PDA

View Full Version : By Nature Children of Wrath as others !



brightfame52
05-02-21, 03:59 PM
Eph 2:3

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Who are the we here Paul is referring to as by nature were being the children of wrath ? No doubt he included himself by employing the pronoun we.

He's meaning believers as himself, even the Chosen ones in Christ before the foundation of the world as characterize in Eph 1:4

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Now with this established as to whom Paul is writing of in Eph 2:3 as once being the children of wrath as others, does this designation mean that at one time believers, the Chosen of God were by nature under Gods wrath ? Absolutely not, by no means possible were the believers in Christ, the Chosen of God ever under Gods Wrath as others. Neither does it read in Eph 2:3 that any were under Gods wrath.

So what does Paul mean here by this designation " were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."?

Here are a few things Paul may mean. There are men and women that are definitely under Gods wrath, these would be the vessels of wrath, who are destined for wrath Rom 9:22

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Now by nature the Chosen of God when unbelievers do visibly appear as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction simply because they sinners naturally like they are.

And being sinners as the vessels of wrath are, they are also most deserving of Gods wrath and destruction as all men are by nature.

And also, by nature the Chosen are wrathful children towards God as other sinners are, meaning their disposition towards the True God is one of wrathful, enmity against Him as in Rom 5:10

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Col 1:21

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

The word for enemies here in the above is the word echthros :

From a primary echtho (to hate); hateful (passively, odious, or actively, hostile)

hated, odious, hateful
hostile, hating, and opposing another
used of men as at enmity with God by their sin
opposing (God) in the mind

And the word hateful means resentful, even wrathful !

The elect/chosen by nature as in common with all other men are carnal in the flesh, and here's what Paul writes about them in the flesh Rom 8:7

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity[hatred] against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Yet with all this foul disposition we naturally have against the True God, as the Chosen of God, they're never under Gods wrath . They are never vessels of wrath God is fitting for destruction, Gods disposition towards them, even when they are enemies towards Himself, is one of Love, Mercy, and Reconciliation, and Peace through the death of Christ for them. Rom 5:8,10;Eph 2:4; 1 Jn 2:2

So believers, the Chosen in Christ are never under Gods Wrath and scripture doesnt anywhere teach that, not even Eph 2:3 !

brightfame52
05-03-21, 03:04 PM
The Elect/Chosen are never under Gods Wrath because Christ has already been made sin for them 2 Cor 5:21, and God doesnt impute sin to them 2 Cor 5:19

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

So consequently wheres there no sin imputed theres no wrath ! The wrath of God is upon imputed sin Rom 1:18


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

But this ungodliness and unrighteousness of sin isnt imputed to the Elect 2 Cor 5:19

Eph 5:5-6

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

But none of these things listed in Vs 5 are imputed to the elect so no wrath ! 2 Cor 5:19

Col 3:5-6

5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

But none of these things in Vs 5 are imputed to the chosen, so no wrath

The reason for this blessedness is because all those sins when it comes to Gods chosen, have already came under the wrath of God as they were charged to Christ 2 Cor 5:21. And that was before the chosen ones were born !

brightfame52
05-06-21, 06:27 AM
See even though the Elect will experience another nature via the New Birth, which will grant unto them Faith and Repentance and other fruit of the Spirit unto good works, Yet this new nature wasnt necessary to legally justify them or acquit them from Gods Wrath, that was accomplished solely by the merits of Christs obedience unto death on their behalf Rom 5:19

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.



Isa 53:11


11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.


Having suffered, he will reflect on his work, he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done. “My servant will acquit many, for he carried their sins. NET


Thats why its declared He acuits/justifies the ungodly Rom 4:5


5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

brightfame52
05-08-21, 04:45 AM
Sinners who Christ died for, His Sheep/Elect, before they believe, God by Christs death for them has been propitiated 1 Jn 2:2

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

That word propitiation hilasmos:

a propitiation (of an angry god), atoning sacrifice. hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. Christ's atoning blood that appeases God's wrath,

removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.nal

So therefore if we believe Christs death was truly a propitiation Godward, its impossible for anyone Christ died for, namely His Elect Chosen in Christ before the foundation, to ever be under His Wrath, for that outright contradicts Christs propitiating death for them ! Remember Gods wrath is the punishment for our sins Eph 5:6; Col 3:6 !

brightfame52
05-10-21, 11:17 AM
The Elect aren't under Gods wrath at anytime, not even while they are by nature children of wrath like others Eph 2:3 ! The reason being is because all what they are by nature as ungodly rebels and sinners, has already been laid upon Christ, and He has provided satisfaction to Gods Justice for what they are by nature. God needs no more satisfaction against their sins, He's appeased on their behalf.

Bob Higby
05-10-21, 06:41 PM
Thanks Bright Fame, I agree on all points. From what I have studied this agrees with the interpretation of Calvin, Gill, and many others in their commentaries. We are by nature children of wrath (the internal seething wrath and hatred against God in our pre-regenerate state) and also under the wrath of the law, which indicates that we deserve God's wrath for our sin. But the wrath of the law is what God purposed from eternity to deliver us from in Christ, so God never hated any of the elect at any point within time for their personal sin (or for Adam's sin, for that matter). The doctrine of common wrath (God's hatred of both elect and un-elect before regeneration) is a false teaching. --Bro. Bob

Brandan
05-12-21, 02:24 PM
https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=20225

brightfame52
05-13-21, 01:21 PM
If the elect of God, who by nature are the children of wrath as others[the non elect] if they at anytime be under Gods wrath because of their sins and being children of wrath by nature, then it serves to reason that Gods wrath wasn't turned away by the atoning blood of His Dear Son, that His blood failed to satisfy His offended Justice for them, that His Blood failed to propitiate Him, to appease or turn away His Wrath on them. If that Blood didn't do it, then what does ? Is it the sinners act of believing that ultimately appeased Gods Wrath over and above the Blood of Christ ?

brightfame52
05-13-21, 01:28 PM
Thanks Bright Fame, I agree on all points. From what I have studied this agrees with the interpretation of Calvin, Gill, and many others in their commentaries. We are by nature children of wrath (the internal seething wrath and hatred against God in our pre-regenerate state) and also under the wrath of the law, which indicates that we deserve God's wrath for our sin. But the wrath of the law is what God purposed from eternity to deliver us from in Christ, so God never hated any of the elect at any point within time for their personal sin (or for Adam's sin, for that matter). The doctrine of common wrath (God's hatred of both elect and un-elect before regeneration) is a false teaching. --Bro. Bob

Many who oppose this truth are calvinist. They teach that the elect are not free from Gods wrath until they exercise faith, even though they say faith is the fruit of regeneration.

brightfame52
05-16-21, 02:02 AM
Eph 2:3

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Now the Elect in their own persons by nature did incur wrath and the curse, as others, however that's the very thing that fell on Christ for them, which necessitated His Suretyship Heb 2:17, because the very wrath and curse they themselves incurred was true and actual.

Even though their sin actually bring about Gods wrath and curse for them, they were prevented by their transference unto Christ and His Suretyship, hence instead of them, He must drink of their due wrath and curse of the law in their behalf, for so we read 2 Cor 5:21;Gal 3:13;Heb 2:9-10 ! So therefore, though naturally, as others, they were being children of wrath, they because of Christs Suretyship, were never under Gods deserved Wrath and Curse ! If they were, that made Christs Suretyship null and void !

Bob Higby
05-17-21, 08:53 PM
Well, the 'calvinist' label is used to mean anything today. As far as Calvin's own position is concerned, I'm quite certain he did not hold to the 'common wrath' doctrine. I can provide quotes if claims are made to the contrary. Bro. Bob

brightfame52
05-18-21, 01:20 AM
Well, the 'calvinist' label is used to mean anything today. As far as Calvin's own position is concerned, I'm quite certain he did not hold to the 'common wrath' doctrine. I can provide quotes if claims are made to the contrary. Bro. Bob

Would you mind providing a couple of those quotes ?

brightfame52
05-23-21, 09:48 AM
The Elect , even by nature are children of wrath as others [non elect] they nevertheless shall be distinguished from the others, in that they shall be quickened by the Spirit out of being dead in trespasses and sins, and given spiritual eyes and ears to see and hear, and given Faith in Jesus Christ their Saviour Phil 1:29, and they shall live by the Faith of the Son of God Gal 2:20.

