God's Providence In Tough Financial Times

In Exodus 16 we find the account of the children of Israel having just left Egypt bound for the promise land given to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. Yet as the children of Israel traveled in this barren wilderness, they begin to grumble and complain because of a lack of food (Exodus 16:3) and later water in Exodus 17:2-3. Despite Moses' anger, Yahweh provided for the children of Israel's needs each time. He gave them more than enough!

This speaks to my heart since I know that many people are facing tough economic times. My prayer is that during this time you would find comfort in God's providence to provide for you. He might not give you all you want but He will no doubt meet your needs. Jesus said that we should not worry about our lives, what we will eat or drink (Matthew 6:25) and Paul told the Philippians that his God would supply all of their needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:19). For Paul, he learned to be content in God (Philippians 4:10-13).

The fact is that God is in control. President Obama and the United States Congress does not control the economy nor does any nation under heaven but God Himself controls all things by His power. If God upholds the universe by His word (Hebrews 1:3), who are we to think that He does not control all economic factors by His word? If God created the world in six days (Genesis 1:31), could He not also provide for our every needs simply by His own resources that He created?

Yet even if we should find ourselves in tough times, focus on Christ and His glory. Don't worry about Wall Street or what the "experts" tell us on the news but look to Christ. He is able to provide for us. Do you believe that someday Christ will come in glory and redeem your fallen body and give you a new glorified body (1 Corinthians 15:51-58)? Do you believe that Jesus went away to prepare a place for you (John 14:1-6)? Do you believe that our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20-21)? We believe all this yet we struggle to believe that Jesus is able to provide for our every need?

Jesus is faithful despite us and in spite of us (2 Timothy 2:13). He will come through in His timing just as He did for the children of Israel in Exodus 16. He loves His own and provides for us.

Two Arminians Who Believe Romans 7:13-25 Describes Christians

I originally set out to make this a four (possibly five) part series on the subject of Romans 7:13-25 but I have been finding out so much information from both Calvinists and Arminians sources that I simply can't leave the passage. Furthermore I have been receiving several e-mails encouraging me to continue in the study of the passage. I do pray that it is helpful to see the various approaches to Romans 7:13-25 and that Christians do disagree over the passage. For many of us, we possibly jump from one approach to the other depending on where we are theologically and experientially (more on this on another post).

Today I wanted to give the opinions of two respected Arminians: Robert Picirilli and Jack Cottrell. Dr. Picirilli serves with the Free Will Baptist and is a professor of theology at Free Will Baptist Bible College in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Jack Cottrell is professor of theology at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Cottrell comes from the Christian Churches or the Restoration movement although he does consider himself Arminian although he rejects total depravity which some Arminians see as casting him outside of the Arminian approach to Scripture. I personally enjoy both of these men and believe they are great theologians. Dr. Cottrell is a brilliant scholar and a man after God's own heart. His book Solid: The Authority of God's Word is worth the price of gold in defending the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

Ironically, both Dr. Picirilli and Dr. Cottrell hold that Paul was not writing in Romans 7:13-25 as an unsaved man but as himself, a Christian. They see Paul's struggle in Romans 7:13-25 as universal of all true Christians. In this they disagree with Arminius, Wesley, most early Methodist theologians, several Calvinists theologians, and current Arminians such as Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. F. Leroy Forlines, and Dr. George Wood. Arminians such as Daniel Corner likewise hold that Romans 7 is not describing a disciple of Jesus but an unregenerate man.

So let us allow the positions of Dr. Picirilli and Dr. Cottrell to speak for themselves. We shall first look at Dr. Picrilli's position. Rather than pouring over the exegesis of the passages, I shall simply lay out their positions in numeric sequence.

Dr. Robert Picrilli on the Subject of Romans 7

Dr. Picirilli in his commentary on the book of Romans states the following about his position on the subject of the man of Romans 7:13-25:

1. Paul does use "I," most naturally interpreted to be himself.

2. Paul uses present tense verbs throughout which stand in contrast to the past tense verbs in Romans 7:7-13.

3. Paul seems to "excuse" himself from the failures spoken of herein by blaming "the sin that dwells within" him instead of the real Paul (v. 17, 20). Can a sinner make such a distinction?

4. Paul similarly distinguishes between the real self and his "flesh," a distinction that sounds exactly like Galatians 5:17.

5. A sinner cannot truthfully speak the words of Romans 7:22. Compare Psalm 1:1-2.

6. Even after Paul speaks of the secret of "victory" in verses 24-25a, he still describes the same struggle in 25b.

Dr. Picrilli goes on to explain Romans 7:14 and how can we explain the defeat-language of Romans 7:13-25. He points out that when Paul says, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin" (Romans 7:14) he is using flesh in terms of our depravity. He says that every true disciple would admit that in our flesh, we cannot please God (Romans 8:8). We admit that in our flesh we groan for God's righteousness and His perfection (Romans 8:23). We must come to the same conclusion then as Paul in Romans 7:25 that our only hope and our only source of forgiveness, righteousness, grace, mercy, propitiation, and sanctification is found in Jesus Christ and Him alone. We all are under flesh and will be till we leave this earthly temple but praise God for His grace that He washes us clean in Christ, forgives us, and indwells us by His Spirit (Romans 8:9) and that brings victory.

Dr. Jack Cottrell on the Subject of Romans 7

Dr. Cottrell writes the following about Romans 7 in his book The Faith Once For All:

1. This section of Romans, (chapters 6-8), has to do with the Christian life. Why would Paul then turn and write about an unsaved person or a Jew when he has already done so in Romans 1-3?

2. Paul uses the present tense throughout the passages.

3. Paul's strongly positive statements about the law and about his desire to obey it, plus his sorrowful confession of sin and his hatred of it, are incompatible with a non-Christian's state of mind.

4. The spiritual struggle pictured here exists only in a Christian's heart and life.

5. The longing for deliverance (Romans 7:24) suggests the tender heart of a Christian.

6. The assurance of triumph (Romans 7:25) belongs only to a Christian.

7. The order of the sentences in verse 25 is incompatible with a non-Christian's experience; even, after resting his soul on Christ's salvation, Paul once again laments his conflict with sin.

Like Picirilli, Dr. Cottrell points out that the conflict within a believer is that our nature is twofold: flesh (outer man, body) and the spirit (inner man, soul). Our redemption likewise comes in two stages. First, at salvation the sinful soul (spirit) is crucified with Christ and raised up into a state of spiritual life (Romans 6:1-6). Then, at the second coming the body will be redeemed through resurrection (Romans 8:23) or transformation (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). In the meantime we live in a status of limbo in that we are redeemed in spirit but our flesh still dwells with us and until the final resurrection, we will struggle with these duals natures living within (Galatians 5:16-25).

Great Article by Dr. Michael Brown

Here is a great article written by Dr. Michael Brown on a recent article found in Christianity Today of the recent exposure of sins of Miss California, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and the divorce of John and Kate from the TV show. The article in Christianity Today shows why the evangelical church is failing and why CT is failing. In a word: failure to be biblical. When we replace sound doctrine for feelings, culture, or popular thinking we are doomed. We must draw a line in the sand in our lives and in our culture as disciples of Jesus and proclaim that we would rather die than compromise the gospel (Romans 1:16-17). Jesus is worth more to us than life itself (Philippians 1:20-21).

Friends, let us not play games with sin and let us deal with our sins now! May we not make excuses for our sins but place our faith in Jesus and His power to help us be overcomers, victorious in Him.

Sinning Saints?

"To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours."
- 1 Corinthians 1:2

The word saint in the English Bible comes from the Latin word sanctus which means simply "set apart." The Greek has the same meaning and is derived from the Greek word for holy. God Himself is "set apart" from His creation because of His absolute holiness (1 Samuel 2:2; Psalm 99:5, 9). God said about Israel that He had called them out of the nations to be His holy people (Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2). This has the same meaning for the New Testament disciple of Jesus who is called out by the Spirit of God (John 6:44), saved by the grace of God (Ephesians 2:8-9) and set apart unto God (1 Peter 1:15-16). Paul said that God calls us to a holy calling (2 Timothy 1:9) which in context means for Paul the apostolic ministry but in reality, God calls us out of sin to be His holy people.

And yet within our look at Romans 7, one thing is clear: we must deal with the sin in our lives. God has called us to holiness. Paul begin his letter to the Corinthians who were no doubt sinning against God by pointing out that God had called them to be saints (1 Corinthians 1:2). God had not called them to be anything less than His set apart people who glorify Him in both the Church (1 Corinthians 3:16-17) and in their own temples, their bodies as well (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). His epistle to the Corinthians no doubt was written to correct their errors and not to give them comfort in their sins. He says in 1 Corinthians 15:34 for them to stop sinning! Sinning saints is simply incompatible!

In fact, in Paul's follow up epistle to the church in Corinth, he clearly addresses the sin issues. He says in 2 Corinthians 12:21, "I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of their impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced." He goes on in 2 Corinthians 13:7 to say these incredible words: "But we pray to God that you may not do wrong - not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed." He says in 2 Corinthians 13:9 that their restoration (or perfection in the NIV) is what he is praying for. Wow! Those are prayers few utter today.

We tend to never pray that we or others will not sin nor do we pray that we or others would be perfect. Yet this is what Paul prayed. He prayed that the saints would not sin and that they would be perfect. Possibly he had in mind Jesus' words in Matthew 5:48 or his own admonition in Romans 6:11-23 or 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 or 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24. I have never heard a prayer in church for A) people to stop sinning and B) people to be perfect. We simply tend to think that we are stuck in Romans 7 and we are "sinning saints."

The Bible And Stop Sinning

Does the Bible tell us to stop sinning? We know that the only one who can approach God's throne are those who are pure (Psalm 15:1-5) and thankfully we can because of the grace of God given to us in Christ Jesus (Hebrews 4:14-16). We are pure because of the blood of Jesus (Ephesians 1:7) and His blood sets us apart (Hebrews 10:10, 14). Yet the Bible continues to call the saints of God to abandon a life of sin.

Consider Jesus' words in John 8:10-11 where He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. What incredible words to say to this woman! I have often heard about Jesus' compassion toward this woman and while I agree with that, I also see Jesus calling her to repentance and holiness. He does not merely pat her hand and say "It's okay. I know your struggle. Go and be in peace." But Jesus tells her to go and sin no more.

In John 5 we find another story where Jesus heals a crippled man and He then tells him in John 5:14 to stop sinning or something worse might happen to him. We don't know what sin caused this man to be in his crippled condition but Jesus knew and Jesus tells him to sin no more lest something worse happen. How can this be? We would think that Jesus would apply Romans 7 to this man and say, "You can't stop sinning but try to even though you will fail." But Jesus does not.

Peter the Apostle said about the false teachers that they never stop sinning (2 Peter 2:14 NIV). The psalmist said that the children of Israel kept sinning after God's judgment (Psalm 78:32) - a true sign of rebellion against God. The children of Israel had been warned by God to not sin against Him and they were to fear Him and His wrath against sin (Exodus 20:20).

Jesus came to take away our sins (Matthew 1:21; Galatians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:14-18; 2:21-24), not to allow us to live in them. Paul said that our baptism is a picture of our new life in Christ Jesus in Romans 6:1-4. He applied baptism to the question of sinning since the grace of God abounds in Christ Jesus. Paul's answer: how can you sin now that you have been buried with Jesus in baptism? Jesus came not just to cleanse us from sins (1 John 1:7) but to free us from sin (Revelation 1:5).

The very nature of salvation gives us the hope of turning from sin. There is no doubt that God is merciful toward us and that He has provision for us in His Son to forgive us from our sins when we sin (1 John 1:9) but He also empowers us through His Spirit to be overcomers (Romans 8:13). As the Puritan John Owen stated: "God does not want to hurt your sin but kill it." Hebrews 10:26-27 warns against sinning after receiving the truth. Even the beloved John said that sinning was a sign of rebellion against God (1 John 3:6-9) and that John was writing to us so that we may not sin (1 John 2:1-2).

However, listening to some Bible teachers today you would think that the common struggle of man is simply to sin. Victory, overcoming, holiness, and purity are abandon for sinfulness. I once was counseling a woman when I made the comment that I don't wake up each day wanting to sin nor do I try to sin. She looked at me with shock and said, "I sin every day." I replied, "Then you are not Christ's because John said that continued sin proves we do not know Him."

