Children of Wrath?

[JSM17]

Eph 2:3
3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others
NKJV

I compared this with passages like Gal. 2:15, I will not assume what some proclaim it to mean, but I am perplexed with the statement made here by Paul.

When I think of something natural I think that it is just that way, what is Paul saying here?

For the last month I have been really looking at the ideas of Calvinism and Arminianism. and some of the points that are being brought up are really complex, when a passage like this comes up it seems to uphold their ideas.

But when I look at the doctrine as a whole is does not make sense with other scripture.

What do you think?

Apart from being born sinful do we develope a nature to turn away from God when we learn to sin, even though calvinist will say that we are dead, born in sinthat we are naturally wicked.

I have some other passages that I would like to discuss, maybe I will post them at a later date.

[grand_puba]

This passage is addressed in our series on Calvinism:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ians_2_1_3

[m273p15c]

I concur with the article posting. The key here is to recognize that "nature" can refer to both born disposition as well as a developed disposition. This is true in English as well as Greek. Here are readings from a few lexicons on the Greek meaning:

phusei - noun dative feminine singular of phusis: (Further Greek phrases removed for formatting and readability...)

• Thayer - 5653 phusis
  
  phusis, phuseos, h (from phuo, which see, as as Latin nature from nascor, ingenium from geno, gigno), from Homer, Odyssey 10, 303 down; nature, i. e. a. the nature of things, the force, laws, order, of nature; as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse: hat which is contrary to nature's laws, against nature, Rom. 1:26; as opposed to what has been produced by the art of man: the natural branches, i.e. branches by the operation of nature, Rom. 11:21,24 Winer's Grammar, 193 (182)), contrasted with contrary to the plan of nature, cf. 24; ibid.; as opposed to what is imaginary or fictitious: who are gods not by nature, but according to the mistaken opinion of the Gentiles (1 Cor. 8:5}), Gal. 4:8; nature, i. e. natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opposed to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law: (i. e. the native sense of propriety) 1 Cor. 11:14; guided by their natural sense of what is right and proper, Rom. 2:14. b. birth, physical origin: we so far as our origin is considered, i. e. by birth, are Jews, Gal. 2:15 (Sophocles O. C. 1295; Isocrates Evagr. 21; Plato, Menex., p. 245 d.; cf. Grimm on Sap. 13:1); who by birth is uncircumcised or a Gentile (opposed to one who, although circumcised, has made himself a Gentile by his iniquity and spiritual perversity), Rom. 2:27. c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Eph. 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace; ... Josephus, Antiquities 13, 10, 6. (Others (see Meyer) would lay more stress here upon the constitution in which this `habitual course of evil' has its origin, whether that constitution be regarded (with some) as already developed at birth, or (better) as undeveloped; cf. Aristotle, pol. 1, 2, p. 1252{b}, 32f; see the examples in Bonitz's index under the word. Cf. Winer's Grammar, sec. 31, 6a.)). d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: (the natural strength, ferocity and intractability of beasts (A. V. (every) kind of beasts)), (the ability, art, skill, of men, the qualities which are proper to their nature and necessarily emanate from it), James 3:7 (cf. Winer's Grammar, sec. 31, 10); (the holiness distinctive of the divine nature is specially referred to), 2 Pet. 1:4 (Josephus, contra Apion 1, 26).*

Thayer presents the most complete definition of the lexicons to which I have access. Friberg presents a similar definition:

• Friberg - 28375 phusis, eos, h
  
  nature; (1) as the naturally regulated order of things nature (RO 2.14); according to nature, natural (RO 11.21); contrary to nature, unnatural (RO 1.26); (2) as inherited or habituated characteristics natural to man (human) nature (JA 3.7b); (3) natural endowment, native condition inherited from one's ancestors (GA 2.15; EP 2.3); (4) as a creature produced naturally, natural being, species, kind (JA 3.7a); (5) as God's essential character nature (2P 1.4)

Friberg notes the alternative definition; however, he categorizes Ephesians 2:3 in the Calvinistic light. Of course, it is important to remember that lexicographers are useful for providing the possible definitions of words. The point at which they begin to assign particular definition, they step out of the role of lexicographer and into the role of commentator. Therefore, his misplaced assignment is of little significance to me, as I am sure the Calvinist would pay little attention to Thayer's categorization.

Other commentators are more abridged and provide neither recognition of an alternate definition, while some do not even reference Ephesians 2:3.

Since the word has multiple definitions, we must turn to the immediate context, and if it be ambiguous, then we must look to the global context of Scripture to select the appropriate definition for proper interpretation. Therefore, this passage can only serve as a proof-text, if one reads Ephesians 2:1-3 in the presumed light of Calvinism. One must either show the context concerns birth as opposed to long-term practice, or they must use other Scriptures to make the Calvinistic point. The burden of proof is upon them, since they wish to use it as a proof-text.

If one takes up either method (examining local or global context), I believe he will see that acquired depravity is taught instead of inherited depravity.

[m273p15c]

"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles ... (Galatians 2:15)

Actually, if the Calvinist definition is adopted here, it actually disproves Calvinism!

In this verse, Paul is clearly setting up a contrast between the nature of the Jews and the nature of the Gentiles. Let us assume for a minute that "nature", refers to the way one is born, not the way one has lived for a long time. Based on this assumption, the contrast would be:

• Gentiles -> born sinners, depraved from birth
• Jews -> born righteous ... not depraved from birth ?!

Is this the point? It cannot be, unless one is willing to accept that none of the Jews were born totally depraved, which means every Jew must have free will! Therefore, they would have the power to change the foreordained and unchangeable number of elect and non-elect by asserting their Jewish free will, since they are not depraved. Consequently, God would no longer be completely Sovereign, as the Calvinist sees the world.

Now, let us test the other definition. Let us assume that "nature", refers to the way one has lived by long-term habit or lifestyle:

• Gentiles -> sinners by long-term lifestyle (i.e., pagan)
• Jews - righteous by long-term lifestyle (i.e., covenant believers and followers of God and His law)

This fits the context better, since Paul's point is that Peter should have known better! Peter was a Jew, so he should have known better than to revert to the Old Law and justification by it! (Galatians 2:11-16).

I think this passage would actually prove useful in helping the Calvinist to recognize there is more than one meaning to "nature", beside the way you are born. This passage, in addition to I Corinthians 11:14, necessitate this alternative meaning (nature by long-term habit or lifestyle), which the above lexicons support and corroborate.

I pray this helps in your study. Also, if you have not already, may I encourage you to read the series on Calvinism, as well as the written exchanges in this "Calvinism" section of the forums? If you are restudying these issues afresh, I believe you will find new meaning in these writings, especially the Scriptures they reference.

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... #calvinism
forum-13.html

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

[JSM17]

I did not realize that the word could be used in two different aspects, I will look at the articles and your thoughts on Gal.2:15 are well taken. I will post once I have read the articles and look into this a little more. Thank you very much.

[m273p15c]

No problem. I pray it helps. I look forward to the fruits of your study, as well as the other passages you mentioned in the first post...

[JSM17]

I have been for the last week been listening to lecture by Theological seminaries about Calvinism and even have visted a few Baptist churches having discussions with their leaders. Many good points are made, which moves me to study more to make sure that I am in the right. I do not doubt my positions on these important items but I do wonder about passages like Rom 4:4
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
NKJV

Are we to call Repentance, confession, baptism works or obedience, some contend for faith to be a work according to John 6, I understand that Paul is talking about The works of the law in the context of Romans 3, 4, 5. Does this mean that just the works of the law are to him who does them counted debt. I am sure the answer is simple but I never want to be accused of what most do and just accept what others in the church are accepting. Prove all things. I have done the study on the different works of the bible. I have also looked at James 2 and how it must work with Romans 4 (no pun intended).

Some brethren refuse to call baptism a work, some insist that it is a work of obedience.

I have come to realize that when you talk to most denominations who hold to calvinistic views the issue is not faith repentance confession baptism it is the state of man in his completely degenrate state, the fact that they think we are helpless until God gives you the Holy Spirit push. In fact one cannot even believe with God doing it for him. In some cases I understand how God works through His word and with man, I understand to a point how the H.S. works within a regenerate man, but until the denominations understand the true stance of man from the womb man will never be able to obey anything from God without God moving him like a robot.

Works or obedience or are they the same.

Look forward to hearing fdrom you.

Jeffrey

[m273p15c]

Are we to call Repentance, confession, baptism works or obedience, some contend for faith to be a work according to John 6, I understand that Paul is talking about The works of the law in the context of Romans 3, 4, 5. Does this mean that just the works of the law are to him who does them counted debt. ... Some brethren refuse to call baptism a work, some insist that it is a work of obedience. ... Works or obedience or are they the same.

Short answer - it depends - on the context. "Works" is a general purpose word, which does not have a necessary religious connotation in and of itself:

work (noun) -> 2041 ergon {er'-gon} Meaning: 1) business, employment, that which any one is occupied 1a) that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking 2) any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind 3) an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opp. to that which is less than work Origin: from a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work); TDNT - 2:635,251; n n Usage: AV - work 152, deed 22, doing 1, labour 1; 176

worketh (verb) -> 2038 ergazomai {er-gad'-zom-ahee} Meaning: 1) to work, labour, do work 2) to trade, to make gains by trading, "do business" 3) to do, work out 3a) exercise, perform, commit 3b) to cause to exist, produce 4) to work for, earn by working, to acquire Origin: middle voice from 2041; TDNT - 2:635,251; v Usage: AV - work 22, wrought 7, do 3, minister about 1, forbear working + 3361 1, labour for 1, labour 1, commit 1, trade by 1, trade 1; 39

Thayer, Friberg, Louw-Nida, Liddell-Scott, and Gingrich all say similar. The idea is to exert effort.

The problem in the discussion regarding justification is that everybody comes to the table with a load of prejudices that they use to interpret verses. Most people simply do not have the patience (or willingness) to dissect (or allow to be dissected) all of their prejudices.

Therefore, "works" are just works. Beyond that, you have to look at the context to decide what type of works are under consideration.

... but I do wonder about passages like Rom 4:4 ... I have done the study on the different works of the bible. I have also looked at James 2 and how it must work with Romans 4 (no pun intended).

In Romans 4, I believe the "works" under consideration are primarily those related to the Old Law ("the law" - Romans 4:13-4). However, I believe this is an oversimplification of the idea to brush off the passage so easily. The real point is that no law could save, if its justification was based on perfect keeping of its works, because everybody has sinned (echoed in Galatians 3:11-13; 21-22). This is where Romans 4:4 is so crucial to this context. It defines the type of works being discussed:

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. (Romans 4:1-4)

In this context, "works" is defined as meritorious deeds that earn a reward, in this case, salvation. Even more specifically, they are works that justify one before God - in and of themselves. They stand alone and apart from faith or any help from God (Romans 4:13-16). Any other kind of work that does not fit this definition is not under consideration here.

Should we consider baptism, repentance, confession to be "works" of "merit" that earn us salvation? Obviously not; otherwise, everybody who ever took a bath would be saved. But, what do the Scriptures say?

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the ashing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)

Paul does not categorize baptism (washing of regeneration, see also - Ephesians 5:25-27; Hebrews 10:22; Acts 22:16) as a "work of righteousness", which would parallel the usage in Romans 4:4 - works which bring or earn righteousness. Instead, baptism is considered a component of the merciful, gracious system of justification that God makes available to us through Jesus. Therefore, baptism, repentance, confession, and belief should not be classified as a work of righteousness or justification, in and of itself, and consequently, the works of Romans 4 do not apply to them. Instead, these deeds (or works, not to be confusing) depend on God's grace to have any significance, plus they do not merit or earn the reward of salvation. So, what kind of works are they?

You can call them "conditional works" or "perfecting works", although that last term is a little misleading. James describes their part in justification:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble!
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:14-26)

In this context, "works" are not opposed to faith. (Recall in Romans 4, it was either faith or works. They were mutually exclusive). In fact, they act together with faith, perfecting faith, making it complete.

Baptism, repentance, and confession fit this category very nicely. They do not earn salvation. They cannot begin to stand alone. However, they do serve to as evidence to the legitimacy of our faith. Therefore, they help in our justification by substantiating our faith, as did Abraham's (almost) sacrifice of Isaac. Consequently, we could consider these as works of condition, completion, or perfecting of our faith.

Could we consider these things as obedience? Absolutely, any time we do what God says, we are "obeying" Him, which is essential for salvation (II Thessalonians 1:8-9; I Peter 1:22; 4:17; Hebrews 5:9l; Philippians 2:12).

I pray this helps. Please let me know if I overlooked something you wanted to discuss.