How ‘Free Grace’ Theology Diminishes the Gospel

[The Biblicist]

pt 2;
At the same time it also contains evidences of the dual composition of man’s nature. We should be careful, however, not to expect the later distinction between the body as the material element, and the soul as the spiritual element, of human nature, in the Old Testament. This distinction came into use later on under the influence of Greek philosophy. The antithesis — soul and body — even in its New Testament sense, is not yet found in the Old Testament. In fact, the Hebrew has no word for the body as an organism.

This is mere sophism as the New Testament does provide a distinct term for the body as an organism (soma). Are we now going to pit scripture against scripture????

The Old Testament distinction of the two elements of human nature is of a different kind. Says Laidlaw in his work on The Bible Doctrine of Man: 1 The antithesis is clearly that of lower and higher, earthly and heavenly, animal and divine. It is not so much two elements, as two factors uniting in a single and harmonious result, — ‘man became a living soul.’ ” It is quite evident that this is the distinction in Gen. 2: 7. Cf. also Job 27: 3; 32: 8; 33: 4; Eccl. 12: 7. A variety of words is used in the Old Testament to denote the lower element in man or parts of it, such as “flesh,” “dust,” “bones,” “bowels,” “kidneys,” and also the metaphorical expression “house of clay,” Job 4: 19. And there are also several words to denote the higher element, such as “spirit;” “soul,” “heart,” and “mind.” As soon as we pass from the Old to the New Testament, we meet with the antithetic expressions that are most familiar to us, as “body and soul,” “flesh and spirit.” The corresponding Greek words were undoubtedly moulded by Greek philosophical thought, but passed through the Septuagint into the New Testament, and therefore retained their Old Testament force. At the same time the antithetic idea of the material and the immaterial is now also connected with them.

This is a very sad and perverted commentary on this subject. It is bible 101 to understand that the Old is interpreted by the new not vice versa. Again, to claim a pagan Greek origin for what is clearly stated in Scripture is simply shows how hard up dichotomists are and to what extents they must go to. Simply smear tactics not sound exegesis or sound theology.

Trichotomists seek support in the fact that the Bible, as they see it, recognizes two constituent parts of human nature in addition to the lower or material element, namely, the soul (Heb., nephesh; Greek, psuche) and the spirit (Heb., ruach; Greek, pneuma). But the fact that these terms are used with great frequency in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that they designate component parts rather than different aspects of human nature. A careful study of Scripture clearly shows that it uses the words interchangeably. Both terms denote the higher or spiritual element in man, but contemplate it from different points of view.

Of course they can be used interchangably in some contexts as one part can stand for the. This is equally true for the immaterial aspects of human nature. This is true also the Divine trichotomy or Trinity where one Person can respresent the whole in certain cases. There is a certain unity between them yet distinctness.

The following facts militate against this philosophical distinction:

First, it is not a "philsophical" distinction as the author again is falsely attributing it to Greek philosophy when it is found in black and white right in Scripture. This is a smear tactic pure and simple.

Ruach-pneuma, as well as nephesh-psuche, is used of the brute creation, Eccl. 3: 21; Rev. 16: 3.

Of course it is, but the problem with this thinking is the same with the JW's and other cultists, the "image" of God cannot be found in biological life and breath or blood. God's image was marred in the fall and yet man continued as a biological life just like animals.

The word psuche is even used with reference to Jehovah, Isa. 42: 1; Jer. 9: 9; Amos 6: 8 (Heb.); Heb 10: 38. [/QUOTE
That is right! God has personal consciousness and yet that is not one and the same as his "spirit" essence which refers to incommunicable attributes. Angels are "spirits" too, just as God is "spirit" but the distinction is incommunicable attributes that make the "spirit" substance God and not Angel. While "soul" describes his conscious self just as it does in man.

The disembodied dead are called psuchai, Rev. 6: 9;20: 4. The highest exercises of religion are ascribed to the psuche, Mark 12: 30; Luke 1: 46; Heb. 6: 18,19; Jas. 1: 21.

Of course, just as the departed are described as pneuma also because at death the immaterial man is only divided from the "soma" as the "spirit" has self-consciousness.

To lose the psuche is to lose all. It is perfectly evident that the Bible uses the two words interchangeably.

No, what is clear is this man needs is to study more. He fails to tell the readers that "psueche" is translated "life" as well as "soul" and for a good reason. AS a man thinketh in his heart SO IS HE. Your external life (words, actions) is nothing more or less the manifestation of your inward state of consciousness. A saved man can lose his "life" (of works - words and actions) without losing his soul - 1 Cor. 3:15. A lost man loses both. Context determines if the subject is saved or lost.

Notice the parallelism in Luke 1: 46, 47: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”

This is not necessarily a parallelism. The soul's responsibility is to magnify God as that is what Matthew 22:37 perfectly expresses as soul function, but the "spirit" operates on a higher plane in a born again person. It is the seat of spiritual union with God - fellowship - higher intellect = direct revelation and the seat of the joy of the Lord which can be experienced in a funeral where it is your loved one that has died. One can be emotionally in tears and yet their is an inward joy that does not originate in the soul but comes from the new inward man (regenerated spirit) that is in union with God.

Will finish this later as it is too late in the evening.

 

[The Biblicist]

This may impress some but it does not impress me at all. This is an old DISHONEST tactic of attributing a doctrine you don't agree with to some historical origin that may have similarities when the actually wording is found in the Biblical text. If my position were not stated in the Biblical text, and I had to read it into the text from an outside source, then this would be a legitimate argument. But it is not a legitimate argument, but a dishonest attack.

Of course, man is basically TWO parts - material and immaterial - no debate here. However, it is the Biblical texts that present this division between spirit and soul rather than some Greek source or some later heretical apostate church source. Such a tactic is simply a smear campaign as the biblical text itself provides the source for division. If the Biblical text provided no such division then such an approach may be called for but the division is found in scripture.

Genesis 2:7 is poorly understood by dichotomists. First, the writer uses the Hebrew plural and not a singular which the KJV translates as a singular "life" when it is actually "lives" plural. The term translated "breathed" has no reference to oxygen as God has no lungs and what is breathed is not air but "lives" plural. It is the "spirit" aspect of man that animates the physical aspect as James clearly says the "body without the spirit is dead." Man became a living "soul" or possessed self-conscious life, but he also had "spiritual life" in the sense of union with God and that is what suffered death "in the day he ate" while his "soul" did not die "in the day he ate" nor does the soul cease with physical death (Mt. 10:28). It is the "spirit" that suffered death in the day he ate and it is the "spirit" of man that was directly received from God who is "spirit" whereas all other life on earth derived their life directly from the waters and the earth. The "image" of God was not conveyed in mere "soul' and "body" as biological life as the animals shared in that and yet only man was created in the image of God. The fall of man is what marred the image of God. It is the "spirit" of man that died, not his soul "in the day he ate" and that is why "what is born of Spirit is spirit." In Romans 7 Paul says "I" delight in the law of God "after the inward man" demonstrating that both "I" and the "inward man" delight in the law of God but are not one and the same human aspect.

The trichotomy of man is clearly seen in Romans 7:14-25:

1. Soul = "I" (affections = hate, love) (intellect = "mind") (will - "to will is present"

2. Spirit = "inward man" that delights in the Law of God

3. Body = my members, my flesh, this body

 

[The Biblicist]

In I Thess. 5: 23 the apostle simply desires to strengthen the statement, “And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly,” by an epexigetical statement, in which the different aspects of man’s existence are summed up, and in which he feels perfectly free to mention soul and spirit alongside of each other, because the Bible distinguishes between the two.

I could not have said it better, his own words defeat him.

He cannot very well have thought of them as two different substances here,

This is a straw man argument because we do not argue that it is two different "substances" but only one substance - "immaterial" or "spirit." Remember both angels and God are said to be "spirit" with regard to substance, however what makes them different is not the "spirit"essence but what attributes characterize that spirit essence. Likewise, soul and spirit are both "spirit" or "immaterial" as far as substance, but what distinguishes them from each other is different attributes.

because he speaks elsewhere of man as consisting of two parts, Rom. 8: 10; I Cor. 5: 5; 7: 34; II Cor. 7: 1; Eph. 2: 3; Col. 2: 5.

Trichotomists believe that man is composes of two basic substances - material and immaterial or spirit and flesh. However, that does not contradict that the immaterial or spirit substance is further divided not by substance but by attributes.

(d) Heb. 4: 12 should not be taken to mean that the word of God, penetrating to the inner man, makes a separation between his soul and his spirit, which would naturally imply that these two are different substances; but simply as declaring that it brings about a separation in both between the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Look at this text and context carefully. The major idea is there is no escape or hiding from God's word as everything is exposed to God's Word and nothing can be hidden and all distinctions are exposed to God's Word(Heb. 4:13)

Now, see how this is applied:

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

For a moment lets pass over "soul and spirit" and look at the other couplets "joints and morrow" and "thoughts and intents of the heart." Any doctor can tell you that "joints" and "morrows" are not one and the same thing. They are closely related but they are not one and the same. The thoughts and intents of the heart are not one and the same thing. They are closely related but they are not the same. Thoughts may include random thoughts or more complicated though processes. However, "intent" has to do with purpose behind the thinking processes.

Now, why should it be any different with "spirit and soul"??? they are closely related but they are not one and the same thing and the contextual comparisons prove that. If they are the same thing then including them does not support his major point or the other illustrations to prove that point.

No objective reader could claim "soul and spirit" are one and the same in this context any more than joints are one and the same with marrow or thoughts are one and the same with intent.

Furthermore, note the main point "piercing to the dividing assunder" which means they MUST be distinct from each other or they could not be listed with the other things which are obviously distinct from each other. - Case closed.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello B,
I just finished driving and am a bit burnt out right now, if I stay up to answer In full I will get over tired. ...I will answer when I wake up.
I will take your own paradigm and simply turn it around on you..I believe it is inconsistent.
Romans 7:14-25 is now the source of two places where we differ.
You admit to the dichotmist position but seek to split two verses that you and others believe need to be split, but ignore other verses that show no split, while using the same words.
I will offer this later on.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Concerning the OP and FGT it is a truth that the gospel of FGT is a truncated version of the one true Gospel, which then makes it another gospel altogether. There is of course only one Gospel, note Galatians 1:8ff. Some would deny the presented false teachings of FGT being true and representative while espousing the erroneous system at the same time. It is remarkable to witness one denying the teachings (some errors shown below) of FGT that are well known errors of the system, while at the very same time they affirm them by their teachings themselves. Whether or not this is done in ignorance, it is nevertheless still the case.

Grace Evangelical Society has offered a video in the past denoting the system of thought. It in fact does imply that a person may live any way they so desire, no evidence of conversion whatsoever and still expect heaven as their home. These teachings deny the truth of Hebrews 12:14 and truths of the doctrines of 1 John specifically and the doctrine of true conversion, biblically, as a whole.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Concerning the OP and FGT it is a truth that the gospel of FGT is a truncated version of the one true Gospel, which then makes it another gospel altogether. There is of course only one Gospel, note Galatians 1:8ff. Some would deny the presented false teachings of FGT being true and representative while espousing the erroneous system at the same time. It is remarkable to witness one denying the teachings (some errors shown below) of FGT that are well known errors of the system, while at the very same time they affirm them by their teachings themselves. Whether or not this is done in ignorance, it is still the case.

Grace Evangelical Society has offered a video in the past denoting the system of thought. It in fact does imply that a person may live any way they so desire, no evidence of conversion whatsoever and still expect heaven as their home. These teachings deny the truth of Hebrews 12:14 and truths of the doctrines of 1 John specifically and the doctrine of true conversion, biblically, as a whole.

 

[Deacon]

Internet Theogian, perhaps you yourself should take a first step and stop denying Hebrews 12:14, “follow after peace with all men”.

Grudem himself identifies disagreements with Free Grace theology but calls them “friends” and “genuine brothers in Christ”.

He strongly affirms many points of doctrinal unity between Reformed and Free Grace theologians and “appreciates their friendship and their partnership in the work of God’s kingdom”.

Rob

 

[The Biblicist]

Hello B,
I just finished driving and am a bit burnt out right now, if I stay up to answer In full I will get over tired. ...I will answer when I wake up.

Get your rest Icon.

I will take your own paradigm and simply turn it around on you..I believe it is inconsistent.

. I don't think you can do that and deal honestly with the text. But I will wait and see what you attempt to do.

You admit to the dichotmist position

No, I just simply set forth the true position of the Trichotomist. The Trichotomist position does not deny man is basically material and immaterial as that in no way conflicts with our position.

but seek to split two verses that you and others believe need to be split, but ignore other verses that show no split, while using the same words.
I will offer this later on.

I will wait to see what you are talking about.

 

[The Biblicist]

Internet Theogian, perhaps you yourself should take a first step and stop denying Hebrews 12:14, “follow after peace with all men”.

Grudem himself identifies disagreements with Free Grace theology but calls them “friends” and “genuine brothers in Christ”.

He strongly affirms many points of doctrinal unity between Reformed and Free Grace theologians and “appreciates their friendship and their partnership in the work of God’s kingdom”.

Rob

I don't deny their personal salvation or that they have many other things in common. However, I think denial of gospel repentance seriously perverts the gospel of Christ. Have they changed their view of gospel repentance? My brother is a strong advocate of that position and he vigorously denies gospel repentance and says repentance is works and was for the jewish community alone. I don't doubt his own personal salvation but I have serious doubts about those he claims he led to Christ. His view is that you simply ask them if they want the free gift of eternal life and want to go to heaven and if they believe in Jesus Christ and presto they are saved if they say yes, yes, yes.

 

[Deacon]

I believe the primary difference between Free Grace Theology (FGT) and Reformed Theology (RT) is a clear denotation between the doctrines of salvation and sanctification seen in FGT.

The Free Grace view of repentance is nuanced. There is quite a bit of variability among those who identify themselves as Free Grace believers and this variability can be observed in the widely differing definitions of repentance among FG theologians.

Agreement: Biblically we find that repentance can be done by both the saved and the unsaved.

Agreement: Salvation is by faith alone. "Faith is a personal response, apart from our works.”

[The way I see repentance relating to salvation, it is a turning from trusting self to trusting God. So faith and repentance (a turning or change of mind) are two sides of the same coin, the object being our Savior himself.]

Agreement: A denial that saving faith requires obedience. Obedience is a result or product of salvation, not a requirement for it.

One of Grudem’s disagreements with FGT is based upon the Reformational view of justification, which in its broad definition, includes sanctification. FGT clearly distinguishes a separation between justification and sanctification. Grudem summons Calvin’s Institutes declaration, “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone”. “…saving faith is always followed by changes in a person’s conduct of life. In other words, saving faith is never alone in a person, for some good works will always accompany saving faith in a person’s life and will be seen after a person comes to faith..” [Grudem, Kindle location 351].

Rob

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello B,

you said;

Furthermore, note the main point "piercing to the dividing assunder" which means they MUST be distinct from each other or they could not be listed with the other things which are obviously distinct from each other. - Case closed.

Lets re-open the case Your own words can turn around and show the same thing you say about the offered links.....


you have posted this in several of these posts;

The trichotomy of man is clearly seen in Romans 7:14-25:

1. Soul = "I" (affections = hate, love) (intellect = "mind") (will - "to will is present"

2. Spirit = "inward man" that delights in the Law of God

3. Body = my members, my flesh, this body

You present this as if it is clear cut, but lets look again-
my contention is that the dichotomist deals with the same topics from only two realms.....I will use Paul in 1 cor2;
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Here we have Paul teaching that natural men have a "spirit"....which can know and understand "the things of a man"

these is no distinction made of soul and spirit[in this direct context], and yet he speaks of men knowing or understanding the things of a man......one farmer can understand another farmer about the joys and struggles of farm life, which in your list is said to take place in a separate compartment called the soul,
[1. Soul = "I" (affections = hate, love) (intellect = "mind") (will - "to will is present"]

which Paul lumps in to the human spirit, this is why the links by dichotomists suggest only the two parts....there are many such examples......
When God quickens a mans spirit to welcome truth, it is as when Jesus healed the man born blind.....He did not do an eye transplant, He healed that body part that was not working and allowed it to work. Natural men have a non physical part, a spirit/soul which is intergrated. These men had a spirit before regeneration.


and then this;

No, I just simply set forth the true position of the Trichotomist. The Trichotomist position does not deny man is basically material and immaterial as that in no way conflicts with our position.

Trichotomists believe that man is composes of two basic substances - material and immaterial or spirit and flesh. However, that does not contradict that the immaterial or spirit substance is further divided not by substance but by attributes.

you and others holding the "tri",,,then admit to TWO PARTS......two is "di" not "tri".
The dichotomist is not afraid to expand the non material portion of man wherever the scripture does. those things you list under the soul can be further expanded......when you try and look at heb4:12, you suggest joints and marrow are similar but different....some how many parts can we divide up a body into?

Your suggestion that man is 3 parts based on the trinity is quite fanciful.
AW. Pink suggested the ark had 3 compartments because of the trinity also, which I think is also quite fanciful.

Now I will say that you are attempting to make a biblical case and what you offer has some merit and might be valuable in describing aspects of the soul /spirit teaching.
I have seen it offered in reference to James 3;
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

that which is described as earthly, sensual, devilish, is said to be soulish....

 

[HankD]

Agreement: A denial that saving faith requires obedience. Obedience is a result or product of salvation, not a requirement for it.

One of Grudem’s disagreements with FGT is based upon the Reformational view of justification, which in its broad definition, includes sanctification. FGT clearly distinguishes a separation between justification and sanctification. Grudem summons Calvin’s Institutes declaration, “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone”. “…saving faith is always followed by changes in a person’s conduct of life. In other words, saving faith is never alone in a person, for some good works will always accompany saving faith in a person’s life and will be seen after a person comes to faith..” [Grudem, Kindle location 351].

Rob

Thanks Rob,

Yes of course obedience is Jesus expectation of those who claim Him as Lord and Savior (although He is LORD, - there is a difference). Also I personally agree that justification is distinct from sanctification but if someone wants to substitute "growth" for what I believe is the result of biblical sanctification then I wouldn't have a big problem with that.

HankD

 

[percho]

Was this man; G 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. and; G 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. at that moment created in this image; R 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he (the Son) might be the firstborn among many brethren. or, because of this statement; 1 P 1:18-20 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. was the man spoken of in G 1:27 & 2:7 going to have to experience this; J 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. in order to accomplish this; 1 J 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. ?

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe the primary difference between Free Grace Theology (FGT) and Reformed Theology (RT) is a clear denotation between the doctrines of salvation and sanctification seen in FGT.

The Free Grace view of repentance is nuanced. There is quite a bit of variability among those who identify themselves as Free Grace believers and this variability can be observed in the widely differing definitions of repentance among FG theologians.

Agreement: Biblically we find that repentance can be done by both the saved and the unsaved.

Agreement: Salvation is by faith alone. "Faith is a personal response, apart from our works.”

[The way I see repentance relating to salvation, it is a turning from trusting self to trusting God. So faith and repentance (a turning or change of mind) are two sides of the same coin, the object being our Savior himself.]

I understand. I see gospel repentance much more inclusive of the entire soul of man. I see gospel or salvation repentance including the intellect, affections and will. A "change" of mind from the state of unbelief to belief, a change of affections from love of darkness to love of light and a change of will from rebellion toward God to submission toward God first in response to the gospel.

Agreement: A denial that saving faith requires obedience. Obedience is a result or product of salvation, not a requirement for it.

I distinguish between heart obedience manifested in those three areas of gospel repentance from outward obedience to commands or precepts in addition to the gospel.

One of Grudem’s disagreements with FGT is based upon the Reformational view of justification, which in its broad definition, includes sanctification. FGT clearly distinguishes a separation between justification and sanctification. Grudem summons Calvin’s Institutes declaration, “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone”. “…saving faith is always followed by changes in a person’s conduct of life. In other words, saving faith is never alone in a person, for some good works will always accompany saving faith in a person’s life and will be seen after a person comes to faith..” [Grudem, Kindle location 351].

Rob

I stand with the FGT on this point. I see a cause and effect relationship between justification and sanctification but I strongly oppose sanctification as inclusive in justification.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hello B,

you said;


Lets re-open the case Your own words can turn around and show the same thing you say about the offered links.....


you have posted this in several of these posts;


You present this as if it is clear cut, but lets look again-
my contention is that the dichotomist deals with the same topics from only two realms.....I will use Paul in 1 cor2;
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

The man spirit is used as an analogy of a Trune relationship within the Godhead. The Spirit of God is not the whole of God, but one person in a Triune Godhead. It is through the Spirit or third Person of the Godhead that the entire Godhead is known and revealed. In verse 11 it is the Spirit that knows and reveals the things of God as a full Triune Being. Likewise, the spirit of man is one aspect of triune nature in man. The spirit of man is the source of deeper knowlege than can be gained through the soul or intellectual knowlege. The reason is because the spirit of man is in spiritual union with third Person of the Godhead and it is through the human spirit that intuitive or a more deeper knowledge of not only man but of the things of God is conveyed.

An example is the intellectual evaluation of a certain Biblical text through reading context, other commentaries and etc. and yet not understand it. Then, apart from all intellectual pursuit, The Holy Spirit in union with our spirit provides direct revelation and then in an instant we "see" what that text means.

However, for our debate, the point is that the analogy is based upon a TRIUNE basis rather than a DICHOTOMIST basis in the Godhead.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

The problem here is that you stopped short in the context and failed to include verse 14 which proves the natural "MIND" regardless if it is found in the lost or SAVED does not have the capacity to understand the things of God. In the lost man the incapability is comprehensive due to the fact there is no regeneration of the human spirit. In the saved man the incapability is not comprehensive because man's spirit is regenerated. However, such an ability does not reside in the soul of the saved man nor in the soul of the lost man. It resides in the "spirit" of the saved man whereas the spirit of the lost man has no union with God. This is true even with a saved person's mind. Romans 8:7 is applicable to the SAVED man as well as the lost man because the "natural" mindset is the mindset of the "law of sin." With regard to the lost man it is comprehensive in character, whereas with the saved man it is only comprehensive when the saved man "walks AFTER the flesh" rather than walking in the Spirit.

Here we have Paul teaching that natural men have a "spirit"....which can know and understand "the things of a man"

Actually Paul is saying the very opposite that you are saying with regard to the lost man. The context is being applied to saved people not to lost people. The "we" of the context is those who have the Spirit of God not those who don't.

these is no distinction made of soul and spirit[in this direct context], and yet he speaks of men knowing or understanding the things of a man......one farmer can understand another farmer about the joys and struggles of farm life, which in your list is said to take place in a separate compartment called the soul,

Again, what you are missing is that the whole analogy is based upon the "Spirit" of God existing in a TRIUNE relationship rather than a dichotomist analogy.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hello B,

[1. Soul = "I" (affections = hate, love) (intellect = "mind") (will - "to will is present"]


which Paul lumps in to the human spirit,

However, in Romans 7:14-25 the personal pronoun is directly linked with "hate" and "love" or the seat of affections and with "will" (v. 18) and "mind" (v. 25), while it is distinguished from the "inward man" (v. 21) and the "body" which does not fit the dichotomist view.

When God quickens a mans spirit to welcome truth, it is as when Jesus healed the man born blind.....He did not do an eye transplant, He healed that body part that was not working and allowed it to work. Natural men have a non physical part, a spirit/soul which is intergrated. These men had a spirit before regeneration.

However, the soul of lost men enter into a religious relationship with God through prayer, praise, worship and obedience to the Law. However, their "spirit" is "dead" to God even though their "soul" is very much active in a religious relationship with God.

you and others holding the "tri",,,then admit to TWO PARTS......two is "di" not "tri".

This is not an admission to a dichotomist point of view but rather is explaining the obvious without any contradition to the Trichotomist teaching.

when you try and look at heb4:12, you suggest joints and marrow are similar but different....some how many parts can we divide up a body into?

You are missing the point. This text is not about how many divisions there in the human body but about dividing things that differ and "spirit and soul" fit into that category which totally repudiates the denial by dichtomists that there is no difference but is merely part of the soul.

Your suggestion that man is 3 parts based on the trinity is quite fanciful.

No, it is not! Man is made in the image of God who is TRIUNE. The human body is metaphorically compared to the "temple" which is a basic trichotomy (holy of holies, holy place, outer court). The outercourt is seen by all and thus comparable to the human body. The holy and holy of holies are unseen and comparable to the soul and spirit. The holiest of holies is where God dwells and that is comparable to the spirit of an which is regenerated and thus brought into spiritual union with the Spirit of God. The holy place is where all the inward activity exists and is comparable to the soul of man.

 

[Iconoclast]

However, in Romans 7:14-25 the personal pronoun is directly linked with "hate" and "love" or the seat of affections and with "will" (v. 18) and "mind" (v. 25), while it is distinguished from the "inward man" (v. 21) and the "body" which does not fit the dichotomist view.







However, the soul of lost men enter into a religious relationship with God through prayer, praise, worship and obedience to the Law. However, their "spirit" is "dead" to God even though their "soul" is very much active in a religious relationship with God.





This is not an admission to a dichotomist point of view but rather is explaining the obvious without any contradition to the Trichotomist teaching.



You are missing the point. This text is not about how many divisions there in the human body but about dividing things that differ and "spirit and soul" fit into that category which totally repudiates the denial by dichtomists that there is no difference but is merely part of the soul.



No, it is not! Man is made in the image of God who is TRIUNE. The human body is metaphorically compared to the "temple" which is a basic trichotomy (holy of holies, holy place, outer court). The outercourt is seen by all and thus comparable to the human body. The holy and holy of holies are unseen and comparable to the soul and spirit. The holiest of holies is where God dwells and that is comparable to the spirit of an which is regenerated and thus brought into spiritual union with the Spirit of God. The holy place is where all the inward activity exists and is comparable to the soul of man.

I do like how you relate the tabernacle here...
And with the middle wall of partition booklet....I have not considered this recently.....so out of respect for the biblical case you are offering I would need to revisit this looking from your suggested point of view

 

[percho]

I do like how you relate the tabernacle here...
And with the middle wall of partition booklet....I have not considered this recently.....so out of respect for the biblical case you are offering I would need to revisit this looking from your suggested point of view

Please give your report.

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

 

[The Biblicist]

I do like how you relate the tabernacle here...
And with the middle wall of partition booklet....I have not considered this recently.....so out of respect for the biblical case you are offering I would need to revisit this looking from your suggested point of view

That is very descent of you icon. Thanks