Romans 7:25 - Experience - Conclusion (Conciliation Series, Part XLIII)
Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed
There are, of course, a few more objections that imply that Romans 7 covers a man under grace (again, it’s surprising that some in Christ propose that this is Paul’s experience, as opposed to Saul’s experience.) For starters, some claim that the ‘gratification’ in 7:22 is a manifestation of a spiritual life. They presuppose this because of the idea (not fact, but idea) that one who is living to the flesh (a ‘carnal mind,’ some say) cannot actually be gratified by the law.
Sure, that makes sense! This man who admits to being subject to his flesh not one verse prior suddenly begets a spiritual life by studying the law! I’ve always heard that imperfection begets perfection!
The truth is that Paul has just finished clarifying, in this experience, that his self and his flesh are separate. His flesh, indeed, is not gratified by the law of God. He never said that. Paul said that the man within is gratified by the law of God (Rom. 7:22.) The critical difference is that the law of God is appealing to the law of his mind, not his actions in flesh. While it is true that one whose mind is corrupted cannot possibly be gratified by the law of God, it is a major injustice to saints today to proclaim that Paul’s struggle here is in grace, when, as we’ve already covered, he never proclaims that we are wretched as saints.
He also tells us, in Rom. 6:12-14, that Sin need not reign in the mortal body. If this is the case, and it’s evident that Sin in Saul was still reigning over his flesh throughout his experience (7:17, 20, 23,) then he can’t be under grace during this period of time.
When under law, Paul said he was “becoming blameless” (Phil. 3:6.) He does not say, “found blameless,” or that he “was blameless.” He clarifies that he was becoming as such, and the journey under law is long – especially when you’re under law. If this man were alive today, he would be heralded by the Joel Osteen’s of the world as one of the best examples of ‘living to God,’ and ‘loving the law.’ His goal, you could argue, bordered obsession. And why wouldn’t it? To be righteous? Everyone wants that (Rom. 3:23.) Everyone desires a glory of God, and we know that in order to do that, we must become blameless.
Did Christ care about Saul’s acts? NO. Saul’s acts weren’t loving. His mind is gratified, but the heart was foreign to Saul. Does this mean he could not be gratified by law? May it not be coming to that! The vast majority of Pharisees at that time found beauty in law (Rom. 2:17-20.) But, in seeking to establish their own righteousness, they were far removed from apprehending that the law was not there for them to follow, but to learn of their own inadequacy (Rom. 3:20, 10:3-5.) The ascended Christ gave a true display of righteousness – one of God – so great that it blinded the man. God’s righteousness showed Saul his true colors; he may be gratified by Mosaic law, but his heart was blind and ignorant to God (indicated by his body’s inability to even cope with a visual of Christ’s glory, and his question, “Who are you?” – Acts 9:1-5.)
Morality – any morality, not merely God’s righteous law, but a code in general – will always overwhelm us. Our experience of evil is ripe with defeat. I am not referencing ‘training’ of any sort (you know, like shaving seconds off your 3-mile run, or learning to manage your day’s tasks before 1 P.M. – not ‘competition,’ see.) I’m referencing a moral code. Everyone, whether privately or publicly, breaks their moral code, more than once; this could be in an emotional reaction, a sneaky deed, or even a simple mistake (this is clarified by Christ’s continual persistence that it is not merely your act by which you are following law, but your heart – Matt. 5:22, 29-30, for example, show us that it is not merely murder or adultery that God considers unjust, but the pre-emptive intent to do it, too.
No,
this is not just the moral code of the law. This idea that Paul presents
is prevalent all over philosophical writings (though, as I pointed out
before, Paul builds to points beyond philosophy and psychology, given his
experience in context and placement in Romans.) I will here cite a couple of
the same quotes that George Rogers does, noting other philosophical writers’
similar experience. Here is a happy little segment from Euripides, a Greek poet
from 4th~5th century B.C., in his writing ‘Hippolytus’
(line 375-383):
“Many a-time in night’s long empty spaces, I have pondered on the causes
of a life’s shipwreck. I think that our lives are worse than the mind’s quality
would warrant. There are many who know good sense! But look. We know the good,
we see it clear – but we can’t bring it to achievement. Some are
betrayed by their own laziness; and others value some other pleasure above
virtue.”
Here’s another telling
passage, again from a Greek scholar, named Xenophon, who wrote this in
Cyropedia (bk. VI, 41)–
“I see now that we have two souls. This is the lesson of philosophy that
I have learnt from the wicked sophist Love. If we had but a single soul, how
could she be at once evil and good? How could she be enamored at once of
nobleness and baseness, or at once desire and not desire one deed and the
same?”
The point of this passage is not, of course, for me to confirm to you that there are “two souls.” God didn’t say that, and the phrase, unless speaking of two individuals, is nonsense. What is being referred to is the act of the flesh, and the inner man. If this is how far the Greek philosophers got, and they had their own law in their mind (Rom. 2:14-16,) then isn’t it considerably more telling that this duality reflects the life of one under a moral code? If these guys understood this of human nature, and did not have an understanding of Paul’s evangel, then how much more true is Paul’s retelling of his experience under law?
After studying the passage and presenting it to you all, I do believe that some in Christ will stop equating Paul’s experience here with that of one under grace. And, ultimately, people in Christ are being brought to this realization (it’s pretty critical, honestly, in recognizing how God perceives you.) It is, more often than not, Christian reasoning that will shove you in the opposite direction. Many religious folk need this experience to be ‘of grace’ – that way, they can still try to subject the flesh to the law of God. If the ‘grace’ jurisdiction is similar to that of ‘law’ jurisdiction, then the lines can get blurred, and law is allowed rule. If it’s ‘normal for someone under grace’ to feel the pressure of righteous performance, then an excuse can be made for the law’s rule over your life.
Another reason one may try to make this experience one of ‘grace’ would be because they misinterpret the contrast between ‘mind’ and ‘flesh’ as one with ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh,’ which are said by Paul later in Galatians 5:17 to be perpetually conflicting with each other. This objection is less of an ‘objection’ and more of a simple error. It’s so easy to make this mistake, that even myself, in knowing the distinction, here, have probably inadvertently made that connection in this mini study alone. Nevertheless, if I have, it should be corrected: the ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’ are not the same thing. The ‘mind’ is not God’s breath of life, but His gift of comprehension.
The way the mind is presented in this conflict is completely distinct from the way the spirit is presented against the flesh, anyway. Our mind, irrespective of act, will, or determination, fails to follow the law, and thus slaves for Sin. The mind doesn’t win in this experience, and instead Paul calls for rescue out of this body.
In the spirit vs. flesh conflict, it becomes clear that walking in spirit will cause us to not consummate the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16.) Unlike the mind, which loses, the spirit (that is, Christ’s spirit dwelling in you; but we’ll talk about that in Rom. 8) is presented as the victor, apart from acts. When you’re walking in spirit, you will consummate fruit of the spirit (as opposed to fruit of the flesh – Gal. 5:18-23.) The spirit and the flesh are always conflicting, so long as we are in this mortal frame – but this does not mean we are captives to Sin, as Saul’s experience is in 7:15-25. We are free from Sin, and cannot still possibly be its slave; this is why Paul cries for rescue out of Sin, from Grace, and not the law.
Yet another objection I’ve heard is one not rooted in Scripture; this objection goes, “No way this is Saul! He has to be a believer, because this is something that I was feeling when I first became a believer! Paul suffered the same way I did upon hearing the truth, and it helped me so much to see that Paul had the same struggle to actually put the salvation into effect!”
The above objection, while sincere, is arguably the worst one. While it’s true that Paul had struggles as a believer (an insubordinate Corinth, constant attacks of doubt on all sides, and abandonment, to name a fraction of his struggle,) he does not document any sense of doubt, or inability to act in Christ here. And, this may be hard for some to hear, but commiserating over suffering doesn’t “prove” anything. Everyone suffers. Is everyone in Christ for suffering the same struggle Paul did? Is Euripides in Christ because his inner man experienced Sin violating his body? May it not be coming to that! Being convicted is proof that you’re saved?? Who said that?
“Wishful Thinking said that, actually!”
The reason this train of thought is so abhorrent to me is because – not only is it used as a platform for people to preach their opinion about whatever the hell they want to theorize on, while treating said opinion as fact, but – these folk combat my above statement by saying, “Yeah, but this idea that you are pushing tends to push away new believers – they have to have someone to commiserate with in their failure as a believer, right? God needs to affirm that He’s okay with them anyway!” My guy: that’s what life is for. God should not need to sit you down for a fireside chat and go, “When I was a yung’un, I would say the same thing!” That’s for your physical dad, who is also learning, to say – not for God to say. God has already affirmed Himself by clarifying that He is not accounting sin to you, and that the point of Christ’s story is to justify you. Any failure you have as a believer is a great asset to your own education, in the long run. This entire revelation – that God is in control of all, that you must experience failure under law, and that He is justifying you – is all affirming His love for you. What more affirmation is necessary?
Conviction, self-awareness, renewed conscience – none of these are interchangeable with “saved.” Are they a gateway? Sure. But without the context of the Scriptures, there’s no way to accurately contextualize this self-awareness. Those that teach to bring the mind to a recognition of a cauterized conscience must also teach that God is replacing it with the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:14-16,) through faith (Rom. 3:21-23, 12:1-3.) It’s not, “Because I’m dissatisfied with my own weaknesses, my faith in God is inherently strong.” Paul never said this concerning himself, and this passage is not proof of such a thing, because Paul never even mentions faith, here. In actuality, it’s “Because Christ died, was entombed, and was resurrected three days later according to the Scriptures, I am now justified, and thus my sins no longer condemn me. Christ went to the source of the enemy, being death, which has effectually displaced a disposition of sin with that of a disposition of grace.”
Saul was a Pharisee. This does not mean that, if he suffered, and you suffer, that you are automatically labeled a Pharisee. If you are in Christ, and you find yourself experiencing what Paul experienced on a personal level, then your solution would be to study the previous six chapters again.
* * *
The main question that we have to ask (and it’s the only objection I believe holds any sort of merit in a debate on this passage, simply because it demands an answer,) is this: what exactly is the “good” that Paul couldn’t do? If he was the ultimate Pharisee (Acts 23:6,) then his zeal may have been in the right place, but he couldn’t do the actual… well, “doing” portion of the law. Oh, he knew all about it, sure; he could tell you who said what, when, where, and why. But when it came down to it, he couldn’t actually follow the law, which was the only way to actually be justified in the flesh under law (Rom. 2:13.) For all his nobility and will, he couldn’t effect the process.
People don’t like this, because, simply, to most of the world, actions are the proof of the pudding. So if Saul was honest, becoming blameless, etc., then he must have God’s favor on account of his actions, and God must be unjust if Saul did not have his favor… right?
* * *
One more broad thing, and then we’ll move on to Romans 8 – I promise. This study in Romans is clearly becoming very dense, and as such I’m going to compare the two passages we’ve read concerning sin, and (hopefully) use that as a brief summary of some of the topics we’ve really hammered away at.
From Romans 1:18-3:20, we covered a dense, careful study of sin dwelling in us. These were individual sins, brought about by injustice and irreverence. They are personal by nature, as God takes personal offense to being ignored (Rom. 1:20-23.) They are against His power (Rom. 1:20-27,) they are against basic morality (1:28-2:16,) His law (Rom. 2:17-29,) His intelligence (3:1-8,) and His heart (3:9-20.) The entire passage itself is rooted around God’s indignation (1:18,) and shows proof that indignation is well earned (1:32.) In that section, the wrath of God is provoked, per the necessary penalty of the law – but it is not the source of His operation.
In the second passage, from Rom. 7:7-25, we’ve really dug deep into the mind and conscience of ourselves. It’s not a documented experience that should be used as an indictment to provokes God’s wrath, because… well, we know how the story goes; Saul is blinded on the road to Damascus and becomes Paul. We’re not just covering ‘sin’ again here on a personal level, but considering the source of sin’s power, being the law in our members. This isn’t ‘personal’ because it’s not exclusive to Saul – everyone has this. It’s a transmitted law. Your ‘personal’ sins are, in actuality, an effect of the law of Sin.
This is important
to dwell on because it shows us that “sins” and “Sin” (capitalized, as Paul has
been using the term for the past few chapters,) are two different things. In
that, ‘salvation’ from both differ in their context. Justification by faith
saved us from future wrath, as we read in Rom. 5:9. This discarded the law
of Sin in our members in favor of faith’s law (3:28.) This
justification is immediate. God uses it as a platform for
conciliation (5:1,) that is – justification by faith is the first step
in the three-step process to salvation (documented in 2 Cor. 1:9-10.) To
quote George Rogers’ older statement:
“There is a past salvation from the penalty of sin dating
from the time we first believed. Then there is the present deliverance
from the power of sin by which we are saved from sinning and attain
maturity. Finally, we shall be saved from the presence of sin at
the advent of a Saviour Whom we await out of heaven (Rom. 13:11, Phil. 3:20,
21.)”
Justification covers the “past” salvation from the “effect” of sins (sins, plural, Rom. 3:25,) in abolishing the law of Sin in our members. You may still ‘sin,’ in the relative, but you are free from it. You are now in Christ’s faith, and He is the Image of the invisible God, Who remains faithful (Col. 1:15, Rom. 3:3, 1 Cor. 10:12, 2 Tim. 2:13.) If He remains faithful, and His faith is now in you, then you are effectively justified in God’s sight by no means of your own. It is in grace that His righteousness is manifest in you, through your deliverance in His blood. This voids your unbelief in act.
This silver bullet exonerates you, while maintaining that Sin (Sin, singular) is the enemy. It is not faith that unites you with Christ – this is only one facet of salvation. The next facet, the present deliverance, is revealed through your baptism into Christ’s death, which means you are now living to God, and not Sin (6:3-14.) The majority of your life on earth is designed to bring you to a fuller realization of this fact, by bringing you to a realization of Christ Jesus. You’re not a ‘guest’ at the party, you’re now working with the Host. As you work with the Host throughout your life, Sin loses its influence on you. Is it always a straight line? No. But you are growing in Him. In contrast to the plural ‘sins,’ then, here in the conciliation part of Romans you see that it is in your death, not faith, to Sin, that justifies you from her. Sin, singular, has been personified with a definite article throughout the conciliation so as to differentiate between these two topics for you.
And what do we conclude? Well, the only result is found in
the beginning of Romans 8, but the entire conclusion will be documented
throughout the chapter. We’ll leave this topic for the time being, but let it
be noted that the last stretch of ‘conciliation’ on a personal level in Romans
here is going to conclude the ‘present’ deliverance from Sin. If you are
interested in the third facet of salvation, the ‘future’ salvation from Sin’s
presence altogether, then you should read 1 and 2 Thessalonians. With
these critical passages in mind, we come to a full realization of the true
salvation of God.
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment