How does faith in God brings us freedom

[arunangelo]

How does faith in God brings us freedom
Most people are enslaved by anxiety, worries, thoughts of revenge, hate, jealousy, feeling of inadequacy and selfishness. Lack of faith in God’s love is the common cause for all these enslavements. When we have doubts about God’s love we get anxious and worried. This makes us selfish. Furthermore, when we do not have faith in God’s love, we try to solve our problems by ungodly or hateful ways- such as: law suites, war, divorce and revenge. On the other hand, if we trust in God’s love; we know that His love can solve all the problems in the world. We will, therefore, solve our problems by forgiveness, mercy, compassion and self-sacrifice. Furthermore, if we believe that only God’s love in our heart is the true treasure we have; and also believe that no one can take this treasure away from us; then, we will feel secure and be free of anxiety, worries and selfishness. Furthermore, if we trust God we can be generous with our time and resource in helping others, because, then, we would not be worried about our own needs.

 

[Momentum]

your either going to be a slave to God or a slave to sin
we have freedom either way because we can chose to have faith or not

some people chose to have worries and what not but nothing is mandatory

faith doesn't give us freedom, faith helps us not be a slave to sin

 

[Pogo]

Hi, arunangelo -

At first glance, it seems that the things you mention are, in fact, natural side effects of one's faith in, and obedience to God's teachings, through His Son, Jesus Christ.

But, as I'm seeing things, it is freedom from the laws of the Torah that our faith first guarantees.

Freedom from having to shed the blood of animals in sacrifice to God, freedom from the rite of circumcision, etc.

Truly, we are blessed to be living under this dispensation!!!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[destiny]

Matthew 11:28-30

Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.â€Â

Jesus doesn't burden us with worry, he liberates us from the cares of this word in knowing if we belong to Him, He is in control.

 

[Ret]

Matthew 11:28-30
Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.â€Â

Jesus doesn't burden us with worry, he liberates us from the cares of this word in knowing if we belong to Him, He is in control.

I look forward to that day when rest from our labors, is eternal, without end - this is freedom!
In faith, hope & love,
Ret

 

[Rick W]

How does faith in God bring us freedom?
There was a time when my inward ambition was to please the world... you know,those around me, my friends, co-workers and even strangers on the street or wherever I went... the gimmic/s I chose that I thought would impress people, the fashion of dress, the statement I wanted to make. I sought the applause of the world through the things I owned/bought. I wanted the hottest car, the biggest stereo , status symbols. I wanted honor from the world, I wanted it's approval. In short I was chained to the world.
I served the world with all I had, mind, body and soul. The more I gave the more it took with no promise or hope in return for the efforts I made, the facade I meticulously maintained. The world makes no promises, issues no guarantees except that one day you will die.

God doesn't judge by how much you acquire, how far you climb the corporate ladder or how popular you are. He doesn't care how you look or your position in life, He loves you anyway. And He promises eternal life through the gift of His Son Jesus Christ.

No longer do I pursue praise from the world, prestige or status.
I'm free. And I've been given His promises.

 

[turnorburn]

Faith in God is realized in the eternal in spirit and in truth, we on the other hand realize him in the temporal, the flesh, wearing a watch for an example. Wearing one will give you patience, because when we keep track of time we lose site of the good things he has for those that love him. We go through needless tribulation because we are earthly and dwell on earthly things, but his kingdom doesn't rest on our desires, when we desire what he wants for us then we shall have freedom, Christ wants his children to have this freedom.

Thanks,
turnorburn

Post note* throw away that watch :smt045

 

[Rick W]

Good post turn.

His freedom is manifested in us as specifically as we are individual. We each have our chains/burden.

 

[mondar]

your either going to be a slave to God or a slave to sin
we have freedom either way because we can chose to have faith or not

some people chose to have worries and what not but nothing is mandatory

faith doesn't give us freedom, faith helps us not be a slave to sin

There is a discussion of our slavery to sin and the concept of freedom in Romans 6. It is clear that Romans 6 says that we were not free, but were slaves of sin. You might ask what does that chapter say about how we became free?

The Chapter does talk about "freedom" from sin. Romans 6:18 says...
18 and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.

So then the question is what made us "free from sin." At this point I am sure we will diverge. The free willer thinks that the power to slavery is broken by his own all mighty ability to choose what he will become. This cannot be energetically demonstrated by the text. There is no hint in the text that we are freed as slaves to sin by our own choice.

ILLUSTRATION--- Before the civil war, the slave in the south was not a slave by his own choice. Many were raised in slavery from their infancy. If they attempted to escape, the plantation owner could track them down and bring them back.

So then, what did free us from sin in this text. Of course the answer is in verse 6.
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;
The text still does not mention faith. Rather the breaking of our slavery to sin was part of the cross work of Christ. When Christ was crucified, the Christian was "in Christ." So then it is the cross work of Christ that is responsible for or freedom.

I think this is not insignificant (please excuse double negative). Where does the glory belong for our release from slavery? Should we receive the glory because of our own righteous decision making? Or has God enable our decision by first breaking the slavery that sin had over us?

The idea of being "in Christ" goes back to Romans 5. We, as sinners, were in "Adam."
15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
One might be curious why the verse uses the term "many." Was not the whole world "in Adam." The answer is partially yes. The whole world is born into Adam as the federal head of the human race who made all men guilty by his sin. So then we have all become guilty in Adam. The reason the verse does not say the whole world is guilty in Adam is because the death of Christ rescued some. So then many are still guilty in Adam, and many are "in Christ" because of the gift of grace.

The one who is "in Christ" is the one in Chapter 6 who is "free from sin." The one who is "in Adam" is the one in Chapter 6 that is a slave to sin.

However, here is the problem. This is again not a small thing. The great problem is that some who are in Christ will serve sin. Paul says this thing should not be!
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof:
13 neither present your members unto sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.

ILLUSTRATION --- After the civil war slaves were free, but where did many get employment? Sure! they went right back to the plantation. Just the same, freemen in Christ can still serve sin.

Gotta go.

 

[Bubba]

One might be curious why the verse uses the term "many." Was not the whole world "in Adam." The answer is partially yes. The whole world is born into Adam as the federal head of the human race who made all men guilty by his sin. So then we have all become guilty in Adam. The reason the verse does not say the whole world is guilty in Adam is because the death of Christ rescued some. So then many are still guilty in Adam, and many are "in Christ" because of the gift of grace.

Mondar,
Romans 5:18 states, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.", the whole world is under the condemnation of the one man Adam. The interesting part of this verse is that Christ the second Adam gives life for all men, but we usually only consider the first "all" to be the whole of the human race.
Bubba

 

[Rick W]

Let's not get into a debate over universal reconciliation here and please try to stay on topic.
Thanks all.

 

[mondar]

Let's not get into a debate over universal reconciliation here and please try to stay on topic.
Thanks all.

Does this mean I cannot say any more about Romans 5?

 

[Drew]

[So then the question is what made us "free from sin." At this point I am sure we will diverge. The free willer thinks that the power to slavery is broken by his own all mighty ability to choose what he will become.

The use of the term "all mighty" is misleading here, at least in respect to a person who holds to a theology where a person "freely" accepts the gift that is offered to him. We "free willers" are not saying "My salvation is my work, it is something I did, I earned it." This is simply not accurate. A person who receives a gift of salvation "freely" can do so humbly and yet fully acknoweldge and understand that the "real work" that procured his salvation is bundled up in the content of the gift and does not lie in his "acceptance".

In this respect, there is a faulty argument one often hears in criticisms of the "free will" position. It goes like this:

1. The person who believes in free will believes that the decision to accept the gift of salvation is a "free" act;

2. This "free will" acceptance makes the difference between salvation or loss - if the person chooses to accept, they are saved. If the person chooses to reject the gift, they are lost.

3. Therefore, the "credit" for the "free" act of acceptance lies with the person, not God.

4. Therefore the person who "freely" accepts the gift of salvation is the agent responsible for his ultimate salvation.

This is not correct. The first 3 are indeed true. But the conclusion reached in 4 is simply not justified by 1,2, and 3. If I "freely" accept a gift of an injection of antibiotics, it is the effort of the efforts and researchers who laboured to develop this drug that are, in any reasonable sense, "owed the credit" for my ultimate recovery.

 

[mondar]

4. Therefore the person who "freely" accepts the gift of salvation is the agent responsible for his ultimate salvation.

This is not correct. The first 3 are indeed true. But the conclusion reached in 4 is simply not justified by 1,2, and 3. If I "freely" accept a gift of an injection of antibiotics, it is the effort of the efforts and researchers who laboured to develop this drug that are, in any reasonable sense, "owed the credit" for my ultimate recovery.

In a synergistic effort of your drug analogy, the "credit" (glory) goes to both the researchers and the person taking the drug. At least the person taking the drug was smart enough to take the drug, and thus he was a better person. The fool that refused to take the drug deserved to be sick.

Lets carry the analogy to a scene before Gods judgment throne. Two people are there, one who believes, and one who does not. One person will be standing there and claim "at least I made the right decision (just like the smarter guy who took the pill) when I exercised my free will.... whereas this fool next to me just did not make the right decision."

Salvation from illness in your synergistic illustration is the effort and glory of both the researcher and the pill taker. So is your free will salvation.

Sola glorious deus,
Mondar

 

[Drew]

In a synergistic effort of your drug analogy, the "credit" (glory) goes to both the researchers and the person taking the drug.

There is a germ of truth here, but only a germ. In any reasonable sense, if we are going to talk about issues of "credit", the vast lion's share of the credit accrues to the researchers and the doctors, not the person taking the drug. He does play a role, although a tiny one, in procuring his own deliverance from illness. Transposing this matter back into the matter at hand, some people illicitly magnify this tiny contribution out of all proportion and then, falsely of course, represent the "free willer" as claiming substantive credit for his own justification.

Salvation from illness in your synergistic illustration is the effort and glory of both the researcher and the pill taker. So is your free will salvation.

Again, while this is true, it is only true in a highly qualified form.

Suppose that Einstein, in the course of developing his vast theory of general relativity, was having a casual conversation with an undergraduate. And the undergraduate says something about a visit he (the undergrad) made to London. This reminds Einstein of a colleague in London who had a certain theory. Einstein then sees how that other scientist's theory could be integrated into his developing theory of relativity. And so Einstein goes on to complete his theory.

Would Einstein have successfully completed his theory in the absence of the conversation with the undergraduate? Possibly not. Perhaps that conversation was absolutely critical. Perhaps Einstein would never have made the link between that other scientist's theory and his own if he had not been talking about the weather with the undergraduate.

Would a reasonable person say that the undergraduate deserved "credit" for Einstein's accomplishment?

Of course not.

Would a reasonable person say that the theory of relativity is the synergistic product of the efforts of scientist (Einstein and the other scientist from London) on the one hand and the other dull-witted undergraduate on the other?

Of course not. And neither is it remotely correct to suggest such synergism in the context we are talking about. Technically, there is synergism. But basically only technically.

It sounds very pious to say "all glory to God" and to suggest that any "participation" of the creature in his own redemption, no matter how minute, detracts from that glory. That is simply not true. Human being are created in the image of God. And even in a fallen state, they retain a measure of self-determining free will. To acknowledge free will is simply to endorse Biblical statements about our status as creatures - made in the image of God .

 

[mondar]

In a synergistic effort of your drug analogy, the "credit" (glory) goes to both the researchers and the person taking the drug.

There is a germ of truth here, but only a germ.

Certainly I agree that the researchers should get more credit then the man who took the pill. Certainly I agree that in a synergistic system of free will God justly gets more glory then man. I dont see any percentages in scripture like this. It seems to me that God leaves no room for boasting on the part of man. You can say that God gets 99.999% of the glory, that still leaves .001% room for boasting on the part of man. Such is synergism.

Salvation from illness in your synergistic illustration is the effort and glory of both the researcher and the pill taker. So is your free will salvation.

Again, while this is true, it is only true in a highly qualified form.

Suppose that Einstein...

I dont see that the Einstein analogy applies.

It sounds very pious to say "all glory to God" and to suggest that any "participation" of the creature in his own redemption, no matter how minute, detracts from that glory. That is simply not true. Human being are created in the image of God. And even in a fallen state, they retain a measure of self-determining free will. To acknowledge free will is simply to endorse Biblical statements about our status as creatures - made in the image of God .

Can saints in heaven sin? What would you say Drew? Can saints in heaven still choose to rebel against God? If you agree that saints in heaven cannot sin, they do not have free will. Does this mean that the "image of God" is destroyed in us during our final sanctification? Your connection of the sovereignty of man (or free will of man) and man being in the image of God is errant.

***Drew, I am not trying to be "pious." Also, it does not seem specially "pious" to me to attribute all glory to God. That glory belongs to God. I recognize that I am by nature a rebel against God. Being a rebel I would love it if I deserved my salvation at least by .001%. I dont! I dont deserve it at all. I deserve it 0%. I deserve only Gods wrath. While my faith pleases God...
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.
...Anything that pleases God cannot come from my own flesh, or my own human nature.
Romans 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
So therefore, faith cannot have its source within sinful, fallen, rebellious, human nature. We were dead in sins and trespasses. We were slaves of sin (sin nature).

Sola Glorious Deus,
Mondar

 

[Drew]

It seems to me that God leaves no room for boasting on the part of man. You can say that God gets 99.999% of the glory, that still leaves .001% room for boasting on the part of man. Such is synergism.

This is really the same issue in another guise. And I am sure you know how I will respond. I will say that in the 99.9 vs 0.1 synergism model, there is, by any reasonable standard, no grounds for boasting. The scriptures were not written with the precision of a mathematical proof, nor the precision of a legal document. When one tries to argue as follows:

1. There are statements that repudiate the boast of man;
2. Any contribution, no matter how small, on the part of man to his own justification is ground for boasting
3. Therefore man cannot make any free will contribution

....one is really treating what are fundamentally "fluid" linguistic concepts with an over the top rigidity that is simply not appropriate.

I suggest that the term "grace" was never intended to denote an entirely monergistic relationship. In "normal" parlance, we use the term grace all the time to denote situations where there may indeed be a small contribution on the part of a person receiving that grace.

Can saints in heaven sin? What would you say Drew? Can saints in heaven still choose to rebel against God? If you agree that saints in heaven cannot sin, they do not have free will. Does this mean that the "image of God" is destroyed in us during our final sanctification?

Invalid argument. I will assert that saints in heaven indeed cannot sin. But that does not rob them of free will in respect to other things. It is simply incorrect to assert that "if saints in heaven cannot sin, they do not have free will". They do not have free will in respect to "sinning". But they still retain creature-hood. They have any of a myriad of ways to express their free-will creaturehood without sinning.

As you should know, I do not believe that men are free to "not sin" in this present world. This does not mean that I have to deny the existence of free will.

The creature-hood lies in having some free will, not in having freedom in respect to everything.

The "creature" argument is indeed quite powerful in respect to the matter at issue. It is stated that we (human beings) are created in God's image. The same is not true of rocks, animals, weather systems, galaxies, etc. Now it is exceeding natural and plausible to assert that what distinguishes us from these other things is a measure of self-determination. Rocks, galaxies,and weather systems (and arguably animals) all behave in slavish obedience to "external" forces - forces that are in a sense "outside" these things. In this case, these are forces of the laws of physics, chemistry, biology. etc.

If we are in the same state - if there is no sense in which we have a power of self-determination - then it really seems hard to see any fundamental distinction between a man and a hurricane.

 

[Drew]

Romans 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
So therefore, faith cannot have its source within sinful, fallen, rebellious, human nature. We were dead in sins and trespasses. We were slaves of sin (sin nature).

This statement from Romans 8 does endorse the "strong" assertion that you conclude from it.

A man can indeed be "in the flesh" and unable to please God, without necessitating a conclusion that a faith response cannot "originate freely" from him.

I am presently "in a state of ignorance about the details of quantum mechanics". I therefore cannot "please" the exam instructor who passes out a test on quantum mechanics. WIll I fail. Yes indeed. Am I thereby robbed of the ability to "freely" seek out an expert who will teach me quantum mechanics so that I can ultimately "please" the professor at a later sitting of the exam. No I am not robbed of this ability.

The problem is that you are bringing an as yet unjustified supposition to the Romans 8:8 text. And that suppostion is that the person who is in the "fallen state" cannot recognize that state and "freely" reach out to accept the solution offered by God.

The text is consistent with your model. But is consistent with mine as well.

I think that we will probably agree that our disagreement over the Romans 8:8 text is really just a manifestation of the same fundamental issue. I believe that an unbiased third party would say that the resolution of our differences hinges on what Paul really intended by the term "grace" and whether Paul's statement about an inability to please God rules out our pleasing God by our "freely" accepting a God-given gift that restores that ability.

And I suspect we will get no further on this unless entirely new arguments are brought to bear.

 

[mondar]

I suggest that the term "grace" was never intended to denote an entirely monergistic relationship. In "normal" parlance, we use the term grace all the time to denote situations [b]where there may indeed be a small contribution on the part of a person receiving that grace.[/b]

I do not agree with your above assumptions. For grace to be grace, it must be "Grace Alone." If I earn or deserve any small fraction of my salvation, then it is not of grace, but then of grace and self effort.

Let me repeat an illustration from a previous post. I think the illustration demonstrates that while the free will person might make claims that he sees salvation as all of grace, it is a false claim. To the synergist, grace is not actually grace, but a reward for a correct decision.
When two men get before God's judgment throne. One is a Semi-Pelagian (SP) the other is an atheist. When the SP is asked why he deserves to get into heaven, he can proudly pat himself on the back and boast that at least he made a better decision then the atheist next to him. Sure, Christ might do nearly all the work, but at least SP did better then the Atheist by making a correct decision.

SP sees Gods grace as a reward for his correct decision. I do not. I see salvation as completely the work of God for man, and in no respect (0%) the work of man for God. Salvation is 100% a divine undertaking. God chose those to whom he was to give faith, and then God did a work in their hearts so that faith would result. We choose God with our wills because of Gods work in our hearts before Salvation.

Can saints in heaven sin? What would you say Drew? Can saints in heaven still choose to rebel against God? If you agree that saints in heaven cannot sin, they do not have free will. Does this mean that the "image of God" is destroyed in us during our final sanctification?

Invalid argument. I will assert that saints in heaven indeed cannot sin. But that does not rob them of free will in respect to other things. It is simply incorrect to assert that "if saints in heaven cannot sin, they do not have free will". They do not have free will in respect to "sinning". But they still retain creature-hood. They have any of a myriad of ways to express their free-will creaturehood without sinning.

Your objection is a redefinition of the term free will. Let me review.
1---You made the assertion that man must have free will because he is made in the image of God.
2---I asked if men in heaven have free will, and if they do not have they lost the image of God. The idea here is that if men in heaven have not free will, and are still in the image of God, then a person can have both no free will and the image of God.
3---You deny this as a valid argument because men in heaven have free will because they can choose many things, but they cannot choose sin.
4---The essence of my argument in this post will be that you have changed the definition of "free will."

I agree mankind in heaven is by nature righteous and therefore cannot sin. Mankind in heaven is limited by their righteous nature from sinning. They serve God by nature. If this is free will then all Calvinists believe in free will. Yet, this is not the historic definition of free will.

Mankind on earth does indeed have the kind of "free will" you agree that men have in heaven. The difference is not the ability of the will, but the nature of the person. Here on heart, we are by nature sinful. Having a sin nature we have the free will to choose any path of sin we desire.
Just as in heaven when our nature is righteous and we cannot choose sin, on earth our nature is sinful and we do not have the ability to choose Christ.

The bottom line is this, you cannot have two different definitions for the term "free will." You seem to have one definition for mankind in heaven and a different definition for mankind on earth.

On this basis your objection is invalid. Your objection is that it destroys the "image of God" in man. The way you define "free will" in heaven is that man can make many decisions, he just cannot choose sin. I agree. Now if I use that definition of "free will" for those on earth, will you agree? Or will you now change the definition again?

The creature-hood lies in having some free will, not in having freedom in respect to everything.

Uh huh. Yep. Including on earth.

The "creature" argument is indeed quite powerful in respect to the matter at issue. It is stated that we (human beings) are created in God's image. The same is not true of rocks, animals, weather systems, galaxies, etc. Now it is exceeding natural and plausible to assert that what distinguishes us from these other things is a measure of self-determination. Rocks, galaxies,and weather systems (and arguably animals) all behave in slavish obedience to "external" forces - forces that are in a sense "outside" these things. In this case, these are forces of the laws of physics, chemistry, biology. etc.

If we are in the same state - if there is no sense in which we have a power of self-determination - then it really seems hard to see any fundamental distinction between a man and a hurricane.

Again, you are redefining the term "free will." The Calvinist denial of free will does not mean man does not have any will at all, like "rocks, galaxies, weather systems...." You are here speaking of things that have no will at all. The Calvinist denial of free will is related to the nature of man.

Drew, I can see the differences between how we see the nature of man. While you seem to want to suggest that you see man as a sinner, it is not at all in the same way I see man as a sinner. You think "nobody is perfect." You think no man is strong enough to remain sinless his whole life. To me this is a terribly overly optimistic view of mans nature. As a Calvinist I believe in total depravity. The definition of TD is that sin permeates the entire being of man. This means that mans emotions become under the power of sin. This means mans "will" is under the power of our sin nature. Mans intellect comes under the power of sin. This does not mean we become as sinful as we could be. Certainly the drunk can rehabilitate himself for his own good. The drug addict can kick the habit for his own benefit. Even Pagan mothers love their children. But we cannot choose to be servants of God. The unregenerate will suppress knowledge of God (Rm 1). Drew, you make statements where you hint that you see man as a sinner, but this is very different from me. I see that man does not merely slip up, or goof. No, sin is our nature and sin does not choose Christ.

This is why John 6:44 begins and says "no man can come to me...." For those who come, the later part of the verse tells us that they come by an action of the Father.

Well, I spent too much time rambling on here, I gotta go. Your next post will have to wait.

 

[mondar]

Drew, I feel a little like you just hit me with the fog. Your statements seem contradictory to me. I dont know if we are talking past each other, or why I am seeing your statements as contradictory and you obviously do not.

I believe that an unbiased third party would say that the resolution of our differences hinges on what Paul really intended by the term "grace" and whether Paul's statement about an inability to please God rules out our pleasing God by our "freely" accepting a God-given gift that restores that ability.

In this paragraph your statement includes the words "Paul's statement about an inability." You say that Paul's statement of inability does not preclude us having ability. I dont see how you think this is not a contradictory statement.

If I understand you statement it says that you believe the verse teaches that there is a "God given gift that restores that ability" to believe. That part of your statement seems outright Calvinistic. That is exactly what Calvinists are saying. However, you say that we must accept this gift of ability. Such a concept has an obvious contradiction. IF we do not have the ability to accept gifts from God, then how can we accept the gift of an ability?

Such statements seem self contradictory, you might want to clarify. The only possible clarification is for you to say that we do not need Gods assistance to believe. As sinful rebels against God we can please him without his assistance! I dont see it.

This statement from Romans 8 does endorse the "strong" assertion that you conclude from it.....

The text is consistent with your model. But is consistent with mine as well.

Please read your own statements above. Again I see self contradictory statements. you do not?

If Romans 8:7-8 somehow allows the idea that those with the old nature, or those in the flesh can still please God in any way whatsoever, can you make it clear in the text which words you are looking at. Where does Romans 8:7-8 say that man can please God? Hebrews 11:6 makes it clear that faith pleases God. So Romans 8:7-8 must include that concept.

Drew, you are simply denying what I said, please work with the text. Let me ask some questions about the text for you.
Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be:
Rom 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Question 1----In verse 8 the word cannot (ou dunatai) speak of ability. No man has the ability to please God. In light of those two greek words, where do you get the concept that sinful, fleshly man can please God?
Question 2----In verse 7 the words "neither can it be" (oude gar dunatai) are again about ability. Now sinful unregenerate people are in the flesh (ths sarkos). This mind of flesh is hostile toward God. How can a mind that is hostile and does not, or cannot submit to God submit to God in faith?

Drew, your assertions that the text is somehow more vague then what I am making it are not based upon the grammar. They are just assertions that negate what the text is saying. Please demonstrate your assertions from the grammar of the text.