"Sold Under Sin" - Rom. 7:14

[The Biblicist]

14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Paul uses the PRESENT TENSE and makes to claims about "I"

1. "I" am carnal - fleshly
2. "I" am ...sold UNDER SIN.

Here is the declaration and verses 15-25 is the explanation. In the explanation the reader will see not ONE but TWO different uses of the pronoun "I" and only one is related to "the flesh" or is "fleshly" and that pronoun is:

1. "I" sold under sin" - v. 14
2. "I" that operates by "the law of sin" - vv. 22-25
3. "I" that only chooses to do "evil" - vv. 15-17
4. "I" that only serves sin - v. 25
5. "i" of the outward man "the flesh....members....body of death"
6. "I" that contains "NOTHING GOOD" - v. 18
7. "I" that conexists with a contrary "I" - vv. 22-25


This is the "I" of Romans 7:14 the "I" that is fleshly and "sold under sin" because it operates by "the law of sin."

However, there is another "I" in direct contrast to the "I" that is fleshly and sold under sin.

1. "I' that operates under a different "law" - vv. 22-25
2. "I" that delights in the law of God - v. 21
3. "I" that chooses only good - vv. 18b-21
4. "I" that "serves God" - v. 25
5. "I" that cries out for deliverance from the fleshly law - v. 24
6. "I" of the "inward man" or "my mind" - vv. 21,25
7. "I" coexisting with a contrary "I" - vv. 22-25

These two contrasting Laws represent TWO NATURES - one that operates after the "law of sin" and one that operates after the law of God - Rom. 7:25

The "I" that operates after the "law of sin" is the "I" sold under sin, as it serves only sin, loves only sin, does only sin and there is "NOTHING GOOD" in "the flesh" and therefore it is the "I am flesh." - the Unregenerated nature of a born again man whose inward man delights in and operates by the law of God and serves only God.

 

[Winman]

I believe that Paul was writing from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7. Of course, I do not expect you to agree with me, but many theologians do. Here is an article by Reformed theologian Robert L. Reymond listing 10 reasons why he believes Paul was speaking of himself before his conversion in Romans 7.

Whom Does the Man in Romans 7:14-25 Represent?

by Robert L. Reymond

MANY OF THE ablest expositors, standing in the tradition of Augustine and the Western church at large, believe that Paul intended Romans 7:14-25 as a
description of the Christian in his struggle against the power of indwelling sin (e.g., John Calvin, J. Eraser, F. A. Philippi, C. Hodge, J. Murray, C. E. B. Cranfield, John MacArthur). In my opinion (shared by J. A Bengel, H. A. W Meyer, F. Godet, M. Stuart, W Sanday and A. C. Headlam, J. Denney, J. Oliver
Buswell, Jr., A. Hoekema, M. Lloyd-Jones), however, the Romans passage is not a description of the regenerate person’s struggle against indwelling sin. Rather, drawing upon his own experience as Saul, the most zealous law-keeping Pharisee of his day (Acts 22:3; 26:5; Gal. 1114; Phil. 3:4-6) who had become aware through the law, as applied by the Spirit, of his own innate sinfulness, in this passage Paul, with words provided him from the enlightened vantage point which was now his as a Christian, sets forth both the impotence of the unregenerate ego to do good against the power of indwelling sin and the “inability” (adunaton adynaton 8:3) and “weakness” (esthenei,
esthenei 8:3) of the law due to human depravity to deliver the unregenerate ego from sin’s slavery.

Herman Ridderbos in his Paul: An Outline of His Theology,1concurs that this passage does not refer to the Christian struggle against sin. However, he rejects the view that “this ego of 7:7-25 ... is to be taken in a biographical sense as a description of Paul’s personal experience before or at his conversion” (129), preferring rather to interpret the passage by “redemptive-historical contrasts and categories” (129), that is to say, the “I” in the passage represents Old Testament Israel and its experience with the law. I contend, however, that this is precisely what Paul in tended—to employ his experience as the unconverted Saul of Tarsus, aroused from his spiritual torpor, convicted by the reality of his sinfulness, and struggling even more than before to please God through his efforts at law-keeping, as an illustration of the impotence of the law to sanctify the unregenerate heart and the
frustration unto death that any and every unregenerate person will experience who would sincerely seek to achieve a righteousness before God on the basis of his own law-keeping. I say this for the following reasons:

1. Romans 7:7-13 is clearly autobiographical highlighting the facts that sin dwelling within Saul of Tarsus had always been his problem and that the law,
while not the source of sin, for it is “holy, just, good, and spiritual” (7:12,14), is impotent relative to the production of good in the sinful heart. The shift of verb tense from the past to the present at 7:14 in no way affects the autobiographical character of 7:14-25. Nor must the present tenses in 7:14-25 necessarily indicate Paul’s experience at the time he is writing Romans as
the mature Christian apostle and missionary. The “historical [or “dramatic”] present” is a well-known use of the present tense in Greek when the writer wished to make a past event or experience more vivid to his reader.

2. The man describes himself as “carnal” (sarkinos, sarkinos; 7:144), which according to 8:65 is descriptive of the state of spiritual death.

3. The man says of himself that he has been “sold as a slave [pepramenos, pepramenos] to sin” (7:144), that is, he is a slave of sin, which is descriptive only of the unregenerate man. Regenerate persons “used to be [hte, ete] slaves of sin” (6:17,206) but now “have been set free from sin” and have now become “slaves to righteousness” (6:18,227). They, “were controlled by
the sinful nature” (7:58), but now (nuni, nyni; 6:229)

1 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John R. DeWitt (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), 126-30.

