Is MAD ethics and or morals void? Is MAD ethics even Christian?

[Idolater]

The morals and ethics of the body of Christ are totally the work of the Spirit in us.

So that's just reads to me that it's a 'passive' thing to you.

 

[Idolater]

That isn't a point, it's you being an idiot.

Why don't you answer a couple questions then if you're so sure.

Tell me whether someone who murders 666 Ukrainians must first repent of that in order to be saved? Or do they just have to believe "Paul's Gospel", and they don't have to repent of murdering 666 Ukrainians first (or at all)?

And now tell me if a person who already believes in "Paul's Gospel" murders 666 Ukrainians, they are still saved, according to MAD, aren't they?

And then you can tell me how much of an idiot I am.

Answer the question. What does believing that the body of Christ started with Paul have to do with ethics? Why would my ethics be any different than yours? Why would my understanding of justice be any different? Why would my understand of love be any different? Why would I have to mix law with grace to understand right from wrong?

THE single most stridantly anti-sin, pro-righteous living preacher I have ever met in my life was Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church in suburban Denver Colorado. His successor may prove to be his equal in this regard if he's lucky.

 

[Idolater]

You're a quack.

lol.

 

[glorydaz]

So that's just reads to me that it's a 'passive' thing to you.

Here's why....because any good thing that I can come up with is nothing but a work of the flesh.


In fact, I'd often end up thinking I'm doing something good only to realize the Lord had a better plan, and I'd merely gotten in His way.
My own plans always fall short of what I wanted. Sometimes it takes years for a person to figure that out.
It's known as going before the Lord. Once we accept the fact that we wait patiently on the Lord, resting in Him, that He is then able to do His work through us. Most often, we don't even know we're being used of the Lord.....that's merely to prevent us from boasting in what we could never have done on our own. Are you boasting in your ethics? I believe you are.

Why aren't those bad Maddies as holy and righteous as I am?

 

[glorydaz]

Why don't you answer a couple questions then if you're so sure.

Tell me whether someone who murders 666 Ukrainians must first repent of that in order to be saved? Or do they just have to believe "Paul's Gospel", and they don't have to repent of murdering 666 Ukrainians first (or at all)?

And now tell me if a person who already believes in "Paul's Gospel" murders 666 Ukrainians, they are still saved, according to MAD, aren't they?

And then you can tell me how much of an idiot I am.

Why aren't you this upset about the aborted babies?

You're being a hypocrite, as well and being completely ignorant of Paul's gospel.
Paul's gospel is full of mystery. Things that have never been revealed before the Risen Lord revealed them to Paul.

 

[glorydaz]

Would it be ethical and moral, according to MAD (Mid-Acts Dispensational) ethics and or morals, to tell Vladimir Putin to NOT murder 666 Ukrainians because he'll go to hell if he does so?

Oh look. I see the number 666. Maybe that's a sign the antichrist is near.

You'd best stop thinking about Putin, and ask yourself whether you're saved by faith alone or not.

If not, you're lost and whatever Putin does will pale in comparison to what you'll suffer in hell fire..

 

[Clete]

Why don't you answer a couple questions then if you're so sure.

You are the one who isn't answering questions.

Tell me whether someone who murders 666 Ukrainians must first repent of that in order to be saved? Or do they just have to believe "Paul's Gospel", and they don't have to repent of murdering 666 Ukrainians first (or at all)?

Non-sequitur.

One could not accept Paul's gospel (no need for quotes - Paul is the one who calls it that, not us.) without repentance.

And now tell me if a person who already believes in "Paul's Gospel" murders 666 Ukrainians, they are still saved, according to MAD, aren't they?

There is no sin so egregious that Christ's blood cannot cover it.

And then you can tell me how much of an idiot I am.

You are not only an idiot, you're a blasphemer and an unbeliever. Repent or you will go to the same Hell that Putin is headed to.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

Nearest I can tell from this whole discussion is that there are some Acts 9ers who basically hold to the idea that a true believer will not commit grave sin, it just will not happen, because the true believer is a new creation, the old man has died. So only the old man would ever do grave sin, and since the old man is dead in the true believer, the true believer will never commit grave sin.

