Q5. The Identity of the 'I' in Romans 7

[Debbe]

Romans 7:14-25) Christians disagree about who is the "I" in Romans 7. Is Paul referring to himself or others? What is your opinion? (We won't all agree here, but we'll learn what the issues are by taking and arguing for a position -- lovingly)

I believe that the "I" is Paul, but it translates to even us today. Paul, I believe is including regenerate mankind. This is a universal problem for all believers.

[lighthouse2014]

Q5. (Romans 7:14-25) Christians disagree about who is the "I" in Romans 7. Is Paul referring to himself or others? What is your opinion? (We won't all agree here, but we'll learn what the issues are by taking and arguing for a position -- lovingly).

I believe Paul is speaking of himself and the other Christians who may be having a hard and difficult time living the spiritual life.

Paul has had many experiences after his encounter with the Lord on the road to Damascus. Now being filled with holy Spirit he has learned that the flesh continually wants it's way. Day by day we are being sanctified son that in the end we can serve the lord according to His will. No doubt Paul himself has experienced the same things some of the other Christians are having trouble trying to live by the spirit. Paul has learned to rely on the spirit for all things, but still realizes he has the flesh to contend with. It is helpful if Paul demonstrates to the others his battling with the flesh also. In doing so he edifies and gives them hope to to continue on seeking the will the will of Christ, daily learning the power of the spirit that the Lord has given us. By faith and prayer they will learn to fully live for the Lord and not give up on their hope, but to have victory.

[WinstonY]

Q5. (Romans 7:14-25) Christians disagree about who is the "I" in Romans 7. Is Paul referring to himself or others? What is your opinion?

 

This is a rather an intriguing question! As the notes indicate the Ancients believed that Paul was impersonating an unregenerate person, because Paul, as a mature and regenerate believer, could not describe himself as "sold as a slave to sin. On the other hand many  scholars from the time of St. Augustine decided that Paul is writing as a truly regenerate and even mature believer. These two offer an interesting contrast but neither seem to be adequate. Paul's writing seems to be personal for him to be impersonating someone else's experience. I like note 140 in the notes where " Stott also notes a third approach by Martin Lloyd-Jones: People who in times of revival are convicted by the Holy Spirit, but have not yet grasped the gospel. They are neither regenerate nor unregenerate (Stott, Romans, pp. 205-207) This seems to be a good an adequate explanation but it would imply that the letter was written early in Paul's career before he worked through all of the intricacies of the theology required. One can almost see and feel the anguish in the of the writer as he struggles with the problem. Paul is baring his very soul and seems to have little or no understanding of the Holy Spirit and the conditioning process of the Spirit's work in sanctification. This is quite noticeable  and remarkable. It is almost as if Paul had not yet met the Holy Spirit. This then is similar to the story in Acts 19 where a believer is asked by Paul where with he was baptized and if he had had the Holy Spirit. The negative answer may be our key. Was Paul able to diagnose the absence of the spirit because he also was without the Spirit for some time. Or are the roles reversed by a early copier and Paul is the one diagnosed - the copier feeling the it was not right that Paul would not have had the Spirit. 

The later notion that has been presented here does seem to be a possible solution for the problem.

[DOIT]

 Although Paul is talking about himself,  what he is saying applies to us all. He is showing that even though he has been "born again" as a result of his conversion on the "Damascus Road" He is still  greatly influenced by the flesh because Adam's original sin that is ingrained on his heart (nothing he can do can change this)!

He therefore has to constantly remind himself of the spiritual laws that God has provided in order to help combat his evil thoughts and deeds (this applies to everyone)!

[Uncle Dave]

 

Q5. (Romans 7:14-25) Christians disagree about who is the "I" in Romans 7. Is Paul referring to himself or others? What is your opinion? (We won't all agree here, but we'll learn what the issues are by taking and arguing for a position -- lovingly).

 

I agree that we won’t all agree here and I’m thinking that some of the opts have left some information by the wayside. I would say that Paul was talking about himself simply because of the use of the word “I”. If he were talking about we, I would be bound to argue think he would have worded things differently. It is possible that in time I could have a different outlook on this, but some things just speak for themselves. As an example, if I were an officer on patrol with a couple of enlisted people (seeing as this is an example, I’ll keep their names simple: O for the officer, Enl1 for the first enlisted man and Enl2 for the other enlisted man) and I gave an order to Enl1 to take point and Enl2 to carry my pack, it wouldn’t mean hey you guys, how about if you give me your packs and I’ll take point. No, there would be a distinct separation between I (O, and Enl1 and Enl2). I can’t imagine Paul wanting his readers being any more confused than they would already be at this point. In verse 23 where he talks about “another” law, I believe he would be talking about the law of the sinful nature that is always there to try and get you to slip up in any way possible to frustrate you. Seeing as God had the plans He had for Paul, it could be that Satan knew he would have to do everything he could to maintain an especially intense pressure on him.

I don’t think Paul was talking about the law of Moses because Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law but to live up to it (perfectly), that nothing what-so-ever would be taken away from it until all was fulfilled (Matthew 5:17). If Jesus was talking about the fulfillment of His work, it would constitute lawlessness. I seriously think Jesus was referring to the time talked about at the end of the book of Revelation.

When Paul called himself a “wretch”, it appears he was talking about the imperfect creature he was.

