"Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?

[webdog]

Finally some words of sanity on the soul/spirit issue ( from a non-Cal). Thank you Marcia.

I echo that (except for the veiled attack on non-cal's). We are dichotomous, IMO.

 

[EdSutton]

I echo that (except for the veiled attack on non-cal's). We are dichotomous, IMO.

How can one remain dichotomous in view of I Thes. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12, without 'wresting' the Scripture to fit theology?

Ed

 

[webdog]

How can one remain dichotomous in view of I Thes. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12, without 'wresting' the Scripture to fit theology?

Ed

I believe 1 Thess. is speaking of the wholeness of man, not necessarily trichotomy, as elsewhere in Scripture humans are stated to be heart and mind, too. Are humans heart, soul, spirit, mind and body? Everything here fits into two camps: material and immaterial. Soul is lifeforce.

Hebrews 4 is easier, as I believe it supports a dichotomous view. You have joints / marrow (material) and soul / spirit (immaterial). It really makes no sense to see this passage as supporting trichotomy because why does the Word of God need to separate joints from marrow? It is clearly speaking of the Word of God separating the flesh from the Spirit.

 

[Rippon]

I believe 1 Thess. is speaking of the wholeness of man, not necessarily trichotomy, as elsewhere in Scripture humans are stated to be heart and mind, too. Are humans heart, soul, spirit, mind and body? Everything here fits into two camps: material and immaterial. Soul is lifeforce.

Hebrews 4 is easier, as I believe it supports a dichotomous view. You have joints / marrow (material) and soul / spirit (immaterial). It really makes no sense to see this passage as supporting trichotomy because why does the Word of God need to separate joints from marrow? It is clearly speaking of the Word of God separating the flesh from the Spirit.

Oh Boy! This is one of those rare, I say rare, times when I can agree wholeheartly with one of WD's posts.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

How can one remain dichotomous in view of I Thes. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12, without 'wresting' the Scripture to fit theology?

Ed

It may be that 1 Thess 5:23, soul and spirit, are not meant different things but the same thing, as in Luke 1:46-47 "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." or, Luke 10:27 "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." There are not distinctions but expressions of the same things. THis is the reasoning of Dr. Hodge.

Hodge also says,

Again, when in Heb. iv. 12, the Apostle says that the word of God pierces so as to penetrate soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow, he does not assume that soul and spirit are different substances. The joints and marrow are not different substances. They are both material; they are different forms of the same substance; and so soul and spirit are one and the same substance under different aspects or relations. We can say that the word of God reaches not only to the feelings, but also to the conscience, without assuming that the heart and conscience are distinct entities. Much less is any such distinction implied in Phil. i. 27, “Stand fast in one spirit (ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι), with one mind (μιᾷ ψυχῇ).”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology2.iii.ii.ii.html

I think Hodge has a point.

 

[Brother Bob]

I think "soul" is used often in the OT to just mean a person. So it means the person who sins dies.

The word for soul is often used interchangeably with spirit as well as for a person's life in general. We see this sometimes in old-fashioned English: "Forty souls were lost when the ship went down."

So, even though you are already "appointed" to die, are you saying if you sin you will just die again or could it mean more than just the natural death???? I mean the natural death is an appointment.

I agree that in OT, soul is used a lot to mean the whole man, but I do not think so in this case, just because the physical death is already there, how can you add it again???

I am born to die, oops I sinned, I am going to die again. No, I don't agree with that at all. It has to mean a part that is not already going to die. If its already going to die, then what effect would sin have on it???

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Hebrews 4 is easier, as I believe it supports a dichotomous view. You have joints / marrow (material) and soul / spirit (immaterial). It really makes no sense to see this passage as supporting trichotomy because why does the Word of God need to separate joints from marrow? It is clearly speaking of the Word of God separating the flesh from the Spirit.

Easier? NOT! Heb 4 gives THREE things that can be divided and you only offer TWO!! Already you pervert the passage to say what you want it to say!!

"Joints and marrow" -- body. Soul and spirit -- two aspects of our spiritual nature. "Thoughts and intents of the heart [spirit]" -- focusing in on the "spirit" and the fact that even our "thoughts" sometimes are different from our "wills" to obey.

Web, you got a lot of studying to do before you "go on the road" with your theology.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Oh Boy! This is one of those rare, I say rare, times when I can agree wholeheartly with one of WD's posts.

Then you chose to "disciple" yourself to error yet again, rip! How does it feel to always be wrong?? :laugh:

skypair

 

[webdog]

Easier? NOT! Heb 4 gives THREE things that can be divided and you only offer TWO!! Already you pervert the passage to say what you want it to say!!

"Joints and marrow" -- body. Soul and spirit -- two aspects of our spiritual nature. "Thoughts and intents of the heart [spirit]" -- focusing in on the "spirit" and the fact that even our "thoughts" sometimes are different from our "wills" to obey.

Web, you got a lot of studying to do before you "go on the road" with your theology.

skypair

You agree that joints / marrow = body...which is material, then you divide soul and spirit...immaterial. Me thinks you are dividing it up to say what you want it to say.

From reading some of your posts...I think we can agree we all have a long way before we can "go on the road" with our theology

 

[skypair]

You agree that joints / marrow = body...which is material, then you divide soul and spirit...immaterial. Me thinks you are dividing it up to say what you want it to say.

Actually, I neglected to include something that Dr Rogers taught. He said that the joint and marrow reference was to how scripture divides the dead bones from the living marrow. This comparison then follows on through the next 2 spiritual divisions -- the dead soul of the unsaved but their living spirit -- the dead thoughts vs. the living intentions of going to heaven (ad vice versa: living thoughts regarding God but dead intentions regarding how one will accomplish them).

From reading some of your posts...I think we can agree we all have a long way before we can "go on the road" with our theology

Yeah. Often it is hard to encapsulate all that we know about any given issue all in one understandable post. I have found posting is good for organizing your subsequent discussions on the issues, though.

skypair

 

[EdSutton]

From reading some of your posts...I think we can agree we all have a long way before we can "go on the road" with our theology

I once heard the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson say in his inimitable Alabama drawl, "Ah have no doubt that when Ah stand befoah the 'Lawad' that 80 pahcent of what Ah believe will be confirmed exactly as Ah believe it; Ah also have no doubt, that on th' othah 20 pahcent, mah mind will be changed ..." [Snapping his fingers!] "just like that!"

I pretty much agree with that statement, except that I'm gonna' make it 85 to 15%, 'cause Dr. Johnson was a 'horticulturist' and I'm not.'

I don't cultivate no TULIPs! :laugh:

Ed

 

[Jarthur001]

Actually, I neglected to include something that Dr Rogers taught. He said that the joint and marrow reference was to how scripture divides the dead bones from the living marrow. This comparison then follows on through the next 2 spiritual divisions -- the dead soul of the unsaved but their living spirit -- the dead thoughts vs. the living intentions of going to heaven (ad vice versa: living thoughts regarding God but dead intentions regarding how one will accomplish them).

Yeah. Often it is hard to encapsulate all that we know about any given issue all in one understandable post. I have found posting is good for organizing your subsequent discussions on the issues, though.

skypair

Dr Rogers?
You just got to love it.

 

[webdog]

Actually, I neglected to include something that Dr Rogers taught. He said that the joint and marrow reference was to how scripture divides the dead bones from the living marrow. This comparison then follows on through the next 2 spiritual divisions -- the dead soul of the unsaved but their living spirit -- the dead thoughts vs. the living intentions of going to heaven (ad vice versa: living thoughts regarding God but dead intentions regarding how one will accomplish them).

Yeah. Often it is hard to encapsulate all that we know about any given issue all in one understandable post. I have found posting is good for organizing your subsequent discussions on the issues, though.

skypair

While I like much of what Dr. Rogers taught, on this he is "dead" wrong (pun intended ). Bones are most definately alive, which refutes his entire notion of dividing dead bones and living marrow.

From http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/430950

Bones are most definitely alive. If you've ever seen a real skeleton or fossil in a museum, you might think that all bones are dead. Although bones in museums are dry, hard, or crumbly, the bones in your body are different. The bones that make up your skeleton are all very much alive, growing and changing all the time like other parts of your body....

 

[EdSutton]

Dr Rogers?
You just got to love it.

Why the necessity for the 'slyly implied' comment, here?

Yes, apparently the late Adrian P. Rogers, Th.D. is the person in view, here, both by both skypair and Jarthur001.

http://kevinwoodson.blogspot.com/2007/10/biography-of-month-adrian-rogers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Rogers

He was elected three times for the one year term of President of the SBC (elected 1979 and 1986 and 1987), by the SBC Messengers, the only individual since the late Dr. R. G. Lee (elected 1948-1950), to be accorded this office more than two terms; served as the Pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis [incidentally, the same church where SBC Presidents R. G. Lee and Ramsey Pollard (elected 1959-1960) served as Pastor] for 33 years where the membership grew from 9,000 to 29,000 under his leadership; and was also awarded Honorary Doctorates by six institutions, including such as Liberty Baptist Seminary, Hannibal LaGrange, and Southwest Baptist University, none of which are exactly fourth rate diploma mills. So, he musta' done something right, IMO.

BTW, to my knowledge, one earns a Th.D., as they are not usually honorary degrees.

Despite the apparent distaste by the late Arthur W. Pink (whom I believe happens to be the person whose picture you have chosen to post by your BB handle) for 'degrees', as he refused an offered Doctorate, I see nothing wrong with this title, any more than that of 'Pastor', personally, and normally choose to identify those who are awarded such as 'Doctor', regardless of the esteem (or lack of the same) I hold for any awarding institution.

Yes, personally, I love anyone who preaches the word faithfully, as Dr. Adrian Rogers apparently did, even if I do not necessarily agree with everything he may have said, including his "bones and marrow" bit. But maybe that's just me.

Incidentally, I would not have known the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, if I ran into him face to face on the street, any more than I would know Jarthur001.

Oh yeah,

Ed

 

[skypair]

While I like much of what Dr. Rogers taught, on this he is "dead" wrong (pun intended ). Bones are most definately alive, which refutes his entire notion of dividing dead bones and living marrow.

From http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/430950

Bones are most definitely alive. If you've ever seen a real skeleton or fossil in a museum, you might think that all bones are dead. Although bones in museums are dry, hard, or crumbly, the bones in your body are different. The bones that make up your skeleton are all very much alive, growing and changing all the time like other parts of your body....

Suit yourself, wd. I realize bones grow. Just thought it would help -- guess it didn't. We'll find out which interpretation is true "by-and by," won't we?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Why the necessity for the 'slyly implied' comment, here?

Yes, apparently the late Adrian P. Rogers, Th.D. is the person in view, here, both by both skypair and Jarthur001.

http://kevinwoodson.blogspot.com/2007/10/biography-of-month-adrian-rogers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Rogers

He was elected three times for the one year term of President of the SBC (elected 1979 and 1986 and 1987), by the SBC Messengers, the only individual since the late Dr. R. G. Lee (elected 1948-1950), to be accorded this office more than two terms; served as the Pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis [incidentally, the same church where SBC Presidents R. G. Lee and Ramsey Pollard (elected 1959-1960) served as Pastor] for 33 years where the membership grew from 9,000 to 29,000 under his leadership; and was also awarded Honorary Doctorates by six institutions, including such as Liberty Baptist Seminary, Hannibal LaGrange, and Southwest Baptist University, none of which are exactly fourth rate diploma mills. So, he musta' done something right, IMO.

BTW, to my knowledge, one earns a Th.D., as they are not usually honorary degrees.

Despite the apparent distaste by the late Arthur W. Pink (whom I believe happens to be the person whose picture you have chosen to post by your BB handle) for 'degrees', as he refused an offered Doctorate, I see nothing wrong with this title, any more than that of 'Pastor', personally, and normally choose to identify those who are awarded such as 'Doctor', regardless of the esteem (or lack of the same) I hold for any awarding institution.

Yes, personally, I love anyone who preaches the word faithfully, as Dr. Adrian Rogers apparently did, even if I do not necessarily agree with everything he may have said, including his "bones and marrow" bit. But maybe that's just me.

Incidentally, I would not have known the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, if I ran into him face to face on the street, any more than I would know Jarthur001.

Oh yeah,

Ed

Thank you, Ed. We all learn from someone who "models" Christ and I am tired of the disparaging remarks Adrian has been subjected to on this board. It seems clear that some don't know their "brothers" from their "adversaries." :tear:

skypair

 

[EdSutton]

Thank you, Ed. We all learn from someone who "models" Christ and I am tired of the disparaging remarks Adrian has been subjected to on this board. It seems clear that some don't know their "brothers" from their "adversaries." :tear:

skypair

As "Dragnet's" Sgt. Joe Friday (Jack Webb) supposedly said (although he never actually said these words on the show), "Just the facts, ma'am!"

Why was he usually speaking to ladies when he actually would say, "All we want are the the facts, ___!"?

By my recollection, he seemed to ask far more women than men.

Ed

 

[convicted1]

RE: "Forsake" sin for Salvation?

Yes, I know of the account, which is actually found in Lk. 15:11-32 [This is not a parable, BTW, but an actual account of a particular family of which the Lord Jesus, being God, knew, but chose not to identify, specifically. (Good lesson there, BTW!) - "A certain man had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ..." (Lk. 15:11b-12a - NKJV)] of the father and his two sons.

I believe that often, in the attempt to "get an 'evangelistic type' sermon that will preach", however, several key points in this account are overlooked.

First, the father: - The father never changed his gracious love for or acceptance of the younger son. He would always be his son, where the Father was concerned. Did you notice that the much older father was the one who both looked for the son to return, had compassion, and ran to the son (who was busy rehearsing his speech he was going to give), fell on his neck, kissed him, and basically, told the son to shut up, for he wasn't interested in what the son was going to do for him. This was going to be what the father was doing for the son.

Second, the younger son: - Most of us know a lot of this part fairly well, I would say, having heard it preached on fairly often. However, a couple of points still get overlooked. The first was the famine that was so bad in that country, that even the hogs were starving (It was apparently a Gentile country.), because they were not in any 'lot', but scrounging in the fields, and reduced to eating what pods (NKJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB) or husks (KJV, ASV, DARBY, YLT), as opposed to grain or beans, that the citizen was able to acquire. The second point is that the son was always a son. That relationship never changed, although certainly the fellowship was broken. He was a son when he asked his father for his hoped for inheritance (which the father was under no obligation to give him being as he was alive and well, BTW); he was a son when he left for "a distant country"; he was a son in the fields, when he started practicing his speech, whch even he recognized (v. 19) although he considered himself unworthy of that relationship; he was a son on the road; a son when the father openly welcomed him back; and a son at the banquet. even when he was separated ("dead" and "lost" to the father) Much of this time he was a son totally out of fellowship, but a son, nevertheless. And the father gave him still more gifts, a robe, a ring, shoes, and a banquet, when he was back.

Third, the often overlooked older brother: - Often overlooked, IMO. Self-righteous, obnoxious, greedy, and judgmental to the max! Got his information 'second-handed'. Had a lot of "I" trouble.

Did you read his speech?? Paraphrased - " I - I've ... Look at how good I been, but you don't give me nothin'! And after all I've done, no less! I've heardly been out of your sight! But Him...! Don't you know what he has done??" (BTW, he had absolutely no way of knowing what his brother had or had not done, even though Jesus did! 'They warn't no cell phones in that day ("Can you hear me, now??") to keep in touch.')

Yep! A son, as well. Never stoped being a son, any more than did the younger brother! Had everything, but still it wasn't enough! Thought he'd 'earned' even more! Now he was mad about it. Did you notice that the father also came out to him and pleaded with him, something he did not even have to do with the younger son? The older son was just as much "out of fellowship", if not more, than his brother, and the Bible never says the older brother ever 'reconciled' with either the father or his younger brother, BTW. Did he stay "in his snit' for the rest of his days? The Bible doesn't say.

Two sons - both completely 'separated' from the father's love and concern for them; one could not have been found by 'Scotland Yard' on a bet; the other, was scarcely out of the father's sight. Still, no real difference in the fellowship, or understanding the father, by either. However there was a big difference in the rewards, for the younger son had 'blown' most of his!

And one father - always loving both sons equally, and looking out for them, and still giving them grace on top of grace they both did not deserve! (Jn. 1:16) The father is actually mentioned in the account more than either son, FTR, and I believe is a wonderful picture of the loving, forgiving Heavenly Father.

Ed

Oops! I got "Lazarus and the rich man" confused with the Prodical son. Thankfully you knew what I meant, and where it came from!:tonofbricks:

Willis

 

[convicted1]

RE: "Forsake" sin for Salvation?

I believe 1 Thess. is speaking of the wholeness of man, not necessarily trichotomy, as elsewhere in Scripture humans are stated to be heart and mind, too. Are humans heart, soul, spirit, mind and body? Everything here fits into two camps: material and immaterial. Soul is lifeforce.

Hebrews 4 is easier, as I believe it supports a dichotomous view. You have joints / marrow (material) and soul / spirit (immaterial). It really makes no sense to see this passage as supporting trichotomy because why does the Word of God need to separate joints from marrow? It is clearly speaking of the Word of God separating the flesh from the Spirit.

Webdog,

Not to hijack the thread, but you brought up the dichotomous view of a man. Now here is a question I want to ask you. In Heb 4:12, do you think that soul and spirit means the soul of man, and the Spirit as the Holy Ghost? I have thought this way for quite a while. I am with you in regards to this dichotomous view. In Genesis, God breathed into Adam's nostrils the "Breath of Life", and he became a living soul.

Willis

 

[Rippon]

Eds,in post #111 of yours you said something curious. You objected to the NIV/TNIV rendering of Isaiah 59:20. The latter two have it as :"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,"declares the Lord.

The NET Bible has ... "to those in Jacob who repent of their rebellious deeds."

You prefer more of an ESV flavoring :...to those in Jacob who turn from transgression."

Doesn't turn from sin = repent from sin ? It's one of those synonyms again.

I don't believe that repent of their sins in Isaiah 59:20 is an "extremely free rendering" at all. Maybe your thesaurus is in need of revision.