Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?

[Freedom]

I might be opening a can of worms here, but I wanted to have a discussion on this subject. The POV that I'm coming from is that as I became disillusioned with the LC, I realized that much of what they call exercising the spirit was just show. This led me to question just what importance the teaching of the human spirit/three parts of man actually had. When the actual practice of the teaching was bizarre things like yelling and shouting, it just made me start to wonder what purpose it all really served in the first place.

WL taught that the spirit is the organ to contact God, by which we have God-consciousness and it differentiates us humans from the animals. The other key point to the teaching was the idea that to use/exercise the spirit was to open your mouth. There is a LC song with a line that goes something like "have you found your human spirit? It's connected to your mouth..." It all made sense to me at one point in time, and the supposed simplicity of it, just seemed compelling. The real shocker for me was when I began to consider that there are countless numbers of Christians who are neither aware of nor accept the tripartite view of man, yet they have no problem knowing and contacting God. So in summary I don't buy into the notion that those who don't hold a certain view of man are only 'accidentally' contacting God.

Of course, the elephant in the room is all the verses that seemingly support the teaching of the three parts of man. It is not my intention to address these verse in detail just yet, but I want to explain just why I'm not so keen on this idea of the three parts of man. As a bit of a humorous, tongue-in-cheek example, consider the following verse:
Ecc 3:21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? (NKJV)

Spirit of the animal?!? I thought we were told in the LC that only man has a spirit? In interest of full disclosure, it is of little concern to me what this verse actually means. That is actually partially the point that I want to make, because I doubt the phrase spirit of the animal is of much concern to anyone. If by chance someone decided to develop a teaching that animals have a spirit, and used this verse as their proof-text, then and only then would it be considered a significant verse - and only by those who actually bought into such a teaching. In like manner, I believe that this is what WL often did with certain verses.

With respect to the teaching of the three parts of man, there are a several verses that are given a great amount of importance in the LC. Interestingly, these verses aren't viewed as being important in the actual context of what they're talking about, but because they support something that WL taught. When I read 1 Thess 5:23, what sticks out to me is the phrase sanctify you completely. The listing of body, soul and spirit seem to be there to emphasize this. The way I think about it is when Paul wrote this, was his intention to define a doctrine of a tripartite nature of man or to emphasize being sanctified completely? I would say the latter. I think the same can be said of Heb 4:12. When I read that verse, what I see as being the key point is that the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. The mention of the division of soul and spirit along with joints and marrow seems to be more metaphorical than anything else. Anyways, I'm curious to hear what others have to say on this subject.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I might be opening a can of worms here, but I wanted to have a discussion on this subject. The POV that I'm coming from is that as I became disillusioned with the LC, I realized that much of what they call exercising the spirit was just show. This led me to question just what importance the teaching of the human spirit/three parts of man actually had. When the actual practice of the teaching was bizarre things like yelling and shouting, it just made me start to wonder what purpose it all really served in the first place.

Great questions.

First of all, exercising our spirit has much to do with exercising our conscience to obey the Lord and righteousness, and exercising our faith in the face of the endless difficulties in life. The LC methods of exercising the spirit by raising the volume is no different than the Pharisee who stood on the street corner "praying" for show. Someone needs to direct these fine folks to an available "closet," like in the recent video WarRoom.

I found, after years of "practice," that connecting our spirit to our mouth is both good and bad. I have always loved the verse in Psalm 81, "open your mouth wide and I will fill it," which helped me many times in my walk. Personally I believe public calling on the Lord was helpful decades ago in the Recovery, but like every other practice, it got institutionalized into a morbid decaying ordinance. That was all too evident during the Whistler quarantine of TC after 3 hours of so-called testimony, "let's all rise and call on the Lord 5 times."

Paul told Timothy to "pursue ... with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart." (2 T 2.22) Even in Paul's day this practice had become a show. I am convinced that anything in our Christian life can become just a show. Once calling on Jesus got degraded in LC-land, prayer followed, as did testimonies and prophecies. Raise the volume and get me a few Amens! And, btw, the LC's are not the only Christians in danger of this.

As far as believing the 3 parts of man being the truth, cast in stone, I am not so sure it matters. What is crucial is that we realize there is a war within us. We have a self that needs to be denied, because it is just contrary to God and His ways, but there are numerous LC extremes here that are more damaging than helpful.

[Timotheist]

The Bible does indeed distinguish the spirit from the soul... that should be a given. The spirit is given from God, and returns to God upon death. The soul is yours, and yours to be sanctified. The resurrection is a reunification of the spirit with the soul. It is the soul that will be judged.

I definitely think Lee went too far in attributing certain attributes to spirit and soul. I personally am not willing to go much beyond my description above in describing the difference.

Good question.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The Bible does indeed distinguish the spirit from the soul... that should be a given.

I agree that the Bible distinguishes between the two. My question, however, is if this distinction is something that should lead us to a tripartite view or if perhaps means something different? Consider these verses:
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…” (NKJV)

At the surface it seems to indicate that two parts of her being were simultaneously giving glory to God. I’m not entirely convinced, however, that’s what these verses are saying. I have to quote something that I saw OBW post on a different thread: “Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself.” It's a good point, and it's summarizes the reason why I question whether or not this kind of distinction between the soul and spirit means what it is often presumed to mean.

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The spirit is given from God, and returns to God upon death.

Does it? It doesn’t seem like this was the case with Saul:
1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him. (NKJV)

Or here:
Josh 5:1 So it was, when all the kings of the Amorites who were on the west side of the Jordan, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel until we had crossed over, that their heart melted; and there was no spirit in them any longer because of the children of Israel. (NKJV)

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The soul is yours, and yours to be sanctified. The resurrection is a reunification of the spirit with the soul. It is the soul that will be judged.

I agree that the soul needs to be sanctified and is what we should be concerned with. Who we are is what we are accountable for. It seems that the soul is indeed what is matters. In Rev 6:9, the souls of martyrs were recognized:
When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. (NKJV)

My question here is why only the soul is mentioned? Obviously the Bible makes a big deal about man’s soul. WL, however, downplayed the soul. He instead taught that we need to have a “strong spirit”. If that were true then I might expect the martyrs to be recognized by how ‘exercised’ they were. If the spirit is so important, then you might expect that it would be something that people can be recognized by.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I found, after years of "practice," that connecting our spirit to our mouth is both good and bad. I have always loved the verse in Psalm 81, "open your mouth wide and I will fill it," which helped me many times in my walk. Personally I believe public calling on the Lord was helpful decades ago in the Recovery, but like every other practice, it got institutionalized into a morbid decaying ordinance. That was all too evident during the Whistler quarantine of TC after 3 hours of so-called testimony, "let's all rise and call on the Lord 5 times."

In a strange way, it does seem that certain LC practices were helpful, such as the admonitions to open our mouths (that has been beneficial in the real world). At the same time, the fruit of so many LC practices is something rotten to the core. It's hard to reconcile these things that seemed positive with the overwhelming negative aspects that we discuss here. That is my approach to this subject of the three parts of man. To me it goes beyond being able to prove or disprove it. Even if what WL taught was true, was it something that was actually beneficial, or just overemphasized?

[NewManLiving]

While the Bible is abundantly clear about the tripartite nature of man, The LSM practice of exercising the spirit by shouting, standing on chairs, etc. is not mentioned in scripture. However, the extreme nature of the LSMLC encourages such practice as a means to stir up their adherents. It is a form of group-think. There is nothing new about this and is practiced by other groups both political and religious. The Shouters is a good example of this type of error on the religious end, while history is full of loud, enthusiastic political groups - China included, on the political end

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

My question here is why only the soul is mentioned? Obviously the Bible makes a big deal about man’s soul. WL, however, downplayed the soul. He instead taught that we need to have a “strong spirit”. If that were true then I might expect the martyrs to be recognized by how ‘exercised’ they were. If the spirit is so important, then you might expect that it would be something that people can be recognized by.

Bible indicates we both are a soul and have a soul, since our soul is our life and who we are. A strong healthy spirit should not be characterized by volume, but by faith, worship, and the rich content of scripture.

[OBW]

This has been discussed some years back. Mostly in terms of dealing with Nee's specific verses that claim certain characteristics for the soul v the spirit.

And the findings were that many (toward most) of the items within the spirit were also characteristics of the soul. Both decide, will, consider, and so on. It almost appears that there is something added to the soul of man that makes it all more than the soul of other animals. More so than the notion that there was some independent/separate "organ" added to man.

And while there is some argument for separation, it is so difficult that it takes a sharp, two-edged sword to figure out the difference. And the difference is likened to joints and marrow. All part of the support structure of the human body. No, the two are not identical, but neither is complete without the other. And since we generally think of a soul as being complete, then the spirit is more about nuances of the soul than some independent thing.

And if there is so little to really distinguish the two, but more like aspects of the soul that are beyond that of an animal, the idea of "exercising your spirit" (which is not found in the bible — not that this completely disposes of the issue) is of uncertain meaning. And that is probably perfect for Lee because that means he can define it (like he does so many other things).

[Freedom]

And the findings were that many (toward most) of the items within the spirit were also characteristics of the soul. Both decide, will, consider, and so on. It almost appears that there is something added to the soul of man that makes it all more than the soul of other animals. More so than the notion that there was some independent/separate "organ" added to man.

And while there is some argument for separation, it is so difficult that it takes a sharp, two-edged sword to figure out the difference. And the difference is likened to joints and marrow. All part of the support structure of the human body. No, the two are not identical, but neither is complete without the other. And since we generally think of a soul as being complete, then the spirit is more about nuances of the soul than some independent thing.

This is how I tend to look at things. I don’t outright reject that there is a difference between the soul and spirit, however, I also feel no need to endorse such a view. Genesis 2 says that man became a living soul after receiving the breath of life. Just from that I think we have what we need to understand the essence of our existence, particularly that there is both a physical and immaterial aspect. Even more importantly is the understanding that God Himself was needed to bring the physical world to life. Although some aspects of existence are incomprehensible, there is no reason to think that there would be some esoteric “key” needing to be discovered.

I feel comfortable with viewing existence as being understood as a body/soul dualism. Even the Greek philosophers gravitated towards this understanding more or less. And it makes sense, the Bible clearly distinguishes the body and soul. The soul survives the body, and has a greater importance than the body:
Matt 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (NKJV)

It seems like WN/WL attempted to purport that a certain understanding of existence (tripartite nature) is necessary to be a Christian. In other words, the view is not that existence itself would lead us to God. They like the “glove” analogy, saying that we’re devoid of purpose, waiting to be filled. Maybe that’s not completely wrong, per se, but it neglects the fact that creation itself should lead us to God:
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (NKJV)

With that in mind, I do not think there is any superfluous or supplementary understanding necessary to be saved or to know God. It’s really not that hard. Evolutionists think they have it all figured out, but they can’t offer an explanation for the immaterial. The ‘soul’ aspect of humans is what defines us. Much of it is indeed inexplicable, but there is not need to make it overly complicated.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In a strange way, it does seem that certain LC practices were helpful, such as the admonitions to open our mouths (that has been beneficial in the real world). At the same time, the fruit of so many LC practices is something rotten to the core. It's hard to reconcile these things that seemed positive with the overwhelming negative aspects that we discuss here. That is my approach to this subject of the three parts of man. To me it goes beyond being able to prove or disprove it. Even if what WL taught was true, was it something that was actually beneficial, or just overemphasized?

I would say it's true, but overemphasized. To have the practice of everyone having an opportunity to speak is one thing, but to say it's "releasing one's spirit" I disagree. What is considered "spiritual" in LC settings may very well be soulish. It's never so clear when referring to non-LC Christians as "being in the denominations" or even condescending talk of fellow non-LC ministers, evangelists, etc such as Greg Laurie, Billy Graham, etc.
It very well may be so-called negative speaking that leaves one "inwardly disturbed" is a product of the spirit.

[micah6v8]

Hope this article will be of help. (I am still reading it myself)

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1931-2_121.pdf

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hope this article will be of help. (I am still reading it myself)

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1931-2_121.pdf

Thanks for the link. I skimmed through the article, it looks interesting. I will read it when I get the chance.

[testallthings]

Just for your consideration...the file is from WIKIPEDIA.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree that the Bible distinguishes between the two. My question, however, is if this distinction is something that should lead us to a tripartite view or if perhaps means something different? Consider these verses:
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…” (NKJV)

At the surface it seems to indicate that two parts of her being were simultaneously giving glory to God. I’m not entirely convinced, however, that’s what these verses are saying. I have to quote something that I saw OBW post on a different thread: “Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself.” It's a good point, and it's summarizes the reason why I question whether or not this kind of distinction between the soul and spirit means WHAT IT IS OFTEN PRESUMED TO MEAN.

Does it?

It doesn’t seem like this was the case with Saul:
1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a DISTRESSING spirit from the LORD troubled him. (NKJV)

You pose an interesting question, Freedom, and your choice of Biblical examples (Mary and Saul) have given me pause for thought and much reflection. It seems to me that whenever we tackle this issue of the distinction between the soul and the spirit, the definition of these two 'organs' is always dogmatically and unconsciously assumed. We have been taught that the 'spirit' is the deeper part of man and that the soul is the seat of the 'mind, will, and emotions'. This, I believe, is classic Nee, and promulgated further by Lee. We have accepted these definitions as if these two 'men of God' somehow, in a lab somewhere in China, were able to isolate 'a soul', observe it, dissect it, and carry out extensive tests on it, in order to come up with a near scientifically precise description of what it is.

Seriously, how did these gentlemen receive this knowledge of something so profound and intangible that it has eluded all others in all ages and climes? What kind of instruments did they use? I have read bygone tales of the corpses of freshly-executed criminals being drawn, and quartered, and excavated, in this quest to fathom the secrets of the soul. All without result! Where is the Biblical evidence that the "mind, will, and emotions" reside in the soul? Though I am not saying that this belief is totally without merit, it still begs the question of whether this is not yet another LC mantra and dogma that the sheep have mindlessly and uncritically accepted?

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?

Perhaps, we have been sold a faulty bill of goods that has produced in our thinking this false dichotomy of the different functions of the soul and the spirit; and the plain truth is right before our noses and lies in plain sight in everyday language. Is it not usually said of an extraordinarily happy person, even amongst unbelievers, that that person seems to be 'in high spirits'? Why must we look for esoteric and abstruse meanings for things that the LORD has plainly set forth (in what should be taken as ordinary language) in his Word?

Just my two pieces-of-eight, mateys...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Seriously, how did these gentlemen receive this knowledge of something so profound and intangible that it has eluded all others in all ages and climes?

Good question. At the very least their bland assertions should not be received as if it were so, simply because it is convenient to their ministry.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

You pose an interesting question, Freedom, and your choice of Biblical examples (Mary and Saul) have given me pause for thought and much reflection. It seems to me that whenever we tackle this issue of the distinction between the soul and the spirit, the definition of these two 'organs' is always dogmatically and unconsciously assumed. We have been taught that the 'spirit' is the deeper part of man and that the soul is the seat of the 'mind, will, and emotions'. This, I believe, is classic Nee, and promulgated further by Lee. We have accepted these definitions as if these two 'men of God' somehow, in a lab somewhere in China, were able to isolate 'a soul', observe it, dissect it, and carry out extensive tests on it, in order to come up with a near scientifically precise description of what it is.

Seriously, how did these gentlemen receive this knowledge of something so profound and intangible that it has eluded all others in all ages and climes? What kind of instruments did they use? I have read bygone tales of the corpses of freshly-executed criminals being drawn, and quartered, and excavated, in this quest to fathom the secrets of the soul. All without result! Where is the Biblical evidence that the "mind, will, and emotions" reside in the soul? Though I am not saying that this belief is totally without merit, it still begs the question of whether this is not yet another LC mantra and dogma that the sheep have mindlessly and uncritically accepted?

What I find striking about WN/WL is not simply that they spoke of man having a tripartite nature, but that they presented such a teaching as if they were experts on the nature of man, having managed to develop a full understanding that had not been rivaled to date. Of course, many LCers would also have no problem brazenly telling other Christians that somehow everyone else has “missed” these verses in the Bible that presumably show that man is tripartite. Like aron mentioned, it really seems that such a teaching was convenient for WN/WL ministries more than anything else. It gave them a way to differentiate themselves from others, and also to attack others (as Lee later became so good at doing).

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

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?

Perhaps, we have been sold a faulty bill of goods that has produced in our thinking this false dichotomy of the different functions of the soul and the spirit; and the plain truth is right before our noses and lies in plain sight in everyday language. Is it not usually said of an extraordinarily happy person, even amongst unbelievers, that that person seems to be 'in high spirits'? Why must we look for esoteric and abstruse meanings for things that the LORD has plainly set forth (in what should be taken as ordinary language) in his Word?

I wouldn’t even attempt to try to differentiate what is meant by ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’, for the same reasons that OBW has mentioned. And that is what I find so troubling about what WN/WL taught. The Bible doesn’t make it clear what the difference is, and if there is some difference that us humans need to be aware of, that is the job of the Word alone, to divide soul and spirit. I might also add that in the context of Hebrews 4, this ‘dividing’ seems to be something meant to happen at an individual level. Thus it seems out of the question that someone could develop concrete understanding or dogma as to how we are meant to understand soul and spirit. Isn’t it interesting then that both WN/WL presumed to know what was what? Even certain of their "inner-life" predecessors like Jessie Penn-Lewis literally were driven crazy by trying to understand things that weren't meant to be understood. I've personally witnessed an LC member have a breakdown due to obsessing over whether or not they were "living in their spirit". I’ve long since accepted the fact that there is good reason to not overcomplicate things that weren’t meant to be complicated.

An overlap between the soul and spirit seems to be without question. And with that in mind, if we are to believe Nee/Lee that the soul and spirit are separate and distinct organs, then it would make no sense why there would be such an overlap found in different verses. At the very least, some of the claims that WN/WL made fall flat on their face, even for those who do support a tripartite view.

Great replies, me mateys...much food for thought! Unfortunately it all makes for even more of a dog's breakfast of the whole issue than we started out with.

I was thinking of the verse that says 'we should love the lord our God with "all...our HEART...all our SOUL...all our MIND...and all our STRENGTH..."

Why wasn't the SPIRIT mentioned, I wonder? And why in that particular order? Heart, and then Soul, and then Mind, at least, seem to follow Lee's hierarchical order of how we are inwardly constructed. Our Strength may refer to our physical (fleshy) capacity...hence, why it is named last.

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

Needless to say, I've been carrying out some medical research into joints and bone marrow. Watch this space. Your minds will be blown apart...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him. (NKJV)

Couldn't the phrase "a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him" also be interpreted to being "inwardly disturbed"?
In LC circles being inwardly disturbed is likened to thinking negatively, critically etc.
Instead if could very likely be conviction by the spirit which causes one to be troubled, distressed, inwardly disturbed.
Back to the subject Freedom was touching on, many of these verses that emphasize the soul is contrary to LSM/LC theology. In that culture, soul=bad.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Great replies, me mateys...much food for thought! Unfortunately it all makes for even more of a dog's breakfast of the whole issue than we started out with.

I was thinking of the verse that says 'we should love the lord our God with "all...our HEART...all our SOUL...all our MIND...and all our STRENGTH..."

Why wasn't the SPIRIT mentioned, I wonder? And why in that particular order? Heart, and then Soul, and then Mind, at least, seem to follow Lee's hierarchical order of how we are inwardly constructed. Our Strength may refer to our physical (fleshy) capacity...hence, why it is named last.

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

Needless to say, I've been carrying out some medical research into joints and bone marrow. Watch this space. Your minds will be blown apart...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

Jack (or should I call you Captain Jack?),
I agree with what you have posted. In my initial post, I characterized Heb 4:12 as a metaphor. This, I believe, is a fair characterization. I have said before that Paul was no stranger to employing literary devices in his writings. With that in mind, it follows that not all verses or passages in his writings can or should be interpreted literally. Obviously, the same can be said of the rest of the Bible. Context needs to be taken into consideration, and ultimately, context is everything.

This is certainly the case with Jesus' admonition that you referred to in your post. Jesus says to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Presumably, it would have been sufficient for him to just say “Love the Lord your God” without everything else that follows. I don’t think saying “Love the Lord your God”, is necessarily an insufficient admonition, but obviously Jesus added “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" to emphasize how we should love the Lord. With that in mind, it would be completely ridiculous if someone came along and completely ignored the “Love the Lord your God” part and instead used the latter portion of what Jesus said solely to “prove” a different kind of trichotomy – that man is composed of three parts – a heart, soul, and mind. Obviously this is a stupid example, but I think the point is clear.

In the same way, in 1 Thess 5:23, Paul was trying to make a point about being sanctified. The word completely is spelled out and although the way that Paul qualifies completely seems to indicate that man has three parts, that is still secondary to his main point of being sanctified. I’m always willing to leave these kinds of things open for debate, but what I have a problem with is the position that Lee took, that these verses like 1 Thess 5:23 are just there to ‘prove’ his own dogmas. It misses the larger context to say the least.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

First, I will start with the essentially irrelevant point that it is not necessarily Paul who wrote Hebrews. In fact there are clues in favor of others. And I don't really care. If we can't figure it out by 2016, it's too late to worry about it.

But the whole soul and spirit thing, or joints an marrow thing — neither appear intended to state that you can find answers to separate those in the word, but rather to point to the key of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The light in the word should touch you concerning your reasons — even if you don't admit it out loud to anyone.

[Ohio]

First, I will start with the essentially irrelevant point that it is not necessarily Paul who wrote Hebrews. In fact there are clues in favor of others. And I don't really care. If we can't figure it out by 2016, it's too late to worry about it.

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

I hope you are joking.

Because there are a lot of we that haven't.

I was told that by Lee. And it was a statement that was made in a manner that stood out from the crowd of Christianity that had not come to that conclusion (though they had not simply dismissed it either).

So "we" have not known any such thing. We just heard it stated very surely by Lee for many years.

From Wikipedia (don't just dismiss it)

By the end of the first century there was not a consensus over the author’s identity. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, the Apostle Paul, and other names were proposed. Others later suggested Luke the Evangelist, Apollos and Priscilla as possible authors.

Though no author is named, the original King James Version of the Bible titled the work "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews". However, the KJV's attribution to Paul was only a guess, and not a very good one according to the majority of recent scholarship. Its vastly different style, different theological focus, different spiritual experience — all are believed to make Paul's authorship of Hebrews increasingly indefensible. At present, neither modern scholarship nor church teaching ascribes Hebrews to Paul.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

The author of Hebrews said that s/he got their revelation of Christ from those who'd been eyewitnesses: "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (2:3[NIV]); which strongly contrasts with Paul's gospel narrative: "I didn't receive it from any man" (Gal 1:12).

It doesn't prove that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but it leans in that direction.

You know what WL's reasoning was? "Only Paul could have written a book like Hebrews"... that was it... and on such slender reeds the LC's conceptual edifice was built.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The author of Hebrews said that s/he got their revelation of Christ from those who'd been eyewitnesses: "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (2:3[NIV]); which strongly contrasts with Paul's gospel narrative: "I didn't receive it from any man" (Gal 1:12).

It doesn't prove that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but it leans in that direction.

You know what WL's reasoning was? "Only Paul could have written a book like Hebrews"... that was it... and on such slender reeds the LC's conceptual edifice was built.

There's no conflict here in verse 2.3. Yes, Paul saw the Lord directly, but that does not negate the fact that "this salvation first announced by the Lord" in the gospels (referring especially to the teachings of Jesus) "was confirmed to us by those who heard Him," referring to the 12 Apostles, Mary and the other women, and perhaps other disciples. The "us" referred to Luke and Paul, and possibly others who assisted in the research, as also Luke implies in his gospel (1.1-4) and Acts (1.1).

The chief critique against Paul's authorship was the excellent grasp of the Greek language. Luke is always considered a potential author because the writing matches his other books, but the chief critique against Luke's authorship was his lack of O.T. knowledge. Both Paul and Luke were close to Timothy. (13.23)

So unless someone can poke a hole in my assertion that Paul authored the rough draft of the book and Luke wrote the final version, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I arrived at my conclusion not from Lee, but by reading historians such as Schaaf. (Volume I, #100, pp. 808-824) Sorry if you don't like it.

[aron]

I doubt Paul wrote 2:3... at best, the "us" is Luke referring to himself and Paul. The passage stresses the mediatory effect of both scripture and witnesses. Paul's writing stresses direct revelation. This was the basis of his ministry, and I seriously doubt he'd undercut that for anything. Of course this is my opinion, and the point is incidental, as OBW said.

Originally Posted by OBW

But the whole soul and spirit thing, or joints an marrow thing — neither appear intended to state that you can find answers to separate those in the word, but rather to point to the key of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The light in the word should touch you concerning your reasons — even if you don't admit it out loud to anyone.

It is interesting that the "writer" here should mention the "heart" (i.e. ...'thoughts and intents of the heart'..). My mind flies back to the gospels where Jesus, speaking of the heart, asserted that, "..for from within, "out of the heart" of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within..." (Mark 7: 21-23).

The apostle Paul, speaking to the Romans of similar sinfulness writes ..."I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet; but sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence"...(But)..."it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me; for I know that in me, that is, in 'my flesh', dwelleth no good thing" (Romans 7: 7-8, 17-18).

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

The Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul seem to have, most disturbingly, contradicted each other!!! Who to take? And if we are to take one over the other, what about after that? What is one expected to make of the rest of Scripture from this point forth, and particularly of the integrity of the New Testament -which, to add further to the complication, owes much of its weight to Paul's contributions? If faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and this question remains unanswered, where else can our faith find to rest?

What, therefore, is the unseen relationship between the heart (mind, will, emotions, conscience, and the spirit, according to Li Changshou) and the flesh? What is the nature of their interconnectedness? Would the answer to this offer insight into Paul's conflict with the Lord Jesus?

Moreover, in view of the foregoing ramble, what can explain Paul's didactic intention in mentioning the 'joints and marrow' in apposition to the 'spirit and soul'? Is it simply to show us that when we read the Word it should shine on us 'concerning our reasonings'? Really? Just that?

Does that offer an effective cure for all that is gravely wrong with us, not just in our behavior, but fundamentally and constitutionally, as was indicated by the Lord?
Do calls to just 'act better', to just be 'better people', because the Word of God has divided and discerned our behavior and exposed the 'reasons' behind that behavior really suffice to reverse and correct the deeply corrupt condition of humankind?

Poppycock!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

The Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul seem to have, most disturbingly, contradicted each other!!!

Jesus in Mark 7 rebuked the Pharisees for invalidating the Word of God with their traditions by contrasting what enters a man from without (passing thru the stomach and out the other end) but never enters his heart, from evil things what go out of a man "from within" out of his heart. "From within"(v.21) should be what Paul explained in Rom 7.18 to be the flesh. No problem here. Neither the heart nor the flesh in these verses is physical.

Your second contrast is different. Using Rom 7.23, Paul contrast the law of God which he has mentally acknowledged and "the members" of his body, later referred to as "this body of death." These "members" should include all our faculties (from brains to fingers and toes) which can be used in the attempt to fulfill the law of God. This is a contrast between knowing and doing, between the psychological and the physical. Paul engaged this battle so vigorously that he referred to both sides as laws.

So SheepDawg, let not your heart be troubled! Welcome to the forum! And rest assured that Jesus and Paul are on the same page.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The author of Hebrews said that s/he got their revelation of Christ from those who'd been eyewitnesses: "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (2:3[NIV]); which strongly contrasts with Paul's gospel narrative: "I didn't receive it from any man" (Gal 1:12).

It doesn't prove that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but it leans in that direction.

You know what WL's reasoning was? "Only Paul could have written a book like Hebrews"... that was it... and on such slender reeds the LC's conceptual edifice was built.

In each of known Paul's epistles, it begins with Paul announcing himself before proceeding with his epistle. Hebrews doesn't begin this way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

In each of known Paul's epistles, it begins with Paul announcing himself before proceeding with his epistle. Hebrews doesn't begin this way.

In the eyes of the Hellenistic Jews, Paul was damaged goods, his reputation was destroyed by the throngs of Judaizers emanating from Jerusalem. Hence he wrote anonymously, as it truly was, inspired by the Spirit of God. To reach the widest possible audience, Paul wanted polished Greek, that which only Luke, his longtime faithful companion, could provide. Paul and Luke most probably wrote this lengthy discourse while he was under house arrest in Caesarea under the safety of Felix the governor.

Since Paul learned first-hand that the church in Jerusalem had completely returned to Moses, and soon would face destruction by Titus, Paul knew it was futile to write to them in Hebrew. The book of Hebrews was intended for the Diaspora. It was a writing on par with the best of Romans, not dictated freehand according to inspiration, but carefully collaborated and prepared over time. I believe during this same time, Luke also researched and wrote his Gospel and Acts.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . . . So unless someone can poke a hole in my assertion that Paul authored the rough draft of the book and Luke wrote the final version, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I arrived at my conclusion not from Lee, but by reading historians such as Schaaf. (Volume I, #100, pp. 808-824) Sorry if you don't like it.

And there you have it. Someone asserted reason for it being Paul. And others assert reasons for others.

If you are holding this out as an opinion — much like everyone else — then there is nothing to "poke a hole in" unless someone claims to have the definitive answer. Your opinion is noted.

But your challenge speaks of certainty. And you have provided nothing that is certain. Only reference to one author, and to a fact that may or may not be relevant to the query at hand. You have therefore provided nothing through which to poke a hole.

And therefore the challenge is reversed. If you are certain that it is so, it is on you to establish the particulars. And being close to Timothy, coupled with knowledge of the OT and mastery of Greek does not make for more than a plausible explanation. Not a bad one. But insufficient to stand as certainty.

If, on the other hand, it is merely an opinion, then unless someone thinks they have the proof of contrary authorship, there is nothing about which to make a challenge.

I accept your position as a reasonable opinion, even if not the majority opinion (both at the end of the fist century and today). As I said, it is irrelevant. If it is inspired, the lack of clear attribution of authorship means little if the inspiration was truly from God.

[Ohio]

But your challenge speaks of certainty. And you have provided nothing that is certain.

Certainty? And what might be your standard for that? Some challenge the authorship of Paul's epistles which lead with his name (e.g. Timothy and Titus), so that provides no "certainty." I referred to Schaaf, the premier church historian, but that provides insufficient "certainty" for you too. My proposal solves all the problems with the authorship, but that is inadequate also.

Because you said so! So be it! And there you have it!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus in Mark 7 rebuked the Pharisees for invalidating the Word of God with their traditions by contrasting what enters a man from without (passing thru the stomach and out the other end) but never enters his heart, from evil things what go out of a man "from within" out of his heart. "From within"(v.21) should be what Paul explained in Rom 7.18 to be the flesh. No problem here. Neither the heart nor the flesh in these verses is physical.

Your second contrast is different. Using Rom 7.23, Paul contrast the law of God which he has mentally acknowledged and "the members" of his body, later referred to as "this body of death." These "members" should include all our faculties (from brains to fingers and toes) which can be used in the attempt to fulfill the law of God. This is a contrast between knowing and doing, between the psychological and the physical. Paul engaged this battle so vigorously that he referred to both sides as laws.

So SheepDawg, let not your heart be troubled! Welcome to the forum! And rest assured that Jesus and Paul are on the same page.

Thank you for your response, Ohio,

Regretfully, I cannot wrap my head around what it is exactly you are trying to say. I don't mean you any offense, but the construction of your sentences I am finding a little bit problematic. Perhaps you're tired. Might you try considering re-writing your reply a little bit more lucidly to more clearly bring out your points? Thank you.

...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

Thank you for your response, Ohio,

Regretfully, I cannot wrap my head around what it is exactly you are trying to say. I don't mean you any offense, but the construction of your sentences I am finding a little bit problematic. Perhaps you're tired. Might you try considering re-writing your reply a little bit more lucidly to more clearly bring out your points? Thank you.

...

Can anyone else help out with SheepDawg's conundrum?

You have to read my post in context with SheepDawg's post.

He makes two comparisons using Mark and Romans. He contends that the comparisons are similar, but they are not. He appears to be facetiously introducing conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and Paul for some reason. In the first comparison, he linked the heart and the flesh. In his second, he linked the law in our members with the law in our mind. By equating these comparisons, he attempted to prove that Jesus' teaching was at odds with Paul's.

I explained that neither our heart nor our flesh is physical, of course. Jesus said that all manner of evil came from within, probably referring to our fallen flesh, and passed thru our heart and come out of us, which can corrupt us. This is in contrast to food which comes into our stomach and passes out of us, never going thru our heart, so it could never can corrupt us as the Pharisees implied. Our heart is not the source of evil, since our heart can also love God, and out of it are the issues of life.

Does this help? Perhaps you can rework your original post after you register. It would help me.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

Perhaps this "conundrum" exists only because you want it to exist. Lets rewind from Romans 7 back to chapter 3 where Paul references several Psalms in his discussion of sin:
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

What Paul quotes in Rom 3 represents the same theme that Jesus spoke about- "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man". In other words, Paul was on the same page as Jesus. Yes, Paul emphasized sin dwelling in the flesh, but there is no evidence to suggest that Paul felt that sin only resides in the flesh. I agree with what Ohio said regarding Paul's use of the word members in Rom 7:23. All evidence that I can see suggests that Paul's view of the flesh was broader than just understanding it to be his physical body.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I explained that neither our heart nor our FLESH is physical, OF COURSE.

This is sooo, so, so funny! ! !

I have nothing to say.. Lol! ..

Originally Posted by Freedom

Perhaps this "conundrum" exists only because you want it to exist. Lets rewind from Romans 7 back to chapter 3 where Paul references several Psalms in his discussion of sin:
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

What Paul quotes in Rom 3 represents the same theme that Jesus spoke about- "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man". In other words, Paul was on the same page as Jesus. .

Thank you for 'opening my eyes' and showing me the link between what Jesus said and what Paul said. Very valid.

"Conundrum" solved, I guess...(or at least that's what you think, isn't it?)

Originally Posted by Ohio

I explained that neither our heart nor our flesh is physical, of course. Jesus said that all manner of evil came from within, PROBABLY REFERRING TO OUR FALLEN FLESH, and passed thru our heart and come out of us, which can corrupt us. This is in contrast to food which comes into our stomach and passes out of us, never going thru our heart, so it could never corrupt us as the Pharisees implied. OUR HEART IS NOT THE SOURCE OF EVIL, since our heart can also love God, and out of it are the issues of life.

So, Jesus was "probably" referring to our fallen flesh, although the record reflects that he said "out of the heart of man" (and not "probably" out of his heart). He did not mention the word 'flesh'. And when you say that the "heart is NOT the source of evil" I just wonder who, now, is truly at "odds" with and in "conflict" with the Lord Jesus? This explanation of yours, I'm sure you know, amounts to 'conjecture' on your part, at best; and a flat-out denial of the express words of Jesus, at worst. Am I wrong?

Nevertheless, for entirely different reasons, I agree with the general tenor of your argument. However, I was essaying to make a much wider point than what you have seen. I was not just 'facetiously introducing a conflict between Paul and the Lord Jesus' for the heck of it (and, by the way, I object to that word "facetiously"; I intended no humor), rather I 'introduced' the imagined conflict and intended it to be received as a 'rhetorical and polemic device' to illustrate and color the much broader issue I desired to cover.

But I have no more heart to pursue this topic. It is potentially a Pandora's box and I am sensing and discerning that we have not all been irradiated and been made level with the same amount of light; and my spirit will not allow me to continue further. Some things ought not to be shared. I'm sorry. But thank you all for your responses and taking the trouble to trouble your bibles to search for scriptures to refute me. But please feel free to engage me on other threads.

God bless.
________________________________________
"The heart is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

n 1 Thess 5:23, Paul was trying to make a point about being sanctified... I have a problem with is the position that Lee took, that these verses like 1 Thess 5:23 are just there to ‘prove’ his own dogmas. It misses the larger context to say the least.

A recent unregistered poster wrote that no one on this forum has come out with a compelling narrative which captures the complete arc of scripture, from start to finish, to which replied that hardly had Lee, either. Lee's method was to take a few passages or clauses, often out of context, and put them together in a make-shift attempt at systematized theology. Then he re-imposed this conceptual grid, this "larger narrative" back onto scripture. And the fact that he had to reject large swaths of scripture as "fallen human concepts" in order to keep his theology whole, speaks volumes to me.

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

What can explain Paul's didactic intention in mentioning the 'joints and marrow' in apposition to the 'spirit and soul'? Is it simply to show us that when we read the Word it should shine on us 'concerning our reasonings'? Really? Just that?

Does that offer an effective cure for all that is gravely wrong with us, not just in our behavior, but fundamentally and constitutionally, as was indicated by the Lord?

Do calls to just 'act better', to just be 'better people', because the Word of God has divided and discerned our behavior and exposed the 'reasons' behind that behavior really suffice to reverse and correct the deeply corrupt condition of humankind?

Now to Sheepdawg's quote. Why did Paul write his epistles? What was the kingdom of God, as presented by Paul, by Jesus, and in Second Temple Judaism? Who is our Father, and why are we so separated from Him? And how many "parts of man" are there, and how do they fit into the larger narrative? How does the "spirit" versus the "soul" help us navigate our way back to the celestial realms, and escape the chains of fallen flesh?

I won't try to answer that, but will simply make one small point about the larger context, which I believe Lee completely missed. How can Lee and now his Blended Lieutenants say that the spirit of Man and the Holy Spirit are somehow entirely divorced from the spiritual realm, i.e. the "world of the spirits", to coin a phrase? Lee told us that Jessie Penn-Lewis tried to address this spiritual realm in an unbalanced way. So he rejected it, and that was that. We got the mingling of the Holy Spirit with the spirit of man, presented from "The Lord be with your spirit" and "The Spirit witnesses with our spirit", gleaned from Paul's writings, but no "when a spirit goes out of a man, it flies about looking for rest", as Jesus taught.

And on and on. I could present 50 verses which were ignored because they weren't convenient to Lee's narrative arc. And I could present 350 verses that were panned by Lee & Co as "fallen" and "ignorant men's concepts" because Lee couldn't reconcile them with his theology. Including verses from the NT (!!).

I conclude that the "Tripartite Nature of Man" isn't invalid as an avenue of discussion, of itself, but our feeble attempts to systematize it may end up creating small prisons of conceptual thought, which actually cut us off from the scriptures themselves. So be awfully cautious as you try to read larger meaning into small phrases of 6 or 8 Greek words. The enemy is extremely subtle. Don't presume that you can think your way past the gates of Hades. They are not called "adamantine gates" for nothing. They are indeed strongholds.

Peace and God bless.

[JJ]

I've been reading the posts in this thread from the beginning, and haven't felt learned enough to weigh in on the question.

Like most LCers, I have been in the tripartite "camp" of thought, and still am. As Paul tells us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and the temple has an outer court, holy place, and holiest place has always been a helpful picture for me. Not just for teaching, but worship as well.

As with others, like aron, on this thread, I have come to see that "pounding and pounding" on the importance of the spirit, without also taking account of the biblical roles of body, soul, and heart leads one into weird places.

That Jesus' death tore the curtain between the holiest place and holy place may be instructive, as His Spirit now "invades" more than just the spirit from the inside out, and as it does, He is magnified.

Praise Him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Like most LCers, I have been in the tripartite "camp" of thought, and still am. As Paul tells us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and the temple has an outer court, holy place, and holiest place has always been a helpful picture for me. Not just for teaching, but worship as well...

That Jesus' death tore the curtain between the holiest place and holy place may be instructive, as His Spirit now "invades" more than just the spirit from the inside out, and as it does, He is magnified.

Praise Him.

I'm also in the tripartite camp, but with qualifications. A few comments from Paul, in passing, doesn't lay the foundation to build a hermeneutical system.

Originally Posted by JJ

I've been reading the posts in this thread from the beginning, and haven't felt learned enough to weigh in on the question.

Mr. Lee didn't learn enough to weigh in either, and it didn't stop him from putting out 26 books on the subject. So feel free to comment, as we all have. It's a learning process here, or should be, and as we think, read, talk, listen and write, hopefully we learn something. As (a small) part of the larger conversation, Witness Lee and Mary McDonough and the 'three parts of man' also have a place.

http://www.tripartiteman.org/historical/mcdonough.html

But Erasmus wrote on the three parts of man back in 1504, and with much more "life" (imho) than Lee ever did. Read his "Enchiridion" and he has a chapter devoted to it. I loved it (but I love Erasmus anyway, and am hopelessly biased).

Take Lee in small doses, balanced liberally with others, and you might avoid going into a ditch. But if you live on the "ministry" exclusively, I daresay your journey through the Bible, and life, will be distorted.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

Nevertheless, for entirely different reasons, I agree with the general tenor of your argument. However, I was essaying to make a much wider point than what you have seen. I was not just 'facetiously introducing a conflict between Paul and the Lord Jesus' for the heck of it (and, by the way, I object to that word "facetiously"; I intended no humor), rather I 'introduced' the imagined conflict and intended it to be received as a 'rhetorical and polemic device' to illustrate and color the much broader issue I desired to cover.

OK SheepDawg, fair enough. I'll st on the sidelines while you make a "much wider point than I have seen."

Sorry about the early pushback. Boards like this are noted for that, me in particular, and we do get ex-LC'ers from time to time who apply stray points in an attempt to discredit the scriptures. I'm sure you can understand that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Certainty? And what might be your standard for that? Some challenge the authorship of Paul's epistles which lead with his name (e.g. Timothy and Titus), so that provides no "certainty." I referred to Schaaf, the premier church historian, but that provides insufficient "certainty" for you too. My proposal solves all the problems with the authorship, but that is inadequate also.

Because you said so! So be it! And there you have it!

Where's Anderson Cooper when you need him?

Schaaf is not the final answer, nor the HOTA.

Solving all the problems? Really? And even if you think so, are you sure? Sure enough to get into a battle over it?

I have no problem with anyone thinking it could be, or even seems like Paul. And even deciding to go with it as if true.

But to declare it to be simply so?

They you complain that I even suggested that, as an irrelevant point, it is not established that Paul is the author and you essentially jump into the fray using words that create a presumption of what WE all know.

I thought that having the LCM in the rear-view mirror would be a reminder not to be so certain about things for which there is little or no actual evidence. You might argue that appearing to solve certain problems makes it plausible enough to treat it is true. But if you really want to do it that way, you have to allow for the fact that you are going beyond what matters and what the evidence supports as true — not merely plausible.

A collection of reasonable conjectures does not a single fact create.

Just like the plural of anecdote is not data.

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.

It surely isn't essential. So where is the liberty and charity? I made an aside concerning uncertainty on something that probably doesn't even qualify as a non-essential in terms of Christian faith and this is your response?

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK SheepDawg, fair enough. I'll st on the sidelines while you make a "much wider point than I have seen."

Sorry about the early pushback. Boards like this are noted for that, me in particular, and we do get ex-LC'ers from time to time who apply stray points in an attempt to discredit the scriptures. I'm sure you can understand that.

Dear Ohio,

When I said, "much wider point than what you have seen" I did not mean that in the way of "Oh, here is something fresh and new the Lord has revealed to me in the Scriptures that I have seen and nobody else, including you". No. I meant that statement only in regards to, and limited to, the information I myself had given in my earlier post. That, that information was insufficient for you to discern my intentions. I meant that there was no possible way that you could have known what I intended to talk about based on that little information.

And what I meant by "much broader issue" was simply that I wasn't really engrossed with whether Jesus and Paul were saying different things or not. Of course they weren't. I simply meant to say that I wanted to lead the conversation to something else I thought would be of interest to everyone (though in keeping with the subject of the thread). I'm sure you probably know your bible backwards and forwards in Chinese, back to front in Aramaic, and up side down in Spanish. So I wasn't saying, "hey, Ohio, you ignorant hillbilly, here's something that you don't know". Not at all. I just wanted to introduce another interesting spin on things that are familiar to you and everybody else.

I ain't no Mota, bro.

Grace and Peace.

I came across the board and the topic by chance as I have been asking the same question.

The best answer I found so far is from "Systematic Theology" chapter 23 "The Essential Nature of Man" by Wayne Grudem. The outline of the chapter may be found at http://www.christianessentialssbc.co...007/041507.pdf. The lecture audio may be found at http://archive.scottsdalebible.com/a...415WGrudem.mp3

Also I found a helpful article titled "What About Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit?" by Gordon Ferguson at http://gordonferguson.org/articles/w...ul-and-spirit/

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter

I came across the board and the topic by chance as I have been asking the same question.

The best answer I found so far is from "Systematic Theology" chapter 23 "The Essential Nature of Man" by Wayne Grudem. The outline of the chapter may be found at http://www.christianessentialssbc.co...007/041507.pdf. The lecture audio may be found at http://archive.scottsdalebible.com/a...415WGrudem.mp3

Also I found a helpful article titled "What About Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit?" by Gordon Ferguson at http://gordonferguson.org/articles/w...ul-and-spirit/

Hi Peter,

Welcome! I know UntoHim, the owner and moderator of this board, admires Wayne Grudem.

I've never really understood the impulse to categorize man as bipartite. I know some some do, most notably to me, R.C. Sproul. He has said that tripartitism "causes problems" with excessive subjectivity, being sense oriented, and so forth.

I think those who are bipartite are a bit apprehensive of spiritual experience. If you tend toward bipartitism you are going to naturally be cerebral. That fits Sproul's MO.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Peter

I came across the board and the topic by chance as I have been asking the same question.

The best answer I found so far is from "Systematic Theology" chapter 23 "The Essential Nature of Man" by Wayne Grudem. The outline of the chapter may be found at http://www.christianessentialssbc.co...007/041507.pdf. The lecture audio may be found at http://archive.scottsdalebible.com/a...415WGrudem.mp3

Also I found a helpful article titled "What About Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit?" by Gordon Ferguson at http://gordonferguson.org/articles/w...ul-and-spirit/

Thanks for all that Peter. I remember back around 1970 being completely enthralled with the three circles of man, each divided into three sections. I was ignorant and naive back then.

Now I see our non-material aspect is the awareness reading these words right now. But I'm not sure what happens to it when our body passes.

I don't, however, need scripture to break it all down. I just trust in God. That's His business, not mine. Like my birth, like my death.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter

Also I found a helpful article titled "What About Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit?" by Gordon Ferguson at http://gordonferguson.org/articles/w...ul-and-spirit/

Never paid much attention to the "tripartite man" theory. Apparently was "recovered" by some lady in Brookline Massachusetts in 1922 (Mary McDonough).

Something so critical lay fallow for so many centuries, and uncovered thus, and made the centre-piece of God's move on earth ("economy", "dispensing" &c) in the 20th century?

Or yet another rabbit-hole?

I thought Peter's linked article by Gordon Ferguson was spot-on: "Building a theological system on passages intended to provide practical motivations [i.e. faith in God's complete salvation of the whole person, being "so great a salvation"] is highly suspect, to say the least. However, Nee has not only chosen a suspect approach, he has deemed it absolutely essential to our understanding of the Bible"

[OBW]

I tend more bipartite because I find the so-called distinctions between soul and spirit (which Nee, and then Lee, tried so hard to separate in a neat way) to be so overlapping, by definition, with each other that they could not be separated. And the only place where there is a reference to separating them requires a sharp, two-edged sword of the Spirit.

My reason for somewhat combining them is that the record I see would appear to treat "spirit" (of man) as if it is a part of the soul that is not otherwise found in other animals rather than something completely separate. That is not for the purpose of avoiding more spiritual things. But spiritual is more a part of all of life rather than something unique to "non-secular" experience. In other words, something that is "spiritual" is not so because it is separated from ordinary experience and relegated to what might (without denigration) be called religious experience. Instead, it is spiritual because it comes from the life of ones who are living according to the spirit. That should include the way that we pray, read, learn, drive, shop, "kill time," and so on.

While there are sometimes events, feelings, realizations, emotions, etc., that occur while within somewhat more "religious" undertakings, like praying, reading and meditating on scripture, worship of God (both individually and corporately), I am slow to rely on feelings or emotions, primarily for two reasons.

1. The first goes back to my AOG upbringing (which you may recall or find in one the first posts in my blog) which is very dependent on emotional experiences — even to the extent of making mockery of what God is fully capable of doing and even sometimes does. But a core of believe that insists that the right prayers will bring miracles of all sorts, including causing you to speak in tongues.

2. The second is because of my time in the LRC. There, it was so often the emotional sense created by the belief of spiritual superiority. Also, a propensity to get us whipped-up so that the next thing said (which was too often the important thing) was accepted without reasonable consideration. Too often the sheer litany of otherwise irrelevant verses to which we all shouted "amen" and "hallelujah" to in ever-raising chorus (and rightly so) just made our response to the next statement, which was as erroneous as the day is long, an even louder "hallelujah." No, that did not always happen. But it is just like standing up in the middle of an unrighteous lynching to "call on the Lord three times" so that we can salve ourselves that we are doing the right thing.

And not part of the numbered reasons, insisting on tripartite seems to need a reason. And for the LRC, they had one. So that you could become your own source of God. You don't pray to God, you turn to your spirit. You don't really read and study the scripture. You turn to your spirit. That separate organ that is higher than your soul. That place that is capable of telling you that something is right (or wrong) without any actual tracking to something of scripture or sound teaching. That place that uses your group-think training so that you know how to feel better about going along with the group. That place that has all the teachings of Nee, Lee, and the "brothers" saturated so that you will always feel like they want you to feel.