Cause and effect, singular versus plural - Jn. 6:44

[The Biblicist]

Right, all who suppress it....it never says everyone has suppressed it.

You are reading what is not in the text. Paul's summary of Romans 1:18-3:8 in regard to the justice of God's wrath is concerning all unjustified, unregenerated humanity (Rom. 3:9-23). No saved justified persons are in view or under consideration at all. We can take your word or Paul's summary (Rom. 3:9-23) of the unregenerated state of mankind. I will take the writer's view.

In fact, we both agree that some (i.e. Abraham) have NOT suppressed it, but have in faith proclaimed it. Now, we should debate the means by which he, and others, came to believe as that is our point of contention.

Abraham in his unregenerated state was included in (3:23) as are YOU. Romans 3;24-8:39 deals with the regenerated justified man.

Is that what you believe? If so, can you tell me why so many Calvinists quote 1 Cor 2:14, emphasizing the statement, "he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned," as proof for their doctrine of Total Inability?

Recognizing and undestanding it IS light is not the same as comprehending the light. The former has to do with understanding sufficint for recognition that it is light, the latter has to do with content comprehension.

Is it? I thought Calvinists taught that the light was hidden from them by a 'veil' making them unable to see it and it was only when that veil was removed by the effectual calling that they could then see it?

Again, we are talkng about comprehsion of content not understanding for recognition of what it is.

This doesn't seem consistent? Can you explain the apparent contradictions? That is my explanation.

But some DID respond (i.e. Abraham, and the rest) proving that interpretation to be the wrong one. Romans 1:18-3:19 demonstrates that NNE, not even Abraham can attain righteousness through works of the law and all are responsible (response-able) for the revelation they receive (whether special or general), and all have broken the law (whether by conscience or Torah). But that is the bad news...keep reading.

You are mixing apples with oranges and playing hopscotch with Scripture context. Romans 1:18-3:23 deals with man in his lost condition. Romans 4-8 deals with man in his justified condition. Stop jumping over to Chapter four and jerking it out of context and putting into chapters 1:18-3:23 and vice versa.

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law[/

B], has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

​

Notice the two different types of righteousness in view.

1) Righteousness through law (which is no righteousness at all, but filthy rags)

2) Righteousness through faith

Calvinism's mistake is presuming that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness through the works of the law that they are equally unable to attain righteousness through faith. That is unbiblical. You have provided proof texts to support the first type of righteousness is unattainable, but not the second.

Nope! Romans 3:22-23 is the transition point between man considered in his condemned state by the Law of God to what God has provided in Christ to justify him from that state. Univesally all men are condemned according to that lost state (v. 23) however, there is a righteousness the law and the prophets bear witness unto that comes by faith in Christ (v. 22). The lost man has no hope in his own ability because of the Law (vv. 19-21) the only hope offered for sinners is found in the righteousness of God obtained by faith which is the basis for justification of all men before Moses, during Moses or after Moses (Rom. 3:23-27).

 

[Skandelon]

You are reading what is not in the text.

You are the one saying that it says something that it doesn't...it says "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness"

You take that to mean "all men suppress the truth" even though all men throughout history haven't suppressed the truth, in fact some have proclaimed truth, including Paul who is writing this passage.

I believe it means what it says...that God has wrath on those who suppress the truth...so who is reading what is not in the text? You are.

Paul's summary of Romans 1:18-3:8 in regard to the justice of God's wrath is concerning all unjustified, unregenerated humanity (Rom. 3:9-23). No saved justified persons are in view or under consideration at all.

Oh, if were leaving out those who don't suppress the truth then, yes we agree. I thought you were saying that everyone suppresses the truth, but you were just meaning those who actually do suppress the truth and don't come to faith. Confusing...

We can take your word or Paul's summary (Rom. 3:9-23) of the unregenerated state of mankind. I will take the writer's view.

Question beg much? I've presented to you my view of that summary...two views of righteousness, remember?

Abraham in his unregenerated state was included in (3:23) as are YOU. Romans 3;24-8:39 deals with the regenerated justified man.

I agree that no one, including myself or Abraham are righteous according to the law. I do not agree that no one can attain righteousness through faith, as that is not something Paul ever teaches. He teaches that no one can attain righteousness through works of the law.

