.
Glorydaz
Ahuli’s idea of soul sleep needs a thread of its own. I don’t think that it is something that has any bearing upon whether man is tripartite or not.
““I'm not sure what you're claiming I've "bought into". I certainly don't see Witness Lee or Watchman Nee as the head of a cult.â€â€
You brought the word “cult†into the picture in an earlier post. Apparently, I misunderstood what you were referring to.
Andrew Murray is one of many who is in the line that believes in the tripartite man. That there are many who believe in the idea of a Tripartite man doesn’t mean that it is true. Half of the Christian community are members of the Roman Catholic Church. That denomination believes that man is dipartite. And a great many Protestants agree with them. Doesn’t mean that it is any more true than the idea of a tripartite man.
““What I see is you claiming you have spiritual understanding and those who don't agree with you are relying on their human understanding. Naturally, I disagree with your take on that.â€â€
Me too. I didn’t intend to imply that at all. I just pointed out the fact that in modern Christianity, there is a definite tendency to rely too heavily on the mind apart from the Spirit. I think that we agree on that. Christianity is divided today. We surely can’t blame the one God or the one Spirit or the one head of the Body for that division. I blame the tendency of Christians to walk by the mind rather than by the Spirit. And it is my opinion, note opinion, that limiting the human nature to a dichotomy or a trichotomy is due more to mental acuity than to Spirit.
““I have derived my understanding of Scripture by listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit.â€â€
Isn’t it interesting that so many of us seem to believe that we are guided by the Spirit even though what we believe is often quite diverse. The diversity of belief among those who claim to be guided by the same Holy Spirit has always been a conundrum for me.
““It's hardly a "new understanding" since the Bible was inspired by God and says quite plainly man has a body, soul and spirit. â€â€
The fact that the Bible says that we have these three items does not necessarily mean that we are limited to a trichotomy. It also says that we have a heart. That makes us a quad-chotomy or whatever. That is, unless we decide that the heart is a part of one of the three elements that we have already predetermined constitute man. I believe that the various elements that make up man are connected, but not in a sense that can be systematized. I continue to claim that the human being is too complex to be understood like we can understand the physical elements of a rock.
““It's supported by many verses...and they speak for themselves. This may be new to you, but it's not new at all to many believers from Paul to this present day. It's simply an area that many pastors ignore to the detriment of the assembly they shepherd. It's why we have so many in the church who are soulish...unable to recognize they are still relying on their "old man". In their attempts to "reason out" scripture they ignore the very truths tucked inside such words as "dividing of the soul and spirit...joints and marrow. There must be a dividing of the natural man from the spiritual, or we can never know what it means to deny "self".â€â€
Now it sounds as if it is “you claiming you have spiritual understanding and those who don't agree with you are relying on their human understandingâ€. I do not deny that the three elements included as the emphasis in the tripartite man concept actually exist in man. My point is that man is more complex than the limited tripartite man approach that attempts to fit other parts such as mind and heart into one of the three main elements of the tripartite man idea.
I still believe that 1Thessalonians 5:23 is a reference to the ekklesia as a corporate group rather than to just the individuals that are a part of the ekklesia, for the reasons that I gave previously. Protestants tend to have an individualistic view of the Bible. I just happen to disagree with that approach. I believe in a corporate approach to the Bible, a Bible that sometimes emphasizes certain matters relating to certain individuals.
I have to say that, in my opinion, when we try to put limitations on Biblical concepts and on the nature of God and man, it is a sure sign of walking according to the systematizing nature of the human mind alone. The description of the Tabernacle is very systematized, but from God’s point of view. And it was systematically presented because it is intended to be an earthly pattern that shows a heavenly reality. And Romans appears to systematize the Gospel. But when you read it carefully, you will see that what seems to a treatise by a theologian, is actually a description of aspects of life in Christ, something that can’t be systematized. It can only be lived. Paul described other aspects in his other writings. Paul presented these aspects in a logical format as according to his education, but not so systematic in the sense that we normally use the word.
““The natural man lives without the renewed spirit and the renewed mind...he leans on his own understanding. The spiritual man has the mind of Christ and subjects his will and thinking to the Holy Spirit that indwells him. The Word is the divider...the discerner of the natural from the spiritual. The Word is not only the divider but the transformer...as our mind is renewed we discern the old man's way of going and are conformed to the image of God.â€â€
I do not equate the Bible with the Word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ in this New Testament Age. The Bible is merely a collection of writings that can only be interpreted on their own. The words of the Bible only have real meaning to those who understand them through the same Spirit through whom they came. From this perspective, I agree with what you said.
The “new man†is not limited to individual believers. We are to put it on. That implies that it is something that is not ordinarily a part of us as individuals or of humanity as a whole. My understanding of the one new man is that it is a reference to the new creation in Jesus Christ or humanity in Christ. The old man is humanity in Adam. The humanity that is in Adam is something that we are to put off. That implies that it is something that is a part of us as individuals and humanity as a whole. But the emphasis on the new humanity and on humanity in Adam as a corporate emphasis.
““Man is very complex...it's hardly "new age" to see that man is created in God's image and we are His temple. We have the outer court (body), inner court (soul) and the holy of holies (spirit)...with the Spirit of God dwelling in the whole of man when we're redeemed. â€â€
Well, at least we agree that man is very complex. And I think that I see a couple of things that maybe is a clue as to why what we believe about humanity is different.
I am a heretic, at least according to the witch hunters, I mean cult hunters. I do NOT believe that God is a Trinity. Let me explain.
I believe that God is a kind of being in the same sense that humanity is a kind of being. The kind of being that is God created the kind of being that is humanity in its own image. Humanity is not, nor was it ever intended to be, composed of merely three persons. That is one thing that is a clue to me that God is not merely a Trinity.
The “seven Spirits of God†spoken of in Revelation is understood in every way except literally. I believe that the seven Spirits of God are just as literal as are the seven ekklesia with which they are associated. If there is a Spirit of God associated with every ekklesia, then it is safe to assume that God is not a Trinity. Rather, God includes a myriad of persons. As far as what the Trinitarians say about the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the person of the Pure or Holy Spirit, I fully concur. Where we differ is that they limit God to a Trinity, and the Pure or Holy Spirit as being the only Spirit of God.
So far as I know, I am alone in my belief that God is a multi-personed God. But you can see why I can NOT agree that the Trinitarian idea of God is evidence that the human person is tripartite.
I definitely believe that the tabernacle portrays a reality that is in heaven. Just as both Exodus and Hebrews claim. And it is apparent that it is in some way connected to the New Jerusalem and with the expression that is the ekklesia. But I certainly do not see any correlation between the Tabernacle and a supposed idea of the tripartite man, just because the tabernacle initially happens to be divided into three parts. Today, there are only two parts since the veil in the temple has been torn by the death of Christ. So again you can see why this is another matter that I can NOT agree is evidence that the human person is tripartite or dipartite.
We agree that man is complex. What we disagree about is whether or not God and man is too complex to fit into any man made concept such as the Trinity or the tripartite man. Neither are systematically taught in the Bible.
By the way, Please go to the “How are we made right with God†thread and answer the question that I left there. I thought we were in agreement about the matter of being Justified by the faith of Christ. But what you said on this thread implies that it is not so. Please clarify your position.
JamesG
Glorydaz
Ahuli’s idea of soul sleep needs a thread of its own. I don’t think that it is something that has any bearing upon whether man is tripartite or not.
““I'm not sure what you're claiming I've "bought into". I certainly don't see Witness Lee or Watchman Nee as the head of a cult.â€â€
You brought the word “cult†into the picture in an earlier post. Apparently, I misunderstood what you were referring to.
Andrew Murray is one of many who is in the line that believes in the tripartite man. That there are many who believe in the idea of a Tripartite man doesn’t mean that it is true. Half of the Christian community are members of the Roman Catholic Church. That denomination believes that man is dipartite. And a great many Protestants agree with them. Doesn’t mean that it is any more true than the idea of a tripartite man.
““What I see is you claiming you have spiritual understanding and those who don't agree with you are relying on their human understanding. Naturally, I disagree with your take on that.â€â€
Me too. I didn’t intend to imply that at all. I just pointed out the fact that in modern Christianity, there is a definite tendency to rely too heavily on the mind apart from the Spirit. I think that we agree on that. Christianity is divided today. We surely can’t blame the one God or the one Spirit or the one head of the Body for that division. I blame the tendency of Christians to walk by the mind rather than by the Spirit. And it is my opinion, note opinion, that limiting the human nature to a dichotomy or a trichotomy is due more to mental acuity than to Spirit.
““I have derived my understanding of Scripture by listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit.â€â€
Isn’t it interesting that so many of us seem to believe that we are guided by the Spirit even though what we believe is often quite diverse. The diversity of belief among those who claim to be guided by the same Holy Spirit has always been a conundrum for me.
““It's hardly a "new understanding" since the Bible was inspired by God and says quite plainly man has a body, soul and spirit. â€â€
The fact that the Bible says that we have these three items does not necessarily mean that we are limited to a trichotomy. It also says that we have a heart. That makes us a quad-chotomy or whatever. That is, unless we decide that the heart is a part of one of the three elements that we have already predetermined constitute man. I believe that the various elements that make up man are connected, but not in a sense that can be systematized. I continue to claim that the human being is too complex to be understood like we can understand the physical elements of a rock.
““It's supported by many verses...and they speak for themselves. This may be new to you, but it's not new at all to many believers from Paul to this present day. It's simply an area that many pastors ignore to the detriment of the assembly they shepherd. It's why we have so many in the church who are soulish...unable to recognize they are still relying on their "old man". In their attempts to "reason out" scripture they ignore the very truths tucked inside such words as "dividing of the soul and spirit...joints and marrow. There must be a dividing of the natural man from the spiritual, or we can never know what it means to deny "self".â€â€
Now it sounds as if it is “you claiming you have spiritual understanding and those who don't agree with you are relying on their human understandingâ€. I do not deny that the three elements included as the emphasis in the tripartite man concept actually exist in man. My point is that man is more complex than the limited tripartite man approach that attempts to fit other parts such as mind and heart into one of the three main elements of the tripartite man idea.
I still believe that 1Thessalonians 5:23 is a reference to the ekklesia as a corporate group rather than to just the individuals that are a part of the ekklesia, for the reasons that I gave previously. Protestants tend to have an individualistic view of the Bible. I just happen to disagree with that approach. I believe in a corporate approach to the Bible, a Bible that sometimes emphasizes certain matters relating to certain individuals.
I have to say that, in my opinion, when we try to put limitations on Biblical concepts and on the nature of God and man, it is a sure sign of walking according to the systematizing nature of the human mind alone. The description of the Tabernacle is very systematized, but from God’s point of view. And it was systematically presented because it is intended to be an earthly pattern that shows a heavenly reality. And Romans appears to systematize the Gospel. But when you read it carefully, you will see that what seems to a treatise by a theologian, is actually a description of aspects of life in Christ, something that can’t be systematized. It can only be lived. Paul described other aspects in his other writings. Paul presented these aspects in a logical format as according to his education, but not so systematic in the sense that we normally use the word.
““The natural man lives without the renewed spirit and the renewed mind...he leans on his own understanding. The spiritual man has the mind of Christ and subjects his will and thinking to the Holy Spirit that indwells him. The Word is the divider...the discerner of the natural from the spiritual. The Word is not only the divider but the transformer...as our mind is renewed we discern the old man's way of going and are conformed to the image of God.â€â€
I do not equate the Bible with the Word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ in this New Testament Age. The Bible is merely a collection of writings that can only be interpreted on their own. The words of the Bible only have real meaning to those who understand them through the same Spirit through whom they came. From this perspective, I agree with what you said.
The “new man†is not limited to individual believers. We are to put it on. That implies that it is something that is not ordinarily a part of us as individuals or of humanity as a whole. My understanding of the one new man is that it is a reference to the new creation in Jesus Christ or humanity in Christ. The old man is humanity in Adam. The humanity that is in Adam is something that we are to put off. That implies that it is something that is a part of us as individuals and humanity as a whole. But the emphasis on the new humanity and on humanity in Adam as a corporate emphasis.
““Man is very complex...it's hardly "new age" to see that man is created in God's image and we are His temple. We have the outer court (body), inner court (soul) and the holy of holies (spirit)...with the Spirit of God dwelling in the whole of man when we're redeemed. â€â€
Well, at least we agree that man is very complex. And I think that I see a couple of things that maybe is a clue as to why what we believe about humanity is different.
I am a heretic, at least according to the witch hunters, I mean cult hunters. I do NOT believe that God is a Trinity. Let me explain.
I believe that God is a kind of being in the same sense that humanity is a kind of being. The kind of being that is God created the kind of being that is humanity in its own image. Humanity is not, nor was it ever intended to be, composed of merely three persons. That is one thing that is a clue to me that God is not merely a Trinity.
The “seven Spirits of God†spoken of in Revelation is understood in every way except literally. I believe that the seven Spirits of God are just as literal as are the seven ekklesia with which they are associated. If there is a Spirit of God associated with every ekklesia, then it is safe to assume that God is not a Trinity. Rather, God includes a myriad of persons. As far as what the Trinitarians say about the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the person of the Pure or Holy Spirit, I fully concur. Where we differ is that they limit God to a Trinity, and the Pure or Holy Spirit as being the only Spirit of God.
So far as I know, I am alone in my belief that God is a multi-personed God. But you can see why I can NOT agree that the Trinitarian idea of God is evidence that the human person is tripartite.
I definitely believe that the tabernacle portrays a reality that is in heaven. Just as both Exodus and Hebrews claim. And it is apparent that it is in some way connected to the New Jerusalem and with the expression that is the ekklesia. But I certainly do not see any correlation between the Tabernacle and a supposed idea of the tripartite man, just because the tabernacle initially happens to be divided into three parts. Today, there are only two parts since the veil in the temple has been torn by the death of Christ. So again you can see why this is another matter that I can NOT agree is evidence that the human person is tripartite or dipartite.
We agree that man is complex. What we disagree about is whether or not God and man is too complex to fit into any man made concept such as the Trinity or the tripartite man. Neither are systematically taught in the Bible.
By the way, Please go to the “How are we made right with God†thread and answer the question that I left there. I thought we were in agreement about the matter of being Justified by the faith of Christ. But what you said on this thread implies that it is not so. Please clarify your position.
JamesG