# Romans 7



## Notthemama1984

I grew up seeing Romans 7 as post conversion Paul. It was not until a few years ago that I noticed that others see the passage as pre-conversion.

So my question is, how popular is the pre-conversion view? Is it a small minority, half, or majority view?


----------



## greenbaggins

Arminians all see it as pre-conversion. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of Reformed scholars who see it as pre-conversion. Only recently Dennis Johnson mounted a full-length defense of this view in the Festschrift for Gaffin. Moo, though not Reformed (he is Lutheran) holds it. Most Reformed scholars see it as post-conversion. And then there's Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who sees it as someone coming under conviction (he takes basically a middle of the road response).


----------



## timmopussycat

Assuming you are referring to verses 13-26 (7-12 is preconversion); the pre-conversion interpretation of the later verses is a minority view within Reformed circles, as it has been for the majority of Protestants since Calvin until the rise of Finney. Today, it is the default view of most of evangelicalism. If you haven't seen it you should check out the intruiging third view of Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7.1–8.4) who posits that this passage is post conversion Paul writing about the experience of a man on the cusp of conversion and not that of the regenerate Christian. While MLJ's view is not free from problems of its own, it shows the weaknesses of many of the arguments for and against both of the other views in a very striking way.


----------



## nwink

From my limited experience, I've seen the following people with the pre-conversion view: some Reformed Baptists (those who are New Covenant Theology proponents), Robert Reymond (he has an appendix on it in his systematic theology), and professor Denny Prutow from RPTS. I think New Covenant Theology proponents latch onto the pre-conversion interpretation as they can sometimes be borderline-perfectionistic in their understanding of sanctification.


----------



## Rich Koster

Chaplainintraining said:


> I grew up seeing Romans 7 as post conversion Paul. It was not until a few years ago that I noticed that others see the passage as pre-conversion.
> 
> So my question is, how popular is the pre-conversion view? Is it a small minority, half, or majority view?



I am one RB who holds to the post conversion view.


----------



## torstar

nwink said:


> From my limited experience, I've seen the following people with the pre-conversion view: some Reformed Baptists (New Covenant Theology proponents), Robert Reymond (he has an appendix on it in his systematic theology), and professor Denny Prutow from RPTS. I think New Covenant Theology proponents latch onto the pre-conversion interpretation as they can sometimes be borderline-perfectionistic in their understanding of sanctification.


 


I won't forget where I was when Reymond and Moo's explanations were cast before my eyes.

Not as bad as Stott's Romans 5 comments though...


----------



## discipulo

greenbaggins said:


> Arminians all see it as pre-conversion. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of Reformed scholars who see it as pre-conversion. Only recently Dennis Johnson mounted a full-length defense of this view in the Festschrift for Gaffin.


 
It´s a very difficult but nourishing article. I still prefer Agustine's and Calvin's view.

Hoekema and Ridderbos also rank amongst the reformed theologians who read the I of Romans 7 as being Saul struggling with the Law.


----------



## T.A.G.

The view that it was post converted didnt come around until Augustine which does not mean that it isnt or is true but rather less, interesting...


----------



## moral necessity

I think it could be the majority view, and that it stems from a small view of sin. As God reveals to us a greater view of what sin is, and the degree to which it permeates our soul, we begin to understand more accurately what Paul is saying here.

Blessings!


----------



## discipulo

greenbaggins said:


> Arminians all see it as pre-conversion. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of Reformed scholars who see it as pre-conversion. Only recently Dennis Johnson mounted a full-length defense of this view in the Festschrift for Gaffin. Moo, though not Reformed (he is Lutheran) holds it. Most Reformed scholars see it as post-conversion. And then there's Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who sees it as someone coming under conviction (he takes basically a middle of the road response).



Johnson didn't convince me but he does a very good job in defending his argument.

It also made me understand a different point, the tension between the semi-eschatological pre-glorified regenerate man and the non regenerate

natural man. A different way to confront the perfectionistic sort of keswick spiritual vs carnal christian interpretation.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I was put to study this passage in seminary, and did find the "standard" Ref. interpretation continued strong up to the present day. Up to the time, I was under the impression that other views were "Arminian." End of story. How surprising, then, to find variations within Ref. orthodoxy!

The contrary views forced me into a bit of reconsideration. And I decided that I did (do) not think the "standard" Ref. view has quite dealt adequately with all the objections.

In my opinion, few handlers (past or present) have done as well as the venerable Charles Hodge. Who digests Hodge has an excellent grasp on the passage--but I still see room for refinement.

My position is 1) that Paul is unquestionably describing a Christian; in this I agree with the standard Ref. position. The contrary view (or M.L-J's view) minimizes the structural argument of Romans; in fact it overthrows it, and they may be set aside on that basis alone. This is a passage on the problem of indwelling sin in the believer.

2) There is, nevertheless, no _essential_ reason that Paul must be giving "autobiography," in any strict sense. Paul is not saying, "Here's a blow-by-blow of my daily or weekly experiences in gospel-living." Rather, he is relating a common, Christian problem; and yes, it is one he himself has (and probably sometimes still does) experience in just this manner.

3) I think the basic question that sums up the focus of Rom.7 is: "How does the Law now relate to the believer?"

Ask yourself this question (thank you Dr. Dyer), "What is the _bridge_ between ch.6 (the contrast between sanctification and licence), and ch.8 (life in the Spirit)? If I'm a Christian, then how come I have these behavioral issues? Now that I'm I Christian, I thought I could finally(!) obey the law, finally be able to please God in everything. Isn't sanctification now MY responsibility?