Recognizing and undestanding it IS light is not the same as comprehending the light. The former has to do with understanding sufficint for recognition that it is light, the latter has to do with content comprehension.

Again, we are talkng about comprehsion of content not understanding for recognition of what it is.

Oh, that is clear. They can understand it but not comprehend it, so that makes them not have any excuses...oh...yeah...that really makes sense. So glad you're hear to help me understand...I don't comprehend it, but I do understand it. I mean I know you are saying things, but I have no idea what those things mean, but I know they are things being said and that is enough for me to be without excuse for not understanding what your saying even if I can't really comprehend it. :laugh: (I'm just picking at you...)

This doesn't seem consistent? Can you explain the apparent contradictions? That is my explanation.

They can understand the truth but not comprehend the truth. Synonyms?

Wouldn't it be a good excuse to be able to say you didn't comprehend something that you understood? confusing...

You are mixing apples with oranges and playing hopscotch with Scripture context. Romans 1:18-3:23 deals with man in his lost condition. Romans 4-8 deals with man in his justified condition. Stop jumping over to Chapter four and jerking it out of context and putting into chapters 1:18-3:23 and vice versa.

Yeah, let's not confuse things with truth...I'll tried to stay focused on keeping your system all neat and tidy for you. :thumbs:

Nope! Romans 3:22-23 is the transition point between man considered in his condemned state by the Law of God to what God has provided in Christ to justify him from that state. Univesally all men are condemned according to that lost state (v. 23) however, there is a righteousness the law and the prophets bear witness unto that comes by faith in Christ (v. 22). The lost man has no hope in his own ability because of the Law (vv. 19-21) the only hope offered for sinners is found in the righteousness of God obtained by faith which is the basis for justification of all men before Moses, during Moses or after Moses (Rom. 3:23-27).

You say that because men can't attain righteousness through the works of the law they are equally unable to attain righteousness through faith...Paul says...

"the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works."​

 

[Rippon]

I am not giving a personal opinion, I am interpreting scripture literally.

Better be careful folks. When he says this kind of thing the very reverse is taking place.

Verse 44 says no man can come to Jesus unless he is drawn. This does not mean every person that is drawn will come to Jesus. Why can't you understand this?

Because your interpretation is very wrong;that's why. All that the Father gives the Son will come to the Son (v.37) All the ones drawn are the very ones who are given by the Father to the Son --that is --the elect. In verse 44 Jesus says I will raise him up on the last day. Who does he raise up? Verse 39 ---all those given to Him by the Father. Verse 44 tells us that He raises all those who are drawn by the Father. Those raised are the very same folks who are drawn. If one is drawn then that person is also raised up on the last day.

John Calvin,in his Commentary on John says :

"...all are not drawn,but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own effforts;for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself,who has formed their hearts to obey him."

The scriptures NEVER say all who are drawn will come to Jesus.

And I have refuted that unbiblical assertion of yours.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are the one saying that it says something that it doesn't...it says "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness"

You take that to mean "all men suppress the truth" even though all men throughout history haven't suppressed the truth, in fact some have proclaimed truth, including Paul who is writing this passage.

I believe it means what it says...that God has wrath on those who suppress the truth...so who is reading what is not in the text? You are.

Let me say this as clearly as possible. Romans 1:18-3:23 is dealing with man in his unregenerated state, that fact excludes any reference to justified men and no reference can be found. So ALL unregenerated men fit this bill not just some just as all men fit the summary conclusion (Rom. 3:9-23) and not just some.

Second, the law does not make anyone a sinner or make anyone righteous, it merely REVEALS sin and righteusness. So there was never any justification by the law and never will be for any lost man.

Question beg much? I've presented to you my view of that summary...two views of righteousness, remember?

Again, the law does not make people sinners nor righteous but only reveals sin and righteousness. There never was any justification by the law and so the summary cannot speak of what simply does not exist.

What the Summary demonstrates is the JUST wrath of God revealed against all fallen men who suppress the truth due to their depraved nature. It is their depraved nature being expressed in Romans 3:9-18. The law enters in verse 19-20 simply to confirm what their nature reveals. The Law neither makes anyone a sinner or righteous but merely reveals sin and sinners and righteousness and there are NONE is the Law's verdict because ALL equally Jew and Gentile have sinned.

