The Romans 7 Dilemma pt. 4

In the last post, I was trying to show that Paul's intent in vs 14 was to making a connection with chapter 5:19, and to show that he was still under the curse of Adam. This initial act wasn't his doing (even though he participates in it), it was through the fall of Adam. Though he was made a new creation in the inner man (chapter 6), his flesh is still under the curse. Also, the word "sold" in vs 14 is different in the greek from the word "enslaved" in 6:6. So the chapter 6 condition that we are saved from is different than the chapter 7 condition he's in.

The next observation was the obvious battle that is going on in vs 15-25. "For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." vs 15. Or "For I delight in the law of God in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." - vs 22-23. The obvious question is, can a unsaved person have this kind of battle in "the inner man"? I want to look at some other passages to help answer this question. First, and most relevant, is chapter 3 of this epistle.

I'm thankful that Paul addressed this issue so early in this epistle. In chapter 3, Paul's purpose is to show the necessity of justification by faith. The first thing he does is shows us are destitute condition as fallen human beings by quoting a collection of old testament passages. "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." - Psalms 14:1-3. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." - Psalm 5:9. "The venom of asps is under their lips." - Psalm 140:3. "Their mouth is full of bitterness." - Psalm 10:7. "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." - Isaiah 59:7-8. "There is no fear of God before their eyes" - Psalm 36:1. In Ephesians 2:1-3, Paul labors the point again: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom WE ALL ONCE LIVED in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body AND THE MIND, and were by nature children of wrath , like the rest of mankind." Oh the consistency of the Word of God! Paul tells us that before salvation, the desires of the body AND the mind are corrupt. In Romans 7 he says that his mind now wants to obey the law of God. If this is Paul as an unbeliever, the bible has contradictions.

In continuing with the "consistency" theme, look at Paul's consistency of word usage in chapters 6-7. In 6:17 Paul says "But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have now become obedient FROM THE HEART to the standard of teaching to which you were committed". Hmmm. Doesn't that sound strangely familiar to 7:22: "For I delight in the law of God in the my INNER BEING". Paul differentiates between desire and action so as to be consistent with the reality of the fall.

Oh sooo much more on the consistency of scripture....more later....

The Romans 7 Dilemma pt. 3

As I get into the main text, I want to tackle the issues as they came up for me. The first thing I did was read through the chapter and noted basic observations. It's amazing how much is in two paragraphs of scripture! I noted my observations, then I went to the commentaries and realized how non-observant I was.

First thing of note was in verse 14: "SOLD under sin". The different bible versions translated that part of the sentence differently. I'm using the ESV translation. The NASB translates it "sold into bondage of sin". The NIV translated it "sold as a slave to sin". Adding the words bondage, or slave to the sentence really changes things for me, so I decided to look it up in the greek to see what it actually says. In the greek it's "pepramenos upo tēn amartian" which literally says "having been sold under the sin". So the sentence would read like this: "For we know that law is spiritual, but I am flesh having been sold under the sin". I think Paul here is referring to the fall of Adam. It seems that the ESV is the closest to the greek. I don't understand why they don't put the definite article in there though. That would've helped me make the Adam connection better. So here's how I would paraphrase it: "For we know that the law is of God, but I'm obviously not! I'm of the flesh, being sold into it by the fall of Adam." - Romans 5:12-21. I think this is Paul setting up the contrast between his new nature, and the flesh reality. Also, the use of the word "pepramenos" is significant. "Pepramenos" is just a past-tense form of the word "piprasko" which means "to sell". Everywhere else in scripture where Paul is trying to convey bondage to something in which you can't get out, he uses some form of the word "doulos". The greek definition of doulos is: "slavish, servile, completely controlled, as a fig. extension of a slavery system in the ancient world." This is how Paul describes unbeliever's in almost every other passage. The fact that he uses a completely different word in vs 14 is saying something. And the fact that the words "bondage" and "slave" aren't even in the original greek is important as well.

Got to go to work, more later...

Tiny Little Tiny Tiny Baby

Looks like me. :) Becky said Sunday that she could feel him moving. He's already workin on his swing.

The Romans 7 Dilemma pt. 2

So here we go. After spending much time in these two chapters, I'm of firm conviction that Romans 7:14-25 is Paul as a believer. And not just a believer, but a very godly one. The biggest stumbling block for me coming to this conclusion was chapter 6, so I'm going to talk a little bit about that chapter. Since it's not the main subject though, I'm only going to touch a little bit on it.

The main issue with this chapter is the conclusive language used by Paul. "We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For the one who has died has been set free from sin." - Rom. 6:6-7. (More on that word "enslaved" later.) If this is true, how can Paul say in Rom. 7:14 - "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, SOLD under sin."? Or Rom. 7:18 - "For I have the desire to do what is right, but NOT THE ABILITY to carry is out."? It sort of seems that Paul is contradicting himself. I think the answer to this is found in the context of why Paul was writing each chapter. In chapter 6, Paul is answering the question "Are we to sin that grace may abound?". Paul does this by explaining our standing in Christ, and then gives us the proper mind set to fight sin; "So you must also CONSIDER yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." (By the way, I can't figure out how to italicize words, so I'll be capitalizing for emphasis.) Paul's answer to the question is H no! Then tells us why by explaining our position in Christ. Then tells us how to fight sin by meditating on our position.

In 7:14-25, his motive is different. In these verses he is defending the law as not being an instrument of death. Someone makes the accusation that it's the law that causes people to sin, thus bringing death. Paul desperately wants to clear this up because if that's true, then that's a blot on the character of God. So Paul goes into great detail to explain that it's the sin already in us that causes us to do evil. Sense the contexts of the two chapters are different, I don't think it's wise to use what's said in chapter 6 to define chapter 7. Also, the same difficulties that come up in chapter 7, are already brought up in chapter 6; "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions." - vs. 12. After 11 verses of explain our standing in Christ and that we're dead to sin, he goes on to warn us not to "LET sin reign in our mortal bodies", because the possibility is there. Understanding chapter 6 in it's context, i think, frees chapter 7 up to mean what it looks like it's saying....

The Romans 7 Dilemma pt. 1

So, I've been trying to get myself into a steady routine with reading my bible, and I decided to try a new method. What I'm doing is reading a book, or around 5 chapters of a book, for 30 days every day. I decided to start with Romans because I love it so much, and figured it would be the most helpful. For the last 30 days I read chapters 1-5. Last week I started 6-10. I'm of firm conviction that chapters 6 and 7 of Romans are two of the hardest chapters of the bible to understand. I'm having a hard time right now because my mind won't let me get on to chapters 8, 9, and 10 until I get 6 and 7 figured out.

There's a debate that's been raging on wether or not Romans 7:14-25 is Paul as a believer, or Paul speaking from when he was an unbeliever. My life is on hold until I get this figured out. The more I meditate on the repercussions of getting this wrong, the more weight I feel from the text. The repercussions are pretty serious. 1.) I feel/think/experience exactly what's going on in those verses. If that's Paul as an unbeliever, that worries me. 2.) It seems that viewing him as an unbeliever has led to a variety of perfectionistic doctrines, which then leads to more sin i.e. judgementalism/haughtiness 3.) It seems that the unbeliever view would cause some misguided counseling for someone thinking through his sin this way. 4.) On the other side of the spectrum, getting it wrong could lead to despair for a christian who desperately wants to stop sinning and sees the text as a "no hope' situation. 5.) Or, getting it wrong on this side could cause a christian to "make peace" with his sin and continue in it. All of this caused me to camp out on chapters 6 and 7 until I figured out this conundrum enough to appease my mind. I think I'm there. I want to talk it out though, and see if anyone who reads this agrees with me. I tried to study the texts thoroughly to come to my own conclusion before I went to the commentaries/sermons, but of course the giants are going to be way more eloquent and insightful, so I won't be hesitating to use them....

I Just Have to Post This Due to It's Sheer Awesomeness...Enjoy

“The new rebel is a skeptic and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyality, therefore he can never be a true revolutionist, and the fact that he doubts everything gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. “

“Thus he writes one book, complaining that imperial oppression insults superiority of women, then he writes another book, a novel, in which he insults it himself. He curses the system because Christian girls loose their virginity, then curses Mrs. Grudy because they keep it. As a politician he cries out that war is a waste of life, then as a philosopher that life itself is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, then proves by the highest philosphical principals that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, then denounces the aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls the flag a bubble, then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bubble. The man goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they where beasts, then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting where he proves that they pratically are beasts. In short the modern revolutionist being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mind. In his book on politics, he attacks man for trampling on morality, in his book on ethics, he attacks morality for trampling on man. “

“Therefore the modern man in his revolt, has become useless for all practical purposes of revolt; by rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.” - G.K. Chesterton