Does the Bible teach Spiritual Death?

[JonC]

Why do we not find the word for, spiritual and the word for, death and also for, life, not together, anywhere inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Is it because it is not necessary?

Perhaps the terms are not necessary. What Scripture uses is "flesh" and "spirit". To set one's mind on the flesh is death.

The problem is that when we introduce terms it is always necessary to provide precise definitions for those terms (that has not been done thus far on this thread).

But you are right. We probably would do better to stick with Scripture. We were dead in our sins, a mind set on the flesh.

 

[Iconoclast]

Genesis 2:17 - Commentary & Verse Meaning - Bible
shalt surely die;
or "in dying, die" F26;
which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it;
and
may have regard to more deaths than one;

not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life;

of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not forever;

he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him;

sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death.

Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created;

the image of God in him was deformed;

the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses;

the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, ( Romans 6:23 ) .

So the Jews F1 interpret this of death, both in this world and in the world to come.

FOOTNOTES:

F26 (twmt twm) Pagninus, Montanus
F1 Tikkune Zohar, correct. 24. fol. 68. 1. correct. 54. fol. 90. 2. correct. 66. fol. 100. 1.

Yes an original righteousness, without blemish, but yet untested.
Those quotes in post 26,39.40 have spoken.

 

[JonC]

The only words I can add to that is "amen".

I think it is still necessary to define terms.

We can say "spiritual death" is passed from Adam (we are by nature "of Adam" and "children of wrath", "dead in our sins" and separated from God).

BUT without defining both "spiritual death" and "spiritual life" (a percise definition) that is meaningless. The issue is we can "agree" with people without actually agreeing with them (double speak) by not defining terms.

How do you define "spiritual death" and "spiritual life"?

 

[JonC]

For my part (as I have also used the words and need to define my usage), I believe that there are two actual deaths - a physical death and the "second death" (which is not "spiritual death" but where the "spiritually dead" are condemned as Hades and death are cast in to the "Lake of Fire"). So we do need to be very careful not to add another "death" to Scripture (obviously, the idea of "spiritually dying" is unbiblical).

I define "spiritual death" as a way of speaking of "a mind set on the flesh which is death". It is a state of rejecting Christ, of rejecting God. Men are born of the flesh but not of the Spirit (they are not born "spiritually alive") and must be "born again" or "born from above" to see the Kingdom of God.

I define "spiritual life" as being "in Christ", that is, having died to the flesh (died to "spiritual death") and made alive with Christ. The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a "life-giving Spirit".

So I view the spiritual death as being of the "first Adam", that is, a "living being" or "natural"; I see spiritual life as being of the "last Adam" (Christ) and having "died to the flesh" and been made alive by the Spirit of God in Christ.

Again....we ALWAYS need to define the words we use. Many of our disagreements are found in definitions.

 

[JonC]

Yes an original righteousness, without blemish, but yet untested.
Those quotes in post 26,39.40 have spoken.

How do you define "spiritual death" and "spiritual life"?

 

[Iconoclast]

Post 26,along with Alan's posts describe the original righteousness Adam was created with.
He had the ability to correctly understand and commune with God.
Something changed with the fall into sin and death that was passed on to all men,rom3:23.....all sinned. Rom5:12-31.
Why you are bewildered on this is your wrong understanding of Roman's 8 being read back into Genesis.
People do not jump back.and forth between a mind set on the flesh....[death]
And a mind set up the Spirit.[life].
If you have read Owen on mortification of sin, or his writing on the grace and duty of being spiritually minded you would get your thoughts untangled.
These are actual conditions. Your idea of taking up your cross is off also, but I am not going to pursue that rabbit trail.
Furthermore man even in original righteousness, was created lower that the Angel's, but In Christ are above them,psalm 8 hebrews 2:5-8.
Because man was created as he was does not negate having spiritual faculties that died in that day as you suggest hour novelty that man was created very good, but had a dormant spirit which I have no interest in hearing such an imagination.
If anyone searches out the links provided and takes time to see what Biblicist offered,they will discover that 6 or 7 times his questions were not answered.
I will open that up later on.