2 Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959), i: 248, 254.

3 E. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1961), 167, para. 321.

4 Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

5 Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

6 Romans 6:17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

7 Romans 6:18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

8 Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

9 Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

Part 1 of 4

 

[Winman]

Part 2 of 4

“are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit” (8:910), “having died to what once bound them” (7:611). They did “live according to the sinful nature” (8:412), but now they are living (peripatousin, peripatousin) “according to the Spirit” (8:4b12). and the law’s requirements are being “fully met” in them (8:43).

4. The man says of himself that his members are being mastered by “indwelling sin” (h oikousaen emoi amartia he oikousa en emoi hamartia; 7:17, 2013). This is not true of the Christian for he is governed by the“indwelling Spirit”; if he is not so governed, he is not a Christian at all (8:9,11 14)!

5. The man says of himself that “in me...dwells no good thing” (7:1815), which is not true of the Christian for the Spirit of God dwells within him (8:9,1114).

6. The man says of himself that a “law [of sin]” within him is “waging war against [antistrateuomenon, antistrateuomenon]the law of his mind [that
is, his desire to do good] and making him a prisoner [aickmalotizonta, aickmalotizonta] of the law of sin at work within his members” (7:2316). Here again he stresses his slavery to sin which is not true of the Christian (6:1417), for the gospel has “liberated [him] from the law of sin and death” (8:218).

7. The man says of himself throughout the passage that he does not do the good that he wants to do; rather, he continually does, indeed, actually practices, what he does not want to do (Epictetus, Enchiridion, i. ii. c. 26,
says something almost identical with that of the apostle here). In sum, the man in this passage is enslaved by indwelling sin and sees his state as “wretched” and his body as the sphere in which sin is operative unto death
(7:2419). This is not true of the Christian nor can this be descriptive of the Christian.

8. The advocate of the Augustinian view contends that the unregenerate person could not and will not “delight in God’s law after the inward man” as the man in the passage says he is doing (7:2220); only Christians, they urge, can do that. But I beg to differ. Saul of Tarsus, as a Pharisee, did just that. It may legitimately be said that throughout his life as a self-righteous Pharisee he “delighted in the law of God with his mind” –– observance of the law was his very reason for being. He was a “son of the law,” was committed to it, and wanted to obey it. But when the tenth commandment truly “came home” to him at some point with condemning power (had he coveted Stephen’s
knowledge of Scripture and his exegetical power?) and made him aware of his indwelling sinfulness, the sin which had always dwelt within him “came to life” and he “died” (7:921). Paul also declared that the Jewish nation was “pursuing” a righteousness of its own through law-keeping (Rom. 9:31-3222). Apparently, then, unregenerate people can sincerely desire to be obedient to the law. Their problem, as the passage teaches, is their impotence to do what they want to do or know to be right.

9. Some advocates of the Augustinian view contend that Romans 7:25b23, as the conclusion of the argument, describes a condition only true of the Christian: he “is a slave to God’s law with his mind but a slave to the law of sin with his members.” But this radical dichotomy

10 Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

11 Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

12 Romans 8:4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us | who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

13 Romans 7:17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin
that dwells in me. Romans 7:20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

14 Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

15 Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

16 Romans 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

17 Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

18 Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

19 Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

20 Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

21 Romans 7:9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

22 Romans 9:31-32 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

23 Romans 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin

 

[Winman]

Part 3 of 4

between what he wants to do (the good, obedience to God’s law) and what he in fact continually practices (see prasso, prasso, 7:1924) (evil, transgression of the law) is not true of the Christian. Romans 7:25b is either

a. a conclusion descriptive of the unconverted but deeply convicted Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, struggling to obey the law in his own power, with the preceding “Thanks be to God” phrase (7:25a) being the regenerate Paul simply
interjecting into the flow of his argument as he occasionally does an anacoluthonic praise statement from his vantage point as a Christian (e.g., Eph 2:5), highlighting where he found the solution to his struggle, or it is

b. following Theodor Zahn,25 a rhetorical question (taking the ara oun, ara oun “Now therefore,” of 7:25 as ara oun, ara oun, “Shall I then?” which expects the negative response “Of course not!”), with the preceding “Thanks be to God” phrase then to be construed as an essential part of Paul’s statement marking the point in the flow of his argument when he was
converted and thus the point at which his nonvictorious struggle with sin’s power ceased.

10. The man in Romans 7:14-25 is struggling against sin’s power and he desires to obey God’s law. But he is utterly defeated by the power of indwelling sin. This is not true of the Christian who, while he too experiences
a struggle against sin (Gal. 5:16-1826), is described as victorious in his struggle against sin’s power because of his new master, the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

