Rom 8:7

“"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:" and this is worse than death. Then to show how it is at once death and enmity; "for it is not subject to the Law of God," he says, "neither indeed can be." But be not troubled at hearing the "neither indeed can be." For this difficulty admits of an easy solution. For what he here names "carnal mindedness" is the reasoning that is earthly, gross, and eager-hearted after the things of this life and its wicked doings. It is of this he says "neither yet can" it "be subject" to God. And what hope of salvation is there left, if it be impossible for one who is bad to become good? This is not what he says. Else how would Paul have become such as he was? how would the (penitent) thief, or Manasses, or the Ninevites, or how would David after falling have recovered himself? How would Peter after the denial have raised himself up? How could he that had lived in fornication have been enlisted among Christ's fold? How could the Galatians who had "fallen from grace" have attained their former dignity again? What he says then is not that it is impossible for a man that is wicked to become good, but that it is impossible for one who continues wicked to be subject to God. Yet for a man to be changed, and so become good, and subject to Him, is easy. For he does not say that man cannot be subject to God, but, wicked doing cannot be good. As if he had said, fornication cannot be chastity, nor vice virtue. And this it says in the Gospel also, "A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit," not to bar the change from virtue to vice, but to say how incapable continuance in vice is of bringing forth good fruits. For He does not say that an evil tree cannot become a good one, but that bring forth good fruit it cannot, while it continues evil. For that it can be changed, He shows from this passage, and from another parable, when He introduces the tares as becoming wheat, on which score also He forbids their being rooted up; "Lest," He says, "ye root up also the wheat with them"; that is, that which will spring from them.”

“The flesh is not in itself hostile to God, as the Manichaeans say, but the carnal mind is. For everything which is not subject is hostile, and anyone who wants to clear himself may sometimes go beyond the limit of the old law. Paul says that this carnal wisdom can never be subject to the law of God in order to call men back from the desires of the flesh.”

“Paul explains why he said "hostile" so that no one should think that there is some nature derived from an opposing principle which God did not create and which fights against him. An enemy of God is one who does not submit to his law and who behaves this way because of the wisdom of the flesh. This means that he seeks worldly goods and is afraid of worldly evils. The normal definition of wisdom is to seek what is good and avoid what is evil. Therefore the apostle is right to describe the wisdom of the flesh as the longing for "goods" which do not remain with a man and when there is a fear for losing those things which one day will have to be left behind anyway. Wisdom of this kind cannot submit to the law of God. It must be destroyed so that the wisdom of the Spirit, which does not place its hope in worldly goods nor is afraid of worldly evils, may take its place. For the one nature of the soul has both the wisdom of the flesh when it follows lower things and the wisdom of the Spirit when it chooses higher things, just as the one nature of water freezes in the cold and melts in the heat.”

“The spiritual mind produces peace, while the carnal mind produces enmity against God. Does this mean, then, that the carnal mind takes up arms against God? No, he says; but it is said to be enmity against God because it is not subject to His law. Do not be troubled, however, upon hearing "neither indeed can be," but understand these words as you ought. The carnal mind cannot be subject to God as long as it remains such. This is the same as saying: a harlot cannot be chaste. For he did not say "will not be able" (οὐ δυνήσεται) in the future tense, but in the present (οὐ — in Theophylact — δύναται; in the Greek original — γὰρ δύναται), that is, now, while remaining carnal. Otherwise, how could the wicked have become good: Paul himself, the thief, and a countless multitude of other depraved people, if change were impossible? So too in the Gospel the Lord said, "a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit" (Matt. 7:18), that is, as long as it remains bad. So let us not think about the carnal, but let us think about the spiritual, so that we may have peace with God, who gives us the Spirit, through Whom everything that was difficult to fulfill in the times of the law is easy for us.”

“"Flesh and blood have surely revealed this wisdom to you, not the Spirit of the Father"; for this is "the wisdom of the flesh." But hear what our physicians think of it. "The wisdom of the flesh," they say, "is death"; likewise: "The wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God" (Rom 8:6-7). Ought I to have set before you the opinion of Hippocrates or Galen, or surely from the school of Epicurus? I am a disciple of Christ; I speak to disciples of Christ: if I introduce a foreign doctrine, I myself have sinned. Epicurus and Hippocrates, the one puts forward the pleasure of the body, the other good physical condition; my Master preaches contempt for both.”

“Nor do I say this so that we should be without affection, and with a dry heart move only our hands to works. I have read among the other great and grievous evils of men which the Apostle writes, this also numbered: namely to be without affection (Rom 1:31). But there is an affection which the flesh begets; and there is one which reason rules; and there is one which wisdom seasons. The first is that which the Apostle says is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be (Rom 8:7); the second is that which he affirms on the other hand to be consenting to the law of God, because it is good (Rom 7:16); nor is there any doubt that the contentious and the consenting differ from each other. But the third is far distant from both, which both tastes and savors that the Lord is sweet (Ps 34:8), eliminating the first and rewarding the second. For the first indeed is sweet, but base; the second is dry, but strong; the last is rich, and sweet.”

“In the preceding section, the Apostle had presupposed that the prudence of the flesh is death, and here he intends to prove this. And first, he proves it; second, he shows that the believers to whom he writes are immune to such prudence, at "but you are not." In regard to the first he does two things. First, he proves his statement about prudence of the flesh in the abstract; second, he applies what he had said about prudence of the flesh to those who follow prudence of the flesh, at "and they who are in the flesh." In regard to the first he sets out three middle terms, each of which proves the one before it. Using the first middle, he proves something stated earlier, namely, that the prudence of the flesh is death, in the following way: he that is hostile to God incurs death: "but as for those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27); and this is because God is our life: "for he is your life" (Deut 30:20). And so, he that is hostile to God incurs death; but the prudence of the flesh is hostile to God. Therefore, the prudence of the flesh is the cause of death. Here it should be noted that what he earlier called the prudence of the flesh (Rom 8:6) he now calls the wisdom of the flesh, not because prudence and wisdom are absolutely the same but because wisdom in human matters is prudence: "wisdom is prudence to a man" (Prov 10:23). To understand this it should be recognized that one who knows the highest cause on which all things depend is called wise in the strict sense. But the supreme cause absolutely of all things is God. Therefore, wisdom in the strict sense is knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says in On the Trinity; "yet among the mature we do impart wisdom" (1 Cor 2:6). Now one who knows the highest cause in a particular genus is said to be wise in that genus. For example, in the art of building it is not the man who knows how to cut wood and stones but the one who conceives and plans the house who is called wise; for the entire building depends on him. Hence the Apostle says, "as a wise architect I have laid the foundation" (1 Cor 3:10). Thus, therefore, one is called wise in human matters who has a good understanding about the goal of human life and regulates the whole of human life accordingly, which pertains to prudence. And thus the wisdom of the flesh is the same as the prudence of the flesh, about which it is said: "not such as comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish" (Jas 3:15). This wisdom is said to be hostile to God, because it inclines a man against God's law: "running stubbornly against him with a thick-bossed shield" (Job 15:26). To prove this he uses another middle term, adding, "it is not subject to the law of God." For a person cannot hate God according to what he is in himself, since God is the very essence of goodness; but a sinner hates God inasmuch as some precept of the divine law is contrary to his will, as an adulterer hates God inasmuch as he hates the precept, "you shall not commit adultery." And so all sinners, inasmuch as they are unwilling to submit to God's law, are hostile to God: "should you love those who hate the Lord?" (2 Chr 19:2). Hence, he has satisfactorily proved that the prudence or wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God, because it is not subject to the law of God. He proves this through a third middle term, saying: "nor can it be." For the prudence of the flesh is a form of vice, as is clear from what has been said. But although a person subject to a vice can be freed from it and submit to God, as it says above, "having been set free from sin, you have become slaves of justice" (Rom 6:18), the vice itself cannot submit to God, since the vice itself is a turning away from God or from God's law; just as something black can become white, but the blackness itself can never become white: "an evil tree cannot bear good fruit" (Matt 7:18). From this it is clear that the Manicheans were not correct in using these words to support their error, for they wished by these words to show that the nature of the flesh is not from God, since it is hostile to God and cannot be subject to God. For the Apostle is not dealing here with the flesh, which is a creature of God, but of the prudence of the flesh, which is a human vice, as has been said.”