Hence, your "summary" does not exist except in your mind as righteousness NEVER came by the Law EVER! All the law does is REVEAL it, but now the law and prophets give testimony of another REVELATION of righteousness in the Person of Christ whereby sinners can be made righteous by faith.

He teaches that no one can attain righteousness through works of the law.

No, that is a mere by product of his point. His point is that the law reveals sin and righteousness and it reveals there is none righteous no not one and thus consequently none can be revealed as righteous by the Law but God and God in the flesh!

Oh, that is clear. They can understand it but not comprehend it, so that makes them not have any excuses...oh...yeah...that really makes sense. So glad you're hear to help me understand...I don't comprehend it, but I do understand it. I mean I know you are saying things, but I have no idea what those things mean, but I know they are things being said and that is enough for me to be without excuse for not understanding what your saying even if I can't really comprehend it. :laugh: (I'm just picking at you...)

Just because I recognize God is eternal does not mean I understand what that means, even though I understand the words. I can have eyes and yet not see, and I can have ears and yet not hear:

Mt 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

But eyes do see and ears to hear! But do they really? We can see llight but not really perceive it and we can hear truth but not really understand it. We can define the terms but miss the message.

 

[Winman]

Let me say this as clearly as possible. Romans 1:18-3:23 is dealing with man in his unregenerated state, that fact excludes any reference to justified men and no reference can be found. So ALL unregenerated men fit this bill not just some just as all men fit the summary conclusion (Rom. 3:9-23) and not just some.

This is easily shown to be error because God gives these men up and over to a reprobate mind. So even in your system it cannot be speaking of all men in an unregenerate state as you claim, else no man would ever be saved.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Again, it is impossible for Romans 1 to be speaking of ALL men as you falsely claim, because God gives these men up and over to a reprobate mind.

What is more, this passage utterly refutes Total Inability, because it says these men are able to know, see and understand the revelation of God.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So, this passage refutes your view. This passage is speaking of lost men only, men whom God has given up on and given over to a reprobate mind, yet they are able to know, see, and understand God's revelation.

Second, the law does not make anyone a sinner or make anyone righteous, it merely REVEALS sin and righteusness. So there was never any justification by the law and never will be for any lost man.

The law does indeed make a man a sinner, sin is not imputed when there is no law (Rom 5:13)

Again, the law does not make people sinners nor righteous but only reveals sin and righteousness. There never was any justification by the law and so the summary cannot speak of what simply does not exist.

A man's own behavior makes him either righteous or a sinner. If a man were to perfectly keep the law, then he would be righteous. Of course, no man except Jesus has ever done this or ever will.

What the Summary demonstrates is the JUST wrath of God revealed against all fallen men who suppress the truth due to their depraved nature. It is their depraved nature being expressed in Romans 3:9-18. The law enters in verse 19-20 simply to confirm what their nature reveals. The Law neither makes anyone a sinner or righteous but merely reveals sin and sinners and righteousness and there are NONE is the Law's verdict because ALL equally Jew and Gentile have sinned.

Hence, your "summary" does not exist except in your mind as righteousness NEVER came by the Law EVER! All the law does is REVEAL it, but now the law and prophets give testimony of another REVELATION of righteousness in the Person of Christ whereby sinners can be made righteous by faith.


No, that is a mere by product of his point. His point is that the law reveals sin and righteousness and it reveals there is none righteous no not one and thus consequently none can be revealed as righteous by the Law but God and God in the flesh!

Just because I recognize God is eternal does not mean I understand what that means, even though I understand the words. I can have eyes and yet not see, and I can have ears and yet not hear:

Mt 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

But eyes do see and ears to hear! But do they really? We can see llight but not really perceive it and we can hear truth but not really understand it. We can define the terms but miss the message.

Romans 1:18-32 is speaking only of lost men who will never be saved. They have rejected God and did not like to retain God in their knowledge, therefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind. This passage is not speaking of men who become believers. Yet these lost men know, see, and understand God's revelation and are therefore without excuse.

God does not "give up" those that are saved, your interpretation of this passage is easily shown to be error.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is easily shown to be error because God gives these men up and over to a reprobate mind. So even in your system it cannot be speaking of all men in an unregenerate state as you claim, else no man would ever be saved.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Again, it is impossible for Romans 1 to be speaking of ALL men as you falsely claim, because God gives these men up and over to a reprobate mind.

What is more, this passage utterly refutes Total Inability, because it says these men are able to know, see and understand the revelation of God.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So, this passage refutes your view. This passage is speaking of lost men only, men whom God has given up on and given over to a reprobate mind, yet they are able to know, see, and understand God's revelation.




The law does indeed make a man a sinner, sin is not imputed when there is no law (Rom 5:13)



A man's own behavior makes him either righteous or a sinner. If a man were to perfectly keep the law, then he would be righteous. Of course, no man except Jesus has ever done this or ever will.



Romans 1:18-32 is speaking only of lost men who will never be saved. They have rejected God and did not like to retain God in their knowledge, therefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind. This passage is not speaking of men who become believers. Yet these lost men know, see, and understand God's revelation and are therefore without excuse.

God does not "give up" those that are saved, your interpretation of this passage is easily shown to be error.

Already refuted all of this.

 

[Winman]

Already refuted all of this.

Wow, what a compelling argument. :laugh:

You not only did not refute it, you cannot. Romans 1 is speaking of lost persons, persons that will never be saved, persons that God has given up and given over to a reprobate mind, yet they can know, see, and understand the revelation of God so that they are without excuse.

 

[saturneptune]

A man's own behavior makes him either righteous or a sinner. If a man were to perfectly keep the law, then he would be righteous. Of course, no man except Jesus has ever done this or ever will.

Let me get this straight. One of your major points in all your debates is that man in a fallen state can respond to the Gospel by choice. Yet, above, you say he is either righteous or a sinner. Since we know he is not righteous without Christ, therefore is a sinner. You yourself said there are two states, righteous or sinner, so where does the good come from in a sinner to respond?

 

[Winman]

Let me get this straight. One of your major points in all your debates is that man in a fallen state can respond to the Gospel by choice. Yet, above, you say he is either righteous or a sinner. Since we know he is not righteous without Christ, therefore is a sinner. You yourself said there are two states, righteous or sinner, so where does the good come from in a sinner to respond?

I do not believe being a sinner is a fixed state of nature as you do, I believe it is a judgment or a legal status or position you are in.

The moment you sin you are judged a sinner. You are now condemned. You are like a person awaiting execution on death row.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

The moment you believe your sins are forgiven and you are no longer condemned.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The person who has not believed on Jesus is condemned already. This is what being a sinner is, it is a legal status, like being a "felon".

I do not believe in inability, the scriptures show man has the ability to respond to God.

Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

God certainly does not believe in Total Inability, why should you?

 

[Skandelon]

Let me say this as clearly as possible. Romans 1:18-3:23 is dealing with man in his unregenerated state, that fact excludes any reference to justified men and no reference can be found. So ALL unregenerated men fit this bill not just some just as all men fit the summary conclusion (Rom. 3:9-23) and not just some.

And as I have said you and I have different views on how one goes from being dead to living...i.e. becoming regenerated. I believe Paul is explaining how unsaved Gentiles are without excuse for their still being unsaved because they have CLEARLY SEEN and COMPREHENDED what there was to be known about God but CHOSE to suppress the truth and become hardened.

You believe, on the other hand, they are sealed from birth in a hardened (unable to really see or understand anything) condition thus giving them the best excuse known to mankind..."I was born like this and can't do a dang thing about it."

Second, the law does not make anyone a sinner or make anyone righteous, it merely REVEALS sin and righteusness. So there was never any justification by the law and never will be for any lost man.

Amen.

Again, the law does not make people sinners nor righteous but only reveals sin and righteousness. There never was any justification by the law and so the summary cannot speak of what simply does not exist.

Amen, but the people of that day thought righteousness did come through works and that is what Paul is debunking. That is why in one chapter he says 'no one is righteous' and later says that Abraham was righteous. Ab wasn't righteous according to the law, but he was according to faith. That is the point.

You are taking the part that explains why no one can attain righteousness through the law and apply it as a proof text for your belief that no one can respond in faith and be graciously deemed righteous by God.

