Okay Frank, enough of this "God spoke to me" garbage. Let's hear some proof. What does God sound like? Does he use a booming megaphone from heaven? A still small voice? A feeling? How do you know it's not just your own thoughts or emotions? When does it happen? How often?
I'll get to that in the next post, but before we can analyze the activity of soul and spirit, we need to know the difference between them. Our belief systems, right or wrong, can generate true feelings of guilt, peace, joy, and so on. These feelings cannot be trusted. A sense of peace can come from any number of sources, one of which is Vodka. How can we sort the subtle voice of God from the clutter of our minds and emotions?
Hebrews 4:12 states, "The Word of God is living and active (This is not the written word, but the activity of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes this activity is written down, but not always), sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit...
Hold on! What's the difference between the soul and the spirit? In the Old Testament, the difference is not as clearly pronounced as it is in the New Testament. The Hebrews tended to group the soul into a more general "inner man" category, mixing thoughts and emotions together like a casserole. The Greeks took out the individual ingredients, named them, and described their functions.
The analogy that is used in the next part of the verse helps us to differentiate the two: "...the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow..."
What do joints and marrow have to do with anything? Christians will often glaze over these kinds of phrases, assuming that the author just meant to emphasize that it was really penetrating, but why use these words? Who divides the marrow of a bone from it's joints?
If we draw a parallel between soul and joints, and spirit and marrow, the answer becomes clear.
A bone is being compared to a body. The marrow of a bone produces blood and fat cells, making it alive and healthy. Apparently, this is what our human spirit does for our bodies. When our spirits leave, our bodies die. I once sat down with a Bible teacher that showed some insight in these matters. When I asked him what the human spirit was, he said, "The spirit is you. It is the core of your being. It is the part of you that can interact with the Holy Spirit, the part that makes you different than an animal."
So animals have souls?
What about joints? They allow the bones to move. Our soul is the expressive part of our inner man whether by thought, emotion, or the activity of our will. Our soul can be motivated by the urgings of the body (often called "the flesh" in scripture), causing us to act like an educated animal, seeking only food, shelter, pleasure, procreation, and self preservation. Or it can respond to your spirit.
Animals have personalities. They can think. They emote. But everything is based in their flesh. They don't ponder the future while staring at sunsets. Well, dolphins do. And Sun Bears. But that's it.
A proper understanding of these concepts reveals three kinds of creatures:
Plants: Body only
Animals: Body and soul
Men: Body, soul, and spirit
So how can we consciously sense the difference between our souls and our spirits?
21 comments:
See "Against Heresies," Book V, Chapter 6, by St. Irenaeus.
Hi Frank...Maybe I'm getting ahead of things, but I'm wondering--what does it mean that we are spiritually dead according to Scripture? If an animal's soul is animated by its flesh, and scripture says that we, apart from Christ (ie spiritually dead in our sins) are also driven by our flesh, like animals, what does our spirit do? How are we fundamentally different from animals? In your description and explanation, it seems like our spirits are just "dead weight". You said that the spirit is our essential self, but it sounds like the flesh is really doing all the work of expressing in us, or maybe the Holy Spirit (or some combo of both) in a believer.
Anon--can you maybe help us understand what that book is telling us? I read the first part but I don't really understand. I don't know what St. Irenaeus means by us being made in the image of God, especially, though it seems really important to his point.
Anonymous,
There is wisdom in recognizing that body, soul, and spirit, though different, are not easily divided and analyzed. However, I would much rather take the word of Paul than St. Irenaues.
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." I Thess 5:23
Different, but united.
Nothing against the ancient church fathers, but they were a few hundred years removed from the actual events and much of their efforts resulted in serious heresies and irreperable damage to the church. We assume the Holy Spirit was guiding these men, but it would take faith to believe that there was no error or political motivations in the resolution of their debates, especially in light of the future events which the Reformers gave their lives to alter.
People argued about the doctrine of the Trinity for 500 years before the councils finally put the hammer down, wrote a doctrine, and basically said, "Believe this or be damned." If the issue was so clear, why the debate?
Imagine our modern politicians trying to write a Constitution of the United States NOW rather than in 1787. How accurate would we be to the sentiment and strong motivations of the men of that day?
When Jesus left, he said "I will not leave you as orphans, but I will send you . . ." What? The Scriptures? Church fathers? No, the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that can illuminate scripture to you and me and every other believer. To think that I must filter my teaching through the decisions of these councils and creeds seems to mock the very gift of the Holy Spirit, though many take comfort in the fact that they don't have to really seek God to be righteous and orthodox.
Many people in our modern church don't believe in the following verse. They see it as dangerous. But there is nothing safer:
"As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him." I John 2:27
The Reformation destroyed the unity of faith and ecclesiastical organization of the Christian peoples of Europe, cut many millions off from the true Catholic Church, and robbed them of the greatest portion of the salutary means for the cultivation and maintenance of the supernatural life. Incalculable harm was thereby wrought from the religious standpoint. The false fundamental doctrine of justification by faith alone, taught by the Reformers, produced a lamentable shallowness in religious life. Zeal for good works disappeared, the asceticism which the Church had practised from her foundation was despised, charitable and ecclesiastical objects were no longer properly cultivated, supernatural interests fell into the background, and naturalistic aspirations aiming at the purely mundane, became widespread. The denial of the Divinely instituted authority of the Church, both as regards doctrine and ecclesiastical government, opened wide the door to every eccentricity, gave rise to the endless division into sects and the never-ending disputes characteristic of Protestantism, and could not but lead to the complete unbelief which necessarily arises from the Protestant principles. Of real freedom of belief among the Reformers of the sixteenth century there was not a trace; on the contrary, the greatest tyranny in matters of conscience was displayed by the representatives of the Reformation. The most baneful Caesaropapism was meanwhile fostered, since the Reformation recognized the secular authorities as supreme also in religious matters. Thus arose from the very beginning the various Protestant "national Churches", which are entirely discordant with the Christian universalism of the Catholic Church, and depend, alike for their faith and organization, on the will of the secular ruler. In this way the Reformation was a chief factor in the evolution of royal absolutism. In every land in which it found ingress, the Reformation was the cause of indescribable suffering among the people; it occasioned civil wars which lasted decades with all their horrors and devastations; the people were oppressed and enslaved; countless treasures of art and priceless manuscripts were destroyed; between members of the same land and race the seed of discord was sown. Germany in particular, the original home of the Reformation, was reduced to a state of piteous distress by the Thirty Years' War, and the German Empire was thereby dislodged from the leading position which it had for centuries occupied in Europe. Only gradually, and owing to forces which did not essentially spring from the Reformation, but were conditioned by other historical factors, did the social wounds heal, but the religious corrosion still continues despite the earnest religious sentiments which have at all times characterized many individual followers of the Reformation.
Cookie--Thank you for taking the time to share a bit about the history of the Reformation. In the church's long history there have been a lot of disputes and much strife and violence, which must really grieve the Father, as it should us too. Lest this comment section turn into a Catholic vs Protestant dispute, I think its really important to recognize that what God wants among His children is the true unity of His love among them. This is something that unfortunately Catholic and Protestant groups alike miss. The Protestant church is splintered, and the Catholic church maintained an appearance of unity by laying down doctrine and demanding all agree with it or be cut off. Neither of these models is what God intends for His children. "By this will all men know that you are My disciples, if you love one another." This command and instruction of our Savior's does not even address issues of doctrine. Apparently that was not the main concern He had as He was preparing to leave this earth. He desires a unity of LOVE amongst us, not of doctrine. Does that sound dangerous? I don't think it is. Men are concerned with proper knowledge, and proper knowledge is good to be sure, but fighting and/or having dissension over it? That sounds like the world, the work of the devil. So let's ALL be careful. Disclaimer: I am not accusing anyone, just hoping to protect something good here, and get to the real heart of the issue...
I'm a nut for Church History. I have read and studied more on that one topic than most others. It's fascinating. The whole study was actually prompted by a Wiccan that wanted me to read a book called "The Dark Side of Christianity." After studying that and a few other books, I actually planned to write a trilogy of novels based loosely on the events of Church History to help educate a church that I feel is seriously lacking in historical depth.
We'll eventually get there in this blog as well. I would much rather start at the beginning and work our way there. I haven't really started getting to any meat yet. I'm just setting up the basic premise about how we learn and how we can be sure of truth.
I think the errors of Church History (Catholic and Protestant) have a whole lot to do with setting up kings for ourselves, like Israel, and ignoring the voice of God. Prophets, not kings. That was God's plan, but Israel wanted something solid. They preferred the letter of the law to the elusive "word" of the Spirit. Ultimately, it cost them their inheritance.
Bottom line: God wants to be the head of his church, but we tend to neglect the nervous system--the Holy Spirit.
Just because I'm talking about the Holy Spirit doesn't make me Pentacostal. CONFESSION: I don't speak in tongues. I don't even raise my hands in worship. I'm just staying true to scripture. Keep it pure. Don't let denominational scarecrows keep you out of fertile fields.
These are all good "arguments", but I thought that I might get us back to the question Frank posed in this post originally.
Why is it important to be able to discern between spirit and soul? I think it is ESSENTIAL in our walk with Christ, in living life on Earth, to be witnesses to others, to live lives that are pleasing to God.
It is the knowing the difference between soul and spirit that help us to test the wants and longings that we have... whether or not they are desires of the spirit or the flesh. I believe the spirit desires things that will draw it closer in relationship with God. And the flesh is what Satan uses to tempt, to pull us away from the things Christ has asked us to do.
Matthew 26:41 (NAS)
Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Wendy! How dare you draw us back on topic! That offends me deeply.
Don't get me wrong... I'm all about tangents.
Weeenk says "It is the knowing the difference between soul and spirit that help us to test the wants and longings that we have... whether or not they are desires of the spirit or the flesh."
A good illustration of the difference, I heard a guy from Jews for Jesus who said he has Christians coming up to him all the time saying they feel led to be missionaries to Israel, and he asks them "are you sure God's not calling you to be a missionary, and YOU want to go to Israel?"
So, Frank, what happens in a situation such as happened with Anne Hutchinson? She defended herself before Winthrop et al on the basis of having heard and obeyed the voice of the Spirit. This is not an abstract discussion. Within our church, much dissension is encountered when people "follow the Spirit" but His leading is in opposition to leadership. You could simply write off the leadership as "unspiritual men," and that's what usually happens, but these men are attempting to obey the Spirit too. So what do you do when two (or more) people both sincerely believe they are following the Spirit, but there is disagreement?
Great question. But the answer is not to abandon the entire concept of walking by the Spirit, which is what most people do.
I think we move people into positions of leadership too soon, before they can really discern things spiritually. Because of that, we have a lot of disagreement and fighting. Paul says in I Cor that he had to speak to people as "mere men" because they were in disagreement and fighting. That is a lack of spiritual maturity.
The assumption being that leadership is generally lacking discernment and wrong in these dilemmas...
Somebody is lacking discernment. The Holy Spirit does not say two things at once.
My wife would often talk about hearing from God. Most every day in fact. When I finally challenged her to prove it, she got really mad and defensive, but then realized that she wasn't exactly sure. She started to test what she was "hearing" all the time. Later, when she really did hear from God (which was much more rare than she thought), and it was proven true, she had some contrast between soul and spirit to work on.
I think a lot of people assume a lot of God's activity because of Christian culture, and have not spent much time testing and discerning the activity of their souls.
Exactly. God is not confused. Once you've accepted that God's Spirit speaks, the question becomes, "Do I hear correctly 100% of the time, and do I interpret what I hear correctly 100% of the time?" I believe I hear, interpret and obey, but I am not confident in my ability to do either 100%. That's why I value having other believers around me who can challenge me, even when I think I've heard God. A Scriptural example would be Paul when he felt called to Jerusalem. He was certainly challenged!
Perhaps God actually designed it this way. He uses our imperfect ears to reveal our imperfect hearts. We learn to submit to Him in submitting to each other. It's not a "leadership" issue because leaders function under the same limitations. It is the "catholic" aspect of the church—maybe not in the way Cookie meant, but catholic nonetheless.
Since I'm Frank's wife, and he was talking about how I needed to work on discerning the Holy Spirit during the time he was referring to, and since I commented on the "Why I Believe In God" section, stating that it is because I HEARD Him...
I can agree that I know the danger in just assuming that every pressuring thought you hear, every good thought you hear, any thought that makes you "feel" like it is God, may not be the case. Because of Christian culture, I felt that God was talking all the time, mainly through "nuggets" from devotional times in the Bible, sermons, youth groups, random people that happened to talk about what I was thinking about (i.e."Maybe it's a sign!").
When Frank challenged me (yes, I was quite livid, at the moment), that was the first time anyone had done so. Who says I was hearing from God? I know, it's personal, sure. But IS God such a blabbermouth that He's just ALWAYS talking?
If I REALLY thought about it, I was hearing "you're fat" (obviously not from God, as I my body,at that time, was en route to Underweight Land)"You should do this..." "Go do that...", in otherwords, MANY voices that were always there.
I decided to accept the challenge and really pursue knowing if I really did hear God, and, find out if my whole Christian life of "hearing Him" been a jumble of voices not of the Father.
As I wrote in the "Why I Believe In God" section, I KNOW that He spoke to me in those specific occasions. There was a consistent-ness about it, a same "knowing", everytime...wait,was there?
I had a huge long story typed out after this, but...
I had a rare chance to just focus mainly on that, what is God's voice? What are just my thoughts or outside voices coming in?
I'm no pro, but I QUICKLY found out how much junk was in my head, sometimes quite nicely disquised as "Christian-y".
Over a decade has gone by, I do know that the Holy Spirit DOES reveal things, and also the SOUL is right there, too.
I'm sure there is a reason why Paul and the apostles were so avid about us fighting with our minds, taking thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), loving God with all our minds (Matthew 22:37).
There can be grave danger in just assuming that ANY "Christian thing" is God's words, or "of God..."
Gardiner, I find it really interesting that you brought up Anne Hutchinson, I JUST had a conversation with the pastor at my parents' church, about her the other day. He's working on his doctorate at the moment, as was going to be writing about her during his comprehensive exams this week... the question being about true calling from God, and whether or not women should be able to preach or teach. Does God only give specific gifts to specific genders?
So I was very curious about Anne Hutchinson, and started studying a little about her. This was the 'creed' that prompted the leaders of the Puritan church to take her to trial.
Anne Hutchinson's Creed
*
That the Law and the preaching of it, is of no use at all to drive a man to Christ.
* That a man is united to Christ and justified, without faith; yea, from eternity.
* That faith is not a receiving of Christ, but a man's discerning that he hath received him already.
* That a man is united to Christ only by the work of the Spirit upon him, without any act of his.
* That a man is never effectually Christ's, till he hath assurance.
* This assurance is only from the witness of the Spirit.
* This witness of the Spirit is merely immediate, without any respect to the word, or any concurrence with it.
* When a man hath once this witness he never doubts more.
* To question my assurance, though I fall into murder or adultery, proves that I never had true assurance.
* Sanctification can be no evidence of a man's good estate.
* No comfort can be had from any conditional promise.
* Poverty in spirit (to which Christ pronounced blessedness, Matt. v. 3) is only this, to see I have no grace at all.
* To see I have no grace in me, will give me comfort; but to take comfort from sight of grace, is legal.
* An hypocrite may have Adam's graces that he had in innocence.
* The graces of Saints and hypocrites differ not.
* All graces are in Christ, as in the subject, and none in us, that Christ believes, Christ loves, etc.
* Christ is the new Creature.
* God loves a man never the better for any holiness in him, and never the less, be he never so unholy.
* Sin in a child of God must never trouble him.
* Trouble in conscience for sins of Commission, or for neglect of duties, shows a man to be under a covenant of works.
* All covenants to God expressed in works are legal works.
* A Christian is not bound to the Law as a rule of his conversation.
* A Christian is not bound to pray except the Spirit moves him.
* A minister that hath not this new light is not able to edify others: that have it.
* The whole letter of the Scripture is a covenant of works.
* No Christian must be pressed to duties of holiness.
* No Christian must be exhorted to faith, love, and prayer, etc., except we know he hath the Spirit.
* A man may have all graces, and yet want Christ.
* All a believer's activity is only to act sin.
I think its possible that was a spirit speaking to her, but not the Holy Spirit. Which brings up the point that there are others out there looking to speak to us, and can implant ideas in our heads, "masquerading as an angel of light." That is why I think its so important for anyone in leadership to be mature in their relationship with the Lord before assuming a pastoral role. We need people who can clearly distinguish between the voice of the Shepherd and the voice of the wolves. To immature believers they sound the same, but to someone who knows Christ intimately, all that isn't truth is offensive to them. They can smell the difference from a mile off. Same way you can distinguish your mom or your spouse or your best friend's voice clearly out of a crowd of a thousand others.
Post a Comment