The Fallen Bipartite Man

Suffers from The Dangers of Fallen Bipartite Man

Disclaimer: Brian makes the mistake of quoting from the LSM cult's version of Watchman Nee's, Release of the Spirit which is notorious for altering Watchman Nee's writings from the original as documented by some proofs to control its followers under Witness Lee, its cult leader who created LSM, who is now deceased. What Brian should have done is quote from The Release of the Spirit, by Christian Fellowship Publishers instead, but for some reason biasedly, men who quote Watchman Nee never quote from Christian Fellowship Publishers, the authority of Watchman Nee translations. Though CFP does not even offer this book anymore, because it was not translated by Stephen Kaung but another organization, Sure Foundation, and the man behind this organization, it may not be entirely up to par in accuracy or motivation in translation, which seems to be the reason CFP stopped offering it for it could not be fully assured to be Watchman Nee's exact writings, but guesses by the hearer's note taking (it is now sold by Christian Literature Crusade instead). What makes this book less trustworthy than Watchman Nee's writings from Christian Fellowship Publishers is the character of the man, Stephen Kaung, compared to Witness Lee's cult and aggressive influence of replacing the Little Flock with his shallow cult, and any influences upon others while Watchman Nee was jailed - since Release of the Spirit was published with no agreement or editing by Watchman Nee himself.

This response is a critique of misreading and misunderstanding and misuse by Brian Onken (CRI) showing the fallen nature of bipartite man not reflecting the true nature of the man made in the image of God. This fallen thinking, which is due to Calvinism, entails that his god holds to "stacking the deck", killing free-will, and claiming his god has pre-made men for heaven and others for hell irrespective of the believer's choice to come to Christ according to John 6.47. That is the essence of what Brian's motivation is, a form of zombiism, put forth and proven below. Though he promotes clear thinking he holds onto his flawed thinking. It is demented, a symptom of unsalvation. He should know better but he is protecting an untruth which shows it is not possible that God will save him in his current condition for the pride is so great in his life for him to be a Christian which God has made known to certain believers by the Spirit that Brian's killing the image of God and man's inner man (spirit) is possession by a demon whose name I have yet to properly name.

Since this article by CRI (Brian Onken) declares no effort will be made to examine Scriptural content regarding tripartite man in which the foremost work on the subject is preserved, he will only examine practical implications. Therefore, all I will do then is provide the truth of his mistaken assumptions and the dangers of fallen bipartite man, providing Scripture when led to do so. In his article, though, Brian will quote a few Scriptures, he does so not to point to truth, but to the purpose of exalting the dichotomous man who knows no difference between the spirit and the soul as if they are the same thing.

It is suggested that the popular view is man being tripartite by Brian. But the truth of that mistaken assumption is his view is the popular one. All you need to do is ask anyone about how they view the soul with respect to the spirit and nine times out of ten they will say they are the same not to be divided and usually go no deeper than that statement.

Apollinarian denied the humanity of Jesus Christ (Jesus was both man and God), but if he accepted that man has a spirit, soul and body, he would be right. Brian is right about the first part, we can agree, but we can not agree about Brian's claim that a tripartite man is a false concept of man that Brian says Apollo held, if indeed Apollo held such a view.

In this article, Brian accurately quotes Andrew Murray and Jesse-Penn Lewis for correctly understanding man's tripartite nature. But then he speaks next about Watchman Nee and called him a mystic. This is where Brian confuses a spiritual man for a mystical man, and there is only one reason for this error in misreading and misjudging - spiritual jealousy. I don't want to be careless about this, but explain exactly the condition that exists within Brian. What happens is there are other things that a person is holding onto, and because of the spiritual attainment and maturity in Christ that Watchman Nee reached, that Brian has not reached inordinately living by his soulical self, he would necessarily lack discernment in his inner man, that is his spirit.

Watchman Nee in The Spiritual Man uses terminology that I quite like in saying that man's outerman is comprised of the body and the soul, whereas his innerman is that of the spirit. This makes the point that the soul is quite an outward feature and not so inward as you might think. This is very representative of spiritual reality for our mind as our body is closely tied to worldly matters such like inordinate introspection which is not the spirit's doing. It is the will of the man to allow such inordinate practice.

