The man of Romans 7

[Robert]

The man of Romans 7 does not have a carnal mind.  He delights in God's law.  This is a converted man, yet he is failing.  Is there any condemnation?  No!  There is no condemnation if we have accepted our position "in Christ". 

Do agree?

[pnattmbtc]

I wrote this: 

There are two errors here.  One is your lumping historical Adventism, by which I mean that which SDA's practiced and believed during the lifetime of Ellen White, with Shepard's Rod and Firm Foundation.  There are many differences between the two, and especially they have very little to do with what Jones and Waggoner taught.

The second error is labeling what Ellen White and her contemporaries believed as the essence of Laodecian pride and blindness, at least in how you are using the term.

By the way, I firmly believe that God has new light for us, and has been giving us new light, but new light will not contradict old light, and certainly will not lead to labeling the old light as "heresy" or other disparaging terms.  After all, it was God who sent us the 1888 message, and God who communicated with Ellen White.  This isn't arguing for infallibility in the human instrument, but for treating with respect the communications of God.

God welcomes our questioning and honest doubts, but in a spirit of reverence; don't you agree?

to which you responded:

 Ellen White is not the final word.  Jones and Waggoner are not the final word.  The Bible, and the Bible only, it the final authoritative word. 

Even if we accept your premise here, how would that justify labeling Ellen White and her contemporaries as the essence of Laodecian pride and blindness? I could only surmise that such a proclamation could be made if you didn't believe these messages really came from God.   If  the messages came from God, then by disparaging the messages, aren't you disparaging God? 

[pnattmbtc]

Do agree?

No.  N. T. Wright writes: (referring to Romans 8:1, and the rest of Romans 8)

The present paragraph is an excellent example of this writing style. (i.e.that Paul gives a hint of what he's going to say, and then elaborates on it).  Verse 1 announces the main point Paul is going to make from now to the end of the chapter: there is no condemnation for those in the Messiah. .... This should teach us something of how to read Paul: don't stop at a single verse and wonder why it's so dense.  See it as a part of a larger, growing statement and celebration.

In other word, the "therefore" is not based on what Paul just wrote, but on what he is about to write. 

Edited June 26, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

No, you are presenting perfectionism.

This is puerile.  Instead of making baseless and false accusations, if you take issue with something I've written, quote is, and present some argument.

From the beginning, rather than dealing with questions and issues, you have at time resorted to name-calling and going off tangent.  Sometimes you do deal with the issues at hand, and I appreciate it when you do so, because even though I don't expect you to change your mind or admit error, there is a benefit to having a sounding board, and being able to think through issues.

So, again, if have an argument to make based on something I wrote, please do so, but please refrain from ad hominem remarks.

[pnattmbtc]

No, let's quote Paul:

Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law (i.e., agape) might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

"Does happen" and "might be fulfilled in us" aren't the same.  So you misspoke. Why "might"? Because "walking in the Spirit" is something we do.  Anytime you have the human element you have uncertainty.  Yes, if God forced us to be righteous (as in infused grace) then "yes", we would be righteous. But then if He forced agape He too would be a sinner because agape, by its very nature, cannot force or coerce. 

 

 

You're practicing eisegeis here.

The Greek word is "plerothe" which is the aorist subjunctive passive 3rd person, which is indicating the effect part of a cause and effect clause.  The word "might" is not indicating that Paul was unsure, but is a synonym to "would" or "may", which can be seen by checking other translations.  For example:

In order that the law's requirement would be accomplished in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Holman Christian Standard Bible

We don't have a way in English to express conditionality by a verb ending, hence the use of helper words like "might" or "may" or "would", but these words are not an expressiou of uncertainty, but just a way of expressing conditionality.

Edited June 26, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

After all, you quoted John in saying "He who sins is of the devil".

Please present some argument, and then ask me about that.  Don't ask me personal questions for which I have to read your mind to infer what your point is.  My personal experience has no bearing on the propositional logic involved in Scripture.

[Robert]

 If  the messages came from God, then by disparaging the messages, aren't you disparaging God? 

The Bible is the final word.  Do you comprehend?

Edited June 27, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

I said: The man of Romans 7 does not have a carnal mind.  He delights in God's law.  This is a converted man, yet he is failing.  Is there any condemnation?  No!  There is no condemnation if we have accepted our position "in Christ".  

Do you agree?

No

Then he does have a carnal mind?  He does not delight in God's law?  And lastly there is condemnation for the man of Romans 7?

 

[Robert]

Please present some argument, and then ask me about that.  Don't ask me personal questions for which I have to read your mind to infer what your point is.  My personal experience has no bearing on the propositional logic involved in Scripture.

You quoted a Bible translation that stated "He who sins is of the devil". I asked you if you sin, but you evade my question.  I believe you see the conundrum that you are in and therefore refuse to answer.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Here's Jack's commentary:

 let’s look at the context.  Romans 8:1:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus....

The word “therefore” immediately tells me that this verse is connected with the previous statements that Paul made.  What did Paul say previously to verse 1 of chapter 8?  Remember, there were no chapter and verse divisions when Paul wrote.  What is he saying?  He has just told us in Romans 7:14-25 that there is a problem in his life, a problem in every human life.  And that is:  sin dwells in us.  The law of sin is in our members.  And in Romans 7:24 he cries out in desperation:

What a wretched man I am!  Who will rescue me from this body of death?

I have a body that stands condemned to death because it has sin dwelling in it.  Who will deliver me not from my sin, my acts, but from what I am?  That is the issue.  I want you to know his answer, Romans 7:25:

Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Now he didn’t explain any further there.  He goes to Romans 8 to explain what he means by, “Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ our Lord!”  In view of this, he says:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus....

Do you still have sin dwelling in your members?  I’m not talking about performance, I’m talking of sin dwelling in you, in your members.  The answer is “yes,” because Christians still have sinful flesh.  Do you stand condemned?  Not in Christ; there is no condemnation for those in Christ.

Now I would like to say for those of you who have the King James version of the Bible, because you will notice, those of you who have a modern translation like the NIV, Good News Bible, or any contemporary version, the second half of verse one from the King James is not there:

...who do walk not according to the flesh

 [the sinful nature]

, but according to the Spirit.

The most reliable manuscripts do not have that second part.  I am convinced this is a scribal addition, not mainly because of the textual fact but because if Paul put that statement there in verse 1, he would be contradicting his own theology.  Because he would be saying that we are justified because we are doing something, we are walking in the Spirit.  He would be making sanctification the means of justification, which Paul condemned.

Yes, sanctification is the fruit of justification, never the means.  That part, “walking in the spirit and not in the flesh,” does belong to verse 4 but not to verse 3.  All that Paul says in verse 1 is that, “There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.”  Why is there no condemnation for those who are in Christ?  The answer is found in verse 2, because something took place in Christ.  Romans 8:2:

...Because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

That part, “walking in the spirit and not in the flesh,” does belong to verse 4 but not to verse 3 (1).  All that Paul says in verse 1 is that, “There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.”  Why is there no condemnation for those who are in Christ?  The answer is found in verse 2, because something took place in Christ.  Romans 8:2:

...Because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Jack apparently made a typo.  See red lettering.  He meant verse 1

[Robert]

Now here's Jack on why the Man of Romans 7 is converted (or born again):

(It's rather long)

In this study we’ll be talking about whether Paul in Romans 7 was referring to the pre-converted Christian or the post-converted.  In other words, is he talking about the believer or the unbeliever?  Then, in our next study, we’ll deal with Romans 8:1-3, one of the key passages in the New Testament that deals with the human nature of Christ, and that’s a big issue.

I’m convinced that the reason there is so much controversy over this passage is because the devil knows that these passages are crucial to an understanding of the gospel, and especially the doctrine of righteousness by faith.  And when a pastor refuses to touch these passages, the devil is rejoicing.  But I am not going to leave these passages alone because I know what it meant to my ministry and to my Christian life and I want the same thing to happen to you.

But I would like to request something from you.  I want you to put aside all your preconceived ideas, because they are the greatest hindrance to an understanding of the truth.  I want to read you a statement that Ellen G. White made to the brethren when we as a church struggled over the 1888 Message.  It’s found in the Review and Herald, 10 June 1890:

 

“It is not for us to bring the word of God to our feelings and ideas...”

 

We have a special word in theology for this; we call it eisegesis (in other words, to put into a text what we want it to say).  I’m afraid that problem still exists today.

 

“...but we are to bring our feelings and ideas to the Word of God.”

 

In other words, what she’s saying is that we must allow the Word of God to control our ideas.  Then she quotes that statement:

 

“To the law and to the testimony, if they do not preach according to the word, it’s because there is no light in them.”

 

So our concern for today and our next study is to ask ourselves, “What exactly is Paul trying to say here, in Romans 7:14-22?”

As I mentioned when we first began Romans 7 three studies ago, the issue of this passage we’re covering today is, “Is Paul talking about the believer or the unbeliever?”  If you look at verse 14, because that’s the key statement in this passage, Paul says that:

 

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.

 

That word, “I,” the personal pronoun, appears 25 times in this passage of verses 14 to 25 of Romans 7.  Twenty-five times! The impression one gets is that Paul is talking about himself.  I mean, that is the understanding we would get in English.  But, please remember, Paul wrote this in Greek, and he had a Middle-Eastern mind.  He was not referring to himself.  Look at the statement in verse 14.  He says:

 

I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.

 

Is this true only of Paul, or is this true of mankind?  He has already told us in Romans 3:9 and 21 that the whole world is under sin, the whole world is under law, and, therefore, the whole world is guilty before God under the law.

So the “I” doesn’t refer to Paul as an individual.  He uses the word “I” to refer to corporate man.  In other words, he’s using the word “I” in a generic sense.  What Paul is saying is, “This is true of every human being who tries to live the life of the law INDEPENDENT of God.”  Why?  Because the law is spiritual and I am unspiritual (or “carnal”) and these two cannot conform.  The flesh cannot conform to the law in and of itself.  Therefore, the issue is not whether Paul is talking about the believer or the unbeliever.

Let me quickly remind you of what I said in the previous study.  Romans 7:14-25 has divided the Christian church from almost Apostolic times.  You have men like Origen, who died in about 254 A.D.  You have men like John Wesley, the great English Reformer of the 18th century; Weiss, the German scholar; Moffat; C.H. Dodd, the British scholar — all of these men have taken the position that Paul is referring here to his pre-converted experience.  On the other side, you have Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the great Swedish theologian Nygren, and the British scholar John Stott, who take the position, “No, Paul is talking about his converted experience.”  But modern research is coming to the conclusion more and more that Paul is speaking of neither the converted nor the unconverted.  He has one thing in mind:  the person who tries to live a good life independent of God.  And that can apply to the believer or the unbeliever.

To understand this passage, we must keep in mind the key passage of Romans 7, and that is the first six verses.  What is Romans 7 all about?  We must keep the concept, the main theme of Romans 7 in mind to understand this passage.  What is the main theme?  “We Christians have been delivered, liberated from under the jurisdiction of the law.”  Look at Romans 7:4:

 

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ....

 

Then in Romans 7:6:

 

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

 

Paul is telling us that, as Christians, we are no longer under the jurisdiction of the law.  And remember, when we dealt with this passage we saw that the law Paul had primarily in mind was the moral law, because in verse 7 he says that it was the law that told him he was a sinner, because he did not know what real sin was until he heard the law say, “Do not covet.”  That is the moral law.  But, of course, Paul, being a Jew, he had the whole law system in mind, but, primarily, the moral law.

But what does it mean to be released from the law?  It means that a Christian is no longer depending on his performance in regards to the law for salvation.  He is not dealing here with Christian living; Paul is going to lay the foundation here for Christian living.  Chapter 8 is the life through the Spirit.  But if you don’t understand Romans 7, Christian living will become meaningless, or will become futile, will become a struggle without hope and without peace.

In verses 7 to 13 Paul explains that the problem under law was not the law.  The law is holy, it is good, it is spiritual.  The problem is me.  I am “unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.”  What he does in verses 15 to 25 is prove that a holy law and sinful flesh are always incompatible.  Whether it’s before conversion or after conversion, the two will never be able to live in harmony.

Please remember that there is no change that takes place to your nature when you experience the new birth.  There is a change in your mind, in your attitude, you have experienced the new birth.  But there is no change to your nature.  The nature of a believer and the nature of an unbeliever are identical.  That is why, when we come to Romans 8:22-23, Paul is saying that we have been “groaning ... as we wait ... the redemption of our bodies.”

We as Christians are saved, but our nature has not yet been redeemed.  We have to wait until the second coming of Christ “when the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality” [1 Corinthians 15:54], then we shall be free from this sinful nature which is a struggle to live the Christian life.  So keep that in mind.

Now I want to look at some key statements in Romans 7:14-25.  He has made the statement in verse 14 that the law is spiritual and he — or man — is unspiritual.  Then he says that this is what happens when you put the two together:  you may choose to do good, you may choose to keep the law, but how to perform it, you cannot find that.  That is what his argument is.  Romans 7:15-16:

 

I do not understand what I do.  For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.  And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

 

Please notice, there is a conflict here between my mind, which wants to do good, my will, which has chosen to do right, and my nature, which will not comply.

If you haven’t had this struggle, you better question your conversion.  Because I believe — if I had a choice — that Paul had the believer in mind.  But I believe that is true of either the believer or the unbeliever.  The reasons why I believe that Paul had the believer in mind (and I gave the reasons before) are at least four reasons because:

1. Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Romans are dealing with the Christian, not with the pre-converted man.

    

2. Beginning in verse 14, Paul moves from the past tense, which he has been using in verses 7 to 13, to the present continuous tense, which means he is not referring to a past experience but to a present issue.

    

3. In Romans 7:22 he makes this statement:

    

    

   For in my inner being I delight in God’s law.

    

   There are two things I would like to say about this verse 22. 

    

   1. First, his phrase “inward man” or “inner being” is a phrase Paul will use only to the believer.  For example, let me give you a couple of incidents.  Turn to 2 Corinthians 4:16 and you will find that Paul is talking here about the believer when he uses that phrase “inward man” or the “inner man” or the “inner mind”:

       

       

      Therefore we

       [believers]

       do not lose heart.  Though outwardly

       [i.e., the flesh, the body]

       we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day.

       

      You see, he’s talking about the converted mind.  If you turn to Ephesians 3:16, you have the same idea there.  Paul will never use that phrase for the unbeliever, he will use it only for the believer.  Ephesians 3:16:

       

      I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you

       [i.e., the Christians of Ephesus]

       with power through his Spirit in your inner being....

       

   2. Secondly, if you look at Ephesians 2:3, Paul will tell us there that the mind and the flesh of the unbeliever are in harmony with sin:

       

       

      ...gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts....

       

      That is the pre-converted man.  But when it comes to the believer, his mind has been turned towards God.  He has a renewed mind.  And that is what the Greek word “repentance” means:  a change of mind.  But his flesh is unchangeable.  That is what Jesus tried to convince Nicodemus in John 3:6 where He said:

       

      Flesh gives birth to flesh....

       

      You cannot change the flesh.  The only time the flesh will change is at the second coming of Christ.  So Paul here is obviously referring to the believer.

    

4. I want to give you one more argument.  There are statements that Paul makes in his epistles (he wrote almost half of the New Testament) where he does touch on his preconverted experience.  Galatians 1:14 is an example:

    

    

   I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

    

   Or another good example is Philippians 3:6.  Wherever he talks about his preconverted experience as a Pharisee, he mentions nothing about a struggle.  For example, Philippians 3:6 he says:

    

   ...As for legalistic righteousness,

    [I was]

    faultless.

    

   There’s no mention of a struggle.  Only as a Christian does he talk about the struggle.  He does it in Romans 8:3, he does it in Galatians 5:17 — the struggle between flesh and Spirit.  Galatians 5:17:

    

   For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature.  They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

 

But I want you to notice that Romans 7:14-25 is not the end of the Christian experience.  The real experience of a Christian should be Romans 8, “Life Through the Spirit.”  But, to prepare us for that life through the Spirit, he has to do something that is extremely important, and that is:  destroy in the believer every confidence that you may have, or that you may cling to, in your natural ability.  Because the gospel formula, whether you talk in terms of imputed or imparted righteousness, is always the same:  “Not I, but Christ.”  And the hardest part is the “not I.”

He wants to make it very clear, because he goes on to say that “we know” and that is the conclusion he wants you to come to, that’s in verse 18, “I know.”  What is it that we should know?  Romans 7:18:

 

I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

 

He doesn’t say, “I am partially bad” or “I’m 80 percent bad” or even 99 percent bad.  Nothing good lives in me. And the greatest evidence is that, even though I choose to do right, I cannot perform it.

Now I want to go to that very next point, which is very important.  I want you to let Paul speak.  The reason why the flesh [or our sinful nature] is incapable of conforming to the law is because it has something in it that makes it impossible.  I want you to notice how Paul addresses the problem.  He doesn’t call that “a bent towards sinning.”  He doesn’t call it “an inclination” or “a propensity.”  He calls it, “sin dwelling in me.”  Look at Romans 7:17:

 

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

 

He calls it sin.  I’m not calling it sin, Paul calls it sin.  Please don’t tell me he was off his mind when he wrote Romans 7.  He was in his full senses.  Look at verse 20, he repeats it:

 

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

 

Let’s read verse 22 with verse 23 to get the context.  Romans 7:22:

 

For in my inner being I delight in God’s law....

 

My mind, which has surrendered to the gospel, which has accepted Christ, loves the law, wants to keep the law, has chosen to keep the law.  Romans 7:23:

 

...But I see another law

 [another force, another principle]

 at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

 

Folks, sin is not only what you do, but sin is what you have in you, what you are.  But I have some good news for you:  there is no condemnation for those of you who are in Christ Jesus.  And that’s our next study, Romans 8:1.  That statement, Romans 8:1, is made in the context not of “sins” plural, but of “sin” dwelling in you.

The reason why I’m emphasizing this is because I want to make something very clear which is the plain teaching of the New Testament.  Even if God were to give you total victory over sins — and I believe He can do that — you are still a sinner because your nature doesn’t change in sanctification.  All that changes is your character.  Therefore, you’re still a sinner and your only hope is the umbrella of justification by faith.

Now I want to make it very clear, and I want to go on record, that I am a great believer in sanctification.  Anyone who accuses me of not teaching sanctification needs their ears hosed out with pressure water.  I believe in sanctification, BUT I am like a farmer who’s trying to grow apples.  When you try to grow apples, where do you concentrate on, the fruit or the tree?  The tree.  The fruit becomes natural if the tree is right.  And the tree in Christianity, the tree in the gospel, is justification.  The fruit is sanctification.  That’s how even Ellen G. White defines the 1888 message.  She called it “justification by faith, whose fruits are holiness of living.”

And if you have the tree wrong, I don’t care how long you spend or how much time you hash and you preach and you proclaim sanctification, if the tree is wrong, I can guarantee you that the fruit will be wrong.  It becomes a futile, frustrating experience for the pastor to produce works out of his congregation when the tree is wrong.  It’s absolutely futile.

I am convinced that where we have gone wrong as a people is in the tree.  I’m spending much time on the tree because I know, when the tree is right, when you have finally come to the point, “Not I, but Christ,” the fruits will come, and the earth will be lighted with His glory.

Because when God looks at Christian living, He does not look at Christian living like man does.  Man looks at the outward performance.  God looks at the motivation, at the heart.  You cannot have the right motivation if you are still under guilt, and insecurity, and living in fear whether you’ll make it to heaven or not.  It’s impossible, it’s part of the law of nature.

That is why Paul wants to destroy any idea that you can make yourself acceptable before God, or improve your standing before God, by your performance.  Salvation is totally of God; it’s a gift.  Yes, everything else in this world we have to work for, but, thank God, salvation is a gift! That is the Biblical teaching.

Paul is saying there is sin dwelling in you.  It is not an act, it is a force.  He calls it a law, a principle, which you and I even with our willpower cannot conquer.  Yes, we can defy it for a few moments, for a few days, maybe for a few months depending how strong a willpower you have, but you cannot conquer the law of sin.  It is because of this Paul cries out in Romans 7:24:

 

What a wretched man I am!  Who will rescue me

 [not from sins but]

 from this body of death?

 

Now I want to expose you to something that you may not have noticed:  the word “wretched” there.  Look at it in verse 24.  Do you know that that word appears only twice in the whole of the New Testament, at least in the original?  Some English translations may have it more than twice, but in the original it appears only twice.  And each time it is used in an opposite sense.

In Romans 7:24, Paul is talking about the person, which includes himself, who has discovered that in him there is nothing good.  So he cries, “What a wretched man I am!  Who will deliver me from this body that has dwelling in it the law of sin which one day will take me to death?  Who will deliver me?  O wretched man that I am.”

Do you know where the same word is found?  Have you ever discovered where the other word is found?  It’s in the book of Revelation, chapter 3 and verse 17.  There it isn’t Paul speaking, it is Christ speaking to a group of people called the Laodiceans.  Now I won’t have to define who they are, I think you know who they are.  These Laodiceans are saying to themselves, and about themselves, “We are rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.”

But, the True Witness, Christ, says, “You do not know, that’s your problem.  Your problem is subconscious.  You do not know.”  And what is it that you do not know?  “That you are wretched.”  Revelation 3:17:

 

You say, “I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.”  But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.

 

That’s the second time.  If we knew, there would be hope, but the trouble is we do not know.

Do we have to learn it the hard way, like Peter?  [See Mark 14:27-31 and Mark 14:66-72.]  Jesus said to the disciples, “You will all forsake me.”

Peter said, “Yes, you may be right about these other fellows, but you are wrong about me.  I will die for you!”

He did not know; he was sincere.  The issue is not sincerity; the issue is:  he did not know that there was nothing good in him, that he was incapable of keeping, of fulfilling that desire.  He really meant what he said, but he did not know that there was a law of sin in him which made it impossible to carry out that resolution.  So, when the test came, he denied his Lord — not once, not twice, but three times.  And the third time he did it with cursing and swearing, which to the Jew was an unpardonable sin.

Do we have to go that Peter experience for us to say with Paul, “O wretched man that I am”?  But I’ll tell you, folks, if you do not come to that position, in you heart — I don’t mean speaking out with your mouth, because it’s easy to say, “I’m wretched,” but in your heart say, “I’m not too bad” — can you say from the heart, “O wretched man that I am”?  If you cannot, you cannot say what Paul says in Romans 7:25:

 

Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ our Lord!

 

That is the whole purpose of Romans 7:  to destroy whatever confidence we may cling to in ourselves, so that we can say, “Not I, but I thank God for Jesus Christ.”

Those who teach that we are justified by Christ alone, but that we are sanctified by Christ plus me, need to read Paul, need to wrestle with this passage.  Because all through Paul’s writings, from beginning to end, he says, “my part is faith, God’s part is righteousness.”

And now we conclude Romans 7.  I want you to notice the conclusion.  He says, “So then, this is the truth about me apart from Christ.  This is my position if I try to live independent of Christ” [the end of Romans 7:25]:

 

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

 

Now the word, “I myself” in the Greek is “ego.”  But Paul did not use simply the word “ego,” he used another word, “autos ego,” which is much more emphatic than the English brings out.  It means, “Left to my own, in and of myself, apart from Christ.”  Whether before or after conversion it doesn’t matter, apart from Christ I am totally incapable of keeping the law in practice, because my flesh will only serve the law of sin, my human body will only serve the law of sin.  I can only keep the law in terms of desiring to keep it, delighting in it, and wanting to keep it, and choosing to keep it.  But in actual practice, I myself, left on my own, cannot keep it.

