Thank you again to those who took the time to answer my questions and provide me with a Calvinist perspective on the issues. Ive been thinking and chewing on this over the past couple of days, and I had some more questions based on the answers I received in Skalas post. Thank you for your time spent in talking to me about this.
You ask "If they are dead, they shouldn't be able to sin". This is not true. Spiritually dead does not mean they cannot sin. It means they cannot do anything spiritually positive. Like a corpse cannot do anything physically good, it just sits there and rots and gets stinky and corrupts. A spiritually dead person can still do stuff, they just can't do "good" stuff. Romans 8:8ff says that without the spirit of Christ, you cannot do anything that is pleasing to God. So a person without the spirit can still do stuff and make choices, but those choices cannot be pleasing to God.
A spiritually dead person still has a will and a mind and desires, etc. He acts in accordance with those desires. But what are those desires? The reformed position is that he does not desire Christ, thus will never choose Christ. So the spiritually dead person is still acting in accordance with their own desires. They just never desire Christ because the gospel is foolishness to them and they are hostile to Christ and they love their sin too much. They are "blind" and don't have "ears to hear". That is why regeneration is necessary if anyone is going to make a positive decision for Christ.
I absolutely agree with you Skala, unregenerate man is spiritually dead, and he certainly acts the way that Paul described in Ephesians 2. Theres no question about that. What confuses me is the Calvinist interpretation of what dead means. The Calvinist wants me to believe that the unsaved CANNOT believe, because dead people cant believe. That makes sense, until the Calvinist also wants me to believe that the unsaved CAN sin, even though dead people cant sin! I agree with you that a corpse cant do anything good. But it cant do anything bad, either. You used the example of decay and connected it to sin. But Im not sure we can compare the two. Decay isnt something that a corpse actively chooses to do, its something that happens to a corpse. Sin doesnt just happen to the unsaved; the unsaved actively choose to sin. If being dead doesnt mean that they cant sin, why should it mean that they cant believe?
These kinds of arguments and your conclusions are non sequiturs. You are trying to combine two different things. Just because Paul used the analogy of death in regards to a believers life does not mean he means the same thing as when he uses the analogy of death for our pre-saved state before God quickens us. Like I said, you are trying to make the two the same. Let his analogy of death be in the context of one thing, and let it be in the context of the other thing. Your argumentation is likened to when we see the word "Creation" in the bible. In Gen 1 it refers to physically bringing something out of nothing. Yet in the NT we are told we are "new creations" in Christ. Does that mean we are literally a brand new person with a new body and stuff that was created again ex-nihilo? No of course not. Let each word and analogy work within its own context.
Hmm---Im afraid Im not quite seeing it. The object that is being created in the context of creation may change, but the word still refers to the basic principle of creating something, whether that be body or spirit. Before we were saved in Ephesians 2 we were dead in sin and dead to Christ; after we are saved in Romans 6, we are dead in Christ and dead to sin. What we are dead in and what we are dead to might change, but it seems to me that the principle of the word dead referring to our relationship with something remains the same, and both of these passages are referring to our relationship with God and sin. The question that keeps bugging me is, since the principle appears to be the same and both passages are talking about the same thing, why should I interpret one completely different from the other?
It is curious you brought this up because if you ask me, it supports the Calvinistic position. If someone is a slave of something, they cannot simply "will themselves" to be set free. If someone is the slave of sin, and sin his master, that means he always does what the master makes him do. If someone is a slave to sin, how can they turn from that sin and trust in Christ? They have to first be set free (spiritually quickened?) before that is even a possibility. Last I checked, slaves can't become free by a intellectual choice. Their choices always are in accordance with their master.
With the utmost respect, Skala, if you believe that slaves choices are always in accordance with their master, wouldnt that mean that as slaves to righteousness we can only choose in accordance with righteousness?
Aren't you assuming that each of these verses is speaking of regeneration? And not, for example "eternal life"?
The concept of "spiritual life" has more than one analogy. It is referred to in John 3 as being born "from above" (born again). It is referred to being a new creation. It is referred to being dead and being resurrected. If you want to study regeneration, you should go to passages that actually talk specifically about that, rather than find vague verses that refer to "life" generically. Because then you start assuming that the author is referring to regeneration.
