Rom 7, an indicator.

How one views Romans 7 is a good indicator of their general philosophy of Christian life. I find it interesting that some of the Federal Vision types are taking a very similar view of Romans 7 as the New Covenant Theology folks. Both view Rom 7 (the latter part) as not referring to the Christian’s experience in dealing with a new heart in a sin-tainted flesh, but rather as that of an unregenerate individual.

While NCT would not consider the Law the Christian is under today to be the 10 Commandments but rather the “law of Christ”, meaning the commands of Christ expressed in the New Testament, they would agree with some of the FV types who claim that the Law of God was never intended as a perfect standard of righteousness.

12 thoughts to “Rom 7, an indicator.”

  1. Micah, I’ve got a few questions for you, if you don’t mind. <BR/><BR/>1) Precisely who among the "FV types" does not hold that the law is "a perfect standard of righteousness"? I’m not familiar with them doing that. <BR/><BR/>2) Do you mean to limit the law to the ten commandments? Surely there are lots more. <BR/><BR/>3) What do you make of "the law of Christ"? I’m not in with the NCT group, but

  2. 1) by ‘perfect standard of righteousness’ I am referring to the view that some seem to be adopting wherein the Law didn’t demand perfection and/OR that partial obedience Law could be considered as keeping the Law. As to the who, one might review the works of several authors out there and see this trend. As to NCT types, I’ve heard this view preached in their churches, but as "God doesn’t expect

  3. One clarification…<BR/><BR/>I wrote: <I>The ‘law of Christ’ is the Law of God expressed in its fullness in Christ as opposed to the Law of Moses (as viewed by the Jews of Paul’s era)</I><BR/><BR/>I do not mean to say here that the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses are different laws, rather they are different expressions of the one Law of God, which is holy, righteous and good. In Matt 5~6

  4. Micah, I’d like to engage your thoughts but you’ve provided so few specifics that I’m not sure where to grasp. You keep waving your hands in such general ways and provide no particular references. But if your assertions hold up (regarding what some FV folks advocate), then you should be able to provide the references yourself. <BR/><BR/>Regarding NCT, I guess I can say that I too have interacted

  5. Micah,<BR/><BR/>In my study of the New Perspective on Paul, I’ve seen that they do the same thing with Romans 7. It’s kind of a pivotal text, since it may or may not give us an insight into Paul’s struggles of conscience. If it speaks of Paul’s condition post-conversion, there is every possibility that Luther’s reading of Paul was correct (especially when he probes the question: “How can I, as an

  6. Kevin,<BR/><BR/>As I stated before: "The ‘law of Christ’ then is the perfect Law of God obeyed by faith in Christ Jesus." This is what Luke 1:6 is talking about, Luke 1:6 is not suggesting that these individuals had a righteousness of their own that obtained blamelessness, while they were surely holy people walking by faith, this is what made their deeds righteous and their lives blameless. Yet

  7. That’s my thinking as well, however, I’m not able to devote more than a cursory look at things and I don’t want to defraud Kevin by suggesting that I am seriously engaged in the discussion. Perhaps later. <BR/><BR/>And no, I’m not bowing out. My observation stands and is confirmed by the discussion of Ridderbos and Moo. 😉 (who!?)

  8. Dear Micah,<BR/><BR/>How would you account for the plurality of the commands of God mentioned in Luke 1:6. Notice that their obedience is not collapsed into a statement of faith but rather presented in a robust expression of their faithfulness. Indeed, the text of God’s holy word declares that they had obeyed God and were blameless before him. <BR/><BR/>Some OT passages that inform what this

  9. There are two issues here that seem to be discussing: positional righteousness and so-called practical righteousness. I believe one’s practical righteousness is a result of their positional righteousness. That is, a person’s sanctification will follow their justification they’re intertwined in that respect. A person of faith will in fact show fruit of that faith.<BR/><BR/>Therefore you write: <I>

Leave a Reply