Heir of Salvation

On 2/20/2017 at 11:16 AM, TheSword said:

In seminary we used Basics of Biblical Greek by William Mounce and the Basics of Biblical Hebrew by Pratico and Van Pelt referenced above by Heir of Salvation. My courses were online and so were basically self-study and these resources were excellent in my opinion. Be sure to get and use the workbooks because the practical exercises are critical to retaining the all of the information and seeing how the conjugations work.

https://www.amazon.com/Basics-Biblical-Grammar-William-Mounce/dp/0310250870/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1487605907&sr=8-4&keywords=basics+of+biblical+greek

If you prefer something that is more instructor-led, you can go to http://eteacherbiblical.com/. My dad has done the first 2 Greek courses and says they're pretty good. We can have intelligence conversations about it and email back and forth in Greek so I would guess the instruction level is on par with the for-credit courses I took.  

Good luck. I found language study to be incredibly enriching.

Definitely Pratico and Van Pelt....for Hebrew.  That's practically non-negotiable IMO.

Every quality Institution I know uses their material...and Van Pelt is a good instructor.

3 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I agree with your "whole book" reference. Thank you for the kind exchange. I need to attend to other things...plus I despise pecking out one letter at a time on my phone...

I enjoyed sharpening iron with you...

God bless you brother :)

16 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I think that I agree to an extent (verse 18 appears to start a new line of thought); however, if 18 doesn't start a new line of thought, verse 17 lends even more credence and cements the fact...

No one (including ourselves) can pluck us from his hand. Yet, if one willingly walks away, they certainly weren't "plucked", yet 1 John is clear that if one walks away, they weren't truly saved...in my understanding.

As to verse 17...what is the will of God? I'm not asking you to answer...just giving food for thought. :)

I don't think your assessment is very far off...

I said before that I am "skeptical" about OSAS, not that I'm dyed-in-the-wool against it.

I'm being treated by some as though I am....but that's another matter.

John provides us the answer though, I think in vs. 22 and I think my initial assessment is correct:

He identifies those "anti-Christs" those who (were not of us)...in vs. 22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

I am not yet convinced that those who can walk away are those who were never truly believers....

That argument is dangerously close to a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I don't think all OSAS believers who use that verse are guilty of it, because they believe in an a-priori impossibility of falling away (such as yourself I would guess).

But, I think the context is, frankly....the entire book, not just a few preceding verses...and those spoken of who are "anti-Christ"...who never were "of us"...are, and always were, genuine non-believers....wolves in sheep's clothing...not those who may have genuinely believed and have abandoned the faith.

The non-OSAS position (the only reasonable one) provides that a person who may have GENUINELY believed at some point can walk away....I think John is indeed speaking of those who CLEARLY never did...

And he's warning us against wolves who never believed...

Frankly, I believe he's warning against Docetism which already infected the faith by then.

See I John 4:2

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

I think that's a better way to understand the passage.

Thank you for your insight :)

12 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Hence my inclusion of the verses from 1 John.

Maybe...

But preface it with vs. 17 only two verses earlier.................

and it could take on a whole new meaning:

That could help to preface vs. 19............since it provides context.

It creates a condition....for who Christ's sheep are...

and mind you John is warning us about heretics who deny Christ...they, I would argue are those who are spoken of.  Genuine "anti-Christs" who deny Christ has come in the flesh.

47 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Nice double-talk, but if it can be lost it is not eternal in that instance, and cannot therefore be called eternal until the end.....

In ANY instance........

You seriously just accused me of "double-talk"????

Really?

Because I presented fair arguments....and even conceded numerous points in favour of the OSAS position?

Points I didn't HAVE to concede.

Such as explaining that while it's indeed true  (and it is) that the ancient Fathers don't seem to support an OSAS position....that that should not be of significant concern to Roselove and that the Scriptures themselves should be consulted........

Let's see....

Please see if you can explain in any real detail and without sounding preposterous how I engaged in "double-talk"...

You are acting like precisely what Roselove is complaining about........

Someone genuinely asking questions...and seeking to hear contrary arguments held up with Scripture...

And you just condemn and insult and falsely accuse and scream "heresy".

I may be mistaken.

OSAS may be true...

But I've not engaged in "double-talk".

I presented my argument as fairly and reasonably as possible with my KJV verses quoted:

You responded as you did because.....

Your arguments simply aren't as good as mine......so you defaulted to insult and false accusation.

And you know it.

By the way "double-speak"....is preferable to "double-talk"...if that's what you want to accuse me of...just sayin'

11 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Perhaps I'm too simple-minded in my understanding, reading, and study...

If the Lord Jesus Christ said that no man can pluck us from his (or the Father's hand), then "no man" would include ourselves (John 10:25-30).

That, together with the fact that if someone "goes out from us", it is proof that "they were not of us". If someone leaves the faith, they were never truly in the faith (1 John 2:19).

 

No one can "pluck" them from the father's hand....

But, who would describe an errant sheep who willingly "leaves" the fold and walks away as having been "plucked"????

You "pluck" an apple off of a tree.

If it's over-ripe, and falls to the ground (of it's own accord).  You do not describe it as having been "plucked".

No one can "pluck" Christ's sheep from the fold...........

That says nothing about whether a sheep can walk away.

And that action cannot reasonably be described as "having been 'plucked' ".

I don't think that verse proves your point....especially in context:

Consider the preceding verse:

Jhn 10:27

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

That is a CONDITION for being a sheep....his sheep "follow" him. (Or that is at least a faithful and fair way to understand the passage).

Conceivably, those who do NOT continue to follow him...are no longer classified as "sheep".

 Jhn 10:28

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

If OSAS is true (and it may very well be) this passage doesn't, I think, prove the point.

8 hours ago, DaveW said:

Simplest ppint to look at is what the Lord calls it - it is "eternal life" and "everlasting life" that God calls it. How can something be everlasting if it doesn't last forever?

How can something be eternal if it can end?

I know this is a simplistic argument, but that doesn't make it an irrelevant argument.

This "simple point" must be answered by those who oppose "eternal" eternal life.

It can be both "everlasting" but also conditional.

It can be "eternal" but receipt of it can be conditional.

No one "opposes" "eternal" life....

They oppose non-conditionality.

Even you don't believe eternal life is granted unconditionally.  You believe that faith in Christ is necessary for receiving that gift to begin with.  The difference is that you view it as a Once-only proposition.

Those who disagree would contend that those who do not continue in the faith will not receive life eternal....

"Eternality" is not even the issue........it's conditionality that is at issue.

The point of the opposing argument is that "eternal" life is granted upon certain conditions.

This "simple point" must be answered by those who oppose "eternal" eternal life.

They don't oppose "Eternal" life...

they oppose a one-time-walk forward during the fifteenth verse of "Just as I am"- then live like the Devil-and believe whatever you want-and discontinue in belief at all-and still be a recipient of Eternal Life- even if you fall away from belief and begin practicing Buddhism.........................kind of Conditionality.................

Every verse in the Bible assures BELIEVERS of Eternal Life....No verse assures the "I once believed but have abandoned the Faith".

That's the question....Whether those who genuinely once believed can fall away into disbelief:

•  
• Quote

It is true that there appears to be no KNOWN affirmation of a doctrine of "Eternal Security" in the early Church writings. (Here I would restrict it to the Ante-Nicene pre-4th Century).

But, there are doubtless countless writings we no longer have access to.

To this I would say several things:

The early Church had much larger fish to fry quite frankly.

It was busy fleshing out doctrines such as the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Humanity of Jesus Christ, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, the personhood of the Spirit, the Nature of the Trinity, the incarnation etc...

I would argue that genuine saved believers had some pretty strange ideas we would consider all but heretical in this day and age.  And we can expect too much from them sometimes.  We are the beneficiaries of 2,000 years of Christian thought.  They were often the beneficiaries of a few books of the New Testament perhaps a gospel or two and some letters of Paul.  It was not really until  Chalcedon (if I remember correctly) that everyone even agreed upon the Scriptural Cannon.  The early Church Fathers had no such benefits........and they were dealing with much "bigger" issues.

