Critique of Arminius' Exposition of Romans 7.
Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College
Critique of Arminius' Exposition of Romans 7
THEO 5333
The Works of Arminius
Instructor: Stephen M. Ashby, Ph.D.
Kendall Ross
May/June 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Romans 7 as the Mature Believer 3
Romans 7 as the Immature Believer 4
Romans 7 as The Non-Believer 5
Present Tense 5
Dead to Sin 6
Sold Under Sin 7
Free From Sin 8
Captivity to the Law of Sin 9
Controlled by the Sinful Nature 11
"ME" refers to the Sinful Nature 12
O Wretched Man 13
Conclusion 14
Appendix A 15
Timeline of Romans 7 Interpretations 16
Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College
THEO 5333 - The Works of Arminius
Introduction
The Church fathers generally interpreted Romans Chapter 7 as a non-believer or pre-Christian experience. It was not until Augustine, the 5th century Christian theologian, that the conflict of Romans 7 was considered the highest stage of Christian experience. Schreiner1 provides a description of various theologians and teachers on a timeline interpretation of Romans 7. The chart in Appendix A describes the various interpretations from the 2nd century through today.
Romans 7 as the Mature Believer
Major teachers and theologians of the 20th century are divided on the issue. Charles Swindoll and John MacArthur interpret the passage as describing the mature Christian, stating the Paul uses the present tense to describe the struggle. Their position is that this indicates that his current experience as an Apostle included this struggle. Even after Christ's deliverance in Verse 252, the battle is not yet resolved. Being a Christian does not make the battle cease. In fact, only the Christian is truly aware of the battle raging in his or her own soul3.
Proponents of this view would also state that only a true Christian can be said to delight in God's law (Verse 22). Likewise, only a Christian can desire to obey God's law (Verses 14-23) for the natural person is at enmity with God and cannot be said to love God's law. Such advocates would place the emphasis on the "body of death" in Verse 24 suggesting that the battle will only be resolved after the believer's physical resurrection. And, trying to appeal to one's sinful nature, they would state, "Most Christians identify with the struggle Paul describes."
Romans 7 as the Immature Believer
Notable teachers and theologians proclaiming this belief include the 19th century Bible teacher at Westminster Chapel in London, D. Lloyd Jones and 20th century Bible teachers Warren Wiersbe and Charles Ryrie4. These proponents would claim the above arguments, but would also note that the word "carnal" in Verse 14 is the same word used to describe "carnal" Christians in 1 Corinthians 3:1. Thus, the battle described is that of a "carnal Christian" who has not yet understood the role of the Holy Spirit in conquering sin.
The battle described in chapter 7 is not compatible with the life of victory described in Romans 6 and 8. Christians must abandon Romans 7 and put into practice Romans 6 and 8. Ryrie, in his commentary on Verses 15-25, states, "The intensely personal character of these Verses seems to indicate that this was Paul's own experience as a believer. This is his diagnosis of what happens when one tries to be sanctified by keeping the law."5
Romans 7 as The Non-Believer
According to M. B. Riddle in Lange's Commentary, "The Arminian controversy really began upon the exegesis of this passage."6 Arminius very clearly states his position, "The Apostle in this passage is not treating about a man who is already regenerate through the Spirit of Christ; but has assumed the person of a man who is not yet regenerate."7
Present Tense
Perhaps the most tension of this passage arrives from the tense of the verbs Paul uses, making it to sound in the present tense, as if it were applicable to him at the time he wrote it. However, a close examination of the text shows that this is a common Hebrew way of thinking and speaking. In the Preface to Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, the translator tells of two principles to understand about Hebrew writers:
. That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express the certainty of an action taking place, even though the action might not really be performed for some time, and...
2. That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either past or future were accustomed to act on the principle of transferring themselves mentally to the period and place of the events themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a bygone or still coming time; hence the very frequent use of the present tense.8
Arminius makes this claim of present tense as he states "I will show, that in this passage the Apostle does not speak about himself, nor about a man living under grace, but that he has transferred to himself the person of a man placed under the law."9 Thus, Paul is speaking of a person prior to the conversion experience.
Dead to Sin
In Chapter 6, Paul discussed the true believer's relationship to sin: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Verses 1,2) In Verse 18 he states, "And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Romans 7 states just the opposite..."For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." In Verses 19-21, Paul says, "For the good that I will to do, I do not ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Dead to Sin
In Chapter 6, Paul discussed the true believer's relationship to sin: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Verses 1,2) In Verse 18 he states, "And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Romans 7 states just the opposite..."For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." In Verses 19-21, Paul says, "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good." It is obvious from this passage that Paul is describing a person who does not have a saving faith because Paul states that he keeps on doing evil (Verse 19). It was the Apostle John who taught, "Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him." (1 John 3:6) Paul, however, says that this man keeps on doing evil. Thus, we can either believe that this passage describes a man before he became a believer (perhaps Saul), or that Paul the Apostle is described and that he did not have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Hardly, anyone would choose the latter - that suggests the likelihood that this passage describes pre-Christ Saul (or some other non-believer).
Such a belief is characterized by Arminius' comments... "I prove that a regenerate man, one who is placed under grace, is neither carnal, nor so designated in the Scriptures. In Romans 8:9, it is said, 'But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.' And, in the Verse preceding, it is said, 'So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.' But a regenerate man, one who is placed under grace, pleases God."10
Sold Under Sin
Paul taught the believers in Romans 6:6-7, "...knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin." Then, in Romans 7, Paul says precisely the opposite, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." In this passage, Paul states that he is sold as a slave to sin, yet he has just taught the Romans that our old self was crucified with Christ and should no longer be a slave to sin. Is Paul the Apostle an exception who is slave to sin while other believers are freed from the control of sin? Arminius would strongly reject such a notion. "The same man, about whom the Apostle is here treating, is also said, in this the 14th Verse, to be sold under sin, or the slave of sin, and become its servant by purchase: Which title can, in no sense whatsoever, be adapted to men placed under grace, - a misappropriation of epithet, against which the Scriptures most openly reclaim in many passages."11 Arminius goes on to claim supportive Verses, including John 8:36, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." Romans 6:7, "For he who has died has been freed from sin." Romans 6:17,18, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."
Free From Sin
Paul, in Chapter 6, uses numerous times to tell the reader that the Christian has "died to sin" (Verse 2), that we "were buried with Him through baptism in to death" (Verse 4) and "that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin." (Verse 6) He concludes this section of remarks with "For he who has died has been freed from sin." (Verse 7) The question then arises, has the Paul in Romans 7 been freed from sin? The answer is unequivocally, no. For he describes his condition in Verse 15, "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do." In Verses 17 and 19 he says, "But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice." Arminius comments, "But what man conversant with the Scriptures shall distinguish reigning from indwelling or inhabiting sin, and will account indwelling sin to be the same as the sin existing within? Indeed, indwelling sin is reigning sin, and reigning is indwelling, and therefore sin does not dwell in the regenerate because it does not domineer or rule in them..."12
Could Paul say that sin is living in him or that he keeps on doing evil after becoming an Apostle of Christ? He has just taught that believers are freed from sin, having been crucified with Christ and buried with him through baptism into death, and that anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Such a description could only be made of a pre-Christ Saul, one who sincerely wanted to obey God but who lacked the power of the Holy Spirit and did not have a saving faith in Christ Jesus as his Lord. John Wesley remarked on Paul's comments, "To have spoken this of himself, or any true believer, would have been foreign to the whole scope of this discourse."13
Captivity to the Law of Sin
In Verse 23, Paul writes, "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Is it possible for a true believer to be captive to the law of sin? It was the Apostle himself who stated that "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1,2)
These are directly opposed. Paul said he found himself to be a prisoner of the law of sin, but then goes on in chapter 8 to say that the law of the Spirit of life set him free from the law of sin. Paul didn't have it both ways at the same time. Rather, he was a prisoner of the law of sin as pre-Christ Saul; but Paul was freed from the law of sin by the law of the Spirit after coming to a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Adam Clarke responded to this issue, "The very genius of Christianity demonstrates that nothing like this can, with any propriety, be spoken of a genuine Christian."14
According to Arminius, "...it is not an attribute of a regenerate man, and of one who is placed under grace, to be brought into captivity under the law of sin; but that, rather, is his which is ascribed to him in the 2nd Verse of the following chapter..(Romans 8:2)...For when he was formerly placed under the law, he was in captivity under the strength and power of sin.15 It is clear that Paul is speaking of a pre-Christian experience - rather than something that occurs in the life of the believer.
Controlled by the Sinful Nature
In Verse 25, Paul states that he, in his sinful nature, is a slave to the law of sin. Then he admits that he is controlled by his sinful nature. In Verse 18, he says, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find." And in Verse 19, he says, "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice."
This is not the description of a true Christian. Rather, it describes someone controlled by the sinful nature. Paul goes on to teach in the 9th Verse of Chapter 8 that believers are "in the Spirit" - not in the flesh. He goes on to say that "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." I'm convinced that Paul the Apostle had the Spirit of God living inside him. Consequently, he could not have been controlled by the sinful nature as a Christian, but as Saul (pre-Christ).
Arminius spends a great amount of detail in this particular section of the passage. His treatment of the four laws: 1) the law of God, 2) the law of sin, 3) the law of the mind, 4) the law of the members is excellent. He disassembles the text and addresses Paul's treatment of the "war." He states that the "law of God" and the "law of sin" are directly contrary. "The conflict between these two contending parties, is about man, whom God wishes to bring into subjection to himself; and sin eagerly indulges the same wish. The former of these prescribes his own law to him; the latter also prescribes its law: And both of them employ their own military forces, that they severally have in the man, each to obtain the victory for himself....The end, therefore, or the intention of the battle is, that man may be brought into subjection either to the law of God, or to the law of sin; that is, that he may walk either according to the flesh or according to the mind."16 While this paper cannot begin to summarize Arminius' thought on this area of the passage, it is clear that Paul is not speaking about himself during his life as a believer; but rather during his time prior to the Damascus Road experience.
"Me" refers to the Sinful Nature
Arminius comments on the 18th Verse, "...'For I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing': By which words the same thing is signified, as by the following, 'I am carnal.' For he is carnal, in whom no good thing dwelleth."17 In this passage, Paul equates himself (his person "me") with his sinful nature. He said, "I know that in me nothing good dwells". At the time in his life the passage refers to, Paul was referring to himself as having a sinful nature and admitting that nothing good lived in him. Similarly, in Titus, Paul wrote, "For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another." (Titus 3:3)
This is in direct contrast to what Paul wrote in Chapter 8. "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." (Romans 8:5) Calvinist theologian Anthony Hoekema seems to echo the thoughts of Arminius, "The mood of frustration and defeat that permeates this section does not comport with the mood of victory in terms of which Paul usually describes the Christian life. The person pictured is still a captive of the law of sin, whereas the believer described in Chapter 6 (particularly Verses 17-18) is no longer a slave to sin."18
O Wretched Man
Arminius describes the 24th Verse, "...when rightly understood, I argue thus for the establishment of my own opinion: Those men who are placed under grace are not wretched: but this man is wretched: therefore, this man is not placed under grace."19 He goes on to say that "I do not recollect ever to have read, [in the Scriptures] that they (the regenerate) are on this account called 'wretched' with regard to the 'spiritual life which they live by faith of the Son of God'; though, in reference to this natural life, 'they be of all men most miserable.' (1 Cor. 15:19)"
How can one who is a believer be wretched; rather, the Bible refers to them as "blessed" (Matthew 5:3-12) and that we are "more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (Romans 8:37) Paul also told the Romans the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace (Romans 8:6). He told the Galatians, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Galatians 5:22-24) He told the Philippians of his learned key to contentment... "I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need." (Philippians 4:12)
I would argue that the Apostle Paul was the contended man, filled with joy, love, peace and patience - who had crucified his sinful nature. He was not a wretched man as a believer, but was filled with the fruits and gifts of the Spirit. Rather, he was a wretched man as pre-Christ Saul.
Conclusion
While the debate will continue, I believe it is very clear that Romans 7 is a description of Paul before his conversion - a pre-Christ Saul. I also believe it is crucial what we believe about Romans 7. One writer described that our interpretation of the passage is like a watershed.20 Whichever way we go will lead us to drastically different theological conclusions. The man described in Romans 7 was a slave to sin. He was unsanctified - unsaved - unregenerate. However you prefer to describe him, clearly he is a man who has not found the grace and mercy of Christ Jesus.
Appendix A
Timeline of Romans 7 Interpretations
Date
The Mature Christian
The Immature Christian
The Non-Christian
2nd Century
Irenaeus (2nd century church father, bishop of Lyons).
Tertullian (2nd century church father and Christian theologian).
3rd Century
Origen (3rd century church father in Alexandria, Egypt).
4th Century
Ambrose (4th century pastor and bishop of Milan).
John Chrysostom (4th century church father in Antioch).
5th Century
Augustine (5th century Christian theologian)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (5th century church father, bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia).
16th Century
Martin Luther (16th century Protestant Reformer).
Theodore of Cyrus (5th century church father who was part of the Counsel of Chalcedon).
John Calvin (16th century Protestant Reformer).
Arminius (Late 16th century Dutch Protestant Reformer).
18th Century
Matthew Henry (18th century Bible teacher and author of Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible).
John Wesley (18th century Anglican preacher and founder of the Methodist movement).
19th Century
C. I. Scofield, (19th century dispensational theologian, editor of the Scofield Reference Bible).
D. Lloyd-Jones (19th century Bible teacher at Westminster Chapel in London).
G. Campbell Morgan (19th century Bible teacher and pastor at Westminster Chapel in London).
John Murray (19th century Reformed theologian at Westminster Theological Seminary and author of the New International Commentary on the New Testament volume on Romans).
John Nelson Darby (19th century Plymouth Brethren theologian).
A. T. Robertson (19th century Southern Baptist New Testament scholar at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).
F. L. Godet (19th century Swiss Protestant theologian and New Testament theologian).
20th Century
John Walvoord (20th century dispensational theologian at Dallas Theological Seminary).
F. F. Bruce (20th century New Testament theologian and author of the Tyndale commentary on Romans).
C. E. B. Cranfield (20th century Reformed theologian at University of Durham and author of the International Critical Commentary on Romans).
John R. W. Stott (20th century Bible teacher at All Souls Church in London and author of The Bible Speaks Today commentary on Romans).
James Denney (Early 20th century New Testament scholar in the Church of Scotland).
20th Century
(continued)
Kent Hughes (20th century Bible teacher and author of Preach the Word commentary on Romans).
Warren Wiersbe (20th century Bible Teacher at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and author of the "Be" commentaries on the Bible).
Anthony Hoekema (20th century Reformed theologian at Calvin Seminary).
Charles Swindoll (20th century Bible teacher and president at Dallas Theological Seminary).
Charles Ryrie (20th century Bible teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of the Ryrie Study Bible).
Paul Achtemeier (20th century Protestant theologian and author of the Interpretation commentary on Romans).
John MacArthur (20th century Bible teacher and president of the Master's Seminary).
David Needham (20th century author of the book Birthright).
Gordon Fee (20th century New Testament scholar at Regent College.
J. I. Packer (20th century Puritan theologian at Regent College).
Manfreid Brauch (20th century New Testament theologian at Easter Baptist Theological Seminary and author of Hard Sayings of Paul).
James D. G. Dunn (20th century New Testament scholar at University of Durham and author of the Word Biblical Commentary on Romans).
N. T. Wright (20th century New Testament scholar).
Joseph Fitzmyer (20th century Roman Catholic New Testament scholar and author of the Anchor Bible Commentary on Romans).
Douglas Moo (20th century New Testament scholar at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and author of the New International Commentary on the New Testament on Romans).
1 Schreiner, Thomas R., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998).
2 The Holy Bible, New King James Version, copyright 1982, The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. All Bible references will be used from this Bible and will no longer be footnoted.
3 http://www.lbfchurch.com/Articles - Peck, Tim, Who is Romans 7:14-25 Describing", posted March 2, 2001..
4 Bangs, Carl. Arminius, A Study in the Dutch Reformation. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, Rpt. 1985.
5 Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, Th.D., Ph.D., "The Ryrie Study Bible", new King James Version, copyright 1985 The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago.
6 Lange, John Peter, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Romans 1869; rpt. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n. d.
7 Arminius, James, The Works of Arminius 3 Vols., The London Edition, Translated by James Nichols and William Nichols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, reprinted 1996.
8 Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by J.N. Young 1862, 1898. Public Domain http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ab531/english.html
9 Arminius, James, The Works of Arminius 3 Vols., The London Edition, Translated by James Nichols and William Nichols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, reprinted 1996.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Wesley, John, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, (1754; rpt. Salem, OH: Schmul, 1976).
14 Clarke, Adam, The Holy Bible, with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 6 volumes, (1811-25; rpt. Nashville: Abingdon, n.d.)
15 Arminius, James, The Works of Arminius 3 Vols., The London Edition, Translated by James Nichols and William Nichols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, reprinted 1996.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Hoekema, Anthony A., Response to Walvoord - Five Views of Sanctification, Melvin E. Dieter, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.
19 Arminius, James, The Works of Arminius 3 Vols., The London Edition, Translated by James Nichols and William Nichols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, reprinted 1996.
20 Reasoner, Victor Paul, The Spirit and Sanctification: The Changing Emphasis Within American Wesleyanism, M.Div. thesis, Biola University, 1987.
??
??
??
??
4
2
