Who is the "I" of Rom 7?
Forum category
Is Paul Discussing the Christian Experience in Romans 7?
Whether or not Rom 7:14-25 is reflective of Paul’s experience as a believer, is not as important as understanding the truth he wanted to convey to his readers. As such, on the heels of using divorce as an illustration of the believer’s freedom from sin, the apostle seeks to show the implications of being under the dominion of sin. In effect, he shows the impossibility of one, who is under sin, to be simultaneously under grace and, by a clear implication, vice-versa. Here he effectively elaborates on statements made in 6:16, 21.
Before we continue, please note, there are no gray areas in Paul’s discussion here; it is either this or that, and if it is this it is certainly not that, and if it is that it is certainly not this. The apostle does not appeal to either looseness or moderation – there is no “mean way” – but it is to the extreme that he makes his argument. However, that does not mean the point he wishes to make is not factual but rather reinforces it.
Paul first wants it understood that the problem is not the Law but our sinful, unregenerate condition (vss.7,13). In addition, since the problem resides in sin, freedom from sin can only be found through Christ (vss. 24-25a).
With the backdrop of divorce as an illustration (7:1-6), in Rom 7:7-25 Paul elaborates on a point he left off on in 6:25, that sin certainly and inevitably results in death, and recalls his assertion in 6:16, that whomever we obey, that is the one to whom we are enslaved, “either sin resulting in death or obedience resulting in righteousness,” each at the exclusion of the other. Rom 7 obviously speaks of one whose end is death (v.13; as such, I must disagree with the NET’s sectional heading for Rom 7).
Regarding 7:25b: It is not an immediate response that refers to the first portion of the verse (i.e. 25a), but refers back to the whole gist of his argument in this chapter (i.e. he is “unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin”).
The apostle presents not only the objective implications of his teaching, but the subjective as well (7:7; cf. 6:1; Paul’s theology is always towards the practical, not merely abstract or esoteric). Whether or not one views ch.7 as depicting his experience as a believer or not is actually beside the point. What he is depicting is what clearly one’s experience ought not to be if he has been “baptized into Christ” and “baptized into his death” (6:4).
The thrust of the apostle’s argument in Rom 7 is this: if one is sinning, such a one is not “under grace” and, therefore, not saved (Rom 6:14).
If it is insisted that Rom 7 explains Paul’s experience as a believer, I would think one needs to be hard-pressed to explain how this experience is consistent with what the Bible affirms is the true state and experience of one who is “born again”. For example:
Whether or not Rom 7:14-25 is reflective of Paul’s experience as a believer, is not as important as understanding the truth he wanted to convey to his readers. As such, on the heels of using divorce as an illustration of the believer’s freedom from sin, the apostle seeks to show the implications of being under the dominion of sin. In effect, he shows the impossibility of one, who is under sin, to be simultaneously under grace and, by a clear implication, vice-versa. Here he effectively elaborates on statements made in 6:16, 21.
Before we continue, please note, there are no gray areas in Paul’s discussion here; it is either this or that, and if it is this it is certainly not that, and if it is that it is certainly not this. The apostle does not appeal to either looseness or moderation – there is no “mean way” – but it is to the extreme that he makes his argument. However, that does not mean the point he wishes to make is not factual but rather reinforces it.
Paul first wants it understood that the problem is not the Law but our sinful, unregenerate condition (vss.7,13). In addition, since the problem resides in sin, freedom from sin can only be found through Christ (vss. 24-25a).
With the backdrop of divorce as an illustration (7:1-6), in Rom 7:7-25 Paul elaborates on a point he left off on in 6:25, that sin certainly and inevitably results in death, and recalls his assertion in 6:16, that whomever we obey, that is the one to whom we are enslaved, “either sin resulting in death or obedience resulting in righteousness,” each at the exclusion of the other. Rom 7 obviously speaks of one whose end is death (v.13; as such, I must disagree with the NET’s sectional heading for Rom 7).
Regarding 7:25b: It is not an immediate response that refers to the first portion of the verse (i.e. 25a), but refers back to the whole gist of his argument in this chapter (i.e. he is “unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin”).
The apostle presents not only the objective implications of his teaching, but the subjective as well (7:7; cf. 6:1; Paul’s theology is always towards the practical, not merely abstract or esoteric). Whether or not one views ch.7 as depicting his experience as a believer or not is actually beside the point. What he is depicting is what clearly one’s experience ought not to be if he has been “baptized into Christ” and “baptized into his death” (6:4).
