JC Ryle and Romans 7

So I have been interacting with JC Ryle, in his hundred year old text on Holiness, and there are several things that have jumped to the fore as I have been thinking about this whole process of self-examination and sanctification etc. J.C Ryle insistst that sanctification admits of degrees. Now he carefully qualifies that by saying that a really sanctified individual may not know it himself and that there are two major tests that must be in place: first a person must know his own sinful status, and others must see objective fruit in your life.

I find it odd that this has become an issue for me at Seminary. In normal circumstances I am generally more prone than others to point out the need for confession and repentance. “Search Me of God” is one of my favorite songs -judged by how frequently I insert it in the schedule- and my youth group get's to hear about confession and repentance on a regular basis. But apparently that doesn't translate well to an academic context.

It may be that we are speaking past each other. Except for the issue of Romans 7:14. I did a detailed paper on Romans 7 a while back, and I realized that I am in the minority in terms of the application of the passage. But then I have started reading people like Owen and others and I have realized that the high standards of exegesis that I have been encouraged to use. Combined with C.S. Lewis' observation that mistakes in old Books are safer because they are more glaring from a century or more away, have pointed to three things about Romans 7:

1. Many of the people who use Romans seven, are committing a classic fallacy, where you propound a true doctrine, from a text that doesn't actually have bearing on it. Such with the doctrine of struggle with sin in the believer. Galatians 5:17 is clear enough on that point, but Romans seven is not in the context of sanctification but an extended discussion on Justification, and reconciliation of which sanctification is the fruit Rom 6:22 – As J.C, Ryle rightly pointed out doctrines must be distinguished from one another if we are to retain any of them. Romans does not get to sanctified living per-say, until chapter 12. We are in an extended section on Reconciliation in Romans 6-8. Reconciliation -which I think is what people are getting at when they talk about identity in Christ as being so important - is one of the fruits of our union with Christ, and it's practical application is that we are restored as servants to God. Reconciliation leads to presenting our members in service to God.
2. The main challenges to viewing Romans seven in it's context rather than in a series of less connected little rants is that very strong language of love for God's law, in verses 21, and 25. According to the majority view it seems that an unregenerate person must hate God's law in the inner man, as a logical necessity. And a Regenerate individual must love God's law in the inner man. If Paul is saying that an unbeliever can love God's law in the inner man, then Paul is wrong by locigal necessity. My response is that according to the whole book of Romans the point of the Law is that an unregenerate individual would see the goodness of God's law and be convicted of sin – in my understanding that means that an unbeliever, in his inner man, recognizes the goodness of the law, in other words he can be said to love the law, but be totally incapable of honoring it. For instance the Jew of 2:18 who knows and approves what is excellent, or the statement of 3:20 that knowledge of sin comes through the law, which in the immediate context is the precise point that Paul makes in 7:7-11. Rendering that objection less difficult in my mind. That fact that Paul engages in strong present tense language, is also mentioned, but I take that as a rhetorical device to add emphasis to the visceral quality of the struggle.
3. A third interesting challenge in understanding Romans 7, is that Owens at least seems to think through soteriology with the Law of God condemning the unregenerate as a necessary step. The election, and effectual call, of God is first felt as the Holy Spirit applies the Law in the conscience condemning an individual through the law, and then we see regeneration, justification and reconciliation, in response to hearing the Gospel. That is the precise layout of the logic of Romans 7, and it fits the broader context of the book, along with the close context of the surrounding passages. This being said, Romans seven is usually referenced in regard to indwelling sin in the believer and not salvation, justification or reconciliation which are the themes of these passages.

These things lead to a weakening of the doctrine of indwelling, active, and captivating sin in the believer. That the believer still struggles with sin is not in question, hence the second half of most of Paul's writings, the clear teaching of Peter, James and John. The question is about how active, and powerful sin is. And I think the reality is that it is the passions of the flesh in the heart of the believer which draw us back to sin (Rom 6:12; 1 Cor 7:36; 1 Tim 5:11; 2 Tim 2:22; 2 Tim 3:4; Titus 2:12; James 4:1, 3; 1 Peter 1:14; 1 Peter 2:11; 2 Peter 2:18) but sin itself is a dead master, it has no right to dominion, and it is defeated in the righteousness of Christ. It needs to be actively resisted, by denying (crucifying) the passions of the flesh, and submitting our members as the slaves of righteousness that we are. But the problem is in us- not imposed on us by an external force that dwells in us. Sin does indeed cause tremendous amounts of problems- but it is not an active force within us, because we are reconciled to God. The Spirit of God sets us free (Rom 8:1).

There is a really scary second issue that JC Ryle brings up, and which I am inclined to believe. And that is that there are a lot of people who say they are Christian, but who habitually walk in the lusts of the flesh. And they are probably not save at all.

Not to minimize that point at all, there are Christians who struggle with sin, who get entrapped in sin, and who capitulate to sin. But a genuine Christian can't get away with it, because God will discipline those he loves! This is accomplished in part through Church discipline, and in a major way through suffering but more terrifying through the direct judgement of God. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God -ask Ananias and Saphira.

The fact that there are so many in churches who claim to be believers, who at the same time can walk in habitual patterns of sin, without qualms of conscience, or the discipline of God is a sign of God's merciful forbearance on unbelievers allowing that they to might come to repentance, if they hear the gospel faithfully proclaimed.

A caveat is needed here: just because a Christian suffers is not an indication of discipline or judgement. Job should be a bright neon warning not to jump to that conclusion. If God is disciplining for sin, the sin will be obvious enough that a person can see it. Although the Bible talks about secret sins, or sins of ignorance- which do bring consequences (Leviticus, and the story of Achan make that clear), sin can only be confessed and repented when it is brought into the light. The offerings for unknown sins, were required when a person realized their guilt. While we should be quick to repent of sins we are aware of, and of which we are made aware, through the clear teaching of Scripture. Endless soul searching for phantom sins that cause the problems in our lives is a fruit of health-and-wealth theology, and not a Biblical concept. Christians suffer. All suffering has value in making us more like Christ. Not all suffering is discipline for sin.