Does the Bible teach Spiritual Death?

[JonC]

I saw your request for definitions. That's so important, imo.

Your passage says the "mind" set on flesh or the "mind" set on Spirit. Isn't one's "mind" the same as one's "spirit"? I think it is. So in essence, your passage can be read "for the spirit set on the flesh is death, but the spirit set on the Spirit is life and peace".

In either case, the spirit of the man is active, and activity is not indicative of a state of "spiritual death"--unless we redefine "death" to mean "active in a way that is displeasing to God" or some such.

This is my problem with the spiritual death concept--it depends on redefining "death" to mean something other than what we normally recognize as death, similar to what you posted here:
This makes plenty of sense to me, and if you are correct, when did it change?

You followed with this "Spiritual death is a state (those who have not been born of the Spirit lack Spiritual life). But there is no such a thing as dying spiritually", which I find interesting. Once again, our normal idea of "death" is not a "lack of life" but a "loss of life". Is there anything that is ever dead that wasn't ever alive? Babies that are "born dead" (or stillborn, another indication of death meaning inactivity) were at one time alive in the womb.

So if Adam ended his life in a spiritually dead state, surely he "died spiritually", right?

And if a man is not condemned for the sins of his father ([Eze 18:20 KJV] The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father...), and "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God", then it seems the problem is not "spiritual death" but a proclivity (nature?) to sin that brings on the penalty of death. Though the death appears to be a foregone conclusion even before sin after Adam. (Rom 5:14)

I agree with your comments for the most part, and perhaps I do need to provide clarification regarding "spiritual death" and "died".

I was at one time "spiritually dead" (by my definition) and in need of being reborn. This does not mean that I "died spiritually". What I think was Christ's meaning regarding the "dead" (like "let the dead bury the dead) is simply that these are people who have not been born of the spirit. Were we talking about physical life and someone introduced the idea of a rock being alive we could correctly say that a rock is dead (not that the rock died but that the rock lacked physical life).

I believe that when we go to far we end up missing the point. Adam was not (I think obvious via Scripture) spiritually alive and then died spiritually. But again, it does go to definitions.

 

[Derf B]

I agree with your comments for the most part, and perhaps I do need to provide clarification regarding "spiritual death" and "died".

I was at one time "spiritually dead" (by my definition) and in need of being reborn. This does not mean that I "died spiritually".

You can see the conflict in your wording. You can't be "reborn" if you weren't born the first time. I think you're talking about a rebirth in the spirit as opposed to the flesh's original birth. But if we are not yet born spiritually, then does Paul's reference to being dead in our trespasses and sins make sense? (I think your answer is this next part of your post).

. What I think was Christ's meaning regarding the "dead" (like "let the dead bury the dead) is simply that these are people who have not been born of the spirit. Were we talking about physical life and someone introduced the idea of a rock being alive we could correctly say that a rock is dead (not that the rock died but that the rock lacked physical life).

Most dictionaries don't recognize that kind of dead.

Spoiler: Definitions of 'dead'

1. ADJECTIVE
A person, animal, or plant that is dead is no longer living.

"You're a widow?"—"Yes. My husband's been dead a year now." deceased, gone, departed [euphemistic], late
2. ADJECTIVE
If you describe a place or a period of time as dead, you do not like it because there is very little activity taking place in it.
[disapproval]
...some dead little town where the liveliest thing is the flies.
3. ADJECTIVE
Something that is dead is no longer being used or is finished.
The dead cigarette was still between his fingers.
4. ADJECTIVE
If you say that an idea, plan, or subject is dead, you mean that people are no longer interested in it or willing to develop it any further.
5. ADJECTIVE
A telephone or piece of electrical equipment that is dead is no longer functioning, for example, because it no longer has any electrical power.
On another occasion I answered the phone and the line went dead.

All of the definitions that can be applied to this conversation support the idea of loss of life or absence of life where life was expected. Note that "activity" and "function" are things that are indicative of life, and loss of those things indicate death.

