The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum question on romans 7

I've come cross a few calvinistic writers(Reymond, Schreiner, etc) who hold that the Romans 7 man is uncoverted. However, to me this seems to be incosistent with the reformed view of Total D, Doctrine of moritification,etc. What do you guys think??<br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos

Carlos,<br><br>When I read that chapter, I understand it to have been written by Paul as a believer looking back to when he was not converted AND after he was converted. What we see there is a 'mini-history' of Paul's life in regard to the struggle with and against sin from before God regenerated him up to his present time. Perhaps that's enough said at this time? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Pilgrim,<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]When I read that chapter, I understand it to have been written by Paul as a believer looking back to when he was not converted AND after he was converted. What we see there is a 'mini-history' of Paul's life in regard to the struggle with and against sin from before God regenerated him up to his present time. Perhaps that's enough said at this time?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>[color:red]AMEN</font color=red><br> I'm just puzzled by those who say that they are reformed and yet deny this meaning of the passage. How can one hold to total depravity and them claim that this is not a beliver(.ie verses 14-25)?<br><br>Carlos

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]How can one hold to total depravity and them claim that this is not a believer, (e.g., verses 14-25)?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Hmmmm, INCONSISTENTLY?

Calvin had some interesting reflections:<br><br>For we know that the law, etc. He now begins more closely to compare the law with what man is, that it may be more clearly understood whence the evil of death proceeds. He then sets before us an example in a regenerate man, in whom the remnants of the flesh are wholly contrary to the law of the Lord, while the spirit would gladly obey it. But first, as we have said, he makes only a comparison between nature and the law. Since in human things there is no greater discord than between spirit and flesh, the law being spiritual and man carnal, what agreement can there be between the natural man and the law? Even the same as between darkness and light. But by calling the law spiritual, he not only means, as some expound the passage, that it requires the inward affections of the heart; but that, by way of contrast, it has a contrary import to the word carnal. These interpreters give this explanation,The law is spiritual, that is, it binds not only the feet and hands as to external works, but regards the feelings of the heart, and requires the real fear of God.”<br><br>But here a contrast is evidently set forth between the flesh and the spirit. And further, it is sufficiently clear from the context, and it has been in fact already shown, that under the term flesh is included whatever men bring from the womb; and flesh is what men are called, as they are born, and as long as they retain their natural character; for as they are corrupt, so they neither taste nor desire anything but what is gross and earthly. Spirit, on the contrary, is renewed nature, which God forms anew after his own image. And this mode of speaking is adopted on this account — because the newness which is wrought in us is the gift of the Spirit.<br><br>The perfection then of the doctrine of the law is opposed here to the corrupt nature of man: hence the meaning is as follows, The law requires a celestial and an angelic righteousness, in which no spot is to appear, to whose clearness nothing is to be wanting: but I am a carnal man, who can do nothing but oppose it. But the exposition of Origen, which indeed has been approved by many before our time, is not worthy of being refuted; he says, that the law is called spiritual by Paul, because the Scripture is not to be understood literally. What has this to do with the present subject?<br><br>Sold under sin. By this clause he shows what flesh is in itself; for man by nature is no less the slave of sin, than those bondmen, bought with money, whom their masters ill treat at their pleasure, as they do their oxen and their asses. We are so entirely controlled by the power of sin, that the whole mind, the whole heart, and all our actions are under its influence. Compulsion I always except, for we sin spontaneously, as it would be no sin, were it not voluntary. But we are so given up to sin, that we can do willingly nothing but sin; for the corruption which bears rule within us thus drives us onward. Hence this comparison does not import, as they say, a forced service, but a voluntary obedience, which an inbred bondage inclines us to render.<br><br>For what I do I know not, etc. He now comes to a more particular case, that of a man already regenerated; in whom both the things which he had in view appear more clearly; and these were, — the great discord there is between the Law of God and the natural man, — and how the law does not of itself produce death. For since the carnal man rushes into sin with the whole propensity of his mind, he seems to sin with such a free choice, as though it were in his power to govern himself; so that a most pernicious opinion has prevailed almost among all men — that man, by his own natural strength, without the aid of Divine grace, can choose what he pleases. But though the will of a faithful man is led to good by the Spirit of God, yet in him the corruption of nature appears conspicuously; for it obstinately resists and leads to what is contrary. Hence the case of a regenerated man is the most suitable; for by this you may know how much is the contrariety between our nature and the righteousness of the law. From this case, also, a proof as to the other clause may more fitly be sought, than from the mere consideration of human nature; for the law, as it produces only death in a man wholly carnal, is in him more easily impeached, for it is doubtful whence the evil proceeds. In a regenerate man it brings forth salutary fruits; and hence it appears, that it is the flesh only that prevents it from giving life: so far it is from producing death of itself.<br><br>That the whole, then, of this reasoning may be more fully and more distinctly understood, we must observe, that this conflict, of which the Apostle speaks, does not exist in man before he is renewed by the Spirit of God: for man, left to his own nature, is wholly borne along by his lusts without any resistance; for though the ungodly are tormented by the stings of conscience, and cannot take such delight in their vices, but that they have some taste of bitterness; yet you cannot hence conclude, either that evil is hated, or that good is loved by them; only the Lord permits them to be thus tormented, in order to show to them in a measure his judgment; but not to imbue them either with the love of righteousness or with the hatred of sin.<br><br>There is then this difference between them and the faithful — that they are never so blinded and hardened, but that when they are reminded of their crimes, they condemn them in their own conscience; for knowledge is not so utterly extinguished in them, but that they still retain the difference between right and wrong; and sometimes they are shaken with such dread under a sense of their sin, that they bear a kind of condemnation even in this life: nevertheless they approve of sin with all their heart, and hence give themselves up to it without any feeling of genuine repugnance; for those stings of conscience, by which they are harassed, proceed from opposition in the judgment, rather than from any contrary inclination in the will. The godly, on the other hand, in whom the regeneration of God is begun, are so divided, that with the chief desire of the heart they aspire to God, seek celestial righteousness, hate sin, and yet they are drawn down to the earth by the relics of their flesh: and thus, while pulled in two ways, they fight against their own nature, and nature fights against them; and they condemn their sins, not only as being constrained by the judgment of reason, but because they really in their hearts abominate them, and on their account loathe themselves. This is the Christian conflict between the flesh and the spirit of which Paul speaks in Galatians 5:17.<br><br>It has therefore been justly said, that the carnal man runs headlong into sin with the approbation and consent of the whole soul; but that a division then immediately begins for the first time, when he is called by the Lord and renewed by the Spirit. For regeneration only begins in this life; the relics of the flesh which remain, always follow their own corrupt propensities, and thus carry on a contest against the Spirit.<br><br>The inexperienced, who consider not the subject which the Apostle handles, nor the plan which he pursues, imagine, that the character of man by nature is here described; and indeed there is a similar description of human nature given to us by the Philosophers: but Scripture philosophizes much deeper; for it finds that nothing has remained in the heart of man but corruption, since the time in which Adam lost the image of God. So when the Sophisters wish to define free-will, or to form an estimate of what the power of nature can do, they fix on this passage. But Paul, as I have said already, does not here set before us simply the natural man, but in his own person describes what is the weakness of the faithful, and how great it is. Augustine was for a time involved in the common error; but after having more clearly examined the passage, he not only retracted what he had falsely taught, but in his first book to Boniface, he proves, by many strong reasons, that what is said cannot be applied to any but to the regenerate. And we shall now endeavor to make our readers clearly to see that such is the case.<br><br>I know not. He means that he acknowledges not as his own the works which he did through the weakness of the flesh, for he hated them. And so Erasmus has not unsuitably given this rendering, “approve not,” (non probo.) We hence conclude, that the doctrine of the law is so consentaneous to right judgment, that the faithful repudiate the transgression of it as a thing wholly unreasonable. But as Paul seems to allow that he teaches otherwise than what the law prescribes, many interpreters have been led a astray, and have thought that he had assumed the person of another; hence has arisen the common error, that the character of an unregenerate man is described throughout this portion of the chapter. But Paul, under the idea of transgressing the law, includes all the defects of the godly, which are not inconsistent with the fear of God or with the endeavor of acting uprightly. And he denies that he did what the law demanded, for this reason, because he did not perfectly fulfil it, but somewhat failed in his effort.<br><br>For not what 1 desire, etc. You must not understand that it was always the case with him, that he could not do good; but what he complains of is only this — that he could not perform what he wished, so that he pursued not what was good with that alacrity which was meet, because he was held in a manner bound, and that he also failed in what he wished to do, because he halted through the weakness of the flesh. Hence the pious mind performs not the good it desires to do, because it proceeds not with due activity, and doeth the evil which it would not; for while it desires to stand, it falls, or at least it staggers. But the expressions to will and not to will must be applied to the Spirit, which ought to hold the first place in all the faithful. The flesh indeed has also its own will, but Paul calls that the will which is the chief desire of the heart; and that which militates with it he represents as being contrary to his will.<br><br>We may hence learn the truth of what we have stated — that Paul speaks here of the faithful, in whom the grace of the Spirit exists, which brings an agreement between the mind and the righteousness of the law; for no hatred of sin is to be found in the flesh.<br><br>But if what I desire not, I do, I consent to the law, etc.; that is, When my heart acquiesces in the law, and is delighted with its righteousness, (which certainly is the case when it hates the transgression of it,) it then perceives and acknowledges the goodness of the law, so that we are fully convinced, experience itself being our teacher, that no evil ought to be imputed to the law; nay, that it would be salutary to men, were it to meet with upright and pure hearts;” But this consent is not to be understood to be the same with what we have heard exists in the ungodly, who have expressed words of this kind, ;I see better things and approve of them; I follow the worse” Again, ;What is hurtful I follow; I shun what I believe would be profitable;” For these act under a constraint when they subscribe to the righteousness of God, as their will is wholly alienated from it, but the godly man consents to the law with the real and most cheerful desire of his heart; for he wishes nothing more than to mount up to heaven. <br><br> Now it is no more I who do it, etc. This is not the pleading of one excusing himself, as though he was blameless, as the case is with many triflers who think that they have a sufficient defense to cover all their wickedness, when they cast the blame on the flesh; but it is a declaration, by which he shows how very far he dissented from his own flesh in his spiritual feeling; for the faithful are carried along in their obedience to God with such fervour of spirit that they deny the flesh.<br><br>This passage also clearly shows, that Paul speaks here of none but of the godly, who have been already born again; for as long as man remains like himself, whatsoever he may be, he is justly deemed corrupt; but Paul here denies that he is wholly possessed by sin; nay, he declares himself to be exempt from its bondage, as though he had said, that sin only dwelt in some part of his soul, while with an earnest feeling of heart he strove for and aspired after the righteousness of God, and clearly proved that he had the law of God engraven within him.<br><br>For I know, etc. He says that no good by nature dwelt in him. Then in me, means the same as though he had said, So far as it regards myself” In the first part he indeed arraigns himself as being wholly depraved, for he confesses that no good dwelt in him; and then he subjoins a modification, lest he should slight the grace of God which also dwelt in him, but was no part of his flesh. And here again he confirms the fact, that he did not speak of men in general, but of the faithful, who are divided into two parts — the relics of the flesh, and grace. For why was the modification made, except some part was exempt from depravity, and therefore not flesh? Under the term flesh, he ever includes all that human nature is, everything in man, except the sanctification of the Spirit. In the same manner, by the term spirit, which is commonly opposed to the flesh, he means that part of the soul which the Spirit of God has so re-formed, and purified from corruption, that God’s image shines forth in it. Then both terms, flesh as well as spirit, belong to the soul; but the latter to that part which is renewed, and the former to that which still retains its natural character. <br><br>To will is present, etc. He does not mean that he had nothing but an ineffectual desire, but his meaning is, that the work really done did not correspond to his will; for the flesh hindered him from doing perfectly what he did. So also understand what follows, The evil I desire not, that I do: for the flesh not only impedes the faithful, so that they can not run swiftly, but it sets also before them many obstacles at which they stumble. Hence they do not, because they accomplish not, what they would, with the alacrity that is meet. This, to will, then, which he mentions, is the readiness of faith, when the Holy Spirit so prepares the godly that they are ready and strive to render obedience to God; but as their ability is not equal to what they wish, Paul says, that he found not what he desired, even the accomplishment of the good he aimed at.<br><br>The same view is to be taken of the expression which next follows, — that he did not the good which he desired, but, on the contrary, the evil which he desired not: for the faithful, however rightly they may be influenced, are yet so conscious of their own infirmity, that they can deem no work proceeding from them as blameless. For as Paul does not here treat of some of the faults of the godly, but delineates in general the whole course of their life, we conclude that their best works are always stained with some blots of sin, so that no reward can be hoped, unless God pardons them.<br><br>He at last repeats the sentiment, — that, as far as he was endued with celestial light, he was a true witness and subscriber to the righteousness of the law. It hence follows, that had the pure integrity of our nature remained, the law would not have brought death on us, and that it is not adverse to the man who is endued with a sound and right mind and abhors sin. But to restore health is the work of our heavenly Physician.<br><br>I find then, etc. Here Paul supposes a fourfold law. The first is the law of God, which alone is properly so called, which is the rule of righteousness, by which our life is rightly formed. To this he joins the law of the mind, and by this he means the prompt readiness of the faithful mind to render obedience to the divine law, it being a certain conformity on our part with the law of God. On the other hand, he sets in opposition to this the law of unrighteousness; and according to a certain kind of similarity, he gives this name to that dominion which iniquity exercises over a man not yet regenerated, as well as over the flesh of a regenerated man; for the laws even of tyrants, however iniquitous they may be, are called laws, though not properly. To correspond with this law of sin he makes the law of the members, that is, the lust which is in the members, on account of the concord it has with iniquity.<br><br>As to the first clause, many interpreters take the word law in its proper sense, and consider; to be understood; and so Erasmus renders it, “by the law;” as though Paul had said, that he, by the law of God as his teacher and guide, had found out that his sin was innate. But without supplying anything, the sentence would run better thus,While the faithful strive after what is good, they find in themselves a certain law which exercises a tyrannical power; for a vicious propensity, adverse to and resisting the law of God, is implanted in their very marrow and bones.”<br><br>For I consent ; to the law of God, etc. Here then you see what sort of division there is in pious souls, from which arises that contest between the spirit and the flesh, which Augustine in some place calls the Christian struggle (luctam Christianam.) The law calls man to the rule of righteousness; iniquity, which is, as it were, the tyrannical law of Satan, instigates him to wickedness: the Spirit leads him to render obedience to the divine law; the flesh draws him back to what is of an opposite character. Man, thus impelled by contrary desires, is now in a manner a twofold being; but as the Spirit ought to possess the sovereignty, he deems and judges himself to be especially on that side. Paul says, that he was bound a captive by his flesh for this reason, because as he was still tempted and incited by evil lusts; he deemed this a coercion with respect to the spiritual desire, which was wholly opposed to them.<br><br>But we ought to notice carefully the meaning of the inner man and of the members; which many have not rightly understood, and have therefore stumbled at this stone. The inner man then is not simply the soul, but that spiritual part which has been regenerated by God; and the members signify the other remaining part; for as the soul is the superior, and the body the inferior part of man, so the spirit is superior to the flesh. Then as the spirit takes the place of the soul in man, and the flesh, which is the corrupt and polluted soul, that of the body, the former has the name of the inner man, and the latter has the name of members. The inner man has indeed a different meaning in 2 Corinthians 4:16; but the circumstances of this passage require the interpretation which I have given: and it is called the inner by way of excellency; for it possesses the heart and the secret feelings, while the desires of the flesh are vagrant, and are, as it were, on the outside of man. Doubtless it is the same thing as though one compared heaven to earth; for Paul by way of contempt designates whatever appears to be in man by the term members, that he might clearly show that the hidden renovation is concealed from and escapes our observation, except it be apprehended by faith.<br><br>Now since the law of the mind undoubtedly means a principle rightly formed, it is evident that this passage is very absurdly applied to men not yet regenerated; for such, as Paul teaches us, are destitute of mind, inasmuch as their soul has become degenerated from reason.<br><br>Miserable, etc. He closes his argument with a vehement exclamation, by which he teaches us that we are not only to struggle with our flesh, but also with continual groaning to bewail within ourselves and before God our unhappy condition. But he asks not by whom he was to be delivered, as one in doubt, like unbelievers, who understand not that there is but one real deliverer: but it is the voice of one panting and almost fainting, because he does not find immediate help, as he longs for. And he mentions the word rescue, in order that he might show, that for his liberation no ordinary exercise of divine power was necessary.<br><br>By the body of death he means the whole mass of sin, or those ingredients of which the whole man is composed; except that in him there remained only relics, by the captive bonds of which he was held. The pronoun ôïýôïõ this, which I apply, as Erasmus does, to the body, may also be fitly referred to death, and almost in the same sense; for Paul meant to teach us, that the eyes of God’s children are opened, so that through the law of God they wisely discern the corruption of their nature and the death which from it proceeds. But the word body means the same as the external man and members; for Paul points out this as the origin of evil, that man has departed from the law of his creation, and has become thus carnal and earthly. For though he still excels brute beasts, yet his true excellency has departed from him, and what remains in him is full of numberless corruptions so that his soul, being degenerated, may be justly said to have passed into a body. So God says by Moses,<br><br>No more shall my Spirit contend with man, for he is even flesh,” Genesis 6:3)<br><br>thus stripping man of his spiritual excellency, he compares him, by way of reproach, to the brute creation. <br><br>This passage is indeed remarkably fitted for the purpose of beating down all the glory of the flesh; for Paul teaches us, that the most perfect, as long as they dwell in the flesh, are exposed to misery, for they are subject to death; nay, when they thoroughly examine themselves, they find in their own nature nothing but misery. And further, lest they should indulge their torpor, Paul, by his own example, stimulates them to anxious groanings, and bids them, as long as they sojourn on earth, to desire death, as the only true remedy to their evils; and this is the right object in desiring death. Despair does indeed drive the profane often to such a wish; but they strangely desire death, because they are weary of the present life, and not because they loathe their iniquity. But it must be added, that though the faithful level at the true mark, they are not yet carried away by an unbridled desire in wishing for death, but submit themselves to the will of God, to whom it behoves us both to live and to die: hence they clamor not with displeasure against God, but humbly deposit their anxieties in his bosom; for they do not so dwell on the thoughts of their misery, but that being mindful of grace received, they blend their grief with joy, as we find in what follows.<br><br>1 thank God; etc. He then immediately subjoined this thanksgiving, lest any should think that in his complaint he perversely murmured against God; for we know how easy even in legitimate grief is the transition to discontent and impatience. Though Paul then bewailed his lot, and sighed for his departure, he yet confesses that he acquiesced in the good pleasure of God; for it does not become the saints, while examining their own defects, to forget what they have already received from God. <br><br>But what is suflicient to bridle impatience and to cherish resignation, is the thought, that they have been received under the protection of God, that they may never perish, and that they have already been favored with the first-fruits of the Spirit, which make certain their hope of the eternal inheritance. Though they enjoy not as yet the promised glory of heaven, at the same time, being content with the measure which they have obtained, they are never without reasons for joy.<br>So I myself, etc. A short epilogue, in which he teaches us, that the faithful never reach the goal of righteousness as long as they dwell in the flesh, but that they are running their course, until they put off the body. He again gives the name of mind, not to the rational part of the soul which philosophers extol, but to that which is illuminated by the Spirit of God, so that it understands and wills aright: for there is a mention made not of the understanding alone, but connected with it is the earnest desire of the heart. However, by the exception he makes, he confesses, that he was devoted to God in such a manner, that while creeping on the earth he was defiled with many corruptions. This is a suitable passage to disprove the most pernicious dogma of the Purists, (Catharorum,) which some turbulent spirits attempt to revive at the present day. <br><br>Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: Romans. electronic ed. Logos Library System;Calvin's Commentaries, Ro 7:24-25. Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998.

How can one hold to total depravity and them claim that this is not a beliver(.ie verses 14-25)?<br><br>I think this certainly pertains to Paul the believer. However, one could hold to total depravity and yet still say this refers back to his unregenerate days.<br><br>For example, if I talk about how sinful I was when I was an unregenerate, I am telling the truth. In no way am I denying that I am sinful now! And I think (hope?) some of the folks who say this passage refers back to Paul's unregenerate days think the same way, that Paul is not saying he is perfect or sinless now, but that he merely is reflecting back to a sinful time in his life. <br><br>Steve

Greetings Pilgrim,<br><br>Good summary. I have always understood the latter part of his struggle as post-conversion as well, particularly because of Romans 8:7:<br><br>Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.<br><br>However, one thing that is difficult exegetically is to identify the point at which Paul switches from pre-conversion to post-conversion in Romans 7. Do you have an opinion on where that might take place?<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]some of the folks who say this passage refers back to Paul's unregenerate days think the same way, that Paul is not saying he is perfect or sinless now, but that he merely is reflecting back to a sinful time in his life. <br></font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I understand what you are saying, but then how does uregenerate "Delight" in the law of god...Desire to do Good,etc. suc as the various characteristics that are laid out by Paul there. To me, that does not square with TD.<br><br>Carlos

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]However, one thing that is difficult exegetically is to identify the point at which Paul switches from pre-conversion to post-conversion in Romans 7. Do you have an opinion on where that might take place?</font><hr></blockquote><p>I don't find a clear "line" drawn in the text to distinguish between pre-conversion and post-conversion as I believe they are intermixed. For example in vv. 7-13 we find Paul, speaking as converted, having the knowledge of spiritual things and describing his experience as a former unbeliever and his relationship to the law and how the law was pressed upon his consciousness after having been given the new nature, by which he was able to recognize and experience the conviction which the law brought upon him, etc. However, I would definitely say that from verse 14 onward, it is Paul speaking in the present tense and describing his daily struggle with the remnants of the sin nature and his true desire to live a holy life according to the law of God, which he says is "spiritual" (v. 14), "good" (v. 16), "a delight" (v. 22), and something to be served (v. 25).<br><br>In His Grace,

how does uregenerate "Delight" in the law of god<br><br>Would not a Pharisee have delighted in the law of God, and desired to do good?<br><br>Steve

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Would not a Pharisee have delighted in the law of God, and desired to do good?

---

In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]However, I would definitely say that from verse 14 onward, it is Paul speaking in the present tense...</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Thanks Pilgrim, what you said above here is how I have detected the shift of emphasis as well. Again, thanks for those thoughts.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason

That is how I have always read that passage. If one treats this passage the way one would, say, a spiritual conversation with a friend at the kitchen counter with a cup of coffee, the meaning is clear, IMO.

Here are the arguments from Dr. Reymond who supports the non-christian view of rom. 7<br>Let me know what y'all think. [i've always wanted to say that [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]].<br><br><br>1. The Shift of verb tense from the past to the present at 7:14 in no way effects the autobiographical character of 7:14-25. Nor must the present tenses in 7:14-25 necessarily indicate Paul's experience at the time he is writing Romans as the mature Christian apostle and missionary. <br><br>2. The man describes himself as "Carnal", which according to 8:6 is descriptive of the state of spiritual death.<br><br>3. The man says of himself that he has been "sold as a slave to sin"( 7:14), that is, he is a slave of sin, which is descriptive only of the unregenerate man. Regenerate persons "use to be slaves of sin"(rom 6:17,20) but now "have been set from sin" and have now become "slaves of righteousness" (6:18,22). They, 'were controlled by the sinful nature' (7:5), but now "are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit (8:9), "having died to what once bound them"(rom 7:6). They did "live according to the sinful nature" (8:4), but now they are living "according to the Spirit (8:4), and the law's requirements are being "fully met" in them (8:4).<br><br>4. The man says of himself that his members are being mastered by "indwelling sin"(7:17,20). This is not true of the Christian for he is governed by the "indwelling Spirit"; if he is not governed, he is not a Christian at all (8:9,11)!<br><br>5. THe man says of himself that "in me...dwells no good thing(7:18), which is not true of the Christian for the Spirit of God dwells within him (8:9,11). <br><br>6. The man says of himself that a "law [of sin]" within him is "waging war against the law of his mind and making him a prisoner of the law of sin at work within his members(7:23). Here again he stresses his slavery to sin which is no true of the Christian (6:14), for the gospel has "liberated[him] from teh law of sin and eath"(8:2).<br><br>7. The man continually does, indeed, actually practices, what he does not want to do. In sum, the man in this passage is enslaved by indwelling sin and sees his state as "Wretched" and his body as the sphere in which sin is operative unto death (7:24). This is not true of the Christian nor can this be descriptive of the Christian.<br><br>8.It may be legitimately be said that throughout his life as a self-righteous Pharisee he "Delighted in the law of God with his mind". Paul also declared that the Jewish nation was "pursuing" a righteousness of its won through law-keeping (romn 9:31-32). Apparently, then, unregenerate pople can sincerely desire to be obedient to the law. Their problem, as the passage teaches, is their impotence to do what they want to do or know to be right.<br><br>9.Romasn 7:25b is either "<br> A conclusion descriptive of the unconverted but deeply convicted Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, struggling to obey the law in his own power, with the preceding "thanks be God" phrase (7:25a) being the regenerate Paul simply interjecting into the flow of his argument as he occasionally does an anacoluthonic praise statement from his vantage point as a Christian( Ephe. 2:5), highlighting where he found the solutuion to his struggle." <br> or the view is <br> "Thanks be to God should be construed as essential part of Paul's statement making the point in the flow of his argument when he was converted and thus the point at which his nonvictorious struggle with sin's power ceased."<br><br>10. The man in Romans 7:14-25 is struglling against sin's power and he desires to Obey God's law. But is utterly defeated by the power of indwelling sin. This is not true of the Christian who, while he too experiences a struggle against sin (Gal 5:16-18), is described as victorious in his struggle against sin's power because of his new master, the indwelling Spirit of Christ.<br><br><br><br>