And, since the new creation is resurrected, there's no way for him to die and be resurrected again, so if anyone who thinks he's a true believer, commits grave sin, then he is wrong, he is an unbeliever, infidel, blasphemer, all the bad things that I'm called itt and on TOL.

There is also another Acts 9er party though, who believes that a true believer might commit grave sin, and that it's not remarkable. I haven't seen any of that party itt.

 

[Right Divider]

Nearest I can tell from this whole discussion is that there are some Acts 9ers who basically hold to the idea that a true believer will not commit grave sin, it just will not happen, because the true believer is a new creation, the old man has died. So only the old man would ever do grave sin, and since the old man is dead in the true believer, the true believer will never commit grave sin.

And, since the new creation is resurrected, there's no way for him to die and be resurrected again, so if anyone who thinks he's a true believer, commits grave sin, then he is wrong, he is an unbeliever, infidel, blasphemer, all the bad things that I'm called itt and on TOL.

There is also another Acts 9er party though, who believes that a true believer might commit grave sin, and that it's not remarkable. I haven't seen any of that party itt.

Your understanding of MAD is terrible (as is your horrible RCC false doctrine).

Firstly, the Bible does not use the term "grave sin". It does use the term "sin unto death". I believe that this refers to sins that require the death penalty under the law.

Secondly, we don't claim that it's impossible for a saved person to sin. But that sin has already been dealt with and a saved person is NOT prone to sin due to our faith.

​

Rom 6:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?​

​

[Read all of Romans 6]​

​

Eph 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:24) And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. ​

Thirdly, your use of the word "resurrected" here seems somewhat confused. Our resurrection is yet future.

2Tim 2:18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.​

​

 

[Idolater]

Your understanding of MAD is terrible

It's the best I can do, given that none of you ever teach its tenets clearly and openly and plainly in a way that distinguishes Acts 9erism from other schools of theology. You'll say things like, "We believe in the Bible." Great. That's completely unhelpful. So I'm doing the best I can through interpolations, triangulation, inference, and other reasoning approaches and tools.

(as is your horrible RCC false doctrine).

Firstly, the Bible does not use the term "grave sin". It does use the term "sin unto death". I believe that this refers to sins that require the death penalty under the law.

$$ Ro 1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
$$ Ro 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
$$ Ro 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
$$ Ro 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death

Secondly, we don't claim that it's impossible for a saved person to sin.

Nor does Catholicism. But you above call Catholicism "horrible doctrine."

But that sin has already been dealt with and a saved person is NOT prone to sin due to our faith.

​

Rom 6:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?​

​

[Read all of Romans 6]​

​

Eph 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:24) And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. ​

That's basically what I said in my post.

Thirdly, your use of the word "resurrected" here seems somewhat confused. Our resurrection is yet future.

2Tim 2:18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.​

​

$$ Eph 2:1
And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
$$ Eph 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world ...
...
$$ Eph 2:4
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
$$ Eph 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ ...

 

[Right Divider]

It's the best I can do,

If that's the best you can do, you're either very dumb or completely dishonest.

given that none of you ever teach its tenets clearly and openly and plainly in a way that distinguishes Acts 9erism from other schools of theology. You'll say things like, "We believe in the Bible." Great. That's completely unhelpful. So I'm doing the best I can through interpolations, triangulation, inference, and other reasoning approaches and tools.

Silly nonsense on your part.

Read up on some of this: https://graceambassadors.com/what-is-mid-acts-pauline-dispensational-right-division

$$ Ro 1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
$$ Ro 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
$$ Ro 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
$$ Ro 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death

Yes, thanks for confirming my point. There are sins that require the death penalty, but there are no sins deemed "grave sins". Though we can certainly say that those sins that require the death penalty are very grave.

Note that ALL SIN leads to death one way or another. Those "death penalty sins" require IMMEDIATE DEATH.

Nor does Catholicism. But you above call Catholicism "horrible doctrine."

I've said it before, but you're pretty dense.
Not ALL RCC doctrines are false. Just MANY (perhaps most) of them.

 

[Derf]

You can't. There's no real law for countries, there's only law inside of them. So if a regime does something evil like invade Ukraine and murder Ukrainians it's not like you arrest them and prosecute them in a court of law.

Now you do, apparently.

 

[JudgeRightly]

none of you ever teach its tenets clearly and openly and plainly in a way that distinguishes Acts 9erism from other schools of theology.

Bob Enyart did.

You refuse to read the book he wrote on the topic because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard you hold it against:

Is this authoritative, standard, canonical Mid-Acts Dispensationalism? iow IF there's a problem in this book, does that mean there is logically necessarily a problem with MAD? Or are you just going to say, "Well Bob Enyart [of happy memory] was wrong on this or that point." I don't want to get involved in something that isn't authoritative, none of us has time to waste doing that.

So if you can commit to that, I'll read it, I promise. I mean generally, especially if two or more MAD's here can make that commitment, I'll read it.

And turnabout is fair play. I make the same commitment to you and everybody, about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That book contains authoritative, standard, canonical Catholicism. If there's a problem in there, there's a problem with Catholicism.


Correct me if I'm wrong: One of the ideas is to always know to whom every Scripture is written. (For example we didn't read Genesis and build ourselves an ark.)

What is the other idea?

Is this authoritative, standard, canonical Mid-Acts Dispensationalism? iow IF there's a problem in this book, does that mean there is logically necessarily a problem with MAD? Or are you just going to say, "Well Bob Enyart [of happy memory] was wrong on this or that point." I don't want to get involved in something that isn't authoritative, none of us has time to waste doing that.

So if you can commit to that, I'll read it, I promise. I mean generally, especially if two or more MAD's here can make that commitment, I'll read it.

I was told by you that it's not authoritative MAD, so by your own words MAD does not speak in The Plot. RD said, "MAD says," and I'm saying, "Where does MAD say." You told me, "Not in 'The Plot,'" already. Are you changing your answer?

No, what you were told by me was that it's not authoritative in the way that you think that things like the Catechism are "authoritative".

That doesn't mean that "The Plot" not "authoritative" as a source of information.



LIar.



My answer is the same.

You want to know what MAD says, read "The Plot."

No, it's not the "be all end all" of texts. It was written by a fallible human being.

But you will never obtain a better understanding or overview of the Bible (aside from just reading the Bible itself) through any other man-made document than "The Plot."

Again, I place "The Plot" second to the Bible. What more of an endorsement do you want?

Authoritative?

That word means "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable."

So sure, by definition, you can trust that "The Plot" is accurate or true, reliable even, but it is not perfect, because it was written by a fallible human being. Might it contain errors? Sure. But it's reliable.

And if it's not, then that's what this forum is for, to discuss beliefs and point out errors that others have.

Read it.

Or don't.

But, barring just reading and studying the Scriptures yourself, you will never understand the Bible better than you do now if you don't.

I'm pretty sure they still have the 30-day money back guarantee, so if you don't think it was worth reading after doing so, you can always get your money back. And If I remember correctly, they don't even tell you to return it.

"['The Plot'] is second only to the Bible itself [in authority]"

This indicates to me that "The Plot" at least contains authoritative MAD, but your refusal to commit to "The Plot" containing authoritative MAD contrariwise indicates to me that that's not the case. Can you tell me which is it? is "The Plot" authoritative MAD or not? I'm looking for the authoritative narrative or teaching or deposit of doctrine for MAD.

btw I'm saying the same about the Catechism that you say about "The Plot," except that the Catechism, because it includes Apostolic Oral Tradition as well as Scriptures, is equal with the Bible in authority. But that is distinct from saying the Catechism is authoritative Catholicism, you don't have to believe Catholicism's true to believe the Catechism contains all the authoritative tenets of Catholicism's narrative.

You don't have to believe in the content (e.g. in the Trinity or in the hypostatic union dual nature of Christ) to believe the Catechism is authoritative Catholicism.

You want to know MAD, read "The Plot."

Otherwise, let God be true, and every man (including the authors of your preferred books) a liar.

 

[Clete]

Secondly, we don't claim that it's impossible for a saved person to sin. But that sin has already been dealt with and a saved person is NOT prone to sin due to our faith.

​

Rom 6:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?​

​

[Read all of Romans 6]​

​

Eph 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:24) And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. ​

​

The accuracy of your statement depends entirely on just what you mean when you use the phrase "prone to sin". How would you square your statement above with the following passage...

Roman 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​

​

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 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.​

​

Would you agree with the following...

