That was very interesting, for sure.

When reading about the difference between wheat and tare, it made me wonder about the Romans 7 internal conflict:

Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

  19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Is Romans 7 describing the possibility of being both wheat and tare at the same time?

Or is it considering wheat becoming tare, and then becoming wheat again, then tare again, then wheat, etc.?

A number of years back, I remember where some explained that Romans 7 was describing Paul's experience "before" he was saved.

However, when Paul used the word, "now", that looked more like present tense, rather than past:

Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Also, before he was saved, Paul was not thanking God through Jesus Christ our Lord:

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

So, no, Romans 7 is not describing Paul's pre-conversion experience, but his present tense struggles with his flesh.

How does Romans 7 synchronize with the tares and wheat parable?