The man is the Apostle Paul post conversion, he does what he does not want to do. All true believers can relate. Salvation is instant and monergistic, but sanctification is progressive and cooperative. The unbeliever does not have sorrow for their sin, only the consequence. Another similar and important question from Romans is, who is the "blessed man" of Romans 4:8? The answer is all that trust in Christ. While we struggle with sin in this life, we can have confidence through Christ, that God will not count our sin against us because the price has been paid in full.

Never thought this passage had different views. It was super meaningful passage to me. I am a believer and still struggle with sin and knowing Paul did too as believer let me know I am not alone in the battle against the flesh.

Aside from my views on this text, I'm just so happy that two believers in this culture can disagree on a text and not cancel, slander, or kill each other. Well-done!!

Amen brother Keith. I share your position. My pastor holds the other position. He preached for several months through Romans 7 a few years ago and he changed his position while preaching through the book. Heavy disagree. No way Paul can say that he delights in the law of God in his inner man before he was converted. The whole point that Paul is making is that he is saying "I" and using himself to make an argument. He does this often. Very similar to "if I speak in the tongues of angels but have not love..." He talks this way often to make an argument and a statement. I think the other view focuses too much on the word "I" and tries to use that as the basis for their argument but misses the point and doesn't follow the argument Paul is making.

@CosmicSeptic1

Ай бұрын

In the spirit of continuing in cordial disagreement, I think the citing of 1 Cor. 13 "if I speak in the tongues of angels..." might actually work better for other perspectives than for either Keith's or his fellow elder's. It could be that in 1 Cor., Paul is using the "I" as a generalization or impersonation of anyone. The heart of Paul's intended meaning would be better read "if anyone speak in the tongues of angels but have not love" much more than "if I, Paul the Apostle, speak in the tongues of angels but have not love." And if one could allow nuance for Paul to describe a Christian as in any way being "sold as a slave to sin" while converted, then I don't see why it would be so impossible to allow for the nuance of describing an unconverted man as in some way delighting in God's law in his inner being. Paul has already described the universal conscience earlier in Romans (though the presence of the conscience wouldn't imply that the unconverted person had the ability to act positively towards his good desires - that seems to be Paul's point). Blessings, random internet brother.

Such a great episode! Thank you so much, Keith!

Yey! Thanks for this helpful content ☝️

This was so good. I would love to eaves drop on those phone conversations. Bonus points for mentioning Borgman.

I see it as post conversion. Good debate!

Good job Keith.

GOD Bless

Theology and beard aspirations!

When I read just Romans 7:14ff, I can see the former position. When I read it in context, I can't help but to agree with the latter.

There is a Jewish method of discussing an unsolvable tension called 'speaking with both hands'. I think this may have been what St Paul was talking about. It is an unsolvable tension where 'on one hand' Paul has unsanctified flesh that wants to do only sin, and 'on the other hand' the Holy Spirit works within him to force the wicked flesh into submission and righteousness. This is the long, protracted process of regeneration. I personally do not see this as St Paul referring to the Pharisee Saul as he was. I could be wrong and will not die on that hill. Definately a tough scripture to go through.

I agree with you, and Romans 3:23 helps us here - "All have fallen short of the glory of God". Sanctification is a lifelong process, unlike justification and adoption which are immediate. "None is righteous, no not one" (Romans 10:23), and Paul, by quoting this from the Psalms, is surely including himself. To argue otherwise smacks of Pelagianism.

In Romans 8:22-23, Paul says that all of creation, including “we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.” This verse is compatible with Paul speaking of his current struggles in chapter 7.

I have never thought that Paul is referring to himself when he was a Pharisee in this passage. I think he is teaching by contrasting the two covenants of serving under the letter of the Law and serving in the newness of the Spirit. He is not making this about himself, but teaching how different it is to be under the letter of the Law and the liberation of walking by the Spirit. If we are led by and walk by the Spirit, we put to death the deeds of the body. That is why he says the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. The importance of the New Covenant is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the change of our hearts. The change is from doing the laws which are all outward to living by the Spirit which brings about the awakening of an inner change by exposing the thoughts and intents of the heart. Through faith in Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit and are born again. The Word of God becomes alive through the Sword of the Spirit, sharper than any two-edged sword which divides the soul from the spirit and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Word of God gives light to us so we can know what the will of God is for us. As we walk by faith following the Spirit, the Word is magnified to us.

If Paul is writing Romans 7 as a Christian and his struggle against sin, then had the "law of the spirit of life in Christ set him free from the law of sin and death"? Apparently not.

I think I recall hearing someone teach it as a person in transition from unsaved to saved. Sort of an in-between perspective. (Not saying that I agree or disagree with that view. I don't have time right now to exegete the passage to see if such a view would fit.)

Have to agree with you Keith. Seems he worked to hard, when yours was very clear. I believe same time sinner and saint 😊

Keith, my view is the same as yours. The present tense is significant IMO, but more convincing to me is the stated attitude toward God's law. Saul the Pharisee would surely have said that he delighted in God's law--but Paul the Apostle could not have said that of himself before his conversion. Mike errs here, I think, in conflating all Jews. *Believing* Jews surely would delight in God's law, just as do believing Christians today (and just as Andy Stanley does not)--they're believers. But unbelieving Jews (and Saul the Pharisee was an unbeliever) no more delight in God's law than do unbelieving gentiles. It's essential to remember that God's law demands love for him and for your neighbor--mere external compliance does not satisfy the law, as Christ made clear in the Sermon on the Mount--so "I want to be faithful to my wife" does not satisfy the law, unless the reason you want that is to glorify God. But a helpful discussion, and it's always good to see brothers who can disagree respectfully.

Let's ask Breda

@KnightFel

Ай бұрын

Must be to the jews only. Gentiles don't feel this way amirite Breda? His two-part Romans interpretation is so depressing.

Romans 7:1 states who Paul is conversing with through 7-12 and that is a converted saved Jew, or brother in Christ who knows the law, which a Gentile would not. This is key to understanding who the interlocutor is im Romans 9, and that is, the converted Jew. Romans 9 is Paul explaining to the converted Jew why the majority of the Jews missed the Messiah and was God done with them as a chosen people. The answer of Romans 9 is the Jews missed the messiah because they thought they were saved based on their heritage, law, temple rights and so on. Paul's answer and example of Jacob and Esau and Isaac and Ishmael is just because you are a descendant of Abraham doesn't mean the promise comes or flows to you. Romans 9 has nothing to do with soteriology or election.

Pastor Mike made a mistake when he said that Every Jew Wanted to obey the Law. Just read the prophets and the words of Jesus about the Jews of that day.

Those born again can say that.."the law .. OF..the Spirit of life..in Christ Jesus.."....DID WHAT to them? Romans 8:2 KJV For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus 👉 hath made me free from the law of sin and death.👈 Beloved of God...if you're born again from above. ..Christ has made yiu free from the lusts of your flesh and eyes, and the pride of life in coveteousness and idolatry.

Daniel Wallace in Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics identifies this as a Gnomic Present. That is, a timeless principle, generally applicable to many/all. The "I" works in a similar rhetorical function. So the point is this is anyone, ever, attempting to deal with sin by means of the Law. The flesh cannot defeat the flesh. Is this a believer? Yes. Is this a Jewish believer? Yes. Anyone saying they didn't love the Law needs to remember when Psalm 119 was written. The issue then is, are we *supposed* to feel this way, or is it just natural because we keep trying to kill sin by the flesh? I would say the problem is us. Not God's provision to deal with sin. The Holy Spirit is in us, in part, to kill sin. But we like running into brick walls thinking we can manage the spiritual life without Him. So, this was the best the believing Jew could do. Even for a "blameless" Pharisee, as Paul was. But it is not the best we can do, though it will often seem like it. As we have the Law of Spirit and life.

Debate Leighton Flowers !!!

@Ironica82

Ай бұрын

Why? What benefit would even come out of it?

@Yaas_ok123

Ай бұрын

@@Ironica82 They both have good sprit. Debates don't have to be mean. Their conversation in "Calvinism conference" was great !

first comment

Brother Mike is an Eisegete…at least on this passage…One has to wonder if he struggles with sin…that’s rhetoric by the way

“Regeneration didn’t exist in the Old Testament.” The most bazaar statement of this dislocated discussion. Neither of you were focused on the Romans 7:14-25 text giving the sense of it. Unfortunate. Keith, spend more time studying the Word and far less time making your denomination videos. Praying for you brother…