|
Are you Perry? I didn't think so.
bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:25
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual
death
jt: You have added the requirement of being born
again to the mix Bill when this is impossible under the Law. However,
God is a covenant God and ppl who lived under
the Old Covenant or even before that who worshipped and served him with what
was available to them (like Job) He calls "righteous" ... Why make it so difficult?? Leave the
infants, unborn babies and mentally retarded in the hands of a faithful
Creator. We don't need to be anxious over them
jt
Perry wrote > The greater
message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus
are "spiritually dead". That is, they do not have the Spirit of the
Lord dwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry
from following Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his
family above Jesus.
Well, this is not exactly what I had in mind,
Perry; although, I do agree with your final statement. Would you mind clarifying your opening comments? Is this
how you view "spiritual death": those who do not have the Spirit of the Lord
dwelling in them are spiritually dead, and those who do have the Spirit of
the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually alive? Was the Spirit of the Lord
indwelling Jesus' followers prior to his ascension? What
do you think: were those followers spiritually dead, or were they
spiritually alive? Are all non-believers spiritually dead -- infants and
unborn babies included? What about the mentally retarded: are they
spiritually dead, or do they have the Spirit of God indwelling
them? Just curious,
Bill
The greater message here is that those who
choose not to follow Jesus are
"spiritually dead". That is, they do
not have the Spirit of the Lord
dwelling in them. The man he chose
as an example wanted to tarry from
following Jesus until his father
passed away, thus putting his family
above
Jesus.
From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Would someone else
please step in and help Judy through this? I would very
> >much
appreciate it.
> >Thanks, Bill
> > From: Judy
Taylor
> >
> > Bill wrote: 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, and this whether you realize it or not, and
so
> >I don't really have an issue with either of your
positions.
> >
> > jt: Why can't we just call
life what God calls it and death what God
> >calls it? Why
do we have to qualify with all of these advanced
>
>linguistics?
> >
> > 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 at the
> >last day.
> >
> > And in response
to her, you (Izzy) 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.
> >
>
> jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill -
what
> >difference does the word make life is life and death is
death so far as God
> >is concerned - now what does He mean by
this concept?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > jt: I have
a question. What kind of death is God talking about then?
> >In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet
he lived
> >another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a
working body, a
> >conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that
had lost communion with God).
> > Since a metaphor is
defined as a similitude reduced to a single word -
> >your
definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here
> >- When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death
Adam
> >experienced that day was not physical, nor was it
alzheimers (brain or soul
> >death). What do you suppose it
was?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > jt: You
are not dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are
>
>dealing with some "centuries old doctrine of man"
> >
>
> 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.
> >
> >
jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not
> >dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead
burying their
> >dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death
since they were able to
> >dig a hole and had presence of mind
enough not to let a dead body just lay
> >around.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to
has a load of
> >"centuries old" doctrines of men to wade
through?
> > I had none until I began reading extra
biblical stuff and as soon as I
> >saw the conflict with the
written word I layed it down fast. My
> >daughter-in-law has a
newly energized hunger for God and she is asking me
> >about
commentaries because we live in a fast food era where we want
>
>everything yesterday. However, I hesitate because I don't want to
fill
> >that God-given hunger with error that will slow her
down. Better for her
> >to see it in God's Word.
>
>
> > 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 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?
>
>
> > jt: This is not a metaphor either Bill - it is
spiritual reality. Satan
> >and his demons are
darkness. God is light and in Him is no darkness at
>
>all. When we will not come to the light, or walk in the light -
darkness
> >is there to pursue us. Nothing
metaphoric
> > about that.
> >
>
> 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?
> >
> > jt: Jesus Words are not
metaphor Bill. They are Spirit and they are
> >Life. A
biblical metphor is in Psalm 91:4 where it speaks of God's
>
>feathers and his wings - We know he is not a bird.
> >
>
> 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.
> >
> > jt: You sure make something
terribly complicated out of one sentence
> >Bill. How would
you expect thest ppl to have such a
> > wide ranging
overview which includes first and second deaths? Jesus was
>
>sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel
> >
remember? God's back-slidden covenant ppl born under the law and his
> >ministry consisted of travelling around teaching and healing
all who were
> >oppressed of the devil. How would these ppl
have refused something that
> >had not yet been offered?
>
> John's baptism was one of repentance and Jesus taught
Israel about the
> >Kingdom of God which became available
post
> > resurrection. judyt
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned
with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell
him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he
will be subscribed.
>
>
|
