I'd be very much surprised if you were.
Unlike what you imply with this idiotic statement, I don't do it for your sake.
Is death just another life?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
Unlike what you imply with this idiotic statement, I don't do it for your sake.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Once again, you're avoiding the issue of what "spiritually dead" actually means.
I totally understand that our spirit will continue to exist after our body dies.
I'm merely asserting that our spirit does not actually die when we sin.
glorydaz
Well-known member
My proof for what I say is in the fact that sinners (dead in sin) can still respond the Gospel of Salvation.
That seems to be more than you can comprehend. Quite Calvin of you.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yeah, I see now if we happen to come in after the thread started, we are subject to ridicule.
I was actually interested in what Derf might be saying. Had I known you would ride roughshod over anyone who showed some interest and wanted to post, I'd have bowed down to your most excellent glory and not posted at all.
"leave the dead to bury their own dead"
There are two types of "dead" in that verse.
The physical dead to be buried, and the other 'dead' that are burying that physically dead guy.
way 2 go
Well-known member
this was posted a few posts back
#51
Clete said :
God is THE source of life. He is Life itself. Thus, to reject God is to embrace death and to be separated from Him is the very definition of death.
In my words that would be ,
"spiritual death is spiritual separation from God."
and Clete pointed out God is THE source of life.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep, and it's the body that dies. Body, soul, spirit.
Man is condemned to death when he sins, but until the judgment.....
OK, but since there are guys called "dead" that are not physically dead, then what type of "dead" are they?
glorydaz
Well-known member
So you're saying when we sin, we "reject God"?
way 2 go
Well-known member
sin is spiritual death and is spiritual separation from God.
Derf
Well-known member
You don't answer my question for my sake?
Last edited:
Dead means "separated." It doesn't mean "nonexistent" or "unconscious." "Dead in trespasses and sins" is just an easier way to say "separated from God because of your trespasses and sins."
It DOES mean exactly that, GD!
It means their spirits are experiencing "spiritual separation," being cut off from their Creator as a result of their sin!
Again, death is not cessation of existence or unconsciousness. It's separation.
---
GD something I'm noticing about those who assert that death is anything other than separation of two entities, you included, is that they fail to show how our position fails to explain scripture. Rather, the arguments against death being separation are always made from the perspective that it is something other than that.
If you want to show our position to be inconsistent with itself, then you need to show how it's inconsistent INTERNALLY, not how it's inconsistent with your personal beliefs.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep, I see that. But dead is used many different ways.
The condemned to death is what I'm talking about.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
glorydaz
Well-known member
They are condemned to death. Awaiting the Judgment of God.
That isn't proof. It is SOMETHING of an argument at least but it is by no means proof.
All you've really said here is that you discard Calvin's doctrine, which any third grader is smart enough to do instinctively.
The fact that we are able to respond to the gospel would only be proof that we aren't spiritually dead if, by spiritually dead, you meant spiritually non-existent like Derf is mindlessly asserting (Or at least he seems to be, any way. He's sort of gone off the deep end the last few days and I can no longer tell whether he even knows what he's trying to assert/defend.)
To be spiritually dead simply means that your relationship with God has been cut off. It doesn't mean your non-existent, dormant, or otherwise unconscious.
Lastly, don't be a hypocrite, glorydaz.
Mere assertions won't get you anywhere.
The Bible says, in fact, it's God Himself saying it, quite plainly:
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. - Ezekiel 18:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel18:20&version=NKJV
Sin is rebellion against God. Yes.
I have no idea what in the world you're talking about.
Is that all it takes to make you disappear and stop wasting everyone's time?
Your post was an INTENTIONAL insult that you KNEW wasn't true when you stated it! Then you get your feelings hurt when I call you the liar that you are and start whining about getting ridiculed!!
You are an idiotic hypocrite!
Derf
Well-known member
This is well stated, JR.
I haven't found much to show internal inconsistency. The best I've found is what I pointed out about what Satan said: "You won't surely die." Satan is subtle, and he mixes truth with lies. If the person never really dies (immortality of the soul is one phrase describing it), and we call something else death that isn't really death, it sure looks a whole lot like "you won't surely die." But that's not internal inconsistency, though it is inconsistent with what God meant, if what He meant was "you will die and there won't be anything left of you."
The reason we went off on the part of the conversation about whether Adam died "in the day" he ate the fruit is related to that topic. When I've researched why people say "death is separation" it invariably leads back to that passage, and the logic given is "since Adam didn't die physically that day, we must assume that God meant some other kind of death."
What I'm seeing, and trying to get across to you and others, is that such word play is not necessary. But once one starts with the presupposition that death = separation, I tend to agree that there aren't many (any?) internal inconsistencies. But that doesn't mean that the premise/presupposition is correct.