ROMANS 8:5-8 DOES NOT SUPPORT TOTAL INABILITY

[russell55]

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."

Well, yes it does, because your belief that chapter 7 is talking about a NT believer is what you have been using as evidence that those who walk according to the flesh, who have their minds set on the flesh in chapter 8, who are hostile to God are believers. If chapter 7 is not speaking of believers, then neither is chapter 8 when it speaks of those who walk according to the flesh.

In fact, if chapter 7 is speaking of the unbeliever, then the contrast in chapter 8 is between believer and unbelievers: Believers are those who walk according to the Spirit, who have the Sprit of God dwelling with them; unbelievers are those who don't have the Spirit, who remain under bondage to sin, and so continue to live according to the flesh.

And the unbelievers are the ones who have have minds that are hostile to God (meaning they hate God), and the reason for that hatred is that their minds cannot subject themselves to God's demands upon them, and they cannot please God.

Or to state it the other way around, men in their natural condition, without the inner work of the Holy Spirit, cannot subject themselves to God's law, and they cannot please God, and as a result of this they hate God. Their hatred of God (which would cause them to be God and gospel rejectors) results from something they are powerless to change. So they are in a big pickle, because they are indeed unable to respond positively to the gospel message.

It is in Ephesians 2 that we find the solution to this big pickle men find themselves in. It is the inner quickening work of the Holy Spirit, which comes while we we are dead in sin, while we are sold under bondage to sin, while we are walking according to the flesh, while we are unable to submit to God's laws, unable to please Him, while we hate Him, while we are by nature objects of His wrath, while we are in a condition from which it is impossible to respond positively to God.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by russell55:

Your belief that chapter 7 is talking about a NT believer is what you have been using as evidence that those who walk according to the flesh, who have their minds set on the flesh in chapter 8, who are hostile to God are believers. If chapter 7 is not speaking of believers, then neither is chapter 8 when it speaks of those who walk according to the flesh.

No, my view (which other Calvinist hold to as well) of Chapter 7 was only one point of evidence that Paul was comparing the two natures. Or those under the law and those under grace, if that helps you.

Ok, let me simplify this. The issue is not so much about who Paul is speaking about here in this text. It really doesn't matter either way. I believe his comparing two natures: the flesh [law] and the Spirit [grace] and the consequeses of each. The point I'm making is that what he says applies to both the lost and to believers and therefore cannot be a proof text for "total inability."

Look back at Romans 6:12: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires...for sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace."

We know that grace is applied through faith in Christ, which is not even being spoken about in this passage. The call of the gospel is not mentioned either.

The point is: The two things in this passage that speak about inability are true of believers and the lost.

1) "The mind of the sinful man ...does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."

The lost cannot submit themselves to God's law. We agree.

And believers cannot fully submit themselves to God's law either; which is why we rejoice in grace for we are no longer under the law! Christ had to submit himself for us because no matter how hard we try, even as believers we cannot match up to the expectations of God's Holiness as seen in our failings. Don't you agree that this point of "inability" is true of all man?

It cannot therefore be applied only to the losts "inability" to believe the gospel, for the gospel is God's provision for this very inability. Therefore you are making the assumption that man's inability to submit to God's law is the same as his inability to believe in God's provision to remedy that inability. That's an assumption that this text doesn't support in any way, shape, or form.

2. "Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God."

This too is true of believers and non-believers. Believers who allow "sin to reign in their mortal bodies" and "offer the parts of their body to sin" or "use their freedom for an opportuity for the flesh" are all acting in the sin nature and they cannot please God by doing this.

Once again this says absolutely nothing about one's ability to have faith in the gospel. In fact, this has more to do with the law [represented in the flesh] and the Spirit, which has nothing to do with the means by which one receives the Spirit. That would be FAITH. The law is not based on faith. Isn't that the real issue hear?

What are the means to recieve the Spirit, so that you can have freedom and please God?

Do believers receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what they heard?

I think we all agree that it is by believing, or Faith. Which is not even discussed in this text! How can you possibly see it as a proof that we are unable to have faith when faith is not even mentioned?

This is what I believe scripture teaches is the process by which the Spirit indwells us:

General calling of the Gospel with the calling of the Spirit ----- Faith in what is heard ------ Indwelling of the Spirit.

With Respect,
Bill

 

[Bible-belted]

I think we can all agree that Paul here is making acontrast between flesh and spirit. It shows up a number of times:

5a- according to the flesh/spirit
5b- thinkiing things of the flesh/spirit
6- the mind of the flesh/spirit
8,9- being in the flesh/the spirit

The most significant ofthese is the last, which indicates that Paul is contrasting believers and unbelievers. This isn't about having flesh or living in a body of flesh, but is representative of Paul's realm or power thinking; that salvation effects a transfer from one realm with one ruling power to another. To be "in the flesh" is to be ruled by it, something that is not possible for the Christian who is in the Spirit. The idea is positional, not merely behavioural.

Clearly for Paul vbeing in the flesh or cting in a fleshy way is not possible for the believer. Paul is not comamnding anything here (you may note the lack of imperative verbs and the preesnce of third person language. Paul is describing, not commanding here. Paul is describing the radical difference between the flesh and the Spirit.

The key ve5rses in provingthe Cavanist position are v. 7,8. They explain why the the way of thinking acording to the flesh leads to death. Always and inevitably.

Let me quote Douglas Moo in this, as he puts it beter than I could:

"What is meant... is that every person apart from Christ is thoroughly in the grip of the power of sin, and that this power extends to all the person's faculties. This Paul has enunciated clearly by accusing all non-Christians of having a "mind-set", a total life-direction, that is inately hostile to God (v.7). All people, by nature derived from Adam, are incurably "bent" toward their own good rather than the good of others or of God [note, Mo has already pointe out that Total Depravity does not deny that people have knowledge of good]... Verse 8, on the other hand, plainly shows that no person can rescue himself from this condition. As long as that person is "in the flesh" - and only the Spirit can rescue us from this envelopment in the flesh- he or she is "totally unable" to please god."

Moo goes on to point out that Paul inv. 9 makes a shift to speak directly to the Roamn Christians ("but you").

This is not to deny that Christians have to deal with the flesh and whatnot. It is simply tosay that this conflict is not what Paul is dealing with in Roamsn 8:5-8.

 

[Yelsew]

Moo goes on to point out that Paul inv. 9 makes a shift to speak directly to the Roamn Christians ("but you").

Then Moo is a minidimwit who cannot see that the whole of the book of romans is written to the Roman Christians. You too, if you do not understand that!

 

[russell55]

Then Moo is a minidimwit

Sigh....

This is just plain sad....

 

[Yelsew]

Yes it is sad that one attempts to dissect scripture in the manner of saying that a letter written specifically to the Roman believers is not really to them unless they are directly addressed.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Yes it is sad that one attempts to dissect scripture in the manner of saying that a letter written specifically to the Roman believers is not really to them unless they are directly addressed.

Yelsew,

Moo is citing the fact that Paul switches to direct address from indirect (the use of the 3rd person). There is no way to infer a denial that all of Romans is addressed to the Romans. Your comment I fear reflects on you rather than Moo.

 

[Skandelon]

Ha ha!

 

[William C]

Bible belted:
The most significant ofthese is the last, which indicates that Paul is contrasting believers and unbelievers. This isn't about having flesh or living in a body of flesh, but is representative of Paul's realm or power thinking; that salvation effects a transfer from one realm with one ruling power to another. To be "in the flesh" is to be ruled by it, something that is not possible for the Christian who is in the Spirit. The idea is positional, not merely behavioural.

Again, let me point out that Paul is comparing those who follow the Law [flesh] and those who live by the Spirit. The way in which the Spirit comes to be in the individual is not even addressed, yet that is the question we are debating. You are jumping to conclusions. Not even some Calvinistic scholars link this text to a person's inability to have faith. Why?

FAITH IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED!

Let me ask again:
Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

This answers the question of how one receives the Spirit, which should be the focus of our debate in this passage. We receive the Spirit through belief in what we hear.