Good point, Skala, Im glad you brought this up. Unfortunately, Im a little confused by your reference to analogies. The references to regeneration in scripture dont seem to be analogical; I believe them to be literal. Paul says that Christ is our life (Col. 3:4). We are in Him, and He is in us, and He is the way, the truth, and The Life. We are in Him because when we were born again, we were put in Christ, crucified with Him, buried, and raised with Him in new life (Romans 6). We are one spirit with Him (1 Cor. 6:17). We were dead, but now we have life. We are a new creation on the inside. We have passed from death to life, and as such we have eternal life right now (John 5:24). I dont see Paul using these things as analogies; he states them as fact, as this is what happened to you, this is what you are now. We have spiritual life in Christ because we are in Him, and its the same as the life we gain when we are born again because thats when we are put in Him, and all of this is eternal life because Christs life is eternal, and John says that we need to come to Christ and believe in Him to have life. I dont see any distinctions being made in scripture, they all harmonize together as one. How many kinds of life do Calvinists believe there are?
Both OT and NT people can be regenerate.
Just to make sure I understand correctly, are you are saying that all the Old Testament saints were born again, and that they all had eternal life? What I dont understand is, how could that be, considering that as NT Christians we are alive because we are in Christ? Christ is our life (Col 3:4). The only way that we can be in Him is by being born again by being put in Him, crucified, buried, and resurrected as a new creation (Romans 6). He is in us, and we are in Him. We are one spirit with Him (1 Cor. 6:17). This is how we are spiritually alive. We have passed from death to life, and we have eternal life right now (John 5:24). So Im confused as to how all of these things could be true of the OT saints, since Jesus hadnt even died yet?
Think back to John 3. Jesus was speaking of being "born again" and then scolded Nicodemus for not knowing what he was talking about. He said "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" If spiritual birth did not exist in theology until that time, why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to understand the concept of a new birth?
Again, think back to Ezekiel when God said that he would "take out the hearts of stone, and give them new hearts, and cause them to obey his statutes". That's a description of regeneration if I ever saw one.
But thats just what bugs me, Skala if that was how people were saved before Christ, why didnt Nicodemus know about it? Hes the teacher of Israel, knows and studies the scriptures, and somehow he doesnt know about this. This is new stuff to him. Im familiar with the passage in Ezekiel, but it doesnt seem to be talking about the current way that God saved people; it seems to me that its talking about the future, how its going to happen. The leaders of Israel would get together and discuss how to interpret the scriptures and the prophesies of things to come. They certainly botched it when it came to interpreting Jesus first coming, so I dont think its too much of a stretch for them to also botch interpreting the new birth talked about in Ezekiel. So for me, the question remains were the OT saints in Christ?
Again, thank you to whomever takes the time to help answer these questions for me. I hope that you are all having a blessed day!
In Christ,
Gavin
You ask "If they are dead, they shouldn't be able to sin". This is not true. Spiritually dead does not mean they cannot sin. It means they cannot do anything spiritually positive. Like a corpse cannot do anything physically good, it just sits there and rots and gets stinky and corrupts. A spiritually dead person can still do stuff, they just can't do "good" stuff. Romans 8:8ff says that without the spirit of Christ, you cannot do anything that is pleasing to God. So a person without the spirit can still do stuff and make choices, but those choices cannot be pleasing to God.
A spiritually dead person still has a will and a mind and desires, etc. He acts in accordance with those desires. But what are those desires? The reformed position is that he does not desire Christ, thus will never choose Christ. So the spiritually dead person is still acting in accordance with their own desires. They just never desire Christ because the gospel is foolishness to them and they are hostile to Christ and they love their sin too much. They are "blind" and don't have "ears to hear". That is why regeneration is necessary if anyone is going to make a positive decision for Christ.
I absolutely agree with you Skala, unregenerate man is spiritually dead, and he certainly acts the way that Paul described in Ephesians 2. Theres no question about that. What confuses me is the Calvinist interpretation of what dead means. The Calvinist wants me to believe that the unsaved CANNOT believe, because dead people cant believe. That makes sense, until the Calvinist also wants me to believe that the unsaved CAN sin, even though dead people cant sin! I agree with you that a corpse cant do anything good. But it cant do anything bad, either. You used the example of decay and connected it to sin. But Im not sure we can compare the two. Decay isnt something that a corpse actively chooses to do, its something that happens to a corpse. Sin doesnt just happen to the unsaved; the unsaved actively choose to sin. If being dead doesnt mean that they cant sin, why should it mean that they cant believe?
These kinds of arguments and your conclusions are non sequiturs. You are trying to combine two different things. Just because Paul used the analogy of death in regards to a believers life does not mean he means the same thing as when he uses the analogy of death for our pre-saved state before God quickens us. Like I said, you are trying to make the two the same. Let his analogy of death be in the context of one thing, and let it be in the context of the other thing. Your argumentation is likened to when we see the word "Creation" in the bible. In Gen 1 it refers to physically bringing something out of nothing. Yet in the NT we are told we are "new creations" in Christ. Does that mean we are literally a brand new person with a new body and stuff that was created again ex-nihilo? No of course not. Let each word and analogy work within its own context.
Hmm---Im afraid Im not quite seeing it. The object that is being created in the context of creation may change, but the word still refers to the basic principle of creating something, whether that be body or spirit. Before we were saved in Ephesians 2 we were dead in sin and dead to Christ; after we are saved in Romans 6, we are dead in Christ and dead to sin. What we are dead in and what we are dead to might change, but it seems to me that the principle of the word dead referring to our relationship with something remains the same, and both of these passages are referring to our relationship with God and sin. The question that keeps bugging me is, since the principle appears to be the same and both passages are talking about the same thing, why should I interpret one completely different from the other?
It is curious you brought this up because if you ask me, it supports the Calvinistic position. If someone is a slave of something, they cannot simply "will themselves" to be set free. If someone is the slave of sin, and sin his master, that means he always does what the master makes him do. If someone is a slave to sin, how can they turn from that sin and trust in Christ? They have to first be set free (spiritually quickened?) before that is even a possibility. Last I checked, slaves can't become free by a intellectual choice. Their choices always are in accordance with their master.
With the utmost respect, Skala, if you believe that slaves choices are always in accordance with their master, wouldnt that mean that as slaves to righteousness we can only choose in accordance with righteousness?
Aren't you assuming that each of these verses is speaking of regeneration? And not, for example "eternal life"?
The concept of "spiritual life" has more than one analogy. It is referred to in John 3 as being born "from above" (born again). It is referred to being a new creation. It is referred to being dead and being resurrected. If you want to study regeneration, you should go to passages that actually talk specifically about that, rather than find vague verses that refer to "life" generically. Because then you start assuming that the author is referring to regeneration.
Good point, Skala, Im glad you brought this up. Unfortunately, Im a little confused by your reference to analogies. The references to regeneration in scripture dont seem to be analogical; I believe them to be literal. Paul says that Christ is our life (Col. 3:4). We are in Him, and He is in us, and He is the way, the truth, and The Life. We are in Him because when we were born again, we were put in Christ, crucified with Him, buried, and raised with Him in new life (Romans 6). We are one spirit with Him (1 Cor. 6:17). We were dead, but now we have life. We are a new creation on the inside. We have passed from death to life, and as such we have eternal life right now (John 5:24). I dont see Paul using these things as analogies; he states them as fact, as this is what happened to you, this is what you are now. We have spiritual life in Christ because we are in Him, and its the same as the life we gain when we are born again because thats when we are put in Him, and all of this is eternal life because Christs life is eternal, and John says that we need to come to Christ and believe in Him to have life. I dont see any distinctions being made in scripture, they all harmonize together as one. How many kinds of life do Calvinists believe there are?
Both OT and NT people can be regenerate.
Just to make sure I understand correctly, are you are saying that all the Old Testament saints were born again, and that they all had eternal life? What I dont understand is, how could that be, considering that as NT Christians we are alive because we are in Christ? Christ is our life (Col 3:4). The only way that we can be in Him is by being born again by being put in Him, crucified, buried, and resurrected as a new creation (Romans 6). He is in us, and we are in Him. We are one spirit with Him (1 Cor. 6:17). This is how we are spiritually alive. We have passed from death to life, and we have eternal life right now (John 5:24). So Im confused as to how all of these things could be true of the OT saints, since Jesus hadnt even died yet?
Think back to John 3. Jesus was speaking of being "born again" and then scolded Nicodemus for not knowing what he was talking about. He said "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" If spiritual birth did not exist in theology until that time, why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to understand the concept of a new birth?
Again, think back to Ezekiel when God said that he would "take out the hearts of stone, and give them new hearts, and cause them to obey his statutes". That's a description of regeneration if I ever saw one.
But thats just what bugs me, Skala if that was how people were saved before Christ, why didnt Nicodemus know about it? Hes the teacher of Israel, knows and studies the scriptures, and somehow he doesnt know about this. This is new stuff to him. Im familiar with the passage in Ezekiel, but it doesnt seem to be talking about the current way that God saved people; it seems to me that its talking about the future, how its going to happen. The leaders of Israel would get together and discuss how to interpret the scriptures and the prophesies of things to come. They certainly botched it when it came to interpreting Jesus first coming, so I dont think its too much of a stretch for them to also botch interpreting the new birth talked about in Ezekiel. So for me, the question remains were the OT saints in Christ?
Again, thank you to whomever takes the time to help answer these questions for me. I hope that you are all having a blessed day!
In Christ,
Gavin
Upvote
0
