Discussion on Romans 7
Brothers, with our discussion on Romans 7 coming up Friday, I am not requiring you to write any responses this time, but do give some thought to the following two questions, since they will be the focus of our conversation:
(1) We can distinguish the following views of the identity of the "I" in Romans 7:14-25:
A. Paul as a believer, representing the experience of believers.
A1. The experience is one perspective on the Christian life, generally speaking.
A2. The experience is of a "carnal Christian" who is relying on the flesh but needs to move into the life of Romans 8.
B. Paul looking back on his life as an unbeliever.
11 Views
Here are my views on some issues we didn't get around to on the call:
Baptism in the Spirit. In most NT occurrences it refers to the Pentecost event as the inauguration of a new era of the Spirit. It is specifically contrasted with John's baptism in water in the Gospel, and the Acts 2 event is not associated with water baptism for the disciples. So when Paul says we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), I take that as a reference to our incorporation into the Pentecost event when Christ immerses us in the Spirit at conversion. This is not synonymous with water baptism, just as it is not synonymous with any kind of physical drinking, even though Paul speaks of us all drinking of one Spirit in the same verse. Contra Pentecostalism, it is not a second blessing, nor is it normatively marked by tongues.
Glossolalia. As a continuationist I affirm that glossalalia is a continuing gift of the Spirit. I believe the phenomenon described in 1 Cor. 12-14 is Spirit-empowered free vocalization, not actual, known languages. The same is likely true in Acts 10 and 19. I agree with Bavinck that Acts 2 is a particularly supernatural example of this gift because it involved the gift of spontaneous speech in unlearned languages that did not need interpretation because they could be understood by native speakers present. I wouldn't call Acts 2 a reversal of Babel (because it doesn't undo the diversity of languages) but rather the redemption of Babel (because it gives praise to God in diverse languages). Outside of Acts 2, tongues are either a sign of Spirit reception (Acts 10 and 19) or a form of transrational prayer (perhaps one application of Romans 8:26-27). When interpreted, it edifies others. When u interpreted, it still has value for the speaker. It seems to be used mainly in private prayer. For more, see Carson's "Showing the Spirit" and the articles Vern Poythress has written on glossalalia. Among cessationists, I like Packer's approach to this subject.