Rom. 8:7-9 The Superior Man

[The Biblicist]

I am opening this thread to deal with a very specific argument that James gave in a previous post that was shut down before I could respond. His argument was as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJamesAch
The prepositional phrase is in the "it is not subject" and is a present tense passive indicative. This means that the carnal mind WHEN PRESENTLY IN THAT STATE OF MIND, can not please God

In essence he is saying that the "carnal mind" set is not the only option available to the unregenerate man and he can turn from that mindset to a different mindset.

However, in this context that interpretation is utterly impossible for several contextual based reasons.

1. The regenerate man has no power to overule that same mind set in Romans 7:18-20 without the ADDITIONAL power of the indwelling Holy Sprit as clearly stated in Romans 8:9-13.

2. James's interpretation would make the unregerated man SUPERIOR to the regenerated man, in allowing him another option and power that the regenerate man does not have in and of himself.

3. If God must work in the regenerated man "both to will and to do of His good Pleasure" than the interpretation by James demands the unregenerated man is superior and can do the same thing without God working in him "both to will and to do" God's GOOD pleasure.

4. Romans 7:18 denies such power whether you apply this passage to the regenerate or unregenerated man.

Hence, the argument by James is simply impossible and contradictory to the immediate contextual facts.

 

[DrJamesAch]

If you are going to quote my posts then quote them in their ENTIRETY. I gave you a clear explanation from the entire chapter of Romans that showed that Paul was talking about PERPETUALLY walking in the Spirit. You attempted to pull out some off the wall Greek analysis that not only violated common sense grammar rules but did not support your theory and was misplaced as I showed you. I have answered this drivel in NUMEROUS posts now, and as soon as I track them down, I will simply post the same answers that you have not rebutted at all, and so you can keep what I said in context.

Not only did you misquote what I said, you even misquoted what I said about the Greek analysis where you tried to turn the nouns "carnal" and "mind" into an aortist tense. You clearly understood that I was accusing you of turning nouns into tenses because you ADMITTED IT in your last thread created about this subject, and then tried to clean it up 2 posts later by claiming that I was calling nouns tenses. I clearly showed you that you were attempting to make 2 words have a definition and a grammatical element that they DID NOT HAVE.

You have continuously defined total depravity with the CONCLUSION of inability and even any well read honest Calvinist on here will tell you that while the 2 depend on each other, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING and have 2 different evidences used to support each one of them INDIVIDUALLY. You continue to explicate issues about depravity that even Non Cals and Arminians AGREE WITH, and then bootstrap the conclusion of inability without proving inability. You are drawing a conclusion without establishing a premised BASED ON INABILITY but on DEPRAVITY. You have not learned how to define both of them separately, prove both of them separately and THEN tried to connect them. Your entire argument begins and ends with an enormous category fallacy that even other well read Calvinists have noticed.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I am opening this thread to deal with a very specific argument that James gave in a previous post that was shut down before I could respond. His argument was as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJamesAch
The prepositional phrase is in the "it is not subject" and is a present tense passive indicative. This means that the carnal mind WHEN PRESENTLY IN THAT STATE OF MIND, can not please God

In essence he is saying that the "carnal mind" set is not the only option available to the unregenerate man and he can turn from that mindset to a different mindset.

However, in this context that interpretation is utterly impossible for several contextual based reasons.

1. The regenerate man has no power to overule that same mind set in Romans 7:18-20 without the ADDITIONAL power of the indwelling Holy Sprit as clearly stated in Romans 8:9-13.

2. James's interpretation would make the unregerated man SUPERIOR to the regenerated man, in allowing him another option and power that the regenerate man does not have in and of himself.

3. If God must work in the regenerated man "both to will and to do of His good Pleasure" than the interpretation by James demands the unregenerated man is superior and can do the same thing without God working in him "both to will and to do" God's GOOD pleasure.

4. Romans 7:18 denies such power whether you apply this passage to the regenerate or unregenerated man.

Hence, the argument by James is simply impossible and contradictory to the immediate contextual facts.

Now notice how you equivocate on this issue by saying almost the exact same thing I said about your interpretation which you are now flip-flopping on:

"Note the present tense verbs in verse 12. He is not talking about some future state of final deliverance but the present deliverance from this body of "death" that dominates His daily life. His talking about the power available right now for present LIVING (v. 12) in contrast to present "DEATH" experience daily in condemnation, frustration and defeat - all of which are products of the reign of death through the flesh.

"Verse 13 provides the alternatives once again. If we PRESENTLY live or attempt to conduct our daily life in the power of ourselves we shall experience that "death" referred to by Paul first in Romans 7:24. However, if we PRESENTLY yield to the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit we will experience daily LIFE through the Spirit and victory over this "body of death."

Verses 11-13 provide the DAILY solution to the DAILY problem in Romans 7:18-24. This has nothing about future condemnation as Christ has settled that issue by his own obedience in the power of the Spirit once and for all. The issue is not the future but TODAY the PRESENT! We do no live in the past or the future but always IN THE PRESENT. You are either living in frustration and defeat and condemnation IN THE PRESENT or your are experiencing victory over indwelling sin IN THE PRESENT."http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2011165&postcount=8

 

[The Biblicist]

If you are going to quote my posts then quote them in their ENTIRETY.

I already addressed your quote in its entirety in the other thread that I just had closed down. I opened this thread stating it was opened to deal with a very specific point. In this thread I was looking at this specific argument you made and I did quote your correctly as I simply cut and pasted the part of your quote that expressed this specific point. It is impossible to misquote when cutting and pasting someone.

I gave you a clear explanation from the entire chapter of Romans that showed that Paul was talking about PERPETUALLY walking in the Spirit.

I thought you said you had extensive training in Greek grammar??? No competent Greek grammarian will insist that the present indicative means "perpetual" but refers only the moment at the time of writing. The emphasis is on the kind of action but "incompleted" action can be repetitive as in (". . . . . ") rather than constant as in "___________". The problem in Romans 7:18 is moment by moment as the battle depends upon facing each attack by submission to the power of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, I did not go beyond the time frame of "DAILY" which I repeated several times in my exposition of Romans 8:11-13.

You attempted to pull out some off the wall Greek analysis that not only violated common sense grammar rules but did not support your theory and was misplaced as I showed you.

If you are going to make this charge then support it with facts and point out precisely where my Greek analysis is in error. YOu have not done so and so don't lie and say you have or else I will quote your posts to prove you have not.

I have answered this drivel in NUMEROUS posts now,

That is impossible because this argument was in response to your last post on the other thread before it was shut down and you never made any post on my thread on this subject before it was shut down. So you are not telling the truth and it can be proven you are not telling the truth. Any reader can go to your last post #79 in the thread entitled "Romans 8:7 Does it Support Calvinism" and see that no such response was possible as my argument was not even posted in that thread but only in the new thread which YOU NEVER ONCE POSTED A RESPONSE IN.

Not only did you misquote what I said, you even misquoted what I said about the Greek analysis where you tried to turn the nouns "carnal" and "mind" into an aortist tense.

FIND ANY POST where I even mentioned anything about an "AORIST" tense in relationship to "carnal" or "mind." I dare you to present that post for the readers to see. What I did was say the Greek word translated "mind" means the "mind set" which refers to the will in action and that action is then immediately described by "enmity" and "not subject to". Here is my post that James refers to:

There is no "flaw" in my logic in the least bit. Inability is spelled out in simple language that a five year old cannot misundestand TWICE "neither indeed CAN be" and "CAN not" - vv. 7-8.

The word "CAN" refers to Ability not permission and the word "neither" and "not " are negatives - that is inability.

Furthermore, Paul not only twice declares inability but explains why:

1. The Carnal (fallen) MIND SET or will in action makes ability impossible

2. Because it is in a STATE OF WAR with God "enmity"

3. It is not subject or SUBMISSIVE to the will of God (the law)

This condition involves the emotions (enmity) the will "not subject" and the mind (carnal mind) or the WHOLE OF MAN's CONSCIOUSE SELF is totally depraved. Totally depraved in mind, Totally depraved in emotions, totally depraved in will and that demand total INABILITY to please God.

In order for this kind of mindset (which is the fallen nature in control) to please God, the mind must be CHANGED from "carnal" to "spiritual" and the emotions must be changed from "enmity" to love and the will must be changed from resistance to submission. However, that can never happen to the fallen nature and therefore the absolute denial "NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" and "CAN NOT" that is total depravity and total inability which are inseparable in this passage.

You clearly understood that I was accusing you of turning nouns into tenses because you ADMITTED IT in your last thread created about this subject, and then tried to clean it up 2 posts later by claiming that I was calling nouns tenses.

Here is the precise part of the post James is referring and you can see I admitted to no such thing but rather rebuked him for faulty knowledge of Greek grammar as Greek nouns have no tenses but only cases:

Of course, I never said or suggested a Greek noun had any tense. I explicitly referred to its MEANING "the carnal mind set" which infers a direction of the will towards something. - Post #1 - The Biblicist

And the following is the part of the Post both James and I are referring to:

1. The Carnal (fallen) MIND SET or will in action makes ability impossible - The Biblicist

You are the one that brought in the idea of the "Aorist" tense with Greek nouns which shows you know little about Greek grammar and I quote (cut and pasted):

Yet you continue to punt to a faulty Greek analysis of Romans 8:7 by claiming that "carnal mind" is proof of total inability. Neither carnal nor mind is in the aortist tense. Post #79

I clearly showed you that you were attempting to make 2 words have a definition and a grammatical element that they DID NOT HAVE.

This is an outright lie as I quote my post above and it can be clearly seen that I made absolutely no reference to either Greek grammar or the Aorist tense in connection with those two words. Here is that part of my post that I cut and paste along with your response:

1. The Carnal (fallen) MIND SET or will in action makes ability impossible - The Biblicist


Yet you continue to punt to a faulty Greek analysis of Romans 8:7 by claiming that "carnal mind" is proof of total inability. Neither carnal nor mind is in the aortist tense. Post #79 - James

I simply gave the MEANING of the word without any reference to Greek grammar or tenses.

As you can see, he introduced the idea of an "Aorist tense" where I simply defined the MEANING of the term.

You have continuously defined total depravity with the CONCLUSION of inability

That is correct as they are inseparble in THIS TEXT. The inability is expressed in clear explicit langauge "is not...neither indeed can be....cannot.." The total depravity is also clearly expressed in the verbs and the STATE OF BEING verb - "enmity" = a STATE OF WAR; "is not" is a STATE OF BEING verb. "is not subject to the Law" is active resistance by the will to the revealed will of God.

You have repeatedly lied, showed arrogance and completely conducted yourself without any objectivity.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now notice how you equivocate on this issue by saying almost the exact same thing I said about your interpretation which you are now flip-flopping on:

"Note the present tense verbs in verse 12. He is not talking about some future state of final deliverance but the present deliverance from this body of "death" that dominates His daily life. His talking about the power available right now for present LIVING (v. 12) in contrast to present "DEATH" experience daily in condemnation, frustration and defeat - all of which are products of the reign of death through the flesh.

"Verse 13 provides the alternatives once again. If we PRESENTLY live or attempt to conduct our daily life in the power of ourselves we shall experience that "death" referred to by Paul first in Romans 7:24. However, if we PRESENTLY yield to the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit we will experience daily LIFE through the Spirit and victory over this "body of death."

Verses 11-13 provide the DAILY solution to the DAILY problem in Romans 7:18-24. This has nothing about future condemnation as Christ has settled that issue by his own obedience in the power of the Spirit once and for all. The issue is not the future but TODAY the PRESENT! We do no live in the past or the future but always IN THE PRESENT. You are either living in frustration and defeat and condemnation IN THE PRESENT or your are experiencing victory over indwelling sin IN THE PRESENT."http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2011165&postcount=8

What don't you understand about the repeated use of the word "DAILY"??? You were claimng "PERPETUALLY" while I was claiming "DAILY"!!! You claim you have seven years classroom Greek training and years teaching it but still don't know that the present tense cannot be made to mean 'PERPETUALLY"? The present tense cannot demand any FUTURE extension but only speaks to the moment of speaking in the indicative and the emphasis is on the kind of action. The action is incompleted and ongoing but it could be repetitive or merely at the point of speaking. It certainly cannot be made to mean "PERPETUALLY".

Second, Romans 8:9-13 repudiates your interpetation of Romans 8:7 as neither the regenerated or unregenerated man is capable of overcoming the mind set described in Romans 8:7-8 in and of themselves but that is precisely what you are demanding in the case of the lost man (v. 8).

 

[DrJamesAch]

..

I already addressed your quote in its entirety in the other thread that I just had closed down. I opened this thread stating it was opened to deal with a very specific point. In this thread I was looking at this specific argument you made and I did quote your correctly as I simply cut and pasted the part of your quote that expressed this specific point. It is impossible to misquote when cutting and pasting someone.

No it is not impossible to misquote them because your conclusion of what was said was based upon other explanations that were given for your interpretation.

The present tense does not demand "PERTUALLY" and any Greek student knows that. Second, no such person exists who can "walk in the Spirit" perpetually. So your interpetation is ridiculous.

See this is where you keep equivocation. The fact that YOU ARE NOW ADMITTING that the text does not demand perpetually PRECISELY what I was pointing out to you because you were mixing contexts together that did not apply and tried to apply a perpetual meaning to 2 words that did not fit there in 8:7.

The PERPETUAL argument is from Romans 8:1 and 4, not 8:7 because the word for "walk" is peripateo which was what evolved into the Latin perpetuus which became 'perpetual' in English. It is the state of progress and continuing to move forward.

This is why your argument for Romans 8:7 did not because the context is about God wanting a person to abide in Him perpetually (to WALK in Him) and Paul was showing that a carnal mind can not do so because it does not walk PERPETUALLY to please God, it can't because it is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

You take that as INABILITY which is NOT what inability means theologically. You are confusing the FUNCTION of a person being unable to walk perpetually with God because he is unable to do so and conclude that that demonstrates the theological definition of total inability which is a person dead in sin can not respond to God, understand God, can not ever do good, or ever please God in any way, and must be regenerated first before he can ever know how to do good because such is a predetermined STATUS of the sinner. THAT is the element that you did not and have not proven. You have demonstrated the FUNCTION of ABILITY from a theological stand point of total depravity and concluded to the STATUS of INABILITY without establishing the foundations of the theological ramifications of inability and how they apply to your argument.

If you are going to make this charge then support it with facts and point out precisely where my Greek analysis is in error. YOu have not done so and so don't lie and say you have or else I will quote your posts to prove you have not.

I have done so and you even admitted it in the opening statement of your previous post.

"The Greek word translated "carnal mind" is a noun. As many of you know in the Greek nouns and adjectives have no tense but cases. James suggested that my treatment on this noun was incorrect because to him it suggested that I was implying a tense, such as the Aorist tense." http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87538

You understood EXACTLY what I was accusing you of. You in fact were trying to apply a tense to the words "carnal" and "mind"

"The Greek term translated "carnal mind" really refers to the will in motion. When the Christians "will" is not empowered by the Holy Spirit it is empowered by the fallen nature and thus this sets the "will in motion" to reflect the fallen nature, which dominates the lost man (v. 8)" http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2011340&postcount=33

You attempted to ALTER your view of this after I corrected you on it because as I pointed out, you CLEARLY said "the Greek TERM translated "carnal mind" [NOUNS] refers to WILL IN MOTION [which suggests either an adjective or verb tense]" You clearly attempted to build a tense out of the nouns and I demonstrated that that was erroneous.

What I showed you was that there WAS a preposition clause there, BUT IT WAS NOT FOUNDED UPON "CARNAL MIND" as I just proved from your own comments that you tried to do.

And that wraps up the response to the rest of your contentions about this issue. So you can seriously stop trying to act like you didn't say something that you really did, and got called on it by someone that actually knows Greek. Your continued attempt to explain this away is just embarrassing. You can't just admit that you made a mistake.

 

[DrJamesAch]

What don't you understand about the repeated use of the word "DAILY"??? You were claimng "PERPETUALLY" while I was claiming "DAILY"!!! You claim you have seven years classroom Greek training and years teaching it but still don't know that the present tense cannot be made to mean 'PERPETUALLY"? The present tense cannot demand any FUTURE extension but only speaks to the moment of speaking in the indicative and the emphasis is on the kind of action. The action is incompleted and ongoing but it could be repetitive or merely at the point of speaking. It certainly cannot be made to mean "PERPETUALLY".

Second, Romans 8:9-13 repudiates your interpetation of Romans 8:7 as neither the regenerated or unregenerated man is capable of overcoming the mind set described in Romans 8:7-8 in and of themselves but that is precisely what you are demanding in the case of the lost man (v. 8).

Where on earth did you learn Greek?? Here, I'll help you out. Perhaps go to the BDAG or Mounces, Wallace or even Sharp's rule and find out what tenses have progressive implications.
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm

Now scroll down to the box of "present tense" and observe the "kind of action". I'd gladly give you Wallace or Sharps but I don't have a scanner.
Then come back when you actually understand how these tenses work so you quit trying to use them incorrectly in a debate.

 

[saturneptune]

You have repeatedly lied, showed arrogance and completely conducted yourself without any objectivity.

ya think?

Here is his roll in the postings..............

 

[DrJamesAch]

ya think?

Here is his roll in the postings..............

Coming from someone who has lied to everyone about getting an infraction over the pig picture you sent me making fun of my Jewish heritage. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2012407&postcount=35 Did you make some kind of deal where you wouldn't be infracted over a blatantly racist message and just had to SAY that you were! That matter even has me more curious now.

 

[The Biblicist]

No it is not impossible to misquote them because your conclusion of what was said was based upon other explanations that were given for your interpretation.



See this is where you keep equivocation. The fact that YOU ARE NOW ADMITTING that the text does not demand perpetually PRECISELY what I was pointing out to you because you were mixing contexts together that did not apply and tried to apply a perpetual meaning to 2 words that did not fit there in 8:7.

The PERPETUAL argument is from Romans 8:1 and 4, not 8:7 because the word for "walk" is peripateo which was what evolved into the Latin perpetuus which became 'perpetual' in English. It is the state of progress and continuing to move forward.

This is why your argument for Romans 8:7 did not because the context is about God wanting a person to abide in Him perpetually (to WALK in Him) and Paul was showing that a carnal mind can not do so because it does not walk PERPETUALLY to please God, it can't because it is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

You take that as INABILITY which is NOT what inability means theologically. You are confusing the FUNCTION of a person being unable to walk perpetually with God because he is unable to do so and conclude that that demonstrates the theological definition of total inability which is a person dead in sin can not respond to God, understand God, can not ever do good, or ever please God in any way, and must be regenerated first before he can ever know how to do good because such is a predetermined STATUS of the sinner. THAT is the element that you did not and have not proven. You have demonstrated the FUNCTION of ABILITY from a theological stand point of total depravity and concluded to the STATUS of INABILITY without establishing the foundations of the theological ramifications of inability and how they apply to your argument.



I have done so and you even admitted it in the opening statement of your previous post.



You understood EXACTLY what I was accusing you of. You in fact were trying to apply a tense to the words "carnal" and "mind"

"The Greek term translated "carnal mind" really refers to the will in motion. When the Christians "will" is not empowered by the Holy Spirit it is empowered by the fallen nature and thus this sets the "will in motion" to reflect the fallen nature, which dominates the lost man (v. 8)" http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2011340&postcount=33

You attempted to ALTER your view of this after I corrected you on it because as I pointed out, you CLEARLY said "the Greek TERM translated "carnal mind" [NOUNS] refers to WILL IN MOTION [which suggests either an adjective or verb tense]" You clearly attempted to build a tense out of the nouns and I demonstrated that that was erroneous.

What I showed you was that there WAS a preposition clause there, BUT IT WAS NOT FOUNDED UPON "CARNAL MIND" as I just proved from your own comments that you tried to do.

And that wraps up the response to the rest of your contentions about this issue. So you can seriously stop trying to act like you didn't say something that you really did, and got called on it by someone that actually knows Greek. Your continued attempt to explain this away is just embarrassing. You can't just admit that you made a mistake.

I will let the readers look at your posts and mine and judge for themselves whose telling the truth. I am not going to continue requoting posts as this can be a never ending back and forth useless discussion. Instead I am going to prove your exposition is false and impossible.

1. There is no such thing as a "PERPETUAL" use of the present tense especially how you apply it and did apply it to Romans 8:11-13. No Christian lives "PERPETUALLY" in the power of the Spirit but must repeatedly be filled with the Spirit and repeatedly submit anew in the face of each attack by the indwelling law of sin. Not even the Apostles were able to live PERPETUALLY in the Spirit as Peter needed rebuking by Paul and so did Barnabas (Gal. 2). If not we, would not have repeated exhorations to "put on the new man" and to "put off the old man" and "be filled" if it were a "PERPETUAL" life in the power of the Spirit. So you interpretation of Romans 8:11-13 is wrong.

2. Your interpretation that the unregenerated man can remove himself from the "power" of indwelling sin as described by the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7-8 is wrong. Not even the regenerated man can do that except by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit as proven in Romans 7:18-24.

3. Your interpretation of Romans 8:7 is wrong. As I have ONLY said, The "carnal mind" MEANS the WILL IN ACTION under control of the flesly nature/fallen nature/law of sin as the terms "enmity" and "is not subject to the law of God" demand it is the WILL IN ACTION under these characterizations. NO AORIST TENSE as only an idiot would assert tense to greek nouns but MEANING and IMMEDIATE APPLICATION of the term demands this. This verse describes the STATE OF MIND UNDER THE POWER OF INDWELLING SIN. This state cannot be overpowered by the will of the regenerated man, much less the unregenerated man but is only overpowerred by submission to the power of the indwelling Spirit - vv. 9-13.

4. Your interpretation of Romans 8:7-8 that it does not apply to the unregenerate nature is wrong. Verse 8 refers to the condition of the FALLEN NATURE in control of the will as expressed in verse 7 and declares that is why the unregenerated man or those "IN" the flesh "cannot please God." You assert the very opposite. YOu assert they not only can please God but they can overpower the mind set described in Romans 8:7 and do good. Thus in effect you are claiming the unregenerated man can do by his OWN WILL POWER what the regenerated man CANNOT DO but by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God.

5. The words "is not subject....neither indeed can be.....cannot please God" refers to the "carnal" or FALLEN NATURE and its control of the will which is expressed in "enmity" and resistance to God's will and demands the FALLEN NATURE is a "LAW" of sin that is without ability to change. Thus TOTAL INABILITY of the "LAW of sin" or the FALLEN Nature or "THE FLESH" to please God and that is the ONLY nature which the unregenerated man possesses the unregenerated man can no more overpower it than the regenerated man can.

6. The words "enmity" and "is not subject to the law of God" express the TOTAL DEPRAVITY of the "LAW of sin" or "THE FLESH" nature of which there is NO SALVATION for it but only destruction and only deliverance "FROM" (Rom. 7:24) but it is destroyed either in death or in glorification (1 Cor. 15:54-57).

 

[The Biblicist]

Where on earth did you learn Greek?? Here, I'll help you out. Perhaps go to the BDAG or Mounces, Wallace or even Sharp's rule and find out what tenses have progressive implications.
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm

Now scroll down to the box of "present tense" and observe the "kind of action". I'd gladly give you Wallace or Sharps but I don't have a scanner.
Then come back when you actually understand how these tenses work so you quit trying to use them incorrectly in a debate.

I understand the indicative present tense completely. I understand that the emphasis is on action instead of tense. I understand that the action is "incompleted" or "ongoing" action but no Greek scholar demands the present tense means "PERPETUALLY" because the action must be defined by each context and the present tense is capable of VARIOUS applications and not just one.

No Greek scholar would ever conclude that simply because something is found in the present tense it must be regarded as "PERPETUAL" espeically Romans 8:11-12 as that conclusion is contradicted by other Biblical contexts directly dealing with the filling and walking in the Spirit. However, that was your uneducated assertion. The present may represent the historic present, gnomic present, iterative, customary etc. The action is in movement but not necessarily PERMENANT movement reaching into the future but may reflect only momentary movement at the time of writing or speaking.

If you knew Greek grammar you would recognize and admit the various applications of the present instead of asserting ONE application to a text that it cannot possibly apply as various tempations and attacks by the "LAW" of indwelling sin are repetitive and thus the filling of the Spirit is repetitive and anyone with Greek or Bible knowledge knows that and would never make the assertion that Romans 8:11-13 is PERPETUAL life in the Spirit - Iterative maybe but not PERPETUAL.

 

[The Biblicist]

.
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm

Now scroll down to the box of "present tense" and observe the "kind of action". I'd gladly give you Wallace or Sharps but I don't have a scanner.
.

If this web site is the extent of your knowledge concerning tenses, much less, the present tense, you need to go back to school. I would like to know what school you went to for your Greek training and who were the teachers. If this website is any indication then you took a MAIL ORDER doctorate from people who are as ignorant as they come.

I would advise you to look at Daniel B. Wallaces "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" and read pages 513-539 on the Present tense and learn a little more about the Greek present.

What MAIL ORDER school did you attend?

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

I will let the readers look at your posts and mine and judge for themselves whose telling the truth. I am not going to continue requoting posts as this can be a never ending back and forth useless discussion. Instead I am going to prove your exposition is false and impossible.

Won't happen because you can't accurately portray what I've said.

1. There is no such thing as a "PERPETUAL" use of the present tense especially how you apply it and did apply it to Romans 8:11-13. No Christian lives "PERPETUALLY" in the power of the Spirit but must repeatedly be filled with the Spirit and repeatedly submit anew in the face of each attack by the indwelling law of sin. Not even the Apostles were able to live PERPETUALLY in the Spirit as Peter needed rebuking by Paul and so did Barnabas (Gal. 2). If not we, would not have repeated exhorations to "put on the new man" and to "put off the old man" and "be filled" if it were a "PERPETUAL" life in the power of the Spirit. So you interpretation of Romans 8:11-13 is wrong

.

I not only explained it to you but gave you the link to a website that specialize in Green verbe tenses. Your word against theirs.

And I did not say that the Christian ALWAYS LIVE perpetually in the Spirit. I said that is God's DESIRE. So unless you think that God prefers lukewarmness (Rev 3:16) you're nuts to attempt to refute that.

Your conclusion that the apostles "were not ABLE" is nonsense.

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

You're so bent on determinism that you can't see the forest from the trees on verses that clearly show that man is ABLE, but often is just not WILLING.
We become servants to that which we YIELD TO (Romans 6:18) and YIELDING is a deliberate act of the WILL. Galations 6:8

2. Your interpretation that the unregenerated man can remove himself from the "power" of indwelling sin as described by the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7-8 is wrong. Not even the regenerated man can do that except by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit as proven in Romans 7:18-24.

Once again, you have a bad habit of reading your conclusions into something that was not said. An unregenerate man CAN have the power of sin removed BY GETTING SAVED. Not once have I ever said that an unregenerate person can REMOVE their sin. That is your pre-programmed response to anyone that opposes deterministic compatibilism.

3. Your interpretation of Romans 8:7 is wrong. As I have ONLY said, The "carnal mind" MEANS the WILL IN ACTION under control of the flesly nature/fallen nature/law of sin as the terms "enmity" and "is not subject to the law of God" demand it is the WILL IN ACTION under these characterizations. NO AORIST TENSE as only an idiot would assert tense to greek nouns but MEANING and IMMEDIATE APPLICATION of the term demands this. This verse describes the STATE OF MIND UNDER THE POWER OF INDWELLING SIN. This state cannot be overpowered by the will of the regenerated man, much less the unregenerated man but is only overpowerred by submission to the power of the indwelling Spirit - vv. 9-13.

And again, you're wrong! No, that carnal mind does NOT mean "will in action". "Sarx" (carnal) and "Phronema" are NOUNS. "CARNAL MIND" does not have any tense whatsoever and you are STILL DOING exactly what I said you were doing to those 2 NOUNS. Carnal mind DOES NOT "mean" WILL IN ACTION. Carnal mind means=CARNAL MIND.

by submission to the power of the indwelling Spirit

NOW we're getting somewhere!

4. Your interpretation of Romans 8:7-8 that it does not apply to the unregenerate nature is wrong. Verse 8 refers to the condition of the FALLEN NATURE in control of the will as expressed in verse 7 and declares that is why the unregenerated man or those "IN" the flesh "cannot please God." You assert the very opposite. YOu assert they not only can please God but they can overpower the mind set described in Romans 8:7 and do good. Thus in effect you are claiming the unregenerated man can do by his OWN WILL POWER what the regenerated man CANNOT DO but by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God

You still don't get it. Romans 8 is not a THESIS ON THE FALLEN NATURE. I'll say it again, the context is ABOUT walking in the power of the Holy Spirit. The fact that this is not ABOUT a doctrinal treatise on the fallen nature is clearly shown by the fact that the same description of being IN the flesh ALSO CAN HAPPEN TO THE BELIEVER.

First of all, a nature can not be fallen and determined at the same time. Chew that one over with the compatibilist view. If it fell, that means there was a cause to it, if the cause was a preordained deterministic act, then it can not be said to have fallen.

Secondly, you are trying to build a doctrine about inability (which you STILL have not proven from Romans 8) when Paul is merely using the flesh as a standard of comparison. Paul is not making any argument for an unbeliever being totally UNABLE (with INABILITY) to subject themselves to God, at any time, EVER, because that's where other Scriptures show that such is not the case because it in fact HAS HAPPENED THROUGH OUT THE ENTIRE BIBLE. You would suggest that I use verses to contradict Romans 8:7. However, you need to face the fact that you are using ONE VERSE to contradict SCORES OF OTHERS. Therefore when there is an apparent conflict in Scripture, other Scriptures show that something in that chapter must be in harmony so that the context can be explained clearly.

What is it that is in conflict? Man being totally unable to be subject to God and pleasing Him at any time, any place, AT ALL. Acts 10 shows that can not be true, because Cornelius pleased God, and he was not saved until AFTER he heard Peter's words (Act 11:14). Solomon said that "when A MAN'S ways PLEASE THE LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him" Prov 16:7.

An unsaved man can not only KNOW the way of righteousness, can TURN FROM IT (so much for irresistible grace):

"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them" 2 Peter 2:21

If it was better for them to HAVE NOT KNOWN, then that means at some point they HAD KNOWN and TURNED from it.

SO then how is the conflict resolved?? BY GOING TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CHAPTER and seeing the WALK in verses 1 and 4. "WALK" is from peripateo from which Latin derived it's word for perptuus where we get PERPETUAL. The TVM for peripateo is present active participle which means it is something is repeated and repeated= PERPETUAL.

Paul is making the contrast of believer fulfilling God's command to WALK perpetually in the Spirit of God, and by contrast, they that are in the flesh can not do so because regardless of what good that can do, or what light they can comprehend, without the Spirit of God they CAN NOT BE SUBJECT TO GOD PERPETUALLY because they are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. When they make an effort, they will revert back to the pig in the mire (1 Peter 2:22).

If you fail to make this distinction you CAN NOT properly understand Romans 8.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I understand the indicative present tense completely. I understand that the emphasis is on action instead of tense. I understand that the action is "incompleted" or "ongoing" action but no Greek scholar demands the present tense means "PERPETUALLY" because the action must be defined by each context and the present tense is capable of VARIOUS applications and not just one.

No Greek scholar would ever conclude that simply because something is found in the present tense it must be regarded as "PERPETUAL" espeically Romans 8:11-12 as that conclusion is contradicted by other Biblical contexts directly dealing with the filling and walking in the Spirit. However, that was your uneducated assertion. The present may represent the historic present, gnomic present, iterative, customary etc. The action is in movement but not necessarily PERMENANT movement reaching into the future but may reflect only momentary movement at the time of writing or speaking.

If you knew Greek grammar you would recognize and admit the various applications of the present instead of asserting ONE application to a text that it cannot possibly apply as various tempations and attacks by the "LAW" of indwelling sin are repetitive and thus the filling of the Spirit is repetitive and anyone with Greek or Bible knowledge knows that and would never make the assertion that Romans 8:11-13 is PERPETUAL life in the Spirit - Iterative maybe but not PERPETUAL.

You just don't get it: THE WORD ITSELF "WALK" MEANS PERPETUAL. The Greek tense only MAGNIFIES that meaning. It isn't any tense by itself that shows perpetuity, but the VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD ITSELF.

What else do you think "walk" means? Once in a while get up and take a walk in the Lord? Take a walk when you feel like it? NO, it means walk and KEEP WALKING. I can't see how any Christian in their right mind CAN'T GET THAT.

 

[convicted1]

I'm gonna lock you two in a room together.......:laugh:

 

[DrJamesAch]

I'm gonna lock you two in a room together.......

 

[The Biblicist]

I not only explained it to you but gave you the link to a website that specialize in Green verbe tenses. Your word against theirs.

You obviously have a very superficial knowledge of Greek grammar if this website represents your depth of the present tense. What mail order school did you attend??

And I did not say that the Christian ALWAYS LIVE perpetually in the Spirit. I said that is God's DESIRE.

First, "perpetually" means "always." Second, this text says NOTHING about "God's desire" and you did not base your interpetation on "God's desire" but on the present tense and all readers that have followed this knows that as it is repeated by you in your previous posts. Again, the present tense does not demand "perpetually." Your very argument here advertises very loudly you have had no indepth instruction in Greek grammar.

Your conclusion that the apostles "were not ABLE" is nonsense.

Now you are contradicting what you just denied above when you said "I did not say that the Christian ALWAYS LIVES in the Spirit" as Peter and Barnabas prove they had the fleshly "carnal mind" set in Galatians 2. Make up your mind either they can "perpetually" or they do not "always" as these terms are synonyms not antonyms.

You're so bent on determinism that you can't see the forest from the trees on verses that clearly show that man is ABLE, but often is just not WILLING.
We become servants to that which we YIELD TO (Romans 6:18) and YIELDING is a deliberate act of the WILL. Galations 6:8

Again, you are claiming the lost man is able to do what the Saved man cannot do APART FROM the power of the indwelling Spirit. Romans 8:8 directly applies verse 7 to the lost man as verses 9 clearly deny that those "in the flesh" (v. 8) are "NONE OF HIS."

Once again, you have a bad habit of reading your conclusions into something that was not said. An unregenerate man CAN have the power of sin removed BY GETTING SAVED.

LOL! Where does this text say "an unregenerate man CAN have the power of sin removed BY GETTING SAVED"??? You are exibiting the very "bad habit" you are accusing me as the text says no such thing.

Second, the point of salvation is not our argument. Our argument is about the fallen nature and why that NATURE demands "there is NONE GOOD" and there are "NONE THAT DOETH" good IN THE UNREGENERATE STATE because they are under the complete control of that single fallen nature.

Third, in salvation it is not their will power that overcomes that nature any more than it is the regenerates will power that overcomes the fallen nature so again you are claiming the unregenerated man is SUPERIOR in will power than the unregenerated man as the unregenerated man CANNOT overpower the "carnal mind" set by his own will power.

Not once have I ever said that an unregenerate person can REMOVE their sin. That is your pre-programmed response to anyone that opposes deterministic compatibili.

Not once has that been my argument. I said SIN NATURE not "sin". So don't change the subject. Romans 7:14-25 and Romans 8:7-8 is about the "THE LAW of sin" or INDWELLING SIN NATURE - THE FLESH - THE OLD MAN - THE BODY OF THIS DEATH.

And again, you're wrong! No, that carnal mind does NOT mean "will in action". "Sarx" (carnal) and "Phronema" are NOUNS. "CARNAL MIND" does not have any tense whatsoever and you are STILL DOING exactly what I said you were doing to those 2 NOUNS. Carnal mind DOES NOT "mean" WILL IN ACTION. Carnal mind means=CARNAL MIND.

For a noun to mean "will in action" does not require tense but it is a defintive definition of the MEANING of the noun. Second the immediate decription of "carnal mind" proves it is that FUNCTION as both "enmity" (another noun) and "is not subject to the law" (STATE OF BEING VERB) both are descriptive of the WILL IN ACTION against God and His law. The "carnal mind" is a STATE OF WILLFUL DISPOSITION" and that disposition is defined by "enmity" and "is not subject to the law of God" and "neither indeed can be" and "cannot please God." That is the WILLFUL DISPOSITION OF THE fallen nature or the flesh as it is a a "LAW" of sin or a REGULAR DISPOSITION.

NOW we're getting somewhere!

You are the one missing this point! Neither the unregenerated man or the regenerated man have will power over the "carnal" or "flesh" mind set TO DO GOOD (Rom. 7:18-20; Rom. 8:8) but you are claiming that the unregenerated man does have WILL POWER over his carnal nature TO DO GOOD and thus is SUPERIOR to the regenerated man. This is also directly contradicted by all Biblical writers including Paul in Romans 3:9-12.

You still don't get it. Romans 8 is not a THESIS ON THE FALLEN NATURE.

Yes, but Romans 7:14-25 IS and Romans 8:7-8 IS applying that fallen nature to both saved and lost proving NEITHER is capable of WILL POWER to DO GOOD and that ONLY the regenerated man BY THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT is capable of DOING GOOD. However, you have the unregenerated man capable of doing what the regenerated man cannot do as you claim the unregenerated man WITHOUT REGENERATION and WITHOUT the indwelling power of the Spirit can WILL TO DO GOOD!!!

I'll say it again, the context is ABOUT walking in the power of the Holy Spirit.

YES!!!! and it is because NEITHER unregenerate or regenerated man CAN DO GOOD any other way but by regeneration (inward desire for good due to new birth) and indwelling power of the Spriit (ability to carry out that desire). Thus unregenerated man has NO ABILITY to do good (Rom. 8:8) and is totally under the power of indwelling sin and its mindset and thus TOTAL DEPRAVITY without any power or option to DO GOOD - unless they are SUPERIOR to the regenerated man??????????? That is precisely what you are demanding!!

 

[The Biblicist]

The fact that this is not ABOUT a doctrinal treatise on the fallen nature is clearly shown by the fact that the same description of being IN the flesh ALSO CAN HAPPEN TO THE BELIEVER.

Your word "ALSO" proves my point. "ALSO" is admission that this is the state of the unregenerated man who CANNOT DO GOOD or else he is SUPERIOR to the regenerated man who CANNOT DO good apart from the indwelling power of the Spirit. Since the lost man is neither regenerated (without love for the law according to the created inward man) or indwelt by the Spirit he has NO WILL POWER to overcome the "carnal mind" set described in Romans 8:7 which is directly applied to the lost man in verse 8 as those "in the flesh" (v. 8) are "NONE OF HIS" (v. 9).

First of all, a nature can not be fallen and determined at the same time.

Absurd! Ridiculous! Think on this - it IS the nature that is determined against God as Romans 7:18 and Romans 8:7 spell out in clear explicit unambigous language!!! What in the world do you think the terms "enmity" and "not subject to the law of God mean" if not determination against God? What do you think the words "is not" and "neither indeed can be" and "cannot please God" mean? Do you think these words mean THEY CAN??? They deny any other alternative to DETERMINED war and rebellion against God. Don't you understand the meaning of these words???? Don't you understand they are describing the "carnal mind"?? What is it about Romans 7:18 you don't understand about the "law" of indwelling Sin??? If it was not a DETERMINED NATURE it could not be called a "LAW of sin."

Secondly, you are trying to build a doctrine about inability (which you STILL have not proven from Romans 8) when Paul is merely using the flesh as a standard of comparison.

Are you serious?????? He is not using "the flesh as a standard of comparison" but THE PROBLEM IN THE BELIEVER that prevents him from doing good or can't you read Romans 7:18-25 and understand that????? There is no "comparison" but the REALITY that this "LAW of sin" "the flesh" the "carnal mind" set actually and literally operates within EVERY BELIEVER and PREVENTS them from doing Good. OVERPOWERS their will and NOTHING can defeat it but the indwelling power of the Spirit. That is precisely why the lost man in Romans 8:8 cannot please God because he cannot do good as his will power is not SUPERIOR to the regenerated man who cannot do good by will power either!

Paul is not making any argument for an unbeliever being totally UNABLE

Nobody said he was! I said he is making the argument that the believer's will power is unable to overcome the "carnal mind" set or the "LAW of sin" or the FALLEN NATURE to do good WITHOUT THE INDWELLING POWER OF THE SPIRIT!

How many times do I have to repeat this! The believer DOES HAVE the power to overcome indwelling sin but not in his OWN WILL POWER. The lost man DOES NOT HAVE any power to overcome the fallen nature TO DO GOOD because he does not have the INDWELLING POWER OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD and to suggest he CAN (as you do) demands he is SUPERIOR to the saved man BECAUSE THE SAVED MAN DOES NOT HAVE THAT WILL POWER BUT NEEDS THE DIVINE WILL POWER OF THE SPIRIT TO DO GOOD.

 

[The Biblicist]

The bottom line difference between my interpretation of Romans 7:14-8:13 and the interpretation by James is that he believes the lost man is SUPERIOR to the saved man BECAUSE he believes the lost man can do what Paul denies the saved man can do -"GOOD"! Paul denies the saved man can DO GOOD due to the "LAW of sin" or "THE FLESH" because the saved man has NO WILL POWER to overcome indwelling sin APART FROM the INDWELLING power of the Holy Spirit that he must first YEILD to in order to DO GOOD (Rom. 7:18; 8:9-13).

However, James believes the lost man WITHOUT regeneration and WITHOUT the indwelling Spirit CAN DO GOOD in God's sight by sheer will power while the saved man cannot ("for it is GOD THAT WORKETH IN YOU both to WILL and to DO His good pleasure - Philip. 2:13).

This distinction between us is so clear and so simple I can't for the life of me see how James cannot (will not) see it??? He is arguing that the lost man is SUPERIOR, becuase he is arguing the lost man is not controlled by the nature decribed in Romans 7:18 and Romans 8:7 (law of sin) but can overpower it by his own will, when Paul denies that the saved man can over power "the law of sin" by sheer will. The saved man cannot "do good" (Rom. 7:15-17, 19-20; 8:7) even though he is regenerated ("in the Spirit") but must yeild to the power of the indwelling Spirit if he is to overcome the indwelling "law of sin" and do good.

 

[The Biblicist]

The bottom line difference between my interpretation of Romans 7:14-8:13 and the interpretation by James is that he believes the lost man is SUPERIOR to the saved man BECAUSE he believes the lost man can do what Paul denies the saved man can do -"GOOD"! Paul denies the saved man can DO GOOD due to the "LAW of sin" or "THE FLESH" because the saved man has NO WILL POWER to overcome indwelling sin APART FROM the INDWELLING power of the Holy Spirit that he must first YEILD to in order to DO GOOD (Rom. 7:18; 8:9-13).

However, James believes the lost man WITHOUT regeneration and WITHOUT the indwelling Spirit CAN DO GOOD in God's sight by sheer will power while the saved man cannot ("for it is GOD THAT WORKETH IN YOU both to WILL and to DO His good pleasure - Philip. 2:13).

This distinction between us is so clear and so simple I can't for the life of me see how James cannot (will not) see it??? He is arguing that the lost man is SUPERIOR, becuase he is arguing the lost man is not controlled by the nature decribed in Romans 7:18 and Romans 8:7 (law of sin) but can overpower it by his own will, when Paul denies that the saved man can over power "the law of sin" by sheer will. The saved man cannot "do good" (Rom. 7:15-17, 19-20; 8:7) even though he is regenerated ("in the Spirit") but must yeild to the power of the indwelling Spirit if he is to overcome the indwelling "law of sin" and do good.

There are two different natures represented by the pronoun "I" in Romans 7:15-25. One "I" represents "this body of death" or the "law of Sin" or "the flesh" which is "sold under sin" so that the flesh "serves sin" and always does evil - Rom. 7:15-18, 24-25.

The other "I" seeks to do "good" and cries for deliverance "FROM this body of death" and "delights in the law of God after the inward man" and operates according to a different "law" to "serve God" - Rom. 7:19-21,24,25

The first "I" who always does evil represents the fallen nature that is found in both the lost and the saved.

It is this same "I" that is under the dominion or "law" of sin that is called the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 of which completely dominates the WHOLE PERSON of those "in the flesh" so they cannot please God (Rom. 8:8).

Is this same "I" while under that is under the dominion of sin that is called the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 of which completely frustrates those "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:9 so that they cannot express their desire to do good except for only one way and that is through the power of the indwelling Spirit in Romans 8:10-13.

CONCLUSION: The same fallen nature "the flesh...the law of sin...this body of death" is found in both the lost ("in the flesh") and in the saved ("in the Spirit") preventing both from doing "good" but only the saved ("in the Spirit") have the solution to overule that "law" by another "law" which operates by the power of the indwelling Spirit to do "good."

This "Carnal mind" represents the carnal nature, the law of indwelling sin, the flesh, this body of death which is irreversable in its determination to war against God (enmity) and in its resistance to the revealed will of God (not subject to the law of God) and is thus totally depraved and without any ability to "please God" and there is no other solution for it but "death." In the lost - physical and eternal death. In the saved overruled (by the power of the indwelling Spirit) and physical death as there is no redemption for the "LAW OF SIN". Think about it? The "LAW OF SIN" cannot be saved, redeemed but can only be overruled in the saved until it is destroyed in physical death in the saved or eternal death in the lost.