Yes, it is a "side issue" but it is a related one, and I must say that I feel quite good about the company of men who did hold to Romans 7 as a post conversion experience. Since you are more theologically educated than I, perhaps you would like to supply the list? For example, would it include, Calvin? Luther? Edwards? Bunyan? Owen? <br><br>(Fred) I am not completely sure where each of those guys stood on the issue. I think most of them held to a post conversion view of Romans 7 because of their covenantalism and the fact that classic Arminianism held the opposite view. However, the reasons Arminius held to a pre-conversion view was driven more by his particular theology, rather than the actual context of what Paul is arguing in Romans 6-8. I would further say that the reason those who hold to a post-conversion view of Romans 7 is also due to theological consideration, rather than contextual. I held tenaciously to the post-conversion view until I studied and taught the book of Romans, and then I was convinced of the position that Paul is discussing a Jewish wrestling to be righteous under the law before Christ came (pre-conversion). Robert Reymond has an appendix in his theology outlining several reasons why he holds to pre-conversion before Christ. Moo also has a compelling discussion in his commentary on Romans.<br>Personally, I think trying to relate a person's understanding of Romans 7 to the issue of what Costello is arguing is artificial. If a person insists upon the "traditional" Calvinistic, post-conversion view of Romans 7, then there is going to be a need to defend it against the position of most confused Arminians who mix justification and sanctification. I don't think a person needs to go that route.<br><br><br><br>Fred

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns