Is EVEN The Faith To Believe A Gift From/Of God?

[The Archangel]

You have a problem not only here but also in Eph.2:1. Death must be taken figuratively, even in that verse, to mean separation as it is consistently used throughout the Bible. It is the Fall that so aptly demonstrates this.

"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Adam did eat (in rebellion against God).
Adam died (spiritually), and 930 years later, physically.
Did Adam become a corpse? Was he lifeless--either physically or spiritually?
What followed?
After Adam and Eve made clothes of fig leaves, God came and searched them out. He called for them. "Adam where art thou?"

But you say that a dead man cannot answer God.
However Adam did answer God.
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. (Genesis 3:10)
--A lifeless corpse (according to Calvinism) responding to God, saying, "I heard thy voice in the garden and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.

But Adam is dead. Adam had sinned. God said he was dead. God said that in the day he would eat he would die. And he did. So how is this possible?
From verse 10-19 the conversation carries on between this dead man and God. Calvinism says this is impossible, but here it is recorded in God's Word.

How is it possible? Have a right understanding of the word "death." Death is separation. Adam was separated from God. That is death. And God was doing everything in his power to reconcile Adam and Eve back to him. Finally he kills an animal:
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (Genesis 3:21)
--Blood is shed.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
The sacrifice is made on their behalf that their sins might be forgiven, God himself sacrificing the first animal. Fellowship is restored. Back in verse 15 we have the first promise of a Messiah to come.
Death is separation.

You are not fighting a battle against Calvinism. You are fighting a battle against the lexicon.

In essence, what some others have stated is correct: You are confusing the definition of "death" and the effects of death.

Furthermore, you do what most anti-DoG people do--you go away from the text when trying to make hyperbolic examples of the same text.

Adam did, in fact, die when he fell. Of course the text says that God talked to Adam and Adam talked to God. But, the text shows the effect of the Fall--Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden (to the east, mind you, which in Genesis--going east--always demonstrates a removal from God's presence) and an angel with a flaming sword is placed at the entrance to the Garden to bar any return.

What is more, Paul clearly states that death through sin entered the world when Adam sinned. Therefore, we know, that Adam died. But, we also know it was not a physical death, at least not yet.

Sin brings death--yet we all are sinners and are still in some measure alive. So, physical death is a result of sin and physical death is progressive. But, the so-called "spiritual death" was instantaneous (as illustrated by the banishment to the east) and that spiritual death has become the inheritance of all who are "in Adam," which is every one of us.

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

My continually-asked and continually-unanswered question is "How can a heart that desires only evil continually desire God?" The only reasonable answer is that God must perform a work in that heart (regeneration) which acts to draw that person to Himself.

This is a powerful question.The answer has not changed much since the time of Jeremiah;
23Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

The clear answer is regeneration.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

You are not fighting a battle against Calvinism. You are fighting a battle against the lexicon.

In essence, what some others have stated is correct: You are confusing the definition of "death" and the effects of death.

Furthermore, you do what most anti-DoG people do--you go away from the text when trying to make hyperbolic examples of the same text.

Adam did, in fact, die when he fell. Of course the text says that God talked to Adam and Adam talked to God. But, the text shows the effect of the Fall--Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden (to the east, mind you, which in Genesis--going east--always demonstrates a removal from God's presence) and an angel with a flaming sword is placed at the entrance to the Garden to bar any return.

What is more, Paul clearly states that death through sin entered the world when Adam sinned. Therefore, we know, that Adam died. But, we also know it was not a physical death, at least not yet.

Sin brings death--yet we all are sinners and are still in some measure alive. So, physical death is a result of sin and physical death is progressive. But, the so-called "spiritual death" was instantaneous (as illustrated by the banishment to the east) and that spiritual death has become the inheritance of all who are "in Adam," which is every one of us.

