Marriage and the Bible - Part 48 - Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

If there is a topic of conversation that everyone has an opinion on, it's homosexual marriage.  In our modern western culture, this topic probably generates more heat than light as the emotions run very high all the way around.  Christians and homosexual advocates are particularly vocal and at times very hostile toward each other.

Biblically, there is no doubt as to the stand on homosexual practice - it is a sin.  Most notably is the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 where he calls the act 'unnatural' and 'degrading'.  This along with many other verses makes the Bible's position clear.  Homosexuality is a sin.

One thing though that needs to be cleared up about homosexuality is how big a sin it really is.  The way you hear the TV preachers talk it is the most terrible sin ever.  The fact is that it is in many ways equal to other sexual sins.  In the Law, homosexuality and adultery have the same penalty - death.  This indicates that while homosexuality isn't exactly high on God's hit parade, neither is adultery which the Bible equates as equally despicable in God's sight.  This sheds a whole new light on the issue to me because many Christians will decry the homosexual and then turn around and slightly shrug their shoulders when it comes to adultery saying: 'well these things happen'.  No wonder the charge of hypocrisy sticks.

The rhetoric that is thrown both ways is not helpful.  I find the term 'homophobic' not only to be a bogus term, but to be an emotionally laced term as well that has no value; it simply is used against the opponents of homosexuality so they will shut up and then no real debate or discussion takes place on the value of homosexuality.  On the flip side, the expression "Hate the sin, but love the homosexual" does not have much effect either.  It in fact creates more barriers.

The real issue from a marriage standpoint for me is that any such union will never be more than a contract arrangement, the only question that remains for American society is: will such a contract be culturally accepted?  The reason I say this is that the Bible offers no possibility for a same-sex couple to truly achieve spiritual covenant.  By design, God has created male and female and only presents that this arrangement has  a possibility of achieving such a union.  In simplest terms, it is not possible.

My basic contention is that homosexuals cannot actually achieve sexual intercourse, therefore the idea they can be truly 'one flesh' is not possible.  The reality is that while a homosexual couple can draw close to each other emotionally, mentally and even spiritually, they can never truly be physically one.  In all cases of homosexuality, sexual expression can only be achieved by everything else but actual sexual intercourse. 

The other place where  a homosexual union fails is that to have a covenant is that God must be in it.  The only relationship that can draw close in homosexuality is the between the two humans,  Because God declares that a homosexual union is sin, there is no way He could draw close to either party unless they give up their homosexuality.  Sorry, No spiritual covenant.

My counsel to homosexuals is the same though as I would to a couple in open marriage.  You are settling for a lesser form of marriage than the one form that is presented as the ideal.  That ideal, one man / one woman in covenant with each other and God stands as the biblically highest form of marriage.

Even if laws were changed to allow such unions, I simply do not see a Biblical acceptance of the idea of homosexual marriage.  Culture may accept it, and Christians will indeed have to accept it if that happens.  The fact remains that culture changes and over the centuries Christianity has had to adapt and change to maintain 'love and truth'.

Next: Modern Challenge: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

Previous: Modern Challenge: Line or Group Marriage

Marriage and the Bible - Part 35 - Paul: Divorce, Sex and Polygamy

Paul has a great imagery for marriage in the relationship between Christ and the church. What becomes interesting is some of the other practical application of it in particular as regards to divorce, sexuality and polygamy.

First, we need to understand that Paul knew the teaching of Christ and may have been on to hear them as a budding Pharisee. So when he makes some of his remarks we need to remember that he had possible seen Jesus teach and most certainly Paul was sensitive to the issue of reconciling his own teaching with the Lord Jesus after his conversion. Marriage issues included. His view of Christ as groom and church as bride clearly demonstrate a one flesh mentality in understanding of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7 though starts to cause us to question this unless we try to reconcile the idea of "no divorce, saving for cause of fornication" put forth by Jesus and Paul's idea of an unbelieving spouse being the deciding factor in terminating a marriage. In short in this chapter Paul's says as long as the unbeliever want the marriage to continue don't leave it but if they decide to terminate it, then let them. This adds another reason in the New Testament for allowable divorce - difference in faith in Christ.

We need to remember though that Jesus said the law would still be in effect until all was fulfilled and that included the law of divorce set forth by Moses. Jesus' explanation is that this allowed because of hardness of heart and I don't think he was nullifying divorce but helping people recognize the perils of it.

Taking these ideas to Paul's teaching means that Paul is recognizing a more specific application of Jesus' teaching. That application being a spouse with no faith in Christ is not going to be able to fulfill his ideal of marriage in his imagery of Christ and church and hardness is more likely to occur in such situations. One flesh in the higher sense of covenant marriage before God is not possible in such a union. Such a union is nothing more than a contract marriage which the Christian half should honor as much as possible, but if the spouse who is unbelieving decides to terminate the contract, 'a brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases'.

The other issue in 1 Corinthians 7 is the issue of sex in marriage. Paul's advice also centers on Jesus' teaching. In particular, the issue in Jesus' teaching about not all men (or women for that matter) can accept celibacy. Marriage then for Paul becomes a defence and outlet that is safe for sexual practice and his instruction not to withhold from each other indicates a strong understanding of sex as an ultimate expression of the 'one flesh' nature of covenant marriage.

Paul also makes the issue of polygamy difficult. Most of this is found in his instructions to Timothy and Titus about the qualifications for overseers and deacons with his expression: 'husband of one wife'. When I was growing up and in my formative ministry years, I was told that this meant that a overseer or deacon could not ever be divorced. I now reject this interpretation on the grounds that divorce is not mentioned. I truly think this is a restriction on church leaders from being polygamist.

Paul is dealing largely with new Gentile believers whose only Scripture is the Old Testament. In some parts of the Roman Empire polygamy was practiced, particularly in the eastern provinces. What needs to be considered is that when you couple allowable polygamy in a cultural sense and the fact that many of the great heroes of the Hebrew Scriptures are polygamist, polygamy is going to be seen as OK. Paul is basically saying then though that if a man decides to engage in polygamy he is disqualified from being a church leader.

Why? I think it is Paul's desire to make sure that all church leaders reflect the idea of Christ as groom and church as bride as much as possible. Covenant marriage is far easier to attain and be reflected this way in faithful monogamy. Polygamist households, as we have seen, have great difficulty with this, if they achieve it at all.

One more thing Paul brings up is death being the end of marriage in both senses in Romans 7:1-3 where he points out that a woman is only bound to a husband as long as he lives. Death then becomes the end point for marriage in this world in both a legal and covenant sense.

Next: Hebrews and Peter
Previous: Paul's Image of Christ and His Bride
First Post in Series

Theology for Dummies - Covenant Theology

Wikipedia: "The standard description of covenant theology views the history of God's dealings with mankind in all of history, from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of three overarching theological covenants — the covenants of redemption, of works, and of grace."

Yeah, that about covers it. It also should be noted that this forms the basis and foundation of a couple of theological systems: Calvinism and Dispensationalism.

The idea is that over time God has changed the way he deals with people. No argument there, but the rub comes when you start saying that at different times God saved people differently. That is where I say this is a dangerous theology.

Paul is very clear in Romans and other places that everyone has been saved by one thing - faith. He sites Abraham to prove to a skeptical Jewish population of his day that just like the Gentiles, Abraham was saved by faith. When you start saying as a certain time people were saved by works or grace depending on the time they lived it seems to counter this idea and it does. Paul's whole point is that every man and woman has been saved by the grace of God through faith and that faith leads to action through obedience and love of God. Covenant Theology departs from this and that is why I rejected it long ago and the Calvinism and dispensationalism that goes with it. More on those later.

This theology also has the problem of presupposition. If you are always assuming these three covenant times exist; it will color your interpretation of Scripture. It means your setting yourself up for reading into Scripture what you want to see.

Next: Dialectical Theology

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 13 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness

Back to the Garden of Eden. After rereading all my posts on this subject and considering all of what Scripture has to say on the subject I have to conclude that our definition of nakedness -- that is 'without clothes' is completely wrong. Nakedness, Biblically, actually has very little to do with clothes; it is a question of spiritual condition. Is it reflected in a person's felling about being with out clothes -- Yes, but at the same time the source of the feelings of nakedness are spiritual not physical.

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve are naked but not ashamed, after it they are naked and ashamed. Their nakedness did not change, what changed was their perception because of the change in their spirits due to sin. They were just as naked after as before. They had become spiritually vulnerable and exposed and thus their physical vulnerability and exposure began to reflect this in feelings and fears.

As I have examined this topic there were a couple things that I had problems with reasoning out -- 1) Why would a husband and wife who were not ignorant of each others nakedness suddenly be ashamed of each other's nakedness. Why would they make clothes for themselves; exactly who were they trying to cover up from? I had to conclude that both the making of clothes and hiding in the bushes from God were part of the same problem -- shame and exposure for disobedience -- not some inherent problem with the human naked body. There problem was not with each other's nakedness but their own nakedness before a holy God. It was a God-mankind problem not a male-female problem. The fact is that in a few verses of leaving the garden man 'knows' his wife and she conceives -- did they do that in the dark? No -- the issue is the shame, exposure and vulnerability that their sin has caused before God and it is this spiritual state that is reflected in a change in their understanding of physical nakedness. They cover their flesh in hopes of covering up their spiritual vulnerability and shame before God. Nakedness is both spiritual and physical but it is the spiritual that determines the understanding of the physical. The physical feelings of nakedness are caused by spiritual nakedness.

2) Romans 8:35 -- that the love of God cannot be stopped by our nakedness. This is not possible if nakedness in and of itself is a sin. Nakedness is a result not and action; a state not a act of disobedience. This means you can stand naked in the shower and still be loved by God. You can also be sin free and be naked before God.

These two factors along with the Old Testament prophets constantly referring to nakedness as exposure, shame and vulnerability lead me to formulate the following definition from the Bible concerning nakedness.

A Biblical Definition of Nakedness: The spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that caused by sin and a human is made aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God.

It is often reflected physically but not necessarily so. A person can still be exposed by their sin before God even when fully clothed. Likewise, a person who is devoid of clothing may still be covered by the righteousness of Christ and thus naked and not ashamed. Physicality is only a reflection and consequence not the state itself which is spiritual.

This definition is constantly repeated as God speaks to his people -- The idea of His punishments being exposing His sinful bride Israel to the world in naked shame is repeated over and over again.

There are several implications that now can be made when looking at nakedness of the physical and spiritual sort in our world when compared to this definition. My next three posts will reflect on these issues:

1. Art vs. Pornography

2. Public Nudity and the Christian

3. Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

Next: A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Art vs. Pornography.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 12 -- The Rest of the New Testament

This statue is from Corinth where Paul ministered

Now once we leave the Gospels and Acts it only takes till Romans 8:35 to get to a reference on nakedness -- it is a reference that nothing can separate us from the love of God -- not even nakedness. Now I am going to tell you this is one of the most significant verses I have seen on the subject of nakedness but I am going to tell you why in a later post -- just know this that if you are standing in the shower naked, the love of God is still there.

The next reference to nakedness is 2 Corinthians 5:3 which is in the context of taking off this mortal body so that we may put on the eternal one -- so we will not be found naked anymore. Does that mean part of new body will be clothed -- I doubt it -- but with the same of sin gone so will the shame of nakedness be gone. While we wear our white robes in 'heaven' we will doubtless not be ashamed; but also, if we were to take them off we would not be ashamed either -- sin is gone.

You have to get to James 2:15 where it makes reference to a brother or sister being without clothing and that faith would be demonstrated in giving them clothes to cover them.

In Revelation there are actually several stops -- 3:17-18 both mention nakedness -- in verse 17 it is about the reality of the state of the church of Laodicia -- they were naked -- exposed, vulnerable and shameful. Verse 18 tells them the cure -- buy clothing from God.

Revelation 16:15 has a parenthetical blessing to those who keep their clothes so that god will not see their shame -- now in this case I think the clothing is symbolic of righteousness which has been mentioned before in the book of revelation.

Finally in Revelation 17:16 there is a promise by God to the Whore of Babylon -- that He will strip her naked and leave her desolate. Another symbolic use of naked that she will have nothing left.

Well that is all i could find in reference to the Bible but I want to continue this series to by making a few observations and drawing a painful conclusion.

Next: Biblically -- What is Nakedness?

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 5 -- I -- Irresistable Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist

Oh boy, Whenever I write on this topic I get 'fan' mail. One major problem is that not all Calvinist go this far, but to be blunt if T,U and L are true then I is inevitable. You can dance around it but in the end God's grace is irresistible if election is unconditional. If God has elected you to salvation you are forced to accept his grace.

The doctrine of irresistible grace states basically this: that once God has decided to give his grace to you (See unconditional election) you cannot resist it and you will become saved. Like it or not.

Between this and P -- Perseverance Of The Saints (which I will deal with next week) you get the basis for Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). But more on that next week.

My largest problem with this is the image it creates of God that is highly unbiblical.

1) God only presents his grace to the elect. I find a universality in the Scripture of who gets loved by God -- Everyone. If every person is loved by God then why would he only make grace irresistible to those who he has made elect.
2) Faith coming exclusively from God. God only gives faith that saves to those he chooses. The fact remains that when our faith is talked about, it is always given the possessive to us. The Bible never describes faith as God's through us, but ours -- 'your faith' is always the idea. "Your faith has made you whole." etc., etc.
3) Throughout the Old Testament God's people are repeatedly described by God as being rebellious, but what difference would it make if God's grace is irresistible? None. Here we have God going on and on through the prophets calling his people back to him if such a call was irresistible in the first place. God does not work this way in the whole counsel of God.

To further my point, I would like to use an analogy that is common is Scripture. Marriage. The image of marriage is often used of God and his people. Now if this doctrine is true this is how covenant works with God. God proposes the covenant of marriage to you. You not only must say yes but you cannot help but say yes. You have been drugged by god so that you cannot help but say yes. Once you have said yes, God forces himself upon you in relationship and intimacy with him. This would be like me proposing marriage to my wife and then telling her she cannot help but say yes. In fact I am going to answer for her and say yes by taking over her mind and will to make her. Once we are married, I take her home with me and she must do what ever I will. She cannot refuse me for I keep her drugged so she never can resist anything I want to do. There is no love here in such a relationship -- constant spiritual rape is more like it.

Paula and others pay attention here.

I think salvation works more on the line of what engagement and marriage is supposed to be like: When I asked my wife to marry me I waited for her response. I CHOSE Her but she had to say 'yes'. Her saying 'yes' is nothing she did to earn my love, it is simply an acceptance of my offer and gift. Once yes was said did that mean my wife suddenly lost her will and she had nothing to say about how she and i walked in relationship? I think not. Such covenant relationships require give and take on both sides. If she goes out and fools around and no longer want to be married to me -- divorce takes place the covenant is broken.

In the same way God chose me and offered me his salvation but I still had to say yes. To say yes I must believe in Christ's resurrection and confess His Lordship over my life. (Romans 10:9-10) Was I doing 'a work' by doing this? No, all I did was accept an offered gift. Once done, I have said yes, but that does not mean the covenant does not have to be maintained. If I ever stop believing in the resurrection of Christ or, by my life, no longer confess the Lordship of Christ -- the covenant is broken. Conditions exist in this covenant and they are to be maintained or the covenant is gone. Read Deuteronomy for an example of this idea between God and his people.

Next: P - Perseverance of the Saint or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 3 -- U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil

Unconditional Election in my mind is the most heinous of the Tulips we are tiptoeing through because is creates an interesting an unbiblical view of God. When Wesley talked of it it said that it created a portrait of God that made God the devil. I agree.

The doctrine of unconditional election states that a person is predestined to heaven or hell before they are ever born. In short, God decided who will be with him in heaven or hell before they are even created. In short we have picture of God who is sitting on a throne who is throwing people right and left into heaven or hell before they have done anything. My problems with this are enormous.

1) How is God just if he does this? The defense I have heard is that God's justice is different than ours, but this is not so. God tells us what justice is and then declares himself many times to be its definition that we should follow and that we can know justice by knowing him.

2) Biblically this hard to support as every story that is told about final judgment tells us that people are judged by their actions as well as whether or not they possess faith in Christ. The names being blotted out of the book of life in Revelation is a particularly telling comment, overcoming to the end, and the words in Romans speaking of 'whosoever will' are expressions that cover the Bible with one idea -- there is a choice to be made by us that affects our salvation. it is a relationship entered into by covenant of BOTH parties including us.

The fact is that Calvin was trying to make God super sovereign and in so doing he robbed God of justice. He has turned the loving God into the unmerciful devil.

Some of the fruit I have seen of this doctrine are telling: One man I heard of burned himself to death because he believed that he was predestined to hell and he wanted to shorten the trip. Probably the most heinous thing it does is it justifies an antinomian attitude. Such a doctrine does more to fuel the 'let us sin that grace abound idea than any other. Calvinists I have talked to say this is not the case but ultimately does it matter what you do as a Christian. If you live righteously you go to heaven if your predestined to heaven, but even if you don't you are still predestined to heaven your going even if you sleep around or are a drunkard, etc. People living in sin openly because of a lack of fear of justice of God because you see they are predestined to heaven or Once Saved Always Saved doctrines that come from it abound.

In then end, I am pretty sure this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches to enter into a walk with through Christ by covenanting with him through his blood. To continue in that walk overcoming sin and situation through the Holy Spirit and to continue to the end. Unconditional election makes salvation a one shot wonder that really ultimately has no bearing in how we live our life.

Next: L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Only Has So Much Power

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 2 -- T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths

I remember when I told a friend that I did not believe in total depravity and that I felt the doctrine was unbiblical. His response was pretty typical -- 'Ed I know you and your past -- you were totally depraved'. Here is the thing, do we base our beliefs about God and man on our experiences as human beings or on the teachings found in Scriptures? The Scriptures I would hope. Then why is it then that the chief defense for this doctrine I hear is based on human experience? Odd.

OK, a little lesson in logic before we begin. Universals of either type are very difficult to prove. When you say 'All preachers are mortal' or 'No preachers are mortal' there is a universality to both. The first is positive; the second is negative. Of the two, the negative is the the most easiest to disprove. In ALL statements you may have to search a while. But all you would have to do in the case above is find one immortal preacher and the case is closed. In NO statements all you have to do is find is one example of an exception and the case is closed. One mortal preacher and the game is over. That is why a statement such as -- there is no God is difficult to both prove and maintain. All the theist has to do is prove is one proof for God's existence and the argument fails and to prove it, the atheist has to pretty much say he is looked in every corner of any place that exists to show God does not exist.

Total Depravity states: There is NO action by man that is not marked by sin. This is actually the weakest type of argument to make. All you have to do is show a single example of an action taken by a man that is declared to be righteous by God and the argument is gone.

First thing --define sin. Total Depravity proponents define sin as 'missing the mark' using etymology to get the definition. The problem is that the Bible itself gives definitions of sin and they never use -- 'missing the mark.' If sin is anything that is not flawlessly perfect then total depravity is true, maybe. The problem is that using etymology -- looking up the original meaning of a word -- is not helpful. What matters is what the word means when the author penned it. In all case of the writers of Scripture from Moses to John the Apostle the definition is pretty much the same: Sin is a violation or disobedience to the commands of God. With Biblical definition in hand, lets look to see if in the Bible (best source) or in life (support source) where people might not be in violation of the commands of God and thus not be totally depraved.

1) People in the Bible declared righteous by God. There are many of these but the most notable example is Job to make my point. "Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God." Boy, either definition you use, total depravity takes a nasty knock. "Through all this Job did not miss the mark or blame God" or 'Through all this Job did not violate a command of God ...". The point is this, once you have the Scriptures saying there was no sin to a person's actions, the doctrine that nothing we do is not touched by sin becomes difficult to maintain. There are many more of these if you read Scripture. Try Luke 1:5-6: 'In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

2) In life, do you really want to God through every action a person could possible take and then say what is sinful about it. A person jumps in a lake and saves a person from drowning -- where is the sin? All I have to do is show one action taken by anyone that does not violate a command of God or actually upholds a command and BANG -- no total depravity.

This is not to say that I do not believe all people are sinners. "All have sinned" is a Biblical statement. The only thing required to make this true however is that each person sin once. It is a Universal Positive Statement logically. Once a person has violated the law of God even a single time they qualify and need a Savior. Total Depravity not required.

Nor will I say that I do not believe that people become depraved -- Romans 1 declares and shows a decent into depravity. The one thing though I can say is that how does one descend to a lower point of depravity as Romans 1 indicates if you are already at the bottom as Total Depravity indicates? Strange, huh? My point is we start as sinners and then as we continue to sin we become depraved.

For me, the more I thought about it, the doctrine of total depravity is overly simplistic in describing the condition of mankind in relationship to God. It also is extremely negative in its assessment of the human condition; where I don't think even God has such a view of man or he would have destroyed us in the flood and been done with it. I just find it Scripturally and intellectually unsatisfying. It is not the worst letter in TULIP but in the end I find it wanting and I reject it.

Next: U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil.

The Citizen of Zion

Psalm 15 – A Psalm of David.

1O LORD, who may abide in Your tent?
Who may dwell on Your holy hill?
2 He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness,
And speaks truth in his heart.
3 He does not slander with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
4 In whose eyes a reprobate is despised,
But who honors those who fear the LORD;
He swears to his own hurt and does not change;
5 He does not put out his money at interest,
Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent
He who does these things will never be shaken.

I have often reflected on this Psalm and I have in recent days begun to break it down for a possible set of sermons if I ever get the chance to preach again. It is a lot more work than people would like to indicate to be a citizen of God’s kingdom. People like to make it easy to ‘get saved’. Accepting Christ is not a magic formula with a free pass to heaven for simply praying prayer and crying a few tears of sorrow over sins. Salvation involves a change of citizenship. Citizenship implies civil responsibilities of the citizen to his new country.

Unfortunately, too many view salvation as a single event and not a lifestyle of citizenship in a new country. They trust the event and not the new relationship formed with the Father through Christ and the Holy Spirit. They place their faith in their prayer of salvation rather than the giver of salvation. Citizenship in the Kingdom of God is rarely the issue in such cases. It also does not help that many Christian leaders seem to promote the idea of event based salvation and have turned away from the idea that a person is a transformed new creature in Christ.

In a recent conversation with a fellow believer, he highlighted a problem that we teach our children to behave according to the rules of the Bible and then they become frustrated that they cannot uphold the standard we teach and that they fail to see others live this standard. I submitted to him that the problem is that we do not teach our children that the main issue is not their behavior, but their transformation into disciples or Christ and citizens of God’s kingdom. We focus to much on the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ and spend very little time teaching our children what it means to be ‘born again’ and a new creature in Christ. We create the impression that it is merely a question of their own will to do the right thing. Nothing could be further from the truth because if this were so then Romans 3 could not be true. The law is insufficient when written on tables of stone; only the law of love written on a person’s heart can change a person sufficiently enough for them to be obedient to God. Only by being born again can a person be changed enough for genuine love to guide them and only by emphasizing that this is life transformation not religious ritual

No citizen of any country will behave properly if they do not share the ideals of that country. Ideals are not shaped by simply saying I am a citizen and signing a card; a person’s heart, the very seat of their passions, be must be changed and then behavior follows. A person who loves their country will act accordingly. The person who truly loves God will obey him out of personal transformation not outward obligation. But if salvation is reduced to a few ‘repeat after me’ sentences and a membership card it makes me wonder if a person has had a genuine chance to be reborn in Christ.

It is only when genuine transformation takes place that a person can live the life a citizen of Zion is called to live. A life that reflects Psalm 15.

Bible Bull – “Dead in Sin"

Ok, I know what you are thinking – how could I say this is ‘bull’. Well word search time on BibleGateway.com. Perform a Bible search for ‘dead in sin’ – the exact phrase. Search any version you like and you know what you find. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Now maybe like the concept of the Trinity. The word is not actually used but the idea is there if you look at a couple of Scriptures and do the math. Ok, new search –dead, sin – match all words. Now I used five versions, KJV, NIV, NASB, NLT and ESV. I got 10 hits, but I had to eliminate Number 6:11 and 1 Samuel 25:39 because this is the dead body thing or someone died because of their sin against God. I also had to remove Romans 6:1, 2, 11 and 1 Peter 2:24 because it is about a believer being ‘dead to sin’. Romans 6:7 and 13 are dismissed as well because it is the same context as the others about ‘dead TO sin’. That leaves only two verses that might say something directly Romans 7:8 and 8:10.

Romans 7:8, in context, is talking about how death came to Paul through the commandment. When he realized he had broken the law he died. That of course brings up a question: How is it possible for one to die through sinning (committing acts of sin) if one is already dead in a state of sin? In any case, it is not really helpful in proving that we are dead in a state of sin because that is not the point of the passage.

Romans 8:10 doesn’t help either. It talks about our bodies being dead because of sin but our spirits being alive through Christ. It is in context about the new life a believer has in Christ and because of this it does not help the discussion about ‘are we ‘dead IN sin’ before salvation.

This leaves us in a quandary. Well, one more search ‘died, sin’. 5 hits and once again once we eliminate Numbers 27:3 and all the ones from Romans 6 we are left with Romans 7:9. This unfortunately has the same context as Romans 7:8 – gone.

Only one verse in the whole Bible comes close to saying ‘dead in sin’ – Ephesians 2:1-2:

“1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.”

Now here is the problem. This does not say we are dead in a pre-existent state of sin, but through actions of ‘trespasses’ and ‘sins’ were are dead or better the idea is we were killed. Verse 2 also gives us a cause. No it is not flesh or sinful nature – but the prince and power of the air and the world system through the sons of disobedience. In is not a state we are born in – we are taught it.

I have to painfully conclude that the idea that we are ‘dead in sin’ is Bible Bull – it isn’t there. That leaves a very painful possibility that all of us in some way face our own Garden of Eden like experience with commandment – and we all fail. The why is the same reason that Adam and Eve failed in that same garden: ignorance and arrogance. The fact is that our parents didn’t make us do it. Oh they have been the devil’s henchmen in presenting the temptation, but it is we that made the choice to sin willfully against God. It is not: ‘I couldn’t help it I am a born sinner’ it is “I was presented with an option and I willfully took the one that made me an enemy of God.” Ignorance of the consequences and/or arrogance that they would not affect us is why we sin- not a preexistent state.

It is interesting however how much people defend this idea to the bitter end but then turn around and say the Christian is still a sinner despite at least four verses if not a whole chapter (Romans 6) that directly say the opposite in straight shooter language too. Why is it the ‘dead in sin’ is hailed as absolute truth, with no direct Biblical support and no indirect support either, but the concept of ‘dead to sin’ is debated when it has several verses that directly say so? Because our flesh (our earthly nature) likes the one doctrine and not the other, that’s why. It is simply the fact that carnal Christianity has done a bang up job at justifying sin inside the pure and spotless bride known as the church. But more on that subject for another day’s writing.

‘Dead in Sin’ –Sorry that’s Bible Bull.