Romans 7:14-24

No ma'am, it cannot. The phrase, right after "Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our (in other words, 'my') master.

The reason that Paul is saying 'Thanks' to His present tense Master (Lord) Jesus Christ, is that "Ara" ('Therefore': a conclusive particle) he serves the law of sin with His flesh, but the Law of God with his mind. Understanding that the word "Mind" used throughout this passage, is the Greek word "nous", which refers to your will, further clarifies this.

Although Paul's flesh has sinful urges, his will serves the Law of God. This is WHY he says "Thanks be to Jesus Christ my Master".

Serve from Chapter 7...

douleuō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be a slave, serve, do service

"Submit to" from Chapter 8...

hupotassō
Thayer Definition:
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection


These words are listed as synonyms. The mind of the carnal, unsaved man, CANNOT submit his mind to the Law of God. Paul says He, while serving sin with his flesh, has a mind that is submitted to and serving the Law of God.

Paul is writing in Chapter 7, referring to his experience as a saved man, present tense, while he is writing scripture.

 

Havensdad, thanks for your comments and insight. I'm sure you know, however, that there are many very sound believers who disagree on whether Rom. 7 here is speaking of an unregenerate or regenerated man. Your view is one view.

Paul can write in the present tense of a struggle as an unsaved man even though he was saved when he wrote it. This is merely a literary technique to dramatize the effect.

Since theologians and bible students have disagreed over this, I reserve judgment. I myself have taken both views.

 

I didn't want to really get involved in this thread ( just to tired lately with all the rehashing of old threads )

However Marcia, there are many good godly men and who believe many things. That is not the point. Heavens dad stated quite plainly Greek usage in Pauls statements which preclude it being the unregenerate - at all. And I agree with him. While there are some godly men who hold that it is an unregenerate most hold to it being a regenerate man - namely Paul using himself and not some vague 'unsaved man'. If he, being an apostle, contended thusly and therefore constantly needed Christ Jesus - how much more do we?

And no, it is not a literary technique to dramitize effect since Paul is speaking of himself in the present tense. If it was to dramitize then it would be set in the past tense illistrating a distinct difference between then and now, which Paul does in other places of his writtings.

Please don't just shluff-it-off as 'your point of view' because there are other points of view. Study it out and see if he is correct. There are other points of view about many things but we are to take all truth and evaluate it to either change, modify, or secure our currently held view.


Don't take what I have said in any ill, I haven't had much sleep and am currently at work. I just mean this post to be one that encourages you to look at what Heavensdad said.

 

Greek tenses are not exactly the same as tenses in English.

I have studied it, Allan. Surely you don't think this is the first time I've considered the meaning of this passage? I've been in quite a few discussions over it and have studied it.

 

Yes, I know this quite well. I had to learn it when I was studing Greek

No, not your first time nor did I imply this. Heavensdad comments regarding the passages in question are solid and grammitcally I can see no refute even from the scholars who disagree on this issue. The only thing I remember as a refute to the grammitical argument was the accertion it was a literary technique (which you brought up) but it can not be substantiated (at least in that I have seen) via Pauls writting style anywhere else in scripture.

As I said, don't take offence because I'm not saying you need to study more.
I was saying study out what Heavensdad said and see what you come up with.

 

There is no doubt in my mind this is an unregenerate man! I will be starting a new thread on Romans 7. I know I will not convince everyone of my opinion, but hopefully a few.
One of the main problems I see with saying this is a saved man is it hinders the Christian from being an over comer. When one sees this as Paul, a saved saint of God, struggling with sin, not able to overcome, it tells the new believer he can't either. Anyway we will get to it on another thread very soon.

 

I agree with you R7m, this passage is Paul speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man. I look forward to your thread.

 

You have to back up to see who Paul was speaking to and he was speaking to those who knew the law,verse 1, the Jew. A Jew was raised to obey the law and if they were redeemed they loved the law. David said this;

Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight [is] in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

This was the heart of a redeemed OT saint. Paul is dealing with Jews who knew the law, loved the law, and who still had great battles with the flesh because they did not fully understand what Christ had done, and because of it felt constant condemnation. Paul is not saying that he himself was practicing sin as a believer as some suggest. Here is why we know that.

In PHL. Paul is giving his pedigree prior to his conversion to show that he was as good as any man and better then most while under the law and even that that did not save him. Look at what he says;

3:4-6 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Paul is saying he obeyed the law while under the law. He was blameless while under the law, so now that he is under grace he is not saying that he was battling sin and losing the battle. We also know Paul was not sinning because of Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Paul was dealing with those who knew the law and he is trying to get them to see that they are now to serve in spirit not the letter. It is not the flesh that gives victory but the spirit. You have to go ahead and read chapter 8 also.

These that Paul is speaking to are Jews who knew the law, and had heard about Jesus. However they had not made a break with the law and they needed to do that to come all the way to Christ. They were like someone who is in prison for all their life and then one day the jailer opens the door and walks away and instead of leaving, the prisoners stay in the prison. Paul is trying to show them their freedom is not inside the prison (the law) but in Christ (spirit).

So to answer the question Paul is speaking to those who were Jews redeemed under the law, but had heard about Christ and had not made a clear break with the law and needed to come under the authority of the New Covenant.

So Paul is putting himself in the place of these Jews knowing what they are feeling. Their battle of seeking to keep the law through the flesh and feeling condemned when they break the law because now the sacrifices have stopped and they feel condemned.

He is saying that freedom comes with Christ and to see that you have to go to chapter 8.
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

He is telling them to stop trying to satisfy the law through the flesh and that would include sacrifices and just walk after the spirit and find the peace that comes with being in Christ so as to lose the condemnation they were feeling.

 

The problem w/ the grammatical argument and basing everything solely on the present tense is that an illustrative principle would lose its force if it were past tense. Even good story telling is done in the present tense, even if it happened 50 years ago. What you have to keep in mind is that even in the indicative (which this is in a lot of debates), the present tense is in relation to the subject but not the speaker's own personal experience. So if the subject was set in the past (i.e. unregenerate from Paul's time table), then the tense of the verb matters not in relation to Paul's present situation b/c the tense of the verb does not address that. You would need words like "now" and "at this moment" to indicate thus. Therefore, the situation of the subject is the deciding factor for how to take the present tense.

This is verb tense abuse, IMO. I think we would do well and be better off if we didn't use the term or concept "present" but only understood that it is simultaneous action to the subject not the speaker. That helps overcome the "present" phenomena. I have to say, the "present tense" argument is actually quite weak because it also doesn't take into account the literary quality that chpt. 7 is. The language alone indicates something more than means the eye.

In the end, it will really come down to theological inclination and one's view of Lordship as it relates to salvation. For me, it is essential and therefore this is absolutely the unregenerate man. Moo's commentary on Romans does a great job of arguing for the unregenerate view. Check it out. Very thorough.

Great topic & GREAT THREAD!!! There has been discussion rather than bashing and arguing!!!.

 

Regenerate