Salvation of the Soul (Page One)

[steaver]

(Jump)....Again I don't understand why you are referring back to Leviticus. It doesn't say the soul is saved by grace through faith. It just establishes your point that all souls are living.

My point has not been that all souls are living. But rather that Leviticus teaches us that all people are souls. There is a huge difference.

God's Word also tells us that man became a living soul....

Gen 2:7And 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.

(Jump)....Once again your conclusion is flawed. "Ye" are also a body and spirit. And by your conclusion your body would have to be saved as well, because one is body, soul and spirit. We know without a doubt that our bodies are not saved yet. So you can not make a claim that because of a pronoun it means your soul is saved.

The blood spoken of in Leviticus deals exclusively with a soul. The shedding of blood is for an atonement for the soul.

We are saved by the blood of Christ, the blood is the atonement for the soul. Therefore if you say you are saved then you can only be saying, at the very least, that your soul is saved. You cannot exclude the soul as not saved by the blood of Christ.

Salvation is about faith in the sacrificial death, burial and ressurrection of Jesus Christ. Ye have now received the atonement. The blood is the atonement for the soul. God's words, not my opinion.

So this is not a flawed conclusion on this matter. It is exactly what God's Word says.

Your analysis of James 1:21 does not coinside with the blood of Christ atoning for the soul. The blood of Christ takes away the sins of the souls that have received Him as their Lord and Savior.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

My point has not been that all souls are living. But rather that Leviticus teaches us that all people are souls. There is a huge difference.

Well you have certainly said on at least a couple of instances that all souls are living. Now since you have changed your mind I guess. Can you show me where man is born with a dead soul?

The blood spoken of in Leviticus deals exclusively with a soul.

And yet all of the peolpe spoken of in Leviticus are already saved individuals . . . . hmmmmm . . . . that blows another hole into your theory. Why would blood be an atonement for a soul already saved. See your running into the same problem you did in James. You are trying to make a present situation into an "already done" event.

The shedding of blood is for an atonement for the soul.

I absolutely agree with that. Without blood there can be no salvation, either of the body, soul or spirit.

We are saved by the blood of Christ, the blood is the atonement for the soul. Therefore if you say you are saved then you can only be saying, at the very least, that your soul is saved.

See you are drawing conclusions again. You say this is true, so that must also be true.

Our spirits are saved the moment we believe. Our souls are then able to be saved after that. Our bodies will be saved at some point.

Salvation is about faith in the sacrificial death, burial and ressurrection of Jesus Christ.

The entirety of salvation is about those three things yes. The salvation of the spirit is soley based on faith in the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, Who died on my behalf a sinner.

The ressurection of Jesus has to do with the salvation of the soul.

Unfortunately Christendom has muddied the water when it comes to speaking about salvation and teaching about salvation these days.

God's words, not my opinion.

Ah but what you are doing is taking God's True words and then placing them into your "own" timeframe and context. That does make it your opinion. As soon as you lift something from context you are adding yourself into the mix. So while God's words are not your opinion how you combine them are when done improperly.

So this is not a flawed conclusion on this matter.

Actually it is quite flawed.

Your analysis of James 1:21 does not coinside with the blood of Christ atoning for the soul.

Sure it does. But now I'm getting sucked into explaining away your precepts like I said I wasn't going to do, because it wasn't going to make any difference to you. I know we have some lurkers on this thread, so for their sake I'm going to address this.

The Bible tells us that blood is necessary for the salvation of the soul. So to say otherwise makes no sense. But how does that jive with James 1:21. Well blood is applied by faith. But James tells us we can have all the faith in the world and if that does not produce works our faith is useless (dead) and will not save us.

(Just as a side not there's another hole in your theory - why is James telling saved folks that their dead faith won't save them if they are already saved . . . hmmmm)

The picture where this can be seen is in the OT sacrifice. The priest is a typical picture of the believer. By faith the priest takes the blood to the mercy seat, but what does the priest have to do before he enters the Holy of Holies? He has to stop and wash his hands and feet.

James 1:21 is talking about washing. Receiving the engrafted word - doing what you have been taught regarding Scripture is being washed with the word. Then and only then were they able to enter the Holy of Holies.

So we by faith must apply the blood, but if we don't allow ourselves to be washed by the word then it is of no effect.

The blood atonement of the soul was put into place for an already saved people. Their eternal destiny was already determined. So the atonement of their soul had to do with something post eternal salvation. And it is exactly the same for believers today.

It is our spirits that are saved at the moment we believe in the sacrificial death and shed blood. The reason being is that in order to understand the Bible (to be washed by the word) we have to be spiritually alive. We are all born spiritually dead and incapable of understanding any message other than grace through faith based on the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.

At the moment we believe are spirits are made alive, passed from death unto life, and now we are in a position to have the Holy Spirit, that now indwells us, communicate His Truth to us Spirit to spirit. Now we can believe in the resurrection and Jesus as the High Priest. And we can understand what it means for His blood to still be on the mercy seat. And we can allow the Holy Spirit to teach us His Truth and then receive it as to be washed in the word.

So there is absolutely no conflict with James 1:21 and the blood. They work in complete harmony. These believers had the faith. They were applying the blood, they just weren't being washed by the word. They had not received the engrafted word which was able to save their souls.

The very next verse tells us they were hearers, but not doers. As such their souls were in jeopardy.

Bottom line once again is that James 1:21 says the soul is not saved yet. James is talking about a present reality not a past event. The simple language of the text must be allowed to speak if we are going to understand Scripture.

 

[steaver]

The confusion for you lies in not understanding the different purposes and functions between rational soul(spirit) and animal sentient soul(heart and mind).

Man's "spirit" is the "rational" soul of a man. This part of man allows man to be one with God. The rational soul allows man to reason out the things of God, to understand what God feels and desires man to be. It is like an electrical cord that had it's pluged pulled when Adam sinned and is in need of a reconnection from the Lord.

The "animal sentient" soul is the "you" in all of scripture. It is your personality, it is your heart and mind. When you shed this body of death you will still be you without the body.

God came to save "you" animal sentient soul, and He does this through reconnecting your "spirit" rational soul with His Spirit through rebirth giving your spirit new life that it is now alive and well, functioning as it was originally intended to before the fall. But this He could not do until Jesus Christ completed the atonement for the "animal sentient" soul that God has always been focused on. God wants "you", the person, mind and heart, to fellowship with Him. Your spirit is God's means for that fellowship to interact back and forth.

Has this then saved the spirit? In the sense that it was dead to the things of God and now it is made alive. It is the personal souls(animal sentient) that Jesus Christ paid for with His blood, the "you" part of the man that God's focus is on.

God can divide the spirit(rational soul) of man from the soul(animal sentient) of man, and did so when Adam sinned. But it is souls that Jesus came to save, atone for, not spirits when using the true definitions of the words.

Understanding what the spirit of man is, it's definition and it's function, and understanding what the soul of man is, it's definition and it's function, will clear up any confusion as to what it is that Jesus came to save.

The spirit and the soul of man are equally saved at regeneration. The new you(soul) is spiritually alive and saved by faith.

For by grace are ye(living soul, animal sentient+spirit, rational soul) saved through faith; and that not of yourselves(living soul, animal sentient+spirit, rational soul): it is the gift of God: (Eph 2:8)

One cannot exclude soul from any text that describes a person.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

(Jump)....Well you have certainly said on at least a couple of instances that all souls are living. Now since you have changed your mind I guess. Can you show me where man is born with a dead soul?

Yes all souls are living. No, all souls are not saved. I have never changed anything.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

Yes all souls are living. No, all souls are not saved.

Your own words condemn you:

My point has not been that all souls are living.

Steaver you should have quit while you were at least on level ground. I don't think you were ever ahead :laugh: as the old saying goes.

The confusion for you lies in not understanding the different purposes and functions between rational soul(spirit) and animal sentient soul(heart and mind).

Ah so now we get to what you really believe. Again you say man is a tri-part being, but you really believe man is a bi-part being. I see.

There is no confusion for me, at least on this topic. I am still uncertain about some things in Scripture, but this is not one of them. The reason being is that I just let the text and the context tell me what is going on. You on the other hand have tried to rewrite and redefine the words to come up with your own conclusions.