 

[Skandelon]

This point deserved a post of its own...

I can have eyes and yet not see, and I can have ears and yet not hear:

Mt 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

But eyes do see and ears to hear! But do they really? We can see llight but not really perceive it and we can hear truth but not really understand it. We can define the terms but miss the message.

I was hoping you would bring up that scripture...let's look at the entire context shall we?

13 This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'​

Its the same context as the Acts 28 passage you kept avoiding in our last discussion, remember it?

" 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"​

And here is another parallel passage:

9 Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." 10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "​

What are all these about? You know...the judicial hardening of Israel! Where God temporarily blinds the Jews from the truth (using parables and other means) to make sure they don't come to faith before the crucifixion is accomplished and the Gentiles are grafted in. That is what he is talking about when he talks about them not have the ability see, hear and understand. He is keeping them from understand lest they believe before the appointed time...do you understand or comprehend or whatever????

 

[The Biblicist]

What are all these about? You know...the judicial hardening of Israel! Where God temporarily blinds the Jews from the truth (using parables and other means) to make sure they don't come to faith before the crucifixion is accomplished and the Gentiles are grafted in. That is what he is talking about when he talks about them not have the ability see, hear and understand. He is keeping them from understand lest they believe before the appointed time...do you understand or comprehend or whatever????

Israel is characterized throughout the Old Testament as an elect individual. Sometimes addrssed as "Jacob" or "my elect" or a number other ways that treat the nation in an indvidual sense. My point, is what is true of Israel is true of indivdiuals. What is true of Israel as a nation before its yet future salvation is true of individuals in an unregenerated state. What is true about Israel's election "to" salvation in the future (Rom. 11:25-28) is true of God's elect before and at salvation.

Human beings are all the same when it comes to the problem of sin and its effect upon their nature. The solution is no different for one as opposed to another. The pre-regenerate state of God's elect characterizes the degenerate, blind, rebellous and resistant condtion due to indwelling sin. The Nation in its rejection of Christ is not permenant as Christ tells them they will be responding to him completely different at the appointed time of their salvation as God's elect and will fully receive him "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

However, election "to salvation" has it appointed day and prior to that day the elect are like any other totally depraved sinner which suppresses truth and goes through a hardening process whereby their conscience becomes increasingly seared so that they go through the same downward digressive spiral whereby God gives them over to a more hardened condition. At any point in that hardening process God can save them in spite of their stage of hardening and blindness as they are repeatedly exposed to light and repeatedly reject it.

Romans 8:7 is the STATE of the carnal mindset found EQUALLY for all those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8). The STATE OF BEING verb "is" (Rom. 8:7) demonstrates this is a STATE of the fallen or "carnal" nature. The term translated "mind" demonstrates it is a MIND SET or STATE OF MIND. The term "enmity" demonstrates it is a STATE of war. The words "is not subjectto the Law of God" demonstrates an ACTIVE STATE OF RESISTANCE. The words "is not" and "neither indeed CAN be" shows it is an irreversable CONDITION. John 6:44 and the words "no man can" demands EQUAL universal inability in an irreversable STATE that only drawing can reverse.

The above is UNIVERSAL of all men "in the flesh" thus a STATE OF TOTAL INABILTY and DEPRAVITY.

This CONDITION is UNIVERSAL but hardening is not. ALL equally "in the flesh" are without ability but not all have been hardened which proves they are not one and the same. Furthermore, hardening can refer to SPECIFIC light or truths and is a process involving the conscience being "seared" (1 Tim. 4:1-2).

The Hebrew and Greek term translated "hardenth" is found in the present tense or INCOMPLETED ONGOING ACTION proving it is a process (Rom. 9:

Pr 21:29 A wicked man hardeneth his face: but as for the upright, he directeth his way.
Pr 28:14 Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.
Pr 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.
Ro 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Hardening is conditioned upon response to truth whereas total inability is characteristic state of all "in the flesh."

Israel hardened itself against Christ and God hardened Israel by exposure to more light WITHOUT QUICKENING her BECAUSE IT WAS NOT HER APPOINTED TIME of her salvation. However, God's purpose for Israel was not finished as in her hardened condition He turned to the Gentiles to call out His people from among them and when the Gentiles as nations also harden against the truth He will turn again to israel but this time not with mere light but with quickening power because it is her elected TIME to be saved (Rom. 11:25-28).

