John Calvin Commentary Romans 7:15

"For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do." — Romans 7:15 (ASV)

For what I do I know not, etc. He now comes to a more particular case, that of a man already regenerated, in whom both the things that he had in view appear more clearly; and these were—the great discord that exists between the Law of God and the natural man, and how the law does not of itself produce death.

For since the carnal man rushes into sin with the whole propensity of his mind, he seems to sin with such a free choice, as though it were in his power to govern himself; so that a most pernicious opinion has prevailed almost among all men—that man, by his own natural strength, without the aid of Divine grace, can choose what he pleases.

But though the will of a faithful man is led to good by the Spirit of God, yet in him the corruption of nature appears conspicuously, for it obstinately resists and leads to what is contrary.

Hence the case of a regenerated man is the most suitable, for by this you may know how great the contrariety is between our nature and the righteousness of the law.

From this case, also, a proof regarding the other clause may be more suitably sought than from the mere consideration of human nature. For the law, as it produces only death in a man wholly carnal, is in him more easily impeached, for it is doubtful from where the evil proceeds.

In a regenerate man, it brings forth salutary fruits; and therefore it appears that it is the flesh only that prevents it from giving life—it is so far from producing death of itself.

Then, so that this entire reasoning may be more fully and distinctly understood, we must observe that this conflict, of which the Apostle speaks, does not exist in man before he is renewed by the Spirit of God.

For man, left to his own nature, is wholly carried along by his lusts without any resistance.

For though the ungodly are tormented by the stings of conscience, and cannot take such delight in their vices without also having some taste of bitterness, yet you cannot from this conclude either that evil is hated or that good is loved by them.

The Lord only permits them to be tormented in this way to show them His judgment to some extent, but not to imbue them with either the love of righteousness or the hatred of sin.

There is then this difference between them and the faithful: the ungodly are never so blinded and hardened that, when reminded of their crimes, they will not condemn them in their own conscience.

For knowledge is not so utterly extinguished in them that they no longer retain the difference between right and wrong. Sometimes they are shaken with such dread under a sense of their sin that they bear a kind of condemnation even in this life.

Nevertheless, they approve of sin with all their heart and therefore give themselves up to it without any feeling of genuine repugnance. For those stings of conscience by which they are harassed proceed from opposition in their judgment, rather than from any contrary inclination in their will.

The godly, on the other hand, in whom the regeneration of God has begun, are so divided that with the chief desire of their heart they aspire to God, seek celestial righteousness, and hate sin; yet they are drawn down to the earth by the relics of their flesh.

And so, while pulled in two ways, they fight against their own nature, and nature fights against them. They condemn their sins, not only as being constrained by the judgment of reason, but because they really in their hearts abominate them and, on account of their sins, loathe themselves.

This is the Christian conflict between the flesh and the spirit of which Paul speaks in Galatians 5:17.

It has therefore been justly said that the carnal man runs headlong into sin with the approval and consent of the whole soul, but that a division then immediately begins for the first time when he is called by the Lord and renewed by the Spirit.

For regeneration only begins in this life; the relics of the flesh that remain always follow their own corrupt propensities and so carry on a contest against the Spirit.

The inexperienced, who do not consider the subject that the Apostle handles nor the plan that he pursues, imagine that the character of man by nature is described here. Indeed, there is a similar description of human nature given to us by the Philosophers.

But Scripture philosophizes much deeper, for it finds that nothing has remained in the heart of man but corruption since the time when Adam lost the image of God.

So when the Sophists wish to define free will, or to form an estimate of what the power of nature can do, they fix on this passage.

But Paul, as I have said already, does not here present to us simply the natural man, but in his own person describes the weakness of the faithful and how great it is.

Augustine was for a time involved in the common error. But after having more clearly examined the passage, he not only retracted what he had falsely taught but, in his first book to Boniface, he proves by many strong reasons that what is said can only be applied to the regenerate.

And we will now endeavor to show our readers clearly that this is the case.

I know not. He means that he does not acknowledge as his own the works that he did through the weakness of the flesh, for he hated them. And so Erasmus has not unsuitably given this rendering, “I approve not” (non probo). We therefore conclude that the doctrine of the law is so consistent with right judgment that the faithful repudiate its transgression as something wholly unreasonable.

But as Paul seems to allow that he teaches differently from what the law prescribes, many interpreters have been led astray and have thought that he had assumed the person of another. From this has arisen the common error that the character of an unregenerate man is described throughout this portion of the chapter.

But Paul, under the idea of transgressing the law, includes all the defects of the godly, which are not inconsistent with the fear of God or with the effort to act uprightly. And he denies that he did what the law demanded because he did not perfectly fulfill it, but somewhat failed in his effort.

For not what I desire, etc. You must not understand that it was always the case with him that he could not do good.

Rather, what he complains of is only this—that he could not perform what he wished, so that he did not pursue what was good with the proper alacrity (because he was, in a way, held bound), and that he also failed in what he wished to do because he faltered through the weakness of the flesh.

Therefore, the pious mind does not perform the good it desires to do because it does not proceed with due activity, and it does the evil that it would not.

For while it desires to stand, it falls, or at least it staggers.

But the expressions “to will” and “not to will” must be applied to the Spirit, which should hold the first place in all the faithful.

The flesh indeed also has its own will, but Paul calls that “the will” which is the chief desire of the heart; and that which conflicts with it, he represents as being contrary to his will.

We may from this learn the truth of what we have stated—that Paul speaks here of the faithful, in whom the grace of the Spirit exists, which brings an agreement between the mind and the righteousness of the law; for no hatred of sin is to be found in the flesh.