First you say James didn't say receive. You want us to believe able means already done, and now you want us to believe that spirit really just means a different part of the soul.

Yet I'm the one confused :sleeping_2:

The spirit and the soul of man are equally saved at regeneration.

Sorry that's just not a true statement. You can believe if you want to. Unfortunately you will teach it to others, but it's just simply not true. And just because you add in your () to Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn't make it true.

Again you have to look at just one verse in Scripture to blow your whole eloborate theory to shreds.

By the way you do have the most eloborate theory of anyone I have ever discussed this with and that includes many "highly" educated pastors :applause: But when your theory is put to the test of Scripture it falls flat on its face at every turn you make.

 

[steaver]

Quote:steaver
Yes all souls are living. No, all souls are not saved.

(Jump)...Your own words condemn you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steaver
My point has not been that all souls are living.

(Jump)....Steaver you should have quit while you were at least on level ground. I don't think you were ever ahead :laugh: as the old saying goes.

I will say it slower this time......"My......point has not been.... that all souls are living". You see? The subject in this sentence is "My Point" has not been. This I said in response to you saying...."It just establishes your point that all souls are living".

I continue on the same topic, "my point", and say...."But rather that Leviticus teaches us that all people are souls. There is a huge difference.

Nowhere have I disputed the fact that all souls are living. I have disputed what you said is my POINT and what my POINT really is has not been that all souls are living. Do you see how the phrase "has not been" goes with "point" and does not convey that I am saying all souls are not living?

So please keep these little "points" in correct context and perspective. I hope you are not purposefully searching for little digs that you feel will somehow discredit my analysis. Intelligent people watching this debate will see what you are doing and will question your motives. I will assume that you just did not read what I wrote carefully enough.

I once debated a fellow who would consistantly correct my spelling for me. I guess he felt that because I wasn't using spell ckeck I was somehow not worthy of understanding God's word.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

(Jump)....Ah so now we get to what you really believe. Again you say man is a tri-part being, but you really believe man is a bi-part being. I see.

Tripart Nature of Man; body, Soul, spirit.

1) The body has no contributing attributes to one’s salvation. It is part of God’s resurrection plan. It’s salvation, so to speak, is based solely on the destiny of the soul/spirit it belongs to.
2) The spirit has a clear Biblical purpose in God’s salvation plan. While there is absolutely nothing the body can do to bring about salvation, the spirit is God’s line of communication to the soul he created. When we say every man has a spirit, it is the same as saying, every soul has a spirit. It is this spirit that is “spiritually dead”, meaning it is not connected with God’s Holy Spirit, not that it is totally nonfunctional. It was severed when Adam sinned. It is not “one” with God as it was before the Fall. It is still functional, but it is not joined with God. When a soul believes and invites the Spirit of Christ(Holy Spirit) to dwell within it, God quickens(revives to spiritual aliveness) that soul’s spirit. The soul, through it’s spirit, becomes one again with God and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses that soul from all unrighteousness. Hence we become “born again”. [John 3:5-7]. The soul and the spirit become “one” again with God.
To the believer, Paul writes; [Romans 8:15-16] “…ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father.” “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” God works through the spirit which is in man to bring him to faith in Jesus Christ. This faith quickens(makes spiritually alive) mans spirit. Man becomes “born again”. The faith that is in you, by the Spirit united with spirit, is the precept which saves the soul.
3) A soul is the center of God’s salvation plan. It is souls that Jesus Christ came to save, and it is souls which Jesus Christ shed His blood for and died for. A soul is who you are, everything about your consciousness. It is your existence. You are a living soul, a soul which possesses a body and a spirit.

I say what I mean and mean what I say! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

(Jump)...First you say James didn't say receive. You want us to believe able means already done,

Please give my quotes to support what you say I say.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

Quote:steaver
The spirit and the soul of man are equally saved at regeneration.
(Jump)...Sorry that's just not a true statement. You can believe if you want to. Unfortunately you will teach it to others, but it's just simply not true. And just because you add in your () to Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn't make it true.

Again you have to look at just one verse in Scripture to blow your whole eloborate theory to shreds.

By the way you do have the most eloborate theory of anyone I have ever discussed this with and that includes many "highly" educated pastors :applause: But when your theory is put to the test of Scripture it falls flat on its face at every turn you make.

Doctrine stands or falls with word definitions, scripture interpreting scripture and context. I disagree that what I have said falls flat on its face when tested against word definitions and scripture.

I have studied this topic exhuastively, I guess because i have a brother caught up in it. The good part I guess is that it is really not to damaging to a Christian if they choose to believe your way because at the least it does not teach that one can be saved and then lost again. But it is really a worthless teaching.

Tell me, do you know if your soul will be saved? Do you judge your own selves if you are doing enough good works or obeying the word enough to have your soul saved? Can you know? Or is that up to the judgment seat of Christ?

What if your soul does not get saved? Does your rational soul(spirit) go to heaven while your personal soul goes to hell?

If your spirit does not carry your personality as Strong's defines it, then how will you be identified in heaven when you find your soul is in hell?

These are many questions that frustrated my brother and his pastor. They gave up on trying to answer them for me.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

If anyone is interested in reading Watchman Nee's book, Salvation of the Soul, I just went to my local Christian book store and had them order it for me. I don't think you will find it readily on the shelf, but they should be able to get it for you. It was only $4.50 and worth every penny for the insight into this doctrine. The owner gave me a strange look when I ordered it, said he never heard of it.

It isn't a long book, it is small and only 115 pages long. It is quite a bizzar interpretation of scriptures. I wonder what makes good preachers/teachers slip off into these things. If you read this book you will think you are listening to a crazy man. I think that they maybe get bored with the simplicity that is in Christ and begin to long for something more.

Nee teaches that a Christian is suppose to be miserable in this life if he expects to have joy in the afterlife. I'm telling you, the guy lost it somewhere!

This is Nee's interpretation of Luke 12:15-21...

"The word of "life" here is "soul" in the original text. We may therefore say that to gain the soul means to cause the soul to enjoy, to be happy, and to be satisfied, Contraiwise, though, to lose the soul means to make the soul suffer-to be pained and poor. This richman, due to the abundance of his gain and goods, has given his own soul enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction in this age. He has already gained his soul now.

Thus to gain the soul is to make it happy in this age, while to lose the soul is to leave nothing to it in this age. What our eyes see, our ears hear, and our hands and feet touch are through our body: but that which is conscious of the pleasures therein is the soul.

Beautiful music may soothe the emotion: and literature and philosophy may uplift the thought. Yet if people should seek ultimate satisfaction from these things in this age they will lose satisfaction in the age to come. If we have already received comfort from these things now, we shall lose the glory of the kingdom in the future."

Nee goes on to say "One ought to lay aside anything that gladdens and pacifies the soul".

Let just say this. My brother and his pastor certainly are not miserable souls. They both enjoy life and are far from poor and pitiful. Yet they think Nee is a great teacher on the salvation of the soul.

Nee teaches one must deny himself all pleasures in this life if they want their souls saved. I would suggest if this is true, then we will all be losing our souls in the judgment! Well, maybe a monk might make it.

God Bless!

 

[J. Jump]

Boy Steaver you were quite the busy poster yesterday

I will say it slower this time......"My......point has not been.... that all souls are living". You see? The subject in this sentence is "My Point" has not been. This I said in response to you saying...."It just establishes your point that all souls are living".

I continue on the same topic, "my point", and say...."But rather that Leviticus teaches us that all people are souls. There is a huge difference.

Nowhere have I disputed the fact that all souls are living. I have disputed what you said is my POINT and what my POINT really is has not been that all souls are living. Do you see how the phrase "has not been" goes with "point" and does not convey that I am saying all souls are not living?

So please keep these little "points" in correct context and perspective.

It stinks when you back yourself into a corner you can't get out of. It really starts to get difficult to explain away your own words That was some explanation though I have to give you credit for that.

I hope you are not purposefully searching for little digs that you feel will somehow discredit my analysis.

Are you kidding me? You don't need any help discrediting your analysis. The more you type the more you do it to yourself.

Intelligent people watching this debate will see what you are doing and will question your motives.

As obviously you are directing them to do by making your comments. Are you helping to motivate the conversation to character assassination again?

I once debated a fellow who would consistantly correct my spelling for me. I guess he felt that because I wasn't using spell ckeck I was somehow not worthy of understanding God's word.

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but it would be better not to guess about someone's motives and just ask if you have an issue with them. You are spreading speculation that you don't know to be true or not.

 

[J. Jump]

I say what I mean and mean what I say!

Problem is you say one thing in one post and something completely different in another post. So I guess you are confused as to what you believe and mean then?

Doctrine stands or falls with word definitions, scripture interpreting scripture and context. I disagree that what I have said falls flat on its face when tested against word definitions and scripture.

Well we all know you disagree, that's not news. And while your opening statement is absolutely correct I have shown you by word definitions, Scripture interpreting Scripture and context that your analysis of James 1:21 is flawed, so do you really mean what you say and say what you mean? Or is that just a nice little phrase to throw out there?

Because if you really believe what you typed about doctrine standing or falling you will dump your "soul already saved" position and go with the plain, clear reading of James 1:21 which says the soul is not saved at the moment you believe in the substitutionary death of Jesus.

I have studied this topic exhuastively, I guess because i have a brother caught up in it. The good part I guess is that it is really not to damaging to a Christian if they choose to believe your way because at the least it does not teach that one can be saved and then lost again. But it is really a worthless teaching.

This is an absolute hilarious comment in light of your belief of the Christian life. We teach accountability and consequences of unfaithfulness, disobedience and rebellion. You on the other hand teach that one can live like the world and still rule and reign with Christ despite being a hypocritical, unfaithful, rebel.

And the gospel of the kingdom is a worthless teaching :laugh: That just makes me chuckle.

Tell me, do you know if your soul will be saved? Do you judge your own selves if you are doing enough good works or obeying the word enough to have your soul saved? Can you know? Or is that up to the judgment seat of Christ?What if your soul does not get saved? Does your rational soul(spirit) go to heaven while your personal soul goes to hell? If your spirit does not carry your personality as Strong's defines it, then how will you be identified in heaven when you find your soul is in hell?

Again I don't understand these types of questions. What does it matter what the answers are to these questions? Or if I answer this set of questions is that what's going to tip the scale for you to believe the gospel of the kingdom?

These are many questions that frustrated my brother and his pastor.

Of course it is frustrating. It gets very frustrating to have to answer silly questions for people that have no "real" interest in the answers anyway. It's just a diversion tactic to get the conversation derailed.

By the way I would love to visit with your brother and his pastor. If you could tell me how I could contact them that would be fantastic. I'm trying to build a database of folks that believe in the gospel of the kingdom and would love to add them to it.

 

[J. Jump]

If anyone is interested in reading Watchman Nee's book, Salvation of the Soul, I just went to my local Christian book store and had them order it for me. I don't think you will find it readily on the shelf, but they should be able to get it for you. It was only $4.50 and worth every penny for the insight into this doctrine. The owner gave me a strange look when I ordered it, said he never heard of it.

It isn't a long book, it is small and only 115 pages long. It is quite a bizzar interpretation of scriptures. I wonder what makes good preachers/teachers slip off into these things. If you read this book you will think you are listening to a crazy man. I think that they maybe get bored with the simplicity that is in Christ and begin to long for something more.

Nee teaches that a Christian is suppose to be miserable in this life if he expects to have joy in the afterlife. I'm telling you, the guy lost it somewhere!

This is Nee's interpretation of Luke 12:15-21...

"The word of "life" here is "soul" in the original text. We may therefore say that to gain the soul means to cause the soul to enjoy, to be happy, and to be satisfied, Contraiwise, though, to lose the soul means to make the soul suffer-to be pained and poor. This richman, due to the abundance of his gain and goods, has given his own soul enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction in this age. He has already gained his soul now.

Thus to gain the soul is to make it happy in this age, while to lose the soul is to leave nothing to it in this age. What our eyes see, our ears hear, and our hands and feet touch are through our body: but that which is conscious of the pleasures therein is the soul.

Beautiful music may soothe the emotion: and literature and philosophy may uplift the thought. Yet if people should seek ultimate satisfaction from these things in this age they will lose satisfaction in the age to come. If we have already received comfort from these things now, we shall lose the glory of the kingdom in the future."

Nee goes on to say "One ought to lay aside anything that gladdens and pacifies the soul".

Let just say this. My brother and his pastor certainly are not miserable souls. They both enjoy life and are far from poor and pitiful. Yet they think Nee is a great teacher on the salvation of the soul.

Nee teaches one must deny himself all pleasures in this life if they want their souls saved. I would suggest if this is true, then we will all be losing our souls in the judgment! Well, maybe a monk might make it.

I believe Watchman Nee had a lot of good things to say about the salvation of the soul. For anyone to even recognize that the soul is in need of salvation after by grace through faith apart from works is wonderful. However, as with you I agree that Nee goes "too" far and is "too" extreme in his view of removing satisfaction in this life.

There are literally hundreds and probably thousands of examples one could give.

The Bible tells us that trouble enough will find us without us having to heap it onto ourselves.

As with any teacher you have to chew the meat and spit out the bone

 

[Amy.G]

Steaver:

Tell me, do you know if your soul will be saved? Do you judge your own selves if you are doing enough good works or obeying the word enough to have your soul saved? Can you know? Or is that up to the judgment seat of Christ?What if your soul does not get saved? Does your rational soul(spirit) go to heaven while your personal soul goes to hell? If your spirit does not carry your personality as Strong's defines it, then how will you be identified in heaven when you find your soul is in hell?

JJump:

Again I don't understand these types of questions. What does it matter what the answers are to these questions? Or if I answer this set of questions is that what's going to tip the scale for you to believe the gospel of the kingdom?

Steaver asked a valid question. I would also like to know the answer. If you are unwilling to answer it, what does that say for the validity of your doctrine?

 

[J. Jump]

I would also like to know the answer.

Why? Is that the magical set of questions that if answered would cause you to believe in the gospel of the kingdom?

If you are unwilling to answer it, what does that say for the validity of your doctrine?

The validity of Scripture stands on its own. It does not need a defense by me. Just the plain reading of Scripture should validate what I have said. My not answering those questions has no impact whatsoever on whether the doctrine is true or not.

The questions are moot. They are asked by people that don't want to believe the gospel of the kingdom. They are a tactic to derail the discussion, because they have run out of amunition.

Amy if you would like to discuss the validity of the doctrine of the kingdom I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. But the end is not the place to start We can start at the beginning and then proceed forward if you would like

 

[av1611jim]

Well .....I will answer those questions if you don't mind JJump.

For Amy and the others who may be pondering these questions as to whether or not one can know if one's soul is saved or if they have 'crossed the line' or if we can only know when we get to the JSOC: I offer none other than Paul. Here we see him early in his carrer preaching to the saints of God. It is clear that he uses words which undeniably show he was uncertain of something. You will notice that he uses such words to describe a concerted EFFORT on his part.

Philippians 3:7-14 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Next we see Pual toward the end of his career/life. Here it is clear he IS sure of something.

2 Timothy 4:5-8 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

We see him using words in the PAST tense, thereby indicating he is looking at the whole of his life in Christ just before he is to die.

I like to let Scripture answer questions whenever I can. We see then that the answer to your ill advised questions have already been answered in Scripture long before you even thought up your objection to this doctrine. Answer: You CANNOT know until you have already run the race. Just as surely as an Olympic runner CANNOT know if he will win until he approaches the finish line and sees that he is the leader of the field.

So now I would ask of you this question. Why would you even entertain such a question unless of course you do not want to be obedient to the Lord in the first place?

Ask not; "How close to the line can I get before I get into trouble" but rather ask; "How far away from that line can I get to avoid trouble?"

 

[Amy.G]

Jim, thanks for responding. You still didn't answer my question though. If we can't know if the soul is saved until the end of our lives, then there must be the possibililty that the soul can be damned and the spirit can be saved. This would mean that only part of you goes to heaven, you are split in two. Does this mean at the resurrection your spirit receives a new body but your soul...???? Then you would be a spirit with a new body and no soul? That makes no sense. Can you explain this to me?

 

[Amy.G]

Jim:

So now I would ask of you this question. Why would you even entertain such a question unless of course you do not want to be obedient to the Lord in the first place?

Jim, there is no sin or disobedience in asking questions. That's how we learn. What good father would not allow his children to ask questions about things they don't understand?

 

[J. Jump]

there is no sin or disobedience in asking questions

Amy I totally agree. I for one ask tons of questions of people. That's a big way I learn. However most of the time in these type forums people aren't asking out of sincerity. They don't truly want to know the answer to these types of questions.

If you are truly interested in visiting more I would be more than happy to visit with you about these matters.

What good father would not allow his children to ask questions about things they don't understand?

I applaud you if you are truly wanting to learn, but again as I said earlier I think it would be better to start at the beginning than to try and explain the ending and go backwards. You are more than welcome to PM me or email me anytime if you want to discuss Scripture.

 

[av1611jim]

Jim, thanks for responding. You still didn't answer my question though. If we can't know if the soul is saved until the end of our lives, then there must be the possibililty that the soul can be damned and the spirit can be saved. This would mean that only part of you goes to heaven, you are split in two. Does this mean at the resurrection your spirit receives a new body but your soul...???? Then you would be a spirit with a new body and no soul? That makes no sense. Can you explain this to me?

You first statement demonstrates where your confusion lies. No, the soul cannot be damned. Not in the sense that I think you mean it to be. When most folks say "damned" they usually use the word in the context of eternity in hell. We are not advocating such a thing. We advocate eternal security of the believer.

Secondly; your next assumption is that one's spirit goes to heaven but your soul is damned. Again, this demonstrates your misunderstandig. What I am sensing here is that you are trying to mix the current common understanding of death, hell, the grave, and heaven with Accountability Doctrine. Let's not mix things up shall we? This would be like mixing sprinkling with immersion. All you get is confusion.

Third, you seem to misunderstand that for God's people there are more than one resurrection. I'll not go into all this for now. What you have introduced in your questions are at least six different doctrines. My goodness girl! I don't think there is enough bandwidth on this site to cover it all in one post! LOL

Allow me to simplify it for you.

When one is born again, it is their SPIRIT which is born from above. This ENABLES them to discipline their SOUL for obedience. The spirit at this point is eternally secure in Christ. It is your SOUL which enables you to interact with both God and man. Your BODY is that which communicates with your soul and your soul is that which communicates with your spirit and your spirit with God. See? Body-physical world; soul-intellectual world; spirit-spiritual world. In that order. Body, soul spirit. And conversely from God it is ...spirit-soul-body. God tells your spirit to witness to someone, your soul tells your body (mouth) to talk, your mouth communicates the Truth of the Gospel to someone. Your spirit communicates with God. Your soul with your spirit and your body with your soul.

You are never split as you presume. At the resurrection of the just, you will be given a new body. At this point you have a new body and a born again spirit. This body/soul/spirit of yours will stand before Jesus at the JSOC. But if your soul has not been obedient then you will have your "portion with the hypocrites". In other words if your SOUL has obeyed the flesh of your body rather than the Spirit of Christ (whose mind we have) then you will be chastized. ALL of you will go to outerdarkeness.

Also I must point out and strees that we are not talking about a one time disobedience. I don't pretend to know where the line is. Not really sure if there is a line we can cross. Don't really care to know either. All I know for sure is that Jesus commands us to be obedient to Him. He has also provided a solution for when we fail Him from time to time. 1 John 1:9. What we are talking about here is a consistently rebellious attitude and behaviour. Should one die in such a state, how can he expect anything good from God when he meets Him at the JSOC?


******Note (I am still not sure where this outerdarkness is but it isn't heaven and it isn't in the Millenial Kingdom.)

No my friend, we are not split in two/three. Ever. The only time Scripture speaks of seperation of the soul from the body is at death. The body decays. But you asked about the resurrection which automatically puts the context in a risen body.