I'm not always looking for parallelism, but why is it that you take the unregenerate being "dead in sins" more totally than you do the regenerate being "alive in Christ." Do you agree that our "new life" or being "alive" is now partial but that it will be perfect upon our resurrection? Why is that more literal and total than our spiritual "death" before regeneration?
I see "dead in sins" to refer generally to the judgment we face without Christ. The ultimate judgment is total death, and "dead in sins" refers to that aspect of that death that is "now" but it does not speak to whether there is totality and complete incapability in the present spiritual lives of the unregenerate.
I understand the inference you make, but is there a place in scripture that would actually require the understanding of totality?
Does God receive any glory at all in the Calvinist system?
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Darin,
Being regenerated, made alive, born again, given a new heart, are metaphors for a new ability to be responsive to spiritual things.
Cheers,
Bob
No, I don't see it that way. I don't see "partial" deadness. I see the totality as extensive, not intensive. To be dead in sin is a metaphor for being unable to rise above our sin, ("slave to sin" is another metaphor that is used). Being spiritually dead means being unresponsive to spiritual things. It doesn't mean we are unable to do anything, or that we are pure evil.darin-houston wrote:I'm not always looking for parallelism, but why is it that you take the unregenerate being "dead in sins" more totally than you do the regenerate being "alive in Christ." Do you agree that our "new life" or being "alive" is now partial but that it will be perfect upon our resurrection?
Being regenerated, made alive, born again, given a new heart, are metaphors for a new ability to be responsive to spiritual things.
Well that's certainly true, but it doesn't complete the picture. The wages of sin is death, and in Adam all died. So what is the result, or the implications of that death? Are we able to save ourselves from it? Or do we need God's power to raise us to new life?darin-houston wrote: I see "dead in sins" to refer generally to the judgment we face without Christ.
But it does speak to exactly that. Do you consider yourself an Arminian? Do you believe in the need for a prevenient grace to overcome the effects of original sin?darin-houston wrote: The ultimate judgment is total death, and "dead in sins" refers to that aspect of that death that is "now" but it does not speak to whether there is totality and complete incapability in the present spiritual lives of the unregenerate.
Yes, I think there are several places that indicate our inability, including Eph. 2, Jn. 6, Rom. 8, etc.darin-houston wrote: I understand the inference you make, but is there a place in scripture that would actually require the understanding of totality?
Cheers,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Bob,
Your three passages that "indicate our inability" are the same ones that are always used to prove this particular doctrine, so I would like to look at them individually more closely.
However, before we do so, I might observe how strange it would be if the fall had indeed had this effect on human nature, and it would have gone unmentioned in all the passages that discuss the effects of the fall. For example, in Genesis 2 and 3, Adam and Eve were warned of the consequences of their disobedience, and no mention was made of their becoming incapable of repentance or faith...a significant omission, if that was in fact what they were facing as the consequence for their actions.
I know that some would suggest that the threat, "You shall surely die" implies "spiritual death" which "involves total inability." However, this is certainly adding to what is said. Neither here, nor anywhere else in the Old Testament, that I know of, do the terms "die" and "death" necessarily refer to "spiritual" death. In fact, neither is there anywhere in the New Testament that uses terminology equivalent to "spiritual death." The word "spiritual," when added by commentators, is pure eisegesis—since the terms "die," "dead" and "death" make perfectly good sense without the qualifier "spiritual." It is strictly traditional to add this adjective to certain passages. How is this justified?
Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 also discuss the effects of the fall, but neither passage makes any reference to the idea of "inability," which many wish to associate with the fallen state. I just point this out because it seems significant. Three passages in scripture are devoted to discussing the effects of the fall, and they all omit this significant element.
When we come to John 6, Romans 8 and Ephesians 2, on the other hand, where some think they find a teaching of total inability, we are not looking at passages that are necessarily describing the congenital spiritual condition of all men as a result of the fall. That meaning may be read-into the passages, but, then, "reading-into" is the precise definition of the word "eisegesis."
Let's consider these passages. I do not intend to treat them fully here, as I have elsewhere, but only to examine the claim that they necessarily teach the Augustinian doctrine of total inability.
John six comes first in the canonical arrangement, so we will take it first. I assume you are referring to verse 44—"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Does this say that all men are born in a spiritual condition that precludes their being able to be persuaded to believe in Christ and to repent of their sins? Obviously, this idea can be "read-into" the verse, if one has a prior commitment to the idea, but is this the only plausible meaning?
It is not essential, at this point, to decide among multiple plausible meanings of the statement (though that would be worth doing, if we were merely studying the book of John, and not examining the special claims of Calvinistic interpreters about a single verse). If there is more than one plausible intended meaning of the statement, then it cannot be said that one of these possible interpretations proves an otherwise disputed point.
It seems clear that Jesus' statement could be true, even if the Calvinist doctrine of total inability were not true. For example, one reasonable suggestion is that it means, "No one would even think of recognizing me as Lord and Messiah, if not for the many ways in which the Father works to convince them of who I am (e.g., through the miracles, the testimony of John and of the Old Testament scriptures, and even the witness of the Father's voice from heaven)." These phenomena are referred to in the previous chapter as various ways in which the Father testifies of Christ, or, we might say, "draws men to Christ" (John 5:31-47).
After all, the next verse says, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." "Hearing" and "learning" are not unambiguous synonyms for "regeneration"—even though Calvinists might think it necessary to take them that way. This could as easily be saying, "The Father has been testifying of me in many ways. Those who are paying attention (hearing and learning from the Father) are coming. Those who will not pay attention to the Father's witness can not come, because they remain unconvinced (not necessarily powerless)." It seems to me that a not-particularly-Calvinistic meaning of the statement is at least as "natural" a reading of John 6:44 as is a Calvinistic interpretation—rendering it a flimsy proof-text for a novel doctrine not clearly taught elsewhere in scripture.
