... and the Word was God

Well at least it’s clear we disagree.

Regardless, I’d like to set a few things in order.

If Nygren is obscure, then everyone’s obscure. He was Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy of Religion at the University of Lund and also a Bishop in the Church of Sweden. Because many biblical scholars bear similar credentials, his rendition bears weight only on the merits of the consistency, spiritual logic and reason in accord with the writings of Paul. Having studied this passage in depth, albeit in many years ago, and having submitted an essay titled “The Law in Relation to a Christian – An Exegesis of Romans 7:14-25” to Prof. R.N. Longenecker in Dec of 1979, this section is very critical to my Christian mindset. My essay studies the many biblical scholars who seek to accurately interpret this passage. (CEB Cranfield, Victor Paul Furnish, CH Dodd, FF Bruce) My conclusions are not swayed by the majority or minority but simply by the “wisdom and spirit” with which they speak. Suggesting, as Dodd does, that the verses are out of order, is not high on my list of quality scholarship. The others do no better, calling this section the “great interruption” and suggestions we should look to Romans 6 for a more detailed explanation when none is required. They jump through all sorts of mental hoops attempting to give meaning to the passage and it’s conflicts with their personal experience. Nygren does it simply by never bringing his personal preferences into the fray, slowing building a case, speaking to points of contention and explaining the why and wherefore of their lack of validity, and arriving at an interpretation that fully deals with the entire passage as well as related references in the letter to the Hebrews. He also points out some subtle nuances in the Greek text that give various meanings to the word carnal which are consistent with this interpretation. (Carnal is spelt differently in the Greek depending on the context it’s used and is relevant to an accurate interpretation)

You are not alone in you interpretation and it leads logically to your statements (or vice versa) “The body is magnetized to sin, the law of sin is written in it. The law of God illuminates that our cursed bodies, our urges to do evil, are utterly evil. We would be animals without the law.” Cranfield does you one better though: “Determined to assert himself, to assert his independence, to be the center of his own life, to be his own god, he cannot but help but hate the real God… His hatred of God and his rebellion against God’s claim upon him expressed in God’s law are inseparable from each other… That mind of our fallen nature which in emnity toward God is also unsubmissive to his law, and indeed by its very nature isincapable of submitting to it. Even in the Christian this is true, as 7:14-25 has made clear.” (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Internation Critical Commentary, Romans I-VIII, p387, 1975) I submit that more has been accomplished on the cross than these statements bear witness to.

Finally regarding Nygren, I have serious issues with Nygren and have spelled them out in one of the best and most recent essays I have written. I hope to use it as the backdrop for my Master’s thesis. So I am also critical of Nygren, but with regards to his interpretation of this passage I’m convinced he has it right.

Next: I did not say anything about the voice that talks to you. You stated “But people still sin and ignore the voice that tells them it’s wrong”. (posting 4/10) My reply was “When you say people still sin and ignore….”. So I’m not sure where you get “You say that the voice that tells me…”. Part of conversation requires generalization, meaning a reference to large groups of people. My statement is that generally Christians are guided by the law, not the spirit. In that regard I think Christ’s, “forgive them for they know not what they do” is more applicable. My point is that (generally) people are not in tune with the spirit, they are aware of a pile of rules they were exposed to in their life, some with religious weight behind them, but they pretty much think they’re good people. If you press them on a point they’ll admit they don’t live up to the ideal but they’re doing their best. That type of thinking is carnal, non-spiritual. It has none of the hallmarks of the conviction of the spririt. I’m in a far far more dangerous place where I have been convicted of certain kingdom truths and your descriptions of the consciousness of the violations is more applicable to my state of affairs, if I were to go that way, rather than your run of the mill Christian who is pretty unaware of the spirit’s workings.

There are many more things I have to say but I’ve already written more than I intended. I’m am glad that things are more clear. Your last post really gave me a good insight into your perpective. It’s not necessary to agree although it is the ideal Christian condition. Before agreement can be reached though, the two parties have to understand where the other is coming from.

In that vein my final point is with regard to your very clarifying statement that “It is both, they work in tandem.” This is probably the strongest statement in terms of contrast to my perspective. What first pops to mind is Romans 7:4. “you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another” and similarly in Hebrews 8:13 “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete”. I don’t think tandem is what these statements are seeking to convey. Paul goes to great pains to contrast faith (new covenant) and law (old covenant) The law was our “keeper” until Christ came. I would say the book of Hebrews is basically to present this as an either/or scenario; righteousness by faith in Christ or righteousness by works of the law. I see no justification for a tandem scenario. I can’t help but see that perspective as invalidating much of Paul’s message and cutting the Holy Spirit off at the knees – so to speak.

PS: If you have an issue with your take on my perspective of not having a sinful nature any longer (which is not the case) I wonder how you deal with the Apostle John.

5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. (1 John 3:5-9)