Ridderbos writes: Undoubtedly it is said of the new man . . . that he continues to be engaged in conflict with the flesh. Thus, for example, in Galatians 5:17
where it is said: “the flesh lusts against [NIV— “desires what is contrary to”] the Spirit [to prevent you from doing the good that the Spirit wants you to do], and the Spirit against [“desires what is contrary to”] the flesh... to
prevent you from doing [the evil that the flesh wants you to do].” And similarly it is said to believers in Romans 6:12 that sin may not (continue to) reign in their mortal bodies, etc. All this points to enduring battle, struggle,
resistance of the flesh against the Spirit. But the absolute distinction between these and similar pronouncements and the portrayal of Romans 7 is that the former are spoken within the possibility and certainty of victory (see Rom.
6:14: “for sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under law, but under grace”; Gal. 5:24: “but they that are of Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts”), while in Romans 7 everything is directed toward throwing light on man’s situation of death, his having been sold under sin, his having been taken captive by the superior power of sin.. . . The elements placed over against each other in Romans 7 are ... not (as in Gal. 5) the Spirit and the flesh, or (as in Rom. 6) grace and the law, but the human ego, the “I-myself” (v. 25 !) and the flesh, the law of God and the law of sin. In the struggle between those parties the victory is to the flesh and sin, and the ego finds itself, despite all that it would will and desire, in absolute bondage and the situation of death. Other powers must enter the field, another than the “I-myself” must join the battle, if deliverance is to come. So far is it
from any suggestion that since there is mention here of a dis-cord, this were able to furnish the proof that the struggle between the old and the new man is described [in Romans 7] in the manner of Galatians 5:17.27 Some Christians have employed the Augustinian view of the passage to undergird the antinomian’s “carnal Christian” theology. I remember reading an antinomian tract once that actually argued, because Paul says of his evil practice here, “it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me” (which means something on the order of, “my evil deeds show that I am impotent against sin in my own strength, that is, I am not my own master [the “it is not I that do it” phrase], but am rather a slave to indwelling sin which governs and controls me”) (7:17,2028), that the

24 Romans 7:19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.

25 Theodor Zahn, Der Briefe des Paulus an die Romer (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1910), 370ff.

26 Galatians 5:16-18 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. BUT SEE:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

27 Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 127.

28 Romans 7:17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Romans 7:20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no

 

[Winman]

Part 4 of 4

Christian need not worry about his carnal practice since, after all, it is not he who is sinning but simply his sin nature within him that is doing so! The antinomian has also used the Augustinian interpretation of the passage as his excuse for the sin in his life when confronted by his pastor: “Well, I’ve been taught that the man in Romans 7 is the apostle Paul, the most mature Christian of his day, who could never do what he wanted to do but rather continually sinned against his will. While I wish I didn’t sin, and I hate it when I do, I guess, like Paul, I’m just the carnal man in Romans 7!” To use this passage in these ways is a travesty! Nothing Paul ever wrote did he intend the Christian to use as an excuse for the toleration of sin in his life, and no biblical passage should ever be used to justify a “carnal” Christian existence. The Bible denounces carnality wherever it is found. And it expects the Christian to denounce his carnality (which he will have) as a legitimate experience of Christian existence, and to repudiate and overcome the carnal
thoughts and activities in his life (which, not without struggle, he will do). It is better, I would urge, to hold that Paul is describing his state prior to his conversion on the Damascus Road but, due to his conscience having been
awakened to his sinfulness but still “kicking against the goads” of Christ’s gracious overtures (Acts 26:14), a state in which he is hopelessly struggling in his own power to be obedient to the law and thus to please God. Why does Paul take his Christian reader back to his struggle against sin as a convicted Pharisee? How, in short, does this autobiographical piece fit into the context and the argument of the epistle? Paul, in his argument for justification by faith alone, knows he has said some things about the law which, if left unexplained, might lead his reader to the conclusion that the law of God is a bad and sinful thing. For example, he had said: “through the law we become conscious of sin” (3:20); “The law was added so that the trespass might increase” (5:20); and “the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies” (7:5). Therefore, he pauses in the development of his argument at 7:7 to ask the question: “Is the law sin [that is, a sinful thing]?” Using his own experience
as a Pharisee as his prime example, he answers this question with a resounding “Certainly not!,” developing then the fact that it was not the law that made him covet; rather, it was his sinful human nature, seizing upon the opportunity provided it by the “holy, just, good, and spiritual” commandment, “Do not covet,” that produced in him all manner of evil coveting. Not only this, says Paul, but his sinful humannature, seizing the opportunity provided by the commandment’s unrelenting demand of obedience also “killed” him (7:11). He asks then the question: “Did that which is good [the law], then, become death to me?” (7:13) In other words, was the law the “killing thing”? He answers, “By no means!” and declares again that it was his sinful human nature, through the “good” commandment that forbade coveting, that both produced death in him and showed, in its willingness to use the holy law for such a purpose, its “utter sinfulness” (7:13). It is both this last point—the “utter sinfulness” of his sinful nature—and the impotency of the law in the struggle against sin—that Paul develops in 7:14-25, arguing that even when as the convicted Pharisee he wanted to do the good and obey God, his sinful nature would not let him and the law did not help
him; to the contrary, the sinful nature “waged war against the law of his mind [his desire to do good] and made him a prisoner of the law of sin at work within his members.” His conclusion: his unregenerate state had been a “wretched” existence, so wretched, in fact, that he cried for deliverance from it! Not knowing where to turn (for he still did not believe that Jesus was
the Messiah or that Jesus could help him), however, he continued in his impotency to struggle against sin’s potency until his Damascus Road conversion finally brought him deliverance from his slavery to sin (8:1-4)! Thus Paul restricts the source and locus of sin to man, the second cause, and while vindicating the “holy, just, good, and spiritual” law, showing that it is only the instrumental dynamic that the sinful nature, aroused by the law’s prohibitions, uses in its hostility to God to lash out against God by enslaving his moral creature in sin and disobedience, highlights in doing so the law’s “inability” and “weakness” to deliver from sin’s enthrallment.

Dr. Robert L. Reymond is former Dean of Faculty and currently Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (D. James Kennedy). He taught for more than 20 years at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. The above is Appendix F in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Rev. 2nd ed., 1998. Scanned Greek fonts have not been
checked for accuracy

What does this article prove? It doesn't PROVE anything, but it does show that real scholars, even Reformed scholars disagree with your view and agree with mine.

