The "Carnal mind" in Romans 8:7

[DrJamesAch]

Winman

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?


That verse does not mean they received the Spirit because they believed something.

TR 3:2 τοῦτο μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐξ ἔργων νόμου τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως At least Darby was honest in his translation and showed, "the," not in the Greek.

or out of hearing of faith. ------ What was heard about is by which the Spirit was given.

Even yourself show this when you posted Acts 19:2. They believed something about Jesus some time ago yet they had not been given the Holy Spirit even though they believed.

By their being baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, implies they were baptized into his death, that is hearing Jesus died for their sins. That is the faith by which the Spirit would be given. As Jesus said, "If I go not away the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) will not come."

Reading backward Galatians 3:2 says they received the Spirit because Christ was crucified for them verse one and not by works of the law.

Actually when God gives one the Holy Spirit it puts Christ in you thus Christ in you becomes the faith in you.

Christ in you the hope of glory.

What is faith according to Hebrews 11:1? Substance of hope.

Very curious as to your understanding of translating articles (assuming when they are specific in the text) and when it is appropriate to supply articles in translating genative cases as in the 2 in Galations 3:2. I'm assuming you are referring to akoe pisteos (you didn't exactly say since there are 4 articles most English translations). *nevermind, I see what you highlighted

The akoe pisteos is a qualitative genative as the pisteos is functioning as an adjective. It is properly translated "the hearing of faith" in the KJV. This is translated the same way in 1 Cor 12:17. Several other translations also follow this rendering:


American Standard Version
This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

English Revised Version
This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Young's Literal Translation
this only do I wish to learn from you -- by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith?

1599 Geneva
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith preached?

Knox Bible
Let me be content with asking you one question, Was it from observance of the law that the Spirit came to you, or from obeying the call of faith? [Knox ADDS to the word of God hear as "call" is not an acceptable rendering for akoe, but he still adds the article).

Other renderings:

NET Bible (2006)
The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?

International Standard Version (2012)
I want to learn only one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the actions of the Law or by believing what you heard?

New Living Translation (2007)
Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ.

Mounce Interlinear
2 Only this I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

CEV
2 I want to know only one thing. How were you given God’s Spirit? Was it by obeying the Law of Moses or by hearing about Christ and having faith in him?

Even Darby added the article to his translation:

3:2 This only I wish to learn of you, Have ye received the Spirit on the principle of works of law, or of [the] report of faith?


You have therefore several in your camp, and one that you sited from Darby that disagree with you.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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

Somewhat tired, and a lot bored.

BTW, I was enjoying the respectful and fruitful exchange you and I were having on another thread before it was closed.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Both of these posts are total fabrications.

First, refutation of posts that misuse Scriptures constantly occur on the BB.

That you both don't recognize that fact is no warrant that those posts do not occur and in fact very often the Scriptures are ignored by statements attempting to discredit the poster rather than the truth of Scriptures.

For example look at the above post in which I specifically responded with Scripture IN CONTEXT refuting Winman's view.

Will he accept that refutation and recant from his view? Nope, he will attempt to post more Scripture out of context and inconsistent with the Word of God.

Thomas, I haven't followed your posts long enough to know from what perspective you post, but the issue raised by the thread on the necessity of the blood sacrifice raises an alarm.

Well, I suggest you familiarize yourself further with my perspective, and that way you can feel more comfortable and assured when you condemn me to hell for heresy.

 

[agedman]

Well, I suggest you familiarize yourself further with my perspective, and that way you can feel more comfortable and assured when you condemn me to hell for heresy.

Never even entered my heart or mind. I don't condemn anyone to hell for heresy nor do I stand in judgment of a person's salvation. That isn't my authority.

I was merely stating that I was alarmed that a person who is Baptist might actually not consider the blood as necessary to redemption. Though upon reflection I did run across a few modernists preachers who actually considered much of the Bible as myth - so I really shouldn't be too surprised (alarmed).

I haven't read enough to know what is your actual view, or if it has been a misplaced assumption by others.

Perhaps you would be generous enough to put your thinking down here or better what thread that occurs so it might be known were your thinking on the blood occurs on the BB.

Do you believe that the blood sacrifice was necessary as it relates to the death of Christ, or is your view that the death and not the blood is the proper focus to take - that is, any mode of death would have sufficed?

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

No one has yet addressed or disproven my conclusion above. This is the heart of this OP and yet none dare address it.

 

[The Biblicist]

No one has yet addressed or disproven my conclusion above. This is the heart of this OP and yet none dare address it.

The "carnal mind" set is a direct contradition to universal natural ability to please God because:

1. A mind set that is at "ENMITY" or in a state of war against God is INCAPBLE of pleasing God.

2. A Mind set that is "not subject to the law of God" is by definition in rebellion to the will of God and INCAPABLE of pleasing God.

3. The words "not subject....neither indeed can be....cannot please" are indicative of inability as the very word "can" refers to ability and the negatives assert INABILITY.

CONCLUSION: the "carnal" FLESHY UNREGENERATED NATURE is without ability to please God due to its very defined characteristics in verse 8. That is TOTAL depravity of the FLESHLY UNREGNERATED NATURE.

The reason I quote myself because I have SHUT THE MOUTHS of the opposition so they dare not respond. So I have no one else to quote.

 

[psalms109:31]

1 Corinthians 3:18
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise.

Colossians 2:
2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

James 1:22
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.

If you think you can't be deceived by your carnal mind that even a believer is still contending with you deceive yourself.

This carnal mind our flesh is something we will fight until we get the spiritual body. We have to beat it into submission so we our self will not be disqualified for the prize. The goal of our faith is the salvation of our soul. What we are seeing is being destroyed every minute but our soul is being renewed through His word. We might not see it but we are seeing the results. I really don't care if I am being ignored or made fun of I will not lean on my own understanding but trust in His word.

 

[The Biblicist]

Very curious as to your understanding of translating articles (assuming when they are specific in the text) and when it is appropriate to supply articles in translating genative cases as in the 2 in Galations 3:2. I'm assuming you are referring to akoe pisteos (you didn't exactly say since there are 4 articles most English translations). *nevermind, I see what you highlighted

The akoe pisteos is a qualitative genative as the pisteos is functioning as an adjective. It is properly translated "the hearing of faith" in the KJV. This is translated the same way in 1 Cor 12:17. Several other translations also follow this rendering:


American Standard Version
This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

English Revised Version
This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Young's Literal Translation
this only do I wish to learn from you -- by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith?

1599 Geneva
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith preached?

Knox Bible
Let me be content with asking you one question, Was it from observance of the law that the Spirit came to you, or from obeying the call of faith? [Knox ADDS to the word of God hear as "call" is not an acceptable rendering for akoe, but he still adds the article).

Other renderings:

NET Bible (2006)
The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?

International Standard Version (2012)
I want to learn only one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the actions of the Law or by believing what you heard?

New Living Translation (2007)
Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ.

Mounce Interlinear
2 Only this I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

CEV
2 I want to know only one thing. How were you given God’s Spirit? Was it by obeying the Law of Moses or by hearing about Christ and having faith in him?

Even Darby added the article to his translation:

3:2 This only I wish to learn of you, Have ye received the Spirit on the principle of works of law, or of [the] report of faith?


You have therefore several in your camp, and one that you sited from Darby that disagree with you.

Please take your inquiry elsewhere as this has nothing to do with the OP. Open up a thread to deal with this. I am just asking both of you to be courteous and gentlmen.

 

[The Biblicist]

1 Corinthians 3:18
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise.

Colossians 2:
2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

James 1:22
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.

If you think you can't be deceived by your carnal mind that even a believer is still contending with you deceive yourself.

This carnal mind our flesh is something we will fight until we get the spiritual body. We have to beat it into submission so we our self will not be disqualified for the prize. The goal of our faith is the salvation of our soul. What we are seeing is being destroyed every minute but our soul is being renewed through His word. We might not see it but we are seeing the results. I really don't care if I am being ignored or made fun of I will not lean on my own understanding but trust in His word.

Please take your new topics elsehwere. They have nothing to do with the OP. Please stop trying to derail this thread. I am asking you to just be courteous and be gentlemen and I am asking "please".

 

[The Biblicist]

The "carnal mind" set is a direct contradition to universal natural ability to please God because:

1. A mind set that is at "ENMITY" or in a state of war against God is INCAPBLE of pleasing God.

2. A Mind set that is "not subject to the law of God" is by definition in rebellion to the will of God and INCAPABLE of pleasing God.

3. The words "not subject....neither indeed can be....cannot please" are indicative of inability as the very word "can" refers to ability and the negatives assert INABILITY.

CONCLUSION: the "carnal" FLESHY UNREGENERATED NATURE is without ability to please God due to its very defined characteristics in verse 8. That is TOTAL depravity of the FLESHLY UNREGNERATED NATURE.

The reason I quote myself because I have SHUT THE MOUTHS of the opposition so they dare not respond. So I have no one else to quote.

In Romans 7:14-25 the CARNAL NATURE is called a "LAW of sin" and that can do "NOTHING GOOD" = Total depravity of that nature.

In Romans 8:7-8 the lost man has NTHER NATURE than this "carnal" Nature which is characterized in terms that demand TOTAL INABILITY of that nature.

Therefore, TOTAL DEPRAVITY equals TOTAL INABILITY in regard to the fallen human nature as they are inseparable truths.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Never even entered my heart or mind. I don't condemn anyone to hell for heresy nor do I stand in judgment of a person's salvation. That isn't my authority.

I was merely stating that I was alarmed that a person who is Baptist might actually not consider the blood as necessary to redemption. Though upon reflection I did run across a few modernists preachers who actually considered much of the Bible as myth - so I really shouldn't be too surprised (alarmed).

I haven't read enough to know what is your actual view, or if it has been a misplaced assumption by others.

Perhaps you would be generous enough to put your thinking down here or better what thread that occurs so it might be known were your thinking on the blood occurs on the BB.

Do you believe that the blood sacrifice was necessary as it relates to the death of Christ, or is your view that the death and not the blood is the proper focus to take - that is, any mode of death would have sufficed?

Since your reply was gracious, I will answer you. First, I am not one who believes the Bible is myth.

Secondly, see the part I put in bold. That is close to saying what I believe. But I would say more: That the focus is and should be on the entire life of Jesus, from His Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. Many parts of the church, from RC medievalism on to the Protestant Magisterial Reformation, to modern Evangelical Protestantism, are fixated on one aspect of Jesus' life and work, the atonement, separating it from everything else.

 

[The Biblicist]

Since your reply was gracious, I will answer you. First, I am not one who believes the Bible is myth.

Secondly, see the part I put in bold. That is close to saying what I believe. But I would say more: That the focus is and should be on the entire life of Jesus, from His Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. Many parts of the church, from RC medievalism on to the Protestant Magisterial Reformation, to modern Evangelical Protestantism, are fixated on one aspect of Jesus' life and work, the atonement, separating it from everything else.

I have asked you very nicely to please stop derailing this thread. I have asked you to be courteous and a gentlemen in this matter. Your subject matter has nothing to do with my OP. Please stop and honor my request. I am asking this in a kind way. If you wish to take up some other subject than the OP please go start your own thread.

 

[Dr. Bob]

thread closed at request of op. Sadly, continual de-railing shows a lot of issues in some of the posters.