The thrust of the apostle’s argument in Rom 7 is this: if one is sinning, such a one is not “under grace” and, therefore, not saved (Rom 6:14).
If it is insisted that Rom 7 explains Paul’s experience as a believer, I would think one needs to be hard-pressed to explain how this experience is consistent with what the Bible affirms is the true state and experience of one who is “born again”. For example:
- sin…produced in me all kinds of wrong desires.”
- “…sin became alive and I died…”
- “…sin…deceived me and through it I died.”
- “…sin…produced death in me…”
- “…I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin.”
- “…sin lives in me…”
- “…nothing good live in me.”
- “…I want to do good, but I cannot…”
- “…I do the very evil I do not want!”
- “…sin…lives in me.”
- “…evil is present with me.”
- “…captive to the law of sin…” Note that in this verse, if it is understood as the apostle’s experience as a believer, Paul admits he is in a struggle with sin but also admits he losses that struggle because sin consistently and always (the only way to understand it in view of the whole context) overcomes him.
- “…I serve the law of sin.”
Are we to understand that this is the expected and normal experience of believers, to be “unspiritual and sold into slavery to sin”? Is this what is meant by being under grace? Is Rom 7 what is meant by the “new creation” (2 Cor 5:21)?
“Recently a leading Calvinistic exponent, Anthony Hoekema, Calvin Seminary professor emeritus, reversed himself and declared that he no longer believes Romans 7 describes a regenerate person. He stated: ‘The mood of frustration and defeat that permeates this section does not comport with the mood of victory in terms of which Paul usually describes the Christian life. The person pictured is still a captive of the law of sin (7:23), whereas the believer described in 6:17-18 is no longer a slave to sin’.” (See http://www.fwponline.cc/v10n1/v10n1reasoner.html)
If Paul meant that “Believers are justified from sin, yet sin remains in them”? How is 1 John 1:8-10 is to be interpreted?
If Paul’s experience is one who is “born again”, how can he sustain his thesis that “just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness”?
- 32 views
Romans 6 is a presentation of the believer’s obligation to keep the law of Christ or “of faith” or “of righteousness”. Also, see the phrase “obedience of faith” throughout Romans. Chapter 7 is a recognition of that fact that without the Holy Spirit, the believer cannot obey, follow or submit to Christ and Chapter 8 introduces the Holy Spirit into the equation - that through the power of the HS, now we can keep the “law of the spirit”.
formerly known as Coach C
This is a great start to the discussion. Those who think Rom 7 is referring to the believer cannot explain how Paul is still trying to obey the Law when in Chapter 6 he said that he wasn’t under it.
I would like to see a postconversion advocate have the courage to answer that one.
I would like to see a postconversion advocate have the courage to answer that one.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Joshua Caucutt] Chapter 7 is a recognition of that fact that without the Holy Spirit, the believer cannot obey, follow or submit to Christ and Chapter 8 introduces the Holy Spirit into the equation - that through the power of the HS, now we can keep the “law of the spirit”.I agree. The last time I studied through Romans 6-8, the question of whether Paul was writing on his experience as a believer or as an unbeliever melted away. It seemed to be more of a hypothetical. “You want to know what it’s like to approach God on the basis of brute law…well, it’s awful.” And Romans 8 offers a breath of fresh air.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Joshua and Osborne,
It seems to me that the apostle is stating that without the Holy Spirit one is not a believer unless the experience of a believer can be identified as I suggested by the list given as examples.
If one is under grace being a believer, how is it that he can be overcome by sin in such a way as to be “sold under sin” (7:14 KJV), and “in captivity to the law of sin” (7:23 KJV)?
It is agreed that without the Holy Spirit one cannot overcome sin; however, it is also true that one under grace is neither, simultaneoulsy, sold nor in captivity to sin. If enslaved to sin, one is outside of grace and, therefore, destitute of the Spirit; there is no Holy Spirit residing in him.
As such, I think Romans 7 doesn not depict the “fact that without the Holy Spirit, the believer cannot obey”, which is, nevertheless, true. It depicts one who does not have the Spirit and is outside of grace. That is why Rom 8 begins with the fact that believers, “them who are in Christ” who experience a “walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” are, therefore, not under “condemnation” (i.e. doom, the sentence of eternal death, hell) in contratst to those depicted in the experience of Rom 7.