I believe Paul was writing from his perspective before he was saved. In his mind he sincerely desired to obey and serve God, but his flesh was weak and warred against his spirit, bringing him into captivity of sin. And that captivity is death, death is the wage of sin. The moment you sin, you are bound and held by sin just as a slave was held in ancient days.

This does not mean you are always compelled to sin, a slave can disobey his master, a slave can run away from his master. Nevertheless he is owned by that master and brought back into captivity. He is paid the wage his master pays, which in this case is death.

The problem is that folks do not understand what the scriptures mean when it says we were servants or slaves to sin. This doesn't mean we are compelled to sin at all times, but we are owned and held captive by sin, and the only wage we will receive as a slave or servant to sin is death.

The moment we accept Christ we are dead to sin and no longer held by it. We are now baptized into the body of Christ and under grace.

This is why Romans 7:14-25 cannot be about a saved person, no saved person is "sold under sin" we have been set free from sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that Paul was writing from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7. Of course, I do not expect you to agree with me, but many theologians do. Here is an article by Reformed theologian Robert L. Reymond listing 10 reasons why he believes Paul was speaking of himself before his conversion in Romans 7.



Part 1 of 4

Oh boy! His interpetation is one false foundation laid upon another false foundation.

1. Romans 7:7-13 is clearly autobiographical highlighting the facts that sin dwelling within Saul of Tarsus had always been his problem and that the law, while not the source of sin, for it is “holy, just, good, and spiritual” (7:12,14), is impotent relative to the production of good in the sinful heart. The shift of verb tense from the past to the present at 7:14 in no way affects the autobiographical character of 7:14-25.

The verb shift does not affect the autobiographical character of Romans 7:7-25 however, it is not merely a verb tense shift alone but a shift of content and characteristics as well that does not harmonize with his autobiographical experience in Romans 7:7-13 and neither does the "historical" present account for that shift and its characteristics. I will not only prove this later but demonstrate his exposition is flawed seriously.




2. The man describes himself as “carnal” (sarkinos, sarkinos; 7:144), which according to 8:65 is descriptive of the state of spiritual death.

No he does not describe "the man" or "himself" as "carnal" but the pronoun "I" which he defines and distinguishes between another "I" in this context. The "I" of verse 14 has to do with "THE FLESH" the "BODY" the "MEMBERS" whereas the other "I" has to do with the "mind" and "Inward man."

I imagine he is referring to Romans 8:6 as there is no 8:65. However, his problem is that he removes any problem for the saved man to be resolved in Romans 8:11-13 if he interprets 8:6-8 to be restrictly solely to the lost man. Moreoer, his restriction to the lost Paul does not harmonize with any of the context in Romans 7:18-25 and particular the fact that he can "serve God" due to another "law" which is contrary to the "law of sin."

3. The man says of himself that he has been “sold as a slave [pepramenos, pepramenos] to sin” (7:144), that is, he is a slave of sin, which is descriptive only of the unregenerate man. Regenerate persons “used to be [hte, ete] slaves of sin” (6:17,206) but now “have been set free from sin” and have now become “slaves to righteousness” (6:18,227). They, “were controlled by
the sinful nature” (7:58), but now (nuni, nyni; 6:229)

No, he says "I" am "fleshly" and "sold UNDER sin." However, the "I" he is referring to is distinctly separated from another "I" which is not sold to sin but serves God. The contextual "I" that is sold to sin cannot do "good" as there is "NOTHING GOOD" in the flesh (v. 18) neither can it do "good" (vv. 15-17) but operates soley "UNDER sin" by serving the "LAW of sin."

No, it is not only descriptive of the "unregenerate man" but also of the fallen nature (Rom. 8:7) as regeneration is of the "spirit" (Jn. 3:6) and not of "the flesh" and this is a FLESHLY nature - "members....this body of death."

He does not know what he is talking about and a further examination of his reasons in the next post demonstrates he PERVERTS the text to support his false eisegetical thesis.

 

[Winman]

How did I know you would say this former Dean of Faculty and currently Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, was in error! :laugh:

You think you know more than anybody. You cannot see that you are reading your presupposition of Total Inability into this passage when it is not there.

Here are yet some other notable scholars that agree with my view that Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7;

It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the church, or prevailed there, that the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state. This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character….That all that is said in this chapter of the carnal man, sold under sin, did apply to Saul of Tarsus, no man can doubt: that what is here said can ever be with propriety applied to Paul the Apostle, who can believe? Of the former, all is natural; of the latter, all here said would be monstrous and absurd, if not blasphemous.2

The best scholarship discredits this chapter as the photograph of a regenerated man. The Greek Fathers, during the first three hundred years of church history, unanimously interpreted this scripture as describing a thoughtful moralist endeavoring, without the grace of God, to realize his highest ideal of moral purity. Augustine, to rob his opponent Pelagius of the two proof-texts, originated the theory that the seventh of Romans delineated a regenerate man."3

The more ancient teachers of the Church had unanimously explained it of the man who has not yet become a Christian, nor is upheld in the struggle by the Spirit of Christ. So Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Theodoret.4

Among those who reject this teaching (a regenerate man in vv. 14-25), the view of the Greek fathers prevails. It is worthy of note that this is the earlier opinion, and was accepted by nearly all who spoke as their mother-tongue the language in which this epistle was written.5(italics added)

In analyzing the early Christian understanding of Romans 7 it has become very clear that the early church did not understand this passage to teach the necessity of sin in believers, usually attributing to it the interpretation that it was a man who was striving to please God under the Law of Moses. In fact this interpretation was so prevalent that when discussing this passage around 415AD, Pelagius (c.350-c.420?) could write in his now lost work entitled "In Defense Of The Freedom Of The Will," which is preserved by Augustine in "On The Grace Of Christ And On Original Sin" [1:43] that "that which you wish us to understand of the apostle himself, all Church writers assert that he spoke in the person of the sinner, and of one who was still under the law..." Augustine, in his attempt to refute this statement of Pelagius, was unable to offer any church writers who disagreed with Pelagius. 6

Whether you like it or not, many well known scholars throughout church history, including all of the early church fathers believed Paul was writing from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7.

Of course, it comes as no surprise that you believe you know more that all of these men. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

Part 2 of 4

4. The man says of himself that his members are being mastered by “indwelling sin” (h oikousaen emoi amartia he oikousa en emoi hamartia; 7:17, 2013). This is not true of the Christian for he is governed by the“indwelling Spirit”; if he is not so governed, he is not a Christian at all (8:9,11 14)!

False! Regeneration is of the "spirit" not "the flesh." Paul tells the Corinthians he must "beat" the flesh and keep it in subjection because of its sinful nature.

False! If the saved man were "governed" at all times by the "indwelling Spirit" there would be no need to keep exhorting Christians to "put off the old man" and to "put on the new man" to be "filled with the Spirit" not to "walk after the flesh." These very exhortations demand an internal warefare between "the flesh" and "the spirit" of the regenerated man.

5. The man says of himself that “in me...dwells no good thing” (7:1815), which is not true of the Christian for the Spirit of God dwells within him (8:9,1114).

No He does not say that! He qualifies it by saying "that is IN MY FLESH." Here is the first layer of his false foundations.

6. The man says of himself that a “law [of sin]” within him is “waging war against [antistrateuomenon, antistrateuomenon]the law of his mind [that
is, his desire to do good] and making him a prisoner [aickmalotizonta, aickmalotizonta] of the law of sin at work within his members” (7:2316). Here again he stresses his slavery to sin which is not true of the Christian (6:1417), for the gospel has “liberated [him] from the law of sin and death” (8:218).

Here again he ignores the alternative. His mind does not serve sin but the flesh does serve the law of sin. His mind chooses good but the "I" of the flesh never chooses good (vv. 15-18; but "the flesh" serves sin - v. 25. A Second layer of false foundations.


7. The man says of himself throughout the passage that he does not do the good that he wants to do; rather, he continually does, indeed, actually practices, what he does not want to do (Epictetus, Enchiridion, i. ii. c. 26,
says something almost identical with that of the apostle here). In sum, the man in this passage is enslaved by indwelling sin and sees his state as “wretched” and his body as the sphere in which sin is operative unto death
(7:2419). This is not true of the Christian nor can this be descriptive of the Christian.

False! He NEVER says that of "himself" but only of the "I" who is "fleshly" and "under sin" (v. 14) ruled by the "law of sin" (vv. 22-25) and "serves sin" (v. 25) and NEVER chooses "good" (vv. 15-17). He NEVER says this of the "I" who delights in the Law of God (v. 21) and always has the "will" to choose good but not the power (vv. 18b-21) and which "serves God" - v. 25.

8. The advocate of the Augustinian view contends that the unregenerate person could not and will not “delight in God’s law after the inward man” as the man in the passage says he is doing (7:2220); only Christians, they urge, can do that. But I beg to differ. Saul of Tarsus, as a Pharisee, did just that. It may legitimately be said that throughout his life as a self-righteous Pharisee he “delighted in the law of God with his mind” –– observance of the law was his very reason for being. He was a “son of the law,” was committed to it, and wanted to obey it. But when the tenth commandment truly “came home” to him at some point with condemning power (had he coveted Stephen’s
knowledge of Scripture and his exegetical power?) and made him aware of his indwelling sinfulness, the sin which had always dwelt within him “came to life” and he “died” (7:921). Paul also declared that the Jewish nation was “pursuing” a righteousness of its own through law-keeping (Rom. 9:31-3222). Apparently, then, unregenerate people can sincerely desire to be obedient to the law. Their problem, as the passage teaches, is their impotence to do what they want to do or know to be right.

Here is his real eisgetical motive his hatred of the- "augustinian view." His illustration is false as his previous unregenerated experience denies this (Rom. 7:7-11) and Paul's later testimony regarded his former devotion to the law as "dung" with only a "zeal" but without knowledge.

Furthermore, the unregenerate has no "INWARD man" that delights in the law of God and Romans 7:14 refers ONLY to the OUTWARD man "flesh" (v. 14) and "in my flesh" (v. 18) and "members" and "this body of death" (v. 24). The "inward man" all of is NOT THE OBJECT OF REGENERATION but is doomed to death.



9. Some advocates of the Augustinian view contend that Romans 7:25b23, as the conclusion of the argument, describes a condition only true of the Christian: he “is a slave to God’s law with his mind but a slave to the law of sin with his members.” But this radical dichotomy

Correct. Not "radical" but plainly spelled out by two different laws in connection with two different aspects of man (OUTWARD versus INWARD) and two different applications of the pronoun "I".

10 Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

If a saved man ALWAYS walks AFTER the Spirit then Romans 8:11-13 is senseless advice. He does not know the difference between being "IN" the Spirit (our position) versus walking "AFTER" the Spirit (our present practice).


11 Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Note the deliverance is not of YOUR BODY. Second, the service is "IN the NEWNESS of the Spirit" not in the flesh.

12 Romans 8:4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us | who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Again, if the child of God ALWAYS walked (practice) according to the Spirit there would be no need for Romans 8:10-13 or any other exhortation to "put on" the new inward man or "put off" the old man.


