Spiritual Death

[Martin Marprelate]

Every tradition has unique ways of expressing theological issues in Scripture.

This seems to have occured in some traditions of "spiritual death".

I suspect tradition as men built theory on theory to smoothe out the biblical narrative.

The danger is when people do not recognize the stories for what they are and build on the fiction.

We certainly need to guard against tradition. Firstly, we must fight against the 150+ year old tradition of not understanding what the Puritans used to call the 'sinfulness of sin.' Secondly we must guard against the more recent tradition of regarding everything written by those who went before us as unworthy of regard (unless of course, we think it might help our argument ). Thirdly, there is the tradition that unfortunately has grown up on this board, of calling the Biblical views of those one disagrees with 'traditions' as a smear and to avoid having to deal with them seriously.

But we must deal, first and foremost, with the Scriptures. First of all, we can all agree, I hope, that mankind is by nature dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-5 etc.). But this death is not a physical death, since sinners are very much alive, so what sort of death is it? It is a spiritual death. So what does that mean? It means that the unsaved have no spiritual life in them; they cannot react positively to the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). So people do not die spiritually for the very good reason that they are born spiritually dead.

And yet we are told, 'Truly, this only I have found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes' (Ecclesiastes 7:29). The Hebrew word for 'man' here is Adam. The Hebrew word which the KJV translates as 'upright' is yashar. As @The Biblicist has pointed out, the word is translated as 'righteous' nine times. Also, God is described as 'upright' in Psalms 25:8; 92:15, and His 'testimonies' as 'upright' in Psalm 119:138. It would therefore be possible, I think, to translate Ecclesiastes 7:29 as '.....God made Adam righteous, but men have sought out many schemes.'

Now let's look at Genesis 2:16-17. '.......Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' Now there is no sense in one can imagine God adding, "And if you don't eat of it you are still going to die!" No, No; the corollary of Gen 2:17 is that if Adam did not eat of the tree he would not die. If he did not die, he would have lived forever q.e.d.

Now if 'the wages of sin is death,' how can it be argued that Adam was created a sinner? It makes no sense. 'The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born......' (Psalms 58:3). If Adam was created a sinner, he was under sentence of death from Day One.

I have more to add, particularly on the 'sinfulness of sin' and God's detestation of it, which makes it utterly impossible for God to have created a sinner and then call His creation 'very good.' But this will have to do for the present time.

 

[The Biblicist]

So you never actually experienced spiritual death but you were born in the state of being spiritually dead?


I agree with Scripture that spiritual life is ONLY in Christ. I believe this is an eternal truth (there has never existed Life apart from Christ because He IS that Life). We will never agree here because you are a bit too invested in your tradition.

As usual, you totally ignore the problems presented and simply repeat your talking points which are absurd.

Try dealing with the arguments that oppose your theory! Deal with the following especially the words in bold.

Adam is the only man that experienced spiritual death as he is the only man who at one point in his life was without it, until he sinned, and then he experienced its origin with his sin OR do you beleive he was the only SINNER not spiritually dead??????? And if he was spiritually dead as a sinner when did he experience it? before he sinned? When he sinned? After he sinned?

 

[The Biblicist]

We will never agree here because you are a bit too invested in your tradition.

You have offered no evidence it is a tradition. In fact, you have proven that your view is a tradition and myth. On one hand you admit that "spiritual death" is a Biblical reality but on the other hand you deny it has any source or origin in any man. Since "death" in any form is the judgement of God upon sin, then you have God judging men by a "death" where there is no just cause, because according to you there is no origin, source where it began and so no just ground to bring it upon men. Now, that is pure mythical to the tee!

 

[The Biblicist]

Scripture teaches that we are dead in sin and need spiritual life.

Spiritual life is ONLY in Christ. There is no other spiritual life.

Jon holds a position that admits the reality of spiritual death, but denies that any human being ever experienced it in the sense of becoming spiritually dead (as that would demand they had been spiritually alive). Hence, he admits this is a form of "death" but denies it has origin with any man but yet "death" in any sense is God's judgement on sin. So, he has God condemning us with "spiritual death" without any just cause because he denies any human being ever did anything to deserve it, thus anything worth of EXPERIENCING it.

