The article is concerned about identifying ‘I’ in Romans 7:14-25 and whose experiences he/she stands for. Three suggestions have been made to identity ‘I’ 7:14-25. Firstly, there is a position that ‘I’ is post-Damascus Paul who is in process of struggling between the new self being in Christ and the old self in the flesh. Secondly, another suggestion is that ‘I’ is ‘a Adamic being’ representing unbelievers who are under the control of sin which has been active in human world since the sin of Adam(Gen.3). Thirdly, a final position is that ‘I’ is a unbelieving Jew, from the Christian perspective of post-Damascus Paul, who cannot escape from the power of sin, although seeking and being confident of the justification by the works of the Torah. The third position is what the article favours. For the explanation of the reason why the third position is most persuasive, I will reexamine, first of all, whether grounds for a argument used to identify ‘I’ may be decisive or not. And then I will make an argument, particularly, that Christian ‘I’ or ‘Adamic I’ may be groundless if we take the context of vv 14-25 seriously. Furthermore, I will argue that it is unthinkable to believe that the final confession of “I will serve[douleuw, ] the law of sin”(v 25) may be made by a ‘Christian I’ or a ‘Adamic I’ when we pay attention to the uses of ‘slave’(dou/loj), ‘to be a slave(dou/lein) in Romans. Afterwards, I will a final argument that, on the grounds of the uses of ‘slave’(dou/loj) ‘to be a slave’(dou/lein), the context of chapters 6-8 and Paul’s theology, most persuasive is the third position that ‘I’ is a unbelieving Jew, from the Christian perspective of post-Damascus Paul, who cannot escape from the power of sin, although seeking and being confident of the justification by the works of the Torah.