With this lesson, we are only going to be looking at one word in Ephesians 2:1, but the controversy that surrounds this one word and the ideologies that have sprung from it have been a dangerous blight on the face of Christianity for hundreds of years that has served to grossly misrepresent God as the Scriptures clearly reveal Him. While I will seek to do some form of justice to presenting the dissenting sides of this viewpoint, the scope of information that advocates for the various dissenting views is overwhelming to say the least! My goal here is to present a biblical case that argues for a biblical view clearly derived from the Scriptures, which in turn will expose the dissenting views for being shown as reading something into the text rather than abandoning their ideology in favor of the text. We must remember that the Holy Scriptures are inerrant and infallible in their original languages (Psalm 19:7-8; 2 Tim 3:16) and we as believers in Christ are called to study the Word of God in order to show ourselves approved before God, being workmen who need not be ashamed (2 Tim 2:15).
Ephesians 2:1
“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins” begins a ten-verse long sentence (2:1-10). Because of the use of “and” (kai) which begins this chapter, we can understand that Paul has not separated his thought process in order to embark on something new, but instead has made this a continuation of his previous subject matter. While having chapter and verse numbers in our modern-day Bibles has proven to be helpful in finding verses, referencing passages, and Scripture memorization, it sometimes presents a disadvantage in causing our minds to add a separation in the text when the original letter simply flowed forward as it was meant to be read. Many translations of the Bible have also added headings that summarize what the English translators believe to be the main point in a particular passage. These can be helpful, but they can also be very misleading.
Of particular interest to us in this lesson is the word “dead,” and what is meant by “being dead in transgressions and sins.” How does this play out theologically? Is a human being completely incapable to respond to the Gospel message when they hear it, or are they simply unable to do anything to merit (earn) their justification before God, yet they can respond in faith to the Gospel when they hear it? This is a major debate within theological circles and the realms of academia, but it also has great implications for the local church in how we understand the nature and character of God, how we view the work of God in salvation, how we interpret other passages of Scripture, and how we evangelize those who are not saved (the unregenerate). We will begin with an examination of the word for “dead” while examining some of its various uses. We must also speak to the various theological perspectives and their implications, demonstrating how “dead” has been understood and promoted within theological systems. We will then offer both biblical and logical replies so that we have consistency in our understanding of the Scriptures.
Examining the Word “Dead”
The word for “dead” in Ephesians 2:1 is the Greek word nekros. Nekros is a noun that often means “dead person, corpse;” and as an adjective, “dead.” The verb nekroō is used in the active sense as “kill,” and “put to death,” and is used passively as simply “die.” In the LXX (Septuagint) the word nekros is used around 60 times and speaks of one who has died, a corpse, as one who is in a state of death (Gen 23:3-15) or as performing an act in commemoration of those who have passed away, as was the pagan custom (Lev 21:5; Deut 14:1). Verbrugge aides our understanding, stating that “Numbers 19 draws a boundary between the sphere of death and that of life. Those who come directly or indirectly in contact with the dead are unclean, i.e., separated from Yahweh.” Examining Numbers 19, one will notice that in verses 13 and 20 that the ones who do not cleanse themselves are considered as “unclean” and are “cut off” from Israel (v. 13) and the assembly (v. 20). To be dead is to be “unclean,” and to handle the dead is to be “unclean.” Those who do not cleanse themselves are “unclean” to the point of separation until they are cleansed. We also see this type of understanding in Ecclessiates 9:3-4, where it is written:
This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead. For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion.
Solomon’s point is that while one is living, they have certain privileges in the realm of the living. When they die, they are now in a different realm. What is interesting to see is that the idea of being dead does not mean a cessation of being, but of separation from the realm of the living. If the word for “dead” meant cessation, we would conclude that there is no afterlife, and therefore no eternal life. This is an important point in understanding the ideas of dead, death, and being unclean.
With the New Testament, the word nekros is found 129 times, “both as an adjective and as a noun.” We also see that the verb nekroō is found three times: in Romans 4:19, where we find that Abraham’s body was not able to reproduce due to his old age; Colossians 3:5, which finds Paul encouraging the believers in Colossae to “put to death” those things that are earthly about them to which he proceeds to give a list of such sinful behavior which warrants the wrath of God on Earth (Col 3:5b-6) ; and Hebrews 11:12, where Abraham’s reproductive state is again addressed as being “as good as dead.”
We know from our previous chapter in Ephesians that God “raised Him from the dead” (Eph 1:20), speaking of Jesus Christ, who was separated from His fleshly body, but did not cease to exist; otherwise the resurrection would not have been possible. We are also told that Jesus is declared to be “the firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18) which speaks to His privileged position much like the “firstborn” having special rights and a double inheritance in a Jewish family, but it also immediately presupposes that there are more to be “born” from the dead as well (speaking of rapture/resurrection of the saints in Christ). This also holds weight when Paul declares that those believers who had already passed away had “fallen asleep” (1 Thess 4:14, c.f. 4:16), just as Jesus declares “she is not dead, but sleeping” (Luke 8:52- to which we would have to conclude that Jesus did not raise her from the dead if she was literally sleeping). Again, we see that when speaking of being “dead,” the Bible continually reaffirms the idea of separation rather than that of cessation. While the physical body may be lifeless and non-responsive, this does not allow one to take the liberty to automatically conclude that one being spiritually dead is also lifeless and non-responsive. We can, however, understand this to mean that a spiritually dead person is separated from God.
The Scriptures also teach us about the figurative use of “dead.” Looking at Luke 15 and the Prodigal Son, we read the father’s response when he says:
“But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.”
- Luke 15:22–24, emphasis added.
Notice that the understanding of what it was for the son to be “dead” was his time of separation from the father, not that he was lifeless, could not respond, or had ceased to exist. The idea of the son being “dead” is paralleled with the response of the father as being “lost,” just as being “alive again” is paralleled with being “found.” Of course, we can see the son was back within the realm of his father once more, instead of being separated from Him. One could conclude that the idea of being “lost” is meant as being unregenerate (what we often call “not saved”), but this is reading something into the text that the context simply does not support, especially in understanding that the son was a son before he went into the far country (see also Luke 15:1-10).
We can also understand the use of “dead” figuratively in speaking of “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” in James 2:17. Seeing that this is written to believers (1:2, 16, 19; 2:1, 5, 14; 3:1, 12; 4:11; 5:7, 9, 12, 19), it is incompatible with James to understand a “dead faith” as a “non-saving” or insufficient faith to get one to Heaven. The Scriptures know nothing of this concept. What we do see is that when a believer’s faith is by itself (“separated” from good works) it is unprofitable to those within the Body. Faith by itself is a dead faith that has no benefit for fellow believers and is not “being completed” by his works (2:22). However, when faith is “active along with his works” (2:22), we see that it leads to a “justification by works” among men. It is clear that “dead” in this context means “separated from works.” This is something completely different than “justification by faith” as understood in Romans 3:24ff.
In continuing with our word study, we find that the Greek Lexicon BDAG (which has been used throughout this study) gives two designations as to what this word would be pertaining to in the Scriptures. It is important for us to look at each instance for the sake of clarity, seeking to stay true to the Scriptures.
-Pertaining to being in a state of loss of life” - This can be seen in Acts 5:10, where Sapphira falls down dead and in Acts 20:9 where Eutychus falls out of the window while Paul is preaching and is “picked up dead,” of which he is resurrected (Acts 20:10-12). Both of these instances can be understood in their respective contexts as being physical in nature. We also see this when Jesus speaks of Himself in Revelation 1:18 in stating, “I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” Again, we see the instance of physical death, but especially in Jesus’ case, we understand from the Scriptures that He did not cease to be but that He was separated from His physical body (See 1 Peter 3:18-20).
-Pertaining to being so morally or spiritually deficient as to be in effect dead,” - This can be seen in Revelation 3:1 where the church in Sardis is pronounced as having a reputation for being alive, but they were really dead. The figurative sense is obvious. While the other churches in Rev. 2-3 were all assemblies of believers, it would be wrong to single out this church as being unregenerate, especially seeing that the immediate context is concerning their works and not their faith. The church in Sardis was a church of “incomplete works” (Rev 3:2), yet there were some who had not “soiled their garments” (Rev 3:4). In other words, some in the church had separated from what God had laid before them to accomplish (Rev 3:2), while others had not (Rev 3:4). The use of “dead” shows a separation in not completing the works that had been prepared beforehand for this local Body of believers, that they should walk in them (Eph 2:10).
We also see this idea in Romans 6:11 & 13 where Paul commands believers saying, “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” and “do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God,” respectively (emphasis added). Paul is speaking to believers about how they must consider (reckon) themselves. Sin is not to be rampant in the believer’s life because believers have died to it (Rom 6:2) and have been raised from the dead that they might walk in “newness of life” (Rom 6:4). Since believers are “in Christ,” they are to consider themselves as “separated” from sin because they have been put into a new location, which is “newness of life” in Christ Jesus. This same idea is seen in 6:13, where the believer has “been brought from death to life” and because of that fact, they are to present their members for righteous purposes. We were separated from the righteous realm, but now, because of all that Christ has accomplished on the cross of Calvary, believers are no longer separated (dead).
It should be clear from what has been examined that the idea of “dead” or “death” can mean that one may be lifeless in a physical sense, but the more proper understanding for both physical and spiritual use in the Scriptures is that of being separated in some capacity. Charles Ryrie clarifies this, writing:
Death does not mean either extinction or cessation; it always means separation. Physical death is the separation of the immaterial part of man from the material body. It does not mean that the person has become extinct or that he has ceased to be or to function. The unbeliever who dies, for instance, is still conscious and active though apart from his physical, earthly body (Luke 16:19–31). Spiritual death is certainly not extinction or inactivity. Every unsaved person walking the face of the earth today is spiritually dead but is at the same time existing and active. However, he is separated from God, and this is what makes him spiritually dead.
Major Theological Persuasions
In Evangelicalism, there are two major branches of theological thought which contain many different hybrids depending on the issue at hand. As regards soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), both Calvinism and Arminianism stand as the major schools of thought to which many belong or readily identify with. While this work does not permit me to go into the beliefs of each branch, there are worthwhile books that provide accurate representations of each view.
This author does not agree with Calvinism or Arminianism, especially in the matter of what it means to be “dead in transgressions and sins,” which will be defended more thoroughly as we progress. However, to properly defend this view, one must have the opposing viewpoints in order to establish a biblical refutation. We will look first at the Calvinist view of “total depravity” followed by the Arminian view.
“Total Depravity” and “Total Inability”
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in the concept of “total depravity.” However, what each side means by total depravity is something other than what the Bible tell us. In fact, both sides ultimately hold to what is called “total inability.” Before moving forward, we must define the terms “total depravity” and “total inability.” When one speaks of being “totally depraved,” we find a good definition of this understanding by Calvinist theologian J.I. Packer when he writes:
The phrase total depravity is commonly used to make explicit the implications of original sin. It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total not in degree (for no one is as bad as he or she might be) but in extent. It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin, and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God’s eyes. We cannot earn God’s favor, no matter what we do; unless grace saves us, we are lost.
This is a definition that I believe properly represents the spiritual state of every man due to the genetic inheritance and effects of original sin (Gen 3). Without God’s grace, no one would be saved. All of human existence is spiritually bankrupt in bringing anything to the table that God should ever take notice of, or grant favor to, based upon it. It is an indisputable theological fact that the sin of Adam has separated the whole of mankind from a relationship with Almighty God. In fact, it is this “separation” that we can biblically understand as what it means to be “dead,” spiritually speaking.
The Calvinist View
What is troublesome is that Packer goes on to elaborate further on the extent of what he means concerning “total depravity” in the very next paragraph when he writes:
Total depravity entails total inability, that is, the state of not having it in oneself to respond to God and his Word in a sincere and wholehearted way (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7–8). Paul calls this unresponsiveness of the fallen heart a state of death (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13), and the Westminster Confession says: “Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto” (IX. 3).
MacArthur agrees with Packer when he writes:
Unregenerate sinners have no life by which they can respond to spiritual stimuli. No amount of love, beseeching, or spiritual truth can summon a response. People apart from God are the ungrateful dead, spiritual zombies, death-walkers, unable even to understand the gravity of their situation. They are lifeless. They may go through the motions of life, but they do not possess it.
Reformed theologian John Frame unfolds the particular issue in Calvinist thinking:
Some might try to use total inability as an excuse, saying “I won’t believe in Jesus, because I cannot.” But Scripture does not warrant that excuse. Total inability is not physical or psychological. We are physically and mentally able to believe in Christ. The inability is moral, an inability to do the right thing. That is an inability for which we are responsible. It cannot be used as an excuse (emphasis added).
To say that one is totally unable to respond to God in any way, and yet are held morally responsible for what they cannot do, creates a great deal of concern when considering the Scriptures and the repeated calls for human beings to respond to God as they receive further revelation about Him. But is this what the Scriptures teach? Is the fallen human race unresponsive and unable to respond to anything spiritual whatsoever?
In the book of Jonah, we do not have a people that come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but we do have a people who respond to God’s threat that He will destroy Ninevah if the people of this wicked city do not repent (Jonah 1:2; 3:4-10). We also see that Cornelius in the book of Acts was a Gentile soldier who was “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually” (Acts 10:2). Yet we find that he did not become a Christian until Peter was sent to share the Gospel with him (10:34-45). We also see the Bereans in Acts 17:11, which reads, “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” This may not seem like an odd situation, but Luke’s note that they were Jews tells us that they were not believers in Christ. Despite being unbelievers, they were searching the Scriptures in order to verify Paul’s message, thus responding to the message of God before ever believing in Jesus Christ.
Total inability finds its greatest prominence in Reformed Theology, which is more commonly known as Calvinism. Seeking to demonstrate the rationality of the Calvinists’ case concerning “total inability,” J.I. Packer writes:
Everyone in the Reformed mainstream will insist that Christ the Savior is freely offered- indeed, freely offers himself- to sinners in and through the gospel; and that since God gives us all free agency (that is, voluntary decision-making power) we are indeed answerable to him for what we do, first, about universal general revelation, and then about the law and the gospel when and as these are presented to us; and that only those who persevere in their Christian pilgrimage ever reach the heavenly city. But Calvinism at the same time affirms the total perversity, depravity, and inability of fallen human beings, which results in them naturally and continually using their free agency to say no to God, and the absolute sovereignty of the regenerating God who effectually calls and draws them into newness of life in Christ. Calvinism magnifies the Augustinian principle that God himself graciously gives all that in the gospel he requires and commands, and the reactive rationalism of Arminianism in all its forms denies this to a degree.
In reading this quote, I hope that you see the startling contradictions regarding Christ offering Himself “freely.” How can Christ be offered freely to someone who has no ability nor capacity to receive that which is offered? Would not this offer seem like a cruel joke? Would we not be seen as insensitive, malicious, and twisted if we freely offered a paraplegic a pair of gloves and then beckoned relentlessly that he/she put them on? This is nothing short of detestable. Is it not the same with God as depicted through the views of Calvinism?
The solution that the Calvinist brings to the table is that God “regenerates” a person and then gives them the gift of faith so that they will necessarily exercise it. This is explained by Steele, Thomas, and Quinn:
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not – indeed he cannot – choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ – it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation, but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation – it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
To define “regeneration,” we would understand this word to mean “born again” or “born from above” (John 3:3). Essentially, the Calvinist view states that God causes one to be born again so that they can receive His “gift of faith.” Once receiving the “gift of faith,” the born again, unsaved person will then believe, because he or she has no other choice but to believe since God has given them this faith. While the idea of faith being a gift will be dealt with later in examining Ephesians 2:8-9, the concept that one is “born again” before they are a believer in Christ is foreign to Scripture. Surely, from John 3, we can deduce that being born again occurs at the moment of faith (John 3:3, 5, 15-16). However, we do not see one example in Scripture where regeneration has occurred before one believes in Christ. This Calvinist view of regeneration and “faith as a gift” is often referred to as “the grace of God.” To say that faith could be exercised apart from God giving it to you is to bring about an accusation from the Calvinist that faith is a work. However, this is a perspective that is foreign to the Scriptures.
The Arminian View
With the Arminian view, there is a belief in what is called “prevenient grace.” Prevenient grace is defined by Roger Olson as “grace that precedes and enables the first stirrings of a good will toward God.” This view affirms that all are unable to respond as well, but that God has made a provision in showing “prevenient grace,” which has now made it possible for all people everywhere to respond to the Gospel. Thus, every person is a recipient of prevenient grace. While all are unable to respond, prevenient grace has made this universal inability an ability for all people. This view may seem more plausible when compared with the views of Calvinism, but this does not gel with the Scriptural witness.
A greater concern in connection with Arminianism is the implications of one operating in prevenient grace according to their free will, which led to the conclusion that one could lose or forfeit their salvation. Bing explains:
Arminius had not completely settled his views on the loss of salvation before he died. There is some indication that he thought the loss of salvation was final. He taught that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer as long as that person remains in Christ through faith. He was reluctant to say that sinful acts alone would lose salvation if someone still had faith in Christ. However, he seemed to make works the evidence of faith and conceded that someone living sinfully has no grounds for assurance of salvation.
Works being the “evidence of faith” has also served as works being the validation of faith. One who truly has faith will have the necessary works, so the logic goes. This conclusion has been reached as the necessary outcome of the total depravity/ability belief, for one to have been overcome by God so that they can believe (Arminianism) or being regenerated and then given faith as a gift that will be necessarily exercised (Calvinism) will certainly show God’s work in their actions, deeds, and thoughts. While no one should question whether a believer in Christ will have good works as a result of being born from above, we cannot conclude from the Scriptures that this is the validation of one’s salvation. This turns the gospel of God’s free grace in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ into a transaction that awaits the recipient’s performance. Failure to perform show that salvation never took place (Calvinism) or that salvation has been lost (Arminianism). The conclusion is the same: no assurance of an eternity with God.
In his work Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism, scholar Robert Picirilli gives a summation of the Arminian view of “total depravity” and “total inability”:
1. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, all human beings inherit from the original parents a corrupt nature, as inclined toward evil now as Adam and Eve were toward good before the fall.
2. In consequence of this condition, man’s will is no longer naturally free to choose God apart from the supernatural work of the Spirit of God.
3. Therefore, left to himself, no person either can or will accept the offer of salvation in the gospel and put saving faith in Christ.
4. This condition may rightly be called total depravity, in that it pervades every aspect of man’s being, and total inability, in that it leaves him helpless to perform anything truly good in God’s sight (emphasis original).
The similarities between the Calvinist and Arminian views should be striking! How could two differing schools of theology come to such cohesion in their understanding? Admittedly, not all Arminians believe that man is “helpless to perform anything truly good in God’s sight,” but most do, and they would be right.
However, this does not speak to unbeliever’s ability to respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ when they hear the message of salvation. Such a response cannot be considered a work, but rather a firm conviction on whether or not the contents and proposition of the gospel are true. It is the subject of one’s ability to respond when the gospel is shared that solves the constricting tenets of each school of thought.
Summary
Anthony Badger sums up both views when he writes:
Calvinism teaches that man is so totally depraved that he is unable to believe in Christ and that only those God has selected before the foundation of the world are sovereignly regenerated by the Spirit prior to faith, so that the person ultimately believes. So, in that view, regeneration precedes faith, but this removes faith as the instrument by which man might believe. Calvinists mistakenly place the resulting regeneration prior to the condition of faith by which the new birth is received.
Arminianism, on the other hand also asserts that man has no free will, is totally depraved, and can’t believe “of himself.” They then supply the idea that God gives the ability to believe to all men enabling anyone to believe and be saved. They call it prevenient grace or enabling grace. All people have a kind of free will because of this. But if God gives all men the ability to believe when they have no such ability, why go into the discussion as to whether a person can believe or not? It makes no real difference.
The Implications of their Views
Both views find their end in the need for God to enable, a lack of assurance, and a distorted view of grace. For the Calvinist, one is not sure that he or she is a believer until death occurs. If one does not maintain good works (or in Packer’s words, “only those who persevere in their Christian pilgrimage ever reach the heavenly city,”) they cannot be sure of their final destination. If one does not have sufficient works, or does not “endure till the end,” they show themselves to have never been saved.
As for the Arminian, which believes that one can lose their salvation (either by walking away from the faith, “backsliding,” or simply committing a high-handed sin), there is no certainty of an eternity with God. Both beliefs negate the regeneration that occurs when one believes (which brings about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who seals the believer for the “day of redemption” –Eph 1:13-14; 4:30) and denies the plain fact that Jesus’ offer of forgiveness of sins and eternal life is universal (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; Acts 16:31; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2). The Bible tells us that assurance is possible for the one who believes because the work of salvation is based upon the work of Christ on the cross and the promise of eternal life which His death and resurrection has secured for us.
The second problem is that both Calvinists and Arminians have equated spiritual deadness with physical deadness. Such an emphasis is placed solely upon the “inability” of man
to respond because “he is like a dead corpse” that they fail to think through the implications of this understand of what it means to be “dead” in trespasses and sins. Simply put, there are certain things that dead people can’t do. For instance, dead people cannot sin and since they cannot sin, they cannot be held responsible for sin. Try taking a corpse to court in hopes of winning the case. The judge would surely have you committed for suing a corpse because you cannot hold a corpse accountable. Dead bodies don’t suffer consequences.
Such conclusions do not stop the Calvinists from trying to make a coherent association between physically dead and spiritually dead people. “Before we are justified we are spiritually dead, and it is impossible for a corpse to do anything, let alone bring itself back to life. It is for that reason that justification by faith can only be a gift of God, freely given to us in spite of ourselves.” The misnomer in play is the false conclusion that responding in belief of the gospel message is a work that someone does. It is not. If being spiritually dead is the same as being physically dead (meaning completely unable to respond in any fashion), evangelism is pointless and the Great Commission was a waste of breath.
Finally, if mankind is unable to believe, there should be far less pleading, in fact no pleading at all, from God, Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets for those who are doing wrong to repent and for those who are unregenerate to believe (Matt 28:18-20; Acts 2:40; 3:19-26; 2 Cor 5:18-20). Yet the Bible pleads with sinful mankind over and over again! We even see Jesus getting frustrated with Nicodemus due to his lack of understanding when He says, “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12). Why didn’t Jesus simply tell Nicodemus that he wasn’t one of the elect, or chosen of God, or that he had simply not been regenerated yet, or that there was no gift of faith for him? Why not take confidence in what the Father had predestined? The answer is that this is not how God has orchestrated salvation. Such conclusions are not biblical.
The belief that a lost person needs “God’s enabling work in causing one to believe” causes Scriptural problems when we read that it is a lack of faith that is given as the only reason for people remaining lost (dead) in their trespasses and sins. For instance, in John 5:37-40, we read:
And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life (emphasis added).
Why do we not see Jesus make the pronouncement that those who are not believing are not doing so because they have not been given the gift of faith?
Early in Paul’s conversion, he found himself in Jerusalem. While in a trance there, the Lord revealed something to him. “Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me” (Acts 22:18b). The issue was not that they were unable to believe Paul’s testimony. It is that they were unwilling to accept it.
This is also seen in Romans 9:30-32a:
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works (emphasis added).
Again, the reason is not because they were not elect or because they had not been given the gift of faith. The conclusion that Paul comes to is unbelief. Jesus points this out in Matthew 21:32 about John the Baptist and his message as the forerunner of the Messiah. The chief priests and elders knew this to be the issue due to their reasonings in verse 25 (See also Mark 11:31; Luke 20:5). These men refused to believe the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus. All of the responsibility rested upon their shoulders. It was not because God had not enabled them to believe.
A Biblical View of Being “Spiritually Dead”
The above arguments are not meant to conclude that someone being spiritually dead is a negligible issue. It is of the most serious importance of which has cost the Son of God His life. Chafer writes:
The charge brought forward in this passage is not that men commit sin, which accusation few would deny; it is rather the more serious charge that men are dead in sin. That is, they are in the state of spiritual death which is caused by sin, and, because they are in that state, they can produce nothing but sin.
