I would like to take a fresh look at this, highly and sometimes hotly debated, set of verses. Before we can say Romans 7 is or is not a license to sin for the believer, as I have read through the other thread, we must first know if this man is born again or not in this chapter. I have studied this chapter for a number of years now myself and I come to the conclusion it is indeed a lost man. I will also say, because I believe it is a lost man Paul is describing, it drives a stake in the heart of the gospel message when it is interpreted as a saved man.
As I said, I have studied this chapter for a number of years. I think I have read just about every angle used to prove it one way or the other, and I can see how it is interpreted as a saved man, but once all things are considered I do not believe it can be interpreted correctly as a saved man.
What I would like to do is put forth my own personal studies, along with a few I learned from others, as this debate plays out. (I will clarify which ones are my own and which ones that belong to someone else as I come to them. I like to give credit where credit is due.)
I have noticed, as I studied through Romans, that Paul repeats himself a number of times and in these times he reiterates what has been said thus far and then adds a few words as to where he is going with his argument. In these series of verses it is laid out in the same order as the book of Romans itself is laid out. Also we will see that every time where chapter 7 falls it is in the past tense or describes an unregenerate man.
This is not where he begins these series of verses, but because it is very clear and in the same chapter of the subject at hand I will start in Romans 7.
Romans 7:1-6 has been used to argue over marriage and divorce and remarriage, but I will let someone else hash that one out, as I think at this point that is a side issue to the subject of whether or not this is a saved man or not.
Romans 7:2 and 3 is about chapter 5.
Here in these two verses we have a husband and wife analogy. Many believe the first husband mentioned is the law and it is the law that must die in order for the woman to be free to remarry. But that is not the case here. In fact if you have studied Romans you would notice that Paul contrasts a number of things, flesh to spirit, law to faith, Adam to Christ, life to death, and so on. As you notice here we see it is law to faith and Adam to Christ that has been contrasted. So, in understanding this we see Adam would be the first husband and not the law.
In chapter 5 we see our problem is we are born in the line of Adam and him being the head of the human race. The cure for that is we need to be in Christ, but Christ will not or can not become our head until the Adam part of us is put to death. Paul will tell us how that death takes place in chapter 6.
I think why many believe the first husband is the law probably comes from 7:6. It says, "
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held..." What we must understand is "what died" and then we will understand how we were delivered from the law. Very simply, the flesh, old man, Adam self was put to death by the way of the cross. And because the flesh part of man is crucified the law no longer reigns and rules over the believer, thus we are delivered from the law.
Romans 7:4 is about chapter 6.
Here we have a one verse description of chapter 6. Just as Romans 6 tells us we have been crucified with Christ and raised with Christ that we have fruits unto

iness, this verse (7:4) describes chapter 6 to a T.
Romans 7:5 is about chapter 7.
Here we have a one verse description of the man of chapter 7. Just as 7:5 is in the flesh, so is the man of chapter 7. Just as 7:5 is under the law, so is the man of chapter 7. Just as 7:5 is bound to a life of sin, so is the man of chapter 7.
Romans 7:6 is about chapter 8.
Here we have a one verse description of chapter 8. I'll save the commentary as it is self explainatory.
What is important to notice here is the tenses of the verses of 7:4-6. It goes from present tense, to past tense, back to present tense.
Another reason I believe Romans 7 is seen by many to be a saved man is most likely because the man of chapter 7 is so far removed from the lostness of man described in chapters 1:18-3:20. But we can see Paul continues to bring the lost man back up in these series of verses. We see he does this to contrast the lost man to the saved man in these series and seeing this we can easily see how this is done in chapter 7 as well. As we go through this debate we will see Paul uses the same pattern elsewhere besides Romans. The pattern being,
The depravity of man,
The gospel message,
A look back to where we were,
Moving forward.
I hope to have a civil debate on the subject and perhaps learn a few things as well. All of the above is my own personal studies and as best as I can tell is not in any commentary, none that I have read anyway.
In Christ Jesus,
Dell Russell
Pontotoc, Mississippi