# Denying Total Depravity: Man is NOT dead in sin



## CDM (Apr 3, 2006)

The following short letter was a denial of man being dead in sin. The author used Greek and logic to refute this doctrine.

_Extreme Calvinists are forced into such straining of the text of Scripture by a logical belief that "œdead" means a "œcorpse, totally inert and passive, unable to respond." Certainly, in Scripture, the word for dead here sometimes means "œa corpse." But the real question is, "œDoes Paul uses the word that way when discussing our theological position before God?" The answer is, "œNo."

Consider Romans 6:1-14. Paul repeatedly says that believers are "œdead" to sin. Yet believers are certainly able to RESPOND to sin. If one wants to embrace extreme Calvinism and assumes that, since unbelievers are dead to God they cannot respond to God, then one should be logically consistent and say that, since believers are dead to sin they cannot respond to sin. If a believer, though dead to sin, can RESPOND to sin, then an unbeliever, though dead to God, can respond to God. 

To go just a little farther, consider Romans 7:8 or 8:10. In 7:8, Paul says that, without the law, sin was "œdead." Yet we know that sin was not "œinert, passive, a corpse, unable to respond" apart from the law, for Paul says in Romans 5 that sin was active and working in the world long before the law came.

Likewise, in Romans 8:10, Paul says that, if you are in Christ, your body is "œdead" because of sin. But the body is not "œinert, passive, a corpse." On the contrary, the body is quite able to respond to the "œcall" of sin.

So then, in Paul´s writings, "œdead" does not mean "œunable to respond, inert, a corpse" when it is used in a theological sense discussing a person´s position before God or a believer´s sensitivity to sin. If the believer, though "œdead" to sin, can respond to sin, then an unbeliever, though "œdead" to God, can respond to God._

What I noticed first was the author confuses "dead IN sin" and "dead TO sin". 
Monergism dot com has a good article referencing this here.

How would you in layman terms explain this error? You could explain it like the monergism article did but this author takes a unique position in evangelicalism today. He denies he´s an Arminian and denies he´s a Calvinist. When pressed, he will say God has the final "œsay" in who is going to be saved. But, it is hard to pin him down to take a position. He says he "œused to be a Calvinist" but I can´t see how that is possible with all the misrepresentations of the doctrines of grace. 

Suggestions?


----------



## Herald (Apr 3, 2006)

Chris,

How to respond? Remain consistent to solid biblical teaching. The author of the article you posted is guilty of eisegesis. His anti-Calvinist chip on his shoulder is obvious. I found it interesting that he never commented on Ephesians 2:1 or 1 Corinthians 2:14. Why? Because both passages would contradict his position.

[Edited on 4-3-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 3, 2006)

Chris,

It would help if the person knew what he was arguing against. Nobody argues that the idea of spiritual deadness implies that the spiritually dead are inert or passive in the sense that they cannot act in any way whatsoever. 

The Scriptures use many metaphors to describe fallen man's condition: death, darkness, slavery, enmity, etc.... In all cases, all analogies, inability toward God is expressed. The issue is not ability to act for the fallen act as dead, they act as in the dark, they act as slaves, and they act as enemies of God. Sin is constituent to their very nature. One has to do a better job of trying to overthrow a single analogy with logic. One has to show that sin does not radically pollute man's nature. His argument does nothing of the sort. He doesn't even admit a difference in nature between being born again and dead in sin in arguing that Christians are dead to sin in the same way that Pagans are dead in sin.

He needs to show how the Scriptures support his idea that man is only mostly dead, mostly dark, mostly slave, or only mostly an enemy. He cannot merely state that even though we hate God we have the power, within ourselves, to change our natures and love Him.

[Edited on 4-4-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## 4ndr3w (Apr 3, 2006)

Chris,

Take the time to carefully exegete those passages for yourself, then give your exegesis (lovingly) in response. Point out and press him to deal with his own inconsistencies. He who lives by the sword...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 3, 2006)

All the gentleman shows is that "there's no wooden way to interpret the language of Scripture." We need to know how "dead" is being used in each and every passage. And in order to do that, we need to understand what the basic sense of "dead" is.

The basic meaning of "dead" is lifeless. So if the sinner is "dead in sin" _what does that mean with respect to his ability to respond to God?_ What does it mean that an unregenerate person "cannot come" to God, or "cannot hear" the gospel? Just pointing out that the living Christian has "died to sin" yet still sins, ignores the fact that Scripture describes the believer as one who has been "quickened" or made alive, and that only a living one can "reckon" himself dead indeed to sin (Rom. 6:11).

As for 7:8, the fact is that sin is _dead,_ lifeless, apart from law. Paul could scarcely be any clearer. But maybe 4:15 is clearer: "where there is no law, there is no transgression." Yes, Rom. 5 says that death was active (because of sin, even Original Sin) before _Moses promulgated the LAW from Sinai,_ but back in Rom 2:14-15, we have already been reminded that men have the work of the law written on their hearts, and so are guilty of breaking God's law _when their own man-made standards correspond to God's own law._ None of this changes the fact that the law "activates" sin to rebellion, and that without a law to rebel against, sin in powerless! You can't rebel!

As for 8:10, the writer is really off base, because death still reigns over the body, and will do so until Christ returns, and the resurrection. How does he deal with Genesis "In *the day* you eat of it, you shall surely die." Or has he read 1 Cor. 15? Can the body (anyone's body) do anything if the spirit within it is dead (i.e., if you are a corpse)? Nope. And Paul is saying in 8:10 that the believer is NOT the same dead person _spiritually_ he once was, _although_ his physical body is still the same.


I don't think this fellow was ever a "calvinist" in any true sense. He certainly sounds a whole lot like a "me-and-my-Bible" type fellow. I doubt whether he has ever sat far any time under careful, Biblical exposition. Which is a pity. He is quite set in his own interpretive method, which is not an accurate one, I'm sorry to say.


----------



## CDM (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> All the gentleman shows is that "there's no wooden way to interpret the language of Scripture." We need to know how "dead" is being used in each and every passage. And in order to do that, we need to understand what the basic sense of "dead" is.
> 
> The basic meaning of "dead" is lifeless. So if the sinner is "dead in sin" _what does that mean with respect to his ability to respond to God?_ What does it mean that an unregenerate person "cannot come" to God, or "cannot hear" the gospel? Just pointing out that the living Christian has "died to sin" yet still sins, ignores the fact that Scripture describes the believer as one who has been "quickened" or made alive, and that only a living one can "reckon" himself dead indeed to sin (Rom. 6:11).
> ...



Good post. Thank you. FYI he is a pastor.

Considering his view of Calvinism he goes onto say that Calvinists have it wrong that regeneration preceedes faith. And of all passages he goes to Ephesians 1:13,

_In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,_

He says, "If regeneration preceeds faith, it was awful clumsy language the Holy Spirit used." It appears he sees this verse as a refutation.

I have to admit, I have never seen someone go to Ephesians to REFUTE the Doctrines of Grace. It is beyond me how he sees this as Paul teaching ordo salutis (as he sees it).

Have anyone of you heard this line of argumentation before? Specifically the reference to Ephesians 1:13?


----------



## srhoades (Apr 7, 2006)

Ephesians 1:13 is a red herring since it really doesn't say anything about mans ability to respond, only the said consequences of believing. The question still remains, can a man hear without first being regenerated? Throwing a verse like Ephesians 1:13 into the mix just nothing but cloud the issue and just shows he is guilty of eisegesis, which Bill already pointed out.

Remind him that sound hermenutics demand that we interpret the implicit by the explicit. What he may think is being implied by said Ephesians verse, is explicity stated as the opposite elswhere.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 7, 2006)

I'll just add that he's confusing Paul's own statements here with language he uses elsewhere. "Sealed with the HS" is not the work of God in regeneration. To seal is to mark with ownership, and to guarantee. The Spirit's work in applying the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ to his elect is extremely full and involved.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 19, 2006)

I noticed the same inconsistency you did - confusing "dead in" with "dead to." I also observed that he's scrambling illustrations. He is attempting to demonstrate that "dead" can't mean a certain thing in a certan passage by claiming that it must mean the same thing across the board, but it's used differently in each illustration. For example, when Paul talks about us being slaves to sin, he uses death as the thing that sets us free from this slavery. This is obviously not the same thing as being dead *in* the sin from which we're set free!

There are two things I think will help the Church combat errors like this (which unfortunately *is* quite persuasive).

1) Teach the whole counsel of God. It's much harder for someone to buy into a lousy idea based on proof-texting if he has a good understanding of what the Scripture says, overall.

2) Teach logic - at *least* informal logic. I am constantly amazed at how incapable Americans are of *thinking*. And I am convinced that, academically speaking, the most important thing we can teach our children after teaching them to read (so they can read the Bible) is logic - so they can combat error.


----------

