Romans 8:7: Does It Support Calvinism?

[The Biblicist]

That verse tells me Adam from the moment he was created was going to sin.

For he was created of the earth earthy, natural as in soulish and not spiritual.

That is Manichean doctrine or gnostic doctrine that sees material flesh as sinful. Paul is not speaking of the material flesh but of the active principle of the "law of sin" operating in the members.

Adam did have the law of sin operating in his members. That came AFTER the fall. Becase the law of man is dominated by the law of sin operating through the sense perceptions of the body and the natural desires of the body - he calls the fallen nature "the flesh" because of the association of the law of sin working in the and through the members and desires of the body. However, that distinguishes the law of sin and the material body.

 

[convicted1]

That is Manichean doctrine or gnostic doctrine that sees material flesh as sinful. Paul is not speaking of the material flesh but of the active principle of the "law of sin" operating in the members.

Adam did have the law of sin operating in his members. That came AFTER the fall.

Exactly. Adam was made with a corruptible body, but not corrupt until after he fell.

 

[The Biblicist]

Exactly. Adam was made with a corruptible body, but not corrupt until after he fell.

Thank you! You said it much more concise and to the point than I did.

 

[convicted1]

Thank you! You said it much more concise and to the point than I did.

You're welcome. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[MB]

You're welcome. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Was Adam made with a propensity towards sin?
MB

 

[The Biblicist]

Was Adam made with a propensity towards sin?
MB

Since the OP deals with Romans 8:7 rather than the creation of man wouldn't it be better to open up another thread for that discussion as such a discussion derails this particular OP subject?

 

[MB]

Since the OP deals with Romans 8:7 rather than the creation of man wouldn't it be better to open up another thread for that discussion as such a discussion derails this particular OP subject?

OK. Romans 8:7 does not support Calvinism. Any one can be spiritually minded. You take Cain for instance since God is spirit he had to Speak to God spiritually. If regeneration gives a man spiritual insight and regenerates His spirit. What about Cain He spoke with God yet he was not regenerated.
MB

 

[The Biblicist]

OK. Romans 8:7 does not support Calvinism. Any one can be spiritually minded. You take Cain for instance since God is spirit he had to Speak to God spiritually. If regeneration gives a man spiritual insight and regenerates His spirit. What about Cain He spoke with God yet he was not regenerated.
MB

Deal with the CONTEXTUAL based evidence that has been thoroughly and repeatedly provided! You cannot and that is why the tactive of diversion away from the OP to another scripture another context.

If you cannot respond to the CONTEXTUAL based evidences then why should we follow you to another context and another scripture. To do so, would start an endlless circle of getting nowhere.

 

[The Biblicist]

Deal with the CONTEXTUAL based evidence that has been thoroughly and repeatedly provided! You cannot and that is why the tactive of diversion away from the OP to another scripture another context.

If you cannot respond to the CONTEXTUAL based evidences then why should we follow you to another context and another scripture. To do so, would start an endlless circle of getting nowhere.

James and MB realize their denial of Romans 8:7 is completely repudiated by the contextual evidence and that is precisely why they want to FLEE this context to some other scripture and some other context.

If their view had any validity they could defend it from the immediate context of Romans 8:7. We have defended our view from this context and they have no contextual based response - period! Simple denial is no evidence and that is all MB provides for Romans 8:7.

 

[The Biblicist]

OK. Romans 8:7 does not support Calvinism.

Based on no contextual evidence, and in direct contradiction to an array of contextual based exegetical evidence, MB comes on and thinks with a sweeping unsupported assertion he can invalidate all the hard evidence that repudiates his assertion.

Empty assertions, name calling, philsophical rationalizations, diversions to other scriptures, pitting scripture against scripture is the modus operandi of James, MB and every single one of those who oppose the hard based contextually defined evidence that Romans 8:7 does describe the lost man's condition and denies he has either the desire or the ability to please God.

 

[MB]

Based on no contextual evidence, and in direct contradiction to an array of contextual based exegetical evidence, MB comes on and thinks with a sweeping unsupported assertion he can invalidate all the hard evidence that repudiates his assertion.

Empty assertions, name calling, philsophical rationalizations, diversions to other scriptures, pitting scripture against scripture is the modus operandi of James, MB and every single one of those who oppose the hard based contextually defined evidence that Romans 8:7 does describe the lost man's condition and denies he has either the desire or the ability to please God.

