all people are sinners by nature and choice and are spiritually dead. I also believe that those who repent of sin and trust Jesus Christ as Savior are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Salvation – I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I further believe that this salvation is based upon the sovereign grace of God, was purchased by Jesus Christ on the cross, and is received by faith, apart from any human merit, works, or ritual. I further believe salvation results in righteous living, good works, and proper social concern.

The Church – I believe that the Church is the spiritual body of which Christ is the head. I believe that the true Church is composed of all persons who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. I believe that this body expresses itself in local assemblies whose members have been immersed upon a credible confession of faith and have associated themselves for worship, for instruction, for evangelism, and for service. I believe the ordinances of the local church are believer's baptism by immersion and the Lord's Supper. I also believe in the interdependence of local churches and the mutual submission of believers to each other in love.

Separation of Church and State – I believe that each local church is self-governing in function and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority. I further believe that every human being is directly responsible to God in matters of faith and life and that each one should be free to worship God according to the dictates of conscience.

Christian Conduct – I believe that the supreme task of believers is to glorify God in their life and that their conduct should be blameless before the world. I further believe that they should be faithful stewards of their possessions and that they should seek to realize for themselves the full stature of maturity in Christ.

The Last Things – I believe in the bodily resurrection of the saved and lost, the eternal existence of all people either in heaven or hell, in divine judgment, rewards, and punishments.

*****************

I wonder just exactly what DHK thinks a Baptist is!

 

Craig said:

Ahh, I agree with you on many things, but really need you to elaborate on this. Are you one who believes God has a different plan of Salvation for the Jews than he does for the gentiles (Christians)?

dale

 

Ahh, I agree with you on many things, but really need you to elaborate on this. Are you one who believes God has a different plan of Salvation for the Jews than he does for the gentiles (Christians)?

dale </font>[/QUOTE]Dale,

There is not much room for elaboration here. In Romans 7:14-25, Paul is describing the experience of many of his Jewish readers (and listeners, as this letter was read to the church in Rome) who had either not fully accepted the Christian message of salvation by faith apart from the works of the Law, or who had not as of yet fully understood it and its application to them. And Paul wrote this portion of his letter using the first person singular pronoun to aid his Jewish readers and listeners in identifying with the Jew being described—a very devout Jew who loved and treasured the Law of God and who had very much difficulty laying it aside in favor of the grace of God.

Although most scholars of Romans believe that the church at Rome was largely made up of Gentiles, there can be no doubt that many portions of Romans are directed primarily toward Jews. Indeed, the Christian message of salvation by faith apart from the works of the Law has a very strong Jewish rather than Gentile focus because the Law was, at most, relatively unimportant to the Gentiles.

Does God have a different plan of salvation for the Jews than he does for the Gentiles? There is no hint of such a thing in the first eight chapters of Romans, and chapter 7 is between chapter 6 and chapter 8.

 

Helen wrote,

Rom. 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

Hi Helen,

It is expressly clear that, up to this point in this chapter, Paul is speaking of physical death rather than spiritual death.

4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

This verse tells us (first person plural pronoun in an English oblique case used partially figuratively and partially theologically—and the theology here is immensely complitcated) that we were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ. Paul is writing here of the physical death of Christ rather than His spiritual death, and Paul argues that we are to reckon the man who was alive (physically—not spiritually) under the Law to be dead, that we might be free from both the jurisdiction of the Law and the consequences of the Law (see my outline of Romans 7 in the early portion of this thread). Upon the death of the old man who was living under Law, and ONLY upon the death of the old man who was living under the Law, can a man be regenerated and become a new creation in Christ Jesus. 2 Cor. 5:17.

Your brother in Christ,

CBTS

 

I have just now reviewed this thread and I saw that I replied to Helen,

“I shall no longer attempt to dialogue with you regarding Romans 7.”

As a Christian is need to honor my word and I see that I inadvertently failed to do so, and for that I apologize. Should Helen choose, however, to release me from my commitment to her, I may choose the option to reply to some of her posts regarding Romans 7.

 

Craig, I really would advise you to go back to those commentaries and try to understand them again. I am sorry if I sound a bit rude, but I there may be valid reasons they do not agree with you.

Also, test those spirits that tell you to not question yourself. Humility IS a fruit of the Spirit.

This is all for me here for a while. Gotta get back to the living

Love in the Lamb,

dale

 

Here is the problem Craig.
As far as I know, Helen is a Baptist. You are not (at least not in conviction). Helen uses the Bible as her sole rule of faith and order. You do not. Helen studies and trusts the Bible, and relies on it for her own conclusions. You do not. You rely on a plethora of academia which are usually liberal in their outlook on Scripture, quite often agnostic, and certainly not conservative. You rely on what the Bible calls "science so-called." That is not relying on the Bible, which we are commanded to do in 2Tim.2:15.
The great majority of academia don't make any portion of the Scripture right. In fact it usually means that the academia is wrong. The majority in most cases are wrong. The majority believes in abortion, but they are not right. The majority don't believe in capitol punishment, but I don't believe the majority is right there either. It just may be that the majority is now believing in equal "rights" for sexual preference including homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that the majority is right. Homosexuality is still wrong. Rarely is the majority right. So your argument in using "the majority of ...." doesn't hold any weight with me. What saith the Scripture is the question; not what saith the academia!
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Bingo!!

You either trust God as to what and how He said it (whatever the discussion may be about), or you trust man!

Where God has spoken, you cannot trust God AND man when the "testimony" is different.

Where God has not spoken, you may find a little wiggle room, but you still have to follow the "principles" God teaches.