Landmark Baptist

Perhaps one of the better frameworks of theology that promotes a better, truer understanding of many scriptures in their context is the understanding of the trinity of man. Made in the image of God, he is a mental entity after the similitude of the Father; a physical reality after the similitude of the Son and a spiritual being after the similitude of the Holy Spirit. The Bible speaks to each of these at various times and in various subjects especially with regard to sin, salvation, reward, etc. It is essential that the reader determine what part of man is being addressed in several scriptures.
Accordingly, it is interesting to note that in Genesis 2:7 where it states, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul." the word "life" as it is rendered in most common versions is really "lives." It is an error to think of man as one inseparable whole when he is really three in one after the similitude of his maker. Do we have readers out there who have made this discovery?

Seems to me that would be a problem. We would all owe our allegiance to Adam rather than to God. Your view appears to be widely accepted in some cultures, but I see it as the last act of God in creating man in His image: a trinity with the ability to reckon with life in all three aspects of his never-ending being.

Bro. Dilliard, I understand what you are saying, but Man is a Unity (one person) in Trinity (body, soul, spirit), and, though he can logically be viewed in respect to each, he nonetheless relates to God and other men as a whole person.

I would hope that we would not try to build, as Watchman Nee does, a whole house of theology on this kind of foundation.

But it is interesting "brain food."

Yes, you are correct. We do interact as a whole person. However, sin entered all aspects of man; hence, total heredity depravity of man. Also, the total man is to be saved who experiences the new birth. This does not all come at once, but in stages: spirit in the new birth, John 3; mind in its being renewed, Rom 12; and body in the resurrection.
It is vitally important that the reader identify what part of man is being addressed by several scriptures if proper understanding and application is achieved.
I do not know the watchman you referenced nor his writings or works. I do not allow heretics to persuade me away from bible convictions. I agree with some points of Catholicism, but I am not a Catholic. I agree with some points of Calvinism, but I am not a Calvinist. I agree with some points of Armenianism, but I am not a Freewill, etc. etc. I am sure you would agree with that as well. Actually, I believe what I find in the Bible and I find that most Missionary Baptist concur with most of what I believe. It is too much to expect 100% agreement -- even from my wife. Ha!

I know this is old, but I am a newcomer so I wanted to comment. Brother Dillard, I don't see anything that you wrote with which I can disagree. I have believed that since I first studied the Hebrew language in the 60's. I also do not know the Watchman Nee person.

I am enjoying reading the things in this site.

Jerry Waymire

Brother Waymire:

It is good that you have joined the discussion board group. I remember you and I am thankful for your ministry and the many years you devoted to CMBI. If you devoted very much time to Hebrew under a learned instructor of that language, then you are indeed well aware of the things I have written about. However, it seems there are many who have not been so exposed and I wonder if our schools have become destitute of Hebrew scholars or if there has been a wilful turning away from these powerful evidences.

W. A. Dillard wrote:Perhaps one of the better frameworks of theology that promotes a better, truer understanding of many scriptures in their context is the understanding of the trinity of man.

Lots of names I remember. W.A. Dillard, J. Waymire...

Greetings to all.

I am curious how you say there is a "trinity of man." I do not see this in the scriptures. What is evident is that man is composed of --

body of dust + breath of life (plural is fine, it actually fits well) = living soul.

W.A. Dillard wrote:Accordingly, it is interesting to note that in Genesis 2:7 where it states, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul." the word "life" as it is rendered in most common versions is really "lives."

Animals also have this breath of life and are called "living souls." If you do a quick Englishman's concordance search that becomes apparent.

So, the breath of life is given by God to all living creatures (Heb. souls).

W.A. Dillard wrote:It is an error to think of man as one inseparable whole when he is really three in one after the similitude of his maker.

Actually, the false doctrine of the immortal soul is at the root of this whole misconception about a "trinity of man." It isn't taught in the Bible, but rather is a result of the influence of Greek philosophy on the early church.

Texadelphos wrote:I am curious how you say there is a "trinity of man." I do not see this in the scriptures. What is evident is that man is composed of --

body of dust + breath of life (plural is fine, it actually fits well) = living soul.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - 1 Thessalonians 5:23

Texadelphos wrote:Animals also have this breath of life and are called "living souls." If you do a quick Englishman's concordance search that becomes apparent.

So, the breath of life is given by God to all living creatures (Heb. souls).

While it is true that all animals have a soul, it is not the 'breath' of God in Genesis 2:7; man is the only creation the Scriptures identify God breathing "the breath of life" into. The breath of God is the spirit of man that is within the soul. The only two things that Scripture teaches God breathed (His Word and the spirit of man) are the only two things that Scripture teaches will never go out of existence. The Breath of God is Eternal. When God breathed anything, it is eternal.

Texadelphos wrote:Actually, the false doctrine of the immortal soul is at the root of this whole misconception about a "trinity of man." It isn't taught in the Bible, but rather is a result of the influence of Greek philosophy on the early church.

The soul of man only lives beyond this life because it is carried there by the eternal spirit within. If we didn't have the breath of God within us, death for mankind would be as final as the animals. Please see the following link for an illustrated study:

http://allgrace.info/2natures.pdf

Bro. Jerry

Remove_not wrote:

Texadelphos wrote:I am curious how you say there is a "trinity of man." I do not see this in the scriptures. What is evident is that man is composed of --

body of dust + breath of life (plural is fine, it actually fits well) = living soul.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - 1 Thessalonians 5:23

Good verse. However, this statement by Paul is more indicative of the spirit = mind -- more appropriately the spiritual mind -- than some immortal ghost-like apparition that man possesses by way of a triune makeup. This is certainly characteristic of how Paul uses the word --

” There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband..” - 1 Corinthians 7:34 KJV.

Now, would it be correct to use this verse to say man is only two-fold, being composed of a body and spirit? Is Paul not worried about the soul being holy? That can't be the case, since as you point out in his letter to the Thessalonians, the admonition is to be blameless in spirit, body and soul. So, why does Paul leave out soul here?

He does it again in his second letter to the Corinthians --

” Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” - 2 Corinthians 7:1 KJV

And, along those lines, Jesus speaks of man in terms of a two-fold being as well --

” And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” -- Matthew 10:28 KJV.

So, does this then mean the soul isn't immortal while the spirit is and that is why the soul can be killed along with the body? Is that why Jesus doesn't mention man's spirit?

Is our spirit also able to transcend our body? Paul seems to indicate this in his letter to the Corinthians --

” For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,” -- 1 Corinthians 5:3 KJV

Or, perhaps Paul is speaking of the spirit of man as something else...

” But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

How are these things spiritually discerned? With our minds. It is with the mind we serve God... that is what separates us (or should separate us) from animals.

” Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” - Philippians 1:27 KJV

Are we able to make our spirits one collective entity? Or is Paul speaking of the unity of spiritual maturity?

The Pauline directive in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is speaking of making ourselves holy in the renewing of our minds to spiritual things. The soul (our life), and our bodies along with our renewed mind is to be holy in conduct, so that we may be blameless at the coming of our Lord.

If you insist that 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is teaching a triune man, then Paul is teaching a two-fold man in 1 Corinthians 7:34 and 2 Corinthians 7:1.

remove_not wrote:

Texadelphos wrote:Animals also have this breath of life and are called "living souls." If you do a quick Englishman's concordance search that becomes apparent.

So, the breath of life is given by God to all living creatures (Heb. souls).

While it is true that all animals have a soul, it is not the 'breath' of God in Genesis 2:7; man is the only creation the Scriptures identify God breathing "the breath of life" into.

So, how then did the animals get this breath if God didn’t give it to them? He is the Creator of all things, correct?

”They entered, along with every living creature after its kind, every animal after its kind, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, everything with wings Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life came into the ark to Noah.”

”Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.” – Genesis 7:22 KJV


” And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so..” – Genesis 1:30 KJV

”And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. .” -- Genesis 6:17 KJV

Again, if God didn’t give them this breath of life, who did?

remove_not wrote:The breath of God is the spirit of man that is within the soul. The only two things that Scripture teaches God breathed (His Word and the spirit of man) are the only two things that Scripture teaches will never go out of existence.

That is incorrect. The Bible teaches that all living creatures have the breath of life in them. It isn't a 1/3 part of a triune entity. It is God's breath animating the body of dust (man or animal) which results in a living soul.

And, the Bible doesn’t teach the spirit of man will not go out of existence.

remove_not wrote:The Breath of God is Eternal. When God breathed anything, it is eternal.

The breath of God does go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7). And, both animals and man have this breath…

” For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.” -- Ecclesiastes 3:19 KJV

Again, man and animals both are composed of --

body of dust + breath of life = living soul

This is scriptural.

remove_not wrote:

Texadelphos wrote:Actually, the false doctrine of the immortal soul is at the root of this whole misconception about a "trinity of man." It isn't taught in the Bible, but rather is a result of the influence of Greek philosophy on the early church.

The soul of man only lives beyond this life because it is carried there by the eternal spirit within. If we didn't have the breath of God within us, death for mankind would be as final as the animals. Please see the following link for an illustrated study:

http://allgrace.info/2natures.pdf

Bro. Jerry

I will take a look at the link a little later, but your comment above has no scriptural basis. If you disagree and have scriptural support, I'd be interested in reading it.



Reason for edit: Changed all scripture references to KJV. Added a few comments for clarification.

Texadelphos wrote:...NRSV...ESV...NET...

You lost my interest using the various versions. When I see this, I get the impression the one doing this is "picking and choosing" for his own advantage. That's not an accusation, just my impression, no matter who it is. If you are willing to stick with one Bible (the KJV), I'll be interested in further discussion.

Bro. Jerry

remove_not wrote:

Texadelphos wrote:...NRSV...ESV...NET...

You lost my interest using the various versions. When I see this, I get the impression the one doing this is "picking and choosing" for his own advantage. That's not an accusation, just my impression, no matter who it is. If you are willing to stick with one Bible (the KJV), I'll be interested in further discussion.

Bro. Jerry

Sure.

Did you take a moment to look at the verses with the KJV?

Dear Texas Brother (if indeed that is who you are):

You appear to be a materialist. In any case, I will not discuss this or any other issue with you until I know who you are. If you will not use your real name and be responsible for your statements, you will not be getting any further feedback from me. Wisdon is justified of her children.

W. A. Dillard wrote:Dear Texas Brother (if indeed that is who you are):

You appear to be a materialist.

How so? Could you supply me with the definition of materialist to which you refer so that there is no confusion on my part as to what you mean?

W.A. Dillard wrote:In any case, I will not discuss this or any other issue with you until I know who you are. If you will not use your real name and be responsible for your statements, you will not be getting any further feedback from me. Wisdon is justified of her children.

As cbut1 stated I have given an introduction of myself in the Newbie section. I am not hiding anything.

cbut1 wrote:Bro Dillard

He has introduced himself in the newbie section of the forum, he is also known by some here in California.

True. I lived in California for about 9 years and was a member of the San Diego 1st Missionary Baptist Church as well as the Arlington MBC in the Riverside area. My wife was a member of the Mt. Vernon MBC in Rialto. So, I do (formerly) have strong ties to the Landmark Baptists in southern California.

cbut1 wrote:Although by his own words he has left the Baptist work for what he believes is a more perfect way. He spent time I believe under Sharrol Fords teachings (I could be incorrect here). That Is all I know of him though.

I never actually sat under Sharrel Ford, but I know him personally. And yes, I did hold to many of the same teachings.

remove_not wrote:

Texadelphos wrote:...NRSV...ESV...NET...

You lost my interest using the various versions. When I see this, I get the impression the one doing this is "picking and choosing" for his own advantage. That's not an accusation, just my impression, no matter who it is. If you are willing to stick with one Bible (the KJV), I'll be interested in further discussion.

Bro. Jerry

I went back to my post and changed all the scripture references to KJV. I also took the opportunity to clarify a couple of comments.

Dear Texas Usta wuzer:

I do commend you for finally (after two posts) identifying yourself. I have talked with Christadelphian folk in central Arkansas as well as many Jehovah's Witnesses and find they have much in common, especially denying the spirit of man and the resultant soul-sleeping in death.
I regret that you have made the awful decision to abandon "the faith once delivered to the saints" for "another gospel." but having made that decision you must now meet the Master with it.
If I wanted to discuss things with a J.W. or one of your kind, I could easily find them here, but I do not wish to do so. This discussion board is for those who identify themselves as Landmark Baptists, giving them an means to discuss scripture and related topics among themselves. It is not a medium for you or others such as you to seek to proselyte. As a result, I invite you to cease posting and create your own discussion board for whoever may be interested in your heresy.

W. A. Dillard wrote:Dear Texas Usta wuzer:

Care to share with everyone here what you are calling me?

W.A. Dillard wrote:I do commend you for finally (after two posts) identifying yourself.

Thank you.

W.A. Dillard wrote:I have talked with Christadelphian folk in central Arkansas as well as many Jehovah's Witnesses and find they have much in common,

You didn't really listen to what these Christadelphians had to say since we have almost nothing in common with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Also, I'm curious by this statement --

especially denying the spirit of man and the resultant soul-sleeping in death

--since I know of Landmark Baptists in Arkansas who also believe in "soul-sleeping" death. It is Biblical, you know.

I also know that what I've addressed as the makeup of man (body of dust + breath of life = living soul) is taught in a few Landmark Baptist Churches in the states as well as in one foriegn mission field. Please don't make this a Christadelphian vs. Landmark Baptist issue... it isn't.

Besides, Christadelphians don't deny the spirit of man... we just define it differently (which we maintain is the Biblical definition). I've already dealt with this in my previous post.

W.A. Dillard wrote:I regret that you have made the awful decision to abandon "the faith once delivered to the saints" for "another gospel." but having made that decision you must now meet the Master with it.

Which is why I did change... I believe it is the truth.

W.A. Dillard wrote:If I wanted to discuss things with a J.W. or one of your kind, I could easily find them here, but I do not wish to do so. This discussion board is for those who identify themselves as Landmark Baptists, giving them an means to discuss scripture and related topics among themselves. It is not a medium for you or others such as you to seek to proselyte. As a result, I invite you to cease posting and create your own discussion board for whoever may be interested in your heresy.

If you choose not to discuss and defend your beliefs with me, that is fine... simply don't respond. But, perhaps others would actually like to see where I'm coming from since I was once a Landmark Baptist and shared your beliefs. It's easy to pat each other on the back, but do any care to actually see if their faith can be defended? It's not a call to arms per se, but a challenge I kindly extend to any who are interested... a challenge I myself faced.

cbut1 wrote:The terms of use that you agreed to when you joined are now provided to you for easier reference in this link.

http://landmarkbaptist.freeforums.org/post4.html#4

I personally have no problem with being challenged but I also did not set the rules to the forum so I cannot change the administrators rules as has been set forth.

I don't see non-Landmark Baptists being specifically excluded. If I am respectful, I don't see the problem. Point five of the forum guidelines could be construed as a problem, but it is a little ambiguous and I read it in a way that tells me that I have to understand the majority here believe the posted statement of faith. No problem there... I understand that perfectly. However, since I personally know Landmark Baptists who reject some of those beliefs, yet are welcome on this board, I would think I should be allowed to participate as well.

cbut1 wrote:Bro Dillard has only followed the terms of use rules and asks that you do the same.

May God show Mercy.

Have I been rude to any while here? Attributed motive? Used inflamatory speech towards your beliefs or yourself? I have not. And, on that note, being non-Landmark Baptist does not mean it is okay be be disrespectful towards me or what I believe. Mr. Dillard would do well to take that into consideration.

I have not -- that I can see -- violated any of the guidelines.

You didn't really listen to what these Christadelphians had to say since we have almost nothing in common with Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you knew anything about your own history, you will know that Christadelphians come from the same cultic ground that bred the JWs. Dr. Thomas made great company with the Millerites and adopted many of the heresies. Christadelphians deny the same orthodox Christian doctrines as the JWs.

The fundamental Christadelphian beliefs are:

* The Bible is God's word and the only message from him. It is without error, except for copying and translation errors.
* There is only one God - the Father. The Holy Spirit is God's power.
* Jesus is the Son of God, and a human being, through his mother Mary.
* Man is mortal, having no existence when dead.
* By living a sinless life, ending with his sacrificial death by crucifixion, Jesus has opened the way of salvation from death.
* Belief and baptism are essential steps to salvation.
* God raised Jesus from death. Jesus is currently in Heaven, on God's right hand. He will one day return.
* When Jesus returns, he will raise his "sleeping" followers from death and grant immortality to the faithful who have tried to live by God's precepts.
* His followers will help him to rule, bringing justice, righteousness and peace to the whole world - the Kingdom of God.”


Christadelphians:

* Don’t believe in the Trinity
* Don’t go to war,
* Don’t follow the Sabbath
* Don’t believe in Baby baptism
* Don’t believe the earth will be destroyed
* Believe in mortality of the soul; evil to be annihilated
* Believe in righteous live on earth, not in heaven, for 1,000 years
* Believe in water baptism
* Believe that the Catholic Church is “Babylon”

The only real difference between Christadelphians and Witnesses is the doctrine of Satan. Christadelphians reject the personhood of Satan, using the same reasoning to reject the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

I shudder to believe that someone who came from a Landmark Baptist background could adopt such doctrine.

Texadelphos wrote:"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - 1 Thessalonians 5:23

Good verse. However, this statement by Paul is more indicative of the spirit = mind -- more appropriately the spiritual mind -- than some immortal ghost-like apparition that man possesses by way of a triune makeup. This is certainly characteristic of how Paul uses the word --

If that is the case, then why did Paul refer to the "spirit and soul"? What is the difference between these two? There must have been a difference for Paul to mention both on each side of the conjunction 'and' (along with another conjunction 'and' and "body".

Texadelphos wrote:” There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband..” - 1 Corinthians 7:34 KJV.

Now, would it be correct to use this verse to say man is only two-fold, being composed of a body and spirit? Is Paul not worried about the soul being holy? That can't be the case, since as you point out in his letter to the Thessalonians, the admonition is to be blameless in spirit, body and soul. So, why does Paul leave out soul here?

Again, why did Paul mention three in Thessalonians if only two exist?

Texadelphos wrote:And, along those lines, Jesus speaks of man in terms of a two-fold being as well --

” And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” -- Matthew 10:28 KJV.

So, does this then mean the soul isn't immortal while the spirit is and that is why the soul can be killed along with the body? Is that why Jesus doesn't mention man's spirit?

Aside from the power of the Holy Spirit, spirit and soul are inseparable. The spirit and soul pass into eternity together. When God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life (spirit), Adam became a living soul. He didn't become a spirit; he became a soul. The soul is the real person (mind/emotion, etc.); the spirit of man is that part of him that gives him a God-consciousness while the soul is his world-consciousness.

Texadelphos wrote:Or, perhaps Paul is speaking of the spirit of man as something else...

” But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

How are these things spiritually discerned? With our minds. It is with the mind we serve God... that is what separates us (or should separate us) from animals.

If this were the case, then lost men and animals could serve God, not being redeemed. It has been pointed out that animals have a soul. They have a world consciousness; what makes us different is out spirit, which gives us a God consciousness. Animals have a world-consciousness, but they don't have a God consciousness nor do they pass into eternity because they have not a spirit to carry them there.

Texadelphos wrote:If you insist that 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is teaching a triune man, then Paul is teaching a two-fold man in 1 Corinthians 7:34 and 2 Corinthians 7:1.

Job said, "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." (Job 33:4). Does that mean he's teaching in a UNI-UNE man because he didn't say anything about the BODY?

Texadelphos wrote:While it is true that all animals have a soul, it is not the 'breath' of God in Genesis 2:7; man is the only creation the Scriptures identify God breathing "the breath of life" into.

So, how then did the animals get this breath if God didn’t give it to them? He is the Creator of all things, correct?

I didn't say He didn't give them breath; I simply pointed out that the Scripture doesn't say He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"; what He breathed into man was different than what He gave the animals. Both have the psyche, but only man has an eternal spirit.

Bro. Jerry

Texadelphos was removed from the board because this is not supposed to a place to argue over essential Christian doctrine, but to foster fellowship among Landmark Baptists. I was not sure how this gentleman would handle the discussions here, but immediately we jumped into a discussion over the Trinity. I did not see this as productive or meeting the purpose of the board.

There are boards that serve his purpose, and he can start his own board if he wishes.

Chad:

Thank you. I agree with your decision and the reasoning. Having dealt with these people more than just a little, I know that if one gets his foot in the door others will follow and will destroy the purpose of this board. The only reason they want in is hopefully to proselyte others to their heresies.

Dr. Dillard wrote to Texadelphos when he was still on the forum:

"I regret that you have made the awful decision to abandon "the faith once delivered to the saints" for "another gospel." but having made that decision you must now meet the Master with it."

I'm a bit curious by nature I admit, but since this young man identified himself as being in agreement with the teachings of Sharrel Ford, I can't help but wonder in what way you could possibly have considered him to have ever been in "the faith once delivered to the saints"?

Personally, I would say he exchanged one outlandish form of heresy for another. But maybe that's just me.

Rich

My consideration of his being a part of "the faith once delivered to the saints" was based on his statement of being a member of some Landmark churches in California whom I automatically assume to be practitioners of that said faith. I believe it was later that the identification with Sharrel Ford's teachings came into play. However, I do not know that person or his teachings, but understand that the gentleman(?) was in agreement with some of his teachings (he did not say all of them). It just so happens that I (who claims to be a Landmark Baptist) am in agreement with some of the teachings of Catholicism. However, my agreement with the doctrines of the virgin birth of Jesus and/or the need to trust in Jesus does not make me or anyone else who believes them to be a Catholic.
However, in view of the outright heresy the man has embraced, I must conclude that he never understood Baptist doctrine and was, therefore, never a Baptist. In that conclusion, it is true that he never did leave the faith once delivered to the saints, because he was never in possession of it.