When Sin Shrinks, Christ Shrinks.

PART I.

INTRODUCTION: The sermon used for illustrative purposes may be watched here: Rom 7:7-25

Romans 7, Modern Preaching, and the Poverty of God-Centred Theology

There are seasons in church history when a single biblical text exposes the fault lines of an age. Romans 7 is such a text. No other passage tears apart human self-confidence so completely, or reveals the abyss between divine holiness and human sinfulness with such devastating clarity. Paul’s cry, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24) has echoed for two thousand years as the anguished confession of the regenerate heart encountering the weight of God’s holiness.

Yet it is precisely this anguish that is absent in much contemporary preaching. Our age prefers therapeutic reassurance to doctrinal confrontation, and psychological vocabulary to theological weight. A sermon that treats sin as discouragement rather than rebellion cannot possibly enter the world of Romans 7. In the sermon used in this essay, we see this tendency displayed with particular clarity. It speaks warmly of grace, sincerely of struggle, and gently of repentance, but never with the gravity of divine holiness. The sermon domesticates Paul’s cry and with it domesticates the God before whom Paul cries.

The thesis of this essay is that any sermon which diminishes sin will necessarily diminish Christ. The sermon that prompted this essay does so by replacing Paul’s God-centred hamartiology with therapeutic moralism, and thereby losing the cross, the Spirit, and the gospel itself. Every major section of this study will demonstrate that the preacher’s softened doctrine of sin is not merely a flaw in emphasis but a structural collapse that affects exegesis, interpretation, rhetoric, Christology, pneumatology, and pastoral application. To lose the wretchedness of Romans 7 is to lose the glory of Romans 8. To flatten sin is to shrink Christ.

This monograph proceeds through six parts. Part I introduces the theological and pastoral crisis exposed by Romans 7. Part II analyses the exegetical framework of Romans 1–8 to show how Paul’s doctrine of sin demands a view far more severe than the sermon allows. Part III traces the interpretive history of Romans 7 to situate the sermon within (or outside of) the great theological traditions. Part IV applies the Rhetorical–Pedagogical Competence Matrix (RPCM) to show how diminished sin corrodes preaching. Part V exposes the doctrinal consequences, including the loss of substitutionary atonement and the Spirit’s liberating power. Part VI concludes by proposing a constructive, God-centred approach to preaching Romans 7 that restores both Paul’s anguish and Paul’s joy.

The sermon under review begins well. It acknowledges that Paul teaches sin remains even for the regenerate, and it affirms that believers must battle against it. But this is where its strength ends. From this point onward, the sermon steadily moves away from Paul. The preacher multiplies illustrations, thirty-three in total, far beyond the limits of what expositional preaching can sustain. This is not merely excessive rhetorical decoration; it is an interpretive misdirection. Stories take the place of doctrine, and anecdotes take the place of exegesis. The result is a sentimentalized Romans 7, not the inspired text. The sermon treats sin as moral frustration and emotional discouragement, never as rebellion against God. Romans presents sin as failure to honour God (Rom. 1:21–32), universal bondage (Rom. 3:9–20), the reign of death (Rom. 5:21), slavery broken only by union with Christ (Rom. 6:6–7), and the flesh warring against God’s law (Rom. 7:23).

Romans 7 cannot be read properly unless it is read in the light of the holiness of God. The law is not simply instruction; it is the radiant expression of God’s moral perfection. As Paul writes, “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). The commandment is not burdensome because its standards are too high; it is crushing because the sinner is too corrupt. Unless the preacher feels this holiness, the sermon will never reach Paul's anguish. Unless the hearers are brought to see the majesty of God’s perfection, they will never echo Paul's cry for deliverance.

This monograph is necessary because modern evangelical preaching rarely takes us there. The sermon under review, in particular, illustrates a widespread failure: the inability or unwillingness to name sin as sin against God. And unless sin is seen as rebellion against God, grace will be misconceived as encouragement rather than salvation, and sanctification will be misconstrued as moral progress rather than the gracious work of the Spirit. Romans 7 does not describe a frustrated Christian; it describes a regenerate man brought to the end of himself before the holiness of God. This is the terrain into which we must now descend.

PART II.

EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF ROMANS 7 IN THE FLOW OF ROMANS 1–8

This section demonstrates that the sermon’s diminished Christ begins with its diminished doctrine of sin, for Paul’s exegesis in Romans 1–8 reveals sin as rebellion before a holy God, not the therapeutic struggle presented in the sermon.

The Holy God, the Law, and the Power of Sin

Romans 7 cannot be read as an isolated psychological narrative. It stands at the climax of an argument that began with the revelation of God’s wrath in Romans 1 and will reach its resolution in the Spirit-driven deliverance of Romans 8. To understand Paul’s anguish in 7:24, one must begin with his view of God. Paul is not concerned with human frustration. He is concerned with divine holiness. The law is not therapeutic guidance; it is the radiant expression of God’s moral perfection. Only when the holiness of God is understood can Paul’s cry of wretchedness be heard in its proper register.

Romans 1–3: Sin as Godward Rebellion

Paul’s argument opens with a devastating assertion: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. 1:18).¹ Sin is not defined horizontally. Humans “did not honour him as God or give thanks to him” (Rom. 1:21).² They “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images” (Rom. 1:23).³ The root of sin is not disordered emotion but worship disorder. It is refusal to acknowledge God as God. Paul’s diagnosis is that humanity has become “futile in their thinking” and that their hearts have become darkened.

The sermon under review does not enter this darkness. Its handling of sin is relational and psychological. It speaks of irritability, envy, and discouragement. These are symptoms, not causes. Paul’s cause lies in Romans 1: humanity against God; creature against Creator; desire against glory. The failure to honour God is the fountain of all other evils.

Romans 3 continues this theme with a universal indictment: “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10).⁴ Every mouth is stopped and the whole world becomes accountable to God (Rom. 3:19). The law speaks as God speaks. It does not merely instruct; it condemns. The sermon’s failure to present God’s law as divine holiness expressed in commandments is therefore a failure to prepare the hearer for Romans 7.

Romans 4–6: The Two-Realm Framework

Paul next establishes that humanity exists under two heads: Adam and Christ. In Adam, sin reigns. In Christ, grace reigns. Romans 5:21 is decisive: “Sin reigned in death.”⁵ The sermon noted this contrast in its introduction, but consequences remained undeveloped. Sin is not merely an internal habit; it is a cosmic tyrant. It rules like a king. This is the interpretive lens through which one must read Romans 7. When Paul says, “sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me” (Rom. 7:11),⁶ he is describing sin’s agency. Sin is not a psychological impulse; it is an enslaving power.

Romans 6 deepens the image: believers have died to sin’s dominion but not to sin’s presence. Sin still seeks to “reign” through the mortal body (Rom. 6:12).⁷ The regenerate man is free from sin’s rule but not from sin’s war. The sermon misses this distinction entirely. It portrays sin as temptation rather than as opposition. Paul’s entire theology depends on the distinction between dominion and indwelling corruption. Without it, the anguish of Romans 7 becomes unintelligible.

Romans 7: Word Studies and Textual Precision

A major weakness of the sermon is its lack of definitions. Words used by Paul represent key theological doctrines. In expositional preaching, such words need explanation if the mind is going to be renewed. Following is a list of terms used by Paul, that had they been explained, the sermon would have been helped.

Hamartia (Sin)

Paul treats hamartia not as actions but as a power. Sin “dwells” in him (Rom. 7:17, 20) and “works death” (katergazetai thanaton) through what is good (Rom. 7:13).⁸ Sin is personified. It deceives, kills, and enslaves. It is not discouragement; it is rebellion.

Sarx (Flesh)

Flesh does not mean physical body but fallen human nature. “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh” (Rom. 7:18).⁹ Flesh is the sphere in which sin operates. The sermon offers no definition, leaving hearers with an anaemic concept of human fallenness.

Epithymia (Desire)

Translated “coveting” in Romans 7:7, epithymia is more than wanting. It is desire in revolt against God’s commandment. When Paul says, “I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet,’”¹⁰ he is revealing desire’s capacity to awaken rebellion when confronted with holiness.

Katergazetai (To Work Out, Produce)

Sin “produces” death through the law (Rom. 7:13). The verb indicates active agency. Sin does not merely hinder; it accomplishes death. It works toward an end.

Talaipōros (Wretched)

Paul’s cry, “Wretched man that I am,” is not disappointment but despair under the weight of divine holiness. The term evokes misery, ruin, and helplessness. The sermon does not bring the listener anywhere near this spiritual condition.

Sōma tou thanatou (Body of Death)

Paul’s question, “Who will deliver me from this body of death” (Rom. 7:24) is not rhetorical flourish. The body is the seat of flesh’s lingering corruption. He knows the consequences of sin and longs for resurrection.

The Movement of the Passage

Romans 7 unfolds in a sequence:

The law is holy (Rom. 7:12).
Sin uses what is holy to produce death (Rom. 7:13).
The regenerate man delights in the law (Rom. 7:22).
Yet another law, the law of sin, wages war (Rom. 7:23).
The regenerate man is torn between delight and corruption.
The cry for deliverance erupts.

Nothing like this structure appears in the sermon. Instead, the sermon uses Romans 7 as a loose platform for discussing the everyday struggles of believers. The theological sequence is replaced by narrative fragments.

A critical weakness of the sermon under review appears in its handling of Romans 7 at the level of exegesis. The most fundamental problem is its failure to situate Paul’s experience within the blazing holiness of God. Paul’s anguish does not arise from inward frustration but from an encounter with the divine law as the expression of God’s perfect purity. Sin becomes sinful to him only because the commandment reveals it as rebellion against a holy God. In the sermon, however, sin arises not within the presence of divine holiness but within the presence of human discomfort. The preacher frames Paul’s struggle as a matter of discouragement and relational strain rather than as a confrontation with the radiance of God’s perfection. This shift removes the theological oxygen that allows Romans 7 to burn with its proper heat.

Closely connected to this reduction in holiness is a second exegetical failure: the sermon treats sin as habit rather than power. For Paul, sin is no mere tendency or inclination. It is the enslaving tyranny that deceives, seizes, kills, and reigns. Romans 7 is the battlefield on which indwelling sin wages war against the regenerate believer. Yet the sermon consistently presents sin as something akin to moral bad habits or lapses in personal discipline. This approach obscures the active agency of sin in Paul’s thought and replaces the apostolic depiction of spiritual slavery with a domesticated psychology of human imperfection. By collapsing sin into weakness, the sermon cannot possibly lead hearers into Paul’s anguished cry for deliverance.

The sermon’s exegetical inadequacy is further deepened by its lack of lexical precision. Paul’s argument in Romans 7 depends upon carefully chosen terms, as above, each carrying theological weight: flesh, sin, desire, law, death, slavery, captivity, wretchedness, deliverance. Not one of these receives explanation. No word studies are used of either Greek or English translations. Without defining the vocabulary, the preacher flattens Paul’s argument and deprives the congregation of the conceptual tools necessary to grasp the apostle’s reasoning. Romans 7 is a text woven together by distinctions, contrasts, and finely tuned categories. When these are left unexplored, the passage becomes little more than a narrative of struggle rather than a profound revelation of human corruption and divine holiness.

