Soulishness

Is there anyone out there aware of when this became a term? Or whether the early church fathers spoke of it with a different wording or phraseology? I am not interested in opinions on the legitimacy or lack thereof of the doctrine. I am just curious on the history of its teaching. The furthest back brother I know of that spoke of it was Watchman Nee, are there more ancient brothers who spoke of it?

I will greatly appreciate any help in this area brothers and sisters.

That is just it, I loved that book, and was even really blessed by a Zac Poonen sermon on it today, I guess I am just baffled by not hearing this much, and not seeing other teachings on it historically.

Brother Greg, do you happen to know why it was resisted as a teaching?

Areadymind,
Zac Poonen teaches on soulishness a lot. He may have even gotten the teaching from Watchmen Nee for starters then went with it. Because I know Zac Poonen refers to a lot of Watchman Nee's teachings. You should email Zac and see where else this is taught. I'd be interested to know as well. :)

Unless Greg knows too.

I believe, soulishness is more present in the church than we can even begin to realize.

Could pietism be similar to soulishness? One article I read, said there were similarities. But I do not know enough about pietism to make an accurate judgment.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. The longer I live for Him (very short compared to most of you) the more I recognize the flesh(soul) in myself and in preaching. Not much preaching contents me anymore because of this.

With Bro Zac, I know of some of his teachings and that's great. But I do know he quoted the mess bible. I do have issues with that. It has direct word for word quotes from the Druids and other occult like groups. It hold much much vulgarity in the sexual area and diminishes the Deity of Jesus a lot. And I have problems with that.

But the topic of soulishness is a key in end time conditions of the Church. We are in no way spotless when we operate in our own ability to please God. In fact, God hates it and calls it sin.

I am not going to argue about the mess bible but only tell you to watch out. I say that with care. Shawn.

Ez 13:3 also talks about the false prophets who depended upon their own "spirits" which I think would be the same the "soul."

Interesting Michelle, that is a good point about piety. Although piety is a bit of a difficult word to pin down a definition on. People have used it in both positive and negative connotations. It is kind of one of those words that acts like a mercenary.

Although I think I can see what you are getting at. There may be some ways to tie the two ideas together to get a bit of a picture of soulishness through another commonly used verbage...historically.

I found this online earlier tonight. You can read, "The Spiritual Man" by Nee here for free.

http://www.theoldtimegospel.org/men/spirit_index.html

By Areadymind:

I am not interested in opinions on the legitimacy or lack thereof of the doctrine. I am just curious on the history of its teaching.

I think the fact that you cannot find much teaching on 'soulishness' before Watchman Nee should raise a a red light of concern. Why not do a bible word study on 'Soul' and see what you find. I like a lot a lot of Watchman Nee's teaching, such as 'The Normal Christain Life' book (which is good bible exegesis), but I am very cautious of his teaching on the Soul.

I personally think that most of the teaching that has built up around 'soulishness' has very little (if any) biblical support. When you look at the scriptures people quote to support the various aspects of 'Soulishness' or 'soul ties' etc, they are either taken out of context or taken to say something they were never inteded to mean. Mostly the teaching is very subjective (if that's the right word). I mean it is based on opinion and personal conclusions, rather than clear biblical teaching (and I mean clear).

As Christians we do tend to repeat things we are taught and so certain teachings become ingrained into our theology and we just accept them as being correct......until we take a fresh un-biased look at what does the bible 'actually' say about this!

For me, the word of God tells us that we either 'walk in the Spirit or the flesh'. So it's only a matter of the Spirit of God or the flesh. Now our soul (life) can be controlled by either. You have to have a 'soul life', but it has to die to the flesh and be controlled by the Spirit.
So in reality what they call being 'soulish' is realy 'FLESH' or 'FLESHY'. It's the same thing and not another dimension. I don't mind if someone calls it 'soulish' or 'fleshy' as it amounts to the same thing, ie.not Spiritual. I just don't agree with building a whole teaching around something not clearly taught in the bible.

Enough from me anyway.

Ok, I am grossly ignorant: exactly what do you mean by "soulishness"? I could guess but how do you define it? I do not find its use in the WORD.

ginnyrose

EDIT: I did not see Dave's post until I had posted my question. Still, I wonder about its practical aspects.

HeyDave, I am not particularly interested in seeing yet another debate. I also do not particularly buy into the idea that it had to be a taught doctrine prior to Nee. The manner of scripture is that it is living and active and I have discovered over my life that there are times where God opens my eyes to things in Scripture that I never would have seen had I been in sin.

Secondarily, I just don't have the time to manage a debate on a forum thread about the concept. Which is why I am asking my brothers and sisters for any information about it so that I may take the time personally to evaluate the truth or lack thereof. Thank you for your interest brother.

Alive to God - Yes I agree with your conclusion.
Just to clarify what I was saying, we definitely do have and need a Soul life, but it dies to the flesh in the sense that the flesh should no longer controls it, but it is under the control of the Spirit and therefore being restored.

Pilgrim: I have disagree with you here (I normally agree with most of your posts:-)).

I think that The spiritual Man by Nee is much too subjective and experiential. Jesse Penn-Lewis' book again is highly regarded by a lot, but is almost totally based on experiences and conclusions not found in scripture, but ideas which 'seem logical'.You could say soulish :-).

Watchman Nee referenced Jessie Penn-Lewis extensively.

The danger of the power of darkness taking advantage. The Letter of James, written to believers, distinctly delineates the relation between soul life and satanic work:

I got to thinking about all the Christian books I have read over the years to try to rack my brain if any other brothers addressed soulishness without using that terminology, and I realized that Spurgeon addressed it and called ministers on the carpet for it in his book, "Lectures to my Students." He just had not labeled it as such.

He was talking about how foolish it was that there was a fad from many ministers who would replace the "R's" in their words with "W's." In essence this is the exact same kind of psuedo spirituality that Zac Poonen was calling preachers on the carpet for in his sermon on it.

I bet there are many more people who have addressed it, just in a different way of wording it.

Good admonition Pilgrim.

As a matter of fact, there is an entire section in that book about an interview Spurgeon had with a man who wanted to enroll in his school of ministry, who Spurgeon completely rejected from service into the ministry because the man exhibited nothing but what Nee or Poonen, or anyone else who taught soulishness would call exactly that.

Thanks for the answer.

In reading this thread I get the sense that one gets into trouble when you focus on the mechanics of how God deals with people and man's responce to it. Or, did I misunderstand?

Anyhow, I would say: Keep it simple like God does - then you will never go wrong.

My opinion...:-)

ginnyrose

Spurgeon mentions it here as well. And actually kind of "coins" the word, so he says, in this article. However, he says the soulish is unconverted.

Sensual is kind of like soulish is it not?

II. Thus, I have tried to help you to answer the first question—the inquiry, Have we received the Spirit? And this brings me to the CAUTION. He that has not received the Spirit is said to be sensual. Oh, what a gulf there is between the least Christian and the greatest moralist! What a wide distinction there is between the greatest professor destitute of grace, and the least of God’s believers who has grace in his heart. As great a difference as there is between light and darkness between death and life, between heaven and hell, is there between a saint and a sinner; for mark, my text says, in no very polite phrase, that if we have not the Spirit we are sensual. ” Sensual!” says one; “well, I am not converted man—I don t pretend to be; but I am not sensual.” Well, friend, and it is very likely that you are not—not in the common acceptation of the term sensual; but understand that this word, in the Greek, really means what an English word like this would mean, if we had such a one—soulish. We have not such a word—we want such a one. There is a great distinction between mere animals and men, because man hath a soul, and the mere animal hath none. There is another distinction between mere men and a converted man. The converted man hath the Spirit—the unconverted man hath none; he is a soulish man—not a spiritual man; he has got no further than mere nature and has no inheritance in the spiritual kingdom of grace. Strange it is that soulish and sensual should after all mean the same! Friend, thou hast not the Spirit. Then thou art nothing better—be thou what thou art, or whatsoever thou mayest be—than the fall of Adam left thee. That is to say, thou art a fallen creature, having only capacities to live here in sin, and to live for ever in torment; but thou hast not the capacity to live in heaven at all, for thou hast no Spirit; and therefore thou art unable to know or enjoy spiritual things. And mark you, a man may be in this state, and be a sensual man, and yet he may have all the virtues that could grace a Christian; but with all these, if he has not the Spirit, he has got not an inch further than where Adam’s fall left him—that is, condemned and under the curse. Ay, and he may attend to religion with all his might—he may take the sacrament, and be baptized, and may be the most devout professor; but if he hath not the Spirit he hath not started a solitary inch from where he was, for he is still in “the bonds of iniquity,” a lost soul. Nay, further, he may pick up religious phrases till he may talk very fast about religion; he may read biographies till he seems to be a deep taught child of God; he may be able to write an article upon the deep experience of a believer; but if this experience be not his own, if he hath not received it by the Spirit of the living God, he is still nothing more than a carnal man, and heaven is to him a place to which there is no entrance. Nay, further, he might go so far as to become a minister of the gospel, and a successful minister too, and God may bless the word that he preaches to the salvation of sinners, but unless he has received the Spirit, be he as eloquent as Apollos, and as earnest as Paul, he is nothing more than a mere soulish man, without capacity for spiritual things.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/spurgeon/sermons04.iii.html?highlight=soulish#highlight

Don't get hung up on the word "soulishness", because the early church taught about it, it is all over Romans, Galatians, James, etc and the Church has always taught about it, but I believe Jessie or Watchman coined the phrase "soulishness".

I agree, Pilgrim, it's all over the place.

Here is an example of what I believe to be soulishness found in the Gospels:

Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
Mat 17:2 \t \tAnd was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Mat 17:3 \t \tAnd, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
Mat 17:4 \t \tThen answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
Mat 17:5 \t \tWhile he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Where did Peter get the idea of building three tabernacles from? He got it from his own mind (soul). His intentions were probably real good. However, his plan was not from God and he was basically told to shut up.
There are countless church committees that cook up all sorts of good works, but in the end, is God in it? I am not asking if it being done FOR God. I am asking is it being done by God's Spirit. The whole What Would Jesus Do campaign is the epitome of soulishness. I am not saying that what they do is wrong or sinful and I know they have the best of intentions. They could do a whole lot worse than WWJD. But they are doing what they think Jesus would do. In other words, they are imitating what they think Jesus is like. I will say again: what they are doing is not the problem so much as their method. The Bible say we are to walk after the Spirit and be led by the Spirit. First off, it has nothing to do with being led by emotions. Secondly, it is not done mindlessly but it is not purely a mental function. It comes from the heart and of course it is in agreement with the Bible. But is see too many people making the mistake of thinking that if they read the Bible and memorize all the do's and don'ts and practice them, that they are "walking in the Spirit". Instead of trying to imitate Christ (which frankly isn't that bad of an idea) we need the LIFE of Christ. Christianity to me is about Christ living in and through me instead of me cramming a bunch of doctrine and head knowledge in me and trying my best by sheer will power to steer a straight course. (I am not anti-doctrine by the way. It is absolutely essential we be grounded in Biblically sound doctrine.) But I will say it again: we need sound doctrine PLUS the Spirit and Life of Christ to live the Christian life.

-Daniel

What does the Word of God, (Christ) divide, even to the deepest part of man?

"Even to the dividing of the soul and spirit".

Soulish is not spirit. What is born again in us? The spirit, not the soul. That is why we must renew our soul-mind to the mind of Christ who is not our spirit and Life.

The soul-mind controls the body, (flesh). The Spirit controls the soul. We don't have the soul of Christ, we have the Spirit of Christ, which is the Word of God being the Incorruptable Seed of The Father which is Jesus Christ.

Soulish is where the old man must learn the new man, which is Christ centered not self and Satan centered which is the soul of man and the spirit of the old man. The Spirit of the new man is the Spirit of Christ and the soul-mind is now the Mind of Christ which we now have. What are we to renew? What has the Father renewed? We must renew the mind, by the teaching of the Holy Spirit where He does His work, renewed to the mind of Christ which is Spirit where He has completed His work. We now have the Spirit of Christ, if not, we are none of His.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again

1 Peter 1:22-23 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

This is our soulish part that has been purified through the Spirit, We learn unfeigned love of the brethern.

The Spirit of Christ now is our nature and we are learning this nature by the Holy Spirit teaching what Christ has said.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

We must separate the Holy Spirit, the Another Comforter, Teacher of New Life in Christ, from the Life Himself, even though they are One, in essence of the God Head, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God. We see not separate from each other but separate in the work of the tripartite man in John 14,15,16,17.

Who is our Teacher? John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:26-27 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

The Holy Spirit teach us in our soulish part, the Spirit of Christ is our Life in the Spirit of God our Father who is all in all and all things will be returned to the Father, even by the Son that we will see God who is our total and all that we come to be by God the Father having son's in His house, which is total of all that has happened from Genesis 1 to the End of Revelations.

Life in Christ and by His Spirit and change in soul-mind by the Holy Spirit Comforter Teacher (Parakleet).

PHillip