Have I understood this passage correctly?

[Chrawnus]

Rom 7:9 - I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
Rom 7:10 - and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
Rom 7:11 - for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

This passage seems to imply that as long as a person lack moral knowledge he is still spiritually alive, even if he sins, but as soon as he becomes morally aware any act of sinfulness will lead to spiritual death and necessity of salvation through faith.

What I'm asking is basically this: Does this passage imply that any person who is not morally aware (or does not have knowledge of the Law) cannot be put to death spiritually by sinning, and therefore needs no salvaging faith, or am I reading to much into this passage?

[RBerman]

Paul is speaking "in human terms" (Romans 6:19) in this section. He means that he considered himself alive until he learned that, according to the law, he actually deserved death. And furthermore, his knowledge of the law was no solution, because it led him to sin even more when he realized what he was doing.

It would violate the whole rest of his argument up to that point in Romans if chapter 7 was teaching that anyone gets a free pass with God. Romans 1-3 goes to great lengths to show that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are under God's wrath because they fail to meet his standard of righteousness.

[Chrawnus]

Paul is speaking "in human terms" (Romans 6:19) in this section. He means that he considered himself alive until he learned that, according to the law, he actually deserved death. And furthermore, his knowledge of the law was no solution, because it led him to sin even more when he realized what he was doing.

I could be wrong, but Paul's usage of the term "in human terms" seems to be constricted to the issue of him describing us Christians as slaves of righteousness versus slaves of sin, and would therefore have no bearing on what he says afterwards:

Rom 6:19 NASB - I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness,resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness,resulting in sanctification.

I could be wrong though, so if you can show me where my reasoning is invalid I would be most grateful.

It would violate the whole rest of his argument up to that point in Romans if chapter 7 was teaching that anyone gets a free pass with God. Romans 1-3 goes to great lengths to show that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are under God's wrath because they fail to meet his standard of righteousness.

I fail to see how this undercuts any of what Paul writes in Rom 1-3. As Paul writes in Rom 2:

Rom 2:14 NASB - For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 NASB - in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
Rom 2:16 NASB - on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.


Paul here seems to be implying that to be judged by God for your actions you first need to have had knowledge of the Law because otherwise you cannot be held accountable for your actions. Since gentiles do not know the Law it would seem that they are not held accountable, but Paul explains that their conscience of good and evil is itself enough for them to be held accountable. The logical conclusion therefore seems to be that if you lack knowledge of the Law, or good and evil, God does not hold you accountable for your sins.

And if we look at Rom 1:19-21 Paul seems to stress that man chose to live sinfully, even though they had knowledge of the truth, which seems to imply that knowledge of what is right and wrong seems to be an important factor when it comes to God's judgement.

Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong, but Rom 1-3 seems to be saying that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, having knowledge of the Law or simply of right and wrong, are under God's wrath because they fail to meet his standard of righteousness.

[RBerman]

Xmansmommy and I have been discussing Romans for weeks over in the "Rob Bell" thread that's now 15 pages long. In brief, here's an outline of the first part of Romans:

Part I: Justification. How can we be declared and treated as righteous by God?
1:1-16 Greetings, setting out of basic vocabulary Paul will use later.
1:17-32 God's wrath is revealed against evil men who reject him and who sin. Aren't they terrible?
2:1-5 But wait; you too are one of those evil men, subject to God's wrath.
2:6-11 God's rules are the same regardless of ethnicity: Good is rewarded, and sin is punished.
2:12-16 Gentiles don't get a break just because they don't have the Torah; its requirements are imbedded on their hearts.
2:17-24 Jews don't get a break just for having Torah; you have to follow it, not just read it.
2:25-29 Therefore a good Gentile would be a better example of a true Jew than an evil Jew is.
3:1-8 Paul answers several objections to the above comments.
3:9-20 Thus there are no good people. The Old Testament says this sort of thing too: None are righteous.
3:21-31 That's why God provides another way for us to be righteous: Faith in Christ, who sacrificed himself for us.
4:1-12 David and Abraham had this same experience, being declared righteous through faith rather than through attempts to work righteous deeds.
4:13-25 Thus Abraham is the father of all who have faith in Christ.
5:1-11 In summary, God's solution to his wrath over our sin is that we can be reconciled to Him through faith in Christ.

Part 2: Sanctification. How can we act according to the righteousness which God has reckoned to us?
5:12-21 You want to be on the side of Christ (eternal life, grace), not the side of Adam (death, sin, condemnation).
6:1-14 This doesn't mean Christians should feel free to sin.
6:15-23 Christ frees you from slavery to sin so that you can be his slave.
7:1-6 Christians have died to sin as a ruling law in our life.
7:7-14 God's law itself is not bad; it's good and holy and spiritual. But I turn good things bad because of my sin.
7:15-25 As a result, the kingdom of sin and the kingdom of Christ are at war within me.
8:1-11 The Holy Spirit helps me experience victory in that war.
8:12-30 The Spirit is also the path to a future where the war is done.
8:31-39 With the present and the future taken care of, our position with God is thus secure.

