The Christian Experience in Romans 7

http://feedingonchrist.com/john-pipers-10-reasons-romans-714-25-christians-experience/

I'm not a big fan of Nick Batzig or John Piper but I certainly appreciated this.

He's right in pointing out that Romans 7 has long been a controversial passage. Is Paul talking about the Christian life, or his pre-conversion experience?

There's been a growing movement in some Reformed circles which attempts to interpret this passage metaphorically and argues that Paul is speaking in a corporate sense of the Jews.

 I have always believed the most obvious reading demands Paul is speaking about the Christian life. He is writing of Christian experience.

This is a problem for many, not due to a problem in the passage, but due to theological method. There is a tendency to systematize, to forge coherence and to rely upon reason and rationality.

The problem isn't with Paul's wording, loose language or even an obscure metaphor. The problem is that many theologies forge foundations or anchoring points. Then when they encounter texts that do not match up or seem to be in contradiction with the previously established truths, rather that adjust their previous way of thinking, they are forced to re-tool the passage and find another way to interpret it.

To put it simply they force the text to fit the system commitment rather than adjust their system (or ideas of system) to fit the text.

This can develop into a serious problem where one's theology can become rather lopsided. It might represent a sound system, but it's not one that reflects what Scripture teaches.

Is God unreasonable or illogical?

I would be accused of embracing a theology which contains contradictions and someone like Sproul would accuse me of dishonouring God thus.

I cannot disagree more. I would argue it is they who have imposed an alien standard upon the text. It is man's trust in his reason and ability to rationalize that leads to problems.

Again to put it simply I would boil down their way of thinking to:

If it doesn't make sense to me then it must not be true.

Our job is to submit ourselves to the Oracular Word. It is the authority and even if we can't understand it comprehensively that doesn't mean that taking it prima facie means embracing fallacy.

There are places where Scripture is rightly understood in terms of symbolism and metaphor.

The epistles are not written in the flowery poetic of the prophets, or in the ominous symbolism of apocalyptic literature.

They are lucid and straightforward examples of Biblical doctrine. It is in the Epistles and the Gospel narratives where we can lay some strong foundation stones.

This is not to build a system, but to know what can be taken in a straightforward manner. In these portions of Scripture, we learn how to read the rest of the Bible.

But we must careful not to synthesize the teaching of the Epistles... we can build upon the texts in a both/and sense, but once we start down the road of logic and the imposition of the law of non-contradiction we will be left with an impoverished New Testament... many verses and passages will be rendered impotent, even meaningless.

Yes, we are dead to sin but if we read the New Testament a little more closely we will learn that we are still dying to sin and in another sense we are very much 'not yet' dead to sin.

While we can agree with a doctrine like Sola Fide (Salvation by Faith Alone), we must be careful in how it is formulated. Many have taken this doctrine and used it as the foundation stone or lens by which to read the rest of the New Testament. By establishing it thus and using it in such a way (in terms of a Systematic or Central Dogma) it can actually distort the much more profound, full-orbed and rich Gospel of Grace and Glory.

Misunderstanding a passage like Romans 7 can prove perilous and lead to distortions of not only the Gospel but the totality of the Christian Life. Those who read Romans 7 in the way I have described are in danger or rendering the doctrine of Sanctification obsolete.

Batzig does a good job summarizing Piper on this passage and while I may disagree with Piper on many things, when it comes to Romans 7, I'm happy to stand with him.