I believed in the dichotomous view of man but I am now getting convinced of the Tripartite/Trichotomous view.

[Moses PsalmCII]

I know many reformed accept the dichotomous view of man but I realized I accepted this just because some reformed theologians espoused it not because I studied it myself. After doing a bit of study, i was surprised that there's a very strong (stronger to me) argument for trichotomy. It also surprises me that many of our reformed folks drum up trichotomy as pentecostal, gnostical or unscholarly when the same can be said in the opposite way when looked into. And then I stumbled upon the robust works of JB Heard (The tripartite nature of man) and the renowed german theologian Franz Delitzsch (A System of Biblical Psychology), along with many other well written scholarly works of the 18th and 19th century. These have tipped the scale for me and I think trichotomy best explains the biblical nature of man. Detailed arguments against the dichotomous interpretation of verses like 1 thess. 5:23 or Heb. 4:12 were explained very cogently with objections answered.

So why do we reformed drum up trichotomy as some unknowledgeable or mystical position when deep volumes (yet to be unanswered) have been written on the subject. Also JB Heard (in his view) traces the roots of dichotomy to mysticism and a overt reaction to the bad trichotomy of Origen. I have always pondered on the dichotomous refutation of body soul and spirit in 1 thess 5:23 or Heb 4:12 and how it was unsatisfactory. But now having looked into it, Paul's distinctions can't be truly (in my view) explained away.

I still appreciate others with differing views but I think i am beginning to settle with this view. What are your thoughts? God bless

 

[RamistThomist]

Many eastern fathers held to trichotomy, but they did so because it underwrote a certain spirituality. That means trichotomy isn't necessarily Pentecostal or Gnostic. I think it is problematic, though.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

Many eastern fathers held to trichotomy, but they did so because it underwrote a certain spirituality. That means trichotomy isn't necessarily Pentecostal or Gnostic. I think it is problematic, though.

What are your thoughts on how it is problematic?. Since now I have studied these issues deeply, perhaps I must have stumbled on what some dichotomists call problematic and how it was excellently explained by scholarly trichotomists.

 

[Ed Walsh]

So why do we reformed drum up trichotomy as some unknowledgeable or mystical position when deep volumes (yet to be unanswered) have been written on the subject.

For many years I have accepted the dichotomous view mostly because many smarter people than I have told me it was true. But in my later years, I have experienced the distinction that Paul speaks of in the verses below.

I think these verses are more convincing than even the Heb 4:12 & 1 Thessalonians 5:23 verses you mentioned. I say this because the Corinthians verses can not be taken as figures of speech and are instead clear, practical teaching on how to pray. I.e., with what "organs" are you to use and when.

1 Corinthians 14:14-15
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.

I learned this technique and distinction first from Scripture and second from my experience of the workings of the Holy Spirit in me. (I.e., my spirit). John Owen, John Bunyan, and other Puritans taught these distinctions in prayer. (Not that they taught man was tripartite)

In verses like Romans 8:26, "Likewise, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
Such "groanings" are best understood as wordless yearnings of our spirits.

Yet, I am still not convinced enough to declare man as tripartite. As I said, I am not educated or intelligent enough to say that.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

For many years I have accepted the dichotomous view mostly because many smarter people than I have told me it was true. But in my later years, I have experienced the distinction that Paul speaks of in the verses below.

I think these verses are more convincing than even the Heb 4:12 & 1 Thessalonians 5:23 verses you mentioned. I say this because the Corinthians verses can not be taken as figures of speech and are instead clear, practical teaching on how to pray. I.e., with what "organs" are you to use and when.

1 Corinthians 14:14-15
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.

I learned this technique and distinction first from Scripture and second from my experience of the workings of the Holy Spirit in me. (I.e., my spirit). John Owen, John Bunyan, and other Puritans taught these distinctions in prayer. (Not that they taught man was tripartite)

In verses like Romans 8:26, "Likewise, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
Such "groanings" are best understood as wordless yearnings of our spirits.

Yet, I am still not convinced enough to declare man as tripartite. As I said, I am not educated or intelligent enough to say that.

Thanks Ed. I would suggest you read this book by JB Heard. It's free here : https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=O78MAAAAIAAJ&num=10. He discusses the issue while qualifying it against the pentecostal or gnostic usages. He acknowledges a dichotomous sense in the material vs immaterial distincition but also shows the distinctions between soul and spirit (not just functionally) that dichotomists ignore. After reading the book, I am sure you'd have a stronger basis for accepting the tripartite view or denying it. Although I think the book read well should make one accept it.

 

[Taylor]

If we’re going to discover from the Bible how man is made, the best place to go is where man is made, Genesis 1-2.

Genesis 2:7 on the surface looks like it presents a tripartite view of man, but I think it definitively teaches a bipartite view. You only have two acts of God: he “formed man of the dust of the ground” (this is man’s body), “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (this is man’s spirit), and in doing these two things, “man became a living soul.”

It appears to me that man does not possess a soul, but rather man—body and spirit together—is a soul. Take this together with the fact that the Bible in other places seems to indicate that all living things have souls (Job 12:10), and it makes sense. Of course, the Bible does describe death as the soul’s departure, but I take that to mean the person is departing.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I would mention in relation to the KJVs use of "soul" in Job, in both the NKJV and ESV, the word is translated "life" instead. Someone good in Hebrew may point out though that they are the same thing.

 

[Taylor]

I would mention in relation to the KJVs use of "soul" in Job, in both the NKJV and ESV, the word is translated "life" instead. Someone good in Hebrew may point out though that they are the same thing.

It is the same Hebrew word, yes.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I know many reformed accept the dichotomous view of man but I realized I accepted this just because some reformed theologians espoused it not because I studied it myself. After doing a bit of study, i was surprised that there's a very strong (stronger to me) argument for trichotomy. It also surprises me that many of our reformed folks drum up trichotomy as pentecostal, gnostical or unscholarly when the same can be said in the opposite way when looked into. And then I stumbled upon the robust works of JB Heard (The tripartite nature of man) and the renowed german theologian Franz Delitzsch (A System of Biblical Psychology), along with many other well written scholarly works of the 18th and 19th century. These have tipped the scale for me and I think trichotomy best explains the biblical nature of man. Detailed arguments against the dichotomous interpretation of verses like 1 thess. 5:23 or Heb. 4:12 were explained very cogently with objections answered.

So why do we reformed drum up trichotomy as some unknowledgeable or mystical position when deep volumes (yet to be unanswered) have been written on the subject. Also JB Heard (in his view) traces the roots of dichotomy to mysticism and a overt reaction to the bad trichotomy of Origen. I have always pondered on the dichotomous refutation of body soul and spirit in 1 thess 5:23 or Heb 4:12 and how it was unsatisfactory. But now having looked into it, Paul's distinctions can't be truly (in my view) explained away.

I still appreciate others with differing views but I think i am beginning to settle with this view. What are your thoughts? God bless

I grew up in an independent Bible church that was great in teaching practical lessons from Scripture, but not being confessional it was weak on doctrinal instruction. I was not converted until after high school at which point I thirsted for doctrine. I came to understand that I always held a trichotomous view of man without knowing it. Entering the Reformed world (after high school I lived in Scotland for several years and was an adherent in the Free Church) I got weird looks for this but nobody could ever really explain what was wrong with this view. Maybe it was my simple explanation: if we are made in the image of a triune God, wouldn't it be odd if we were not trichotomous? Do I not have a body that will be renewed? Do I not have a spirit (my personality, my unique self) that is being renewed (when I am glorified I will still be me, right?)? Do I not also have an immortal soul that God did, from all eternity, decree to justify? Aren't all three of these me? Could I be me without any of the these three? Was I not born in sin and so made subject to death, "with all miseries spiritual [see "spirit" above?], temporal [see "body" above?], and eternal [see "soul" above?]"? (WCF 6.6). Granted, I am not "three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity" like God (WCF 2.3), but by claiming I am trichotomous is not the same as claiming to be triune, just as claiming to have been made in God's own image is not the same as claiming to be God.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Here's an excerpt from the Preface to, The Tripartite Nature of Man, Spirit, Soul, and Body, by JB Heard

The tripartite nature of man : spirit, soul, and body : applied to illustrate and explain the doctrines of original sin, the new birth, the disembodied state, ...

:

I desire to thank my critics in general for their encouraging remarks on this attempt to trace out the bear¬ings of that important distinction between the psychical and pneumatical natures, which seems to me to be the key to many theological questions still under controversy.​

​

I have been charged with inconsistency in describing the conscience as the dead or dormant pneuma in the unregenerate. If dead, my critics say, it is not dormant; and, if dormant, not dead. But I do not consider dead and dormant to be logical contradictories, the one excluding the other. I can conceive the conscience to be dead as to its higher or spiritual functions properly so called, while, at the same time, it is only dormant as the rule of right and wrong between man and man. Death and sleep are only differences of degree—in the one, there is the suspension of sense; in the other, of all the functions of life. Were the conscience wholly dead, then, as it seems to me, there could be no awakening it out of sleep. Men would be beyond the reach of redemption, as we have reason to suppose the devils are. On the other hand were the conscience awake and active, men would not be in a fallen state at all, and the new birth would be identical with the birth of the flesh. Truth lies in a golden mean between these two extremes, to which the theories of Augustine and Pelagius incline. From attending to this distinction between Psyche and Pneuma, the Greek fathers seem to me to have reached that golden mean, which was lost in Latin theology generally, and which even the Reformers, Lutheran and Calvinists, alike failed to reach. If I have succeeded in pointing out the true Eirenikon to the free-will controversies which have died out in our day from sheer exhaustion of the subject, I shall only feel that I have acted on Bishop Butler’s wise suggestion, “that it is not at all incredible that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind should contain many truths as yet undiscovered, and that the whole scheme of Scripture is only to be understood by thoughtful men tracing out obscure hints, as it were, dropped us accidentally.”​

I believe Taylor in his post #6 has the right view.

I used to be of the tripartite persuasion – which was the general view in broad evangelicalism some 50 years ago, Watchman Nee in particular teaching that in his 3 volume series, The Spiritual Man, as well as others in the Keswick school – but Scripture, and experience have convinced me otherwise. I was hardcore tripartite under Nee's influence, but Scripture's use of soul and spirit have the two nearly synonymous. My soul has a spiritual capacity (hence Heb 4:12), and to divide and discern between the more fleshly aspect of the soul and that of it which is of the Spirit, the word of God is able to do. Soul is also synonymous with heart, and the heart of man is of one cloth yet with an inner core where the Holy Spirit resides, while having the faculties of will, emotion, and intellect. Whether we say, the heart of man, or the soul of man it is the same. I have a soul and a body. My spirit is not a separate entity, but a part of my soul.

I could draw more examples from the Psalms, etc, but have other things I must attend to.

 

[Logan]

Hodge has a good discussion on why Trichotomy is anti-scriptural in volume 2 of his systematic. Starting around page 50 in this PDF verison:

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books%20II/Hodge%20-%20Systematic%20Theology%20II.pdf

 

[Logan]

I would also note that a trichotomy position would be outside the bounds of Reformed confessions.

Heidelberg Catechism
"Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?
A. That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death— to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ."

Westminster Confession
6:2
"By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body."
8:4
"This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge...endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body;"
32:1
"The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them."
32:2
"At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever."

Belgic Confession
Article 18
"And Christ not only assumed human nature as far as the body is concerned but also a real human soul, in order to be a real human being."
Article 34
"...just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us...so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul..."

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Here is L. Berkhof (1873 - 1957) in summary with his assessment of F. Delitzsch (1813 - 1890) and J. Heard:

During the nineteenth century trichotomy was revived in some form or other by certain German and English theologians, as Roos, Olshausen, Beck, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Oehler, White, and Heard; but it did not meet with great favor in the theological world. The recent advocates of this theory do not agree as to the nature of the psuche, nor as to the relation in which it stands to the other elements in man’s nature. Delitzsch conceives of it as an efflux of the pneuma, while Beck, Oehler, and Heard, regard it as the point of union between the body and the spirit. Delitzsch is not altogether consistent and occasionally seems to waver, and Beck and Oehler admit that the Biblical representation of man is fundamentally dichotomic. Their defense of a Biblical trichotomy can hardly be said to imply the existence of three distinct elements in man.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

I desire to thank my critics in general for their encouraging remarks on this attempt to trace out the bear¬ings of that important distinction between the psychical and pneumatical natures, which seems to me to be the key to many theological questions still under controversy.​

​

I have been charged with inconsistency in describing the conscience as the dead or dormant pneuma in the unregenerate. If dead, my critics say, it is not dormant;​

Hi Steve. I believe once you read the whole of JB's work, he isn't saying man is not fallen in the sense of pelagianism. Infact, he says in other parts that man is dead, unable to do anything to warrant regeneration. To understand his comments there, you'd need to understand what he means by fallen and dead. He very much acknowledges that we are totally depraved and for the unregenerate, only an excusatory or accusing conscience works, with many living as brute beasts till regeneration takes place.
Also Steve, you are acknowledging a difference (more fleshly aspect of the soul and that of it which is of the Spirit) even if slight, which many dichotomists don't espouse very clearly. I agree that the soul has a spiritual capacity which is what JB Heard, Delitchz and Beck try to point out. A lot of dichotomists don't do justice to this difference that our soul has underneath a spiritual side which is why Heb. 4:12 talks about God's word going in-depth past the soul to the inner spirit which feeds the soul from God (bone to marrow - marrow is inside the bone but different). I have looked at all the works of systematic theology advocating a very strict form of dichotomy saying the soul and spirit are just synonyms. This is not true when looked into deeply and that's why Paul uses such language in Heb 4:12 and 1 Thess 5:23. I would repeat what I said just above about how JB and others qualified it while acknowledging a dichotomous sense in summary :

He discusses the issue while qualifying it against the pentecostal or gnostic usages. He acknowledges a dichotomous sense in the material vs immaterial distincition but also shows the distinctions between soul and spirit (not just functionally) that dichotomists ignore. After reading the book, I am sure you'd have a stronger basis for accepting the tripartite view or denying it. Although I think the book read well should make one accept it.

Also, to Taylor, why would Paul say body, soul (already spirit and body according to you) and spirit. It's like saying body, body, spirit, and spirit. Also, piercing to the soul and spirit would then just be - piercing to the body, spirit and spirit

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

Hodge has a good discussion on why Trichotomy is anti-scriptural in volume 2 of his systematic. Starting around page 50 in this PDF verison:

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books%20II/Hodge%20-%20Systematic%20Theology%20II.pdf

I have read these works. But after going deeper in reading Beck, Delitzsch, Heard and many others, I feel like the only dichotomists that would stay true to scripture are those who acknowledge that the soul at least has a spiritual source or capacity. That would be closer to scripture. But to say that they are just synonyms i feel isn't doing justice to the clear difference in usage. Why did Paul or other writers not use one word consistently. This is what I believed - that they were just synonyms. But after reading enough, I definitely need to acknowledge that there's a difference. Whether that difference is as steve says in the form of a spiritual capacity OR as the tripartite view says, in the form of the breath of God feeding into the soul (which could also get feed from the flesh), all that needs to be acknowledge is that they are not synonyms in my opinion

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

I would also note that a trichotomy position would be outside the bounds of Reformed confessions.

Heidelberg Catechism
"Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?
A. That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death— to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ."

Westminster Confession
6:2
"By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body."
8:4
"This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge...endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body;"
32:1
"The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them."
32:2
"At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever."

Belgic Confession
Article 18
"And Christ not only assumed human nature as far as the body is concerned but also a real human soul, in order to be a real human being."
Article 34
"...just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us...so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul..."

This was addressed by Heard and Beck. The tripartite view accepts the distinguishing of body and soul alone in a bare dichotomous sense - material and immaterial, bodily and spiritual etc. The confessions don't address whether spirit and soul have a difference. Once again, trichotomists like JB, Delitzsch or Beck would agree with these statements. The bone of contention is whether within the soul, we can find a different substance or faculty(more dichotomous) that has a divine principle expressing itself through the soul. This is not discernible normally except by the word of God as Heb 4:12 tells us.

 

[Ethan]

I would say that the spirit is a faculty of the soul. Since the soul is simple, one can distinguish between them without undermining the dichotomous position.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

Here is L. Berkhof (1873 - 1957) in summary with his assessment of F. Delitzsch (1813 - 1890) and J. Heard:

I agree with the summary of Beck that the nature of man is fundamentally dichotomic. His point as i have mentioned above is that the soul is not purely the spirit. The soul houses the spirit and can be led by it. Same way the soul can be led by the flesh. Heard, Delitzsch and Beck agree with the fundamental material vs immaterial view. But the specific arguments they make which Berkhof never addresses is how the spirit and the soul are described differently in scripture. The word of God divides the soul and spirit, not as some dichotomists say in the sense of emphazing the same thing (that never sounded okay to me), but in the sense of digging deep into the innermost faculty of God, like a sword pearcing the bone into the marrow. The bone contains the marrow. The soul contains the spirit. The word of God is able to pierce into the inner mind of God in us as 1 Cor. 2:12.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

I would say that the spirit is a faculty of the soul. Since the soul is simple, one can distinguish between them without undermining the dichotomous position.

I can agree with this. But many dichotomists just say they are synonyms without any difference. I don't think so. I think the spirit is a faculty of God (or as JB would say, the new life of God in the soul for the regenerate, and the accusing or excusatory conscience in the unregenerate). The soul is what we express to others and can either be influenced by the spirit or the flesh.

We can destroy our souls through sin. Sins are a corruption and a snare of the soul Proverbs 6:32 Proverbs 18:7 cf Psalms 6:3-4
We can save our souls by taking in the ingrafted word James 1:21. And we receive this word through the spirit 1 Cor 2:12.

So yes, we are body and soul. But the word of God can go further, into the spirit. The soul houses the spirit as a bone houses the marrow

 

[Logan]

The confessions don't address whether spirit and soul have a difference.

They clearly assume the dichotomous view of man. To say otherwise is equivocation.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

They clearly assume the dichotomous view of man. To say otherwise is equivocation.

I agree. And I could say I am a dichotomist in the sense of material vs immaterial, body vs soul. But I am trichotomist when i dig further with the help of God's word in the sense of soul vs spirit (which isn't addressed by the confessions and is the bone of contention), for the regenerate : spiritual/godly intents vs soul expressions , for the unregenerate : convicting/exusatory conscience vs soul expressions - Romans 2:15

 

[Alexander Suarez]

If you look at historic Reformed commentators on one of the relevant passages, 1 Thess. 5:23, you will find the following distinctions between the biblical use of "spirit" and "soul" (i.e., not exactly synonymous):

- John Jewel: "Paul divideth the soul into two parts. The first is reason and understanding, which he calleth the spirit. The other is, will & affection, which he calleth the soule."

- Robert Rollock: "By the spirit he understands the cleanest part of the soul. Ephes. 4. chap. 23. vers. He calls it the spirit of the mind, that is, the light of the mind, which is reason. The next is the soul, whereby he understands the inferior part, wherein are the senses, that part of the soul that hears, sees, etc."

- William Sclater: "The spirit, understand the intellectual part of the soul; Paul calls it elsewhere, "The spirit of our mind": the soul, the appetite and sensual faculties common to us with brutes; the body, the outward man, the instrument and organ of the soul"

- David Dickson: Understands "spirit" in relation to the mind ("the supreme faculty of the rational soul") and the "soul" as the will or affections

- James Fergusson: "spirit, when contradistinguished to the soul, as it is here, doth signify the understanding and knowing part of the man. Secondly, his soul . . . must be meant his will and affections."

- Matthew Poole: "by spirit we mean his superior faculties, as the mind, conscience, rational will. By soul, his sensitive appetite, with the affections and passions. By body, the outward man, the tabernacle and instrument of the soul."

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

If you look at historic Reformed commentators on one of the relevant passages, 1 Thess. 5:23, you will find the following distinctions between the biblical use of "spirit" and "soul" (i.e., not exactly synonymous):

- John Jewel: "Paul divideth the soul into two parts. The first is reason and understanding, which he calleth the spirit. The other is, will & affection, which he calleth the soule."

- Robert Rollock: "By the spirit he understands the cleanest part of the soul. Ephes. 4. chap. 23. vers. He calls it the spirit of the mind, that is, the light of the mind, which is reason. The next is the soul, whereby he understands the inferior part, wherein are the senses, that part of the soul that hears, sees, etc."

- William Sclater: "The spirit, understand the intellectual part of the soul; Paul calls it elsewhere, "The spirit of our mind": the soul, the appetite and sensual faculties common to us with brutes; the body, the outward man, the instrument and organ of the soul"

- David Dickson: Understands "spirit" in relation to the mind ("the supreme faculty of the rational soul") and the "soul" as the will or affections

- James Fergusson: "spirit, when contradistinguished to the soul, as it is here, doth signify the understanding and knowing part of the man. Secondly, his soul . . . must be meant his will and affections."

- Matthew Poole: "by spirit we mean his superior faculties, as the mind, conscience, rational will. By soul, his sensitive appetite, with the affections and passions. By body, the outward man, the tabernacle and instrument of the soul."

Thanks for this. Totally agree. What the trichotomists authors listed above do is just to assign those distinctions its proper place. One from God, the other as our expressons with others. They are inseparable in the sense of monism as everyone would accept. Even the intermediate state is not the ideal state as they still await their new bodies. My only contention is saying the spirit and the soul are the same thing. That's not scriptural. The bone is different from the marrow. The marrow is a spongy tissue, the bone is the hard substance. The bone houses the marrow but is inseparably tied to it and the flesh houses the bone. Our body houses the soul. Body and soul. But the soul houses something much deeper, only exposed by the word of God. The spirit. Joy in the Lord for the regenerate which then expresses through the soul. OR convicting conscience and excusatory(idolatry) for the reprobate Romans 2:15

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Thanks for this. Totally agree. What the trichotomists authors listed above do is just to assign those distinctions its proper place. One from God, the other as our expressons with others. They are inseparable in the sense of monism as everyone would accept. Even the intermediate state is not the ideal state as they still await their new bodies. My only contention is saying the spirit and the soul are the same thing. That's not scriptural. The bone is different from the marrow. The marrow is a spongy tissue, the bone is the hard substance. The bone houses the marrow but is inseparably tied to it and the flesh houses the bone. Our body houses the soul. Body and soul. But the soul houses something much deeper, only exposed by the word of God. The spirit. Joy in the Lord for the regenerate which then expresses through the soul. OR convicting conscience and excusatory(idolatry) for the reprobate Romans 2:15

Moses,

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you contending that every usage of πνεῦμα and ψυχὴ in the New Testament always refer to a distinct part of man, Christ, and/or God respectively?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Moses,

Preliminary to my engaging you more deeply, let me ask you: in your asserting spirit is distinct and separate from soul, what then are the faculties of the spirit. Trichotomists say the soul is comprised of three – mind or intellect, volition or will, emotions or affections. So what, in your view, are the qualities or characteristics of the spirit?

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

Hello Moses,

Preliminary to my engaging you more deeply, let me ask you: in your asserting spirit is distinct and separate from soul, what then are the faculties of the spirit. Trichotomists say the soul is comprised of three – mind or intellect, volition or will, emotions or affections. So what, in your view, are the qualities or characteristics of the spirit?

Hi Steve. Firstly, I don't believe the spirit and soul are distinct in the sense of being removed independently. That's not what learned trichotomists believe. I believe in monism like everyone should. Man is one - body soul spirit. The intermediate state is not ideal. My body is Moses, My soul is Moses, My spirit is Moses. To detach one as not Moses is not scriptural as I believe you would agree to in the sense of body and soul. But speaking more specifically, just like we have flesh, bone and marrow, we have body, soul and spirit. Body and soul or Material and immaterial basically since that's only discernible. We can see our bodies and use it to interact with the outer world, People experience our souls as expressions. It is a neutral conduit. The spirit however is not so discernible as implied by Heb 4:12. Infact as Beck and JB Heard, shows, in the OT, it was expressed in a shadowy manner and in the NT we begin to see it more clearly since the giver of new life comes on the scene out of the shadows.

As regards faculties, the soul as an expression or conduit (man became a living soul of body and breath-spirit as in Gen 2:7) of our wills, emotions or affections as you said all expressed through the soul. Hence sin is a snare to the soul, can burden the soul (as the Proverbs shows) , the flesh can express itself through the soul with anger, bitterness etc.

Now for the spirit - Like I said, this is not discernible except by the word of God. The soul houses the spirit as the bone houses the marrow. They are inseparable as marrow is generally inseparable from the bone. The spirit is our God-consciousness or the medium through which we experience God as 1 cor. 2:12 and 1 cor 14:14 shows. The spirit expresses itself externally through the soul conduit and then the body carries out the action.

To your question : The faculties of the spirit as I can see from the scripture I have examined (not exhaustive) can be shown to be conscience, communion with God, spiritual understanding (it could also mirror some faculties of the spirit and that's why scripture sometimes speak of uniting your mind). JB and others might elaborate this better. But a way to clarify which faculties in us are attributed to the human spirit instead of the soul, is to discern which faculties we have that are above beasts. Intuition/spiritual understanding shows man's ability to discern spiritual truths. This capacity is hindered in man after the Fall, but enough (not salvific) still remains to render him responsible to positively respond to God's witness in nature (Rom. 1:18-20). This functionality is restored through the new birth of the spirit.

1 Cor 2:12-14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might KNOW the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Even with God's image damaged in fallen man, the faculty of conscience is still functioning through their spirits.

Rom 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Through regeneration we are admonished to live in accordance to our renewed conscience - Rom 14:20-24, 1 Tim 1:5

Communion with God is obvious. When sin entered, it was broken in Adam. The unregenerate have no communion with God except a condemning, excusatory or idolatrous conscience. The regenerate have that communion and expresses it (if they walk in the Spirit) through their souls. Those whose conscience is far gone are nothing more than brute beasts, since the flesh totally reigns and assumes totally the soul. 2 Pet. 2:12. These animals can never do because their "spirits" are not like ours. So their souls are earthly, while ours are "heavenly" through an added Godly dimension. Eccl 3:21

Those aforementioned authors go deeper with very thorough refutation of the plain, bland dichotomous intepretation. Their thorough objections haven't been answered as far as i know. Only mentions of their works at best.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

That's pretty much what Nee held to as attributes of the spirit: communion, conscience, and intuition.

When Heard says (see my post 10), "Truth lies in a golden mean between these two extremes, to which the theories of Augustine and Pelagius incline", he affirms Pelagius who was not merely extreme, but a thorough heretic. Heard then moves on, saying, " From attending to this distinction between Psyche and Pneuma, the Greek fathers seem to me to have reached that golden mean, which was lost in Latin theology generally, and which even the Reformers, Lutheran and Calvinists, alike failed to reach."

John Bickford Heard (1828-?) was certainly not a Reformed thinker or believer, but endeavored to produce a "true Eirenikon" bringing a rapprochement – ecumenically speaking – between the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. He was strongly anti-Augustine. I can't find his church affiliation; do you know of it?

Before I deal with some specific verses of Scripture (if we get that far), why do you think to convince us of a person who is anti-confessional as regards the Reformed churches, seeing as we are committed to our confessions as truly reflecting the word and doctrines of God? I realize you are convinced Heard's (and others') tripartite view, and some notable people indeed have held to it, but why push a non-confessional view here?

 

[lynnie]

I'm not taking sides and this does not include the body, but Martyn Lloyd-Jones talks about mind, heart, and will a lot in some sermons. More like the tripart nature of the soul.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

That's pretty much what Nee held to as attributes of the spirit: communion, conscience, and intuition.

When Heard says (see my post 10), "Truth lies in a golden mean between these two extremes, to which the theories of Augustine and Pelagius incline", he affirms Pelagius who was not merely extreme, but a thorough heretic. Heard then moves on, saying, " From attending to this distinction between Psyche and Pneuma, the Greek fathers seem to me to have reached that golden mean, which was lost in Latin theology generally, and which even the Reformers, Lutheran and Calvinists, alike failed to reach."

John Bickford Heard (1828-?) was certainly not a Reformed thinker or believer, but endeavored to produce a "true Eirenikon" bringing a rapprochement – ecumenically speaking – between the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. He was strongly anti-Augustine. I can't find his church affiliation; do you know of it?

Before I deal with some specific verses of Scripture (if we get that far), why do you think to convince us of a person who is anti-confessional as regards the Reformed churches, seeing as we are committed to our confessions as truly reflecting the word and doctrines of God? I realize you are convinced Heard's (and others') tripartite view, and some notable people indeed have held to it, but why push a non-confessional view here?

I have never read Watchman Nee. I initially thought Watchman was a verb not a name. I only pondered on scripture (i'm tied forever to God's word ALONE) after I didn't find the explanations of passages like Heb 4:12, 1 Cor 2:12 and 1 thess 5:23 satisfactory from my knowledge of bare dichotomy, and then read Franz Delitzsch - a Lutheran (who espoused the tripartite view) along with Heard and Beck and others. You can remove the post if you don't find it confessional. God bless.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

I have never read Watchman Nee. I initially thought Watchman was a verb not a name. I only pondered on scripture (i'm tied forever to God's word ALONE) after I didn't find the explanations of passages like Heb 4:12, 1 Cor 2:12 and 1 thess 5:23 satisfactory from my knowledge of bare dichotomy, and then read Franz Delitzsch - a Lutheran (who espoused the tripartite view) along with Heard and Beck and others. You can remove the post if you don't find it confessional. God bless.

To answer the last question. I asked the question here because I didn't feel the confessions addressed such and wanted to get views of others since I changed my view to the tripartite position . No confession speaks on how the soul and spirit are different or whether they are just synonyms as many dichotomists say.