Eph 2:1-6 (regeneration preceding faith?)

[Guest]

An unregenerate man possesses the faculties to do so; he lacks the will to use those faculties.......

However, if my employer told me to do something knowing that I would be entirely unwilling to obey, it would still be just to hold me accountable.

Well said. This is not a physical inability but a willing inability. The unregenerate man loves his sinful nature so much that he is unable to love anything else unless he is FIRST given a new heart that is the fountain from which flows new affections towards God. THIS is rebirth/regeneration and THIS is what qualifies the command.

[Guest]

P.S.

It seems to me to be a presupposition to think that God might command something to be done, when it is impossible for the hearer to do it.

As far as I can see, it is the opposite of a presupposition. Thinking that God might is leaving open the possibility--which is what you do when you want to avoid presupposition.

If, on the other hand, you decide through moral intuition that God would never do X, and read Scripture through that lens, you are bringing presuppositions that may prevent you from allowing the Word of God to correct your mistaken intuitions. (On the flip side, the same thing goes for deciding through philosophical intuition what the definition of "sovereignty" must be. Everyone is susceptible to letting their traditions distort the voice of Scripture. And even if you end up with the right theology, you might just be lucky--you might have gotten there through tradition or through surrendering your mind to a particular teacher--instead of through carefully studying the Word.)

These intuitions & philosophical presuppositions do have a place when we read Scripture. We can use them to raise questions and double-check ourselves and go more deeply into the text. But we have to be veeeeeeeery careful. We shouldn't put them on like glasses every time we read. We should take them off and put them back on, comparing the view both ways to find the best focus.

It's just so easy to pay lip service to doing it--flippantly saying, "Oh, so you think this," knocking down straw men, and patting yourself on the back for your "open-minded examination".

[Guest]

[Comment deleted]

I'm moving this comment over to a new thread. Here's the link.

[Guest]

An unregenerate man possesses the faculties to do so; he lacks the will to use those faculties.

It is not impossible in the sense that it is impossible for me to flap my arms and fly

.

What is the practical difference? If he "lacks the will" to do so, that is, if he does not possess a free will, then it is just as impossible for him to obey as it would be for him to flap his wings and fly due to the fact that he does not possess wings.

Why should the man be held responsible for his disobedience when he lacks free will, but not be held responsible for his disobedience when he lacks wings?

Even a human judge absolves a man from punishment for a crime he committed if it can be shown that he was psychologically incapable of refraining from that act. Surely God is at least as just (fair) as human judges!

[Guest]

Paidon, I think you misunderstood what I meant by "if he lacks the will". I was not using "will" to refer to our mental faculty of choosing.

I meant "lacks the will" the way that phrase is generally used in life--"I lacked the will to get out of bed this morning". Step back from the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate for a moment, and think about the concept of "lacking the will to do something" in general--that's how I meant it. It's synonymous with "unwilling", or "doesn't want to".

As for "practical difference", you'll have to expand on what you mean by that. If you mean, "Either way, the person will still reject God", then yes, there's no practical difference. But I doubt that's what you mean.

As for "it is just as impossible for him to obey", I also think that it is impossible for any of us to make it through life without sinning--but it would be just & fair for God to have condemned us all to hell, without ever sending Christ to redeem.

Even a human judge absolves a man from punishment for a crime he committed if it can be shown that he was psychologically incapable of refraining from that act. Surely God is at least as just (fair) as human judges!

And other human judges wouldn't. And other humans might want to absolve someone of punishment for murder because they grew up in a troubled home. And others wouldn't differentiate between Murder 1 and Manslaughter.

Why would I want to pick out one particular judicial philosophy and derive my ideas of justice from that? And how would I go about picking? By judging against an objective standard, perhaps? Which I would want to derive from Scripture? Which would be guaranteed to contradict some judicial philosophies?

[Guest]

J.Edwards,

You wrote:

Homer: In Ephesians 5:14 That is an imperative. It conveys a command, thus it is demanding what ought to be done but it does not say what CAN be done. To imply ability to the text from an imperative is an eisogetical statment and is bringing a presupposition to the text.

You would do well to refrain from your habit of charging others with eisegesis.

So you think Paul's command to "arise from the dead" implies no ability on the part of those he was writing to. I must say I find this an absurd argument. Read the context. Paul gives this command in the midst of a long exhortation, addressed to Christians, regarding how, in various particulars, they ought to live out their faith. Are you going to argue these Christians he addressed had no ability to obey? No ability to live out their faith?

You only made your remark because you are stuck on the Calvinist talking points such as "dead" means "total inability".

You ought to know the Greek word nekros, translated "dead" in both Ephesians 2:1 (dead in trespasses and sins) and in Ephesians 5:14 (arise from the dead) has both a literal and a figurative meaning. The literal meaning is obvious. Used figuratively nekros can mean "useless", "fruitless", "inactive", "inoperative", &c. That it means total inability is an assumption and opinion on your part, and of Calvinists. You must insist on this or your system falls apart.

A prime example of the figurative use of nekros is in the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:24,32) where the son is twice said to be dead. This was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to illustrate your idea of regeneration yet what do we find as the cause of his change of heart? His circumstances! And how often we see, too numerous to count, that God uses circumstances to cause people to get serious about Him. They hear the Gospel, come to faith, and are then born again, the order to which the primitive church unanimously testifies.

We even find nekros used figuratively of works (Hebrews 6:1, 9:14) and faith itself (James 2:17, 26). Do you think "dead faith" means "total inability" or would "useless" be a better fit?

Let's compare your proof-text, Ephesians 2:1, with Colossians 2:11-13:

Ephesians 2:1 (New King James Version)

1. And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

Colossians 2:11-13 (New King James Version)

11. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12. buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,


The Calvinist favorite, Ephesians 2:1, has nothing to say regarding
when the person is made alive. Now consider the passage in Colossians:

buried with Him in baptism
raised up with Him through faith
made alive together with him

The passage certainly doesn't favor regeneration before faith, but rather the opposite.

[Guest]

Well said. This is not a physical inability but a willing inability. The unregenerate man loves his sinful nature so much that he is unable to love anything else unless he is FIRST given a new heart that is the fountain from which flows new affections towards God. THIS is rebirth/regeneration and THIS is what qualifies the command.

Where is this stated in scripture?

Paul said:

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

Paul said that "in his flesh" dwells no good thing. He then adds that this useless dead flesh that the willing to do good is present but the ability to do good is absent.

About death Paul said:

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died...11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. ...13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

When did Paul "die"? Was this a birth condition? Did he inherit it from Adam? Or was he alive for a time before he "died". Did this death keep him from desiring to do good ever? Or did it cause sin to recognized (by us) as it truly is, sin.

[Guest]

Paul writes Romans 6 to defend grace. And he writes Romans 7 to defend Law. That is where we are now. Romans 7:7: “Is the Law sin?” he asks. Answer: “May it never be!” But the objector goes on: “Paul, look what you say in verses 9 and 10. You say, ‘I was once alive apart from the Law [that is, he once had little or no consciousness of sin or condemnation or slavery; he just did what he felt like doing; it seemed like freedom and felt like being alive]; but when the commandment came [perhaps as a child or an adolescent waking up from the obliviousness and freedom of self-centeredness; or perhaps at his conversion seeing for the first time the true nature of his spiritual deadness], sin became alive [that is, he experienced sin as sin and the rebellion it really was] and I died [he experienced subjectively the objective reality of his true hopeless condition of slavery to sin, spiritual death]; and this commandment, which was to result in life [the commandments pointed to life, offered life, and couldn’t give life—too weak and too powerless], proved to result in death for me.’
“There, you see, Paul, you said it again. You said that God’s commandment killed you. You make a murderer out of the Law. You make the Law sin.” So Paul continues to explain his meaning in verse 11. “No,” he says in essence, “what I mean is this. When I say that the commandment became death for me, I mean, ‘Sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.’ Sin killed me. Sin brought about my deadly condemnation. Sin brought about my experience of spiritual doom. Sin used the commandment of God as the weapon, but sin is the killer.” So he concludes in verse 12: “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”
And in verse 13 he repeats in the strongest language possible that sin, not the commandment, killed him. “Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.” This is verse 11 all over again: “Sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.”
That’s not What the Law Is for
Picture the Law as a surgeon’s scalpel. It is meant for life and healing. And here comes sin and takes the scalpel of God’s commandments and slashes people’s throats with it. It reminds me of the line in one of Michael Card’s songs – the words to Judas: “That’s not what a kiss is for.” The commandment – holy, just, good – was to be life to me, and it became death for me, because sin took the scalpel out of the surgeon’s hand and with it slashed my throat and killed me (verse 10). That is not what a scalpel is for.
Why would God allow this? Paul answers at the end of verse 13: “so that through the commandment sin would become utterly [=exceedingly, immeasurably] sinful.” It is sinful to murder; it is doubly sinful to force innocent people to help you murder. It is sinful to poison a child; it is doubly sinful to trick a mother into giving the poison to her own child. You don’t boil a baby goat in its mother’s milk. That is not what a mother’s milk is for. It is for life, not death. It is sinful to break God’s Law; it is doubly sinful to use God’s Law to break God’s Law.
So the bottom line so far in Romans 7 is that the reason we need to die to the Law is not because the Law is sin, but because the Law is weak and vulnerable, and we are utterly sinful. Therefore, the Law cannot be the first and decisive means of our justification or our sanctification, because “when the commandment comes” our sin rises up, comes alive, and uses the commandment to kill us, not save us.

[Guest]

I would very much like to hear J.Edwards address the questions posed by Sean.

[Guest]

I've replied.