ROMANS 8:5-8 DOES NOT SUPPORT TOTAL INABILITY

Here is the logical argument that Calvinist have been making to support Total Inability:

I've heard in 7 different post that Romans 8:5-8 support the Calvinistic premise of Total Inability. I will now dispell that myth:

Calvinist look at this passage and assume that he could not possibly be addressing "believers" eventhough that is his audience. That's ok, sometimeS Paul does refer to the lost, but is he doing that in this passage?

Facts to consider:
1. He just spent an entire chapter (7) telling us how he is at times controlled by the nature of sin within him.

2. These passages never speak of becoming a "believer" or being "saved." It only refers to where the mind is set, how that affects our fellowship with God and how it displease him when anyone (believer or not) acts in the flesh. And it infers that if one continually acts in the flesh and never in the Spirit, he is not of Christ.

3. We must use scripture to interpret scripture. What does Paul say in other passages about those who "live by the sin nature" as compared to those who "live by the Spirit." Please read Gal. 5:13-26:

This passage (and others) are clearly instucting believers, who hae the "freedom to set their minds on the sinful nature." But are instucted to "live by the Spirit." So to assume that Paul is not addressing believers in Romans 8 is not consistant with this passage.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

1. God's choice of those who would not be hardened (the Remnant) was unconditional; in other words, the Remnant did nothing to earn that choice.

2. His choice to allow the Gentiles entrance into the covenant was unconditional. In other words, the Gentiles did nothing to earn that choice.

3. His choice of the apostles was unconditional. These 12 men did not do anything to earn that choice.

The problem is that Calvinists extend "election" to mean salvation for each individual. The scripture doesn't do that.

Only universalist don't believe that atonement is limited. Calvinist believe it is limited to "the elect." Arminians beleive it is limited to those who believe the gospel. This should not be the real focus of the debate, unless we are debating Ken, who is a universalist.

This point is most definiately debatable on both sides of the issue. Nevertheless, true faith will last.

[Moderator's note: I have edited the problemmatic statements from the post being quoted because they were edited above. For those who read the original post, Bill distanced himself from those comments. I edit it here only to be consistent with the above edit.]

Thanks for understanding,
Bill

[ February 21, 2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I disagree. Please hear me out. Paul is not really contrasting believers verses non-believers. He is contrasting the sin nature verses the Spirit. This chapter is a continuation of Chapter 7 in which he speaks of the war between these two natures within the life of a believer. We are not obligated or controlled by sin, for we have freedom in Christ. But in that freedom sometimes we still mess up, just like 1st century believers, and choose to follow the nature of sin.

If you look at Romans 8:5-8 in its context this battle between the two natures is clear. Here is what Paul is telling the believers in Rom. 8:

1. There is no condemnation (even when we sin)(vs. 1)

2. The Spirit has freed us from the power of sin, so we have the ability to resist temptation. (vs.2)

3. The Law could not save us because of that sin nature, so God sent Christ to free us from sin and save us. (vs. 3)

4. Christ fulfilled the law for us, and freed us to follow the Spirit, not the sin nature. (vs. 4)

5. Those controlled by the sin nature think about sinful things, those controlled by the Spirit think on Spiritual things. (vs. 5)

Notice this is a comparison of the natures, not necessarily "lost" verses "saved." If we are honest we could all think of times we allowed our minds to be "controlled" by our sinful nature.

6. The mind controlled by the sinful nature leads to death, the mind controlled by the Spirit leads to life and peace. (vs. 6)

Since we as believers sometimes allow our minds to be lead by the sinful nature does this means we will die. No, look back at verse 1. He is contrating natures that are within all of us. These natures are at war (chapter 7)

7. The sin nature is always hostile toward God.

Does this mean when a believer looks upon a woman with lust that he becomes an enemy of God. No, look back at verse 1. It is saying that the "sin nature" is always hostile to God and His Law. We see that fleshed out in us every day as we wage war against our sin nature.

8. Those who only act in the sin nature cannot please God. (vs. 8)

Can a believer acting in sin bring God pleasure? No. Can a non-believer who can only act with a sin nature ever please God. No. That is all this verse says. Once again the natures are being contrasted.

9. Believers are not under the control of sin, but you have the Spirit. In other words, you can choose in your freedom which nature to follow. Those completely controlled by the sin nature, those without freedom, are not Christians at all. (vs. 9)

This second part of verse 9, is the first time I believe Paul specifically refers to those COMPLETELY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE SIN NATURE (the lost). Those without freedom to choose whether or not to sin. He points them out as examples of being under complete control of the sin nature and warns his audience that if they act like them it might be because they don't have the Spirit either.

10. Verse 10 shows us this comparison of the two natures within a Christian perfectly. The body, or flesh is going to die, but the Spirit will live on in Christ. (vs. 10)

Believers have flesh and Spirit, we are still waiting for the redemption of our bodies so we still struggle with the flesh which is an enemy of God and it will die. Our Spirit will live on.

11. Just as the Spirit raised Christ, he will raise us. (vs 11)

12. So, believers, you are not obligated to follow the sin nature within you, you are free. (vs. 12)

13. But if you do continue to follow the sin nature, you have reason to doubt your eternal security, for you will perish (vs. 13). You will know them by their fruits!

14. For true believers are lead by the Spirit of God. (vs. 14)

15. So don't act like slaves, you are His adopted children.

Here is the NLT (paraphase) so you can see the line of thought throughout the text:

Once again, nothing in this text is mentioned about how one is saved. The gospel and faith are not even mentioned in this text. It simply compares the two natures: Flesh/Sin verses Spirit both of which we as believers possess, while non-believer only possess flesh.

In summary:

The sin nature is hostile to God.
The sin nature cannot please God.
The sin nature leads to death.

The Spirit is not hostile to God.
The Spirit can please God.
The Spirit leads to life and peace.

Believers contain both the flesh and the Spirit and we must choose daily to follow after the Spirit.

Non-believers contain only flesh and cannot please God and are hostile to God.

We all agree to these points, and this is all this passage teaches. Everything else brought to this passage is assumed. Here is the Calvinistic assumption:

Non-believers are unable to be influenced by the geniune, powerful calling of the Spirit through the gospel message because their nature is hostile to God and cannot please God.

This passage NEVER says this, it is assumed. The calling of the gospel to faith and repentance is never mentioned. In fact, this passage never even speaks of how one goes from being "controlled by the flesh" to being "controlled by the Spirit." It only speaks of the consequesis of each. It never explains the means by which the Spirit enters a man.

Look at the passage, the word "unable" only refers to man's inability to submit to the Law and his inability to please God when acting in sin. Nothing is said about his inability to hear, see, understand and turn to God through faith in Christ. Therefore, to ASSUME that a non-believer in NOT ABLE to believe the geniune call of the gospel is unsupported in this text!

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

Is this the only support that Calvinist's have for "Total Inability?" It's pretty weak.

[ February 22, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]

 

As far as I'm concerned, this is where the engine of your argument goes off the track. By chapter 8 your train is already wrecked....

Chapter 7 is not speaking of the life of a believer (at least of a NT believer). The "I" of chapter 7 is "sold under bondage to sin". This, then cannot describe a NT believer, who is everywhere in Paul's writings described as redeemed, freed from bondage, delivered from the dominion of darkness, etc. Even you acknowledge that when you say: </font>[/QUOTE]I can name many Calvinistic scholars that disagree with you. Sproul and MacArthur for example.

And are you arguing that Christians don't have the flesh and the Spirit a war within them? Are you arguing that man no longer struggles with sin after becoming a Christian?

Questions about your view of Chapter 7:
1. How can a non-believer "want to do what is good?"
2. What does Paul mean when he writes: "Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." Are you really trying to argue that Paul is not speaking about himself in this passage?

 

Russell55,

I see your point.

But being "set free from the law of sin and death," doesn't remove the fleshly sin nature that the believer still battles. He is merely saying that I am not under the "bondage" of sin any longer. I don't have to sin.

The two natures are still in focus as he speaks to believers about those natures.

You have focused this debate on the one point I made in reference to chapter 7 which many scholars, both Calvinistic and Arminian, disagree on.

The real issue has therefore been sweep under the rug. I'm not accusing you of doing that intentionally, I'm just wanting to refocus back to the many other points that I made in understanding Romans 8 that have not been addressed.

Honestly, this issue really doesn't make much of a difference in seeing that this passage is focused on the two natures and not on "total inability."

With Respect,
Bill