It's JUDGMENT TIME!!

Rooster: (repentance)change of mind about Christ

HP: Repentance was enjoined from the beginning of time, long before Christ was revealed. Repentance involves a change of heart and attitude in relationship to our willful transgressions against known commandments of God, the real biblically implied definition of sin.

I would think that faith would involve any change of attitude towards Christ. The first word of our Lord as He entered the ministry was “Repent.” In the OT, the admonition was, Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” We must first clear up the sin problem by following the condition God has set forth for the remission of them, i.e., to repent. It is mans work, but God indeed is the judge of it. Without His first establishing it as a condition, and then His final acceptance of it being the fulfillment of the condition He set forth, it is meaningless.

It is good to note that repentance, as well as all works, are never thought of as being meritorious in nature. They are always thought of in the sense of not without which, not that for the sake of. We are not saved because of our repentance, but neither are we saved apart from our repentance. The mercy of God is the sole grounds of our salvation, shown forth via the means which makes it all possible, the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

 

HOG: Teaching that man is a dichotomous being is the teaching of Natural Evolution; it's the religion of Secular Humanists

HP:Are you suggesting that I am a secular humanist? If so, you are far from the truth. You categorize things in such simplistic terms. Such simplistic association of characterizations will serve no other purpose but to satisfy ones own private ends. It does not approach the truth in the least.

You miss the point completely. No one is saying we are not soul, body and spirit. I am just saying we are not able to place into any meaningful words ESTASBLISHED BY SCRIPTURE OR REASON that would define this separation in any cognizable fashion. Scripture clearly enter changes both soul and spirit, as do the dictionaries, as basically pointing to the same thing as far as our understanding in this finite world goes. Read the dictionary. One is defined by the other.

 

claudia said "Yes animals have souls."

yeah - but do they have spirits?? that was the question.

-----
as per you saying "works have nothing to do with your salvation = a dead faith religion"

ephesians 2:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

i believe that works are the fruits after we are saved - if we live in the spirit let us also walk in the spirit (galatians 5:25-26 i think)

these are what the fruits of a true believer should be if they are living in the spirit - which should lead to walking in the spirit:

1)fruits of repentance
2)fruits of good works
3)fruits of thankgiving
4)fruits of the Spirit
5)fruits of righteousness

if we do not have those - we are not walking in the Spirit.

 

heavenly pilgrim said "Scripture clearly enter changes both soul and spirit,"

please provide scripture.

HP also said "One is defined by the other."
by that statement - you are admitting that they are different. two separate things. one is defined by the other - if we walk in the spirit let us also walk in the spirit.

the spirit should define the soul - if we let it do so. it is possible that we should not let it define the soul. for one can go back to the world like a dog back to his vomit. right?

what im trying to do is understand where both sides are coming from. im not on either side - im testing it by fire. im trying to lay out objectionable questions against both sides. and with support of scripture - see where it leads.

im not trying to argue what side is right - for the bible is ultimately right - and nobody will fully understand what the bible is completely saying - because it all intertwines.

just laying out questions for both sides to ponder.

 

So I will see my pet dog again in eternity?

 

"Soul" (psuche) in Rev. 18:14 refers to the possession of vitality--breath. It in NO way refers to the seat of one's being when the word is used of animals.

Claudia should be careful to make that distinction.

 

Gekko,
The problem surrounds the nature of both the soul and the spirit and the way in which words are utilized in language. Generally speaking, they are words depicting phenomena of the makeup of man, and are not a concrete substance as such. They are both words thatcan be used to depict the inner man, the part of man that distinguishes us from a beast, but in no wise are they limited to just those two applications.

What is happening here is that we are trying to address language as one would a science. Language is a means to communicate a concept or an idea. It does not operate as a fixed rigid science. We can use the same words to communicate opposing ideas, by just using them differently or in a different context. We can often use words whose meanings are not even closely related to a particular object or idea to get across a certain concept. I might say in common parlance in relationship to high jumper, “ That man high jumping is a Kangaroo.” Legion are the common usages of words used to communicate concepts.

When we speak of a dog having a mean spirit, am I trying to tell you that he is like unto man with an eternal spirit? When I speak of the soul of an animal, am I trying to communicate that it is of the same nature as God gives to a man? The words soul and spirit again communicate phenomena related to the object spoken of. We need to frame the following words “IN A SENSE” indelibly upon our conscience, and remember that often words are understood as such, or have a likeness to some other object, ‘only in a sense.’

Do animals have a soul? We should be careful about making doctrine over a single solitary usage of a certain word in any certain given situation. Our soul, i.e. our inner man, is not of the same likeness, nor of the same nature, as that of animals. Only IN A VERY LIMITED OR WELL DEFINED SENSE can an animal be said to have a soul. I personally would not refer to an animal as having a soul for the very reasons of the confusion it might in fact gender as we see happening on this list.

One needs to bear in mind that the word ‘soul’ can have nothing more of a connotation than to refer to an individual being, as there were two souls present at the meeting. Four wolves on a ridge might be referred to as four lonely souls on the ridge. The word soul may refer to the center of a specific objects being, the power an object or person possess, the spirit a thing possess, or simply to the affection one object has for another.

Of a truth the Scriptures utilize the words soul and spirit interchangeably in many verses. The same GK word for soul can be translated spirit, and vice versa. To try and formulate a hard and fast rule that would force a certain fixed definition to the word soul as distinct from that of spirit is simply not possible. Those who do so will land in a labyrinth of error some where on their venture. To do so, one would clearly have to have or see the need of a specific agenda for any such attempt, and be grasping at straws trying to build their case. The agenda presented on this list has been clear, i.e., an attempt to muster support for the notion of a sinning religion.


My question to the list is does my computer have a soul? Better yet, can it be said to possess or convey a spirit?

[ May 19, 2006, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Heavenly Pilgrim ]

 

no your computer does not have a soul because it is man-made.

 

It's amazing what some of these discussions can trail off to...

 

Gekko:no your computer does not have a soul because it is man-made.

HP: Who said something could not be ‘man-made’ to depict it as having a soul? I am just trying to show that the word ‘soul’ is not limited to the definition JJ and others place upon it, nor does their separation in all cases between the words soul and spirit hold water. (not speaking of a liquid in this sense) That opens up a big keg of worms, that wet(?)word water, and if in fact every time it is used it means, TOTAL SUBMERSION in the baptismal tank "for the remission of sins."

By the way, my computer in fact does have a soul and can be referred to as having a spirit, in a sense, according to Webster anyway.

 

HP: Not in the same sense that I have a soul and a spirit, but the words by themselves have definitions that are used in common parlance that would be consistent, IN A SENSE, in saying it does. Would you not agree?

I do not think it will make it to heaven though.

 

Good Question!

My own delineation sub-divides the Human Soul as Mind, Will and Emotions...

We are to put on the Mind of Christ..

Phillipains 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

1 Corinthians 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

So, while I may trapped in a Natural Body with Fleshly appetites...

And, while, some *may* give way to being carnally Minded...

It is clear to me that some do put on the Mind of Christ...

And, it is real hard for be to believe that someone with the Mind of Christ would have an unsaved Mind/Soul...

SMM

 

Here are a couple of sentences to contemplate.
1.The soul of the nation is very noble.
2.The Spirit of the meeting turned for the better.

My point is that just because you read the words ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ in Scriptures, it does not necessitate any strict meaning as JJ and company insinuate that it of necessity must. Further more, Scripture never defines clearly all its terms. Scripture is a book written in common parlance and often uses words in a different fashion for different purposes, some times referring to the same idea with differing words, such as often in the case of the words 'soul' and 'spirit.' Nowhere in Scripture is there any direct clue as to what difference there is between those words, IF in fact any real differnece exists. Where scripture is silent, we need to avoid creating whole doctrinal positions around mere conjecture.

 

SMM: It is clear to me that some do put on the Mind of Christ...

HP: Another interesting example of the usage of words. A lost man might be like Zacchaeus and ask, does it take a brain transplant to accomplish it? And there would be someone out there that would most likely support that idea.

 

If I had meant that, I would have said that.

I meant exactly what I said: That it's the teaching of the Secular Humanists.

Now, this false teaching has invaded the pulpits of our churches, just as many false teachings have.

It's like a lie: You can spread a lie without being a liar.

Just how many more verses do you require? Lengthy lists of verses have been posted to show this separation.

Scriptures clearly show that the soul can be destroyed, yet the spirit saved. These verses have been posted. You choose to not see them.

Care to show us a Scripture passage?

Verses?

Unless we're discussing the meaning or etymology of an English word, who cares what Webster's says? We're discussing what the Bible says, and it was not written in English originally.