"The believer is no longer under sin’s dominion, yet still lives with fleshly inclinations that must be reckoned dead and resisted by walking in the Spirit by faith."

 

[Right Divider]

The accuracy of your statement depends entirely on just what you mean when you use the phrase "prone to sin". How would you square your statement above with the following passage...

Roman 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​

​

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 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.​

That passage is clearly referring to the unsaved man.
Romans 8 is the "after" part of the story.

Would you agree with the following...

"The believer is no longer under sin’s dominion, yet still lives with fleshly inclinations that must be reckoned dead and resisted by walking in the Spirit by faith."

Indeed I do... that is why we must walk after the spirit and not after the flesh.

Rom 8:4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

 

[Right Divider]

@Idolater

Firstly, the title of this thread is asinine.

Secondly, MAD is simply a subset of the concept found throughout the Bible... i.e., that God deals with people differently from time to time. Sometimes with the same people and sometimes with different people. It is simply the plain and normal reading of the text.

Mid-Acts is not the only time that there was a change made. We can see a change as early as with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. First, Adam was put in the garden to dress it and to keep it (Gen 2:15), then later, Adam was told to get out of the garden and don't come back (Gen 3:23,24).

We see another change in Lev 20 when God separated Israel from other people.

In Mid-Acts, we see God set aside those people (Israel) temporarily and institute something new, the body of Christ. God did this by calling the apostle Paul and giving Paul new information/instructions.

Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.​

​

1Tim 1:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:16) Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. ​

​

It's all quite simple and irrefutable.

 

[Clete]

That passage is clearly referring to the unsaved man.
Romans 8 is the "after" part of the story.

Indeed I do... that is why we must walk after the spirit and not after the flesh.

Rom 8:4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

What?! It absolutely is not referring to an unsaved man! I'm very surprised to see this coming from you. You are the ONLY non-Calvinist (Augustinian) that I've personally ever seen make this claim about Romans 7. It certainly is not normative Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

Indeed, I see no means by which the claim that Romans 7 describes an unsaved man can survive even a simple reading of the text.

First, the man in Romans 7 delights in God’s law.

“For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.” (Romans 7:22)​

Paul is explicit on the next page that the unsaved man does not relate to God’s law this way.

“The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)​

An unsaved man is hostile to God’s law. He does not delight in it.

Second, the category ‘inward man’ is always regenerate in Paul.

Paul uses this language consistently.

​

“Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” (II Corinthians 4:16)​

​

“Strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man.” (Ephesians 3:16)​

Paul never uses ‘inner man’ language for the unregenerate. To do so here is special pleading.

Further, the will in Romans 7 is aligned with righteousness.

Paul says repeatedly:

“To will is present with me.”​

“What I will to do, that I do not practice.” (Romans 7:15–18)​

Contrast that with Paul’s description of the unsaved:

“There is none who seeks after God.” (Romans 3:11)​

Romans 7 is not describing indifference to righteousness. It is describing frustration at failing to live up to it. That is a regenerate problem.

Further still, the cry of Romans 7 is not an unbeliever seeking salvation.

“O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24)​

The answer comes immediately:

“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (7:25)​

This is not a man discovering Christ. It is a man who already knows the Deliverer and is wrestling with indwelling sin.

Thus, the flow of Romans forbids the ‘unsaved man’ reading.

Romans 6 deals with sin’s dominion being broken.
Romans 7 deals with sin’s presence being experienced.
Romans 8 deals with walking in the Spirit as the answer.

If Romans 7 suddenly shifts to an unsaved man, Paul inserts an unmarked flashback into the middle of a tightly argued progression, then never signals the transition.

In short, the Romans 7 man...

• Loves God’s law.
• Hates his sin.
• Wills to do good.
• Recognizes indwelling sin as the problem.
• Knows Christ as deliverer.

That doesn't sound like an unsaved man to me!


The idea that Romans 7 is referring to the unsaved comes from Augustine. Augustine actually reversed positions on this point. Early Augustine read Romans 7 as regenerate. Later Augustine read it as unregenerate. The change was, I think, primarily to preserve what we today call "Total Depravity" (i.e. the notion that human nature is radically corrupted, the human will is morally incapacitated, and that fallen man is unable not to sin), and then Calvin followed the later Augustinian teaching for the same reasons.

