@Episkopos I have a great deal of respect for Anabaptist David Bercot, mentioned in the video and agree with their stance regarding the separation of church and state.
He is an excellent Bible scholar and takes great care with his studies, and is one of the few who recognize that Pelagius did not say that we do not need grace for salvation.
However, I depart from him over the Augustine v Pelagius dispute over Romans 7 from my own studies and knowledge of early church teaching.
Augustine did indeed depart from early teachings and brought in a new doctrine that spread all over the west which says that Paul was speaking of the normal Christian life in not having victory over sin.
So Pelagius appeared and disputed Augustine who at that point said that it was a person speaking without grace, not a believer. The result of the dispute was that Pelagius changed ship and formed his new doctrine which the Reformed church adopted.
18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[
c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.
So think a moment, P met A, and A said these verses are an unsaved man which Bercot claims was the Orthodox view. But if that was so, Orthodox P would have no dispute with A. They had agreed on it if this was so.
They did not however and P did not agree with A's new interpretation either , so he disagreed twice with A.
So what did P believe?
The thing is that there are not just two interpretations of Romans 7. The third one is not generally known since the two mentioned have had all of the attention through church history.
The third view is this and is the one that P held: that Romans 7:18-23 is speaking as a believer
before he was walking in the Spirit: while he was carnal or a fleshy Christian and had not come to the point where he sought an answer to his plight of unintentional sin, which most sincere believers will come to, in despair if they are seeking the Lord with their whole heart.
Paul says 21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.
He has shown that his inner being delights in God's law. That is a believer who struggles with the law of sin still inside him. An unsaved man does not struggle so.
Chapter 8 goes on to show the progression from that point of dispute for Paul whereas now he is enabled to walk in the Spirit and is qualified to tell others to copy him.
This third and only true interpretation, is the only one which lead one into the full kingdom walk of victory over sin.
