Who Said That?
Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 02:50PM 
Who Said That?
"Those who find their own experience written in the seventh chapter of Romans [i.e. Romans 7:13-25] are not converted persons. If that is their habitual character, they are not regenerated, they are under conviction, but not Christians . . . . You see, from this subject, the true position of a vast number of church members. They are all the time struggling under the law. They approve of the law, both in its precept and its penalty, they feel condemned, and desire relief. But still they are unhappy. They have no Spirit of prayer, no communion with God, no evidence of adoption. They only refer to the 7th [chapter] of Romans as their evidence. Such a one will say, `There is my experience.' Let me tell you, that if this is your experience, you are yet in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity. . . . You are yet carnal, sold under sin, and unless you embrace the gospel you will be damned."
____________________________________
This is awful. Who is bearer of such glad tidings?
Kim Riddlebarger
I am going to call this one early. As Phil (who either cheated and google searched, or who was at Keith Green's compound in Texas) pointed out, these horrible words come from Charles Grandison Finney, the patron saint of American evangelicalism.
For those of you who are "disappointed" that I hold the traditional Reformed view (I know it is a shock that a Reformed pastor and theologian would actually hold to the view taught in his confessions, even after reading the arguments on the other side), I'll make my case in my forthcoming blog publication on Romans. We'll debate the matter then.
FYI--I also discussed this on KFUO today (Thursday, July 6). Go to KFUO.org. My discussion with Todd Wilken about Romans 7:14-25 will be archived.
Reader Comments (25)
I read your piece on Rom. 7 in MR, and I was disappointed to hear that you hold to the traditional view over against Moo and Westerholm and others.
It seems like the "regenerate or unregenerate?" question is a categorical mistake. It seems from 7:6 (letter vs. Spirit) that it's an historia salutis rather than ordo salutis issue.
Anyway, the consensus seems to be Finney, so I'll go with that.
Blessings,
JJS
I myself hold the traditional view.
I do not think that the argument concerning the present tense of the verbs is very strong since tense mainly deals with aspect and sometimes a present tense is tranlated as past.
The key for me is the last verse of chapter seven. After Paul has been explaining the war within, he asks who can save him from it.
He says, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
The next verse is key, for I think it shows that what Paul was describing is an experience in his redeemed life.
The language even seems to show this with Paul's intensifying use of the 3rd person Gk. personal pronoun. He says, "So then, I MYSELF serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."
How you deal with the fact that what Paul denies is the case for those "under grace" in 6:14 he explicitly affirms about himself in 7:14? In the former he is not under sin's dominion, but in the latter he is.
Add to that the fact that he delights in the law in 7:22 as a "carnal" man, but then he turns around and denies that this is possible in 8:7, and the traditional view seems fraught with difficulty.
This is (mostly) avoided by saying, with Moo and Westerholm, that 7 describes life "under the law," while 8 describes life "under grace" (6:14). Or, the former describes service in the old way of the letter, and the latter describes service in the new way of the Spirit.
Verses 13-25, then, much like v. 5 and vv. 7-12, tell us what life was like for Paul when the Law "came" and exposed sin by arousing it, resulting in death. At that point: (1) sin became alive, and (2) he died (cf. vv. 9,10; cf. also vv. 8,11). And subsequent to that point, but prior to his ultimate conversion, this sin/death experience was a way of life for Paul: (1) sin was alive in that he habitually failed to refrain from doing what was evil and bad and in opposition to God's Law; and (2) he was dead in that he also habitually failed to engage in doing what was good and right and in accord with God's Law.
Paul's description of himself in Rom. 7:14-25 involves not just a struggle with sin, but a defeat by sin. Not just a temporal defeat, but a perpetual defeat (yes, the present tense speaks to the nature of the action as being one of continuing sin). Not just a partial defeat, but a total defeat. At this point in his life, from what he describes in vv. 14-25, Paul never succeeds, but always fails! No wonder he refers to himself as a wretched man! No wonder he cries out for someone to set him free! Paul's portrayal of himself at this point in his life is one of utter hopelessness!
Furthermore, Paul has just argued that: (1) believers have died to (6:1-14) and been freed from (6:15-23) sin; (2) believers have died to and been released from the Law (7:4,6) - and thus are not under the Law (6:14), but have been set free from the Law of sin and of death (8:2); and (3) believers are not in the realm of the flesh but in the realm of the Spirit - and the general tenor of their mindset and lifestyle accords with their being in and in accord with the Spirit (cf. 8:9 with 8:5-8).
But consider, by way of contrast, how Paul describes himself in Romans 7:14-25! And keep in mind that in Rom. 7:14-25, Paul doesn't just refer to his experience, but to his status. He's not just sinning, but sold into bondage to sin and a prisoner of the Law of sin. He's not just in agreement with the Law, and concurring that it is good, but actually serving the Law (and the Law is at work in him so as to arouse sin and bring about his death!). He's not just of flesh, but says that nothing good dwells in him ... and that the doing of the good is not present in him.
To me, it seems that there's a disconnect between what Paul says about himself in Rom. 7:14-25, and what he says about true believers in chapters 6,7 and 8 ... that is, if what he says about himself refers to his Christian experience! (Or should we push the present tense business all the way, and say that Paul is referring to himself as in utter defeat at the very moment he was penning this, the most glorious, of all the epistles?!)
It is most certainly true that Christians are "caught between the ages: between the already and the not yet." But I don't see this as the subject matter in Rom. 7. No, in this chapter, including vv. 14-25 (which are linked to and explanatory of v. 13, just as vv. 8-12 are linked to and explanatory of v. 7), I believe that Paul is sharing the frustration of utter defeat, once confronted by God's Law, but prior to this conversion and the arrival of God's enabling Spirit!
What the Law could not do, weak through the flesh, God did: He sent Christ to condemn sin, and then He sent the Spirit to enable obedience ... to the end that the righteous requirement of God's Law might (finally!) be fulfilled in (not by) us, who walk in accord with God's Spirit (8:1-4).
Thus, I see Rom. 7:7-12 AND Rom. 7:13-25 as explanatory of Rom. 7:5 ... even as I see Rom. 8:1-13 as explantory of Rom. 7:6. Prior to the coming of the Spirit there is utter frustration; but once He comes, a life that pleases God is enabled. And the prior frustration of Paul in vv. 14-25 are spelled out in v. 15 (where Paul says that his ACTIONS [cf. ESV] are that which he doesn't understand]) and in v. 18 (where he says that though the desire is present in him, the ABILITY [again, cf. ESV] is not). His desires are AOK, but his deeds are not. With his inner man, mind, he wants to do the right thing; but with his outer man, the members of his body, he finds that he has no ability to bring his desires to fruition. We might say, "The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak."
One more point: I believe that vv. 13-25 are all of one piece, just like vv. 7-12. Paul's categorical statements about our death to and release from the Law in vv. 4-6 gave rise to the questions: (1) Is the Law sin? and (2) Is the Law the cause of death? Paul argues much the same in both vv. 7-12 (in reference to the former question) and in vv. 13-25 (in regard to the latter question): first, he exonerates the Law, showing that it is good, holy, righteous and spiritual (the Law is not the problem!); second, he identifies the culprit, which is sin (we are the problem!). Both elements are present in each paragraph. The fact that vv. 14-25 are linked to and explicatory of vs. 13 (note the strong connector, "gar") reinforces this point, as does the fact that Paul's description of himself in vv. 14-25 really matches that of his description of himself in vv. 7-12 (and clearly vv. 7-12 are of Paul as unregenerate!).
At any rate, and regardless of how we interpret Rom. 7, genuine believers can, should, must and will live differently than before they came to know Christ! Though we all struggle with sin, and though we can each suffer defeats at the hand of sin (cf. I Jn. 1:8,10), sin is not an ongoing way of life for true believers (cf. I Jn. 3:6,9; 5:18)! True faith results in fruit (Mt. 7:15-20), works (Jas. 2:14-26), holiness (Heb. 12:14), obedience to God (I Jn. 2:3-6), love for one another (I Jn. 3:14,15), and perseverance in the faith (Col. 1:21-23; Heb. 3:6). May we all agree never to use Rom. 7 to justify sinful living in the lives of those who profess to be believers! In other words, irrespective of our varying views on the identity of "the man of sin" in Romans 7, there is no Zane Hodges cheap grace view in this passage or elsewhere in God's Word!
If indeed a viable case can be made that Rom. 7:14-25 is Paul looking at his pre-conversion experience through regenerate eyes, and thus descriptive of his abject failure to do what pleased God, then it seems to me that this is fully in line with how Paul described unbelievers in general in Rom. 8:7,8. The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God ... for it does not subject itself to the Law of God ... for it is not even ABLE to do so ... and those who are in the flesh CANNOT please God.
The problem confronted by unbelievers is not just one of not understanding, not obeying, etc. The problem is this total incapacity that afflicts them (cf. also I Cor. 2:14; Jn. 6:44; etc.).
Apart from God's initiative, God's grace, there is ZILCH!
If we want a description of the believer's struggle we can go to Gal. 5, where the battle is between two ages (Spirit and flesh) rather than between "ego" and "nomos."
JJS
Looks like Phil answered the question as to whom the quote belongs to, so I will say Finney too.
I had always assumed that Paul was describing the Christian struggle against sin in 7:14-25. Now I really need to sit down and study it again.
Regardless, it is my experience that I often "do not understand my own actions" and that I "do the very things that I hate" and "the good that I want to do I do not do..."
The Spirit has opened my eyes to my sin against the law - but I still sin - and I hate it. I need to be reminded on a daily basis that I have the victory in Christ - that Christ has given me the victory over the sin that I struggle against. That is how I personally identify with Romans 7 and that is why I would disagree with the quote of the post proper. Should I not be reading the passage that way? Do I need to take myself out of this text?
A key verse may be 18, "For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out."
Through the Spirit of Christ we certianly have the ablility to carry out what is right but is Paul taking about not being able to carry it out in the past because he had not the Spirit? Or is he saying that he now (post-conversion) cannot carry it out in and of himself and is daily driven to the fact that his life is in the Spirit?
I think we need to get away from the "preconversion" or "postconversion" paradigm altogether (since Rom. 7 describes neither).
The OT saint desired to obey God and delighted in his law, but because "the Spirit was not yet [given]" (Jn. 7), he was unable to experience the degree of sanctification that we experience under the New Covenant.
Even though the OT saint was justified by faith like Abraham was, the fact remained that the law was a harsh taskmaster whose threatened curse loomed over all of man's works.
But now that Christ has come, we no longer need to "exceedingly tremble with fear" (Heb. 12) like Moses, for we now come to Mt Zion.
So the transition from Rom. 7 to Rom. 8 is not existential (a second blessing, regeneration) but redemptive-historical (the old way of the letter to the new way of the Spirit).
And lastly, we must beware of interpreting the text in the light of our experiences (which is what Kim partially did in his MR piece).
JJS
I understand your point. And I want to make it clear that I am in full agreement with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of your last comment. But I have to chew on the rest for a bit. The personal and present tense language of 14-25 has me scratching my head a little (I realize that this has already been addressed).
Do you think that Paul is talking about his own personal toil under the old way of the letter in Rom 7:14-25?
1) I agree with J. Joseph Stellman, and his comments having to do with the "salvation/historical" shift that occurred with Christ's coming.
However, Paul does (in my opinion) speak of his own experience, as well as in terms of his experience before and after his conversion. It seems to me that in Paul's case we have a nigh-well overlap between the transition from the OT to the NT era and his own personal transition/conversion.
2) Some have objected that non-believers have no desire whatsoever to do God's will (and not just the inability to actually do it). However, Rom. 2:17ff and 10:2 furnish us with examples of Jewish unbelievers who had a zeal for God, and who approved the things that were essential, being instructed out of the Law.
I maintain that both unbelievers and believers struggle with sin, and experience defeats at the hands of sin. What one of us, both before and after coming to know Christ, haven't known the frustration of failing to do what we want to do?
3) Some say that none but a believer would have the attitude Paul displayed in Rom. 7:14-25 - namely a high view of the Law and a low view of self.
But hold on! Doesn't Paul have this same high view of the Law in vv. 7-12? And doesn't he have the same low view of himself in vv. 7-12? And everyone agrees that in vv. 7-12 Paul is referring to his life under the Law!
