Since the time of Augustine (354-430), Romans 7 has been a battleground in the conflict between the champions of free grace and the devotees of free will. The Greek Fathers gener­ally interpreted the passage as depicting the experience of an unrenewed sinner under the law. Augustine was once of this opinion, but further study of Scripture and deeper experience led him to view verses 14-25 as describing the inner conflict between the flesh and the spirit in the regenerate man. At the time of the Reformation, the great heralds of the gospel of grace, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Philipp Melanchthon, and Theodore Beza followed Augustine’s mature view, while Desiderius Erasmus and Faustus Socinus revived the view of the Greek fathers and Pelagius. Arminianism began to be published when Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) lectured on this subject, and his followers such as Hugo Grotius, Simon Episcopius, and Philipp van Limborch adopted the same Pela­gianizing views.

Charles Hodge observes:

As a general rule, Arminian writers have been found on one side of this question, and Calvinistic authors on the other. This is indeed the natural result of their different views of the scriptural doctrine of the natural state of man.¹

Among Calvinistic expositors, mention may be made of John Brown of Wamphray, James Fraser of Allness, John Stafford, and in more recent times, along with Hodge, Hermann Kohlbrugge, Thomas Chalmers, Robert Haldane, William G. T. Shedd, and John Murray.

The Pietists, represented by Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752), deviated from the orthodox Augustinian and Reformation exegesis. More recent versions of pietism and perfectionism have devised the mediating view that Romans 7:14-25 depicts the experience of an immature believer, a so-called “carnal Christian,” but not of the apostle at the time he penned the epistle, or of a mature Christian.

In support of the Augustinian and Reformation view that Paul is describing his present experience as representative of that of the regenerate, we may point out:

1. There is a change in tense in verse 14 from the past to the present. In verses 7-13, the work of the law in producing con­viction of sin has been unfolded. We need not enter here on the question whether this is the experience of an unregenerate man under the law or of a regenerate man in the first awakening of spiritual life. In any case, it is an experience of which the apostle could write in the past tense. From verse 14 to the close of the chapter, the present tense is uniformly employed. What reason can be given for this striking change of tense but that the present experience of a mature Christian is now in view?
    
2. Expressions are used in this passage that naturally belong on the lips of the spiritual man. “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (v. 22) is not the voice of the unregenerate. Cf. Psalm 1:2, “His delight is in the law of the Lord,” and Psalm 119:97 et passim. The inward man, the self that does not serve sin (v. 17) is the renewed man, as contrasted with the flesh, in which no good thing dwells (v. 18). The conflict described in the words of verse 19, “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do,” is understood by Arminians to be the conflict in the unregenerate between reason and conscience on the one hand, and the inclinations and passions on the other. Commentators often quote Ovid, Metamorphoses (7.19):

My reason this, my passion that persuades,
I see the right, and I approve it too,
Condemn the wrong; and yet the wrong pursue.

The language of Romans 7:19 is only superficially similar to that of Ovid and other heathen writers. The apostle does not speak of a conflict between reason and inclination, but between the will and performance. The unrenewed man, even if he knows what is right, finds evil to predominate over his better judg­ment. The renewed man, by grace, wills the good. This is the predominant disposition of the inward man. But his complaint is his inability to perform the good that he would as he would. The context, especially verses 18 and 21, makes this abundantly clear. To ascribe such a disposition toward what is spiritually good to the unregenerate is to deny the doctrine of total depravity.

Once the true nature of the conflict between the flesh and the spirit in the believer is understood (cf. Gal. 5:17), the expressions that have been alleged to require a reference to the unregenerate will be seen rather to portray precisely the expe­rience of the exercised child of God. Many have found verse 14 to be a stumbling block. The powerful discourse of Dr. Hermann Kohlbrugge (1801-1860) on this text led to a rupture between him and former friends in Holland, particularly the poet Isaac da Costa (1798-1860), who regarded Kohlbrugge’s doctrine as antinomian.

How can a gracious soul be said to be “carnal, sold under sin”? It is a fact that in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Christians who have been addressed as saints are called carnal. It is not said that they are in the flesh, as the unregenerate are (Rom. 8:8-9). The unrenewed part of the renewed man – indwelling sin – has the nature of the flesh. In the Corinthians it pre­vailed to the extent that the apostle addresses them as carnal rather than spiritual. In the case of the apostle himself, in the light of the law that is spiritual, he can and must acknowledge himself to be carnal.

“Sold under sin” need not cause special difficulty. The case of the Christian is to be contrasted with that of Ahab, “which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord” (1 Kings 20:25). The exceptionally aggravated wickedness of Ahab is described in these words. The case of Ahab is not the case of Romans 7:14. Even in the perfectionist’s interpreta­tion of the text, this can hardly be the case. An unregenerate man feeling pangs of conscience, or a weak believer, cannot be said to sell himself for sin as Ahab did. But a deeply taught Christian can mourn over being sold under sin against his will even as he has earnest desires for perfect conformity to that law which is holy, just, and good. The captivity to the law of sin in the members (v. 23) is not to be confused with the voluntary slavery to sin of the unregenerate.

Enough may be seen from the above to make it clear that the cry, “O wretched man that I am!” in verse 24 is not a cry of despair. Nor is it an expression of ignorance. The apostle knows well the Source of deliverance: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v. 25). It is the cry of the prophet Isaiah and of all those who have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts (Isa. 6:5). It is the confession of Job, and of all who have not merely heard with the hearing of the ear, but who are brought by an experimental knowledge of the majesty of God to repent in dust and ashes (Job 42:5-6). With David, the Christian is brought to remembrance of what he is in himself:

Because gone up above mine head
my great transgressions be;
And as a weighty burden they
too heavy are for me.²

Error in the understanding of the reference of Romans 7:14-25 ought not to be ignored or dismissed as a trifling or minor matter. The effect of such error is the cultivation of a superficial religion. Those who confess the Scripture doc­trine of free and sovereign grace cannot connive at perfectionist pretences without both endangering the consistency of their doctrine and the soundness of their experience. In Reformed circles, vigilance is called for to guard against the intrusion of a pretentious piety that abounds in high assurance, frothy joy, and premature victory, but knows nothing of the warfare against the flesh, and the poor and contrite spirit, trembling at the Word of God. The godly man will follow the footsteps of the flock, and with Augustine of Hippo, Fraser of Allness, and Kohlbrugge of Elberfeld join with Job, David, Isaiah, and Paul in their consciousness of the vexation of indwelling sin, in their perseverance in warfare against it, and in their dependence on the blood and Spirit of Christ for deliverance.