I am opening this thread to deal with a very specific argument that James gave in a previous post that was shut down before I could respond. His argument was as follows: Quote: Originally Posted by DrJamesAch 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 In essence he is saying that the "carnal mind" set is not the only option available to the unregenerate man and he can turn from that mindset to a different mindset. However, in this context that interpretation is utterly impossible for several contextual based reasons. 1. The regenerate man has no power to overule that same mind set in Romans 7:18-20 without the ADDITIONAL power of the indwelling Holy Sprit as clearly stated in Romans 8:9-13. 2. James's interpretation would make the unregerated man SUPERIOR to the regenerated man, in allowing him another option and power that the regenerate man does not have in and of himself. 3. If God must work in the regenerated man "both to will and to do of His good Pleasure" than the interpretation by James demands the unregenerated man is superior and can do the same thing without God working in him "both to will and to do" God's GOOD pleasure. 4. Romans 7:18 denies such power whether you apply this passage to the regenerate or unregenerated man. Hence, the argument by James is simply impossible and contradictory to the immediate contextual facts.