So within this larger argument, when Romans 2:14-16 speak of Gentiles having a law in their hearts, and a conscience which accuses and excuses them, Paul is not saying that God excuses Gentiles on that account. Quite the opposite; Paul is building a case for Gentile guilt, based on (a) The knowledge of God present in creation, as discussed in Romans 1:19-21; and (b) The testimony of their own hearts, that they think about issues of good and evil even though they don't have Torah. That's why "both Jews and Gentiles are under sin" (Romans 3:9) and thus "the whole world may be held accountable to God. Forby works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20) Having established the problem of universal guilt due to sin, Paul spends the last part of Romans 3 explaining God's solution to God's wrath: The sacrifice of Christ, which benefits "those who believe."

[Chrawnus]

So within this larger argument, when Romans 2:14-16 speak of Gentiles having a law in their hearts, and a conscience which accuses and excuses them, Paul is not saying that God excuses Gentiles on that account.

I think you misread me. I did not state that God excuses Gentiles on account of them having a law in their hearts, and a conscience which accuses and excuses them, but that they can be held accountable because of it.

Quite the opposite; Paul is building a case for Gentile guilt, based on (a) The knowledge of God present in creation, as discussed in Romans 1:19-21; and (b) The testimony of their own hearts, that they think about issues of good and evil even though they don't have Torah. That's why "both Jews and Gentiles are under sin" (Romans 3:9) and thus "the whole world may be held accountable to God.

I think that was essentially what I was trying to say by this:

Paul here seems to be implying that to be judged by God for your actions you first need to have had knowledge of the Law because otherwise you cannot be held accountable for your actions. Since gentiles do not know the Law it would seem that they are not held accountable, but Paul explains that their conscience of good and evil is itself enough for them to be held accountable. The logical conclusion therefore seems to be that if you lack knowledge of the Law, or good and evil, God does not hold you accountable for your sins.

Forby works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20) Having established the problem of universal guilt due to sin, Paul spends the last part of Romans 3 explaining God's solution to God's wrath: The sacrifice of Christ, which benefits "those who believe."

This I agree with. What I'm wondering is if a person is subject to God's wrath if said person lacks moral knowledge/awareness and is unable to differentiate between right and wrong. As far as I can see both Rom 7, and Rom 2:14-16 seem to imply that this is not the case, but rather that to be held accountable moral awareness is a prerequisite.

[Obsidian]

Chrawnus, your argument is correct, but Paul points out that everyone does have some knowledge of good and evil (presumably from the fruit that Adam and Eve ate). The only people who may act as exceptions would probably be babies and such, who aren't fully-developed humans.

[hedrick]

7:11 suggests that Paul thinks sin actually uses the command to make our situation worse. I can think of two ways this might work:

* the usual human tendency to rebel against rules
* that the Law causes people to trust in their works rather than faith

I suspect it's the second sense that he intends.

If the Law causes someone who might otherwise look to God for justification to look to the Law or their own works for justification, it would make their situation significantly worse. Paul is quite clear in Romans that the Law itself is not bad. However it can still have bad consequences for sinful people who depend upon it, a view that I think is amply supported throughout the book. The existence of the Law tempts people to look to it for salvation, and that is in fact death.

[footwasher]

No one escapes the Law: its either the Torah or the conscience.

The humble are exalted, the proud stumble upon it.The Jews were proud because they had the Law, a benchmark. Covetousness? Tick off the box. Get on the case. Fail...

IOW, They stumbled because they attempted to attain righteousness through works. The Gentiles had no Law but achieved righteousness, because they could not quiet their conscience, and fell before God for mercy.

[Chrawnus]

No one escapes the Law: its either the Torah or the conscience.

Or rather, both, or only the conscience.

The humble are exalted, the proud stumble upon it.The Jews were proud because they had the Law, a benchmark. Covetousness? Tick off the box. Get on the case. Fail...

I think I agree here.

IOW, They stumbled because they attempted to attain righteousness through works. The Gentiles had no Law but achieved righteousness, because they could not quiet their conscience, and fell before God for mercy.

I do not really think that is what Paul is saying, if you're referring to Romans 2:14-16. When Paul is speaking about the conscience I do not think he's talking about an internal feeling, but rather moral knowledge that we share with our social group. That is, how we ought to behave according to the group we are a part of.

Conscience, as I see it, is shared (con = that can be used to form words like i.e conjoined) moral knowledge/perception (science, which used to mean simply knowledge) with a group or a person.

And because of that I don't think that Gentiles had a problem with quieting their conscience, because they did not have moral knowledge in the same degree as Jews had, and therefore lesser knowledge of how they should conduct themselves, particularly when it came to how they should act before God.

