Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Of course the difference in the two of us is that I offered an explanation of the passage whereas you offer mere assertions.

Well from my perspective, I am the person who is supporting their position with multiple Scriptures while you are the person who is trying to explain away what those Scriptures say with 'mere assertions'.

Angels or demons cannot die. The whole idea of "spiritual death" would mean that demons are dead. Now, really? Demons are dead. That is your idea?

You got it!
Yes, demons who have turned against their Creator are 'spiritually dead'. Their rebellion against God has spiritually separated them from God.

"Spiritual" people are those who walk according to the Holy Spirit. "Fleshly" people are those who walk according to sin. That means that what is "spiritual" is essentially alive. That makes, again, the idea of "spiritual death" a contradiction in terms. A person who walks according to the flesh is dead--not spiritually but really.

Ok... I think we might have a little agreement on this point.
We both agree that a person who walks according to the flesh is dead. (I refer to that death as 'spiritual' death)

Can we agree that as a biological organism that person "who walks according to the flesh" can also be biologically (or 'physically') alive?

In Christ

DBowling wrote:Well from my perspective, I am the person who is supporting their position with multiple Scriptures while you are the person who is trying to explain away what those Scriptures say with 'mere assertions'.

Obviously that's your perspective. But, of course, quod gratis asseritur . . .

You got it!
Yes, demons who have turned against their Creator are 'spiritually dead'. Their rebellion against God has spiritually separated them from God.

Way to ignore the rest of the post. For a demon to be spiritually dead would just mean a demon is dead, since a demon is spiritual by definition. And that shows the self-contradiction in your post. The sad truth is that you agree with me but you can't see it because you're more interested in thinking traditionally than thinking critically.

Ok... I think we might have a little agreement on this point.
We both agree that a person who walks according to the flesh is dead. (I refer to that death as 'spiritual' death)

Can we agree that as a biological organism that person "who walks according to the flesh" can also be biologically (or 'physically') alive?

Of course a person who walks according the flesh is alive. You can't walk if you aren't alive. The problem is, again, you see the fact of biological life and the claim that in some sense a person who is living in sin is "dead" and, to resolve the contradiction, you invent a "spiritual death" that the text doesn't talk about to explain away the contradiction. The irony here is that you have Christians being both spiritually dead and spiritually alive at the same time. You have demons being both spiritually dead and spiritually alive at the same time. It's just a ridiculous, self-contradictory notion. But in such muddy thinking, you allow yourself to take that fogginess and import it into other passages and try to draw theological conclusions. The result isn't just a failure to understand Genesis. You actually end up with a failure to understand much deeper and more practical doctrines. But, again, I don't want to press the thread in that direction because I, with you, really do want to see where K comes down on this. My curiosity is up.

Jac3510 wrote:

Ok... I think we might have a little agreement on this point.
We both agree that a person who walks according to the flesh is dead. (I refer to that death as 'spiritual' death)

Can we agree that as a biological organism that person "who walks according to the flesh" can also be biologically (or 'physically') alive?

Of course a person who walks according the flesh is alive. You can't walk if you aren't alive.

OK then it looks like we are conceptually agreeing, but we're disagreeing on terminology.

I think we both agree that it is possible for a person to be dead (ie walking in the flesh)
And at the same time be alive biologically.

However we are using the term 'spiritually' differently, so every time that term comes up we end up talking past each other and straw men are built and destroyed.

The problem is, again, you see the fact of biological life and the claim that in some sense a person who is living in sin is "dead" and, to resolve the contradiction, you invent a "spiritual death" that the text doesn't talk about to explain away the contradiction.

No I'm not inventing anything... we are just using different terms.
My 'spiritual death' means the same thing as your 'real death'
(you just take issue with my use of the word 'spiritual')
My 'physical death' means 'biological death'

So despite our disagreement in terminology, you also dfferentiate between biological death and what you refer to as 'real death'.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

The problem is, again, you see the fact of biological life and the claim that in some sense a person who is living in sin is "dead" and, to resolve the contradiction, you invent a "spiritual death" that the text doesn't talk about to explain away the contradiction.

No I'm not inventing anything...

From Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc41/cc41014.htm

There is some perplexity in the language; but, if we attend carefully to what the apostle says about those two parts, the meaning is clear. As to the first, he says that they were dead; and states, at the same time, the cause of the death — trespasses and sins. 119 He does not mean simply that they were in danger of death; but he declares that it was a real and present death under which they labored. As spiritual death is nothing else than the alienation of the soul from God, we are all born as dead men, and we live as dead men, until we are made partakers of the life of Christ, — agreeably to the words of our Lord,

Note that Calvin equates your terminology ("real and present death") with the terminology that I am using ("spiritual death").

So I don't think we are really that far apart.

In Christ

It helps to understand someone's position before you say you aren't far away from it. We're more than a bit apart, and I think think K's initial comments are already suggestive of that (plus your thinking that citing Calvin helps your case at all--it does the opposite). We'll see where the discussion goes from here, though, after he shares more of what he's thinking.

Here's Augustine's perspective on the distinction between spiritual and physical death.
(From City of God Book 13 Chapter 2)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120113.htm

But I see I must speak a little more carefully of the nature of death. For although the human soul is truly affirmed to be immortal, yet it also has a certain death of its own. For it is therefore called immortal, because, in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel; while the body is called mortal, because it can be forsaken of all life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the soul forsakes it. Therefore the death of both— that is, of the whole man— occurs when the soul, forsaken by God, forsakes the body. For, in this case, neither is God the life of the soul, nor the soul the life of the body. And this death of the whole man is followed by that which, on the authority of the divine oracles, we call the second death. This the Saviour referred to when He said, Fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

In Christ

How about John 5:24? My pastor likes to say sometimes that Jesus came not to make bad people good, but to make dead people alive. I lean more towards DBowling's side - I've always found it an odd idea that sin was supposed to have brought physical death. It makes a lot more sense to me to say it cut us off from God and made us spiritually dead - in other words, unsaved. Even if it's a figure of speech - that is, an unsaved person's spirit isn't literally dead in the same way their body will sometime be - that's their status; they haven't passed from death to life. After all, Jesus died to save and restore us and yet we still die physically; it's spiritually that we live.

Again, the problem is with this idea of "spiritual death." John 5:24 doesn't say anything about it. It's something we've invented to try to explain the meaning of the verse. By itself it may be a harmless enough error, but then we invent a distinction between "physical" and "spiritual" death, start saying some passages apply to one kind and others to another, and we start using the non-biblical distinction to create theological positions. So the error becomes serious pretty quickly. It ends up leaving the Bible believing Christian with a semi-gnostic conception of salvation. Better, then, not to invent ideas the Bible doesn't talk about.

Just thinking out loud...

For humans who are both spiritual and physical, death is death. One can die physically, yet live spiritually(John 11:25). But when one who does not have eternal life in Christ, dies he's just dead.

Now, other animals that aren't spiritual beings, only die physically. So, Romans 5:12 does not apply to non-spiritual creatures.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that "as physical death is the separation of the body from the soul, spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God".

The spirit can't be separated from an omnipresent God, can it?

RickD wrote:Just thinking out loud...

For humans who are both spiritual and physical, death is death. One can die physically, yet live spiritually(John 11:25). But when one who does not have eternal life in Christ, dies he's just dead.

Now, other animals that aren't spiritual beings, only die physically. So, Romans 5:12 does not apply to non-spiritual creatures.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that "as physical death is the separation of the body from the soul, spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God".

The spirit can't be separated from an omnipresent God, can it?

I tend to agree with your thinking except I don't seem to get hung up on "as physical death is the separation of the body from the soul, spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God". Because although God is omnipresent he can choose to not be wherever he chooses and so he very well could forsake those in hell,at least that is the way I see it.People who reject Jesus are already dead and the wrath of God abides on them.

RickD wrote:Just thinking out loud...

For humans who are both spiritual and physical, death is death. One can die physically, yet live spiritually(John 11:25).

Correct...
And that is precisely the distinction that Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, and many many others throughout the 2000 year history of the church are talking about.

And the reverse is true as well.
It is also possible to be dead spiritually and physically alive.

But when one who does not have eternal life in Christ, dies he's just dead.

Yes... he is dead both physically and spiritually...
But even for this 'spiritually and physically dead' person, his immortal soul is not annihilated.
His spiritually dead immortal soul continues to exist, but it continues to exist in a state of separation from God.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that "as physical death is the separation of the body from the soul, spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God".

The spirit can't be separated from an omnipresent God, can it?

There are a number of Scriptures that deal with sin resulting in separation from God, but Isaiah 59:1-2 is a good example.

Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short
That it cannot save;
Nor is His ear so dull
That it cannot hear.
2 But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His [a]face from you so that He does not hear.

In Christ

RickD wrote:Just thinking out loud...

For humans who are both spiritual and physical, death is death. One can die physically, yet live spiritually(John 11:25). But when one who does not have eternal life in Christ, dies he's just dead.

Nope. That's one of the false conclusions by the unbiblical distinction DB is trying to draw. See my comments on John 11:25 above. The verse can't be used to sustain the distinction. He who dies, dies. You cannot die physically and yet live spiritually.

Jac, from what I can see, is trying to be more inline perhaps with Hebraic thought where "life" is simply had based upon a body and breath of life = living soul. There is no real distinction between a physical body and spiritual body, rather "dirt" + "breath" = life. One must actually overlay additional thinking on top of this formula seen in Genesis 2:7 to get something more.

Going with this thought, not only is there our soul/spirit (same thing) + body, but the ties of both are so close that "life" or a "living soul" is only possible with both present. Hence, why Jac says, you can't be dead in one body and alive in another, it just doesn't make sense with the ontology he is accepting, which is, I think, well supported in the OT, although I haven't by any means closely examined all relevant passages.

On the other hand, and I believe more support can be mustered in the NT, but more modern thinking, perhaps due to Greek influences I don't know... but some create more of a clear division of sorts (including myself once, although today I'm less decided) -- such that there is a spiritual body and a physical body, both of which envelope around some immaterial essence (i.e., soul) at our core.

I held to this for a long while, but then a year or so ago I came across an issue with it. I'm just not sure that when talking of our immaterial self, then thinking of "spirit" in materialist terms -- for example, that there is some sort of ghostly or ethereal substance -- I'm not sure that such is logically consistent and without contradiciton. Either our immaterial has no substance, it just is thanks to God, hence we have no spiritual "bodies" -- or in addition to the physical world we must create a spiritual world (which isn't "immaterial", but rather "ethereal material") which our immaterial soul exists within thanks to God.

What I'm getting at, is the difference I see, really comes back to one's ontology of human beings, whether we're comprised of a soul (immaterial), a spiritual body (material) and physical body (material) OR whether one just sees human life (soul) as being comprised of one body brought to life.

NOW, whichever view one holds to, I don't think it matters to understand "death" per se. We know only God gives life, therefore as Matthew 10:28 says, only God can destroy (i.e., bring death to) both body and soul. It is true that once our physical lives end, then we have physical death. It is equally true then that if we have spiritual bodies enveloped around us, our eyes to the spiritual world and God if you will, that then these spiritual bodies could die. Then finally, the immaterial part of us that God sustains regardless of any body, such too if God FULLY stopped sustaining such in any way, shape or form, such would just vanish (i.e., we'd be fully dead as dead can be, annihilated). There is no coming back after that, if God ever did such a thing to us (while I don't believe we'll be annihilated, such is nonetheless logically possible).

RickD wrote:
Just thinking out loud...

For humans who are both spiritual and physical, death is death. One can die physically, yet live spiritually(John 11:25).

DBowling wrote:
Correct...
And that is precisely the distinction that Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, and many many others throughout the 2000 year history of the church are talking about.

And the reverse is true as well.
It is also possible to be dead spiritually and physically alive.

Sure. But I don't think being dead spiritually, is the same as spiritual death.

RickD wrote:
But when one who does not have eternal life in Christ, dies he's just dead.

DBowling wrote:
Yes... he is dead both physically and spiritually...
But even for this 'spiritually and physically dead' person, his immortal soul is not annihilated.
His spiritually dead immortal soul continues to exist, but it continues to exist in a state of separation from God.

There are a number of Scriptures that deal with sin resulting in separation from God, but Isaiah 59:1-2 is a good example.
Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short
That it cannot save;
Nor is His ear so dull
That it cannot hear.
2 But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His [a]face from you so that He does not hear.

Is the separation you're talking about, a separation from fellowship with God?

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:Just thinking out loud...

For humans who are both spiritual and physical, death is death. One can die physically, yet live spiritually(John 11:25). But when one who does not have eternal life in Christ, dies he's just dead.

Nope. That's one of the false conclusions by the unbiblical distinction DB is trying to draw. See my comments on John 11:25 above. The verse can't be used to sustain the distinction. He who dies, dies. You cannot die physically and yet live spiritually.

That's fine. I have no problem disagreeing here. In fact, Dr. Constable agrees with me, so I'm in good company.

Whoever "believes in" Jesus "will live" spiritually and eternally, even if he or she dies physically (cf. 5:21). Jesus imparts eternal life to those who believe in Him. He Himself is the "life" in the sense that He is the source and benefactor of each believer's ongoing spiritual existence. Whereas He will effect "resurrection" after death, for those who believe and die physically, He bestows eternal "life" during one's earthly lifetime, and it begins for the believer at salvation, before he or she dies physically.

http://soniclight.org/constable/notes/pdf/john.pdf