View Single Post
Old 04-15-2016, 09:47 AM   #15
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
Default Re: Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow View Post
Freedom's example of Mary, I think, provides some insight. Her soul 'magnified' the LORD and her spirit 'rejoiced'. Could it not be that the soul is the region where we think, and reason, and deliberate, and calculate, etc, while the spirit is that region in us where our 'emotions' (like rejoicing) lie? And wasn't it Saul's spirit that was 'distressed', and not his soul?
But if you read through the lengthy list of verses that Nee originally provided as his base evidence of the three parts and their interior functions, too often you find the spirit being described as doing something that another verse gives to the soul and visa versa. In the end, I do not say that there is no distinction in the two, but it is not as simple as thinking v emotions. The spirit reasons and the soul is emotive.

We began to ponder if it is not that the spirit is (for lack of better terminology) and overlay on the soul that connects man to the spiritual world of God. Something that the lower animals do not possess. So it is not that the basic activities of either are peculiarly unique, but rather it is the spiritual aspect of their joint activities that reaches beyond ourselves.

That would be something that is described as so connected as to take a very sharp knife or sword to separate. And when that verse goes into describing that two-edged sword, was the purpose to say it had verses to separate soul and spirit, or to state that it has power and precision in our lives beyond mere words. Just finding verses that say this or that is not so "sharp." If it were that easy, it could be described are somewhat blunt. Bluntly stated as this is this and that is that. But once you really look at all those verses, they step all over each other thereby making the simplistic analysis that Nee provided a sham.

And he was good at saying whatever he wanted and everyone just taking it at face value. But it seems that if you do not simply take his word for it and allow yourself to make an analysis of what is or is not true, his "this means that" statements too often fall apart.

Yes, there is a distinction between soul and spirit. But it is so deep and hard to understand that even mere words bluntly stated in the scripture cannot do it for you. Rather it is the living and operative word (not the letter) that is sharp.
__________________
Mike
I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge
OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote