I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the present tense because it follows grammatically from verse 14, which is the transition verse. It does not necessarily refer to a different state as decribed prior to verse 14.
The movement in thought from Romans 7:25 to 8:1 is the strongest argument that Paul has been describing a regenerate state. It is in this precise state that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. At the same time it must be recognised that Paul was examining the regenerate state from the perspective of law, not grace. Rom. 8:1 brings a fresh perspective of looking at the regenerate man with his struggles against sin from the viewpoint of grace.
The strongest argument for the unregenerate Paul is provided by Pauline scholars who take into account his overall old man/new man teaching. I believe they are simply imposing their understanding of Paul's doctrine of sanctification on this text without taking into consideration the law-grace perspectives I have just mentioned. Romans 7:14ff naturally looks different to the usual Pauline view of the new man simply because it only presents one side of the picture.
Rev. Matthew Winzer
Australian Free Church,
"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
1 member(s) found this post helpful.