dwmoeller1 said:
Yes you did say that...however you also argued that it was only (?) the Son and Spirit who were subsumed back into. Logically this leads to the conclusion that you equate the Father and God.
Yes, God being Eternal Jehovah, the I AM, etc. The other 2 didn't even have their names till the NT, right?
I am sorry, I must have been unclear. I was asking for the Scripture which supports your assertion that Christ is to be equated to the body of God.
Rev 1:17-18. Figure out for yourself when God ("the first and the last") DIED.
That didn't make Him any less God. It was merely a reflection of position within the Godhead.
So your reflection in the mirror has all your capabilities, d-dub?? Surely you meant to reply with scripture like "He who has seen Me has seen My Father," right? And yet the issue of Jesus not knowing the hour and the days still remains or either lying.
[/quote]Again, I must have been unclear. I think I have somewhat of a handle on how you view it. I am asking how you came to that view. What logic led you there? What Scripture?[/quote] Originally I heard the construct (the BEST explanation of the trinity I ever heard) from my late pastor, Dr, Adrian Rogers, and I liked it except that he reversed the roles of soul and spirit (which didn't make sense to me). Then I noticed Rev 22:4 where we see God face-to-face and remembered that in the rest of scripture, it was said that no man has seen God at any time. You cannot see a spirit but you can see a body. Then I thought it curious how, in Prov 8, God's wisdom was suddenly not just in Him but "with" Him. Then, of course, I realized that man must be "wholely" saved to live with One Holy God but that God might have to do that in steps/phases -- you know, actually have a body to live with us but still not be subject to us.
Now I admit that, just like Calvinism, it is a paradigm and paradigms should be tested.
[/quote]And again, does the Spirit work on the conscience?[/quote] I guess I haven't fully explained that yet, have I? My thought is that the soul is born with God awareness and self awareness -- "knowledge or "awareness" of good and evil" as Satan said all men would have if Eve ate the fruit. The conscience if the only part that has God's view of fairness so that even though our instincts are in our spirit, we can comprehend pretty early on that it is not fair for someone to take something from us -- or to kill us -- or to hit us, etc. These are later applied to others but originally mainly to self.
There's that and there's this -- David said, "If I go down the the depths of sheol, yea, Thou art there." Why is that, do you suppose? I supposed it was because God was present everywhere man's soul is. God is not the fire. He's not the pit. He's in David's soul. In his awareness. And that it what we call the "hole," the "emptiness," that men keep trying to fill with things other than God.
What do you mean - "where necessary"? Either they are distinct as you say or they are not.
No, you're trying to say ALL contexts have to be definitive when we both know that there are times when one or the other merely applies to an immaterial person that we are -- else we wouldn't even be having this debate, would we?
If they are, then the concept of 'where necessary' is fallacious.
Where necessary" may not be the best words, eh? Where APPLICABLE. All references do not apply to the difference. Some are talking in generalities, d-dub.
What if the soul and spirit are merely different aspects of the same thing - the immaterial part of man - the 'real' you? What if that immaterial part needs to be both justified (made right before God) and sanctified (made holy)? Why then would there be a need for distinction between soul and spirit with regards to sanctification and justification?
First, because there is a necessity to distinguish between what the Baptists do with visitors and what the Presbies do with them. Both will say they are inviting them into the kingdom of God, right? But the Baptist version is to come to repentance believing on Christ.
To the Presbies, it's come join our church. They NEVER invite people to CHOOSE CHRIST which is the only "Gate" into the pasture! And why don't they do as the Baptists? Because Calvinist/Reform theology says what WE choose means nothing. No one can offer salvation to anyone through any means because that is God's sovereign choice. We would be lying to say one could "receive Christ unto salvation." They couldn't if they were "non-elect," could they, d-dub?
BUT if they would acknowledge the distinction between soul and spirit AND between belief and faith, they could adjust their paradigm to be more in keeping with scripture and actually save some before they go to developing them intellectually and physically which sanctification.
Maybe we are operating under essentially different definitions of justifications and/or sanctification?
Quite likely if you don't see the distinction between soul and spirit, belief and faith. In fact, now that we are on it, faith may be in -- may be a function of -- the soul and not in the spirit. Did Abraham please God by works (offering his son)? Did he please God by his on again - off again belief? No. He pleased God by something God gave him that he could never lose. Just like his eternal life, Abraham could never lose his faith! Thus, faith "attaches" to the soul and "is" the "book of life" from our side.
a) Cist never try to sanctify anyone - as with justification, they consider sanctification to be 'all of God'
Well, you have a point there. :laugh: They act as if they are "robots" doing only what they are programmed to do. But their motions are as if it is their "job."
b) and they don't hold that any but the truly elect can be sanctified.
Of course not! But they don't either know who the "truly elect" really are either! So they "sanctify" everyone who comes through their doors -- which I don't say is a bad thing, it's just not the first thing that is necessary.
Maybe you have a misunderstanding of Cism...or maybe you have been exposed only to the hyper variety?
Nope, just "garden varitety." No invitations -- recite apostle's creed/oath as "proof" of justification -- still have Israel's hope of resurrection -- still think baptism is the church's equivalent of circumcision ("chosen" and "regenerated" before belief) -- send out "proselytes" rather than missionaries -- tell the bereaved it was "God's will" even if the deceased was driving drunk at the time -- that sorta stuff.
skypair
