8:3 4 For what the law f could not do, in that it was weak through the g flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of h sinful flesh, and for i sin, k condemned sin in the flesh:
(4) He does not use an argument here, but expounds the mystery of sanctification, which is imputed to us: because, he says, the power of the law was not such (and that by reason of the corruption of our nature) that it could make man pure and perfect, and because it rather kindled the flame of sin than put it out and extinguish it, therefore God clothed his Son with flesh just like our sinful flesh, in which he utterly abolished our corruption, that being accounted thoroughly pure and without fault in him, apprehended and laid hold of by faith, we might be found to fully have the singular perfection which the law requires, and therefore that there might be no condemnation in us.
(f) Which is not the fault of the law, but is due to our fault.
(g) In man when he is not born again, whose disease the law could point out, but it could not heal it.
(h) Of mans nature which is corrupt through sin, until Christ sanctified it.
(i) To abolish sin in our flesh.
(k) Showed that sin has no right to be in us.
Here’s the line that I have trouble with: “in which he utterly abolished our corruption”.
I just don’t get how that works. It looks to me like we are still filled with corruption, even after being sanctified. I understand the part about how Jesus’ sacrifice for us took the place of our guilt. What I’m hung up on is the fact that if our corruption is utterly abolished, why do we continue to sin?