The Archangel

Yes! Amen! :thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

This is a powerful question.The answer has not changed much since the time of Jeremiah;
23Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

The clear answer is regeneration.:thumbs::thumbs:

True. This is the only way. It is not by choice, or any other means, it is only by the Spirit, is not by the will of man, nor via any performance whatsoever, including ones alleged "faith."

Deutoronomy 30:6: "Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live."

We cannot do this on our own power, nor by choice.

Zec 4:6: Then he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.

It must come from God alone. Without Him we can do nothing.

 

[JesusFan]

You are not fighting a battle against Calvinism. You are fighting a battle against the lexicon.

In essence, what some others have stated is correct: You are confusing the definition of "death" and the effects of death.

Furthermore, you do what most anti-DoG people do--you go away from the text when trying to make hyperbolic examples of the same text.

Adam did, in fact, die when he fell. Of course the text says that God talked to Adam and Adam talked to God. But, the text shows the effect of the Fall--Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden (to the east, mind you, which in Genesis--going east--always demonstrates a removal from God's presence) and an angel with a flaming sword is placed at the entrance to the Garden to bar any return.

What is more, Paul clearly states that death through sin entered the world when Adam sinned. Therefore, we know, that Adam died. But, we also know it was not a physical death, at least not yet.

Sin brings death--yet we all are sinners and are still in some measure alive. So, physical death is a result of sin and physical death is progressive. But, the so-called "spiritual death" was instantaneous (as illustrated by the banishment to the east) and that spiritual death has become the inheritance of all who are "in Adam," which is every one of us.

The Archangel

Think that DKK and other NoN cals here would profit from actually reading what those of us who hold to the DoG actually believe in...

So the combination of misunderstand both what the Bible means and what we mean would cause them to have a hard time seeing the DoG clearling in the Bible!

 

[DHK]

You are not fighting a battle against Calvinism. You are fighting a battle against the lexicon.

In essence, what some others have stated is correct: You are confusing the definition of "death" and the effects of death.

Furthermore, you do what most anti-DoG people do--you go away from the text when trying to make hyperbolic examples of the same text.

I am certainly glad this is in a Baptist forum.
It saddens me to say that I have to use the same argument; the same logic; the same Scripture with you that I do when debating a SDA who believes in the annihilation of the wicked. He doesn't believe that there will be "life after death" for the wicked.
Let's look at that concept for a minute:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
--God is able to destroy the wicked in hell (and will). He says the word "destroy" means "to annihilate." He uses the same basic argument that you do but in a different way. He uses death as lifelessness. You won't feel anything in Hell. You will be annihilated. God will burn your soul and spirit up.
--Now wait. Who is in the Lake of Fire? Those that have never been saved; those who have rebelled against Jesus Christ and outwardly rejected him!
Those that are dead! But Jesus said they will be tormented in those flames. They will feel pain. They will be delusional like the rich man: "Send Lazarus that he may dip his finger in water and cool my tongue." These souls/spirits will indeed be alive (not corpses/lifeless), but dead, as in separated from God for all eternity. Death is separation and they will be experiencing The Second Death. Separation from God for all eternity. There is no lifelessness here.

On the other side of salvation it is the same way. There is no lifelessness there, only the stark separation from God that sin has caused. The soul/spirit needs to be reconciled to God. There is life there, even as Adam talked with God. But there needs to be reconciliation. If there was complete lifelessness on this side of salvation then it would only be logical and just for there to be complete lifelessness on the other side of the rejection of salvation, and the SDA's would be right. You can't have it both ways. Death is separation from God. It is separation from God before salvation as it is after salvation, or more specifically the opportunity for salvation.

Adam did, in fact, die when he fell. Of course the text says that God talked to Adam and Adam talked to God. But, the text shows the effect of the Fall--Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden (to the east, mind you, which in Genesis--going east--always demonstrates a removal from God's presence) and an angel with a flaming sword is placed at the entrance to the Garden to bar any return.

