WE might as well get this out in the open...

[skypair]

That is compared in Romans 3:10-18 skypair, exactly.

I read that and it is nothing but "boilerplate" total depravity! No discussion of soul and spirit and body. You are being "totally evasive" and, thus, Calvinistic in your response.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Easy question We have a moral element to our being. Evil and righteouness have meaning for us.

Not exactly the precise answer I was looking for, d-dub. :laugh:

Can you think in terms of 3?

skypair

 

[johnp.]

Morality is not arbitrary. Morality is based on the nature of God and thus is inseperable from God.

Is it right then for us to copy God actions or not? I mean if He orders genocide then that's moral enough for us? That's how it is different dwmoeller.

I'm sorry skypair but you did ask in what way are we like God and scripture, not Calvanistic responses, says in no way man.

john.

 

[HankD]

In an earlier post I had said I follow the tripartite view and related body to physical awareness, soul to self awareness and spirit to God awareness.

Here are some passages which I believe bear this out concerning the spirit...

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (He witnesses to our spirit not our soul).​

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (in spirit, not in soul)​

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (is spirit, not soul)​

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (not born of the Soul)​

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.​

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​

This is an interesting passage because "the natural man" is refered to here as "psuchikos" or the "soulish" man, while the one who "spiritually" discerns is referred to as "pneumatikos".​

HankD​

 

[dwmoeller1]

Thank you, dw. I would suggest that the distinction MUST be made as it is the BODY, SOUL, AND SPIRIT that must be saved, no?

It is the whole being that must be saved. To read this verse as supporting the tripartite view, one must already assume it is true. Otherwise there are several other views which reasonably fit with this passage.

To support the tripartite view, one must be able to
a) make a clear distinctionbetween the different parts
b) and show that these distinctions hold true throughout Scripture
One verse is not sufficient as long as there are other reasonable ways to read the verse.

And it IS a "Cist thing."

The tripartite view is a Plato and Kant thing The 'bipartite' view has long been the majority view regardless of whether one is Cist or non-Cist. So, we find the tripartite view in Greek philosophy and a general rejection of it by Christianity until the 19th century. To classify it in terms of Cism is both false and unreasonable. Maybe you wish to restate what you mean by it being a "Cist thing"?

What they don't know CAN hurt them. They can't regenerate or sanctify anything until they save the SOUL!

I dont' follow. Please explain.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Thank you again, dw! You are asking the questions that ought to be asked in this discussion!

1) The objects to be redeemed don't match up otherwise. If the soul is who a person is and God is who the trinity is, then God ought to justify the soul. If the Spirit is the mind, emotions, and will of God (and He is, Prov 8:22-34), then it makes more sense that in order to have the "mind of Christ," we ought to have the Spirit of Christ living in us, 1Cor 2:14-16. And if Christ is the body of God, it makes sense that He would be the One to come and glorify us, right?

Its seems you either equate the first person of the Trinity (God the Father) with the Trinity itself or else leave out the first person of the Trinity altogether in your 'match up'. If the former, then you have a distinctly unorthodox view of the trinity (which would explain the difference between you and the typical tripartite). If the latter then your supposed match up doesn't match up very well at all.

Plus, your last if equating Christ to the body of God I notice you don't support with Scripture. That fact makes it seem as if you are forcing Scripture into your own extrabiblical system of thinking.

But maybe I am just missing something which you can elucidate upon.

2) Mainly in the way that the Spirit communicates to us. First off in salvation. It is the Spirit that convicts our spirit -- our intellect, right -- of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. It is not a matter of some not being "spiritual men" having no intellect. That is only the case of infants and insane. All can hear the wisdom of God (again, Prov 8:34 -- "...him that sinneth against me wrongeth his own SOUL; all they that hate me love DEATH.") Notice a) man's spirit (intellect) can wrong his own soul and b) if we hate the Holy Spirit in our spirit/emotions, we love death!

So, what I am seeing is that you have no Scriptural reason for making that equation then beyond it fitting your system best. Ok, within the context of your system I can see that.

If we are "filled" with the Spirit, He TOTALLY fills our thoughts, emotions, and will at the time. If we are indwelt by the Spirit, where does He work? He takes the word and works on our mind, emotions, and wills, right?

Right...but doesn't he also work on our conscience?

3) Like you say, there is some ambiguity. I like the notion, though, that the soul could refer in a larger sense to who we are and also to a particular part of our person as it does with God. In addition, I do believe that the spirit goes where the soul does -- like to heaven when we die. In that way, it is also true that we are "material" and "immarterial" as some have crudely put it.

If Scripture is ambiguous about this distinction then why would you hold strongly to it? That strikes me as reading into Scripture what best fits your presupposed system...something you seem to get up in arms about with Calvinist

Let me ask it this way - what would be the doctrinal problem with simply reading Scripture without insisting on a clear distinction between soul and spirit (as you agree, after all, Scripture is ambiguous about it)? What sort of doctrinal difficulties would that create?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Not exactly the precise answer I was looking for, d-dub. :laugh:

Can you think in terms of 3?

skypair

Sure I can think in terms of 3...but where is the passage which suggest we should in regards to man's makeup?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Is it right then for us to copy God actions or not? I mean if He orders genocide then that's moral enough for us? That's how it is different dwmoeller.

Morality rests in God's nature. Part of God's nature is that He is Creator and Sustainer. As such, He can justly/morally do whatever He wills with His Creation.

As created beings we are all equal with equal and have the moral imperative to relate to each other as such. Thus, there is nothing moral or immoral about genocide in itself. What is moral or immoral is determined by heart motives and relationship to others. So, it is impossible for us to 'copy' God in relationship to genocide since doing so on our own authority would necessarily violate our position as created beings. Its not that genocide is wrong, but that its wrong for equal beings to do so to one another.

However, God can grant us the authority as instruments of His will and thus the action becomes moral. Its not moral simply because God commands it - it is moral because God is acting on His nature and we are merely His chosen instruments by which He chooses to act. Again, it is morality extending directly from God's nature. There is not difference between the morality of God and of man - merely different positions which dictate our relationship to that morality.

 

[dwmoeller1]

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​

This is an interesting passage because "the natural man" is refered to here as "psuchikos" or the "soulish" man, while the one who "spiritually" discerns is referred to as "pneumatikos".​

An interesting argument. How do you come to equate "psuchikos" with "soulish"?

 

[webdog]

Great! Is it just that you haven't given it any consideration or do you have a reason for your "madness?" :laugh: For instance, how exactly IS our image like that of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

skypair

I have given it thought. Scirpture uses spirit and soul interchangeably. If you notice, Christ is the only one we know has/had a body. "God is Spirit" and obviously the Holy Spirit is spirit. From the Trinity we see material and immaterial, as I believe man to be composed of.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Try this one:

1. Human spirit is different from demonic spirits is different from Holy Spirit.
2. The soul/spirit is an interface between a human body
and the external spirits above.
3. While the human soul and human spirit are spoken of in
the Bible almost randomly, see how the Bible reads if
the emphasis of 'human soul' is the 'human body' and
of 'human spirit' the emphasis is the 'exernal spirits'.

 

[skypair]

Hank

In an earlier post I had said I follow the tripartite view and related body to physical awareness, soul to self awareness and spirit to God awareness.

Here are some passages which I believe bear this out concerning the spirit...

Good. Let's do it!

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (He witnesses to our spirit not our soul).

Absolutely! Does not 1John say the same thing -- "we know we are His by His Spirit that dwelleth in us?" God's Spirit communicates with our spirit and our spirit with our soul.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (in spirit, not in soul)

Indeed! worship comes forth from our spirit to our flesh. Worship is the "motions of the flesh" toward God. It originates in our mind, emotions, and will.

]John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (is spirit, not soul)

Yes. Despite what some theologies say, our souls are a "blank slate." For "will" we have "instinct." All info, as I said, passes from the flesh by "hearing" to the spirit where it is processed (believed or not beleived) and the result of either affects the soul. And EVERY man can "hear," BTW.

Also, beginning with instinct, many of our actions are born of the flesh -- even sin. But our spirit and our life thereafter is reborn of the Holy Spirit.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (not born of the Soul)

Again, Holy Spirit and processed through our spirit, right?

]Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Our spirit makes choices. If we mind God's Spirit, our actions originate with His Spirit, It we mind "self," our actions originate in our flesh.

]1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This has been SO overworked by the Calvinists that it has lost all meaning (which is why I say much of this IS a "Calvinist issue." In 1Cor 2:1-5, Paul says he came preaching what they COULD understand -- the simple gospel. But in 2:6-16, he says, "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect:..." That is, not that they are saved, he is telling these spiritual men spiritual things that the unsaved man cannot understand.

This is an interesting passage because "the natural man" is refered to here as "psuchikos" or the "soulish" man, while the one who "spiritually" discerns is referred to as "pneumatikos".

Yes. It is interesting. So "soulish" would be before salvation and "spiritual man" would be after, right? So he sees the "soulish" man as living in the natural state of selfishness and instinct, right? Interesting.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I'll try my best, dw

It is the whole being that must be saved. To read this verse as supporting the tripartite view, one must already assume it is true.