So, his view must condemn God for injustice for bringing "spiritual death" upon man. So, this view would then logically must deny "spiritual death" is part and parcel with "death" because "death" had a beginning point, an experience point, an entrance point by one man (Adam) and his sin, thus "death" originated with Adam and his sin and Adam is the only possible human being who has a BEFORE and AFTER life with regard to sin and thus the only possible human being that could "experience" spiritual death as there is point in his life where sin did not exist and a point where sin originated in his life.

Furthermore, if you deny that Adam experienced spiritual death then he is the only fallen human being that can be a sinner and yet without "spiritual death" and if that is true then no origin for spiritual death exists in time and space and therefore all mankind are condemned for something that he denies has any origin with man or sin. Hence, we have a form of "death" not sinful and yet it is a STATE OF SIN by its very characteristics.

This is the absolue nonsense one must embrace to embrace the myth Jon embraces.

In contrast, our position is that "death" IN ALL OF ITS FULLNESS (SPIRITUAL/PHYSICAL) entered the world by one man's sin and in its FULLNESS was "passed" upon all mankind and that is precisely why at conception they are found IN A STATE OF SPIRITUAL DEATH.

It should be quite easy to see whose position is really myth and unbiblical. If you respond by using the previous sentence only and do not provide evidence that my characterization of his position is wrong, then, you are simply advertising your own ignorance.

 

[JonC]

We certainly need to guard against tradition. Firstly, we must fight against the 150+ year old tradition of not understanding what the Puritans used to call the 'sinfulness of sin.' Secondly we must guard against the more recent tradition of regarding everything written by those who went before us as unworthy of regard (unless of course, we think it might help our argument ). Thirdly, there is the tradition that unfortunately has grown up on this board, of calling the Biblical views of those one disagrees with 'traditions' as a smear and to avoid having to deal with them seriously.

But we must deal, first and foremost, with the Scriptures. First of all, we can all agree, I hope, that mankind is by nature dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-5 etc.). But this death is not a physical death, since sinners are very much alive, so what sort of death is it? It is a spiritual death. So what does that mean? It means that the unsaved have no spiritual life in them; they cannot react positively to the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). So people do not die spiritually for the very good reason that they are born spiritually dead.

And yet we are told, 'Truly, this only I have found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes' (Ecclesiastes 7:29). The Hebrew word for 'man' here is Adam. The Hebrew word which the KJV translates as 'upright' is yashar. As @The Biblicist has pointed out, the word is translated as 'righteous' nine times. Also, God is described as 'upright' in Psalms 25:8; 92:15, and His 'testimonies' as 'upright' in Psalm 119:138. It would therefore be possible, I think, to translate Ecclesiastes 7:29 as '.....God made Adam righteous, but men have sought out many schemes.'

Now let's look at Genesis 2:16-17. '.......Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' Now there is no sense in one can imagine God adding, "And if you don't eat of it you are still going to die!" No, No; the corollary of Gen 2:17 is that if Adam did not eat of the tree he would not die. If he did not die, he would have lived forever q.e.d.

Now if 'the wages of sin is death,' how can it be argued that Adam was created a sinner? It makes no sense. 'The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born......' (Psalms 58:3). If Adam was created a sinner, he was under sentence of death from Day One.

I have more to add, particularly on the 'sinfulness of sin' and God's detestation of it, which makes it utterly impossible for God to have created a sinner and then call His creation 'very good.' But this will have to do for the present time.

The caution is when people hold to certain traditions as if they were Scripture. That is what we see here.

Many men rightly applaud Calvinism, for example, for its logical consistency. It is a remarkably reasonable theological system. Each theory feeds into and from another. But this is also why it is the weakest of all theories. It is based on a theoretical construction of several philosophical ideas. It is, essentially, a house of cards.

What does this have to do with your theory here?

I’m glad you asked, Martin.

This extra-biblical notion (this idea that is reasoned out but not actually present in Scripture) is like a loose thread. We all have loose threads in our theology. These are debatable items, typically matters of interpretation. If you find one in error, simply pluck it off and toss it aside. But you have several of these threads woven into the fabric of your tradition. That’s a problem. They are foundational. Start pulling this thread and your tradition unravels.

And this is only one. As we have seen, your tradition holds several ideas that are humanly reasoned from Scripture but not actually present in Scripture. Again, the issue is that these theories (these exercises in human wisdom) are foundational to your tradition. That is an issue.

Even though I find your question a bit absurd, I will answer it. God did not make Adam sin. He created Adam and Adam sinned. Read your bible and you will find this is true.

 

[JonC]

Jon holds a position that admits the reality of spiritual death, but denies that any human being ever experienced it in the sense of becoming spiritually dead (as that would demand they had been spiritually alive). Hence, he admits this is a form of "death" but denies it has origin with any man but yet "death" in any sense is God's judgement on sin. So, he has God condemning us with "spiritual death" without any just cause because he denies any human being ever did anything to deserve it, thus anything worth of EXPERIENCING it.

So, his view must condemn God for injustice for bringing "spiritual death" upon man. So, this view would then logically must deny "spiritual death" is part and parcel with "death" because "death" had a beginning point, an experience point, an entrance point by one man (Adam) and his sin, thus "death" originated with Adam and his sin and Adam is the only possible human being who has a BEFORE and AFTER life with regard to sin and thus the only possible human being that could "experience" spiritual death as there is point in his life where sin did not exist and a point where sin originated in his life.

Furthermore, if you deny that Adam experienced spiritual death then he is the only fallen human being that can be a sinner and yet without "spiritual death" and if that is true then no origin for spiritual death exists in time and space and therefore all mankind are condemned for something that he denies has any origin with man or sin. Hence, we have a form of "death" not sinful and yet it is a STATE OF SIN by its very characteristics.

This is the absolue nonsense one must embrace to embrace the myth Jon embraces.

In contrast, our position is that "death" IN ALL OF ITS FULLNESS (SPIRITUAL/PHYSICAL) entered the world by one man's sin and in its FULLNESS was "passed" upon all mankind and that is precisely why at conception they are found IN A STATE OF SPIRITUAL DEATH.

It should be quite easy to see whose position is really myth and unbiblical. If you respond by using the previous sentence only and do not provide evidence that my characterization of his position is wrong, then, you are simply advertising your own ignorance.

No. You are not paying attention.

I am claiming that no man is spiritually alive except they be "in Christ". I am claiming that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I am claiming that there is no spiritual life outside of Christ and I am claiming God is powerful enough to keep those "in Him" abiding "in Him".

I am saying that there are no passages that state man was spiritually alive and then died spiritually and now needs to be made spiritually alive again. That is simply not in the Bible.

As that is your thesis, I am actually pleased with the fact I can stand outside of your tradition and point to Scripture. It's like eating cheesecake before dinner (plain cheesecake - I don't like anything on mine, and not that cheap stuff either...real cheesecake).

 

[JonC]

You have offered no evidence it is a tradition.

That's the easy part. Your theory is not in the Bible yet you (and others here) follow it as if it were gospel. And it influences other meanderings and superstitions you hold as equal to Scripture (from previous discussions). So it is what I call a "tradition".

If you prefer just plain made up, you can call it that. But since you did not make it up I call it tradition. Tomato - Tomahto. Let's just call it human philosophy.

 

[The Biblicist]

No. You are not paying attention.

Was Adam born again after the fall??? If not, is he outside of Christ and in hell today or is there salvation from sin outside of Christ? If so, does not that demand he was "dead in trespasses and sins"? Was he "dead in tresspasses and sins" prior to the sin event? If not, when did he experience transition into spiritual death?

 

[The Biblicist]

That's the easy part. Your theory is not in the Bible yet you (and others here) follow it as if it were gospel. And it influences other meanderings and superstitions you hold as equal to Scripture (from previous discussions). So it is what I call a "tradition".

If you prefer just plain made up, you can call it that. But since you did not make it up I call it tradition. Tomato - Tomahto. Let's just call it human philosophy.

No, your myth self-implodes on itself. You admit that "spiritual death" is a Biblical reality but then deny it has any origin in the Bible - go figure that one???

My view is based precisely on the very same biblical grounds for your view and that is "spiritual death" is a Biblical reality and therefore it follows it has a source and origin found in the Bible.

Is "spiritual death" distinct and separate from the "death" that entered the world by Adam's sin? If it has no origin with the same origin of "death" then how can God be just in condemning us with spiritual death as a state or condition?

 

[JonC]

No, your myth self-implodes on itself. You admit that "spiritual death" is a Biblical reality but then deny it has any origin in the Bible - go figure that one???

My view is based precisely on the very same biblical grounds for your view and that is "spiritual death" is a Biblical reality and therefore it follows it has a source and origin found in the Bible.

Is "spiritual death" distinct and separate from the "death" that entered the world by Adam's sin? If it has no origin with the same origin of "death" then how can God be just in condemning us with spiritual death as a state or condition?

Hold on Cowboy.

I do not admit spiritual death is a biblical reality.

I am saying man is "flesh" and not "spirit". I am saying natural man is not spiritually alive and needs life in Christ.

You are saying this means man must have at one time possessed a mythical "spiritual life" that was temporary (not "in Christ").

I am saying natural nan is spiritallly dead. Not t gr ey have experienced spiritual death but were never "in Christ" to begin with. "Not of the spirit" but "of the flesh".

In other words, I believe Scripture is sufficient.

 

[The Biblicist]

READERS

Those who believe as I do, that being "spiritual dead" is a state or condition since conception and is part and parcel with (inclusive of) "death" which entered the world and was "passed" upon all mankind by one man's sin can deal with Jon's philosophical arguments as well as his very few biblical arguments. However, notice that he refuses to deal with either our Biblical or philosophical arguments. Why? Because he can't.

Nor do we deny that eternal life is in Christ Alone. However, we believe Adam sinned and thereby became a sinner by nature and by choice just as we and therefore needed "spiritual life" found "in Christ" for only those "spiritually dead." There is a point in his life when he was not a sinner, and was not spiritually dead and those two different aspects of his life are divided by that one act of disobedience, where he transitioned by experience into spiritual death and thereby need spiritual life in Christ. Is Adam the only sinner that is not "spiritually dead"? Can you be a sinner and not be "spiritually dead". This is what Jon's view demands.

 

[Yeshua1]

Every tradition has unique ways of expressing theological issues in Scripture. Often these expressions speak more to the questions of believers than they do to truths actually provided in Scripture. Often people seem to have a need to "smoothe out" biblical doctrine or fill in blanks to create a flowing narrative that suits their traditions or theories.

This seems to have occured in some traditions of "spiritual death". I understand a need for simplification, especially when dealing with children. But at some point the believer needs to consult Scripture with the submission suited men approaching God's revelation.

Scripture explains what it is to be "spiritually alive". In the third chapter of John we see Jesus explaining to Nicodemus the need for a spiritual birth. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit. Like begats like.

Scripture teaches that this life is in Christ, and in Him alone. This life IS Christ. And this life, unlike the flesh, is not temporal.

Scripture presents the lost as being flesh and "spiritually dead" (Matt. 8) and they will experience a "second death" as hades and death are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20).

BUT Scripture never speaks of a "spiritual death". The lost do not experience a "spiritual death" because they were never "spiritually alive" to begin with.

So where does this idea of a "spiritual death" originate?

I suspect tradition as men built theory on theory to smoothe out the biblical narrative. This is, in a sense, a "Christian mythology" woven throughout biblical truths as doctrine.

I do not know that this is a bad thing. We create stories to explain important truths to children. We use illustrations in sermons to communicate biblical doctrine to congregations. The danger is when people do not recognize the stories for what they are and build on the fiction.

We are born in a state apart from God, not in relationship with Him, not having a nature that can communicate with Him, and we are dead in our sins, how can that not be spiritual dead? If not dead, why is it said that we are reborn to spiritual life, to eternal lif ein Christ, if we have not passed from being spiritually dead to alive?
And Jesus had to bypass becoming a human being with that sin condition in order to qualify as messiah!

 

[Yeshua1]

No.

I do not believe that the lost are made "spiritually alive" in order to suffer a "spiritual death". Instead I believe that man is made flesh, not spirit. What man needs is spiritual life which is only in Christ Jesus.

I am not saying that there is not a state of being spiritually dead. God created Adam flesh, not spirit. Likewise we are born flesh, not spirit. Only Christ gives spiritual life.

All humans have a spirit/soul though, correct?
That is what is born dead and defective, and made alive again in Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

READERS

Those who believe as I do, that being "spiritual dead" is a state or condition since conception and is part and parcel with (inclusive of) "death" which entered the world and was "passed" upon all mankind by one man's sin can deal with Jon's philosophical arguments as well as his very few biblical arguments. However, notice that he refuses to deal with either our Biblical or philosophical arguments. Why? Because he can't.

Nor do we deny that eternal life is in Christ Alone. However, we believe Adam sinned and thereby became a sinner by nature and by choice just as we and therefore needed "spiritual life" found "in Christ" for only those "spiritually dead." There is a point in his life when he was not a sinner, and was not spiritually dead and those two different aspects of his life are divided by that one act of disobedience, where he transitioned by experience into spiritual death and thereby need spiritual life in Christ. Is Adam the only sinner that is not "spiritually dead"? Can you be a sinner and not be "spiritually dead". This is what Jon's view demands.

Jon seems to believe that we were not affected by the fall, as he does seem to equate Jesus being born with same nature as us, so of course we could not be born with sin natures/spiritually dead!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hold on Cowboy.

I do not admit spiritual death is a biblical reality.

I am saying man is "flesh" and not "spirit". I am saying natural man is not spiritually alive and needs life in Christ.

You are saying this means man must have at one time possessed a mythical "spiritual life" that was temporary (not "in Christ").

I am saying natural nan is spiritallly dead. Not t gr ey have experienced spiritual death but were never "in Christ" to begin with. "Not of the spirit" but "of the flesh".

In other words, I believe Scripture is sufficient.

Jesus needed to be Virgin Born, conceived by the Holy Spirit in order to have Him bypass the effects of the fall, as all of us sinned in Adam and tasted His spiritual death, as per us. Why did he need to be Virgin born, according to your position here?

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not admit spiritual death is a biblical reality.

I am saying natural nan is spiritallly dead. Not t gr ey have experienced spiritual death but were never "in Christ" to begin with. "Not of the spirit" but "of the flesh".

We share the same Biblical evidence up to a point as your view admits man is "spiritually DEAD" and your view demands "spiritually dead" men find life only "in Christ." From this point forward your view rests totally upon silence and philsophical speculation.

Your view fails to provide any Biblical answers for the origin for being "spiritual dead." If you say it is due to the origin of sin or the nature of death that entered the world by Adam's sin (Rom.5:12) your view completely self-implodes because that would demand that the experience of spiritual death originated with that sin and death, and therefore, Adam was not "spiritually dead" prior to that sin but either must have become "spiritually dead" by that sin OR he is the only sinner that ever lived who was a "sinner" but not "spiritually dead" and therefore needed no "spiritual life" in Christ and is still outside of Christ and in hell today.

If you deny it originates with Adam and his sin, and that it is not part and parcel with "death" that entered the world because of that sin and is "passed" upon all mankind then you are charging God for unjustly condemning to a state of spiritual deadness which has no origin with Adam, with sin or with death.

Anyway you turn, your theory self-implodes.

 

[Iconoclast]

Scripture teaches that we are dead in sin and need spiritual life.

Spiritual life is ONLY in Christ. There is no other spiritual life.

Yes...post fall. Richard Barcellos has written a book getting the garden right. I have not ordered it yet, but it might be helpful.

 

[Yeshua1]

We share the same Biblical evidence up to a point as your view admits man is "spiritually DEAD" and your view demands "spiritually dead" men find life only "in Christ." From this point forward your view rests totally upon silence and philsophical speculation.

Your view fails to provide any Biblical answers for the origin for being "spiritual dead." If you say it is due to the origin of sin or the nature of death that entered the world by Adam's sin (Rom.5:12) your view completely self-implodes because that would demand that the experience of spiritual death originated with that sin and death, and therefore, Adam was not "spiritually dead" prior to that sin but either must have become "spiritually dead" by that sin OR he is the only sinner that ever lived who was a "sinner" but not "spiritually dead" and therefore needed no "spiritual life" in Christ and is still outside of Christ and in hell today.

Anyway you turn, your theory self-implodes.

Jon C position just does not seem to be what paul explained to us concerning the 2 Adams!

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm not debating if people are spiritually dead. That is the default condition of humanity.

I'm merely stating that the term "spiritual death" is not in the Bible, nor do people experience "spiritual death". People that are unsaved (or unjustified, or unredeemed, or whatever phrase you like) are spiritually dead and cannot die a "spiritual death" because they were never spiritually alive.

JonC is.

 

[JonC]

Yes...post fall. Richard Barcellos has written a book getting the garden right. I have not ordered it yet, but it might be helpful.

Given what Scripture actually states, I wonder how Barcellos got enough material to write a book.

This is my problem with relying on tradition as if it were Scripture, @Iconoclast. I do not believe God gave us His Word in order to spark our imagination so that man would expound on Scripture and write an entire book about what Scripture gives in a very short revelation.