BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

Some good sermons about Romans 7

I
Isaiah64 Feb 17, 2009

Hello to everyone, I have come across some really interesting sermons by Charles Leiter concerning the issue of Romans 7:14-25 and what it is talking about, it's the most balanced view of this topic that I have ever heard of. Even if you disagree I think it's worth the listen, I know this brother knows Paul Washer and they sell his book on the Heartcry website, so it would be wise not to dimiss what he says so quickly.
I don't know if we're allowed to directly post audio sermons from other websites here, so I'll just post the link. There are 4 good messages that I've heard so far:

1) A Gracious Interaction with the Wrong Reformed View of Romans 7 (What is Good and Bad about this View?) - Sermon #86

2) Testimonies Concerning Changing Views on Romans 7 & Examining the Wrong “Deeper Life” View of Romans 7 - Sermon #87

3) The Wrong Perfectionist, Sinless or Wesleyan View of Romans 7 - Sermon #88

4) Q&A/Bible Study on Romans 6 and 7

You can listen to them [url=http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currPage=1&keyword=Charles%5ELeiter&SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&SortBy=added]HERE.[/url]

Hope this is a blessing to you all.

C
clintstone Feb 22, 2009

the writer of romans. paul . was not speaking of himself in romans chapter 7. Paul was a perfect , Holy , and blameless man , as he himself says he is . romans chapter 7 is a example of a carnal unbelieving christian, when paul was saying I do the thing s I would not and I do not do the things i would , He is not speaking of himself there. romans chapter 8 Paul exsplains the deliverance from the dilema of being an unbelieving carnal christian. and not receiving what chapter 6 of romans says in verses 3-8. walking in newness of life is sinless perfection.

H
HomeFree89 Feb 22, 2009

when paul was saying I do the thing s I would not and I do not do the things i would , He is not speaking of himself there.

Then why would he use the word "I"?

W
wtninChrist Feb 22, 2009

I have read Bro. Leiters book ( justification and Regeneration) it is sold at my church.He has solid views on justification and regeneration you will not find any better.He states his views on Romans 7 in the book. I am not to say or voice what I think on the matter,but may I point you to a sermon by John Piper (Who Is This Divided Man? ) at desiringgod.org do read my you be blessed.

C
clintstone Feb 23, 2009

he was speaking in the third person. He was not describing himself. he was not a wretched miserable man trapped in sin at the time He wrote romans. he was giving an example of one that minded the flesh in romans 7 and he gives how to be delivered of that fleshy minded state in romans chapter 8

I
Isaiah64 Feb 23, 2009

Hi wtninChrist, thank you for the recommendation, I am familiar with Piper's views on the subject and would disagree, but I'm sure there is still some spiritual wisdom to glean from the message. I'll check it out.
I believe Leiter gives an excellent and balanced response to the Reformed view in the 1st message above.

I've also read Justification and Regeneration. These messages really complement the Romans 7 chapter in the book, adding much more valuable information.

S
savannah Feb 23, 2009

Rom. 7:22 "For I delight in the Law of God according to the inward man;"

Paul delights - this is a strong and inclusive word. And, after the inward man, - thus revealing himself as regenerate throughout this struggle: No unregenerate man would say, (unless profane) "It is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me:" For,

(1) An unregenerate man is not conscious of a moral power which is not himself: for he has but the one nature, he is "in the flesh."

(2) An unregenerate man could not say, "What I hate, that I do." For only born-again people hate evil. "Ye that love Jehovah, hate evil" (Ps. 97.10), and David could say of himself, "I hate every false way" (Ps 119:104). But of the wicked he wrote, "He abhorreth not evil" (Ps 36:4).

(3) An unregenerate man could not say, "What I would not, that I do, -I consent to the Law that it is good." An unregenerate man resists the Law, that he may "justify himself." A regenerate man consents to the Law's being good, no matter how it judges what he finds himself doing!(Ro 7:16).

(4) The unregenerate man could not say, "I delight in the Law of God after the inward man." For by nature all men are "children of wrath, "" alienated from the life of God"; and "the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, not subject to the Law of God." Before his conversion, Saul, as we saw, could help to stone Stephen, -"verily thinking he ought" to do it; but Paul was not then seeking holiness (as the man in Romans Seven is), but was secure in his own righteousness as a legalist.

