Featured Two major objections against Non-Calvinists answered

I read this twice and still see no definiton of what you believe a fallen nature is.

Second there is no "appeal" as repentance and faith are commands. Look at the grammar! The imperative mode of command is used for both. Again, we are commanded to be perfect even as God is perfect and yet we are WITHOUT ABILITY to do so but nevertheless RESPONSIBLE because the inability is our fault not God's.

 

The nature of sin and death determine that. Spiritual death is "SEPARATION" form God and that is separation from "spiritual life." Spiritual ability does not exist apart from spiritual life. It IS what it IS.

 

That is no definition of a fallen nature. You are only defining the problem between God and man. You are not defining the fallen nature of man.

"be ye reconciled" is in the 2nd Aorist imperative mode which is a COMMAND not an "appeal."

 

I answered this in the other half of the post which you ignored. This IS what it IS by nature. Sin IS rebellion against God and death IS separation from the SPIRITUAL LIFE of God. There can be no SPIRITUAL ABILITY where there is no SPIRITUAL LIFE just as there can be no PHYSICAL ABILITY where there is no PHYSCIAL LIFE. This IS its nature. Total spiritual inability IS Spiritual death and sin SEPARATES from God. It is not a question of WHO determined it, but a question of WHAT it IS by nature.

 

Since you will not provide a definition of the fallen nature in regard to what it IS but only provide a description of the consequences or problem that needs to be resolved, I will provide a definiton of the fallen nature for you.

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. - Rom. 8:7

It is the "carnal" condition of man. The term "carnal" translates a Greek term that is elsewhere translated "fleshly" and refers to more than the physical composition of the human body.

For the present, I will not defend that Romans 7:14-25 describes the regenerated man operating by the "fleshly" nature although I believe the evidence is overwhelming.

For the present, I will simply define "fleshly" by Romans 7:14-25 with particular emphasis upon Romans 7:18 where the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the dominance of the indwelling law of sin:

Rom. 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Indeed, for the regenerated man the only solution for this probelm is Philippians 2:13 or the potency of the indwelling Spirit of God so that it is God who provides this "how to perform" as it is "God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure." That is why "to will is present with me" refers to the regenerated condition in man in addition to his fallen nature.

However, for the present the "fleshy mind" is the mind under the power of the law of indwelling sin which can never please God:

So they that are IN THE FLESH cannot please God" - Rom. 8:7

The word "cannot" refers to ABILITY and is therefore a delcaration of total inability.

Second, This carnal mindset of total inaiblity to please God is due to its nature of enmity toward God. Note that Paul says "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as your doctrine of the fallen nature demands. The linking verb "is" is a STATE OF BEING verb and thus is describing what it "IS" by nature. The carnal mind IS enmity.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR. Hence, the fallen nature IS what it is - a state of war against God. This is what it is BY NATURE. That is its condition. That is its STATE OF BEING. That is not its POTENTIAL or what it MAY BECOME due to hardening but that is what it IS. What something IS, is its nature.

Your whole view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as your view sees only that as its POTENTIAL due to hardening or something it becomes by process.

My view states this IS its nature and that is why it IS always at all times resistant to God's will/law - "and IS not subject to the law of God." Again, this "IS" what it "IS" by nature. By nature it is RESISTANT to God's will at all times because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature.

This 'IS" what it "IS" from birth to death as man comes into the world with this kind of FALLEN NATURE and will leave this life with this kind of fallen nature.

Your view cannot accept this NATURE of fallen man because by nature the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the mastery of the law of indwelling sin and is FREE from righteousness and totally DEPRAVED as it IS by nature in a state of war and IS by nature resistant to the will of God and therefore is by nature TOTAL INABILITY to please God - "Neither indeed CAN be. So, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

They CANNOT because they WILL NOT and they WILL NOT because that IS the nature of fallen man or the nature of ENMITY = state of war = the nature of resistance - "not subject to the law of God" That IS the nature of fallen man.

.

 

Skan, with respect, I know you and Biblicist are having a lengthy discourse, but may I venture a word?

You know that I, too, believe in total depravity and total inability. I have used Romans 8:7 to defend total inability. I would like to focus on the part of one sentence in the above quote:

Without accusing (just asking), is it your contention that νόμος (nomos=law) in Romans 8:7 is referring to the Mosaic Law, i.e. the Law? If so, I believe that interpretation to be erroneous.

In Romans 8:2 Paul speaks of the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" and also the "law of sin and of death". These two laws are not the Law. In verse 3 Paul does refer to the Law. He does so again in verse 4. When Paul gets to verse 7, and uses the word "law", it is not the Law he is writing about. Here are some reasons why:

1. Romans 8:7 states "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so". If this reference to the "law of God" was actually a reference to the Law, it would be inaccurate. The Law existed in commandments that were able to be obeyed. Faith was not required to be considered in compliance as a covenant-keeping Jew. We know that, because of indwelling sin, no man could keep the Law completely and at all times. But it was possible for a Jew to obey specific part of the Law at times. What he could not do was subject himself (ὑποτάσσεται) to the Law of God. He could do the deeds of the Law, but not out of true heart obedience, apart from being regenerated.

2. The phrase "law of God" in verse 8 would be an inconsistent reference to the Law in verses 3 and 4. In those verses the Mosaic Law was clearly called "the" Law using the definite article. Not so with the reference to the "law of God" in verse 7. Which should lead us to the question, "What is the law of God?" We have hints of it in verse 2 in "the law of the Spirit of Life". I believe the "law of God" is the command to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. After all, Paul calls it "the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus."

So then, if the "law of God" in Romans 8:7 is not referring to the Law, what law is it that the mind set on the flesh "it is not even able to do"? It cannot subject itself to the "the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus". The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is the Gospel; the call to repentance from sin and faith in Christ. That is why I believe Romans 8:7 speaks to the inability of those that are "according the flesh" to believe on their own without being divinely called.

Okay. Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.

 

Peter says the same thing to those already clothed in Christ's righteousness - "Be ye holy EVEN AS I am holy" so he is not talking about imputed righteousness but personal righteousness. We don't have to strive to be perfect or holy because that is a gift but what Paul strives after is personal holiness or perfection (Philip. 2:10-14).

 

Have you forgotten the argument this soon? Let me refresh you. We were arguing whether God could hold accountable fallen mankind to do something they were incapable of doing (repent and believe). I argued that God was not responsibile for this inability but they were responsibile because they acted together in unison as one common human nature in Adam. I gave Matthew 5:46 as an example of a command by God that we were without ability to obey and yet JUSTLY accountable to obey.

You responded that Christ obeyed it in our behalf as imputed righteousness and thus were were able to obey it by substitution. However, I pointed oout the very same exact command was given by Peter to those already in possession of imputed righteousness and that this same goal was in view by Paul's comments in Philippians 3:10-14 AFTER he spoke of having already obtained imputed righteousness (Philip. 3:7) and therefore your argument is not valid. We are still commanded to be "holy EVEN AS God is holy" as Christians and yet are without abiity in this present life to obey that. Paul is striving after that goal IN ADDITION TO IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS and thus proving it is our responsibility irregardless of personal inability to achieve it in this life at all.

 

Skandelon, you are not dealing straightfoward with the evidence I presented in the above in your posts. You are ignoring the evidence. Please deal with it line by line directly and straightforwardly.

 

I have no clue what you are talking about and how it relates to the several points of contextual evidence I spelled out in my post. My post presented the grammatical evidence of Romans 8:7 in defining the fallen nature. I pointed to the STATE OF BEING verbs. I pointed to the meaning of "carnal" and I pointed to the verbs that demand the issue is ability and I pointed to the negative particles that demand TOTAL INABILITY when interpreted by the terms "enmity" as a STATE OF WAR and the STATE OF RESISTANCE in the words "is not subject to the law of God." Your responses are off the wall, indirect and as far as I can see a rabbit trail wholly unrelated.

I am not going to jump ship with you! We must first establish what the fallen nature is and what it is not. We must first establish whether the fallen nature is by nature TOTALLY DEPRAVED and TOTALLY WITHOUT ABILITY before we jump ship and talk about Spiritual enablement. I have proven your definition of the fallen nature is false and you simply want to jump ship, change the subject to the nature of spiritual enablement.

 

Total inability of the will is being set forth here. True, it is in the context of a regenerated person as ability to "perform" is described in Philip. 2:13 which is totally lacking when the child of God operates in the flesh.

However, the lost man has no such alternative nature nor does he have the indwelling Spirit as the very definition of being a child of God is to be indwelt by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:9).

The lost man's will IS enmity against God and IS not subject to the law of God and thus IS TOTALLY DEPRAVED by nature which necessarily results in TOTAL INABILITY by nature. I have proven this in a previous post which you ignored.

 

John 20:31