Is Romans 7 about life as a Christian?

I was involved in a Calvinist/Reformed discussion on Romans 7, specifically discussing whether Paul in Romans 7 is speaking of himself as a "Christian struggling with sin" versus whether Paul here is speaking of his former life as an  "unconverted Jew". Biblical commentators have argued both as possible readings, but generally the Protestant side (especially Reformed and Lutheran) comes down strongly on the "Christian struggling with sin" reading of Romans 7. While that Protestant reading is understandable, I think it is a very problematic and inferior to the more likely "unconverted Jew" interpretation of Romans 7. This might not seem like an important debate, but I think we really need to care what Paul actually wants to teach us in Romans, and we should care if certain agendas are causing us to read Paul incorrectly in order to prop up erroneous theological ideas.  

Before delving into the text, it is important to affirm that everyone agrees that the Christian life involves an inner battle with one's flesh, which Paul speaks of elsewhere (e.g. Romans 6; Galatians 5:16-24). After we delve into the actual text and do actual exegesis, I will then share why I suspect the Reformed/Lutherans are trying so hard to hold to their reading.

The 2nd Commandment does not apply to Icons

The most common objection that Protestants use against Catholics for venerating images of God and of the Saints is for Protestants to appeal to the Ten Commandments [1], specifically the 2nd Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5), which seems to plainly prohibit the making and venerating of any religious images. While this Biblical appeal might seem to be an open and shut, slam dunk against Catholicism, it actually contains a very problematic and erroneous approach to the Old Testament, which Saint Paul termed "Judaizing" in Greek (Gal 2:14). The reason why people fail to recognize this is because Protestantism was founded upon an erroneous, even Judaizing, approach to the Mosaic Law. I think it is worth bringing this up because too many times I've seen Catholics basically accept this very Protestant Judaizing premise behind their use of the 2nd Commandment, which is the real issue that needs to be exposed.

Before we can even look at the 2nd Commandment itself, the first critical thing to know is that the term "Law" for Paul absolutely means the Mosaic Law, whereas Protestants erroneously think "Law" means anything man is ever told to do (e.g. any work a man does). I have exposed this many times in past blog posts and in discussions, particularly how the Protestants failing to define "Law" properly is a main reason they completely misunderstand Paul and salvation. (e.g. HERE). 

To build in this point, it is critical to know that the Mosaic Law was also known as the Mosaic Covenant (what Christians call the "Old Covenant"), and that the Ten Commandments were literally the very core of the Old Covenant. I think Hebrews 9:5 captures this very well, practically calling these basic truths everyone already knows: 

1 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. 2 For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, 4 having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. 5 Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. 

Note how the Ten Commandments were called "the tablets of the covenant" and thus were put inside the Ark of the Covenant. Knowing this basic theological truth is critical. I show this plainly elsewhere as well (e.g. HERE with Deut 9:9). Once a person recognizes this solid link between the Mosaic Law and Ten Commandments as the Old Covenant, it sets us up to be forced to admit that when the Old Covenant was done away with at the death of Christ on the Cross, that also means the Ten Commandments as a Binding Legal Code-Covenant was also done away with as a strict "letter of the law" requirement for Christians.

The ins and outs of Biblical Justification

There is a common claim by Protestants arguing that Justification is strictly a "forensic" matter whereby all the saving actions taking place during Justification occurs entirely external to us. Protestants make this bold claim in order to undermine the Catholic claim that Justification consists primarily in an inward transformation within your soul. A good way for Catholics to refute the Protestant claim is to show how often the Bible speaks of both internal and external language within the same verse. I made a post about this several years ago (HERE), where I cited multiple passages in Scripture which mentioned God performing both external and internal changes on us when we get saved. This dual aspect view is sometimes called the "duplex" view, which even the Council of Trent permitted when it decreed: 

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice [righteousness] of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema. 
(Trent, Session 6, Canon 11)

Notice that Trent is not excluding that there is an external component to justification, and it could even be termed "imputation" in some sense (some definitions of "imputation" are okay, while other definitions are problematic). The catch is that the external cannot be seen as the "sole" factor going on, especially to the more central "grace and charity poured into their hearts by the Holy Ghost" (Rom 5:5). Along with the original duplex texts I presented or were in the large comment box (Acts 15:9,11; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 2:5-8; Philip 3:9-11; Col 2:11-14; 2 Thess: 2:13; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 Jn 1:9), for this post I would like to add a few more duplex verses which I think will be helpful. 

Reading Romans 9 with 70AD in mind - Revisting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness (part 7)

I have recently been pondering Romans 9 with the backdrop of 70AD in mind, and a lot of what follows ties into the Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness series (here). If Paul has the destruction of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD in mind - which signifies God formally rejecting the Jews as His chosen/elect people - then that would explain a lot of the pain and concern Paul has in this and the following chapters. The standard "Calvinist" reading of Romans 9 is that of emphasizing God's sovereignty in choosing, but I think that misses the point and takes a too shallow of reading of Paul here. Romans is not concerned about defending God being all powerful, but rather about explaining why God would elect someone just to reject them later on. Consider that 75% of the Bible is focused on God electing the Israelites as His "chosen" people (Deut 7:6), only to suddenly do a reversal in the "last days". God graciously gave the Israelites divine gifts of adoption, covenants, glory, promises, etc (9:1-5), most of which was unmerited by them. Nobody denies that God could have made you born a different race, in a different time, under different circumstances, etc, so it is kind of pointless for Paul to make "unconditional sovereignty" the issue. Similarly, I don't think Paul is suggesting God chooses for purely hidden reasons, but rather that God chooses for very strategic reasons. In fact, I have come to see the "thesis" verse of Romans 9 to be in verse 8, where Paul says, "those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as the seed," which I believe means those who are born of purely natural or biological means are secondary to those who are born of special or supernatural means. With this in mind, let's take a look at Paul's actual examples. 

First, Paul brings up Isaac versus Ismael. We know that Ishmael was firstborn and born by natural human relations, but God had Isaac in mind as the blessed chosen linage which would bring about the "Seed" or Messiah. Paul emphasizes this same lesson especially in Galatians 4:21-31, so it would be reasonable to see the same lesson elsewhere in Paul's writings. I believe this is also taught in Romans 4:1-4, where Paul begins by asking about Abraham being father "according to the flesh" (4:1b), and "justified by works, but not before God" (4:2), because Ishmael was born "according to the flesh" (i.e. Abraham's sleeping with Hagar), making it seem like Abraham had achieved by human means the promised heir of Genesis 15:5-6. This producing of Ishmael was thus a "justification by works" in the sight of men (4:2a), because in the human calculation they reckoned Ishmael to be the promised seed heir...but not in the sight of God (4:2b), since God had in mind Isaac instead to be the promised heir or at least chosen lineage. Thus, Paul gives a human analogy, whereby when a person works a job he is rightly entitled a wage (4:4a), but how much more blessed is it to receive a gift beyond what your job can get you? Abraham could produce a natural heir (working wages), but trusting in God and receive a supernatural blessing, such as Isaac coming from a barren Sarah, that's beyond natural or normal transactions (4:4b). Similarly, the Mosaic Covenant promised health and wealth for faithfulness to it, but these were earthly wages, whereby being a Believer in the higher things of life comes with the promise of forgiveness of sins and heaven. Thus, Paul is trying to condition us to start thinking in a spiritual way rather than the long time "fleshy" way of earthly blessings. 

Second, this sets up Paul for a second example, noting the first few words he uses: 

10 And not only this, but also when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Does "Evening then Morning" mean one day? (Seventh Day Adventists)

Genesis 1 contains the language of "evening came, then the morning" for each of the Six Days of Creation. This Biblical language of putting the "evening" first then "morning" second has lead the Jewish custom to count all of our days as starting/ending at sunset. So when they get ready for the Sabbath on Saturday, this means the Sabbath/Saturday actually begins at sunset on Friday afternoon. Though I had not thought about it, I had always assumed this to be what Genesis 1 meant because so many people had said this is what "evening then morning" meant. While that is a possible meaning, I came across someone claiming that "evening then morning" just refers to the night time, and that Genesis 1 was actually saying a day beings in the morning. This will be a short post discussing this possibility. 

The best place to begin is by looking at how Genesis 1 uses the "evening then morning" language, which I will briefly show here: