A Shipwrecked Faith

 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck.  1Timothy 1:19

The apostle Paul was no stranger to the sea.  In his many travels, he often found himself aboard various sailing vessels as he made his way from port to port, carrying the gospel throughout the Empire.  He also was no stranger to the dangers associated with sea travel, having experienced, yet surviving shipwreck on a number of occasions, one in which he spent a day and night in the water before making it to safety (2Cor. 11:25).  Without a doubt, these perilous and sometimes tragic maritime experiences are in the forefront of Paul’s thoughts as he describes the miserable end of certain believers, who regarding the faith have been ruined, or as he states, have made shipwreck.

The Christian life has often been compared to a journey.  We receive the gospel, believe in Jesus Christ, and thus begin our lifelong trek toward the kingdom of God and life eternal.  In this journey, we are confronted with great tribulations, temptations, hardships, and countless other obstacles, which arise along the way to hinder us from reaching our destination.  Our journey is as it were, a voyage across a great and oftentimes turbulent sea, prone to violent storms which can only be safely navigated by the Captain of our salvation.  Yet in spite of the danger inherent to this voyage, we have confidence that our Captain will safely guide us into eternal safety.

But what if in the course of our journey, at a certain port perhaps, we board a ship other than that which we at the first sailed upon- a ship which we assume is the same as at the start, yet in truth is another, having perhaps some resemblance to the former, but indeed having never been sailed by our Captain, inasmuch as it is not his ship?  Certainly this change of ship foreshadows a grave end, for it is evident that any journey aboard this latter vessel will end in shipwreck.

So what indeed is a shipwrecked faith?  It is a ruined faith, a faith that has drifted from sound doctrine and a faith that has lost moral clarity.  It is a faith which fails to secure its original end and fails to reach its desired destination.  If you can imagine what an actual shipwreck might look like, you will have a better understanding of what is meant by the statement concerning faith have made shipwreck. Consider for a moment the destruction involved in an actual shipwreck.  Scattered planks, splintered lumber, broken masts, shredded sails, damaged cargo, and helpless passengers- all floating in disarray until at last disappearing in the deep to be seen no more.  The shipwrecked faith is similar, yet even more tragic.  Scattered families, broken homes, sunken morals, drowned consciences, fractured orthodoxy, and fragments of truths once held- all drifting toward the eternal shore, arriving in turn to testify of a disaster at sea.

But the faith which we first received in Christ is not so, for it was given to us as a sure vessel, a vessel which can endure the dangerous voyage set before us, which sails from glory to glory, from righteousness to righteousness, until at last arriving safely in the eternal Fair Havens.

Now in our text, Paul sets forth two essentials for securing a successful voyage:  faith and a good conscience.  Holding faith implies loyalty to that faith which was “once delivered to the saints.”  It is an adherence to the “apostles’ doctrine,” and a commitment to established truth.  It does not seek to be innovative or “on the cutting edge” with regard to biblical revelation (show me a man who seeks new interpretations regarding Scripture, and I will show you a heretic.)  Holding faith is continuing in historical, biblical Christianity by maintaining those doctrines that define orthodoxy, i.e.  that Jesus Christ is truly God, and truly man; that He is the Only-Begotten Son of God; that He is the only sacrifice for the sins of man; that there is salvation in none but Christ alone; that there is a literal heaven and a literal hell; that there is a judgment and resurrection for both the living and dead, the righteous and wicked; that Jesus Christ shall come again to recompense all men according to their works; etc., etc..  To abandon these tenets of faith, or the many others like them, which have been held from antiquity, to disregard the necessity for moral excellence, holiness, and purity regarding the faith, is to indeed “change ships” mid-voyage, and consequently “make shipwreck” concerning the faith.  One who has denied that which is orthodox may assert that he yet possesses faith in Christ, that even though he rejects the morality set forth in Scripture, he is yet a follower of the Christian faith.  But know for certain that such a one is driven by strong winds and raging seas whose end is inevitable destruction.

Now Paul not only exhorts us to hold faith, but also a good conscience.  It is this good conscience that some have put away or rejected.  If our faith in Christ can be compared to a sailing vessel, then the conscience is the lodestone or compass.  It is the conscience that would direct our path, and keep our voyage steady and on course.  To put away conscience from our faith is to throw our compass overboard.  It is to sail with no bearings, to randomly drift about carried by the will of the sea, with no true sense of location or direction. 

But what does it mean to put away a good conscience?  The conscience is that inward sense that all men possess- to varying degrees- of right and wrong.  It is man’s inward voice which either accuses or excuses him regarding his actions (Rom. 2:15).  Although it may not be a perfect guide, or the final authority concerning right and wrong, it will if allowed lead to the perfect Light and will recognize and bear witness to the truth.  The Scripture has many strong statements regarding the topic of conscience which I will not address in this article.  Every professing Christian would do well to study this topic. I will say this much, the Scripture is clear that the believer is to maintain a good or clear conscience, that actions contrary to conscience are sinful actions, and that in those things in which our conscience (heart) condemns us, we lack the approval of God as well (1John 3:20).   Thus, the conscience plays a vital role in the Christian faith.

But the conscience can be ill-treated.  It can be “seared as with a hot iron,” so as to no longer function properly, it may be “defiled” or corrupted, it can be suppressed, or as in our text, it may be put away or rejected.  To put away a good conscience is to no longer concern oneself with how he or she truly feels within regarding his or her actions.  It is to ignore and suppress that inward voice, and to convince one’s self that acceptance with God exists regardless of the contrary testimony of one’s own heart. 

Now once the conscience is put away, the waves of sin pour over the sides of the ship.  Nothing seems all that bad any longer.  Immorality, uncleanness, drunkenness, and the like are all in play- in spite of the fact that Paul warns us that “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”  Moral restraints are rejected and a new revelation of “spiritual liberty”- which judges nothing and allows for anything- is embraced.  And with each wave of sin that washes over the ship comes a new twisted interpretation of Scripture, of faith, of grace, of righteousness- flooding the conscience lest at any time its call to repentance be heard.

I cannot state strongly enough the dangers associated with the putting away of conscience.  No faith can be validated where the conscience is suppressed, ignored, or denied.  If a man habitually disobeys his conscience, in what sense does he obey God?  Does his faith truly confirm him while his heart condemns him?  Can he be true to God when he is untrue to himself?

“To thine own self be true”

And if true to your own conscience, “Thou canst not then be false to any man,” neither can you be false in the sight of God.  And he that will hold to the faith, and keep it in a good conscience, will have a safe voyage in spite of stormy seas, but he that abandons a clear conscience abandons his Lord and regarding the faith of Christ makes shipwreck.

Errors and Adjustments - Part 2 - "Is the World Already Forgiven in Christ?"

In my last article, I mentioned that I would continue to address commonly held errors within the evangelical church.  Again, these are not necessarily “heresies,” but rather wrong ideas, “pet doctrines,” and inaccurate explanations of biblical truths.  Although not damnable heresies, they are errors nonetheless and should be seen as such, and thus, abandoned.