4) Again, regardless of whether we see Rom. 7:14-25 as a better fit with one view of Paul or another (and that, by the way, is what the difference of opinion is all about: not what matches our experience, but simply what slice of life - pre- or post-Christ, whether from a salvation/history or an individual perspective, is a more accurate fit for Rom. 7), one thing ought to be clear to all of us...
If and when we as believers live according to the flesh, we are as unable to please God as unbelievers. Jn. 15:4,5 reminds us that apart from the life of the Vine flowing in and through us we can do nothing! And make no mistake about it, we are all light years away from perfection - even at our best moments!
{I maintain that we need to hold in tension two sets of truths: (1) believers still sin in this life; and (2) believers are in the process of being transformed by God ... and thus, if there's no transformation at all in the lives of those who profess to know Christ, there's good reason to question if they're really saved!}
But praise God, God is the One who is at work in us, not only to will (the desire thing!), but also to work (the ability thing!) for His good pleasure! What a breath of fresh air we have in Phil. 2:13! On our own, we cannot do what we what is pleasing to God; but the Spirit of God empowers us to do so!
I don't think he is necessarily speaking of himself (he also uses the first person singular elsewhere in a clearly non-autobiographical way [3:7]).
His statement that "I was alive without the law at one time, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died" seems to chronicle, in a personal way, the redemptive historical movement described in chapter 5 ("the law was added to make the transgression abound").
If there was a time in Saul's personal life when he was "alive" before he discovered the law, I can't find it in the Bible.
JJS
http://www.kfuo.org/ie_main.htm
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the greatest expository preacher of all time?
Probably not, though he spent one year preaching through Rom. 7:1-8:4, of which six messages were devoted to demonstrating that Paul was not referring to his experience as a believer!
Lloyd-Jones' volume on Romans 7 has a good summary of his argumentation against the "Romans 7 = a believer" view in chapter 19, pp. 238-257.
Hoekema's similar arguments are found in "Five Views of Sanctification," pp. 231,32.
Fee's account is found in "God's Empowering Presence," pp. 508-15.
Reymond's discussion is included in "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith," pp. 1127-32.
And Douglas Moo, in what is surely one of the best commentaries on Romans, period, presents his case on pp. 441-51.
Some, like Lloyd-Jones, don't think Paul refers to himself as unregenerate either! Others, that what's going on is more related to redemption history (e.g., H. Ridderbos), yet against the view that Paul is describing himself as a believer.
Still others have come to comparable conclusions, including J. Oliver Buswell in his systematic theology, Westerholm (as mentioned in a comment, above) ... and even John Stott has changed his view from the classic Reformed "The Man of Sin = a believer" of his book "Men Made New."
When all is said and done, and I look at the entire complex of arguments pro and con re: the "Paul = an unbeliever" (or man pre-Christ) view vs. the "Paul = a believer" (or man post-Christ) view, two things surface for me. I'll pose both as questions:
1) If Paul is describing himself as a believer, then does he not surely go way above and beyond what he's said in context about believers in describing their relationship to sin???
For Paul says that Christians have died to sin (6:2,11), not that they're alive to it as in 7:7-12,13-25 (cf. esp. 7:9) ... and he says that Christians are freed from sin (6:17,18 and 20,22), not that they're enslaved to it as in 7:7-12,13-25 (cf. esp. vv. 14,23) ... and he says that Christians are in the Spirit and not in the flesh (8:5-9; esp. v. 9), and not that they're of flesh (7:14), with nothing --including the Holy Spirit-- good dwelling in them (cf. 7:18).
Romans 7 seems to me to be a strange way of talking about the status or the experience of a true believer! Especially considering what Paul has just said about a believer's relationship with sin in chap. 6, with the Law in chap. 7, and with the flesh/Spirit in chap. 8!
2) If (assuming the view which I no longer espouse: namely, the view that Paul is referring to himself as a believer in vv. 14ff) Paul had really wished to describe his life before Christ, how could he say it any better than he did in Rom. 7:14-25???
Isn't this a rather dead-on description of someone who fails miserably when it comes to fulfilling the standards of God's holy Law??? Isn't it a perfect depiction of Rom. 8:7,8???
And think about Rom. 8:13 in this regard! Surely the life Paul was living in Rom. 7:14-25 was one of defeat at the hands of sin, because it was being lived in the flesh. Yet Paul says in Rom. 8:13 that those who are living according to the flesh must/will die! So is he suggesting that he's about to die because of his fleshly living?!?!?!
---
Romans 7 seems to me to be the perfect way to describe the experience of someone apart from Christ (or, alternately, life prior to the coming of the Messiah and the Spirit).
So, when all is said and done, I keep coming back to this bigger picture, and the flow of thought in Rom. 6:1-8:13, and what seem to me to be the only two sound reasons that can be used against the "Paul = an unbeliever" view:
1) "Yes, but I as a Christian struggle with sin! Yes, but I as a Christian have been defeated by sin!"
My response? Since when is our experience a test of truth? Besides, as I pointed out earlier, even unbelievers struggle with and are defeated by sin; even they understand all too well (in fact, perfectly well, at least in retrospect) what it means to want to do what's right, but to end up doing what's wrong. So the interpretation of this passage cannot turn on the matter of experience.
2) "But Romans 7 uses the present tense!"
Of course it does! But so do other narrative portions of the NT where the author is clearly referring to past events! I suspect, that for many, much of the problem comes down to this matter of tense. I suspect that if Paul had used another tense (aorist, perfect, whatever), and one read Rom. 7:14-25 with such another tense, there would scarcely be an argument about which point in his life he was describing! I think we'd all be saying something like, "Ah yes, before Paul came to know Christ --while the Law was clobbering him over the head-- he found himself in this ongoing, continuing, perpetual state, where he not only struggled mightily with sin, but found himself defeated again and again and again by it. And it's no wonder, for before any of us come to know Christ, the Spirit is absent from our lives. And so, at that time, we are locked up to fleshly living, with its ongoing, continuous, perpetual defeat!"
---
Having said all of this, I still maintain that one can capture the primary gist/thrust of the argument of Romans 7 (which surely has to do with vv. 4-6, and a believer's liberation from the Law) without necessarily solving the riddle of vv. 14-25. It's kind of like I Thes. 4:13-18, where one can talk about the facts concerning Christ's return, and the resurrection of the dead and the catching up of the living to be with Christ: these things, and the comfort they bring, are true and precious regardless of when the rapture occurs!
Thus at the end of the day, I agree with Lloyd Jones when he bemoans the fact that for many Romans 7 is all about debating the identity of the man of sin. No! It's much more! It's about our liberation from sin through our liberation from the Law! Sin isn't over us, because we're not under the Law (6:14). The Law, in order to expose sin, had to arouse sin! But, praise God, the Spirit has come, and He empowers us to do that which we could never do in the flesh!
For these reasons, whenever I preach or teach on Romans 6-8, I'm at pains to communicate the big concept that these chapters convey about our break with sin as a way of life. The doctrine of justification by grace through faith apart from works leads some to criticize Christians as opting for licentious living. Paul teaches otherwise: the gospel that saves also sanctifies! We've been saved not just from sin's penalty, but from it's power! And we're to live accordingly.
Consequently, as I've often put it, we need not, should not, must not, and will not, keep on sinning as a way of life, if we're really believers. Life can, should, must, and will, be different!
1) Victory, as a way of life, is a possibility (Rom. 6:1-11,15-18).
2) Victory, as a way of life, is a responsibility (Rom. 6:12-13,19; cf. vv. 20-23).
3) Victory, as a way of life, is a necessity (Rom. 8:12,13; cf. esp. v. 13!).
4) Victory, as a way of life, is a certainty (Rom. 8:4,5-9). Believers, as to the general tenor of their lives, will live on a higher plane! They will set their minds on and walk in accord with the Spirit. And if their experience more closely matches that of Rom. 7:14-25, with its utter, total, perpetual defeat, then perhaps they should consider the words of II Cor. 13:5!
I love the discussion of passages like Rom. 7:14ff; but isn't it even more thrilling to know that when the Lord Jesus invades our lives, He really, really, really makes a difference?
With so much to say, and with so much time on your hands, you need your own blog!! Why limit your articles to comment sections?
I do believe that Wayne was just yelling very loudly in Internet speak.