Another deficiency arises from the sermon’s failure to place Romans 7 within the theological movement of Romans 1 through 8. Paul develops a carefully structured argument: humanity in rebellion in chapters 1 to 3, union with Christ in chapter 6, ongoing conflict with indwelling sin in chapter 7, and the liberating power of the Spirit in chapter 8. The sermon detaches Romans 7 from this narrative sequence, treating it as a stand-alone meditation on struggle rather than the climactic expression of a much larger doctrinal arc. Without this movement, the agony of Romans 7 appears exaggerated and the triumph of Romans 8 appears abrupt. The sermon’s isolation of the chapter renders Paul’s theology incoherent.

All of these failures converge in the most serious point: the sermon does not recognize the necessity of God in Romans 7. Paul’s cry is fundamentally God-centred. He laments not because life is difficult but because the corruption that remains within him stands exposed before the God whose law is holy and whose presence is terrifyingly pure. His cry for deliverance is a confession of helplessness before divine holiness. A regenerate man fears his own sin precisely because he knows the majesty of the God he offends. The sermon, by contrast, treats sin as inconvenience rather than blasphemy. It produces sympathy but not trembling, insight but not repentance, comfort but not deliverance. It never places the hearer in the presence of the God who made Paul cry “Wretched man that I am,” and therefore it cannot speak with Paul’s voice or lead the church into Paul’s joy of Rom 8.

This is why the study now moves to Part III, the historical debate, where the weight of interpretation across the centuries will reveal the gravity that the sermon fails to carry.

PART III.

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF ROMANS 7

This historical survey shows that every major theological tradition takes sin far more seriously than the sermon does, confirming the thesis that a diminished hamartiology inevitably leads to a diminished Christ and a lost gospel.

Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, Wesleyan-Holiness, and Modern Readings

Romans 7 has occupied a central place in the history of Christian anthropology. Its language of inner conflict, slavery to sin, delight in the law, and the cry for deliverance has been read differently across the ages, each reading shaped by its theological commitments. Understanding this landscape is essential not only for placing Paul in his historical reception but also for exposing the sermon’s misalignment with any major tradition. What emerges is a sharp contrast between historic theological seriousness and the therapeutic moralism of modern evangelicalism.

The Patristic Era: Romans 7 as the Voice of the Unregenerate

The earliest interpreters generally saw Romans 7:14–25 as describing the experience of the unregenerate person under the condemning power of the law. Origen is the clearest representative. In his Commentary on Romans, he interprets Paul’s “I” as either the Jew under the Mosaic law or humanity in its fallen condition, awakened but not renewed.¹ Paul’s anguish, for Origen, represents the despair produced by the law’s impossible demands. Chrysostom likewise held that Paul speaks in the person of a Jew striving to fulfill the commandments without the Spirit.² For the Greek Fathers, Romans 7 was not a depiction of Christian experience but of the preparatory misery that leads one toward salvation.

These historic readings have notable strengths. They preserve the law’s condemning power, place the struggle firmly within the realm of the flesh where sin reigns unchecked, and regard the misery of Romans 7 as evidence of God’s holiness rather than psychological turmoil. Yet these strengths also reveal the limitations of the patristic approach, for it cannot account for the distinctly positive note Paul sounds when he speaks of “delighting in the law of God according to the inner man” (Rom. 7:22). Such delight exceeds anything the unregenerate heart can produce, and this tension ultimately presses interpretation beyond the strictly pre-conversion framework of the early Fathers. The sermon under review does not adopt the patristic position. But neither does it understand the severity with which the early church handled sin. The patristic church understood sin as a God-centred reality because God himself was at the centre of its theology.

Augustine’s Turning Point: From Unregenerate to Regenerate

Augustine’s early interpretation aligned with the Greek Fathers. However, through his conflict with Pelagius, he came to read Romans 7:14–25 as the ongoing struggle of the regenerate Christian.³ Augustine’s mature view sees the believer as one who delights in the law of God according to the inner man, yet still feels the pull of the flesh. This is not a divided self in the psychological sense, but a divided eschatological existence: the new life in Christ battling the remnants of Adamic corruption.

This shift was monumental. Augustine’s later reading became the inheritance of the Western tradition. It underscores several essential truths. First, the regenerate heart genuinely loves God’s law. Second, indwelling sin continues to resist the Spirit even after conversion. Third, the cry for deliverance arises from the believer’s recognition of the holiness of God and the corruption of the flesh.

The sermon aligns verbally with Augustine in asserting that Christians experience inner conflict. But it lacks Augustine’s God-centered anguish. Augustine’s regenerate man groans because he sees God. The sermon’s Christian struggles because life is difficult. The difference is the difference between theology and therapy.

The Reformation: Luther, Calvin, and the Depth of Sin

The Reformers developed Augustine’s reading with extraordinary depth. Luther saw Romans 7 as the cornerstone of his doctrine that the Christian is simultaneously righteous and sinful.⁴ For Luther, the cry “Wretched man that I am” is the cry of a believer who knows the law’s terrifying power. Calvin likewise insisted that Paul speaks as a regenerate man who hates sin because the Spirit has opened his eyes.⁵ Calvin’s interpretation emphasizes the holiness of the law and the wretchedness that every regenerate believer feel when confronted by it.

Both Reformers understood sin as primarily Godward. Both insisted that Romans 7 shows how the believer’s will, renewed by God, cannot yet act with perfect obedience because the flesh remains. And both saw Romans 7 and 8 as inseparable: despair at the end of chapter 7 prepares the soul for the liberating declaration of chapter 8.

The sermon under review attempts to locate itself here, but falls short because it does not share the Reformers’ understanding of sin as enmity against God. It speaks of sin gently, therapeutically. It tries not to offend and sin soaks up the pampering. Paul and the Reformers speak of sin violently. The gap is unbridgeable without recovering a sense of God’s holiness.

The Wesleyan and Holiness Traditions: Romans 7 as Sub-Christian Experience

John Wesley interpreted Romans 7 as the experience of a believer who has not yet attained full sanctification.⁶ He believed that Romans 7 describes a justified person who remains in bondage because he has not embraced perfect love. Later holiness movements took this further. Phoebe Palmer taught that Romans 7 is the “before” picture of the Christian who has not yet received the “second blessing.”⁷

This interpretation frequently arises where sin is minimized in its Godward dimension and maximized in its emotional or moral dimension. Sin becomes failure rather than bondage, sadness rather than rebellion.

The sermon subtly echoes this tradition. Its portrayal of sin as discouragement and moral imperfection fits better with Wesleyan-Holiness psychology than with Augustinian-Reformed hamartiology. It does not preach perfectionism, but it does preach improvement rather than deliverance.

Four Modern Theologians: Divergent Interpretive Loci
C. E. B. Cranfield

Cranfield represents the modern scholarly defense of the Augustinian-Reformed position. Romans 7 describes the regenerate person.⁸ Cranfield emphasizes the delight in the law and the war of the flesh.

Douglas Moo

Moo follows Cranfield, seeing Romans 7 as the believer’s struggle, yet insists that this struggle does not contradict victory in Christ.⁹ For Moo, Romans 7 is the struggle of holiness.

Rudolf Bultmann

Bultmann reads Romans 7 as describing the experience of the unregenerate person, or Paul himself before his conversion, confronted by the condemning power of the law.¹²

N. T. Wright

Wright likewise reads Romans 7 corporately, seeing Paul dramatizing Israel’s exile and longing for deliverance.¹¹

These modern views reveal the sermon's isolation: it neither handles Romans 7 as Israel’s story nor as the believer’s anguish. It adopts a generic “believer struggles” framework that lacks historical depth and theological precision.

Where the Sermon Fits

Against this history, the sermon is neither patristic nor Augustinian, neither Reformed nor Wesleyan, neither Cranfield nor Moo nor Wright nor Bultmann. It stands outside the great interpretive traditions because it lacks the God-centred doctrine that shaped them all.

It cannot be Reformed because it does not treat sin as rebellion against God.
It cannot be patristic because it does not treat sin as hopeless bondage.
It cannot be Wesleyan because it does not articulate progression toward holiness.
It cannot be modern-exegetical because it does not handle the text with historical or lexical care.

It is, instead, a modern therapeutic reading. Sin is sadness. Grace is encouragement. Struggle is normal. Solutions are practical. All is gentle.

But Romans 7 is not gentle. Romans 7 is holy.

PART IV.

RHETORICAL–PEDAGOGICAL ANALYSIS USING THE RPCM

This rhetorical analysis reveals how the sermon’s weakened doctrine of sin shapes its ethos, teaching, and delivery, further supporting the thesis that diminished sin leads to diminished proclamation of Christ, the cross, and the Spirit.

How Hamartiological Failure Undermines Ethos, Teaching, and Delivery

Preaching is never merely the transmission of information. It is the communication of divine truth through a human vessel. For this reason, rhetoric cannot be separated from theology. A preacher’s credibility, clarity, tone, and persuasion all arise from what he understands about God, sin, grace, and Scripture. When doctrine collapses, rhetoric follows. When sin is softened, ethos becomes sentimental, teaching becomes disordered, and delivery loses its moral force.

To analyze these dynamics, we can apply the Rhetorical–Pedagogical Competence Matrix (RPCM), a framework designed to evaluate sermons across three major axes: Ethos, Teaching Effectiveness, and Oral Delivery.¹ Each axis contains five sub-metrics which assess the preacher’s spiritual authority, conceptual clarity, pedagogical coherence, verbal precision, and pastoral presence. The RPCM is not an artificial imposition; it is a tool that reveals how theological deficiencies manifest in communication. Without a proper doctrine of sin, the preacher cannot speak with Paul’s voice, teach with Paul’s sharpness, or deliver with Paul’s urgency.

Ethos: The Collapse of Moral Authority

Ethos refers to the preacher’s credibility, not in terms of academic expertise but in terms of spiritual integrity and weight. Paul’s ethos in Romans 7 emerges from his profound awareness of God’s holiness and sin’s corruption. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all read Romans 7 as the cry of a soul who sees God. The sermon under review, however, does not manifest this kind of ethos. Several deficiencies arise.

Lack of Godward seriousness. Ethos requires gravity. The preacher must sound like someone who knows that sin is rebellion against the holy God. But because the sermon treats sin as emotional discouragement and relational frustration, the preacher’s ethos becomes gentle rather than grave. There is compassion, but no trembling. The congregation hears sincerity without severity. Paul would not recognize this tone.
Sentimental pastoral posture. Instead of warning hearers about the horror of indwelling sin, the sermon reassures them that their frustrations are normal. This creates pastoral warmth, but at the cost of biblical weight. Without an understanding of sin as enmity against God (Rom. 8:7), the preacher’s ethos becomes therapeutic rather than prophetic.
No sense of standing under the law. Paul speaks as a man slain by the commandment. The sermon speaks as one advising others to handle discouragement. This difference is profound. Ethos is not the preacher’s emotional authenticity but his willingness to stand beneath the Word he proclaims.
Absence of holy fear. Romans 7 is a text of anguish before the face of God. The sermon never evokes fear, awe, dread, or desperation. Without these, ethos is flattened and lighter. Holy fear is the bedrock of moral authority.
The preacher’s credibility weakened by illustration dominance. Ethos requires that the congregation hear Scripture, not anecdotes. But with thirty-three illustrations and a one-to-two ratio of exegesis to stories, the sermon shifts authority from the text to experience. Ethos cannot grow in a soil where stories choke the Scriptures.

In sum, the sermon’s ethos collapses because its doctrine of sin collapses. Without the holiness of God, the preacher cannot sound like Paul.

Teaching Effectiveness: Concept Sequencing Disordered by Weak Doctrine

Teaching effectiveness depends on clarity of aim, logical sequencing, careful definition, and doctrinal integrity. Romans 7 requires precise teaching because Paul builds his argument on finely tuned distinctions: law versus sin, dominion versus presence, desire versus delight, inner man versus flesh. When these distinctions are blurred, teaching becomes confused. The sermon under review displays several pedagogical failures.

No defining of terms. Without word studies and some definitions, the congregation cannot properly understand the text. This produces conceptual imprecision that undermines the clarity of teaching.
The argument of Romans 1–8 is never sequenced. Teaching Romans 7 properly requires explaining how it flows out of Romans 1–3 (sin as rebellion), Romans 4–5 (Adam versus Christ), and Romans 6 (death to sin but ongoing battle). The sermon detaches Romans 7 from this flow, treating it as a stand-alone meditation. This severs the doctrinal arteries that supply the text with blood.
The theological centre of Romans 7 is missed. Paul’s argument is not that Christians struggle, but that sin remains in their members even after regeneration. The sermon misses the issue of indwelling sin as an active power. This replaces theology with psychology and destroys any possibility of doctrinal sharpness.
Illustrations replace exposition. Teaching effectiveness requires textual dominance. But the sermon’s thirty-three illustrations interrupt the argument repeatedly. This creates a scattered pedagogical rhythm where the text never stands long enough for the congregation to see its shape.
No reinforcement or closure. Paul’s teaching in Romans 7 lands with a cry for deliverance. The sermon ends with reassurance rather than desperation. This undermines the pedagogical force of the passage. Deficient hamartiology produces deficient teaching. When sin is not defined, nothing else can be.
Oral Delivery: Loss of Pauline Urgency and Doxological Weight

Delivery is the embodiment of doctrine. Paul’s language in Romans 7 is rapid, tense, broken, and urgent. It reads like a man wrestling God. The sermon’s delivery, softened by illustrations and a therapeutic vibe, loses all this urgency.

Cadence broken by stories. Paul’s argument intensifies with each verse. Delivery should follow this rising heat. But thirty-three illustrations constantly cool the sermon’s temperature. Delivery becomes episodic rather than cumulative.
No crescendo toward the cry for deliverance. Romans 7 is structured to lead toward the anguished cry, “Who will deliver me from this body of death” (Rom. 7:24). The sermon never builds to this cry. Delivery remains flat.
Pastoral energy misdirected. Instead of directing energy toward the holiness of God and the horror of sin, the sermon directs energy toward pastoral reassurance. The preaching is gentle. Paul is not gentle here.
Audience awareness shaped by modern sensibilities. Modern evangelical audiences often resist doctrinal weight. The sermon appears shaped by this expectation. Delivery accommodates the congregation rather than the text.
No doxological eruption. Delivery should burst when Paul reaches Romans 7:25 and Romans 8:1. But because the sermon never goes down into the depths, it cannot rise into the heights. Delivery remains emotionally muted.

Conclusion of Part IV

The RPCM confirms the theological critique. The sermon does not fail because the preacher lacked sincerity or pastoral concern. It fails because it lacked God. And where God is not central, ethos collapses into sentiment, teaching into illustration, and delivery into reassurance. Romans 7 demands a preacher who has been slain by the law and raised by the Spirit. A man who lives from faith to faith. The sermon gives a preacher who has been encouraged by experience and enriched by stories.

PART V. DOCTRINAL, CHRISTOLOGICAL, AND PNEUMATOLOGICAL CRITIQUE

This doctrinal examination exposes the theological consequences of the sermon’s therapeutic anthropology, demonstrating how shrinking sin collapses Christology, obscures substitutionary atonement, and displaces the Spirit, exactly as the thesis claims.

Sin, Christ, the Spirit, and the Pastoral Ruin of Therapeutic Moralism

Romans 7 is not a psychological portrait. It is a doctrinal battlefield. The sermon under review fails because it does not understand the battlefield. The most serious failure is its doctrine of sin. But because doctrines never stand alone, this failure produces cascading distortions in Christology, pneumatology, pastoral theology, and soteriology. A diminished view of sin necessarily diminishes Christ. A softened view of the flesh necessarily softens the Spirit’s work. A therapeutic anthropology necessarily yields a therapeutic gospel.

Romans 7 brings us to the edge of death so that Romans 8 may reveal the power of life. A sermon that refuses to descend into Paul’s terror cannot rise into Paul’s joy.

The Hamartiological Catastrophe: Sin as Habit Rather than Power

Paul portrays sin as an active, enslaving, murderous force. It “deceives,” “kills,” and “dwells in” him with destructive intent (Rom. 7:11, 17).¹ Sin is a tyrant, not a tendency. It is an anti-God power at war with the regenerate person.

The sermon reduces sin to something the believer manages. Impatience. Relational strain. Discouragement. Pride. These are real sins, but they are not the essence of sin. They are the blossoms, not the root.

Sin is Godward hostility. Romans 8:7 declares that the mind of the flesh “is hostile to God.”² The sermon never articulates sin as hostility. Without this, Romans 7 becomes an echo chamber of self-awareness instead of a confrontation with divine holiness.
Sin is slavery. Paul says he is “sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14).³ This is not a metaphor for difficulty; it is a declaration of bondage. The sermon’s moral examples lack this gravity. When sin is presented as habit, a listener will fight it with discipline. When sin is presented as slavery, a listener will seek liberation.
Sin is ontological corruption. Paul knows “nothing good dwells in my flesh” (Rom. 7:18).⁴ This is not discouragement but anthropology. Humans are not slightly flawed. They are radically corrupt.

The sermon’s hamartiology belongs not to Romans but to late-modern therapeutic evangelicalism, where sin is primarily what hurts us rather than what condemns us.

Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian Drift. Without intending to, the sermon echoes two ancient errors:

Pelagian moral optimism appears in the belief that sin is a set of habits that can be resisted by diligence.
Semi-Pelagian therapeutic moralism emerges when grace becomes divine assistance for human striving.

Both errors arise whenever sin is no longer seen as the creature’s revolt against God’s holiness.

Christological Implications: Christ as Encourager Rather Than Deliverer

The cry of Romans 7:24 is answered only by Christ. “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25).⁵ Christ is not a mentor but a liberator. He rescues from death, breaks the power of sin, and delivers from the flesh.

The sermon, however, presents Christ primarily as a helper in moral struggle. This is a pastoral catastrophe. The gospel becomes therapy. Christ becomes a coach. The cross becomes encouragement. And divine wrath disappears.

Christ frees from sin’s dominion. Romans 6:6: “Our old self was crucified with him… so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.”⁶
The sermon never speaks of Christ breaking dominion. It speaks of Christ strengthening effort.
Christ answers the cry of wretchedness. Unless the preacher drives the congregation to cry, “Wretched man that I am,” they cannot understand who Christ is. A gospel that answers discouragement does not need a crucified Christ. It needs a counsellor. A gospel that answers death needs a Savior.
Christ’s deliverance is forensic and liberating. Romans 8:1 is not psychological reassurance but legal declaration: “no condemnation.”⁷
Without condemnation, there can be no justification. Without sin as guilt, Christ becomes unnecessary.

Therapeutic preaching obscures Christ by obscuring sin. A full account of Paul’s theology in Romans 7 cannot end with the agonized cry of verse 24 without moving into the atoning work of Christ in Romans 8:3. Paul’s despair is not merely existential but judicial. The law does not simply frustrate him; it condemns him. The corruption he laments is not only inward conflict but guilt before a holy God. For this reason, the only adequate answer to the misery of Romans 7 is the substitutionary, penal, curse-bearing death of Christ. When Paul declares that God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do, he immediately explains how. God sent his Son “for sin” and “condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3).¹ This is the heart of substitutionary atonement. The condemnation that ought to fall on the sinner falls instead on Christ, who bears the penalty in his own body on the cross. The deliverance Paul seeks is therefore not self-mastery but the removal of guilt through a substitute who stands in the sinner’s place.

Only substitution answers the problem Romans 7 reveals. A sinner who cannot obey needs more than empowerment. He needs the sentence of the law lifted. A corrupt will requires more than encouragement. It requires the curse to be borne by another. The “body of death” from which Paul longs to be freed can be conquered only through the death of the One who became sin for us. Without substitution, Romans 7 ends in despair. With substitution, the anguished cry becomes the threshold of joy, for the believer discovers that condemnation has already fallen, not on him, but on Christ. Romans 7 demands a Savior who dies in the sinner’s place. Romans 8:3 declares that such a Savior has come.

Atonement Models as the Fruit of Hamartiology: Why a Soft View of Sin Produces a Moral Influence Gospel

A sermon’s doctrine of the atonement is never an isolated feature. It is the natural outcome of its doctrine of sin. When sin is collapsed into discouragement, relational strain, or inward frustration, the cross inevitably becomes therapeutic rather than sacrificial. The sermon under review illustrates this theological law with exact precision. Its Moral Influence posture did not emerge because the preacher consciously rejected penal substitution; it emerged because the preacher never preached sin as guilt before a holy God. If sin is weakness rather than rebellion, the cross becomes encouragement rather than propitiation. If sin is brokenness rather than enmity, Christ’s work becomes example rather than substitution. Hamartiology determines atonement.

Romans 7 exposes the impossibility of a Moral Influence reading. Paul’s cry is not emotional fatigue but judicial despair. The law has condemned him. The flesh has enslaved him. Sin has deceived and killed him. These are realities that no model of atonement can answer except penal substitution, for only a substitute can bear condemnation. This is precisely why Paul moves directly from the wretchedness of Romans 7:24 to the forensic declaration of Romans 8:1 and the judicial act of Romans 8:3, where God condemns sin in the flesh of Christ. The cross is not offered to soothe a discouraged believer but to rescue a condemned rebel. Moral Influence cannot carry the weight of Romans 7 because Moral Influence cannot deal with guilt, wrath, or divine holiness.

The sermon’s failure to proclaim substitutionary atonement therefore follows naturally from its therapeutic anthropology. It does not declare a holy God, therefore it cannot declare a condemning law. It does not declare a condemning law, therefore it cannot declare guilt. It does not declare guilt, therefore it cannot declare wrath. And without wrath, the cross cannot be substitutionary. What remains is a Christ who comforts more than He saves, who models more than He redeems, and who strengthens more than He delivers. This is Moral Influence by necessity, not by choice.

Romans 7 refuses such reduction. It binds the preacher to a God-centred vision in which sin is a power, law is a terror, and guilt is a sentence. Only a penal, substitutionary, curse-bearing Christ can answer the cry of the apostle. Where sin is minimized, substitution disappears. Where substitution disappears, Christ is diminished. And where Christ is diminished, preaching ceases to be gospel.

Pneumatolo]gical Implications: The Spirit as Therapist Instead of Liberator

Romans 8 reveals that the Spirit is the answer to Romans 7. The Spirit sets believers free from “the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).⁸ The Spirit empowers obedience. The Spirit gives life. The Spirit kills sin. The Spirit resurrects.