Bill

 

[Bible-belted]

Bill,

I didn't mention faith either. I still came to Total Depravity.

How? Simple, by reading the text. It is clear that Paul is makng an absolute antithesis between the saved and the unsaved.

If you want to do exegesis Bill you need to deal with what the passage under discussion says BEFORE you attempt to impose something from another context. You haven't adressd the text of Romans 5-8. You've tried to say it can't say something because of an interpretation you have of another text in another context entirely. You've attempted toignoe the interpretation saying it isn't universally held.

Neither of those are valid points.

You've got your systemaitc cart before the biblical horse. Deal with the text at issue.

 

[William C]

Go back to the post earlier in this thread and you will see that I went through this passage verse by verse. Don't accuse me of not dealing with the passage just because I don't agree that it leads to the same conclusions you come to.

The question is how does one receive the Spirit?

That is not addressed in this passage unless you add assumptions and draw conclusions. You can't base your entire theological premise of "total inability" on this passage, it's much to vague. And it fails to deal with man's ability to believe and thus receive the Spirit.

It deals with man's lack of ability to submit to God's law and man's lack of ability to please God when they act in sin. HOW DOES THIS PROVE MAN'S INABILITY TO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

The gospel is not mentioned, nor is faith or belief mentioned. This is an absurd argument. It's like trying to use 2 Peter 3:9 to prove how one is saved, you can't do that because it only speaks of God's desires or pleasure, same as this verse.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
FAITH IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED!

Woohoo!! Here we go again - a theology based on what the Bible does NOT say. I hope you didn't waste money on a real Bible, since most of what you base your faith on comes from a blank page.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Let me ask again:
Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

This answers the question of how one receives the Spirit, which should be the focus of our debate in this passage. We receive the Spirit through belief in what we hear.

Bill

Here is a more literal translation of the text:

3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

And how is one able to hear? Say it with me...

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the utterance of God.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Go back to the post earlier in this thread and you will see that I went through this passage verse by verse. Don't accuse me of not dealing with the passage just because I don't agree that it leads to the same conclusions you come to.

The question is how does one receive the Spirit?

That is not addressed in this passage unless you add assumptions and draw conclusions. You can't base your entire theological premise of "total inability" on this passage, it's much to vague. And it fails to deal with man's ability to believe and thus receive the Spirit.

It deals with man's lack of ability to submit to God's law and man's lack of ability to please God when they act in sin. HOW DOES THIS PROVE MAN'S INABILITY TO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

The gospel is not mentioned, nor is faith or belief mentioned. This is an absurd argument. It's like trying to use 2 Peter 3:9 to prove how one is saved, you can't do that because it only speaks of God's desires or pleasure, same as this verse.

Bill,

I am not accusing you. I am simply stating that in this thread you are interpreting the verses in light of another verse from another context. And that is the wrong way of doing things. And that is so regardless of whether we agree or not.

You may think that the question is how we receive the Spirit, but that isn't Paul's point in Romans 8:5-8 as you say. Paulis howver making a very clear antithesis between beleivers and unbel;ievers. He is describing their respective constitutions. That of the person in the flesh is described in terms which make it clear that they are inately, inherently, and absolutely opposed to the Spirit. It is also made clear that there is nothing the person in the flesh can do to altar this state of affairs. Those in the flesh cannot please God. They cannot. They are unable as a matter of being "in the flesh".

It is really that simple.

You seem to make an issue of the fact that faith is not mentioned. You should stop, because that isn't relevant. The fact is those in the flesh cannot please God. That is true regardless of what the means of receiving the Spirit is. Faith does not have to be mentioned since the words of Paul in these verses would be equally true if salvation were by works, or any other means.

Now, again, deal with the passage rather than appealing to another pasage. If you can.

 

[romanbear]

Hi everyone ;
These verses spoken by Christ disprove that man is totally depraved;
Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Luk 6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

Man has no good clearly refuted by Christ. This is another contradiction to Calvinism's total depriviaty.