Spoiler: Synonyms of 'dead'

deceased gone departed (euphemistic) late extinct defunct living alive animate,
existing inanimate still barren (old-fashioned) sterile stagnant lifeless inert uninhabited boring dull dreary flat plain stale lifeless tasteless humdrum uninteresting insipid vapid broken useless defective dud (informal) out of order
inactive inoperative kaput (informal) obsolete old forgotten abandoned ancient antique lapsed extinct archaic disused antiquated fossilized spiritless cold dull wooden glazed indifferent callous lukewarm inhuman unsympathetic apathetic frigid glassy unfeeling torpid

 

[Derf B]

I believe that when we go to far we end up missing the point. Adam was not (I think obvious via Scripture) spiritually alive and then died spiritually. But again, it does go to definitions.

This is a continuation of my last post, as I reached the 10000 word limit somehow.
All of the synonyms support the idea of something that should be or has been alive or functioning, but isn't now. A rock is not something that has been or should be alive or executing a function.

I believe that when we go to far we end up missing the point. Adam was not (I think obvious via Scripture) spiritually alive and then died spiritually. But again, it does go to definitions.

Both are good points (about potentially missing the point as well as the reference to definitions). If Adam had the ability to do something that the lack of which ability would now be described as "spiritually dead", then he must have "spiritually died".

You seem to have a similar hesitation as I do about this, though perhaps with a different emphasis. I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of a spiritual death, if it's not used to de-emphasize a more important concept.

So, here's my thought on the more important concept:
If we introduce the term "spiritual death" because we don't want to acknowledge a more complete death, then we should be very careful we aren't going outside the bounds of scripture.

I was first introduced to the idea that "death" means "death" by some that advocated for annihilationism. Their argument, which was a good one but misplaced, was that the Serpent's lie to Eve was that "you shall not surely die", which was in direct contradiction to God's threat (I think we would all agree).

So why is it that we maintain the "immortality of the soul" and prop it up with this idea of "spiritual death"?

 

[JonC]

This is a continuation of my last post, as I reached the 10000 word limit somehow.
All of the synonyms support the idea of something that should be or has been alive or functioning, but isn't now. A rock is not something that has been or should be alive or executing a function.
Both are good points (about potentially missing the point as well as the reference to definitions). If Adam had the ability to do something that the lack of which ability would now be described as "spiritually dead", then he must have "spiritually died".

You seem to have a similar hesitation as I do about this, though perhaps with a different emphasis. I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of a spiritual death, if it's not used to de-emphasize a more important concept.

So, here's my thought on the more important concept:
If we introduce the term "spiritual death" because we don't want to acknowledge a more complete death, then we should be very careful we aren't going outside the bounds of scripture.

I was first introduced to the idea that "death" means "death" by some that advocated for annihilationism. Their argument, which was a good one but misplaced, was that the Serpent's lie to Eve was that "you shall not surely die", which was in direct contradiction to God's threat (I think we would all agree).

So why is it that we maintain the "immortality of the soul" and prop it up with this idea of "spiritual death"?

(I'm just quoting your second post but addressing both parts).

I think that we have to be careful not to associate "dead" spiritually strictly with a scientific meaning. The church has often referred to baptism with "living water" (meaning water that was flowing rather than still). We use "dead" to speak of ideas and languages (Latin is a dead language...it was never really "alive"). We speak of "dead on arrival" to refer to projects that never came into existence. So while I am not strictly disagreeing with you at this point I am urging caution in how we discuss being "spiritually dead".

I believe that Christ referred to people as being "dead" and unable to understand that which is spiritual because the spirit that they had (their human spirit) was not "set on spiritual things" but was set on the flesh.

Some of your comments (about the soul, for example) is difficult because some make a distinction between the soul and the spirit while others (like @Reformed ) do not. It is difficult for me because I cannot take a firm stand at this time either way (body, soul and spirit vs body soul/spirit). I just am not confident enough in my own understanding to make a dogmatic claim but I lean towards the soul as being different from the spirit.

 

[Derf B]

(I'm just quoting your second post but addressing both parts).

I think that we have to be careful not to associate "dead" spiritually strictly with a scientific meaning. The church has often referred to baptism with "living water" (meaning water that was flowing rather than still). We use "dead" to speak of ideas and languages (Latin is a dead language...it was never really "alive"). We speak of "dead on arrival" to refer to projects that never came into existence. So while I am not strictly disagreeing with you at this point I am urging caution in how we discuss being "spiritually dead".

I believe that Christ referred to people as being "dead" and unable to understand that which is spiritual because the spirit that they had (their human spirit) was not "set on spiritual things" but was set on the flesh.

Some of your comments (about the soul, for example) is difficult because some make a distinction between the soul and the spirit while others (like @Reformed ) do not. It is difficult for me because I cannot take a firm stand at this time either way (body, soul and spirit vs body soul/spirit). I just am not confident enough in my own understanding to make a dogmatic claim but I lean towards the soul as being different from the spirit.

I brought “soul” into the discussion because that’s the usual focus when discussing our immortality without a body. But “spirit” is usually included in some way, either as a separate part or the same part, but it also not dying.

Such discussion of the immortal soul often accompanies that of spiritual death, but I think it’s required in order to make sense of a few things when you start down the path of redefining “death”.

Regarding your examples of nonliving things spoken of as “living” or “dead”, those were in the spoilers I included—you have to click on them to see the content. “Dead” isn’t normally used without an implicit comparison to “life”, even if “life” is just movement, like in living water, as you said. A rock never had activity, and thus isn’t usually compared with life by calling it “dead”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

I brought “soul” into the discussion because that’s the usual focus when discussing our immortality without a body. But “spirit” is usually included in some way, either as a separate part or the same part, but it also not dying.

Such discussion of the immortal soul often accompanies that of spiritual death, but I think it’s required in order to make sense of a few things when you start down the path of redefining “death”.

Regarding your examples of nonliving things spoken of as “living” or “dead”, those were in the spoilers I included—you have to click on them to see the content. “Dead” isn’t normally used without an implicit comparison to “life”, even if “life” is just movement, like in living water, as you said. A rock never had activity, and thus isn’t usually compared with life by calling it “dead”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I did check out the definitions.

The thing is, Christ spoke of the "dead" in opposition to those who are alive and this in a spiritual sense. It does not mean the "dead" were once alive, but perhaps there was a potential for life.

As far as the soul and spirit goes, I can see both sides (man being 3 parts vs 2 parts). I simply do not know.

 

[Derf B]

Christ spoke of the "dead" in opposition to those who are alive and this in a spiritual sense

I need you to provide a reference or two for this, so we can discuss it, if you’re willing. You are assuming the counterpoint to my point—maybe not without good reason, but I’m having trouble getting past some of your assumptions. I don’t think any scriptures say “alive in a spiritual sense”, or the like.

 

[JonC]

I need you to provide a reference or two for this, so we can discuss it, if you’re willing. You are assuming the counterpoint to my point—maybe not without good reason, but I’m having trouble getting past some of your assumptions. I don’t think any scriptures say “alive in a spiritual sense”, or the like.

I am merely referring to references such as "let the dead bury the dead", "flesh is born of flesh, spirit of spirit", and the rebirth.

I believe there is ample evidence to conclude men have a human spirit at natural birth but need to be born of the Spirit to truly have life.

 

[MB]

I am merely referring to references such as "let the dead bury the dead", "flesh is born of flesh, spirit of spirit", and the rebirth.

I believe there is ample evidence to conclude men have a human spirit at natural birth but need to be born of the Spirit to truly have life.

I believe spiritual death is an attempt to explain man's separation from God.. In hell man is separated from God yet is very much aware of his torture. Man's spirit has to be aware in order to suffer torture.
MB

 

[JonC]

I believe spiritual death is an attempt to explain man's separation from God.. In hell man is separated from God yet is very much aware of his torture. Man's spirit has to be aware in order to suffer torture.
MB

I believe you are right. I am not sure that "spiritual death" is a very good term (perhaps it would be best to simply speak of these things as Scripture presents them). But maybe the term is used because we like (perhaps need?) to break down Scripture into digestible bits.

As you term it, I understand "spiritual death" to be that "Second death" spoken of in Scripture.

 

[MB]

I believe you are right. I am not sure that "spiritual death" is a very good term (perhaps it would be best to simply speak of these things as Scripture presents them). But maybe the term is used because we like (perhaps need?) to break down Scripture into digestible bits.

As you term it, I understand "spiritual death" to be that "Second death" spoken of in Scripture.

I believe we are all infinite beings, and death does not mean an unconscious state of not knowing what is going on. The lost or spiritually dead will definitely be conscious and aware of their pains and regret. There regret will be there own rejection of the offer of Salvation.
MB

 

[percho]

I believe we are all infinite beings, and death does not mean an unconscious state of not knowing what is going on. The lost or spiritually dead will definitely be conscious and aware of their pains and regret. There regret will be there own rejection of the offer of Salvation.
MB

Will the loved ones of those, who have salvation, be aware of the pain and suffering condition of their former loved ones or will they just be saying, "I told you"?

 

[MB]

Will the loved ones of those, who have salvation, be aware of the pain and suffering condition of their former loved ones or will they just be saying, "I told you"?

I would hope we wouldn't know but then God may have a way that would keep us from that sorrow and still know. The Bible says He will wipe away all our tears. I would hope I'm not a "I told you so" type of person It wouldn't be proper.
MB

 

[Derf B]

I am merely referring to references such as "let the dead bury the dead", "flesh is born of flesh, spirit of spirit", and the rebirth.

I believe there is ample evidence to conclude men have a human spirit at natural birth but need to be born of the Spirit to truly have life.

I addressed the "let the dead bury the dead" comment previously, but I don't remember if in this thread-maybe in a post to @Reformed. This was said to a man that was about to walk away from Jesus, possibly to go home to wait for his father to die (the text doesn't say the father was already dead). But if my contention is correct, it handles the situation just fine--those that are "dead" but still able to function are really just destined for death--it's unavoidable, though not currently realized.

Here's your other verse:
[Jhn 3:6 KJV] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

And an answer:
[Jhn 6:63 KJV] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
If the flesh "profiteth nothing" and Jesus words are "spirit" and "life", they are "spirit" and "life" to those that are dying. The flesh can't save you, only the spirit. Thus one must be reborn of the spirit. But it is still easily readable as a future "quickening".

It takes one back to the main reason for the resurrection of Jesus--to show us that we, too, can/will be resurrected.

 

[Derf B]

I believe spiritual death is an attempt to explain man's separation from God.. In hell man is separated from God yet is very much aware of his torture. Man's spirit has to be aware in order to suffer torture.
MB

I think you are right that "spiritual death" usually refers to a "separation from God".in Christian-ese. But why do we think we need a term for "separation from God"? If you look at places like "GotAnswers", this is what you see. You can see that the reason they feel it necessary is because Adam didn't die immediately ("on the day" he ate of the fruit). I disagree with them about the proximity of Adam's sin to his physical death--it was still "in the day" he ate of the fruit.
-------------------

Question: "What is spiritual death?"

Answer: Death is separation. A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God. In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that in the day he eats of the forbidden fruit he will “surely die.” Adam does fall, but his physical death does not occur immediately; God must have had another type of death in mind—spiritual death. This separation from God is exactly what we see in Genesis 3:8. When Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord, they “hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God.” The fellowship had been broken. They were spiritually dead.​

-------------------
I agree that fellowship was broken, but I don't think that's the same thing as "death". The other thing that requires this redefinition of "death" is the idea that we are really immortal, and thus "death" can only be something besides what we would normally recognize as "death". I don't know if you saw my previous post to @JonC, but I mentioned the "immortality of the soul".and suggested that such premises might be similar to the Devil saying "You will not surely die."

My answer to that dilemma is to, wherever possible, treat the word "death" as meaning "cessation of all function and action" or something like that. There's an exception that can be brought up, and that is wherever the scripture redefines "death" as something else, then we should use the scriptural definition. This happens in Rev 20, where "second death" is defined as "the lake of fire". But it doesn't happen in Gen 3. Death there seems to mean exactly what we would think about any other species of plant or animal dying--it ceases to function and act.