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

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.

 

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​

 

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.

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"?

I dont' follow. Please explain.

 

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.

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.

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

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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'.

 

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?

I will come back to that later.

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

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

 

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

 

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

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?

 

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

 

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.