Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

[knpraise]

Contradicting each other? How so?   In the phrase "let the dead bury the dead,"  you do not see a metaphor being used in the first case?  

 

JD 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:05:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

Now you and Bill are contradicting each other JD.  Why not just allow God's Word to do the defining.  If you would

rather call it "dead in trespass and sin" we can do that, but it is still a death that is in another dimension (other than

physical that is).  jt

 

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:11:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Yes -- very good.   Could it be that if you are following the way of God in Christ,  you are as good as dead, hence "dead."  ?? 

 

Bill wrote  >  Jesus 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.

 

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? 

 

Judy, the word "dead" is used twice in Jesus' statement, a first time and a second time: "Follow Me, and let the dead (that's the first time) bury their own dead (and that's the second time)"; hence my reference to two "deaths," the first one being metaphorical and the second literal. 

 

Bill  

From: Judy Taylor

 

Bill writes: 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.

 

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; he nce 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