Featured Romans 5:12 - the only possible view

Biblicist is simply saying because we are commanded to "obey" the gospel that Romans 8:7 says we are unable to do so.

Scripture shows differently;

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Romans 6:17-18 shows that while these persons were yet servants of sin, that they obeyed the gospel which was delivered them.

It was THEN (after obeying) that they were made free from sin and "became" servants of righteousness.

All of these scriptures show that Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8:7 is error. It is not teaching that unregenerate men cannot believe. It is simply saying that while a man is "carnally minded" he cannot obey or please God.

So obviously unregenerate men are not always "carnally minded".

 

Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17). These persons heard the gospel and believed it. AFTER believing the gospel they "became" servants of righteousness. The order is clear and simple.

No, it shows these persons first obeyed or believed, and THEN they became the servants of righteousness. Until they first obeyed and believed they were still servants to sin.

Yes, but obviously men are not always "in the flesh" or "carnally minded". Cornelius did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was called "devout". The 3000 persons who got saved at Pentacost did not have the Holy Spirit, and yet the scriptures also called them "devout".

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

These Jews weren't saved, and they did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet they are called "devout men". It was only after hearing Peter preach did they repent and be baptized in Jesus's name for the remission of sins that they received the Spirit.

This shows that unregenerate men are not always "in the flesh" or "carnally minded" That is what I am trying to prove to you, but you ignore the scriptures. I didn't make this stuff up, look in your Bible and see for yourself.

Yes, you must believe God to please him. Cornelius believed God, and God recognized his gifts, but he did not have the Spirit yet.

While a man is "carnally minded" YES, he cannot do anything that pleases God, and he cannot obey God's laws.

That doesn't prove the man cannot pay attention to the word of God and be spiritually minded. And that is exactly what all these many scriptures I have showed you prove.

The 3000 at Pentacost did not have the Spirit, yet they were able to sit and listen to Peter's preaching and came under great conviction. Afterward they were able to believe the gospel and receive the Spirit.

Why do you attempt to change what the scripture plainly shows?

 

I find it equally amusing that you won't join with the scholars of your own system in drawing the distinction between the purpose of the law and the gospel of grace.

I think you have backed yourself into a corner in order to win a particular point in a debate and now won't admit you have out Calvined the Calvinists.

 

I'll get to the rest of your post in a sec, I wanted to address this because its happening all too often in my opinion:

Well, just so you know, it is always insulting to call someone's argument irrational without defining precisely what is not rational or reasonable. Believe me, your view seems just an unteniable from my perspective as mine does from yours, so there is really no profit in going there. In fact, any argument I could just repeat to you verbatim is typically just question begging and that is the lowest form of debate. For example, a kid might say, "That's not true because your wrong," which is an obvious form of question begging, but when we as adults do it here its virtually at that same level of maturity in a discussion. So, to say, "Your view isn't rational because I've deemed it irrational," is not helpful. It's like saying, "You're wrong because I don't agree with you."

 

I don't know Greek, so your argument is meaningless to me. I have no way to know if you are correct or not.

No, you believe a person must be regenerated before they can believe. But Romans 6 and the many other scriptures I showed all showed that a person first believes and AFTERWARD receives the Spirit and is regenerated.

The gospel has power, but that power is only effectual if you first believe it.

1 The 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

A person must first believe the word of God before it effectually works in them.

Nope. I showed you multiple scriptures that showed men first believed the gospel, and then afterward received the Spirit.

This proves your personal interpretation of Romans 8:7-8 cannot be correct. Obviously unregenerate men are not always "carnally minded", they must have the ability to be spiritually minded if they so choose.

They were not born again or regenerated. Peter told them they were guilty of crucifying Jesus with wicked hands.

Yet, Peter believed they all could both repent and believe on Jesus for the remission of their sins, and he told them if they do so they would receive the Holy Ghost.

You need to quit twisting scripture to try and make Calvinism work, it ain't gonna happen. Calvinism is false and teaches the exact opposite of scripture.

 

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning. There is a difference in man's ability to hear a particular command (like thou shalt not steal) and obey it and his ability to fulfill the full demands of the law. So, what you are doing is presuming that because man can't fulfill the full demands of the law then he must equally be unable to fulfill any command of that law, which clearly isn't the case. So, of course we fall short of the full demands of keeping the law, because if we fail in any one point then we fall short, but that doesn't mean man isn't able to refrain from building a idol or shaving the hair on the side of his face, or whatever.

So, here is your logical construct:

1. Man cannot keep every demand of the law
2. Therefore man cannot keep any demands of the law
3. If man cannot keep any demands of the law then he cannot keep any demand at all.

Number 2 doesn't follow from number one because scripture never teaches that man can't keep any command, it only teaches they fall short if they even break one command.

And even if number 2 was validated as true, number 3 doesn't necessarily follow unless also independently validated by the text, because who is to say that the 'demand of grace' is equal in purpose and thus enabling power as the 'demand of law?'

 

Then why point to the Law's insufficiency to accomplish salvation for fallen mankind as proof that the gospel is likewise insufficient to accomplish salvation for fallen mankind?

Apparently you think the law's insufficiencies in accomplishing the 'desired outcome' for fallen humanity PROVES the gospel's insufficiencies in accomplishing the desired outcome for fallen humanity, but the scriptures never teach this.

The verse you harp on is Rom. 8:7 which doesn't even mention the gospel or grace. Do you have any other verses which teach the insufficiency of the gospel in the face of the apparently overwhelming depraved nature of man? I guess its just too bad that God couldn't come up with a message that was powerful enough to enable lost men to respond?

 

Biblicist,

You seem to believe that the law's purpose is virtually the same as the gospel's purpose:

The Law revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by law through works.

The Gospel revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith.

So, both the law and the gospel accomplish the same purpose of teaching that righteousness just isn't attainable, right? Both are equally BAD NEWS, of things men just can't do?

So, in the same why that I believe the law points people to the gospel, you believe the law and gospel both point people to Calvinism (effectual, unconditional atonement/grace).

Is that accurate?

 

Biblicist, what about these conclusions is inaccurate?

Isn't that what you have been arguing? That the nature of man is equally unable to attain righteousness through either command? You even said that whether its a command to follow the law or a command to repent and believe the nature is the same, so it can't be attained. What specifically is wrong about the words above?

Doesn't the gospel reveal man's inability to attain righteousness too? Saying it's 'declarative' doesn't change that does it? The law was declarative too wasn't it?

You say, "Therefore, it is impossible that salvation can originate through their own obedience because of their NATURE. That is the purpose of the Law."

But isn't this also true of the gospel in your system? Doesn't the gospel reveal that salvation can't come through their obedience of its demands? I'm honestly not seeing how what I said has misrepresented you. I just paired it down to the basics.

 

This was a good post and agrees with my view. No man has ever met every demand of the law, all men have "come short" of the glory of God.

But that does not mean man cannot obey an individual command of the law. Even unregenerate men can tell the truth, or return a lost wallet.

This is precisely what the scriptures are saying when they say there is no man that doeth good, no not one. This is speaking of every demand of the law, of being 100% righteous. No man has ever done that except Jesus.

Calvinists take this verse and misinterpret it to mean that an unregenerate man cannot obey a single command. They argue that even when an unregenerate man tells the truth it is a sin.

This view makes a mockery of God's laws. You are just as much a sinner for telling the truth as you are for telling a lie.

Their view is the ol', You are darned if you do, and you are darned if you don't. Absurd.

Total Inability is false doctrine.

 

Thanks, maybe that's why it was ignored?

 

Ok, so the first phrase wasn't so much incorrect as it was incomplete in your estimation, right?

So it is true, that from your perspective the law does reveal man's inability to attain righteousness by law through works, but in addition it reveals why they can't attain righteousness by law through works. And that reason is that man's nature is too corrupted to willingly do so, right?

Is that fair assessment?

So, again, its doesn't sound like you are disagreeing with my statement. You just felt the need to provide more clarity to it?

See, you seem to have an issue with the 'offer' of the gospel again here...that just concerns me.

I think you are separating the Holy Spirit from the means through which He works. I think even Calvinists would agree with this. I would say, and I think some Cals would agree with this, that the HS confronted, convicted and convinced though the persuasion, offer and enticements of the gospel and whoever proclaimed it. The difference is that I would believe all these means are able to be 'traded in for lies' and that these works of grace are in irresistible, but they are sufficient to enable a response.