Featured Romans 8:7: Does It Support Calvinism?

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.

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).

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Nope, 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.

 

Whatever you say.

 

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.

 

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

 

I bet you will keep on rambling on all night.

 

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.

 

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!