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

[ShieldsFamily]

Iz is red:   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14   Bill it looks like you are ducking out on me on this one.  If it cannot be supported scripturally you can explain why can’t you?  And when I ask you something I don’t want to know what someone other than you thinks/says about it, if you don’t mind.  My simple question, which I have asked at least 3 times now, is still waiting for an answer.  What kind of “dead” was Jesus referring to when He said let the dead bury the dead? Please answer IYO. Thanks, izzy     I am sorry it looks that way to you, Izzy. I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Hence you are both treating your concept as a metaphor, whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions.   In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both in the last day. And in response to her, you wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies.  He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me,  If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound.  ... It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.  These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one.   You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. Neither of you seem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you than by those who adhere to the classic doctrine. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine? I can't know that you are using it differently, until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in.  Yes.  I see spiritually dead pretty much as you describe here IF you are assuming the person is “dead” (not alive) to things of the Holy Spirit (and hell-bound), which I think you do. That is what I understand spiritual death to be—until actual physical death at which time they are separated from God throughout eternity.  In their physical life prior to that they chose to be separated from God—so it’s just more of the same in another realm.   And yes, there is a spiritual element included in this metaphor, but it is actually quite more than spiritual: those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit.  I guess so, since they are using even their body to serve satan until they are born again.   I would like to quote a verse and then ask you a couple questions. "Then Jesus said to them, 'A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going'" (John 12.35). Do you agree with me that the "darkness" in which the rebellious man walks is not literal darkness; in other words he may be walking in daylight, yet still be walking in darkness in accordance with this passage? If you agree with me, it is because you are able to recognize a metaphor in Jesus' statement. "Darkness" here refers to a state other than literal darkness. Do you agree with me? Yes; it is spiritual darkness. The sun may actually be shining.   Allow me to quote a portion from the following verse: "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."  Do you recognize the metaphorical thrust in these words? Jesus is not asking these people to worship light as an abstract energy, nor does he want them to be fire worshipers or children of the sun; he expects them to worship instead that which is represented by the word "light." In other words, he expected them to draw a correct inference from the metaphorical language he employed. He expected them to pick up on the metaphor and understand by it that he wants them to believe in him, that they might become his followers. Do you agree with me? Of course—He meant spiritual light, just as He meant spiritual death.   This is the same thing which is happening with the verse you are asking me about: "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." Jesus knows quite well that he has employed a metaphor in this statement. He knows that his hearers will realize that dead people cannot bury dead people. Hence he knows that they will not be able to take his statement literally; they will have to conclude that the first death is representative of something other than yet similar to the second death: in other words, they will know it is a metaphor. And so, what will they conclude that this metaphor is representative of? They will conclude that it is representative of their condition in refusal of him. Yes, this condition includes a spiritual aspect, but not only that. They were entirely helpless and hopeless without him; and it was very important for them to draw that conclusion; hence they needed to realize that he was telling them that in a state of denial, they were as good as dead, as hopeless and helpless as the guy who was about to be buried.   Please tell me that you are able to draw these distinctions and that you agree with me. Yes, absolutely.  You have been arguing about nothing. J Iz   Bill   ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14       Izzy, I'm not sure where the miscommunication lies, perhaps on both our parts. It's not that I cannot base my beliefs in Scripture, I think I do that as well as anyone, but we are discussing a theological construct: a doctrine -- terminology, which does not appear in Scripture. We are trying to work our way from the use of that term to its basis. You seem to think that we ought to be able to leap-frog back to the Bible and ground this doctrine squarely in Scripture, without taking into consideration from where the terminology came. I think that that is naive. I think it is looking for trouble. Sure we could wink at each other and pretend that it was there all along, but that would be to concede one of our points, namely, mine :>) because I do not believe it is grounded in Scripture, nor do I think you and Judy and a few million other Christians over the ages have just come to this terminology on your own.   God bless you, Izzy. I am sorry we could not come to a working paradigm on this one.   Bill