Romanbear

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:

Now, again, deal with the passage rather than appealing to another pasage. If you can.

Translation: My interpretation of this passage doesn't line up with other passages so we should'nt confuse the issue by allowing the scripture to interpret scripture.

If you haven't noticed Bible-belted you appeal to Eph. 2, which does mention faith as the means by which we are made alive; therefore, it is relavant to this discussion.

You keep saying, "Those in the flesh cannot please God. They cannot. They are unable as a matter of being "in the flesh".

How many times do I have to agree with this statement. This is not the question for debate. The question is how can man receive the Spirit so that he has the ability to please God?

Scripture is clear that the Spirit comes to those who have faith! Who can have faith? "Whosoever believes"

Who is able to believe?

You say only the elect.

I say anyone who hears the gospel who has not been hardened.

This issue is not discussed in this passage. Sorry, I know you would like for it to say all of the things you claim that it does, because it is just about the only passage you have to support "total inability," which is the foundation of the Calvinistic Soteriology.

That's sad. Sad, that you base your whole theology, which says man in unable to have faith in the gospel, on a passage that doesn't even mention faith the gospel or the means by which the Spirit indwells man. Sad, sad, sad

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by romanbear:
Hi everyone ;
These verses spoken by Christ disprove that man is totally depraved;
Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Luk 6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

Man has no good clearly refuted by Christ. This is another contradiction to Calvinism's total depriviaty.

Romanbear

Romanbear,

Nothese verse do not do what you think, becuase Total Depravity does nott each that the reprobate can do not good at all. It does not hold that people cannot be at least partially obedient. It simply recalls that even partial opbedience is still disobedience.

You proceed (again) from a false understanding of calvanism.

It says something about arminians generally wheen they can be corected so often about the definition of calvanist (scriptural) doctrines and yet steadfastly misrepresent them.

What are wto think about arminians? Are they stupid? Are they dishonest? Are they incapable of fairly representig the other side?

Please Arminians, please. For the sake of Christ fairly repreent Calvanist doctrines when you try (albeit unsuccessfully) to refute them.

 

[William C]

Romanbear,

As much as it pains me to say it, bible-belted it right.

These verses only speak of the losts ability to show love and goodness to others because of their own false motives to receive something in return.

It doesn't speak about the lost's ability or lact thereof to have faith in the gospel. So it really doesn't apply here.

Oh, wait neither to the Calvinistic support texts for "Total Inability," never mind Romanbear, you can use this passage because it says just as much about "Total Inability" to respond the gospel as Rom. 8 does!

Preach on!

 

[Bible-belted]

[Edited to remove the inappropriate personal remarks. Keep it on target.)

[ February 27, 2003, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[npetreley]

By the way, as a follow-up to Galations 3, note also what it says next...

Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Having begun, what? In what?

Arminians believe the beginning of salvation is the "free will" choice of faith. So why didn't Paul say, "Having begun with your faith, are you now being made perfect by works?"

In fact, this would have been the perfect opportunity, if Paul meant by Galatians 3:2 what some interpret it to mean, that is, "Did you receive the spirit by works of the law, or by choosing to have faith?" But it doesn't say that. It says, "or by the hearing OF faith." And it doesn't say "Having begun in faith" it says, says "Having begun in the Spirit."

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
By the way, as a follow-up to Galations 3, note also what it says next...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Having begun, what? In what?

Arminians believe the beginning of salvation is the "free will" choice of faith. So why didn't Paul say, "Having begun with your faith, are you now being made perfect by works?"

In fact, this would have been the perfect opportunity, if Paul meant by Galatians 3:2 what some interpret it to mean, that is, "Did you receive the spirit by works of the law, or by choosing to have faith?" But it doesn't say that. It says, "or by the hearing OF faith." And it doesn't say "Having begun in faith" it says, says "Having begun in the Spirit." </font>[/QUOTE]Nick, don't do that to the text! You left out the very next verse!

"Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?"

HELLO! We received the Spirit because we believe what we heard!

Then look on down in verse 14:
"..so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

Your hermeneutics needs some work.