INTRODUCTION
There is a dilemma of Christian perfectionism and it is reflected in how one is perceived by themselves with regard to sin and perfection. Generally people have an affinity towards wanting to know what perfection is, and here, Christian perfection is in question, can it be had?
Benjamin Warfield did a study and observed “rationalists who were very much concerned with the ‘miserable-sinner Christianity’ of the Reformers and efforts were directed in an attempt to show that the Apostle Paul thought of Christians as sinless” .
The attempt made by the rationalists propelled implications across to which this research aims to discuss. Is the man in Romans 7:14-25 the regenerate Paul expressing his torment in his struggle against sin or is he the unregenerate Paul whom is made out to be? If he was the regenerate Paul, Christian perfectionism does not and cannot stand. But if it was the unregenerate Paul, it is without dispute that Christians are and should be sinless.
The consequence of Christian perfectionism led to J.I Packer’s near mental breakdown and would concur the same would be with many who seeks perfection. J. I Packer empathically describes his experience:
“I scrapped my inside, figuratively speaking, to find things to yield to the Lord so as to make consecration complete, and I worked hard to ‘let go and let God’ when temptation made its presence felt. at that time I did not know that Harry Ironside, sometime pastor of Moody Memorial Church, Chicago, once drove himself into a full-scale mental breakdown through trying to find the secret that I was trying to find. . . , . . . as I have concluded since, that the higher Christian life as I was conceiving it is an unreality, . . . So I must scrape my inside yet again to find whatever maggots of unconsecrated selfhood still lurked there. A few months of this left me, as can be imagined, fairly frantic.”
These sentiments are shared among Christians who seeks so earnestly and fervently to consecrate their lives, but at the same time a sense of helplessness to succumb to their indwelling sin takes the Christian to state of which he feels that he can never attain complete consecration.
Therefore, the thesis of this research seeks to find out who the divided man is in Romans 7:14-25 and the implications it has on Christian living with regards to perfectionism and God’s progressive work of sanctifying the believer.
WHY IT IS THE CHRISTIAN PAUL WHO RELATES HIS DILEMMATIC EXPERIENCE
Use of Present Tenses
In Romans 7:14-25, it is the Christian Paul who relates his dilemmatic experience. Leon Morris has observed “that Paul consistently employed the use of the present tense in reference very much to himself”. Moreover, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones pointed out “this lies in contrast to preceding verses (vv. 7-13) where the past tense is used with concern to himself and the law” .
Ubiquitous ‘I’ Found
Leon Morris expressed that “The use of ‘I’ or the Greek word, Ego, was used six times” is notable . However, Douglas Moo, observed “that ἐγώ ; ego had been employed seven times in verse 15 alone” . This frequent usage accentuates that the word ‘I’ or ‘ego’ is employed ubiquitously in the text which evinces that Paul is relating from personal experience.
Postulation of Paul Being ‘Fleshly’ and Not in the Flesh
William Hendriksen noted “that when Paul says ‘The law is Spiritual; but I am unspiritual’. The apostle does not imply that he is in the flesh that and that he is being controlled by the sinful nature as it is ascribed to an unbeliever. Instead, to be carnal or fleshly means that one is contrary to what is prescribed by the law. So while the Law being Spiritual, perfect and divine, Paul postures himself as unspiritual and imperfect though he has become a Christian. It is evident in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians where he mentioned that ‘I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1) ’” It is apparent that Paul regards the Corinthian Christians to be in Christ though referred to as infants. Paul knows that as much as he is a Christian, he is susceptible to carnality as Cranfield has pointed out: “However, the implication leaves Paul marked by carnality as is opposed to God”, Cranfield explains further that “When carnality here is compared to that of chapter eight, we see that in Paul’s view this carnality in a believer is not carnal in the same unqualified manner that the unregenerate man is carnal. ” How is that so? By observing that the carnality of a Christian (as mentioned by Hendriksen earlier) is one whereby the Christian is not controlled by the sinful nature but the unregenerate man is controlled by the sinful nature because the Christian as reiterated may be fleshly but not in the flesh.
Consequently, what can be seen is this, John Stott interchanges law with principles, “’I discovered this principle at work. When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.(Romans 7:21)’ The antithesis of the good I want to do and the I beside whom evil lies . . . presents that the regenerate personality are simultaneously good and evil ”
WHY IT IS NOT THE PRE-CHRISTIAN DEPICTED
The Sinful Nature Cannot Submit to God’s Law
Now, the reason why it is not the pre-Christian Paul that is being depicted is this: (Romans 7:22)“For in my inner being I delight in God’s law”, with assumption that this is the regenerate or Christian Paul speaking, it is contrasted against Romans chapter eight verse seven where it says “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” but back to chapter seven verse twenty-five it says “Consequently I with my mind serve the law of God”. John Murray makes it very poignant: the unregenerate man in the flesh in Romans chapter eight verse seven cannot submit to the law of God try as it might, it is futile but the regenerate man in Romans chapter seven verse twenty-two speaks of one who delights in God’s law and is after the inward man and in the preceding verses there is an antithesis of good and evil waging war in the principles of Paul’s mind which is very telling that Paul struggles with sin when he expresses his angst in saying “For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do... For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:18-19)
Paul’s Former Way of Life: Faultless
Contrariwise to the imperfect man, where Paul postulates himself struggling with his conflicting ego, Paul’s pre-conversion experience seems to exhibit the very opposite of his deploring monologue. “(Philippians 3:4-6) Paul says ‘circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless [mine].’ And in (Galatians 1:13-14) Paul says, ‘For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.’ John Piper puts it this way: “Paul hardly flinches nor bats an eyelid [mine] in torment or show any signs that he was in a dilemmatic state of being the divided man in Romans chapter seven but rather Paul depicted the man that was full of zeal for the law and its traditions and he says ‘as for legalistic righteousness, I was found
[mine] faultless.’ such was the sentiments Paul had for his pre-conversion experience .”
THE IMPLICATION OF PAULS IDENTITY FOR CHRISTIAN LIVING
In here, the implication of finding who this dilemmatic Paul found in (Romans 7:14-25) has on Christian perfectionism is the focus. An all-or-nothing view of God versus that of a progressive work of sanctification will be examined as well as an apathy to the effects of indwelling sin versus that of one having to embattle against these effects. Here, F.F. Bruce puts it succinctly that as far the believers goes, “he is only perfect as to his justification, but his sanctification has only begun. It is a progressive work.”
In first Thessalonians chapter four, Paul tells the Christians at Thessalonica “that it is the will of God, your sanctification...( 1 Thessalonians 4:3)” Does it mean the responsibility of sanctification lies on the Christian or it is God who is his sanctification? And what does sanctification mean? “Sanctification here denotes the moral and spiritual transformation of the regenerate believer and to be sanctified is to be conformed to the image of Christ because the believer is ‘in Christ’ and thus, the risen life of Christ is reproduced in the believer as he grows in grace and reflects the glory of his Lord. ”
Leon Morris puts it as such that Sanctification is both a demand which in that makes it a responsibility of the believer to live a sanctified live, as well as it is a gift of God. So while the need for Sanctification implies that the believer is imperfect, it is called upon the believer with the demand to live a life that is holy. John Piper however puts it this way, “When God calls you to himself, he justifies you freely by faith in Christ on the basis of Christ’s blood and righteousness, and he calls you to a life of holiness, which in this context refers explicitly to sexual purity. This (Sanctification)[mine] is the practical fruit of justification by faith.”
Therefore, God is not an ‘all-or nothing God’ because He provides His sanctification, equipping the Christian to Holiness, and underlying which, recognises the frailty of man. In that, no allowance is given for apathy because of God’s demand for Holiness.
Paul’s dilemmatic experience brings to surface an awareness of struggle towards sin a Christian undergoes and Paul recognises this principle, that says “I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.( Romans 7: 25)” An ongoing battle with sin demands a progressive work of Sanctification.
Conclusion
A Christian is to take Paul’s dilemmatic experience and realise that Christianity is not an all or nothing religion as much as God is not an all or nothing God, but however, that does not give him into licentiousness but rather, the believer must understand that it is also a responsibility to sanctify himself as much as it is God who sanctifies.
The Christian ought to embattle against the residual effects of indwelling sin because the work of sanctification is progressive and in order that the Christian not despair at his imperfection but find fulfilment in the work of God in him, and working out in his disdain towards sin to which he struggles frantically with.
Therefore, the Christian in finding who the divided man in Romans 7:14-25 is, understand that it was the Christian Paul, and correspond his life as such which finds himself in a constant conflict wherein he does say along with Paul did, “For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. . . What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!(Romans 7:19,24) recognising that it is God’s sanctifying work in him which enables him to say as he did.
