Romans 7: Believer or Unbeliever?

If Paul is referring to a converted man, then the victory spoken of in Rom 6 is impossible, and Paul is crazy.

Poor Romans 7 never stood a chance on Augustine’s torture rack.

Acts 8

18 When Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power too, so that anyone I lay hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter told him, “May your silver be destroyed with you, because you thought the gift of God could be obtained with money! 21 You have no part or share in this matter, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.”

Despite claiming to believe and get baptized, Simon was not converted. The believer is not bound by iniquity or still of the flesh, sold under sin (John 8, Rom 6, Gal 5).

Rom 7 is like parts of Hebrews (and certainly other passages as well), there is no interpretation that is without difficulties.

But the OP lists ten reasons why the passages is best understood as descriptive of the Christian experience. It would be interesting to see these countered by those of you who favor a pre-conversion interp of the chapter.

As for Rom 6, where does it describe a “victory”? It’s a call to obedience based on our union with Christ.

Aaron, the contrast in Rom 6 is clear: live according to sin or live according to righteousness. The man described in Rom 7 not only lives according to sin, but he cannot do otherwise. No Christian can say this unless Paul was wrong in Rom 6. I will leave it to you if you think the contrast to slavery is freedom or failure is victory.

[James K]

Aaron, the contrast in Rom 6 is clear: live according to sin or live according to righteousness. The man described in Rom 7 not only lives according to sin, but he cannot do otherwise. No Christian can say this unless Paul was wrong in Rom 6. I will leave it to you if you think the contrast to slavery is freedom or failure is victory.

The man in Rom 7 was not freed from the slavery of sin. He admitted it up front. He was still enslaved to it. This is the problem for those who think Rom 7 is for the believer: language is turned upside down in this chapter and a contradiction, not a tension, exists.

Are you not still entrapped by sin even when you don’t want to be? If you are the sinless living believer, then write a book. Because the rest of us would love to know how you did it.

Still ten reasons in the OP I’d like to hear refuted if they can be.

There is plenty in Rom. 7 that doesn’t fit a non believer. For example in the portion quoted in the OP, Paul says he consents to the law that it’s good. How does he do that? By wanting to do right. He says he wants to do right but doesn’t actually do it (of course, he doesn’t say or mean he never does right!). Does an unbeliever desire to obey the law of God, yet fail?

It is hard to reconcile “joyfully concurring with the law of God in the inner man” with an unbeliever. That runs contrary to everything the Bible teaches about the unbeliever. It is equally difficult to reconcile “sold under sin” with a believer. These kinds of statements should point us in another direction, namely, the direction that seeks to ascertain what the passage is actually talking about and what it is saying about it.

The correct position on this, if I may say so myself, is the one espoused by Schreiner and others, that the question of believer or unbeliever is not being addressed here. Paul is discussing the law, and the passage must be read in that context. The point is that the law is unable to transform. It is not because the law is bad; it is good. It is because of the flesh.

It is abusing this passage to try to make it answer the question of “believer” or “unbeliever.” It is not the question the passages is addressing.

Paul description is simply that of the experience of humanity. Both believers and unbelievers quite often find themselves in the quandary described of wanting to do one thing while actually doing another. What’s the answer? It’s not the law who can deliver us from that; It is Christ.

I agree that the passage is about the law. The chapter begins with it and pretty much ends with it. And ch.8 shows he is not quite done with it. However, there’s no escaping the fact that Paul makes statements about his own relationship to law, and I’m not sure it’s possible to get all that he’s saying about law without also answering the question “what sort of person has this relationship with law?” Is it possible to get most of the intended law message without answering that? Probably. But is it necessary to do that and is there insight to gain from understanding what sort of life the law is fitting into in ch.7b? I would say no to the first and yes to the second.

I do think it can be unfruitful to get bogged down the pre/post conversion question, though. My advice to students is if you can’t reach a confident conclusion on that, just move on. Chapter 8 pretty much clears up the loose ends on how law relates to the believer.

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. What I mean is that whatever is in focus in a text, it’s never all that’s there. What’s in focus is being related to other things… and truth about those other things is still there and still true, regardless of the thematic focus. For example, with this chapter, would we argue that because it’s about the law, the “I” does not refer to Paul and reveals nothing about Paul? (I think there is a view out there that takes the personal pronouns as somehow not being him… but they don’t make the case on the grounds that Paul is not “what the chapter is about.” There is some other argument involved.) When you have a subject and predicate, something of both is revealed.

My main objection to the “pre-conversion” view (other than not fitting the text as well as the alternative) is that it usually seems to arise from a view of sanctification in which there is no struggle and no frustration. And this idea has led so many believers into, ironically, a whole lot of frustration.

As for ‘sold under sin,’ I don’t think it’s as big a problem as it may seem. Although those “in Christ,” are no longer slaves to sin by identity/standing (Rom. 6), we are people who were once sold under sin and the results of that former relationship to sin continue. So Paul’s point may simply be that as one who was previously sold under sin he continues to be one who lives with many of the results of that.

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.”

[Larry]

1. It is hard to reconcile “joyfully concurring with the law of God in the inner man” with an unbeliever. That runs contrary to everything the Bible teaches about the unbeliever.

2. It is abusing this passage to try to make it answer the question of “believer” or “unbeliever.” It is not the question the passages is addressing.

3. Paul description is simply that of the experience of humanity. Both believers and unbelievers quite often find themselves in the quandary described of wanting to do one thing while actually doing another. What’s the answer? It’s not the law who can deliver us from that; It is Christ.

1. It goes against what is assumed about the unbeliever. Does the Bible really state that the unbeliever cannot see himself as joyfully agreeing with the law according to the inner man? Of course not. Paul’s own testimony of how he viewed himself while a pharisee in Phil 3 negates your point. He thought he was blameless with righteous zeal.

2. Your assumption that it is abusing the text is also false, since Paul just described the believer as free in chapter 6 (cf Jn 8) and stated that to be carnally minded is death in chapter 8, he would be schizophrenic to say he was really enslaved as a believer.

3. If Paul can’t do it, no one can and efforts to fight sin are a waste of time. Rom 7 is not about a defeated person who sometimes wins but of an enslaved person who cannot do otherwise.

10 Reasons for thinking Rom 7 describes a believer:

1. Some count this as a benefit. I reject this as having any substance as the matter is really what God said. Augustine and the reformers also had some pretty bizarre views.

2. Not so fast. It was not uncommon in Greek literature to use the dynamic present style. This even occurs in everyday English. Is this a plausible explanation? Sure. Is it what Paul did? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps this is how Paul wanted to begin the discussion of what life was truly like for him if he didn’t have the Spirit. The tense issue should not be forced to carry such a burden as is placed on it since reasonable alternatives exist.

3. This is actually reason to reject the converted position. In Phil 3, Paul was describing himself as he saw himself while a pharisee. In Rom 7, Paul was describing himself as a pharisee after he had been converted and understood it all. Phil 3 is a testimony of deception and human bragging. Rom 7 is the regret of a saved person having been deceived so horribly.

4. Dr Jon Pratt of Central Baptist wrote his doctoral dissertation on the issue of sanctification and assumed that Rom 7 was addressing the preconverted Paul. Non-issue.

5. Not so fast, the battle in Rom 7 is between the flesh and the law. The battle in Gal 5 is between the flesh and the Spirit. Why would Paul talk about freedom from the law in Rom 6 and then demand adherence to it in Rom 7? More schizophrenia I suppose.

6. You assume the point you are trying to make. I can do that too. The penetrating level is possible for an unbeliever.

7. So the NT uses a specific phrase twice about a believer. The only other usage is not crystal clear. Is that really proof?

8. Gonna have to call a false start on this one. Just a couple chapters over, we find out that the unbeliever actually can do what it is supposed he can’t. Rom 10:2 - I can testify about them that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

9. The last verse gives the triumphant answer to all these problems. The law won’t help.

10. The claim to be a sinner and the claim to be a slave of sin unable to ever do anything but sin is not the same thing. Does anything think Paul was running swords out of the back of a chariot to gangs, maybe running an opium operation, bowing down to idols, or consorting with women? Recognizing one’s depravity and need for Christ is what Paul did.

Does the Bible really state that the unbeliever cannot see himself as joyfully agreeing with the law according to the inner man?

Romans 8:5-8 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Ephesians 4:17-19 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

Romans 3:10-12 as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”

All of these passages are examples of passages that describe the unbeliever in ways that at the very least seem incompatible with joyfully concurring with the law of God in the inner man, unless “joyfully concur” has a meaning that is not immediately obvious. If we take “inner man” as an anthropological statement rather than a soteriological one, we can conclude that an unbeliever can delight in the law of God in the inner man (cf. Moo). But this would be the only occurrence of “inner man” in such a use, as contrasted to the other two usages that are clearly soteriological.

However, to picture the believer as “sold under sin” is compatible with Romans 6 when we understand the commands of Romans 6 to Christians to not be a slave to sin are commands addressing an actual possibility. In other words, Paul commands Christians to not present themselves as slaves to sin (worded in various ways in Rom 6) because it is actually possible for them to do so. Were it impossible to be “sold under sin,” the commands of Rom 6 would have no meaning at all. He might as well command them to not rise up and fly.

But again, the text appears to have no intent of answering this question. It is addressing another topic, namely, the role of law in the life of humanity, and it does so by painting a picture every Christian can identify with. In fact, one of the marks of Christian growth and maturity is the struggle recorded here of wanting to do one thing (because of the law of God in the mind), but continually doing something else (because of the law of sin in the flesh). The answer to such struggle is not law; we are not transformed by the law (whether Mosaic or more general). We are transformed because God did what the law could never do by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be an offering for sin (Rom 8:3). Thus, it is best to let the text speak for itself rather than thrust a question upon it.

Trying to make a text answer a question it has no intention of answering is to misuse a text. Oftentimes, a text will reveal information on a tangential topic, but those cases must be handled with extreme care. After all, when we stand up and say, “This is what God says,” we better be sure it is what he says. IMO, there is not sufficient warrant in this text to declare God’s view on the distinction of pre/post conversion, and there is ample reason to believe this text cannot be used to declare either way.

Larry, let’s try this from another angle:

1 Cor 6

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I will suppose you agree that those who would identify with those sins is what that is talking about, not someone who has committed those sins before. In other words, the idolater IS an idolater. That IS who he IS. It is so bound to his person.

Such a person will not inherit God’s kingdom.

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.”