It is true. It is just not true that it happens all at once. Justified immediately in our soul -- sanctified progressively in spirit as we live -- glorified eventually in body when we die. That is why it is so important to see the distinctions between soul and spirit.

To support the tripartite view, one must be able to
a) make a clear distinctionbetween the different parts
b) and show that these distinctions hold true throughout Scripture
One verse is not sufficient as long as there are other reasonable ways to read the verse.

See my response to "Hank" above.

The 'bipartite' view...

And a Bible "thing."

... has long been the majority view regardless of whether one is Cist or non-Cist.

That's news to me.

So, we find the tripartite view in Greek philosophy and a general rejection of it by Christianity until the 19th century. To classify it in terms of Cism is both false and unreasonable. Maybe you wish to restate what you mean by it being a "Cist thing"?

Mostly "recalssifying" it would be OK. I've found most resistance by Calvinists but it makes no difference to me.

I dont' follow. Please explain.

Suppose I told you that God would accept into His heaven one who practiced Christianity but didn't believe in Christ. This is basically the source of much of our problems in theology today -- that the church has undergone the "Constantinian change" whereby she includes within her definition of "chosen" or "elect" all who they persuade religiously or compel politically to be baptized or confirmed into her membership. Well, it so happens that after one is already "elect" or "chosen," the next job is to "sanctify such with the truth, Thy Word is truth." In other words, they got into the church "by some other way" (say, by "works," or "election" rather than by Christ)! What they neglect -- the "True Gate" -- CAN hurt them!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Its seems you either equate the first person of the Trinity (God the Father) with the Trinity itself or else leave out the first person of the Trinity altogether in your 'match up'.

Sorry, perhaps I can clear it up. 3 Persons ARE God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, right? At some point, my biblical theology says that the latter 2 will be "subsumed" back into God Who is the overarching Identity of all 3 just as our soul is the overarching identity of who we are. Does that help? I'm not sure if that answers or not but it is more information. :laugh:

Plus, your last if equating Christ to the body of God I notice you don't support with Scripture. That fact makes it seem as if you are forcing Scripture into your own extrabiblical system of thinking.

First off, I think you can find the scripture unless you are SDA, right? As for the second comment, that would not be fair of you to say but you may look in my other posts to see if it holds up or not.

But maybe I am just missing something which you can elucidate upon.

Was that God that came down and took the form of man -- or was Jesus a man?

Right...but doesn't he also work on our conscience?

I've often thought this, dw -- see if you agree. The "book of life" is actually our soul/conscience replaying our choice of Christ. The "book of works" is also our soul/conscience that will be replayed at the judgment seat. So yes, everything of the spirit and body feeds into that "account" in the soul. And that soul is "pure of conscience" of sin if we are "in Christ." (Judgment is a reconciliation of our books with God's.)

If Scripture is ambiguous about this distinction then why would you hold strongly to it? That strikes me as reading into Scripture what best fits your presupposed system...something you seem to get up in arms about with Calvinist

Read Heb 4:12, dw. Paul says that the Word can divide soul from spirit. We, because we have the word, can detect how.

Let me ask it this way - what would be the doctrinal problem with simply reading Scripture without insisting on a clear distinction between soul and spirit (as you agree, after all, Scripture is ambiguous about it)? What sort of doctrinal difficulties would that create?

The "sanctification of the lost" would be the problem. God won't accept that! Yet this is precisely what observant Catholics through fleshly works and true Calvinists through the spirit attempt to do without paying the least attention to whether one is justified.

skypair

 

[skypair]

web

I have given it thought. Scirpture uses spirit and soul interchangeably. If you notice, Christ is the only one we know has/had a body. "God is Spirit" and obviously the Holy Spirit is spirit. From the Trinity we see material and immaterial, as I believe man to be composed of.

OK, do you see 3 distinct "ministries" for God, Christ, and Holy Spirit (I would suggest justification, sanctification, and glorification)? If so and there are not to 3 distinct counterparts in man, do you not see an imbalance?

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

It is true. It is just not true that it happens all at once. Justified immediately in our soul -- sanctified progressively in spirit as we live -- glorified eventually in body when we die. That is why it is so important to see the distinctions between soul and spirit.

I am still not seeing the importance of the distinction...
What is the problem with the view that
a) the inward man is justified immediately
b) the inward man is sanctified progressively as we live
c) the outward man is glorified at the resurrection?

See my response to "Hank" above.

I will come back to that later.

Mostly "recalssifying" it would be OK. I've found most resistance by Calvinists but it makes no difference to me.

Those who hold Catholic doctrine will resist it as well. Lutheran's probably not.

Suppose I told you that God would accept into His heaven one who practiced Christianity but didn't believe in Christ. This is basically the source of much of our problems in theology today -- that the church has undergone the "Constantinian change" whereby she includes within her definition of "chosen" or "elect" all who they persuade religiously or compel politically to be baptized or confirmed into her membership. Well, it so happens that after one is already "elect" or "chosen," the next job is to "sanctify such with the truth, Thy Word is truth." In other words, they got into the church "by some other way" (say, by "works," or "election" rather than by Christ)! What they neglect -- the "True Gate" -- CAN hurt them!

I have no disagreement with you there...but then who hear teaches such a thing. Calvinists certainly don't (excluding hyper-Cists possibly)?

 

[MB]

Hi Skypair;
I believe Paul agreed with you it certainly seems by this verse below he is speaking of three distinct entities.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
MB

 

[dwmoeller1]

Sorry, perhaps I can clear it up. 3 Persons ARE God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, right? At some point, my biblical theology says that the latter 2 will be "subsumed" back into God Who is the overarching Identity of all 3 just as our soul is the overarching identity of who we are. Does that help? I'm not sure if that answers or not but it is more information. :laugh:

Well it does help to explain your system...but it raises more questions.
How do you, Biblically, come to the conclusion that
a) the Father is the overarching identity of God
b) and that the Son and Spirit will be subsumed back into God?

First off, I think you can find the scripture unless you are SDA, right? As for the second comment, that would not be fair of you to say but you may look in my other posts to see if it holds up or not.

If I could find the Scripture, then I wouldn't have asked. Humor me, the newbie, and give some Scripture. As to the latter, if the Scripture remains absent, then it seems quite reasonable to say. Of course, I realize I don't see the full picture of your position as yet, so I am merely speaking of my impression. However, evasive statements like the former sentence does reinforce that perception.

Was that God that came down and took the form of man -- or was Jesus a man?

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He was neither simply God in man's form, nor simply man. He was fully both.

I've often thought this, dw -- see if you agree. The "book of life" is actually our soul/conscience replaying our choice of Christ. The "book of works" is also our soul/conscience that will be replayed at the judgment seat. So yes, everything of the spirit and body feeds into that "account" in the soul. And that soul is "pure of conscience" of sin if we are "in Christ." (Judgment is a reconciliation of our books with God's.)

Seems like a unnecessary construct which doesn't really address the question. Does the Spirit work on the conscience (which, if I understand correctly, you say is the soul)? If you insist on your above answer, then I ask,
a) How do you assert that the book of life is your soul?
b) what do you refer to by the "book of works"? And how do you assert that it is also our soul?

Read Heb 4:12, dw. Paul says that the Word can divide soul from spirit. We, because we have the word, can detect how.

True...but that doesn't create a consistent distinction between soul and spirit. It could be reasonably explained in terms of a bipartite view as well. The larger question is what does the testimony of Scripture show - is that distinction maintained? If it is not, then there it does not really support the tripartite view. Since you admit that Scripture does not maintain this disctinction (ie. you say Scripture is ambiguous), then why insist on it in based on 2 verses when
a) the rest of Scripture doesn't maintain the distinction
b) there are other reasonable explanations for the distinction in those two verses which fall within the bipartite view.

The distinction in those verses seems to be more along the line of a mind/will/emotions sort of distinction. Sure, we often distinguish between but we don't claim that this makes us a 5 part person - physical, soul, mind, will and emotions. Why insist on that when it comes to the soul/spirit distinction?

The "sanctification of the lost" would be the problem. God won't accept that! Yet this is precisely what observant Catholics through fleshly works and true Calvinists through the spirit attempt to do without paying the least attention to whether one is justified.

So the bipartite view causes a problem for the concept of 'santification of the lost'. How so? God won't accept what? How do Cists ignore whether one is justified - and what does this have to do with the bipartite view?

 

[dwmoeller1]

OK, do you see 3 distinct "ministries" for God, Christ, and Holy Spirit (I would suggest justification, sanctification, and glorification)? If so and there are not to 3 distinct counterparts in man, do you not see an imbalance?

skypair

Where does Scripture suggest there should be a balance between those concepts?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Hi Skypair;
I believe Paul agreed with you it certainly seems by this verse below he is speaking of three distinct entities.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
MB

I think we would all agree that, viewed alone, the verse certainly could be used to suggest 3 distinct entities.

However since
a) Scripture as a whole doesn't seem to recognize that distinction
b) there are other reasonable explanations of the apparent distinction
then this verse would not be sufficient to support the tripartite view.