I guess I’m not really taking sides with the Greek Father, St. Augustine, or Stott. Paul would be lying if he were to impersonate an unregenerate person, and although he was a slave to the law of sin (who isn’t?), he was not a slave to sin itself. Concerning St. Augustine’s comment:‘Only believers think and speak of themselves in self-disgust and self-despair’, I went through years of feeling like that before I became a believer as well as knowing non-believers who took their lives because of feeling that way. Concerning Stott, if Paul didn’t have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit how was he able to talk about having multiple gifts of the same spirit as he talked about in so many verses throughout his letters in the New Testament? It is very evident that Paul was a spirit-filled man.

 

 

 

 

 

[LarryMac]

I’ve always thought that the person referred to is Paul. And as such I relate to him in that I still struggle with sin, some old, some new awareness of a sin that the spirit has revealed. That said, I continue to grow and sin is revealed that I wasn’t aware of previously. This is humbling.  It can also, however, be an excuse for accepting sin that God desires to deal with once and for all.

i heard a Pastor once describe the carnal Christian, one who is saved but still sinning, as the most miserable of all persons. That is confirmed in these verses.

[Lottie]

The "I' in Romans 7 refers to all believers who still struggle with walking with the Lord. With all believers who still give in to their evil desires. Then and now all of us have problems with our selfish natures that wage war against our spiritual one. Paul was trying to say that even he as an apostle; still struggled with it himself.

[Godswriter]

Q5. (Romans 7:14-25) Christians disagree about who is the "I" in Romans 7. Is Paul referring to himself or others? What is your opinion? (We won't all agree here, but we'll learn what the issues are by taking and arguing for a position -- lovingly).

I have to believe that is talking about himself in Romans and this issues he is discussing are about sins and how they affect us directly. But not only that how  it causes issues when it comes to our walk with the  Lord.

 

[AmyF]

Q5. (Romans 7:14-25) Christians disagree about who is the "I" in Romans 7. Is Paul referring to himself or others? What is your opinion? (We won't all agree here, but we'll learn what the issues are by taking and arguing for a position -- lovingly).

I can certainly see why there is disagreement on who the “I” is in Rom. 7. After all Paul has stated about the defeat of sin’s dominion in the believer, it can feel disappointing to hear this testimony of struggle in these verses. Rom. 7:14 in particular doesn’t appear to be the testimony of a rescued person. However, having asked to take a position, I’m inclined to think Paul is not stating a fact of bondage but expressing the grief of the remaining traces of sin. I believe Paul is describing the conflict (one he has known himself) that is experienced because of the remnant of indwelling sin in the regenerated heart - this nature that’s been defeated but not fully eradicated. He certainly wanted to make clear we can have no confidence or victory in our own efforts to be inwardly holy. Perhaps he’s describing the Christian who thinks obeying the law will transform his heart, or the believer who is battling a besetting sin. I have areas in my life that have greater resistance to laying down my will. This section tells me also how challenging it is to “reckon myself dead to sin” and truly live in to that reality. There is a real dynamic of being born again in the Spirit (a point in time) and learning how to walk in the Spirit (over time).  Putting to death the deeds of the flesh, being renewed in the spirit of our mind, buffeting our body, and applying all diligence to our faith all speak of an ongoing process of becoming more Christlike. The struggle with remaining sin exists, but it’s not a stale mate. As believers we can and should expect to take new ground through yielding to the Spirit’s power. 

[Irmela]

Personally I think the 'I' is all of us that are born-again. We do want to do what is right, but so often we fail. Not necessarily so completely, but be it  in thoughts or actions it is all the same thing in the eyes of our Sviour. A sin remains a sin. 

Only when walking or living in the Power of the Spirit, can we have victory over this. 

[Krissi]

Paul is discussing the regenerating Christian. This is sanctification. The idea that Paul doesn't understand the Holy Spirit is untrue. I won't go into it here, but Paul obviously has a thorough understanding of the spiritual aspects of the regenerating life. 

What the law does, particularly for a former-Pharisee like Paul, is amplify or spotlight the sins committed. Paul sees clearly his carnal nature -- he doesn't ignore or diminish it's power. Those who think the Holy Spirit has so regenerated them that they do not sin, or rarely so, probably need to read more of the law. Clearly, not making idols or putting God above all (the first two commandments) take a lifetime to understand, let alone master.

So Paul is describing the tension ALL Christians should feel between their actual moral selves -- how they really think and behave -- and what they know they could be in Him. 

The "I" refers to both himself as well as all regenerating Christians, that is, Christians after grace, or Christians who have the Holy Spirit residing within them. 

---

I read devotionals in the morning including Oswald Chambers. Here is today's reading which touches directly on this topic:

Deliverance from sin is not the same as deliverance from human nature. There are things in human nature, such as prejudices, that the saint can only destroy through sheer neglect. But there are other things that have to be destroyed through violence, that is, through God’s divine strength imparted by His Spirit. ... It is only when God has transformed our nature and we have entered into the experience of sanctification that the fight begins. The warfare is not against sin; we can never fight against sin— Jesus Christ conquered that in His redemption of us. The conflict is waged over turning our natural life into a spiritual life. This is never done easily, nor does God intend that it be so. It is accomplished only through a series of moral choices. God does not make us holy in the sense that He makes our character holy. He makes us holy in the sense that He has made us innocent before Him. And then we have to turn that innocence into holy character through the moral choices we make. These choices are continually opposed and hostile to the things of our natural life which have become so deeply entrenched— the very things that raise themselves up as fortified barriers “against the knowledge of God.” We can either turn back, making ourselves of no value to the kingdom of God, or we can determinedly demolish these things, allowing Jesus to bring another son to glory (see Hebrews 2:10).