But we will discover when we go to Romans 8 that the righteousness of the law can be fulfilled in us if we walk no longer in the flesh, in our own strength, but in the Spirit.  And that’s the glorious picture of Romans 8.

But before we can go to Romans 8, I want to ask you one question:  Have you come to the conclusion that the great Apostle Paul came to, have you come to the position that “there is nothing good dwelling in me?”  Are you willing to say with Paul, “All those things that I have achieved, ever since I was a Christian, all those things that I thought would improve my standing before God, I am now willing to count it but dung and throw it away into the garbage pit, that I may find Christ, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but the righteousness which comes through faith, the righteousness of God, which is mine, made effective only by faith alone.”

My prayer is that you will wrestle with Romans 7 and realize that Paul is talking about you, about me, and saying, “Look fellows, if you want Christ to be your Righteousness, you have to say good-bye to all your confidence in yourself, and let Christ be your Righteousness.”

I hope that this will be true.  And when we take that position, I can assure you, we won’t have to promote for things.  As we walk in the spirit, the desire to live for self will go — not only the confidence, but the desire — and we will live for Christ.  It is my prayer that our young people will say that “Christianity is not dos and don’ts, but Christianity is Jesus Christ.  He’s everything to me.”

May God bless us as we wrestle with Romans 8 in the next study.  It’s dealing with a very difficult area; I want you to wrestle with it and look at what Paul is trying to say.  Because we have a Savior Who doesn’t only redeem us from our sins — thank God for that — He also delivers us from sin that dwells in me.  We have a complete Savior in Jesus Christ.  And that’s the Savior I want to present to you.  May God bless you.

[Robert]

 

 

Why is the man of Romans 7, who is failing to keep the spirit of the law, giving thanks to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord?

Answer: Because as a believer he has been "delivered from under law" (see Rom 7:6) because his corporate life "died to the law in the body of Christ" (see Rom 7:4) and therefore, even though he is not measuring up to the demands of the law "there is no condemnation" because of his position "in Christ" (see Romans 8:1

Now, can I support this with something from Ellen White? Absolutely!

The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their

1] filthy garments, their defective characters.

2] He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer.

He endeavors to affright them with the thought that their case is hopeless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed away. He hopes so to destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, and turn from their allegiance to God.

Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins that he has tempted God's people to commit, and he urges his accusations against them, declaring, that by their sins they have forfeited divine protection, and claiming that he has the right to destroy them. He pronounces them just as deserving as himself of exclusion from the favor of God. "Are these," he says, "the people who are to take my place in heaven, and the place of the angels who united with me?

3] They profess to obey the law of God; but have they kept its precepts? Have they not been lovers of self more than lovers of God?

4] Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world?

5] Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred of one another.

Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them."

But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves up to be controlled by the satanic agencies. They have repented of their sins and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin and also their penitence, declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands. They may have imperfections of character; they may have failed in their endeavors; but they have repented, and I have forgiven and accepted them." [P&K 588]

So even though they have self-seeking & self-love...even though they have selfishness, malice and hatred in their lives, they have not given themselves totally over to the devil and the flesh and therefore there's no condemnation!

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Here's another:

The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary; but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor who is at God’s right hand presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God. All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the merits of Christ’s propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned.

O, that all may see that everything in obedience, in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ. The fragrance of this righteousness ascends like a cloud around the mercy seat (Manuscript 50, 1900).

Did you get the emphasis of the above?  Even our "obedience" is polluted because of "the corrupt channels of humanity".  That's why Ellen stated the following:

Jesus stands in the holy of holies, now to appear in the presence of God for us. There He ceases not to present His people moment by moment, complete in Himself. But because we are thus represented before the Father, we are not to imagine that we are to presume upon His mercy and become careless, indifferent, and self-indulgent. Christ is not the minister of sin. We are complete in Him, accepted in the Beloved, only as we abide in Him by faith.

Perfection through our own good works we can never attain. The soul who sees Jesus by faith repudiates his own righteousness. He sees himself as incomplete, his repentance insufficient, his strongest faith but feebleness, his most costly sacrifice as meager, and he sinks in humility at the foot of the cross. But a voice speaks to him from the oracles of God’s Word. In amazement he hears the message, “Ye are complete in him” (Colossians 2:10). Now all is at rest in his soul. No longer must he strive to find some worthiness in himself, some meritorious deed by which to gain the favor of God. (The Signs of the Times July 4, 1892)

Did you notice the theme?  We are complete in Christ.  That's the gospel.  Our corporate humanity stands perfect, in Christ, before God and His holy law in the holy of holies!  That's good news, nay it's fantastic good news!

 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 Even if God were to give you total victory over sins — and I believe He can do that — you are still a sinner because your nature doesn’t change in sanctification.  All that changes is your character.  Therefore, you’re still a sinner and your only hope is the umbrella of justification by faith.

