Romans 8:7: Does It Support Calvinism?

[DrJamesAch]

Your mind is so seared against the truth you can't even think rationally. Look at what you say above!!! First you deny you "cut it off" which is undeniable as your post stopped with the quotation of Romans 8:7 and then you admit you did by saying "NOW you want to add the rest of the verses" which is admission that you are not interpreting Romans 8:7 by its immediate context!!!!!! .

You are only fooling yourself as no other reader is going to swallow your nonsense. The overall context is cyrstal clear that the FALLEN HUMAN NATURE dominates the lost man as that is what HE IS in his entirety while the saved man has an additional divine nature wrought by the Holy Spirit who also can be dominated by the fallen nature always and only when he attempts to fight it in his own strength. Romans 8:8-9 is a direct assertion that Romans 8:7 prevents the lost man "in the flesh" man from pleasing God and yet you turn right around and quote scriptures to directly contradict this assertion. You quote scriptures that have no bearing on this subject as you confuse scriptures that deal with lost man's ATTEMPT TO DO GOOD in direct contradiction to scriptures that define what God actually demands for such attempts to be regarded as good in his sight.


Romans 8:7-8 says exactly what Romans 3:9-19 says about lost man and in a context you cannot deny refers strictly to the lost man. Romans 8:8 applies this directly to the lost man and explicitly denies that anyone "in the flesh" can please God and you turn around and directly contradict that assertion and jerk other scriptures out of their context to directly contradict that explicit assertion by Paul.

Your mind is seared against the truth to the point you cannot even speak rationally or deal with scripture objectively.

Let me illustrate how the Calvie's proof text their own definitions when it suits them:

Hello BJG,
As to some of your comments of yours (which I snipped to shorten this response) wherein specifically you talk about the 'whosoevers' being the elect 'within reformed theology' keep in mind that context of Scripture supports such a view. Elect = saved, it always has and always will and there is no distinction. Interpreting any passage of the 'whosoevers' regarding salvation, and the misused passage of 2 Peter 3:9 in the light of their contexts shows that the 'you's', 'uswards' 'whosoevers' 'any' 'all' are always addressing the elect/saved not all of mankind in general.

http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2011285


See how when 2 Peter 3:9 is show to prove that God does not want ANYONE to perish, the Calvies pull out the "it's talking about only believers here". But when Romans uses "me" (v2) "us" (v.4) "brethren" (v.12) NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN there's a paradigm shift.

Calvinism 101: Use the definitions when it works to prove your theology, then change them around when it refutes it. Add meanings to the verses even if they're not there.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

James thinks that because the saved man can be dominated by the mindset of the fallen nature (Rom. 8:7) that this mindset does not completely dominate the lost man (Rom. 8:8) to the point he "cannot" please God - so he ignores this direct explicit denial and application of Romans 8:7 to the lost man in Romans 8;8 and scours the scriptures to find statements he can directly contradict Paul's assertion in Romans 8:7-8 to the lost condition. However, Paul already said this in clearer and more explicit language and repeatedly in Romans 3:9-19.

Once again, total epic fail to understand what I said. You Calvie's are so used to "rubber stamp" responses you don't even bother to actually read the posts. You fail to see the difference between my view of depravity, and my argument against inability.

:BangHead:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=543vCA_X-do

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not the one that "cuts it off". .....NOW you want to add the rest of the verses!! LOL. You have quoted Romans 8:7 as an isolated proof text, and now you want to critique why I address it? That's not a very honest or consistent debate tactic.

James considers interpreting a verse by its immediate context a "debate tactic" when bible scholars unanimously regard that has proper scholarship. This assertion by James is so pathetic, so infantile, so irrational and oxmoronic it is amazing that he can even say with a straight face. Can you believe that Paul's immediate and direct applicaiton of Romans 8:7 to the irrefutable contextually defined LOST MAN in Romans 8:8-9 is simply ignored, denied and directly contradicted by James????????????

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.
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.

James directly contradicts Paul and says they that are "in the flesh" most certainly can please God and do good and then JUMPS out of this context and jerks other scriptures out of their contexts and READS THEM INTO verse 8for the sole purpose to directly repudiate Paul's words to the contrary!!!!! Can you believe anyone's conscience can be this seared to the truth????????

All this does is prove my point. The verse in Romans 8:7 begins with discussing those with a CARNAL MIND can not PLEASE GOD (v 8) THAT INCLUDES THE BELIEVER. You are taking 8:7 and claiming that 8:7 means the UNBELIEVER has the inability to be SAVED, and then taking it to apply in a different sense that a believer can not please God when he is in the flesh operating with a carnal mind. BOTH INTERPRETATIONS ARE NOT TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. You are eisegetically adding a context and interpretation to the Scripture that IS NOT THERE.

Paul says BOTH applicatons are true at the same time! That is exactly what Romans 8:8 demands! James does not understand that the fallen nature PRIOR to new birth CONTINUES in the regenerated man so that there is a WAR going on INSIDE of the regenerated man between this fallen nature and the divine nature.

Obviously if the FALLEN NATURE continues in an regenerated man does not common sense tell you it MUST dominate the unregenerated man just as Paul directly asserts in Romans 8:8-9?????????? Doesn't it require complete irrrationality to deny BOTH APPLICATIONS when indeed regeneration does not eradiate the very nature that dominated the lost condition?????

