-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Salvation of the Soul (Page One)
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
DQuixote,
Do you mind if I ask you a question? For some time my thought has been that the soul and spirit are basically the same thing. It is something I've done no indepth study on until recently. Judging from your last post, you seem to have a grasp of this issue.
I posted this following link in an earlier post.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/tonyqa/tc00-107.htm
Am I correct in assuming you do not agree with this writer, and you believe spirit and soul are not interchangable as he proposes? Would you mind taking the time to explain your understanding of this according to Scripture? I would much appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
Do you mind if I ask you a question? For some time my thought has been that the soul and spirit are basically the same thing. It is something I've done no indepth study on until recently. Judging from your last post, you seem to have a grasp of this issue.
I posted this following link in an earlier post.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/tonyqa/tc00-107.htm
Am I correct in assuming you do not agree with this writer, and you believe spirit and soul are not interchangable as he proposes? Would you mind taking the time to explain your understanding of this according to Scripture? I would much appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
I see the word engrafted used in your post but I do not see any answer as to whom or what this word has been implanted into which James tells them to receive with meekness. "Engraft(ed)" is past tense. James tells them to receive with meekness the engrafted word. Can you give a refute to the past tense of the word "engrafted"? If you cannot then you are correct that this debate on this particular verse is over. We can also conclude that you could not answer and thus lose the battle over James 1:21.
So let's move on to another point in the study that you have yet to refute...
Quote:
Precept #6;
The soul in connection with pronouns:
[Leviticus 5:1]- “And if a SOUL sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether HE hath seen or known of it; if HE do not utter it, then HE shall bear HIS iniquity”.
[Leviticus 5:2]- “Or if a SOUL touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from HIM; HE also shall be unclean, and guilty.”
[Leviticus 5:3]- “Or if HE touch….”
Do you get the implication here?
The Word of God makes absolutely no distinction between SOUL and the pronoun HE or HIM. Verse 2 God says; “if a SOUL touch”. Verse 3 God says; “if HE touch”.
This is consistent throughout Scripture. There would be no justification, in studying Scripture, for making any separation between pronouns such as he, ye, we, us, himself, thou, you, believer, sinner, etc, etc, etc, and the “living SOUL” that God created.
Waiting for your refute.
God Bless!
I first encountered this doctrine of demons with my own flesh and blood brother. He was a solid sound Christian man for twenty years or so until he became close friends with his pastor in the last church they were in. Well he is still a good Christian man but I mean he has fallen for this stuff because he basically fell into the trap of following the man rather than comparing everything the pastor says with scripture. To this day he still believes this stuff, but just as Jump does, he cannot answer questions that debunk it. He, like Jump, cannot explain contradictions away.
I don't know just how far back this goes, but they use books written by Watchman Nee and Arlen Chitwood. Arlen has picked up the torch where Nee let off and has added to Nee's teachings in order to refine it a bit. Both men's books are titled "Salvation of the Soul" and are still available today. Arlen is still alive and kicking, I corresponded with him about this teaching some years ago and he pretty much has closed the subject of debate on it. He too, cannot deal with the scriptures that I have put into my exposition. These guys just refuse to debate it. They throw up their hands and say things like "if you can't see I am right in these couple of verses, then I am not going to discuss any other verses with you".
I sat down with this Independant Baptist pastor, my brother's pastor, and studied the topic with him. When we got to the places where some explanation was required, he did the exact same thing. He got frustrated with me and said that I just need to accept what he was saying and move on. That is not defending your position well or at all really. He could not answer pointed questions, I do not know of any who teach this doctrine that can. I was hoping Jump would be different but he has proved to be the same. They get stuck on two or three verses and refuse to discuss any other scriptures unless you first accept their interpretation of these few.
One Sunday morning my brother's pastor was getting ready to preach and the board stood up before the congregation and asked him to step down and also asked my brother to step down from teaching school. I believe this was a move prompted by God to spare these children from this heresy. I found out later, by my brother, that his pastor had ordered serveral of these books by Chitwood and was preparing to do a full blown preaching using Arlen's teachings. To this day he is not a pastor anymore, although he has tried other churches, but still does not see God's hand in this as against him, but rather sees this as satan's hand against him.
It's like they both have sold their soul to the devil on this topic and refuse to abandon it even though it appears God is against them on it. Pray for them to overcome this, they are good men, they just have strayed away from sound teaching in this area.
I also heard Joyce Myers say that a Christian's soul is not saved yet in a sermon of her's once on tv. She did not elaborate on it she just threw it out there as a bit of a rabbit trail off topic.
God Bless!
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
steaver said:
I could have sworn that Watchman was pretty much on the straight and narrow when it comes to basic Bible doctrine. How in the world did he misfire like this??
What is the "incentive" to jump onto this wild unbiblical notion? What "problem" is it solving for them?
As you point out - when asked for Bible support for the "inserts" they make into James 2 and Matt 7 etc - it is always "Some unquoted text some place else".
And I have gotten the "Lost sheep are in fact always in a saved stated even if they are said to be lost" -- but neither James 2 NOR Matt 7 make mention of lost sheep.
The classic sign of a bible argument that has run aground -
Such tenancity in spite of clear Bible evidence against the wild speculations - reveals that this idea (no matter how thinly constructed) is solving a HUGE problem --
What is the problem that it solves for them?
Prayers are in order - you are correct.
This same topic has come up on the James 2 or "Bible butchering" thread. I can't for the life of me see why the response would not be "Well then they were never saved to start with if they have dead-faith or no-faith".
But then - I also remember that the 4 point Calvinist position that denies the Bible doctrine of perseverance will not stand for much of what James 2 and Matt 7 have to say to the contrary. (And I have no clue as to what Arminians do that reject the Bible doctrine on Perseverance). So maybe it is THAT group that has finally found it's solution in Watchman and Arlen's ideas --
If that is the case - I can certainly see why they would hold on to this "At all costs".
In Christ,
Bob
Maybe someone can explain statements like this for me, because I am confused. How is one "misinterpreting" Scripture when they are just taking the plain reading of the text and not adding in interpretation?
I am not interpreting James 1:21 I am merely believing what the text says. It is others here that are trying to re-write what the text says, because they don't like what the text actually says and it causes great harm to "their" doctrine.
Folks as much as you don't want James 1:21 to say what it says it does. We can either accept it, or we can ignore it or try to dance around it. I simply choose to believe what it says.
It is telling saved individuals to receive something that is ABLE to save their souls, which means their souls aren't saved, because if they were then the text would be past tense. It's just simple English folks. Able means able not already done.
Steaver I see that your selective reading issue is still plauging you. Let's see if I answer this for the third or fourth time will you get it? Probably not, but I'll give it one more shot, despite your childish attitude of "if you don't play my game then I win by default." What utter nonsense.
Anywho . . .
As I have stated several times already. The engrafted word is speaking of Biblical doctrines that had been taught to James' audience. However they were only hearers of the word they were not yet doers of the word. They had not received this teaching yet. They had heard it, but it wasn't accomplishing anything because there were no actions taking place.
James told these SAVED individuals to receive the engrafted word, because this engrafted word if received (acted upon) is able to save their souls.
Now again why did James say "able" if their souls were already saved? This thread is several pages long now and none of the so-called doctrinally correct has been able to or has even attempted to answer this question.
Does able mean able to do something that hasn't been done, or does able mean something that has already been done?
And you say mine is a "tragic misinterpretation of scripture" . . . wow . . . the best you all can come up with is receive doesn't mean receive and able really means already done and save doesn't mean saved. But I am the one that is misinterpreting Scripture?
It's terribly sad that you all are so tied into "your" doctrine that you can't even let Scripture say what Scripture says. Not surprising unfortunately, but terribly sad
So until someone can show me that receive doesn't mean receive and able means already done and save doesn't mean save then I will depart this thread and leave you all to your "own" interpretations.
Last edited by a moderator:
So if I teach my children that running into the street without looking for cars is dangerous, then I have engrafted my children with my teaching.
Then if my children do as I have engrafted them to do, they have then received my engrafted teaching.
I believe my English teachers throughout my childhood would have scribbled red ink all over my papers if I used the word engrafted in such a composition. It would be improper use of the word and it is improper to interpret it in this way reading James 1:21.
And with that said, we disagree on this verse and let's move on to the next. I have dealt with your assertion of James 1:21 and now it is your turn. Let's talk about precept #6....
Quote:
Precept #6;
The soul in connection with pronouns:
[Leviticus 5:1]- “And if a SOUL sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether HE hath seen or known of it; if HE do not utter it, then HE shall bear HIS iniquity”.
[Leviticus 5:2]- “Or if a SOUL touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from HIM; HE also shall be unclean, and guilty.”
[Leviticus 5:3]- “Or if HE touch….”
Do you get the implication here?
The Word of God makes absolutely no distinction between SOUL and the pronoun HE or HIM. Verse 2 God says; “if a SOUL touch”. Verse 3 God says; “if HE touch”.
This is consistent throughout Scripture. There would be no justification, in studying Scripture, for making any separation between pronouns such as he, ye, we, us, himself, thou, you, believer, sinner, etc, etc, etc, and the “living SOUL” that God created.
Waiting on your refute!
God Bless!
Both. God is able to do all things. Is God able to save you even though God has saved you? Yes or No? Yes! But you are already saved are you not? Yes! SO you are saved AND God is able to save you!
Unless you believe God is not able to save you. But you are already saved. Then God is not able to save you?? Wait a minute, God is able to save you even though you are already saved by God. It is just a word of truth statement....God is able.....the engrafted word is able!
Hey, that is what James said....which is able to save your soul. You can flip that to say your soul is not yet saved, but that is inserting more into the text than is being said.
Let me ask you a question Jump, is God able to save your spirit? In your definition of able, answering yes means that God has not yet saved your spirit. Do you see your folly?
God Bless!
Most everything I have read from Nee with the exception of this book (Salvation of the Soul) has been very good. Many who reference Nee's works as a good thing typically are unaware of his position concerning the soul. What Nee and Arlen teach is that the soul is actually the "life of works" that you perform here while on earth. It is amazing how the most simplistic things of God can be so twisted and misconstrued.
As far as "incentive" goes, from what I have gathered first hand from my brother and his ex-pastor, and I have dealt with this face to face with them both, is not about what they believe about OSAS but they have struggled with the fact that there are bad children within the kingdom of God (the saved) that get to be in the kingdom even though they are not behaving. So this gets into the teaching of the "kingdoms" and who gets to rein with Christ and who gets cast into outer darkness. Yes, this goes very deep and gets very complicated. Outer darkness to them is a place of torment(but they insist it is not the Catholic purgatory) for those Christians who have lost their soul or their works have been burned up. "Soul" is "work life" to them. It gets very wierd indeed!
This "kingdom" teaching is not isolated as much as you would believe. Just do a search and you will find it on the web.
My brother's pastor deeply believes that God has unlocked this mystery to him and I don't see him ever abandoning it. And my brother and him are as thick as theives. It is sad, because this man was a wonderful teacher-preacher before this overtook him. He is like a walking bible. But, one day he came accross this doctrine of Chitwood's and he lost his way and his calling.
So the problem it is solving for them is to the question..."why should I work for Jesus Christ while others goof off IF we both get to enjoy the kingdom?" The only way they can justify the kingdom teaching is to manipulate the definition of the soul so that many scriptures appear to support their fairytale that the soul is not saved at rebirth.
God Bless!
Last edited by a moderator:
Steaver you haven't even come close. You are so stuck on the word engrafted you haven't even come close to addressing James 1:21. All you have said is that the word was engrated and therefore there souls were saved.
You haven't address receive, and you haven't addressed able to save.
Until you address those two issues there is not point in moving on to the next step. Because unless you can show that receive doesn't mean receive and able means already have then James 1:21 disproves everything that you have said.
That is a true statement, because God is able to save my soul which is not yet saved. In your view that is not a correct statement, because you don't say that God is able to save the already saved. You would say God is able to save the unsaved. If you were talking about the saved you would say that God has saved you, not able to. That's just simple English.
Using your statement your English teacher would have marked your paper with all kinds of red ink if you would have said God is able to save a person is who already saved. You don't talk about a past completed action in the present tense, you use the past tense that's what it's for.
God "was" able to save my spirit, because my spirit is already saved. See how that's is "past" tense, not present.
Steaver as much as you want your man-made doctrine to float its doing nothing but sinking. You've all but destroyed James 1:21 with your butchering of the language.
A better question is do you see yours?
And that is a legitimate question, although that is not why I started to believe in the gospel of the kingdom. What is the purpose of living a holy, sanctified life if I can have all that this world has to offer and party with the devil and still get to rule and reign with Christ.
I look forward to your answer.
Good question, but another topic. Why don't you begin a thread on this "kingdom" doctrine? Many here would be very interested. It would generate alot of traffic and alot of debate.
Meanwhile, back to the soul....
Quote:
Precept #6;
The soul in connection with pronouns:
[Leviticus 5:1]- “And if a SOUL sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether HE hath seen or known of it; if HE do not utter it, then HE shall bear HIS iniquity”.
[Leviticus 5:2]- “Or if a SOUL touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from HIM; HE also shall be unclean, and guilty.”
[Leviticus 5:3]- “Or if HE touch….”
Do you get the implication here?
The Word of God makes absolutely no distinction between SOUL and the pronoun HE or HIM. Verse 2 God says; “if a SOUL touch”. Verse 3 God says; “if HE touch”.
This is consistent throughout Scripture. There would be no justification, in studying Scripture, for making any separation between pronouns such as he, ye, we, us, himself, thou, you, believer, sinner, etc, etc, etc, and the “living SOUL” that God created.
Waiting on your refute!
God Bless!
Brother Bob
New Member
- Status