13 Romans 7:17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin
that dwells in me. Romans 7:20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

This text demands a distinction between the "I" of the flesh which is under sin in verse 14 which is "in my flesh" verse 18 and the "I" which is after the Law of God, inward man, mind, and serves God. The source of sin is not found in the sphere of the second "I" but only in the sphere of the first "I."

 

[The Biblicist]

4. The man says of himself that his members are being mastered by “indwelling sin” (h oikousaen emoi amartia he oikousa en emoi hamartia; 7:17, 2013). This is not true of the Christian for he is governed by the“indwelling Spirit”; if he is not so governed, he is not a Christian at all (8:9,11 14)!

False! Regeneration is of the "spirit" not "the flesh." Paul tells the Corinthians he must "beat" the flesh and keep it in subjection because of its sinful nature.

False! If the saved man were "governed" at all times by the "indwelling Spirit" there would be no need to keep exhorting Christians to "put off the old man" and to "put on the new man" to be "filled with the Spirit" not to "walk after the flesh." These very exhortations demand an internal warefare between "the flesh" and "the spirit" of the regenerated man.

5. The man says of himself that “in me...dwells no good thing” (7:1815), which is not true of the Christian for the Spirit of God dwells within him (8:9,1114).

No He does not say that! He qualifies it by saying "that is IN MY FLESH." Here is the first layer of his false foundations.

6. The man says of himself that a “law [of sin]” within him is “waging war against [antistrateuomenon, antistrateuomenon]the law of his mind [that
is, his desire to do good] and making him a prisoner [aickmalotizonta, aickmalotizonta] of the law of sin at work within his members” (7:2316). Here again he stresses his slavery to sin which is not true of the Christian (6:1417), for the gospel has “liberated [him] from the law of sin and death” (8:218).

Here again he ignores the alternative. His mind does not serve sin but the flesh does serve the law of sin. His mind chooses good but the "I" of the flesh never chooses good (vv. 15-18; but "the flesh" serves sin - v. 25. A Second layer of false foundations.


7. The man says of himself throughout the passage that he does not do the good that he wants to do; rather, he continually does, indeed, actually practices, what he does not want to do (Epictetus, Enchiridion, i. ii. c. 26,
says something almost identical with that of the apostle here). In sum, the man in this passage is enslaved by indwelling sin and sees his state as “wretched” and his body as the sphere in which sin is operative unto death
(7:2419). This is not true of the Christian nor can this be descriptive of the Christian.

False! He NEVER says that of "himself" but only of the "I" who is "fleshly" and "under sin" (v. 14) ruled by the "law of sin" (vv. 22-25) and "serves sin" (v. 25) and NEVER chooses "good" (vv. 15-17). He NEVER says this of the "I" who delights in the Law of God (v. 21) and always has the "will" to choose good but not the power (vv. 18b-21) and which "serves God" - v. 25.

8. The advocate of the Augustinian view contends that the unregenerate person could not and will not “delight in God’s law after the inward man” as the man in the passage says he is doing (7:2220); only Christians, they urge, can do that. But I beg to differ. Saul of Tarsus, as a Pharisee, did just that. It may legitimately be said that throughout his life as a self-righteous Pharisee he “delighted in the law of God with his mind” –– observance of the law was his very reason for being. He was a “son of the law,” was committed to it, and wanted to obey it. But when the tenth commandment truly “came home” to him at some point with condemning power (had he coveted Stephen’s
knowledge of Scripture and his exegetical power?) and made him aware of his indwelling sinfulness, the sin which had always dwelt within him “came to life” and he “died” (7:921). Paul also declared that the Jewish nation was “pursuing” a righteousness of its own through law-keeping (Rom. 9:31-3222). Apparently, then, unregenerate people can sincerely desire to be obedient to the law. Their problem, as the passage teaches, is their impotence to do what they want to do or know to be right.

Here is his real eisgetical motive his hatred of the- "augustinian view." His illustration is false as his previous unregenerated experience denies this (Rom. 7:7-11) and Paul's later testimony regarded his former devotion to the law as "dung" with only a "zeal" but without knowledge.

Furthermore, the unregenerate has no "INWARD man" that delights in the law of God and Romans 7:14 refers ONLY to the OUTWARD man "flesh" (v. 14) and "in my flesh" (v. 18) and "members" and "this body of death" (v. 24). The "inward man" all of is NOT THE OBJECT OF REGENERATION but is doomed to death.



9. Some advocates of the Augustinian view contend that Romans 7:25b23, as the conclusion of the argument, describes a condition only true of the Christian: he “is a slave to God’s law with his mind but a slave to the law of sin with his members.” But this radical dichotomy

Correct. Not "radical" but plainly spelled out by two different laws in connection with two different aspects of man (OUTWARD versus INWARD) and two different applications of the pronoun "I".

10 Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

If a saved man ALWAYS walks AFTER the Spirit then Romans 8:11-13 is senseless advice. He does not know the difference between being "IN" the Spirit (our position) versus walking "AFTER" the Spirit (our present practice).


11 Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Note the deliverance is not of YOUR BODY. Second, the service is "IN the NEWNESS of the Spirit" not in the flesh.

12 Romans 8:4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us | who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Again, if the child of God ALWAYS walked (practice) according to the Spirit there would be no need for Romans 8:10-13 or any other exhortation to "put on" the new inward man or "put off" the old man.


13 Romans 7:17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin
that dwells in me. Romans 7:20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

This text demands a distinction between the "I" of the flesh which is under sin in verse 14 which is "in my flesh" verse 18 and the "I" which is after the Law of God, inward man, mind, and serves God. The source of sin is not found in the sphere of the second "I" but only in the sphere of the first "I."

His next 11 arguments are moot because they are grounded upon the first 12 which are simply misinterpretations, distortions and perversions of the text.

 

[The Biblicist]

14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Paul uses the PRESENT TENSE and makes to claims about "I"

1. "I" am carnal - fleshly
2. "I" am ...sold UNDER SIN.

Here is the declaration and verses 15-25 is the explanation. In the explanation the reader will see not ONE but TWO different uses of the pronoun "I" and only one is related to "the flesh" or is "fleshly" and that pronoun is:

1. "I" sold under sin" - v. 14
2. "I" that operates by "the law of sin" - vv. 22-25
3. "I" that only chooses to do "evil" - vv. 15-17
4. "I" that only serves sin - v. 25
5. "i" of the outward man "the flesh....members....body of death"
6. "I" that contains "NOTHING GOOD" - v. 18
7. "I" that conexists with a contrary "I" - vv. 22-25


This is the "I" of Romans 7:14 the "I" that is fleshly and "sold under sin" because it operates by "the law of sin."

However, there is another "I" in direct contrast to the "I" that is fleshly and sold under sin.

1. "I' that operates under a different "law" - vv. 22-25
2. "I" that delights in the law of God - v. 21
3. "I" that chooses only good - vv. 18b-21
4. "I" that "serves God" - v. 25
5. "I" that cries out for deliverance from the fleshly law - v. 24
6. "I" of the "inward man" or "my mind" - vv. 21,25
7. "I" coexisting with a contrary "I" - vv. 22-25

These two contrasting Laws represent TWO NATURES - one that operates after the "law of sin" and one that operates after the law of God - Rom. 7:25

The "I" that operates after the "law of sin" is the "I" sold under sin, as it serves only sin, loves only sin, does only sin and there is "NOTHING GOOD" in "the flesh" and therefore it is the "I am flesh." - the Unregenerated nature of a born again man whose inward man delights in and operates by the law of God and serves only God.

Winman's source is flawed, with improper interpretations, perversion of the text, ignoring vital details that destroy his intepretation. My OP still stands unscathed.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

How did I know you would say this former Dean of Faculty and currently Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, was in error! :laugh:

Is it your position that this man is inerrant; that he could not possibly be wrong because of his education & status? It almost sounds like it. There are highly intelligent men on both sides of the debate. Heck, there are brilliant evolutionists, but that does not make their beliefs correct. It is dangerous to place your faith in men, just because of their education, status, or intelligence. I'm glad Christ did not call the scholars of His day to be His apostles. In fact, it was the religious elites who opposed Him as the Messiah. I am not taking a stance against education, just against putting our faith in them instead of the Word alone.

 

[Winman]

Whatever dude. I didn't expect you to listen, you already think you know everything.

I will let others see that none of the early church fathers for the first 300 years interpreted Romans 7:14-25 to be speaking of a regenerate man. Almost without exception, all the early fathers until Augustine believed this was Paul speaking of himself before conversion.

Of course, no Calvinist will ever accept this as it totally destroys the false doctrine of Total Inability. So, I am not surprised that Biblicist rejects this interpretation at all.

Time will tell.

 

[The Biblicist]

Is it your position that this man is inerrant; that he could not possibly be wrong because of his education & status? It almost sounds like it. There are highly intelligent men on both sides of the debate. Heck, there are brilliant evolutionists, but that does not make their beliefs correct. It is dangerous to place your faith in men, just because of their education, status, or intelligence. I'm glad Christ did not call the scholars of His day to be His apostles. In fact, it was the religious elites who opposed Him as the Messiah. I am not taking a stance against education, just against putting our faith in them instead of the Word alone.

His interpretations are deeply flawed. He ignores vital details. He makes assumptions and applications contrary to the precise statements found in the text. By his own admission he is biased as he admits he is fighting Augustinianism.

If a person cannot (will not) see clearly that there are two different applications of the pronoun "I" in Romans 7:14-25 in regard to two different LAWS in regard to two different ASPECTS or natures (INWARD = mind, inward man versus OUTWARD =flesh, this body, members") where one is "UNDER SIN" because it is ruled by "THE LAW OF SIN" and "SERVES SIN" and thus is "SOLD" out to sin and the other is under a different LAW that loves/delights in the law of God and serves God and they are in direct contradiction and opposition to one another, if they cannot see this, it is because they are not really looking to hard at the context.

The fact that Paul isolates the "I" sold out to sin to be "in my flesh" and DENIES that the other "I" is the source of that sin demands TWO DIFFERENT natures within this man. One that always has the will to chose good and serve God(vv. 18b-22) and one that always operates by the law of sin and chooses to do evil (vv. 14-18a) and both co-exist in one man (v. 25).

 

[The Biblicist]

Whatever dude. I didn't expect you to listen, you already think you know everything.

He plainly PERVERTED and IGNORED the text in many places and his doctrine hinges right on those pivotal points. In these cases he substituted his own terms for Biblical terms provided thus changing the meaning of the text. In other places he just ridiculed the obvious without giving basis for his ridicule except to ridicule.

So it is not a matter of refusing to read him carefully because I did and that is why I can point out serious errors in his thinking and interpretation and applications.

 

[The Biblicist]

How did I know you would say this former Dean of Faculty and currently Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, was in error! :laugh:

You think you know more than anybody. You cannot see that you are reading your presupposition of Total Inability into this passage when it is not there.

Here are yet some other notable scholars that agree with my view that Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7;












Whether you like it or not, many well known scholars throughout church history, including all of the early church fathers believed Paul was writing from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7.

Of course, it comes as no surprise that you believe you know more that all of these men. :laugh:

Do you really want to trade scholars on this subject??? You have one simple problem - you are committed to your error regardless of the evidence that exposes it as error and no amount of Biblical evidence or scholarship will turn you from your love of falsehood. That is your base problem.

 

[Winman]

Is it your position that this man is inerrant; that he could not possibly be wrong because of his education & status? It almost sounds like it. There are highly intelligent men on both sides of the debate. Heck, there are brilliant evolutionists, but that does not make their beliefs correct. It is dangerous to place your faith in men, just because of their education, status, or intelligence. I'm glad Christ did not call the scholars of His day to be His apostles. In fact, it was the religious elites who opposed Him as the Messiah. I am not taking a stance against education, just against putting our faith in them instead of the Word alone.

No, I originally said I believed Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man because he said he was sold under sin in verse 14. No Christian is sold under sin, we have been freed from sin.

I know that you Calvinists will not listen to a fellow like me who simply reads the scriptures, so I showed some real scholars who just so happen to agree with me, and I showed some of their arguments. Who knows? You might listen to a "scholar"

But I formed my opinion from my own reading, no Christian is sold under sin. And if Paul is telling us about his experience as a Christian, it is a miserable one, he sounds like he is sinning every moment and has absolutely no victory over sin. This is at complete odds with what scripture says about our new life and walk in Christ.

The reason Biblicist and others will not accept that Paul was speaking of an unconverted man here is because it completely destroys the false doctrine of Total Inability, because Paul shows as a lost man that he had a real desire to please and obey God, and that he delighted in God's law, though he found it impossible to keep.

I am not one bit surprised that all you Calvinists will reject this interpretation, YOU HAVE TO.

 

[Winman]

Do you really want to trade scholars on this subject??? You have one simple problem - you are committed to your error regardless of the evidence that exposes it as error and no amount of Biblical evidence or scholarship will turn you from your love of falsehood. That is your base problem.

Are you sure it is not you that is committed to Calvinism?

 

[The Biblicist]

No Christian is sold under sin, we have been freed from sin.

Notice that Winman and his scholar both substitute the pronoun "I" with "man" and "himself" and "Christian" when the immediate context DEMANDS there is a DOUBLE use of the pronoun "I" that are OPPOSED to each other in so much that one "I" can claim to be innocent of the sin committed by the other "I".

Notice that one "I" is UNDER SIN due to operating by the "LAW OF SIN" and is FLESHLY (v. 14) and restricted to that EXTERNAL aspect of man ("IN my flesh" "this body of death" "my members") while the other "I" is restricted to INTERNAL ("my mind" "inward man").

This is so self-evident and obvious that Winman and his Schoalr MUST WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY substitute "I" with such terms as "the man" "Christian" "himself" "the unregenerate man."

CHANGING GOD'S WORD is their first prominent ERROR.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 4 of 4



What does this article prove? It doesn't PROVE anything, but it does show that real scholars, even Reformed scholars disagree with your view and agree with mine.

I believe Paul was writing from his perspective before he was saved. In his mind he sincerely desired to obey and serve God, but his flesh was weak and warred against his spirit, bringing him into captivity of sin. And that captivity is death, death is the wage of sin. The moment you sin, you are bound and held by sin just as a slave was held in ancient days.

This does not mean you are always compelled to sin, a slave can disobey his master, a slave can run away from his master. Nevertheless he is owned by that master and brought back into captivity. He is paid the wage his master pays, which in this case is death.

The problem is that folks do not understand what the scriptures mean when it says we were servants or slaves to sin. This doesn't mean we are compelled to sin at all times, but we are owned and held captive by sin, and the only wage we will receive as a slave or servant to sin is death.

The moment we accept Christ we are dead to sin and no longer held by it. We are now baptized into the body of Christ and under grace.

This is why Romans 7:14-25 cannot be about a saved person, no saved person is "sold under sin" we have been set free from sin.

What's really funny about that is that Robert Reymond is a CALVINIST LOL:laugh: This just shows you that he, like Icon and many others, simply wants to disagree with anything anyone says for the sole sake of arguing instead of actually getting to the truth of a matter. He will disagree with himself several times in one thread if it means proving his point.

 

[Winman]

Notice that Winman and his scholar both substitute the pronoun "I" with "man" and "himself" and "Christian" when the immediate context DEMANDS there is a DOUBLE use of the pronoun "I" that are OPPOSED to each other in so much that one "I" can claim to be innocent of the sin committed by the other "I".

Notice that one "I" is UNDER SIN due to operating by the "LAW OF SIN" and is FLESHLY (v. 14) and restricted to that EXTERNAL aspect of man ("IN my flesh" "this body of death" "my members") while the other "I" is restricted to INTERNAL ("my mind" "inward man").

This is so self-evident and obvious that Winman and his Schoalr MUST WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY substitute "I" with such terms as "the man" "Christian" "himself" "the unregenerate man."

CHANGING GOD'S WORD is their first prominent ERROR.

Dude, you are sick. I was in no way trying to twist or pervert scripture, I am simply saying what scripture says, that we have been freed from sin.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Paul says we WERE (past tense) servants of sin, but we have obeyed the doctrine which was delivered unto us, "being then made free from sin".

You call yourself the Biblicist, but you are a Calvinist fanatic. You will reject any scripture that refutes Calvinism, of which there is volumes. This scripture we are discussing now refutes Calvinism, Paul is clearly speaking from the perspective of a lost man "sold under sin" in Romans 7, but he desires to do what is right, and he delights in the law of God and consents that it is good.

If that destroys your pet doctrine, too bad.