Bob Higby
05-29-21, 09:55 PM
The Calvin quotes on this matter I have definitely encountered, will provide as soon as opportunity permits me to look up where in his massive writings he spoke on this. Probably in his Bible commentaries, maybe also in the institutes. --Bro. Bob

Bob Higby
06-04-21, 03:35 PM
For the time being just look up Calvin's Commentaries on 2 Tim. 1:9 and read his profound insights on eternal Grace. The site I was looking at (ccel) did not allow copy and paste but I think all will be blessed by what he records for us there. Bro. Bob

Brandan
06-05-21, 07:07 AM
For the time being just look up Calvin's Commentaries on 2 Tim. 1:9 and read his profound insights on eternal Grace. The site I was looking at (ccel) did not allow copy and paste but I think all will be blessed by what he records for us there. Bro. Bob

Here it is:

9Who hath saved us From the greatness of the benefit he shews how much we owe to God; for the salvation which he has bestowed on us easily swallows up all the evils that must be endured in this world. The word saved, though it admit of a general signification, is here limited, by the context, to denote eternal salvation. So then he means that they who, having obtained through Christ not a fading or transitory, but an eternal salvation, shall spare their fleeting life or honor rather than acknowledge their Redeemer; are excessively ungrateful.

And hath called us with a holy calling He places the sealing of salvation (142) in the calling; for, as the salvation of men was completed in the death of Christ, so God, by the gospel, makes us partakers of it. In order to place in a stronger light the value of this “calling,” he pronounces it to be holy. This ought to be carefully observed, because, as salvation must not be sought anywhere but in Christ; so, on the other hand, he would have died and risen again without any practical advantage, unless so far as he calls us to a participation of this grace. Thus, after having procured salvation for us, this second blessing remains to be bestowed, that, ingrafting us into his body, he may communicate his benefits to be enjoyed by us.

Not according to our works, but according to his purpose and grace He describes the source both of our calling and of the whole of our salvation. We had not works by which we could anticipate God; but the whole depends on his gracious purpose and election; for in the two words purpose and grace there is the figure of speech called Hypallage, (143) and the latter must have the force of an objection, as if he had said, — “according to his gracious purpose.” Although Paul commonly employs the word “purpose” to denote the secret decree of God, the cause of which is in his own power, yet, for the sake of fuller explanation, he chose to add “grace,” that he might more clearly exclude all reference to works. And the very contrast proclaims loudly enough that there is no room for works where the grace of God reigns, especially when we are reminded of the election of God, by which he was beforehand with us, when we had not yet been born. On this subject I have spoken more fully in my exposition of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians; and at present I do nothing more than glance briefly at that which I have there treated more at large. (144)

Which was given to us From the order of time he argues, that, by free grace, salvation was given to us which we did not at all deserve; for, if God chose us before the creation of the world, he could not have regard to works, of which we had none, seeing that we did not then exist. As to the cavil of the sophists, that God was moved by the works which he foresaw, it does not need a long refutation. What kind of works would those have been if God had passed us by, seeing that the election itself is the source and beginning of all good works?

This giving of grace, which he mentions, is nothing else than predestination, by which we were adopted to be the sons of God. On this subject I wished to remind my readers, because God is frequently said actually to “give” his grace to us when we receive the effect of it. But here Paul sets before us what God purposed with himself from the beginning. He, therefore, gave that which, not induced by any merit, he appointed to those who were not yet born, and kept laid up in his treasures, until he made known by the fact itself that he purposeth nothing in vain.

Before eternal ages He employs this phrase in the same sense in which he elsewhere speaks of the uninterrupted succession of years from the foundation of the world. (Tit 1:2 (ref:Tit.1.2).) For that ingenious reasoning which Augustine conducts in many passages is totally different from Paul’s design. The meaning therefore is, — “Before times began to take their course from all past ages.” Besides, it is worthy of notice, that he places the foundation of salvation in Christ; for, apart from him, there is neither adoption nor salvation; as was indeed said in expounding the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians.

(142) “La certitude de salut.” — “The certainty of salvation.”

(143) A figure of speech, by which the parts of a proposition seem to be interchanged, ὑπαλλαγήcompounded of ν̔πό and ἀλλάσσω ` I change.’-Ed.

(144) See Calvin’s Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians, pp. 197-201. --Ed.

Brandan
06-05-21, 07:11 AM
The so-called sovereign grace Facebook preachers who rail against Calvin (calling him a works monger) and criticize people for reading his commentary really are ignorant.

Brandan
06-19-21, 04:15 PM
https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=18990

I just remembered I did a podcast on this topic.

brightfame52
06-21-21, 06:25 AM
https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=18990

I just remembered I did a podcast on this topic.

Hi Brandon. I have already listened to that podcast a while back and it was very good. I would like to comment on what you mentioned on EJ and how that they who dont receive it have problems with the Eternity of God, and the Immutability of God. I concur with that, however I must take it a step further, and its much more serious problem i believe, and that is they who dont receive eternal justification, have a problem with understanding Justification at the Cross alone. I believe that even Eternal Justification is premised on the Cross in time, however the Cross in the Mind and Purpose of God was a done deal Rev 13:8;1 Pet 1:20 In other words, God didn't have to wait until 33 ad to count the death of Christ a done deal, it was a present reality in His Mind and Purpose in eternity. Most people who dont receive EJ from Eternity dont receive Justification at the Cross either. All the elect were Justified at the Cross by His Blood Rom 5:9 before regeneration and faith conversion. Also if Christ was slain in the purpose of God before the foundation, then likewise were their sins imputed to Him and not them before the foundation, which is again their Justification from them.

Brandan
06-22-21, 07:13 AM
100% agree, although I've run into folks that believe in justification at the cross - but deny the eternal aspect of it. It seems contradictory to me. A couple guys, Ken Wimer and David Simpson, they even went so far as to say that justification at the cross is truth, but justification from eternity is false doctrine. I heard them preach this at a conference around 2006. Years ago, I sat down with Steve Baloga (who attended David Simpson's church) and had a good conversation face to face on the topic. The poor guy was so confused. They didn't understand justification from eternity because they didn't understand eternity IMO. They saw eternity as an extension of time, rather from that which time flows.

Amongst some in the free grace camp, those that deny justification from eternity tend to make a huge deal about the level of tolerance that is acceptable. They primarily see salvation PRIMARILY (like a free willer or typical low grace calvinist) in conversion and that leads them to treat the their gospel like it's a life or death situation, instead of resting in the sovereignty of God. Example, they make it their mission to "defend the gospel" as they know it, acting almost scared that someone would think differently from them - scared to death that wiley characters like me might lead folks astray with my supposed tolerance for free willers. And these are people that claim to be "supralapsarian" - yet they reject justification from eternity. They reject the doctrine because they have a different worldview - a different mindset, and at worst, have erected for themselves a mutable god, swayed by the events of history. At best, they are just blissfully inconsistent.

brightfame52
06-22-21, 09:49 AM
Brandon


although I've run into folks that believe in justification at the cross - but deny the eternal aspect of it. It seems contradictory to me.

Right that's inconsistent, I mean its still Justification before you are born.


A couple guys, Ken Wimer and David Simpson, they even went so far as to say that justification at the cross is truth, but justification from eternity is false doctrine.

Yeah I know of those guys. Bill Parker use to be against it, but now I think he accepts it.


Amongst some in the free grace camp, those that deny justification from eternity tend to make a huge deal about the level of tolerance that is acceptable. They primarily see salvation PRIMARILY (like a free willer or typical low grace calvinist) in conversion and that leads them to treat the their gospel like it's a life or death situation, instead of resting in the sovereignty of God. Example, they make it their mission to "defend the gospel" as they know it, acting almost scared that someone would think differently from them - scared to death that wiley characters like me might lead folks astray with my supposed tolerance for free willers. And these are people that claim to be "supralapsarian" - yet they reject justification from eternity. They reject the doctrine because they have a different worldview - a different mindset, and at worst, have erected for themselves a mutable god, swayed by the events of history. At best, they are just blissfully inconsistent.

I hear yea ! I have come to believe that EJ is a essential gospel doctrine, because it highlights the Cross !

Brandan
06-22-21, 10:07 AM
Yes, I just saw Bill Parker a couple weeks ago here in Ashland. He is indeed on board with Justification from Eternity. I remember when he wasn't there and remember praying for him and the church in Albany after hearing that nonsense from Wimer and Simpson. It's been a real blessing to see him and the church here in Ashland and there in Albany convinced of the truth, and not swayed by the weird objections of the JFE opponents.

brightfame52
07-06-21, 12:57 PM
Yes, I just saw Bill Parker a couple weeks ago here in Ashland. He is indeed on board with Justification from Eternity. I remember when he wasn't there and remember praying for him and the church in Albany after hearing that nonsense from Wimer and Simpson. It's been a real blessing to see him and the church here in Ashland and there in Albany convinced of the truth, and not swayed by the weird objections of the JFE opponents.

Speaking of Parker. He says that all men without exception have a responsibility to seek the Lord. He also believes Acts 17:30 is God commanding all men without exception to repent. Whats your thoughts on that please ?

Brandan
07-07-21, 05:40 AM
Speaking of Parker. He says that all men without exception have a responsibility to seek the Lord. He also believes Acts 17:30 is God commanding all men without exception to repent. Whats your thoughts on that please ?Hello Anthony, statements like those in my opinion are difficult to understand. Personally I think this is an old duty-faith shibboleth that has remained in the speech of some sovereign grace baptists. Those who are beneficiaries of the everlasting covenant of grace are obligated to repent and believe the Lord and His promises after coming to believe the truth (which is a gift). Although I really dislike thinking of it as a duty or obligation as we know that it is the Lord who does all of this on behalf of us. He savingly sustains us, and preserves us in faith.

However the reprobate is also obligated to obey the Lord in all things. They are obligated to honor Him, to believe what He says, to believe what He says about His Gospel (which is not necessarily true saving faith), to Honor Him in all their doings, to obey His commands, and to stop their rebellion and NOT SIN (an impossibility), to TURN from their sin (repentance - not evangelical repentance though). However, they are not obligated to have the gift of faith. They are not obligated to be regenerated and have true evangelical repentance and true evangelical faith. These things are only a gift of God. How can any be man duty-bound to have a gift?

You will often hear some very mild duty-faith preaching amongst the sovereign grace baptists due to the failure to differentiate between believing the truth outwardly (just believing that the facts of the Bible are true - that the Gospel is true isn't necessarily salvation and SAVINGLY believing the truth (true faith which includes an element of assent/agreement - the conscience also sees that the propositions of the Gospel are for the individual). And I think this is also due to the influence that Spurgeon's preaching had on Henry Mahan. Spurgeon was an amazing fellow, but this would be one of his weakest points as a preacher in my opinion. HOWEVER, I myself overlook this when I hear it as it's never tied to gospel offerism or conditional salvation which is the true danger of duty-faith preaching in my opinion. Arthur Pink used to talk this way as well, that is he held to a form of duty-faith, but rejected the well-meant offer.

I maintain a close fellowship with Bill and other Sovereign Grace preachers, and I just haven't broached the subject with them. Sometimes some old shibboleths like duty-faith or even freewiller shibboleths remain in our speech long after our conversion. I'm of the mindset that these sovereign grace preachers haven't sat down and thought through the implications of all of their speech. I'm sure the same is true for me as well....

I've been around long enough to see Bro. Parker go from not believing justification from eternity to being a strong promoter of it. So I try to be patient as these men learn more and more of the truth and I'll just rely on the Holy Spirit to bring that illumination in time... I can assure you though that they are the farthest thing there is from believing in a conditional salvation, otherwise I would have not moved my family 500 miles away from our home in Missouri to be a part of their congregation here in Ashland!

See the following article to see what I mean regarding shibboleths.... https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=20213

brightfame52
07-13-21, 03:02 AM
brandon


However the reprobate is also obligated to obey the Lord in all things.

Of course, but as His creature and under law.


They are obligated to honor Him, to believe what He says, to believe what He says about His Gospel (which is not necessarily true saving faith),

I agree with that, but thats where its tricky, in that believing what Gods Gospel declares doesnt reward with Salvation, but thats not made clear. Also, naturally men are opposed to, at enmity with Gods Gospel because it reveals a God of Sovereign Grace and Election that saves a particular people, even with the exclusion of others.


You will often hear some very mild duty-faith preaching amongst the sovereign grace baptists due to the failure to differentiate between believing the truth outwardly (just believing that the facts of the Bible are true - that the Gospel is true isn't necessarily salvation and SAVINGLY believing the truth (true faith which includes an element of assent/agreement - the conscience also sees that the propositions of the Gospel are for the individual).

Which is dangerously subtle, reminds me of Christs words, that if possible could deceive the very elect !

brightfame52
07-14-21, 12:26 PM
brandon


However the reprobate is also obligated to obey the Lord in all things.

We need to be careful so this cannot be construed as God making a conditional promise to save the non elect if he fulfills this obligation. That turns into conditional salvation on the sinner which is a false Gospel.

Brandan
07-15-21, 02:54 PM
Of course. Saying men are obligated to obey the Lord should not be tied with salvation. Neonomians like to call faith a work. I dislike that too.

brightfame52
07-20-21, 09:33 AM
Of course. Saying men are obligated to obey the Lord should not be tied with salvation. Neonomians like to call faith a work. I dislike that too.

Exactly. Now as creatures, man is obligated to keep Gods Law like Adam was, but thats not Salvaic, and even if man could fulfill that obedience, which he cant, but if he did, it only amounts to this Lk 17:10


So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

brightfame52
09-03-21, 05:32 AM
Christ's Death God-ward accomplished much for those He died for before they ever believe in Him. For example, That which the elect are by nature as other men, children of wrath Eph 2:3, Enemies Rom 5:10, enemies in their minds by wicked works Col 1:21, yet because of Christ's finished work for them, they are not the objects of God's Wrath, not ever, but only objects of His Mercy. You see, with them, their sinfulness by nature only constitutes them what God afore ordained, Vessels of Mercy Rom 9:23

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

All the Legal condemnation that they deserve along with others, the vessels of wrath, theirs has been effectively dealt with by the Cross of Jesus Christ, for He died for all their sins in the flesh. Even after the New Birth, that Old Man that they remain in, and what carries the New Man, it still is very sinful, because it was born out of corruptible seed, the fallen Adam. Their sin nature of adam is not eradicated, but is still alive and well in the Saint of God, for that is Paul's argument in Rom 7 and Johns point in 1 Jn 1:8. However that Old Man with all of its deceitful lusts is still the object of God's mercy, David said as a New Creature Ps 130:3

If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?126

But that Old Man born out of Adam shall experience an Adoption, a Salvation in the Day of Redemption, Paul calls it The Redemption of the Body, this Body of Death Rom 7:24 cp Rom 8:23, so this Body and its deeds can never be under God's Legal Condemnation and Wrath, His Fatherly Chastening, Yes, but never wrath and condemnation.

The Sinful Bodies of the Saints, that did incur condemnation in Adam Rom 5:18, but it [The merited condemnation] was imputed to Christ's Charge, their Surety and Head, and He came Legally and imputatively under God's Wrath and Condemnation for them, in their stead, so not at anytime are they condemned by God's Law, but to the contrary are made objects of mercy, Mercy and Condemnation does not mix !

So the Elect are Blessed and privileged above others who are born sinners, for they had no Surety !