(5) The unregenerate man could not say, "Wretched man that I am!" For he could not see his wretchedness! His whole life was to build up that which was the flesh.

(6) If you claim that the "wretched man" of Romans Seven is an unregenerate man under conviction of sin, the complete reply is, that this man of Romans Seven is crying for deliverance, -not from sin's guilt and penalty, but from its power. Not for forgiveness of sins, but help against indwelling sin. This man is exercised, not about the day of judgment, but about a condition of bondage to that which he hates. The Jews on the Day of Pentecost, and the jailor at Philippi, cried out in terror, "What shall we do to be saved?" It was guilt and danger they felt. But this man in Romans Seven cries, "Who shall deliver me" (not from guilt) but, "from this body of death?" No one but a quickened soul ever knows about a "body of death"!

(7) But perhaps the most striking argument of all is in the closing words of Chapter Seven-verse 25: "Therefore then I myself with the mind, am subject to God's Law, but with the flesh to sin's law." Here we have both spiritual life and consciousness; also, discernment and discrimination of both his real true new self, which chooses God and His will and of the flesh which will continue to choose "sin's law": and all this conclusion after he has realized deliverance from the "body of death" through our Lord Jesus Christ!

Newell

"The writer genuinely deplores the fact that due to the law of sin still operating in him, he is unable to serve God as completely and whole-heartedly as he desires. The poignant grief here expressed is definitely that of a believer. No unbeliever would ever be able to be so filled with sorrow because of his sins! The author of the outcry is Paul, speaking for every child of God. The cry he utters is one of distress, but not of despair, as verse 25 proves. Paul suffers agony, to be sure, the wretchedness brought about by strenuous exertion; that is, by trying hard, but never satisfactorily succeeding, to live in complete harmony with God’s will but failing again and again. He is looking forward eagerly to the time when this struggle will have ended." (Hendriksen)

"Paul is expressing in forceful terms his dismay at what sin does to him. It is, moreover, important that we understand this as applying to the regenerate. It is all too easy to take our Christian status for granted. We so readily remember our victories and gloss over our defeats. We slip into a routine and refuse to allow ourselves to be disturbed by what we see as occasional and minor slips. But a sensitive conscience and a genuine sorrow for every sin are the prerequisites of spiritual depth." (Morris)

"In this section Paul continues to speak in the first person singular, but he leaves the past tense and uses the present. Not only so, but there is an inward tension here which was absent from Romans 7:7-13. There, sin assaulted him by stealth and struck him down; here, he puts up an agonizing resistance, even if he cannot beat down the enemy. There, he described what happened to him when he lived in 'this present age'; here, 'the age to come' has already arrived, although the old age has not yet passed away. He is a man living simultaneously on two planes, eagerly longing to live a life in keeping with the higher plane, but sadly aware of the strength of indwelling sin that keeps on pulling him down to the lower plane." (F.F.Bruce)

A study of the greek words used in romans 7 will bear out the fact that Paul does not speak in the third person but "...continues to speak in the first person singular, but he leaves the past tense and uses the present", as F.F. Bruce has correctly stated above.

Would the one who said, "he was speaking in the third person" please give proof from the original greek language, if you are able.

I
Isaiah64 Feb 23, 2009

Hi savannah,

May I recommend that, if possible, you hear the above messages first? They're really worth the listen, regardless of your view. As I've said, they are really balanced. And Leiter presents his case in such a loving, understanding, and unargumentative style which is wonderful considering this is a very controversial topic.

Also, you can read Leiter's chapter on Romans 7 [url=http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2007/11/romans-7-by-charles-leiter.html]here.[/url]

And Tim Conway from Grace Community Church in Texas has some really good messages on sermonaudio.com as well, just look him up on the site and do a search of Romans 7 and you'll find his messages. If you want I can give you the link to those.

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Isaac Watts were some men of God of the reformed persuation who held to this view. Also, I'm told the early Christians believed this for 300 years up until Agustine, who was the first person to teach the man in Romans 7 was a believer. I'm not sure about this but I'll have to investigate further.

C
crsschk Feb 23, 2009

he was speaking in the third person. He was not describing himself. he was not a wretched miserable man trapped in sin at the time He wrote romans. he was giving an example of one that minded the flesh in romans 7 and he gives how to be delivered of that fleshy minded state in romans chapter 8

Unfortunate chapter breaks, the whole of it speaks as an assessment that real life bears out.

He is a man living simultaneously on two planes, eagerly longing to live a life in keeping with the higher plane, but sadly aware of the strength of indwelling sin that keeps on pulling him down to the lower plane." (F.F.Bruce)

Precisely. Charles Simeon, I believe summarizes it experientially;


(John Piper speaking)

- Handley Moule captures the essence of Simeon's secret of longevity in this sentence: "'Before honor is humility,' and he had been 'growing downwards' year by year under the stern discipline of difficulty met in the right way, the way of close and adoring communion with God" (Moule, 64). Those two things were the heartbeat of Simeon's inner life: growing downward in humility and growing upward in adoring communion with God.

But the remarkable thing about humiliation and adoration in the heart of Charles Simeon is that they were inseparable. Simeon was utterly unlike most of us today who think that we should get rid once and for all of feelings of vileness and unworthiness as soon as we can. For him, adoration only grew in the freshly plowed soil of humiliation for sin. So he actually labored to know his true sinfulness and his remaining corruption as a Christian.

[i]I have continually had such a sense of my sinfulness as would sink me into utter despair, if I had not an assured view of the sufficiency and willingness of Christ to save me to the uttermost. And at the same time I had such a sense of my acceptance through Christ as would overset my little bark, if I had not ballast at the bottom sufficient to sink a vessel of no ordinary size. (Moule 134f.)[/i]

He never lost sight of the need for the heavy ballast of his own humiliation. After he had been a Christian forty years he wrote,

[i]With this sweet hope of ultimate acceptance with God, I have always enjoyed much cheerfulness before men; but I have at the same time laboured incessantly to cultivate the deepest humiliation before God. I have never thought that the circumstance of God's having forgiven me was any reason why I should forgive myself; on the contrary, I have always judged it better to loathe myself the more, in proportion as I was assured that God was pacified towards me (Ezekiel 16:63). . . . There are but two objects that I have ever desired for these forty years to behold; the one is my own vileness; and the other is, the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ: and I have always thought that they should be viewed together; just as Aaron confessed all the sins of all Israel whilst he put them on the head of the scapegoat. The disease did not keep him from applying to the remedy, nor did the remedy keep him from feeling the disease. By this I seek to be, not only humbled and thankful, but humbled in thankfulness, before my God and Saviour continually. (Carus, 518f.)[/i]

If Simeon is right, vast portions of contemporary Christianity are wrong. And I can't help wondering whether one of the reasons we are emotionally capsized so easily today - so vulnerable to winds of criticism or opposition - is that in the name of forgiveness and grace, we have thrown the ballast overboard.

Simeon's boat drew a lot of water. But it was steady and on course and the mastheads were higher and the sails bigger and more full of the Spirit than most people's today who talk continuously about self-esteem.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=25079&forum=34]Spurgeon - Mueller - An Important Series ~ Piper's Biographies[/url]

David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John ... It is the prevailing mindset and recognition throughout scripture ... Luk 18:10-14

C
clintstone Feb 25, 2009

paul , in romans chapter 7 was speaking of a carnal christians exsperience. He , paul was not in this exsperience at the time he wrote this book . he was not refering to his present condition , but the condition of a carnal flesh minded christian . it is so simple to look at the whole big picture of scripture to see as an eagle sees from way up high and zoom in with the eyes of an eagle and see the little morsels to eat . meaning seeing the details of scripture by getting a big view ,of the big picture of pauls life and understanding His Holiness and blameless life before man and God.Paul was a blameless and Holy man or He was an extravagant boastful liar. I nowhere said or implied paul to be unregenerant nor the example in pauls teaching in romans ch.7 to be unregenerant either. the texts of romans chapters 5,6,7,8 all combined and followed through prove themselves , that paul is not speaking of Himself as the being carnal christian in a wretched miserable estate that the example of romans 7.

C
clintstone Feb 25, 2009

a carnal Christian as told of by paul in romans chapter 7 is more wretched and miserable than any sinner ever could be . I am well aware of this by exsperience unfortunately . I know that paul was not referring to himself . Many others know this also.I do not mean to be demeaning of the teaching of leiter's . I know not what he says , never heard him and don't know if i ever will. Being without si sprit , soul ,and body is attainable in this life ,without dying physically first. I hold to charles finneys view, it is biblical.