This is a truly helpless estate, rightly deserving the classification of “depravity.”
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve sinned (Gen 3:1-7). Adam and Eve’s sin resulted in spiritual death and ultimately physical death, both of which had not previously been known in the created world, but was something that God had made clear as a consequence for disobedience when initially giving the command to Adam to not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16-17). When Adam sinned, sin was now part and parcel of the human race because all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. This is not solely in action, for sinful action proceeds from an internal, sinful constitution known as the sin nature (Rom 7:8), the flesh (Gal 5:19-21), or the old self (Rom 6:6). This leaves man in a truly destitute state. Again, we look to Chafer:
The fundamental character of sin may be defined as any transgression of, or want of conformity to, the character of God. All the present important classifications of sin—imputed sin, imparted sin, personal sin, and the judicial reckoning under sin—are traceable directly to the original act of sin on the part of the first sinner. Sin in its every form is exceedingly sinful, and that because of the fact that it is contrary to the character of God.
Sin permeates everything. Sin is highly destructive. Sin is not taken as seriously as it should be. Understanding the magnitude and force of sin in effecting our entire being and existence sets the stage for understanding the nature of being “dead in your trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1). Baxter captures this perfectly:
The fundamental idea in death is not cessation, but separation. Physical death is the separation of the body from the soul. Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God. It means the absence of that highest life which was originally in man before sin divorced man’s spirit from God who is its life-giving environment. To pass from time into eternity thus dead toward God, alienated and separated from Him, is surely a dread enough thought to send us out with renewed concern for the saving of the Christless souls around us.
All were once in this hopeless estate. All of us were in desperate need of life everlasting. This is why the gospel must be shared. People must hear the truth of the death and resurrection of God’s Son.
Knowing the urgency surrounding the sharing of the gospel we must observe that at no time are we taught in the Bible that sin has incapacitated the human being from responding to the Word of God. Note the following verses:
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” –Romans 10:17
“In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.” –James 1:18
“Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.” -1 Peter 1:22-23
God makes us alive by His own power when we hear the preaching of the gospel (Eph 2:5). This is the only biblical means of calling the unregenerate person to faith. If faith is a “gift” that God only gives to some, then humans should no longer bear any responsibility whatsoever to believe the message of Jesus Christ on the cross for their sins.
Along the same lines, if God has only chosen some to be saved, then those not chosen cannot be held culpable for something that they never had the capacity to do. Those who argue for the idea of “total inability” often do so to protect the sovereignty of God, but the fact that every human being has had their sins paid for (1 Tim 2:6; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2), the fact that God desires for all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), and the fact that everyone is personally responsible to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ does not infringe upon, nor diminish, the sovereignty of God. He is still all-powerful.
One passage that many look to for the concept of “total inability” is Romans 3:9-18 where Paul quotes a series of Old Testament passages pertaining to the constitution of mankind. It reads:
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good, There is not even one.
Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,
The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;
Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And the path of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Paul is proving from Scripture that “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rom 3:9). What is not stated in this passage is that human beings are unable to believe or respond to the gospel. While no one on Earth seeks after God, and to this we would readily agree, this does not mean that people do not respond to God when He brings the gospel to them. Niemela writes:
The difference between seeking and responding is huge. Paul categorically states that unbelievers do not seek God. They are not the initiators of reconciliation toward God. God seeks and God initiates. The fact that man does not initiate seeking toward God does not negate the idea of unbelievers responding to God’s seeking of them.
We know that God “draws” all men because Jesus states this clearly. In John 12:32, He says, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself,” to which John provides a comment so that we do not misinterpreting what Jesus meant. He states in 12:33 that “He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.” At the cross, Jesus is lifted up. At the cross, Jesus draws all men unto Himself. The idea of “all not really meaning all” cannot be substantiated here. Jesus draws everyone. The Scriptures are clear.
So what about the problem of sin? In the person of Jesus Christ, the detriment that Adam’s choices brought upon the human race has found a divine resolve. The Apostle Paul paints this picture clearly and provides the reader with a well-ordered defense that leads to a universal offer of salvation due to all of the human race having the capability to respond to the gospel when they hear it (Rom 10:17). Author Dave Hunt writes:
Salvation, however, is not by sinners doing good works or freeing themselves from sin. Salvation is a free gift of God’s grace received by faith in Christ. And that is why we cannot agree that ‘fallen man is unable to come to Christ.’ Coming to Christ is simply believing on Him. The invitation, ‘Come unto me’ is given to all who under sin’s burden are ‘weary and heavy laden.’
Reading through the Scriptures, one would plainly see that God is repeatedly reaching out to the human race in order to reconcile them unto Himself. He has done so through the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ (John 12:32) and He has sent forth His Spirit to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8-11). Even in the Old Testament, a chapter like Ezekiel 18 clearly demonstrates that the Lord lays a choice before Israel, of which they have the option to choose. While one choice is obedience and the other is disobedience, it does not change the fact that it is a choice, and a choice that for those who make it are personally responsible for, which includes the consequences (whether good or bad) for that choice.
Practical Applications
John the Baptist called people to “Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight” (Matt 3:3)! We receive interpretation about this from Paul when he states that “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus” (Acts 19:4). John’s push for repentance was so that the people would remove the things that were immoral and defiled from their lives and consciences and believe in the Christ when He came on the scene. John was calling unsaved people to turn from their sin so that they would have a greater sensitivity to the Messiah when He appeared. If those who are unregenerate are unable to respond to God, why would John waste his time doing this? Why would Paul confirm it?
Calvinists would say, “Because he didn’t know who was elect, so he preached to everyone,” while the Arminian would say, “because all can believe, but they may not be able to keep their salvation once that have it.” But when we look to the Bible, we would see that John preached like this because he knew that by repenting of immoral and depraved behavior before the Messiah’s arrival, the people that he had preached to would have a better possibility in responding to the Gospel message when the Messiah appeared. After all, it is Satan who blinds the minds and hearts of unbelievers. Paul writes, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor 4:3-4).
It is obvious in reading the Scriptures plainly that people are indeed unable to save themselves in any way, shape, form, or by any deed, but they are not unable to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must be clear in our presentation of the saving message, which is something that even Paul prayed for (Eph 6:19-20; Col 4:3-4). Simple, biblical clarity is vital in communicating the substitutionary death and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ to those who are unregenerate. Charlie Bing writes:
God's invitation to be saved through the gospel is a sincere and legitimate offer only if any and every person can believe it. If God must regenerate people before they can believe the gospel, then the invitation is not really to all people, but only to those already born again. But this is contrary to biblical statements that the gospel is for all (John 3:16; 2 Cor 5:19-20; 1 Tim 2:3-6; 1 John 2:2). Just as Paul preached everywhere with the assumption that anyone could respond to the gospel (Acts 20:21), we also should share the gospel with everyone (Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8) because it is a genuine offer to everyone. God regenerates anyone who believes the gospel.
By hearing the gospel that we preach, teach, and share, unbelievers can respond in faith and so be justified by God, receiving the complete and full forgiveness of their sins and the free gift of eternal life!
Conclusion
How should we understand one being “dead in trespasses and sins?” In a word: Biblically! Being spiritually dead is being eternally separated from God, a state that will only lead to damnation. Again, Bing provides an excellent summary:
It would be more biblical to take "dead in trespasses and sins" as a description of man's condition before God. Because of Adam's sin and man's relationship to Adam, man is totally separated from God and lacks anything that can commend him to God. Though sin's corruption extends to every man and all of his being, man retains the capacity to respond to God's initiative. Even after Adam sinned and died spiritually, he was able to talk with God immediately (Gen. 2:17; 3:1-19).
This realm of being separated from God is due to sin, and this is why sin must be seriously and decisively dealt with. God has chosen to deal with the problem of sin by issuing a blood payment for it on the cross of Calvary through the sacrifice of His eternal Son. While one is certainly depraved and cannot earn their own right standing before God, we do find that it is the sharing of the Gospel that prompts one to respond in faith (Rom 10:17; Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:22-23). Some will believe, some will not, but all need to hear!