jomcensus
3rd February 2008, 05:50 PM
In his book, "The Problem with Evengelical Theology," Ben Witherington III challenges Augustine's interpretation of Romans, in particular chapters 5-7 and especially 7:7-25 by saying that 1) it is not about the Christian life, but rather is 2) a Christian view of Adam's plight and of the pre-Christian condition.
This challenges both Augustine and Luther about the "bondage of the will."
This is the specific verse he talks in depth about:
Romans 7:18 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.
"To will is present" but "to perform" is not.
This interpretation echoes Arminius' dissertation on Romans 7, excerpts from which include:
I grant, that, "in this man is some other thing diverse or distinct from the flesh;" for this is to be seen in the apostolical correction. But I deny, that "in unregenerate persons is nothing else beside the flesh" - in those unregenerate persons, I say, who are under the law, and about whom we are engaged in this controversy.
I adduce this reason for the justness of my negation; because in men who are under the law is a mind which knows some truth concerning God and "that which may be known of God," (Romans 1:18,19) which has a knowledge of that which is just and unjust, and whose "thoughts accuse or else excuse one another," (2:1-15,) which knows that the indulgence of carnal desires is sinful, (7:7) which says that "men must neither steal nor commit adultery," (2, 21,22)etc., etc. To certain of the unregenerate, also is attributed some illumination of the Holy Ghost, (Hebrews 6:4,) a "knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," a "knowledge of the way of righteousness," (2 Peter 2, 20, 21) some acquaintance with the will of the Lord, (Luke 12:47,) the gift of prophecy, etc., etc. (1 Corinthians 13.) That man who is bold enough to style such things as these "the flesh," inflicts a signal injury on God and his Spirit. And indeed how, under the appellation of "the flesh" can be comprehended that which accuses sin, convinces men of sin, and compels them to seek deliverance?
There is, then, in men who are under the law, "the flesh, and something beside the flesh," that is a mind imbued with a knowledge of the law and consenting to it that it is good; and in some unregenerate persons there is beside the flesh, a mind enlightened by a knowledge of the gospel. But to the "other thing which is distinct from the flesh," the apostle does not, in this chapter, give the title of the Spirit, but that of the mind.
But some one will here reply, "Not only is something different from the flesh attributed to this man, but the inhabitation or residence of good is likewise attributed to that which is different from the flesh; for, otherwise, that part of the verse in which the apostle corrects himself, would not have been necessary; but in an unregenerate man, or one who is under the law, there is nothing in which good may reside. Therefore, this is a regenerate man," etc.
Rejoinder. While I concede the first of these premises, I deny the second which affirms, "In an unregenerate man, or one who is under the law, there is nothing in which good may dwell or reside." For in the mind of such a man dwells some good thing, that is, some truth and knowledge of the law.
The signs of habitation or residence are the works which this knowledge and truth in the mind unfold or disclose. For instance - a conscience not only accusing a man of sin, but also convincing him of it - the delivering of a sentence of condemnation against the man himself – the enacting of good laws - careful attention to public discipline - the punishment of crimes – the defense of good people - despair of obtaining righteousness by the law and by legal works the impelling necessity to desire deliverance and to seek for it. These works, indeed, are most certain signs of the law dwelling and reigning in the mind of such a man as has been described.
On this point, I entreat, that no one will condemn as heresy that which he has yet either not heard, or not sufficiently considered. For I do not assert that good dwells and reigns in a man under the law, or in any of the unregenerate. For to reign in the mind, and, simply, to reign in the man, are not the same thing. Because, if this knowledge were simply to dwell and reign in the man, this very man would then live in a manner agreeable to his knowledge, the resistance of the flesh being repelled by that which would simply obtain the first and principal place in a man.
The assumption is in the text of the apostle; the proposition alone, therefore, remains to be proved. Regeneration not only illuminates the mind and conforms the will, but it likewise restrains and regulates the affections, and directs the external and the internal members to obedience to the divine law. It is not he who wills, but he who performs the will of the Father, that enters into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 7:21.) And, at the close of the same chapter, he is called a wise or prudent man "who doeth the sayings of Christ," not he who only wills them.
Arminius says "this truth is in some unregenerate persons," and "a mind imbued with a knowledge of the law and consenting to it that it is good," though, as Arminius, I would not go so far as to say that this is a sign of regeneration before faith, rather I think it is a sign of the Holy Spirit convicting a person of sin, using that which is inherent in fallen man as a result of the fall: the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, through the law as a schoolmaster, to draw us to faith in Christ for forgiveness and eternal life in Him.
So, while nothing good can dwell in the man, there can dwell a knowledge of good and evil. He can know that there is a good, and know that he does not do good, even if he wants to do good.
This is not to say that I think the fall was in any way a good thing, for the fall was due to disobedience and brought sin and death into the world, but the fall did not leave man without the ability to have a knowledge of good and evil, because that was the fruit of the sin and was a direct result of their disobedience, but one which God uses for His own good purpose.
Thoughts?
This challenges both Augustine and Luther about the "bondage of the will."
This is the specific verse he talks in depth about:
Romans 7:18 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.
"To will is present" but "to perform" is not.
This interpretation echoes Arminius' dissertation on Romans 7, excerpts from which include:
I grant, that, "in this man is some other thing diverse or distinct from the flesh;" for this is to be seen in the apostolical correction. But I deny, that "in unregenerate persons is nothing else beside the flesh" - in those unregenerate persons, I say, who are under the law, and about whom we are engaged in this controversy.
I adduce this reason for the justness of my negation; because in men who are under the law is a mind which knows some truth concerning God and "that which may be known of God," (Romans 1:18,19) which has a knowledge of that which is just and unjust, and whose "thoughts accuse or else excuse one another," (2:1-15,) which knows that the indulgence of carnal desires is sinful, (7:7) which says that "men must neither steal nor commit adultery," (2, 21,22)etc., etc. To certain of the unregenerate, also is attributed some illumination of the Holy Ghost, (Hebrews 6:4,) a "knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," a "knowledge of the way of righteousness," (2 Peter 2, 20, 21) some acquaintance with the will of the Lord, (Luke 12:47,) the gift of prophecy, etc., etc. (1 Corinthians 13.) That man who is bold enough to style such things as these "the flesh," inflicts a signal injury on God and his Spirit. And indeed how, under the appellation of "the flesh" can be comprehended that which accuses sin, convinces men of sin, and compels them to seek deliverance?
There is, then, in men who are under the law, "the flesh, and something beside the flesh," that is a mind imbued with a knowledge of the law and consenting to it that it is good; and in some unregenerate persons there is beside the flesh, a mind enlightened by a knowledge of the gospel. But to the "other thing which is distinct from the flesh," the apostle does not, in this chapter, give the title of the Spirit, but that of the mind.
But some one will here reply, "Not only is something different from the flesh attributed to this man, but the inhabitation or residence of good is likewise attributed to that which is different from the flesh; for, otherwise, that part of the verse in which the apostle corrects himself, would not have been necessary; but in an unregenerate man, or one who is under the law, there is nothing in which good may reside. Therefore, this is a regenerate man," etc.
Rejoinder. While I concede the first of these premises, I deny the second which affirms, "In an unregenerate man, or one who is under the law, there is nothing in which good may dwell or reside." For in the mind of such a man dwells some good thing, that is, some truth and knowledge of the law.
The signs of habitation or residence are the works which this knowledge and truth in the mind unfold or disclose. For instance - a conscience not only accusing a man of sin, but also convincing him of it - the delivering of a sentence of condemnation against the man himself – the enacting of good laws - careful attention to public discipline - the punishment of crimes – the defense of good people - despair of obtaining righteousness by the law and by legal works the impelling necessity to desire deliverance and to seek for it. These works, indeed, are most certain signs of the law dwelling and reigning in the mind of such a man as has been described.
On this point, I entreat, that no one will condemn as heresy that which he has yet either not heard, or not sufficiently considered. For I do not assert that good dwells and reigns in a man under the law, or in any of the unregenerate. For to reign in the mind, and, simply, to reign in the man, are not the same thing. Because, if this knowledge were simply to dwell and reign in the man, this very man would then live in a manner agreeable to his knowledge, the resistance of the flesh being repelled by that which would simply obtain the first and principal place in a man.
The assumption is in the text of the apostle; the proposition alone, therefore, remains to be proved. Regeneration not only illuminates the mind and conforms the will, but it likewise restrains and regulates the affections, and directs the external and the internal members to obedience to the divine law. It is not he who wills, but he who performs the will of the Father, that enters into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 7:21.) And, at the close of the same chapter, he is called a wise or prudent man "who doeth the sayings of Christ," not he who only wills them.
Arminius says "this truth is in some unregenerate persons," and "a mind imbued with a knowledge of the law and consenting to it that it is good," though, as Arminius, I would not go so far as to say that this is a sign of regeneration before faith, rather I think it is a sign of the Holy Spirit convicting a person of sin, using that which is inherent in fallen man as a result of the fall: the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, through the law as a schoolmaster, to draw us to faith in Christ for forgiveness and eternal life in Him.
So, while nothing good can dwell in the man, there can dwell a knowledge of good and evil. He can know that there is a good, and know that he does not do good, even if he wants to do good.
This is not to say that I think the fall was in any way a good thing, for the fall was due to disobedience and brought sin and death into the world, but the fall did not leave man without the ability to have a knowledge of good and evil, because that was the fruit of the sin and was a direct result of their disobedience, but one which God uses for His own good purpose.
Thoughts?