Who is the 'I' Paul is Talking About in Romans 7 (DEBATE)?

This regular livestream brings together seminary students, professors, and accomplished thinkers to discuss all relevant aspects of the New Testament Book of Romans.

[wordofpromise]

I believe the context of Romans 5-8 shows us that Romans 7 is speaking of anyone (including a believer) who attempts to live in their will, under the law (Romans 7:21). Romans 6:14 shows us that Sin will have dominion over you (as it is doing in Romans 7) when you are under the law versus being under grace. Galatians 4:21-31 warns those believers (gentiles included) of placing yourself under the law and why you shouldn't do so. And Romans 7 is a perfect example of why we are called to live by faith in Jesus, not only for the justification that He has provided without the Law, but also to live by faith in Jesus for the Righteous work of the Spirit of God that will be displayed out of us without the Law. Romans 7 is what many believers would acknowledge that their lives look like and sadly it because we don't understand that God has released those in Christ from attempting to live for Him by the Law, instead we live for Him by faith in His Son, Jesus Christ!!

[Dizerner]

I would see "I" as someone trying to be righteous through the Law.

Try "Romans 7 and Sanctification by Andy Woods" for a good essay on it.

[BradMcFadden]

You guys are too smart for your own good sometimes. In context he is speaking in present tense of himself. End of debate. Bend yourself to it instead of the other way around. Secondly Paul did not “channel” Plato. He understood Plato and used his understanding to make his Holy Spirit inspired points. 3rd, use the standard sacred text.

[williammarinelli]

Saw the title of the video. I think this can be helpful, though unjustifiably superfluous. When Paul uses the first person pronoun, "I", the antecedent of that pronoun is Paul. When that pronoun is followed be a verb conjugated as a first person present tense singular, then most likely the tense is present when stated, or written, by Paul.

N.B. Conjugation is not always a necessary and sufficient indicator of tense. "I'm going to the drugstore" is a present tense statement. But "After dinner I'm going to the drugstore" is the use of a present tense verb conjugation to indicate a near future event. So one must always examine context (which goes without saying."

[Mathew]

Not sure why this is even a debate. The whole thin 12:09 g is a treatise against following the law. A believer does not need to be saved from a "body of death". Romans 8 is then the solution to the problem presented in Romans 7. Sarx there is also a reference to the law.
"Flesh" and "spirit" is not a contrast between sinning and not sinning. It's a contrast between the Old Covenant way of the law and the New Covenant way of the Spirit.

[PastorJ-qbts]

Paul Washer, unless something has changed, agrees that this is pre-regenerate Paul.

[bguptill]

I completely disagree with the panel here. Paul tells us exactly who is speaking:

Romans 7:7 (NASB95) What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”

The phrase “what shall we say” tells us who is speaking from the “I” perspective. He is talking about what “we” would say from our own perspective. “We” would say “I would not have come to know sin except through the law.” The same “we” and “us” who Paul is speaking to throughout Romans are who would speak in this individual perspective.

Romans 7:22 (NASB95) For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,

Romans 8:10 (NASB95) If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

Paul is laying the groundwork for the duality of a righteous inner man struggling against condemned, sinful outer flesh. This is the very picture of circumcision.

Clearly this is not an unbeliever. An unbeliever would not have been made righteous on the inner man.

Romans 8:3 (NASB95) For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

In a sense sin is banished from our spirit to our flesh. The flesh fulfills the law by its death. There are 2 ways to fulfill the law… keep it and live or break it and die.

Romans 8:4 (NASB95) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The law is fulfilled in us by the condemnation & death of our flesh. But our righteous inner-man (made righteous by Christ’s righteousness) survives the death of our flesh.

[amber_m_OT_nerd]

Nick won. Behler redeemed himself from last week's fail, MJ was on. Very good day on Rogues Gallery!

[Butterinthefield]

Nice discussion, but I find it odd that you didn't have anyone on to defend the view of Romans 7 as the Christian experience. I didn't think it was steel-manned particularly well either (I think Dr. Jordan Cooper has a good presentation of that view fwiw).

[vancemiller]

Himself, while he was under the law. Illistrating that that's how the law works for all who are under it and that were saved from that by Jesus Christ and allowed to walk in the Spirit, and overcome the flesh.

[jasonegeland]

Why are they making Paul to look like a biker who'll kick your ass if you stare at him too long?
Paul was a Universalist and likely someone who extended grace to others, even his enemies (after his conversion with Christ following his work on the cross).This over exaggerated masculinity appearance being depicted with biblical figures these days presents the wrong message completely, but I'm sure my far right conservative friends will strongly disagree and will no doubt give me their opinion.