It is important to recognize that the soul is not the mind and emotion and the intellect as termed by Brian misunderstand meaning as it pertains to the will of the man having already seen a quote of Andrew Murray, Jesse-Penn Lewis and Watchman Nee identifying the will as one of the three major components of man's soul, so that we have mind, will and the emotion.

Another interesting observation in Brian's terminology is to describe man's tripartite nature as being threefold as opposed to being composed of three parts. Threefold by my reckoning is a term that signifies three folds of layers. It is better to say three aspects since these are the three parts of man's soul - spirit, soul, and body, with the spirit being the highest, guiding principle in the man since the spirit is where God's live resides in the regenerated man ousting the evil spirit from. So we can see clearly then that threefold is an inaccurate term.

Next, Brian tries to suggest there is varying degrees of this view. Though in Brian's mind there may be, in reality God identifies for us in the Scriptures (see The Spiritual Man) that man has these three components which Watchman Nee adequately presented many verses for - proven with the Scriptures. It is therefore, not a matter of degree, but a fact of the Scriptures that our soul is comprised of our mind, will and emotion which does not run as deep as the functions of our spirit: intuition, communion and conscience.

Brian says that because the spirit is held as the most important aspect of the man, that there could be a problem in denying the intellect, whereas a spiritual man sees Brian trying to be intellectual at the sacrifice of his spiritual life, attempting mental gymnastics when God has not guided him to inordinately supersede the spirit's quickening to engage his mind so inordinately, thus causing errors and erroneous thought - not unlike the reasoning of this entire article. If we are walking in the spirit by the Spirit correctly and accordingly well pleasing to the Lord, the mind will be used for God and not for selfish separation from God. This is the vital point that Brian is not appreciating as he seeks the intellect first and not the spirit in Christ leading.

Therefore, the reasonable implication Brian derives is one that is erroneous for how could spiritual life and following God's proper leading in the spirit not be communicated then perfectly to the man's soul to engage with proper emotion, correct will and healthy reasoning? The extreme view that is taken here is the mistaken assumption that one would be in the spirit too much, but in the Spiritual Man by Watchman Nee (an authority on the subject) clearly states (I will find the page) that being in the spirit too much is also a problem for our spirit's purpose is for receiving God's indwelling, and to dwell there beyond what is required so that the intellect is diminished is not the will of God - the very same thing Brian is saying.

But in so over dwelling in the spirit (which would not be walking after the spirit but after emotion) is not a consequence of man being tripartite, but rather man being bipartite, because if the man is bipartite, what does he do? He lacks discernment. He doesn't realize the soul is different from the spirit and thus will confuse emotion for the spirit, and that God's communion is in the spirit not the emotion of the soul. Or the man may get to analytical and make mistake rationalizations forsaking the spirit, but if one knows God's proper dealing of the spirit, soul and body then man can walk accordingly. This is very special principle.

It is as if Brian is cutting off the line of communication between man's spirit and soul so the man loses discernment and becomes a fallen shallow man, a bipartite man. This can never be good. This is the reasonable conclusion of the bipartite man. If you do not know what is of the spirit, how can you walk after the spirit? If you don't know what is of the soul, how can you not misuse the soul? But in knowing both and their respective functions, you can begin to abide in God's working towards renewing the mind and the spirit. This would be something Brian would be without.

These points have been further expressed in the quotes Brian shares of Jesse-Penn Lewis, Andrew Murray, and Watchman Nee. Watchman Nee makes some excellent points that man living by his soul forsaking his spirit life is a man that has little if any of God working in his life since the life of a newborn Christian is that life in the spirit, God coming through the window of his consciousness enter the seat of his intuition to commune with him in his spirit so that what comes forth is life of God communicated and stored and preserved in the soul's renewed sense of self, natural and all things spiritual in Christ and for Christ.

Brian says Watchman Nee "creates an antagonism between the intellect and the spirit". There is no antagonism if one knows proper authority and submission in the tripartite man, first the spirit, then the soul, then the body. But if you are a bipartite man proponent you don't know if you are coming backing or going forward and what is in control and therein lies the true underlying antagonism as the flesh (sin of the body and self of the soul) wars against the Spirit and the Spirit wars against the flesh. The Scriptures say this antagonism already exists between God and man as man has rejected God by his soul. Therefore, the true antagonism but be that which is contrary to the Scriptures in not allowing God to afford us the dividing of our spirit, soul and body to know which comes from which to follow God's leading in our spirit where the Spirit will war against the flesh to come out victorious in the believer. Yet we see Brian fighting against this very thing as if to make man a zombie, to pacify him against having spiritual discernment, not using his mind.

Surely we can all see this obvious problem and conclusion of Calvinism in that it no longer becomes a focus on God creating man in His image with a free-will to believe Him or not and receive the blessing of eternal life according to John 6.47 as well as receive increased faith given by God. Rather in Brian believes that God pre-selects certain men for hell or heaven and thereby diminishing the glory of God giving grace to man initially in free-will to come to Him or not which will always supersede fallen man, in this case, revealed in man who clings to remaining bipartite, animalistic as the soul relates to the animate and the spirit relates to the angels. Thus a man in Christ who has all about him many disturbances, can remain firm in the spirit because he did not try to solve the problem with mental gymnastics, but instead did exactly what God called for him to do for he allowed for God to work in him by the spirit, and through the Word. There is a chapter in Watchman Nee's, The Spiritual Man, which is very helpful to clarify these very points, entitled, Principle of the Mind Aiding the Spirit a very important principle.

While Brian refers to this spiritual life given to us by God as "repression", this terminology along with using the term "threefold" merely reflect Brian's hostility towards God in his understanding which needs to be delivered from and put on the cross if this is possible that Brian is a Christian. However, I believe 99% of Calvinists believe in a an evil god so putting on the cross the false teaching of the bipartite man in Brian's life is not possible since co-death with Christ is only possible for one who has received a quickened spirit, and therefore he will be unable to do so until he truly comes to Christ so that God can truly give him eternal life. The true repression is repressing God. In the explanatory notes of Watchman Nee's, The Spiritual Man there is a clear distinction between what is soulical and what is soulish in the soul of the man which would be very beneficial to understand:

Soulical and Soulish. The adjectives “soulical” and “soulish” have been used to convey distinctly different meanings. “Soulical" as herein employed pertains to those proper, appropriate, legitimate, or natural qualities, functions, or expressions of man’s soul which the Creator intended from the very beginning for the soul to uniquely to possess and manifest. “Soulish” appears in these pages to describe that man in toto who is so governed by the soulical part of his being that his whole life takes on the character and expression of the soul.

Excuses are made for why we should not sense the leading of the spirit of your life and then we become like animals a composite of soul and mind, with no consideration for our spirit. The irony is that in so doing the intellect is suppressed and the man doesn't think for himself clearly because he is without the capacity to do so, losing a vital function of his being that is his inner man and its respective functions of intuition, communion and conscience. The man tends to then live in his outer man going after the worldly and making the mistake of inordinate introspection. If you have a true dividing of the spirit, soul and body in your life your awareness of spiritual life excels, because you are no longer boxed into the vagaries of what belongs to what in your being. God has given us this blessed gift in 1 Thess. 5.23 and Heb. 4.12.

It is the poor thinking of the man's mind that blames the spirit life in a man for lack of thinking, when ironically it is this very lacking of thinking which is causing him to reject the intuitive functions of his spirit that causes the poor thinking because of the mistaken assumption that he is a bipartite man when in fact, in reality, he is not, and that is why think this way is that of a fallen man. This produces a loss of critical thinking to one's mental health, and mind idolatry placing the mind before the spirit in the man which of course is very damaging because it causes the person to accept things not of God for he is without the sensing of God's movements in the spirit and goes on his own way, even worshipping God his own way. Man inherently is not evil though what man accepts are evil thoughts like believing we are not to have our spirit and soul dividing and to know the functions of each so that we may properly abide accordingly, and not be swayed too far to extreme as is the case of the fallen man who knows not what he has done.

The reason a problem exists is you get men like Witness Lee who are really shallow and using the great benefit of dividing spirit, soul and body to control its adherents by misrepresenting the meaning of soulical and the soulish. Witness Lee depraves man so much he truly does get the person to degrade their thinking. Witness Lee is a Calvinist also. What is revealing in all of this is that Christian Research Institute associated to the Pilipino Bereans, who are all Calvin's, just as Witness Lee is also a Calvin. They all believe in their gods "stacking the deck" predeterminism. While the former group remains bipartite, the latter group is tripartite. But they are using these concepts differently, falsely. The former group uses bipartite man to exalt Calvinism so that they reduce the functions of the mind for pride in believing they are pre-selected for heaven, a false salvation not based on the image of God in free-will to receive the blessing of eternal life.

This contrasts with Witness Lee's approach as a Calvinist to manipulate through tripartite man by degrading the mind doing the very thing CRI and company blame him for, though such characteristics are not evident in Andrew Murray, Jesse-Penn Lewis, and Watchman Nee. This is noted in men like Dennis McCallum who were perplexed at how active Watchman Nee's life. He could not understand how spiritual a life is attained in the dividing of the spirit, soul and body in order to walk after the spirit and know God in a much deeper profound way of life in order to be more Christ-like. While Witness Lee attempts to manipulate and control his adherents through the false locality, the Bereans/CRI attempt to control through zombiism. It is all the same garbage. As a consequences Witness Lee always seems to come into the discussion to degrade the truth, yet to have a fair discussion. Witness Lee must be left out because Witness Lee was a not a Christian, just a very smart business man. This is another way of saying to Brian Onken that if you want to discuss intelligently you must not bring those with no authority.

What we have seen up to this point is an idolatry of the mind in the bipartite Calvinist and a degrading of the mind in the tripartite Calvinist, the common deception in connection being what? Calvinism. We need to be very clear about this as the source of error. Witness Lee is an outspoken Calvinist, Brian Onken/CRI/Pilipino Bereans are outspoken Calvinists. To add to the answer to this problem can be found in OSAS Arminianism preservation of the saints which are fancy terms that simply reflect God's true reflection of man in which the grace of creating man in His image always supersedes fallen man to come to Christ since, after all, it is man made in the image of God, and thereby allows for the man to accept God so that God fulfills His promise to give the believer eternal life.

Brian furthers his argument in saying that this discussion should not be central to the flesh warring against the Spirit at all, but rather that if man has his intellect in his spirit he will think one way and if his intellect is that of his soul he will think another way. Brian says he has the capability to give himself wholly to God if he doesn't know what is of his spirit and what is of his soul, like throwing yourself into a vat of spiritual life and coming out all roses. The problem is that he is doing this while rejecting what is of the soul and what is of the spirit. The negative consequence of this is as we have seen is that he will take his own will and confuse as God's will in his spirit, or he may take the sensing of his emotion and determine that it is from God as spiritual when it is not. It is because though Brian speaks of getting lost in the Scriptures and coming out roses, the reality is he still does not know what is soulish. He confuses what is soulish for what is soulical. Incidentally, this is the exact thing Witness Lee does, confusing what is soulish for what is soulical.

Witness Lee consciously manipulates the soul to degrade it, while Brian blocks out the differences in function of the spirit and the soul to degrade the spirit which will naturally have the consequences of also debilitating the soul's functions because there was not proper spiritual guidance in his inner man in this spiritual knowledge. It is actually quite a thing if you can observe these errors, quite enlightening. While Brian finds this a burden, the Scriptures assure us that it is life. I can testify that it is powerful to know the will of God in this regard in our walk in the Spirit. This dichotomy Brian suffers will always prevent him from spiritual life. Though this may seem harsh, I am confident that Brian is not a Christian. I know this is may shock people, but suffice it to say having read what I have said, he suffers two errors, the fallen nature of remaining bipartite and believing he was pre-made for salvation as a Calvinist.

This article is long for a reason, so that there is no mistake in absolutely understanding (for we are dealing in absolutes here since God is absolute in His clarity) that Brian's lack of discernment in his intellect is misunderstanding the difference between two simple words and their relatively simple difference in meaning, soulical and soulish, as we have come to see.

To reiterate this continual shallow thinking on Brian's part, this quote of his reveals his condition, "If this view of man and the place of the mind were true, it would leave the seeker in a hopeless quandary. If by evaluating teaching I am in danger of ignorantly resorting to soulish power....". No one is saying to not evaluate. Here Brian has confused what is to be soulical as being soulish. How very special a principle that this was outlined at the front of Watchman Nee's, The Spiritual Man in the Explanatory Notes. And so because Brian has no appreciation for what is of the spirit and just observes from his natural strength of his soulish self (self-willing), which must be the soulish self, since he necessarily rejects the spirit of man having different functions than his soul where God's life resides in the believer, and thus he would be without the communion of God there.

Further quoting Brian, "If evaluation and thinking are to be laid aside as inadequate and inappropriate for true spirituality, how can I ever determine that I should do so, since to so conclude would require me to evaluate, study and think through the teachings of the Scriptures on the subject? If it were true, the only way to know it would be by direct revelation" exhibits the same problem in the previous paragraph but with addition stinking thinking forsaking the concept of the idea of the mind aiding the spirit with a view to the spirit rather than on what the mind can get out of the situation. Often times the spirit is not receptive in the believer, and so the mind then must aid the spirit in receptiveness helping it along. Soon the spirit comes on-line and the believer is again flowing in the Spirit. But the dichotomous man is without this communication in his being, and will continue to force himself upon God not realizing there has been a break in communication with God which requires the mind aiding the spirit until the spirit is receptive. If the believer does not realize this then he would be forever contending in his flesh trying worship God by his own strength, his own "soul power" which is disturbing to a relationship with Christ trying to fellowship in the mind only or the will only or the emotion only with no consideration for the intuitive conscience in communion in our spirit with God's Spirit. God wants this harmony to continue in the believer to allow him to grow but how can growth be availed if such avenue is not provided if he remains bipartite, dichotomous, soporific, sophomoric, and animalistic in view of himself; leading many to consider that according to this symptom of himself that he may not be a Christian at all. Unless he repents and puts it on the cross.

Other times, while the mind is not assisting us, and we are not receiving revelation in our spirit or guidance therein, what are we to do? We must pray and allow the Holy Spirit to come forth in our inner man. Further analyzing, rationalizing, and perform mental gymnastics don't seem to be helping as a dichotomous man may have you believe as he gets more mental like taking one step forward and two steps back. He never gets anywhere. He is the same vain old man as before. On the other hand, the spirit is not receptive either so what is a believer to do? If the believer is aware that he has both a soul life and a spirit life, he has then the ability to discern by God's grace what is needed which would be to continue on his soul's studying of the Word of God realizing he is in difficulty in struggling in his soul, yet having an aim in view allowing for the release of the spirit to open up that line of communication when that moment may come that God's life can flow through him again entering through the window of his conscience to his intuition, through to his mind's understanding with healthy emotion and a will well received by the Lord. This is spiritual life. If we don't have this spiritual mind to allow for this, much studying and prayer life is all for naught and simply just fleshly worship where cults are born like Calvinism or Leeism. The key to all of this here is realizing that the soul is not what it needs to be and the believer in having his mind aid his spirit allows through reverence an appreciation of this fact. This greatly differs with bipartite man who may think he is in the heavenlies already. It is a distinct matter of humility unappreciated by the dichotomous to his own demise.

Brian actually uses a verse here that mentions the spirit, but denies the function of the spirit as distinct from the soul: "Paul's letters to Timothy unmistakably show the priority he placed on the role of understanding in the Christian life. In fact, he goes so far as to say that we have been given a spirit of sound judgment (2 Tim. 1:7)." The ramifications are overwhelming to show that there is a spirit in the man with such functions that run deeper, as I quote this verse, "2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." We see the spirit has an inner quality just as God's Spirit reaches an inner depth, of love, power, and a sound mind. This is very distinct from the quality put forth by a man rummaging through his brain for explanation in dichotomy towards a solution that would entail with no eye towards the inner workings, always forgetful of this point, thinking he can get the answer, separating himself from God's grace, and that still small voice in the believer that provides for love, power and a sound mind in the inner registrations of the believer allowing for healthy outward thinking in his soul's mind, will and emotion.

If you like you can see this picture as a matter of cause and effect and compare the words of Brian to my words to discern the truth. While Brian is constantly for the brain as the guiding principle in his life I am observing his brain as being the problem of getting in the way of his spirit to receive God's love power and a sound mind in his spirit so that his brain can function in healthy emotionally non-self-willed approach. But Brian doesn't start in this place, for he is working from his outerman instead and you can never reach God's life this way. That is why Calvinists have 1001 articles to project at you but after you read 20 of them or even 100 of them you never seem to have made any headway. You feel like you are right where you started from, even more confused. Mental gymnastics of the Calvinist are never the answer. Their think is still flawed because the pursuit is not knowledge as an end, but as a means to an end, but a Calvinist will treat the knowledge as the end itself.

A better way to think about the mind, is to see the mind as one of the three functions of the soul with emotion and will. Just like Job's three friends approached him in his distress the first one gave all kinds of emotional appeals (mysticism), the next gave many rationalizations in vain (mind), and the third gave a dogmatic answer stimulating his self-willing. None were helpful, but then Job came to the point in his spirit, because he was a man of God (not a Calvinist) where the answer came forth after these contentious soulish struggles which had in themselves not a shred of a solution, he finally gave it up to God in the fourth person who was a passerby, representing his spirit, finally listening to his spirit. And it was then and only then that Job was able to see the face of God. Praise the Lord! Where the bipartite man would be working with his three friends searching the Scriptures for a mental answer that is as far as he would go (DEAD WORKS), and all it would amount to is a shouting contest. But the spiritual man knows better, and allows for the release of his spirit to come forth despite all that nonsense and vain struggling. The believer in Christ does the work of the Lord not according to his self-willed desires but according to God's will for Him.

These problems therefore are typified by John Stott, "Knowledge is indispensable to Christian life and service. If we do not use the mind which God has given us, we condemn ourselves to spiritual superficiality and cut ourselves off from many of the riches of God's grace. At the same time, knowledge is given to us to be used, to lead us higher worship, greater faith, deeper holiness, better service. What we need is not less knowledge but more knowledge, so long as we act upon it." Again there is no mention of the spirit, just what the humanist can get out through his mind's reasonings. Isn't this amazing? There is talk of God's grace, but not talk of the communion of God's grace arriving through the spirit of the man. It is assumed that it comes by way of knowledge and more knowledge the better, yet this poor soul is no better off than he was before, still filling his mind, but inside his spirit has yet to be reached with things of God.

The problem we find with Brian's view is centered on the fact that he exalts the mind above the spirit rather than thinking in terms of the soul being the steward, the body the servant and the spirit the mistress. The soul's mind, will, and emotion, thinks, decides and feels not of itself or through the body, but by the mistress's calling and her needs, but not her needs received just anywhere but rather by the Holy Spirit's abiding in her. And so as the believer reads the Word of God with his spirit then his mind is renewed, but if he reads with his mind alone without his spirit, his spirit suffers. It is like the spirit has been smothered by the soul with no room to breath as the mind profusely projects onward of its own strength. This is not the way, the truth, and the life.

Brian attempts to portray Eccl. 12.7, Isa. 10.18, and Matt. 10.28 as being dichotomous proofs. The truth of this mistaken assumption is that Eccl. speaks the spirit of the man, but does not preclude the soul of the man also being present with the spirit. Though there is no mentions of the soul, know for a fact we are also soulical beings for we possess reasoning when we are resurrected, therefore the soul comes along. Isa. mentions instead only soul and body. But since the soul is the outerman, inside the outerman is the innerman, the spirit, so it is not always necessary to mention every part of man all the time for it is implied. How shallow if man had no depth of his innerman and all he was a reasoning entity. The reason why certain words are used in certain instances is because of their pertinent application. The spirit is seeing as being raised after resurrection. In Isa., a "forest" is akin to the body, while the soul is like that of "fruitful field". How perfectly this fits with the difference between the spirit and the soul. The spirit discerns spiritual things while what comes forth is fruit of the soul. 1 Cor. 2.13 says "comparing spiritual things with spiritual truths". 1 Cor. 14.1 speaks of the "spiritual". These are direct references to the inner man, deep things of God, not merely mental regurgitation alone. You can regurgitate all you like but if you don't touch God's life, then why do you expend so much energy when God considers your works dead?

In Matt. 10.28 the reason the soul is used is because to "kill the soul" means to deprive one of his enjoyment, that is, suffers loss. And as we related this to the verse in Isa. in the previous paragraph, we find the soul is used also because there is where the fruit is realized. First truths must be accepted in the spirit before the soul can receive the fruit of those realizations. If a person hovers only in the realm of his mind but never goes any deeper than that, he is dead, totally unable to perceive God's inner workings. Brian is only focused on the material or the immaterial, the spiritual and the earthly. Yet he cannot see blocked by his flesh what is really spiritually for he takes the self of his soul of his flesh as being spiritual and it never is. Self must die on the cross, and out from the cross is selflessness of his soul because spiritual reality has been reached in his spirit.

1Th 5:23 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.

A spirit. A soul. And a body. Otherwise God would have said soul and body, or spirit and body. God's way is authentic. Any other interpretation is a false copycat.

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

His word is sharper than any two-edged sword, able to divide not merely a dichotomy, but tripartite in the man: spirit, soul and body. Brian is rejecting God's declaration that man has a spirit, a soul and a body (joints and marrow). Marrow is to the spinal column for sensing the world and joints are for movement. And God can discern the thoughts (mind of the soul) and intents (will of the soul) of the heart (understanding, mind, intellect; or in other words, the mind of the soul + conscience of the spirit). The heart can be thought of as being the seat of the soul that reaches into the spirit of the man (inner man). The heart is often deceitful, but through this dividing asunder the spirit, soul and body God can uproot all that needs to die with the old man on the cross.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

When God breathed His Spirit into the man into the body formed from dust, he created a soulical man, a living soul. It was at this moment when the spirit was formed that replaced God's Spirit inbreathing that touched the body a soul life was formed. But not only was there just a physical life, a soul life, but that man also had a spirit (innerman) that comprised his spirit life. Amen. Since the beginning of the creation of man, man has always been tripartite in nature, and let no man be deceived in believing that he is merely physical and spiritual with no deeper thought than this, for what is spiritual is of the spirit that perceives the differences from the soul, and the soul that different functioning's from the spirit. That is a great blessing if you receive the gift of God dividing your spirit, soul and body (Heb. 4.12).

To further see he contradicting statements in Brian's thought processes, "However, these terms in both the Old and New Testaments, are used, for the most part, interchangeably", here he readily admits that FOR THE MOST PART implying that not always. What Brian needs to realize that NOT 100% ALWAYS means that sometimes he is wrong that the spirit is not the soul and the soul is not the spirit. He can't say one thing and then mean another. This is the confusion that will set in if you deny God's will on this matter. We can easily conclude this error that Brian is unable to perceive must necessarily, although unbeknownst to him, lead us to the necessary conclusion that that NOT ALWAYS actually does mean always. And we can show why God uses the word SOUL instead of SPIRIT, depending on the context and whether God wants to speak towards the inner depths of man in his spirit or to the outer man's functions of his soul.

Brian further tries to confuse himself, "Both terms refer to the immaterial part of man and, although they are not identical in meaning, they do not designate separate constituent elements of man's nature." Why Brian denies his outer man and his inner man functioning of his nature is for God to deal with Him about, but since he agrees they are not identical in meaning, he is admitting the tripartite man. Both the soul and spirit are immaterial, but that is as far as he goes to speak of the spirit and the soul. He admits they are different but not different enough to discern. Does this not sound like a mindless statement? If we look just a bit deeper we find the underlying motivation for this poor reasoning on his part. It has to do with being a Calvinist who believes he was pre-made for heaven which to any reasonable person must be identified a prideful sinful statement which is hell bound.

If he can make this mistake pride-filled, then it will lead to other errors. One of those errors being bipartite man because the pride of Calvinism is a form of lazy-believism to allow that person to live evilly in believing they were preselected for heaven and there was nothing they could do as God determined them. Such is a lazy thought that never had them come to Christ to begin with has them in Christ when they never accepted the principle of being made in God's image as the grace initiating source to accept Christ so God could save him. This same unsaving thought (deceiving the person to make themselves think they are saved when they are not) also produces other easy-believisms like speaking of only material and spiritual, yet not allowing God to divide the spirit and soul according to Heb. 4.12. There is such a significant shallowness in a bipartite man that I don't see their longing for Christ for the truth on this matter and relegate themselves to the mind's false reasonings even though these two Heb. 4.12 and 1 Thess. 5.23 are clear on the subject. If you want to see hundreds of examples of verses to substantiate where the spirit applies and when the soul applies please refer to The Spiritual Man. This article is merely to show others that Brian Onken is not a Christian. I don't say this to offend anyone, only to say what I believe must be true given the fruit seen in Brian in his reasonings for there is no finding of the Holy Spirit coming forth from his spirit to his soul expressed in his writings. It truly is a narrow path to a narrow gate.

Recognize the doublespeak in Brian, "The use of these two words is one of perspective rather than an actual difference in essence; that is, they both refer to man's immaterial part in different ways but do not designate different immaterial parts." Realize this is all for easy-believism so he can remain in the flesh, and though in name speaking of the difference of the spirit and soul in his mind's rationale, in practice in the spirit, his soul is confused drawing no discernment in difference remaining as a fallen man. You would think he would provided at least one example of the difference in perspective but he did not. What I see Brian doing is using pettiness of semantics to keep from discerning the walking in the spirit as the guiding principle in his life because he loves his mind so much. There is a difference in essence and the essence of that difference is that of the outerman and that of the innerman.

This is at the core the depth of the difference and what is found operating in the outerman are the functions of mind, will and emotion because what runs much deeper is not a reason, nor a simple expression of emotion or some volition, but an intuitive sensing in communion with God with a conscience in Him. How much more rewarding is spiritual life if one recognizes this and tries to deny it by calling it "parts" to denigrate it so the mind can self-exalt itself about the inner man that is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. As one who believes man is tripartite, I can draw the distinctions of the functions of man's soul and spirit so that I know when someone is being too overly rationalizing or in other cases having a conscience that is not quite right in Christ for I know the mind is of the soul and the conscience is of the spirit, for I do not confuse the two so much so that I don't know the difference anymore losing the benefit of this spiritual knowledge in my life, for it is a gift. Notice that an example of a different perspective is never given by Brian, not even once in this entire article by Brian. This should be the proof something is wrong with Brian. Men speak lots, but the proof is in the pudding. If there is no actual dividing of his spirit, soul and body, in life, then he is still walking in the flesh.

We must be clear, that God never uses the term spirit and soul interchangeably. If one must profess this, I would be happy to shown them in any instance where this claim is wrong as Brian is definitely wrong about.

Brian attempts the same old man tactics of the bipartite man through the ages who will try to degrade man's tripartite nature proof of Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23 with Mark 12.30, saying that heart, soul, mind and strength somehow disproves man no longer has a spirit, soul and body. We must realize, quite reasonably, that as stated before this is a form of easy-believism so they can remain in passivity to the demonic spirit of Calvinism that they claim that pre-made them for salvation apart from others pre-made for hell. Therefore we should expect other kinds of passivity in their reasoning because their spirit is dead to things of God unable to perceive His life in their spirit.

The reason Mark 12.30 speaks of these four words in this context is because Jesus is asked what is the most important commandment so for emphasis Jesus stresses first the deeper part of the man that is the heart (a composite of the conscience of the spirit and the mind of the soul), then the soul is emphasized, then the mind of the soul is further isolated, and yet still further, the will or the strength of man is vital because it is by this ordering of importance man is made in the image of God all coming down to the will. This will is what differentiates OSAS Arminianism Preservation of the Saints from Calvinists. I love the depth of this meaning. All aspects of the man are touched on with the primary focus being the concluding remark on the will of the man which is his strength. Knowledge should never be the foremost consideration as in a bipartite man for all you see in such a man is spinning wheels instead of touching spiritual life. How precise are the Lord's choice of words. When we want to touching on a very important principle it is vital you find the most important verses to show the truth of the spiritual reality of the situation, and then expand upon with many other verses as Watchman Nee has done, for example, in the foremost work ever done.

This is the man as a whole, and we should not diminish or vaguely blithe man's nature away and not recognize the deep dividing of the Word easily showing us we have an inner man (our spirit) and an outer man (our soul and body). He is trying to live in the outer man vainly, having no consideration at all, none whatsoever of why God's mentions the spirit as our inner man, and how absolutely beneficial it is to spiritual life to sensing that "still small voice" in our inner man so we can know God's will in reading His Word and living resurrected life, which is so quickening by those inner registrations and inner movements that the Holy Spirit communicates to us His mind, that we find Brian is not in favor of. Brian seems like a computer brain, with some viruses, and the software doesn't seem to be working properly.

Troy Brooks