That is Manichean doctrine or gnostic doctrine that sees material flesh as sinful. Paul is not speaking of the material flesh but of the active principle of the "law of sin" operating in the members.
Adam did have the law of sin operating in his members. That came AFTER the fall. Becase the law of man is dominated by the law of sin operating through the sense perceptions of the body and the natural desires of the body - he calls the fallen nature "the flesh" because of the association of the law of sin working in the and through the members and desires of the body. However, that distinguishes the law of sin and the material body.
Romans 8:7: Does It Support Calvinism?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by DrJamesAch, Jul 15, 2013.
Page 3 of 5
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
MB -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
MB -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If you cannot respond to the CONTEXTUAL based evidences then why should we follow you to another context and another scripture. To do so, would start an endlless circle of getting nowhere. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If their view had any validity they could defend it from the immediate context of Romans 8:7. We have defended our view from this context and they have no contextual based response - period! Simple denial is no evidence and that is all MB provides for Romans 8:7. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Empty assertions, name calling, philsophical rationalizations, diversions to other scriptures, pitting scripture against scripture is the modus operandi of James, MB and every single one of those who oppose the hard based contextually defined evidence that Romans 8:7 does describe the lost man's condition and denies he has either the desire or the ability to please God. -
MB -
Romans 8:7 does not prove Total Inability because we have numerous scriptures showing that the natural man can and does obey God at times.
Again, Cornelius was neither saved, nor did he have the Holy Spirit, and so according to Romans 8:9 did not belong to Christ at this point.
Rom 8:9 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.
Nevertheless, Cornelius clearly believed in and feared God, he was devout, he prayed always, and he gave much alms and did "righteous works" according to the Word of God.
Therefore Rom 8:7 cannot prove that unregenerate man is unable to listen to and obey God.
Jesus showed the same in the garden, none of his disciples had the indwelling Spirit, as the Spirit was not yet given (Jhn 7:39) but Jesus himself said their natural spirit was willing to be obedient, but their flesh was weak.
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
This verse completely refutes the doctrine of Total Inability.
Another example that refutes Total Inability is the Philipian jailer. He could not possibly have been regenerated when he burst in asking how to be saved, because he had not yet believed. And until you believe you are dead in sin.
Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
The Philipian jailer was not saved, because he had not believed yet, and yet he had a real and sincere desire to be saved.
Calvinists can say what they will, there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes Total Inability that they must explain away.
People should listen to the scriptures and not the false doctrines of men who must wrest scripture to make their doctrine work. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
You offer nothing by denials and diversions - period!
The very fact we are having this kind of conversation is evidence you have NOTHING to offer but ridicule, diversions, denials all empty. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Winman you can't deal with the text or defend your view of the text so you simply play the diversion game. Why should we follow you to another text and context when you can't even deal with this one. This JUMP and HOP is never ceasing once you start it.
-
I will agree that if you isolate this scripture by itself, it would be an excellent argument for Total Inability, in fact, this passage would be the very best argument for Total Inability in all the scriptures bar none.
But that is not the proper way to read the Bible or form doctrine, you must look at ALL the scriptures concerning a given subject, and they must not contradict one another.
When you look at all the scriptures, you see MANY examples of unsaved natural men responding positively to God and believing, such as both Cornelius and the Philipian jailer.
You choose to ignore any scripture that refutes Calvinism. This is a poor method of determining doctrine and sure to lead to many errors. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Second, if your other interpretations were true then you could deal with this text in its context and prove from the context it does not refer to the fallen nature of man and does not say what it obviously does explicitly and clearly and unambigously says. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Look, if you dwell on some beautiful young girl on TV in a bikini you cannot please your wife. That doesn't mean that you are unable to look away and think of something else. But while you choose to dwell on that young girl it is impossible to please your wife. This is what Paul is saying, that while a man is carnally minded he cannot please God or be subject to his laws. That does not mean the man cannot think another way.
Rom 8:5 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.
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.
None of this scripture says a man is unable to think spiritually. That is why I brought up Matthew 26:41
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
No believer had received the Holy Spirit yet, so Jesus must be speaking of his disciples natural spirit here, and Jesus said they were WILLING to obey him. This is the same thing Paul describes in Romans 7. I believe Paul is describing himself before salvation in Romans 7 because he said sin had slain him and that he was sold under sin, neither of which are true of a saved person.
Matthew 26:41 is important because it shows an unregenerate man is not flesh only, but he is spirit and soul as well, and that the spirit indeed can be willing to believe and obey God.
You choose to ignore this scripture because it refutes your view. -
You have proven over and over again that you are willing to throw context out the window when you want to isolate a verse and make it say what you want it to say. Romans 8:7 has been a "proof text" of Calvinists for years and they have NEVER interpreted in light of its context.
Page 3 of 5