Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Bill Taylor]

Bill in red. ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:33 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14   Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:15 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14   I know I’m not up on your doctrinal issues, Bill, so please tell me why you seem to reject the idea of someone being spiritually dead prior to being born again of the Spirit.  I’d appreciate it. izzy     There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine, Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime.  True.   Paul tells us that Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin and he did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior.  I don’t follow you here, Bill.  We ARE still in our sinful flesh unless/until we are born again of the Spirit, as Jesus told Nicodemus. Jesus accomplished that deliverance (to those who become born again) for us on the cross. I undertand the distinction you are drawing, Izzy, and it is a very common and "orthodox" one at that; however I am not convinced that this "born again" event is something which happens at a point in our twenty-first century lifetime. I am leaning instead toward the view that were "born again" in Christ in his resurrection. You can read my comments to Kevin for more on this.   According to the classic doctrine of spiritual death, "sinful flesh" is "spiritually dead" (read David's very helpful posting of Augustine on this). The term "sinful flesh" is thus itself a metaphor for the entire person living in a fallen state and a sin nature. Yes, I believe that. And since this nature is spiritually dead, it has no ability or desire to seek God. In itself, this is true—God must extend His grace to woo us. It must be "quickened" before it can be restored and become "spiritually alive." The common belief is that we are made spiritually alive at the point that we are "born again." Exactly. This is not a problem for a strict "Calvinist" because he believes that God determines who will be born again and, based upon that decree, reaches down, so to speak, and quickens those whom he wills to save, thus restoring them to spiritual life. Then I guess I’m not a strict Calvinist (being unacquainted with his teachings), because I believe God extends His grace to every one of his creatures, but most ignore or refuse it. See the parable of the wedding feast: all are called but few are chosen. I agree. But if one does not hold to this view, it presents a real problem: How can one who is dead make a free-will determination to believe and hence be born again so as to be made alive? Cadavers can not make choices, let alone act upon them. Hence those who are not strict Calvinists must equivocate at this point and treat the "spirit" aspect of personhood as if it were not so dead as to not be able to respond to God's call -- which is really to say that it is not dead at all, perhaps really sick: but not "spiritually" dead. Here the desire is to hold onto the classic language but not so tightly as to be true to or consistent with its ramifications. I say just drop the language; it holds no authority over us, since it is non-biblical terminology.  See my previous sentence.  “Dead” is a term Jesus used about living human beings, so I don’t think it is unbiblical language. I am not saying that "dead" is un-biblical language, Izzy; I am saying that the language of "spiritual" death is non-biblical terminology, and as such does not carry the degree of authorigy that Scriptural language would carry. It is therefore open to a higher degree of scrutiny on our part, if we so desire.   Now let's look again at Jesus. If Jesus was born with our sinful flesh, as the Scriptures attest, and if sinful flesh is spiritually dead, then he too had to have been spiritually dead in his sinful flesh, just as we are in our sinful flesh. Why? because he came in the likeness of our flesh. And so the obvious question is this: At what point did he become spiritually alive -- was it when he was circumcised? or as a boy at his bar mitzvah? was it at his baptism? his resurrection? when was it? Did he too have to be "born again" in order to become spiritually alive? When was his "spirit" revived? Jesus was never spiritually dead because Jesus never sinned. I agree that you are presenting a "third" viewpoint here. I'll address it below. Did you forget about that? No! He had the temptation to sin, and was tempted in all ways that we are, but He never sinned. I fully agree. Sin is what separates us from the Father and sends us to hell—not our weak, human nature (if it does not sin). I disagree with a few caveats, but I would rather not discuss it here; it get us off track and onto another discussion.   I believe that Jesus was always spiritually alive and that from his earliest childhood, he was in intimate communion with his Father. So do I.  He was acutely attuned to his spiritual dimension and allowed that aspect of his personhood to direct the other aspects. Hence he walked in faithfulness to his Father with every step, even "beating his way forward with blows," as Luke states it. What scripture is that? What translation? Luke 2.52 in the Greek. Check it out. The background of these words are fascinating. If you would like some assistence, I am at your beckon call. In other words, there was not a time when he was not alive and living out his right relationship with his Father in absolute obedience. Yet if spiritual death is a requisite of personhood in sinful flesh, then this cannot be true; for either Christ had to have been "quickened" or born again in order to accomplish the things he did in his flesh, or he did not come to us as we are -- in the likeness of sinful flesh; hence he could not have saved us in our sinful state.   You have presented only two viewpoints.  I think I have presented a third.  So what do you think of that? izzy   Hi Izzy, you seem to be presenting a nicely nuanced position here; it is in fact quite similar to one which I came to at a point in my sojourn. I would like to set it forth as best I can to see if indeed I apprehend what you are saying.   Humans are born spiritually alive and remain in that state until they willfully sin, at which point they die spiritually and must be born again if they are to gain eternal life. This is different than the classic doctrine in that the classic teaches that humans are born physically alive but spiritually dead and this because they are "born in sin." Paul could be understood to be setting your view forth in Romans 7.9 -- "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."   Before I go on, Izzy, am I close to a right representation of your view?   Bill