"Does regeneration precede or follow faith?" I'm writing a paper on this

That is not my position at all. Spiritual death is complete separation from God, not a diseased union.

Now back to my question Was Lazarus spiritually alive while he was physically dead?

The problem is comparing physical to spiritual. If we are going to do that, physical death is the ENDING of life meaning spiritual death must be the same if we are going to hold to such a wooden interpretation of it...kinda puts a huge dent on Augustinianism, no? Also, punishing a corpse is rendered meaningless with the logical conclusion being annhialationalism which is contrary to Scripture. How can a dead body and dead soul feel anything given the physical definition of death on this thread?

 

"Lazarus, come forth". He called him by name. I've heard it preached that if He had said only "come forth", the whole cemetary would have come alive.

 

Based on what JArthur (and Tom to an extent) has stated, would the entire cemetery spiritually alive and spiritually dead been "regenerated" to hear Christ?

 

Which is what the BIBLE does, in order that we may understand what DEAD means.

1) The non-believer can not HEAR...Just as those without EARS cannot physically HEAR.

The non-believer still has EARS....but this is used for our understanding to say that a non-believer cannot HEAR as in UNDERSTAND their need.

2) The non-believer cannot SEE...Just as those without EYES cannot physically SEE.

The non-believer still has EYES....but this is used for our understanding to say that a non-believer cannot EYES as in UNDERSTAND their need.

3) The non-believer is DEAD..Just as those DEAD cannot physically CANNOT RESPOND.

The passage was given to us to see the power of God in the person of his Son. We can also find other truths there. The secondary truths should never be used alone to set doctrine. However, this has not been done. I have given other clear verses as well as other posters giving there own. 1 John is the best book on the subject.

But..as it turns out the SON gives life in this passage which is the same message found everywhere in the Bible.

When life is given, the CREATOR does not ask the CREATURE if its ok. Just as your MOTHER did not ask you if you wanted to be BORN.

As in other places of the Bible we can take the physically truth and see a spiritually truth. This we have done. The LIFE BROUGHT FORTH is from God and by God with no input from Lazarus . So is the NEW BIRTH.

I also understand, that you reject this.

 

This only shows poor understanding of Scripture.

Again, to say a person cannot SEE spiritually does not mean his eyes that cannot see flowers.

Word pictures or metaphors are used to teach us a TRUTH but not to be apply beyond what it is meant for.

Case in point....

When Scripture says Christ is a ROCK, please do not go worship a rock.

Dr Wilson wrote a good book on the types and shadows of the Bible. In it, Wilson bearks the types into 3 classes...a, b, and c. I don't have the book with me, but as I recall the as the type goes down to another class, it simply gives us added meaning to other known truths. As I said before, some passages give us clear pictures, others give us hints of truths.

Maybe you can read Wilson to get better understanding.

In Lazarus case, it simply teaches LIFE COMES FROM GOD.

But if I add this to the other verses, to me it only adds to what I already believe the Bible teaches. That is...Men are DEAD and cannot believe...God gives LIFE and they believe.

I also understand you don't see it that way, but it is yet to be shown what you believe the point is to the passage.

 

Christ called Lazarus by name webdog. He was dead, and Christ made him alive.

And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1

 

16But(A) they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says,(B) "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17So(C) faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for

(D) "Their voice has gone out(E) to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world."

dJohn 9 39Jesus said, (AR) "For judgment I came into this world,(AS) that those who do not see may see, and(AT) those who see may become blind." 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him,(AU) "Are we also blind?" 41Jesus said to them, "If you were blind,(AV) you would have no guilt;[c] but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains.

Romans 6:1 1What shall we say then?(A) Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can(B) we who died to sin still live in it?
Colossians 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.

I understand this to be your understanding of the topic, but the question was not answered...was Lazarus spiritually alive while physically dead?

 

Not so fast... You've bypassed the actual question. You are still indicating that the person is in some sense "alive" and able to do something. From where does that "aliveness" come and what is its state? How can we describe it? How is your view different from the Roman Catholic view (and I'm not using this as a pejorative, they indeed see our state in a similar way)?

I don't know, and I would suspect, neither do you... As far as I can tell, we're never told his spiritual condition, other than the fact that he was a deer friend of Jesus and one of His followers, but that is all complicated by the issue of Pentecost and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Lazarus was pre-Pentecost, but not identified as the "firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18) as was Jesus. That, for me at least, leaves the question very open to interpretation.

That is an interesting dilemma... But again, how do you reconcile very clear biblical passages that say that we are "dead in our sin and tresspasses..."? I don't think that this puts any dent on Augustinianism. In fact, I would say that it amplifies his teaching, and it was his teaching that drove Calvin's later theology as well. The idea of eternal punishment for dead spirits may be a very human logical construct that is not reality when contrasted to the revealed actions of God. We KNOW that souls who are not "in Christ" will suffer for eternity in torment because the Bible says so very clearly. What we probably don't know is God's mechanism for bringing that about, but it is tied somehow to the "second death" etc.

I'd suggest dealing with the first item in this post before we move on to more difficult issues, however. You have a huge issue staring at you therein, and until you can somehow reconcile how those who are "completely separated from God" can somehow "come to Him" (and, I'll bet you have used that evangelism model where the cross of Christ is shown to divide the un-passable chasm between we and God) without God doing the work.

 

How? I asked a question based on a statement made. If anything it shows a poor understanding of my question.

Wait...you did just that with your comparison of Lazarus' corpse to a spiritual one.

I agree...and the truth is in regards to what death means, which is separation.

No worries...I've worshiped at a service called "The Rock", but that's entirely different

Thanks for the suggestion, and maybe I will...but if his view is the wooden "corpse" understanding of spiritual death I doubt that will trump the understanding I can glean from Scripture.

Conversely, he is unable to not believe, and personal accountability for not believing is a farce.

The entire point of the passage is not to prove pre-faith regeneration, but to show that Christ is "The Life" and hold all power over death and the grave. He doesn't need something to happen in order for man to respond to Him, which renders him powerless over death.

 

I apolligise for this last post the quotes would not appear in there proper place maybe a moderater can fix it
MB

 

I didn't bypass anything. Here is your question... Here, you seem to be indicating that a person who is as yet unregenerated is merely "sin-sick" or some other concept along those lines. Is that your position, or if not, could you clarify?
Here is my answer...Spiritual death is complete separation from God, not a diseased union.

What went unanswered? I didn't indicate there is some sort of "life" based on how I believe the Bible defines spiritual death, not on how you define it.

I do know that once one is in Hell, they are there to stay...but that is not the point of my question.
According to your understanding, is this accurate?
Physical death = unable to respond, spiritual life = able to respond
Spiritual death = unable to respond, physical life = unable to respond

Ah, not so fast, no "but again" It needs to be dealt with, and not using the very same logic and presuppositions you use on other texts. These are your illustrations and interpretations I'm working with, not mine.

I did deal with it...you didn't like it Given the Lazarus story, there is no dilemma. In the same way it is naturally possible for a physically dead person to respond to Christ (but still did), one who is spiritually dead can ALSO do the same.

I don't know what you have against the "cross evangelism model" (I haven't used it, btw...my calvinist pastor has though ) considering Christ says "no man can come to the Father but through Me". I don't get how you just take it upon yourself to assume those using that model believe God hasn't done all the work. Kind of mind baffling for you to say that in all honesty.

 

[post snipped - questioning salvation of another poster is not tolerated]

 

Sorry..I overlooked this passage..

I would love to hear why you think this helps your view. My answer is very long. I have been teaching in John for almost 3 years, and just now got to chapter 10, so I can recall all of this passage by heart.

This I understand does not mean I have the right view....I just want to hear what your point is.

 

hummm

hummm

I didn't really believe you would answer. Proof texting with no point places a person where later he will find it hard to defend himself. The answer to proof texting is context.

dwell on it, though. It's unfortunate, but we have been down this road before
Indeed...which limits my time here. I love debates, but it must be on subject, or it is a waste of time.

indeed