The sermon scarcely mentions the Spirit. Where the Spirit is absent, human effort fills the void. This is exactly what Paul denies. No one can obey the law in the flesh. The sermon, lacking the Spirit’s centrality, offers strategies rather than deliverance.

The Spirit wages war against the flesh. Galatians 5:17: “The desires of the flesh are against the Spirit.”⁹ Wherever the Spirit is missing in application, moralism enters.
The Spirit produces delight and obedience. Romans 7:22 speaks of delight in the law. Only the regenerate have this. The sermon never distinguishes Spirit-birthed delight from moral desire.
The Spirit brings resurrection hope. Romans 8:11: “He who raised Christ will also give life to your mortal bodies.”¹⁰ The cry of “Who will deliver me” finds its answer in the Spirit’s resurrection power. The sermon never leads hearers to long for resurrection.

Without the Spirit, Paul’s doctrine collapses.
Without the flesh’s hostility, the Spirit’s liberating power is unnecessary.
Thus the sermon treats the Spirit as a quiet assurance rather than a divine warrior.

Soteriological Implications: The Loss of Deliverance

Romans 7 is a cry for salvation.
Therapeutic preaching reduces salvation to encouragement.

Salvation becomes progress, not deliverance. Romans 7 ends in despair. The sermon ends in assurance that we are doing our best. That is not Christianity. That is moral uplift.
Justification becomes irrelevant. If sin is discouragement rather than guilt, “no condemnation” loses its explosive force. Grace becomes sentiment.
Sanctification becomes moral improvement. If sin is dysfunction, sanctification becomes effort. If sin is slavery, sanctification is the Spirit’s warfare.

The sermon teaches the former. Paul teaches the latter.

Pastoral Consequences: The Ruin of Souls. When sin is made small, everything becomes small:
Small sin.
Small Christ.
Small Spirit.
Small gospel.

The pastoral consequences are devastating:

Hearers become self-reliant rather than God-reliant.
Sin becomes acceptable as long as it is manageable.
Repentance becomes apology, not crucifixion of the flesh.
Churches become communities of moral encouragement rather than battalions of spiritual warfare.
Assurance becomes emotional rather than forensic.
Christ becomes a helper for the discouraged rather than a deliverer from the condemned.
The Spirit becomes a comforter of mood rather than the destroyer of sin.
The gospel becomes motivational speech rather than divine rescue.

A sermon that views sin as weakness cannot preach Christ as Savior. Weakness is the dominant theme in the block of 15 mini-illustrations towards the end of the sermon. Comfort is flooded upon the listener instead of the anguish Paul has been building up to in v24. A sermon that views sin as inconvenience has no room for deliverance. A sermon that views sin as relational discomfort cannot preach resurrection. Only those who have truly despaired of themselves can rejoice in grace. It is only who have been shown their wretchedness and have died with Christ who will rise with him.

PART VI.

CONCLUSION AND RECONSTRUCTIVE PROPOSAL

This concluding section gathers the threads of the argument to show that only a God-centred, sin-serious reading of Romans 7 preserves the exalted Christ and the full gospel, bringing the thesis to its final resolution.

Recovering the Holy God in Preaching Romans 7

The sermon that sparked this study is not the problem but the symptom. It represents the shape of much contemporary evangelical preaching: compassionate, sincere, and pastorally warm, yet thin, horizontal, therapeutic, and underweight. It is preaching with God in the background rather than preaching before the face of God. Romans 7 exposes this absence with merciless clarity. Paul’s cry of “Wretched man that I am” is incomprehensible outside the orbit of a holy God. But modern preaching, shaped by therapeutic categories, often avoids such anguish because it avoids the God who produces it.

A weak doctrine of sin is ultimately a weak doctrine of God. When sinners are small, God shrinks with them. When sin is only discouragement, God becomes only comfort. When sin is framed horizontally, the gravity of divine holiness evaporates. And when holiness evaporates, the gospel becomes little more than sentiment.

This monograph has traced that theological erosion through the lenses of exegesis, historical theology, rhetorical analysis, Christology, pneumatology, and pastoral theology. Each lens revealed the same truth: the sermon domesticates sin because it domesticates God. It turns Romans 7 into a story about inward struggle rather than alienation from divine perfection. It replaces divine rescue with human effort. It replaces the Spirit’s warfare with moral strategy. It replaces the cross with encouragement.

The purpose of this conclusion is therefore not merely to summarize deficiencies but to chart a constructive alternative. The preacher must recover what Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and countless faithful interpreters have understood: Romans 7 is not about frustration. It is about holiness. It is not about discouragement. It is about death. It is not about techniques for sanctification. It is about the unbridgeable chasm between flesh and Spirit, law and sin, man and God.

Only when the preacher descends into Paul’s anguish can he ascend into Paul’s deliverance.

Integrating the Lessons of the Monograph

The unified analysis reveals five central theological and homiletical necessities.

Sin must be preached as Godward rebellion

Romans 1:21–23 is the root of all subsequent Pauline anthropology. Sin is not irritability or discouragement but refusal to honour God. Romans 7 makes sense only when the preacher has laboured to impress God’s holiness upon the congregation.

The law must be preached as holy, righteous, and good

The law is not primarily a mirror of human failure but the shining of God’s holy perfection. When the commandment exposes sin, it is because God’s purity exposes human corruption. Romans 7:12 demands a preacher who feels this radiance.

The regenerate experiences real war

Romans 7:22–23 reveals a person who loves the law according to the inner man and yet feels the violent pull of sin in his members. This is not moral frustration but eschatological tension. The preacher must articulate this war or risk dulling the text’s seriousness. It is the “now not yet” tension of biblical eschatology. We have been declared forensically righteous, yet we still await the full experiential conformity that will be ours in the resurrection.