Now whether the apostle in Rom 7 is explaining his own experience seems irrelevant. What is clear to me is that he depicts the experience of those outside of grace seeking to obey the law in order to obtain favor with God. Note Rom 8:14. Those led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Rom 7 does not depict one being led by the Spirit, does it?
It seems to me that the apostle is stating that without the Holy Spirit one is not a believer unless the experience of a believer can be identified as I suggested by the list given as examples.
If one is under grace being a believer, how is it that he can be overcome by sin in such a way as to be “sold under sin” (7:14 KJV), and “in captivity to the law of sin” (7:23 KJV)?
It is agreed that without the Holy Spirit one cannot overcome sin; however, it is also true that one under grace is neither, simultaneoulsy, sold nor in captivity to sin. If enslaved to sin, one is outside of grace and, therefore, destitute of the Spirit; there is no Holy Spirit residing in him.
As such, I think Romans 7 doesn not depict the “fact that without the Holy Spirit, the believer cannot obey”, which is, nevertheless, true. It depicts one who does not have the Spirit and is outside of grace. That is why Rom 8 begins with the fact that believers, “them who are in Christ” who experience a “walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” are, therefore, not under “condemnation” (i.e. doom, the sentence of eternal death, hell) in contratst to those depicted in the experience of Rom 7.
Now whether the apostle in Rom 7 is explaining his own experience seems irrelevant. What is clear to me is that he depicts the experience of those outside of grace seeking to obey the law in order to obtain favor with God. Note Rom 8:14. Those led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Rom 7 does not depict one being led by the Spirit, does it?
To understand Rmns 7 it is necessary to have a history and recollection of existance prior to deliverance from sin. It is also vital to have a clear knowledge of what sin is and how we sin.
I once made a study of belief, faith and trust. Looked at the relationship between them and questioned myself as the whether I was exercising belief, trust or faith in each and every thought, word and deed. I continued in this exercise over a period of three years on and off.
The same exercise can be applied to sin. Take an hour in which you question your intents and motives in all that you think, say and do. Do this on a regular basis. Also check each and every verse in scripture in which the word ‘sin’ is used. It’s worth investing some time in the words used to describe this vile thing we inherited from Adam. ( iniquity, transgression, trespasses etc) so that when you read Rmns 7 you do so from a knowledge of sin and it’s hideous deceits.
I once made a study of belief, faith and trust. Looked at the relationship between them and questioned myself as the whether I was exercising belief, trust or faith in each and every thought, word and deed. I continued in this exercise over a period of three years on and off.
The same exercise can be applied to sin. Take an hour in which you question your intents and motives in all that you think, say and do. Do this on a regular basis. Also check each and every verse in scripture in which the word ‘sin’ is used. It’s worth investing some time in the words used to describe this vile thing we inherited from Adam. ( iniquity, transgression, trespasses etc) so that when you read Rmns 7 you do so from a knowledge of sin and it’s hideous deceits.
[Huw]…I once made a study of belief, faith and trust…Huw, having come to some clearer (I assume) form your personal experience and study understanding of what sin is, what conclusion have you come to regarding Paul’s reference to “I” in Rom 7?
Prior to his conversion Paul was, ” as touching the law, a Pharisee…..touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless”. He didn’t and couldn’t see himself as being a sinner. After his conversion he could see the depth of his depravity and after some years came to realise the vastness of the grace that was bestowed upon him. We never come to a point in this life where we are in no need of forgiveness.
He did say O wretched man that I am, not that I was.
Verse 23 & 24 confirm that this is Paul speaking of himself, post Damascus highway and that he was in fact, with the flesh, serving the ”law of sin”.
Someone once said, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. I can say amen to that.
It’s worth having a look at what Luther, Calvin, Poole & Henry have to say on this particular chapter.
Blessings, H.
He did say O wretched man that I am, not that I was.
Verse 23 & 24 confirm that this is Paul speaking of himself, post Damascus highway and that he was in fact, with the flesh, serving the ”law of sin”.
Someone once said, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. I can say amen to that.
It’s worth having a look at what Luther, Calvin, Poole & Henry have to say on this particular chapter.
Blessings, H.
Huw, the guy who in Chapter 6 just said we were no longer under the law, were no longer slaves of sin, in Chapter 7 says that he is under the law and a slave of sin?
I respectfully disagree.
I respectfully disagree.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
James,
I didn’t for a moment suggest that Paul was a slave to sin and neither am I. What I do know is the personal experiance of Romans 7, In fact for a period of about two years, every time I met a friend of mine and related my experiences and the way I felt, he’d say, ”Romans 7”.
Having experienced Romans 7 Paul describes the effects when we have come to the realisation of the depth and power of sin. This place into which we are brought has many dangers. It is probably what is described a the ”slough of despond” ( Pilgrim’s Progress) and is aptly named, because the sure knowledge of salvation is brought into a dark place to be tried and tested. That is why Rmns 8:1 becomes such a blessing.
Romans is not just a book on doctrine, it is a map that shows us where we are. In that sense it has been a lamp unto my feet. I humbly suggest that reading Psalm 119 in conjunction with Rms 7 gives an added clarification to the cries of a man who is on the Way. Davids statement in verse 176 and his going astray is the true sense of the constant need we have of our Saviour.
Blessings, H.
I didn’t for a moment suggest that Paul was a slave to sin and neither am I. What I do know is the personal experiance of Romans 7, In fact for a period of about two years, every time I met a friend of mine and related my experiences and the way I felt, he’d say, ”Romans 7”.
Having experienced Romans 7 Paul describes the effects when we have come to the realisation of the depth and power of sin. This place into which we are brought has many dangers. It is probably what is described a the ”slough of despond” ( Pilgrim’s Progress) and is aptly named, because the sure knowledge of salvation is brought into a dark place to be tried and tested. That is why Rmns 8:1 becomes such a blessing.
Romans is not just a book on doctrine, it is a map that shows us where we are. In that sense it has been a lamp unto my feet. I humbly suggest that reading Psalm 119 in conjunction with Rms 7 gives an added clarification to the cries of a man who is on the Way. Davids statement in verse 176 and his going astray is the true sense of the constant need we have of our Saviour.
Blessings, H.
Your experience though doesn’t interpret the Bible. Read Rom 7:14. He flat out says he is a slave to sin.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Huw] I didn’t for a moment suggest that Paul was a slave to sin and neither am I.Huw,
You may not have suggested it but that is what, if the apostle is speaking of himself, affirms is his spiritual condition in Rm 7:14,23; and the verses in between describe his predicament as one under captivity to sin unable to do the good but always doing what is sinful. Therefore, in the first place, what you deny, Paul affirms.
Second, if the apostle is such, at the time of writing his epistle, such a “wretch”, as you suggest described in Rom 7, it would contradict the apostle’s affirmations of overcoming the power of sin in Rom 8. As such, unless you hold a different view than is clearly illustrated in Rom 8, your view forms a contradiction between Rom 7 and Rom 8.
Third, reading Ps 119, please note, v.19 - “I have kept thy testimonies”; v.30 - “I have chosen the way of truth”; v.56 - “I kept thy precepts”; v.60 - “I made haste and delayed not to keep Thy commandments”. Doesn’t like like someone to me who is in the quicksand of sin. Vs. 176, as I read it, can be seen in three ways: (a) as in the past tense but not a present condition at the time of writing the Psalm; (b) as one who senses the weakness and proness to wander away but has thus remained obedient (as afrementioned verses show); (c) it does not necessarily reflect either his own present feelings or spiritual condition per se but is a poem written to reflect his feelings and thoughts on the subject of the Torah/Tanakh.
Fourth, Romans is a book of doctrine declaring just what the “power of God for salvation” entails and, if a “map”, not just a “map”.
Fifth, if the apostle is sharing his experience as one under grace, it seems you will need to harmonize the experience of living under grace with the 12 points I listed above, which describe one living under the law; that is, you will need to provide a coherent answer to the question, how can one live under grace and the law simultaneously?
Finally, I respectfully submit, although I would not altogether discount experience in our attempts to understand the Bible, experience cannot dictate theology; that is, we ought not to harmonize the Bible with our experience but harmonize our experience with the Bible.
Consider, if you will, that chapters 1-5:11 present justification or being made right before God. Chapters 5:12-8 cover the process of sanctification. Very briefly, 5:17 as a statement assumed true [“If…]. Paul tells the Roman brethren that Jesus Christ is the reason for their standing before God. In 6:5, the same grammatical condition exists with the word “if” and reinforces Christ’s work. 6:6 may be understood in 2 parts: (1) “old self” [or “old man”] is what we were up to our day of salvation; and (2) “the body of sin” means our flesh—not that it is bad (for we all are made in the likeness of God), but the Lord wants it rendered powerless, Vs 11 expands the previous texts. The remainder of chapter 6 gives the reason (vs 14) and begins the emphasis on what happens to us once we are believers — a change takes place [note the great exchange in vs 17 and 18]. We are still “slaves” now to God (vs 22).
