There has been a bit of chat about Romans 7 & 8 online recently. The questions being discussed are ones that I was writing papers about for my master’s degree nearly 15 years ago. The occasion for the discussion might be different, but the underlying discussion of the text is ultimately the same.

I don’t have a great deal to add here. The paper I wrote over a decade ago addressed the question ‘who is the wretched man of Romans 7?’ Is it describing pre-Christian experience (per Tom Schreiner, Doug Moo and others), part of normal Christian experience (John Piper, RC Sproul, most the reformers and others) or is it less about who is regenerate and more about how we are justified, describing a hypothetical person who wants to be holy, but cannot be holy by law (Martyn Lloyd-Jones and others).

My point in writing this isn’t to insist which view is right. Good, reformed people sit on all sides. For what it’s worth – if you are wondering – I happen to believe Romans 7 is describing post-Christian, normal experience. The ‘wretched man’ of Romans 7 (as I read it) is Paul as a believer describing the ordinary war between the flesh and spirit that persists post conversion. Romans 7 seems to be describing the genuine love he has for God and his law and the genuine despair he has at his remaining indwelling sin. His cry at the end of chapter 7 seems to be continued and answered in Romans 8. Jesus has and will deliver him from his body of death, creating a ‘now and not yet’ tension which Romans 8 both describes and goes on to unpack how war against the flesh is now even possible for the regenerate believer. I will gladly send you my old paper if I can dig it out should you want it. But, as I said, I am not here to convince you that my reading is right. Better people than me read it differently. Though better people than me read it like I do too. You can do your own exegetical work.

My purpose in writing is to offer a little caution when it comes to our discussions of these sorts of thorny texts. Clearly, godly people disagree. Such has it always been. Soteriologically reformed believers of all persuasions agree substantially on the key issues whatever view of Romans 7 and 8 they take. Questions such as: (1) Are genuine believers still impacted by indwelling sin? (2) Are genuine believers properly regenerate? (3) Are genuine believers justified now? (4) Are genuine believers called to pursue holiness? (5) Can believers expect sinless perfection this side of glory? (6) Is it ever possible for regenerate believers not to sin? On these kinds of questions – if we take the time to actually listen to people – we will find substantial and essential agreement.

What is rarely helpful is flinging out accusations of heterodoxy or biblical downgrade when – on any doctrinal affirmation of any significance surrounding these texts – there is substantive agreement. Nor is it very helpful to argue anything by reference to ‘the danger is…’ I have addressed this sort of argument previously here. Every position, every view, has potential dangers if held in extremis and not tempered in any way by other statements of scripture and doctrines found therein. It is all too easy to throw around accusations – often by way of ancient heresies, just to make ourselves sound cleverer, but othertimes just of doctrinal deviance that we all wish to avoid – without bothering to ask: are advocates of the position I reject also arguing for these things or even tending in the direction of them? Let us be in no doubt: it is nothing short of slanderous to suggest that those with whom we disagree affirm our highlighted “potential dangers” when they actively and openly disavow these things. If we do this, we can have no complaint if they choose to highlight a bunch of doctrinally deviant potential problems that could occur with our view and then – in the face of our protestations to the contrary and clear statements that we reject this position – insist we hold to these errors. It isn’t any way to have a legitimate discussion.

Of course, the other point worth bearing in mind is that presenting issues are often not the real issue. Sometimes, there is another issue lurking in the background, causing us to read motives and other doctrinal positions into a discussion. For example, the issue of concupiscence (lust) is lurking behind some of these discussions. Some are simply engaging with a presenting issue – that of how they read Romans 7 & 8 on their own terms – whilst others are really discussing a different issue (concupiscence) with reference to Romans 7 & 8. It isn’t hard to see how those addressing an underlying question might assume motives and thoughts that aren’t there in others addressing the presenting question.

The thing is, one can take any of the three views outlined above regarding Romans 7 & 8 and yet reach any position on the underlying question (such as one is actually answering it at all) on concupiscence. There are a variety of ways and means to get from any particular view one might hold of Romans 7 & 8 and any given view of the questions surrounding concupiscence, lust, battling indwelling sin and (what I suspect is actually driving some of these discussions) questions surrounding temptation, same-sex attraction and what constitutes basic Christian faithfulness. The problem here being, if we are actually having a discussion about concupiscence but presenting the problem solely in terms of our views on Romans 7 & 8, we are liable to talk past each other given that we can get to any given view on concupiscence from any of the views we might hold on Romans 7 & 8. That is to say, rather than assuming motives and logical roads travelled, we would do better to openly have the conversation we want to have and reference the relevant texts as we go rather than have a discussion about specific texts and assume underlying positions based on a question we aren’t actually answering.

Our discussions would be helped by the following:

1. Being clear about what discussion we are actually having
2. Not implying motives and underlying assumptions
3. Addressing what is specifically said, not that which has not been said
4. Not claiming serious doctrinal or theological downgrade when the downgrade we infer is openly disavowed by the people we accuse
5. Telling the difference between a legitimate disagreement and a matter of serious heterodoxy (which involves much more than a hand-waving reference to ‘the danger is…’ or ‘a slippery slope’ – one must have slid down the slope before we can make the claim!)