And Romans 8 also tells us the effect of the fall. The whole world groans and travails until now. We also wait for the redemption of our bodies. Not only we but the entire creation is awaiting the Coming of Christ, when he will restore this world and take away the curse. There is a powerful argument in those verses for the sin nature of man. We are under a curse. It is that curse that has separated us from God. Only Christ can reconcile us back to him.

What is more, Paul clearly states that death through sin entered the world when Adam sinned. Therefore, we know, that Adam died. But, we also know it was not a physical death, at least not yet.

Quite true, and thus the ability of Adam to commune with God.

Sin brings death--yet we all are sinners and are still in some measure alive. So, physical death is a result of sin and physical death is progressive. But, the so-called "spiritual death" was instantaneous (as illustrated by the banishment to the east) and that spiritual death has become the inheritance of all who are "in Adam," which is every one of us.

The "banishment to the east" is completely metaphorical and is read into the passage by you. I have never heard that before. That has nothing to do with the exegesis of the text.
Go back to the SDA argument for a minute.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
--What is your answer to this verse?
If God is able to destroy the soul, what does that mean? It is a stronger word than "dead," so one would think. But what does it mean?
It simply means "to render inoperable."
Take that a step farther.
If God has rendered the soul inoperable, does that absolutely mean that it has no life or no ability to respond to anything spiritual at all. No it doesn't. The SDA is deceived on the meaning of this word and builds a false theology around a wrong definition. I believe others are headed in the same direction. (that is being prone to error because they stick to a wrong definition)

 

[The Archangel]

I am certainly glad this is in a Baptist forum.
It saddens me to say that I have to use the same argument; the same logic; the same Scripture with you that I do when debating a SDA who believes in the annihilation of the wicked. He doesn't believe that there will be "life after death" for the wicked.
Let's look at that concept for a minute:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
--God is able to destroy the wicked in hell (and will). He says the word "destroy" means "to annihilate." He uses the same basic argument that you do but in a different way. He uses death as lifelessness. You won't feel anything in Hell. You will be annihilated. God will burn your soul and spirit up.
--Now wait. Who is in the Lake of Fire? Those that have never been saved; those who have rebelled against Jesus Christ and outwardly rejected him!
Those that are dead! But Jesus said they will be tormented in those flames. They will feel pain. They will be delusional like the rich man: "Send Lazarus that he may dip his finger in water and cool my tongue." These souls/spirits will indeed be alive (not corpses/lifeless), but dead, as in separated from God for all eternity. Death is separation and they will be experiencing The Second Death. Separation from God for all eternity. There is no lifelessness here.

On the other side of salvation it is the same way. There is no lifelessness there, only the stark separation from God that sin has caused. The soul/spirit needs to be reconciled to God. There is life there, even as Adam talked with God. But there needs to be reconciliation. If there was complete lifelessness on this side of salvation then it would only be logical and just for there to be complete lifelessness on the other side of the rejection of salvation, and the SDA's would be right. You can't have it both ways. Death is separation from God. It is separation from God before salvation as it is after salvation, or more specifically the opportunity for salvation.

This simply is not the case. The SDA fellow, such as yourself, is adding a meaning to a word that simply isn't there.

He is arguing his "annihilationism" from a wrong understanding of a word based on pushing the definition outside the scope and view of the lexical term--just as you are doing with "death."

So, and I'm sorry that you can't see this, you are doing what your friend is doing and arguing against the lexicon.

The "banishment to the east" is completely metaphorical and is read into the passage by you. I have never heard that before. That has nothing to do with the exegesis of the text.
Go back to the SDA argument for a minute.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
--What is your answer to this verse?
If God is able to destroy the soul, what does that mean? It is a stronger word than "dead," so one would think. But what does it mean?
It simply means "to render inoperable."
Take that a step farther.
If God has rendered the soul inoperable, does that absolutely mean that it has no life or no ability to respond to anything spiritual at all. No it doesn't. The SDA is deceived on the meaning of this word and builds a false theology around a wrong definition. I believe others are headed in the same direction. (that is being prone to error because they stick to a wrong definition)

Your inclusion of facts-not-in-evidence is a perpetual frustration for me. By the introduction of these other side-arguments and rabbit trails, you are trying to take me from the root issue--the definition of νεκρός.

Furthermore, the banishment to the east is most certainly NOT metaphorical. Perhaps you are thinking of the wrong word. Saying it to be metaphorical is to say that it didn't actually happen and is just a "story." I don't think that is what you mean. I think you are intending to say that this is an illustration. Even so, as an illustration, the banishment to the east is very telling. Where do Adam and Eve go after the Garden? East. Where is Isaac forbidden by Abraham to go and look for a wife? East. Where does Jacob flee after swindling his brother Esau? East. In Genesis, fleeing the presence of God (or being out of the presence of God) is tantamount to being or going "east." And, I might add, seeing this in the text (especially when it is a recurrent theme) is the very nature of exegesis.

But...I digress.

Again, what you have to prove is that νεκρός does not mean dead. You have said you want it to mean separation. The word doesn't mean that. Your argument, again, is with the lexicon. No matter how you push or how you pull, νεκρός is not going to mean what you want it to mean. It will mean what it means.

The Archangel

 

[JesusFan]

This simply is not the case. The SDA fellow, such as yourself, is adding a meaning to a word that simply isn't there.

He is arguing his "annihilationism" from a wrong understanding of a word based on pushing the definition outside the scope and view of the lexical term--just as you are doing with "death."

So, and I'm sorry that you can't see this, you are doing what your friend is doing and arguing against the lexicon.



Your inclusion of facts-not-in-evidence is a perpetual frustration for me. By the introduction of these other side-arguments and rabbit trails, you are trying to take me from the root issue--the definition of νεκρός.

Furthermore, the banishment to the east is most certainly NOT metaphorical. Perhaps you are thinking of the wrong word. Saying it to be metaphorical is to say that it didn't actually happen and is just a "story." I don't think that is what you mean. I think you are intending to say that this is an illustration. Even so, as an illustration, the banishment to the east is very telling. Where do Adam and Eve go after the Garden? East. Where is Isaac forbidden by Abraham to go and look for a wife? East. Where does Jacob flee after swindling his brother Esau? East. In Genesis, fleeing the presence of God (or being out of the presence of God) is tantamount to being or going "east." And, I might add, seeing this in the text (especially when it is a recurrent theme) is the very nature of exegesis.

But...I digress.

Again, what you have to prove is that νεκρός does not mean dead. You have said you want it to mean separation. The word doesn't mean that. Your argument, again, is with the lexicon. No matter how you push or how you pull, νεκρός is not going to mean what you want it to mean. It will mean what it means.

The Archangel

Since the lexicon and context would be the Final judge in this issue...

is There ANY reputable lexicon that would translate Death the way that DHK reads it into the text as meaning?

 

[DHK]

Again, what you have to prove is that νεκρός does not mean dead. You have said you want it to mean separation. The word doesn't mean that. Your argument, again, is with the lexicon. No matter how you push or how you pull, νεκρός is not going to mean what you want it to mean. It will mean what it means.

The Archangel

First, Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection.
Second, no one else has risen from the dead.
Therefore a literal interpretation does injustice to the text, if that is the word used in Eph.2:1. Are we to assume they were all dead corpses lying around before they were saved? That is the literal meaning of nekros. It has to do with the flesh, not the spirit.

"necrotizing fasciitis" infection, or commonly called the "flesh-eating disease." Necros has to do with the flesh, not the spirit. You argument is completely moot. It has no more validity than mine.

 

[JesusFan]

First, Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection.
Second, no one else has risen from the dead.
Therefore a literal interpretation does injustice to the text, if that is the word used in Eph.2:1. Are we to assume they were all dead corpses lying around before they were saved? That is the literal meaning of nekros. It has to do with the flesh, not the spirit.

"necrotizing fasciitis" infection, or commonly called the "flesh-eating disease." Necros has to do with the flesh, not the spirit. You argument is completely moot. It has no more validity than mine.

try again for an answer!

Since the lexicon and context would be the Final judge in this issue...

is There ANY reputable lexicon that would translate Death the way that you read it into the text as meaning?

 

[The Archangel]

First, Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection.
Second, no one else has risen from the dead.
Therefore a literal interpretation does injustice to the text, if that is the word used in Eph.2:1. Are we to assume they were all dead corpses lying around before they were saved? That is the literal meaning of nekros. It has to do with the flesh, not the spirit.

"necrotizing fasciitis" infection, or commonly called the "flesh-eating disease." Necros has to do with the flesh, not the spirit. You argument is completely moot. It has no more validity than mine.

Again, you're demonstrating an unwillingness to engage the lexical definition. Is a figurative use in the semantic domain of the word? Sure. Does the word always have the figurative meaning? Of course not. No matter if the word is used figuratively or literally the root meaning is still the same--Dead.

See here what Louw and Nida have to say:

74.28 νεκρόςc, ά, όν: pertaining to being unable to respond to any impulse or to perform some function—‘unable, ineffective, dead, powerless.’ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ ‘we who were dead because of our sins, (God) brought to life through Christ’ Eph 2:5. Since the reference in Eph 2:5 (see also Eph 2:1) is to matters relating to God, one may translate ‘we who were unable to respond to matters relating to God because of our sins …’ or ‘we who were spiritually dead …’

Source: Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996).
​

The use of the word in Ephesians 2:1 is talking about a spiritual inability. The Louw and Nida Lexicon is considered one of the best, if not the best, Lexicon in the entire use and study of Koine Greek. They are, pretty much, experts.

So, again, the issue is with the Lexicon.

The Archangel

 

[preacher4truth]

First, Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection.
Second, no one else has risen from the dead.
Therefore a literal interpretation does injustice to the text, if that is the word used in Eph.2:1. Are we to assume they were all dead corpses lying around before they were saved? That is the literal meaning of nekros. It has to do with the flesh, not the spirit.

"necrotizing fasciitis" infection, or commonly called the "flesh-eating disease." Necros has to do with the flesh, not the spirit. You argument is completely moot. It has no more validity than mine.

Nothing in Spiritually dead means "lying around."

Your secular definition of fruit means nothing. It's a misnomer and a poor example.

You're struggling the text and meaning to fit your errant premise.

 

[DHK]

The use of the word in Ephesians 2:1 is talking about a spiritual inability. The Louw and Nida Lexicon is considered one of the best, if not the best, Lexicon in the entire use and study of Koine Greek. They are, pretty much, experts.

So, again, the issue is with the Lexicon.

The Archangel

I agree. It is "spiritual inability." They are unable to be spiritually alive with God because they are spiritually separated from God by their sin. They are unable to have spiritual life, not because of "lifelessness" but because their lives are separated from God by sin.
Sin separates one from God. Christ reconciles one to God.

 

[The Archangel]

I agree. It is "spiritual inability." They are unable to be spiritually alive with God because they are spiritually separated from God by their sin. They are unable to have spiritual life, not because of "lifelessness" but because their lives are separated from God by sin.
Sin separates one from God. Christ reconciles one to God.

This statement is nothing more than an elaborate and thinly-veiled ruse.

So, now we agree with the Calvinist position that "Dead" as described in Ephesians 2:1 is, in fact, spiritual inability. There is lack of spiritual life. They are separated from God.

The problem, though, is that what your words are suggesting (and, to be fair, you may not be meaning as such) is this: We are alive at some point and then when we sin we are separated. This is false.

The use of the adjective "Dead" in Ephesians 2:1 is a state of being. The use of "trespasses" and "sins" suggests that what we do and who we are (descendants of Adam) are what cause us to be dead. (See: Peter T. O'Brien--The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letter To The Ephesians).

So, death is a state of being and this is confirmed by Paul's letter to the Colossians, 2:13, to be exact, when he talks about both trespasses and uncircumcision of their flesh. The uncircumcision of the flesh is Paul's way of saying that they were, by nature, dead. This, of course, is confirmed in Ephesians 2:3 when he writes that we (and the rest of mankind) are by nature children of wrath.

So, it is, again, a state of being that we are born into.

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

So, it is, again, a state of being that we are born into.

The Archangel

I believe we have a sin nature inherited by Adam, at the time of birth.
We also have body, soul, and spirit made in the image of God, howbeit that image marred in the Fall.
Now, if that soul/spirit be dead, as per your definition, what is the condition of that soul/spirit during eternity for the unsaved? How does it differ?

 

[The Archangel]

I believe we have a sin nature inherited by Adam, at the time of birth.

Did you mean to say "inherited from Adam?" If so, I'll agree we are born sinners with a sin nature and that is why we sin.

We also have body, soul, and spirit made in the image of God, howbeit that image marred in the Fall.

Did you mean to say "albeit that image marred in the fall?"

Also, your statement of "we...have body, soul, and spirit made in the image of God..." do you mean to say our body is made in the image of God, our soul is made in the image of God, and our spirit is made in the image of God? I doubt that's what you're saying. I think you mean to say our spirit is made in the image of God. Am I correct?

But, I am a dichotomist, not a trichotomist. I think the scripture strongly supports the dichotomist position. But, I'll agree that the "spirit" or "soul" (of course denying a difference between soul and spirit) is marred by the fall--and totally and radically so.

Now, if that soul/spirit be dead, as per your definition, what is the condition of that soul/spirit during eternity for the unsaved? How does it differ?

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand--as to whether faith is a gift or not; as to whether νεκρός means dead.

The Archangel

 

[InTheLight]

Is EVEN The Faith To Believe A Gift From/Of God?

As per Ephesians 2:8/9?

No. Grace and salvation are the gift.

 

[DHK]

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand--as to whether faith is a gift or not; as to whether νεκρός means dead.

The Archangel

Now, if that soul/spirit be dead, as per your definition, what is the condition of that soul/spirit during eternity for the unsaved? How does it differ?

It is very relevant. And the fact that you want to avoid the question is very telling.

 

[JesusFan]

To Archangel!



Since the Bible states that ALL of us are spiritually dead as a result of the fall, and that we are NOTa ble to 'freely' respond to the Gospel, as we are in a state/condition that will not enable that....

HOW can one say that faith would be inherit/residing in us "naturally", as we are unable to respong in and by ourselves?

Think that you have been doing great work in showing to us from the Bible that we are NOT in a position to even be able to 'freely" respond to the Gospel, so that would require the lord to be directly involved in determining that we would become saved...

What is ironic is that the more DHK kept protesting against the clear lexicon/contex of the passages, instead of provoding his case, was directly undermining it!

STILL waiting to see ANY reputable lexicon that would be supporting his way of understand the word Bible chose for death!

 

[JesusFan]

Now, if that soul/spirit be dead, as per your definition, what is the condition of that soul/spirit during eternity for the unsaved? How does it differ?

The spiritually nature of man is born 'dead" in the biblical sense of that term...

Not able to respond to God in a saving fashion, as able to know Giod is real and exists, as per general revelation, but cannot choose to come to God as my saviour unless enabled to by God!

So the saved have their Spirit born again here while on earth, unsaved stay in the 'dark", and when physical death haoppens, saved spiritual natures goes to be with Christ, unsaved spiritual natures go to "holding cell" until final state in lake of Fire!

It is very relevant. And the fact that you want to avoid the question is very telling.

have you found those lexicons that support your understanding of the definition of biblical death yet?