We don't have time to read from
the beginning, but you might remember how Paul describes the
law his encounter with it how we became dead to the law by
the body of Christ and that was Necessary that we might live
unto our Lord, but here verse 14 and following He now gives
another of his experiences, for we know that the law is spiritual,
but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do, I allow
not. For that which I would, that
do I not. But what I hate, that I do. 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 dwells in me. For I know that
in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells 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, bringing me into captivity
to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that
I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? I thank God,
through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with a mind I myself
serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. That last phrase sums it up perfectly. So then, with a mind, I myself
serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin. This is not only very important,
but it is a very expressive passage of the scripture. It is an emotional
passage setting out the confliction of feelings that dwell in those
that are the children of God. What a strong contrast we have
here in this place. And in this place, Paul opens
up his heart and Paul bears his soul as perhaps in no other place
in the writing, in his writing, in the scripture. For he relates
here to us his experience with the law and with sin and the
effect that it had in his life. In order to get a good handle,
a good grip upon this passage, it is best that we drop back
in the book of Romans and consider the previous context and the
things that Paul has already said about the law. For example,
in Romans 3, verse 20 and 21, By works of law will no flesh
be justified before him, or now apart from the law, is a righteousness
of God manifested. In chapter 3, verse 28, we conclude
that a man is justified by faith without or apart or separate
from the deeds of law. 5 in 20. law entered that the
offense might abound. The law came in aside the transgression
of Adam. Then coming closer, chapter 7
and verse 4, you are become dead to the law by the body of Christ. You have escaped the ravages
and the curse and the dominion of the law. Not that it died,
but that we died unto it through the body of Christ. And then
the first 13 verses of chapter 7, Paul described there his encounter
or experience with the law. How he thought himself so righteous
and so good in the sight of God. But the law came then, and it
aroused in him sin that he had not been aware of. How sin took
occasion by the law, and it worked in him all manner of transgression
against that one law, thou shalt not covet. Now all of his life
as a Pharisee, Saul had expected life by the law and through the law,
and it resulted instead in putting him unto death. For sin by the
law both deceived him and also slew him by the commandment. You'll find that in verse 11. Sin used the law to put Paul
to death, who thought that he stood well before the law and
in the sight of God. I love that great statement in
1 Corinthians chapter 15 and verse 56, that the strength of
sin is the law. Now coming to our text here in
verse 14 through verse 25, and a question comes up immediately. Now, we know, we see, we read
that Paul is speaking in the first person. He is speaking
first person of himself as he says, I over 20 times in these
verses that we have read Paul uses the word I. In chapter 7 and through verse
13, he uses I five times and me four times. So he is speaking
in the first person about himself. Now, the question is, in verse
14 through verse 25, does Paul, speaking of himself, speak of
himself as a regenerate man or an unregenerate man? Did he have these feelings and
these conflicts and this battle and this fight before or after
he was a converted man? In other words, was he speaking
of himself as a Pharisee or as a Christian? Was he speaking
of himself under law or under grace? Now with that in mind,
There are two things here that we want to raise an issue about. Number one, we cannot get the
full benefit of this text or properly apply what we have read
unless we settle the question, does this describe a regenerate
or an unregenerate person? Number two, we acknowledge there
has always been even at times in the sovereign grace circles,
a controversy about this question. And the disagreement goes way
back in the history of the church. It was an issue as early as the
time of the man we know as Augustine. Now, generally, as to the view,
the reformers and the Calvinists, sovereign grace, so forth, take
the view that Paul speaks of himself in a state of regeneracy
and of grace, that he is a Christian man as he described these things
in himself. On the other hand, we find that
it is the Sassanians and the Armenians, the Armenians generally
apply these things to a person that has not yet been converted. In fact, that man Socinius, a
strong anti-Trinitarian, against Trinitarianism, and kind of a
father of what we might call the modern Unitarian movement
or church it. He wrote this, and I'm quoting,
beware that you understand not this context of persons regenerate
and under grace, unquote. So synapse. Others took it to
be the description and the experience of a Jew conflicted before the
law of God. They say this is a Jew confronted
by the law and standing before it. So consider, if this is not
the warfare of grace, if it is not a common experience, of every
believer as we examine ourselves. If this is not a description
of the remaining remnants of sin in the believer, and if it
is not what Paul describes in Galatians 5 and verse 17, for
the flesh lust against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,
and these are contrary one unto the other, so that you cannot
do the things that you would." Now, if this is not what Paul
describes in Romans 7 and Galatians chapter 5, if this is a lost,
unregenerate, unconverted man, and if this is not a description
of the warfare of grace, and then there must be, we must find
another explanation for the conflict that Paul is describing in the
person, which is what they do, who believe that Paul is speaking
of an unregenerate one. Armenians took it to be a person
under the conviction of conscience and perhaps near to being brought
to a state of conversion, that this is a fight and a warfare
of conscience. I can't get on a sidetrack, but
conscience indeed may cause great conflicts in us, but it worketh
not to the same end and efficacy as the grace of God. Others attribute
the good desire and the deeds here described to the light of
reason and to natural revelation. That's what this is, working
in the individual. And others there are who would
have it to be simply the result of free will. have called it
the moral powers of nature. But this is for one that think
more highly of themselves than they ought to if they can fight
off these things in themselves. Now the natural man and natural
conscience cannot carry one so high as to delight in the law
of God and desire and love and would like to do it. Now concerning
the flesh and the spirit, in Galatians chapter 5 and verse
17, there's that fight or warfare keeping us from doing what we
would. James Haldane wrote in his commentary
on that book of Galatians, I'm quoting, the flesh and the spirit
are the two opposite principles which produce the Christian warfare,
unquote. And if it were not for the flesh,
if it were not that we yet have the influence of the flesh, then
we would serve God in all purity. If the flesh were gone, if it
were completely eradicated, and if it were not for the spirit
lusting against, we would be completely overcome by sin. So, there is this fight and conflict. Now, Romans 7 and verse 14, which
marks or makes, I believe, a transition in the Apostle's writing and
also in the description of his experience. We must note something
here, and that is how in verses 7 through verse 13, Paul speaks
in the past tense. There he is describing something
in the past tense, which in verse 14 and forward then, he begins
to speak in the present tense. Past tense, I found, I found,
Now, he speaks in the present tense and first person. And verse
14 stands between the former experience and his present experience. It begins with that word or conjunction
they call it for, and it expresses a fact. And the fact is this,
we know that the law is spiritual. Now he had before cleared the
law of any impurity or being sin in any way in verse 7. Is the law sin? God forbid. This he says because of verse
5, that the law excites passions of sin which work in our members. And yet, he said in verse 12,
the law is holy, it is just, And it is good. In verse 13,
he twice calls the law good. The law is good. It is not sin
because it stirs up the motion of sin in us. And it is not sin
because sin uses it to bring us under condemnation. And then the last part of verse
14 is the troublesome part to the Arminian, Sassanian, and
others. It might make us scratch our
head until we rightly divide and contextually consider what
Paul is writing. Look at those words. The law
is spiritual, but I, I on the other hand, I am carnal. or fleshly, sold under sin. Now this verse contains a very
clear contrast between the law and Paul. It is Paul that makes
the contrast. The law is spiritual, but I and
carnal and sold under sin. Now this last part is the stumbling
block to those weak on the nature and the extent of depravity as
well as the individual that is involved because they just cannot
believe. that such a consecrated and devoted
Christian like the Apostle Paul would have such feeling of conflict
within him and such a battle with the flesh and with sin. So that he must be speaking,
they say, of a time prior to his regeneration and conversion
when he was at the end of his Phariseeism. And yet, by his
own testimony, he did not have these conflicts and fight when
he was a Jew and lived as a Pharisee. He said, I lived according to
the strictest sect of that religion. Acts 26 verse 5, the most exact
talk, according to the perfect manner of the law of our father,
and was zealous toward God." Acts 22 and 3. There's that description
in Philippians chapter 3 and verse 1 through 6, where he said,
as a Pharisee, as touching the righteousness which is in the
law, blameless. He saw himself blameless. uncondemned
before the law as a Pharisee. He did not see himself as a great
sinner until the commandment, quote, came, unquote, and sin
revived and he died at the hands of the law. Frazer wrote in verse
14, is the key to what follows. that the law is spiritual, but
I am carnal, sold under sin. Now, carnal, I said, is the same