4) The reason why Paul isn't being entirely autobiographical is because *he knows (already) that the Law doesn't, even cannot, sanctify.* In his own life of faith, he's not quite at that "early Christian" phase where these are just the issues and questions that the new believer is sure to ask. But even the older believer, *and he himself*, need the reality rehearsed once in a while, because we become forgetful of the gospel. Hence, the first-person personal pronoun is _entirely_ appropriate--not just because Paul has been there (past), but because he finds himself in that place even now on occasion. And the gospel has to come fresh to him also.


----------



## torstar

I guess I can envy those who think they don't struggle with sin in their walk after regeneration.

But I struggle; by the minute, hour, and day.

And I guess there are books to sell and heavy pressure to think one has come up with a fresh new approach.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I was put to study this passage in seminary, and did find the "standard" Ref. interpretation continued strong up to the present day. Up to the time, I was under the impression that other views were "Arminian." End of story. How surprising, then, to find variations within Ref. orthodoxy!
> 
> The contrary views forced me into a bit of reconsideration. And I decided that I did (do) not think the "standard" Ref. view has quite dealt adequately with all the objections.
> 
> In my opinion, few handlers (past or present) have done as well as the venerable Charles Hodge. Who digests Hodge has an excellent grasp on the passage--but I still see room for refinement.
> 
> My position is 1) that Paul is unquestionably describing a Christian; in this I agree with the standard Ref. position. The contrary view (or M.L-J's view) minimizes the structural argument of Romans; in fact it overthrows it, and they may be set aside on that basis alone. This is a passage on the problem of indwelling sin in the believer.
> 
> 2) There is, nevertheless, no _essential_ reason that Paul must be giving "autobiography," in any strict sense. Paul is not saying, "Here's a blow-by-blow of my daily or weekly experiences in gospel-living." Rather, he is relating a common, Christian problem; and yes, it is one he himself has (and probably sometimes still does) experience in just this manner.
> 
> 3) I think the basic question that sums up the focus of Rom.7 is: "How does the Law now relate to the believer?"
> 
> Ask yourself this question (thank you Dr. Dyer), "What is the _bridge_ between ch.6 (the contrast between sanctification and licence), and ch.8 (life in the Spirit)? If I'm a Christian, then how come I have these behavioral issues? Now that I'm I Christian, I thought I could finally(!) obey the law, finally be able to please God in everything. Isn't sanctification now MY responsibility?
> 
> 4) The reason why Paul isn't being entirely autobiographical is because *he knows (already) that the Law doesn't, even cannot, sanctify.* In his own life of faith, he's not quite at that "early Christian" phase where these are just the issues and questions that the new believer is sure to ask. But even the older believer, *and he himself*, need the reality rehearsed once in a while, because we become forgetful of the gospel. Hence, the first-person personal pronoun is _entirely_ appropriate--not just because Paul has been there (past), but because he finds himself in that place even now on occasion. And the gospel has to come fresh to him also.


 
Bruce,

An absolutely superb summary. Your view is scarily almost exactly how I read the passage. It seems to me that one is either atomizing the pericope to miss the flow of the argument or that one's hermeneutical principle would militate against following Paul's internal logic. In fact, I think it's pretty easy to see Romans 5-8 as a "unit" answering the question of assurance with the crescendo at the end of Chapter 8.

This is one of the reasons I never get impressed by the "teach a book of the Bible in 5 years" approach. These were letters written to the Churches. While breaking things down to ensure that exegesis exposes some key concepts and doctrines is useful I believe atomization of verses very often destroys the flow of arguments that the author is making. I simply cannot see how one can read Romans 7 and come to the conclusion that Paul unnaturally breaks from his argument simply to wax eloquent about what life was like when he was pre-converted. I've never thought this was strictly biographical either but was meant to speak to the experience of every Christian. In fact, Owen's work on Sin and Temptation rings so true to Christian experience that I scarcely think a man could battle sin without coming to grips with Romans 6 and 7.


----------



## semperreformata

Certainly I see it as post-conversion as noted by Bruce we see in this section dealing with indwelling sin and other points brought up by him as well. I must say before attending a Reformed church and being acquainted with Reformed Theology(Biblical Theology) the book of Romans was a bit of a struggle especially this chapter(7) and 9 in particular. I'm not saying we have all the answers,but the vast difference in approaching the text in Reformed circles and other Evangelicals in America on whole is quite different. On a side note just went through Romans again recently and as always a delight to be reminded of God's grace. =)


----------



## Douglas P.

Would anyone have a link to a classic Arminian understanding of Romans 7?


----------



## ac7k

I always took it as Post Conversion and as a lesson point that even after our conversion we would (and do) struggle with sin. I never took it any other way.


----------



## Esther W.

Arminian view of Romans 7: 13-25

How Arminians view "moderate" Calvinist's regarding Romans 7


----------



## Rufus

Esther W. said:


> Armenian view of Romans 7: 13-25
> 
> How Armenians view "moderate" Calvinist's regarding Romans 7


 








Armenians!

Don't worry its a common error .


----------



## Esther W.

Rufus said:


> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armenian view of Romans 7: 13-25
> 
> How Armenians view "moderate" Calvinist's regarding Romans 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armenians!
> 
> Don't worry its a common error .
Click to expand...


"embarrassed" TY


----------

