Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 10)

by Danny Pelichowski

Contextual Arguments Against the Reformed View: "Tense"

It cannot be overemphasized that Romans 6-8 is written by Paul to Christians about the Christian life. In Romans 7:7-13 Paul speaks in the first person past tense to describe his pre-Christian experience in order to vindicate false charges against the law. And in Romans 7:14-25 Paul changes tenses to the first person present to discuss the spirituality of the law and its relation to his own sinfulness and inability to live in perfect obedience to the fulfilled law of Christ as a Christian. The issue of tense in this passage has been addressed by interpreters opposing the reformed view. For example Daryl Wingerd states that “the switch to the first-person present-tense must be explained as a literary device, perhaps designed to help the reader “personalize” the experience, rather than a chronological shift to Paul’s present experience.”[33] This argument is multiplied by many who share his conviction that although it cannot be denied that Paul is speaking in the first person present, this passage absolutely cannot be describing Paul’s present experience as a mature believer in Christ. The explanation that this first person present tense passage is not as it seems but is really a literary devise is not in the least persuasive given the context of Romans 7:7-25. J.I. Packer explains that “the change from the aorist to the present tense at verse 14 remains unaccounted for. On this view, the change is exceedingly unnatural, occurring as it does in the middle of a passage which ex hypothesi, is dealing with a single unit of experience, and one, moreover, which is now past and gone. There is nothing comparable in Paul, and the use of the historic present in the gospels to give vividness to narrative does not provide a parallel, for here the narrative part is in the aorist, and what is in the present is not narrative, but generalized explanatory comment.”[34]

The Absurdity of the Non-Reformed View

The last point that will be made in terms of overall tense and context issues is the absurdity of the non-reformed view. As shown above, this view pictures Paul writing as a believer (from a Christian perspective) in the first person present tense about his pre-Christian experience. So we are to believe that Paul uses the personal pronouns “I am” to describe not himself at the time of writing but his past experience. Why Paul does not simply continue to use the past tense pronouns “I was” he used in verses 7-13 is still an unsolved mystery. And if this interpretation weren’t confusing enough it unconvincingly continues to attempt to evade yet another problem in verse 25 making this interpretation all the more absurd. Romans 7:24-25a says “wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Daryl Wingerd states that “this exclamation could have easily been intended by Paul the Christian as joyful parenthesis in the middle of recounting his pre-conversion despair.”[35] This interpretation is many things, but it is certainly not “easy” as Daryl Wingerd asserts. For the sake of “vividness” the argument will be summarized once again so that no confusion remains about the absurdity of this view. In this view Paul from his Christian perspective writes using present tense personal pronouns “I am” in order to describe his pre-Christian past experience as an unbeliever in verses 14-24. Paul then as a Christian inserts his present Christian understanding and answers his past problem in verse 25a “thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Paul then concludes in the first person present tense describing his past pre-conversion experience in verse 25b “so then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” This interpretation begins with the regenerate Paul discussing his unregenerate life in the first person, then moves to his regenerate answer to the problem in the same tense, and finally concludes back with an unregenerate description still in the present tense. It is amazing how far one’s presupposition of the impossibility of a certain undesired conclusion will take a person in order to justify a faulty interpretation.

The issue here of tense and context in this passage is one of the major problems that must be seriously considered before deciding which side of the Romans 7 debate you end up on. Other non-reformed interpretations of the context of this passage have been considered above and were found errant.[36] The issue of the tense changes in this passage is even more problematic for the non-reformed view than the earlier mentioned objections because their interpretation requires questionable exegesis to even begin to assert that Romans 7:14-25 is Paul as an unbeliever. In light of the inadequacy of the non reformed interpretation and due to the obvious and persuasive tense and context arguments for the reformed view of Romans 7 we could in theory end the discussion now confident that this passage is written by the apostle Paul speaking as a mature believer about his struggle with indwelling sin. However, for the sake of being even more certain about the validity of the reformed view of Romans 7 we will continue with arguments on both sides of the debate.
_______________________________
33. Daryl Wingerd. "Why Romans 7:14-25 Cannot Describe the Christian Life" Accessed 10 November 2009. Available from http://www.ccwtoday.org. pg. 6
34. J.I. Packer Keep in Step with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books 2005), 224
35. Daryl Wingerd. "Why Romans 7:14-25 Cannot Descibe the Christian Life" pg. 17
36. See the discussion of the question and answers argument as well as the discussion of Doug Moo's objections to the reformed view.

