The Truth Is According to Godliness (4)
The significance of the fact that “the truth … is after godliness” (Titus 1:1), i.e., is conducive towards, and leads to, piety, is underscored by its location in the Word of God. Most strikingly, this statement is found in the very first verse of one of the books of the Bible, being worked into its opening greeting.
Second, it occurs in Titus, a pastoral epistle, a category of scriptural letters that also includes I and II Timothy. Clearly, apostolic helpers like Titus and Timothy in the first century needed to be deeply convinced of the power of sound doctrine to edify God’s beloved people. Likewise, especially ministers, elders and deacons need this confidence in Scripture today.
Third, the assertion that “the truth … is after godliness” (Titus 1:1) occurs very close to, and in the same sentence as, a reference to the importance of “preaching” (3). The idea is obvious: the truth that is proclaimed in faithful preaching really does convert elect hearers. All true heralds of the Word must be sure that the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16).
Fourth, Titus is the #1 biblical epistle on good works (1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14). Adding this to Titus 1:1, we conclude that heartfelt belief of the truth is not unfruitful but really produces good works by God’s grace.
Fifth, Paul sent this canonical epistle to Titus who was labouring in Crete (1:5), about which he wrote, “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” (12). Therefore, the great need for the debased people of Crete is “the truth … which is after godliness” (1)!
This article and its previous three instalments are necessary to help us withstand the clamour for some immediate or worldly “fix” in our personal or ecclesiastical lives, such as the Wesleyan notion of entire sanctification in this life (contra Romans 7:14-25) or the Pentecostal experience of the baptism with the Holy Spirit (accompanied by speaking gibberish) or modern “worship” (which often bears an uncanny resemblance to pop music or a disco) or any of the much touted gimmicks of our day.
What we need, as individual Christians and in our family lives and in our congregations, is not something more, something additional, some magical solution, some new aping of the world that has been dreamt up by liberal leaders, trendy show men, cultural analysts and church growth gurus.
We really need the mighty Word of God blessed to our hearts by the Holy Spirit! We need the God-breathed Scriptures which are “profitable [1] for doctrine, [2] for reproof, [3] for correction, [4] for instruction in righteousness,” for they have this wonderful goal and result: “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (II Tim. 3:16-17).
We need to go deeper into the scriptural revelation of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” (Col. 2:9-10)! Rev. Stewart
Who Is the Man of Romans 7? (1)
This month’s question involves an important issue about which there is much disagreement: “Who is the man of Romans 7:14-25? Some say an unbeliever; others say a legalist or someone who is trying to live by the law, but failing; others say it is a believer who simply lacks victory over sin in his life because he hasn’t yet received some second blessing that the man of Romans 8 has received; others say it is a description of the normal Christian walk here in this world. What position do you take and what scriptural arguments do you have?”
The different views of the passage could be reduced to three categories. The first view is that the man of Romans 7 is an unbeliever and Paul is describing his own life before being saved, the life of someone trying to live by the law and failing (I Tim. 1:7)—this was the view of Arminius (1560-1609). The second view is that the man of Romans 7 is a Christian who lacks some blessing, and so is not a “spiritual” believer but carnal—this is the view of many evangelicals. The third view is that this man is a “normal” or “ordinary” believer and Paul is speaking of himself after his conversion. In the last case, Romans 7 is describing the spiritual struggles that all Christians experience—this is the view of Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers.
It is interesting that dispute over the passage was at the heart of the Arminian controversy of the seventeenth century and resulted in the writing of the Canons of Dordt (1618-1619). Arminius preached and taught an interpretation of Romans 7 that started the conflict. His view was that Romans 7 described a man who was “awakened” but not saved, a view that is similar to that of many evangelicals. Such people are sometimes described as “seekers,” who are supposed to have a sense of their own sinfulness and of the desirability of Christ, but lack saving faith in Him. Such a spiritual condition is ascribed to “common grace” by some and to common non-saving operations of the Holy Spirit by others.
Without going into all the views of this chapter, we are convinced that Romans 7:14-25 is a description of the “ordinary” Christian, saved by grace, delivered from the dominion of sin but not yet from the presence of sin, struggling with his sin and also finding in himself the fruits of God’s saving grace. This interpretation of the passage is at the heart of the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, between the teaching of Scripture regarding man’s total depravity and every attempt at compromise, between a view of ourselves that is faithful to God’s Word and the self-flattering heresy of man’s free will. Moreover, the latter position undermines assurance and destroys one’s confidence in Christ.
