Ephesians 2:1

NAS Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,

A few questions. #1 Who is Paul talking about? Who is the "you"? #2 What does "nekros" (dead) mean in context? #3 How is "nekros" defined in light of "trespasses and sins"?

 

The passage certainly is not talking about the physical state of man. That is not Paul's point. Paul is telling his audience that their unregenerate spiritual state was death. It is oxymoronic in a sense. They were alive physically but dead spiritually. But this does not mean that there was no activity on the spiritual plain. Paul writes:

Ephesians 2:2-3 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

In their prior unregenerate state, they "walked" in concert with Satan ("prince of the power of the air"). They were, along with the apostles previous estate, "children of wrath." So it would be more accurate to say that their state of spiritual death was to the things of God. They were active spiritually in a state of impending judgment and wrath. In 1 Corinthians, Paul sheds some light as to why the unregenerate are dead to the things of God:

1 Corinthians 2:14 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

I have had people say to me that spiritually dead person of Eph. 2:1 is really not completely dead to the things of God, rather the term death exenuates the gravity of their situation. Within them remains a "divine spark" that can reach towards God. The problem I have with that view is that is not biblical. Scripture doesn't support it and a proper exegesis of the text proves it to be a false assumption. Yet we see in 1 Cor. 2:14 an amplification of the dead (natural man) mans situation. The person who is separated from Christ not only does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, he is not able to. In other words, the spiritually dead person could not give assent to God if he wanted to. The text clearly bears this out.

In summary, the scripture teaches in plain language that unregnerate man is spiritually dead to the things of God. Scripture plainly teaches that the unregenerate (natural) man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. No where in scripture is it plainly stated or even alluded to, that dead does not mean completely dead (spiritually towards God).

Before I continue with where I am going with this, I would be interested in hearing from those who do not agree with my exegesis.

 

Allan wrote:

Allan, I have a difficulty with your answer on two fronts. 1. You are introducing a "what if" that is not found in the text. 1 Cor. 2:14 says that the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. The passage does not offer a remedy. We know there is a remedy, but is not explained in this passage. 2. If the Spirit of God reveals something to the spiritually dead person, how can they receive it being spiritually dead? We would be forced into one of two conclusions: A) The spiritually dead person isn't really dead, they are just in a bad way. B) God must supernaturally change their condition (from death to life) in order for them to appropriate and understand whatever it is the Spirit reveals to them.

Allan wrote:

I hold to the position that it was written in plain language. Paul does not talk in a mystery when he wrote, "the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:14), or "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), or "And you were dead in your trespasses and sin" (Ephesians 2:1). Most Baptists hold to a plain normative hermeneutic. The rules they use to hold to that hermeneutic are usually rock solid until they come across Ephesians 2 or Romans 9. I have debated some well educated Baptists and have posed these questions. I remember one honest reponse that I will never forget. "Bill, I can't concede your point because it will cause my belief in the free will of man to crumble." I was floored. Here was an honest answer, but a sad one. But I digress. Allan, I think Paul wrote plainly.

The presence or absence of debate (on any topic) is not a position in itself. Because the diety of Christ has been a raging debate since the 1st century, are we prepared to say it is an unsettled doctrine? The same thing with the Trinity or the subsitutionary atonement. Because these bedrock doctrines of the faith are debated, are they less settled in Baptist circles? Allan, the truth be known Baptists never debated Calvinism until the mid-19th century. From the 16th century until Darby came on the scene, Baptists were generally Calvinistic. Even many of todays Arminian Baptists will admitt that.

True. I have not cited all the Greek nor wirtten a technical paper, but I have provided my position on Eph. 2:1. That will have to suffice for now.

 

I didn't leave it off because I never considered it part of the equation. Paul wrote:

The key word here is "consider." Paul wanted his audience to consider[\i] themselves dead to sin or, approach sin as if you were dead to it. It is not the same thing as Ephesians 2:1. In Ephesians 2:1 Paul is not telling the Ephesians that they were to consider their past unregenerate life as dead in sin, their past unregenerate life was being dead in sin. There is a big difference.

Summary? Romans 6:11 is not a state of being. Eph. 2:1 is.

 

Exactly. This is Paul's point in Ephesians 2:4-7.

Ephesians 2:4-7 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Even while were still unregenerate and spiritually dead, God made us alive together with Christ. The unregenerate cannot and would not respond to God's hand of mercy save God transfers the individual from death to life. There doesn't seem to be any wiggle room here for the Arminian. In order to poke holes in Paul's theology, the Arminian must first re-define what spiritual death is. If spiritual death means spiritual inability (towards God), then there is no debate on Ephesians 2:4-7. My premise is that the proper understanding of spiritual death in Ephesians 2:1 is a cornerstone to the Calvinist/Arminian debate.

 

I'm more happy to deal with the two passages you quoted.

Joshua 24:19-22 19 Then Joshua said to the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins. 20 "If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you harm and consume you after He has done good to you." 21 And the people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD." 22 And Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen for yourselves the LORD, to serve Him." And they said, "We are witnesses."

First, this is not a proof-text for free will. It is a proof-text for the Joshua warning Israel that, even though they would swear to do so, they would not be able to follow the LORD their God. Calvinists do not deny that individuals make decisions. We all make decisions. We all make choices. We all exercise our will and we do so freely. The question is, do we make our choices independent of a sovereign God? Does God simply know what we will choose or does He predestine what we will choose? I believe it is both. He knows and predestines. But as we view the world in the micro we see only our choices. That is what Joshua was facing with Israel. Joshua knew, because of Israels past failures, that they would reject following the LORD. To make this passage a proof-text for free will is disengenuous.

Deuteronomy 30:19 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

The same thing as the previous passage. Moses was addressing Israel. He presented them with God's covenant of blessing (if they followed the LORD's command) and cursing (if they disobeyed). It is not a good theological passage to use to support free will. The fact that Moses commands them to choose life presents no problem for the Calvinist. Calvinists believe in making choices. We simply understand that our choices are subordinant to the sovereignty of God.

There is nothing man can do to surprise God.

 

Smallish? Smallish?! Have you read the works of the Puritans and the early Reformers? Have you read Spurgeon? Have you read MacArthur? Have you read Piper? Have you read Sproul? True Calvinists hold God in awe. We understand that He is the only wise God. He is the creator of heaven and earth. He is the judge who each man must give account to.

I hate to quote Darth Vader on conflict, but I will. "There is no conflict!" God, as creator, has full and final say over His creation. We are finitie creatures. We do not know the mind of God. The only conflict I know of are my sinful desires waring against the Spirit. Praise God that one day they will be brought into subjection to Christ.

Of course God works through our free choices, because God ordained them. We use the word free in an anthropomorphic sense. I know this is an analogy, and analogies fail. It is like a horse that is corral. The horse can run anywhere on the corral he desires. But the corral has boundaries. The horse is free within the space he occupies, but cannot go beyond it. But in all actuality the master of the horse has determined where the horse can go and where it can't. The analogy breaks down because God not only has provided the boundaries, He has also determined when, where and how the horse will travel within those boundaries. Of course the horse doesn't know any better. He things (just like we do) that we choose to go here or choose to go there, not realizing that our very steps are ordered by the Lord.

Again, man does make choices. You make them and I make them. But our choices are subordinant to the sovereign will of God. Some will say that God looks down the corridor of time and chooses for us what we would have chosen. I find that amusing because the text never supports that view. It is rationalization.

Amen to that! That is what I am going on about. It is my contention that the Arminian/Free Will position does just that. It uses a sense of fairplay and equity to support its position. When it does use scripture it takes any verse that has the word choose, choice or free will and says, "There! Proof!" But that is no proof at all. It actually displays an ignorance of the scripture. I not accusing you of that because I do not know you well enough. That comment was made in general.

See my earlier comments.

Actually, prior to John Darby "this" view was considered heresy by every church council and synod that dicussed it. The synod of Dort was the most eloquent in refuting Arminiansim.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/synod_of_dort.html

 

I agree...time to disengage, but your statements have been refuted...in this thread and through the centuries.

fini