Now there can be no doubt that I am so thankful for Jesus Christ and what He has done for me. His sacrifice alone opens the gates of heaven to me (Matthew 7:13-14). It is only by His blood, His grace, His atonement, His intercession that I am a child of God. Yet I equally see that His grace teaches me to say no to sin (Titus 2:11-12 NIV) and that He calls me to holiness (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).

How To Be Holy

How do we even begin to be a people of holiness? Is holiness simply out of our reach and despite the Bible's call to holiness, we will always be struggling with besetting sin?

1. Recognise Your Master - The Bible says that we are slaves to the one that we obey either to the flesh which reaps death (Galatians 6:7-8) or to the Spirit which reaps life (Romans 6:12-23). We are to recognise that our Master is the Lord Jesus Christ and not our flesh. By faith we should declare that our flesh will not ovecome us but that Jesus will be our Lord (1 John 2:3-6). If Jesus is not our master but our flesh is, we will die (Revelation 21:7-8). Jesus must be our Lord (Luke 6:46-49).

2. Renew our Minds - Paul told us to renew our minds in Romans 12:1-2. We are to renew them since they have been filled with the junk of the world. The Word of God will be our weapon to attack wicked thoughts (2 Corinthians 10:3-6) and the Word is our sword to destroy the works of Satan in our lives (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12). Often the battle against sin begins for me in my mind. If I can consider myself dead to sin (Romans 6:11) and realise that I am in Christ, safe and secure by being hidden in Him (Colossians 3:1-4) then no sin can touch me (Colossians 3:5-10). The battlefield for dominion in our lives often is the mind.

3. Realise Our Mandate - The Bible calls us to holiness. We need to take the commandments of God in His Word and meditate on them. God has not called us to sin but to holiness, to be His saints. His mandate for all disciples of Jesus is not to live in sin but to be Jesus' disciples (John 8:31-38). He wants us to take up our crosses daily (which speaks of daily death) and follow Jesus (Luke 9:23-25). Our mandate is not to waddle in our sins but to live in the Spirit (Romans 8:1-4) and to realise that we have the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:57). Through Christ we are overcomers (Romans 8:37). Don't settle for sin but pray for victory! We are called to freedom and not chains (Galatians 5:13)!

The Church Doing It All Wrong (So They Say)

On some Sunday nights I enjoy slipping away to a church in North Augusta, SC called Victory Baptist Church. It is an independent, fundamental Baptist church that is typical of that type of church. Here you'll find your usually brand of fundamental Baptist church complete with the Southern gospel choir, campmeeting hymns, and shouting preaching. They use the King James and they are not ashamed to proclaim that for them, the King James is the only true version of the Bible in the English language today.

And while I do enjoy the preaching (which is the primary reason I go), I have to admit that this church, according to Church Growth gurus, are doing it all wrong. You won't find much contemporary singing here and you won't find any feel good, happy, clappy sermons. You won't find any drama skits or any charts showing the population makeup of North Augusta. What you see is what you get. You get lots of shouting. You get lots of hard preaching against sin. You get lots of people running down to the front of the church building (altars) to pray. You find bus ministries, homeless ministries, children's ministries, soul winning ministries, etc. But you won't hear about a purpose driven life here. You won't find the Prayer of Jabez out front for sale. You won't even find their five fold purpose for existence in their bulletins. They simply don't follow the Church Growth books too well.

But the church is booming. On an average Sunday night they probably have 600 people! On a Sunday night! The church probably runs near 1000 on Sunday morning. The church has a Christian school and a Bible college on the campus. You would think that a fundamental church such as this would be mainly old people but its not. Most of the people are young.

Now I don't agree with Victory Baptist on all issues. I am not a KJV only person. I would not classify myself as a fundamentalist Baptist. In fact, I don't consider myself a Baptist at all. I reject their doctrinal positions on the Lordship Salvation issue, eternal security, and their view of the gifts of the Spirit. But I am attracted to them because of one thing: they don't compromise what they believe or where they stand. On a given Sunday night they will often preach hard against sin. The pastor, Dr. Larry Brown, has no problem preaching that God hates sin. He equally preaches that God loves sinners (and yes he uses the term "sinner"). The preaching is always expository and every preacher I have ever heard at Victory preaches with unction. There is no doubt that these Bible preachers love God and His Word despite our disagreements.

