Romans 7: Believer or Unbeliever?

I do think that Shreiner’s view is better than the postconversion view.

Although it’s been 20 or 25 years ago now, I still remember reading D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ strange interpretation of the “wretched man” in Romans seven. The best I can recall, he said this was not a normal situation, and the wretched man was a man under conviction, but not yet saved. He also said this situation only occurred during periods of revival. What was even stranger was his statement that his man was neither regenerate nor unregenerate. (What’s that again?) So far, I’ve never found anyone who agreed with the learned doctor.

What his interpretation taught me is the challenge to interpreting Romans seven. It’s not easy to fit every statement neatly into a “saved” or “lost” man category. It taught me not to be too dogmatic with my own interpretation, and to be suspicious of anyone who is overly confident that their interpretation is correct and nobody who disagrees with them could possibly possess a modicum of Biblical understanding. If this passage doesn’t produce humility among interpreters, surely there is little hope for humility anywhere.

However, I am happy to throw my hat in the ring of those who believe Paul is describing himself and others who are truly saved and wrestling with remaining corruption.

[Larry]

But a text does not have to be “about” a topic to reveal information on that topic, nor is it abusing a text to grasp all of what it reveals.

This is certainly true, but I think making a text answer a question it doesn’t intend to address is tenuous, particularly when the evidence doesn’t point us clearly one direction or the other. That’s what I mean by “abusing” the text. It is trying to force it to a side that it doesn’t reveal. Schreiner argues that the balance between pre and post is “so finely balanced because Paul does not intend to distinguish believers from unbelievers in this text.”

Does Schreiner argue that Paul is intentionally obscuring his (or whoever “I” and “me” is in the passage) conversion status in order to focus on the nature of law in relation to man in general? Seems plausible, though I haven’t studied that through. I still don’t see any show stoppers for the postconversion view.

Counter that with Paul’s statement in Rom 7:14 - “…I AM of flesh…” and 8:9 - “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.”

Until we figure out what question Paul is answering, we can’t really decide what the answer to that question is, and we can’t really create our own questions. If one thinks he is answering the question of pre vs. post, then there are some severe difficulties for both (as evidenced by the number of solid theologians who identify the obvious strengths and weaknesses of both positions). However, if one sees Paul as answering another question, then things become much clearer. Trying to force Rom 7 into one side or the other is going to leave some big holes.

Take your citation of Rom 7:14 and “I am of flesh.” The contrast in the verse is that “the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh.” By seeing it in context, we can see that Paul isn’t contrasting saved vs. unsaved, unless one wishes to say that the Law can be saved. It is more likely that Paul is saying that the problems with obedience in mankind isn’t due to the law; it is due to the flesh. The law is good and holy; we are fleshly, sinful.

Consider another point, made by Mounce: In Paul’s pre-conversion life, he was blameless, considered himself above all others (Phil 3). “It seems quite improbable that he was at that time deeply involved in a personal struggle against sin” (Mounce 167).

So I continue to say it is better not to force a question on a text such as this, particularly since the text does not point us one direction or the other.

One quick follow up Larry. In my belief that Romans 7 is descriptive of preconversion, I believe it is Paul as a Christian looking back on what was actually true of his preconverted experience. The Phil 3 passage is how he would describe himself as one having confidence in the flesh, ie, the pharisee Paul.

Romans 7 is Paul’s description of his life as a Pharisee. Saul was zealous for the law. He delighted in it. He was advancing faster than his contemporaries. But as a Pharisee he could not do what he commanded us to do in Romans 6. What he desired to do, he could not do. What he did not want to do, he did. The devout Pharisee was incapable of a life of true righteousness. “What a wretched man I am,” he stated. “Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24).

As has been pointed out in the comments above, “death” belongs to the arena of “the flesh.” Paul was describing his life as the Pharisee Saul, a man of the flesh, a man under the law.

Only one person could rescue Saul - Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 8:3 explains that God through the sin offering that is Christ condemned sin in the flesh. The sacrifice of Christ condemned sin in us so that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us (Romans 8:4). Sin is condemned in us. It no longer has the right to control us, to enslave us, to bind us. It is condemned.

There are only two arenas in which we may live - two spheres of existence. We are either “of flesh” or we are “of Spirit.” When Saul the Pharisee encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, he was transported from “of flesh” to “of Spirit.” Paul states, “You, however, are not of flesh but of Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you” (Romans 8:9, personal translation).

Romans 6 and Romans 8 make no sense whatsoever if Romans 7:7-25 describes the converted Paul. But as the description of the Pharisee Saul, it makes perfect sense. Romans 7:5-6 summarizes the change that takes place between Romans 7:7-25 and Romans 8. As believers in Christ, we are “of Spirit.” We are dead to the “flesh” and it no longer binds us. Our bodies are dead because of sin, and yet in the Spirit even our bodies are now made alive through his Spirit who lives in us (Romans 8:10-11).

As believers, we don’t live in the flesh and we are not “of flesh.” We are “of Spirit” and even our bodies are made alive. Therefore, the command by Paul in Romans 6:11-14 is not only attainable, it is our new reality. We now offer the parts of our bodies to God as instruments of righteousness. It is what we do!

Didn’t Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones hold to Romans 7 as referring to an unconverted person? I don’t have his set on Romans to verify what was once said to me.

What about reasons 2-10 in the OP, especially 10?

[ Don Sailer] As believers, we don’t live in the flesh and we are not “of flesh.” We are “of Spirit” and even our bodies are made alive. Therefore, the command by Paul in Romans 6:11-14 is not only attainable, it is our new reality. We now offer the parts of our bodies to God as instruments of righteousness. It is what we do!

Believers still sin

8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (ESV, 1 John 1:8)

Believers still struggle with sin and fail

4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (ESV, Hebrews 12:4)

2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. (ESV, James 3:2)

Believers are still very much connected with the flesh and struggle with the flesh.

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, (ESV, Galatians 5:16–19)

This last passage really brings it together, harmonizes the seeming contradictions. Paul says we are “led by the Spirit” yet commands that we walk (implying that we are able to choose not to) and describes a life of conflict (“these are opposed to eachother to keep you from doing the things you want to do”). We are led by the Spirit but we do not always choose to follow. Sounds a whole like Romans 7 to me.

Romans 6 tells who we are and what we have then shows us what we are called to grow toward, much like Matt. 5:48.

Aaron, can you explain why Paul labored to explain why we are no longer under law in Rom 6 and then cursed his inability to obey the law in Rom 7? Did he or did he not believe he was free from the law? Did Paul not know what Paul wrote?

The conflict in Rom 7 is between the flesh and the law. The Christian is not under law, has been set free, etc. The struggle in Gal 5 is between the flesh and the Spirit. Rom 7 doesn’t mention the Spirit.

I don’t think Paul is talking about Moses most of the time when he says law. There is rarely any definite article either. It would usually be better to render it simply “law” not “the law.” In any case, God still requires obedience of His children and Romans 8 describes how we are eventually brought to in fact comply with God’s law (not specifically it’s Mosaic application).

Here’s the reasoning in a sequence: sin is lawlessness, believers still sin, they shouldn’t sin, ergo, lawlessness is a bad thing in believers and obedience to law is good.