When you mention Romans 8, I am assuming that you, like most Calvinists, are referring to verses 5-8, which read:
[v.5]"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. [v.6] For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [v.7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.[v.8] So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
The Calvinists I have read and debated have thought that this passage says the following:
"Every unregenerate man is, at every moment, carnally minded. This condition renders him incapable of doing anything at all that might be pleasing to God, including believing and repenting."
But are any of these things stated or implied in the passage? Let us start with the inability statement at the end and logically follow Paul's thought backward to its beginning.
1. Verse 8 is presented as the conclusion drawn from the previous verse (it begins with "So then..." meaning, "as a logical conclusion of the foregoing..."). In other words, "since the carnal mind cannot be subject to the law of God, it follows that, those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
2. This observation alone tells us that "pleasing God," in verse 8 (the thing that a fleshly person cannot do), is equivalent to being subject to the law of God. In the context of Romans 7 and 8, up to this point, being subject to the law of God refers to fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law—something that the man who walks according to the flesh cannot do, but which those who walk according to the Spirit can do (see Romans 7:19-23 and 8:4).
3. Thus, the unregenerate man cannot (consistently) obey God's law, which would be necessary in order to live his life pleasing God. This, of course, says nothing at all about whether a man can believe or repent, since neither action is equivalent to living in subjection to God's law (though, through the enabling grace of God, they may result in such obedience).
4. Now, who is it who cannot be subject to God's law? According to Paul, it is the carnal mind (v.7). And what is a carnal mind? According to Paul, it is a mind set on the things of the flesh (v.5), which is possessed by those who live according to the flesh (probably a reference to the unregenerate, though some believers, at times, may also fit this description).
Thus far, there should be little controversy, since we have said no more than what Paul says, and we conclude that the one who is living according to the flesh sets his mind on the things of the flesh. A mind thus set on fleshly things is a carnal mind, and is incapable of living a life pleasing to God, in terms of obedience to the law. Nothing at all is said about whether such a person might repent of his carnality and choose to believe in God. To import this concept is to read-into Paul's statements something that is neither stated nor necessarily implied.
"But," says the Calvinist, "how can one whose mind is set on things of the flesh ever repent of such a mindset, since doing so would be against his basic inclinations?"
Here we need to follow Paul more faithfully and attentively than many wish to do. In verse 5, he has said, "those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit."
Here, Paul identifies too groups of people: 1) those who live according to the flesh, which (I shall agree) refer to unregenerate people, and 2) those who live according to the Spirit, who (all agree) are the regenerate or the Christians.
Two exactly parallel statements are made about these two groups. The first group set their minds on fleshly things, and the second group (Christians) set their minds on spiritual things. Now we must ask, is Paul describing the mentality of Christians and non-Christians in absolute terms, or in general terms? To put the question more clearly, is Paul saying that Christians always have their minds on spiritual things, or only generally? Any real Christian knows the answer to that question! While regeneration causes us to be reoriented from fleshly goals and values to spiritual ones, no one believes that every thought and attitude of the Christian is spiritual. Some thoughts of believers are fleshly, at times. If Paul is saying otherwise, then he either knew very little about real Christians, or else there aren't any real Christians such as he described. It is most reasonable to assume that Paul's declaration that regenerate people set their minds on things of the Spirit is speaking of their general orientation, but not of their every waking thought or desire—since this assumption is the only one that would make his statement true.
But if he is saying no more than this about the regenerate, then nothing can justify making his parallel statement about the unregenerate any more absolute than this. He is saying that "those who live according to the flesh generally have their minds on fleshly things—though not necessarily at every moment." This certainly leaves open the possibility of a person, who generally is carnal in his tastes, values and goals, experiencing a moment where he has a flash of spiritual interest, and even of longing for God. This seems to be observable among many unregenerate people, and without solid biblical statements precluding this, we cannot say that these observations are misleading.
Of course, we all should be able to agree that an unregenerate man is orientated toward worldly and fleshly things (even as Christians, momentarily, may be at times). This fact renders it impossible to live a pleasing life before God, without the washing of regeneration and the empowering of the Holy Spirit. But nothing in this passage precludes the possibility of such a man experiencing moments of moral clarity and sane honesty, in which he, like the prodigal son, "comes to himself" and realizes that he must return to his Father. This decision was made by the prodigal on his own, from the sheer reminiscence of his Father's generosity. Only after he was on his way home did his Father run out to meet and assist him.
As for Ephesians 2:1-2, much has already been written here on these verses and on the meaning of "we were dead." However, a few observations may be yet in order.
First, the term "spiritually" is not found as a modifier for "dead," meaning that there may be room for other possible meanings of the metaphor.
Second, the metaphor "dead," used in describing a lost person, is not without biblical parallel. For example, the prodigal son was said to have been "lost" and "dead" when away from his father (Luke 15:32). Also, Paul speaks of a point in his life where the law "slew" him (leaving him "dead") in Romans 7:9-11. But what does this expression mean in these passages?
One thing they obviously do not mean is that a "dead" person is incapable of coming to his senses and repenting, since this is precisely what the prodigal son did while he was metaphorically "dead."
Another thing we can conclude is that this being "dead" is not the condition of a child at birth, but is an acquired state. Paul is unambiguous about this, when he says, "I was alive once without the law" (Rom.7:9), but then "when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."(Ibid.)
When you think about it, Ephesians 2 does not tell us that this "dead in trespasses" was a birth condition either. In fact, the very expression, "dead in trespasses" would suggest that the death was due to "trespasses," which a person does not commit until some point after birth. When Paul tells his Gentile audience that, before their conversions, they were "dead in trespasses," he does not say that they were (nor that all men are) born in such a condition. In fact, in describing the depravity of the Gentiles two chapters later (Eph.4:1719), he speaks of them as being "past feeling" and speaks of the "hardening of their hearts"—both of which, so near as words and biblical precedent would inform us, are referring to an acquired condition.
