WHY I CHANGED MY MIND

Romans 7:14-25

 

If you have taken the time to read the notes or listen to the sermon posted on our website regarding Romans 7:14-25 you know that my initial take on the passage was that Paul is here giving a personal testimony of his own inward struggle with righteousness in order that he might answer the question of why believers still struggle with sin.  I make the argument that Paul is simply revealing that while the salvation of God does justify is, it does not bring immediate outward perfection.  It does however eventually promise outward perfection on the day that our flesh is finally destroyed either through death or the second coming of our Lord.  On that day, glorification will occur and our salvation will be complete and we will finally be both inwardly and outwardly righteous.

I take Romans 7:14-25 to be Paul’s testimony to highlight the struggle of a genuinely redeemed man who laments his constant struggle with the flesh and I use it as a testimony of a mature believer who longs for the return of Christ that he may be finally free from sin completely.

A couple of things I need to say about that view:

1) I still unequivocally hold to the theological beliefs outlined above.  For example, I certainly still believe that though Christians are justified before God that practical external righteousness will elude us until the time of our glorification.  We are currently “being saved” through the process of sanctification but that is a process that will not be perfected as long as we live in this flesh.  Furthermore, I certainly still believe that the mature believer will groan regarding the remainder of sin in his/her flesh, will likely be more aware of his/her sin, and will strive to daily put that flesh to death.  No redeemed child of God can ever grow content with the sin in their flesh and they will long for the day they are totally free from it.  That belief has not changed, and I certainly believe Scripture bears that truth out.  I am just no longer convinced that this is the main point behind Romans 7:14-25

2) The reason I preached this passage the way I did, is because this is what I was taught from two men whom I greatly respect.  Namely John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul.  Their interpretation of this passage remains that Paul is here referring to himself as a spiritually mature man lamenting his ongoing battle in the flesh.  This is also why I have chosen not to remove my former sermon from the website even though I now disagree with my basic premise.  I want everyone who comes here to know that my new view runs against two of the greatest theological minds that I know and honestly posting a different view than theirs causes me to question even to this day if my new view is correct.  In short, I am leaving the old sermon up because I am not totally convinced that one day I might not learn more, see what those men already know, and return to my former view.  They are, after all, far smarter than I am.

None the less, because I see the purpose of this passage now differently, I want to lay out for you my new interpretation of why Paul said these things.  You certainly are encouraged to pray and seek God for His interpretation, for there is only one, and we are obligated to search until we find it.

That being said, here’s the point.

 

PAUL IS NOT HERE REFERRING TO HIS LIFE AS A MATURE BELIEVER. 

PAUL IS HERE REFERRING TO HIMSELF IN HIS PREVIOUS UNREDEEMED STATE.

Paul is sharing with us about how when he was convicted of sin his first attempt to find salvation was to try harder and work more.  In those legalistic efforts he found no satisfaction and thus finally fell broken on the cross of Christ where he found freedom from the sin that his hard work had never gained him.

Let me take you on my journey.

You are well aware of the direction of the book of Romans.

• Chapter 1, after the introduction, reveals to us the wrath of God.
• Chapter 2 changes pronouns from “them” to “you” because Paul then addresses the wrath of God on the religious hypocrite.
• Chapter 3 first condemns all men under their sin and then introduces the glorious atonement of Christ and how the righteousness of God is available to us through Him.
• Chapter 4 shows us the means of obtained God’s righteousness (justification) and that is through faith where Abraham is lifted to us as the chief example.
• Chapter 5 begins to introduce the concept of the security of the believer and the precious doctrine of imputation. Namely that we are secure because Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to us by grace.  (Paul even defends that imputation works by showing us how Adam’s folly was first imputed to us).  Thus Paul makes the powerful assertion that we are saved by grace not by the works of the Law.
• Chapter 6 Paul is forced to address the coming argument that his preaching is antinomianism (against the law). Paul assumes a coming accusation that he is turning a blind eye to God’s demand for righteousness.  However here Paul will assure his law loving opponents that anyone who would use grace as a license to sin has totally missed the point of salvation.
• And in chapter 7 Paul brings his argument regarding antinomianism to a completion. He is answering the legalists regarding the purpose of the Law.

And here he begins by assuring them that just because he preaches that salvation is not by works of the Law that does not mean that the Law has no purpose.  The Law has a tremendous purpose.  The Law is even essential to salvation.  However the Law does not save and anyone who seeks to use the Law in that way will find nothing but frustration, slavery, and ultimately condemnation.

Paul first directs our attention to THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW (7:1-3).  And the chief point here is that the Law only has jurisdiction over those who are living.  After a person dies, the Law no longer has jurisdiction over them.  And he uses the analogy of a marriage/adultery/divorce/death/remarriage as his illustration.  But the point remains, when a person is dead, the Law no longer has jurisdiction.

He then reminds us that through Jesus WE DIED AND WERE FREED FROM THE LAW’S JURISDICTION (7:4-6).  Through imputation and identification with Christ, we were also considered dead and buried and thus free from the Law as a means of salvation.  The Law no longer holds that sort of jurisdiction over us.  We are now in Christ.  The Law has been fulfilled in Him.  We now serve “in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”

That is Paul’s crowning point.  So long as we tried to be saved by the Law all we ever achieved was failure and all we ever received was more condemnation.  Look at verse 5.  “For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.”  THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT VERSE because that is the truth Paul will be illustrating in the rest of Romans 7.  Paul is about to drive the truth of that point home.  He is about to show you how a person in the flesh, using the Law as a means of salvation, will never find anything but more sin and ultimate condemnation.  And the illustration Paul is going to use comes from his own former unredeemed life.

This is when we get to Romans 7:7.

Romans 7:7 “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”

Now because Paul has asserted the Law cannot save, and because Paul has asserted that the Law only condemns, and because Paul has revealed the necessity of being freed from the Law he realizes that there are some who will think that he is simply anti-law.  That is not true!  And that is what he starts out by revealing here.  He immediately begins defending the Law.  “What shall we say then?  Is the Law sin? May it never be!”  Of course not!  Don’t think for one second that Paul is antinomian.  He is absolutely not against the Law.  The Law is not sin.  The Law never encourages sin.

In fact, here is the absolutely best thing the Law ever does for a person: “I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”  Paul loves the Law because the Law did a wonderful thing for him.  The Law showed him that he was a sinner.  (And incidentally if a person is never shown that they are a sinner they will never cry out for salvation.  This type of condemnation is essential to salvation.)  So the Law did Paul a tremendous favor in that it revealed to him that he had a major coveting problem.

So follow where Paul is now.

• He has lived his life under the Law.
• He has lived with the intention of being perfectly obedient to God.
• He knows the Law is of God.
• He knows the Law is good.
• And so he knows that if the Law calls him a coveter then that is what he is

But here is where Paul made his first mistake (as an unredeemed yet convicted man).  PAUL WENT TO THE LAW FOR SALVATION.

When the Law condemned him as a covetous man Paul set out to give it his best effort to stop coveting.  But it didn’t work.  Why? Because his flesh was still strong.  (Remember verse 5, “while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.”)  And here Paul found that he couldn’t try hard enough to do what the Law required (8) “But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment produced in me coveting of every kind;” Of course it did!  The sinful flesh doesn’t bow to the Law.  The Law only irritates it and causes it to revolt even harder!  If the Law never exposes, all is well “for apart from the Law sin is dead” but when the Law tells you to change, then comes the fight.  And it is a battle Paul tried to fight in the flesh, and he lost miserably.

Now what did he learn from this initial battle?  Namely that he was in trouble.  (9-11) “I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.”  He says a mouthful there, but it is so important.  When Paul says “I was once alive” what he means is that he didn’t know he was spiritually dead.  He didn’t know he was sinful.  “But when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died”.  When Paul read that verse about not coveting he learned that he was sinful and all of a sudden his high self-view was shattered.  He realized that he was a sinful man.  What caused him to come to this realization?  The Law.  So in effect, this Law, which he always thought would save him actually killed him (or at least showed him he was dead).  But in Paul’s mind that only proved that the Law had a very important place and the Law as very good.  (12) “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”  That is to say, you can’t blame the Law for my problem.  The Law is nothing more than the MRI machine that revealed the tumor.  The Law is good.

And to make sure you understand his point he asks the question another way; just to remove all doubt.  (13) “Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me?  May it never be!”  That’s an important question.  Paul, did the Law kill you?  Paul say, “No, 1,000 times no!”  Then what did kill you? (13b) “Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.”  The cause of Paul’s death was sin.  He just didn’t know what sin was and he didn’t know he had it until the Law came in and exposed it.  The Law didn’t kill him, sin did.

And so Paul has clearly outlined for us the role of the Law as it comes to salvation.  It is there to expose sin and condemn sinners.  That is a good role.  That is a necessary role.  But do not attribute more to the Law than that.  One thing the Law cannot do is save a sinner from his sin.  And that is where Paul made his critical mistake as a lost man.

He heard the warning of the Law.  He knew the Law was good.  He knew the Law was from God.  He knew the Law was right.  He knew he had to obey the Law.  And so Paul set out to try harder and do better.  The result of that effort is found in verses 14-24.

 

Romans 7:14-24 is the sorrowful song of the sinful man

Who has tried his best to save himself through works of the Law.

 

Look at it.

Romans 7:14-24 “For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?”

Now at this point let me address the reasoning of John MacArthur who states that Paul is saved man because of statements like “For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man”.  MacArthur holds that this is the mindset of a saved person.  To that I agree.  That is certainly the mindset of a saved person.  But it is also the mindset of a lost person who is under conviction from the Law which he knows to be true.  He knows it is right.  What we are talking about here is a lost man trying everything he can to obey the Law that he knows to be true.

And the frustration is painfully obvious.  (15) “For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.”  (18) “the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” (19) “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.”  Can you hear him?  I read that coveting is a sin so I set out to quit coveting.  But the harder I tried to quit coveting the more I coveted.  I just couldn’t kick it, despite my efforts.  What was his conclusion?  (14) “I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.”  (21) “I find then the principle that evil is present in me,”.  And ultimately Paul says, (23) I am “a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.” 

What is Paul saying?  He, as a lost man trying his best, has finally come to the realization that while the Law can help him identify his sin, the Law cannot help him defeat it.  The Law can condemn him, but the Law can’t save him.  The Law can kill him, but the Law cannot give him life.  Knowing the commandment is good for exposing sin, but knowing the commandment won’t help you live righteous; he has come to realize that in this condition his sin will never be overcome.  And that reality leads to the helpless cry of salvation.  (24) “Wretched man that I am!  Who will set me free from the body of this death?”  This friends is a cry of salvation!  Can you hear the tax collector here begging, “God be merciful to me the sinner!”?  Paul is there in full beatitude mode.  He is poor in spirit, he is mourning over sin, he is hungering and thirsting for righteousness, he is meek, he is pure in heart.  He knows that there is nothing he can do to fix his problem because he has given it everything he has and failed miserably.

Ah, but the solution!  (25) “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”  Paul found the Savior from sin and it wasn’t the Law.  It was Jesus!  And then the conclusion.  “So then, one the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.”  That “so then” is the final application and explanation of the whole point that Paul has been making since verse 5.  That just because your mind wants to obey God doesn’t mean your flesh will follow.  Salvation is not a matter of the will.  Salvation is not a matter of knowledge.  Salvation is not a matter of education or trying harder or twelve step programs.  The flesh is too strong!  The flesh will override your knowledge every time.  Our world (and especially our religious majority) has spent countless millions trying to educate young people on the dangers and ramifications of sex, but education doesn’t change the impulse of the flesh in the heat of passion.  That is Paul’s point!  If all salvation was about was changing the mind then the Law would be enough, but there is a much bigger issue in play.  We are talking about a sinful flesh and for that we need a Savior to deliver us.

Now, there is some more very important wording that must be grasped to seal my point here.  Back in (7:24) Paul asked, “who will SET ME FREE from the body of this death?”  Do you see that is the question.  The Law already changed his mind, Paul’s bigger foe is his flesh (“the body of this death”).  And Paul wants to know specifically “who will set me free..?”.  Do you see that?

Now look to chapter 8.  “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus HAS SET YOU FREE from the law of sin and of death.”  Do you see that Paul is answering that question in chapter 8?  Chapter 7 is not about a saved man wanting perfect sanctification.  Chapter 7 is about a lost man finally learning that by his own efforts he will never have freedom from sin.  And yet this freedom from sin is made clear and available in chapter 8.  It comes through the justification of Christ and the work of God’s Holy Spirit.  Does that mean that we will now be sinless in this life?  No, at any given moment we will always have more sin than we are ever currently or consciously aware of.  We are not sinless, but we are certainly moving in an upward direction, and that only by the work of Christ and His Spirit.

Furthermore let me point out.  If MacArthur and Sproul are correct in their assessment of the meaning of Romans 7, then at the end of the chapter we read Paul asking this question, “Wretched man that I am!  Who will set me free from the body of this death?”  And if Paul is referring to himself as a spiritually mature man there, then there is only one possible answer to his question.  That answer would have to be, “When Jesus returns or you die and go to be with him.”  In short, there is no answer in this life for the battle against sin.  Are we to say that a believer has no more hope for victory over sin in this life than a lost man?  Of course not!  We know that our victory is here and now.  “If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed.”  We know what Paul said in Galatians 5:16, “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.”  There is victory for the believer today!  There is freedom from sin today!  And that is the hope that Paul is offering in Romans 7 and into chapter 8.  That as a lost man aware of his sin, he tried through the Law to make it all right and he could not.  All he found was that he was a slave.  But through Jesus Christ, he found freedom from sin, and through the sanctifying work of the Spirit Paul found that he was no longer a slave.  That is the point of chapter 7.  It was an argument that begin with that great statement back in chapter 5, (5:20-21) “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”  Paul has finally here completed defending that important statement.

And for one final interesting reality.  I ask you to look at Philippians 4:10-13.  This is the passage where Paul addresses the generous giving of the Philippians on his behalf.  He writes:

Philippians 4:10-13 “But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”

Look at that!  “for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  I know how to get along wit humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.”  That does not sound like a man who struggles with coveting does it?  That is not a covetous man, that is a content man.  The man who once had tried so strenuously to put an end to his coveting has finally been able to declare total victory over that specific sin.  How did he do it?  What was the 12 step program?  Look at his answer, “I can do all things THROUGH HIM WHO STRENGTHENS ME.”  Christ did it!  Christ set me free!  The Spirit of God is at work in me.  The Spirit of God is battling my flesh.  See Galatians 5:17 “For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.”  That is to say that the Spirit is now warring against the flesh so that no longer do you have to do what the flesh wants!  O what victory!  And it is the very victory Paul was celebrating back in Romans 7 & 8

Well, there you have it.

So, when you listen to the sermon on this site, perhaps you are inclined to see this truth the way I saw it before.  And I maintain nothing but absolute respect and honor for men like John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul.  They are giants, I am a worm in the dirt.  But in listening I also want to present you with this alternative view that I have now come to hold.  Grace to you as you study this passage on your own.

 

 

OTHER ARTICLES ON THIS REALITY FOR YOUR STUDY:

Follow this link to find the first article and links to the others as well.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/romans-7-apostle-paul-confession/

 

 

ONE WHO AGREES WITH MACARTHUR:

What’s Really Going On in Romans 7

July 2, 2018  |  Will Timmins

There’s a story that a British newspaper sent out an inquiry to famous authors, asking the question, “What’s wrong with the world?” The writer G. K. Chesterton responded:

Dear Sir,

I am.

Yours, G. K. Chesterton

In Romans 7 Paul does something similar. He’s anticipating the accusation that he disparages God’s holy law (vv. 7, 12) since he’s said that Christians have “died to the law” (v. 4) and no longer serve God in “the oldness of the letter” (v. 6). In effect, the apostle replies: “You want to know what the problem is? It’s not my view of the law. That’s beyond reproach. It’s me. I’m the problem. My teaching on the law is not a reflection of what the law is like. It’s a reflection of what I am like.”

Paul’s Dual Purpose

Why is Romans 7 so difficult to understand? Why is it so debated? Why does the evidence seem to push in different directions? Because of Paul’s dual purpose in this passage.

The life of fruitful obedience to God, he explains, comes as we die to our old husband, the law, which was a threatening master over us, and we marry a new husband, the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1–4). The law can only expose and excite our sin (vv. 7–13). Although the law is “spiritual” (v. 14)—having a divine origin and nature—we are “fleshly” (v. 14), intrinsically incapable of keeping God’s good law. So God in Christ has to take from our hands the external written code—the law book—and put into our hearts his Spirit, who empowers the powerless to live the fruitful life of love to which the law points (vv. 5–6).

That is Paul’s main point in Romans 7. His purpose in light of that is to simultaneously (1) defend himself against the misconception that he dismisses and denigrates God’s law, and (2) help the believers in Rome see that they’re fleshly by nature and, therefore, can’t successfully serve God in  the “oldness of the letter” (v. 6). But defending yourself while pointing the finger at others rarely ends well (see Romans 2!), so Paul defends himself while pointing the finger at himself as the problem.

Paul simultaneously defends himself against a misplaced charge and confesses his profound incapacity to obey God’s law. That, in large part, explains why Romans 7 has a mixture of positive and negative statements.

The element of self-defense continues into verses 14–25. Take verse 22 for example, where Paul uses a verb that appears nowhere else in biblical Greek (sunēdomai). Our first question shouldn’t be, “Is this the experience of a Christian or a non-Christian?” but “Why this verb in this context?” It makes sense when we realize Paul comes to his own defense (as also in vv. 7, 11, 14, 16), since it was a verb often used to express a strong sympathy of outlook with another person: “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner person” (cf. NASB; HCSB). The phrase personifies God’s law as someone Paul strongly agrees with. The law is, after all, God’s personal voice (v. 7). Paul is saying, “I’m not taking sides against the law. I’m fully, joyfully in agreement with the law.”

Two Keys to Unlock Verse 14

Everything in verses 14–25 stands under the banner of verse 14: “We know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been sold under sin” (literal translation). Paul confesses what he is intrinsically like, in contrast to what the law is intrinsically like.

There are two points to note, which will unlock the verse for us. The first key is that the statement “I am fleshly” is temporally constrained by the statement “we know that the law is spiritual.” It becomes clear when we rewrite it like this: “We (you Christians in Rome, and I the apostle Paul) know that the law is spiritual, but I (Paul) am fleshly.” Which Paul is speaking in the second part of the sentence? Is it Paul the Pharisee or Paul the apostle? The answer is clear—it’s Paul the apostle—unless we want to play conjuring tricks with language. Clearly the “I” of the second part of the sentence is part of the “we” of the first part.

It’s true that the Greek present tense can be used in a “dramatic” way to refer to past time. But to raise that point with respect to Romans 7 is a red herring, since the statement of verse 14a locates the present tense of verse 14b at the time Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome. Paul, the author of Romans, refers to himself here when he says “I.”

But how do we make sense of the Christian Paul saying, “I am fleshly, sold under sin”? That brings us to the second key, which is realizing that “sold under sin” doesn’t qualify Paul, but qualifies his condition of fleshliness. Paul literally says, “I am fleshly, having been sold under sin.” He does not say, “I am fleshly and sold under sin.” Interpreters typically read into the verse an “and” that’s not there. Having been sold under sin (by the transgression of Adam), we’ve become fleshly people.

There’s a vital distinction here. Being a slave is fundamentally an issue of personal identity—“Who am I?” (or better, “Whose am I?”). Being fleshly is fundamentally an issue of personal capacity—“What am I?” (or “What am I like?”). Paul isn’t saying he’s a slave of sin and contradicting what he just said about the believer’s freedom in chapter 6. We now have freedom through union with Christ in his death and resurrection (6:1–10), but our bodies don’t yet share Christ’s risen life (6:11). So there’s still a slavery in our bodily members (7:23) as we await the redemption of our bodies (8:23). That’s what it means to be fleshly.

This is the painful reality—our bodily condition hasn’t yet caught up with who we now are in Christ. We’re no longer “in the flesh,” where we reported to slavemaster sin (7:5). However, now that we report to King Jesus we do so as those who are still “fleshly” people (7:14). We have new identities but not new innate capacities! We remain irreparably (but not irredeemably) impaired people.

The Christian’s Radical Inability

Like a computer virus, sin has entered inside the system (“living in me,” vv. 17, 20), where it has impaired all operations (my bodily “members,” v. 23) from functioning according to their original design (carrying out God’s good law, vv. 16, 18, 19, 21). This radical, systemic impairment results in an inability to accomplish the good (vv. 15, 18, 19). It means we have a radical moral disability. We’re incapacitated (vv. 18, 23). The pure, holy goodness of the law is beyond our reach. Because he is fleshly, the good Paul wants to do he does not do.

Three quick points to note. First, this is a Christian’s confession of a human condition. The Christian perceives it (note the verbs of perception in vv. 14, 18, 21, 23), but we all have it.

Second, there’s a connection between 6:12 (“the desires of the body”), 6:19 (“the weakness of the flesh”), 7:7 (“you shall not desire/covet”), and the fleshly/bodily sin of 7:14–25. In other words, Paul isn’t giving us headline news of disgraceful misconduct, but sharing his personal awareness of the power of indwelling sin, experienced as sinful desire. This sinful desire is with us till the day we die.

Christ is a fountain of abundant life. Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of faith.

Third, Paul dramatizes the dynamic of sin within to underline his intrinsic powerlessness in the face of it. Paul doesn’t yet have in view the Spirit’s enabling, because he wants us to first grasp our own profound inability. This makes us both appreciate, and also depend on, God’s power in Christ (8:1–4). And it means that I never possess spiritual life as a quality or property that I can claim as mine. Rather, by the Spirit, I participate in the risen life of Christ, whose Spirit produces the fruit of Christ in me. That love that God enabled me to show yesterday to my unlovely neighbor? That was Christ’s love at work in and through me.

Three Implications

1. Romans 7 and Faith

Faith means going outside ourselves (there’s no innate good within us, 7:18) and fleeing to Christ, not only for justification but for every blessing of God’s grace. There’s no fruitfulness apart from him (7:4). As Martin Luther put it, “All our good is outside of us, and that good is Christ.” Or, as John Calvin wrote, “Since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other” (Institutes 2.16.19). Relying on the law involves self-reliance (cf. Phil. 3:9). It’s a dead end. Christ, meanwhile, is a fountain of abundant life.

Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of faith.

2. Romans 7 and Hope

Salvation in Christ is resurrection life. We participate now in the resurrection life of Christ (6:1–11), but we still await the resurrection of the dead, when our bodies will be raised to be like his glorious body (Phil 3:21). So the life of hope is lived amid profound bodily weakness (Rom 4:18–25; 6:12, 19; 7:14–25; 8:10–11, 23–25). That weakness is physical, but it’s also moral.

Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of hope.

3. Romans 7 and Love

Either we can use the law in pride to distance ourselves from others (2:1–16), or God will use the law in our lives to show us that we’re just like Adam, the prototypical sinner (7:7–13), and as helpless as the lowliest person we’ll ever meet (7:14–25).

You can only love people when down on their level (12:16), so knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of love.

Remember, this is the confession of the apostle Paul. When Christ called him on the Damascus road, he broke him, and he stayed a broken man. But what an abundant harvest grew from the soil of that brokenness! Only from such men and women can words of life and grace flow. Witness Romans 8, a glorious melody of assurance, comfort, and hope. Leaders of Christ’s precious flock take note: You can only tend to their needs down on your knees.

Will Timmins is lecturer in New Testament at Moore Theological College, Sydney, and author of Romans 7 and Christian Identity: A Study of the ‘I’ in Its Literary Context.

 

 

ANOTHER WHO AGREES WITH MACARTHUR:

Romans 7 Does Describe Your Christian Experience

Perplexing Passages

January 19, 2016  |  John Piper

Bible & Theology

Editors’ note: This is the second installment in a special three-part “Perplexing Passages” forum examining the long-debated Pauline passage, Romans 7:13–25. In part one, Tom Schreiner defended the view that Paul was speaking of his struggle with sin before his conversion. The final part will offer a third view from Martyn Lloyd-Jones. A version of this article appeared originally at DesiringGod.org and has been revised by the author for The Gospel Coalition.

When I teach on Romans 7, I expect there may be pushback to my argument that Romans 7:14–25 refers to Paul’s—and thus to our—Christian experience. Good friends, like Tom Schreiner, think that when Paul says “I delight in the law of God, in my inner being (esō anthrōpon)” (Rom. 7:22), or when he says “I, my very self (autos egō) serve the law of God with my mind” (Rom. 7:25), he is expressing his pre-Christian experience.

This is because Paul also says, “I am of the flesh, sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14); “I do the very thing I hate” (Rom. 7:15); “I see in my members another law . . . making me captive to the law of sin” (Rom. 7:23); “wretched man that I am!” (Rom. 7:24); and “with my flesh I serve the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25).

These statements of defeat do not sound like the person who says in Romans 8:2, “The law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.”

Matter of Exegesis

I know that when it comes to a positive description of what the Christian life should be, and what it normally is, that Tom and I do not differ significantly. In other words, our difference in exegesis on this passage does not signal a significant difference in what to call for, hope for, and expect from genuine Christians.

But biblical faithfulness and clarity is always good for us. So it might be helpful to make a few clarifying comments. For more extensive argumentation, I preached six messages on Romans 7:14–25 under the title “Who Is This Divided Man?” The ten reasons I gave for my position in those sermons are summed up here.

Five Clarifications

Here are some clarifications that might help make the case.

1. I’m not convinced Romans 7:5 and 7:7–25 both refer to Paul before he was converted.

Tom and numerous others see a strong argument for the pre-Christian view in the claim that Romans 7:7–25 unpacks Romans 7:5, while Romans 8:1–17 unpacks Romans 7:6.

Since Romans 7:5 refers to pre-Christian experience, they infer that 7:7–25 does as well. I don’t find this point compelling. For one thing, they agree that 7:13–25 is answering the question of verse 13: “Did that which is good, then, [the law] bring death to me?”

I agree. That’s what 7:13–25 is doing. Paul’s answer is, No. It is sin, not law, that kills. But it begs the question to assume we know how Paul will argue for this in 7:13–25. How will he show the exceeding power and ugliness of sin, and the goodness of the law? I would make the case that he argues from his own Christian experience in dealing with sin to show how powerful and deadly sin is, and how good the law is.

Further, notice the similarity in thought and language between 7:6 and 7:25. In 7:6, there is the victory over bondage to the law followed by the great result: “So that we serve (douleuein) in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” Similarly, in 7:25, there is another victory: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” followed by another great result: “So then, I myself serve (douleuō) the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”

Both of these verses (7:6, 25) express the effect or result (verse 6: hōste) “to serve” God in a new way. This “service” in verse 25, Paul makes explicit, is not the service of the law of sin with the flesh. Therefore, it is the service of God by the Spirit. Five verses later, Paul makes clear that the only alternative to living by the flesh is living by the Spirit.

Therefore, the argument of Romans 7:13–25 is not limited to unpacking pre-Christian experience of Romans 7:5. It is also unpacking the Christian experience of Romans 7:6.  And it is supporting 7:5 by using Christian experience to spotlight the exceeding power of sin as our great enemy, not the law.

2. Paul genuinely delights in the law.

When I say that an unregenerate Paul would not say, “I delight in the law of God, in my inner being” (Rom. 7:22), I don’t mean that a first-century Jew couldn’t say that. I mean that the term “inner being” (esō anthrōpon) is Paul’s way of saying, “I don’t mean this hypocritically, or superficially, or pharisaically. I mean that I myself really do, in the depths of my new regenerate man (cf. Eph. 3:16; 4:24), love the law of God.”

I don’t doubt there were regenerate first-century Christian Jews like Zechariah and Elizabeth who were “both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments” (Luke 1:6). I am sure they delighted in the law of God and said so.

And I don’t doubt there were unregenerate Jews who said “I delight in the law of God” with their lips, while their hearts were far from God (Matt. 15:8). The unregenerate Paul was not like Zechariah, but like the vain worshiper. But the Paul speaking in Romans 7:22 is trying to tell us he really means it. That’s why he says “delight in the inner being” (Rom. 7:22) and why he says “I, my very self (autos egō) serve the law of God with my mind” (Rom. 7:25).

3. Paul is referring to an occasion and not total captivity to sin.

When I say Romans 7:14–25 describes Paul’s Christian experience, I don’t mean his steady-state experience. I mean that this sort of defeat happens to Paul. For example, when he says “If I do what I do not want . . . it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me” (Rom. 7:16–17), he is referring to an occasion in life, not the totality of life.

Or when he says, “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” (Rom. 7:23), he does not mean he lives in the steady-state “captivity.” He means captivity happens to him.

So when I describe Romans 7:14–25 as “Christian experience,” I don’t mean “ideal” experience, or “normal” steady-state experience. I mean that when a genuine Christian does the very thing he hates (Rom. 7:15), this is what really happened to Paul the Christian in moments of weakness and defeat.

4. Triumph is connected to war.

One of my arguments for the Christian-experience view is that Paul follows his exultation of triumph in verse 25 with a strong inference (ara oun)—“therefore”—that returns us to the conflict and “war” of verse 23. The Christian experience view makes good sense of this sequence. But I have not seen a compelling answer to this argument.

Paul cries out, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24). He answers with an exultant expression of the victory of Christ, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:25). If that victory signaled the warfare of Romans 7:14–25 was behind him, how natural it would have been for Romans 8:1–2 to begin next: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.”

But instead, Paul not only gives one last expression to his conflict with indwelling sin, but he makes this conflict a strong inference from the victory he just expressed. He says, “[The victory is done through Christ!] Therefore (ara oun), I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25).

How does this “therefore” work? It seems to work like this: Because God has won a great and decisive and final victory over the forces of sin that take my members captive (Rom. 6:13, 19; 7:5), I am now able “to serve the law of God with my mind,” even though, at times, my flesh gets the upper hand and takes me captive to serve the law of sin so that I do what I hate.

In other words, there is a massive difference between the Christian experience of deliverance from the wretched control of the “body of death” (Rom. 7:24), and the pre-Christian experience when we “existed” (hēmen) in the flesh, [and] our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death (Rom. 7:5).

5. Warfare is made possible, not past.

But Paul is at pains to make clear in Romans 7:25 that the difference does not put the warfare behind us. Our death in Christ “to that which held us captive” and our “serving in the new way of the Spirit” (Rom. 7:6) does not mean we never stumble back into experience of captivity. In fact, the “therefore” of Romans 7:25 explains that the victory does not make the warfare past; it makes it possible and real.

It seems to me that the groaning of Romans 8:23 as we “wait for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies” is essentially the same as the cry of Romans 7:24: “O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?”

In Romans 7:24, the focus is on the moral crippling connected with the body, and in Romans 8:23 the focus is on the physical. But the reference to the “not yet” of adoption in Romans 8:23 (that climaxes in conformity to our older brother in Romans 8:29) reminds us that both morally and physically, there is a massive “not yet” for the Christian.

And my contention is that there is a lot more continuity of the “not yet” from Romans 7 to Romans 8—both spiritually and physically—than is sometimes realized.

John Piper is senior teacher of desiringGod.org, chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary, pastor emeritus of Bethlehem Baptist Church, and a Council member of The Gospel Coalition. He is the author of numerous books, including Desiring God. He and his wife, Noël, have five children.

 

ONE WHO AGREES WITH ME:

Romans 7 Does Not Describe Your Christian Experience

Perplexing Passages

January 13, 2016  |  Thomas Schreiner

 

Bible & Theology

Editors’ note: This is the first installment in a special three-part “Perplexing Passages” forum examining the long-debated Pauline passage, Romans 7:13–25. In part two, John Piper will defend the view that Paul was speaking of his struggle with indwelling sin as a believer. The final part will offer a third view from Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Romans 7:13–25 is one of the most disputed and controversial passages in the Bible. Augustine changed his mind about its meaning, so we have precedent for swinging back and forth in our own interpretation. I recognize that I can hardly give the last word on a text that has been argued over for thousands of years.

Indeed, some of us have had a Romans 7 kind of experience with Romans 7.

We can’t decide what the verses are really about, and conclude, “Wretched interpreter that I am. Who will set me free from this interpretive quandary?”

Though in a short article I can’t discuss all the issues that arise in these verses, I’ll defend why I believe Paul is discussing his pre-Christian experience. It’s also important to see that Paul describes his pre-Christian life retrospectively. In other words, as Paul looks back as a Christian on his life before Christ, he recognizes he wasn’t a believer.

Four Reasons for a Pre-Christian Experience

1. The structure of the passage.

When we look at Romans 7 as a whole, we find a clear structure. This is outlined in verses 5–6:

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions operated through the law in every part of us and bore fruit for death. But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old letter of the law.

Verse 5 depicts pre-Christian experience, describing a time “when we were in the flesh,” and explains that the flesh produced “death.” Verse 6 refers to Christians in four terms: “But now,” “released,” “died” (to our old life), and “Spirit.” Virtually all commentators agree that verse 5 refers to unbelievers and verse 6 to believers. But here is the key point: Romans 7:7–25 unpacks verse 5, and Romans 8:1–17 unpacks verse 6. In verses 7–25 we see how sin via the law brings death to those in the flesh, and in Romans 8:1–17 we see how the Spirit grants life to those who belong to Jesus Christ. Romans 7:5–6 forecasts what Paul is about to say in remarkably clear terms.

2. The Holy Spirit.

If we shake the kaleidoscope, we can look at the passage from another complementary perspective. The Holy Spirit is never mentioned in Romans 7:7–25. But Paul refers to the Spirit 15 times in Romans 8:1–17, suggesting that the person described in Romans 7:7–25 is one who doesn’t have the Spirit in his life.

The essence of what it means to be a Christian is to be indwelt with the Spirit (Rom. 8:9). We see in both Romans 7:14 and 7:18 that the one described is of the “flesh,” one who is still in the old Adam, one who is unregenerate.

3. The question asked in Romans 7:13.

Paul’s argument advances by the questions he asks. We’ve already seen that Romans 7:5–6 structures and forecasts the ensuing discussion. But notice the question posed in Romans 7:7: “What should we say then? Is the law sin?” The question arises because of the wording of Romans 7:5, since Paul had said that our sinful passions were aroused by the law and produced death.

So the question in Romans 7:7 naturally arises: if sinful passions were provoked by the law, is the law sinful? Paul categorically rejects such an option, arguing that the law is spiritual and good (Rom. 7:12). But sin used the law as a launching point in our lives to bring about our spiritual death.

Paul proceeds to ask another question in Romans 7:13: “Therefore, did what is good cause my death?” The “good” here is clearly the law. But notice the question asked: did the good law cause my death? The answer is then given in Romans 7:13b–25. But this is a powerful argument supporting pre-Christian experience since Paul explains how sin used the law to bring about our death. The flow of the argument fits perfectly with what Paul says about unbelievers in Romans 7:5: the law worked in our members while we were outside of Christ to separate us from God, to kill us.

4. The total defeat described in Romans 7:13–25.

Many Christians throughout history have identified with the despair and inability of the “I” in Romans 7:13–25. We read these verses and think: That’s my story; that’s my experience. Their instinct is right, but their interpretation is wrong. As Christians we are deeply aware of our continued sinfulness and the many ways we fall short of God’s will. As James says, “We all stumble in many ways” (Jas. 3:2; cf 2:10). It’s clear the word stumble here means sin. So James doesn’t say we sin occasionally, but that we all stumble and sin in many ways.

Every Christian following the Lord recognizes the continuing battle with sin that will afflict us until the day of redemption (Gal. 5:16–18). We’re already saved, but we aren’t yet all we want to or need to be. We must continue confessing our sins daily, just as Jesus taught us in the Lord’s prayer (Matt. 6:12). Sin continues to bedevil us in thought, word, and deed until the day we die.

Yet that’s not what Romans 7:13–25 is talking about. Yes, we continue to struggle with sin. Yes, we fall short every day. But Romans 7:13–25 is talking about total defeat. As Paul says in verse 14, “I am of the flesh, sold under sin.” In other words, he is describing complete and total captivity to sin.

We see the same thing again in verse 23: “But I see a different law in the parts of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and taking me prisoner to the law of sin in the parts of my body.” Paul isn’t just talking about struggling with sin with frequent failures; he describes complete and abject defeat, being utterly enslaved to sin. The “I” is a prisoner of sin. Again and again in this passage, Paul says he wanted to obey but couldn’t; the obedience didn’t come and couldn’t come—since he was unregenerate.

The total defeat described in Romans 7 contradicts how Paul describes Christian experience in Romans 6 and 8. Paul proclaims in Romans 6 that we’re no longer slaves to sin (6:6), that we’re free from the sin that enslaved us when we were unbelievers (Rom. 6:16–19).

Yes, we still sin, but we aren’t slaves to it anymore. As Romans 8:2 declares, “The law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” Such freedom from sin doesn’t accord with the person described in Romans 7:13–25, since that person is still enslaved to sin. As Christians we enjoy substantial, significant, and observable (though not perfect) victory over sin in this life. Though we fail every day, we are dramatically changed by the grace of God.

Two Objections

A number of objections surface against what I’ve said. Let’s look at two of them briefly. First, how does a reference to unbelievers fit with Romans 7:23 (“For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being”)? Doesn’t such delight and longing for God’s law show that a believer is in view? Not necessarily. Many pious Jews loved God’s law and yet didn’t know God. Paul himself testifies that the Jews have a “zeal for God,” though they lacked knowledge (Rom. 10:2). There can be zeal and delight in the law (witness the Pharisees) when one isn’t truly saved.

Second, Paul shifts from past-tense verbs in Romans 7:7–11 to present-tense verbs in verses 14–25. Doesn’t that prove Christians are in view? Not necessarily. Scholars recognize that present tense doesn’t necessarily designate present time. The temporal nature of an action must be discerned from context, since present-tense verbs, even in the indicative, may be used with reference to the past or even the future.

The tense of the verb doesn’t emphasize time in Romans 7:7–25. Rather, the use of the present tense here fits with the state or condition of the person. Paul is emphasizing one’s captivity, subjugation, and impotence under the law. His use of the present tense doesn’t denote past time but highlights in a vivid way the slavery of life under the law.

Final Word

If I’m right in the way I interpret this passage, the difference between me and those who see this as Christian experience isn’t great. After all, we both agree that believers fall short in numerous ways and that we struggle daily with sin.

The reason we differ is that I see Romans 7:13–25 as describing total defeat, and that isn’t our story as Christians since the Holy Spirit also empowers us to live in a new way.

Thomas Schreiner is the James Buchanan Harrison professor of New Testament interpretation and associate dean for Scripture and interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. You can follow him on Twitter.

 

 

ONE WHO SORT OF SITS ON THE FENCE:

Lloyd-Jones: Believer or Unbeliever Is Not the Point of Romans 7

Perplexing Passages

January 27, 2016  |  Ben Bailie

 

Bible & Theology

Martyn Lloyd-Jones began his sermons on Romans 7 with a warning: “This chapter is one of the most controversial in the Bible.” This was unfortunate, he argued, because the controversy misses the main point of the passage. Trying to discern the “man” of Romans 7, whether he was regenerate or unregenerate, is a distraction—one that misses the Christian experience a believer should be seeking.

He believed the main point of Romans 7 was to dramatically illustrate what happens if you seek sanctification apart from the Spirit through the law. No matter who you are, if you seek your sanctification this way it will slay you. Paul had already proven justification through the law is impossible, now he seeks to prove the same with sanctification.

Lloyd-Jones certainly didn’t think the chapter was unimportant. In his typical manner of hyperbole, the Doctor called it “the most famous and best-known section of the entire epistle.” Few chapters expose the deep power of sin and clarify the role of the law in a believer’s life quite like Romans 7. Yet no section has fueled more debate.

For Lloyd-Jones, whether Paul was speaking about his pre-conversion or post-conversion experience is not important. Therefore, Lloyd-Jones had relatively little to say about it. Of the 27 sermons he preached on Romans 7:1–8:4, only six dealt with the controversial passage—Romans 7:14–25. Six sermons for eleven verses is practically flying for Lloyd-Jones.

Structured Like a Symphony  

To understand Lloyd-Jones’s interpretation of Romans 7, one must see how it functions within the logical flow of chapters 5–8. He believed those four chapters, like a symphony, form one grand, majestic, theological vision in which the glorious doctrine of the believer’s union with Christ is on full display.

Lloyd-Jones preached 144 sermons on chapters 5–8. He believed Romans 5 is the theological heart of the book, with Romans 5:20–21 being the controlling exegetical verses. Misunderstand chapter 5 and one will, by necessity, misinterpret 6 and 7; they form a “parenthesis” dealing with objections to Paul’s central assertion in 5:20–21.

The entire section, Lloyd-Jones argued, unpacks our union with Christ through the reign of grace. Chapter 6 proves our sanctification is guaranteed since we’re united to Christ and can no longer live in sin. Romans 7 proves our sanctification is guaranteed since we’ve been freed from the law and married to Christ. We are enabled to bear the fruit of the Spirit. Chapter 7 offers a dramatic warning of what happens when we seek sanctification through the law, apart from the Spirit.

Chapter 8 unpacks the reality that a believer’s sanctification is guaranteed because they’ve been united to Christ and are thus indwelt by the Spirit. There is now no condemnation for followers of Jesus.

Tread Carefully, Tread Humbly

As Lloyd-Jones walked his congregation through Romans 7, he reminded them to proceed with humility. He encouraged them to “seek that ‘unction’ and ‘anointing’ from ‘the Holy One,’ for the matter with which we are dealing is beyond the realm of grammar and intellectual dexterity.”

He didn’t believe looking at verb tenses settled the matter. Paul is using a rhetorical device called the “dramatic present,” Lloyd-Jones asserted, noting that preachers—including himself—often use that literary device.

Lloyd-Jones’s diagnostic and exegetical powers were taxed to the limit as he walked through the section. He fully embraced the tensions in the passage and warned his congregation against simplistic solutions.

The Doctor’s hermeneutic was continuously strained by statements he believed couldn’t be made by an unregenerate man, such as “the law is spiritual” and “I joyfully concur with the law in the inner man.” He concluded, “This man is not unregenerate, for no unregenerate man could make such claims.”

Neither Saved Nor Lost

The man in Romans 7 is not unregenerate, nor is he regenerate. Romans 7 cannot be describing the regenerate, Lloyd-Jones contended, since it would contradict Paul’s argument throughout the section and also what the New Testament says in many other places.

For example, Romans 5:12–21 emphasizes the reign of grace in a believer’s life and can’t describe someone who cries out, “I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin, nothing good dwells in me,” for chapter 6 shows the impossibility of continuing in sin when a believer has died to it.

Other verses seem to pull in the other direction. Romans 7:4 shows we’ve died to the law and been united to Christ, and chapter 8 displays the glories of the indwelling Spirit. Thus, no regenerate man would cry out that nothing good dwells in him when the Spirit of the holy God lives in him.

Troubled Exegetical Waters

As he moved through the tensions, Lloyd-Jones’s exegesis at times became slightly convoluted. But he often made remarks like “This subject is difficult because sin is difficult. One of the terrible things sin did when it came into the world was to introduce complications,” or “This not only sounds complicated, but it is complicated; it is the complicated condition of a man who is enlightened by the Spirit of God and about the law of God” yet has no power to overcome the difficulty.

For Lloyd-Jones, “The real clue to understanding more of Romans 7 is to notice the Holy Spirit and the indwelling Christ are not mentioned; hence the trouble and the problem.”

Lloyd-Jones began his exposition of Romans 7 convinced Paul didn’t intend to distinguish between the regenerate and unregenerate. Instead, the apostle was giving us a “hypothetical, imaginary picture” of a “man who sees the complete hopelessness of salvation by the law.”

But by the end of the section Lloyd-Jones tentatively stated that if it is a picture of personal experience, then it’s the experience of a man like John Bunyan in Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, who has come under deep conviction of sin and longs to be holy, but cannot.

From Depths to Heights  

Lloyd-Jones knew many might be unconvinced by his treatment of Romans 7. He counseled them to wait for his exposition on Romans 8:15 in the next volume:

The theme of this volume is no mere fascinating theological or intellectual problem, but one of vital importance to Christian experience, and to the health, well-being, and vigor of the church. To end a reading of Romans 7 in a depressed condition is to fail to understand it.

Why? It is preparation for the glorious truths of Romans 8:15, or more appropriately, Romans 8:14–17, which Lloyd-Jones viewed as one long chain.

Why should his listeners wait for this later exposition? Because Romans 8 describes the Christian experience all should be seeking. By the time Lloyd-Jones preached through Romans 8:15, he was confident Romans 7 describes someone experiencing the Spirit’s work, whereby he is rescued from a spirit of bondage and fear—the essential prelude to receiving the Spirit’s testimony of our adoption as sons. Lloyd-Jones referred to this as the “baptism” or “sealing” of the Spirit.

He would later say the 21 sermons he preached on Romans 8:14–17 were among the most joyful of his ministry. But he had to walk through the depths of Romans 7 to reach the heights of Romans 8.

Ben Bailie (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is planting a church in Lake Nona, Florida, through Grace Church. He did his doctoral work on Martyn Lloyd-Jones, focusing on how his medical training shaped his pastoral ministry. Ben appeared in the Logic on Fire film. He is in the beginning stages of creating an online community called The Company of Pastors. You can contact him at ben@thecompanyofpastors.com.

 

Well there’s your study.

I hope it helps you in your search for truth.

 

In Him,

Rory