word that is sometimes translated fleshly and flesh in the New
Testament. And flesh has a variety of meanings,
as does the word world. The flesh, of course, fallen
nature. Then it is the flesh of the body
at time, the fleshly tables of the heart, 2nd Corinthians 3
and 3, a carnal or fleshly commandment in Hebrews chapter 7 and 16. And as A.W. Pink once wrote,
flesh in the scripture is includes far more than what is corporal,
all that is embraced by the term can only be determined by the
context in which it is found. Now thus when Paul says, the
law is spiritual, but I am on the other hand carnal and sold
under sin. And those who think that Paul
speaks of himself as unregenerate use or interpret his words so
as to put him in the exact same condition as wicked Ahab in the
Old Testament, who is told by Elijah in 1 Kings chapter 21
and verse 20, you have sold thyself to work evil in the sight of
the Lord. And he said in verse 25 of that
same chapter, and Ahab which did sell himself to work wickedness
in the sight of the Lord, and then adding, his wife incited
him unto that way. Now Paul called the Corinthians
carnal. Are you not carnal? But he still
considered them as Christian brethren. 1 Corinthians chapter
3 and verse 1. He considered them carnal, yes,
but Christian brethren as well. Still, this carnality differed
from theirs, the carnality that Paul is describing. In Romans
7 and verse 15, Paul now begins having to breach the subject
to move into the particulars and specifically explains what
he means by referring to himself even in his regenerate state
as carnal and sold under sin. Verse 14, and the last part,
I'm carnal, sold under sin. Now look, verse 15, the first
part, for that which I do, I allow not. I'm carnal because what
I do, I do not allow. Now, I think the word allow,
very closely, is akin to that word gnosko, many ways translated
in our New Testament. It is translated know, K-N-O-W. It is translated new, K-N-E-W,
perceive, understand, resolved, in Luke chapter 16 and verse
4, It is knowing. It is not easy to say which of
these is meant. Neither seems to explain Paul's
meaning. Now the word know is sometimes
used to mean to know with affection and to know with approval. And it can mean to know in the
sense of love, approval, and delight. So Paul is saying that
which I do, I allow not. I know not. I don't approve.
I don't love. On the other hand, in verse 15,
what I would, that do I not. But what I hate, That I do. Now we see this again down in
verse 19. For the good that I would, I
do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now Paul finds
himself conflicted here upon two accounts. Number one, what
he would not do. In fact, he hated it. He hated
it, and he would not do it. That he would at times do. Now, not always. but at time. And secondly, what he would do,
that is good, that he would at times not do. And both of these
feelings exasperated the apostle. To do something that he would
not and to not do something that he would exasperated the apostle. It was a source of great irritation
in his soul and in his spirit. So the question is then, why
was it so with him? What lay behind this? What is
to account for it? How can we explain it so that
we understand it? Now in verse 16 through verse
23, we will be looking. Let's see verse 16 again, and
let me read it. If then I do that which I would
not, I consent unto the law that it is good." Now that has long,
long puzzled and eluded me. That scripture, I thought on
it so many times. He had said in verse 14, the
law is spiritual, calling it good in verse 12, and now he
says, but when if I do what I would not, what I hate, what I will
not, in that I consent, I agree with the law that it is good. Now, the reason that verse troubles
me is because I think I would expect the apostle to say, when
I do good, what I would, I consent and agree and acknowledge to
the law that it is good. It seemed like that would be
the logical thing. But he says, in doing what I
do not want to do and what the law forbids, I consent to the
goodness of the law. Now this has him acting contrary
to the law at times and therefore was a consent that the law is
good. And he uses the word good meaning
excellent, the highest of quality, good, excellent. But now the
question, how to understand, how to explain, how to put in
perspective the duality he is describing. The battle here between
his flesh in verse 14 and 18, the battle between his flesh
and the inward man verse 22 let's read verse 15 again for that
which I do I allow not for what I would that do I not but what
I hate that I do let's read verse 19 again for the good that I
would I do not but the evil which I would not I that I do. All right? Let's read verse 21
again. I find then a law that when I
would do good, evil is present with me. So, in verse 17, how
to reconcile these things. How could he do both? Both what
he loved and desired and also what he hated. We saw it in verse
17. Paul does not say this to excuse
himself. He does not say this to justify. He does not say this to lessen
the seriousness of doing what he hated and what was contrary
unto the law. But he says it that he might
explain the fact. that he might open for us the
mystery, and that he might declare the truth, to open up such a
being and such a case as this. It is no longer I that do it. Now look at that very carefully.
It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. This is a conclusion. Why is
this? Why does it happen? Well, no
longer I that does it, but sin that dwells in me. And Paul says
it twice. He says it in verse 17, and he
says it again in verse 20, and the last part of that verse. This is a fact of the matter.
I, at times, do what I hate and what I would not. And the reason
is sin dwells in me. And I agree with some commentators
that I've read that, number one, the sin meant here is not a continuous
way of life. It is not Him giving Himself
to a continuous life of unchecked sinning. For such a one is not
a Christian. They that live under the dominion
and make sin the main thing in their life, they are not a Christian. How do I know? 1 John 3 and verse
9 says so. 1 John 5 and verse 18 says so. Secondly, neither is it some
monstrous sin of epic proportion or degree that Paul is speaking
of. The sin that got him was mentioned
in verse 7 and verse 8 of this chapter. Lust, coveting, desire. That's the one that came to him
in power and into him. So he said, sin dwells in me. It is not I that do it, but sin
that dwells in me. And we have to figure out, be
sure we get right, the contrast in the context here. And the
contrast is between I, or me, and sin. It is not I that do
it, but sin that dwells in me. Twice he says it, and we have
to get it in our mind. The contrast in Galatians 5.17
was between the flesh and the spirit, but here it is between
sin. As Murray noted, the apostle
distinguishes between himself, I or me, and sin. And in verse
25 he identifies it more thoroughly I myself I myself. And he makes the distinction.
With a mind, I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh,
the law of sin. In verse 18, I know that in my
flesh dwells no good thing. Now, by flesh, he does not refer
just to the flesh or the meat of the body. the meat in the
skin that covers his bones and encloses his organs. That's not
what he means here. Flesh is the depraved nature. There is nothing good in it. There is nothing good about it. There is nothing good or spiritual
that can be expected from it. And so please note that Paul
distinguishes his corrupt nature from the new man, I, me, myself,
which is created in righteousness and true holiness after the image
of him. Ephesians chapter 4 verse 24.
after the image of him that created him, Colossians chapter 3 and
verse 10. A new man has been created and
brought into life. This distinction is very clear
in verse 25. So then, with a mind, I myself
serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. I myself. I like that. If I said
this earlier, bear with me. But Paul distinguishes between
his renewed self and the remaining sin that still dwelt in him and
cleaved unto him. Not I, but sin that dwells in
me, verse 17 and 20. I would do good, evil is present,
verse 21. The law of my mind and the law
of sin in verse 23. Now, coming to consider verse
21 through 23, this is what William G.T. Shedd, an older writer,
said, a conclusion drawn from the previous verses and introduced
by then. I find then, or so then I find
this. I find then, and I find it by
experience. I find it to be the case and
to be my case. I find this to be so. When I
would do good, when I would do good, evil is present. Evil is there. When I would do
good. And this confirms what has been
said in the verses earlier. It amounted to this. I find that
when I would do good, when the renewed self, when the spiritual
man and the renewed mind would do good and serve God, for in
the flesh is no good thing, then evil And he contrasts the good
and the evil. Expositors are not agreed as
to whether Paul uses law as referring to the law of God or a principle
of law or regularity that Paul found operating in him. But both senses are present in
this part or section of Romans. Paul uses the law with a lot
of different meanings, especially along here in this section of
Romans. Another or a different law in
verse 23, also the law of my mind, the law of sin. And look
over in chapter 8 and verse 2. You'll find it used in different
ways. Let's consider Paul's reference
now to his mind. With my mind, I serve the law
of God. He mentioned this two times in
our passage of scripture this morning, verse 23 and verse 25. It is the word nos, from the
base word to know, K-N-O-W, the mind or the intellect, or the
thought, and it is used also of God's mind, 1 Corinthians
2 and 16. Of man having a reprobate mind,
same word, Romans 1 and verse 28. Of corrupt minds, in 1 Timothy
chapter 6 and verse 5, it is even used of the mind of Christ,
1st Corinthians chapter 2 and verse 17 So the mind with the
mind I serve the law of God now the mind of men and women by
nature is is carnal, fleshly, sinful, depraved. Romans 8 verse
7 says so. It is also defiled, Titus 1 and
verse 15, and it must be renewed. And this is done in regeneration. Now listen, Hebrews 8 verse 10,
