Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | stjohn | 214109 | ||
bibleman... Here is something I hope will help you with your understanding of what a soul is. With some added note's on spirit. The line between Soul and Spirit is hardly a clear one: Soul; is sometimes said to be that part of us that is our consciousness, our wants/desires, our feelings, our very thoughts; that which we perceive as, ‘self’, is sometimes said to be our soul, it has been called, the seat of appetite. Spirit; sometimes is used to mean breath, so indicating that which is vital to life, also sometimes used in describing a tendency toward a particular behavior, (e.g. he has a lying spirit), or, a leaning toward, or, an untruthfulness in spirit. Spirit and soul have both been looked at as, that part of man that is unseen and sentient, yet consciously aware of the fact that we are alive, and, perhaps, even the very thing that is life itself. (Of course true life is found only in Jesus Christ) Just what are the tangible differences between the two? Scripture pants a pretty fuzzy line at best. And, while some commentary, tend to keep the line between them, though it remains quite unclear, others seem to wipe the line out altogether. John --"While outwardly man is a physical being, living and moving in a material universe, there is also a spiritual reality. Finite, physical creatures could never truly relate to an infinite, spiritual being so when God created man, he formed yet a third facet to our nature, a spirit. The soul, comprised of our thoughts, emotions and will, combined inextricably with this spirit to form a creature unlike all others, higher than the animals and a little lower than the angels; Unique in all Creation. It is this amalgamation of spirit and soul that survives our physical death. It is the essence of who we are as a person and will never cease to exist.” – gospel.htm: Part of http://www.tlogical.net Copyright ©2005 John M. Fritzius --“Scripture uses the word "soul" and "spirit" interchangeably. For example, in John 12:27, our Lord says, "now is my soul troubled." However, in a very similar context, in the next chapter, John tells us that Jesus was "troubled in spirit" (13:21). There are a number of places where it is used in Hebrew Parallelism; e.g., Luke 1:46-47. Dead people are both spoken of as "spirits" (Hebrew 12:23; 1 Peter 3:19) and "souls" (Revelation 6:9; 20:4). At death, Scripture says either that the "soul" departs or the "spirit" departs (cf Genesis 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46; Ecclesiastes 12:7; John 19:30; Acts 7:59; etc.). The Bible says that the "soul" can sin or the "spirit" can sin (cf 1 Peter 1:22; Revelation 18:14; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 7:34; etc.). Indeed, everything that the soul is said to do, the spirit is also said to do and vice versa. This includes thinking, feeling, choosing, and worshiping. In Jewish thinking human beings are not bipartite or tripartite creatures. Dividing of the various components is such a difficult thing, that no human can untangle the parts or even find the dividing lines. (Hence the surgical imagery of Hebrews 4:12.) Just as today we'd not be able to find the dividing line between our minds and our bodies. The trichotomy of man was an idea introduced by the Greeks -- Aristotle in particular. (Not that it isn't "true" -- only that it has its origins from extra-Biblical sources.) Later Gnostic thinking liked this idea, as they deemed that pure reason was higher, more noble, and distinct from baser attributes. Even later, Augustine argued that the image of God's triune nature was reflected in a triune nature of man. The Roman Church still holds to this perspective, although with a bit of a Gnostic twist. Even our language reflects some of our opinions regarding the components of a man. The ancient Hebrew thought of the heart the same way the average American thinks of the brain. The modern man does not expect to cut into a brain and find the real person. In the same way, the Hebrew would not have expected to cut into a heart and reveal the real person. Yet both understand that a blob of tissue exists, but both tend to think of it as somehow containing a person's essence. This is a deep and complex subject. Theologians and philosophers for multiple millennia have discussed it. The Scripture tells us things that we could not have known by introspection. However, it does not entirely settle all of the questions. What we can say definitively, though, is that man is a being who thinks, feels, acts, and communicates. Furthermore, we know that the soul/spirit can be separated from the body in death, but that that is an abnormal state -- one that won't exist when God restores creation, for every soul/spirit will be joined with their resurrected body.” -- DocTrinsograce |
||||||
2 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | bibleman12 | 214119 | ||
Hi John, Thanks for the excerpts concerning the soul. I am familiar with the idea that the soul is the seat of the emotions and would agree. Have you read the book "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee? It is one of the best books out there that deals with the Spirit, Soul and Body of man. |
||||||
3 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | stjohn | 214121 | ||
Hi bibleman... No, I haven't read anything by, Watchman (Bell Ringer) Nee. After doing some research on him, I've rather shied away from his writings, though I'm sure he must have got some things right. Her is an excerpt from, (apologeticsindex.org) that you may find enlightening. John --"Many Christians uncritically accept the writings of Watchman Nee even though few know anything about his background. Many are impressed by the volume of his work and the dogmatism and feeling of deep spirituality that characterize his writings. His ideas and books still influence charismatics, fundamentalists and people in between. Space allows a listing of only a few of the problems in Nee's teachings: Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics. In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru. One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, "Words alone cannot be considered God's Word." In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the "reality behind it," using what he calls "Holy Spirit memory" and "presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words" will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real. Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "the Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continues, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, our words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210, that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous. Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving "revelations" in his "Holy Spirit memory" and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a "Holy Spirit memory." When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way, The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God and other groups. The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee."-- http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n01.html |
||||||
4 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | bibleman12 | 214122 | ||
Hi John, Sounds like the folks at http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n01.html know very little about Watchman Nee. His writings were of course written in Chinese and sometimes in the translation things are lost. You would do well to actually read a man's works before you make a decision to reject him. Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. |
||||||
5 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | DocTrinsograce | 214125 | ||
Hi, bibleman12... I've read at least two of Watchman Nee's books, although not the one you were citing... Reading them did, indeed, help me make the decision to reject them. Of course, if I had had the wisdom to hear the criticisms of Nee by those more learned than myself, I'd have been able to spend my time reading things of a more doctrinally sound nature. Proverbs 18:13 experimentally borne out, I guess. Nonetheless, given my experience with "The Normal Christian Life," I think I'm safe in preemptively rejecting "The Spiritual Man." In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | bibleman12 | 214129 | ||
HI Doc, I have not read The Normal Christian Life by Nee. Could you share a bit of what you found un-biblical in the book? |
||||||
7 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | azurelaw | 214137 | ||
Dear Bibleman, John and Doc I have to admit that I only realized who Watchman Nee is when I read about your posts and (by curiosity) check on the web this afternoon for his Chinese name which is very familiar with me and has gained a great reputation among Chinese Christian circles historically. Based ONLY on what I have known about his famous name, I have not considered him being viewed as a cult, and for this I am pretty surprised. What I know about Watchman Nee is just his name. Neither have I read about him nor any of his books. So, I may claim that knowledge-wise, I would not have any bias for or against him or his teaching. Yet, since he is a Chinese christian, I sentimentally hope that he would not be classified as heresy or cult. I think I should get either one of his books (The CHINESE edition of The Normal Christian Life or The Spiritual Man) to read for my better discernment :-) However, for the time being, I have googled and read about his testimony and a brief critque or commentary of Nee's theology (they are Chinese articles). Here are my temporal findings: 1/ His testimony It shows a great tendency and stress on feeling, special indvidual revelation from God and personal experience. This leads me to association him with charismatic and mysticism. However, it is also interesting to see, in his testimony, what he had experienced was the result of his total dependence and faith in God as he claimed. Another interesting thing is: when I also read some of his poems or short poetic diary writings in the supplement, I found them pretty biblical and scripturally grounded. 2/ Nee's theology (a brief analysis) The writer mentioned that Nee's proposition of the hirachical relationship of the pluralsim (correct term? please correct me if wrong) - spirit, soul and body - is unbiblical and too radical or extreme. Rooted in this theology concerning the spirit, soul and body, Nee limited a Christian's self-denial process onto the "soul". This is a narrowed view and ignores the fact that spirit and soul are unseparable. Another problem of Nee's teaching is his view on local church planting and its polity. Nee insisted one church one region and he strongly refuted and rejected denominationalism, thus caused more division instead of better unity. The above is just a bit of my findings and I definitely need to search more. Shalom Azure (a Chinese sister in Christ) |
||||||
8 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | bibleman12 | 214159 | ||
Hi Azure Just a couple of points here: If you can get "The Spiritual Man" book by Watchman Nee you will see that for the most part he is right on target. The idea that some have that "spirit and soul are unseparable" is not Biblical. Scripture teaches us in Hebrews 4:12 that the soul and spirit may be divided. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Another problem of Nee's teaching is his view on local church planting and its polity. Nee insisted one church one region and he strongly refuted and rejected denominationalism, thus caused more division instead of better unity. While I would agree that denominations have done more to divide the body of Christ than most demons have done... The followers of Nee that I have met do seem to be overboard on home churches and the like. |
||||||
9 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | DocTrinsograce | 214216 | ||
Dear Bibleman12... You wrote, "While I would agree that denominations have done more to divide the body of Christ than most demons have done..." (sic) Baptists are, historically, congregational rather than denominational -- a position we've suffered much from over the years -- but even I find that assertion of yours to be painting with a mighty broad brush! Please demonstrate that the Spirit leading you is divine by refraining from such clearly divisive statements. Aside from being contrary to the explicit wishes of our gracious host -- to which you promised when you joined the forum -- comments like that serve no constructive purpose, nor can they be supported from Scripture. In Him, Doc |
||||||
10 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | bibleman12 | 214218 | ||
Hi Doc, I don't think I know what you are talking about. I certainly don't want to offend anyone. What did I say that offended you? |
||||||
11 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | stjohn | 214223 | ||
Hi bibleman I don't think you've offended anyone. :-) If may, just slip in here with my two cent's... Though we know from seeing how divisive denominationalism can sometimes be that doesn't necessarily mean it's all or even mostly a bad thing. And though some denominations do go pretty far away from Christian orthodoxy. What we call denominationalism can and maybe should be called Congregationalism. And this often just stems from geographical or cultural differences, rather than big divisions or differences in orthodox doctrine. As long as our doctrines and statement of faith are fundamentally sound and don't stray from biblically based theology, there is little reason we cannot reach out to and get along with other Christian denominations. In our town and in many towns and places around the world many do just that and have wonderful relationships with other Congregations in their area with different names on their shingles, and even communicate and cooperate in loving brotherhood with many of them. Anyway, I think thats what we mean by painting with a baud brush. We should be careful with our words. The world already thinks we cant get along because of their view of denominationalism,. But as Christians we can most often see it as much less divisive then they do. John |
||||||
12 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | azurelaw | 214224 | ||
Amen, brother John. Az |
||||||
13 | What would make this allogory? | 1 John 3:2 | stjohn | 214225 | ||
:-) | ||||||