The words "in the flesh" cannot possibly refer to the saved man as Romans 8:9 demands that a person cannot be "in the flesh" if the Spirit of God indwells in him and if the Spirit of God does not indwell him then such are "NONE OF HIS" - meaning all who are "in the flesh" are not children of God but are lost unregeneated persons which Paul says "CANNOT" please God due to the fact they are completely dominated by Roman 8:7 characteristics.

Again, "neither indeed CAN BE" applies to BELIEVERS in the sense that a person with a carnal mind can not please God. You are taking the CAN BE and applying it to salvation when that's NOT the context of those passages. If it was, then the SAME logic would say that at the moment that a Christian slips into the flesh, HE IS UNSAVED AT THAT MOMENT because EVEN A BELIEVER that is CARNALLY MINDED is 'not subject to the law of God, neither indeed CAN BE".

James cannot see the simple truth that the Romans 8:7 is not the regenerated nature within the save man as the regenerated nature "delights in the law of God" (Rom. 7:22). James cannot see that Romans 8:7 describes the unchangable fallen nature, the law of sin, the body of this death, the flesh and only that fallen nature which has been only removed as the ruling inclination in the saved man (Rom. 7:18-20) but without power.

James cannot see the obvious - if Romans 8:7 is the fallen nature within the regenerated man then it is the ONLY nature within the unregenerated man - Rom. 8:8 and thus what is true of the fallen nature in the regenerated man is completely true of the nature of the unregenerated man - Rom. 8:8. So simple, so clear, so explicit and yet James conscience is so seared against truth he not only refuses to believe Romans 8:8 and its direct application of Romans 8:7 to the lost man but attempts to directly contradict Paul's application to the lost man by JUMPING out of this context and jerking other scriptures from their context to directly contradict Paul's words not merely in Romans 8:7-8 but Romans 3:9-19!!! Simply and utterly amazing spiritual hardness against the truth.

And again, if you are going to be consistent in interpretation this passage, you can not keep skipping over Romans 8:13

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" If the context is about salvation then mortifying the deeds of the flesh to live MUST be interpreted as salvation by works if you are to use the interpretation method you have applied to this context.

Anyone reading my exposition in the first three posts knows I did not skip over Romans 8:13 but full dealt with it in keeping with the developmental entire context. James is simply lying and my posts prove he is lying.

Again, the fallen nature presents a problem to the regenerated man (Rom. 7:14-8:7) whereas it completely dominates the lost man (Rom. 8:7-8). Both are equally true. Romans 8:9-13 is the solution for the man who has the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9) not the man who does not (Rom. 8:8).

An unsaved person however CAN please God when what they do is not done from a carnal mind.

Do you know what a "carnal" mind is? It is the mind of a LOST MAN! When Paul rebuked the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 where he told them he could not speak to them as "spiritual" but as "carnal" he was saying I could not speak to you as SAVED people but as "LOST" people.

"But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" Acts 10:35

So James must jump out of the immediate context and seize scriptures out of other contexts to directly contradict Paul's words in Romans 8:8. However, this text does not do that. Remember that God had told Peter BEFORE he sent him to the house of Cornelius, "what I HAVE CLEANSED call not thou unclean."

Cornelius was well recognized by the Jews as a devout man consistent with the Jewish faith or one they acknowledge as a God fearer. He was already a beleiver in the gospel as preached before the coming of Jesus (Acts 10:43) but like Apollos did not know that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah of the Old Testament gospel. When he heard that jesus was the Messiah he already believed in, he accepted him as that Messiah with his household and they were baptized in the Spirit an spoke in tongues BEFORE being water baptized. They were already Spirit regenerated believers in the OT gospel but not Spirit baptized and water baptized believers brought into the new house of God. God purposely brought Peter in to contact with Gentile believers because the all Jewish Church would not accept Gentiles into the membership or even go to them as commanded (Acts 11:1-17).


The term "saved" has a wider meaning in the Scriptures than regeneration/justification but also can refer to the salvation of their lives through service in the house of God.

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matt 7:11

This verse directly contradicts your use of it. The gifts are "good" but they are "evil"!

 

[DrJamesAch]

James considers interpreting a verse by its immediate context a "debate tactic" when bible scholars unanimously regard that has proper scholarship. This assertion by James is so pathetic, so infantile, so irrational and oxmoronic it is amazing that he can even say with a straight face. Can you believe that Paul's immediate and direct applicaiton of Romans 8:7 to the irrefutable contextually defined LOST MAN in Romans 8:8-9 is simply ignored, denied and directly contradicted by James????????????

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.
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.

James directly contradicts Paul and says they that are "in the flesh" most certainly can please God and do good and then JUMPS out of this context and jerks other scriptures out of their contexts and READS THEM INTO verse 8for the sole purpose to directly repudiate Paul's words to the contrary!!!!! Can you believe anyone's conscience can be this seared to the truth????????




Paul says BOTH applicatons are true at the same time! That is exactly what Romans 8:8 demands! James does not understand that the fallen nature PRIOR to new birth CONTINUES in the regenerated man so that there is a WAR going on INSIDE of the regenerated man between this fallen nature and the divine nature.