The Calvinist may object to the theological implications of these observations, but I do not think any one can object upon exegetical grounds.
These are just some simple observations that lead me to doubt that your three proof-texts for total inability have anything to do with that subject. In fact, the three passages that do talk about the results of the fall (Genesis 3; Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15) make no mention whatsoever of such a doctrine. Therefore the doctrine is not found in the three passages where it would be most reasonable to find it, nor in the three passages most cited to prove it. Where then is it found?
Your three passages that "indicate our inability" are the same ones that are always used to prove this particular doctrine, so I would like to look at them individually more closely.
However, before we do so, I might observe how strange it would be if the fall had indeed had this effect on human nature, and it would have gone unmentioned in all the passages that discuss the effects of the fall. For example, in Genesis 2 and 3, Adam and Eve were warned of the consequences of their disobedience, and no mention was made of their becoming incapable of repentance or faith...a significant omission, if that was in fact what they were facing as the consequence for their actions.
I know that some would suggest that the threat, "You shall surely die" implies "spiritual death" which "involves total inability." However, this is certainly adding to what is said. Neither here, nor anywhere else in the Old Testament, that I know of, do the terms "die" and "death" necessarily refer to "spiritual" death. In fact, neither is there anywhere in the New Testament that uses terminology equivalent to "spiritual death." The word "spiritual," when added by commentators, is pure eisegesis—since the terms "die," "dead" and "death" make perfectly good sense without the qualifier "spiritual." It is strictly traditional to add this adjective to certain passages. How is this justified?
Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 also discuss the effects of the fall, but neither passage makes any reference to the idea of "inability," which many wish to associate with the fallen state. I just point this out because it seems significant. Three passages in scripture are devoted to discussing the effects of the fall, and they all omit this significant element.
When we come to John 6, Romans 8 and Ephesians 2, on the other hand, where some think they find a teaching of total inability, we are not looking at passages that are necessarily describing the congenital spiritual condition of all men as a result of the fall. That meaning may be read-into the passages, but, then, "reading-into" is the precise definition of the word "eisegesis."
Let's consider these passages. I do not intend to treat them fully here, as I have elsewhere, but only to examine the claim that they necessarily teach the Augustinian doctrine of total inability.
John six comes first in the canonical arrangement, so we will take it first. I assume you are referring to verse 44—"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Does this say that all men are born in a spiritual condition that precludes their being able to be persuaded to believe in Christ and to repent of their sins? Obviously, this idea can be "read-into" the verse, if one has a prior commitment to the idea, but is this the only plausible meaning?
It is not essential, at this point, to decide among multiple plausible meanings of the statement (though that would be worth doing, if we were merely studying the book of John, and not examining the special claims of Calvinistic interpreters about a single verse). If there is more than one plausible intended meaning of the statement, then it cannot be said that one of these possible interpretations proves an otherwise disputed point.
It seems clear that Jesus' statement could be true, even if the Calvinist doctrine of total inability were not true. For example, one reasonable suggestion is that it means, "No one would even think of recognizing me as Lord and Messiah, if not for the many ways in which the Father works to convince them of who I am (e.g., through the miracles, the testimony of John and of the Old Testament scriptures, and even the witness of the Father's voice from heaven)." These phenomena are referred to in the previous chapter as various ways in which the Father testifies of Christ, or, we might say, "draws men to Christ" (John 5:31-47).
After all, the next verse says, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." "Hearing" and "learning" are not unambiguous synonyms for "regeneration"—even though Calvinists might think it necessary to take them that way. This could as easily be saying, "The Father has been testifying of me in many ways. Those who are paying attention (hearing and learning from the Father) are coming. Those who will not pay attention to the Father's witness can not come, because they remain unconvinced (not necessarily powerless)." It seems to me that a not-particularly-Calvinistic meaning of the statement is at least as "natural" a reading of John 6:44 as is a Calvinistic interpretation—rendering it a flimsy proof-text for a novel doctrine not clearly taught elsewhere in scripture.
When you mention Romans 8, I am assuming that you, like most Calvinists, are referring to verses 5-8, which read:
[v.5]"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. [v.6] For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [v.7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.[v.8] So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
The Calvinists I have read and debated have thought that this passage says the following:
"Every unregenerate man is, at every moment, carnally minded. This condition renders him incapable of doing anything at all that might be pleasing to God, including believing and repenting."
But are any of these things stated or implied in the passage? Let us start with the inability statement at the end and logically follow Paul's thought backward to its beginning.
1. Verse 8 is presented as the conclusion drawn from the previous verse (it begins with "So then..." meaning, "as a logical conclusion of the foregoing..."). In other words, "since the carnal mind cannot be subject to the law of God, it follows that, those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
2. This observation alone tells us that "pleasing God," in verse 8 (the thing that a fleshly person cannot do), is equivalent to being subject to the law of God. In the context of Romans 7 and 8, up to this point, being subject to the law of God refers to fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law—something that the man who walks according to the flesh cannot do, but which those who walk according to the Spirit can do (see Romans 7:19-23 and 8:4).
3. Thus, the unregenerate man cannot (consistently) obey God's law, which would be necessary in order to live his life pleasing God. This, of course, says nothing at all about whether a man can believe or repent, since neither action is equivalent to living in subjection to God's law (though, through the enabling grace of God, they may result in such obedience).
4. Now, who is it who cannot be subject to God's law? According to Paul, it is the carnal mind (v.7). And what is a carnal mind? According to Paul, it is a mind set on the things of the flesh (v.5), which is possessed by those who live according to the flesh (probably a reference to the unregenerate, though some believers, at times, may also fit this description).
Thus far, there should be little controversy, since we have said no more than what Paul says, and we conclude that the one who is living according to the flesh sets his mind on the things of the flesh. A mind thus set on fleshly things is a carnal mind, and is incapable of living a life pleasing to God, in terms of obedience to the law. Nothing at all is said about whether such a person might repent of his carnality and choose to believe in God. To import this concept is to read-into Paul's statements something that is neither stated nor necessarily implied.
"But," says the Calvinist, "how can one whose mind is set on things of the flesh ever repent of such a mindset, since doing so would be against his basic inclinations?"
Here we need to follow Paul more faithfully and attentively than many wish to do. In verse 5, he has said, "those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit."
Here, Paul identifies too groups of people: 1) those who live according to the flesh, which (I shall agree) refer to unregenerate people, and 2) those who live according to the Spirit, who (all agree) are the regenerate or the Christians.
Two exactly parallel statements are made about these two groups. The first group set their minds on fleshly things, and the second group (Christians) set their minds on spiritual things. Now we must ask, is Paul describing the mentality of Christians and non-Christians in absolute terms, or in general terms? To put the question more clearly, is Paul saying that Christians always have their minds on spiritual things, or only generally? Any real Christian knows the answer to that question! While regeneration causes us to be reoriented from fleshly goals and values to spiritual ones, no one believes that every thought and attitude of the Christian is spiritual. Some thoughts of believers are fleshly, at times. If Paul is saying otherwise, then he either knew very little about real Christians, or else there aren't any real Christians such as he described. It is most reasonable to assume that Paul's declaration that regenerate people set their minds on things of the Spirit is speaking of their general orientation, but not of their every waking thought or desire—since this assumption is the only one that would make his statement true.
But if he is saying no more than this about the regenerate, then nothing can justify making his parallel statement about the unregenerate any more absolute than this. He is saying that "those who live according to the flesh generally have their minds on fleshly things—though not necessarily at every moment." This certainly leaves open the possibility of a person, who generally is carnal in his tastes, values and goals, experiencing a moment where he has a flash of spiritual interest, and even of longing for God. This seems to be observable among many unregenerate people, and without solid biblical statements precluding this, we cannot say that these observations are misleading.
Of course, we all should be able to agree that an unregenerate man is orientated toward worldly and fleshly things (even as Christians, momentarily, may be at times). This fact renders it impossible to live a pleasing life before God, without the washing of regeneration and the empowering of the Holy Spirit. But nothing in this passage precludes the possibility of such a man experiencing moments of moral clarity and sane honesty, in which he, like the prodigal son, "comes to himself" and realizes that he must return to his Father. This decision was made by the prodigal on his own, from the sheer reminiscence of his Father's generosity. Only after he was on his way home did his Father run out to meet and assist him.
As for Ephesians 2:1-2, much has already been written here on these verses and on the meaning of "we were dead." However, a few observations may be yet in order.
First, the term "spiritually" is not found as a modifier for "dead," meaning that there may be room for other possible meanings of the metaphor.
Second, the metaphor "dead," used in describing a lost person, is not without biblical parallel. For example, the prodigal son was said to have been "lost" and "dead" when away from his father (Luke 15:32). Also, Paul speaks of a point in his life where the law "slew" him (leaving him "dead") in Romans 7:9-11. But what does this expression mean in these passages?
One thing they obviously do not mean is that a "dead" person is incapable of coming to his senses and repenting, since this is precisely what the prodigal son did while he was metaphorically "dead."
Another thing we can conclude is that this being "dead" is not the condition of a child at birth, but is an acquired state. Paul is unambiguous about this, when he says, "I was alive once without the law" (Rom.7:9), but then "when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."(Ibid.)
When you think about it, Ephesians 2 does not tell us that this "dead in trespasses" was a birth condition either. In fact, the very expression, "dead in trespasses" would suggest that the death was due to "trespasses," which a person does not commit until some point after birth. When Paul tells his Gentile audience that, before their conversions, they were "dead in trespasses," he does not say that they were (nor that all men are) born in such a condition. In fact, in describing the depravity of the Gentiles two chapters later (Eph.4:1719), he speaks of them as being "past feeling" and speaks of the "hardening of their hearts"—both of which, so near as words and biblical precedent would inform us, are referring to an acquired condition.
The Calvinist may object to the theological implications of these observations, but I do not think any one can object upon exegetical grounds.
These are just some simple observations that lead me to doubt that your three proof-texts for total inability have anything to do with that subject. In fact, the three passages that do talk about the results of the fall (Genesis 3; Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15) make no mention whatsoever of such a doctrine. Therefore the doctrine is not found in the three passages where it would be most reasonable to find it, nor in the three passages most cited to prove it. Where then is it found?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I would like to address your dissertation if you may. Considering the length of your commentary I would like to discuss this one point at a time?Steve wrote: I know that some would suggest that the threat, "You shall surely die" implies "spiritual death" which "involves total inability." However, this is certainly adding to what is said.
Steve, isn't the verse in a temporal clause? The Hebrew says "For IN the VERY day as soon as you eat from it "you shall surely die". This clause in an IMPERFECT (had been dead) verb with ONLY a future nuance BECAUSE it is in the temporal clause thus "shall die" but should be understood as an imperfect which means he died on that very day.
Since life is contrasted with death and spirit with flesh and life is equated with spirit and death with the flesh, what died that day?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
J.Edwards,
And I will jump in if its OK with you and Steve.
You asked:
This seems to be the correct meaning to me. Consider this:
1 Corinthians 15:22 (New International Version)
22. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Paul is here, in the context, speaking of death and resurrection. Here we have an antithesis. By the law of antithesis, the number on each side is equal, the results are opposite. All mankind, because of Adam's sin, face physical death. Jesus resurrection is the harbinger of the universal resurrection of all mankind, then comes the judgement.
And I will jump in if its OK with you and Steve.
You asked:
I believe it means nothing more than that Adam became mortal on that day. According to the Joachim Jeremias, the Jews considered a person to be "dead" who was sentenced to death, but not yet executed. Thus those in the crowd could abuse Jesus with impunity as He was on the way to the cross. He was a dead man in their minds.Since life is contrasted with death and spirit with flesh and life is equated with spirit and death with the flesh, what died that day?
This seems to be the correct meaning to me. Consider this:
1 Corinthians 15:22 (New International Version)
22. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Paul is here, in the context, speaking of death and resurrection. Here we have an antithesis. By the law of antithesis, the number on each side is equal, the results are opposite. All mankind, because of Adam's sin, face physical death. Jesus resurrection is the harbinger of the universal resurrection of all mankind, then comes the judgement.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
An even more interesting example of this usage, it seems to me, is in Romans 8:10—
"And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
This is a statement about the present condition of the person in whom Christ dwells: the body is "dead"???? This seems only capable of making sense if Paul is using the term "dead" (as we have suggested elsewhere) as meaning "condemned" or "doomed to death."
We usually think of death as only occurring at the moment that the vital signs disappear. However, it would seem that a person is counted as "dead" or having "died" when the death warrant is signed. Though the process of death may take some time to reach its end, a mortal begins to die the moment he comes into his doomed existence. It seems that the Hebrew idiom treats as dead one whose actual demise has become a foregone conclusion. This could be how God's words to Adam are to be understood, as also in the case of Romans 8:10 (above).
In fairness to the traditional view, there is no reason why "You shall surely die" could NOT be referring to spiritual death, but my point is that it neither states that this is its meaning, nor is such a meaning necessitated. Even if we opted for the view that Adam and Eve came into a condition called "spiritual death" at the fall, it is still a long way from this assumption to the proof that such a condition is defined as inability to believe in the gospel (since no one denies that sinners are quite able to believe anything of which they can be persuaded). Therefore, my point remains that none of the relevant passages discussing the effects of the fall make any clear reference to total inability.
"And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
This is a statement about the present condition of the person in whom Christ dwells: the body is "dead"???? This seems only capable of making sense if Paul is using the term "dead" (as we have suggested elsewhere) as meaning "condemned" or "doomed to death."
We usually think of death as only occurring at the moment that the vital signs disappear. However, it would seem that a person is counted as "dead" or having "died" when the death warrant is signed. Though the process of death may take some time to reach its end, a mortal begins to die the moment he comes into his doomed existence. It seems that the Hebrew idiom treats as dead one whose actual demise has become a foregone conclusion. This could be how God's words to Adam are to be understood, as also in the case of Romans 8:10 (above).
In fairness to the traditional view, there is no reason why "You shall surely die" could NOT be referring to spiritual death, but my point is that it neither states that this is its meaning, nor is such a meaning necessitated. Even if we opted for the view that Adam and Eve came into a condition called "spiritual death" at the fall, it is still a long way from this assumption to the proof that such a condition is defined as inability to believe in the gospel (since no one denies that sinners are quite able to believe anything of which they can be persuaded). Therefore, my point remains that none of the relevant passages discussing the effects of the fall make any clear reference to total inability.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I will leave John 6 alone for now because that is the easier of two (John 6 and Eph 8.) to exegete.
It is dangerous to start with a conclusion and work your way back, (especially if you ADD words in your descriptions). Never the less I will work with what has been done according to the sequence of how it was presented.
Verse 8 does not start with a "So then" and is not a logical conclusion to the previous but of continuation of what is being said. This is why the better translations of this verse ignore δὲ. BDAG explains "δὲ is used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation. When it is felt that there is some contrast betw. clauses—though the contrast is oft. scarcely discernible—the most common translation is ‘but’. When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated"
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.
Thus verse 8 is a continuation of verse seven and not a conclusion of it. This is a misunderstanding because it is derived from the English and not the Greek.
Also notice BOTH in verse 7 and 8 use the word δύνανται which means (with the negative which is supplied in both verses) NOT ABLE to do to something whether BECAUSE of external or personal factors. Paul is talking about the ability NOT the consistency of being able to submit to God's law and to please God.
This says nothing to say about the unregenerate persons ABILITY to REPENT? Just about his ability to submit to God's LAW? I do believe that "REPENT and BELIEVE" is an IMPERATIVE statement Steve. This IS a COMMAND, a law. The whole of the LAW is what? To LOVE GOD. The unregenerate man does not have the ability to do this, this is Paul's point.
So, even though Paul says man CAN NOT obey the commands of God or submit to His law, you say that unregenerate man can obey the Greatest of the laws, namely Repent and believe? Paul seemed to think otherwise.
This of course is a fallacy due to the Holy Spirit indwelling the believers and is NOT in the unregenerate thus making the difference between the believer who is able to obey God AND still being able to sin (though being sanctified) and the unbeliever who is able to sin but UNABLE to obey God and to please Him.
And HERE is why you ADDED to Paul earlier and said "They are not able to (consistently) obey God and please Him. Because your whole argument here falls and it does fall because Paul made a plain INDICATIVE statement (which means it is a FACT) that the unregenerate can not submit to God and can not please Him (period).
You fail to recognize the point of what Paul is trying to make. Verse 7 and 8 finishes with the INABILITY of the unregenerate to submit and please God. And here you ADD again an eisegesis that goes exactly AGAINST what Paul says in that he does not have the ABILITY to do so!
Paul is not EQUATING, he is CONTRASTING. You INFER because we do not consistently live according to the spirit that the unregenerate does not consistently live according to the flesh! There is a huge problem with that, namely the CONDITION that is being CONTRASTED. Paul says in verse 9 that those who live in the spirit do so BECAUSE the Spirit of God DWELLS in the them. Yet because we are still in our mortal state we still struggle with sin because of our fleshly BODIES. THUS Paul is saying we are ABLE to sin and ABLE NOT to sin. BUT the unregenerate does not have this same state. He is ABLE to SIN and unable to submit to God and please Him. ANYTHING not done in faith is SIN. The difference is stated PLAINLY in verse 9 where he CONCEDES the fact (understood by the argumentative usage of the word "however") that those who live by the spirit have .... what? ...The Spirit of God DWELLING in them.
By your presumption, if the unregenerate is inconsistent with his living according to the flesh (remember, this is the STATE he is in, namely unregenerate), this means he does sometimes please God, (is believing and repenting pleasing to God?) which goes directly against what Paul says in verse 8 (and the reason WHY Paul SAID verse 8.) and in verse seven the unregenerate is HOSTILE to God. You have a man who is hostile and UNABLE to please God pleasing God in His unregenerate state. He is NOT consistently living in the flesh; this is conflicting because you have Paul paralleling and comparing a CONTRASTING verse. In verse six Paul uses the word BUT. This is a word of CONTRAST not parallel or comparative, a major exegetical error.
You infer based on this eisegesis of verse 5-7 in which you make out to mean that man is NOT consistently hostile to God, but actually can please God and submit to His law due to his "inconsistent" state of rebellion BECAUSE of the so called parallel with the inconsistent state of the believer (totally ignoring that the HUGE difference between the two is the indwelling Spirit of God,) and THAT allows for people who are by Paul's description "hostile to God" to long for Him.
Then you state the evidence of people longing for God or people having a "flash" of spiritual insight. This "proves" verse 8? Hmmmm.... You are going AGAINST the "conclusion" of Paul and not agreeing with it, which is a mark of a failed understanding of the text.
You insight the parable of the "prodigal son". This again does not describe HOW the son "came to his senses" but rather it is just a narrative which explains in the INDICATIVE that He did come to His senses and you inject your tradition for the cause where there is no cause given or explained.
Also with this verse you are negating your own argument that you used in the 1 John 5:1 dialog. You said John didn't "have that in mind" when writing 1 John 5:1 because it has nothing to do with the context. Was Jesus describing the "ability" of the brother in an indicative statement? In the surrounding context of the parable was Jesus talking about the ABILITY of man in His sinful nature? NO. Then you can not use this text by your own previously stated argument for the ability of a sinner to by his own self determinate will come back to the father. Jesus was plainly talking about the one brother being like the Jews always obeying his law and the gentiles who went their own way and Jesus showing in the parable that He is going to reconcile BOTH the Jews and the Gentiles to Him. this is what He is describing in the parable. NOTHING to do with the inability or ability of man at all.
My theology though is consistent with both. 1 John 5:1 is driven by the syntax and grammar explicitly stating man must be born again first in order to believe. Also in the parable, the ability of the brother is not even talked about. By simple grammar, it is in the indicative which is just stating a fact of an action, it DOES NOT state the REASON behind the action. I can easily place 1 John 5:1 in there and say the brother came back because he was born of God thus able to see his sinful state and believe in the father, where you can not reconcile 1 John 5:7 with this parable at all.
It is dangerous to start with a conclusion and work your way back, (especially if you ADD words in your descriptions). Never the less I will work with what has been done according to the sequence of how it was presented.
Verse 8 does not start with a "So then" and is not a logical conclusion to the previous but of continuation of what is being said. This is why the better translations of this verse ignore δὲ. BDAG explains "δὲ is used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation. When it is felt that there is some contrast betw. clauses—though the contrast is oft. scarcely discernible—the most common translation is ‘but’. When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated"
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.
Thus verse 8 is a continuation of verse seven and not a conclusion of it. This is a misunderstanding because it is derived from the English and not the Greek.
Also notice BOTH in verse 7 and 8 use the word δύνανται which means (with the negative which is supplied in both verses) NOT ABLE to do to something whether BECAUSE of external or personal factors. Paul is talking about the ability NOT the consistency of being able to submit to God's law and to please God.
"Consistently"? Helping Paul out here are we? Please do not add to God's Word. Again like the word SAYS and MEANS, ability NOT consistency. Steve you have to admit you're whole argument fails at this point. Because you try to equate the general state of an unbeliever and the believer with their consistency of being able to submit to God and NOT their ABILITY which is the word Paul uses which drives the meaning of the argument.Thus, the unregenerate man cannot (consistently) obey God's law, which would be necessary in order to live his life pleasing God. This, of course, says nothing at all about whether a man can believe or repent, since neither action is equivalent to living in subjection to God's law
This says nothing to say about the unregenerate persons ABILITY to REPENT? Just about his ability to submit to God's LAW? I do believe that "REPENT and BELIEVE" is an IMPERATIVE statement Steve. This IS a COMMAND, a law. The whole of the LAW is what? To LOVE GOD. The unregenerate man does not have the ability to do this, this is Paul's point.
So, even though Paul says man CAN NOT obey the commands of God or submit to His law, you say that unregenerate man can obey the Greatest of the laws, namely Repent and believe? Paul seemed to think otherwise.
This is VERY hard to explain in English but it is talking about TWO DIFFERENT MINDS, there is no "set their" in the Greek. This implies you can "set" your mind either on God or the flesh. This is incorrect, there is no verb there. It means a flesh mind does according to the flesh, the spirit mind does according to the spirit. You can not have a "little" flesh and a "little" spirit mind. It's either/or Paul is describing.Now, who is it who cannot be subject to God's law? According to Paul, it is the carnal mind (v.7). And what is a carnal mind? According to Paul, it is a mind set on the things of the flesh (v.5), which is possessed by those who live according to the flesh (probably a reference to the unregenerate, though some believers, at times, may also fit this description).
Again Paul isn't talking about consistency he is talking about ABILITY. The flesh mind has NOTHING but the flesh, everything it does, thinks, DESIRES is evil and has NO ABILITY to submit to God or please Him. It doesn't talk about the "spirit mind" and what it can NOT do, just what it is ABLE to do. So you can not equate these two, Paul is CONTRASTING the two in their ABILITIES. Paul NEVER contrasts the ABILITY of the unregenerate with the ABILITY of the believer. Paul ONLY describes the inability of the unregenerate and the ability of the believer and WHY (the spirit of God ALREADY dwelling in the believer) Paul is making it clear that the contrast is in the abilities to please God, not however the abilities to NOT please God. Otherwise he would be doing a comparative and not a contrast. This is where you error. The Christian CAN sin (because while he is ALIVE in the spirit he is still in the fleshly body) The Christian CAN obey Christ. You are trying make Paul say that because the Christian can not "NOT SIN" the unregenerate in parallel can not "not submit" to God.To put the question more clearly, is Paul saying that Christians always have their minds on spiritual things, or only generally? Any real Christian knows the answer to that question! While regeneration causes us to be reoriented from fleshly goals and values to spiritual ones, no one believes that every thought and attitude of the Christian is spiritual. Some thoughts of believers are fleshly, at times. If Paul is saying otherwise, then he either knew very little about real Christians, or else there aren't any real Christians such as he described. It is most reasonable to assume that Paul's declaration that regenerate people set their minds on things of the Spirit is speaking of their general orientation, but not of their every waking thought or desire—since this assumption is the only one that would make his statement true.
But if he is saying no more than this about the regenerate, then nothing can justify making his parallel statement about the unregenerate any more absolute than this. He is saying that "those who live according to the flesh generally have their minds on fleshly things—though not necessarily at every moment." This certainly leaves open the possibility of a person, who generally is carnal in his tastes, values and goals, experiencing a moment where he has a flash of spiritual interest, and even of longing for God.
This of course is a fallacy due to the Holy Spirit indwelling the believers and is NOT in the unregenerate thus making the difference between the believer who is able to obey God AND still being able to sin (though being sanctified) and the unbeliever who is able to sin but UNABLE to obey God and to please Him.
And HERE is why you ADDED to Paul earlier and said "They are not able to (consistently) obey God and please Him. Because your whole argument here falls and it does fall because Paul made a plain INDICATIVE statement (which means it is a FACT) that the unregenerate can not submit to God and can not please Him (period).
You fail to recognize the point of what Paul is trying to make. Verse 7 and 8 finishes with the INABILITY of the unregenerate to submit and please God. And here you ADD again an eisegesis that goes exactly AGAINST what Paul says in that he does not have the ABILITY to do so!
Paul is not EQUATING, he is CONTRASTING. You INFER because we do not consistently live according to the spirit that the unregenerate does not consistently live according to the flesh! There is a huge problem with that, namely the CONDITION that is being CONTRASTED. Paul says in verse 9 that those who live in the spirit do so BECAUSE the Spirit of God DWELLS in the them. Yet because we are still in our mortal state we still struggle with sin because of our fleshly BODIES. THUS Paul is saying we are ABLE to sin and ABLE NOT to sin. BUT the unregenerate does not have this same state. He is ABLE to SIN and unable to submit to God and please Him. ANYTHING not done in faith is SIN. The difference is stated PLAINLY in verse 9 where he CONCEDES the fact (understood by the argumentative usage of the word "however") that those who live by the spirit have .... what? ...The Spirit of God DWELLING in them.
By your presumption, if the unregenerate is inconsistent with his living according to the flesh (remember, this is the STATE he is in, namely unregenerate), this means he does sometimes please God, (is believing and repenting pleasing to God?) which goes directly against what Paul says in verse 8 (and the reason WHY Paul SAID verse 8.) and in verse seven the unregenerate is HOSTILE to God. You have a man who is hostile and UNABLE to please God pleasing God in His unregenerate state. He is NOT consistently living in the flesh; this is conflicting because you have Paul paralleling and comparing a CONTRASTING verse. In verse six Paul uses the word BUT. This is a word of CONTRAST not parallel or comparative, a major exegetical error.
You infer based on this eisegesis of verse 5-7 in which you make out to mean that man is NOT consistently hostile to God, but actually can please God and submit to His law due to his "inconsistent" state of rebellion BECAUSE of the so called parallel with the inconsistent state of the believer (totally ignoring that the HUGE difference between the two is the indwelling Spirit of God,) and THAT allows for people who are by Paul's description "hostile to God" to long for Him.
Then you state the evidence of people longing for God or people having a "flash" of spiritual insight. This "proves" verse 8? Hmmmm.... You are going AGAINST the "conclusion" of Paul and not agreeing with it, which is a mark of a failed understanding of the text.
You insight the parable of the "prodigal son". This again does not describe HOW the son "came to his senses" but rather it is just a narrative which explains in the INDICATIVE that He did come to His senses and you inject your tradition for the cause where there is no cause given or explained.
Also with this verse you are negating your own argument that you used in the 1 John 5:1 dialog. You said John didn't "have that in mind" when writing 1 John 5:1 because it has nothing to do with the context. Was Jesus describing the "ability" of the brother in an indicative statement? In the surrounding context of the parable was Jesus talking about the ABILITY of man in His sinful nature? NO. Then you can not use this text by your own previously stated argument for the ability of a sinner to by his own self determinate will come back to the father. Jesus was plainly talking about the one brother being like the Jews always obeying his law and the gentiles who went their own way and Jesus showing in the parable that He is going to reconcile BOTH the Jews and the Gentiles to Him. this is what He is describing in the parable. NOTHING to do with the inability or ability of man at all.
My theology though is consistent with both. 1 John 5:1 is driven by the syntax and grammar explicitly stating man must be born again first in order to believe. Also in the parable, the ability of the brother is not even talked about. By simple grammar, it is in the indicative which is just stating a fact of an action, it DOES NOT state the REASON behind the action. I can easily place 1 John 5:1 in there and say the brother came back because he was born of God thus able to see his sinful state and believe in the father, where you can not reconcile 1 John 5:7 with this parable at all.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
J.Edwards,
I do not have time or inclination to answer your every point—most of which exhibit your inability—or perhaps your inconsistent ability
—to understand an argument.
As long as you think that Paul ever used the term "law" to include such activities as believing and repenting, you and I are so far from any common ground in interpreting Paul that dialogue would appear absolutely fruitless.
Your repeated statement that Paul is talking about "inability", not "consistency", is typical of the word games to which men often resort when their aim is to prop up a position at all costs, rather than to weigh the validity of an opposing argument. You act as if there is a dichotomy between these two options. If you had read what I said with any intention of understanding my point, you would have seen that I was not talking about "consistency" in contrast to "inability." I was talking about the impossibility of "consistent ability"—which is a specie of "inability" that fits Paul's statements much better than does your concept of absolute inability. If you can't see that, and insist on creating irrelevant arguments to sidestep my point completely, it is all right with me. It is you, not I, who will have to answer to God for your integrity.
Your digression about the prodigal son (again) missed my point entirely. I was not discussing the question of whether the parable teaches that the son (or a sinner) can repent without any influence from God (which is, apparently, the point you were looking for in my discussion, because you thought you could refute it). I was pointing out something that you have not begun to refute (and cannot)—namely that the term "dead" does not imply the kind of inability that you assign to its definition. The father in the story is the one who said that his son had been "dead" and it is clear that this metaphor, on the lips of this Jewish father, did not suggest that he believed his son to have been incapable of repenting. This means that the father, using the idiom familiar in New Testament times, used the metaphor "dead" very differently than the way that you insist on using it. That was my point, and it stands unrefuted, because unvarnished observations can not, by definition, be refuted.
That you do not really refute my point on 1 John, but simply reassert your opinion on it (which is inconsistent with the purpose of John's epistle)—and seek to bolster your failed interpretation by appeal to the syntactical discussion of a point that does not affect the question under dispute—suggests to me that no impressive response top my argument is to be expected.
I once thought that becoming a Greek scholar would give me greater mastery over understanding the biblical text. Since those days, I have observed that those who read Greek often come to think that syntax (rather than context) is everything in the task of biblical interpretation—when, in fact, a dash of common sense and the ability to weigh a simple argument is often far more useful than a mouthful of Greek verb tenses.
I do not have time or inclination to answer your every point—most of which exhibit your inability—or perhaps your inconsistent ability
—to understand an argument.As long as you think that Paul ever used the term "law" to include such activities as believing and repenting, you and I are so far from any common ground in interpreting Paul that dialogue would appear absolutely fruitless.
Your repeated statement that Paul is talking about "inability", not "consistency", is typical of the word games to which men often resort when their aim is to prop up a position at all costs, rather than to weigh the validity of an opposing argument. You act as if there is a dichotomy between these two options. If you had read what I said with any intention of understanding my point, you would have seen that I was not talking about "consistency" in contrast to "inability." I was talking about the impossibility of "consistent ability"—which is a specie of "inability" that fits Paul's statements much better than does your concept of absolute inability. If you can't see that, and insist on creating irrelevant arguments to sidestep my point completely, it is all right with me. It is you, not I, who will have to answer to God for your integrity.
Your digression about the prodigal son (again) missed my point entirely. I was not discussing the question of whether the parable teaches that the son (or a sinner) can repent without any influence from God (which is, apparently, the point you were looking for in my discussion, because you thought you could refute it). I was pointing out something that you have not begun to refute (and cannot)—namely that the term "dead" does not imply the kind of inability that you assign to its definition. The father in the story is the one who said that his son had been "dead" and it is clear that this metaphor, on the lips of this Jewish father, did not suggest that he believed his son to have been incapable of repenting. This means that the father, using the idiom familiar in New Testament times, used the metaphor "dead" very differently than the way that you insist on using it. That was my point, and it stands unrefuted, because unvarnished observations can not, by definition, be refuted.
That you do not really refute my point on 1 John, but simply reassert your opinion on it (which is inconsistent with the purpose of John's epistle)—and seek to bolster your failed interpretation by appeal to the syntactical discussion of a point that does not affect the question under dispute—suggests to me that no impressive response top my argument is to be expected.
I once thought that becoming a Greek scholar would give me greater mastery over understanding the biblical text. Since those days, I have observed that those who read Greek often come to think that syntax (rather than context) is everything in the task of biblical interpretation—when, in fact, a dash of common sense and the ability to weigh a simple argument is often far more useful than a mouthful of Greek verb tenses.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Yes, I remember saying that exact same statement when I was a Calvary Chapel assisting pastor....... UNTIL I learned Greek. Funny how that argument is only used by people who don't know the language. Never met anybody who knew the language say "wow" I didn't know how much I knew was RIGHT until after I knew Greek! But oh do I know many who say how wrong they were in their interpretations before they learned Greek.I once thought that becoming a Greek scholar would give me greater mastery over understanding the biblical text. Since those days, I have observed that those who read Greek often come to think that syntax (rather than context) is everything in the task of biblical interpretation—when, in fact, a dash of common sense and the ability to weigh a simple argument is often far more useful than a mouthful of Greek verb tenses.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: