top of page




Most are agreed that the Fall affected man both physically and spiritually, so how can one word have a dual meaning when used in the same sentence in reference to two things? If I say the bomb killed both John and Mike how can anyone possibly interpret my statement to mean John died but Mike was only wounded? I specifically chose the word killed in an effort to report accurately what happened, so what right does anyone have to say ‘John's dead, but Mike's ok, he's only been hurt’? How can anyone logically conclude that killed means that only one of the men died? If someone were to ask me 'What happened to Adam and Eve when they ate the fruit?'  My answer would be a direct 'They died' . That would mean death, in both its physical and spiritual context, had occurred. The Pelagian and Arminian would seek to deny both. The Pelagian would say 'Yes, they died but not in a physical way because they were already mortal'. Pelagius "...went so far as to say that man is born in the same condition as Adam was before the Fall; that is, he is born without sin". Pelagius held that many Old Testament figures had actually remained sinless, and believed that only those who were morally upright could be allowed to enter the church". Pelagius did not believe in spiritual death or that physical death came as a result of original sin. The Arminian says man died 'but not in a spiritual way for there remained in man the capacity, the free will to choose God'. In saying, man is not spiritually dead both the Pelagian and Arminian follow in their father's footsteps who told Eve that she would not surely die.


God specifically used the word die in His warning to convey in accurate detail what would happen to man physically, and He specifically used the word die to describe what would happen to man spiritually. God used the same brush (the word die) to paint the same picture, DEATH, concerning the physical and spiritual state of man! Granted, there are many words in Scripture that have various shades of meaning and connotations which can be used in different ways, but the word die, as used not only in Genesis 2 but THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BIBLE, is not one of them. Die has only one meaning: death! Everything about it relates to death. Only one thing can rightly and legitimately be inferred from a clearly written statement, and that is the exact intention of the writer. Can the reader think of a way to use the word die to mean anything other than death in all its finality? Moreover, can the reader find any such example in the pages of Scripture? The way to find out if spiritual death was not intended by God in His warning is to find Scriptures and passages of Scripture that would say so. I can spare you the exhausting, frustrating and futile search my friend by announcing that there are no such Scriptures to be found from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation. Who in their right mind would ever use such a word as ‘die’ to mean something other than death? Not even Satan did that! And who in their right mind could ever interpret and believe the word die as meaning anything other than death! Is the word die being used metaphorically by God in Genesis 2? Is the Lord describing something by equating it with something else? If so, to what is the word die being equated? Why bother with metaphors when the principle of obedience and disobedience, life and death, is at play here in Genesis 2. Only the carnal mind of man, which is able to confuse and misunderstand just about anything could even think to propose any alternative to the consequences and meaning of the word die. Only those who do not know and believe the truth are open to erroneous interpretations of it. Disobedience to God brings death! The wages of Adam and Eve's disobedient action in eating the fruit brought nothing but death. Mortality, in the widest sense of the word, and in all its irresistibility, had just been released into man's existence by his disobedience. "The soul that sinneth it shall die..." (Ezek. 18:20). Even when the word die is used in a merely figurative way, the sense is always to express cessation, finality, loss of all hope or end of life. Die is never used to mean sickness, or a state of being unwell or to describe an escapable situation. It is the ultimate word when expressing finality and closure.


The words die, died, diest and dieth appear a total of 548 times in the Bible (462 in the Old Testament and 86 in the New). In every instance these words are used, NOT ONCE do any of them carry the sense of being unwell, sick or suffering the pain of a non life-threatening wound. NOT ONCE are these words used to convey the slightest of hope, even in a microscopic form, that there is any life remaining in man. If there was any life remaining in the spiritual sense after death, then there must also be some form of life in the physical sense after death. What a person claims for one must also be claimed for the other otherwise they are not being consistent, they are not being true to their interpretation of the word die. Moreover, if any life remained either physically or spiritually, God would have been the liar and not Satan. If death did not come in its fullest form after sin, both physically as well as spiritually, then no one really and eternally dies and spiritually no one would currently be in a state of eternal spiritual death. Whatever one might say about the word, die, as used in Genesis 2 and 3, covers both the spiritual and physical realm, and that equally. And, seeing that no one can play any sort of game with the fact that die meant death in the physical sense no one has any right to decide that die incredibly and suddenly means something completely different concerning death when it comes to the spiritual. The words die, died, diest and dieth carry the following meaning in the Old Testament: 'breathe out, i.e. expire, die, be dead, give up the ghost, perish; dead, to lose one’s life, worthy of death, destroy, die, kill, slay very suddenly; dead, the dead, their place or state, ruin; death, die, execution as a doom; cease, die, surely throw down, rot, smite out; a flabby thing i.e. a carcase, died of itself'. And in the New Testament: 'to finish life, expire, demise, be dead, decease, die; to die off, be dead, die, be slain; to decease, be dead; ruin, damnable, destruction, die, perdition; to destroy fully, perish, destroy, die'. Anyone yet to be convinced that die means death just does not want to believe it.


In light of these unavoidable and undeniable biblical facts I am sure that were the shoe on the other foot, if it were true Christians who claimed that the word die meant sick or unwell, or other such words relating to illness, but could not find any Scriptural proof for their assertion, but only evidence showing that die meant death, Arminians the world over would point to this as overwhelming evidence that they were right and all others wrong. Oh, how they would point to the Scriptures every chance they had to remind us that die means death! BUT, there is not even a skerrick of evidence to which the Arminian can turn that will support his mad theory that die does not mean death. Hauntingly, the only Scripture that they can turn to is the one which includes Satan's lie that man would not surely die! But still they would have problems for Satan's response to God's declaration is not a denial of the meaning of the word die, but simply a rejection that death would take place. Even Satan did not deny the meaning of the word die, he just said that death would not result from disobedience. Satan didn't even say that only sickness, a state of physical and spiritual ill health, would occur. Satan said no death would occur, that there would be no negative outcome at all, but that Eve and her husband would only benefit from disobeying God and eating the fruit. What the Arminian gospel says is that the word die does not mean eternal and complete death and separation, alienation, from God, but only a temporary, partial and fragmentary separation, at worst, has taken place. In denying the proper meaning, or declaration, of death, which the word die is a clear delineation of, Arminianism joins hands with Satan himself in claiming that the death intended by God in His use of the word die never took place! Again, if the word die, as used by Almighty God in Genesis 2, does not mean spiritual death then it also cannot mean physical death for that one word is used to describe both the physical and spiritual consequences of eating the fruit. Death came on the day of, and from the moment of, disobedience.


Of all the words, and all the ways God could have used them, to describe the consequence of man’s partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He chose one word and one word only, 'DIE', and He used it the only way it could be used: to signify death. If the word die did not mean death in the spiritual sense as well as the physical, God would have used the word die to describe what would happen to man physically and an entirely different word to describe what would happen to man spiritually, or vice versa, so that none could falsely accuse Him of being the author of confusion in the matter of man’s physical and spiritual state after the Fall. A state, I might add, which was fundamentally different to that prior to man having sinned as seen in God's warning: death as opposed to life. But there was obviously no need for God to use two words, for He placed what would happen to man both physically and spiritually in the same category under the one word, DIE! The only confusion about the meaning of the word die lies not with the saved, but only in the hearts and minds of the lost. Those guided by the spirit of error and not the Spirit of Truth. Die was so important and significant a word that even Satan used it to deny what God had said would occur if He was disobeyed, for there was no other word that could match it! Missing a golden opportunity to establish trust and credibility in the lie that die does not mean death, Satan used the word die because he knew there was no word he could employ to re-define what God had threatened, and so all he could do was to deny it. Die meant death then, and die means death now, and no one can change that Scriptural and inexorable fact. Had Satan used any other word than die he would not have been opposing what God had said. He would not have denied what God had said would occur. God used the word die and so to deny what God had said, Satan had to use the word die also. Satan did not say, 'Ye  shall not surely become unwell', or, 'Ye shall not surely become sick', but he used the word die. In the context, Satan said, 'Ye shall not physically die and ye shall not spiritually die'. Whatever he said would not occur to man physically, he also said would not occur to man spiritually. He lied about both. Even Satan did not retort by saying 'Ye shall not surely die but only be in an impermanent, spiritual coma from which you will eventually recover'. His contention was that what God said would happen, would not happen at all. But what God promised would happen DID happen: man did surely both physically and spiritually DIE.


Again, die is a word which cannot be mistaken in its meaning but only perverted either by ignorance, or by those who wilfully seek to corrupt the Scriptures so as to render it a different meaning. Die is a word which allows no room for life! It gives no cause to believe that there is hope. 'Die' means finality, culmination, the permanent ceasing of all activity. One of those spiritual activities that has been stopped by sin is that man would no longer seek, nor want to seek, after the true God (see Rom. 3) which was first evidenced in Adam and Eve hiding themselves from God immediately after eating the fruit. DIE IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF A DISEASED LIFE BUT OF A DECEASED LIFE! It does not suggest a present but unwell life but declares an outright ABSENCE of life! The word ‘die’ does not imply a state of sickness, no mere deterioration, but indicates utter desolation! For what logical, honest, reason would anyone seek to infer anything other than death upon hearing the word 'die'? Who in their right mind would use the word die in reference to a relative or friend who was merely sick? No one! Then why is God accused of using the word die to refer to a state of sickness? Does anyone warn a child of certain sickness if they eat too many sweets, by saying they will die if they over indulge? If someone is critically ill or even in intensive care, the first thing that comes to mind is, ‘At least they’re NOT dead’. The term sick denotes the presence of life, albeit an unwell life. That there is still some life, and, therefore, hope of recovery. So no matter how sick a person may reportedly be, the presence of sickness, by definition, implies the presence of life. But God did not say, 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely become sick'. God said “…in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely DIE” (Gen. 2:17,). Contrary to the lie of Satan, Jacob Arminius, Pelagius and all their followers, Adam and Eve did surely die, and the Scriptures present overwhelming evidence to that end.


Has anyone ever described a physically sick person as being dead, or a dead person as being sick? A person in the last days of a terminal illness may be referred to by the phrase ‘as good as dead’ but they cannot already, or actually, be dead whilst any life remains. THEY CANNOT BE LEGALLY, OFFICIALLY, PRONOUNCED DEAD UNTIL ALL LIFE HAS EXPIRED. God could never have used the word die in reference to what would happen to Adam and Eve if that word did not carry within it the meaning of utter and complete expiration of all life. A person may be sick and dying, but they cannot be sick AND dead! A person may be in a coma but still they are not dead. So why would anyone ever think that God would use the word die as a reference to sickness, or to a nonmortally wounded life? The word die in Genesis 2 covers both physical existence and spiritual life like a shroud. In fact, to be spiritually dead, eternally separated from God, means to also suffer the repercussions of physical death. Since God is the Source of all life, being separated from Him spiritually would surely also include eventual physical death. 'Dying you shall die'. How, in light of this, can anyone have arrived at, and billions believe, the preposterous and nonsensical conclusion, especially after reading God’s statement that man would surely die if he ate of the tree, that die does not mean death at all, but something other than death? The whole thing is self-explanatory: Those who believe that man is not spiritually dead have fallen victim to the Satanic lie that man would not surely die. In doing so, they ironically provide the principle evidence that they are indeed spiritually dead, for they do not believe the Truth. Using man's wisdom, which is nothing less than foolishness to God, scholars and Bible college professors have come up with all sorts of carnal interpretations of what exactly spiritual death is, but they all fail to realise that what happened to man physically also happened to him spiritually. Did die mean anything other than death in the physical sense? Of course not. There is no controversy here except for the Pelagianist. Then what justification does anyone have to even suggest that die might mean anything other than death in the spiritual sense also! Many use the word die, but insist that it does not mean death! What other meaning then could it have? PLEASE find me biblical support. Even a single verse will do! What possible justification does any person have who believes that man died physically but who believes he did not die spiritually? Only a spiritually dead man could ever even entertain the notion that die does not mean death, for those who have been made spiritually alive to God by God have no problem whatsoever in acknowledging the fact that they were at one time dead in sin, dead to God and, therefore, without hope, and desperately needing to be made alive from that death. Those who deny spiritual death are living examples of spiritual death, and provide perhaps the strongest evidence yet for spiritual death.


Can the reader find one instance in the Bible where the word life does not mean life? Surely if God did not mean to say that Adam would literally die both physically and spiritually, He would not have overlooked such an important detail, but would have chosen another word to specify that man would die physically, yet spiritually would only become unwell, corrupted yet not devastated, seriously afflicted in his affections for God yet not completely destitute of them. That man would be loosely separated and alienated from the life of God, but that his relationship with God would somehow only be damaged, yet not irreparably, or, irretrievably so. God would never have used the one word, die, to mean a knockout blow would be delivered concerning man's physical existence, but that the same blow would only spiritually knock man down and from which he would rise. How foolish would a person have to be to even entertain such a thought in light of the overwhelming biblical evidence of the meaning of the word die. If die does not mean death in the Genesis passage despite all of the evidence to the contrary, then what does any word in the Bible mean? Has man been given liberty by God to place any meaning on any word in all of Scripture as long as it suits their particular theological prejudice, what they would like/prefer right theology to be? Has eisegesis, (“the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text”) or reading into something that which was not intended to be inferred, suddenly become a legitimate form of interpretation of Scripture rather than solely by exegesis: “a careful, objective analysis” of what is written comparing Scripture with Scripture? If so, there would be no certainty to the meaning of any word, including the false interpretation of the word die meaning unwell, and private interpretation would be the order of the day—a case of everyone attaching to a word whatever meaning they see fit to suit their particular doctrinal bias, or blind denominational allegiance. “…no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). The Scriptures are not subjective, nor were they written to be subjected to what we think they are saying, but only to express what God is saying. No Scripture was ever written by the impulse of natural man, but all were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and so it is a fool who attaches his own understanding, or that of others, to any Scripture rather than rightly comparing Scripture with Scripture (see 2 Tim. 2:15,16; 1 Cor. 2:13). One could find some reason to cling to the belief that die does not mean death in Genesis 2 and 3 if there were other sections of Scripture where the word die did not mean death. But even this faint ‘hope’ is dashed because, as we have shown, THERE IS NO SUCH INSTANCE, NO PRECEDENT, IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE WHERE THE WORD DIE DOES NOT CLEARLY MEAN DEATH! You will not, and cannot, ever learn of man's non-spiritual death from the pages of Scripture. You could never reach such a conclusion by only reading the Word of God. A man must be taught such fantasy by listening to agenda-driven, rather than truth-based, men, and reading their twisted ideas and interpretations of what Scripture speaks plainly of. So we see that there is no biblical justification for the belief that man is not utterly dead spiritually and that he can, therefore, of his own free will reach out and choose God.


Man immediately died spiritually after he sinned against God. This we know from God’s own words: " the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17). In saying this God was declaring, 'From the moment you eat of that fruit you will surely be without Me, you will be righteous no longer, you will not seek Me or desire Me, nor My Son as the One Who would save His people from their sins, and, therefore, you will be without hope in the world'. To search the entire Bible in the hope of finding evidence that the word die does not mean death is a futile exercise because, as we have seen, everywhere the word die is mentioned it plainly speaks of death. Perhaps you might find a distorted meaning of die in new versions of the Word of God, but after conducting a search through a list of 48 new and old Bible versions concerning Genesis 2:17, I found that 47 of them used the word die, and 1 using the word dead. Even perverted versions of the Bible, which have played havoc with words such as blood in relation to Christ's atoning death, cannot get away from the fact that die speaks of death. But even if they did, or even if you are able to find a version that denies death in Genesis 2 and 3, you will never find any such distortion in the original Hebrew. Satan lies, then man takes up that lie and goes about deceiving and being deceived. Different meanings and various interpretations of God's Truth belong to the realm of the lost and not to those who know the Truth. You will have to go to the mere writings of lost men and read their warped and Satanic 'reasoning' concerning spiritual death to find any 'support' for the lie that die does not mean death. The word day in Genesis 2:17 does have several shades of meaning in the Old Testament, and can refer to an age or an actual period of twenty-four hours, but it is used here to mean a point of time or a moment. So the verse reads: ‘ the moment, at that point of (in) time, that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die’. Adam and Eve "...experienced spiritual death immediately, resulting in their shame and their attempt to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:7). Sin and/or the presence of spiritual death required a covering, but man’s provision was inadequate; so God made a perfect covering in the form of a promised Redeemer (see Gen. 3:15) and a typological covering of animal skins (Gen. 3:21; cf. Isa. 61:10; Zech. 3:4)"Man is thoroughly hopeless and totally inadequate without God.


Before man sinned he possessed a death-free spiritual and physical existence—benefits he received from a loving God. The penalty for sin was the complete withdrawal and replacement of such blessings with a curse (see Gen. 3:16-24), leaving man in a state of physical corruption, which would eventually lead to his physical death, but in a state of immediate spiritual death: eternal separation from God, meaning, being without God and without any hope in this world. The opposite of obedience is disobedience, the opposite of blessing is curse and the opposite of life is death. Both physical and spiritual death has passed on to the whole race of man and did not merely cease with Adam and Eve or with their immediate offspring. The following verses provide a clear indication of this: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12). This does not mean that because all men have sinned death has passed upon all, but that their sinning is the evidence which shows that physical and spiritual death has passed upon all men through original sin. The curse of physical and spiritual death is upon all men, and is demonstrated by the fact that all of mankind sins, will physically die, and is already spiritually dead, that there are none, by nature, who seek after God. One cannot have clearer evidence of the existence of spiritual death than the complete absence in every man, by nature, of  any desire for the true God or of even seeking Him. Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 is where we see death in Adam contrasted with life in Christ: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made Righteous" (Rom. 5:19; cf. Rom. 5:12,17,18,21). "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Jn.17:21). Men do not die because they sin, but man sins because he is at enmity with, spiritually alienated from, and, dead to God. Man is dead in sin and dead to God which in turn brings with it physical death, and an eventual, unavoidable eternity in Hell.


Physical death and spiritual death are both a direct result of man's disobedience to God, and that disobedience is evidenced in man's mortal physical existence and in his spiritually dead state. "...through the offence of one many be dead..." (Rom. 5:15); " one man’s offence death reigned by one..." (Rom. 5:17); " the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation..." (Rom. 5:18); " one man’s disobedience many were made sinners..." (Rom. 5:19); " man came Adam all die..." (1 Cor. 15:21,22; cf. Jas. 1:15). By man's sin came death. The curse of death reigns in every man by nature. By sin came condemnation in the guise of the curse of spiritual and physical death. Disobedience/unbelief brings the cursed condemnation of death. All the seed of Adam are affected by the curse of death. The saved person, the Gospel believer, is no longer under the spiritual curse for Christ Jesus the Lord became a curse for them (see Gal. 3:13). For the saved person there is now no condemnation whatsoever for they are in Christ Jesus (see Gal. 3:26-28; cf. Col. 3:3). They no longer walk after the flesh but after the Spirit (see Rom. 8:1), for they have passed from death to life (see Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 3:14). Those who walk after the flesh are those whose minds are carnal, and the Scriptures show clearly that to be carnally minded is death and enmity against God: "For to be carnally minded is death....Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:6,7; cf. Rom.8:5,8), and, therefore, can never please God (see also Rom. 7:18-25). This is man in his natural state who is not a seeker of the true God neither indeed can be.  "...without regenerating grace, without the power and Spirit of God, unless it is written upon the heart by the finger of God; for carnal men are dead in sin, and so without strength to obey the law; and besides, the carnal mind, and the law of God, are directly contrary one to another. Where is man's power and free will?" Man in his natural state is hopeless, for he is without God, being alienated from Him. What good is free will to a carnal mind which is dead to, and therefore without, God and what need is there for free will for the saved man who has God?


Now, if for whatever reason a person, even in light of such convincing biblical evidence, remains unmoved from their position that man is only sin-sick and able of his own free will to reach out to, choose and call upon the true God, then surely it would be right to expect that discernible evidence for such a belief would be found in whole passages throughout the Bible, particularly in the New Testament. One of the surest ways to learn if something is actually Scriptural—according to what God says—is to search the Scriptures with diligence, not in order to find only a verse or two, or even a collection of verses which seem to be saying the same thing, and then close the Bible satisfied that one’s doctrine has been verified and one’s beliefs confirmed, for such is the domain of the cultist. To learn if something is actually Scriptural there must be a constant and consistent theme present throughout the pages of, not only the New Testament, but also the Old Testament, and which are confirmed and supported by other doctrines taught by the Scriptures. You will not find even one verse that disagrees with man's spiritual state of death. There is no contradiction, or confusion in truth, and certainly not in the Truth of the Word of God. Truth never fears but only ever welcomes examination. It encourages and invites investigation including microscopic analysis, for the truth always fits with the facts. By inviting examination the Truth of God gains the opportunity for men to see it, to hear it and to testify of the true God. The Truth of God is always ready for testing, however, it is man's trepidation and reluctance, due to his spiritually dead state, which hinders him from seriously seeking to rightly understand what God's Truth is saying. Such anxiety leads a man to that with which he is more comfortable, and which poses no threat to his preferred religious comfort zone which helps form, and corroborate, his warped views and opinions about the God of Truth.


For any who are yet to be convinced in their minds, but want more proof of man’s post-Fall spiritual condition, we trust the following will be of assistance in your investigation of whether man has a free will to choose God, or whether being separated from God means that man in his current lost condition is utterly without hope, not able to come to God because he has no will—no natural propensity—to come to the true God, and is thus dependant solely upon the mercy and grace of God for his salvation. This study will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that man is completely and utterly dead in sin, dead to God, and, therefore, without will and without hope in this world.


Firstly, it is right to assume that, at least in appearance, the intention of the majority is to believe only in that which the true God says and to reject any and every thought and idea of man’s that would establish a prejudice against, and seek to lead one astray from, the Word of God on the matter at hand. On the face of it such an intention is a good thing but intention is no guarantee that what a person ends up believing the truth to be, is actually what the truth is. The best intentions in the world provide no safeguard against error. Theoretically, mankind's intention is to believe the truth, but that intention so often morphs into repulsion when they are actually confronted with the Truth of God. So what does this say about intentions which come from the carnal mind of a spiritually dead man? Intention and sincerity are not the keys to knowing the truth for they do not preclude anyone from being deceived into believing a satanic lie as the truth. One can intend to believe the true God and His Word, but when one believes in a false god and his lies what good does his intention do for him? Intention to believe the truth can never be equivalent to an actual belief of the truth. There is a substantial difference between thinking you know the Truth, and knowing you know the Truth. Intention is less than worthless unless it is accompanied by recognition of what the real truth is. Zealousness for truth is pointless unless that zeal is according to right knowledge of the True God (see Rom. 10:2). That right knowledge of God is critically essential, to salvation, is seen in many Scriptures including those found at the beginning of Peter’s second Letter: “…His Divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him…” (2 Pet. 1:3). The next verse speaks of Christians having “…escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…” (2 Pet. 2:20; cf. 2 Cor. 4:6; Phil. 3:8). What good is intention to believe whatever the truth is if it is not accompanied with the knowledge and ability to recognise it. The apostle Paul says "How then shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed?..." (Rom. 10:14). All the good intentions in the world cannot help you call on the True God if you do not believe in the True God. One cannot intend to believe in the True God when one does not know Who the True God is, what the True God has done, and for whom the True God has done it. Scripture says that a man cannot call out to the True God if he does not know who the true God is (see Rom.10:14-16). People today seem to think that simply by saying the word 'God' is to automatically know Who He is. The only way a man can know who the True God is and what His Truth is, is if the True God reveals Himself and His Truth to the man through His Holy Word. This is why we are about to delve into the Scriptures themselves, for they are the very Words of God. If you could go to God and ask Him specific questions concerning man’s spiritual state, and alleged free will, He would say nothing different to you than what He has already stated in His Holy Word. In fact, He would simply point you to His written Word, for this is the means God has chosen to communicate His Truth in these last days. Just as God cannot change, God's Word never changes for God's Word, as well as God Himself, IS Truth.


Let us then begin a more concentrated study concerning the alleged free will of man in reference to his choosing God, with Paul's Letter to the Christians at Rome. Paul the apostle states, "...there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one....there is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:10-12,18; cf. Psa. 14:3; Psa. 53:1-3). One would be hard-pressed to find a better, clearer, description of what it is to be spiritually dead to God, and without free will, than this passage from the Word of God. Forgetting, for a moment, whether the word die means utter spiritual death, what possible life toward God could there be in man who is: not righteous; does not understand and does not seek after the True God? What life could have remained in man who has gone out of the way and has become unprofitable, or, useless. In man who does no good and in whose eyes there exists no fear of God. PLEASE, SOMEBODY FIND ME EVEN A HINT OF SPIRITUAL LIFE, AND, THEREFORE, FREE WILL, LEFT IN A MAN WHO IS IN SUCH A STATE! Man is not righteous and cannot make himself righteous. No man understands the things of God, and, cannot ever do so with his natural, carnal mind: “…the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”  (1 Cor. 2:14). The clear message here is that no man who has not been made spiritually alive by God can ever possibly understand the things of God, for they are utterly devoid of the ability to spiritually reason. Without spiritual life, there is no spiritual ability. No man actually seeks after the true God. Man is altogether unprofitable. No man does good in the sight of God. And, there is no fear of the true God in any man. In light of these Scriptures only a spiritually dead man could conclude that man can choose God, for in doing so he would show that he is dead to the Truth of God! How else could any man describe spiritual death than by these very words of God. Man is NOT in right standing with God; Man does NOT understand God, he does NOT understand nor believe the Gospel of God; Man does NOT seek after the true God, he does NOT want the true God, for he does NOT understand, or recognize, the true God as God. Man does NOT do any good in the sight of God, for he is separated from God. Man has NOT the fear of God before his eyes. Man is blind to the True God. He cannot see Him, and he cannot recognize Him. He can do no good and therefore he cannot please the True God. He does NOT seek because he does NOT want the True God. He does NOT seek because he does NOT understand, and, therefore, cannot recognize the True God, which subsequently proves that no man, by nature—that is, his natural spiritual condition—knows, or can know, the True God. If this is not spiritual death how else could it possibly be described. What word would you use for it and it still make sense in light of other Scriptures which deal with man's sinful state, etc. Romans 3 covers it all and shows clearly man's deplorable and hopeless spiritual condition before God.


From this passage in Romans 3 we see that spiritual death means no man is righteous in the sight of God, that is, no man is in right standing with God, by nature, for man's righteousness is wholly unacceptable before God. No man is alive to God, for, all by nature, all are dead to God. No man is alive to God because all men are, by nature, dead to God: without God, without hope and therefore must be without free will. To say that man has free will is to say that man is not spiritually dead, and that he does have some hope in the world. Even if one were alone in the middle of an ocean but had a lifesaver he would have some hope of surviving, albeit a very slim one. But man's condition is that he is not only in the middle of an ocean, he has no lifesaver, and it would do him no good anyway, for he has already drowned! Scripture states clearly that man is without ANY hope and, therefore, must also be without any free will to choose God. Seeing that Scripture states clearly that man is without any hope because he is without the true God in this life, it simply cannot be that man can choose God. If man is without hope, then he is without God how then can any man have a free will to choose the True God when Scripture says that no man seeks Him? The Christ concurs with Romans 3 when He says that "...NO man cometh unto the Father, but by Me" (Jn. 14:6; cf. Jn. 6:44,65). This does not mean that spiritually dead man wants the true God but can only get to Him by the Son, but that there is no will or way at all for natural man to come unto the Father unless the Lord Jesus doeth the work. Just as no man can come unto Jesus but by the Father drawing, or his having learned of the Father, having this ability given unto Him of the Father, so too, no man can come unto the Father but by Jesus: Who He is and what He has done to save His people from their sins (see Jn. 6:44,45,65; Matt. 1:21). There is only ONE WAY to the Father and it is not by a man's free will, but only by the one Mediator the Lord Jesus Christ. He does not save by enabling you to choose Him, but saves by making you alive to Him and granting the gifts of Grace and Faith so that you will believe in Him and His glorious Gospel.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

bottom of page