 

[JonC]

Post 26,along with Alan's posts describe the original righteousness Adam was created with.
He had the ability to correctly understand and commune with God.
Something changed with the fall into sin and death that was passed on to all men,rom3:23.....all sinned. Rom5:12-31.
Why you are bewildered on this is your wrong understanding of Roman's 8 being read back into Genesis.
People do not jump back.and forth between a mind set on the flesh....[death]
And a mind set up the Spirit.[life].
If you have read Owen on mortification of sin, or his writing on the grace and duty of being spiritually minded you would get your thoughts untangled.
These are actual conditions. Your idea of taking up your cross is off also, but I am not going to pursue that rabbit trail.
Furthermore man even in original righteousness, was created lower that the Angel's, but In Christ are above them,psalm 8 hebrews 2:5-8.
Because man was created as he was does not negate having spiritual faculties that died in that day as you suggest hour novelty that man was created very good, but had a dormant spirit which I have no interest in hearing such an imagination.
If anyone searches out the links provided and takes time to see what Biblicist offered,they will discover that 6 or 7 times his questions were not answered.
I will open that up later on.

You are mistaking.

Thus far we have agreed. Scripture does speak of "spiritual death" (depending on, of course, how terms are defined).

I never said that nothing changed when Adam sinned.
I never said that Adam was not originally "righteous" (right or just with God).
I never said that spiritual life and spiritual death are not actual conditions.

It seems that you are getting tangled up in things that you have assumed about my posts.

There is no need to read The Biblicist's posts because I do not care how he defined the terms. He is not here to defend his positions. BUT you are and I am asking YOU how YOU define "spiritual life" and "spiritual death". On a thread about "spiritual death" discussing these definitions are necessary and are a part of the FIRST things that should be discussed. You are, thus far, using terms you have been unable or unwilling to define.

I offered how I define "spiritual death" and "spiritual life" as these terms are not in the Bible. You seem to disagree with my definitions but have not provided your own definitions. We cannot leave "spiritual life" and "spiritual death" as subjective terms that can expand or contract at the whim of the users of the term.

Are you able to define "spiritual death" and "spiritual life"? You indicate that we disagree on definitions and the reason is my mind is twisted (thoughts tangled) but this is a bit of a silly insult as you have not yet defined the terms. That's all I was asking.

Neither you or @Reformed have provided definitions for the words you are using. It is unprofitable to talk about undefined terms.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are mistaking.

Thus far we have agreed. Scripture does speak of "spiritual death" (depending on, of course, how terms are defined).

I never said that nothing changed when Adam sinned.
I never said that Adam was not originally "righteous" (right or just with God).
I never said that spiritual life and spiritual death are not actual conditions.

It seems that you are getting tangled up in things that you have assumed about my posts.

There is no need to read The Biblicist's posts because I do not care how he defined the terms. He is not here to defend his positions. BUT you are and I am asking YOU how YOU define "spiritual life" and "spiritual death". On a thread about "spiritual death" discussing these definitions are necessary and are a part of the FIRST things that should be discussed. You are, thus far, using terms you have been unable or unwilling to define.

I offered how I define "spiritual death" and "spiritual life" as these terms are not in the Bible. You seem to disagree with my definitions but have not provided your own definitions. We cannot leave "spiritual life" and "spiritual death" as subjective terms that can expand or contract at the whim of the users of the term.

Are you able to define "spiritual death" and "spiritual life"? You indicate that we disagree on definitions and the reason is my mind is twisted (thoughts tangled) but this is a bit of a silly insult as you have not yet defined the terms. That's all I was asking.

Neither you or @Reformed have provided definitions for the words you are using. It is unprofitable to talk about undefined terms.