You see the law requires 3 things:

1] Perfect righteousness, i.e, righteousness without a flaw or blemish.  Only agape, no self-love.

2] A humanity free from "the law of sin" or "indwelling sin".  Hence a glorified humanity.

3] A humanity that has taken the curse of the law for failing to keep its holy demands.

Even if we stopped sinning today (and that's fine with me) we have a history of sinning, which destroys # 1.  So at best, if we lived perfect from here forward we are only obeying less than 33% of the law.  So ultimately it is the imputed righteousness of Christ that saves.

Then what is the function of good works? Good works are the result of resting in the finished work of Christ.  If you aren't resting, you are working and "by the works of the law no flesh will be justified"!  To be just is to stand before God and His holy law without fault, that is, blameless.  No one except Christ has fulfilled the law in all 3 requirements (see above).

Good works are used in the judgment, not to prove our righteousness (because here we "fall short"), but to prove our faith.  Once Christ proves our faith to the accuser (Satan) it gives Him the legal right to present us (our corporate humanity) perfect and blameless in Himself before His Father's law.

 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Jesus stands in the holy of holies, now to appear in the presence of God for us. There He ceases not to present His people moment by moment, complete in Himself. But because we are thus represented before the Father, we are not to imagine that we are to presume upon His mercy and become careless, indifferent, and self-indulgent. Christ is not the minister of sin. We are complete in Him, accepted in the Beloved, only as we abide in Him by faith.

Just because we stand perfect in Christ before God's holy law doesn't mean we should "indulge the flesh".  Justification of sin is not repentance of sin.

 If I say, "God made me this way" that's justifying sin.  For example, I could say, "God made all these beautiful women so that I could enjoy sex with all of them!" What am I doing?  Condoning and therefore practicing known sin.  

If I condone known sin, John says, I am "of the devil", that is, I am unconverted.  A practiced sin is one we live as a legitimate lifestyle day in and day  out. A good example of this is this push by the gay community to indulge in homosexual relationships. That's just one sin among many.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

 If  the messages came from God, then by disparaging the messages, aren't you disparaging God? 

The Bible is the final word.  Do you comprehend?

You like to do this, don't you?  Answer a question with a question.  How about you answer my question, and I'll answer yours. 

[pnattmbtc]

Then he does have a carnal mind?  He does not delight in God's law?  And lastly there is condemnation for the man of Romans 7?

I explained in the quote from N.T. Writght that Romans 8:1 is forward looking.  Paul states the germ of the argument, and then develops it.  It is the man of Romans 8 that is not under condemnation, for reasons which Paul explains, which, simplified, is simply that he lives by the Spirit rather than by the flesh.  The man in Romans 7 is living by the flesh, which is why he is in such a wretched condition.  Even though he has a desire in his mind to one thing, he does another.  Why?  Because he is not subject to the Spirit.

Here's the key point: The Spirit is more powerful than the flesh.  If we submit to the Spirit, then we will experience what Paul writes about in Romans 8 (also Galatians 5).  If the flesh overrides the Spirit, that (besides being illogical; surely God is more powerful than our flesh) would be not good news at all (it would be "another gospel"). 

[pnattmbtc]

  On June 26, 2015 3:15:14 PM, pnattmbtc said:

Please present some argument, and then ask me about that.  Don't ask me personal questions for which I have to read your mind to infer what your point is.  My personal experience has no bearing on the propositional logic involved in Scripture.

You quoted a Bible translation that stated "He who sins is of the devil". I asked you if you sin, but you evade my question.  I believe you see the conundrum that you are in and therefore refuse to answer.

I'm not refusing to answer in general, just under conditions.  I'm refusing to answer irrelevant personal questions.  If you explain the relevancy of the question, then I may answer a personal question.  But really, what does my personal life have to do with the truth of theological questions?  Present some sort of argument, and ask questions about that; that's a much better approach then delving into areas which are none of your business.  You don't even know me, and I'm surely not interested in writing about my personal life in a public forum.

Anyway, to get to your question, from a logical standpoint, if I am sinning in the sense of which John is speaking, then I am of the devil; if I'm not, than I'm not.  That's simple logic.  But I am not on trial; God is the judge, He hasn't given me this job to do.  And, once again, as I've pointed out a number of times, there is a context in which John is writing, and what John is talking about is clear as day, but jus reading a whole paragraph, for example, as opposed a part of a sentence.  I've explained in previous posts what the context is.

But to get back to the original point, let's consider what John said.  He writes:

By this we know that we are in Him: ⁶ the one who says heabides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. 

This is as clear as day.  And if you have any question what John is talking about, just continue to read:

 ⁹ The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. ¹⁰ The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. ¹¹ But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness hasblinded his eyes. 

