Who Said That?
Monday, April 30, 2007 at 11:14AM 
Who Said That?
"The apostle, in this passage [Romans 7], is not treating about a man who is already regenerate through the Spirit of Christ, but has assumed the person of a man who is not yet regenerate. . . . But since it is certain, that the apostle has not, in this chapter, treated of himself personally, as distinguished from all other men of whatsoever condition or order they may be, but that he, under his own person, described a certain kind and order of men, whether they be those who are under the law and not yet regenerate, or those who are regenerate and placed under grace. . ."
Leave your guesses in the comments section below. No google searches! The fun is in the guessing!
Kim Riddlebarger
As many of you guessed, this quote comes from James Arminius in his lectures on Romans 7. According to Arminius, this not autobiographical, but reflects the attitude of someone under the conviction of the law.
Reader Comments (21)
Although this interpretation of Chap. 7 is so prevalent today, it could be from Murray, Moo, or Reymond (to name just a few).
So, Finney.
Very popular, too many such "expositors" exist to guess.
Well, here is one...John Wesley?
Although I have no idea who the author is, I'll throw Godet's name in the hat as another possibility.
On the other hand, I personally differ from the opinion of many who see Romans 7:14-25 as descriptive of Paul's regenerate, even normative regenerate, experience.
To add another top-notch Reformed scholar (in addition to Reymond, et al) to the growing mix of those who believe vv. 14-25 have reference, in context, to Paul's pre-conversion position and experience, I mention the name of Anthony Hoekema. (I think his name pops up at this site fairly regularly!) Years ago the late Hoekema changed his opinion re: the interpretation of Romans 7, and he did so for exegetical/theological reasons.
I fully realize that good Reformed people can disagree about this passage. As many have pointed out, the pro/con arguments are divided.
In addition to the fact that every Christian struggles with and can surely be defeated by sin, the sustained use of the present tense in vv. 14-25 is perhaps the most frequently mentioned reason for thinking that Paul is describing his life as a believer. However, though I fully concur with those who say Paul is talking about his own experience, I think that the present tense argument can be overdone - especially in light of the fact that the Greek present tense often says more about the nature of an action than it does about the time of an action ... and particularly in view of the fact that the NT contains numerous examples of past events where the present tense is utilized. Of course one must ask, "Why would Paul use the present tense here?" Some have supposed that he does so to make his description of himself more real, more vivid. It seems to me, however, that his reason is pretty simple: I believe Paul uses the present tense to simply indicate the ongoing and continuous nature of his defeat as a way of life, prior to his conversion.
When all is said and done, two larger issues than tense itself loom before us in trying to ascertain what's going on in Romans 7: (1) the theology of this entire section of Romans (basically, Rom. 6:1-8:14 - which flows out of Rom. 5:20,21); and (2) the flow of thought within the narrower portion of Romans 7 itself (esp. vv. 7-12 and 13-25, as well as the verses that immediately follow in chap. 8). I'll make just a couple of brief comments about each...
First, Rom. 6 is surely making the point that believers are those who have both died to (vv. 1-14) and been freed from sin (vv. 15-23); Rom. 7 is surely making the point that believers are those who have also died to and been freed from the Law (cf. esp. vv. 1-6); and Rom. 8 (i.e., vv. 1-14, or thereabouts) is surely making the point that believers are those who are in the Spirit and thus (as a pattern of life) set their minds on the Spirit and walk in accord with the Spirit (as opposed to the fleshly orientation of life - cf. esp. vv. 5-8, in light of vv. 1-4 and v. 9; cf. also the rather strong words of v. 13!). It's not that believers don't sin! They do! Otherwise there would be no need for exhortations such as those in Rom. 6:12,13 and Rom. 6:19 (cf. also Rom. 8:12). Rather, it's that in terms of how Paul describes both his status and experience in Rom. 7:14-25 (indeed, throughout vv. 7-25) --as many have pointed out-- he's "sold into bondage to sin" (v. 14), agreeing with and joyfully concurring with and even serving the Law of God (vv. 16,22,25), and being "of flesh" (v. 14) - with no reference to the power of God's enabling and empowering Spirit. He's not just occasionally defeated; he's perpetually defeated! As a wretched man, he's crying out for freedom (v. 24)!
One might respond by saying that only a believer would have such a high view of God's Law and such a low view of one's self. But vv. 7-12, where Paul clearly does describe his unregenerate state and experience (!), express precisely the same thought! I really see no difference between what's going on in vv. 7-12, and what's going on in vv. 14-25 (or, more accurately, vv. 13-25). Throughout these verses the Law of God is at work to accomplish its role of showing the unregenerate Paul that (a) sin is very much alive, and (consequently) he is very much dead (cf. esp. vv. 8,9). Sin seized the opportunity afforded by the presence of the commandment (as NIV beautifully captures the thought) so as to (a) produce sin (v. 7) and thus (b) "kill" Paul (v. 11). Is this not the same situation in vv. 14-25? Doesn't Paul tell us that though he wants to refrain from doing wrong, he doesn't? (He sins!) And doesn't he also tell us that though he wants to engage in doing right, he doesn't? (He's "dead" - spiritually impotent to bring his life into accord with God's will!) In fact, apart from the tense matter, couldn't one say that vv. 14-25, as well as vv. 7-12, are a nigh-well perfect description of what Paul is getting at in Rom. 3:20 and 5:20 and 7:5? It seems to me that throughout Rom. 7:7-25 Paul is providing himself as the example of what occurred when God's holy and righteous and good Law did its work of (a) revealing sin and (b) aggravating sin!
Second, Paul's thesis about a believer's death to and freedom from the Law is surely stated in Rom. 7:1-6 (esp. vv. 4-6). Rom. 7:4 nicely makes the point, and vv. 5 and 6 neatly follow up by looking at Paul's relation to the Law, before and after conversion, respectively.
It's at this point that two questions arise concerning God's Law, in light of what Paul has repeatedly indicated concerning its role: (a) Is this Law, God's Law, sinful (v. 7)? and (b) Is this Law the cause of death (v. 13)?
I believe that just as vv. 7b-12 are linked to and explanatory of the question in v. 7a, so vv. 13b-25 are linked to and explanatory of the question in v. 13a. In typical Pauline fashion (as in Rom. 6:1ff; Rom. 6:15ff; etc.), Paul not only answers each question with a negation, but then proceeds to explain his negation. Interestingly, Paul's tense changes in the transition from v. 13 to vv. 14-25 ... even though (as I see it) his essential thought remains the same, from v. 13 clean through vv. 14-25. (In other words, the thought of vv. 14-25 is not only the same as that of vv. 7-12, but it's also the same as that of v. 13.)
Accordingly, by way of the flow of thought of this portion of Romans, I see both vv. 7-12 and vv. 13-25 (and their uncanny symmetry) as expanding on the idea of v. 5, relative to the condition of the unregenerate (the Law's role, Paul's status and experience), and I see Rom. 8:1ff as growing out of the contrasting thought of Rom. 7:6, relative to the condition of the regenerate (and the corresponding way in which God's Spirit equips believers to do what they could never do in and of themselves [cf. esp. Rom. 8:1-4 in this regard: What the Law could not do, God did! He sent His Son. He sent His Spirit - according to whom we walk.]). And throughout Rom. 7:7-25 --both vv. 7-12 and vv. 13-25-- Paul both exonerates the Law and incriminates himself - the real culprit is his own sin, not God's holy Law! (It's just that he tends to focus more on the "sin" theme in vv. 7-12, but more on the "death" theme in vv. 13-25 [cf. the cry in v. 24 to be released from "the body of this death"].)
I fully understand that not everyone agrees with this way of looking at Romans 6-8. But many do, including many within the Reformed school of thought. I think, then, that the debate is intramural in nature, not defining of who is Reformed and who is not. And perhaps the best thing we can do, despite various competent ways of understanding this marvelous portion of God's Word within the Reformed camp, is to uphold some truths that really need upholding, such as: (a) as unbelievers, we were once in bondage to sin; (b) as believers, we are no longer in bondage to sin (Christ has broken sin's stranglehold!); nevertheless (c) as believers we most certainly continue to struggle with and can very much be defeated by sin; yet (d) as a way of life, believers really can, should and will live differently.
With that, a very good day to all! And praise God for the fantastic truths of Romans 6-8!