The phrase itself comes from Ro 7.17, "So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." The key to indwelling sin is to understand who the wretched man in Ro 7 is.
I didn't look to Mark Driscoll. While I like him a lot, I don't see him as a theologian so I just didn't bother.
Interestingly, Wayne Grudem skips Ro 7 ... :)
So, is the "I", i.e., the wretched man, in Ro 7, the pre-Christian Paul, the Christian Paul, or an unbeliever other than Paul? I think that regardless of which side one chooses, we are not in "heresy" or "unorthodox" land. But to keep this from becoming a watershed point, I think it important to view it from a pastoral perspective. Regardless of which side one lands on, it is clear that we sin and the remedy is the same, i.e., forgiveness, redemption, and freedom through Christ Jesus.
It should also be noted the thrust of Ro 7 is not to teach that believers or non-believers sin but rather to defend the rightness of the Law and that we ought not blame it for our failings ... and more gloriously, Jesus Christ our Lord is our deliverer (Ro 7.25a and then particularly Ro 8).
Before unpacking this further, one should first be firmly grounded in the idea of justification. Terry Virgo's God's Lavish Grace and Robert McGee's The Search for Significance are great primers. Both of these lay the necessary foundation although the latter requires a bit of caution because it leaves unguarded or unfinished some points. I'm imagining a construction site where some of stairwells or flooring is not completed. They are out of scope for the book which is fine but these should be boarded up a bit better to keep the untrained from falling in.
Virgo teaches justification is like a base coat in a painting. That is, Biblical principles are like a painting. There are some foundational truths that need to be settled and allowed to dry before the rest of the painting can be done. If the base isn't there, the picture is incomplete with great big holes and just doesn't hang together. But just as bad, if the base isn't allowed to dry, the picture is blurry as one layer blends into the other. If one continues to paint before justification by faith has dried and set-up, we have a mess; it all runs together. Many Christians live in that mess.
Second, in my 20+ years of eldering, pastoring, small grouping, etc. rarely a meeting goes by where someone doesn't throw back to, "Yeah but no one is perfect." "Yeah but we all fail." "Yeah but ..." While true in practice, this is not the message of the Gospel and is the excuse of those who have not grasped its beauty and power.
Focusing on the reality that I will fail to live every moment of my life rightly will in no wise help me attain that prize for which Christ took hold of me. It's a trap. To quote John Piper (who speaks to the pastoral point well even though I think he falls out on the wrong side of the overall question):
[T]he question is: How are we to live in view of this double truth about ourselves? The answer comes from watching the amazing way that Paul speaks to us about our deliverance and our newness in Christ. What he does again and again is to say: This new man is who you decisively and irrevocably are in Christ. This free man is your deepest and truest identity. Now act on it. Look to Christ, trust his help, and by his Spirit become what you are.
If your besetting sin is anger, affirm that in Christ you have died to that identity and in Christ you have his patience and kindness. Look to him and trust in him and rejoice in him. And fight against anger as one who has the victory in him.
If your besetting sin is heterosexual or homosexual lust, affirm that the truth that in Christ you have died to this fallen and distorted identity. I recall many conversations with Joe Hallett who came out of the homosexual life and lived among us with AIDS for 10 years and died a few years ago. He never tired of saying: Do not say "I am a homosexual." Say rather, "I struggle with homosexual desires." That was not a superficial mind over matter trick. It was a profound Biblical insight into Romans 6 and 7: In Christ our old selves have died - whatever their distortion and corruption - and we are decisively and irrevocably new. In Christ Jesus homosexual, fornicator, adulterer, covetous, thief, alcoholic, are not who we truly are. Affirm that by faith in Christ. Trust him as your all-satisfying treasure and look to him for the help to become (as much as possible in this life) who you truly are in Christ.
So - who is the wretched man?
Great guys - Piper, Spurgeon, Owen, Packer, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and many others - would say Paul is speaking of the Christian Paul and by inference, you and me. Piper has a comprehensive look at this here (Who is This Divided Man? Parts 1-6 are excellent) and after each time I read these I have to work hard to remind myself why I don't buy into this perspective. I like how he uses verses 15, 22, and 24. These are the words of a regenerate heart. Piper is saying that Paul sees us winning the war on sin and this passage reflects our attitude when confronted with "tactical defeats" - which we all clearly experience.
He also deals nicely with the phrase "sold into bondage" (Ro 7.14b). This is one of the key arguments from the "this isn't speaking of a Christian" camp that Paul must be speaking of the pre-Christian since we cannot be slaves to sin. Piper likens this to Gal 5.1, "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." He believes Paul is simply saying that when we give in to temptation it is like going back into slavery and we don't want to do that.
This thinking is what allows many to say their true nature is that of "forgiven sinner". It allows one to read verse 21 as there will never be a point in one's earthly life at which one is truly free from sin. But I think this is inconsistent with what Paul says elsewhere. He considers himself a model to be imitated (1 Co 11.1) and reminds us that there is no condemnation in us (Ro 8.1, 33-34).
Some of the better theologians wouldn't say this but some believe Paul can call the "I" fleshly and contrast that with being spiritual because of 1 Co 3.1. Paul refers to spiritual infants as fleshly so some think the "I" is simply those that are spiritually immature. But that couldn't fit Paul. Elsewhere he refers to himself as quite the opposite. He's bold in proclaiming himself as a model and one with spiritual authority.
So I do not agree with the "I" being Paul as a Christian. As for the possibility that this is pre-Christian Paul, that could be but Paul seems quite confident in his pre-Christian performance (Phil 3.2-6). I do not really see that.
I think this "I" is not Paul nor do I think it is a believer. The "I" can be a fictive term or the collective "Adam" apart from Christ, it is more likely a specific fictive "I".
This is the thinking of folks like The Good Doctor (Martyn Lloyd-Jones) and Terry Virgo. They would say the "I" is the unregenerate as only an informed Christian can see it or perhaps a pious person who knows the spirituality of the law and wishes to do what is good but cannot. Paul seems to be musing about the condition of his fellow Jews. They lay claim to the law without understanding what its real purpose is. They try to do good while all the time missing the point of justification by faith in Christ, not by works of the law. This is not a description of the Jew agonizing over their situation - if so, they would change. It is from the vantage point of a converted Jew looking back at the futility of that life. This is why Piper sees some of the verses as from a "Christian" perspective, they are but not that of the "I".
I didn't spend a lot of time looking at NT Wright (pg 16). I'm not sure if he is saying the same thing or taking it a step further. He sees the wretched man in Ro 7 as Israel living under the Torah. I think that's the same but I'm always leery to commit with him.
I just cannot see this as a believer. MLJ states, "When the Christian talks about his sin and failure he does not talk about it primarily in terms of the law; he talks about it primarily in terms of love, about his failure to live to his glory. The Christian does not go on speaking in terms of the law as the man in Ro 7 does. He is no longer ‘under the law’ but ‘under grace.’ Furthermore, as the Apostle will show us . . . the Christian must never allow himself to feel the condemnation of the law . . . the whole object of this great 8th chapter is to emphasise that: ‘No condemnation . . . no separation.’" This reinforces to me why the "I" is not the "forgiven sinner" that the majority of scholars believe.
When Paul confronts sin, I don't read, "yeah, I'm there, we all do it." or "yeah, that happens." Instead I read, "hey, stop that!" Don't you know who you belong to and that He made you new? You are not who you used to be. You are new."
So yes, we still sin. But I have to say, I am not a sinner. Sadly I'm still drawn to old sin patterns, I'm all too familiar and comfortable with these, etc. but that's not who I am. And focussing on who I am is what will set me free.
- "Our old self was crucified with Christ" (Ro 6 .3)
- "We are no longer enslaved to sin" (Ro 6.6)
- "The one who has died is freed from sin" (Ro 6.7)
- "We are under grace, not the law" (Ro 6.14)
- "You, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness" (Ro 6.18)
- "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death" (Ro 8.2)
- "you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit" (Ro 8.9)
- "we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh" (Ro 8.12)
In the end, I think Romans 7:14-25 has been read out of context. Chapters 6 and 8 describe the Christian experience and 7:14-25 does not, but it is 7:14-25 that is seen as the normative Christian experience, and chapters 6 and 8 have been relegated to something like "positional" truth (i.e., something true in God's cosmic account book but definitely not true down here on earth). The liberating news of chapters 6 and 8 must not be overshadowed by the helplessness seen in 7:14-25.
So I don't see the other views as heretical ... just unhelpful ... and not true. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment