Thanks David. I'll respond to some of your comments
below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
> Hi Bill. I have been reading with
interest your dialogue with Judy. The
> idea of "spiritual death" has some logical inconsistencies that you seem to
> be pointing out. Your focus on death being a metaphor is making me think!
> That's a good thing. :-) Some of the problems I have had over my lifetime
> with the "spiritual death" perspective is the following:
>
> 1. The body without the spirit is dead, so if the spirit is dead, how can
> one be alive? This assumes, of course, that spiritual death means that the
> spirit is dead.
>
> 2. If people were spiritually dead in the Old Testament times, how did they
> write prophecy and such? How does anyone do anything good at all if they
> are dead in their spirit? All good ultimately comes from God, does it not,
> and how can this good come through us except through the spirit?
>
> 3. John says that Christ is the light that lighteth every man that comes
> into the world. How can that happen if virtually everyone is "spiritually
> dead"?
> idea of "spiritual death" has some logical inconsistencies that you seem to
> be pointing out. Your focus on death being a metaphor is making me think!
> That's a good thing. :-) Some of the problems I have had over my lifetime
> with the "spiritual death" perspective is the following:
>
> 1. The body without the spirit is dead, so if the spirit is dead, how can
> one be alive? This assumes, of course, that spiritual death means that the
> spirit is dead.
>
> 2. If people were spiritually dead in the Old Testament times, how did they
> write prophecy and such? How does anyone do anything good at all if they
> are dead in their spirit? All good ultimately comes from God, does it not,
> and how can this good come through us except through the spirit?
>
> 3. John says that Christ is the light that lighteth every man that comes
> into the world. How can that happen if virtually everyone is "spiritually
> dead"?
Good points, David. It would be interesting to see
how some of the others would respond to them.
>
> One way of remedy here is to perceive "spiritual death" as something that is
> less than perfect death. In other words, there is so much darkness that we
> might call it being spiritually dead, but that does not mean complete and
> total darkness. Of course, if we take this perspective, then why not take
> the same approach in regards to physical death with Adam and Eve? I think
> it was Ireneus who said that they were given over to death on that very day.
> In other words, death began its work, they died that very day, but it took
> time for the full effect of it to be manifested.
>
> Another observation I might make is that I think often people use that word
> "spiritually" as a metaphor itself. In other words, when they think
> "spiritually dead" they are really thinking along the lines of dead
> metaphorically speaking.
Yes! I have noticed this too, yet it is a moot
point with people who hold dogmatically to a doctrine of "spiritual
death."
This is what makes the explanation of "spiritually
> dead" attractive. If this is what is going on, then the phrase "spiritually
> dead" might not be the most accurate one to use. Is that your approach? Do
> you prefer to simply say that "dead" is a metaphor in many of these
> contexts?
> dead" attractive. If this is what is going on, then the phrase "spiritually
> dead" might not be the most accurate one to use. Is that your approach? Do
> you prefer to simply say that "dead" is a metaphor in many of these
> contexts?
Yes, yes, yes!
>
> I can't help but ask you, seeing your embrace of the idea of metaphor,
> whether or not you believe that the concepts of Satan and demons are a
> metaphor?
No, I don't. I think they are real entities
-- spirit beings, as Judy would say.
Do you believe that Satan and demons are real
entities, or are
> these terms metaphors for an adversary?
> these terms metaphors for an adversary?
They're real, David; however, I sometimes speak of
them in a metaphorical sense. Allow me to explain: when I say that Christ
defeated the tyrants -- sin, death, and the devil -- I am using these terms both
literally and metaphorically to represent the total gamit of his victory over
everything that stands in opposition to God and a right relationship with him.
It is not just the devil that Christ defeated, but the demons also. "Devil"
is representative of all the spriritual forces of darkness: the devil and the
demons included. Do you get my drift? and do you have any problems with
it?
>
> Another question: the word "spirit." Is this also a metaphor from your
> perspective? Do you believe that we literally have a spirit, or is spirit
> simply a metaphor for abstract aspects of our being?
Good question, David. I think I will start out in
the negative. I do not think that our spirit is located in a specific space in
our body, like, for example, in our heart. In the sense that the
Scriptures speak that the spirit is located in the heart of man, I believe
there is a metaphor at play here -- either with the use of "spirit" or with the
use of "heart," or perhaps with both. For example, "A merry heart makes a
cheerful countenance, but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken" (Pro
15.13). The spirit is not broken because of its location in the heart. There is
something figurative going on here.
Furthermore, a "spirit" does not have any
physical attributes, hence it does not take up space, so to speak; hence neither
does it occupy a particular place. It may be present, but not in terms of
physical dimensions. (By the way, I think we are going to be amazed to find out
the organic connectedness that we all share via our spirit aspect -- but that is
a discussion for another day)
I do believe that we each have a real, true,
literal, spirit aspect to our being. But I do not think it is a meaningful
statement to say that we are primarily a spiritual being, or primarilly a
physical being. We are human beings and as such we are both spiritual and
physical, not to mention mind or "soul" -- all integrated and working
together. And it is not helpful to say that we are primarily this and
secondarily that. Again, we are not "human" if we are not all of these things
integrated and functioning together. Moreover, to present one as primary over
the other, it seems to me, is to step either into gnosticism or into some
sort of naturalism, depending on which is being elevated.
Bill
