The primary reason why many deny that Romans 7:14-25 refers to the regenerated Paul is verse 14: 14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. When this verse is simply taken by itself and isolated from the following context I would admit that they have a good argument. However, it is not given as an isolated text with no context. Verses 15-20 go on to explain a dichotomy where on aspect is repeatedly identified as "the flesh" or "carnal" described as "evil" and NOTHING GOOD in it but in direct opposition to another aspect that is consistently described as "good" and delights in the law of God. Verse 14 uses the word "carnal" as that aspect "sold under sin" and identified as "my flesh" where there is "NOTHING GOOD." In addition the end of this "flesh" aspect is that it does not change in regard to its evil nature and it is the body "of death" while the "good" aspect is said to present tense continuing to "serve God" Some of the reasons I believe this section refers to Paul as a regenerated man attempting to overpower the law of indwelling sin without the power of the Holy Spirit are as follows: 1. Paul changes from the past tense in verses 7-13 to the present tense in verses 14-25. 2. Paul restricts the origin of evil within him to "the flesh" or what he further describes as "the law of sin" in his members in direct contrast to "I" who delight in the Law of God after the inward man. The lost man has no inward man that delights in God's Law because that requires an act of creation (Eph. 4:24,Col. 3:10; Eph. 2:10) within man where God writes the law upon the heart (2 Cor. 3:3; 4:6). 3. Paul in this condition finds deliverance from this problem in Jesus Christ without disolving this dichotomy - vv. 24-25 4. In this dichotomy he claims he can still "serve God" (v. 25) which the lost man cannot do in an unregenerate condition. My point is that verse 14 is isolated and interpreted apart from the explanatory context that immediately follows where only one aspect of Paul fits this description while the other aspect does not fit this description but is the exact opposite.