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
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:08:22 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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, BillFrom: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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.
>
>