If we look at conscience this way, then a good conscience is one where we share the same moral perception as God, and a bad/weak conscience is where our moral perception is at odds with God's. A Christian for example, would feel shame/guilt for a certain behaviour because he knew that it would be wrong in God's perception, while an atheist, who does not share the same perception as God, (at least not in the same degree as a Christian) would hardly feel shame/guilt at all. Dishonouring God, or blaspheming for examply would/should be considered wrong by a Christian, while an atheist might not/would not have the same qualms about it.

[Mr. Anderson]

In our modern legal system this is called the insanity defense. To argue against your position would entail proclaiming the mentally impaired as unsavable. But to stretch your position to it's fullest might open the door to an idea that proclaming the good news of Christ could bring spiritual death to those living in happy ignorance. An example being one whos cultural norm believes eating their neighbor is not a violation of conscious. Where do you you draw the line?

[footwasher]

Conscience, as I see it, is shared (con = that can be used to form words like i.e conjoined) moral knowledge/perception (science, which used to mean simply knowledge) with a group or a person.

And because of that I don't think that Gentiles had a problem with quieting their conscience, because they did not have moral knowledge in the same degree as Jews had, and therefore lesser knowledge of how they should conduct themselves, particularly when it came to how they should act before God.

If we look at conscience this way, then a good conscience is one where we share the same moral perception as God, and a bad/weak conscience is where our moral perception is at odds with God's. A Christian for example, would feel shame/guilt for a certain behaviour because he knew that it would be wrong in God's perception, while an atheist, who does not share the same perception as God, (at least not in the same degree as a Christian) would hardly feel shame/guilt at all. Dishonouring God, or blaspheming for examply would/should be considered wrong by a Christian, while an atheist might not/would not have the same qualms about it.

I'd like to accentuate the "humble" aspect: within each system, the humble are lifted up. giving us the 7000 (the Elect!) who had not bowed before Baal, Elizabeth, Zachariah, the Publican in the Temple.

And amongst the Gentiles, the "unsave-able", a surpringly large number.

I think Paul was trying to highlight this. It wasn't as if there were no Jews in the early Church, but it was largely Gentile in composition.

[Chrawnus]

In our modern legal system this is called the insanity defense. To argue against your position would entail proclaiming the mentally impaired as unsavable. But to stretch your position to it's fullest might open the door to an idea that proclaming the good news of Christ could bring spiritual death to those living in happy ignorance. An example being one whos cultural norm believes eating their neighbor is not a violation of conscious. Where do you you draw the line?

How much moral awareness you have and how much it conforms to God's perception is not the same as how much you know about the gospel, so I hardly see the problem. A person is spiritually death whether or not he has heard the good news or not (I think), but the question is not that, but whether a person who has no moral awareness such as an infant, or a mentally impaired person as you said, would be spiritually dead, and if they are spiritually dead, whether or not Christ's death on the cross covers their sins or not even if they do not consciously exert faith.

Besides, even if "proclaming the good news of Christ could bring spiritual death to those living in happy ignorance" I still think we should do it, because:

1. We are commanded to do so.

2. Even if they were ignorant of the fact that eating their neighbours is wrong they would still have other types of moral knowledge, so being ignorant of one moral issue would not mean that they live in total moral ignorance.


But still, unless you are an infant, or mentally impaired everyone has some sort of moral perception, so because of that everyone with moral knowledge are in fact spiritually death prior to hearing the good news. So I don't think spreading the gospel will lead to spiritual death to anyone.

[Mr. Anderson]

How much moral awareness you have and how much it conforms to God's perception is not the same as how much you know about the gospel, so I hardly see the problem. A person is spiritually death whether or not he has heard the good news or not (I think), but the question is not that, but whether a person who has no moral awareness such as an infant, or a mentally impaired person as you said, would be spiritually dead, and if they are spiritually dead, whether or not Christ's death on the cross covers their sins or not even if they do not consciously exert faith.

Besides, even if "proclaming the good news of Christ could bring spiritual death to those living in happy ignorance" I still think we should do it, because:

1. We are commanded to do so.

2. Even if they were ignorant of the fact that eating their neighbours is wrong they would still have other types of moral knowledge, so being ignorant of one moral issue would not mean that they live in total moral ignorance.


But still, unless you are an infant, or mentally impaired everyone has some sort of moral perception, so because of that everyone with moral knowledge are in fact spiritually death prior to hearing the good news. So I don't think spreading the gospel will lead to spiritual death to anyone.

Well lets stick to the real question and avoid the bushes then. A definition will be required for spiritually alive. Is it a regenerated life? I doubt it as that is the description of one who was dead. Under Adam all died. Federal headship closes the door on spiritually living infants. Perhaps were tangled in whether sin is imputed to those morally ignorant? Leaving them inside a dichotomy of life and death, or would this be equivalent to a living man being on death row?