 

[Right Divider]

What?! It absolutely is not referring to an unsaved man! I'm very surprised to see this coming from you. You are the ONLY non-Calvinist (Augustinian) that I've personally ever seen make this claim about Romans 7. It certainly is not normative Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

Indeed, I see no means by which the claim that Romans 7 describes an unsaved man can survive even a simple reading of the text.

First, the man in Romans 7 delights in God’s law.

“For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.” (Romans 7:22)​

Paul is explicit on the next page that the unsaved man does not relate to God’s law this way.

“The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)​

An unsaved man is hostile to God’s law. He does not delight in it.

Second, the category ‘inward man’ is always regenerate in Paul.

Paul uses this language consistently.

​

“Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” (II Corinthians 4:16)​

​

“Strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man.” (Ephesians 3:16)​

Paul never uses ‘inner man’ language for the unregenerate. To do so here is special pleading.

Further, the will in Romans 7 is aligned with righteousness.

Paul says repeatedly:

“To will is present with me.”​

“What I will to do, that I do not practice.” (Romans 7:15–18)​

Contrast that with Paul’s description of the unsaved:

“There is none who seeks after God.” (Romans 3:11)​

Romans 7 is not describing indifference to righteousness. It is describing frustration at failing to live up to it. That is a regenerate problem.

Further still, the cry of Romans 7 is not an unbeliever seeking salvation.

“O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24)​

The answer comes immediately:

“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (7:25)​

This is not a man discovering Christ. It is a man who already knows the Deliverer and is wrestling with indwelling sin.

Thus, the flow of Romans forbids the ‘unsaved man’ reading.

Romans 6 deals with sin’s dominion being broken.
Romans 7 deals with sin’s presence being experienced.
Romans 8 deals with walking in the Spirit as the answer.

If Romans 7 suddenly shifts to an unsaved man, Paul inserts an unmarked flashback into the middle of a tightly argued progression, then never signals the transition.

In short, the Romans 7 man...

• Loves God’s law.
• Hates his sin.
• Wills to do good.
• Recognizes indwelling sin as the problem.
• Knows Christ as deliverer.

That doesn't sound like an unsaved man to me!


The idea that Romans 7 is referring to the unsaved comes from Augustine. Augustine actually reversed positions on this point. Early Augustine read Romans 7 as regenerate. Later, Augustine read it as unregenerate. The change was, I think, primarily to preserve what we today call "Total Depravity" (i.e. the notion that human nature is radically corrupted, the human will is morally incapacitated, and that fallen man is unable not to sin), and then Calvin followed the later Augustinian teaching for the same reasons.

OK

This sounds like "pre-saved" to me:

Rom 7:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(7:24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?​

 

[Clete]

OK

This sounds like "pre-saved" to me:

Rom 7:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(7:24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?​

Only if you ignore the context.


Paul is not lamenting an unredeemed position. He is lamenting an unredeemed body.

Our flesh has not yet been redeemed. We are still living in what Paul calls “this body of death.” That is precisely why believers still physically die. Bodily redemption is future, not present.
If Romans 7 were “pre-saved,” then Paul would be describing a problem that disappears at justification. Yet the very next chapter confirms the opposite.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.​

Romans 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. ​

The reason believers still struggle is not because salvation is incomplete, but because redemption is not yet consummated, which is why Paul must exhort believers to reckon themselves dead to sin.

Romans 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Reckoning is a faith response to a positional reality that is not yet fully experienced. If sanctification were automatic, reckoning would be meaningless. Not only that, but there can be no such thing as an unsaved person "reckoning themselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God", which is proof positive that Paul is not talking about unsaved even in chapter 6, never mind chapter 7.

Further, if your reading of Romans 7 were correct then our having died in Christ and Him living His life through us would not be by faith but by actual experience.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

If Christ’s life were manifested as uninterrupted experience rather than lived by faith, there would be no struggle, no exhortation, no warfare, and no need to walk by the Spirit. So the cry, “Who shall deliver me from this body of death?” is not the cry of an unsaved man seeking justification. It is the cry of a saved man longing for bodily redemption.

Reading Romans 7 as “pre-saved” collapses justification, sanctification, and glorification into a single moment, which is clearly not what the bible depicts.

 

[Idolater]

Now you do, apparently.
View attachment 15110

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2007395383291589016