Sorry but I am not going to engage in posting to what I consider dishonest posting, by what I perceive to be a dishonest poster.
What do I mean?
I read through those links carefully.
You word things in a way to give you a loophole to escape when you are directly questioned.
I did not misunderstand anything which I believe is a dishonest statement on your part.
If I list every thing you have posted that is worded in this way,
1] it will be a waste of my time in that no one cares.
2] Biblicist did this in detail, you avoided his responses.
3] Biblicist is aware that I shared the links, but he feels that not much has changed here and is blocked from responding, so he is not interested in participating in such a disingenuous endeavor.
4] I have seen what you have offered over the past two years, know it is error, and have no real curiosity as to why you have gone down that errant path.
5] I have said about 10 times now if I want to know what your thoughts are I will ask you. You will know if that day comes because it will start like this;
JONC what do YOU think about this?
If you do not see that, I am not even remotely curious.
6] These terms are defined by scripture to all.other.persons not named JonC.
7] You think you know more than all other church persons,past present, and future. So what can anyone say to you?
8] when a person cannot see what is obvious to everyone else, that issue is between them and God.
9] I noticed you put your moderator hat on and off. I am not really free to post freely in this venue.
10] that is why many do not feel free to post here more than they do, which imo,hurts the board.

 

[JonC]

Sorry but I am not going to engage in posting to what I consider dishonest posting, by what I perceive to be a dishonest poster.
What do I mean?
I read through those links carefully.
You word things in a way to give you a loophole to escape when you are directly questioned.
I did not misunderstand anything which I believe is a dishonest statement on your part.
If I list every thing you have posted that is worded in this way,
1] it will be a waste of my time in that no one cares.
2] Biblicist did this in detail, you avoided his responses.
3] Biblicist is aware that I shared the links, but he feels that not much has changed here and is blocked from responding, so he is not interested in participating in such a disingenuous endeavor.
4] I have seen what you have offered over the past two years, know it is error, and have no real curiosity as to why you have gone down that errant path.
5] I have said about 10 times now if I want to know what your thoughts are I will ask you. You will know if that day comes because it will start like this;
JONC what do YOU think about this?
If you do not see that, I am not even remotely curious.
6] These terms are defined by scripture to all.other.persons not named JonC.
7] You think you know more than all other church persons,past present, and future. So what can anyone say to you?
8] when a person cannot see what is obvious to everyone else, that issue is between them and God.
9] I noticed you put your moderator hat on and off. I am not really free to post freely in this venue.
10] that is why many do not feel free to post here more than they do, which imo,hurts the board.

I use the "moderator hat" on and off because that is what @TCassidy did and told me to do when making moderator comments on a thread where we are also a participant to distinguish administrative comments vs topic engagement. Damn TCassidy if you want, not me.

What I mean is that this is a very good topic. All Christians (to my knowledge) believe that the Bible teaches the lost are "spiritually dead".

There is NOTHING dishonest in my posts. I told you how I define the terms, that I believe Scripture speaks of a spiritual death and asked you how you defined the terms. What is dishonest about that???!!!

BUT to discuss "spiritual death" one must define "spiritual death" and since it is related to (by being a death) "spiritual life" than requires defining as well. We need to define what we are talking about, not just talk about undefined stuff.

 

[JonC]

Since there are no other definitions of "spiritual life" and "spiritual death", is it fair to say that we can use the terms "flesh" and "spirit" since they are in the Bible to define these terms?

 

[JonC]

@Iconoclast

Have you considered the possibility that people stop responding to these threads because you always devolve into assumption and ad honinem. That is what you did here.

1. I agreed with the OP that the Bible speaks of spiritual death
2. I said we need to define "spiritual death" and "spiritual life"
3. I provided my definitions
4. I asked others to provide theirs.

That's it. That is what you call "twisted" and "dishonest". You take things too far, brother. You make assumptions about me and other people (as you did with @Revmitchell on another thread) and turn a good discussion into a spitting match between two people.

Can you not just discuss the OP or leave the thread?

I will tell you that if you cannot police your posts, if you cannot discuss the topic and must devolve into insulting me or anyone else, you will be removed from the thread.

And that would be sad because I want to know what you believe and why you believe it. I want to know how you define these terms. NOT to debate you or to change your mind but to understand your position.

 

[Iconoclast]

Since there are no other definitions of "spiritual life" and "spiritual death", is it fair to say that we can use the terms "flesh" and "spirit" since they are in the Bible to define these terms?

no

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast

Have you considered the possibility that people stop responding to these threads because you always devolve into assumption and ad honinem. That is what you did here.

1. I agreed with the OP that the Bible speaks of spiritual death
2. I said we need to define "spiritual death" and "spiritual life"
3. I provided my definitions
4. I asked others to provide theirs.

