I think the point of Romans 7 and 8 is something like this. In chapter 6 Paul reasons that it is necessary for me to cease living to sin and in sin, because I have died to sin in Christ and have been raised to new life in Him. Righteous living is a necessity.

But in chapter 7 Paul goes on to show that living a righteous life—one that fulfills the law’s requirements—is impossible. This is because sin is more powerful than my flesh. I don’t have the power to do what the law requires, and what I want to do, agreeing with the law. The big question comes in the last verses of chapter 7: “Who can deliver me from this body of death?—this body which cannot defeat sin and produce righteousness? The answer is given in the first verses of chapter 8. In Christ there is no condemnation, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives me the power to live as the law requires (8:3-4). The same Spirit who raised the dead body of our Lord to life is the Spirit who raises our bodies of death (i.e. 7:24) to life (8:11).

So, in answer to your question, the body (i.e. our flesh) is always dead, so far as producing righteousness.

Baptism does not save, nor is it essential for salvation. Otherwise, why would Paul say in 1 Cor 1 that he was called to preach the gospel and not to baptize? Paul makes a distinction between the two, implying that one is just a picture of the other. At bottom, if we add to the work of Christ, then we take away from the sufficiency of the cross.

Below is the discussion of Acts 2:38 in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Exegetical Syntax:

1. Causal Ei in Acts 2:38? An interesting discussion over the force of ei took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38. The text reads as follows: Pevtro deV pro aujtouV metanohvsate, fhsivn, kaiV baptisqhvtw e{kasto uJmw'n ejpiV tw'/ ojnovmati jIhsou' Cristou' ei a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n … (“And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized—each one of you—at the name of Jesus Christ because of/for/unto the forgiveness of your sins…”).

On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that ei could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eij” was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.

On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal eij so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation): It is quite possible that eiv is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eij cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non- linguistic. Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eij fell short of proof.

If a causal eij is not in view, what are we to make of Acts 2:38? There are at least four other interpretations of Acts 2:38. 1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij has the meaning of for or unto. Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).

2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41).

3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. If so, it would read as follows: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized at the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins…” If this is the correct understanding, then eij is subordinate to metanohvsate alone, rather than to baptisqhvtw. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij, but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it.

4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.

In sum, although Mantey’s instincts were surely correct that in Luke’s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal eiv lacks conviction. There are other ways for us to satisfy the tension, but adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking “Why?” has no more basis than the notion that eij ever meant mere representation (see prior discussion).

The first question one must ask is, “In this context, just what is it that John believed?” John certainly must now have believed Mary’s report, that the body of Jesus was missing. I think he believed more than this. I think he believed that Jesus had somehow been raised from the dead, though he did not yet understand how or why. The point here seems to be that John believed in the resurrection of our Lord before he even knew or realized that he was supposed to.

Throughout the Gospel of John, the word “believe” is employed in various ways, and the content of what is believed is not always the same. The situation at this point in time (during our Lord’s earthly life and ministry) was unique. The Messiah had come, but He had not yet died, been buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven. From John chapter 1 we see the disciples believing (that Jesus was the Messiah—something they did not yet understand the meaning of. Their belief grew throughout the life and ministry of Jesus. Who can say at what moment the disciples really were saved?

I think you could say that the “belief” of everyone, prior to our Lord’s resurrection and ascension, was less than full-fledged, because they did not have all the facts. In the context, we must ask just what it was that John believed.

I do think that believing in the resurrection of our Lord is a vital part of the Gospel, which we must believe (Romans 10:9), but once again, this is after He has been raised, and the meaning of His resurrection has been made clear.

Unfortunately, people use verses from the Bible totally out of context and with the wrong application and this is a good illustration. There is the popular chorus, “This is the Day” and it is usually understood as referring to the new day, i.e, today, that God has given us, and so we should rejoice in it. That’s true, but Psalm 118 is talking about the work of God in Christ and the future day when God will lay the foundation Stone that will bring salvation. Please note the comments on this Psalm from The Bible Knowledge Commentary.

C. Significance of the triumph (118:22-29)

118:22-24. The psalmist explained that the Lord had taken the stone that the builders rejected and had marvelously made it the capstone of the nation. Therefore the people should rejoice. In those days great empires easily set up and removed kings. Perhaps those great nations discounted Israel as a nation. Yet the Lord took that “stone” and made it “the capstone” of His rule on earth. The image of the stone may have suggested itself from the temple construction work going on in the postexilic community. The psalmist, perhaps the congregation’s leader, may have thought of his king as the stone, for in Israel kings often represented the nation. Certainly in Jesus’ Parable of the Landowner and the Tenants (Matt. 21:33-44) He applied the psalm in that way. Jesus is the Stone and the Jewish leaders, the builders of the nation, had rejected Him. But God made Him the Capstone. Thus the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others (Matt. 21:43). The fact that this psalm was probably popular at the Passover festival made Jesus’ use of it all the more forceful.

118:25-29. The psalmist prayed then for his people’s salvation and prosperity. The words save us (v. 25) and Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord (v. 26) were proclaimed at Jesus’ Triumphal Entry (Matt. 21:9; “Hosanna” translates the Heb. for “save”). The people believed that Jesus was the Coming Savior. In fact the phrase with boughs in hand (Ps. 118:27) may have prompted their putting the branches down for Jesus (Matt. 21:8). The second half of Psalm 118:27, though difficult in the Hebrew, probably refers to the custom at the Feast of Tabernacles of waving branches before the Lord. Then later, when the psalm was used in all the feasts, this part of verse 27 became simply an expression in the hymn without boughs literally being in people’s hands. But the people in Jesus’ day knew that He claimed to be the Messiah, and that this psalm spoke of the Coming One. So they appropriated its message for the occasion. Fittingly Jesus identified Himself as the Stone who would bring salvation to those who prayed to Him, “Save us.”

Because the psalm is typically prophetic of the Messiah, the earlier references to “cut off” (vv. 10-12) may also have a higher significance in relation to the work of Christ. In the Old Testament, circumcision was the means by which a male Israelite was identified with the covenant, but circumcision came to signify “inner circumcision” (cf. Deut. 30:6), belief that set one apart to God. Paul wrote that a true Jew is one whose heart is circumcised (Rom. 2:29).

Perhaps Psalm 118 anticipated the time when the Stone, Jesus, would turn to the nations who would receive Him (cf. John 1:12). If so, His triumph is in a sense different from its meaning when it was historically recorded in Israel. For the psalmist, Psalm 118:25-29 spoke of the procession coming to the temple to worship, and the one coming “in the name of the Lord” was the worshiper. At the altar the worshiper would give…thanks (cf. vv. 19, 21) and acknowledge the Lord God for His goodness and loyal love. In Jesus’ Triumphal Entry this psalm, sung by the people as they moved in the procession to the temple, was most appropriate as He entered Jerusalem to begin His work of salvation for those who would believe.