That being said, when they do make round-about mention of it.....they indeed do not seem to support any such thing as "Once-saved always saved" or "Eternal Security" etc....

This is not surprising really.  Such an idea would be foreign to the world they inhabited at the time.  Christianity would be the only faith that had such a doctrine (and still is).  It's very counter-intuitive.  And yes, there are numerous Scriptures which demand a "faithfulness to the end" to ensure salvation.  But, the specific historical and social context of such writings is informative....They were under persecution in a way that we are not.  They were likely referring to holding fast and not denying their faith in the face of persecution as much as saying "don't lose your Salvation". 

To be clear, I am Skeptical about Eternal Security myself. 

And I do think that Early Church writing is of value on any Doctrinal topic......Yes, I do care what they said and what they taught.

But, I would be cautious about allowing what we have on that specific issue to inform your decision making much. 

I use an informal sort of sliding scale of how much weight I place on the Church Fathers on different topics.  I am likely to have more faith in their take on say.....the Incarnation or the Trinity than I would on their precise Soteriology. 

Here.....it really is best to search the Scriptures with diligence and much prayer for your answers. 
 

Yes. There's nothing wrong with it.

Darrel Castle is actually on the ballot in my State.......

I'll probably fill his name in.

13 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Since I am not a Calvinist, and not a TULIP believer, and not Reformed - would somebody please drill me, for Wretcheds sake, so he will stop thinking I believe as a Calvinist? Anyone can, just make'm simple questions for my simple mind.

(BTW - I do believe Beza was more of a Calvinist than Calvin, because he is the one that really pushed predestination to its climax.)

Don't bother.

You could post a video of yourself burning Calvin in effigy and it wouldn't be good enough for some people.

Let it go.

B.T.W........we treated you just fine at Baptist Symposium..........just sayin.........

And yes, it was Beza more than Calvin himself.  You're right about that.  It's also irrelevant on this board.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9925/liberty-university-students-reject-hank-berrien

More power to them IMO.

On 9/21/2016 at 2:21 PM, MountainChristian said:

If God calls a pastor to a new church, and only 70% of the people listen to God and vote for the pastor, what does he do? Obey God, or let the 30% who are disobedient cause him to disobey? Being a pastor is one tough life. I feel sorry for you men. 

Who's to say whether the 70% are "in the right" and the 30% are "wrong"?..........  It's tatamount to impossible to really "know"  with any measure of certainty.  It's just as likely that the 30% are on a better track than the rest of the members and half the church may be mere pew-warmers.

There's a reason Pastors are often chosen "democratically".  Even if for imperfect reasons.

I'm not sure any system is perfect, but, personally......I've rejected calls to churches where the split was 70-30...(exactly that actually).

Unless strongly urged by the Spirit (and only with counsel of Godly men) otherwise......I wouldn't (and haven't) answered a Church call of 70-30....It takes a very WISE and experienced man to navigate such a scenario.  Some (usually older and more experienced men I've found) can accept such a call...........but at my age and level of experience.....not happening.

Churches without pastors have a tendency to get "desperate" sometimes if it's been a long time.  They often either rush to hire the first "qualified" man to come along or they are often merely intransigent and chase away perfectly good candidates who don't have some things on paper that they want......Often that 70% if it's a Church without a pastor for say 4 years.....is "wrong" and the 30% are more patient and wise and willing to wait.

It often takes an unusually wise, prudent and Godly man to navigate such a scenario.  Often it's an erstwhile retired pastor of many decades' experience and therefore  the appropriate wisdom to right the ship and subsequently steer such a church in the right direction.  Quite often it's on an interim status.  It's an amazing task such men accomplish.

Get a 70-30 split on some young 32-year old cat fresh out of seminary with a wife and two kids and $100,000 of debt to pay.......and a 70/30 split is often really bad news for him.   

That congregation will beat him into submission like a rented mule.....................or worse...................they'll follow him blindly into whatever fancy new-fangled doctrines he espouses.

BOTH are errors.

It depends on the maturity of the Church you are speaking of.

On 9/3/2016 at 5:05 PM, wretched said:

 

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Salyan said:

 America, Australia and the U.K., however, are no less secular and godless than she.

I disagree.

As a whole, they are.  Of course these are generalizations and everywhere there is Godlessness. 

But I think it is pietism and humility (good traits for sure) but not fact that makes you want to say that.  From a strictly statistical standpoint for instance, There are far more people in those nations, indeed in the Western World as a whole who embrace the Messiah than there are in Israel.  It's getting worse here of course, but Israel is more secular than those countries and there are far fewer Christians in Israel than in the U.S. U.K. Australia et al.  There is not even a lot of Orthodox practitioners of Judaism in Israel.  It's a very humanistic country.

Thanks be to God, it won't be forever, but it is for now.

4 hours ago, wretched said:

Although you post does smack hard of replacement theology through its hostility towards Israel, it still does not address the question. So I can assume as I already did anyway that you have no Scriptural basis for any part of your argument.

is what you are saying patriotic...sure; conservative republican....yes; neo-nazi...close;  but Scriptural...No.

The vast majority of patriotic, conservative republicans are lost religious. I wouldn't hazard to say as much as 95% of them. So don't confuse them with God's real children truly born again that the Lord does hear and will honor their sacrifices and service.

 

I am not even close to an adherent of Replacement Theology................I abhor Replacement Theology.

"Neo-Nazi"?????  Really??  Can you quote for me the "Neo-Nazi" part of the post?

There's no Scriptural argument to even make!.....the question was if your nation was attacked without warrant should you defend it?

The answer is obvious.....of course you defend your country.

Do I take it that if an Israeli bomber were dropping ordnance on your house you wouldn't fire back?

You wouldn't defend your wife and children?  You would let an Israeli murder your family?

This thread is beyond the pale of absurd.

Jordan shouldn't even have to ask the question, the answer is self-evident.  He's just over-thinking it.  It's understandable, he's a curious learning young man trying to make sense of complex ideas, sometimes young people over-think things and confuse the complex with the simple.  That's all.   

I have zilch hostility towards Israel.....Zilch.

I know that the Nation of Israel however, does not have Carte-Blanche to attack other countries without recourse.  I also know that they wouldn't.  They are a friend and ally of the United States.  And I support them 100%.  But the Nation of Israel is not the synonymous with the Jewish people as a whole.  There are Jews throughout the world.

And, yes, the Nation of Israel as a whole is extremely secular and as a people group they have rejected their Messiah.  I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it's a fact.  Paul also says that the Natural Olive branch (the Jews) will be grafted back in again.  Unfortunately, that won't happen until after the time of Jacob's trouble.  I wish it weren't so, but, it is so and that's the Scriptural testimony on the matter.  Paul's argument in Romans 11 tell the story.....

Your accusations of "Neo-Nazi" and "Replacement Theology" are absurd, insulting and unwarranted.

2 hours ago, wretched said:

This country is increasingly anti-Israel

 

 

 

NO.........It isn't.

This is absolutely not an anti-Israel Nation.

You don't know where to look.........Israel as a Nation, and as a People, have still rejected their Messiah, they will continue to do so until the Tribulation.

Only in the time of Jacob's trouble will the remnant of Israel understand and embrace their Messiah.

The Gentiles do NOT reject the Messiah....

We are the "Wild Olive branch" that has been grafted into the promises..

That's only Australia.....

The Western World is simply so extremely pro-gospel, you aren't looking in the right places.

Our LEADERS are often evil...........but that's not who we are.

Israel is a secular and Godless Nation.

The penultimate expression of righteousness is still expressed in Western Gentile Christianity.....don't be fooled by heretics like Obama into thinking otherwise.  God knows where HIS people are.......and he knows which Nations still honor him.

That's the Risen Messiah being honored thousands of miles away.

In the event you don't internalize this...........this is the Royal Albert Hall in London.

It's the Premier cultural venue for musicals, concerts and culture....It defines them culturally.

And so the good Ol' U...S...of A, isn't ignored...

Let's see Israel do this:

On 8/30/2016 at 10:48 AM, wretched said:

Please explain this answer (Scripturally of course)

I'm not trying to be snarky....but, there's absolutely nothing to "explain".

If someone attacks your home, your land, your wife, your livelihood....you respond with deadly force.

You expose them to a WORLD of hurt, like nothing they've ever conceived of.  Swift, sure, deadly, painful...

Oprimere, Velocitas, Violentia Operandi.

There's no question to be answered here.  Men protect their women, their homes, their property, their livelihood.

That's how you end a confrontation quickly....If you end confrontations quickly...you save lives.

The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagosaki saved lives in the millions or projectedly...at least hundreds of thousands.  It was the most humanitarian thing ever done.  When at war....you END the war.  It's done by overwhelming infliction of pain.  Have the fortitude to do it....and lives are saved.

Yes, you defend yourself.

No, God would not punish you for responding.

If someone would help her make her consonants more defined....

she needs that...

But, this is an AMAZING voice!

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  I myself do NOT believe that it is legitimate to use Jesus the Christ's origin as God the Son born in human flesh for an example concerning how human soul's originate.  Scripture makes clear to us that God the Son, as the Second Person of the eternal Godhead, existed "in the form of God" (who is a spirit), prior to his conception in human flesh within the womb of Mary.  This is not the case for any other human individual (soul).  Furthermore, Scripture makes clear that the process by which God the Son was conceived in human flesh was NOT according to the normal, natural pattern by which all other human individuals come into existence.  When Mary asked the angel in Luke 1:34 how she could conceive a child differently than the normal, natural pattern, the angel gave answer in Luke 1:35 -- "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."  Now, I myself am not aware of any Scripture wherein we are taught that the Holy Spirit comes upon women with the power of the Highest in the process of their conception.  Rather, Scripture seems to make clear that the normal, natural pattern whereby a woman conceives a child is through the seed of a man (out of the loins of a man).  Finally, Acts 2:29-31 does indeed indicate that Jesus the Christ, God the Son conceived and born in human flesh, was "of the fruit of [David's] loins," which would have occurred, not through the direct seed of a man, but through the "genetic material" of Mary herself.  However, Acts 2:29-31 is precise in its application of this declaration, applying it only with the phrase, "according to the flesh," and thereby indicating that it applied only unto Jesus' physical body.  On the other hand, Exodus 1:5 does specify mention "the loins of Jacob" (thereby implying the seed of Jacob) and does apply that truth directly unto the "souls" that came forth from him.

2.  The discussion-debate before us specifically concerns the matter of the origin of human souls.  I would contend that Ezekiel 18:4 does NOT actually speak concerning this matter at all.  Certainly, it speaks concerning God's ownership and authority over all human souls (which would also be true for every other part of the creation, including all human bodies and spirits as well).  Furthermore, in its immediate context Ezekiel 18:4 is intended to communicate the Lord God's authoritative right to kill a human individual (soul) if that human individual (soul) sins against Him, specifically because He possess ownership authority over all human individuals (souls).

3.  Isaiah 57:16 certainly DOES speak concerning the origin of human souls, indicating that God Himself is the Maker thereof.  Yet I would contend that this verse in itself is not enough to establish your position.  According to past discussion, I believe that you and I both agree concerning Psalm 139:13-16 -- that it would have application, not only unto the creative origin of David himself, but unto the creative origin of all human individuals.  As such, Psalm 139:13-16 appears to teach that the Lord our God is just as directly involved in the creative origin of each individual's physical body as He is involved in the creative origin of each individual's human soul.  Even so, (if I am understanding your position correctly) you argue that because the Lord God is directly involved in the creation of the human soul, the human soul MUST originate as good, without any corruption.  If we take that same logic concerning the physical body, then it would seem that since the Lord God is also directly involved in the creation of the human's body, that human body should ALSO originate as good, without any corruption.  However, even you in your position have acknowledged that the human body does indeed originate with corruption therein because of Adam's disobedience, as per the genetic corruption through sinful Adam's seed. 

Now, we both would acknowledge (I believe) through the knowledge of biological science, that the physical body of an individual finds its origin by the creative hand of God through the genetic material of the father and mother.  However, biological science cannot actually tell us anything concerning the origin of the human soul, since the human soul is intangible and physically unobservable.  Therefore, we must consider the actual statements of Scripture on the matter.  Above you have made the claim -- "The soul is created at conception by the Spirit of God and the flesh of the father and mother."  So then, I ask the following: (1) Do you have a passage which teaches that "the soul is created at conception"?  (Note: I am not seeking to deny this; I am only asking for an actual passage that supports this position.)  (2) Do you have a passage which teaches that "the Spirit of God" is involved in the creation of the human soul?  (3) Do you have a passage which teaches that the human soul is created through the two contributing "forces" of "the Spirit of God" and "the flesh of the father and mother"?  Indeed, you have then made the further claim -- "You cannot create a soul without flesh."  So then, I ask further: (4) Do you have a passage which teaches that a soul cannot be created "without flesh"?  In addition, I would then ask a side question: (5) If you believe that a human soul cannot come into existence (be created) "without flesh," do you also believe that a human soul cannot continue to exist apart from "flesh"?  (By the way, if indeed the human soul is created by the two contributing "forces" of "the Spirit of God" and "the flesh of the father [his seed] and mother [her egg]," would not the corruption of that "flesh" have some corruptive influence upon the "soul" which it contributed in creating?)  Finally, you have made the claim -- "Souls come from both flesh and spirit just as the flesh comes from both father and mother."  First, I take note that in this statement you changed "the spirit" side of the contribution from "the Spirit of God" (as an apparent reference to God the Holy Spirit) unto "spirit" with a lower case "s" (which appears to reference the human spirit).  Second, I am moved to ask: (6) Do you have a passage which teaches that "a soul" comes "from both flesh [physical body] and spirit [human spirit]"?

4.  Concerning Job 12:10, I would again contend that this this verse does not speak concerning the origin of the human soul, but concerning God's ownership and authority over, not just human souls, but the souls of the entire animal kingdom ("every living thing").  As such, I would contend that whatever truths we glean from this statement within its context, we must apply unto both humans and animals.  As for myself, I believe that the contextual intent of Job 12:10 is intended to indicate that the Lord our God possesses sovereign authority over the extension or ending of life for all that lives upon the earth.

5.  With Genesis 2:7 I can see how you might argue for the two contributing elements of a physical body (in Adam's case, formed from "the dust of the ground") and "the breath of life" in order to create a living, human soul.  Indeed, I can even see how you might argue for "the breath of life" to be understood as "the spirit of life," since of the 25 times that the Hebrew word is found in the Old Testament, twice it is translated as "spirit" (although in both of those cases, it refers to the "spirit" of man, not to the "Spirit of God").  However, although I can see how you might make this argument, I would be compelled to argue against it.  First, the translators of the King James translation, who knew Old Testament Hebrew far, far, FAR better than I do, did not translate the word as "spirit," but as "breath."  Second, the phrase "breath of life" is found in the King James translation only four times; and all of those are within the first seven chapters of Genesis, including Genesis 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22.  By a study of these four passage, we learn the phrase "breath of life" is NOT a specific doctrinal phrase for the human spirit, since the phrase is also employed for the land animals. (See Genesis 6:17; 7:15, 22)  So then, indeed in the case of Adam, a living human soul was created by the two contributing elements of a physical body and "the breath of life."  However, even this passage does not make reference unto a physical body and a human spirit.  Furthermore, I would contend that the case of Adam's creation does not provide the normal, natural pattern by which all human individuals (souls) are created, since no other human individual (soul) has ever been created in that same manner.

"Soul" in the New Testament...is not the same as tho Old Testament "nephesh"....

I'm thinking that's where some confusion lies...

"nephesh" is simply "soul" or "life" in Hebrew...thus Adam became a living "soul".

Once we get into parsing out the Greek of the New Testament...words translated "soul" aren't coextensive with the Hebrew idea of "soul".

"Soul" isn't a particularly defined subject in Hebrew thought...it's MUCH more well defined in 100 A.D. when the Scriptures were captured in Greek, rather than confuse ourselves, why not simply flesh out the linguistic differences.

"nephesh" does NOT mean what "Soul" means in koine Greek and it isn't as loaded an idea.  It's a more primal idea no doubt in Hebrew than it would be in the N.T.

I don't think we'd be correct to compare "soul" in the O.T. as coextensive with "soul" in the Greek of the N.T.

You have knowledge of the original languages (as I've observed from your posts)....I'd imagine you know that the Hebrew's "nephesh" is clearly not "soul" in Greek then translated into English.....the Hebrew...just sorta includes the idea of a "life" or a "being"......we shouldn't compare the two.

Remember according to the book of Ecclesiastes....both man and animals supposedly have "spirits"!

רוּחַ

and

רוּחַ

That's for both man and a beast!  I'm sure you know that "ruach" simply means something like "wind" or "spirit-wind"...and we translate it as: "life"...or "soul"  into English.  But it's a very primal idea not NEAR as specified as the loaded terms we often now use, from a westernized Greek Philosophical pre-suppositional standpoint.   Let's not confuse them no???

I don't think we should ascribe the same level of specificity to words like "soul" or "life" or "person" in the same way in the O.T. as we do to the more specific ideas expressed in the N.T.  That might clear up a lot of confusion...In other words...don't take the KJV's use of the word "soul" in the O.T. as coextensive with the KJV's use of "soul" in the N.T.  They aren't the same loaded idea in both testaments.  I'd contend the KJV translators knew that as well, but...you have to translate as well as you can.

But "soul" doesn't neccessarily mean the same thing in Hebrew as it does in Greek even if the same word is best translated into English the same way.

On 7/19/2016 at 1:23 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Some thoughts to ponder:

1.  Does the Lord our God, God the Father, have a soul (even before God the Son was born in human flesh)?

2.  If He does have a soul, what does it mean for Him to have a soul?  What is the function of His soul?

"The Lord our God".....isn't "God the Father" IMO (as I understand it)....

Usually, "the Lord our God" would refer to the Father...in the Old Testament...but in Christianity, the mystery of the Trinity is introduced...I'd say that for New Testament Christians "The Lord our God" isn't the "Father" but rather the "Trinity"...or the "Godhead"...

I don't think the "Father" has a "soul" distinct from the other persons of the godhead.

I think the Godhead has one "soul" and that "soul" is comprised of three persons......

Let the debate begin..lol 

On 7/19/2016 at 1:23 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Some thoughts to ponder:

1.  Does the Lord our God, God the Father, have a soul (even before God the Son was born in human flesh)?

2.  If He does have a soul, what does it mean for Him to have a soul?  What is the function of His soul?

I'd be interested in parsing out this discussion............

What's critical is how one defines a "soul".

Also, interestingly is a Theological point...

You seem here, to define "God" or "our Father" or the "Lord God" as being the first member of the Trinity ONLY...

That may be a point of contention.

The Father is the 1st member of the Trinity (only because the Theologians describe him as such) and the Son is the "2nd" (because it works) the Spirit the third member of the Trinity (it's a designation which is workable)....etc.

My best guess is...the FATHER....on his own, doesn't have a "soul".

"God" does, or rather the Trinity does...but my best guess is that the Trinity has a "soul"....perhaps we can make more sense of it if we say "GOD".....or even "Elohim "    has one "soul"....and that "soul" is composed of the three persons in the Godhead.

My understanding of the Godhead would be that "God" (meaning the Trinity) has one "soul"....and the individual members of the Trinity are individual persons within the Godhead.....

Much to the dismay of most on this board, the Scriptures aren't going to define these words so completely...some level of Philosophy is necessary to answer them such as:

What is a "person"

What is a "soul"

Maybe this is a starting point.