Romans 8:7: Does It Support Calvinism?

[The Biblicist]

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

First, he is primarily addressing not "man" in general but the saved man in particular who has the struggle spelled out in Romans 7:14-25. The entire context deals primarily with the saved man and his struggle with the law of indwelling sin.

Second, the saved man has TWPTIONS which provide choice between delighting in the law of God after the inward new man (Rom. 7:22) or the total inability of the fallen nature (Rom. 8:7) that characterizes the lost man (Rom. 8:8).

Third, the lost man does not have TWPTIONS as he does not have a regenerated nature or any nature that "delights in the law of God" but he only has the fallen depraved nature that opposes the law of God (Rom. 8:7)

Fourth, Paul offers no SECOND OPTION for the unregnenerated man (Rom. 8:8) but only that which is described in Romans 8:7. The unregenerated man does not have TWPTIONS. The reason the saved man has another option is due to the REGENERATED NATURE and that is not found in the unregenerated man.

Fifth, Paul is denying the lost man can please God because the ONLY option provided in this context that can please God is found only "IN THE SPIRIT" coupled with the regenerated nature (Rom. 8:9-13) and the lost man does not possess either.

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.

Your example is flawed as Paul is dealing with something much deeper than EXTERNAL temptations and will power but with the only possible way to please God and that is putting to death the deeds of the fleshly nature by the power of the Holy Spirit which is only possible for those "in the Spirit" and the lost man does not have that option because he is "in the flesh" and not "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:8-9).

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Then start where one should start in the immediate context. If you cannot prove your point (and you didn't) by the immediate context then it is simply a matter of diversion and escape to jump all over the Bible to deny what the text literally and explicitly and unambigously and repeatedly says "CAN NOT" please God.

Romans 8:8 repudiates your denial that he is not directly addressing the lost man in direct application of Romans 8:7. The context denies that the lost man has more than the fallen nature. The context denies that the fallen nature can be overcome any other way but by being "in the Spirit" coupled with a regenerate nature neither of which the lost man possesses.

 

[DrJamesAch]

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.

One of these days you will learn the difference in how to define your own views. Everytime you are confronted with the contradictions of your interpretation, you continue to punt to an explanation of DEPRAVITY instead of defending the view of INABILITY. You explain DEPRAVITY which most agree with, and then finish it by with "Wallah!! See Inability is true".

This is the fundamental flaw of your logic in that you continue to make explicit categorical errors. You have not proven one iota of TOTAL INABILITY from this passage, and I am just about convinced you don't even know what it is. You continue to make depravity the premise with inability being the conclusion.

 

[Winman]

First, he is primarily addressing not "man" in general but the saved man in particular who has the struggle spelled out in Romans 7:14-25. The entire context deals primarily with the saved man and his struggle with the law of indwelling sin.

I disagree, Paul had just described sin slaying him in verses 9-11, Paul says he is "carnal" and "sold under sin" in vs. 14, so I believe Paul is describing an unregenerate man. In his mind he wants to please God and obey him, but in his flesh he commits sin and is brought under it's domination.

Second, the saved man has TWPTIONS which provide choice between delighting in the law of God after the inward new man (Rom. 7:22) or the total inability of the fallen nature (Rom. 8:7) that characterizes the lost man (Rom. 8:8).

This is what Jesus describes in Matthew 26:41, he says his disciples were indeed willing in their spirit, but were weak in the flesh. This was before any man had received the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Third, the lost man does not have TWPTIONS as he does not have a regenerated nature or any nature that "delights in the law of God" but he only has the fallen depraved nature that opposes the law of God (Rom. 8:7)

I disagree, and have already explained that the natural man can be willing in the spirit.

Fourth, Paul offers no SECOND OPTION for the unregnenerated man (Rom. 8:8) but only that which is described in Romans 8:7. The unregenerated man does not have TWPTIONS. The reason the saved man has another option is due to the REGENERATED NATURE and that is not found in the unregenerated man.

It says no such thing. It simply says while a man is in the flesh he cannot please God, just as if you dwell on that girl in a bikini you cannot please your wife. That does not mean you cannot think another way, and Jesus's statement in Matthew 26:41 shows that man can indeed be willing.

Cornelius totally blows your view out of the water, he was neither saved, nor did he have the Spirit, yet he feared God and was very devout, and performed many righteous works. Yet he needed to be saved.

Fifth, Paul is denying the lost man can please God because the ONLY option provided in this context that can please God is found only "IN THE SPIRIT" coupled with the regenerated nature (Rom. 8:9-13) and the lost man does not possess that option.

Your example is flawed as Paul is dealing with something much deeper than EXTERNAL temptations external and sheer will power but with the only possible way to please God and that is putting to death the deeds of the fleshly nature by the power of the Holy Spirit which is only possible for those "in the Spirit" and the lost man does not have that option because he is "in the flesh" and not "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:8-9).

Your posts are way toooooooooo long (boring). You seem to believe you can simply talk a person to death.

Look, your view is repeatedly shown to be false, Cornelius and the Philipian jailer easily refute you. I am not going to keep answering your LOOOOOONG BORIIIIIIIIING posts. Keep it simple STUPID.

 

[The Biblicist]

One of these days you will learn the difference in how to define your own views. Everytime you are confronted with the contradictions of your interpretation, you continue to punt to explanation DEPRAVITY instead of defending the view of INABILITY. You explain DEPRAVITY which most agree with, and then finish it by with "Wallah!! See Inability is true".

This is the fundamental flaw of your logic in that you continue to make explicit categorical errors. You have not proven one iota of TOTAL INABILITY from this passage, and I am just about convinced you don't even know what it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[agedman]

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.

All that is the human condition before belief is fallen. That includes the spirit, the mind, the soul, the strength.

That fallen is replaced as Paul stated that the believer is:

17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
​

Not that the fallen nature is made of none effect - for this thread discussion of Romans also has acknowledge that there is a "therefore" referring back to the great conflict that every true believer engages between the will of the flesh and the will of the new nature.



Further in your attempt to use Matthew as a foundational text in support of your view, you neglect that Christ was present with them and actively protected them as it states in: John 17

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me....

11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled....


15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world...

​

These verses indicate that Christ was active in protection and thwarting attacks (because He is the Word) just as Paul states when the believer is dressed in the armor of God extends the Word for protection.

Did not Christ declare that while the light was with them they should walk in the light? John 9:

"5 While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.”
​

Did not Christ state that when He left another would be sent to take His place? John 14

16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.


​

Perhaps you can find support in other Scriptures, but the disciples, Christ, and work of the Holy Spirit given in the above passages would not lend support.

 

[Winman]

One of these days you will learn the difference in how to define your own views. Everytime you are confronted with the contradictions of your interpretation, you continue to punt to an explanation of DEPRAVITY instead of defending the view of INABILITY. You explain DEPRAVITY which most agree with, and then finish it by with "Wallah!! See Inability is true".

This is the fundamental flaw of your logic in that you continue to make explicit categorical errors. You have not proven one iota of TOTAL INABILITY from this passage, and I am just about convinced you don't even know what it is. You continue to make depravity the premise with inability being the conclusion.

If there was ever an argument for Inability, Biblicist himself is it. He just cannot get it.

Look if you stare at a girl in a bikini you CANNOT please your wife. That does not mean you are UNABLE to look away and think of something else.

See, he insists that the word "cannot" must prove inability when it is EASILY proved otherwise. He doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it. And he will ignore the many examples in scripture of unsaved men like Cornelius obeying and seeking God.

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree, Paul had just described sin slaying him in verses 9-11, Paul says he is "carnal" and "sold under sin" in vs. 14, so I believe Paul is describing an unregenerate man. In his mind he wants to please God and obey him, but in his flesh he commits sin and is brought under it's domination.

Impossible!

1. Paul changes from the past tense in verses 7-13 to the present tense in verses 14-25.

2. Paul restricts the origin of evil within him to "the flesh" or what he further describes as "the law of sin" in his members in direct contrast to "I" who delight in the Law of God after the inward man. The lost man has no inward man that delights in God's Law because that requires an act of creation (Eph. 4:24,Col. 3:10; Eph. 2:10) within man where God writes the law upon the heart (2 Cor. 3:3; 4:6).

3. Paul in this condition finds deliverance from this problem in Jesus Christ without disolving this dichotomy - vv. 24-25

4. In this dichotomy he claims he can still "serve God" (v. 25) which the lost man cannot do in an unregenerate condition.

 

[Winman]

Impossible!

1. Paul changes from the past tense in verses 7-13 to the present tense in verses 14-25.

2. Paul restricts the origin of evil within him to "the flesh" or what he further describes as "the law of sin" in his members in direct contrast to "I" who delight in the Law of God after the inward man. The lost man has no inward man that delights in God's Law because that requires an act of creation (Eph. 4:24,Col. 3:10; Eph. 2:10) within man where God writes the law upon the heart (2 Cor. 3:3; 4:6).

3. Paul in this condition finds deliverance from this problem in Jesus Christ without disolving this dichotomy - vv. 24-25

4. In this dichotomy he claims he can still "serve God" (v. 25) which the lost man cannot do in an unregenerate condition.

Watch this;

I disagree.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is what Jesus describes in Matthew 26:41, he says his disciples were indeed willing in their spirit, but were weak in the flesh. This was before any man had received the indwelling Holy Spirit.

He is talking to BELIEVERS not the lost which totally invalidates your whole argument.

I disagree, and have already explained that the natural man can be willing in the spirit.

"In the Spirit" is explicitly defined in Romans 8:8-9 to refer to only those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The problem is ONLY resolved "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:9-13) and the lost man does not have either a regenerated man who delights in the law of God nor the indwelling Spriit.

It says no such thing. It simply says while a man is in the flesh he cannot please God, just as if you dwell on that girl in a bikini you cannot please your wife. That does not mean you cannot think another way, and Jesus's statement in Matthew 26:41 shows that man can indeed be willing.

The only option to resolve this problem in Romans 8 is found "in the Spirit" which is defined as regeneration due to the indwelling Spirit and so your illustration and intepreation are simply false and contrary to the context as you provide a solution to this contextual problem that Paul not only denies ("neither indeed can be....can not") but restricts to only "in the Spirit" by Spirit indwelt people.

 

[The Biblicist]

If there was ever an argument for Inability, Biblicist himself is it. He just cannot get it.

Look if you stare at a girl in a bikini you CANNOT please your wife. That does not mean you are UNABLE to look away and think of something else.

See, he insists that the word "cannot" must prove inability when it is EASILY proved otherwise. He doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it. And he will ignore the many examples in scripture of unsaved men like Cornelius obeying and seeking God.

Your only defense is diversion and ridicule and they are not evidences except for a person who has been defeated and has no other refuge to flee to.

 

[Winman]

He is talking to BELIEVERS not the lost which totally invalidates your whole argument.

"In the Spirit" is explicitly defined in Romans 8:8-9 to refer to only those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The problem is ONLY resolved "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:9-13) and the lost man does not have either a regenerated man who delights in the law of God nor the indwelling Spriit.

The only option to resolve this problem in Romans 8 is found "in the Spirit" which is defined as regeneration due to the indwelling Spirit and so your illustration and intepreation are simply false and contrary to the context as you provide a solution to this contextual problem that Paul not only denies ("neither indeed can be....can not") but restricts to only "in the Spirit" by Spirit indwelt people.

Nope, I disagree.

 

[The Biblicist]

Watch this;

I disagree.

Of course! You have no evidence, you have nothing to defend your interpretation. You reasons and interpretations have been laid bare, exposed with no responses but this final one- Of course! This is your only refuge and it is empty and worthless.

 

[Winman]

Of course! You have no evidence, you have nothing to defend your intepretation. You reasons and interpretations have been laid bare, exposed with no responses but this final one- Of course! This is your only refuge and it is empty and worthless.

Whatever you say.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nope, I disagree.

Of course! I give you contrextual evidences that expose and destroy your interpretation, so what else can you do but flee to this final refuge of a seared conscience.

 

[The Biblicist]

Whatever you say.

Paul did the saying as I just presented what he said versus what you said and YOU COULD NOT RESPOND TO PAUL'S WORDS

 

[Winman]

Of course! I give you contrextual evidences that expose and destroy your interpretation, so what else can you do but flee to this final refuge of a seared conscience.

I bet you will keep on rambling on all night.

 

[agedman]

Cornelius totally blows your view out of the water, he was neither saved, nor did he have the Spirit, yet he feared God and was very devout, and performed many righteous works. Yet he needed to be saved.

Before the road to Damascus conversion, Paul was neither saved not did he have the Spirit. Yet was he not under conviction unto salvation? Did not God deal directly with him in his lost condition before conversion?

There is no conflict with a person who is under Godly conviction and God sending one to share the Gospel and the total depravity/inability view. To attempt to argue using a person who is under Godly conviction unto salvation in which God specifically sends the Gospel only further supports the points your post seeks to deny.

Your posts are way toooooooooo long (boring). You seem to believe you can simply talk a person to death.

Yes, I know. I too struggle trying to be precise, leaving no unanswered argument, and yet keeping posts short. Biblicist is in great company in this area - all may have shared in long posts at some time or another.

Look, your view is repeatedly shown to be false, Cornelius and the Philipian jailer easily refute you. I am not going tokeep answering your LOOOOOONG BORIIIIIIIIING posts. Keep it simple STUPID.

Simply.

Cornelius and the Philippian jailer do not support your view.

Rather, just as the Eunuch, Nicodemus, the apostles, Paul, James, Jude, Cornelius, and the rest of those mentioned as believers in the Scripture, the testimony supports just the opposite of what you desire for agreement to your view.

 

[DrJamesAch]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you merely allude to INABILITY by CONCLUSION-NOT BY EXEGESIS. Everytime you BOOTSTRAP inability to Romans 8:7, you define it as inability, but EXPLAIN IT AS DEPRAVITY. You are confusing both of these terms together without making the case for inability from Romans 8:7.

If "CAN BE" is the conclusion that a depraved man can NEVER be subject to God AT ALL, then he can NEVER BE SAVED. Proverbs 16:7 makes it clear (among NUMEROUS OTHER PASSAGES) that "when A MANS ways PLEASE THE LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him".

Paul is making the argument for PERPETUAL WALKING IN THE SPIRIT which is something that the carnal mind CAN NOT DO. The carnal mind can not CONTINUE pleasing God because it does not have the power to be consistently good because of SIN NATURE-a fact I have admitted over and over and over again that I do not disagree with man's depraved nature.

Yet you continue to punt to a faulty Greek analysis of Romans 8:7 by claiming that "carnal mind" is proof of total inability. Neither carnal nor mind is in the aortist tense. The prepositional phrase is in the "it is not subject" and is a present tense passive indicative. This means that the carnal mind WHEN PRESENTLY IN THAT STATE OF MIND, can not please God. The context from start to finish is not an essay on total inability, and there is not even ON HINT of total inability in Romans 8:7-NONE. Nothing in the English or Greek shows "carnal mind" to be a perpetual state of rejecting and resisting God ALL OF THE TIME, and that's not what Paul is trying to prove in this context.

The carnal mind can not please God because regardless of the occasional and temporary times that it CAN please God, it does not PERPETUALLY please God and Paul from start to finish is arguing for the BELIEVER to WALK (peripateo-PERPETUALLY, PROGRESSIVELY) in the Spirit of God.

The reason Acts 10 was used is because it shows that an unsaved man CAN be subject to the law of God-JUST NOT PERPETUALLY because he does not have a NATURE THAT CAN SUSTAIN IT. And Peter made it perfectly clear that Cornelius was NOT SAVED UNTIL he heard the words of Peter:

"13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." Acts 11:13-14

There is not one hint in Romans 8:7 that says an unsaved man can not understand or respond to the gospel-THAT IS INABILITY. There is not one hint in Romans 8:7 that shows that God gave the sinner a predetermined will that can not do good. THAT IS INABILITY. A carnal mind in an unsaved person can not PERPETUALLY please God. THAT IS DEPRAVITY.

You HAVE NOT made any case for TOTAL INABILITY from Romans 8:7-PERIOD!

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul did the saying as I just presented what he said versus what you said and YOU COULD NOT RESPOND TO PAUL'S WORDS

If you are an objective reader, go back and look at the posts and see who dealt faithfully with the contextual data and provided contextual based arguments that could not be responded to with any kind of contextual based responses and had to lower themselves to ridicule, diversion and unsubstantiated denials.

Romans 8:7 in context describes the fallen nature regardless if it is found in saved or lost man and Romans 8:8 directly applies it in an explanatory way to the lost man's condition.

There is no solution for the Romans 8:7 problem except ONE and that is found only "in the Spirit" (regeneration) of a Spirit indwelt man - vv. 9-13.

The lost man is totally depraved and has no ability to please God simply because he has no other option to please God in that condition as the only other condition capable of pleasing God is a regenerated Spirit filled condition -period!