You could not be more wrong the question is in relation to what this thread is about. You say you have "defined evidence" and I'm telling if you can't show that evidence, then you don't know what you're talking about. You are just a clanging symbol. Making a lot of noise that is meaningless
MB

 

[Winman]

Romans 8:7 does not prove Total Inability because we have numerous scriptures showing that the natural man can and does obey God at times.

Again, Cornelius was neither saved, nor did he have the Holy Spirit, and so according to Romans 8:9 did not belong to Christ at this point.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Nevertheless, Cornelius clearly believed in and feared God, he was devout, he prayed always, and he gave much alms and did "righteous works" according to the Word of God.

Therefore Rom 8:7 cannot prove that unregenerate man is unable to listen to and obey God.

Jesus showed the same in the garden, none of his disciples had the indwelling Spirit, as the Spirit was not yet given (Jhn 7:39) but Jesus himself said their natural spirit was willing to be obedient, but their flesh was weak.

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

This verse completely refutes the doctrine of Total Inability.

Another example that refutes Total Inability is the Philipian jailer. He could not possibly have been regenerated when he burst in asking how to be saved, because he had not yet believed. And until you believe you are dead in sin.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

The Philipian jailer was not saved, because he had not believed yet, and yet he had a real and sincere desire to be saved.

Calvinists can say what they will, there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes Total Inability that they must explain away.

People should listen to the scriptures and not the false doctrines of men who must wrest scripture to make their doctrine work.

 

[Iconoclast]

Wouldn't expect you to say any different. Thanks for that thorough analysis. :thumbs:

You are not interested in truth...only your agenda. I do not feel to offer more than to note yet another false teaching you post. The others are on to you now and your posts are seen as error by people who are non cal also.

 

[The Biblicist]

You could not be more wrong the question is in relation to what this thread is about.

First, neither you, James or Winman have been able to deal with the evidence presented that proves contextually that Paul is making a direct application of verse 7 to the lost man in verse 8. Neither have you been able to prove that the lost man as described by the fallen nature in verses 7-8 has any other capability to please God because both verses explicilty deny he does.

You offer nothing by denials and diversions - period!

You say you have "defined evidence" and I'm telling if you can't show that evidence, then you don't know what you're talking about. You are just a clanging symbol. Making a lot of noise that is meaningless

You are the clanging symbols with empty assertions and it is easy for every reader to see as you do not address ANYTHING that has been presented as evidence that proves verses 7-8 does in fact describe the fallen state. You offer only denials and diversions neither of which are evidence for anything.

The very fact we are having this kind of conversation is evidence you have NOTHING to offer but ridicule, diversions, denials all empty.

 

[The Biblicist]

Winman you can't deal with the text or defend your view of the text so you simply play the diversion game. Why should we follow you to another text and context when you can't even deal with this one. This JUMP and HOP is never ceasing once you start it.

Romans 8:7 does not prove Total Inability because we have numerous scriptures showing that the natural man can and does obey God at times.

Again, Cornelius was neither saved, nor did he have the Holy Spirit, and so according to Romans 8:9 did not belong to Christ at this point.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Nevertheless, Cornelius clearly believed in and feared God, he was devout, he prayed always, and he gave much alms and did "righteous works" according to the Word of God.

Therefore Rom 8:7 cannot prove that unregenerate man is unable to listen to and obey God.

Jesus showed the same in the garden, none of his disciples had the indwelling Spirit, as the Spirit was not yet given (Jhn 7:39) but Jesus himself said their natural spirit was willing to be obedient, but their flesh was weak.

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

This verse completely refutes the doctrine of Total Inability.

Another example that refutes Total Inability is the Philipian jailer. He could not possibly have been regenerated when he burst in asking how to be saved, because he had not yet believed. And until you believe you are dead in sin.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

The Philipian jailer was not saved, because he had not believed yet, and yet he had a real and sincere desire to be saved.

Calvinists can say what they will, there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes Total Inability that they must explain away.

People should listen to the scriptures and not the false doctrines of men who must wrest scripture to make their doctrine work.

 

[Winman]

Winman you can't deal with the text or defend your view of the text so you simply play the diversion game. Why should we follow you to another text and context when you can't even deal with this one. This JUMP and HOP is never ceasing once you start it.

I am not playing games, I am simply looking at scripture as a WHOLE and not pulling one single verse out of the scriptures and isolating it to form doctrine. That is what you and the Calvinists do with Romans 8:7.

I will agree that if you isolate this scripture by itself, it would be an excellent argument for Total Inability, in fact, this passage would be the very best argument for Total Inability in all the scriptures bar none.

But that is not the proper way to read the Bible or form doctrine, you must look at ALL the scriptures concerning a given subject, and they must not contradict one another.

When you look at all the scriptures, you see MANY examples of unsaved natural men responding positively to God and believing, such as both Cornelius and the Philipian jailer.

You choose to ignore any scripture that refutes Calvinism. This is a poor method of determining doctrine and sure to lead to many errors.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not playing games, I am simply looking at scripture as a WHOLE and not pulling one single verse out of the scriptures and isolating it to form doctrine. That is what you and the Calvinists do with Romans 8:7.

I will agree that if you isolate this scripture by itself, it would be an excellent argument for Total Inability, in fact, this passage would be the very best argument for Total Inability in all the scriptures bar none.

But that is not the proper way to read the Bible or form doctrine, you must look at ALL the scriptures concerning a given subject, and they must not contradict one another.

When you look at all the scriptures, you see MANY examples of unsaved natural men responding positively to God and believing, such as both Cornelius and the Philipian jailer.

You choose to ignore any scripture that refutes Calvinism. This is a poor method of determining doctrine and sure to lead to many errors.

The OP is not about the WHOLE SCRIPTURE but about Romans 8:7. If you want to deal with the WHOLE SCRIPTURE then start a thread on that subject.

Second, if your other interpretations were true then you could deal with this text in its context and prove from the context it does not refer to the fallen nature of man and does not say what it obviously does explicitly and clearly and unambigously says.

 

[The Biblicist]

The OP is not about the WHOLE SCRIPTURE but about Romans 8:7. If you want to deal with the WHOLE SCRIPTURE then start a thread on that subject.

Second, if your other interpretations were true then you could deal with this text in its context and prove from the context it does not refer to the fallen nature of man and does not say what it obviously does explicitly and clearly and unambigously says.

I defy any Arminian to repudiate by the immediate context of Romans 8:7 that this text does not refer to the fallen nature of man and does not clearly and explicitly deny (due to that fallen nature) that anything originating from this type of nature can choose, please or cooperate with God. Any takers?

 

[Winman]

The OP is not about the WHOLE SCRIPTURE but about Romans 8:7. If you want to deal with the WHOLE SCRIPTURE then start a thread on that subject.

Second, if your other interpretations were true then you could deal with this text in its context and prove from the context it does not refer to the fallen nature of man and does not say what it obviously does explicitly and clearly and unambigously says.

This passage is not teaching Total Inability. It is teaching that if a man is carnally minded he cannot please God.

Look, if you dwell on some beautiful young girl on TV in a bikini you cannot please your wife. That doesn't mean that you are unable to look away and think of something else. But while you choose to dwell on that young girl it is impossible to please your wife. This is what Paul is saying, that while a man is carnally minded he cannot please God or be subject to his laws. That does not mean the man cannot think another way.

Rom 8:5 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.

None of this scripture says a man is unable to think spiritually. That is why I brought up Matthew 26:41

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

No believer had received the Holy Spirit yet, so Jesus must be speaking of his disciples natural spirit here, and Jesus said they were WILLING to obey him. This is the same thing Paul describes in Romans 7. I believe Paul is describing himself before salvation in Romans 7 because he said sin had slain him and that he was sold under sin, neither of which are true of a saved person.

Matthew 26:41 is important because it shows an unregenerate man is not flesh only, but he is spirit and soul as well, and that the spirit indeed can be willing to believe and obey God.

You choose to ignore this scripture because it refutes your view.

 

[DrJamesAch]

The OP is not about the WHOLE SCRIPTURE but about Romans 8:7. If you want to deal with the WHOLE SCRIPTURE then start a thread on that subject.

Second, if your other interpretations were true then you could deal with this text in its context and prove from the context it does not refer to the fallen nature of man and does not say what it obviously does explicitly and clearly and unambigously says.

Wow is that ever a lame excuse. Just because the OP is about Romans 8:7 doesn't mean that I intended on addressing your view of this verse without addressing the context. The reason I chose (freely that is) to address Romans 8:7 is BECAUSE you were taking it out of context.

You have proven over and over again that you are willing to throw context out the window when you want to isolate a verse and make it say what you want it to say. Romans 8:7 has been a "proof text" of Calvinists for years and they have NEVER interpreted in light of its context.