 

[Winman]

Romans 8:7 is the STATE of the carnal mindset found EQUALLY for all those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8). The STATE OF BEING verb "is" (Rom. 8:7) demonstrates this is a STATE of the fallen or "carnal" nature. The term translated "mind" demonstrates it is a MIND SET or STATE OF MIND. The term "enmity" demonstrates it is a STATE of war. The words "is not subjectto the Law of God" demonstrates an ACTIVE STATE OF RESISTANCE. The words "is not" and "neither indeed CAN be" shows it is an irreversable CONDITION. John 6:44 and the words "no man can" demands EQUAL universal inability in an irreversable STATE that only drawing can reverse.

The above is UNIVERSAL of all men "in the flesh" thus a STATE OF TOTAL INABILTY and DEPRAVITY.

See how Biblicist declares that Romans 8:7 is teaching Total Inability, when I have showed him that is not what it is saying. It is simply saying when a person gives supreme regard to a carnal mind they cannot please God or be subject to his laws, but this verse (and the passage) is not teaching that man cannot act or be minded in another way.

Again, here is what Albert Barnes said on this verse;

For it - The word "it" here refers to the minding of the things of the flesh. It does not mean that the soul itself is not subject to his Law, but that the minding of those things is hostile to his Law. The apostle does not express any opinion about the metaphysical ability of man, or discuss that question at all. The amount of his affirmation is simply, that the minding of the flesh, the supreme attention to its dictates and desires, is not and cannot be subject to the Law of God. They are wholly contradictory and irreconcilable, just as much as the love of falsehood is inconsistent with the laws of truth; as intemperance is inconsistent with the law of temperance; and as adultery is a violation of the seventh commandment. But whether the man himself might not obey the Law, whether he has, or has not, ability to do it, is a question which the apostle does not touch, and on which this passage should not be adduced. For whether the law of a particular sin is utterly irreconcilable with an opposite virtue, and whether the sinner is able to abandon that sin and pursue a different path, are very different inquiries.

Is not subject - It is not in subjection to the command of God. The minding of the flesh is opposed to that law, and thus shows that it is hostile to God.

Neither indeed can be - This is absolute and certain. It is impossible that it should be. There is the utmost inability in regard to it. The things are utterly irreconcilable. But the affirmation does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be subject to God; or that his soul is so physically depraved that he cannot obey, or that he might not obey the law. On that, the apostle here expresses no opinion. That is not the subject of the discussion. It is simply that the supreme regard to the flesh, t the minding of that, is utterly irreconcilable with the Law of God. They are different things, and can never be made to harmonize; just as adultery cannot be chastity; falsehood cannot be truth; dishonesty cannot be honesty; hatred cannot be love. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to prove the doctrine of man's inability to love God, for it does not refer to that, but it proves merely that a supreme regard to the things of the flesh is utterly inconsistent with the Law of God; can never be reconciled with it; and involves the sinner in hostility with his Creator.

Now, Barnes goes on to argue that this verse indeed seems to imply inability, it seems a natural conclusion, but being an honest man Barnes says it does not expressly teach this, and should not be used as a proof text to teach total inability.

If a person looks at this passage without a bias, it is easily seen it is showing option;

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Verse 4 simply declares the Christian is walking after the Spirit. This is a person who believes the word of God and allows it to be his guide.

Verse 5 simply shows the difference between a believer and a non-believer, the non-believer gives supreme regard to the flesh, the believer gives supreme regard to the Spirit.

Verse 6 simply shows that to give supreme regard to the flesh leads to death, while giving supreme regard to the Spirit brings life and peace.

Verse 7 simply shows that being carnally minded, or giving supreme regard to the flesh is enmity with God, because it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be. This is simply saying you cannot obey and please God while you are obeying the lusts of the flesh.

It is like saying you cannot drink water and whistle at the same time.

Verse 8 simply says that a person walking in the flesh cannot please God.

None of this is saying that a man cannot repent and turn to God, that he cannot listen to and hear the word of God and walk according to the word of God, that is, the Spirit.

Biblicist is reading inability into the text when it is not there.

 

[The Biblicist]

See how Biblicist declares that Romans 8:7 is teaching Total Inability, when I have showed him that is not what it is saying. It is simply saying when a person gives supreme regard to a carnal mind they cannot please God or be subject to his laws, but this verse (and the passage) is not teaching that man cannot act or be minded in another way.

The problem that everyone, including Barnes struggles with is that they fail to disginguish two different applications that precede and follow this text.

In regard to the born again man (vv. 1-4) who has a dual nature it applies to the fallen nature "the flesh" or the indwelling "law of siin" previously described in chapter seven. However, in regard to the lost who is the direct subject in Romans 8:8-9 in direct contrast to the born again person it describes his total condition as he has no other condition as He is "in the flesh" and thus lives "after the flesh."

However, either way does not change the fact Romans 8:7 is speaking of the indwelling law of sin in controll of the christian as in Romans 7:18 by default due to not mortifying the deeds of "the flesh" through the indwelling Holy Spirit (v. 13) or the totality of the lost condition as in Romans 8:8.

The fallen nature has NO ABILITY to please God and there is no salvation for "the law of sin" but only solution in the saved is to put it to death (v. 13) and ultimate physical death of the body but in the lost they are in the "bondage of sin" entirely. The "mind" set of the "carnal" (fleshly) nature is a total state of depravity and inability as the terms demand. Enmity is a STATE of war. "IS not subject" is a STATE OF BEING in active resistance by the will to God's will. Nothing can improve, change, redeem or modify the "carnal" nature - "indeed neither indeed can be"

 

[Skandelon]

I have to say, I understood your explanation about Israel being representatives of individuals but I didn't comprehend it. Maybe I need a Calvinistic quickening from God? :laugh:

Israel hardened itself against Christ and God hardened Israel by exposure to more light WITHOUT QUICKENING her BECAUSE IT WAS NOT HER APPOINTED TIME of her salvation.

This specifically makes NO SENSE, nor is it biblical. He said he speaks in parables (which is NOT more light, but less) so that they won't believe the truth. The word "blinding" and the word "hardening" are used interchangeably. I've not known a single blind person who has had exposer to more light than a seeing one. He is HIDING the light, veiling it from them, for a time. And He is doing it for a REDEMPTIVE purpose not a condemning one.

Being hardened is the same as being 'cut off' as spoken of by Paul in Romans 11. The individuals being cut off/hardened may be provoked to envy, leave their unbelief and be grafted back in according to that chapter, thus proving the hardened individuals CANNOT represent the non-elect reprobates of the Calvinistic system. Instead they represent those of Israel who were being temporarily blinded/cut off/ hardened. Do you understand this perspective?

 

[The Biblicist]

I have to say, I understood your explanation about Israel being representatives of individuals but I didn't comprehend it. Maybe I need a Calvinistic quickening from God? :laugh:

Yes, as a matter of fact that is precisely what you need - enlightening by the Holy Spirit.

This specifically makes NO SENSE,

Illustration of admitted blindness:thumbs:

nor is it biblical.

The Bible "makes no SENSE" to those blinded to the truth so to them "nor is it biblical"

He said he speaks in parables (which is NOT more light, but less) so that they won't believe the truth. The word "blinding" and the word "hardening" are used interchangeably. I've not known a single blind person who has had exposer to more light than a seeing one. He is HIDING the light, veiling it from them, for a time. And He is doing it for a REDEMPTIVE purpose not a condemning one.

First, he is addressing INDIVIDUALS not Israel as the whole nation of Israel is not listening to his parables.

Second, he is addressing INDIVIDUALS whose hearts he knows to be seared and are looking to kill him.

Third, if they did not already have this seared/hardened condition they would have sought for the explanation as did His disciples.

Fouth, His own disciples did not understand the parables either but had to have them explained to them. They had ears to hear and eyes to see when God in the flesh EXPLAINED them. It was their spiritual state (eyes to see and ears to hear) that drove them to persue Christ for explanation but not so with those in with an unregenerated condition who persued him only to seek a chance to condemn and kill him.

Being hardened is the same as being 'cut off' as spoken of by Paul in Romans 11.

No it is not! They are cut off because they are hardened to the truth. But hardening is a process by the very nature of the terms meaning. I provided you with examples of the present tense "hardeneth" while "broken off" represents an Aorist tense. Do you know the difference between the action of a present versus an Aorist???

Furthermore, anyone can read romans 11 and see that hardening is the CAUSE whereas "broken off" is the consequence and thus not one and the same.

So it is your interpretation that is "not biblical" as your interpretation contradicts the very Biblical tenses being used to describe each as well as the cause and consequence relationship between hardening (vv. 6-8) versus being "broken off."

 

[Winman]

The problem that everyone, including Barnes struggles with is that they fail to disginguish two different applications that precede and follow this text.

In regard to the born again man (vv. 1-4) who has a dual nature it applies to the fallen nature "the flesh" or the indwelling "law of siin" previously described in chapter seven. However, in regard to the lost who is the direct subject in Romans 8:8-9 in direct contrast to the born again person it describes his total condition as he has no other condition as He is "in the flesh" and thus lives "after the flesh."

However, either way does not change the fact Romans 8:7 is speaking of the indwelling law of sin in controll of the christian as in Romans 7:18 by default due to not mortifying the deeds of "the flesh" through the indwelling Holy Spirit (v. 13) or the totality of the lost condition as in Romans 8:8.

The fallen nature has NO ABILITY to please God and there is no salvation for "the law of sin" but only solution in the saved is to put it to death (v. 13) and ultimate physical death of the body but in the lost they are in the "bondage of sin" entirely. The "mind" set of the "carnal" (fleshly) nature is a total state of depravity and inability as the terms demand. Enmity is a STATE of war. "IS not subject" is a STATE OF BEING in active resistance by the will to God's will. Nothing can improve, change, redeem or modify the "carnal" nature - "indeed neither indeed can be"

Well, I would say YOUR mistake is misinterpreting Romans 7:14-25. I believe Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man, especially because he described himself as "carnal, sold under sin".

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

This does not agree with what Paul had said in chapter 6, that we are free from sin.

Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Paul also said he served sin in Rom 7:25

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

This also contradicts what Paul had said earlier in Romans 6;

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

So, I find it highly unlikely Paul is speaking from the perspective of a regenerated man in Romans 7.

Of course, no Calvinist will ever accept this interpretation because it would utterly destroy the doctrine of Total Inability. Paul said he wanted and desired to do what is good, but he could not find a way to do so.

This is not saying that Paul could not do some good, but he could not be righteous, he could not keep the law perfectly. It takes only one sin to come under the condemnation of death. This is what is meant by being a servant or being bound by sin, not that a person is always compelled to sin, but there is no escape from the condemnation of death. Once you sin you are condemned to die, you are sin's servant and bound, and there is no escape except through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course, when we accept Jesus we are baptized into his body and die to sin. We are no longer held by sin but are free. Now we are under grace.

If Paul is indeed speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7, then your whole view collapses. It shows the unregenerate man is able to at least desire to do good, and could surely believe the Lord when presented with the gospel.

This view does not conflict with chapter 8 whatsoever. When a man walks in the flesh, or makes satisfying the flesh his supreme desire, he can in no way please God or be subject to his laws.

But if this view is correct, an unregenerate man has the ability to believe the word of God and obey it, to be born again, walking in the Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, I would say YOUR mistake is misinterpreting Romans 7:14-25.

I am more than flesh (Rom. 7:18 "that is in my flesh) ) but I am flesh and that aspect of me is sold under sin and death is its only solution.

I am sorry you simply don't understand the basics of human nature and salvation.

 

[Winman]

I am more than flesh (Rom. 7:18 "that is in my flesh) ) but I am flesh and that aspect of me is sold under sin and death is its only solution.

I am sorry you simply don't understand the basics of human nature and salvation.

I understand that man is MORE than flesh.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This was before the disciples had the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet Jesus said their spirit was indeed willing.

I guess Jesus didn't understand Total Inability like you. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

I
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This was before the disciples had the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet Jesus said their spirit was indeed willing.

I guess Jesus didn't understand Total Inability like you. :laugh:

It was not said before they were regenerated as Jesus said the Holy Spirit was "with" them. Hence, they had two natures. A fallen nature - the flesh and the spiritual nature. I guess jesus understands the dual nature of His children better than you:laugh: