Similar to TWI, there are other churches that will not accept any questioning of doctrine (or is it dogma?).
When the lead pastor says something is, well, then it is and you can't believe anything else without being a heretic. Of course, there are some doctrines that are foundational and there cannot be a difference of opinion without being non-Christian (e.g. Jesus is the Son of God and the savior). But there are others which are unclear even after research.
Topics including: what happens when you die (immediately not after the resurrection), the nature of hell, and, gasp, whether there is a trinity as defined by mainstream christianity or not.
With respect to the pneuma and psuche discussion, I do not believe they synonymous from what I know of the Bible.
Of course, I haven't gone to seminary school and do not have to defend the ordained doctrine of an organization either.
Do I think this pastor has an agenda? Not in so many words. Do I think he would defend the position of the organization of churches to which his church belongs, even in light of being shown potential error? Yes.
The main problem I see is that in this church there is little thought given that the Bible original text were not written in English within an American culture. Yes, truth transcends language and culture, but to get to an understanding of the truth being communicated, I believe you need to know how words were used in the text from which the Bible you are reading was translated and what did expressions mean culturally.
Time to go back and redo a word study done a long time ago on these two words.
It may also be time to move on to another church.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I do appreciate it.
TG
I doubt it's with an agenda.
Contrary to what vpw said, it's possible for 2 words to be, in effect, synonymous.
"krima" and "krisis", in the Koine Greek, appear to be so, at least from what I found.
The first question is: are psuche and pneuma synonymous?
I believe they are similar concepts, but not identical-and the differences can be profound when that's the case.
If he's saying they are synonymous, I believe he believes that, and is in error believing so.
It's not a shock to me that a pastor, preaching for a living, can make rather elementary errors
when trying to understand the Bible. I don't think a lot of them have good study habits or
understand how to read the Bible for what's on the page. They're trained to preach, and any
other training might be light or missing completely.
You bring up two other words that I need to do some work on. Thanks
It may be time to move to another church, Tom... or it may not. You will probably find that most churches have some degree of "error" (especially if you look through TWI-stained glasses). If nothing else, pretty much all churches will be trinitarian and promote the "Jesus is God" doctrine. Look at the overall balance of what they teach; can you live with what you believe is doctrinally "off"? What's their response if you raise any queries (meekly, of course!)? How do the people treat each other, and what outreach do they have (genuine outreach and interest in helping community)?
For myself, I attend two different churches regularly. I enjoy the fellowship of others in both. I say a silent "don't think so" at some points, and won't sing all the words of hymns, but I don't raise problems. I see what things the individuals do and how they give their lives; I'm thankful to be a part of such awesome generosity of heart and time - and money.
One of the groups to which I belong (Street Pastors) comprises Christians from a minimum of four different churches (denominations) and when we are out serving the people of our community, we speak of things we have in common - the things that unite us - not the things we disagree about. There are fundamental points that you can agree, one hopes, with any Christian - does any congregation you might join live those fundamental points? If not - it really is time to move on.
My word, I just noticed that I have been supping the coffee in the Cafe for just over 10 years.
And I have come a bloody long way in ten years.
Thanks in no small way, especially initially, to the Cafe patrons, without whom I'd still be wallowing in Waybrain. And thanks also to the community of Christians at my local church, the one that healed me enormously from Waybrain. And also to the community of Christians in the churches I now attend (one of which is a "daughter church" to the first one).
It may be time to move to another church, Tom... or it may not. You will probably find that most churches have some degree of "error" (especially if you look through TWI-stained glasses). If nothing else, pretty much all churches will be trinitarian and promote the "Jesus is God" doctrine. Look at the overall balance of what they teach; can you live with what you believe is doctrinally "off"? What's their response if you raise any queries (meekly, of course!)? How do the people treat each other, and what outreach do they have (genuine outreach and interest in helping community)?
For myself, I attend two different churches regularly. I enjoy the fellowship of others in both. I say a silent "don't think so" at some points, and won't sing all the words of hymns, but I don't raise problems. I see what things the individuals do and how they give their lives; I'm thankful to be a part of such awesome generosity of heart and time - and money.
One of the groups to which I belong (Street Pastors) comprises Christians from a minimum of four different churches (denominations) and when we are out serving the people of our community, we speak of things we have in common - the things that unite us - not the things we disagree about. There are fundamental points that you can agree, one hopes, with any Christian - does any congregation you might join live those fundamental points? If not - it really is time to move on.
Excellent points, and much of what you said I had been thinking already. It is funny, but I have also not sung parts of songs during the services and had those " I don't think so" moments. I also often wonder how many others in that same service also have those moments and just don't say anything.
I try my best to not look at things through TWI colored glasses, and there are some things I have learned that are contrary to what TWI taught.
Maybe the best is to observe and wait until I know what the right move will be. While this church does do some good outreach, the problem will always come down to that point in time when you have to share the Word with someone brand new and my understanding of Jesus is very different from this church's.
I really appreciate the replies.
My word, I just noticed that I have been supping the coffee in the Cafe for just over 10 years.
And I have come a bloody long way in ten years.
Thanks in no small way, especially initially, to the Cafe patrons, without whom I'd still be wallowing in Waybrain. And thanks also to the community of Christians at my local church, the one that healed me enormously from Waybrain. And also to the community of Christians in the churches I now attend (one of which is a "daughter church" to the first one).
Life is GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!:dance:/>/>
Congratulations on the decade of Cafe patronage! :)
I just noticed that I joined the forums in 2002. Oy vey, time does fly.
Biblically, I think soul and spirit are different things, with soul being primarily a word used to describe the fact that something has animated physical life and spirit being more in touch with God himself. All animals have soul. But spirit is unique to humans. I'm confident that Wierwille's distinctions were incorrect, but not as far off the mark (Biblically) as the notion that soul and spirit are synonymous.
I'll signal here that I (obviously) have other thoughts that would not be appropriate for a doctrinal thread, in which we seek Biblical answers. I will post a thought or two in Picking Up Threads in the Questioning Faith subforum.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents (the actual value may vary depending on today's opinion market); I lean toward WordWolf's approach – soul and spirit may represent similar concepts – but in some aspects are quite different. I may be way off base on what I'm about to say so consider this my disclaimer for the following.
Even years after leaving TWI I've found myself at times having to make a conscious effort to "deactivate" the PFAL mindset of assuming everything in Scripture has a mathematical exactness and scientific precision to it. That's my bad – shows you how some things can linger on for a very long time. For me anyway I think I have a tendency to try and press ancient scripture into some state of the art technical manual. I see where folks get the trichotomy of man (body, soul, and spirit) in I Thessalonians 5:23; but then you have the four-part itemization in Mark 12:30 of loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Now is the heart, soul, mind, and strength of Mark 12:30 actually four separate and distinct aspects of a person? I don't know.
While I more or less agree with Raf and Twinky on the difference of soul and spirit and that Hebrews 4:12 does speak of the word of God's powerful cutting-edge capability to separate the two I also believe the soul and spirit are of an inseparably design by God himself. But does that mean they could be separated? Perhaps – if one possessed the means that could duplicate the dissecting process mentioned in Hebrews 4.
I guess in this modern age of quantum mechanics, superstring theory....we've got all kinds of theories coming out the wazoo.... "deconstructing" just about anything is possible. The word "asunder" in Hebrews 4:12 has always grabbed my attention since a similar idea (and the same English word – but I have not checked the Greek on either though) is suggested in Mark concerning marriage – the two shall become one flesh and goes on to say "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Mark 10:9 KJV…I'm not addressing if divorce is biblical but simply the idea that on a practical level divorce is a fairly common occurrence and it doesn't appear to take any extraordinary power other than that of a divorce lawyer.
Having mentioned quantum mechanics I marvel at the fact that man has achieved almost a god-like power to tear asunder the atom. In that regard I sometimes wonder if Colossians 1:17 where it speaks of the supremacy of Christ and says He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together NASB; does that mean Christ's power to make things cohere extends down even to the atomic level? What therefore God has joined together – but even there too man has figured out how to unleash the energy that has been bound up in the atom.
I apologize for speculating all over the map but bear with me - my point in talking about things that are bound / separated is merely that what may appear to be inseparable may also be understood as having distinct components – and could very well be divided if you had the means.
I tend to view soul and spirit in man as inseparable – this does go counter to what's taught in PFAL. It seems man and beast have the same animating force – a soul; however what I believe makes man different from the beast is that "fused" to the soul is the image of God (as mentioned in Genesis 1:27). PFAL taught when man sinned he spiritually died that day – he lost his spirit; I don't believe that – going on verses like Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 it seems likely man has retained the image of God though it is a "tarnished" image now.
A few years ago I read up on "death" in some systematic theologies and biblical encyclopedias and found in some sources that death carried the idea of separation more so than just a cessation of all vital functions. Which brings me back to my previous theme of separation; a person dies and their body is separated from its animating life force. When Adam died spiritually – his spirit was separated from God (along the lines of Raf's usage in post # 9 – man was no longer in touch with God). Adam still had spirit - and though he was once bound to God - he was now estranged.
Once again sorry for the long and meandering post - but one could get lost in speculating about the soul and spirit if they are indeed such an inextricable thing. Carrying this thought a little further on the soul and spirit being bound together – I also tend to think this means the soul is immortal. And though immortal it seems it still needs a physical housing; thinking about the resurrection of Christ – his physical body was missing from the tomb – it had been changed – reconstituted; and in I Corinthians 15:35 to 54 I get the idea that the soul was meant to inhabit a body – whether it's a natural body or a spiritual body. It also appears there is some correlation – be it DNA, or the unique frequency of a person's "superstrings" or some other special identifiers that seem to link a person's natural body to their future spiritual body. And perhaps this involves the "bonding" process of the body to the soul – similar to how the soul and spirit are "bonded" together.
That's all for now…just thinking out loud. No big whoop.
I tend to view soul and spirit in man as inseparable – this does go counter to what's taught in PFAL. It seems man and beast have the same animating force – a soul; however what I believe makes man different from the beast is that "fused" to the soul is the image of God (as mentioned in Genesis 1:27). PFAL taught when man sinned he spiritually died that day – he lost his spirit; I don't believe that – going on verses like Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 it seems likely man has retained the image of God though it is a "tarnished" image now.
Well, that appears to circumvent the issue of distinguishing between soul and spirit... unless (perhaps) you're somehow intending to equate "the image of God" with spirit. But that leaves me wondering what you think or suppose the image of God is, or how it might be (or what it means to be) "tarnished."
A few years ago I read up on "death" in some systematic theologies and biblical encyclopedias and found in some sources that death carried the idea of separation more so than just a cessation of all vital functions. Which brings me back to my previous theme of separation; a person dies and their body is separated from its animating life force. When Adam died spiritually – his spirit was separated from God (along the lines of Raf's usage in post # 9 – man was no longer in touch with God). Adam still had spirit - and though he was once bound to God - he was now estranged.
I suppose much of the difficulty in understanding the reality of what occurred and took place in the Garden of Eden is that it goes so far outside the realm of what PFAL or TWI taught that it simply escapes detection by reason of the binding thought of "I already know it."
Once again sorry for the long and meandering post - but one could get lost in speculating about the soul and spirit if they are indeed such an inextricable thing. Carrying this thought a little further on the soul and spirit being bound together – I also tend to think this means the soul is immortal. And though immortal it seems it still needs a physical housing; thinking about the resurrection of Christ – his physical body was missing from the tomb – it had been changed – reconstituted; and in I Corinthians 15:35 to 54 I get the idea that the soul was meant to inhabit a body – whether it's a natural body or a spiritual body.
I'll have to disagree, as it appears to me that there is a more direct and distinct relationship between the soul and "the life of the flesh" (which is in the blood.) And personally, I don't believe it was ever a part if the original design or plan for Adam to live forever, even if he hadn't sinned. That doesn't say that I think he necessarily had to die. It just means that there was a "change" (at the end of the age) that would eventually take place. (Probably not unlike the change that occurred at the resurrection of Christ.) In other words, if the resurrected Christ is said to be a "quickening spirit," is there any need or place or need in his new body for blood and/or whatever life it relates to? (There's certainly no indication of there being blood present in his new body when he tells Thomas to stick his finger in the holes in his hands, or to thrust his hand in his side...) Problem is, exactly what all "spirit" is or can mean is rather tough to put a finger on.
I've no doubt raised the ire of some already (given I have a knack for it 'round here), and won't go deeper into it, but there's a lot of medical/scientific work that's been done in recent years delving into the workings of the mind, consciousness, and... well... 'nuff said.
Well, that appears to circumvent the issue of distinguishing between soul and spirit... unless (perhaps) you're somehow intending to equate "the image of God" with spirit. But that leaves me wondering what you think or suppose the image of God is, or how it might be (or what it means to be) "tarnished." (SNIP)
(SNIP)
I'll have to disagree, as it appears to me that there is a more direct and distinct relationship between the soul and "the life of the flesh" (which is in the blood.) And personally, I don't believe it was ever a part if the original design or plan for Adam to live forever, even if he hadn't sinned. That doesn't say that I think he necessarily had to die. It just means that there was a "change" (at the end of the age) that would eventually take place. (Probably not unlike the change that occurred at the resurrection of Christ.) In other words, if the resurrected Christ is said to be a "quickening spirit," is there any need or place or need in his new body for blood and/or whatever life it relates to? (There's certainly no indication of there being blood present in his new body when he tells Thomas to stick his finger in the holes in his hands, or to thrust his hand in his side...) Problem is, exactly what all "spirit" is or can mean is rather tough to put a finger on. (SNIP)
on the contrary - it was not my intention to be deceitful or sidestep the issue of distinguishing soul from spirit - since both are intangible and physical descriptions fail to account for such things; my comments were merely a feeble attempt to speculate or suggest soul and spirit are some kind of "ethereal" compound (whatever the heck that is - />)....in some scripture references it appears to me that soul or spirit could be used interchangeably - but maybe that's just me.
-
as far as what i think the image of God is....other than the general assumption that it is spiritual (again - whatever that is),,,i don't know!
as far as what it means for the image of God to be tarnished - that relates to the human condition - our fallen nature which is addressed throughout Scripture.
regarding your PFAL reference that the life is in the blood and the assumption Christ's resurrected body did not have blood might be some more fun things to talk about....but like discussing whether or not the soul .... or spirit exist....or their relationship if they do exist - it's kind of difficult due to the lack of evidence.
on the contrary - it was not my intention to be deceitful or sidestep the issue of distinguishing soul from spirit -
Never said (nor thought) it was deceitful.
regarding your PFAL reference that the life is in the blood and the assumption Christ's resurrected body did not have blood might be some more fun things to talk about....but like discussing whether or not the soul .... or spirit exist....or their relationship if they do exist - it's kind of difficult due to the lack of evidence.
But wtf does PFAL have to do with my referring to what is written in Lev.17:11 or John 20:27?
Well, that appears to circumvent the issue of distinguishing between soul and spirit... unless (perhaps) you're somehow intending to equate "the image of God" with spirit. But that leaves me wondering what you think or suppose the image of God is, or how it might be (or what it means to be) "tarnished." (SNIP)
Never said (nor thought) it was deceitful.
But wtf does PFAL have to do with my referring to what is written in Lev.17:11 or John 20:27?
i guess it was your use of the word circumvent (which i red bolded) that caused me to think you were suggesting i was being deceitful.
i was not sure of your reason for getting into the life is in the blood idea and assumed you were keying off what VP taught in the class about it and suggesting that as the animating principle of man - sorry if i offended you; however - concerning that idea i feel there's a stronger correlation of the soul, breath, and life in Genesis - since it mentions God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul.
i was not sure of your reason for getting into the life is in the blood idea and assumed you were keying off what VP taught in the class about it and suggesting that as the animating principle of man - sorry if i offended you; however - concerning that idea i feel there's a stronger correlation of the soul, breath, and life in Genesis - since it mentions God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul.
Perhaps the post I made in this thread would help alleviate or remove some of the uncertainly concerning my reasoning.
In 1977 David Hahm had a book published entitled The Origins of Stoic Cosmology. In the book, Hahm describes the Stoic ideas that were most common in Greco-Roman culture from about 300 BCE to 200 CE. Hahm's book is not specifically biblical, but it covers ideas behind the language Paul had to use in order to communicate with his readers, such as the people at Corinth.
Stoic cosmology was an extension of the Empedoclean model, that is to say, the cosmos was made up of four elements: earth, water, air and fire arranged in a number of concentric spheres. At the very center was the earthen globe. Surrounding the earth was the watery oceanus, with land sticking up above the waves. The space between the surface of the earth and the orbit of the moon was the realm of the air. From the orbit of the moon to the outermost sphere, the orbit of the fixed stars, was the realm of fire. Beyond the orbit of the fixed stars was nothing but the Void.
This was kind of like the elemental planes of Dungeons & Dragons, except they were more like annuli rather than planes, and they were invented by Empedocles rather than by Michael Moorcock for his Elric stories. A human being was an earth elemental, a genius or demon was an air elemental, and a god was a fire elemental.
Spirit, or pneuma, was the element air (aer) set in motion by being admixed with the element fire (pur). Spirit permeated the entire cosmos, where it performed four functions: hexis, "habit" or "holding" which gives things their form and persistence, phusis, "nature" which gives things like plants growth life, psuche, "soul" which gives sentience, volition and the power to reproduce to things like animals, and nous, "mind" which gives intelligence or rationality to things like human beings, demons and gods.
Spirit operated through "tonic motion," a simultaneous reciprocation, or movement in opposite directions at the same time. Tonic motion was three dimensional, ek or "out from within", and eis or "all the way into". For an individual human being, the seat of spiritual activity was the hegemonikon located in the heart. Spirit flowed through the body with the blood, not by circulation as we know it, but by tonic motion. Sentience was carried from the periphery to the hegemonikon by the inward component (eis) of the flow of spirit, and volition or will was carried to the periphery from the hegemonikon by the outward component (ek) of the flow of spirit. The outward flow of volition was called logos.
The Stoics conceived of the entire cosmos as being a single organism on the largest scale, with a hegemonikon and a periphery of its own. The hegemonikon of the cosmos was vastly superior to any of the gods, who were simply fire elementals.
In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul used the prepositions ek and eis to put "One God, the Father" into the position of the Stoic hegemonikon of the cosmos, making him vastly superior to any of the "many gods and many lords" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8:5. Whenever we read the words psuche (soul) or nous (mind) in 1 Corinthians, we need to keep these Stoic definitions in mind (no pun intended).
At the beginning of 1 Corinthians 12 Paul wrote, "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant." Notice that "gifts" is in italics. It doesn't appear in the Greek. The sentence can be translated properly as "But about the spirituals, siblings, I do not want you to be ignorant." Some scholars believe that one of the factions at Corinth distinguished themselves from the others by regarding themselves as more "spiritual" than anybody else because they spoke in tongues in public more than the others (indecently and out of order). Paul did not say in 1 Corinthians 12:1 what kind of "spirituals" he was writing about. English translators have promiscuously added the word "gifts" because the word charismata occurs very frequently in chapters 12 through 14, but charismata doesn't mean "gifts given," it means "favors done." In verses 12:1 and 14:1, Paul uses "spirituals" ambiguously. It could mean spiritual "matters" or "charismata" or "people". By 14:37 Paul definitely used "spiritual" to mean a Christian who thinks he is more spiritual than other Christians.
Paul didn't define what he meant by "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 12:1, but he didn't have to. He had already defined that in 1 Corinthians 2:1-3:3. In 1 Corinthians 2:16 Paul wrote "But we [the same "we" as in 1 Corinthians 8:6] have the mind [nous -- the function of intelligence or rationality performed by spirit] of Christ." In 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Paul demonstrated that a person can be considered to be "spiritual" to the degree that the person walks in accordance with that mind, and not to the degree that they operate "manifestations" with their flesh.
In 1 Corinthians 2:14 Paul contrasted those who are spiritual with those who are "soulish." Soulish people are those who walk in accordance with the soulish function of spirit (sentience, volition and the power to reproduce) rather than the mind function of spirit (intelligence or rationality).
Most Christians have a hard time accepting that they have the mind of Christ, which comes right along with the gift of the Holy Spirit, because the mind of Christ talks in the first person singular. It says "I" in our streams of consciousness. During the time in which we live, not a spurious "administration of grace," but rather in the overlap between this present evil age and the age to come, we play host to two minds, the unregenerate mind we inherited from Adam and the mind of Christ we received with the Holy Spirit.
Theologians argue about the conflict Paul recorded in Romans 7:14-25. They argue about who the two "I"s are. I think one is the mind of Paul and the other is the mind of Christ.
In Hebrews 4:12 Prisca wrote that the Word of God is alive and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit. I think in this case Prisca meant that our knowledge of the Word of God... not of the dead ink on the dead page, but rather of the living meaning, the volition of the logos that flows outward from the One God through the Lord Jesus by the agency of the Holy Spirit... enables us to tell the difference between the thoughts that are coming to us from the mind we inherited from Adam (the soul) and the mind of Christ (the Spirit).
Steve, your posts are always challenging and thought-provoking.
Totally agree that we have to think with the background of the time in mind, and not with our this-year (and worse, Western) understanding "preventing" us from seeing things as they were then, and extrapolating where necessary. In fact, we need input like yours to enable us to "pre-vent" appropriately.
I have something to add. I value your education. Not only have you studied, but also you have processed what you've learnerd in order to explain it to us. I appreciate not only your taking the time to explain, but also, the fact that you never seem to grow weary of doing so.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
I doubt it's with an agenda.
Contrary to what vpw said, it's possible for 2 words to be, in effect, synonymous.
"krima" and "krisis", in the Koine Greek, appear to be so, at least from what I found.
The first question is: are psuche and pneuma synonymous?
I believe they are similar concepts, but not identical-and the differences can be profound when that's the case.
If he's saying they are synonymous, I believe he believes that, and is in error believing so.
It's not a shock to me that a pastor, preaching for a living, can make rather elementary errors
when trying to understand the Bible. I don't think a lot of them have good study habits or
understand how to read the Bible for what's on the page. They're trained to preach, and any
other training might be light or missing completely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Tom, how does your preacher-man get on with Heb 4:12, where a clear distinction is made?
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.
Soul/spirit
Joints/ marrow
Thoughts/ intent
All very very close - but not identical, not the same thing, not interchangeable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Geiger
Thanks for the replies.
Similar to TWI, there are other churches that will not accept any questioning of doctrine (or is it dogma?).
When the lead pastor says something is, well, then it is and you can't believe anything else without being a heretic. Of course, there are some doctrines that are foundational and there cannot be a difference of opinion without being non-Christian (e.g. Jesus is the Son of God and the savior). But there are others which are unclear even after research.
Topics including: what happens when you die (immediately not after the resurrection), the nature of hell, and, gasp, whether there is a trinity as defined by mainstream christianity or not.
With respect to the pneuma and psuche discussion, I do not believe they synonymous from what I know of the Bible.
Of course, I haven't gone to seminary school and do not have to defend the ordained doctrine of an organization either.
Do I think this pastor has an agenda? Not in so many words. Do I think he would defend the position of the organization of churches to which his church belongs, even in light of being shown potential error? Yes.
The main problem I see is that in this church there is little thought given that the Bible original text were not written in English within an American culture. Yes, truth transcends language and culture, but to get to an understanding of the truth being communicated, I believe you need to know how words were used in the text from which the Bible you are reading was translated and what did expressions mean culturally.
Time to go back and redo a word study done a long time ago on these two words.
It may also be time to move on to another church.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I do appreciate it.
TG
You bring up two other words that I need to do some work on. Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It may be time to move to another church, Tom... or it may not. You will probably find that most churches have some degree of "error" (especially if you look through TWI-stained glasses). If nothing else, pretty much all churches will be trinitarian and promote the "Jesus is God" doctrine. Look at the overall balance of what they teach; can you live with what you believe is doctrinally "off"? What's their response if you raise any queries (meekly, of course!)? How do the people treat each other, and what outreach do they have (genuine outreach and interest in helping community)?
For myself, I attend two different churches regularly. I enjoy the fellowship of others in both. I say a silent "don't think so" at some points, and won't sing all the words of hymns, but I don't raise problems. I see what things the individuals do and how they give their lives; I'm thankful to be a part of such awesome generosity of heart and time - and money.
One of the groups to which I belong (Street Pastors) comprises Christians from a minimum of four different churches (denominations) and when we are out serving the people of our community, we speak of things we have in common - the things that unite us - not the things we disagree about. There are fundamental points that you can agree, one hopes, with any Christian - does any congregation you might join live those fundamental points? If not - it really is time to move on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
My word, I just noticed that I have been supping the coffee in the Cafe for just over 10 years.
And I have come a bloody long way in ten years.
Thanks in no small way, especially initially, to the Cafe patrons, without whom I'd still be wallowing in Waybrain. And thanks also to the community of Christians at my local church, the one that healed me enormously from Waybrain. And also to the community of Christians in the churches I now attend (one of which is a "daughter church" to the first one).
Life is GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!:dance:/>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Happy Anniversary!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Geiger
Excellent points, and much of what you said I had been thinking already. It is funny, but I have also not sung parts of songs during the services and had those " I don't think so" moments. I also often wonder how many others in that same service also have those moments and just don't say anything.
I try my best to not look at things through TWI colored glasses, and there are some things I have learned that are contrary to what TWI taught.
Maybe the best is to observe and wait until I know what the right move will be. While this church does do some good outreach, the problem will always come down to that point in time when you have to share the Word with someone brand new and my understanding of Jesus is very different from this church's.
I really appreciate the replies.
Congratulations on the decade of Cafe patronage! :)
I just noticed that I joined the forums in 2002. Oy vey, time does fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Biblically, I think soul and spirit are different things, with soul being primarily a word used to describe the fact that something has animated physical life and spirit being more in touch with God himself. All animals have soul. But spirit is unique to humans. I'm confident that Wierwille's distinctions were incorrect, but not as far off the mark (Biblically) as the notion that soul and spirit are synonymous.
I'll signal here that I (obviously) have other thoughts that would not be appropriate for a doctrinal thread, in which we seek Biblical answers. I will post a thought or two in Picking Up Threads in the Questioning Faith subforum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just wanted to add my 2 cents (the actual value may vary depending on today's opinion market); I lean toward WordWolf's approach – soul and spirit may represent similar concepts – but in some aspects are quite different. I may be way off base on what I'm about to say so consider this my disclaimer for the following.
Even years after leaving TWI I've found myself at times having to make a conscious effort to "deactivate" the PFAL mindset of assuming everything in Scripture has a mathematical exactness and scientific precision to it. That's my bad – shows you how some things can linger on for a very long time. For me anyway I think I have a tendency to try and press ancient scripture into some state of the art technical manual. I see where folks get the trichotomy of man (body, soul, and spirit) in I Thessalonians 5:23; but then you have the four-part itemization in Mark 12:30 of loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Now is the heart, soul, mind, and strength of Mark 12:30 actually four separate and distinct aspects of a person? I don't know.
While I more or less agree with Raf and Twinky on the difference of soul and spirit and that Hebrews 4:12 does speak of the word of God's powerful cutting-edge capability to separate the two I also believe the soul and spirit are of an inseparably design by God himself. But does that mean they could be separated? Perhaps – if one possessed the means that could duplicate the dissecting process mentioned in Hebrews 4.
I guess in this modern age of quantum mechanics, superstring theory....we've got all kinds of theories coming out the wazoo.... "deconstructing" just about anything is possible. The word "asunder" in Hebrews 4:12 has always grabbed my attention since a similar idea (and the same English word – but I have not checked the Greek on either though) is suggested in Mark concerning marriage – the two shall become one flesh and goes on to say "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Mark 10:9 KJV…I'm not addressing if divorce is biblical but simply the idea that on a practical level divorce is a fairly common occurrence and it doesn't appear to take any extraordinary power other than that of a divorce lawyer.
Having mentioned quantum mechanics I marvel at the fact that man has achieved almost a god-like power to tear asunder the atom. In that regard I sometimes wonder if Colossians 1:17 where it speaks of the supremacy of Christ and says He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together NASB; does that mean Christ's power to make things cohere extends down even to the atomic level? What therefore God has joined together – but even there too man has figured out how to unleash the energy that has been bound up in the atom.
I apologize for speculating all over the map but bear with me - my point in talking about things that are bound / separated is merely that what may appear to be inseparable may also be understood as having distinct components – and could very well be divided if you had the means.
I tend to view soul and spirit in man as inseparable – this does go counter to what's taught in PFAL. It seems man and beast have the same animating force – a soul; however what I believe makes man different from the beast is that "fused" to the soul is the image of God (as mentioned in Genesis 1:27). PFAL taught when man sinned he spiritually died that day – he lost his spirit; I don't believe that – going on verses like Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 it seems likely man has retained the image of God though it is a "tarnished" image now.
A few years ago I read up on "death" in some systematic theologies and biblical encyclopedias and found in some sources that death carried the idea of separation more so than just a cessation of all vital functions. Which brings me back to my previous theme of separation; a person dies and their body is separated from its animating life force. When Adam died spiritually – his spirit was separated from God (along the lines of Raf's usage in post # 9 – man was no longer in touch with God). Adam still had spirit - and though he was once bound to God - he was now estranged.
Once again sorry for the long and meandering post - but one could get lost in speculating about the soul and spirit if they are indeed such an inextricable thing. Carrying this thought a little further on the soul and spirit being bound together – I also tend to think this means the soul is immortal. And though immortal it seems it still needs a physical housing; thinking about the resurrection of Christ – his physical body was missing from the tomb – it had been changed – reconstituted; and in I Corinthians 15:35 to 54 I get the idea that the soul was meant to inhabit a body – whether it's a natural body or a spiritual body. It also appears there is some correlation – be it DNA, or the unique frequency of a person's "superstrings" or some other special identifiers that seem to link a person's natural body to their future spiritual body. And perhaps this involves the "bonding" process of the body to the soul – similar to how the soul and spirit are "bonded" together.
That's all for now…just thinking out loud. No big whoop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, that appears to circumvent the issue of distinguishing between soul and spirit... unless (perhaps) you're somehow intending to equate "the image of God" with spirit. But that leaves me wondering what you think or suppose the image of God is, or how it might be (or what it means to be) "tarnished."
I suppose much of the difficulty in understanding the reality of what occurred and took place in the Garden of Eden is that it goes so far outside the realm of what PFAL or TWI taught that it simply escapes detection by reason of the binding thought of "I already know it."
I'll have to disagree, as it appears to me that there is a more direct and distinct relationship between the soul and "the life of the flesh" (which is in the blood.) And personally, I don't believe it was ever a part if the original design or plan for Adam to live forever, even if he hadn't sinned. That doesn't say that I think he necessarily had to die. It just means that there was a "change" (at the end of the age) that would eventually take place. (Probably not unlike the change that occurred at the resurrection of Christ.) In other words, if the resurrected Christ is said to be a "quickening spirit," is there any need or place or need in his new body for blood and/or whatever life it relates to? (There's certainly no indication of there being blood present in his new body when he tells Thomas to stick his finger in the holes in his hands, or to thrust his hand in his side...) Problem is, exactly what all "spirit" is or can mean is rather tough to put a finger on.
I've no doubt raised the ire of some already (given I have a knack for it 'round here), and won't go deeper into it, but there's a lot of medical/scientific work that's been done in recent years delving into the workings of the mind, consciousness, and... well... 'nuff said.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
on the contrary - it was not my intention to be deceitful or sidestep the issue of distinguishing soul from spirit - since both are intangible and physical descriptions fail to account for such things; my comments were merely a feeble attempt to speculate or suggest soul and spirit are some kind of "ethereal" compound (whatever the heck that is -
/>)....in some scripture references it appears to me that soul or spirit could be used interchangeably - but maybe that's just me.
-
as far as what i think the image of God is....other than the general assumption that it is spiritual (again - whatever that is),,,i don't know!
as far as what it means for the image of God to be tarnished - that relates to the human condition - our fallen nature which is addressed throughout Scripture.
regarding your PFAL reference that the life is in the blood and the assumption Christ's resurrected body did not have blood might be some more fun things to talk about....but like discussing whether or not the soul .... or spirit exist....or their relationship if they do exist - it's kind of difficult due to the lack of evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Never said (nor thought) it was deceitful.
But wtf does PFAL have to do with my referring to what is written in Lev.17:11 or John 20:27?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
i guess it was your use of the word circumvent (which i red bolded) that caused me to think you were suggesting i was being deceitful.
i was not sure of your reason for getting into the life is in the blood idea and assumed you were keying off what VP taught in the class about it and suggesting that as the animating principle of man - sorry if i offended you; however - concerning that idea i feel there's a stronger correlation of the soul, breath, and life in Genesis - since it mentions God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps the post I made in this thread would help alleviate or remove some of the uncertainly concerning my reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
In 1977 David Hahm had a book published entitled The Origins of Stoic Cosmology. In the book, Hahm describes the Stoic ideas that were most common in Greco-Roman culture from about 300 BCE to 200 CE. Hahm's book is not specifically biblical, but it covers ideas behind the language Paul had to use in order to communicate with his readers, such as the people at Corinth.
Stoic cosmology was an extension of the Empedoclean model, that is to say, the cosmos was made up of four elements: earth, water, air and fire arranged in a number of concentric spheres. At the very center was the earthen globe. Surrounding the earth was the watery oceanus, with land sticking up above the waves. The space between the surface of the earth and the orbit of the moon was the realm of the air. From the orbit of the moon to the outermost sphere, the orbit of the fixed stars, was the realm of fire. Beyond the orbit of the fixed stars was nothing but the Void.
This was kind of like the elemental planes of Dungeons & Dragons, except they were more like annuli rather than planes, and they were invented by Empedocles rather than by Michael Moorcock for his Elric stories. A human being was an earth elemental, a genius or demon was an air elemental, and a god was a fire elemental.
Spirit, or pneuma, was the element air (aer) set in motion by being admixed with the element fire (pur). Spirit permeated the entire cosmos, where it performed four functions: hexis, "habit" or "holding" which gives things their form and persistence, phusis, "nature" which gives things like plants growth life, psuche, "soul" which gives sentience, volition and the power to reproduce to things like animals, and nous, "mind" which gives intelligence or rationality to things like human beings, demons and gods.
Spirit operated through "tonic motion," a simultaneous reciprocation, or movement in opposite directions at the same time. Tonic motion was three dimensional, ek or "out from within", and eis or "all the way into". For an individual human being, the seat of spiritual activity was the hegemonikon located in the heart. Spirit flowed through the body with the blood, not by circulation as we know it, but by tonic motion. Sentience was carried from the periphery to the hegemonikon by the inward component (eis) of the flow of spirit, and volition or will was carried to the periphery from the hegemonikon by the outward component (ek) of the flow of spirit. The outward flow of volition was called logos.
The Stoics conceived of the entire cosmos as being a single organism on the largest scale, with a hegemonikon and a periphery of its own. The hegemonikon of the cosmos was vastly superior to any of the gods, who were simply fire elementals.
In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul used the prepositions ek and eis to put "One God, the Father" into the position of the Stoic hegemonikon of the cosmos, making him vastly superior to any of the "many gods and many lords" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8:5. Whenever we read the words psuche (soul) or nous (mind) in 1 Corinthians, we need to keep these Stoic definitions in mind (no pun intended).
At the beginning of 1 Corinthians 12 Paul wrote, "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant." Notice that "gifts" is in italics. It doesn't appear in the Greek. The sentence can be translated properly as "But about the spirituals, siblings, I do not want you to be ignorant." Some scholars believe that one of the factions at Corinth distinguished themselves from the others by regarding themselves as more "spiritual" than anybody else because they spoke in tongues in public more than the others (indecently and out of order). Paul did not say in 1 Corinthians 12:1 what kind of "spirituals" he was writing about. English translators have promiscuously added the word "gifts" because the word charismata occurs very frequently in chapters 12 through 14, but charismata doesn't mean "gifts given," it means "favors done." In verses 12:1 and 14:1, Paul uses "spirituals" ambiguously. It could mean spiritual "matters" or "charismata" or "people". By 14:37 Paul definitely used "spiritual" to mean a Christian who thinks he is more spiritual than other Christians.
Paul didn't define what he meant by "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 12:1, but he didn't have to. He had already defined that in 1 Corinthians 2:1-3:3. In 1 Corinthians 2:16 Paul wrote "But we [the same "we" as in 1 Corinthians 8:6] have the mind [nous -- the function of intelligence or rationality performed by spirit] of Christ." In 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Paul demonstrated that a person can be considered to be "spiritual" to the degree that the person walks in accordance with that mind, and not to the degree that they operate "manifestations" with their flesh.
In 1 Corinthians 2:14 Paul contrasted those who are spiritual with those who are "soulish." Soulish people are those who walk in accordance with the soulish function of spirit (sentience, volition and the power to reproduce) rather than the mind function of spirit (intelligence or rationality).
Most Christians have a hard time accepting that they have the mind of Christ, which comes right along with the gift of the Holy Spirit, because the mind of Christ talks in the first person singular. It says "I" in our streams of consciousness. During the time in which we live, not a spurious "administration of grace," but rather in the overlap between this present evil age and the age to come, we play host to two minds, the unregenerate mind we inherited from Adam and the mind of Christ we received with the Holy Spirit.
Theologians argue about the conflict Paul recorded in Romans 7:14-25. They argue about who the two "I"s are. I think one is the mind of Paul and the other is the mind of Christ.
In Hebrews 4:12 Prisca wrote that the Word of God is alive and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit. I think in this case Prisca meant that our knowledge of the Word of God... not of the dead ink on the dead page, but rather of the living meaning, the volition of the logos that flows outward from the One God through the Lord Jesus by the agency of the Holy Spirit... enables us to tell the difference between the thoughts that are coming to us from the mind we inherited from Adam (the soul) and the mind of Christ (the Spirit).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Steve, your posts are always challenging and thought-provoking.
Totally agree that we have to think with the background of the time in mind, and not with our this-year (and worse, Western) understanding "preventing" us from seeing things as they were then, and extrapolating where necessary. In fact, we need input like yours to enable us to "pre-vent" appropriately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Thanks, Twinky. I agree with you.
I have something to add. I value your education. Not only have you studied, but also you have processed what you've learnerd in order to explain it to us. I appreciate not only your taking the time to explain, but also, the fact that you never seem to grow weary of doing so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.