Featured Romans 8:7: Does It Support Calvinism?

James considers interpreting a verse by its immediate context a "debate tactic" when bible scholars unanimously regard that has proper scholarship. This assertion by James is so pathetic, so infantile, so irrational and oxmoronic it is amazing that he can even say with a straight face. Can you believe that Paul's immediate and direct applicaiton of Romans 8:7 to the irrefutable contextually defined LOST MAN in Romans 8:8-9 is simply ignored, denied and directly contradicted by James????????????

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
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.

James directly contradicts Paul and says they that are "in the flesh" most certainly can please God and do good and then JUMPS out of this context and jerks other scriptures out of their contexts and READS THEM INTO verse 8for the sole purpose to directly repudiate Paul's words to the contrary!!!!! Can you believe anyone's conscience can be this seared to the truth????????

Paul says BOTH applicatons are true at the same time! That is exactly what Romans 8:8 demands! James does not understand that the fallen nature PRIOR to new birth CONTINUES in the regenerated man so that there is a WAR going on INSIDE of the regenerated man between this fallen nature and the divine nature.

Obviously if the FALLEN NATURE continues in an regenerated man does not common sense tell you it MUST dominate the unregenerated man just as Paul directly asserts in Romans 8:8-9?????????? Doesn't it require complete irrrationality to deny BOTH APPLICATIONS when indeed regeneration does not eradiate the very nature that dominated the lost condition?????

The words "in the flesh" cannot possibly refer to the saved man as Romans 8:9 demands that a person cannot be "in the flesh" if the Spirit of God indwells in him and if the Spirit of God does not indwell him then such are "NONE OF HIS" - meaning all who are "in the flesh" are not children of God but are lost unregeneated persons which Paul says "CANNOT" please God due to the fact they are completely dominated by Roman 8:7 characteristics.

James cannot see the simple truth that the Romans 8:7 is not the regenerated nature within the save man as the regenerated nature "delights in the law of God" (Rom. 7:22). James cannot see that Romans 8:7 describes the unchangable fallen nature, the law of sin, the body of this death, the flesh and only that fallen nature which has been only removed as the ruling inclination in the saved man (Rom. 7:18-20) but without power.

James cannot see the obvious - if Romans 8:7 is the fallen nature within the regenerated man then it is the ONLY nature within the unregenerated man - Rom. 8:8 and thus what is true of the fallen nature in the regenerated man is completely true of the nature of the unregenerated man - Rom. 8:8. So simple, so clear, so explicit and yet James conscience is so seared against truth he not only refuses to believe Romans 8:8 and its direct application of Romans 8:7 to the lost man but attempts to directly contradict Paul's application to the lost man by JUMPING out of this context and jerking other scriptures from their context to directly contradict Paul's words not merely in Romans 8:7-8 but Romans 3:9-19!!! Simply and utterly amazing spiritual hardness against the truth.

Anyone reading my exposition in the first three posts knows I did not skip over Romans 8:13 but full dealt with it in keeping with the developmental entire context. James is simply lying and my posts prove he is lying.

Again, the fallen nature presents a problem to the regenerated man (Rom. 7:14-8:7) whereas it completely dominates the lost man (Rom. 8:7-8). Both are equally true. Romans 8:9-13 is the solution for the man who has the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9) not the man who does not (Rom. 8:8).

Do you know what a "carnal" mind is? It is the mind of a LOST MAN! When Paul rebuked the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 where he told them he could not speak to them as "spiritual" but as "carnal" he was saying I could not speak to you as SAVED people but as "LOST" people.

So James must jump out of the immediate context and seize scriptures out of other contexts to directly contradict Paul's words in Romans 8:8. However, this text does not do that. Remember that God had told Peter BEFORE he sent him to the house of Cornelius, "what I HAVE CLEANSED call not thou unclean."

Cornelius was well recognized by the Jews as a devout man consistent with the Jewish faith or one they acknowledge as a God fearer. He was already a beleiver in the gospel as preached before the coming of Jesus (Acts 10:43) but like Apollos did not know that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah of the Old Testament gospel. When he heard that jesus was the Messiah he already believed in, he accepted him as that Messiah with his household and they were baptized in the Spirit an spoke in tongues BEFORE being water baptized. They were already Spirit regenerated believers in the OT gospel but not Spirit baptized and water baptized believers brought into the new house of God. God purposely brought Peter in to contact with Gentile believers because the all Jewish Church would not accept Gentiles into the membership or even go to them as commanded (Acts 11:1-17).


The term "saved" has a wider meaning in the Scriptures than regeneration/justification but also can refer to the salvation of their lives through service in the house of God.

This verse directly contradicts your use of it. The gifts are "good" but they are "evil"!

 

I extracted the above part of my last post because this is the heart of our debate. James denies that BOTH applications are true at the same time and yet that is precisely what Paul is demanding in Romans 8:7-8. The mind set of the Old nature resides in BOTH the saved and lost man. The only difference is that it is in complete and total domination of the lost man while it vias for power in the saved man - BOTH are true and that is precisely what Paul is asserting in Romans 8:7-9.

This mind set of the law of indwelling sin whether in the saved or lost has no ability to please God, it is at war with God. In the saved man it may be overcome (Rom. 8:11-13) but in the lost man it is his only mindset as he has no other option, no other nature, no other source for any other kind of mindset.

 

You are just getting really snarky. Instead of refuting his claims, you just write them off as being fodder for your amusement. A real doctor of theology would have the academic honesty to deal with the refutations leveled against him when HE WAS THE ONE THAT STARTED THE ARGUMENT!!! One more reason why I think your doctorate is from a diploma mill.

 

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

Take note that in every response by James he offers NO CONTEXTUAL BASED EVIDENCE in response but only ridicule and unsustained accusations. He cannot offer any rebuttal with any contextual based substance. Notice he cannot remain in the Romans 8 context to sustain his false intepretations but must flee to outside sources, introduce diversions but cannot defend his position exegetically from Romans 8.

 

Are there any other readers on the forum that agree with James denial that Romans 8:7 is directly applied to the lost man in Romans 8:8? If so, what contextual based reasons can you give?

For example in light of Romans 8:8-9 can you deny the phrase "in the flesh" refers only to a lost unregenerated man???

 

Paul says "neither indeed can be" but James says "can be". Paul says those "in the flesh" "CANNOT" please God but James says those "in the flesh" CAN please God.

How does James prove his case? By FLEEING the immediate context and PITTING scriptures from outside this context against Paul's words and then by ridiculing the contextual evidence against him.

James is really fighting Paul's words not mine.

Those "in the flesh" are defined in verse 9 to be without the Spirit of God and "NONE OF HIS" but James refuses to admit those in verse 8 are LOST people because if he admits this then he must equally admit that Paul is reaffirming verse 7 to the lost condition in verse 8 - "SO THEN they that are in the flesh CANNOT please God" and the minmal thing needed to please God is the ability to believe (Heb. 11:6). The unregenerate mind set of verse 8 cannot beleive in God because it is at war with God, neither can it believe in his Law because it is in active resistance and refuses to SUBMIT to His law and "NEITHER INDEED CAN". - case closed!

The lost man has no other nature to draw from and so is completely dominated by the fallen nature which cannot believe in God. Hence, No man can come to Christ in faith but those drawn by the Father and "him" that is drawn is "him" that is raised to eternal life because "EVERY MAN" so taught by the Father "cometh to me" in faith - Jn. 6:44-45.

 

Bingo!!! You are exactly right.

I would add, as I pointed out earlier, that "in the flesh" as you mentioned isnnot just defined by v. 9 but also vv. 2-6.

 

It's actually a simple rebuttal against ach as in the next verse Romans 8:8 pinpoints the context to applying toward those who are lost, or 'in the flesh'.

 

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Yes, I think verses 4-5 distinguish the Christian from the lost man according to Romans 7:25 by the ruling inclination of the mind.

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

However, verses 6-7 consider the other alternative in Romans 7:25 "but with the flesh the law of sin."

The Greek term translated "carnal mind" really refers to the will in motion. When the Christians "will" is not empowered by the Holy Spirit it is empowered by the fallen nature and thus this sets the "will in motion" to reflect the fallen nature, which dominates the lost man (v. 8).

It is possible for the saved man to walk after the flesh without being "in the flesh" as the term "walk" refers to the present state of living. There is temporal EXPERIENTIAL condemnation for Christians whenever they fail to walk after the Spirit and that condemnation is spelled out in Romans 7:18-20 and brought to the frustration point in verse 24.

 

I think we have seen the last of James on this text with regard to any contextual based response. If he returns it will be with the normal ridicule without substance or diversion tactics to other contexts. Sadly, this is the normal response of those whose consciences are so seared against the truth that they will not admit to misinterpreting a text but simply JUMP to another text and do the very same thing again and again instead of simply acknowleging they were wrong and their interpretation was wrong.

 

I did not insert "neither indeed can be" as that is Paul's insertion. I did not insert "cannot please God" as that is Paul's insertion.

YOU are the one not only INSERTING "can" but repudiating and contradicting what Paul does say.

The Greek term translated "carnal mind" refers to the will in action and this is obvious as the action is then immediately described in these words "enmity to God and is NOT SUBJECT to the law of God." This is an active description of outright defiance. So exegetically you are incorrect.

Again, your exegesis is false! Paul is the one who directly says it is applicable to the lost man in verse 8. He is the one that makes this SPECIFIC application to the lost man. You cannot possibly claim that the phrase "in the flesh" refers to anyone other than the lost man. This is Pauls direct, immediate and Specific application.

You are exegetically incorrect, it is NOT one or the other but BOTH and to deny either is to repudiate Paul not me. What in the world do you think the words "SO THEN" mean in verse 8 but a DIRECT application of verse 7 to the lost condition!!!! Hence, BOTH are being taught.

There is no "Implying" but a direct clear unambigous assertion by Paul that no lost person can please God due to the mindset of the fallen nature described in verse 7 which also is the primary problem of the saved person in this context. BOTH not one or the other.

It is irrational to suggest that a lost man with this nature which is described as the will actively at enmity (state of war) with God and not subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN be is capable of either pleasing God when the very words deny that possibility and must be completely repudiated for such a possiblity to be entertained by any rational mind!

Look at your defense! Emotional, contradictory to the basic meaning of the very words used, jumping out of context for refuge, this is the essence of the Jehovah's Witnesses type of defense. Look in the mirror!

First, you are failing to see that the condition described in verse 7 is not that of the regenerate nature! It is descriptive of the fallen nature.

Second, you are failing to see that the condition described in verse 7 of the fallen nature is the direct application "SO THEN" as a way of explanation to the condition of the lost state in verse 8 as to why it is IMPOSSIBLE for the lost man to "please" God.

Third, you are still repudiating the obvious and that is Paul is rationally and reasonably applying the condition described in verse 7 to the FALLEN NATURE which exists in BOTH the saved and the lost but entirely characterizes the lost man BECAUSE unlike the saved man he has NTHER NATURE to counter act the fallen nature. Think about what I just said slowly! He has NTHER NATURE to respond differently. The lost man's will is characterized by only this response, the response of the fallen nature.

Salvation from the unregenerated STATE as a lost man is not the subject. The subject is salvation of the SAVED man from EXPERIENTIAL defeat due to attempting to overcome indwelling sin through your own WILL POWER (Rom. 7:18). Hence, it is about redeeming the time by putting to death the "works" of the flesh by empowering the new man to do the "works" of the regenerated nature. Good or bad works have nothing to do with entrance into heaven just with "redeeming the time" or your daily walk.

In regard to the saved man there is no salvic application of verse 7 to a saved man but Paul is not applying verse 7 to a saved man in verse 8. He is describing the condition of the lost man in verse 8 to fit the description of verse 7.

Can't you see that is precisely the inmmediate and unambigous direct application of verse 7 to the lost in verse 8 or don't you understand the intent of the words "SO THEN" or the words "cannot please God." Do you think verse 8 is pulled out of thin air and has not contextual application to verse 7 whatsoever?????? You are irrational!

That is corrrect! So follow it through to verse 8. That means the Lost man has NTHER OPTION but what is described of the fallen nature in verse 7 as he is wholly unregenerated without any new inward man at all. Hence, the lost man "neither indeed can be" and "cannot" please God any way shape or form, whereas verse 7 applied to the regenerated man is but ONE of TWO options possible for the saved man.

Must we teach you the abc's of works in regard to salvation by grace? Good or bad works have no bearinng upon our eternal salvation because Christ in his own life obtained that by his good works witihout sin(Rom. 8:2-3). Hence, good and bad works only affect our EXPERIENCE in this life. Determines our growth, blessings, rewards but not our eternal salvation.

The issue here is how do saved persons obtain EXPERIENTIAL VICTORY over indwelling sin and the works of the flesh! The lost man CANNOT EXPERIENCE VICTORY over his fallen nature as he has no regenerate nature or indwelling Spirit.

 

What James refuses to see is that this context is dealing with the fallen nature in the saved man and that verse 7 is descriptive of this fallen nature whenever it DOMINATES the will due to lack of power in the saved man to confront it through the power of the indwelling Spirit.

The lost man HAS NTHER NATURE than this fallen nature as described in verse 7 and that is precisely why Paul gives this explanatory reason in verse 8 why it is impossible for the lost man to please God - his nature is actively disposed to not merely resist God but to actively wage war against God and resist submission to God's will (law) and NEITHER INDEED CAN due to that very nature being described in verse 7.


Is there anyone on this forum who cannot see this besides James?

 

Let's take this step by step. James just choose the contrasting answer you think is true.

James, who is the subject of Romans 7:8?

1. Saved
2. Lost

James, How do the words "SO THEN" relate to verse 7 in regard to the subject of verse 8?

1. Repudiation of verse 7 to those in verse 8
2. Explanatory of verse 7 to those in verse 8

James, what is verse 7 descriptive of?

1. The regeneate nature in the saved
2. The fallen nature in the saved

James, do those in verse 8 have any other nature than the fallen nature?

1. Yes
2. No

James, is this fallen nature applicable to BOTH the saved and the lost?

1. Yes
2. No

James realizes that if his interpretation fails in Romans 8:7-8 then his whole system of soteriology fails as he must reverse the words and meaning of Romans 8:7-8 for his whole system of soteriology to survive.

 

Yes! James whole argument is that verse 7 cannot apply to BOTH the saved and the lost. James argument is repudiated by Paul in verse 8.

However, common sense is the only thing needed to repudiate the argument of James. If the saved man's problem is with the fallen nature, when he also has the regenerated nature, then common sense would tell you that the lost man has no other option available but the whole person of the lost is characterized by that same fallen nature.

Common sense would tell you the description in verse 7 cannot be of the regenerated nature! What is left? The fallen nature! Hence, verse 7 MUST be logically applicable to the lost man in verse 8 if only common sense is used.

 

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.