Romans 7: Who is the "I"? Before or After?

[Guest]

Sean,

I posted that link (post 1) to get the ball rolling... to give an overview, a springboard for discussion. Then I began with 7:1, offering possible meanings.

Since then we've sort of been summarizing what we think it (the whole chapter) says and means which is OK & fine. The problem with that is, we're jumping back & forth. Again, this is fine but it's not a detailed study. (I still don't know if any one liked what I had on 7:1-7).

I've relistened to Steve's Romans lectures on the chapter. He sees Paul's "I" as Paul in the present tense, though undefined as to specifically when (or how often) Paul experiences this "wretchedness." Steve opts for a "plain reading" interpretation. He does mention that some see the "I" as past tense (due to their "holiness" beliefs, to fit their theology). My reasons for seeing it as past tense (as specifically to "a Jew = I" before conversion) are not based on a "holiness" belief but my exegesis (to the best of my present ability). Anyway, Steve's not here to participate or to explain his view further than the lectures do, so I'll leave Steve's view at that.

A study of this kind, unfortunately, perhaps, takes considering every minute detail...so posting on a forum may not be the best setting for it...I don't know.

Paidion,

You asked about why taking a Holistic view of man (or not) would make a difference. I suppose I have some "leftovers" (so to speak) from the 70's & 80's when I was in the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement. Back then, Watchman Nee was pretty influential in these circles and the "Word of Faith" Movement was just taking off. To this day you hear people talk about yielding to "your spirit man" and so on.

Needless to say, these kinds of depictions of man (the doctrine of) can be confusing.

I also studied up on current views of man...and have found there are now many, many more than I was aware of: "Holistic Trichotomists"...and on & on & on! Um, I think the mystery of the Trinity might be easier to unravel!!! (not kidding, really).....

Homer,

Agreed, with your last post. (Good job too, Brother)!

Romans 7 is in the greater narrative of Romans and must be understood right there (where it is) for what Paul wrote, no more, no less.

Based on what I've found and studied so far, coupled with what you posted (and everything related to all of it): Paul's "I" is exegetically determined from the greater narrative, and emerges from it.

What I've called the hermeneutical principle of non-contradiction is why I agree with you (and Paidion) that Paul's "I" cannot be he, himself, in the present tense (as elaborated on earlier, etc., etc.).

All,

Steve's not here so I don't want to contest his views without giving him the chance to reply. I agree with Steve on most things, probably more than anyone I know; but not on Romans 7 (who the "I" is).

Also, if we were to want to really get into a study of this chapter in detail....we'd have to go slower and not skip around, probably make shorter posts? (and reply to each thing posted), lol. 'Not saying we're messing up...but well, some things just require the hard work of point by point analysis.....

Maybe we're kind of "all over the place" now...but: Thanks for makin me think!
Rick

[Guest]

Rick,

You wrote:

I agree with Steve on most things, probably more than anyone I know.

Me too. I can not tell you how surprised I was when I first began to listen to Steve's program. Someone, on the radio no less, who has so many views similar to mine! He has been a big influence on me!

I have heard his view on this passage and been "almost persuaded" but the hurdle I can not get over to hold any other view than my present one is Paul's statement that he is "sold into bondage to sin". When taken in context of chapters 6 & 8 I can't see how he could be speaking of his "born again" experience. If he had said something like "I can't always do what I know I should" then I could easily see other views could be true.

I recall to this day how I felt when I read this passage for the first time many, many years ago: relieved and comforted! I thought if this was Pauls experience, then my failures should be no big deal. Do you think this influences some of the thinking on this passage?

[Guest]

Homer,

I was just going over your last post (considering the texts you cited). There's a lot in there, excellent work, Homer! But, for right now....

Re: Steve. Even if one didn't agree with him all that much, he presents "all views" (or the most popular ones) then tells why he has his views. If for nothing else, one learns the views, the options, and other ways of seeing any given text or doctrine (I like that). Steve is a great blessing in my life as well, Brother Homer!

I have heard his view on this passage and been "almost persuaded" but the hurdle I can not get over to hold any other view than my present one is Paul's statement that he is "sold into bondage to sin". When taken in context of chapters 6 & 8 I can't see how he could be speaking of his "born again" experience.

Agreed, (the clincher).

I can't recall exactly what Steve said on "sold into bondage to sin" (I may have fallen asleep as I often listen to Steve's stuff at bedtime, lol).

I mentioned earlier that I don't think Paul paused in his greater Romans narrative "to give an excursus on his personal spiritual life" -- just as Steve said Paul did not pause in Romans 9 "to give an excursus on Calvinism." (Steve (and others) think Paul did pause to tell about his present personal spiritual life, you & I don't)....Therefore, Romans 9 is about individual election for salvation! Just kidding, Homer

If he had said something like "I can't always do what I know I should" then I could easily see other views could be true.

First, I can't imagine Paul saying that....
Second, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" reiterates that Paul wasn't talking about his present spiritual life in the Romans 7 "I-statements."

I recall to this day how I felt when I read this passage for the first time many, many years ago: relieved and comforted! I thought if this was Pauls experience, then my failures should be no big deal. Do you think this influences some of the thinking on this passage?

I wasn't relieved or comforted when I first read it (as a new Christian). Of course, anyone would immediately take it as a "personal testimony" on the first read. My initial thought was that if the great Apostle Paul was as messed up as I was (as an 18 year old off of drugs and alcohol) -- "This is going to be VERY TOUGH GOING, INDEED." I was discouraged but, actually, wondered almost immediately if he really was talking about his present? (context, 6-8, I saw it). Whatever he meant...I wasn't sure after reading Romans the 2nd or 3rd time. I thought, Hmmm...What's all this other stuff about Jews and the Law? How does that fit in?

Yes, I think many people read their own present experience into the text. Why wouldn't they, if Paul is talking about it?

In Christ,
Rick

[Guest]

Thank you for your list of scriptures, Homer! They clearly show that Paul was an overcomer (not a slave to sin) and that he encouraged others to become overcomers too.

Many of those who hold that Paul was describing himself think, "Surely if the great apostle Paul, was a slave to sin and couldn't do the things he ought to have done or refrained from the things that he ought not to have done, how can I be expected to do any better?

That attitude is defeat from the start! "No one can live righteously, so why bother trying. The best we can do is to trust in the finished work of Christ, so that our sinning won't send us to hell forever."

I respect you, Homer, that you not only believe in the possibility of living a righteous life, but that it is expected of us.

Here's another passage that perhaps belongs to your list:

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. KJ21

[Guest]

There is a local Lutheran radio program I listen to that not only teach Romans 7 is the normal Christian walk but that works have nothing to do with salvation. A comment by a guest pastor/teacher was something to the effect of: 'I am so sure of my salvation apart from works that if I were in the act of adultery when Jesus returned I would be raptured to be with Jesus!'
Another comment was: 'There are sinners in heaven and hell, the difference is one group has faith in Christ.'

They are obviously antinomian.

Anyway, great topic. I've always been confused as to how Romans 7 can be used for the normal Christian walk. Thanks for the clarity everyone.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Here's another passage that perhaps belongs to your list:

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. KJ21

Agreed! Thanks for appreciating the list. I didn't mean for it to be comprehensive, but wished to show Paul consistently made statements that contradict what seems to be a popular (mis)understanding of the "wretched man" passage (as in what Sean heard). I do not doubt that several more can be found.

And I agree with your comments concerning what this misunderstanding engenders.

[Guest]

So...is the thread "over" now? (I rather hope not)!

I think we, and especially Homer, have given plenty of argumentation from the hermenutical law of non-contradiction from within Romans itself as well as other Pauline and NT writings. (Note, "we" don't have any opponents on this thread)....

Sean's comments on an extremist antinomian view illustrates their extremist view. Steve would strongly disagree with these people for their antinomianism -- though he also sees the "I" as normative for: whenever Paul and we sin and are completely disgusted by it, if I am not mistaken about Steve's view).

I've been listening to more of Steve's lectures (RAD-05 and COU-06) and could comment but think it might be unfair because (A) he's not here now and, (B) I really question...Well, I have a lot of questions for him on it (I'll put it that way), lol. What Steve says about "Christian living" in these talks is good; I just think he's missing some finer points on the actual exegesis, okay, not fair, nevermind......

My problem with this thread's topic is I want to (very clearly) understand Paul's every (single) word! Verse by verse exegesis, including going into the Greek, is the only way I can do that, huh?

On this thread I've learned that the NIV is a much more worse translation than I had thought it was (Thanks)! I've had a pocket NIV for years and used to take it everywhere I went; it's had a lot of use. It's translation switching time for me now! Lately, I've been carrying around an NKJV-Gideons...which is definitely better. NIV is excellent at times, at others it is useless (for technical study).

My posts can be too long and rambling. But I just don't want the thread to stop yet!

Where to from here?
God bless y'all,
Rick

[Guest]

Paul knows how to use tenses since several times earlier he clearly spoke in the past tense. And it's not that he is using hyperbole or satire , it's that the more holy we become the more we see our sin and the more it grieves us. So Paul's actual quantity of sin may be very small but because of his sanctification it really grieves him.
So can Paul speak in the past tense?
7.4 "you also were put to death"
7.5 "For when we were in the flesh"
6.20 "For when you were slaves of sin"
Yes Paul clearly knows the difference between past tense and present tense and in the verses in question he speaks in the present tense by design.
Paul consistently speaks about a continuing battle between the flesh and his mind, here and in his other writings. Does Paul teach that because we accept Christ our "SIN NATURE" disappears?
"For the creation was subjected to FUTILITY" 8.20
"And not only that , but we ourselves who have the Spirit as the FIRSTFRUITS , we ALSO GROAN within ourselves , eargerly waiting for the adoption , the redemption of our bodies" 8.23

[Guest]

I don't have a reply to you or anyone else, Steve....

Sean and I talked about this chapter (again) recently, on the "Sabbath" thread. We mentioned possibly starting a new one about it.

I'm still studying Romans 7: going over what we had posted on this thread, reading the chapter in context of the book (over and over), listened to one or two of Steve Gregg's lectures on it again, and, trying to find any new information about it on the web.

This chapter is very difficult to discuss on the web or in person because it has so much in it!

In the meantime, whether we get a new thread or not; I'm now more convinced of the same view I expressed on this thread. But, right now, I don't want to debate about it (which I didn't want to do in the first place).

Sean and I had said that we would need a brand new thread, begin at verse one, and go through the chapter in detail---without going to other passages (that is, in terms of "trailing off" into them). A lot easier said than done!

So, I guess I don't really have much to say right now....
Rick

[Guest]

Steve 7150 wrote, in part:

Paul consistently speaks about a continuing battle between the flesh and his mind, here and in his other writings. Does Paul teach that because we accept Christ our "SIN NATURE" disappears?

Yes we still have a battle to be won. As Paul indicated, we need to beat our body into submission, and also our mind. And no, our "sin nature" does not disappear. That is not the point. The question is this: is a born-again Christian a "slave of sin" or has he been set free? I think the scripture is decidedly in favor of the latter. No slave of sin could say "I can do all things through Christ who strengthen me."