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

Fair enough but let me ask this; What part of man is the soul? It seems to me that because the body God created wasn't called a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into him. So with out God's breath we didn't have a soul. The spirit of man is another thing. Is this spirit the breath of life that God gave Adam? Must be! together the spirit and the body is the living soul. Separated is there still a soul? I believe there is.
Christ said;
Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The spirit of man isn't mentioned here but it must exist. The parable of Lazrus and the richman, the richman was in hell and was conscious of his surroundings. Was his tomb on fire? Was it his soul ?,or was it his body in hell? It seems that by breathing breath into man that it actually created something else called a soul.
I'm amazed that there are people who don't see any difference between the soul and the body. Christ certainly did. Your body can be killed by man but the soul is another matter.
MB
PS pardon my terrible gramar today

 

It sounds as if you are saying that justification is by faith and that it is immediate and real. No disagreements there.

Agreed. Only a hyper-calvinist would hold otherwise.

It seems you argue only against the hyper-calvinist position. If so, I am with you on that.
However
1) no true Calvinist creates a distinction between choosing and election in the way you suggest. They would hold that in one sense, we are passive receivers of the power to act, but any good Cist would readily affirm that in another sense, we are active receivers as well. Any elect who does not respond actively to the grace of God is not a true elect.
2) no true Calvinist would ever presume to say who the true elect are and who aren't. In fact, they go to great lengths to differentiate between those who are truly elect and those who give evidence of being elect. No good Cist ever mixes the two.
3) and certainly no good Cist would ever presume to attribute santification to any but God
4) How can they invite people to be saved/justified when it is all of God? Because using the preaching of the gospel is the means by which God has chosen to bring the elect to Him. The Cist doesn't know who is elect or not thus they preach to all.
Good Cists are some of the most vibrant evangelists because of this. As Spurgeon is quoted to have said "If God would have painted a yellow stripe on the backs of the elect I would go around lifting shirts. But since He didn’t I must preach `whosoever will’ and when `whosoever’ believes I know he is one of the elect.”

Ok, I got clearly the part about you disagreeing with Cists. However, I still don't see the logical connection between your tripartite view and the difficulties you assert. In small words and short sentences (for my benefit) please explain the logical connection between your soteriology and either a) how it necessitates the tripartite view and/or b) how it is in conflict with the bipartite view.

 

If the soul is defined as spirit and body together, then the soul could not exist apart from the body. Yet then you assert that the soul can exist apart from the body. So is the soul the spirit and body together or not? You can't have it both ways.

But to answer your question:
There are two parts of man - the material and the immaterial. The immaterial is the 'real' you (although it is never the "complete" you without a body). This immaterial part is multifaceted and can be described in numerous ways. Distinctions can be made but they are useful only to describe different aspect of one thing - the immaterial you.

Soul and spirit are fairly nebulous concepts. They are used sometimes to create distinctions between different facets of the immaterial you, sometimes to emphasize certain aspects of you, and sometimes used interchangably to broadly refer to the 'real' you. So what is the soul? Well that all depends on context. Its like asking "What is the heart?" It is facile to say that the heart is the emotions since it is used in so many different ways in Scripture.

In short, the soul is refers to either
a) the immaterial/real you - in which the soul is in reference to a 'thing'
b) or it refers merely to some aspect of the immaterial you - in which case it is not in reference to a thing, but instead a concept.

Must it? It only must if one assumes a real distinction exists. Otherwise, 'soul' here could easily refer to the immaterial part of man. It would, after all, fit the context perfectly - fear not one who can detroy the material part of you, but the one who can destroy the material and immaterial part.

It was the immaterial part of him. The immaterial part of man can exist without the body (although it is incomplete in that state). There is no reason to further distinguish between it by asking 'where is the spirit'.

There is most certainly a difference between the body and soul. It is the distinction between soul and spirit which is in question.

 

Not to be combative or anything but....when did two verses constitute "Scripture as a whole"?

 

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. As to the eternal existence of the Son, I will want to get into that as well...but I will save it for another thread for now.

Even if I grant that, how does this lead to the conclusion that it is the Spirit and Son who are subsumed but not the Father?

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.

That didn't make Him any less God. It was merely a reflection of position within the Godhead.

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?

And again, does the Spirit work on the conscience?

What do you mean - "where necessary"? Either they are distinct as you say or they are not. If they are, then the concept of 'where necessary' is fallacious. If it is not always necessary to maintain the distinction, then they are not distinct in the way you mean.

Agreed. And if God doesn't always keep them distinct, then we ought to find out how and why, don't you agree? So again - Does Scripture always keep them distinct?? If not, why? Answer that and then I can move onto a discussion of the specific verses.

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?

Maybe we are operating under essentially different definitions of justifications and/or sanctification?

a) Cist never try to sanctify anyone - as with justification, they consider sanctification to be 'all of God'
b) and they don't hold that any but the truly elect can be sanctified.

Maybe you have a misunderstanding of Cism...or maybe you have been exposed only to the hyper variety?

 

Hi dwmoeller1;

But you believe the soul and spirit are the same thing, When the soul can also be the body. I'm only trying to understand here. If the Soul can mean either the body (in the OT)or the spirit in the (NT) and they also have there separate meanings you have to admit that get's rather confussing doesn't it?
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
If the spirit returns to the God who gave it where does the soul go to?.
My Point is you can't really have one with out the other. Since God is a trinity then man must be as well. After all we are created in His image.
I've heard the trinity explained in these terms. Just as God is the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit man is body soul and spirit.
Paul acknowledges the three as separate;

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.
However your coment on this verse below;

It certainly can be and you have nothing to the contrary but your opinions thus far. Would you give a reason other than your own logic as to why we shouldn't take Paul at his word.
Jameison Fausset and Brown explained it this way which is what I agree with;
"whole — A different Greek word from "wholly." Translate, "entire"; with none of the integral parts wanting [Tittmann]. It refers to man in his normal integrity, as originally designed; an ideal which shall be attained by the glorified believer. All three, spirit, soul, and body, each in its due place, constitute man "entire." The "spirit" links man with the higher intelligences of heaven, and is that highest part of man which is receptive of the quickening Holy Spirit (1Co_15:47). In the unspiritual, the spirit is so sunk under the lower animal soul (which it ought to keep under) that such are termed "animal" (English Version. "sensual," having merely the body of organized matter, and the soul the immaterial animating essence), having not the Spirit (compare 1Co_2:14; see on 1Co_15:44; see on 1Co_15:46-48; Joh_3:6). The unbeliever shall rise with an animal (soul-animated) body, but not like the believer with a spiritual (spirit-endued) body like Christ’s (Rom_8:11)."
MB

 

"psuche" is the koine word for soul.

HankD

 

I don't see an imbalance at all since we are not God. Being formed in God's "image" doesn't mean we share in all of God's characteristics including being trichotomous. If we mirrored God perfectly, we would be gods.

 

Bad argument webdog: If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken... John 10:35.


john.

 

Huh

 

You said if we mirrored God perfectly then we would be gods. That is what God calls us so we must mirror God perfectly. Like I said, "It's a bad argument."

(We are flesh and spirit end of story. Just to put the record straight.) I can't remember ever interupting an argument I was having with myself.
Ok?

john.

 

I'm talking about creation...how we were created. We weren't created "gods"...identical to God the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

I told you it was a bad argument didn't I? Strange neither of you know your bible very well.

john.