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding Sequeria's explanation, I'd like to spend more time with this, but unfortunately may not for awhile (thanks for posting this), but a couple of quick thoughts.  One is regarding the "therefore".  There is a difference of opinion as to Paul's line of thought, and I'm in agreement with N. T. Wright's position here, which I quoted.

Regarding the scribal error, I disagree with the idea that it must be an error because Paul would be contradicting himself.  He would be contradicting the suggested interpretation, but that interpretation could be wrong; that's another possibility.  So this would be an interesting line of research, in regards to the manuscript used.

There is an argument that the older manuscripts are better, because they are older, but a counter-argument is that the reason they are older is because they weren't used, because they were known to be inferior.  So the ones that were accepted were used up, and recopied.  We don't have manuscripts which are as old, but they have a stronger tradition (the "textus receptus").  For example, consider the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.  The "better manuscripts" don't have this story.  So did it really happen? Is it a part of Scripture?  How should be think of it?  Once we start questioning what should be in a text, especially if the reason is because it doesn't agree with our interpretation of what we think the text should say, that could be a slippery slope.

[pnattmbtc]

But modern research is coming to the conclusion more and more that Paul is speaking of neither the converted nor the unconverted.  He has one thing in mind:  the person who tries to live a good life independent of God.  And that can apply to the believer or the unbeliever.

I agree with this. 

[pnattmbtc]

The reason why I’m emphasizing this is because I want to make something very clear which is the plain teaching of the New Testament.  Even if God were to give you total victory over sins — and I believe He can do that — you are still a sinner because your nature doesn’t change in sanctification.  All that changes is your character.  Therefore, you’re still a sinner and your only hope is the umbrella of justification by faith.

This is problematic.  If we believe that Christ took our fallen nature, then this argument would apply to Him as well, and, by the same logic, He would be a sinner.  So it cannot be the case that our being a sinner is derived from our nature, unless we wish to argue that Christ did not take a sinful nature. 

[pnattmbtc]

There are a couple of things in what Sequeira wrote which are, at least, not as accurate as they could be.  For example:

Please remember that there is no change that takes place to your nature when you experience the new birth.  There is a change in your mind, in your attitude, you have experienced the new birth.  But there is no change to your nature.  The nature of a believer and the nature of an unbeliever are identical. 

The word "nature" is an ambiguous work, by which I mean it can mean many different things.  From the context here, it is clear that what Sequeira means is "flesh," and that would have been a better word to use.  Because, when were are converted, our nature, as this term is commonly used and understood, does change; it is our flesh which doesn't change.  And that our nature, as the term is commonly understood, does change is an important point.

If you look at Paul's argument, you can see that it has to do with living under the spirit of the law (a point which Paul develops later in the epistle) as opposed to the written code.  So the idea is, apart from Christ, one's experience is "under the law", and experience of failure, because the spirit (or Spirit) is missing, and only the written code is under consideration.  But the law is spiritual, and so leaving out the spirit can only lead to failure, a point which Paul makes clear in Romans 8, where he contrasts living under the spirit vs. under the flesh.

Another point of ambiguity is that Sequeira is writing as if something happened in regards to a point of time, which cannot be the case, because there were converted people at all times, and what Paul is writing about in regards to the flesh and the spirit (or Spirit) was as true for them as for us.  In other words, the experience of conversion is the same (other than we have more light) for those who lived before Paul wrote (or before Christ died) as after.  Conversion has always been about believing in Christ (which Paul argues by his argument with Abraham) and for such, the law has always been a spiritual thing, and these have experienced what Paul wrote about in Romans 8.  So Romans 8 was not a new thing in terms of the experience of humanity, but had always been the case for those who have been converted.

I'm sure Sequeira would be agree with this, but his mode of expression could lead one to believe there was a time element involved.

[pnattmbtc]

Just because we stand perfect in Christ before God's holy law doesn't mean we should "indulge the flesh".  Justification of sin is not repentance of sin.

 If I say, "God made me this way" that's justifying sin.  For example, I could say, "God made all these beautiful women so that I could enjoy sex with all of them!" What am I doing?  Condoning and therefore practicing known sin.  

If I condone known sin, John says, I am "of the devil", that is, I am unconverted.  A practiced sin is one we live as a legitimate lifestyle day in and day  out. A good example of this is this push by the gay community to indulge in homosexual relationships. That's just one sin among many.

I agree with this, but if I had written it, it seems like you would have called it "perfectionism" and "legalism".  So why the change?

What have we been talking about if not condoning known sin?  What is it that you are disagreeing with? 

[Robert]

The Spirit is more powerful than the flesh.  If we submit to the Spirit, then we will experience what Paul writes about in Romans 8 (also Galatians 5).  If the flesh overrides the Spirit, that (besides being illogical; surely God is more powerful than our flesh) would be not good news at all (it would be "another gospel"). 

You make sanctification the means of justification.  This is subtle legalism and it is "another gospel".