Christ must be preached as the Deliverer

Romans 7 culminates in a cry, not a strategy. Paul does not say, “I must try harder,” but “Who will deliver me?” (Rom. 7:24). This is the question that drives us to Christ. A sermon that proposes effort in place of deliverance cannot lead hearers to Romans 8:1.

The Spirit must be central

Romans 8 is the Spirit’s answer to Romans 7. He liberates from the law of sin and death. He empowers obedience. He resurrects. The preacher must show that sanctification is not moral improvement but divine power.

A Corrected Homiletical Outline for Preaching Romans 7

What follows is a constructive example of how Romans 7 might be preached in line with Paul’s God-centred theology and the insights of this monograph.

The Holiness of God as the Context for Romans 7

Begin by grounding the congregation in Romans 1:18–23. Show that sin is Godward rebellion. The law is an expression of divine holiness.

The Law’s Goodness and Sin’s Deception

Expound Romans 7:7–13. Explain epithymia and katergazetai. Show how the law reveals the hostility of the flesh.

III. The Regenerate Man in Eschatological Tension

Preach Romans 7:14–20. Define sarx. Explain that believers delight in the law but still experience corruption.

The Cry for Deliverance

Preach Romans 7:21–25. Press the congregation into the desperation Paul feels. Let them feel the weight of “Who will deliver me?” Scrap anecdotal illustrations. Preach the scriptures here more than anywhere.

The Spirit’s Liberating Power

Move immediately to Romans 8:1–4 in the conclusion. Show that deliverance is forensic and liberating. Christ meets us in condemnation; the Spirit frees us in power. Send your parishioners home with their eyes upon Christ.

Doxology

End with thanksgiving, not exhortation. “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25).

This outline restores the theological movement of the text. It brings hearers down into the depths so that they can rise in gratitude and joy.

The Sermon as a Segue into a Larger Problem: The Poverty of God-Centred Theology

The sermon under review is not poor because the preacher lacks sincerity or pastoral love. It is poor because it has absorbed the assumptions of a culture that minimizes God. The sermon is not therapeutic because the preacher intends to deceive but because the church has forgotten the holy terror of the biblical God.

Modern evangelicalism tends to speak more about human pain than divine majesty, more about psychological struggle than sin as rebellion, more about spiritual practices than divine rescue. It has become a tradition that wants the comfort of Romans 8 without the crucifixion of Romans 7. But Romans 7 is not a text about discouragement; it is a text about death. And only those who have died with Christ can live with him.

When preachers lose sight of God’s holiness, they lose sight of sin. When they lose sight of sin, they lose sight of the cross. When they lose sight of the cross, they lose sight of the Spirit’s power. When they lose sight of the Spirit, they lose sight of sanctification. And when all of these erode, the pulpit becomes a place of gentle encouragement rather than divine declaration.

Romans 7 is the antidote. It restores God to the centre. It crushes human pride. It ruins therapeutic moralism. It forces the congregation to face the God who commands and the flesh that rebels. It teaches them to cry for deliverance. And it prepares them to hear Romans 8:1 as the thunderclap of grace: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Final Synthesis

This monograph has shown:

the exegetical structure of Romans 7 in the flow of Romans 1–8
the historical interpretations from Origen to Wright
the rhetorical weaknesses revealed by the RPCM
the Christological and pneumatological consequences of weak hamartiology
the pastoral dangers of therapeutic preaching
the necessity of preaching sin as rebellion against a holy God
a constructive model for faithful preaching

The deepest problem in the sermon is not its illustration count, though thirty-three illustrations and a one-to-two ratio of stories to exegesis reveal its disorder. Nor is it the absence of Greek word studies, though this was a fatal omission. The deepest problem is the absence of a Holy God. When God is not holy, sin is not dreadful. When sin is not dreadful, grace is not amazing. And when grace is not amazing, Christ is not glorious. Anything short of this is hollow advice.

Romans 7 calls the church back to the God whose holiness slays us in justice and whose Spirit resurrects us in Christ. Romans 7’s anguish is the birthplace of Romans 8’s joy. Its cry is the doorway to Christ.

The sermon under review never reached that doorway because it never brought the hearer low enough to enter it. The corrective offered by this monograph is simple and ancient: recover God. Return to holiness. Preach sin as slavery and rebellion. Press the congregation into the condemnation of the law. And then raise them by the Spirit through Christ into the glory of Romans 8.

Only then will preaching once again echo the voice of Christ, bear the weight of His glory, and awaken in God’s people the cry of those whom He has redeemed.

The sermon used for illustrative purposes may be watched here: Rom 7:7-25

Footnotes

SECTION I

Scripture quotations from the ESV.
J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 254–61.
The Rhetorical–Pedagogical Competence Matrix (RPCM) is the custom analytical framework stored in your memory (2025-10-18).

SECTION II

Scripture quotations from the ESV.
Rom. 1:21.
Rom. 1:23.
Rom. 3:10.
Rom. 5:21.
Rom. 7:11.
Rom. 6:12.
Rom. 7:13.
Rom. 7:18.
Rom. 7:7.

SECTION III

Origen, Commentary on Romans, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2001), 6.7.
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF1), vol. 11.
Augustine, Against Julian, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 5.
Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, Luther’s Works 25.
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 251–56.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, commentary on Romans 7.
Phoebe Palmer, The Way of Holiness (New York: Lane & Scott, 1845).
C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:356–59.
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 439–51.

Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1 (New York: Scribner’s, 1951), 270–76.

N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 1060–65.

SECTION IV

Scripture quotations from the ESV.
Rom. 8:7.
Rom. 7:14.
Rom. 7:18.
Rom. 7:25.
Rom. 6:6.
Rom. 8:1.
Rom. 8:2.
Gal. 5:17.
Rom. 8:11.