That's it. That is what you call "twisted" and "dishonest". You take things too far, brother. You make assumptions about me and other people (as you did with @Revmitchell on another thread) and turn a good discussion into a spitting match between two people.

Can you not just discuss the OP or leave the thread?

I will tell you that if you cannot police your posts, if you cannot discuss the topic and must devolve into insulting me or anyone else, you will be removed from the thread.

And that would be sad because I want to know what you believe and why you believe it. I want to know how you define these terms. NOT to debate you or to change your mind but to understand your position.

i will tell you what. when I finish work for the day I , or better still YOU create a thread called the posting style of JonC.
I will go into pages of detail quoting you directly showing what I claim to be true,is in fact what it is indeed.
This way if you start the thread, we can be free to offer our perspective on it.
what do you say?

 

[JonC]

i will tell you what. when I finish work for the day I , or better still YOU create a thread called the posting style of JonC.
I will go into pages of detail quoting you directly showing what I claim to be true,is in fact what it is indeed.
This way if you start the thread, we can be free to offer our perspective on it.
what do you say?

I say that is silly. I do not engage posts to discuss people on a personal level, to get to know other people on a personal level, or to talk about writing styles. This board is not formal (while we need to provide references we do not have to use a certain style, although if I did it would be Chicago or maybe APA). I prefer the freedom of just saying what I want and offering sources.

You are not the originator of the OP. You are, however, drifting far from the topic. The topic is not my posting style.

I am telling you what I believe. I believe that man was changed by the Fall and that Scripture does speak of spiritual death. If your desire is to prove I believe something other than what I believe then I have absolutely no interest in going down that path because it is nothing but childish stupidity. I cannot dictate to you what you believe and you cannot dictate to me what I believe.

BUT if you want to join the OP and stop trying to hijack it for your own purposes then I am willing to engage you in a logical discussion of "spiritual death".

We have to, of course, start with defining "spiritual death" and "spiritual life".

If you cannot do that then I do not understand how you can possibly have anything relevant to say on the topic.

 

[percho]

I believe it to be.

Before Christ, the son of the living God, died and was raised out of the dead by the Father, if you were alive, dying you would die, if you had once lived and died, you were dead.

Since the Father has raised the Son out of the dead, weather you are alive or dead you have the hope of eternal life because since then the Spirit of God has been made available to man and the Spirit is life.

And in the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 'If any one doth thirst, let him come unto me and drink; he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;' and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:37-39

I believe, death, passed from the first man Adam, life, from the last Adam, Christ.

so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit, 1 Cor 15:45

I believe before God said, "Let there be light," the first man Adam was going to pass death to man.

Death and life, period.

 

[percho]

Perhaps the terms are not necessary. What Scripture uses is "flesh" and "spirit". To set one's mind on the flesh is death.

The problem is that when we introduce terms it is always necessary to provide precise definitions for those terms (that has not been done thus far on this thread).

But you are right. We probably would do better to stick with Scripture. We were dead in our sins, a mind set on the flesh.

Question?

it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body;
soulish, And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature [soul]. [Wescott and Hort] breath belonged of > And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.


Was the first man Adam, the living soul, made natural, breath belonged of, of the flesh.

Created/made, of the flesh, given a spiritual law, which is the power of sin 1 Cor 15:46 which would sell the man under sin and death, for the purpose of God? The redeemer had already been foreordained. Redeemer from what?

I say, death, was absolutely necessary to the purpose of God!

 

[JonC]

Question?

it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body;
soulish, And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature [soul]. [Wescott and Hort] breath belonged of > And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.


Was the first man Adam, the living soul, made natural, breath belonged of, of the flesh.

Created/made, of the flesh, given a spiritual law, which is the power of sin 1 Cor 15:46 which would sell the man under sin and death, for the purpose of God? The redeemer had already been foreordained. Redeemer from what?

I say, death, was absolutely necessary to the purpose of God!

I agree with you. The passage says that Adam was made natural.

There is still the issue that some cannot define spiritual death and spiritual life, so it is impossible to evaluate their posts.

But I do equate spiritual death with natural man, the flesh, and the first Adam.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am satisfied to just discuss the topic. Thoughts?

I found this on one of the links Reformed, what do you think?
[QUOTE]IT is not based on myth but on the indisputable fact that "death" occurred "in the day" and death cannot occur to something already dead or non-existent. That "death" was not physical death as Adam did not die until 930 years later. Hence, it was spiritual death and spiritual death is spiritual separation from God. Yet, there can be no spiritual SEPARATION from God if there had not been a spiritual UNION with God as you cannot separate what was never united.[/QUOTE]

post #5
Change of man's MORAL nature in the Fall

post#8

Let me make something very clear between prefallen and post fallen mankind. Salvation does not restore us to a prefallen condition. In the prefallen condition we were mutably righteous and our spiritual union was mutable. In post-fallen salvation, our new born condition is immutably rightous, and our spiritual union is immutable and our hope is for a BETTER creation to come with a BETTER covenant than the prefallen conditional covenant.

So, if your objection is based upon the false assumption that my position, which I believe is the Biblical position is simply a restoration to a prefallen condition NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am satisfied to just discuss the topic. Thoughts?

Hello Reformed,
Here is post #10....I cannot find fault with it, can you?

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Gen. 2:17

So, what aspect of human nature died "in that day"? He did not say "at some point in the future thou shalt surely die" but "in the day thou eatest".

So, again what aspect of Adam's nature died "in that day"? What is it to "die"? It was not physical death that occurred "in that day." It was not the "second death" that occurred "in that day."

Whatever died in that day ultimately is the cause of physical death, and the second death as both follow. So what is death and what died in that day?

I believe it is the only other possible alternative to physical and second death and that is "spiritual death" and therefore it was his spirit that died in that day and it is his spirit that is born again (Jn. 3:6) or quickened (Eph. 2:1, 5).

Whatever died in that day had to be alive prior to that die as something nonexistent or non living can't die. Whatever aspect that died was previously alive.

His soul did not cease to exist in that day as it was as active after that day as it was before that day. So, death cannot mean cessation of existence when it comes to the immaterial aspect of man's nature.

So what is death with regard to man's spirit? It is separation from the Spirit of God. It is certainly not separation from the spiritual world as those "dead" in this sense are very active with the spiritual world (Eph. 2:2-3; 1 Jn. 4:1; 1 Tim. 4:1b).

What died in that day was his spirit in the sense of spiritual separation from God. That is not possible unless there was spiritual union prior to that day as something non-existent can't die and something cannot be separated from what it never was in union with.

Hence, man was made in spiritual union with God and his spirit suffered spiritual separation in the day he sinned.

This is not myth or speculation, but based on the fact of scripture that death occurred "in that day" he sinned and it could not be his body and it could not be cessation of his soul and the only other possible alternative and NECESSARY inference is spiritual separation.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am satisfied to just discuss the topic. Thoughts?

Yes, Once again Reformed, Here is a solid thought that contributes to this thread;
Post#23;

The idea that our sin nature came into existence by God creating our spirit at conception is unbiblical for several reasons. First, it denies that our condition is directly due to Adam's action as the scriptures clearly state "through the offense of one many be dead......by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.....by one man's disobedience many were made sinners."

Second, it denies that the sin nature or the state of death or the state of spiritual separation was "passed" to all mankind but rather created by God.

Third, it is a philosophical contradiction. If God creates each human's spirit at conception and if it is the contact of that spirit with the body that makes it sinful, then the sin nature must already be present in the material body which is a self-contradiction as the sin nature by definition is SPIRITUAL and not material as morality or immorality have to do with spiritual not material.

The sin nature is "passed" down from Adam to all mankind through procreation and it is found in the "seed" of the male and procreation is of the whole human nature instead of parts of it just as it is in all other living things - there is no partial reproduction of like kind but full reproduction of like kind. Other genetic qualities in the seed determine individual personalities.

This theory has God repeating the original creation of man by repeatedly breathing into a body the spirit thus making the creation of man unfinished and ongoing. Human nature was created once and for all by God and then like all other living beings fully reproduced after its own kind instead reproducing half-humans and thus non-human beings.