referencing one of the Old Testament prophets. I will put my laws
into their mind. This is a promise of God. This
is a covenant that God would make with his people in the latter
time. I will put my laws into their
minds. Jeremiah 32 and verse 40. And
I will write them in or upon their hearts. Now note, the mind
and the heart there will be, or experience, a writing. I will write them, or he says,
I will put them. I will write or put my law in
their heart. 2 Corinthians 3 and 3, written,
not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not upon tables
of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart. Now by nature,
the heart, the mind, are the seat of our corruption, which
by regeneration are given new principles that are put in them,
given new principles of what Owen called faith, love, adherence
unto God," unquote. Now, the mind and the heart,
quote, the most secret inward part of the soul, unquote. And with that, Paul, mine, served
the law of God, the renewed man, the regenerate man, full of grace
and delivered from sin. But though he delighted in the
law of God, after the inward man, in verse 22. Yet in verse 23, Paul saw another
law, another law at work, a different law, another kind. He saw it
diffused in all of his members, and it warred against the principle
in his mind. using his very own traitorous
members to accomplish that. And it warred against the principle
in his mind. Notice what he said, to bring
me into captivity to the law of sin. Same as in verse 14. Same meaning would be here. Which is neither case. In neither
case is it total absolute enslavement unto sin. For on the other hand,
he served the law of God. He did good. He delighted in
the law of God. And when he would do good, evil
was present. And the combatants are like two
armies. The flesh and the spirit attacking
and combating against one another. Sin and grace, good and evil. And this will rage in us so long
as we abide in this flesh and in this world. When will I be
free of it? Paul expected freedom, but not
in this life. And so, some closing observations
concerning this matter. Number one, in view of Paul's
teaching, the doctrine and belief in perfectionism is an empty,
deceptive delusion and a dangerous heresy. Never in this life Will
the strongest Christian spend so much as one hour free of sin's
assault? In every attempt at good, evil
will be present. Not even one hour will we be
without evil thoughts and false emotions and bad intentions. No. Secondly, Paul speaks not
of such grievous sins as might have run through our mind. He's
not talking about murder, adultery, blasphemy, theft, and those kind
of things. Remember, it was thou shalt not
covet. that slew Paul. The law forbids having a thought
at variance with the law of God. A motive. So who can stand, therefore,
before that law? Listen, Romans 7, 7 and 8. It says that even the thought
of foolishness is sin. Thou shalt not covet. And that slew Paul in Romans
7 and 8. Proverbs 24 and verse 9, even
the thought of foolishness is sin. To have a foolish thought
is a sin. Not many people think that. But
that means this. It means that lust is adultery
and hatred is murder, according to our Lord in Matthew chapter
5. Thirdly, we would and we could
hate sin in ourself. Oh, that we could hate it as
much as we hate it and see it in others. Paul used the word
hate. What I hate, that I do. Hate is to detest. And only a regenerate person
can say this. not just hate it for the misery
that it brings on us and the trouble that it might cause,
but hate it for what it is and what it does. On the other hand,
to love righteousness as well. Proverbs 8, 13, the fear of the
Lord is to hate evil. Psalm 97 and 10, ye that love
the Lord hate evil. Hear Paul, O wretched man that
I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this dead. Now this
is the confession of a regenerate, sanctified man. Conscious alone
can never carry one that high. as to make such a confession.
For this is the confession, I say, of a regenerate, sanctified one
who is consciously aware of the work and the motion of sin that
are in his members, but who acknowledges that he or we live in a body
of death, but that we expect full deliverance, not in this
life, but in that one that is to come. You know, someone said,
I forget now, thank God for Romans chapter 7. If it were not for
that, what would we think in reading this passage? Would we
have to consider ourselves unregenerate? Because, be honest, this fight
rages in every single Christian in the world. This is the norm
of the Christian, that a great fight and a great battle engages
within them. And this is Paul's explanation
for it. But there is victory. Our Lord
has died. His death will be completely
victorious over all sin into its power, its presence, and
its prevalence. Thank God for Romans 7. We echo the words of that man.