The Conflict Of Two Natures: Part 1

I was reading this passage this morning. I've felt it necessary to go back through Romans fully and with the hope that God would reveal even greater depths of understanding of this great work. One of the things I seem to contend with other believers about often is the idea of free-will versus predestination. But even that can be further sub-defined, so as to say free-will versus divine providence. That is, the idea that everything that occurs, as the Westminster Confession states in Chapter three, that whatsoever comes to pass was decreed by God. That would include

• 9/11
• The Japan Earthquake
• Hitler
• You Being Wealthy
• You Being Poor
• Your Divorce

Stated plainly, if you believe in free-will of the spirit or the flesh, then you accordingly believe that God did not plan 9/11 or any of the following events. You may believe that God simply foreknew these events and by his own power, you would have to conclude that he didn't stop them either. The point of this post though is not to argue the merits of that, but rather to provide an example of possible erroneous thinking or misapplication of scripture. I will be successful if as a reader you come away from this with at least an alternate perspective. My interest lies predominately in vetting this out for myself in the hopes that what I believe to have been revealed to me is in fact true.

Consider the text of the conflict of two natures as described by brother Paul in Romans 7:14-25.

¹⁴For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh,^(A) sold under sin. ¹⁵For I do not understand my own actions. For^(B) I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ¹⁶Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with^(C) the law, that it is good. ¹⁷So now^(D) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ¹⁸For I know that nothing good dwells^(E) in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ^19(F) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰Now if I do what I do not want,^(G) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

 ²¹So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ²²For^(H) I delight in the law of God,^(I) in my inner being, ²³but I see in my members^(J) another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.²⁴Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from^(K) this body of death? ²⁵Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

¹⁴For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh,^(A) sold under sin. 

I settle on the matter that words have meaning, taking the rules that the explicit defines the implicit and not the other way around as well as the rule of divine inspiration I must consider what this text means.

For we know

This was not simply learned, this was revealed, having been taught by the Father and that resulting in the coming to our Lord Jesus Christ. John 6. 

the law is spiritual but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

The law is not a law of men, manufactured by men, but rather by God alone. We are not spiritual by nature, in that we cannot obey the law. And we are sold. The free-will theology will have difficulty at best describing how I was willinging sold into sin. That is, one might say that you chose to do drugs, or become a prostitute, and that accordingly became your master and that by your own choice. But, this is not what the text says. So say that you sold yourself into sin, when the text does not say that, at least not here, would be to define the explicit by the implicit. The text explicitly says that you were sold. Sex slaves are sold without their permission, animals are sold without their permission, and grapefruit are sold without their permission. The language plainly indicates that you are sold, by an owner and you have no influence in that decision.

For I do not understand my own actions.

What does Paul mean? Which of us does not understand our own actions? We know plainly that when we sin, we desire to sin. And when we seek God, we seem also to believe that we know plainly, we desire to do that. So what does Paul mean? Context and history matter. Paul is a Pharisee, trained of the highest order. He knows plainly the law of Moses and he's obeyed it to the full. A good contemporary example would be a disciplined body builder, who cannot understand why he eats sugar-filled-doughnuts. He knows he has a competition come up. He knows he cannot eat those things and win, yet, seemingly out of his control, he injests them and that even to his chagrin. He not only knows not to, he knows he doesn't want to, yet he does! Modern psychology would call this delusion, for if you do something, you clearly on some level, want to do the thing. But, this is NOT what Paul says.

I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

What is puzzling here is the very idea of free-will would me that this should not occur. For freely you operate and none influence you so much so as to abrogate your freedom to choose sin or not. But, Paul, under divine decree here writes that which I do not want to do, I do. So, then, he knows what not to do, he knows not to do it, he's looking at it and says no, yet he does it. Is Paul delusional? Does he simply not recognize that he REALLY DOES want to do these things, he's just lying to himself? Well, that's where free-will must take you. Why? Simply because, you're free. You choose of your own volition based on knowledge and experience. So then, you actually can't be compelled to do anything that you don't choose to do. So, this text is irrational. Paul is lying or, in the most pleasant light, he's alluding to that which we all understand, that in secret, we really do want to do these things, but it seems far more pious to say that you don't want to do them. Because, who wants to admit that they come to the threshold of sin and with fullness of knowledge and truth say, I LOVE SIN! 

¹⁶Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with^(C) the law, that it is good. 

Meaning, it has rightly condemned me in all ways.

¹⁷So now^(D) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 

Whoa, wait up Paul...if I believe in free-will, how can you say that it is not you who does it? Does not God hold all men responsible for their choices? Who is this you, that is not you, who chooses for you and that not of your free-will and choice? These seems confusing at best...how is it possible that I have a free-will but there is something in me that doesn't appear to, or if it does it always seems to choose what I don't want it to choose?

Paul is making clear that it is not him that does it. Explicitly he states that. Who of you will state that when you sin that it is not you that sins? Paul did.

¹⁸For I know that nothing good dwells^(E) in me, that is, in my flesh.

Ahh, the linchpin of the entire passage. Paul is referring back to the case that he's already made in Romans 3:10-19. None are righteous, not even one, and so forth. It would appear two things clearly emerge in Pauls theology. 1. Paul is not good, he's totally depraved, utterly wicked, completely turned aside, ready to kill at a moments notice. 2. That condition persists in the flesh even after he is made alive in Christ. So then, free-will would say what to this condition of being utterly sinful in the flesh? Some have said that there is enough goodness in man, though he is mostly evil, to choose God. Some have also said that, man is entirely wicked, but God has extended a balloon of prevenient grace that they must simply pop and allow it to wash over them. Yes, how does one do any of these things if, they are as Paul says, wicked? Wouldn't any act that leads to godliness, be in itself godly and therefore righteous? How does a wicked body do anything righteous when Paul says it cannot?! Not only this, but Paul is merely repeating the words of the prophet Isaiah and King David. No, Paul clearly understands that sin so abrogates the will that if you are free, you are free only to choose it!

For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Is Paul contradicting himself? He says that he can't do good, yet he has a desire to carry out that which is good, yet he is unable? Or is Paul simply referring to the fact that he knows the law perfectly, something we cannot even come close to identifying with, and his conscience is assailed constantly with the knowledge that even in his great learning of God's Holy Law, he cannot obey it. Even in his desire, let us call this human desire, he desires to obey God's law, but is simply unable. For what is the cause of this conflict?

Continued In Part 2