The "Carnal mind" in Romans 8:7

[The Biblicist]

I am opening up this new thread on Romans 8:7 because I don't believe the characterization of the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 was sufficiently dealt with. So this OP is focused strictly upon the characterization of the "carnal mind" as presented in Romans 8:7 and applied to Romans 8:8 to the lost condition.

The Greek word translated "carnal mind" is a noun. As many of you know in the Greek nouns and adjectives have no tense but cases. James suggested that my treatment on this noun was incorrect because to him it suggested that I was implying a tense, such as the Aorist tense.

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.

Of course, I never said or suggested a Greek noun had any tense. I explicitly referred to its MEANING "the carnal mind set" which infers a direction of the will towards something. In context, the fallen nature overpowered the will of Paul when he acted in his own strength:

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Thus it is indwelling sin that overpower his will to do good and instead of good produces evil. This is the "carnal" mindset described in the rest of Romans 8:7. It is described by the words "enmity" which is a state of war or an active assault upon God. It is described as an active state of resistance to the revealed will of God (law) in the words "is not subject to the law of God." These are acts of the will under the power of indwelling sin. Thus a "carnal" "mind set" or the will in action against God. In addition, this MIND SET of indwelling sin/fallen nature has no ability to respond any other way - "indeed neither indeed can be" in regard to its resistance to the revealed will of God (not subject to the law of God).

Now it is this "mindset" that Paul immediately applies directly to the lost man in verse 8 to explain why they "cannot" please God. Again the word "cannot" denies ability to please God. Thus total inability to please God and the characterization of this mindset in Romans 8:7 demands that as this would be impossible for that kind of mindset.

Now some have suggested that this "mindset" of the fallen nature is merely an option of the lost man rather than his total condition. However, that is impossible as Paul claims that in the regenerated man ("in the Spirit") the only option they have to overcome it cannot be found anywhere else but "in the Spirit" and under the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). In other words, the regenerated man has no other option available but through the indwelling Spirit to defeat the power of indwelling sin. Hence, the unregenerated man according to some of our opponents has more options to deal with this "mind set' than the saved man has if this mind set is only one option that he can overcome without being regenerated and without the power of the indwelling Spirit. How is it possible that the unregenerated state is capable of overcoming this carnal mindset described in Romans 8:7-8 without regeneration, without the power of the Holy Spirit and yet the regenerated man cannot overcome it apart from either?????

This is what James is demanding when he says:

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

Thus suggesting that the lost man has the power to alter that "state of mind"! If that is true then the unregenerated man has more ability to deal with this mind set than the regenreated man. If the unregenerated man can overcome this mindset without regeneration or the power of the indwelling Spirit then why can't the regenerated man also overcome this "mind set" when he has been regenerated with a new "inward man" that delights in the law of God without the power of the indwelling Spirit??? Romans 7:14-25 proves he cannot and therefore this idea that the lost man can is false.

Moreover, the ONLY SOLUTION provided for the regenerated man to overcome this "carnal" mindset is not sheer will power (Rom. 7:18) but the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). If this is the ONLY SOLUTION provided for victory over this carnal mind set described in verse 8 then how can the unregenerated man have another solution??? The regenerated man's only other option is found "in the Spirit" and the power of the Indwelling Spirit but the lost man does not have that option. Either the unregenerated man is SUPERIOR to the regenerated man or he is totally depraved and without ability to do so. There are no other logical alternatives.

 

[Greektim]

I am opening up this new thread on Romans 8:7 because I don't believe the characterization of the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 was sufficiently dealt with. So this OP is focused strictly upon the characterization of the "carnal mind" as presented in Romans 8:7 and applied to Romans 8:8 to the lost condition.

The Greek word translated "carnal mind" is a noun. As many of you know in the Greek nouns and adjectives have no tense but cases. James suggested that my treatment on this noun was incorrect because to him it suggested that I was implying a tense, such as the Aorist tense.




Of course, I never said or suggested a Greek noun had any tense. I explicitly referred to its MEANING "the carnal mind set" which infers a direction of the will towards something. In context, the fallen nature overpowered the will of Paul when he acted in his own strength:

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Thus it is indwelling sin that overpower his will to do good and instead of good produces evil. This is the "carnal" mindset described in the rest of Romans 8:7. It is described by the words "enmity" which is a state of war or an active assault upon God. It is described as an active state of resistance to the revealed will of God (law) in the words "is not subject to the law of God." These are acts of the will under the power of indwelling sin. Thus a "carnal" "mind set" or the will in action against God. In addition, this MIND SET of indwelling sin/fallen nature has no ability to respond any other way - "indeed neither indeed can be" in regard to its resistance to the revealed will of God (not subject to the law of God).

Now it is this "mindset" that Paul immediately applies directly to the lost man in verse 8 to explain why they "cannot" please God. Again the word "cannot" denies ability to please God. Thus total inability to please God and the characterization of this mindset in Romans 8:7 demands that as this would be impossible for that kind of mindset.

Now some have suggested that this "mindset" of the fallen nature is merely an option of the lost man rather than his total condition. However, that is impossible as Paul claims that in the regenerated man ("in the Spirit") the only option they have to overcome it cannot be found anywhere else but "in the Spirit" and under the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). In other words, the regenerated man has no other option available but through the indwelling Spirit to defeat the power of indwelling sin. Hence, the unregenerated man according to some of our opponents has more options to deal with this "mind set' than the saved man has if this mind set is only one option that he can overcome without being regenerated and without the power of the indwelling Spirit. How is it possible that the unregenerated state is capable of overcoming this carnal mindset described in Romans 8:7-8 without regeneration, without the power of the Holy Spirit and yet the regenerated man cannot overcome it apart from either?????

This is what James is demanding when he says:





Thus suggesting that the lost man has the power to alter that "state of mind"! If that is true then the unregenerated man has more ability to deal with this mind set than the regenreated man. If the unregenerated man can overcome this mindset without regeneration or the power of the indwelling Spirit then why can't the regenerated man also overcome this "mind set" when he has been regenerated with a new "inward man" that delights in the law of God without the power of the indwelling Spirit??? Romans 7:14-25 proves he cannot and therefore this idea that the lost man can is false.

Moreover, the ONLY SOLUTION provided for the regenerated man to overcome this "carnal" mindset is not sheer will power (Rom. 7:18) but the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). If this is the ONLY SOLUTION provided for victory over this carnal mind set described in verse 8 then how can the unregenerated man have another solution??? The regenerated man's only other option is found "in the Spirit" and the power of the Indwelling Spirit but the lost man does not have that option. Either the unregenerated man is SUPERIOR to the regenerated man or he is totally depraved and without ability to do so. There are no other logical alternatives.

I'm curious about dJA's whole understanding of the Greek verb tense system.

Either way, the context before and after Romans 8:7 makes it pretty clear that it is about an unregenerate person in comparison w/ a regenerate one. I noticed he never dealt with the verses before and after v. 7. He always resorted to texts outside the context of 8:7. He is breaking rule #1 of hermeneutics: context is king. Only when the passage is difficult to understand even w/in its context is the analogy of faith going to provide the kind of help dJA constantly applies to 8:7. But since he ignores the context, which is quite clear, he unnecessarily applies passages outside to 8:7 and confuses the passage.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm curious about dJA's whole understanding of the Greek verb tense system.

Either way, the context before and after Romans 8:7 makes it pretty clear that it is about an unregenerate person in comparison w/ a regenerate one. I noticed he never dealt with the verses before and after v. 7. He always resorted to texts outside the context of 8:7. He is breaking rule #1 of hermeneutics: context is king. Only when the passage is difficult to understand even w/in its context is the analogy of faith going to provide the kind of help dJA constantly applies to 8:7. But since he ignores the context, which is quite clear, he unnecessarily applies passages outside to 8:7 and confuses the passage.

Well in a personal message to me he claims he has seven years of classroom Greek and taught it for many years. I found that claim quite strange with how he phrased his words in the initial quote I give of him.

Neither carnal nor mind is in the aortist tense.DJA

No careful Greek student would ever make that kind of statement as that is a careless use of words and misleading as it implies that Greek nouns and adjectives have tenses instead of cases.

Yes, the whole problem is proper hermeneutics and immediate context. You are right, you only go outside the context when there is insufficient data within the immediate context to properly define meaning. You never appeal to scriptures outside context that contradict the very meaning/application found in the context either.

 

[agedman]

So folks can get a more clear reading of what passage is being discussed, here is the first part of Romans 8:

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

​

Let me break here to give the reader a chance to ponder that Paul is expressing in detail the conflict resolution the believer experiences in Romans 7. The key point is God fulfilled all requirements and the believer is free from the law of sin and death because the believer does not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

See the next verse addresses the lost in comparison to those who are believers - parenthesis added to track who is whom.

5 For those who are according to the flesh (the lost) set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit (the believer), the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh (the lost) is death, but the mind set on the Spirit (the believers) is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh (the lost) is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
​

The context in which verse 7 and 8 occur demonstrates the pattern and therefore verse 7 and 8 must be applied to the lost, and the absolute incapability of the lost.

9 However, you (the believer) are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you (the believer). But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ (the lost), he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you (the believer), though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you (the Holy Spirit of God), He (God) who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.​

I know all you scholarly folks don't need this post, but I give it to those guests who might drop in on the thread and to those who want to see the consistency of the OP in the passage.

Note: There is no doubt that Paul and James do call believers, whose living is worldly, to account, always with the encouragement to "present their bodies (as) a living sacrifice" allowing the Holy Spirit to "dwell in them fully" and other such pleas. That does not mean they are lost, but that they lack commitment to the things of Spirit of God.

James states: 4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God

Paul states: 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

In THIS passage, the carnal is referring to the lost.

 

[The Biblicist]

In THIS passage, the carnal is referring to the lost.

I have to disagree with you as you are making the same mistake as James who takes the opposite extreme that it is referring only to the saved.

It is referring to both, as the issue in Romans 7:14-125 is the believer whose own will to do good is overpowered by indwelling sin so that the law of sin dominates his mindset to produce evil in his life through usurping the beleivers will to carry out its devious works.

If that is not the case, then no solution is necessary for the man in Romans 7:14-25.

The fallen nature is found in BOTH the saved and lost and it is manifested in the saved when it dominates his will. The word "carnal mind" refers to the will in action under the flesh or law of indwelling sin.

A saved person can walk "after" the flesh and does so when the law of sin is in charge of his will. However, a saved person is not "IN" the flesh but "IN" the Spirit and ought to "walk" after the Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have to disagree with you as you are making the same mistake as James who takes the opposite extreme that it is referring only to the saved.

It is referring to both, as the issue in Romans 7:14-125 is the believer whose own will to do good is overpowered by indwelling sin so that the law of sin dominates his mindset to produce evil in his life through usurping the beleivers will to carry out its devious works.

If that is not the case, then no solution is necessary for the man in Romans 7:14-25.

The fallen nature is found in BOTH the saved and lost and it is manifested in the saved when it dominates his will. The word "carnal mind" refers to the will in action under the flesh or law of indwelling sin.

A saved person can walk "after" the flesh and does so when the law of sin is in charge of his will. However, a saved person is not "IN" the flesh but "IN" the Spirit and ought to "walk" after the Spirit.

Romans 8:1 is a summary statement of what preceded in Romans 7:14-25 where the EXPERIENCE of condemnation is spelled out due to "walking" after the flesh. Our walk refers to our PRACTICE not our POSITION in Christ. How a Christian can "walk" after the Spirit is the thesis of Romans 8:2-16.

Romans 8:2-3 provides for no condemnation POSITIONALLY in Christ by the finished work of Christ.

However, Romans 8:4 deals again with our PRESENT EXPERIENCE and thus again the words "walk" occur in verses 5-6. The position of the Christian in Christ is not the problem. The PRACTICE of the Christian as detailed in Romans 7:14-25 is the problem. Both the Christian and the lost man "walk after the flesh" but the Christian ONLY walks "after" the flesh when they do not yeild to the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. When they do not yeild to the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit then the indwelling power of the sin/fallen nature usurps the human will and enforces its "carnal" practices in the believers life as described in Romans 7:18-21. When the law of sin is in control of the Christian it produces a "carnal mind set" as described in Romans 8:7. Since the Christian is "IN" the Spirit and not "IN" the flesh this mindset comes and goes. However, for the man who is "IN" the flesh it is the only and permenant mindset with no other option.

The solution for the Christian for this "mind set" due to the law of sin usurping the human will is found in Romans 8:9-13.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am opening up this new thread on Romans 8:7 because I don't believe the characterization of the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 was sufficiently dealt with. So this OP is focused strictly upon the characterization of the "carnal mind" as presented in Romans 8:7 and applied to Romans 8:8 to the lost condition.

The Greek word translated "carnal mind" is a noun. As many of you know in the Greek nouns and adjectives have no tense but cases. James suggested that my treatment on this noun was incorrect because to him it suggested that I was implying a tense, such as the Aorist tense.




Of course, I never said or suggested a Greek noun had any tense. I explicitly referred to its MEANING "the carnal mind set" which infers a direction of the will towards something. In context, the fallen nature overpowered the will of Paul when he acted in his own strength:

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Thus it is indwelling sin that overpower his will to do good and instead of good produces evil. This is the "carnal" mindset described in the rest of Romans 8:7. It is described by the words "enmity" which is a state of war or an active assault upon God. It is described as an active state of resistance to the revealed will of God (law) in the words "is not subject to the law of God." These are acts of the will under the power of indwelling sin. Thus a "carnal" "mind set" or the will in action against God. In addition, this MIND SET of indwelling sin/fallen nature has no ability to respond any other way - "indeed neither indeed can be" in regard to its resistance to the revealed will of God (not subject to the law of God).

Now it is this "mindset" that Paul immediately applies directly to the lost man in verse 8 to explain why they "cannot" please God. Again the word "cannot" denies ability to please God. Thus total inability to please God and the characterization of this mindset in Romans 8:7 demands that as this would be impossible for that kind of mindset.

Now some have suggested that this "mindset" of the fallen nature is merely an option of the lost man rather than his total condition. However, that is impossible as Paul claims that in the regenerated man ("in the Spirit") the only option they have to overcome it cannot be found anywhere else but "in the Spirit" and under the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). In other words, the regenerated man has no other option available but through the indwelling Spirit to defeat the power of indwelling sin. Hence, the unregenerated man according to some of our opponents has more options to deal with this "mind set' than the saved man has if this mind set is only one option that he can overcome without being regenerated and without the power of the indwelling Spirit. How is it possible that the unregenerated state is capable of overcoming this carnal mindset described in Romans 8:7-8 without regeneration, without the power of the Holy Spirit and yet the regenerated man cannot overcome it apart from either?????

This is what James is demanding when he says:





Thus suggesting that the lost man has the power to alter that "state of mind"! If that is true then the unregenerated man has more ability to deal with this mind set than the regenreated man. If the unregenerated man can overcome this mindset without regeneration or the power of the indwelling Spirit then why can't the regenerated man also overcome this "mind set" when he has been regenerated with a new "inward man" that delights in the law of God without the power of the indwelling Spirit??? Romans 7:14-25 proves he cannot and therefore this idea that the lost man can is false.

Moreover, the ONLY SOLUTION provided for the regenerated man to overcome this "carnal" mindset is not sheer will power (Rom. 7:18) but the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). If this is the ONLY SOLUTION provided for victory over this carnal mind set described in verse 8 then how can the unregenerated man have another solution??? The regenerated man's only other option is found "in the Spirit" and the power of the Indwelling Spirit but the lost man does not have that option. Either the unregenerated man is SUPERIOR to the regenerated man or he is totally depraved and without ability to do so. There are no other logical alternatives.

Maybe the Arminians are afraid to post?? I won't bite, promise!

 

[agedman]

I have to disagree with you as you are making the same mistake as James who takes the opposite extreme that it is referring only to the saved.

It is referring to both, as the issue in Romans 7:14-125 is the believer whose own will to do good is overpowered by indwelling sin so that the law of sin dominates his mindset to produce evil in his life through usurping the beleivers will to carry out its devious works.

If that is not the case, then no solution is necessary for the man in Romans 7:14-25.

The fallen nature is found in BOTH the saved and lost and it is manifested in the saved when it dominates his will. The word "carnal mind" refers to the will in action under the flesh or law of indwelling sin.

A saved person can walk "after" the flesh and does so when the law of sin is in charge of his will. However, a saved person is not "IN" the flesh but "IN" the Spirit and ought to "walk" after the Spirit.

I have reread what I posted and what your post is above, and don't find any conflict. Did I not show within the context of the quoted scripture the appropriate alignment in parenthesis?

Perhaps I am missing something. Would you be so kind as to bring my attention to the specific in my post that you don't find aligned with your thinking?

For instance: Paul's statement in 2 Cor. 10 would support the Roman's 8 view you espouse.

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.

​

 

[The Biblicist]

I have reread what I posted and what your post is above, and don't find any conflict. Did I not show within the context of the quoted scripture the appropriate alignment in parenthesis?

Perhaps I am missing something. Would you be so kind as to bring my attention to the specific in my post that you don't find aligned with your thinking?

For instance: Paul's statement in 2 Cor. 10 would support the Roman's 8 view you espouse.

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.

​

You are quite right and I was wrong! I misread your post and thought that your last line in your post was applied to Romans 8:7. I am an aged man also and my eyes are not good. My fault, my apology and I stand fully corrected. The great thing is that we are in agreement with each other!

 

[percho]

Biblicist, I would like to ask a question if I may.

MY post and your response from the closed thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by percho View Post
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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was not Adam created as is stated in the What is man passages, a little lower than the angels? I do not think be became a little lower than the angels because of the , "fall."

Was he not also created with a carnal mind?

1 Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

I ask; Is that a statement of fact because of the, "fall," or is it because of what is stated in verse 45, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;" understanding that is speaking of the body however was not this body created with a carnal mind?

The carnal mind subject to; But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:14,15

Why was Satan in the garden God planted and then put the man?
__________________

 

[The Biblicist]

I am opening up this new thread on Romans 8:7 because I don't believe the characterization of the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7 was sufficiently dealt with. So this OP is focused strictly upon the characterization of the "carnal mind" as presented in Romans 8:7 and applied to Romans 8:8 to the lost condition.

The Greek word translated "carnal mind" is a noun. As many of you know in the Greek nouns and adjectives have no tense but cases. James suggested that my treatment on this noun was incorrect because to him it suggested that I was implying a tense, such as the Aorist tense.




Of course, I never said or suggested a Greek noun had any tense. I explicitly referred to its MEANING "the carnal mind set" which infers a direction of the will towards something. In context, the fallen nature overpowered the will of Paul when he acted in his own strength:

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Thus it is indwelling sin that overpower his will to do good and instead of good produces evil. This is the "carnal" mindset described in the rest of Romans 8:7. It is described by the words "enmity" which is a state of war or an active assault upon God. It is described as an active state of resistance to the revealed will of God (law) in the words "is not subject to the law of God." These are acts of the will under the power of indwelling sin. Thus a "carnal" "mind set" or the will in action against God. In addition, this MIND SET of indwelling sin/fallen nature has no ability to respond any other way - "indeed neither indeed can be" in regard to its resistance to the revealed will of God (not subject to the law of God).

Now it is this "mindset" that Paul immediately applies directly to the lost man in verse 8 to explain why they "cannot" please God. Again the word "cannot" denies ability to please God. Thus total inability to please God and the characterization of this mindset in Romans 8:7 demands that as this would be impossible for that kind of mindset.

Now some have suggested that this "mindset" of the fallen nature is merely an option of the lost man rather than his total condition. However, that is impossible as Paul claims that in the regenerated man ("in the Spirit") the only option they have to overcome it cannot be found anywhere else but "in the Spirit" and under the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). In other words, the regenerated man has no other option available but through the indwelling Spirit to defeat the power of indwelling sin. Hence, the unregenerated man according to some of our opponents has more options to deal with this "mind set' than the saved man has if this mind set is only one option that he can overcome without being regenerated and without the power of the indwelling Spirit. How is it possible that the unregenerated state is capable of overcoming this carnal mindset described in Romans 8:7-8 without regeneration, without the power of the Holy Spirit and yet the regenerated man cannot overcome it apart from either?????

This is what James is demanding when he says:





Thus suggesting that the lost man has the power to alter that "state of mind"! If that is true then the unregenerated man has more ability to deal with this mind set than the regenreated man. If the unregenerated man can overcome this mindset without regeneration or the power of the indwelling Spirit then why can't the regenerated man also overcome this "mind set" when he has been regenerated with a new "inward man" that delights in the law of God without the power of the indwelling Spirit??? Romans 7:14-25 proves he cannot and therefore this idea that the lost man can is false.

Moreover, the ONLY SOLUTION provided for the regenerated man to overcome this "carnal" mindset is not sheer will power (Rom. 7:18) but the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). If this is the ONLY SOLUTION provided for victory over this carnal mind set described in verse 8 then how can the unregenerated man have another solution??? The regenerated man's only other option is found "in the Spirit" and the power of the Indwelling Spirit but the lost man does not have that option. Either the unregenerated man is SUPERIOR to the regenerated man or he is totally depraved and without ability to do so. There are no other logical alternatives.

Now if the regenerated man without the power of the indwelling Spirit is helpless and his will overruled by the power of indwelling sin/the flesh (Rom 7:18-22) so that he expresses the "carnal" mindset described in Romans 8:7 (which is also described as the "evil" in Romans 7:18-20) then how in the world can the unregenerated man do what the regenerated man cannot do?????

If it requires the power of the indwelling Spirit to work in believers to "both WILL and to DO of His good pleasure" then how can those without the Spirit with nothing but the fallen nature over power indwelling sin and do what the regenerate can only do by the power of God?????

Therefore, Romans 8:7-8 and "not subject....indeed neither indeed can be......cannot please God" clearly teaches total inability to please God while the decriptives of Romans 8:7 in the lost man (v. 8) teach total depravity.

Where are those answers to these contextual based problems from those who oppose total depravity and total inability??? Here is your oppoturnity to reveal the truth of this passage? Where are you?

 

[Benjamin]

I'm curious about dJA's whole understanding of the Greek...

I’m curious if any of you gymnasts can simply read the plain simple context of the chapter which demonstrates that this is written to believers pertaining to instructions in how they should be doing in their walk in Christ? Seems to me this should obvious whatever language you read it in…

I’m also curious if someone were to ever have dared taking away the little Determinist’s candy as a baby, did they always end up giving it back because of your screaming?

I mean, I know you guys like your proof-text candy but claiming ROM 8:7 is good for your “truth” in that it supports your doctrines of Total Inability of the carnal man to be unable to respond to the influences of God, before being regenerated as you also falsely presume which is also being read into this, is more than a stretch.

It just isn’t there my little beloved.

Sorry, but your wanting only a half truth and you are neglecting the meaning in which it was given. It resembles a baby arguing that he likes his candy and he wants to continue sucking on it simply because it tastes good to him and that makes it good for food…

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers

Of course, I’m sure a “well” educated little baby might be to put up an argument that candy is food, but really now…

I think someone needs to take away those glasses that Uncle Calvin gave you with that candy if you can’t get past this.

Maybe the Arminians are afraid to post?? I won't bite, promise!

Not afraid my "little angel" :saint:, but speaking for myself I'm real tried of hearing your whining and am just going to have to hope that you will grow up someday and understand why we try to take things away from you that aren't good for you or anyone else for that matter.

I know you won't bite anymore, but remember when you do you're going to get your little hand slapped back every time. Okay?



Carry on…

 

[The Biblicist]

I’m curious if any of you gymnasts can simply read the plain simple context of the chapter which demonstrates that this is written to believers pertaining to instructions in how they should be doing in their walk in Christ? Seems to me this should obvious whatever language you read it in…

I’m also curious if someone were to ever have dared taking away the little Determinist’s candy as a baby, did they always end up giving it back because of your screaming?

I mean, I know you guys like your proof-text candy but claiming ROM 8:7 is good for your “truth” in that it supports your doctrines of Total Inability of the carnal man to be unable to respond to the influences of God, before being regenerated as you also falsely presume which is also being read into this, is more than a stretch.

It just isn’t there my little beloved.

Sorry, but your wanting only a half truth and you are neglecting the meaning in which it was given. It resembles a baby arguing that he likes his candy and he wants to continue sucking on it simply because it tastes good to him and that makes it good for food…

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers

Of course, I’m sure a “well” educated little baby might be to put up an argument that candy is food, but really now…

I think someone needs to take away those glasses that Uncle Calvin gave you with that candy if you can’t get past this.

Carry on…



Not afraid my "little angel" :saint:, but speaking for myself I'm real tried of hearing your whining and am just going to have to hope that you will grow up someday and understand why we try to take things away from you that aren't good for you or anyone else for that matter.
I know you won't bite anymore, but remember when you do you're going to get your little hand slapped back every time. Okay?

The truth is that I cannot get any of you fellas to contextually dispute my position as I set it forth. That is the truth as anyone can see by examining this thread.

However, your attitude is what causes such threads to be shut down because you come on with ridicule and NO SUBSTANCE.

Show me some SUBSTANCE! Take on my exposition and conclusions and demonstrate SUBSTANCE that invalidates my exposition and do it without sarcasm and ridicule but with honest and objective seriousness. IF you will I will.

 

[Winman]

I have clearly answered you in another thread that was closed. Romans 8:7 does not prove Total Inability. To say that while someone minds the flesh he "cannot" please God, is not to say that the man cannot think otherwise.

Now, I can't argue from the Greek grammar, because I do not know Greek. However, my argument is from many examples in scripture of unsaved men doing good and seeking God. Cornelius is the best example, we are clearly told he needed to get saved, and we are clearly told he did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter preached to him and he believed on Jesus, but for probably years before this he was very devout, feared God, prayed always, and did good works that Peter himself called "worketh righteousness".

Another example is the Philipian jailer. He could not be regenerated when he burst in asking how to be saved, because he had not yet believed and therefore was dead in sin. Yet he sincerely and truly wanted to come to God and be saved.

So, these examples prove that your interpretation of Romans 8:7 is wrong, unregenerate man can at times be of other mindset than the flesh and sincerely seek God.

What Romans 8:7 is saying is that while a man minds the flesh, at that moment he cannot possibly please God. I gave the analogy of you staring at a young girl in a bikini. While you do this it is impossible to please your wife. That does not mean you cannot look away and think of something else.

Albert Barnes was a Calvinist and he disagrees completely with your view. He says this verse DOES NOT prove Total Inability.

Verse 7
Because - This is given as a reason for what is said in Romans 8:6. In that verse the apostle had affirmed that to be carnally minded was death, but he had not stated why it was. He now explains it by saying that it is enmity against God, and thus involves a sinner in conflict with him, and exposes to his condemnation.

The carnal mind - This is the same expression as occurs in Romans 8:6 τὸ φρόνημα τὴς σαρκός to phronēma tēs sarkosIt does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God; but it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God; and involves the sinner in a controversy with him, and hence, leads to death and woe. This passage should not be alleged in proof that the soul is physically depraved, but merely that where there is a supreme regard to the flesh there is hostility to God. It does not directly prove the doctrine of universal depravity; but it proves only that where such attention exists to the corrupt desires of the soul, there is hostility to God. It is indeed implied that that supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, but this is not expressly affirmed. For the object of the apostle here is not to teach the doctrine of depravity, but to show that where such depravity in fact exists, it involves the sinner in a fearful controversy with God.

Barnes was a Greek scholar, but he does not agree with your interpretation. The farthest he will go is to say that it is "implied" that the supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, BUT IT IS NOT EXPRESSLY AFFIRMED.

Of course, you will simply argue you are correct. I am not convinced because again, there are examples of unregenerate men seeking and obeying God in scriptures.

 

[percho]

Now if the regenerated man without the power of the indwelling Spirit is helpless and his will overruled by the power of indwelling sin/the flesh (Rom 7:18-22) so that he expresses the "carnal" mindset described in Romans 8:7 (which is also described as the "evil" in Romans 7:18-20) then how in the world can the unregenerated man do what the regenerated man cannot do?????

If it requires the power of the indwelling Spirit to work in believers to "both WILL and to DO of His good pleasure" then how can those without the Spirit with nothing but the fallen nature over power indwelling sin and do what the regenerate can only do by the power of God?????

Therefore, Romans 8:7-8 and "not subject....indeed neither indeed can be......cannot please God" clearly teaches total inability to please God while the decriptives of Romans 8:7 in the lost man (v. 8) teach total depravity.

Where are those answers to these contextual based problems from those who oppose total depravity and total inability??? Here is your oppoturnity to reveal the truth of this passage? Where are you?

Correct and I will add.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7 KJV

Jesus did not say if you do not have faith the Comforter, Holy Spirit, will not come.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor. 15:3,17

The Comforter came because Jesus died and was resurrected from the dead.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? Gal. 3:1

Did they not hear about the above and hearing that produced what?

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


As you said concerning Romans 8:7 Hebrews 11:6 states and apart from faith it is impossible to please [God]

Jesus pleased God his Father and God the Father did and does the following; John 14:26 YLT and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,

To whom He calls.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Of because that is by which he received the Spirit.

 

[Winman]

Correct and I will add.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7 KJV

Jesus did not say if you do not have faith the Comforter, Holy Spirit, will not come.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor. 15:3,17

The Comforter came because Jesus died and was resurrected from the dead.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? Gal. 3:1

Did they not hear about the above and hearing that produced what?

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


As you said concerning Romans 8:7 Hebrews 11:6 states and apart from faith it is impossible to please [God]

Jesus pleased God his Father and God the Father did and does the following; John 14:26 YLT and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,

To whom He calls.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Of because that is by which he received the Spirit.

It is very difficult to understand your posts, but notice these scriptures refute Total Inability. Look carefully.

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


Romans 8:9 says that if any man has not the Spirit, he is none of Christ's.

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.

Did these Galatians mentioned in Gal 3:2 originally have the Spirit? NO, otherwise Paul would not have said they "received the Spirit".

Were they able to believe BEFORE they received the Spirit. YES. This is unmistakable, Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians first believed the gospel, and as a result of believing received the Spirit.

This absolutely refutes Total Inability. Men who are dead in sin and unregenerate can hear the gospel and believe it, and if they do they shall be justified and made spiritually alive and receive the indwelling Holy Spirit.

This is shown many times in scripture;

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question clearly shows he believed that a person received the Holy Spirit as a result of that person first believing the gospel. Again, this completely refutes Total Inability.

You can't isolate one single verse in the scripture and build a false doctrine on it, completely ignoring many other verses that refute that doctrine.

Anyone who is honest and reads the WHOLE of scripture must admit the scriptures clearly show men are able to believe BEFORE they receive the Holy Spirit. In fact, a person MUST believe to receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have clearly answered you in another thread that was closed. Romans 8:7 does not prove Total Inability. To say that while someone minds the flesh he "cannot" please God, is not to say that the man cannot think otherwise.

Now, I can't argue from the Greek grammar, because I do not know Greek. However, my argument is from many examples in scripture of unsaved men doing good and seeking God. Cornelius is the best example, we are clearly told he needed to get saved, and we are clearly told he did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter preached to him and he believed on Jesus, but for probably years before this he was very devout, feared God, prayed always, and did good works that Peter himself called "worketh righteousness".

Another example is the Philipian jailer. He could not be regenerated when he burst in asking how to be saved, because he had not yet believed and therefore was dead in sin. Yet he sincerely and truly wanted to come to God and be saved.

So, these examples prove that your interpretation of Romans 8:7 is wrong, unregenerate man can at times be of other mindset than the flesh and sincerely seek God.

What Romans 8:7 is saying is that while a man minds the flesh, at that moment he cannot possibly please God. I gave the analogy of you staring at a young girl in a bikini. While you do this it is impossible to please your wife. That does not mean you cannot look away and think of something else.

Albert Barnes was a Calvinist and he disagrees completely with your view. He says this verse DOES NOT prove Total Inability.


Barnes was a Greek scholar, but he does not agree with your interpretation. The farthest he will go is to say that it is "implied" that the supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, BUT IT IS NOT EXPRESSLY AFFIRMED.

Of course, you will simply argue you are correct. I am not convinced because again, there are examples of unregenerate men seeking and obeying God in scriptures.

Have you noticed that when refutation is given, it is ignored and another thread is started on the same subject, with the same accusations being made? I get tired of repetition.

 

[Winman]

Have you noticed that when refutation is given, it is ignored and another thread is started on the same subject, with the same accusations being made? I get tired of repetition.

What I have noticed is that they never refute the scripture presented to them. I have shown quite a few scriptures that ALL show men believing BEFORE they received the Holy Spirit which of course refutes Total Inability. They simply ignore these scriptures as though they do not exist.

That's OK, I believe that many others who read these posts can see who is presenting truth and who is not.

 

[agedman]

It is very difficult to understand your posts, but notice these scriptures refute Total Inability. Look carefully.

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

This verse is no proof to support the refutation of total inability. Rather, in context, the Galatians passage supports total inability.

2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of he Law, or by hearing with faith?
​

There is NO man volition involved - these verses refute that thinking.

Romans 8:9 says that if any man has not the Spirit, he is none of Christ's.

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.

And this refutes total inability?

Nope.

Did these Galatians mentioned in Gal 3:2 originally have the Spirit? NO, otherwise Paul would not have said they "received the Spirit".

This again supports total inability. When will you get to the point and show something that actually refutes that which you desire to discredit?

Were they able to believe BEFORE they received the Spirit. YES. This is unmistakable, Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians first believed the gospel, and as a result of believing received the Spirit.

You mistakenly present faith as man generated - Paul does not support that view.

3 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.



​

So you see the words "shut up to the faith?" What condition does a human vent faith, when they are shut up to the faith? It is impossible.


But read on for further clarification:

24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.



​

Look at the bold - if faith is human generated, how then does "faith has come?" Why didn't Paul say, "When your faith is exercised" or some other indicator of human ability? Because Paul knows that human faith is non-existent when it comes to God's salvation.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
​

One is a descendant and heir according to the promise because the believer is "in Christ."

This absolutely refutes Total Inability. Men who are dead in sin and unregenerate can hear the gospel and believe it, and if they do they shall be justified and made spiritually alive and receive the indwelling Holy Spirit.

This is shown many times in scripture;

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question clearly shows he believed that a person received the Holy Spirit as a result of that person first believing the gospel. Again, this completely refutes Total Inability.

I am always surprised at the effort one goes to in attempting to refute a view.

Paul asked if they had received the Holy Spirit. There response what the lack of knowledge NOT the lack of having the Holy Spirit, because they had heard of nothing of Christ, but of John the Baptist.

Again look at the context:

It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men.
​

Before Paul showed up, they were only knowledgeable up to John the Baptist. Your assertion that they were believers before Paul came along is without support.

You can't isolate one single verse in the scripture and build a false doctrine on it, completely ignoring many other verses that refute that doctrine.

Anyone who is honest and reads the WHOLE of scripture must admit the scriptures clearly show men are able to believe BEFORE they receive the Holy Spirit. In fact, a person MUST believe to receive the Holy Spirit.

I agree that "you can't isolate one single verse in the Scripture and build a false doctrine on it, completely ignoring many other verses that refute that doctrine."

That as I have shown in this post is EXACTLY what you have done.

You seek isolated verses, out of context, and expect them to support your view - it doesn't work.

 

[Herald]

Have you noticed that when refutation is given, it is ignored and another thread is started on the same subject, with the same accusations being made? I get tired of repetition.

Yet here you are. So, obviously not that tired.