C
crsschk Feb 25, 2009

I know that paul was not referring to himself .

He most certainly was and it is all written in the present tense, an assessment of that conundrum that we all experience.

They are certainly extremes that make this more complicated and I am of the observation that trying to do this division (the unfortunate chapter\\verse aspect - remember there was originally no such numbering sequences in these letters) is to make or force an argument that is not there.

Part of the greatness of Paul was his sheer honesty and self-depreciating manner - He is being frank and this idea of a 'carnal Christian' vs what then? A 'Super saint'? (as Katz would put it) only complicates matters.

Well after the fact, if we hold to this idealism of separating the two ...

[i]For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit [u]do mortify the deeds of the body[/u], ye shall live.[/i] Rom 8:13


Why the bother if these things are now 'past tense'?


At what point does Paul speak of;

[i]I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air: but I [b]buffet[/b] my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.[/i] 1Co 9:26,27 (RV)

The KJV has it as;

[i]But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection:[/i]

"[b]Under[/b]"

G5299
ὑπωπιάζω
hupōpiazō
[i]hoop-o-pee-ad'-zo[/i]
From a compound of G5259 and a derivative of G3700; to hit under the eye ([i]buffet[/i] or [i]disable[/i] an antagonist as a pugilist), that is, (figuratively) to [i]tease[/i] or [i]annoy[/i] (into compliance), [i]subdue[/i] (one’s passions): - keep under, weary.

Again, why?

A verse that has to be taken alongside all this;

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[i]But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin[/i]

"So then ..."

Present tense

[i]For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.[/i]

"Mortify"

"If"

Conditions and 'work to do' - The great problem with this construct is the tense of 'eradication' that is implied by simplifying what Paul was stressing into a 'before\\after' construct. It's a continuum, it is both at the same time, it is ... '[i]a law[/i] ... warring ... [u]in[/u] ... [b]my members[/b].

The flesh will always [i][b]do[/b][/i] that which is it's bent if it is not overruled [i]with the mind[/i], a renewed mind, a mind [i]led by the Spirit of God[/i].


[i]For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.[/i] Rom 8:23

"but ourselves also"

"groan within ourselves"

For what?

[i]the redemption of our body[/i].

To be delivered from it, once and for all.

[i]For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.[/i] Rom 7:18

Back full circle again. It's as if to say "This is what I am, this is what I do left to my own devices." And experience bears it out. Let yourself drift just a little and you find that there is no eradication at all and with very little effort or even cognizance that it was always there. Some of us recognize it while it is yet 'present' and I am speaking as one who has yet drifted presently, though I cannot hardly articulate it. Not to apostasy, not to ... unbelief nor desperation but having been choked on the cares of this world to the point of distraction, present circumstances as they are ... the drift is [i]away[/i] not [i]towards[/i].

"I find then a [i]law[/i]."

H
HomeFree89 Feb 25, 2009

Well put, Mike!

sermonindex Feb 25, 2009


One Christian writes ....

"I know that paul was not referring to himself ."

And another Christian writes....

"He most certainly was "

I do not mean to make light of this question, but thats a wee bit funny. Kinda like the North and the South arguing over who's side was God on. Course, honest Abe killed them with his reply, my paraphrase, "you better make sure that your on God's side."

The truth is, no one knows for a certainty about Romans 7. I would say, that Romans 7:14 is the key verse. Is Paul, as a Christian, sold under sin? Is he carnal? Can the carnal mind discern spiritual things? Is he employing a literary device as in earlier chapters when he says to the "Jewish man," that he has no excuse. What Jewish man? All Jewish men. What "I," all "I," in Romans 7, perhaps. Yet, we can slice it even thinner than the usual argument. It is possible, I belive, for genuinely regenerate Christians to have a Romans 7 experience, but only because they have not "reckoned," on the truth. They have not "realised,' their freedom. Too many Christians have found too much comfort in Romans 7,believing that it some ho justifies their sinful lives that has no vistory over sin. I posted a piece recently on Sermon about Romans 7, it may be helpful for some. I would also say that we should proabably moderate the comments and give grace to those who differ on their opinions on this subject. Below the link is some of Mattew Henry's take on the subject........Frank

http://scottishwarriors.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/there-is-therefore-now-no-condemnationlet-the-sleeping-army-of-god-arise/

Rom 7:14-25
Here is a description of the conflict between grace and corruption in the heart, between the law of God and the law of sin. And it is applicable two ways: - 1. To the struggles that are in a convinced soul, but yet unregenerate, in the person of whom it is supposed, by some, that Paul speaks. 2. To the struggles that are in a renewed sanctified soul, but yet in a state of imperfection; as other apprehend. And a great controversy there is of which of these we are to understand the apostle here. So far does the evil prevail here, when he speaks of one sold under sin, doing it, not performing that which is good, that it seems difficult to apply it to the regenerate, who are described to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; and yet so far does the good prevail in hating sin, consenting to the law, delighting in it, serving the law of God with the mind, that it is more difficult to apply it to the unregenerate that are dead in trespasses and sins.
I. Apply it to the struggles that are felt in a convinced soul, that is yet in a state of sin, knows his Lord's will, but does it not, approves the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and yet lives in the constant breach of it, Rom_2:17-23. Though he has that within him that witnesses against the sin he commits, and it is not without a great deal of reluctancy that he does commit it, the superior faculties striving against it, natural conscience warning against it before it is committed and smiting for it afterwards, yet the man continues a slave to his reigning lusts. It is not thus with every unregenerate man, but with those only that are convinced by the law, but not changed by the gospel. The apostle had said (Rom_6:14), Sin shall not have dominion, because you are not under the law, but under grace, for the proof of which he here shows that a man under the law, and not under grace, may be, and is, under the dominion of sin. The law may discover sin, and convince of sin, but it cannot conquer and subdue sin, witness the predominancy of sin in many that are under very strong legal convictions. It discovers the defilement, but will not wash it off. It makes a man weary and heavy laden (Mat_11:28), burdens him with his sin; and yet, if rested in, it yields no help towards the shaking off of that burden; this is to be had only in Christ. The law may make a man cry out, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me? and yet leave him thus fettered and captivated, as being too weak to deliver him (Rom_8:3), give him a spirit of bondage to fear, Rom_8:15. Now a soul advanced thus far by the law is in a fair way towards a state of liberty by Christ, though many rest here and go no further. Felix trembled, but never came to Christ. It is possible for a man to go to hell with his eyes open (Num_24:3, Num_24:4), illuminated with common convictions, and to carry about with him a self-accusing conscience, even in the service of the devil. He may consent to the law that it is good, delight to know God's ways (as they, Isa_58:2), may have that within him that witnesses against sin and for holiness; and yet all this overpowered by the reigning love of sin. Drunkards and unclean persons have some faint desires to leave off their sins, and yet persist in them notwithstanding, such is the impotency and such the insufficiency of their convictions. Of such as these there are many that will needs have all this understood, and contend earnestly for it: though it is very hard to imagine why, if the apostle intended this, he should speak all along in his own person; and not only so, but in the present tense. Of his own state under conviction he had spoken at large, as of a thing past (Rom_7:7, etc.): I died; the commandment I found to be unto death; and if here he speaks of the same state as his present state, and the condition he was now in, surely he did not intend to be so understood: and therefore,

http://scottishwarriors.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/there-is-therefore-now-no-condemnationlet-the-sleeping-army-of-god-arise/

C
clintstone Feb 26, 2009

quote" "the flesh will always do that which is it's bent , if , it is not overruled with the mind , a rennewed mind , a mind led by the spirit of God. " this statement is so true and paul was not a man that minded his flesh , and he was not a man that did not overrule his flesh with the mind of Christ that was in him by the holy spirit. Paul ruled his flesh and mind and spirit buy the living word of God, that He had intrusted to Him by God ... please , please do not misunderstand this point ... Paul was not speaking of his state of living in romans chapter 7

C
clintstone Feb 26, 2009

how is it well put . it is not a truth to say that Paul was the struggling with carnality, minding the flesh, whipped by the flesh's passions and feelings and propensities, wretch that he is describing in romans 7 . Paul was not this man then and was not describing Himself as such

C
crsschk Feb 26, 2009

and therefore,
...

Henry continues;

II. It seems rather to be understood of the struggles that are maintained between grace and corruption in sanctified souls. That there are remainders of indwelling corruption, even where there is a living principle of grace, is past dispute; that this corruption is daily breaking forth in sins of infirmity (such as are consistent with a state of grace) is no less certain. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 1Jo 1:8, 1Jo 1:10. That true grace strives against these sins and corruptions, does not allow of them, hates them, mourns over them, groans under them as a burden, is likewise certain (Gal 5:17): [i]The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would.[/i] These are the truths which, I think, are contained in this discourse of the apostle. And his design is further to open the nature of sanctification, that it does not attain to a sinless perfection in this life; and therefore to quicken us to, and encourage us in, our conflicts with remaining corruptions. Our case is not singular, that which we do sincerely strive against, shall not be laid to our charge, and through grace the victory is sure at last. The struggle here is like that between Jacob and Esau in the womb, between the Canaanites and Israelites in the land, between the house of Saul and the house of David; but great is the truth and will prevail. Understanding it thus, we may observe here,

1. What he complains of - the remainder of indwelling corruptions, which he here speaks of, to show that the law is insufficient to justify even a regenerate man, that the best man in the world hath enough in him to condemn him, if God should deal with him according to the law, which is not the fault of the law, but of our own corrupt nature, which cannot fulfil the law. The repetition of the same things over and over again in this discourse shows how much Paul's heart was affected with what he wrote, and how deep his sentiments were. Observe the particulars of this complaint.

(1.) [i]I am carnal, sold under sin[/i], Rom 7:14. He speaks of the Corinthians as carnal, 1Co 3:1. Even where there is spiritual life there are remainders of carnal affections, and so far a man may be [i]sold under sin[/i]; he does not sell himself to work wickedness, as Ahab did (1Ki 21:25), but he was sold by Adam when he sinned and fell - sold, as a poor slave that does his master's will against his own will - sold under sin, because conceived in iniquity and born in sin.

(2.) [i]What I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that do I[/i], Rom 7:15. And to the same purport, Rom 7:19, Rom 7:21, [i]When I would do good, evil is present with me.[/i] Such was the strength of corruptions, that he could not attain that perfection in holiness which he desired and breathed after. Thus, while he was pressing forward towards perfection, yet he acknowledges that he had not already attained, neither was already perfect, Phi 3:12. Fain he would be free from all sin, and perfectly do the will of God, such was his settled judgment; but his corrupt nature drew him another way: it was like a clog, that checked and kept him down when he would have soared upward, like the bias in a bowl, which, when it is thrown straight, yet draws it aside.

(3.) [i]In me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good,[/i] Rom 7:18. Here he explains himself concerning the corrupt nature, which he calls flesh; and as far as that goes there is no good to be expected, any more than one would expect good corn growing upon a rock, or on the sand which is by the sea-side. As the new nature, as far as that goes, cannot commit sin (1Jo 3:9), so the flesh, the old nature, as far as that goes, cannot perform a good duty. How should it? For the flesh serveth the law of sin (Rom 7:25), it is under the conduct and government of that law; and, while it is so, it is not likely to do any good. The corrupt nature is elsewhere called flesh (Gen 6:3, Joh 3:6); and, though there may be good things dwelling in those that have this flesh, yet, as far as the flesh goes, there is no good, the flesh is not a subject capable of any good.

(4.) [i]I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind[/i], Rom 7:23. The corrupt and sinful inclination is here compared to a law, because it controlled and checked him in his good motions. It is said to be seated in his members, because, Christ having set up his throne in his heart, it was only the rebellious members of the body that were the instruments of sin - in the sensitive appetite; or we may take it more generally for all that corrupt nature which is the seat not only of sensual but of more refined lusts. This wars against the law of the mind, the new nature; it draws the contrary way, drives on a contrary interest, which corrupt disposition and inclination are as great a burden and grief to the soul as the worst drudgery and captivity could be. [i]It brings me into captivity[/i]. To the same purport (Rom 7:25), [i]With the flesh I serve the law of sin[/i]; that is, the corrupt nature, the unregenerate part, is continually working towards sin.

(5.) His general complaint we have in Rom 7:24, [i]O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?[/i] The thing he complains of is a body of death; either the body of flesh, which is a mortal dying body (while we carry this body about with us, we shall be troubled with corruption; when we are dead, we shall be freed from sin, and not before), or the body of sin, the old man, the corrupt nature, which tends to death, that is, to the ruin of the soul. Or, comparing it to a dead body, the touch of which was by the ceremonial law defiling, if actual transgressions be dead works (Heb 9:14), original corruption is a dead body. It was as troublesome to Paul as if he had had a dead body tied to him, which he must have carried about with him. This made him cry out, [i]O wretched man that I am![/i] A man that had learned in every state to be content yet complains thus of his corrupt nature. Had I been required to speak of Paul, I should have said, “O blessed man that thou art, an ambassador of Christ, a favourite of heaven, a spiritual father of thousands!” But in his own account he was a wretched man, because of the corruption of nature, because he was not so good as he fain would be, had not yet attained, neither was already perfect. Thus miserably does he complain. [i]Who shall deliver me?[/i] He speaks like one that was sick of it, that would give any thing to be rid of it, looks to the right hand and to the left for some friend that would part between him and his corruptions. The remainders of indwelling sin are a very grievous burden to a gracious soul.

2. What he comforts himself with. The case was sad, but there were some allays. Three things comforted him: -

(1.) That his conscience witnessed for him that he had a good principle ruling and prevailing in him, notwithstanding. It is well when all does not go one way in the soul. The rule of this good principle which he had was the law of God, to which he here speaks of having a threefold regard, which is certainly to be found in all that are sanctified, and no others. [1.] [i]I consent unto the law that it is good[/i], Rom 7:16, [i]sumphēmi - I give my vote[/i] to the law; here is the approbation of the judgment. Wherever there is grace there is not only a dread of the severity of the law, but a consent to the goodness of the law. “It is a good in itself, it is good for me.” This is a sign that the law is written in the heart, that the soul is delivered into the mould of it. To consent to the law is so far to approve of it as not to wish it otherwise constituted than it is. The sanctified judgment not only concurs to the equity of the law, but to the excellency of it, as convinced that a conformity to the law is the highest perfection of human nature, and the greatest honour and happiness we are capable of. [2.] [i]I delight in the law of God after the inward man[/i], Rom 7:22. His conscience bore witness to a complacency in the law. He delighted not only in the promises of the word, but in the precepts and prohibitions of the word; [i]sunēdomai[/i] expresses a becoming [i]delight[/i]. He did herein concur in affection with all the saints. All that are savingly regenerate or born again do truly delight in the law of God, delight to know it, to do it - cheerfully submit to the authority of it, and take a complacency in that submission, never better pleased than when heart and life are in the strictest conformity to the law and will of God. [i]After the inward man[/i]; that is, [i]First[/i], The mind or rational faculties, in opposition to the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh. The soul is the inward man, and that is the seat of gracious delights, which are therefore sincere and serious, but secret; it is the renewing of the inward man, 2Co 4:16. [i]Secondly[/i], The new nature. The new man is called the [i]inner man[/i] (Eph 3:16), the [i]hidden man of the heart[/i], 1Pe 3:4. Paul, as far as he was sanctified, had a delight in the law of God. [3.] [i]With the mind I myself serve the law of God[/i], Rom 7:25. It is not enough to consent to the law, and to delight in the law, but we must serve the law; our souls must be entirely delivered up into the obedience of it. Thus it was with Paul's mind; thus it is with every sanctified renewed mind; this is the ordinary course and way; thitherward goes the bent of the soul. [i]I myself - autos egō[/i], plainly intimating that he speaks in his own person, and not in the person of another.

(2.) That the fault lay in that corruption of his nature which he did really bewail and strive against: [i]It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me[/i]. This he mentions twice (Rom 7:17, Rom 7:20), not as an excuse for the guilt of his sin (it is enough to condemn us, if we were under the law, that the sin which does the evil dwelleth in us), but as a salvo for his evidences, that he might not sink in despair, but take comfort from the covenant of grace, which accepts the willingness of the spirit, and has provided pardon for the weakness of the flesh. He likewise herein enters a protestation against all that which this indwelling sin produced. Having professed his consent to the law of God, he here professes his dissent from the law of sin. “It is not I; I disown the fact; it is against my mind that it is done.” As when in the senate the major part are bad, and carry every thing the wrong way, it is indeed the act of the senate, but the honest party strive against it, bewail what is done, and enter their protestation against it; so that it is no more they that do it. - [i]Dwelleth in me[/i], as the Canaanites among the Israelites, though they were put under tribute: dwelleth in me, and is likely to dwell there, while I live.

(3.) His great comfort lay in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25): [i]I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.[/i] In the midst of his complaints he breaks out into praises. It is a special remedy against fears and sorrows to be much in praise: many a poor drooping soul hath found it so. And, in all our praises, this should be the burden of the son, “Blessed be God for Jesus Christ.” [i]Who shall deliver me?[/i] says he (Rom 7:24), as one at a loss for help. At length he finds an all-sufficient friend, even Jesus Christ. When we are under the sense of the remaining power of sin and corruption, we shall see reason to bless God through Christ (for, as he is the mediator of all our prayers, so he is of all our praises) - to bless God for Christ; it is he that stands between us and the wrath due to us for this sin. If it were not for Christ, this iniquity that dwells in us would certainly be our ruin. He is our advocate with the Father, and through him God pities, and spares, and pardons, and lays not our iniquities to our charge. It is Christ that has purchased deliverance for us in due time. Through Christ death will put an end to all these complaints, and waft us to an eternity which we shall spend without sin or sigh. [i]Blessed be God that giveth us this victory through our Lord Jesus Christ![/i]

Matthew Henry
[i](Italics extant[/i])

(Edit: Corrected the verses so that the new reference tagger links ... cool addition Greg has incorporated here.)

C
crsschk Feb 26, 2009

Brothers, recognize that is a bit long but hope it might be considered. I think there is really little to add to it from my own perceptions and experience. I concur with Matthew Henry whole heartedly.

I think there is always that extra bit we may be ... adding or maybe it's deducing from something like this.

For instance;

it is not a truth to say that Paul was the struggling with carnality, minding the flesh, whipped by the flesh's passions and feelings and propensities, wretch that he is describing in romans 7 . Paul was not this man then and was not describing Himself as such

In that sense you are correct but that is not either his definition nor my understanding of his intentions ... Again I appeal back to Henry and I do not mean to single you out brother, these just seem to be extrapolations that are not given - In other words, 'it doesn't mean that'. Trust I do this very same thing at times.

I really should look into it further, but what about the sequencing of the letters that Paul wrote? I am not sure but am thinking that Romans preceded the others? Correct me on that, but it might add some things to the construct.

[i]... even a regenerate man, that the best man in the world hath enough in him to condemn him, if God should deal with him according to the law, which is not the fault of the law, but of our own corrupt nature, which cannot fulfill the law. The repetition of the same things over and over again in this discourse shows how much Paul's heart was affected with what he wrote, and how deep his sentiments were.[/i]


sermonindex Feb 26, 2009

Quote

" even a regenerate man, that the best man in the world hath enough in him to condemn him, if God should deal with him according to the law, which is not the fault of the law, but of our own corrupt nature, which cannot fulfill the law. The repetition of the same things over and over again in this discourse shows how much Paul's heart was affected with what he wrote, and how deep his sentiments were."

You could break Romans 7 down broadly into three sections. The first section obvioulsy deals with the law and how we no relate to it, in fact , we are no longer unders its covenant, for there has been a death and we are now free to be covenanted to the New. The middle section describes the struggle of the man who thought he was alive under the law, but discovered that not to be the case. Obviously Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. The last section deals with the sin that survives, despite our salvation, in our corruptable flesh. And of course, since there is no chapter division in Scripture, we go straight into the fact that "there is therefore now no condemnation," to those who now walk in the Spirit and newness of life and are now under Christ and covered by His blood and walk in His Spirit, as opposed to the man who is still under the Law and is condemned by that law.

I like Henry because he really is not dogmatic here, nor can he be, nor should we. These Scriptures should be mined and explored.

This is Paul's follow up to Galatians which was written in 52ad, Romans being written in the fall of 57ad...................Frank

M
menderofnets Feb 26, 2009

Theology without evidence in the lives of believers is a dangerous thing. We can debate, think and reason with each other until He returns, but unless the Spirit Himself is within us there will be no gain from it.

Mike, the question of

'carnal Christian' vs what then? A 'Super saint'? (as Katz would put it) only complicates matters.
is right on. Questions give rise to others. Paul's teaching throughout all his letters seem to point to a continued, persevering effort on the part of the believer in conjunction with (and indeed enabled by) the Holy Spirit towards a greater holiness, and the subjection of himself to the righteousness of God revealed. This would appear to echo in the lives of many. Sadly, many falter and fail along the way and are lost, hence the words of Hebrews 12 to run the race with perseverance.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 73 posts