Interpreting Romans 7.
There have been two interpretations of Romans 7 which have dominated church history and which are sometimes known as the Primitive and the Post-Primitive. Augustine held to the Primitive in his early years, as did some of the Church Fathers and writers before Augustine, but changed his stance later. The reason that he changed was due to his heated discourses with Pelagius. There have been two interpretations widely held since Augustine, the original and the one from Augustine called the Post Primitive which did not exist before he adopted and popularised it. The third, was held by Pelagius and claims that sinlessness is possible in this life.
We must conclude that the man depicted in Romans 7 is a) a man who has only just come to Christ for forgiveness and has attempted previously to be righteous through obeying the law, (or as commonly known as an unbeliever) and the Primitive view, b) the normal state of a Christian which is held by Calvinists in the main and brought in by Augustine and c) the believer who has come to the crisis in his faith and inability to keep God’s law in the manner that he knows he must, whereby he will be delivered from the body of sin to the state where there is no more condemnation, the view which became widespread during the ‘Celtic period’, and Holiness Movement of the 19th C. There is no other viable interpretation of these texts.
The Primitive view and the one which is widely held today for example by many Arminians, is that Romans 7 describes the salvation experience and Paul is writing as an unregenerate soul. Augustine said: “It is understood that man here described who was never under grace” (Homilies). This is the view that Augustine held until Pelagius challenged him over his view that man is totally depraved.
“In his argument, Pelagius referred to the passage under consideration, saying that this was a palpable case in which, by the universal assent of the church, the state and character of the unregenerate man is described. He then asked, if approving the right, and hating the wrong, and 'delighting in the law of God' did not imply that there was something good even in such a man? Augustine could not deny the fact, the case being so palable, of the universal agreement of the church in the deduction that it was the unregenerate man referred to in the passage; nor did he perceive how, admitting the correctness of the universally received exposition, he could meet the argument of his opponent. Under such perplexity, Augustine denied the validity of his own and the universal, and adopted the few and before, unheard of, exposition, a most needless resort and a most calamitous one for the spiritual good of the church” (J Schmidz Romans 7)
Augustine did not accept Pelagius’ argument and agree with his interpretation. Pelagius was trying to show Augustine that Romans 7 was not to be understood as the so called Primitive view but the Apostolic view. Augustine realised his first view was untenable that Paul described the unregenerate but the second view was untenable for Augustine because it says that man can stop sinning.
Pelagius taught the Apostolic view which is that Paul is speaking about the Christian in Romans 7 but not in what should be his normal condition. Those who do not accept the view that it is a Christian speaking point to the fact that there is no mention of grace or of the work of the Holy Spirit in the chapter. But this is not because there is no Holy Spirit or grace. Far from it. The opposite is true actually. However, the person describing it is not aware of it. It seems as though God has deserted actually, as the person comes to an extreme point because God has convicted the man of his sinfulness. Paul is discussing experience here not doctrine. He came to a point of time when he saw himself as God saw him as he sought acceptance through the works of the law. And all Christians seek to do this unless they adopt Augustine’s position and excuse their sin. and until they come to the point whereby they admit their powerlessness.
The misunderstanding of the early writers teachings in saying that Romans 7 is the unregenerate person could be that some meant an unregenerate person as a believer who has not arrived at the sanctification experience, which was what Wesley meant by the 'Almost Christian' In the Bible, salvation sanctification and justification are all one event but describing the differing aspects of it. This could means that one is not really saved until they are entirely sanctified. Jesus came to save us from our sins and until this is done, then we are still in them and not saved even though we have been given 'The power to become the son's of God' as a possibility but not yet an actuality until the provision of sanctification through the cross, is appropriated by man and he is delivered from not just the penalty from sin but also the power and the presence.
This Apostolic view has been rejected by most of the church through the ages and the reason why Pelagius has had such bad press. By his dispute with Augustine and his understanding of Romans 7, he did not teach that the Christian could stop sinning on his own accord. Far from it. It needed the divine interaction of God to bring about the change or deliverance needed to get Paul from Romans7 to Romans 8.
