RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

[ShieldsFamily]

Izzy in red:   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:22 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death     ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death   Bill,   Spiritual death is as much a reality as is physical death.  Do you agree? (Please answer.) No, I do not agree. This term is either an unbiblical doctrine (cf. as set forth in the Augustinian/Calvinist position) or it is metaphorical language and as such it is representative of something elso, which may be real (cf. this has been your position). In reality, and this is my position, it is not something which takes place in the absence of physical death, and in view of the resurrection of the dead, it is only something which could happen in the "second death," as set forth in the book of Revelation. Humans are non-reductive wholes. You have said so yourself. You can talk about the differnent aspects of personhood, but once you separate them and call one dead and the rest alive, you are no longer talking about humans. A person is either alive, or he is dead, but he is not partly this and partly that. That is Greek mythology.  Oh, at least now I think I understand where you are coming from, and your bias against the term, although I don’t necessarily agree.  I still think that you can be alive physically but not alive to the things of God.  I was thinking about the terms born again vs born, and this caused me to think about the fact that an unborn fetus is alive, but it still needs to be born.  That is us spiritually—we can be physically born, but not born into the realm of God’s Kingdom.  We need to be quickened by the Holy Spirit.  What do you think of that analogy?   It means spiritual separation from God—hell bound. Jesus just called it “dead”.  Would you prefer that we call people dead like Jesus did, rather than clarifying which type of death we are referring to? (Please answer.) I would much prefer that you speak of it as Jesus did. And if you insist on then explaining his metaphor as being a reference to the spiritual aspect of personhood, then by all means go ahead as you have been doing and distinguish that this too (i.e., spiritual+death) is a metaphor for "separation from God." We will still disagree, but we will not be misleading ourselves with termonology which has stood for centuries as literal spiritual death.  Okay, but I think you’ll be pretty confused if I tell you that the mormons are dead.  J   Do you object to us using the term “physical “ death? (Please answer.) Do I do not -- but neither is there a long-standing, non-biblical doctrine of spiritual death, which stands in the way of our discussion, confusing our use of the term.    If not, why the objection to us using the term “spiritual” death? (Please answer.) Because when you use this term, you open the door to no end of confusion, as demonstrated by our present discussion. I wasn’t confused at all until I got into this conversation with you. J  Am I the first person to tell you that you seem to take the simple and make it confusing? You are not using the term in the way that those who coined it, used it. NOR are you using it in the way that the church has traditionally used it. You are using it in a different way. Hence in order to be understood, you have to be able to nuance it -- and that takes time. Why not drop the termonology and speak instead to the conclusion you have drawn from this metaphor? Actually, I thought “spiritually dead” did just that.    Bill   Thanks, Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Judy, I've already clarified this. Why the obstinance? Once again, AND PLEASE TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH ME, I am not distinguishing between the first death and the second death as mentioned in Revelation. Let go of that fallacious idea. I am distinguishing between the two deaths mentioned in Jesus' statement: the first time he uses the word "dead" and the second time he uses the word "dead." The first reference to "dead" has to be understood as speaking to a different situation than the second reference to "dead." The first reference is a metaphor; the second reference is literal. You plug in "spiritual" to satisfy the metaphor, as did Augustine and many since him. BUT unlike Augustine, you then treat "spiritual death" itself as a metaphor and not as a literal spiritual death. I will quote you again: "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." Hence, by your own definition you treat "spiritual death" as a metaphor which speaks to something else. Now, you don't have to admit this, but if you won't, why don't you just drop it? You are making a fool of yourself.    Please just stop being so obstinate about this -- either that or go ahead and embrace Augustine's position and treat your doctrine of spiritual death in the same way as he: that spiritual death means that "their" spirit is literally dead. Then at least you will not have to concede that spiritual death is metaphorical of something else. If you won't do this, then do whatever you want: just leave my comments completely out of your considerations.   Bill