The errors which I have addressed, and will address, have a common theme: they each pertain to the topic of the forgiveness of sins.  I wrote a previous article addressing the idea as to whether or not our present and future sins are already forgiven, and showed this position to be incorrect.  My last article dealt with the belief that God forgets our former sins, and can literally remember them no more.  This too was shown to be absurd.  This article will as well deal with another commonly held error regarding the forgiveness of sins.  The error to be addressed sounds like this:

“The world is already forgiven through Jesus Christ- they only need to accept it”…   “When Jesus prayed, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,’ the whole world was forgiven”…   “Because all men have already been forgiven, the only sin that can now send them to hell is the rejection of Christ”…  

Where do I start?  Not only are these ideas commonly held, but they are confidently asserted to be an essential part of the Gospel!  It may come as a shock to many to hear that the above statements are entirely false, are indeed error, and that they which declare these things are greatly mistaken.

I will begin with the first statement.  It is entirely wrong to assert that the whole world is already forgiven in Christ.  This is to say that men are forgiven before they repent, and even before they are saved!  Now if men are already forgiven before salvation, what need have they of salvation?  If they are forgiven before repentance, what need have they of repentance?  Indeed what then is salvation, if men are forgiven of sins before ever experiencing it?  Is not salvation very simply defined as the forgiveness of, and the deliverance from sin?  Thus, they which say these things essentially assert that men are saved before they are saved!

Now someone may object to my statements by arguing that those which assert that the world is already forgiven in Christ also assert that the world must accept this forgiveness for it to become a reality.  To this I say, that forgiveness either is, or is not.  It has either occurred or it is yet to happen.  To say that forgiveness has already happened, yet needs to be accepted to become reality, is to say that in truth it has not occurred. It is to say that God has forgiven men, but should they fail to accept this truth, they shall in the end ultimately have their forgiveness revoked. 

But forgiveness is a divine act.  If God has forgiven, then nothing can alter this act.  If the world is already forgiven in Christ- an act which would have occurred apart from any action on its part- then it would follow that any actions subsequent to that act would in truth have no bearing upon it.  Hence, as I have stated in a previous article, if men are already forgiven before repentance, faith, and submission, it is unnecessary that they offer any of these, for God has already granted forgiveness apart from these actions.

Do they which say these things perhaps wish to convey that provision for the forgiveness of the sins of world has already been made, rather than that the world is actually already forgiven?  Perhaps some do, but many more actually mean what they say.  If one simply wishes to convey the “good news” that God has already made provision for the forgiveness of the sins of the world, would he not be better off saying exactly that?  Indeed, God has made provision for the forgiveness of the sins of the world, but to say that the world is already forgiven in Christ is simply to state that which is not true.

Now on the heels of this particular error follows the next error as well.  For they which assert these things also declare that “because the world is already forgiven, there remains only one sin whereby men can be damned- the rejection of Christ.”  But if men are already forgiven of their sins through Christ, then not even the rejection of Christ would undo that which was already accomplished on their behalf.  Are they forgiven or not?  If so, then they are forgiven- period.  But if they must meet certain conditions to ultimately possess the forgiveness which is said to have already occurred, then it is clear that they are not in truth already forgiven.

In addition, the Bible clearly shows that men are damned for a variety of sins, not only for rejecting Christ.  To be sure, the rejection of Christ is the greatest of the sinner’s transgressions, and is that which seals his damnation, but to say that it is the only sin whereby men are condemned is incorrect.  I could quote many passages of Scripture which list various sins responsible for causing men to “not inherit the kingdom of God,” to be “worthy of death,” to be considered “the children of wrath,” and to finally “have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.”  And in these passages, the sin of rejecting Christ is not mentioned as the cause of the sinner’s condemnation, but rather his adulteries, fornications, lies, drunkenness, sorceries, murders, uncleanness, etc., are set forth as that for which he is condemned.  

Now this idea that the sins of the world have already been forgiven in Christ, from where does it come?  For certain, they which assert this view often refer to Christ’s prayer upon the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”  This verse they frequently quote in support of their belief that the world was forgiven at the time of Christ’s death.  It is frequently stated that “Jesus never prayed a prayer that was not answered,” and thus, “when He prayed the whole world was forgiven.”

But this is not a proper treatment of this verse at all.  It assumes that Christ’s prayer was offered on behalf of the whole world- for those present, for those not present, for those living and for those yet to be born.  Yet there is no clear evidence to support this assumption.  I acknowledge that by extension his prayer has an application to all men throughout all ages, for it exhibits so wonderfully the love, grace and forgiveness of Christ, which indeed is directed toward the whole world.  But specifically, his prayer was offered on behalf of his persecutors who were responsible for his crucifixion.  It was offered on behalf of the chief priests, elders, Pharisees and scribes- who condemned him, mocked him and spit upon him- for the Romans also who abused him, who carried out his death sentence, and gambled for his clothing.  These are they of whom it may properly be said “they know not what they do”- for none of these knew that the Man whom they hated and condemned was indeed the Son of God.  They did not know that they crucified God Incarnate.

For in truth, the words “they know not what they do,” cannot be properly applied to all sinful men throughout history-  for the Scripture asserts that sinners in fact “do know what they do,” in that they do the very things that their own consciences condemn.   And you, beloved, might know this to be true, for if in your times of confession of sin, you have been so bold as to declare to God that your sinful actions were the result of “knowing not what you do,” you have found that you received none of the grace that you sought- a testimony of just how those words of Christ indeed do not apply to every sinner!

Now the logic often employed when treating this text is also faulty.   The common argument that “Jesus never prayed a prayer that was not answered,” and thus, the whole world was of necessity at the time of his prayer forgiven, is in truth flawed.  Firstly, it is flawed, because as I have stated, it is based upon the assumption that the prayer of Jesus was offered on behalf of all men for all time.  Secondly, it does not at all take into account that which Christ intended by the words, “Father, forgive them.”  In their haste to proclaim “all the world’s sins already forgiven,” those who argue thus fail to realize that forgiveness, in the sense of “sins remitted,” “debts cancelled,” and “fellowship restored,” was not granted by God, nor intended by Christ.  I agree that Christ never prayed a prayer that was unanswered, thus, we should not take the words forgive them to mean “pardon them,” “cancel their debts,” “wipe their slate clean,” etc. - for truly, Christ’s persecutors were not pardoned, did not have their debts cancelled, nor was their “slate wiped clean.”  

Are we to think that the impenitent Jews and Romans responsible for the crucifixion of the Son of God will never have to answer for this, their most horrific of all transgressions, because of this particular prayer for forgiveness?  Will not this sin above all other sins torture their consciences throughout eternity?  Are we to think that in the depths of hell they will have some solace in knowing that they were forgiven for crucifying the Lord?  Certainly, this cannot be so.   

So how should we understand the words, Father, forgive them?  We should understand them to mean, “Father, do not hold this sin against them, do not let this sin be that which seals their damnation.  Do not let this sin be that which determines their fate.”  In the grace of Christ, He did not wish his persecutors harm, and did not want their foul treatment of him to be the occasion of their final rejection from God.  This prayer was indeed answered abundantly, for God continued to extend to them the opportunity for repentance with the offer of forgiveness through the preaching of the apostles.

Now if the persecutors of Christ, who were specifically intended in his petition, were not pardoned, did not have their debts cancelled, and thus were not ultimately forgiven, how then can men declare that the whole world, which was not intended in this prayer, is as a result of this prayer already forgiven?  Indeed, they have no firm ground upon which they build their theory, but rather they stretch and reach to grasp for what they desire to be true, but what indeed is not.  It is this kind of approach toward Scripture which fosters all manner of doctrinal error. 

In conclusion, the concept of sins having already been forgiven, as I have stated above and in previous articles as well, is absurd.  What is to be gained by imagining such things?  It seems that believers are all too willing to allow their imaginations and speculations regarding the forgiveness of sins to become established as doctrine.  Sadly, it seems that there exists an appetite within the church for these speculations and interpretations as well, which are neither supported by the Scripture nor common sense. 

But let it not be said of us that we lack sense and reason in our approach to biblical truth.  God gave us a mind to think, and to think logically, and thus it would serve us well to employ our minds a little more. Perhaps a little more reason would deliver us from the multitude of errors so commonly accepted as truth, and as well, adjust our theology to more effectively explain biblical truth.

Errors and Adjustments - Part 1 - "Does God Forget What He Forgives?"

I think every Christian who reads this little article has probably had this experience: You have believed something to be true regarding the Christian faith- perhaps without a question- only to find out later on that what you have accepted as true is actually false, or at least inaccurate.   Although this experience is oftentimes accompanied with a sense of disappointment, it does however open our eyes and position us to better perceive that which is true. Those believers which do not faint will indeed be strengthened by the process.

In this article, and in the ones like it to follow, I will set forth certain commonly held beliefs and ideas within the evangelical church, with the intention of showing these beliefs to be either false or inaccurate.  I will not in these articles address major heresies, but rather incorrect ideas, wrong beliefs, and “pet doctrines,” which although less dangerous than damnable heresies, are yet unsound and unhealthy to hold to.   

The first error I will address goes something like this:

“When God forgives sin, he also forgets it”…  “God has cast all of our sin into the sea of forgetfulness”… “If you pray about your sins that God has already forgiven, He will not know what you are talking about”… “God has the ability to erase from his mind the record of our sin, only the devil and we ourselves can remember it any longer”…  “When it comes to our sin, God has amnesia!”…etc…

Now perhaps you have never heard some of the above statements, but to be sure, I have heard all of these, and more like them, and usually they are accompanied with loud “amens” from the congregation.  I am certain that everyone within the evangelical church has heard some rendition of the above statements, and more than likely, a significant percentage of them which have heard believe these statements to be true. Indeed, the concept that God forgets our sins, in the sense that He no longer retains the knowledge of our sinful record, is commonly held among many evangelicals.

Now to be sure, many of you which read this page may hold to this very belief, and may find it surprising that anyone would not; however, if you will read on, you will see that this belief is both absurd and impossible, and thus requires adjustment.

I do hope that some of you upon reading my layout of the belief in question already see the error in it, for the statements which I quoted, when placed together, have a certain ring of absurdity to them.  But for those which do not see the folly in this belief, we will now proceed.

To believe that God is capable of forgetting any event, insomuch that He can no longer recall the information regarding that event is absurd.  Think of how ridiculous this position is to hold.  By believing in the “forgetfulness of God,” one essentially creates a universe in which he, the devils, and the angels of God are capable of remembering certain events (i.e. the believer’s sins), and yet God Almighty is incapable of recalling those same events!  In this universe, we find a God so smitten with love for his children, that He brings upon himself a voluntary state of amnesia with regard to their sins, so that each child of his can console himself in knowing that God is no longer all-knowing! 

But let’s take this “forgetfulness of God” a step further.  If God no longer has any remembrance of my sin, then it would be safe to conclude that He as well cannot remember that I ever was a sinner. For it would not be consistent to think that God would remember that I was a sinner, and yet have no recollection of those acts which made me to be a sinner.  If He cannot remember one sinful act of mine, upon what basis does He remember me to have been a sinner? Does the Lord say to me, “I know you to have been a sinner- how I know, I know not- for I have no record in my mind of any wrongdoing on your part!”

But the absurdity of this belief is surpassed by its impossibility.  Think for a moment: Is it possible for God to not remember, and thus no longer possess knowledge regarding any event?  If God is omniscient, how is it that He would no longer be aware of certain information?  Indeed, omniscience implies knowledge of all things past, present, and future; knowledge of every fact, truth, and thought in every possible area.  There can be no event, no thought, no imagination, nor information that can be beyond an omniscient mind. Thus, if there be even one minute shred of information that God is not privy to, if there be but one event that no longer registers within his mind, it cannot be said of him that He is “all-knowing.”

Now if God is no longer all-knowing- for supposedly he does not know what we are talking about when and if we speak to him regarding past sins- then in what sense is He yet omniscient? He is not. And if God is not omniscient, then He is no longer God: for omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are the natural attributes of God.  Indeed, any being which would be deficient in one of these attributes would of necessity be classified as something other than Divine. 

But those which imagine that this error is truth cannot answer this question: Exactly how does God delete the knowledge of our past sins from his mind?  One might suggest that He does so by “casting our sins into the sea of forgetfulness.”  I have heard this many times, yet I have never met anyone who knows where this “sea” is located.  Is it near Narnia or Atlantis?  It certainly is not in the Scripture. Another may argue that “God can do anything He wants,” and therefore He chooses to no longer retain the knowledge of our sins.  But this is to say that God uses his omnipotence to compromise his omniscience!  It is to say that God chooses to make himself less than God!

But it is impossible for God to be anything other than God; consequently, it is impossible that He would not know everything.  Thus, every sin that has ever been committed- even the past sins of redeemed believers- would indeed yet register within the mind of God.

I will now move on to answer certain objections to my statements.

Objection:  But does not the Scripture state in Micah that God will cast our sins into the sea of forgetfulness?

Answer:  To this I say (1) that Micah 7:18 does not say anything about a “sea of forgetfulness,” but simply that God would cast all their sins into the depths of the sea, and (2) the language of Micah is certainly figurative.  The intent of the writer is not to set forth a literal statement as to where the cancelled sins of the people of God are ultimately disposed of, but rather, by use of metaphor, to convey the thoroughness of the redemption that they were to receive from God.  Their sins, which had brought such severe judgment upon them, would in the time of their redemption no longer be an issue- they would be “cast into the depths of the sea,” as it were, and would no longer be an obstacle in the relationship between God and his people.

Objection:  In Hebrews 8:12, the Scripture states: I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.  Does not this verse teach that God will no longer retain the knowledge of our sins, for it clearly states that He will remember them no more?

Answer:  To be sure, the Scripture states that in the New Covenant, God “will remember our sins no more.” But in treating the text fairly, one must ask the question: Does the term “remember” have but one meaning, namely, “to retain knowledge?”  If one will dogmatically assert that “remember” can only imply the retention of knowledge, he will then inevitably interpret this verse to mean that “God forgets that which He forgives,” that He no longer retains within his mind the knowledge or history of our past sins. 

But I have already shown that this is absurd and impossible, thus, this dogmatic approach in this case is both stubborn and unreasonable.  However, if one will consider the broader definition of the term “remember”- as it is used both in the scriptures and in our everyday language- he will not arrive at conclusions which undermine the omniscience of God. For certainly “remember” can mean “to mention,” “to mark,” “to consider,” “to think upon,” “to reward,” “to repay,” “to punish,” etc… thus, a proper treatment of this text must take this into account.

Now having established a broader meaning of the term “remember,” how then should we understand its meaning within the statement “I will remember no more?” Consider the usage of “remember” in the following text:

For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.  Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. Rev. 18:5,6

There is no doubt that the word “remember” in this verse referring to Babylon means “to repay or punish.”  We cannot take this verse to mean that at a certain point in time, God will retrieve to his mind certain information that previously He was not mindful of, but rather, that the time will come for him to execute judgment and to punish Babylon for all of her sins that He is ever mindful of.  Similarly, the verse from Hebrews 8:12, which is a quote from Jeremiah 31:34 conveys the same meaning of the word “remember,” but in this case that God will not remember- that God will no more punish the former sins of his people, insomuch as He will enact a New Covenant with them wherein those former sins, having been blotted out, will not be mentioned any longer.   

In conclusion, the error which I have exposed should be discarded. No good can come to one’s personal faith by holding to ideas which compromise the omniscience of God.  Do you wish to believe that God has forgotten your sins through Jesus Christ?  Do so, but make sure that you adjust your understanding of what “forget” can and cannot mean as it pertains to God.  Does God forget our sins in the sense that He does not hold over us a record of our sins? Yes. Does He freely forgive the penitent, and treat the justified as if they had not sinned, making no more mention of their former sins? Yes.  But does He have amnesia; can He literally no longer remember any of our former sins? No, for that my friend would be contrary to an omniscient mind, and hence, impossible.

So be content to rejoice in this: that although God knows all things concerning us, both past and present, both good and bad, He also is merciful and gracious toward us, “remembering,” or marking our sins no more.

Because You Say...

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich, and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve that thou mayest see.  Revelation 3:17,18

I have had on occasion a certain image course through my mind.  I wonder if you might bear with me, and as I describe this image, try to picture it as well.  This is a fictitious image, yet one that may make a strong impression upon those which “have ears to hear” it, and even upon them which do not, in which case it may serve as a “thorn in the flesh,” an unwanted challenge to an established ideology.

Ready?

In my mind, I have pictured a large gathering of believers assembled in a certain place.  Whether a large church building, or a convention center is irrelevant.  There is an excitement in the air, as this large assembly awaits a highly respected evangelist to enter.  At last, the awaited speaker arrives, with not a hair out of place, perfectly manicured nails, a suit and watch which speak of considerable success, and lastly, a large ring.  Shortly thereafter, he is officially announced and enters the pulpit, and enjoins the great congregation to stand with him. He then begins to speak in a strong voice:

Evangelist:  “Praise the Lord!”

Congregation:  “Praise the Lord!”

Evangelist:  “Say this with me, ‘I am the righteousness of God.’”

Congregation:  “I am the righteousness of God.”

Evangelist:  “I am blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places.”

Congregation:  “I am blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places.”

Evangelist:  “I am the head, and not the tail, I am only above, and not underneath, I have authority over all the power of the enemy.”

Congregation:  “I am the head and not the tail, I am only above and not underneath, I have authority over all the power of the enemy.”

Evangelist:  “I am not poor, I am rich, my needs are met and I have need of nothing.”

Congregation:  “I am not poor, I am rich, my needs are met, and I have need of nothing.”

Evangelist:  “AMEN!”

Congregation:  “AMEN!”

Then the congregation breaks into spontaneous praise and loud applause- for what, I know not.  Do they applaud themselves? Or is it the evangelist? Or is it the Lord?  I think it’s the Lord.

But as the applause begins to wane, and before the speaker begins his message, a most outstanding thing occurs.  A certain figure appears at the rear of this great room.  He does not speak, but slowly walks toward the stage.  His eyes are crystal clear, and his face radiant.  Many, who see him, recognize him immediately- others do not- but all feel compelled to look upon him, sensing that He has something to say.  When he reaches the podium, He opens the evangelist’s bible to the third chapter of Revelation, and hands it back to him. And looking over the great congregation He begins to say:

“BECAUSE YOU SAY, ‘I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing;’ and you do not know that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked; I counsel you to buy from me gold tried in the fire, that you may be rich, and white garments, that you may be clothed, so that the shame of your nakedness does not appear; and anoint your eyes with eyesalve, that you may see.’”

And without a further word, He passes through their midst, and He is gone…

As I said earlier, this is obviously a fictitious scene.  However, other than the appearance of the Lord, The rest of the scene could possibly play out exactly as I have described.  I have often thought that the corporate “faith confessions” quite common in certain evangelical circles often sound very much like the attitude of the Laodicean church which Christ so severely rebuked.  In fact, I am quite certain that it would be easy to get many Christians within these circles to zealously stand and confidently confess, “I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing!”  And this they would boldly confess, thinking themselves to somehow do the word of God great honour, when in truth, they actually repeat the very thoughts of them which were indeed in gross error regarding the whole of God’s word, and which were contrary to the spirit of the true Christian faith.  Sadly, not only do I think that this scenario is possible, and easily created, but I am confident that it indeed has happened already as I have described.

So one may argue, “What does it prove if the above scenario has occurred?  The people, who confess these things, though they may unwittingly use the words of the Laodiceans, certainly intend something different.”  But it does indeed prove something.  It proves that they are not as familiar with the word of God as they think- else they would be ashamed to use the same words, or similar words of the Laodiceans.  And if so oblivious to the word of God here, does it not follow that their particular expression of the Christian faith may be grossly flawed in other areas as well?  For if one can be so foolish as to parrot the very words which drew such a scathing rebuke from Christ, then how many other foolish ideas has he swallowed along the way?

Thus, I write, in the hope that the comparisons that I make between the modern evangelicals - especially they of “charismatic” persuasion- and the ancient Laodiceans, may stir some to re-evaluate their position and philosophy regarding their beliefs. Now I must state for the record that I am neither “anti-charismatic,” nor “anti-Pentecostal,” but rather one who is opposed to a certain mentality, attitude, and philosophy that unfortunately are prevalent within these camps.

Now what precisely did Christ take issue with regarding the Laodiceans?  He begins with the nature of their devotion:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.  Rev.3 15, 16

The Laodiceans were not entirely contrary to the Christian faith. They were a church, they regularly came together, and they professed faith in Jesus Christ.  However, their devotion was void of passion for Jesus himself. They were compromisers; they were not altogether in the world, but they were definitely not in heart committed to Christ.  They thought themselves acceptable, but were unacceptable in his eyes and offensive to him.

I am certain that this could be applicable to various churches throughout the ages, this charge of being lukewarm. However, it is especially applicable to the modern evangelical church as a whole:  For the evangelical church of today is becoming less and less distinguishable from the world with each year that passes.  The enormous amount of moral compromise that is accepted among today’s evangelicals, I have addressed in other posts, and thus I will refrain from commenting again on those specific issues here.

After taking issue with the offensive nature of their lukewarm devotion, The Lord addresses their attitude.  This is addressed in our text: Because thou sayest, I am rich… and have need of nothing.  I am not sure if they actually said these words with their lips, but they certainly said them with their attitude.  It would appear from this verse, that the Laodicean believers interpreted their prosperous natural state as being somehow confirmative of a prosperous spiritual state as well.  I have need of nothing indicates an air of cockiness, of having “already attained,” and of spiritual superiority.  They considered themselves to be quite secure in God.

Now is not this attitude of the Laodiceans reproduced “a hundredfold” in certain evangelicals today?  I do not think that the Laodiceans necessarily verbalized the words of our text, but rather that Christ addressed the attitude of their heart.  How much more offensive to Christ are those believers today who not only have this same attitude in heart, but are actually zealous to proclaim it with their mouths?  Likewise, the Laodiceans erred in interpreting a prosperous natural state to be indicative of a healthy spiritual state.  But evangelicals today take it further by preaching and asserting this to be actual truth!  And if any dare raise an objection to their particular slant on scripture, he or she will be considered “unbelieving” and “unenlightened.”

But these modern “charismatics” have surpassed the Laodiceans in cockiness and arrogance many times over.  For these believers cannot abstain from proclaiming great things about themselves and one another.  They also openly mock and taunt the devil, boasting of all their triumphs over him, and exalt themselves as they whom the devil should fear.  And this some of their leaders do while at the same time they themselves serve the devil in adultery, homosexuality, embezzlement, fraud, and greed.   

And yet the angels of God would not dare to address the devil in the way that these do.  As it is written:

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.  Jude 9

Still, the attitude of arrogance proceeds:  For this is a movement which can only receive “truth” from itself.  They know very little regarding church history, or the history of doctrine.  They are ignorant of what the church has believed throughout its history, and they do not care to know.  It means nothing to them that many of their views are contrary to that which the saints have held as true from the first century onward.   Moreover, they believe themselves to possess more light than all of the generations before them: for they often flatter their hearers with these very words.

So what can be done with believers who believe that they possess more spiritual insight than all of the saints and martyrs that have gone before them?  Who believe themselves to be as righteous as Jesus Christ regardless of how they live?  Who in their own minds have the power to control the “heavenlies” at will, and the ability to “bind and loose” all things seen and unseen?  Who anxiously wait, not only for the coming of the Lord, but for the wealth of all secular institutions to be released into their hands!

If there is hope for these believers, it is found in our text.  Jesus said to the Laodiceans, “Because you say… and do not know… I counsel you …” In other words, Because you say and profess high and lofty things regarding yourself, when in truth the exact opposite is so, and because you do not know the depth of your error, and your true moral state- I counsel you.  

You see, just because you say, does not make it so.  The Laodiceans rejoiced that they were wealthy, but their riches were only of this world.  They claimed to be rich; Jesus said they were poor.  They confessed that they had need of nothing; Christ told them they were naked.  They thought themselves to have achieved a high spiritual state; the Lord charged them with being wretched.  They believed that they possessed insight, but Christ declared them blind.  They confessed that they were blessed; Jesus exposed them as miserable.

And what response would our modern Laodiceans have if they were charged with being wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked?  They would not receive it, they could not receive it.  They have been trained to view any charge against them as being of the devil, and to believe that God is only capable of telling them wonderful things about themselves.  If the fictitious scene that I earlier described somehow did occur, the congregation would reject the very words of Jesus himself as being “condemnation” and “negative,” and would then break into a confession of their own righteousness, of how they were “the children of God,” and of how “no weapon formed against them will prosper!”

What can be said of a belief system which cannot allow for Christ to speak to the church as He sees fit?  For it is certain within their beliefs, that a believer is not, and can never be considered wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.  That to even suggest this would in their mind be demonic.  Yet, Jesus uses these very words when addressing certain early believers, who in many ways did not go as far in the error and arrogance that has swallowed the modern “charismatics.”

So what counsel is there from the Lord?  He advises the Laodiceans to do three things: (1) buy of me gold tried in the fire, and white raiment, (2) to anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, and (3) be zealous therefore and repent.

Gold tried in the fire speaks of gold of high value, one that has been refined and is pure.  Impure gold may have value, but it is cheap in comparison to that which has been in the fire.  It may have some lustre, but it lacks depth. The religion of the Laodiceans was similar: cheap and shallow, glorying in their earthly gain, but bankrupt regarding true religion.  How applicable to the modern evangelicals, who being determined to make Christianity more palatable to both themselves and the world, have systematically compromised, gutted, and prostituted the faith, making it a shallow and cheap imitation of that which is truly golden.

White raiment speaks of one thing- purity. The Laodiceans thought so highly of themselves adorned in their expensive garments, but were in truth spiritually naked.  Men may clothe themselves with the very best suits and jewellery, settle for nothing less than the most extravagant accommodations and transportation, and may carry themselves and expect to be treated as princes, but if their faith does not beget purity of life, they are naked.  The exhortation to buy white raiment is a charge to the lukewarm to embrace moral purity as an essential to faith.

Therefore, do not speak to me, O evangelical, about how “blessed” you are while you sit in your dens of iniquity imbibing your poisonous swill, deceiving yourself that you are moderate and thus do not transgress.  Do not speak of the love of God when you in truth do not love him, neither take the name of the Lord upon your lips- that Name which you openly disgrace by your own immoralities and by your friendship with those who would so live.  If you are to be taken seriously, you must clothe yourself- for the words that proceed from the naked are hard to hear. 

Anoint thine eyes with eyesalve implies taking measures to recover one’s ability to perceive truth again- that thou mayest see.  I understand how naïve believers can fall prey to the errors set forth by the leaders of the modern “charismatic” movement, but I cannot understand how some never come to see through those errors.   OPEN YOUR EYES!

Lastly, the Lord counsels the lukewarm to repent:

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Rev.3:19

And herein may the eyesalve be found.  For if you will be serious about truly submitting yourself to God, if you will “surrender all,” and with all of your heart turn from sin, then your eyes will be opened and your nakedness covered.  Your faith also will be as gold tried in the fire.   

And your righteousness will no longer be BECAUSE YOU SAY, but rather because it is.

Repentance Not to Be Repented of

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.  2 Corinthians 7:10

One of the most misunderstood, and I daresay neglected doctrines in the church today, is the doctrine of repentance.  When the word repentance is on occasion mentioned, it is usually either given a modern definition far from its true biblical meaning, or it is used by a preacher (with quivering voice) to shock the congregation into a rush for the altar for prayer.  Having observed both of these scenarios countless times, and having talked to countless Christians, as well as many, many ministers, I am convinced that it is a small minority within the evangelical church that actually understands what repentance is, and knows  what it means “to repent.”  For the most part, this small minority that does indeed understand, did not gain this understanding from the pulpit, but rather through a personal experience by the grace of God- for it is very possible, even probable, for one to attend church, or even bible school or seminary, and never hear a clear exposition of the subject. 

Now how can this be?  It is this simple.  If the pastor has never experienced true repentance, and if the bible teacher has not as well, they which hear them will certainly not gain much insight into the topic. For to be sure “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” thus, if the minister is inexperienced with true repentance, he will not with any conviction or clarity preach it.  Rather, for the most part, he will neglect to speak of it - for he is not conscious of the importance of the subject, inasmuch as it is unfamiliar to him, having never been an integral part of his religious experience.

But how can a minister, or teacher, become such without having any experience with true repentance?  The answer: In the same way that he became a Christian without true repentance! For to be sure, the gospel that is preached in our day, does not require repentance as a condition of salvation, consequently, many people become “believers” without it.  Then, by a natural course of events, some of these believers- which have never experienced true repentance- eventually become ministers themselves, thereby perpetuating the cycle in which neither preacher nor parishioner is enlightened upon this vital subject.

Now you may fairly raise an objection to my assessment of the state of the modern evangelical church regarding true repentance.  You may even feel it outrageous for me to suggest that many ministers are bereft of true understanding regarding the subject.  However, once we examine what true repentance is, as it is set forth in our text from 2 Corinthians, you may come to see things in a different light.

In our examination of what true repentance is it will of necessity be helpful to first establish what repentance is not.

Repentance is not confession of sin.  Although confession of sin may certainly be involved in true repentance, it does not, however, define it.   Confession of sin is an acknowledgement of guilt, whereas repentance involves a change of mind and conduct.  It is very possible- and very common- to confess sin without ever having a proper change of mind and conduct.

Repentance is not asking for forgiveness. Again, one might ask for forgiveness while they are repenting, but one might just as easily ask for forgiveness without repentance.  In fact, many ask for forgiveness while being conscious that they have no intention of breaking off from their sins.  They know that what they do is wrong, thus the request for forgiveness, yet are unwilling to change their behaviour.

Repentance is not mere resolution.  In truth, repentance is resolution of the truest form.  However, mere resolution, that resolution or effort to do better without having a proper change of heart, is weak and results in an endless cycle of broken promises to one’s self and to God.

Repentance is not faith.  Many Christians are confused about this.  They somehow think that as long as they believe the gospel, that they have no need for repentance.  In fact, some ministers give the idea that believing the gospel is repentance.  As wonderful and precious as faith is, it should not be exalted at the expense of other truths.  Many believers are so imbalanced in their ideas regarding faith, that they cannot, or will not see the whole of biblical truth.  They approach every issue in the same way- believe, BELIEVE, BELIEVE!  They are like a man who calls himself a mechanic, yet possesses but one tool- the hammer!

Repentance is not remorse.  Although remorse is definitely part of repentance, and they which have truly repented indeed know their share of deep remorse, it must be stated that an individual can indeed experience remorse without ever truly repenting.  There exists a definite distinction between the remorse that the truly penitent experience and the remorse that the impenitent may feel.  This is precisely what Paul addresses in our text. 

Now regarding the text in 2 Corinthians 7:10, I will make three points: (1) The definition of repentance, (2) The catalyst of true repentance, and (3) The character of true repentance.

The definition of repentance

Having already established what repentance is not, we must now define what it indeed is.  The word translated as repentance comes from the Greek word metanoia, which means “after-thought, change of mind “or a “perceiving after.”  Thus we get our simple definition of repentance: a change of mind. But this raises the question: What is that change of mind that may properly be considered repentance? 

It must be stated here that not every change of mind can be considered repentance.  A person may form new opinions regarding sin, or the Bible, or of God, thus experiencing a change of thoughts, but this can hardly be considered repentance.  Likewise, one may decide to become a “positive person,” and refuse to think any negative thoughts, and thereby change his mind, but this too fails to represent what the biblical meaning of repentance consists in.  In fact, this positive thinking approach, or “faith” as many wrongly call it, is quite contrary to biblical repentance. 

So what is that change of mind that is repentance?  Firstly, the term mind, as used in the translation of metanoia, is intended to mean something much deeper than the way we often use the word.  It is intended to represent the seat of moral contemplation.  It is that faculty within man that is capable of deep thought and consideration, and in this case, reflection upon his moral actions and conduct.  The word mind here should be understood to mean mind-set.  It is the mind-set, or the inclination of the will, the ultimate intention, that undergoes a change in true repentance.

Now according to Paul, there are but two mind-sets that men may choose between:

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Romans 8:5

Thus, repentance may be defined as that change of mind, or ultimate intention, from the gratification of self to the glorifying of God.

The catalyst of true repentance

A chemist may at times add a substance to increase the rate or efficiency of a chemical reaction.  These substances are known as catalysts.  In our text, Paul speaks of a vital component to true repentance that may be thought of as a catalyst of repentance: godly sorrow.  Notice what he says: godly sorrow worketh repentance.  The repentance that Paul was so thankful for having occurred among the Corinthians was directly the result of godly sorrow.  This godly sorrow induced the Corinthians to have a genuine and deep change of mind. 

Now for those believers which consider anything negative to be of the devil, and only happy, positive things to be from God, there is a problem.  For this verse of scripture declares that there exists a sorrow- which is a negative- that is indeed godly, or of God.  Thus, as I stated earlier, those believers who in the name of faith, reject, resist, and rebuke all things which are negative are indeed quite contrary to the biblical doctrine of repentance, which we see is induced by a sorrow which is spoken of as godly.  I have known many Christians who are in doctrinal error, living contrary to the proper morals they once espoused, who yet hold to a “positive confession” of victory while they have none, and blessing while they in truth are fallen.  They are determined to maintain a faith in a positive only Christianity, when they would do well to let the misery which is their state lead to a godly sorrow which worketh repentance.

Now Paul contrasts two types of sorrow in this verse: godly sorrow, and the sorrow of this world.  Godly sorrow, as we have seen works or produces repentance, the sorrow of this world, or worldly sorrow, worketh death. We will now consider what is intended by these terms.

Godly sorrow is that sorrow which takes into consideration the feelings and welfare of God.  It is that sorrow which is characterized by deep regret for how we have treated God, how we have injured his Person, and abused his feelings.  Godly sorrow takes the individual out of his obsession with securing his own happiness, peace, and relief, and brings him into a state where he truly sympathizes with God.  In godly sorrow, the individual cares ultimately for God’s well-being; his own welfare he no longer regards.  He is no longer driven to relieve his own guilt, nor is he fixated with finding forgiveness; he cares only for the Lord whom he has offended.

I am certain that many which read what I have just written will find this very foreign language.  Sadly, many “believers” will consider this unnecessary, and even sadder, some will scoff at this, stating that “no one” comes to God, nor experiences repentance in this way.  Yet they which are truly penitent can and do identify with what I have written: for it is their experience, and they know it to be true.  And they which have experienced such things, and felt such things, can only wonder at those believers which have never experienced the same, and shudder at those which would dare to scoff.

Now the sorrow of the world of which Paul speaks is to the contrary.  It is that sorrow over sin which is self-centered.  It laments over how wrong decisions have affected one’s self, and is ultimately concerned with how those sins may jeopardize one’s eternal state, or ability to receive divine blessing and assistance.  The sorrow of this world laments its own losses, and never rises to consider the sufferings of God.  It does not despise sin, but only the effects of sin.  It is the grief of Esau, weeping over the realization of forfeited blessings, but unable to weep over the sins that secured this forfeiture.   It is called the sorrow of the world, for it is ultimately selfish, and thus bears the same characteristic of the unregenerate or worldly.  It worketh death- for it never leads to repentance acceptable to God.

The character of true repentance

The character, or nature, of true repentance is set forth in our text by the expression not to be repented of. A repentance not to be repented of may seem to be a strange statement.  However, it simply means this: A changing of the mind from which one will not return.  It is a repentance that we will not take back or regret, a repentance that we will continue in, and one in which we will not have a “change of mind” concerning our initial change of mind.

And herein must the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints be understood.  The saints do not possess an eternal security by the arbitrary will of God regardless of what fruit is or is not manifest within their lives, but rather the saints persevere because they have experienced repentance not to be repented of.  They have sympathized with God, they have felt his pain that their sin has caused, and they cannot return again to behaviour that is offensive to him.    Thus, they persevere in godliness- not merely a profession of godliness- but an actual practice of godliness as it is defined in scripture.

So we see that the character of true repentance is that of continuance.  For time, and the course of life, will prove that many which seemed to begin well, in truth did not.  For when believers condone the practices that they once condemned, and return to the things that they have once repented of, thereby repenting of their initial repentance, does it not suggest that perhaps in the beginning they were amiss?  It does for certain show their inexperience with godly sorrow, for if they had begun on that path, they would be constrained to continue in it.

And so the question, “How do you define repentance?”  If my commentary is strange to you, know that it is familiar to the saints throughout the ages.  I would suggest that you do not dismiss it, for true repentance has always been the same in every generation whether we have experienced it or not.  It is quite certain that men will define repentance according to that which they have experienced. If your definition is wanting, it is likely your experience is as well.

Have you godly sorrow?  Have you true remorse?  Does your heart feel for Christ and his sufferings? Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are they which mourn, blessed are the meek: for theirs is the kingdom, and the comfort, and the joy of a repentance-   not to be repented of.

                                                                                         

 

The Man of Romans Seven

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not: but what I hate, that do I.  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.  Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.  Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.  I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 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.  Oh wretched man that I am!  Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.  So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.  Romans 7:14-25

I remember many years ago after my initial conversion, reading through the letter to the Romans.  I remember how the words from the first eight chapters seemed to leap off the pages, and I remember the intense effect that that time of study had upon my mind.  I felt as though I clearly understood the apostle, and that in some way, I knew him as well.  At that particular time, I had not as of yet been indoctrinated in any school of theological thought, nor had I ever read or heard any commentary on this portion of scripture, thus, my initial understanding of the Epistle was unaffected by any influence other than my own relationship with God.  Remarkably, my understanding of the first half of Romans, thus this portion from chapter seven, has undergone little change since that time.  It seems that my theology regarding this book was forged in my own private study, and has remained intact until the present.

Now I do not in any way wish to suggest that the right way to interpret scripture is to ignore the opinions, commentaries, and understanding of theologians past and present, and to exalt one’s own opinion as the truth.  God forbid.  Indeed, the surest way to doctrinal error is to close one’s self off from the influence of godly scholars past and present and to be foolish and arrogant enough to believe that one’s own understanding is complete in and of itself.  Rather, I wish to suggest that in some cases our initial impressions, unaffected by traditional views, may give us a solid understanding of scripture that will stand the test of time.

Having stated this, I wish to present my viewpoint- my initial viewpoint as a new convert- and the viewpoint which I still hold to today, regarding the passage of scripture at hand, inasmuch as I have never heard an argument to the contrary that I felt adequately addressed this text. 

It would appear that although there are a number of viewpoints regarding Romans seven, that ultimately they fall into one of four interpretations: (1) It is Paul’s Christian experience, (2) It is the Christian’s experience, (3) It is Paul’s experience under the Law, and (4) It is the common experience of those under the Law.  Indeed, this passage from the start provokes, or should provoke, the question of the Ethiopian:  Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or some other man?  Is Paul speaking of his own Christian experience, or is he speaking of the experience of Christians as a whole?  Is He speaking of an experience that he has had as a believer, or of one that he is currently undergoing?  Or perhaps, is he speaking of his experience prior to conversion, as a Jew under the Law, or simply relating the common experience that those familiar with the Law undergo prior to true conversion?

Now before I address this passage, and attempt to establish that viewpoint which most adequately represents the original intent of the writer, I think it is vital to first provide certain keys which are critical to an understanding of this text, and to properly establish the framework within which this passage occurs.  To lift a passage of scripture from its proper framework, by ignoring either its historical setting, or those verses which precede and succeed it, is to jeopardize the process of proper biblical interpretation entirely. 

Following are three important keys to this passage.

1. Recognizing the Jewish element found in this epistle is a key to understanding the whole epistle.  It is impossible to read this epistle and to not notice the abundant statements that Paul makes to and about the Jews.  In Rom. 1:16, we are told that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth:  to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  All of chapter two deals with the Jews: their failure under the Law, their hypocrisies as those which rest in the Law, and makest thy boast of God, and their blindness to recognize that a true Jew is he which is one inwardly, and that, circumcision is that of the heart.  In chapter three, the apostle recites all of the advantages that the Jews have over the Gentiles with regard to their spiritual heritage, how in spite of this both Jew and Gentile are equally under the dominion of sin (Rom. 3:9), and thus, how neither can be justified apart from faith.  Chapter four, the great chapter on justification by faith for all men, also includes for the Jews and explanation of the history of circumcision, and how it fits within the community of faith.  And space will not allow for me to expound upon the Jewish element found in chapters nine through eleven, concerning their election, disobedience, rejection, and future restoration in Christ.

Now having established that a Jewish element indeed exists within this epistle, would it not be then a gross mistake to attempt to understand any passage in the letter while ignoring said element?  Why when we come to chapter seven, and the above text, would we attempt to interpret the passage from a medieval perspective?  Why when we read this, would we approach it through the eyes of a Gentile monk per se, as opposed to through the eyes of a Jew and former Pharisee, which indeed is the perspective from which this text is penned?

2.  Another important key to understanding this epistle is to understand that the Jewish element within it is a mere reflection of the audience to which it was written. The fact that there existed within the church at Rome many believers who were converted Jews is well established.  Again, you will better understand this epistle if you keep this in mind.

3.  Paul himself was a Jew, and although his theology underwent drastic changes after conversion, it is also certain that his ideas regarding many subjects such as the nature of sin remained unchanged.  It is likely that Paul’s definition of sin prior to his conversion was also his definition after.  The Jews considered sin to be a transgression of the law, and to be voluntary in nature. They did not consider it to be some natural misfortune, or a force existing within man contrary to his will. That the New Testament writers also held this view is evident, for the apostle John clearly defines sin in the same way: 

Whosoever commiteth sin tansgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1John 3:4

This is important to consider when addressing Romans seven, for it will steer the reader away from the multitude of interpretations that represent Paul as having taught some form of dualism regarding the moral character of man.

With these things in mind, we are now ready to address the passage under examination. 

Our study of this passage must begin at the beginning of the chapter, for the first verse of Romans seven is vital to the rest of the chapter.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? Romans 7:1

I speak to them that know the law!  Who is it that knows the Law?  It is the Jews.  Therefore, it makes sense that the verses which follow, though encompassing all believers, would resonate most strongly within those from a background in Judaism.  It also follows that the experience described in our text would coincide with the experience of those that know the law, and know what it is to be bound in an unhappy “marriage”- the Old Covenant (7:2-4). 

Paul here uses the analogy of marriage, in this case an unhappy marriage, in representing the Jews' relationship with God under the Old Testament- for in that marriage is a covenant, and binding upon the parties involved as long as they shall live, it accurately portrays the Jews' covenant with God based upon the Law.  Indeed this was the unhappiest of marriages, inasmuch as the Jews in this covenant never pleased their “husband.”

But does not this analogy of an unhappy marriage, in which the Jews’ experience under the law is represented, harmonize well with the “man” described in our text?  Consider the similarities that this “man” has with the Jews under the Law.  The man of Romans seven declares that the desire to do right is present within me, but how to perform that which is good I find not (7:18).  Many Jews could have said likewise.   The man in Romans seven approved of, or delighted in the law of God after the inward man (7:22).  The Jews did as well.  The man of Romans seven states that with his mind he serves the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin (7:25).  This too was the experience of those Jews which in theory embraced the truth of God revealed in the Law as the standard by which to live, but yet in practice found themselves to be contrary to it.

Now this begs the question: If the experience described in Romans 7:14-25 shares such similarities with the Jews’ experience under the Law, could it be possible that Paul actually was indeed describing a legal experience rather than a proper Christian experience? 

As we move from Paul’s marriage analogy, we encounter another statement which further suggests that what is described in our text is not the Christian experience.  In Rom.7:5, we read for when we were in the flesh, the motions (passions) of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members…  This statement clearly establishes the time frame of the experience described in our text.  The experience in 7:14-25 must coincide with the time frame established in 7:5, or there would of necessity be a verse in between to denote that a change in time had occurred.  No such verse appears.  Consequently, the discourse in 7:14-25 describes an experience which is in the past tense- when we were in the flesh.

This is significant, when we consider Paul’s very own words in Rom. 8:9- But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Do you see this?  Do you see that biblically a man is either in the flesh, or in the Spirit?  He cannot abide in each of these states simultaneously.  Do you also see that the statement in the Spirit is descriptive of those in whom the Spirit of God dwells, thus it is definitive of the Christian experience, whereas the contrary statement in the flesh is therefore of necessity definitive of the unregenerate state?   Consequently, the experience described in Romans seven- which we have established as having occurred when we were in the flesh- was never intended to be descriptive of  the Christian experience.

I realize that all too often our text does describe the experience of many believers, but this in no way proves anything other than that a believer is capable of living contrary to what he or she should live like.  The issue at hand is not whether a believer can live a life of habitual failure, but rather whether Paul intended his discourse to facilitate such failure, condone such bondage, and excuse such weakness.  The issue is one of intent, and from scripture, we have seen and will see evidence to support that Paul in no way intended his words in 7:14-25 to be exalted as the Christian norm.

Now the very first verse of our passage also further strengthens my position.  For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin (7:14).  This cannot be descriptive of the Christian experience, and to think that Paul is referring to his own Christian experience is ridiculous!   Imagine Paul standing in front of the great church of Rome, with all of the sincere believers of the Empire gathered about to receive “some spiritual gift”(Rom.1:11) which he promised to hopefully impart to them.  As they quietly wait to hear the words of the illustrious apostle, Paul begins with, “We know that the law is spiritual, of a spiritual nature.”  The Romans quietly nod in agreement.  Paul continues:  “BUT I AM CARNAL!  I am fleshly and self-indulgent, and even though I am a Christian, I am YET a slave to sin, for I am sold under its dominion!  This is my testimony; this is what I live!” 

Some spiritual gift!  Some holy impartation! Did we come to Rome to hear this revelation: that our leaders in the faith are carnal, slaves to sin?  That their testimony consists only in wishing to do that which is good, while lacking the strength to actually do good (7:19), and that they are yet serving the law of sin (7:25)!   

But if Paul was actually carnal, how then could he rebuke the Corinthians for their carnality (1Cor.3:1-4) and be anything other than a great hypocrite?  It is certain that Paul wrote to the Corinthians from a spiritual state, and thus was not carnal.  And if not carnal in Corinth, then not carnal at Rome, and thus the experience described in Romans seven is NOT Paul’s Christian experience.  And if it is not Paul’s Christian experience, how then can it be considered to be “the Christian” experience? 

It cannot.

Now certainly one will argue that the fact that the Corinthians were carnal proves that carnality is part of the Christian experience.  It proves the opposite.  If carnality was a normal part of the Christian experience, and thereby something to be accepted, or at least tolerated, why then did Paul rebuke them for their behaviour, and accuse them of walking according to man rather than God?  If carnality is part of the “Christian walk,” it certainly could not be referred to as walking contrary to God, and should not bring down a rebuke from the apostle.  Yet, rebuke did come, indicating that carnality was not to be considered acceptable among the professors of Christ.

Furthermore, to interpret Paul’s words in Romans seven as being representative of the Christian experience is to set Paul against Paul within the same epistle!  For consider Paul’s words in the very chapter prior to Romans seven:

What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  God forbid.  How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Rom.6:1,2.  Also,

Knowing this, that are old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin. Rom.6:6,7. And again,

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom.6:14

Now consider how at odds the truths set forth in chapter six are with the experience described in chapter seven. With regard to continuing in sin, Paul declares in chapter six, God forbid! Yet the man of Romans seven indeed does continue in sin.  In chapter six, Paul states that believers should not serve sin, in that they are dead to, and freed from sin.  But the man of Romans seven is very much alive to sin, is no way freed from it, and by his own confession is still serving sin (7:25) as if it were a law that he was obligated to keep!  And lastly, in chapter six, sin shall not have dominion over the believer, whereas our man in chapter seven is, once again by his own admission, sold under sin (7:14), thus proclaiming that sin does indeed exercise dominion over him.

And thus the question: If Romans seven is the Christian’s experience, then whose experience is described in chapter six?

Indeed, Paul’s words from 6:14 make it abundantly clear that the true sign that a man or woman is indeed under grace is that he or she bears this fruit, possesses this attribute: Sin shall not have dominion over you.  And contrariwise, we may see from this verse that those which are under the law and thus not under grace, are they which lack this freedom and are indeed those which are yet sold under sin.

Therefore, having abundantly established that the man of Romans seven is yet under the dominion of sin, we must then conclude that he is not under grace, and subsequently is yet under the law.  And if he is under the law, and not under grace; and if he is yet a slave, being sold under sin as such, and thus not freed from sin; and if, as we have established, he is in the flesh, rather than in the Spirit, and thereby the Spirit of God does not dwell within him; and if, by his own admission he is yet serving the law of sin, and not the Lord Jesus Christ- for nowhere in our text does he say that he is, nor does he say that he serves in heart, or in the Spirit, or in spirit, or with his spirit- all expressions which describe the Christian’s service, but merely that he serves in mind only; in what sense is this man a Christian?

This man may be considered religious in mind only, as he himself states.  His religion consists in having the right opinions, the right convictions regarding moral responsibility, and a strong approval of the laws of God- but it does not translate into any true obedience.  He is like the man, who although well versed in the virtues of proper diet and physical exercise, who exalts and longs for the physique of an athlete, and who at times resolves to whip himself into shape, is never dedicated enough to take the necessary measures to achieve the standard of which he in mind is most approving of (an example that is perhaps all too familiar with all of us!).

Is it any virtue to will, but not perform (7:18), to do, what we in mind allow not, and carry out what we in principle hate (7:15)?  To consider the man of Romans seven to be virtuous is comparable to considering our “would be athlete” above to actually be the Adonis he dreams of being, while he sits on the couch with his pizza and beer in hand!   

In conclusion, what is the best way to consider Paul’s words in Romans seven?  It is this: They are descriptive of the experience of those who although converted in mind to delight in the law of God after the inward man, are not yet converted in heart to actually live according to that principle.  It is the experience of those which are convicted, yet not converted; who are in principle persuaded to the right standards, but are in practice still committed to self indulgence.  This is the experience of those which believe in God, which agree with his standards, which approve of his ways, but whose hearts have not yet experienced that true love for Him, from which victory over sin does flow. 

How the Jewish Christians at Rome could relate to Paul’s wonderful discourse!  They had lived this prior to their conversion to Christ. Although Paul’s words may seem unclear to us at times, the believers at Rome knew exactly what he described. Though he spoke these words in the first person, they knew him to be masterfully representing the plight of their nation under the law, and what it was to be enlightened to “do good,” but lack the moral strength to accomplish it.  

And as Paul concluded his discourse with O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? (7:24) they all could identify fully with that helpless cry, and could as well in unison with Paul loudly proclaim the answer:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord (7:25)!