mattrose wrote:A few points in relation to this thread
1. The metaphor of death is being, in my opinion, overused by robbyyoung. People are not, in a literal sense, completely dead spiritually speaking. We are incapable of saving ourselves spiritually, but that doesn't mean we aren't spiritual 'awake' so to speak. Scripture is clear that we, even after 'the fall' are still image bearers of God. We still get convicted, experience shame and desire for God/eternity, etc. Calvinists are forced to interpret the 'death' metaphor literally despite observed evidence because it is required by their system.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Spiritual death (which alienates us from God) is a poignant reminder of the condition of man. I gave a scriptural reference concerning this fact, and you say it’s overused, I disagree. When it comes to salvation, we are
literally spiritually dead—this is the point of the discussion. We are not talking about being aware of spiritual ideas; we are discussing how the natural man cannot respond to the TRUE voice of God. For example:
1 Cor. 2:14 “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
(ESV)
So to be clear, I am discussing Paul’s understanding of spiritual death which alienates us from God, a very literal and specific fact:
Eph 2:1-5 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved
(ESV)
I think my moderate use of the term “spiritual death” to illustrate Paul’s point is sufficient.
mattrose wrote:2. I must also admit that I find robbyyoung's maneuvering of Scriptures speaking to God's universal love quite baffling. I cannot fathom, outside of a preconceived doctrine, how one would come away from those texts with such a reading. We should not expect biblical authors to constantly re-iterate that when they make specific statements about specific people it applies to people in general. Paul's epistles and letters were occasional, not systematic theologies.
I could appreciate the criticism far better if you would briefly summarize what text, quote, and misapplication you are referring to, thanks.
mattrose wrote:3. The concept of prevenient grace, no matter what you call it, is (to my mind) an indisputable reality. It simply means that God's grace goes before our salvation. This includes what calvinists might call common grace, but also includes God's initial wooing of all people. This is made clear in passages like Acts 17:26-27, Romans 1:20, Romans 2:15, etc. God speaks to all humanity (both Jew and Gentile) through creation and conscience. Some also receive the light of Christ.
I see no problem with this, but doesn't God's grace work outside of the hearing of "the gospel"? If not, why not?
mattrose wrote:4. Since we should not expect absolutized statements in letters written to particular people (see point 2), we are not (and should not be) dependent on such statements to come to Scripturally based, big-picture conclusions about God's love. God IS love. It is the core of God's being. God's love for creation is, therefore, not in question. God created the world. Entered the world. Died for the world. And has promised to restore the whole world. It is only when we force a presupposed doctrine onto the Scriptures that we miss the forest for the trees.
God’s love is not in question here; it’s how He imparts His divine judgment and mercy within His love. Nevertheless, I have the same presupposed doctrine of the 1st Century believers, like them, I actually believe what they were told and how major events were uniquely applicable to them. However, it is hard to overcome a denial of inspired claims by uninspired men for thousands of years and still going… and going… and going… Principles may transcend the original audience but promised events do not. Again, my supposition is to appreciate what belongs to the original audience of the 1st century, being careful not to hi-jack specifics events as my own, especially on the backdrop of inspiration.
As always, blessings my friend!