Thus we agree with Luther, who said, “Paul, good man that he was, longed to be without sin, but to it he was chained. I too, in common with many others, long to stand outside it, but this cannot be. We belch forth the vapours of sin; we fall into it, rise up again, buffet and torment ourselves night and day; but, since we are confined in this flesh, since we have to bear with us everywhere this stinking sack, we cannot rid ourselves completely of it, or even knock it senseless. We make vigorous attempts to do so, but the old Adam retains his power until he is deposited in the grave.”
In defence of the view that Romans 7 describes the “ordinary” Christian, we appeal first to the experience of every believer. Is it not the case that, if Romans 7 describes an unbeliever, then most or all of us would have to consider ourselves unbelievers? If an unbeliever can and does say, “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (19), does that not cast doubt on the profession of every child of God? If that is the confession of an unbeliever, then is the Christian one who says, “the good that I would, that I do, and the evil that I would not, that I do not do anymore”? Most of us would not dare to say that, so where then do we find ourselves?
If Romans 7 is describing someone who is “awakened” but not saved—what the Puritan, Matthew Mead, described as an “almost Christian”—then I find it very difficult to distinguish myself from an unbeliever or an almost Christian. In his book, The Almost Christian Discovered, Mead says that he does not want to beat the children with the stick reserved for the dogs but that is exactly what he does. In describing the characteristics of the almost Christian, he leaves the reader with no option but to consider himself less than a Christian, unless he sees himself above the struggle Paul describes in Romans 7, living a kind of victorious Christian life far beyond temptation and evil.
If Romans 7 is describing some kind of second-class or carnal Christian, that too eliminates the possibility that most of us see ourselves as “normal” Christians or believers. If such a carnal, unspiritual person is one who wants to do the good and hates evil, who loves the law of God but cannot obey it, most of us will judge ourselves to be carnal and unspiritual, and without the blessings and the saving grace promised in the Word of God.
To put things differently, if an unbeliever, or a Christian who lacks some second blessing or victory promised in the Word of God, can say the things Paul says in Romans 7:14-25, then there is no difference between him and a true Christian, unless the Christian is some kind of super saint.
Our second argument is the passage itself and the statements this “man” makes. We refer to the following and agree with Luther that this is not the voice of unredeemed human nature or of the old Adam:
“For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I” (15).
“If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good” (16).
“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not” (18).
“For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (19).
“Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me” (20).
“I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me” (21).
“For I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (22).
“But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members” (23).
“O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (24).
“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin” (25).
It is not in the unbeliever to hate sin and evil, to want to do good, to view God’s law as good and to delight in it, to admit that in his flesh dwells no good thing, to acknowledge his spiritual wretchedness, to long for deliverance from the body of death, to confess that he serves the law of God in his mind and to thank God through Jesus Christ for deliverance. These are the marks and fruits of saving grace, clear evidence that the one who is speaking in Romans 7 is a believer. The only way to profess the possibility of finding such things in an unbeliever is to deny the total depravity of man and to find in those who are lost something that is good in the sight of God, some seeking after the Lord, contrary to Psalm 14:2-3.
In his lecture on Romans 2:21, Luther says, “It is not the voice of human nature or of the old Adam which says: ‘Thy law do I love, but I hate them that are of a double mind’ (Ps. 119:113), or: ‘How sweet are thy words unto my taste, yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!’ (Ps. 119:103) or: ‘More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold, sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb’ (Ps. 19:10). This is the voice of the new and spiritual man, for the psalmist goes on to say: ‘Moreover thy servant has loved them and keeps them.’”
To make the words of Romans 7:14-25 the words of an unbeliever is to obliterate the difference between believers and unbelievers, and to destroy any possibility of believers being assured that they are children of God “by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God—such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.” (Canons I:12).
Any spiritual activity, any sign of spiritual life and any true “awakening” of the dead sinner is the saving work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. There is no holy fear of God but only terror, as well as no hatred of sin, no desire for holiness, no thirsting after righteousness and no seeking for God, apart from the sovereign, saving operations of the Spirit. But for His work, the sinner is spiritually dead! Rev. Ron Hanko