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 9)

by Danny Pelichowski

The Passage of Full Mention

It was stated in the thesis that Romans 7:14-25 is the passage of full mention dealing with the topic of remaining sin in the Christian life. This passage addresses why Christians still continue to sin even though they are no longer slaves to sin. It also deals with how a Christian should cope and understand temptations and inclinations to evil when they are inevitably confronted by them. A Christian can find other passages that teach the reality of remaining sin without Romans 7:14-25 but their understanding will be greatly deficient. Interpreters who fail to teach that this portion of Scripture is a description of a mature Christian have an incomplete and unbalanced view of the Christian life. They tend to emphasize the positive aspects of sanctification and have little to say about temptation and remaining fleshly inclination to sin that Christians daily experience. Removing this passage from the Christians understanding of life would be like taking away Romans chapters 4-5 for our understanding of justification. The Christian would be able to find teaching throughout scripture on justification elsewhere but removing the passage of full mention dealing with justification would be irresponsible and devastatingly harming.

Opposing Evangelical Views

There are two similar evangelical views that Christians take in understanding that the man in Romans 7:14-25 is not a mature believer. The first view has been briefly addressed above and teaches that the man in this passage is Paul as an unbelieving pious Jew delighting in the law but unable to keep it. It was argued that neither Paul nor Jesus had a category for a so called “pious” Jew. Instead they expressed that pharisaical Jews do not understand nor delight in the law of God because they are incapable of doing so as unbelievers under the condemnation of God.

Another similar view is most popularly presented by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He distinguishes that the language in this passage is not speaking of the typical unregenerate person nor can it be speaking of the Christian. In describing Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ position of the identity of the man in Romans 7 Dr. James Montgomery Boice observes that “Lloyd-Jones… is speaking of one who has been awakened to his personal lawlessness and spiritual inability by the Holy Spirit but who has not yet been made a participator in the new life of Jesus Christ.”[29] Pastor Charles Leiter articulates this same view by saying, “the man described in Romans 7:7-25 is not the typical lost “man on the street,” who knows nothing of the spirituality or real desirability of the law. The man in Romans 7:7-25 is the man to whom “the commandment has come.”[30] Also the reformed theologian Dr. Robert Reymond argues this exact point contra his reformed tradition contending that “Paul intended to employ his experience as the unconverted Saul of Tarsus, aroused from his spiritual torpor, convicted by the reality of his sinfulness, and struggling even more than before to please God through his efforts at law-keeping, as an illustration of the impotence of the law to sanctify the unregenerate heart and the frustration unto death that any and every unregenerate person will experience who would sincerely seek to achieve a righteousness before God on the basis of his own law-keeping.”[31]

The Conversion of the Apostle Paul

The same criticism given against the “pious Jew” position can be applied here especially the fact that there are no two tier unregenerate persons described in the Bible. Furthermore, when we observe the radical and immediate conversion of Paul on the Damascus road the view is highly doubtful. In Acts 9 Saul of Tarsus is scheming a plan to further persecute Christians when he is met by Jesus who blinds him and sends Ananias to explain the gospel to him. Luke recounts Ananius’ confrontation with Paul in Acts 9:17b-19 “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened.” There is not an intermediate section of Paul’s testimony where he desired to do good but was unable to carry it out. Paul went from being a blind unregenerate Pharisee whom Jesus calls a whitewashed tomb to a regenerated Christian without a transitional Romans 7 struggle in-between. With that being said, we now move to a discussion of the text considering arguments on both sides of the debate. For the sake of brevity we will refer to the view of Romans 7 that is defended in this paper as the reformed view.[32]
____________________________
29. James M. Boice, Romans Volume 2: The Reign of Grace Romans 5:1-8:39. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 760
30. Charles Leiter Justification and Regeneration, 154
31. Robert L. Reymond A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998) 1128
32. See John Calvin and Martin Luther's treatment of this passage in their commentaries and other theological works for this interpretation of Romans 7:14-25

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 8)

by Danny Pelichowski

Contextual Arguments Against the Reformed View: "Allegory"

Another contextual argument that may persuade many to believe that Romans 7:14-25 is not the experience of Paul as a believer is made by the respected scholar Douglas Moo in his Romans commentary. Describing his view of Romans 7:7-25 he states that “Paul is describing his own, and other Jews’, experience with the law of Moses: how that law came to the Jewish people and brought them not “life” but “death” (vv.7-12); and how that law failed, because the reign of the flesh, to deliver Jews from the power of sin (vv. 13-25).”[26] There are some who argue that this passage only deals with Israel by itself and does not have anything to do with the person Paul. The arguments made by these interpreters are wholly allegorical and Dr. Moo uses them to describe especially his view of Romans 7:7-11.[27] The clearest example of this can be seen when he interprets Romans 7:11: “so sin, through the law, “killed” Israel. But although this happened in accordance with the intention of God (cf. 5:20 and Gal. 3:19-26), the ultimate intention this served was positive: that, being “bound under sin,” Israel might learn to look to God and His promise of a Messiah for life and salvation. Though it is the experience of Israel with the Mosaic law that Paul here describes, the Jews’ experience is symptomatic of that of all people who, in various ways, are confronted with God’s law.”[28] It must also be recognized that Dr. Moo adds the autobiographical aspect into his interpretation in order to make sense of the personal description Paul uses throughout Romans 7:7-25 lessening the overall bent towards allegory. However, as observed, there are portions where Dr. Moo’s exegesis is entirely allegorical.

In brief response, there is no reason to perceive Israel as a nation in this passage unless there is a desire to prove the unregenerate view of Romans 7:14-25. This interpretation has already been charged as an unwarranted allegorical explanation and it is better to view Paul’s personal past and present experience exclusively to be the theme of Romans 7:7-25. There are many nuances to Dr. Moo’s argument that cannot be delved into in the limited space of this paper however this preliminary conclusion should suffice to further continue with an exposition of the text.
_______________________________
26. Douglas Moo, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary: Romans 1-8 452
27. Ibid 452, 454, 455, 465
28. Ibid 456

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 7)

by Danny Pelichowski

Contextual Arguments Against the Reformed View: "Questions and Answers"

Now that the presuppositions relevant to sanctification have been looked at it is fitting to move into an exploration of the context of Romans 7:14-25. A popular contextual argument against the view argued in this paper is given by Daniel Thompson in his article challenging the traditional reformed view of Romans 7:14-25.[22] Charles Leiter also uses this argument and summarizes it nicely:

“at the end of Romans 5, Paul makes two shocking statements that require defense and clarification. The first is that “the Law came in that the transgression might increase,” and the second is that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (v.20) Paul expects these statements to be misunderstood and distorted by others, so he sets out to clarify and defend them in chapter six and seven. He does this in terms of four questions and their corresponding answers. (6:1; 6:15; 7:7; 7:13) Each of these question-answer sections follows a very specific pattern. First, Paul poses the anticipated misunderstanding or distortion of his position. He then follows with a strong denial (“may it never be!) and a brief summary answer to the misunderstanding. This brief answer is then clarified and expounded in the verses that follow. This pattern is invariable throughout Romans 6-7.”[23]

It is to be agreed that there are questions and answers scattered throughout the book of Romans but this observation does not prove that Romans 7:14-25 is Paul describing his pre-Christian experience. It is also agreed that the vindication of the law is the main topic that flows out of the alarming statements that are made at the end of Romans chapter 5 as Charles Leiter observes. However it is Paul’s discussion of the law as it relates to the Christian life that is in view from the end of chapter 5 through chapter 8. Leon Morris rightly concludes that “the Christian life is the theme of Chapters 5-8, not that of an unbeliever.”[24] All of Paul’s questions and answers are tied to a distinctly Christian audience with Christian implication. In chapter 6 both of the questions and answers are in relation to false conclusions Christians might make about sin in relationship to the free gift of justification that was explained in Romans chapters 4 and 5. And in Romans Chapter 7 Paul is answering possible misunderstandings that Christians might have about the law due to his teaching that justification is apart from the law as well as his assertion at the end of chapter 5 that says that “the law came in to increase the trespass.” In Chapter 7 Paul anticipates this confusion and poses questions and gives subsequent answers proving that the law is not evil or sinful but that it is good. Daniel Thompson and Charles Leiter rightfully acknowledge that Paul raises questions in Romans but fail to show how these question’s necessarily makes verses 14-25 Paul’s past pre-Christian experience written in the present first person tense.

There may be an objection to Leon Morris’ argument that Romans 5-8 is the theme of the Christian life because Paul clearly speaks of his pre-Christian life in Romans 7:7-13. However, the apparent problem is solved after observing the context and reason that Paul discussed his past unregenerate life. The question in Romans 7:7 “what then shall we say? That the law is sin?” causes Paul as a Christian to discuss his pre-Christian life because the answer he gives is tied to his experience as an unbeliever. Paul begins to answer the first question in Romans 7 by observing that “if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” It is important to notice that Paul’s answer is in the first person past tense because in this passage he is describing when he came to know sin in his pre-Christian past. The culmination of Paul’s answer is a vindication of the goodness of the law. For Paul says in Romans 7:12 “so the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”

The second question is in Romans 7:13: “did that which is good, then, bring death to me?” Paul continues in the first person past tense to describe that is was not the good law that brought him death but that it was his sin that brought him death. In the second half of verse 13 Paul answers his question: “by no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond all measure.” Once again he is vindicating the law as holy and righteous and good and all of his questions and answers in Romans 6-7 are surrounding Paul’s goal to clarify his teaching in Romans 4-5 and show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the law is holy. Paul doesn’t want there to be any misunderstanding about this crucial point.

The argument that Pastor Leiter proposes that each question in Romans is met with a strong objection followed by a short answer and a subsequent longer answer does not disprove the reformed view especially when you consider the change of tense from the past tense short answer in 7:13 and the present tense long answer in 7:14-25. Each of the answers Paul gives to the questions in Romans is not limited to merely restating his short answer as if he had to follow a secret pattern in his argument. Paul is only limited so to speak to answer the hypothetical question. That is why he can naturally transition from his past pre-Christian testimony that he was discussing in Romans 7:7-13 into a discussion of his present Christian experience in Romans 7:14-25 answering the same question posed in verse 13. Paul simply poses hypothetical questions and answers them giving more than one example to clarify the possible confusion the reader might have. So in verse 13 Paul is vindicating the Law by giving past testimony of his pre-Christian life and in 14-25 Paul is vindicating the Law another way by comparing the holy and righteous law to his present sinful flesh in comparison. He answers the question using multiple examples and gives further clarification so that he will not be misunderstood in a similar way a preacher would do on Sunday mornings.

All of this is to show that the question and answer argument against Romans 7:14-25 being Paul’s Christian experience does not prove anything accept that there are questions and answers that Paul poses throughout Romans. Romans 5-8 is a discussion of the Christian life and Paul is answering questions to defend the holiness and goodness of the law in Romans 7. There is a dramatic change from the past to the present tense where Paul is first discussing his past pre Christian life and then his present Christian experience all for the purpose of vindicating the law. The structure of Romans 7 that is more faithful to the argument Paul is making is summarized by Fred Malone: “the shift from the past pre-converted state of every believer in 7:5 to the present converted state in 7:6 is illustrated by Paul’s personal experience in 7:7-13 and 7:14-8:4 respectively. The man of 7:14-8:4 is described in the first person, present tense. He is Paul as a Christian.”[25]
______________________________
22. Thompson, Daniel. "Romans 7:13-25: A Commentary" Accessed 10 November 2009. Available from http://www.solidrock.net
23. Charles Leiter, Justification and Regeneration, 150
24. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 287
25. Malone, Fred A. "The Man in Romans 7" In The Founders Journal Issue 2, summer 1990.

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 6)

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Presuppositions: The Regenerate Man (continued)

The "Wretched Man" Straw Man

Some opponents of this view of sanctification will give a straw man argument that this view produces a wretched-man experience and defeated Christian life.[17] Again Charles Leiter articulates that “it is highly significant that this view of Romans 7 has led to the “wretched man” concept of the Christian life, where “wretchedness” and spirituality are almost equated, and the more holy we become, the more “wretched” we are.”[18] In response we must affirm that the Christian does fit this wretched man experience as understood when correctly interpreting Romans 7:14-25. However this affirmation does not mean that a Christian should participate in a manner of self loathing introspection that is being implied by this straw man objection. The Christian has much to hope for and to be content about in view of his justification and progress in the Christian life daily fighting sin and growing gradually in holiness. Indeed Paul himself asserts, “not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on towards the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”[19] As Christians we sin and always fall short even right now of the glory of God. However we have been redeemed and are being made into the likeness of Christ. We will never be perfect this side of glory but there is much to be joyful about “in Christ” and there is in fact much victory to be had in the Christian life. Christians are saved from their sins and at the same time continue to struggle with sin.

Justified Sinners

There is no doubt that Paul understood himself as a Christian as well as a sinner. In 1 Timothy 1:15-16 Paul says that “the saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who are to believe in him for eternal life.” Paul does not say “I was,” or “I used to be the foremost of sinners.” He says I am the foremost of sinners. We do not have to imply from this passage that Paul actually viewed himself as committing the most grievous and wicked sins over an above the most vile heathen on earth at the time he was living in order to understand his point. Paul’s point was that as Christians we should all follow his example in understanding our own sinfulness as it really is, which is to say utterly sinful. When we are mature in the Christian life we should still cry out to the savior in repentance because we are sinners just as much now as when we first believed. Of course we should be growing in the Christian life and our sin should not manifest itself in the exact same way that it did when we were unbelievers. But the point of the passages is simply to show that even the apostle Paul viewed himself as a saved sinner, and not just a sinner who needed a little forgiveness but a sinner who recognized the great depth of his sinfulness before the Lord even as a Christian. Paul boasts that he is a saved sinner in this passage and does not boast in his regenerated new heart though he did indeed have one. And it must be emphasized that clearly Paul had much victory and success in the Christian life, perhaps the most that any Christian will ever have in the history of Christianity. But at the same time he recognized that even as a mature Christian he was a sinner who needed the grace of God to save him.

Martin Luther on Justified Sinners

It is fitting to conclude this section of Biblical presuppositions of the Christian life with the words of Martin Luther; “The saints in being righteous are at the same time sinners; they are righteous because they believe in Christ whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them, but they are sinners because they do not fulfill the law and are not without sinful desires.”[20] And to make his view of the Christian life even more understandable he includes an analogy of the Christian life and the danger of Christians not understanding their own sinfulness. Luther continues by saying “they (Christians) are like sick people in the care of a physician: they are really sick, but healthy only in hope and in so far as they begin to be better, or, rather: are being healed, i.e., they will become healthy. Nothing can harm them so much as the presumption that they are in fact healthy, for it will cause a bad relapse.”[21] This dangerous presumption will not only lead to relapse in sin but even more seriously self righteousness, thoughts of suicide, and grave bouts of depression. It is this false and unrealistic assumption of perfect spiritual health that the Biblical view of the Christian life completely repudiates in Romans 7:14-25. Christians still struggle against serious temptations to sin and in fact continue regretfully to commit serious sins. It must be noted that the opponents addressed in this paper of the view of sanctification here expressed do not deny that Christians sin. However it becomes clear when reading their objections to Romans 7 that they have a deficient view of the seriousness and reality of remaining sin in the regenerate Christian life through their teaching that it is impossible for Romans 7:14-25 to be describing Paul as a Christian.
______________________________
17. This objection is also addressed in an appendix at the end of the paper
18. Charles Leiter, Justification and Regeneration, 148
19. Philippians 3:12-14
20. Luther, Martin. Lectures on Romans. ed. Wilhelm Pauck. In The Library of Christian Classics Volume XV, (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1961), 208
21. Ibid., 208

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 5)

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Presuppositions: The Regenerate Man

The believer, in contrast to the unbeliever is in humble recognition of his own sinfulness, not only before he was a Christian but especially as a Christian. The believer recognizes and daily repents of his sins as a Christian. The presuppositions that we must observe from the Bible is that a Christian in his regenerated new nature loves the fulfilled law of God, desires to please the Lord and actually does please the Lord, but also fails miserably to live perfectly in light of the law of Christ. The Christian has not been released from the noetic effects of the fall completely and can still say with Jeremiah that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”[15] The Christian as exemplified in Paul’s life in Romans 7:14-25 is not seeking to obey the fulfilled law of Christ to be made righteous before God. In fact, there is not an external self-righteousness that the believer seeks to feel assured before God in his own works in order to exalt himself before man. On the contrary, the Christian has received Christ’s righteousness that is completely separate from any so called righteousness of his own. It is the imputed righteousness of Christ that the believer boasts in and trusts upon for salvation. This does not mean that the believer no longer desires and strives for obedience to God’s law. However, his obedience is not to the Old Covenant Mosaic letter of the law but to the fulfilled spiritual law of Christ that exposes the inner recesses of the human heart. Even the Christians regenerated new heart is exposed as sinful, fleshly, and incapable of living up to the perfect, holy, and pure law of God. Therefore, the Christian can also say of himself that he is carnal and fleshly, sold to sin, and that he is a wretched and sinful man. Christians sin, not because of who they are in Christ but because of the remaining effects of the fall that is found in their flesh. Christians should grieve over their sin and strive towards holiness to please God and live the way they are called to live according to Scripture. That is exactly what we see Paul recognizing in Romans 7:14-25.

Introductory Objections

Many object that this text is not dealing with remaining sin because there is no victory to be found in this passage only complete and total defeat. Charles Leiter observes that “…the man in Romans 7 is not just battling with sin but utterly defeated by it, in stark contrast with Paul’s description of all true Christians in Romans 6 and Romans 7:1-6.”[16] It is true that there is utter defeat in this passage but it does not negate Christian experience. There are many reasons why the Christian must be in view in this passage and will be argued latter in this paper but for now a central point must be made in this regard. Romans 7:14-25 is a description made by Paul as a mature believer that the law is spiritual, righteous, holy, and good, and that he himself is carnal or fleshly in relationship to it. The defeat is so drastic because Paul is discussing the flesh that remains in him as a believer that he can never get rid of in this life. In light of this flesh and sin that remains he will never this side of heaven be in perfect harmony with the holy and perfect law of God as fulfilled in Christ. He will remain defeated and unable to fully obey the law. The man in Romans 7 just keeps on sinning and cannot rid himself of his remaining sin like the rest of the elect past, present, and future. We should not expect there to be any complete victory because we will always have to struggle against the flesh in our life on earth and will always fall short of what we desire to do. We fall short of our desire to keep the law of Christ perfectly which simply means to obey God as Christians without the blemishes of sinful desires and corruptions. If we do not recognize our own serious sinful desires and tendencies like Paul does and repent daily we are in essence acting like the Pharisee who puts confidence in the flesh. This false confidence may even be in a regenerated heart set on pleasing the Lord, free from complete bondage to sin. But even if we trust in ourselves as Christians to the exclusion of recognizing the serious effects of the remaining sin in our flesh our lives will be nothing more than glorified Christian humanism trusting in the regenerated human heart as opposed to trusting God daily for the strength to fight remaining sin.
____________________________
15. Jer 17:9
16. Charles Leiter Justification and Regeneration (Hannibal: Granted Ministries Press, 2009) 149

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 4)

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Pressupositions: The Unregenerate Man (continued)

Jesus' view of the so called "Pious Jew"

In case the above description of Paul’s testimony of pre-Christian life as a Pharisee is not compelling enough to weed out any false ideas of the pious Jew fallacy, we will observe a few words from our Lord and Savior on the topic. Jesus views the unregenerate Jewish Pharisees in an alarmingly different light than what we see in Romans 7:14-25. Jesus says that “they preach, but do not practice.”[10] Jesus also points out their sinful self-righteousness and hypocrisy by stating that “they do all their deeds to be seen by others.”[11] When describing the Pharisees Jesus does not portray an inner delight in the law of God or hatred of sinfulness. The Pharisee is simply not concerned with their own sinfulness, indeed they cannot even recognize that they are sinners in need of a savior because they are self deceived in their superior standing before God. The next quotation from Matthew 23 will obliterate the meek and mild view of Jesus that pictures him as a sensitive politically correct people pleaser. Jesus exclaims “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte (convert), and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”[12] Once more, Jesus does not view the Pharisee as loving righteousness and hating evil. As a matter of fact, Jesus has nothing positive to say about these “pious Jews.”

This passage does not get any better for the Pharisee for Jesus displays their hypocrisy and proclaims that though these men appear religious they are nothing but unregenerate sinners on their way to hell. Jesus says to them “you serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentences to hell?”[13] Again Jesus is relentless in making himself obviously clear how he views the unbelieving Jewish Pharisee as a wicked sinner who does not understand nor truly delight in the law of God. The “pious” Jews’ observance of the Law is nothing more than a show for others to see on the corner in the marketplace. Their religious practices are for their own confidence in the flesh as well as to parade their “good” works for others to see. Jesus solemnly proclaims “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”[14] Paul’s statement in Philippians that he counts it all loss for the sake of Christ is made abundantly clear after hearing the revealing woes of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. Hopefully it is clear after examining Paul’s teaching as well as Jesus,’ that the unregenerate so-called “pious Jew” is not the topic in Romans 7:14-25. Let us now move to an evaluation of the Biblical view of the Christian life.
___________________________
10. Matt 23:3b
11. Matt 23:5
12. Matt 23:15 the word "convert" was added by me for clarity and not in the ESV
13. Matt 23:33
14. Matt 23:27-28

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 3)

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Presuppositions: The Unregenerate Man (continued)

We now move to a few key passages outside of the book of Romans clearly written by Paul about himself in his pre-Christian past. It must be emphasized here that there is a difference between a believers delight in the law of God and the pharisaical, proud, and idolatrous observance of the Mosaic Law in an external fashion. This is the twisted and sinful desire that the proud unbelieving Jew typified. They were confident of their righteousness in their own eyes and made sure that other people noticed their religious practices. This hypocritical confidence led to boasting that they were not like the other sinners who broke God’s law.[5]

In Galatians 1:13-14 Paul describes his pre-Christian life in exactly these ways by proclaiming, “You have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.” In commenting on this passage John Piper says that “Paul saw his life before his conversion as a life of unrivaled zeal for the law and the traditions. He doesn't give us any hint of torment or conflict or inner division as we see in Romans 7.”[6]

Put no Confidence in the Flesh

Likewise, Philippians 3:3-6 gives us an even clearer understanding of how Paul viewed himself prior to his radical conversion when he met Jesus on the Damascus road. In this passage Paul argues for the many reasons that he might have to put confidence in the flesh. Paul says that “though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under law, blameless.”[7] Pharisaical self-righteousness cannot be any clearer than it is in this passage. Paul is describing a wicked, evil, unregenerate self righteousness that he could have on the basis of his past Jewish religious merits. However, Paul fervently refuses to put any confidence in his flesh because of Christ's merits and his realization of how weak his flesh actually is. Paul teaches that we are to “glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”[8] If we look for a moment at Romans 7:14-25 it becomes obviously clear how little confidence Christians should put in the flesh because the sinful flesh will always be with believers this side of heaven and it will necessarily prevent them from obeying God’s law perfectly despite their intense desire to obey it. For Paul says in Romans 7:18 “for I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.” What Paul says in Philippians is echoed in Romans 7 that we are to put no confidence in the flesh because the flesh is weak. Concluding Paul’s discussion of the so-called confidence in the flesh that he could have he says; “but whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.”[9]

When Paul wrote Philippians and Romans he was a Christian and his view of himself in his past pre-Christian life was that of a man who put confidence in the flesh. On the contrary, his Christian understanding is that his old self-righteous confidence is only loss for the sake of Christ and that he can no longer put any confidence in the flesh. In conclusion, Paul’s teaching in Romans 7:14-25 about his divided struggle with sin and his teaching in Philippians 3 about the Pharisaical merits for self righteous confidence are not both describing Paul as an unbelieving Pharisee. For we see in Philippians Paul describing a self-righteous man with confidence in the flesh that he was innocent before God. On the other hand the exact opposite is found in Romans 7 in his description of his love and desire for true righteousness without a hint of confidence in his flesh to make him right before God.
________________________
5. See Luke 18:9-14 this parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector illustrates the evil of self righteousness and the need for believers to recognize and repent of their sin.
6. John Piper "Who is this Divided man?" Sermon notes (Part 3). Accessed 20 November 2009.
7. Philippians 4:4-6
8. Philippians 3:3b
9. Philippians 3:7

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 2)

by Danny Pelichowski

Biblical Presuppositions

It is important to begin with Biblical presuppositions about the Christian life as well as a comparison with the life of unbelievers. Douglas Moo correctly acknowledges that “our identification of the person whose struggle Paul depicts in this text does have an impact on several theological and practical issues. One of the most important of these is the nature of the Christian life.”[2] An interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 carries a lot of theological baggage no matter who is giving the explanation of the passage. It is better to be honest with the assumptions that we bring to the text as opposed to ignoring the fact that the way a Christian understands life as a believer prior to coming to Romans 7 is going to make a difference on how he is going to interpret this passage. Again Douglas Moo states that “it may be generally said that the interpretation of few passages has been more influenced by one’s broad theological perspective, experience, and sheer a priori assumption than Romans 7:14-25.”[3] The question is not which interpreters are bringing theological baggage but whose baggage is more biblical.

Biblical Presuppositions: The Unregenerate Man

Perhaps the best way to discuss the Christian life versus the unregenerate life is to begin within the context of Paul’s own understanding of himself before and after his conversion. Of course for the sake of building a foundation for further interpretation of our passage we will omit the full exposition of Romans 7:14-25 from our initial observations. Though doing this is excluding one of the most important passages in the Bible that explains one aspect of the Christian life. Normally it is best to move from the clear passage of full mention to more obscure or less descriptive passages but due to the fact that Romans 7:14-25 is so controversial we will discuss that passage at length after laying our biblical presuppositions.

Beginning with our presuppositions about the unregenerate we see that in Romans 1-3 Paul communicates that all men both Gentiles and Jews are under the condemnation of sin and guilty before a holy God. In fact, even in light of Paul’s pre-Christian past as a zealous Pharisee he speaks of the Jewish people as being under sin by saying that “because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed."[4] Paul then goes on in Romans 3:9 as if he were not already clear enough answering the question “what then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” Paul makes it painfully clear that even the unbelieving Jews who are God’s Old Covenant chosen people are under the condemnation of sin along with the Gentiles whose condemnation was no surprise to the Jews.

Paul does not leave any room for a separation between unbelieving Jews and Gentiles when it comes to their sin and position before God. There is no two tier unregenerate person in Paul’s teaching let alone anywhere else in the Bible. This truth will become relevant when we move into our passage because there are some Christians who argue that Romans 7:14-25 is the experience of a pious Jew or more particularly the pre-Christian Paul who loved, rejoiced, and delighted in the law of God but could not keep it. The problem with this view is that not only does Paul put himself as a pre-Christian under the wrath of God with all of his Jewish contemporaries but he also exclaims in Romans 3:11-12 that “none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” The person in Romans 7:14-25 is not a blind man without understanding, nor is he a reprobate suppressing the truth of the existence of God. I dare proclaim that much of what we see in Romans 7:14-25 is pleasing to God and we must not forget that the man in Romans 7:14-25 is even blessed by God for we read in Psalm 1:1-2 “blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.” Notice the connection with Romans 7:22 when Paul says “for I delight in the law of God in my inner being.” In this passage Paul is speaking and his words cannot be twisted to depict an unbelieving Paul because it is clear that even in his divided struggle against sin Paul is delighting in the law of God and is therefore blessed by God according to Psalm 1. An unbeliever is never said to be blessed by God in the Scriptures. This point is insurmountable for the interpreter who teaches that Romans 7:14-25 is about an unregenerate Paul.
_________________________
2. Douglas J. Moo The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary: Romans 1-8. (The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1991), 469
3. Ibid, 470
4. Romans 2:5

Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 1)

by Danny Pelichowski

Introduction

What we believe as Christians about the Bible effects how we live in a fallen world. The Bible teaches that the remaining consequences of our sin are intimately related to the planet we live in as well as in our own lives. Our motivation for godly living should not be a worldly set of moral guidelines devoid of a Christian worldview that emphasizes mere virtuous living without Biblical presuppositions. Rather, we should look to God for help in the Christian life with a deep rooted recognition that sin is a problem that we cannot solve. This reality is not only for those outside of the faith but especially for those for those of the household of God. It is the Christian and not the unbeliever who must realize the great weightiness of his own fallen and corrupt nature before and after his conversion and praise God for definitively dealing with his sin problem. David exclaims “blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” [1] The Christian has been forgiven and his sinful actions will not merit him eternal death in hell. The great act of justification where God declares his elect to be righteous though they are not righteous in themselves because they are sinners must be in the forefront of our minds when we move forward as Christians to fight against sinful desires and fleshly temptations. The book of Romans deals with these and other important truths about the gospel.

We will narrow our discussion to one aspect of soteriology discussed in Romans, namely sanctification. The Christian life (sanctification) is a glorious reality to meditate upon and is quite miraculous indeed. The miracle is seen when a sinner deserving eternal conscious punishment in hell is no longer deserving of hell, not because he ceases to be a sinner but because his sins have been paid for by Jesus Christ. The passage in Romans that will be dealt with in this paper is not short of much controversy. The interpretation the Christian gives on this passage reveals a great deal about his view of the Christian life. Romans 7:14-25 has been a divisive passage of Scripture amongst Christians since the early church. It is the famous passage that describes the “wretched” and divided man who cannot do the good that he desires to do. There have been many interpretations as to what this passage actually means but the scope of this paper will be limited to a discussion of orthodox Christian interpretations. Pelagian arguments that deny original sin as well as Wesleyan sinless perfection interpretations of this passage are omitted as unbiblical explanations unworthy of consideration in the limited space of this paper. However, orthodox Christian explanations of this passage have differed and only interpretation that teach that Christians still struggle with remaining sin will be addressed in this paper. It will be argued that this passage is written by Paul as a Christian and is the passage of full mention dealing with the inevitable struggle every Christian has with indwelling sin. There are many objections to this view to be certain from godly men and it is the intention of this paper to address these objections as well as putting forth arguments from godly men who wholeheartedly agree and defend the thesis of this paper.
______________________________
1. Romans 4:7-8 All quotations use the English Standard Version of the Bible