Chapter 7 begins with an analogy with verse 4 giving the answer. However, look at 7:5 and compare it with vs. 7-13 [“we” includes Paul]. Vs7-13 he personalizes the “before Christ” position [see Phil 3:6; Gal 1:13-14; Acts 26:14]. The law taught Paul (and us) sin is the problem. 2x “sin, seizing an opportunity…” is stated and the sin results in death (13).
Now, look at 7:6 and compare with 14-25. “But now” begins the new life and is illustrated in 14-25. The progressive sanctification process is filled with great tension (as we all KNOW). We are not slaves to sin but the we know sin still wants it dominion. Vs 25 is a short doxology that signifies that Paul is talking about himself and that all believes learn these lessons. Chapter 8:1-4 is the crowning point, though. “Therefore” all of the previous words in 5-7 are encapsulated in 8:4.
Paul is the “I”.
Chapter 7 begins with an analogy with verse 4 giving the answer. However, look at 7:5 and compare it with vs. 7-13 [“we” includes Paul]. Vs7-13 he personalizes the “before Christ” position [see Phil 3:6; Gal 1:13-14; Acts 26:14]. The law taught Paul (and us) sin is the problem. 2x “sin, seizing an opportunity…” is stated and the sin results in death (13).
Now, look at 7:6 and compare with 14-25. “But now” begins the new life and is illustrated in 14-25. The progressive sanctification process is filled with great tension (as we all KNOW). We are not slaves to sin but the we know sin still wants it dominion. Vs 25 is a short doxology that signifies that Paul is talking about himself and that all believes learn these lessons. Chapter 8:1-4 is the crowning point, though. “Therefore” all of the previous words in 5-7 are encapsulated in 8:4.
Paul is the “I”.
Bob
[James K] Your experience though doesn’t interpret the Bible. Read Rom 7:14. He flat out says he is a slave to sin.I don’t know what version you’re using, but mine says: ”sold under sin” as all humanity is. Unregenerate humanity is in slavery to sin, but the regenerate is no longer a slave, but as sold under sin through Adam we are as bound to the law of sin as material objects are bound to gravity. This is what Paul discovered at work in himself and it’s very disconcerting when it happens. We look at ourselves, our salvation, our walk and then discover that sin is far more deceitful, complex and powerful than we first realised.
When we use the word sin what do we understand about it? gambling, fornication, drunkenness, drugs etc etc. What about the sin of omission? what about all the things we should do, would do, but fail in the operation of? These are the sins that Paul spoke of.
As I’ve said elsewhere the misunderstanding of what sin is causes problems when reading the 7th of Romans.
I’m off to visit a gentleman who is 95yrs of age. We’ve been in Romans 7 for around 5 yrs. Two months ago he told me that revelation of the truth had been given him and he now understood it. I was saddened at this because what I was hoping to hear is ”I’ve experienced in myself what Paul had experienced and then wrote of and realise that I am a wretched man”.
I live in hope.
Andrew Willet (1562-1621) was arguably the most accomplished of the Church of England’s Hebrew exegetes, specifically of the Pentateuch, and a prolific and outspoken writer against the papacy. Most of Willet’s life has come to us in a biography composed by his son-in-law, Peter Smith, and is adjoined to the introduction of the Synopsis Papismi.
Willet was born two years before the death of John Calvin (1509-1564) and died two years before the birth of Francis Turretin (1623-1687). He was a contemporary of William Ames (1576-1633) and a colleague of William Perkins (1558-1602), with whom he studied at Cambridge. Of Willet, John Mayer and other Protestant orthodox exegetes from 1565-1640, Muller writes,
The effort to come to a single interpretation of Scripture is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Willet’s commentary on Romans 7. Willet presents ten different historic, ecclesiastical interpretations oriented toward defining the nature of the man described as “sold under sin”: 1) Paul speaks in the present tense – Theophylact; 2) the distinction between bonum natural, morale, and spirituale, naturally good, morally good and spiritually good and that only those in which God works can be spiritually good – Gregory contra Tolet; 3) there is nothing spiritual in an unregenerate man – Augustine contra Tolet; 4) Paul says, “I give thanks to God” – Augustine contra Tolet; 5) the carnal cannot delight in the law but his mind is defiled – Augustine/Parues contra Tolet; 6) deliverance is by the resurrection, not justification – Augustine contra Tolet; 7) only the regenerate are in a conflict with the flesh – Pareus; 8) the unregenerate praise themselves – Faius; 9) only those led by the Spirit can hate those things done against the law – Hyperius; 10) why should the apostle argue as he does if it regards those who care nothing for the law – Faius. After dividing the specific perspectives into three general categories Willet argues at length in a fashion reminiscent of the medieval schoolmen between the varying options. He arrives finally at a logical, scriptural, exegetically sound conclusion. Of the ten renderings, Willet concludes “that S. Paul speaketh in the person of a man regenerate.”
Willet’s strength rests in his evaluation of the primary components of the entire churchly tradition’s exegetical formulation. Willet deals with 10 interpretations; Hodge’s Romans Commentary, if my memory serves me well, addresses three. Unless one was aware of the underlying controversy, it might be thought that three views in Hodge’s summary captured the entire debate. Willet’s voluminous work is but one example of the wealth of pre-critical exegesis that has been forgotten or rejected by the modern post-critical Academy and Church.
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
Willet was born two years before the death of John Calvin (1509-1564) and died two years before the birth of Francis Turretin (1623-1687). He was a contemporary of William Ames (1576-1633) and a colleague of William Perkins (1558-1602), with whom he studied at Cambridge. Of Willet, John Mayer and other Protestant orthodox exegetes from 1565-1640, Muller writes,
Indeed, much of the work of the exegetes and theologians of the early orthodox era was the establishment of a method in which the sola Scriptura of the Reformers was clearly identified as the declaration of Scripture as the prior norm of theology of the churchly tradition of interpretation. Their success in this work may be measured in terms of the wide proliferation of defensible theological systems constructed biblically and exegetically out of a burgeoning Protestant tradition of commentary, biblically grounded confessional documents, and exegetically grounded theological systems.The overwhelming thoroughness of Willet’s work is conspicuous in his methodology for writing biblical commentaries. He draws upon every element of the exegetical tradition available to him and to argue not merely within his contemporary exegetical era but for or against the entire scope of the exegetical tradition. In his 877-page Exodus commentary, which he calls “a widow’s mite,” Willet states, “I have made use in this commentary, both of Protestant and Popish writers, old and new upon this book “as I have set them down in the margin) not rejecting the judgment of any witness for the truth.” Both from his extensive citation of sources and from his methodology, called hexapla, or a “six fold commentary,” the studied depth of Willet’s work are immediately evident. The one exception Willet takes to his six-fold approach is in his exegesis of the short epistle of Jude. In the commentary on Jude, Willet followed a verse-by-verse format. The briefer hexapla on I Samuel and the commentary on Jude are written in a more pastoral tone.
The effort to come to a single interpretation of Scripture is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Willet’s commentary on Romans 7. Willet presents ten different historic, ecclesiastical interpretations oriented toward defining the nature of the man described as “sold under sin”: 1) Paul speaks in the present tense – Theophylact; 2) the distinction between bonum natural, morale, and spirituale, naturally good, morally good and spiritually good and that only those in which God works can be spiritually good – Gregory contra Tolet; 3) there is nothing spiritual in an unregenerate man – Augustine contra Tolet; 4) Paul says, “I give thanks to God” – Augustine contra Tolet; 5) the carnal cannot delight in the law but his mind is defiled – Augustine/Parues contra Tolet; 6) deliverance is by the resurrection, not justification – Augustine contra Tolet; 7) only the regenerate are in a conflict with the flesh – Pareus; 8) the unregenerate praise themselves – Faius; 9) only those led by the Spirit can hate those things done against the law – Hyperius; 10) why should the apostle argue as he does if it regards those who care nothing for the law – Faius. After dividing the specific perspectives into three general categories Willet argues at length in a fashion reminiscent of the medieval schoolmen between the varying options. He arrives finally at a logical, scriptural, exegetically sound conclusion. Of the ten renderings, Willet concludes “that S. Paul speaketh in the person of a man regenerate.”
Willet’s strength rests in his evaluation of the primary components of the entire churchly tradition’s exegetical formulation. Willet deals with 10 interpretations; Hodge’s Romans Commentary, if my memory serves me well, addresses three. Unless one was aware of the underlying controversy, it might be thought that three views in Hodge’s summary captured the entire debate. Willet’s voluminous work is but one example of the wealth of pre-critical exegesis that has been forgotten or rejected by the modern post-critical Academy and Church.
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
While interesting, he should have considered what St. Paul said on the matter. The conclusion then would be that the same person who said he was free from the power of sin in Rom 6 would not be crazy enough to say he was still under the power of sin in the very next chapter literally sentences later.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
But isn’t that true? We are already eternally secure in Christ but not yet free of the influences of the old nature. The sin we commit is the contradiction of being saved. We would expect believers never to sin, but we do, which is precisely Paul’s point. Paul accents the power of the old nature in chapter 7, another reason we hold a high view of sin. A high view of sin necessitates a higher view of Christ’s bloody death to forgive sin.
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
No it isn’t true Peter, that would be my point. Paul does say that he still sins, he is sold under sin. He is a slave to sin. Go back and read what he just said in Rom 6.
20-22
For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from allegiance to righteousness.
So what fruit was produced then from the things you are now ashamed of? For the end of those things is death.
But now, since you have been liberated from sin and have become enslaved to God, you have your fruit, which results in sanctification —and the end is eternal life!
The person who is NOW liberated from sin is not at the same time sold under sin.
20-22
For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from allegiance to righteousness.
So what fruit was produced then from the things you are now ashamed of? For the end of those things is death.
But now, since you have been liberated from sin and have become enslaved to God, you have your fruit, which results in sanctification —and the end is eternal life!
The person who is NOW liberated from sin is not at the same time sold under sin.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I see the on-going action of the old nature “warring” and “bringing” but not the condition of having been “sold” or “a slave to.” He was a servant to sin prior to salvation but after salvation his old nature continues to war against the new. The old nature is not eradicated after salvation, which is conspicuous to all but the self-deceived. Note Gal. 5:17, “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary to one another: so ye cannot do the things that ye would.” Paul writes this to believers in “the churches of Galatia,” (1:2).
If Christians struggle and often fail in the battle against the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life what would you call this struggle? The victory is ours in Christ (Rom. 6:11) but the fight to live a sanctified life will be upon us until death.
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
If Christians struggle and often fail in the battle against the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life what would you call this struggle? The victory is ours in Christ (Rom. 6:11) but the fight to live a sanctified life will be upon us until death.
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
Peter:
1. If you continue reading in Gal. 5, you see where Paul also says:
v. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
2. Show me where Rom 7 says anything about “old” and “new” nature.
That is your theological imposition upon the text.
3. What is being described in Rom 7 is not a war to ever beat sin. He ALWAYS loses. If he describes victory in Chapter 6 and then Chapter 7 is supposed to be what victory looks like, then NO ONE can EVER have victory over ANY sin. Chapter 7 describes complete and absolute failure.
4. The struggle in Chapter 7 is between the flesh and the law. Again, Paul just wrote we aren’t under that anymore.
1. If you continue reading in Gal. 5, you see where Paul also says:
v. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
2. Show me where Rom 7 says anything about “old” and “new” nature.
That is your theological imposition upon the text.
3. What is being described in Rom 7 is not a war to ever beat sin. He ALWAYS loses. If he describes victory in Chapter 6 and then Chapter 7 is supposed to be what victory looks like, then NO ONE can EVER have victory over ANY sin. Chapter 7 describes complete and absolute failure.
4. The struggle in Chapter 7 is between the flesh and the law. Again, Paul just wrote we aren’t under that anymore.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Try to stay on track. The thread asks, Who is the “I” of Romans 7? If it’s not the author of the book, who is it? I believe, with the exegetical churchly tradition, that the text teachs that it is the Apostle Paul. Who do you believe it is, and if not your own opinion, where is your exegetical support?
Thanks!
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
Thanks!
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
Peter, the original post wasn’t questioning that Paul wrote it and neither am I. The debate is primarily between the pre or post conversion experience of Paul.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Brother James,
Are you saying that the regenerate Apostle Paul is expressing his experience as the unregenerate Apostle Paul in Romans 7, both presently “delighting in the law of God after the inward man” and saying “O wretched man that I am” not used to be. Other than your interpretive disposition, what markers do you see in the text that points the discussion to pre-Acts 9 times.
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
Are you saying that the regenerate Apostle Paul is expressing his experience as the unregenerate Apostle Paul in Romans 7, both presently “delighting in the law of God after the inward man” and saying “O wretched man that I am” not used to be. Other than your interpretive disposition, what markers do you see in the text that points the discussion to pre-Acts 9 times.
Blessings!
Peter Van Kleeck
[RMSprung] Now, look at 7:6 and compare with 14-25. “But now” begins the new life and is illustrated in 14-25. The progressive sanctification process is filled with great tension (as we all KNOW). We are not slaves to sin but the we know sin still wants it dominion. Vs 25 is a short doxology that signifies that Paul is talking about himself and that all believes learn these lessons. Chapter 8:1-4 is the crowning point, though. “Therefore” all of the previous words in 5-7 are encapsulated in 8:4.1. V. 6 refers to the previous as a summation of the analogy given and not to 7-25. V.1-6 illustrates the difference between one who is under the law (as legalism) and one who is under grace. The former is bound to sin; the latter is absolutely free. I think he returns up the primary thought of v.6 in 8:1ff.
Paul is the “I”.
2. V.14-25 does not speak of a progressive sanctification. How can there be any “progress” in sanctification to one who is “carnal, sold under sin” and “bring[ing] forth fruit unto death” (v5,14); habitually does not do as he ought but does what he ought not do (v.15) as the result of sin habitually overcoming him (v.16-17); is unable to do the good (v.18-19)? This descibes a person who is not sanctified but enslaved (cf. v.14) to sin (and the list continues; see my article above).
3. Regardless of the idea that sin may still want to take dominion, the person describes here is not one in whom sin merely wants to take dominion but actually has it.
4. If I am correct to say that v.14-25 are an elaboration of the metaphor presented in v.1-13, then the apostle is not speaking of a “progressive sanctification” but showing that one under the demands of law as legalism is helpless before th onslaughts of sin working through the law as legalism; as such, he can do nothing but sin.
If Paul is the “I” of Rom 7, then he is a very poor example of one who is influenced and empowered by divine grace, which is very, very weak when confronted with the powers of sin; and, if so, v.25 sounds more like hypocrisy than “progressive sanctification”.
[James K] Your experience though doesn’t interpret the Bible. Read Rom 7:14. He flat out says he is a slave to sin.
[Huw] I don’t know what version you’re using, but mine says: ”sold under sin” as all humanity is. Unregenerate humanity is in slavery to sin, but the regenerate is no longer a slave…?
Please clarify. Your comment offers no objection to James’ comment. Your response equates “sold under sin” to being a “slave to sin”, therefore, agreeing with James.
If so, I agree. To be “sold under sin” = to be a slave to sin; same difference.
In any case, note 7:23 - “bringing me into captivity to the law of sin”; v.25 (a summation of vs.14-24) - “but with the flesh [I serve] the law of sin.” Also see my list of examples describing the experience of this “I” in Rom 7.
The whole chapter is descriptive of one enslaved “sold to sin”. It need not read specifically anywhere in chapter 7 “sold under sin” to get the idea that is the meaning being conveyed.
How can we ever expect anyone to experience God’s empowering grace if we continue to tell them they will always be sinning? What kind of hope against shame and condemnation is that?
How can anyone be convinced of their wretchedness if we continue to tell them it’s natural to sin, even under grace? What sort of hope to escape one’s wretchedness is that?
[Peter Van Kleeck]…[Willet] arrives finally at a logical, scriptural, exegetically sound conclusion. Of the ten renderings, Willet concludes “that S. Paul speaketh in the person of a man regenerate.”Respectfully, are you saying that because Willet extensively studied the issue he has come to a right conclusion? Does extensive study guarantee the right answer?
It may be that strongly held presuppositions outweigh objective reasoning…no?
Rom 7 should not be read independently of Rom 8. Rom 8 does present the work of the Spirit upon believers. Rom 7 presents the reality of those without the Spirit. That break down was introduced in the first 6 verses of Rom 7. It really isn’t all that hard.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] Rom 7 should not be read independently of Rom 8….Hi James,
Just an observation: Neither should Romans 6 be ignored, especially vs.23. Split the verse in half and, in the first half, you have an introduction to ch.7 and, in the second half, an introduction ch.8 as follows:
“For the wages of sin is death”, an apt encapsulation of ch.7 (cf. v.9 - “I died”; v.10 - “unto death”; v.11 - “slew me”, etc).
“but”, can anticipate the separation of the main thoughts between ch.7 and 8.
“the gift of God is eternal life…”, an apt introduction in anticipation of ch.8 (v. - “there is no doom”; v.6 - “life and peace”; v.10 - “Spirit is life”, etc).
Discussion