K wrote:I'm not sure dictionaries really have the authority to set a particular definition for terms used in deep philosophical issues on metaphysics
.
Eh, I mention them because the actual purpose of a dictionary is to define a word's semantic range. Ideally, I would use Oxford's or some other equivelant, but I thought that would be easy and get the point across. I just wanted to show that the reasoning of using my particular terminology is based on "range of meaning" as defined by english dictionaries. In other words, the argument for using those words are based on adequacy. "Soul" can encompass "spirit," where as the reverse is not true. Of course, that doesn't hold in your model, but you make distinctions that I don't, at this time, at least.
K wrote:Yet, I have observed that many meanings can be attached to these words, "spirit" and "soul", and you will see many of these meanings given by the dictionary. The way I'm intending "soul" to be used is perhaps more how you define "spirit" in the above, and when in a body (spiritual body or physical body), the soul simply becomes a "living soul" being able to interact with the world around it.
This is what I was referring to. Words have ranges of meaning. You see the qualification you have to make? You have to differentiate between a "living soul" and just a "soul." That, it seems to me, is going to open a really ugly can of worms, especially given what "living" can mean!
K wrote:I would disagree that "spirit" is an immortal part of the self, rather I understand the soul to be immortal. And if by immaterial you mean non-physical, then I would agree the spirit is immaterial (as is the soul), but I believe the spirit has its own bodily substance that is spirit (unlike the soul which has no "bodily" substance). Although no doubt a large part of our disagreement perhaps lies with semantics, we do appear to have very different understandings of what is actually involved.
I agree that the spirit is/has its own "substance." The Bible does teach that we have some sort of spirit bodies, and that these are different from our resurrected bodies (one major reason I reject the concept of soul sleep). Of course, "substance" here is non-physical, as you noted. That should go without saying.
That said, there do seem to be some deep differences. I'm not sure how the soul could not have a "body" but the spirit can. I don't even know what, for you, a "soul" and "spirit" are. You are making a distinction, yes, but based on what?
Secondly, it seems that you are using "soul" in the way I'm using "spirit," I
think. If that's the case, then using your terminology, I could say that the soul is the immortal part of the human. I can say that, even in my own system, and be correct, but for me it isn't specific given my ideas. So, the point is that you seem to have an extra distinction than I do. I don't see how you can recognize a mortal part of the human existence that is non-physical, but yet distinct from an immortal non-physical part of the human existence.
K wrote:Question: How do you think Adam and Eve died at the time they sinned—would you say their soul died, or was it their spirit, or? I believe this shows a major distinction between the two. How it is we can experience God if we don't have a body with the capacity that allows us to experience God? This is what the spirit is, and Scripture tells us that we become born of the spirit when we come to Christ.
Well, again, remember that I don't make the distinction between the soul and spirit that you do. In your language, I'd say the soul died. In mine, I'd say the spirit died. By "died" I mean "in broken relationship to God." I discussed this concept thoroughly
in this thread with ttoews.
If I don't make a distinction then I have to answer your second question. In short, I don't think that our "dead" bodies do not have "the capacity that allows us to experience God." Certainly, we can't be in proper fellowship with God, but that is what regeneration and redemption are all about. Just like Jesus raised Laz. from the dead, we are raised from the dead with Him and by Him. Do we argue that he could not experience Jesus because of his death? Of course not. So, you'll have to clarify your position a bit more for me there.
K wrote:The Christian theological implications of saying the spirit is equivilant to the immaterial soul runs very deep and I've discovered touches on much theology surrounding the after-life, salvation, the fall, sin, and many other doctrines. I also just want to say that my beliefs I detail specifically on this area are not something I'm just speaking out on without much reading, thought, and development, but they are something I have read into and refined over time (though I still admit I could be be easily wrong on many things
).
I certainly agree that it runs deep. You'll have to show me, though, where any conflicts arise, as I've not seen any. I've not read broadly on the subject, so, of course, I could be wrong. But, at this stage in my studies, I see no reason to make a distinction. Against this, it seems to me that the Bible teaches that man is two part, not three part. *shrug*