Yet my point is not to glorify Victory Baptist Church. The church is too big for my taste for me to attend regularly and its not Arminian in theology nor are we Arminians welcomed (neither are Calvinist for that matter in most fundamental Baptist churches). My point is that we need to see that is not what grows a church but who grows a church. The Bible clearly says that God is the one who gives growth to His Church (Acts 2:47 NKJV). Both 1 Corinthians 3:7 and Colossians 2:19 point to God as the one who causes growth. I believe that we should do our duty before God and seek to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20) but we must see first and foremost that God alone is the one who is glorified in Church growth. No man, no woman, no denomination, no style of ministry, no style of preaching, etc. is the reason for church growth that lasts but if the Church is to grow and become more like Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16), it will happen as the Spirit of God draws the lost to the Son (John 6:44). Our duty is to preach the gospel and allow the Spirit of God to work through the gospel to draw sinners unto Christ for His glory (John 16:8-11). As we preach Christ, the Spirit opens hearts to hear and believe the gospel (Acts 16:14-15).

Why does Victory grow? Because God has given them the increase. That is my prayer. I pray that the church I attend will grow but not for the glory of men but for the kingdom of God to expand in the earth so that Jesus is lifted high in His Body.

On Verse 22 of Romans 7

For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being.
- Romans 7:22 (ESV)

In order for us to better understand the issues around the subject of Romans 7 we need to look closely at verse 22. Many Calvinist commentaries believe that verse 22 leaves no doubt that the person whom Paul is speaking of is himself or at least a true Christian. Even Arminian theologians such as Robert Picirilli and Jack Cottrell hold to this view as well. The purpose of this post is simply to demonstrate whether this is the common Arminian view. Did Arminius and many other Arminians believe that Romans 7:22 proves that the person of Romans 7 is truly regenerated?

R.C. Sproul declared this about Romans 7:22: "No unregenerate person delights in the law of God in the innermost self. This statement can only be made by a regenerate person, so I am convinced that Paul is speaking of his present condition" (The Glory of God, p. 127). This view is common among Calvinists. A.W. Pink said, "The experience described in Romans 7:14-25 is that of the genuine Christian" and John MacArthur said, "Romans 7 is the classic text describing the believer's struggle with his sinful flesh. Note that while Paul acknowledged his own disobedience..."

In his writings on Romans 7, Arminius devoted four pages to his exegesis of the passage. Arminius noted that while Paul uses the phrase "inner man" in verse 22, this does not necessarily mean the new man of 2 Corinthians 5:17. The phrase, notes Arminius, occurs in 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Ephesians 3:16 and signifies the mind or soul of man, whether or not that mind is under grace. The "inner man" is contrasted with "the outer man" or the physical body. Vic Reasoner points out further that Arminius then cites fifteen church fathers and seven contemporary exegetes who supported his view of verse 22. Arminian Thomas Summers wrote that since the Reformers did not have an adequate view of prevenient grace, which operates upon man before regeneration, they stumbled at the declarations of verse 22 and 25.

Arminius wrote about the "inner man" of verse 22, "is not the same as the new man or the regenerate either from the etymology of the word or from the usage of Scripture; and the inward man is not peculiar to the regenerate, but also belongs to the unregenerate." Vic Reasoner points out that in Luke 18:9-14 we find the Pharisee fully delighting and obeying the Law of God yet he was not justified. Israel itself delighted in the law of God yet did not keep it. To delight in God's law is prevenient grace; to obey God's law is saving grace. Reasoner says, "I may delight in art but this is far from meaning that I am an artist." I may be pleased with God's law but the question is whether or not God is pleased with me (Romans 8:8).

Reasoner goes on to point out that Paul uses a different Greek word than normally used for "another law" in Romans 7:23. Normally the New Testament used the Greek word allos which means "another of the same sort" but here Paul uses the word heteros which means "another of a different sort." This unregenerate man approved of God's Law in verse 22 but he was under another law and not the law of God in verse 23.

Arminius noted that Calvinist often try to tie this struggle in Romans 7:22-23 to Galatians 5:16-17 but Arminius devoted six pages of exegesis to show that these passages are not parallel passages. Arminius notes that the struggle of Romans 7:22-23 is over will and conscience where what we want ultimately wins out over what we ought. But Galatians 5:16-17 is a battle with the Holy Spirit and the remains of the carnal flesh.

We will look at some other Arminian viewpoints who agree with Arminius over Romans 7 in the next few posts. In closing, however, I agree with Dr. Michael Brown in his book Go and Sin No More in which he pointed out the weakness of trying to justify sin by using Romans 7. Even Calvinists would hopefully agree with me that we should not use Romans 7 to live in sin. Friend, don't comfort your flesh by saying that you delight in God's Law in your inward man and so that makes it okay to indulge the flesh in pornography, adultery, lying, bitterness, theft, murder, racism, etc. God hates sin because it was sin that caused God to place His Son on the cross (Matthew 1:21). Dare we not use Romans 7 to try to justify sin when God calls us to holiness (Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 1:15-17). Sin will keep people out of the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21) and we should not try to avoid God's call to holiness and purity (2 Corinthians 7:1) by trying to twist Romans 7 to make it seem that Paul was a struggling, sinful saint who, if alive today, would be so wicked and vile that he would appear lost. Let us not play games with God's Word and try to find assurance for salvation while living in continued sin (1 John 3:6-9).

Works Used For This Post
Reasoner, Vic A Fundamental Wesleyan Commentary on Romans

Arminius on Romans 7:13-25

Arminians point to Romans 7 as the place where the Arminian/Calvinist controversy truly begins. It was in Romans 7 that Jacobus Arminius abandoned his Calvinism and begin to teach against the common Calvinist doctrines of his day. Theordore Beza, along with John Calvin, had taught that the person of Romans 7 was saved and that the struggle pictured in Romans 7 is universal for all Christians. Arminius disagreed once he begin to teach through Romans 7. His sermons were later published in 1613 under the title, A Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Arminius disagreed openly with Beza and Calvin and the doctrines of Calvinism begin to crumble. Because of Arminius' skill in teaching and his knowledge as a theologian, few could take Beza (and other Calvinist theologians) to task like Arminius could and his ability to exegete the Scriptures were unmatched in Geneva. The debate was on and only the death of Arminius spared him from being able to not just defend his views as the Synod of Dort but possibly defeating the Calvinists.

To this day, Arminius dissertation has never been refuted by any Calvinist theologian. The dissertation runs over 200 pages. Arminius taught that the person of Romans 7 was not Paul himself nor about even a redeemed man but about a man living under the Law. While Paul does write in the first person in Romans 7, Arminius taught that the way he describes himself in Romans 7 is at variance with what he writes about himself elsewhere.

Vic Reasoner writes, "A regenerate man has a mind freed from the darkness and vanity of the world and illuminated with the true and saving knowledge of Christ and with faith. He has been delivered from the dominion and slavery of sin. He has put off the old man and put on the new man. His desires conform to the will of God, not to please the flesh. He has received the Spirit and through the Holy Spirit he has victory over sin, the world, and Satan. He actually desists from evil and does good. However, he must grow in grace, for sometimes he stumbles, falls, wanders astray, commits sin, and grieves the Holy Spirit. Yet this is not the pattern of his life" (Romans, p. 285).

Arminius begin his exegesis of Romans 7 back in Romans 6:12-14 where Arminius shows that Christians are not under Law but under grace. In 6:14, Arminius points out that Paul uses the phrase "under the law" for sinners. To be under grace and under law are two different positions and two different persons. This is illustrated for us, writes Arminius, in Romans 7:1-4. Romans 7:6 is clearly showing that we are free from the law and under grace. Paul then returns to the proposition that sin has dominion over those who are under the Law in Romans 7:7-14. From Romans 7:14-25, Paul now gives two reasons for sin: the man under the law is carnal and he is under the dominion of sin. Here Arminius agreed with Beza and Calvin in asserting that apart from the grace of God, man is dead in sin and has no "free will" but only to sin. Adam Clarke writes, "While Satan cannot force us to sin against our will, we can do no good unless we receive grace from God."

For the remainder of Arminius' exegesis of Romans 7, he continued to point out that the term "under law" has to point back to Romans 6:12-14 and the rest of the Epistle of Romans as clearly showing this to be a lost man. Arminius went on to argue that on the basis of Romans 8:1 with the term "therefore", it is clear that Paul is not speaking of himself or sinning saints but that those who are in Christ Jesus do not walk in condemnation of the law and under the dominion of sin but are under grace. Arminius then ends his several hundred pages of exegesis by then citing fourteen ancient Church fathers, several writers from the middle ages, and seven contemporary commentators who all agreed with his exegesis. Arminus taught that until Augustine, the most common view of Romans 7 was the one he was teaching. Arminius taught that becoming a Christian delivered a person from the power of the law and the dominion of sin and where this did not occur, neither did regeneration (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Ironically, Vic Reasoner points out that Augustine changed his views on Romans 7. Early on Augustine held the same view as Arminius over the person of Romans 7, mainly that Paul was describing a man under the law and dominion of sin. He published his views under the title Exposition of certain Propositions in the Epistle to the Romans. In the book, Augustine wrote that this chapter (Romans 7) must be understood as relating to a man under the law and that this and not to a man under grace. However, Augustine over-reacted to the Pelagian heresy (where Pelagius was teaching sinless perfection through human free will and rejected the Augustine theory of original sin and total depravity) and he begin to teach that Romans 7 was to be understood as the highest state of Christian experience (and obvious over-reaction to Pelagius who was teaching that Romans 7 described an unsaved man). Augustine reacted by retracting the second position (that the person of Romans 7 is not a man under grace) but not the first. Augustine then made the sin in Romans 7 to be sexual desire and he reduced original sin to sexual desire and thus he made the human body sinful and even regenerated persons would be struggling with sin their entire lives thereby.

Arminius objected to Augustine's interpretation which reduces sin to sexual desire. He wrote, "I beseech St. Augustine to point out to me a single passage of Scripture, in which the regenerate are called carnal because they still have within them the lusts of the flesh."

Arminius rejected likewise the Calvinist assertion that his view was the same as that of Pelagius. Arminius pointed out, however, that Pelagius believed that the free will of man enabled them to overcome sin and thus will themselves to perfection. Arminius rejected this teaching and believed that apart from the grace of God, man was free only to will to sin. Yet Arminius pointed out that Philippians 2:13 says that the grace of God within man gives us the ability not just to will but to do! Through the grace of God our old man is crucified that we should not serve sin (Romans 6:6). Grace enables us, through the help of the Spirit, to put to death the sinful deeds of the body (Romans 8:13). Grace supplies to the regenerate strength to resist the world, Satan, and the flesh and the power to gain the victory over them (Ephesians 6:11-18; James 4:4-8; 1 John 4:4; 5:4). Arminus rejected the Calvinist teaching that grace in the regenerate gives only the power to will but not to do. He said grace does both. Arminius argued that God has not given us His grace to allow for sin (Jude 4) but to help us to destroy sin in our lives (Titus 2:11-12).

Therefore, such an interpretation is injurious to grace (the Calvinist view), because it lays down as a sing of regeneration, that which is common to both the regenerate and the unregenerate who are under the condemnation of the law. It is also contrary to good morals because the man who holds such opinions does not strive as hard to avoid sin nor does the commitment of sin produce deep sorrow in him since he concludes that he is still regenerate.

Arminius further taught that the regenerate must will to sin. In other words, the battle in the mind takes place first before the act of sin. The person must consent to sin. The conscience within knows both the act of sin and the consequences of sin yet only the regenerate battles this within.

Arminius' view of Romans 7 was the same of his successors such as Hugo Grotius, Simon Episcopius, and Philip Limborch. John Wesley, John Fletcher, Richard Watson, Adam Clarke, Thomas Coke, Joseph Sutcliffe, Joseph Benson, Daniel Whedon, Thomas Summers, and Daniel Steele all held the same view as Arminius.

Sources

Arminus, James The Works of James Arminius

Reasoner, Vic A Fundamental Wesleyan Commentary on Romans