Adult Sunday School - Pauline Psychology Part3

Okay, so here is the reason why we went through this brief study in Pauline psychology now remember Pauline is not a name Pauline is a feminine name Pauline meaning describing Paul. Paul ish would be another way thing, but Pauline is the technical way of saying.

We're just saying we're studying Paul's of you on a particular subject and remember I told you I think I've mentioned it every time. Don't worry about the word psychology. We're not turning to psychologists.

We're not opening up secular books. It just means the study of how we think okay a biblical study of how we think Paul's you. So today is really kind of what we're trying to what I was trying to Come to this is it was the trajectory we studied the Hebraic view of man where they saw man as a unified whole and He would be seen from different aspects from body from heart from spirit.

Depending on the context depending on the message that scripture was trying to get across that was Hebraic and we studied briefly how during the heavily Hellenized period between Malachi and John the Baptist was called the 400 so-called silent years.

But there was an excellent Sunday school done here about the 400 so-called silent years where it was shown very convincingly. I believe that they weren't silent at all we didn't have a designated prophet during those years, but God was certainly working and if you see what developed in those years to Bring forth the world that Jesus was born into God was not silent at all.

But that's just the term that's used for that time between Malachi and John the Baptist so we studied that and we saw how through Alexander the Great's influence the Greek the Hellenized way of thinking Permeated the known world at the time.

So we talked about the world. It was really that Mediterranean Basin the known world at the time so that was important because Paul was familiar with that and Paul knew the difference between the Old Testament view of man and the Hellenized the Greek view of man and the important thing there is not only his thought process, but also a lot of the conflicts he had different churches were Believing different things and they had different things coming into them.

And if you understand the Hellenized the Hellenistic way of thinking. That's a lot of what Paul was up against. He understand he understood those things very well we saw how soul and spirit began to be differentiated from the physical self and how soul and spirit were at times seen as separate distinct aspects of our composition and Then more determinately as different ways of viewing that same spiritual side of us that same non physical side.

So we have and we're gonna get to there today to try and sort that out a little bit. So we're gonna answer three questions today to finish up. Okay, because we've gone through the background Paul's background the Hellenistic view that was the first week last week member went through all the terms that are used flesh and Heart and members and soul and spirit and body and all those different terms and how Paul uses wasn't exhausted.

But we went through them. Today I want to answer three questions and the first two I'm going to fly through. Okay, and we're gonna get to the third one. That's really well where I want to spend the time because I think that's more of a practical thing but the other ones are fairly important and Lord willing you'll see that it's worth Understanding especially the first one first one is traducee traducee NISM versus creationism.

I Don't know if I mentioned what those mean. Does anybody know what that those terms mean in that context just when I use them together. Traducee is traducee NISM and Creationism what am I talking about?

Okay, we're talking about the generation of the soul. Where does the soul come from? In traducee NISM the soul is made as part of the physical composite with the physical Creation if you will of the human within the womb.

So when that biological function happens and you have life when it becomes human life. The soul is also created by the procreation of the mother and father. Okay? That's traducee NISM. It comes from. Well, I'm just giving you the question we'll tell you where it comes from when we get more to it or creationism the other side of that is God Independent of the man and the woman creates and gives the child a soul when life begins.

Okay, so that's traducee NISM creationism. The second question is die versus trichotomy. So are we made up of die two aspects of physical and a non-physical part or try? Three aspects now the two questions there if you're trichotomy if we are made up of three.

We're body soul and spirit and those are three different Components of our makeup as human beings body soul spirit. They're distinct if you're by or die. It's by economy and die. Partite no bipartite and dichotomy bipartite dichotomy.

Those mean the same thing. Okay if you're die or by. Then we're body everybody grew that we have a physical aspect to ourselves. But then soul and spirit in that vein in that belief system are the same.

They mean they did the same aspect of us and when soul is used or spirit is used. It's to make a different point from Scripture. It's a different view of mankind because of the context of Scripture so traducee NISM versus creationism dive versus trichotomy and Third and finally the one I want to get to and that's why if we have a lot of questions and arguments about any of The first two we're gonna just pass them by and I'm not gonna care because I really want to get to is the third one.

Why do we still sin? Okay, and God willing that be a little bit eye-opening for some of you. Hopefully convicting my premise in that third part is that a new heart has been given to each believer. And we'll go to some of the scripture for that.

But it's been put there by God the Father's predestined will on the basis of Jesus's atoning sacrifice. By the Holy Spirit's application of the truth of the gospel to the heart. So if we have a new heart, which if you believe in Jesus you do.

If you have a new heart, it's a triune action that took place in you or God the Father predestined you. God the Son died for you. God the Spirit applied that to you. Meaning opened your eyes to it gave you faith to repent and believe however you want to put that the heart.

My premise is the heart that was given you. Ezekiel 36 25 through 27. Where he says I will give you I will take out your heart stone give you a heart of flesh that heart is all flesh. That heart does not have any remaining stone.

Now that God didn't fulfill this promise and you will go through some of the scripture. Titus 3 5. Romans 5 5. He didn't pull out that heart of stone. Make you up a heart of flesh and say hmm. They still need some stone.

I'll give this one 25 stone you get 15 stone or 0 .09 percent stone. You got a heart of flesh. Okay. We're gonna continue to sin as long as we are here in these bodies. But I'm going to propose to you that sin is not necessary to us as believers.

And I'm not gonna preach perfectionism. I do not believe perfectionism. I do not believe that there's sinless possibility in this life. I don't believe that. Never get what I just said. I don't believe that.

What I'm saying, I think this is important. We look at our sins we think of how we repent how we acknowledge our sin and repent of our sin and the depth of Repentance. What I'm saying is if we are recreated by God and we'll go through some of the scriptures.

There's no excuse for it. There's no more need for sin. Which means we reach out our hand like Psalm 27 Lest the righteous should reach out their hand to iniquity as a song says that's what we do. Now we know that we're responsible for our individual sins.

Don't we even as Christians? We know that I Want to increase the depth of how much we repent of that. And again my premise being We're responsible for sin because God has made us able not to. So the choice to sin is all the more culpable for us.

So, let's jump in the first question should you see an ISM versus creationism traducing isms from the Latin means transmit to posterity. Advocates contend that the entire person material and immaterial is brought into existence at conception.

Okay, it's the procreative act once successful that brings the soul into being so the parents bring the soul into being all right. A soul is ultimately from God. God gave Adam a soul and the traducing is would then say.

The soul is physically passed on from Adam to his children from those children and on and on and on so it starts with Adam. God created a soul. God gave the soul but then in the physical procreation. Souls are passed on unique so it's not the same soul Adam had obviously, okay a man named WG Phillips.

Points out that four of the common supports to traducing ism are really objections to alternate views. Okay, they're not a premise. They're not postulates or a premise in and of themselves. Their objections which is a different way of arguing things and I think it's a little bit of a weak way.

Target things which kind of gives away which side I'm gonna land on and hopefully you. Pre-existence is a platonic not a biblical view. So if it's traducing ism, there is a pre-existence of the soul.

Because we're gonna pass it on. There's a pre-existence of the physical and there's a pre-existence in of that. Non-physical if it's going to be passed on through the physical act of the parents and creating a child.

They say reincarnation is unbiblical now. I had to struggle with that one a little bit. This is WG Phillips. He says reincarnations is unbiblical. And I think what he's getting at there is if you and I can create a soul.

Then we can bring the same soul back into being. I think that's what he's getting at. And we talked a little bit about platonic views and how that might have led to Buddhism and the whole idea of reincarnation.

Third God is no longer active in creating souls ex nihilo. That's what they say that God created a soul for Adam and we don't see him creating a soul after that. And they say now this is this is a toughie, but they say creationism makes God the author of sinful souls, okay?

But those are their four objections these are the. The main for the main premises that they have and their objections to the other view not. Not supports for their view in and of themselves of objections to the other view.

They also have four that are thought to best fit biblical data for example. Pick up Romans 7. Hebrews 9 through 10. I'm sorry. Hebrews 7 9 through 10. Would you get? Romans 5 12 to 21 for me so. One of their supports for traducing ism is that Levi paid tithes in Adder in Abraham.

Okay, he Hebrews 7 9 and 10. Okay, so. Ready to be made a soul ready for a soul to be attached to the child when he finally gets born something like that he wrote. That thank you. So that as sin reigned in death, the grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life.

Thank you, so the idea there the traducingist would say that this supports the the solidarity that we have in Adam this would then support Sin being passed on in that way through Adam through procreation so our souls are corrupted our bodies are corrupted as everything is sin corrupted and this gives us that solidarity and Traces us right back to Adam and makes us truly his sons at birth.

Okay. They also note note that Adam's son. I think the first one was not Seth Cain. Cain and Abel. Adam's son was made quote in his own image and likeness. And they would argue that couldn't happen if they gave him a soul, okay and.

Finally it most easily explains the spread of original sin to the human race. Okay, because if I'm a corrupted sinful man and sin. Who my great-grandfather Adam his sinners ruined me. I'm gonna pass that along that sin-cursed soul as well as body.

Okay. So the objections here. To force Hebrews 7 9. Where Levi paid and you heard that read to force that to address the origin of the soul. Overloads the text with something. It doesn't actually say it's not what the author is even talking about.

Thank you something for free the author who wrote Hebrews. Luke. Luke. I just I have a biblical study. It's a book written from a man's dissertation. He shows pretty convincingly it's probably it might very well have been Luke.

He said the early church fathers when they read Luke and Acts and Hebrews, etc. Etc. It wasn't even a controversy to them. Did it Doug? It's Luke. That's for free. But it overloads that text it invites a material understanding of what is Indisputably immaterial that you and I can create something immaterial.

Is is incredible we would leave that only to God. The perpetuation of souls is not so tightly bound to the spread of sin as biblically presented. Interesting the Bible really only says that sin spread to all men, but it doesn't tell us how.

Okay, so the fact and we're not going to dispute this we all believe this we know this sin spread to all men. Adam sin was passed on but The precise mechanism by which it's passed on it is never really addressed in the Bible so for traduce enist the traduce enist to say That that's how it happened because we we make the soul.

We mean those who procreate it. It's reading in something that the Bible really never even addresses for us. The fact that it's spread that sin spread we don't dispute. How it's for what that mechanism is interesting to think we don't really know.

We don't know what that is, but we know it is. God's current creative activity in humanity could well include the individual souls. There's nothing that says it's not so. They do a lot of reading in in my in my estimation and in WG Phillips estimation as well.

So an interesting observation about procreation and souls and an abortion if you put abortion the the question we have is. That the question we have with that today. You think of that in terms of the traduce enist view of the soul, which is what makes us distinctly human.

Conception covers and this is very technical and I'm get out of my expertise very quickly here. So if anybody can help me jump in. But it covers a roughly 24 hour period. Okay. Once once the procreative act has occurred.

There's about 24 hour period that is that period of conception. And Human life. I'm going to quote this human life begins at fertilization, but the individual human person does not begin until syngamy.

Syngamy. Anybody heard that term before? Good because I hadn't heard it before. I read his WG Phillips arguments about this syngamy is a technical term. It's a medical or biological term. It's the fusion of two cells in reproduction so.

Individual humanity does not exist until syngamy happens and that's by genetic or scientific definition so We would then ask the traduce enist. We being largely creationists and if you're not you will be at the end of this and If you hadn't ever heard of this again, you will be but we would ask them at what point then is there a soul.

That makes abortion murder. If you're introducing this you have to sort that out because of what we know today about biology. Which wasn't known centuries ago, of course, but knowing what we know now we would then say, okay.

Well, when is it wrong? To abort a child. If God gave the soul that's a pretty big question if we gave the soul that's one part way to answer it and also if that soul if that thing if that Reproductive act doesn't have humanity until syngamy takes place, which is maybe a day later.

Yeah, you see do you see what the the question is there? If you're a traduce enist. You know you you may have something that is Not in need of that protection that we would say it does. They say because it doesn't have a soul yet.

Yeah, that's what it says. Sing me the end. Yeah, I don't do that's why I say. Okay, that helps okay, huh, thank you James that helps. So having Exhausted my biological expertise. We're just gonna push on and I was quoting there.

I was quoting what I read. So just to put it out to you traduce enism was held by Tertullian by Gregory of Nyssa the Eastern Church by Luther and American Reformed scholars from the 19th century shed and strong a modern well-reasoned advocate of traduce enism is Robert Raymond.

Now creationism says that God creates a new soul for each person and sends that soul sometime between conception and birth as Grudem in a systematic theology page 44 if you ever want that reference. The possible possible delay between conception and birth is a fairly modern idea.

The early advocates of creationism like Augustine in the 5th century 4th century. Had God creating a soul at the moment of conception and vesting the new child with that soul in the womb. So in the creationist view and again looking at a modern controversy, which is Abortion we would say no you've at fertilization soul God creates that's not we don't do it.

We don't make it we make the physical child God gives a soul. So Grudem supports creationism and I'm just gonna fly through these not gonna ask you to read them with Psalm 127 verse 3 behold children are a heritage from the Lord the fruit of the womb a reward so this idea of everything happening in the womb at God's God's command.

Psalm 139 13 you form my inward parts. You need to be together in my mother's womb. Isaiah 42 5 thus says the Lord thus says God the Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out who spread out the earth and what comes from it who gives breath to the people on It and spirit to those who walk in it.

So it's God who does it not we in our procreative act. It's God who does it. Hebrews 12 9 besides this we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them shall we know not. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of Spirits and live?

So if Phillips WG Phillips is correct in the medical argument that sing of me and the things we're trying to discuss here. Then creationism I would argue gets the high ground in the moral argument about abortion among other things.

Now pastor Connolly and myself with most Baptist scholars with most reformed theology our Confession also our creationists, okay. We distinctly we are committed to the idea that God creates a soul and God is the one who vests you At conception invests the life with the soul.

I Don't think men you and me can create something that's income in corporeal. It's not physical and I also I was this is my own thought but the traducian is might have a harder time explaining than this creationist would something like what we have towards the end of Israel's reign before Babylon took them in Chronicles where you have something like a has that wicked King and Somehow that wicked King passed on a good soul to Hezekiah his son who was the greatest of all the Kings there was no one like him since David and somehow he was unable to pass on a good soul to Manasseh who was the worst of the Kings who passed on a good soul then to Josiah and you see how this goes and the the logic behind it becomes very strained.

If we're passing on ourselves if we're the maker of the soul, I believe Creationism also rely relieves us of the moral quagmire of when life actually begins. I've heard it said by intelligent people who are friends.

I like him Gotten along for a long time and they say that I forget what it was. It's like life within the womb is not distinctly human for six weeks or something. It's not human first. Have you ever heard that?

Okay, I I Was so flabbergasted I almost couldn't answer it. So what's it gonna be a zebra? What are you talking about? But I know it's I know it's More of an argument that but it is it as a creationist.

We don't have that problem. And I'm not saying that we become creationist so that we don't have the problem but because we see in the scripture Creationism being the correct viewpoint. It relieves us of the problem.

Okay, try versus dichotomy. Yeah, we're gonna fly cuz I gotta get to number three. We're not dividing man into parts both views maintain the unity of man. Not parts but definable aspects is what's happening here in both frameworks.

There's a physical body the soma the sarks the flesh the mellows the members the cardia the heart all those things that we went Through last week and there's the the non-physical. There's the psyche which is soul.

There's panuma, which is spirit the synodesis, which is conscience and so forth. The question is are we body soul and spirit the tripartite view or are we souls or or our soul and spirit? The same thing.

Talking about our non-physical aspect of existence Raymond points out in Systematic on page 618 and I'm giving that because I want to give credit where it's due because it's fairly long quote that I have here.

He says that Reformation creeds all adopt the dichotomous view of mankind and Here's his quote and like I said a little bit lengthy where Luke chapter 10 verse 27 Reads that we should love God with all our heart and soul and strength in mind Matthew 22 37 reads that we should love God with all our heart and soul and mind and omits the strength while Mark reports in chapter 12 verse 30 that we should love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength and he reverses there the order of the last two Lucan words and in chapter 12 verse 33 that we should love God with all our heart and understanding and strength using another word for mind and omitting soul altogether.

In all, five different words are employed without even mentioning the body.". Again this is a quote from Raymond. Surely no one would insist on the basis of these series of words connected by and that each of these words refers to an immaterial ontologically distinct entity and that therefore Luke was a Quintonomist, Matthew was a Quodkonomist, and Mark was a Sexkonomist.

What he's saying there is that Jesus is quoting how we're to love God, Deuteronomy 6 .4, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And when Jesus quotes it, when he's like that's what's the great command, all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

So all these different ways when you have these distinct ones and you add them all up, are we Sexkonomy? Are we made up of six parts? And his argument is that the structure in the original language is the same.

Okay, so if the structure means therefore like from 2 Thessalonians, we'll get to that in a moment, that body, soul, spirit are distinct, then that same structure is used when there's those different terms used for how we're to love God.

Heart, soul, mind, strength, heart, soul, understanding, etc. He argues that because the structure is the same, if the tripartite view is correct, then that has to be applied to these other statements of our makeup.

And he then shows how the three main passages used to support the tripartite view do so by conclusions not supported by the text. Okay, so first is 1 Corinthians 1544. The body is so in a natural body.

It is raised a spiritual body. If there's a natural body, there's also a spiritual body. Now the implied subject of both verbs, which is sown and raised, is one in the same subject, which is the body.

And that same word for body, which is soma, is in both instances, is used in both instances suggesting that it is the same body that's sown and raised. Are you with me? The same body is sown and raised in 1 Corinthians 1544.

If the two words really intended totally distinct ontological entities, then the body that is raised is not the same body that is sown. Paul doubtless intended simply to say that the soul-ish body, that is the body whose attributes fit it for life in this natural world during this age, will be so transformed that as a spiritual body it will fit the life which the person who is associated with that body, with the risen Christ, will live in the supernatural new earth situation.

I'm simply saying that it's the same body appropriate for life on earth, and when raised, made appropriate for life with Christ in the new heaven and earth. Okay, 1 Corinthians 5 .23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now here the trichotomist insists that the conjunction between, the conjunction and, which is between spirit and soul, intends that we be viewed as separate entities. But again, this is Robert Raymond, I quote, but it is no less precarious to argue that spirit and soul here refer to separate immaterial entities on the basis of the and between them, than it is to argue that heart and soul and strength and mind in Luke 10 .27 refer to separate immaterial entities because of the repeated and in that passage.

He goes on, says the adverb holy and the adjective whole in the verse strongly suggests that the emphasis of the verse is on the Christian man viewed here in his entirety as, quote, the whole man. Yeah, we got time.

Hebrews 4 .12 is another one of the strong supports for trichotomy where the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword and it penetrates even to the dividing of soul and spirit and is the judge of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So soul and spirit can be divided, so they're two different things. The trichotomist insists that since they can be divided that's evidence that they're two separate distinct ontological, which just means existence, form of existence, ontological entities.

But this is to ignore the fact that soul and spirit are both what we call genitives and they're both governed by the participle dividing. Okay, soul and spirit dividing. Dividing is going to modify those.

The verse is saying that the Word of God divides the soul even the spirit. Not soul and spirit, soul even the spirit. But it does not say that the Word of God divides soul and spirit or divides the soul from the spirit.

The verse no more intends this than it intends when it goes on to say that the Word is the judge of the thoughts and of the intent of the hearts, that the thoughts and intents are ontologically distinct things.

What are my thoughts? My thoughts are my intentions. What are my intentions? They're things that I thought or things that I think. Intents are simply one kind of thought. What the verse is actually saying is that the Word of God is able to penetrate into the deepest recesses of a man's spirit and judge his very thoughts, even the secret intentions of his heart.

So the Greek word chi, is it even or is it and? It's very important for how we translate or how we understand those kind of verses. And again if you want these references I can get them for you, but Grudem for his part in his systematic theology has five pages, 473 to 477, where he demonstrates convincingly that soul and spirit are interchangeable.

Depending on the context, depending on what Paul, usually Paul, is trying to get through the points he's trying to make, the corrections he's trying to bring to whatever church or person, soul, spirit can be used interchangeably.

Okay, I did leave enough time. Any questions, any discussion about those other ones? Other than saying I'm wrong? You cannot say I'm wrong. See, I'm not saying that that is the traducingist view that we've created the soul.

That's the question. The traducingist would say the former is part of the process. The creationist would say God gives us soul. That's really what the question is. But that's the traducingist view. Believe the former, that we are responsible for it.

And see, God creates life, and so when life begins we give all praise to God, rightly so. Okay, that's not to platitude, rightly so. And yet the procreation of physical life is something that God has, as it were, delegated to mankind.

The creationist says, but not the soul. God gives us soul because God created Adam and gave him a soul. Okay, so the soul is a distinct aspect of humanity that's infused or given by God. Okay, the traducingist view, which I don't agree with, okay, but the traducingist view is that the soul is part of that physical generation by God's design, by something beyond biology.

I don't know how you want to describe it, but it's our physical act of creating life, which God has delegated, all praise to God, but we do it, okay, that the soul is a, I don't want to say natural, give me a synonym.

It's just a, what's it? Yeah, so the traducingist is just saying it's just part of the process, and when it's the way God designed it, they would say, but when you make a baby, you've made the soul. It's all one and the same.

You've made the thing, you've made the baby, the child in the womb, physical and non-physical. You've made it human in that way. Adam is a living being when he was given the spirit or the soul. Okay, so I didn't mean to be pejorative against them, but just to lay out their case, again, with the confessions, with most Reformed theology through the ages, we'd be creationists, that God does, and this is a distinct part.

You're right, again, that all life is from God, it's a miracle of God, and yet that physical part of it he has given to us to do. He said, go forth and multiply and fill the earth. Okay, very quick now, because I've got, I want to get to the question three.

I do want to distinguish that the spirit that descends upon the reborn again, that the spirit of Yisra 'il is the Holy Spirit, in the context of what you're talking about, but I would say that all people are born again.

So, Adam and Eve had the Holy Spirit removed from them in that tribulation. Now, one thing, we got to go, because I want to get to my third question, and I warned you, I'm not going to discuss these very long, but one thing about saying that they died spiritually, okay?

It's sort of like the way some of those other verses I mentioned are in mine and Robert Raymond's opinion, overloaded. Now, did they die spiritually? We would all say yes, but I don't know where in the scripture it really supports that, because we know they did, we know that sin got passed on, we know that we need the Spirit of God to revive us, to make us alive, because we're dead in trespass, sin, etc.

We know that, but when God says, you shall surely die, the spiritual death that we call it, that's being kicked out of the garden, okay? And yet, God still talked to man, okay? So, there's still that connection there, but then they died, and he tells us how many years Adam lived, and then he died.

So, he did die. And so, when we call it spiritual death, we are reading something in there that is theologically correct, but I'm not sure exactly where it comes from in that immediate context, okay? Now, they did die, and there was separation from God, and that is spiritual death, and we're born dead in our trespasses and sins, which we once walked.

I agree with all that. I'm not trying to throw anything under the bus, but I'm going to say, like, you're on the bus with a guy, not going to throw him under if we're driving the bus together, like he said, and we say, well, Adam suffered spiritual death, and we're all going to agree with that.

If we were in a more academic environment, we could really debate it out. It doesn't really say that. It says, you will surely die, and they died. Now, was there spiritual death? Yeah, because they were kicked out of the garden, and so there's that disconnect with God.

Okay, so, traducianism versus creationism. Of course, we're all creationists, and now that I've convincingly showed you that the tripartite view is wrong, we're all bipartites, except for the heretic over there.

We've been arguing about that for a long time. I want to get to, why do we still sin? When I started this Pauline psychology, Paul's inspired view of how the human operates, how we think, what the different parts are, how he uses flesh.

You remember what the important thing was about flesh, sarks? I know I was pretty exhausted last week, because I'd been up all night with that gout. My eyes were rolling on my head as I was driving here.

I know I was a little disconnected, but do you remember what flesh was about, that word sarks? Flesh is our physical part, but he uses it metaphorically as that which distinguishes us as different from God.

Remember, when God made us physical, he gave us something he himself does not have. He does not have flesh and bones. He does not have sarks, or soma, or body. God is spirit, okay? Now, in Christ, he became flesh and bones.

So, we're talking about God himself, and just that blank, or that single statement we have, for example, that one statement, God is spirit. John says that in 1st John, Jesus said that in John chapter 4 to the Samaritan woman.

So, as flesh and blood, we have something God doesn't, because God gave it to us. So, we went through all that, and we had panuma, which is spirit, psyche, which is soul, sarks, the flesh, soma, the body, mellow, the members, which is just the parts of us which we reach out.

Why do we still sin? Okay? Now, I started out, and I gave you, quickly, my view on Ezekiel 36, that God took out the heart of stone and gave a heart of flesh that was an old covenant promise, that was a prophecy fulfilled, I would argue, in Christ.

And we're going to go through some of that, but I want to put this forth, and I said this earlier, we sin because we want to. Okay? We sin because we want to, whether it's what we call small sins, whether God does or not is a different subject, or we call them big sins.

We do it because we want to. So, God made no mistakes, nor was the job only partially done when His Spirit brought us to faith and repentance. And just a few core texts for this. Ezekiel 36, 25 to 27, pretty familiar.

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will put within you.

And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. That's prophecy given to old Israel.