Obviously if the FALLEN NATURE continues in an regenerated man does not common sense tell you it MUST dominate the unregenerated man just as Paul directly asserts in Romans 8:8-9?????????? Doesn't it require complete irrrationality to deny BOTH APPLICATIONS when indeed regeneration does not eradiate the very nature that dominated the lost condition?????

The words "in the flesh" cannot possibly refer to the saved man as Romans 8:9 demands that a person cannot be "in the flesh" if the Spirit of God indwells in him and if the Spirit of God does not indwell him then such are "NONE OF HIS" - meaning all who are "in the flesh" are not children of God but are lost unregeneated persons which Paul says "CANNOT" please God due to the fact they are completely dominated by Roman 8:7 characteristics.



James cannot see the simple truth that the Romans 8:7 is not the regenerated nature within the save man as the regenerated nature "delights in the law of God" (Rom. 7:22). James cannot see that Romans 8:7 describes the unchangable fallen nature, the law of sin, the body of this death, the flesh and only that fallen nature which has been only removed as the ruling inclination in the saved man (Rom. 7:18-20) but without power.

James cannot see the obvious - if Romans 8:7 is the fallen nature within the regenerated man then it is the ONLY nature within the unregenerated man - Rom. 8:8 and thus what is true of the fallen nature in the regenerated man is completely true of the nature of the unregenerated man - Rom. 8:8. So simple, so clear, so explicit and yet James conscience is so seared against truth he not only refuses to believe Romans 8:8 and its direct application of Romans 8:7 to the lost man but attempts to directly contradict Paul's application to the lost man by JUMPING out of this context and jerking other scriptures from their context to directly contradict Paul's words not merely in Romans 8:7-8 but Romans 3:9-19!!! Simply and utterly amazing spiritual hardness against the truth.



Anyone reading my exposition in the first three posts knows I did not skip over Romans 8:13 but full dealt with it in keeping with the developmental entire context. James is simply lying and my posts prove he is lying.

Again, the fallen nature presents a problem to the regenerated man (Rom. 7:14-8:7) whereas it completely dominates the lost man (Rom. 8:7-8). Both are equally true. Romans 8:9-13 is the solution for the man who has the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9) not the man who does not (Rom. 8:8).





Do you know what a "carnal" mind is? It is the mind of a LOST MAN! When Paul rebuked the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 where he told them he could not speak to them as "spiritual" but as "carnal" he was saying I could not speak to you as SAVED people but as "LOST" people.



So James must jump out of the immediate context and seize scriptures out of other contexts to directly contradict Paul's words in Romans 8:8. However, this text does not do that. Remember that God had told Peter BEFORE he sent him to the house of Cornelius, "what I HAVE CLEANSED call not thou unclean."

Cornelius was well recognized by the Jews as a devout man consistent with the Jewish faith or one they acknowledge as a God fearer. He was already a beleiver in the gospel as preached before the coming of Jesus (Acts 10:43) but like Apollos did not know that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah of the Old Testament gospel. When he heard that jesus was the Messiah he already believed in, he accepted him as that Messiah with his household and they were baptized in the Spirit an spoke in tongues BEFORE being water baptized. They were already Spirit regenerated believers in the OT gospel but not Spirit baptized and water baptized believers brought into the new house of God. God purposely brought Peter in to contact with Gentile believers because the all Jewish Church would not accept Gentiles into the membership or even go to them as commanded (Acts 11:1-17).


The term "saved" has a wider meaning in the Scriptures than regeneration/justification but also can refer to the salvation of their lives through service in the house of God.



This verse directly contradicts your use of it. The gifts are "good" but they are "evil"!

All that wasted drivel that was simply rehashing the same rubber stamped rhetoric and you saved the best for last:

"The term "saved" has a wider meaning in the Scriptures than regeneration/justification but also can refer to the salvation of their lives through service in the house of God.

"

Once again proving that Calvie's (as I just proved in my previous post) use one definition in one place-here the terms of salvation-and use them in another place that has nothing to do with salvation, while claiming that it does, by using a verse that DOES use terms in a salvific sense, while claiming that it DOES NOT.

Let me break that down:
*Acts 10 IS about salvation and you attempt to explain that regeneration/justificaiton can apply to their physical lives when the context is absolutely clear Acts 10 is talking about salvation

*Romans 8:7 where the context is NOT about resisting against the Spirit of God or total inability and you try to say that it is.

Your equivocation and cherry picking terminology is amusing. Not really.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.
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.


Paul says BOTH applicatons are true at the same time!.........
James cannot see the simple truth that the Romans 8:7 is not the regenerated nature within the save man as the regenerated nature "delights in the law of God" (Rom. 7:22). James cannot see that Romans 8:7 describes the unchangable fallen nature, the law of sin, the body of this death, the flesh and only that fallen nature which has been only removed as the ruling inclination in the saved man (Rom. 7:18-20) but without power.

James cannot see the obvious - if Romans 8:7 is the fallen nature within the regenerated man then it is the ONLY nature within the unregenerated man - Rom. 8:8 and thus what is true of the fallen nature in the regenerated man is completely true of the nature of the unregenerated man - Rom. 8:8. So simple, so clear, so explicit and yet James conscience is so seared against truth he not only refuses to believe Romans 8:8 and its direct application of Romans 8:7 to the lost man but attempts to directly contradict Paul's application to the lost man by JUMPING out of this context and jerking other scriptures from their context to directly contradict Paul's words not merely in Romans 8:7-8 but Romans 3:9-19!!! Simply and utterly amazing spiritual hardness against the truth.

I extracted the above part of my last post because this is the heart of our debate. James denies that BOTH applications are true at the same time and yet that is precisely what Paul is demanding in Romans 8:7-8. The mind set of the Old nature resides in BOTH the saved and lost man. The only difference is that it is in complete and total domination of the lost man while it vias for power in the saved man - BOTH are true and that is precisely what Paul is asserting in Romans 8:7-9.

This mind set of the law of indwelling sin whether in the saved or lost has no ability to please God, it is at war with God. In the saved man it may be overcome (Rom. 8:11-13) but in the lost man it is his only mindset as he has no other option, no other nature, no other source for any other kind of mindset.

 

[Greektim]

All that wasted drivel that was simply rehashing the same rubber stamped rhetoric and you saved the best for last:
"

Once again proving that Calvie's (as I just proved in my previous post) use one definition in one place-here the terms of salvation-and use them in another place that has nothing to do with salvation, while claiming that it does, by using a verse that DOES use terms in a salvific sense, while claiming that it DOES NOT.

Let me break that down:
*Acts 10 IS about salvation and you attempt to explain that regeneration/justificaiton can apply to their physical lives when the context is absolutely clear Acts 10 is talking about salvation

*Romans 8:7 where the context is NOT about resisting against the Spirit of God or total inability and you try to say that it is.

Your equivocation and cherry picking terminology is amusing. Not really.

You are just getting really snarky. Instead of refuting his claims, you just write them off as being fodder for your amusement. A real doctor of theology would have the academic honesty to deal with the refutations leveled against him when HE WAS THE ONE THAT STARTED THE ARGUMENT!!! One more reason why I think your doctorate is from a diploma mill.

 

[Aaron]

So, the OP actually does not refute Calvinism but actually supports it.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

All that wasted drivel that was simply rehashing the same rubber stamped rhetoric and you saved the best for last:
"

Once again proving that Calvie's (as I just proved in my previous post) use one definition in one place-here the terms of salvation-and use them in another place that has nothing to do with salvation, while claiming that it does, by using a verse that DOES use terms in a salvific sense, while claiming that it DOES NOT.

Let me break that down:
*Acts 10 IS about salvation and you attempt to explain that regeneration/justificaiton can apply to their physical lives when the context is absolutely clear Acts 10 is talking about salvation

*Romans 8:7 where the context is NOT about resisting against the Spirit of God or total inability and you try to say that it is.

Your equivocation and cherry picking terminology is amusing. Not really.

Take note that in every response by James he offers NO CONTEXTUAL BASED EVIDENCE in response but only ridicule and unsustained accusations. He cannot offer any rebuttal with any contextual based substance. Notice he cannot remain in the Romans 8 context to sustain his false intepretations but must flee to outside sources, introduce diversions but cannot defend his position exegetically from Romans 8.

 

[The Biblicist]

Take note that in every response by James he offers NO CONTEXTUAL BASED EVIDENCE in response but only ridicule and unsustained accusations. He cannot offer any rebuttal with any contextual based substance. Notice he cannot remain in the Romans 8 context to sustain his false intepretations but must flee to outside sources, introduce diversions but cannot defend his position exegetically from Romans 8.

Are there any other readers on the forum that agree with James denial that Romans 8:7 is directly applied to the lost man in Romans 8:8? If so, what contextual based reasons can you give?

For example in light of Romans 8:8-9 can you deny the phrase "in the flesh" refers only to a lost unregenerated man???

 

[The Biblicist]

Are there any other readers on the forum that agree with James denial that Romans 8:7 is directly applied to the lost man in Romans 8:8? If so, what contextual based reasons can you give?

For example in light of Romans 8:8-9 can you deny the phrase "in the flesh" refers only to a lost unregenerated man???

Paul says "neither indeed can be" but James says "can be". Paul says those "in the flesh" "CANNOT" please God but James says those "in the flesh" CAN please God.

How does James prove his case? By FLEEING the immediate context and PITTING scriptures from outside this context against Paul's words and then by ridiculing the contextual evidence against him.

James is really fighting Paul's words not mine.

Those "in the flesh" are defined in verse 9 to be without the Spirit of God and "NONE OF HIS" but James refuses to admit those in verse 8 are LOST people because if he admits this then he must equally admit that Paul is reaffirming verse 7 to the lost condition in verse 8 - "SO THEN they that are in the flesh CANNOT please God" and the minmal thing needed to please God is the ability to believe (Heb. 11:6). The unregenerate mind set of verse 8 cannot beleive in God because it is at war with God, neither can it believe in his Law because it is in active resistance and refuses to SUBMIT to His law and "NEITHER INDEED CAN". - case closed!

The lost man has no other nature to draw from and so is completely dominated by the fallen nature which cannot believe in God. Hence, No man can come to Christ in faith but those drawn by the Father and "him" that is drawn is "him" that is raised to eternal life because "EVERY MAN" so taught by the Father "cometh to me" in faith - Jn. 6:44-45.

 

[Greektim]

Paul says "neither indeed can be" but James says "can be". Paul says those "in the flesh" "CANNOT" please God but James says those "in the flesh" CAN please God.

How does James prove his case? By FLEEING the immediate context and PITTING scriptures from outside this context against Paul's words and then by ridiculing the contextual evidence against him.

James is really fighting Paul's words not mine.

Those "in the flesh" are defined in verse 9 to be without the Spirit of God and "NONE OF HIS" but James refuses to admit those in verse 8 are LOST people because if he admits this then he must equally admit that Paul is reaffirming verse 7 to the lost condition in verse 8 - "SO THEN they that are in the flesh CANNOT please God" and the minmal thing needed to please God is the ability to believe (Heb. 11:6). The unregenerate mind set of verse 8 cannot beleive in God because it is at war with God, neither can it believe in his Law because it is in active resistance and refuses to SUBMIT to His law and "NEITHER INDEED CAN". - case closed

Bingo!!! You are exactly right.

I would add, as I pointed out earlier, that "in the flesh" as you mentioned isnnot just defined by v. 9 but also vv. 2-6.

 

[preacher4truth]

It's actually a simple rebuttal against ach as in the next verse Romans 8:8 pinpoints the context to applying toward those who are lost, or 'in the flesh'.

 

[The Biblicist]

Bingo!!! You are exactly right.

I would add, as I pointed out earlier, that "in the flesh" as you mentioned isnnot just defined by v. 9 but also vv. 2-6.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Yes, I think verses 4-5 distinguish the Christian from the lost man according to Romans 7:25 by the ruling inclination of the mind.

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

However, verses 6-7 consider the other alternative in Romans 7:25 "but with the flesh the law of sin."

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).

It is possible for the saved man to walk after the flesh without being "in the flesh" as the term "walk" refers to the present state of living. There is temporal EXPERIENTIAL condemnation for Christians whenever they fail to walk after the Spirit and that condemnation is spelled out in Romans 7:18-20 and brought to the frustration point in verse 24.

 

[The Biblicist]

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Yes, I think verses 4-5 distinguish the Christian from the lost man according to Romans 7:25 by the ruling inclination of the mind.

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

However, verses 6-7 consider the other alternative in Romans 7:25 "but with the flesh the law of sin."

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).

It is possible for the saved man to walk after the flesh without being "in the flesh" as the term "walk" refers to the present state of living. There is temporal condemnation for Christians whenever they fail to walk after the Spirit and that condemnation is spelled out in Romans 7:18-20 and brought to the frustration point in verse 24.

I think we have seen the last of James on this text with regard to any contextual based response. If he returns it will be with the normal ridicule without substance or diversion tactics to other contexts. Sadly, this is the normal response of those whose consciences are so seared against the truth that they will not admit to misinterpreting a text but simply JUMP to another text and do the very same thing again and again instead of simply acknowleging they were wrong and their interpretation was wrong.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Take note that in every response by James he offers NO CONTEXTUAL BASED EVIDENCE in response but only ridicule and unsustained accusations. He cannot offer any rebuttal with any contextual based substance. Notice he cannot remain in the Romans 8 context to sustain his false intepretations but must flee to outside sources, introduce diversions but cannot defend his position exegetically from Romans 8.

My position is defending exegetically perfectly from the OP. You are adding total inability and continue to see that I AM NOT REFUTING THAT MAN HAS A SIN NATURE, THAT HE IS DEPRAVED. I agree with Romans 3:23, Eph 2:1-2 (not the way the Calvinists do). I am NOT SAYING, nor have I said for one minute that the unsaved man does not have a sin nature, that the unsaved man is not depraved. I am arguing against your erroneous interpretation of TOTAL INABILITY that you continue to INSERT into Romans 8:7.

And you continue to ignore all of the obvious contradictions that I have already shown to you, and refuse to accept the inconsistencies of your scripture twisting and eisegesis. Romans 8:7 DOES NOT SAY that the unsaved is programmed with a predetermined will that can not seek God or hear God. Just because a context can be USED as a general application, does not mean it is ABOUT the unsaved. IT IS NOT and Paul made that clear in several different passages that this context is about a Christian getting VICTORY OVER THE FLESH, not GETTING SAVED or being PREVENTED FROM being saved. Why is that so hard for you to get??

If this verse says that the unsaved can not be subject to God IMPLYING THAT HE CAN NOT BE SAVED AS YOU INTERPRET IT, then you can not make a dualistic GNOSTIC interpretation that says to the unsaved he's talking about salvation, but to the saved he's talking about living apart from the flesh. That is hermeneutical suicide and some of the worst scripture twisting I've seen since the last JW I debated.

You are failing to separate the carnal mind in pleasing God from an attempt to force a salvific view into the same verse and bifurcate 2 separate meanings for the exact same clause. You change definitions of salvation from one place to another, change definitions of pronouns from one book to the next, and inconsistently apply and add context that is not there, and yet fail to use that same continuity when it comes to Romans 8:13 which would show that salvation is BY WORKS if you follow your line of logic.

Where is the part of Romans 8:7 that says the unsaved will ALWAYS respond by rejecting and rebelling against Christ. IT DOESN'T. It's in your imagination. Where is it in Romans 8:7 that says that the unsaved can not understand the gospel and must be regenerated first. You can not rely on "is not subject to the law neither indeed CAN BE" because that would mean the EXACT SAME THING FOR THE BELIEVER every time the believer walks in the flesh. If that passage proves that the unsaved can not be saved because he is determined not to be saved, then that same passage would prove that a believer LOSES his salvation because the same moment he has a carnal mind he can not be subject to the law of God and would have to be saved AGAIN which according to Hebrews 6:4-6 is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am arguing against your erroneous interpretation of TOTAL INABILITY that you continue to INSERT into Romans 8:7.

I did not insert "neither indeed can be" as that is Paul's insertion. I did not insert "cannot please God" as that is Paul's insertion.

YOU are the one not only INSERTING "can" but repudiating and contradicting what Paul does say.

Romans 8:7 DOES NOT SAY that the unsaved is programmed with a predetermined will that can not seek God or hear God.

The Greek term translated "carnal mind" refers to the will in action and this is obvious as the action is then immediately described in these words "enmity to God and is NOT SUBJECT to the law of God." This is an active description of outright defiance. So exegetically you are incorrect.

Just because a context can be USED as a general application, does not mean it is ABOUT the unsaved. IT IS NOT

Again, your exegesis is false! Paul is the one who directly says it is applicable to the lost man in verse 8. He is the one that makes this SPECIFIC application to the lost man. You cannot possibly claim that the phrase "in the flesh" refers to anyone other than the lost man. This is Pauls direct, immediate and Specific application.

and Paul made that clear in several different passages that this context is about a Christian getting VICTORY OVER THE FLESH, not GETTING SAVED or being PREVENTED FROM being saved. Why is that so hard for you to get??

You are exegetically incorrect, it is NOT one or the other but BOTH and to deny either is to repudiate Paul not me. What in the world do you think the words "SO THEN" mean in verse 8 but a DIRECT application of verse 7 to the lost condition!!!! Hence, BOTH are being taught.

If this verse says that the unsaved can not be subject to God IMPLYING

There is no "Implying" but a direct clear unambigous assertion by Paul that no lost person can please God due to the mindset of the fallen nature described in verse 7 which also is the primary problem of the saved person in this context. BOTH not one or the other.

It is irrational to suggest that a lost man with this nature which is described as the will actively at enmity (state of war) with God and not subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN be is capable of either pleasing God when the very words deny that possibility and must be completely repudiated for such a possiblity to be entertained by any rational mind!

That is hermeneutical suicide and some of the worst scripture twisting I've seen since the last JW I debated.

Look at your defense! Emotional, contradictory to the basic meaning of the very words used, jumping out of context for refuge, this is the essence of the Jehovah's Witnesses type of defense. Look in the mirror!

You are failing to separate the carnal mind in pleasing God from an attempt to force a salvific view into the same verse and bifurcate 2 separate meanings for the exact same clause.

First, you are failing to see that the condition described in verse 7 is not that of the regenerate nature! It is descriptive of the fallen nature.

Second, you are failing to see that the condition described in verse 7 of the fallen nature is the direct application "SO THEN" as a way of explanation to the condition of the lost state in verse 8 as to why it is IMPOSSIBLE for the lost man to "please" God.

Third, you are still repudiating the obvious and that is Paul is rationally and reasonably applying the condition described in verse 7 to the FALLEN NATURE which exists in BOTH the saved and the lost but entirely characterizes the lost man BECAUSE unlike the saved man he has NTHER NATURE to counter act the fallen nature. Think about what I just said slowly! He has NTHER NATURE to respond differently. The lost man's will is characterized by only this response, the response of the fallen nature.

You change definitions of salvation from one place to another, change definitions of pronouns from one book to the next, and inconsistently apply and add context that is not there, and yet fail to use that same continuity when it comes to Romans 8:13 which would show that salvation is BY WORKS if you follow your line of logic.

Salvation from the unregenerated STATE as a lost man is not the subject. The subject is salvation of the SAVED man from EXPERIENTIAL defeat due to attempting to overcome indwelling sin through your own WILL POWER (Rom. 7:18). Hence, it is about redeeming the time by putting to death the "works" of the flesh by empowering the new man to do the "works" of the regenerated nature. Good or bad works have nothing to do with entrance into heaven just with "redeeming the time" or your daily walk.

In regard to the saved man there is no salvic application of verse 7 to a saved man but Paul is not applying verse 7 to a saved man in verse 8. He is describing the condition of the lost man in verse 8 to fit the description of verse 7.

Where is the part of Romans 8:7 that says the unsaved will ALWAYS respond by rejecting and rebelling against Christ. IT DOESN'T. It's in your imagination.

Can't you see that is precisely the inmmediate and unambigous direct application of verse 7 to the lost in verse 8 or don't you understand the intent of the words "SO THEN" or the words "cannot please God." Do you think verse 8 is pulled out of thin air and has not contextual application to verse 7 whatsoever?????? You are irrational!

the law neither indeed CAN BE" because that would mean the EXACT SAME THING FOR THE BELIEVER every time the believer walks in the flesh.

That is corrrect! So follow it through to verse 8. That means the Lost man has NTHER OPTION but what is described of the fallen nature in verse 7 as he is wholly unregenerated without any new inward man at all. Hence, the lost man "neither indeed can be" and "cannot" please God any way shape or form, whereas verse 7 applied to the regenerated man is but ONE of TWO options possible for the saved man.

If that passage proves that the unsaved can not be saved because he is determined not to be saved, then that same passage would prove that a believer LOSES his salvation because the same moment he has a carnal mind he can not be subject to the law of God and would have to be saved AGAIN which according to Hebrews 6:4-6 is IMPOSSIBLE.

Must we teach you the abc's of works in regard to salvation by grace? Good or bad works have no bearinng upon our eternal salvation because Christ in his own life obtained that by his good works witihout sin(Rom. 8:2-3). Hence, good and bad works only affect our EXPERIENCE in this life. Determines our growth, blessings, rewards but not our eternal salvation.

The issue here is how do saved persons obtain EXPERIENTIAL VICTORY over indwelling sin and the works of the flesh! The lost man CANNOT EXPERIENCE VICTORY over his fallen nature as he has no regenerate nature or indwelling Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

I did not insert "neither indeed can be" as that is Paul's insertion. I did not insert "cannot please God" as that is Paul's insertion.

YOU are the one not only INSERTING "can" but repudiating and contradicting what Paul does say.



The Greek term translated "carnal mind" refers to the will in action and this is obvious as the action is then immediately described in these words "enmity to God and is NOT SUBJECT to the law of God." This is an active description of outright defiance. So exegetically you are incorrect.



Again, your exegesis is false! Paul is the one who directly says it is applicable to the lost man in verse 8. He is the one that makes this SPECIFIC application to the lost man. You cannot possibly claim that the phrase "in the flesh" refers to anyone other than the lost man. This is Pauls direct, immediate and Specific application.



You are exegetically incorrect, it is NOT one or the other but BOTH and to deny either is to repudiate Paul not me. What in the world do you think the words "SO THEN" mean in verse 8 but a DIRECT application of verse 7 to the lost condition!!!! Hence, BOTH are being taught.



There is no "Implying" but a direct clear unambigous assertion by Paul that no lost person can please God due to the mindset of the fallen nature described in verse 7 which also is the primary problem of the saved person in this context. BOTH not one or the other.

It is irrational to suggest that a lost man with this nature which is described as the will actively at enmity (state of war) with God and not subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN be is capable of either pleasing God when the very words deny that possibility and must be completely repudiated for such a possiblity to be entertained by any rational mind!





Look at your defense! Emotional, contradictory to the basic meaning of the very words used, jumping out of context for refuge, this is the essence of the Jehovah's Witnesses type of defense. Look in the mirror!



First, you are failing to see that the condition described in verse 7 is not that of the regenerate nature! It is descriptive of the fallen nature.

Second, you are failing to see that the condition described in verse 7 of the fallen nature is the direct application "SO THEN" as a way of explanation to the condition of the lost state in verse 8 as to why it is IMPOSSIBLE for the lost man to "please" God.

Third, you are still repudiating the obvious and that is Paul is rationally and reasonably applying the condition described in verse 7 to the FALLEN NATURE which exists in BOTH the saved and the lost but entirely characterizes the lost man BECAUSE unlike the saved man he has NTHER NATURE to counter act the fallen nature. Think about what I just said slowly! He has NTHER NATURE to respond differently. The lost man's will is characterized by only this response, the response of the fallen nature.





Salvation from the unregenerated STATE as a lost man is not the subject. The subject is salvation of the SAVED man from EXPERIENTIAL defeat due to attempting to overcome indwelling sin through your own WILL POWER (Rom. 7:18). Hence, it is about redeeming the time by putting to death the "works" of the flesh by empowering the new man to do the "works" of the regenerated nature. Good or bad works have nothing to do with entrance into heaven just with "redeeming the time" or your daily walk.

In regard to the saved man there is no salvic application of verse 7 to a saved man but Paul is not applying verse 7 to a saved man in verse 8. He is describing the condition of the lost man in verse 8 to fit the description of verse 7.




Can't you see that is precisely the inmmediate and unambigous direct application of verse 7 to the lost in verse 8 or don't you understand the intent of the words "SO THEN" or the words "cannot please God." Do you think verse 8 is pulled out of thin air and has not contextual application to verse 7 whatsoever?????? You are irrational!




That is corrrect! So follow it through to verse 8. That means the Lost man has NTHER OPTION but what is described of the fallen nature in verse 7 as he is wholly unregenerated without any new inward man at all. Hence, the lost man "neither indeed can be" and "cannot" please God any way shape or form, whereas verse 7 applied to the regenerated man is but ONE of TWO options possible for the saved man.



Must we teach you the abc's of works in regard to salvation by grace? Good or bad works have no bearinng upon our eternal salvation because Christ in his own life obtained that by his good works witihout sin(Rom. 8:2-3). Hence, good and bad works only affect our EXPERIENCE in this life. Determines our growth, blessings, rewards but not our eternal salvation.

The issue here is how do saved persons obtain EXPERIENTIAL VICTORY over indwelling sin and the works of the flesh! The lost man CANNOT EXPERIENCE VICTORY over his fallen nature as he has no regenerate nature or indwelling Spirit.

What James refuses to see is that this context is dealing with the fallen nature in the saved man and that verse 7 is descriptive of this fallen nature whenever it DOMINATES the will due to lack of power in the saved man to confront it through the power of the indwelling Spirit.

The lost man HAS NTHER NATURE than this fallen nature as described in verse 7 and that is precisely why Paul gives this explanatory reason in verse 8 why it is impossible for the lost man to please God - his nature is actively disposed to not merely resist God but to actively wage war against God and resist submission to God's will (law) and NEITHER INDEED CAN due to that very nature being described in verse 7.


Is there anyone on this forum who cannot see this besides James?

 

[The Biblicist]

What James refuses to see is that this context is dealing with the fallen nature in the saved man and that verse 7 is descriptive of this fallen nature whenever it DOMINATES the will due to lack of power in the saved man to confront it through the power of the indwelling Spirit.

The lost man HAS NTHER NATURE than this fallen nature as described in verse 7 and that is precisely why Paul gives this explanatory reason in verse 8 why it is impossible for the lost man to please God - his nature is actively disposed to not merely resist God but to actively wage war against God and resist submission to God's will (law) and NEITHER INDEED CAN due to that very nature being described in verse 7.


Is there anyone on this forum who cannot see this besides James?

Let's take this step by step. James just choose the contrasting answer you think is true.

James, who is the subject of Romans 7:8?

1. Saved
2. Lost

James, How do the words "SO THEN" relate to verse 7 in regard to the subject of verse 8?

1. Repudiation of verse 7 to those in verse 8
2. Explanatory of verse 7 to those in verse 8

James, what is verse 7 descriptive of?

1. The regeneate nature in the saved
2. The fallen nature in the saved

James, do those in verse 8 have any other nature than the fallen nature?

1. Yes
2. No

James, is this fallen nature applicable to BOTH the saved and the lost?

1. Yes
2. No

James realizes that if his interpretation fails in Romans 8:7-8 then his whole system of soteriology fails as he must reverse the words and meaning of Romans 8:7-8 for his whole system of soteriology to survive.

 

[The Biblicist]

It's actually a simple rebuttal against ach as in the next verse Romans 8:8 pinpoints the context to applying toward those who are lost, or 'in the flesh'.

Yes! James whole argument is that verse 7 cannot apply to BOTH the saved and the lost. James argument is repudiated by Paul in verse 8.

However, common sense is the only thing needed to repudiate the argument of James. If the saved man's problem is with the fallen nature, when he also has the regenerated nature, then common sense would tell you that the lost man has no other option available but the whole person of the lost is characterized by that same fallen nature.

Common sense would tell you the description in verse 7 cannot be of the regenerated nature! What is left? The fallen nature! Hence, verse 7 MUST be logically applicable to the lost man in verse 8 if only common sense is used.

 

[percho]

Since Romans 8:7 seems to be the verse that some hang their hat on to prove Total Inability, it needs to have it's own thread and be dissected so that folks know what this verse really means, and that it does NOT support the assertions offered by certain "biblicists" on here.

" Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7

Now the Calvinist biblicist writes the verse as follows, " Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be". with emphasis on the "neither indeed CAN BE". The trumpet is sounded in victory and there you have it, the sinner CAN NOT BE SUBJECT to the law of God.

However, a consistent reading of this chapter with this form of "exegesis" would lead to the erroneous conclusion that we are saved by works. Romans 8:13 states that "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" Thus if verse 7 is applying to the unsaved, then verse 13 shows that salvation comes by mortifying the deeds of the flesh. There are verses that DO show the unsaved are at enmity with God (James 4:4), but not from THIS VERSE.

What Romans 8:7 does NOT say is that "Because the unsaved is at enmity against God. For the unsaved is neither subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be". That's not what it says. What it does read is that the CARNAL MIND is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Now, anyone that has ever debated a Calvinist for any period of time knows how often they resort to pronouns such as "WE" "US" "OUR" to show that the audience was BELIEVERS (see any Calvinist interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 where to US-WARD is referred to as only the elect are those to whom God does not want to perish). So using their logic on such terms, look at the following verse that identify Paul's audience:

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh." v12

Paul is showing that a believer can not PLEASE GOD if he has a carnal mind. 8:8. The question then becomes, can a Christian be saved and have a carnal mind?

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ." 1 Cor 3:1

Notice that Paul speaks to them as carnal, and yet says "AS BABES IN CHRIST" Paul then moves on the assert that:

"2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

Romans chapter 8 followed the heals of Romans 7 where Paul showed that even though he had a WILL do to good, he struggled with doing what he WANTED to do (Rom 7:18), and Romans 7 follows verses such as Romans 6:16:

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

Although a Christian is permanently saved, a believer's sin can often lead to physical death, whether by natural consequences or judgment of God. 1 Cor 5:5, 1 John 5:16, Acts 5:1-7 [if you don't agree with those 2 being saved, then stick to the first 2 verses]. In Romans 6:16, it is clear that you have a choice between 2 natures depending on which one you FEED (yield to).

Nevertheless the entire context from chapters 6-8 is about the believer living in victory of the flesh, and the inability to please God with a carnal mind. Romans 8:7 has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with an unsaved person having total inability or no will to be able to choose God or seek God. Now Calvinists may try to make an argument for this elsewhere (as they normally do from Ephesians 2:1-9) but Calvinists have a much better chance at attempting to prove their doctrine from Ephesians 2 (albeit however erroneous)than with Romans 8:7.

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.