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

[Jerusalem Blade]

I appreciate your irenic and enquiring spirit, Moses.

Logan, in his post #11, referenced Charles Hodge's discussion in his Systematic Theology Vo II (p 53), who says at the end of his 3-page discussion on Tripartite thinking,

“This doctrine of a threefold constitution of man being adopted by Plato, was introduced partially into the early Church, but soon came to be regarded as dangerous, if not heretical. It being held by the Gnostics that the πνεῦμα [spirit] in man was a part of the divine essence, and incapable of sin; and by the Apollinarians that Christ had only a human σῶμα [body] and ψυχή [soul], but not a human πνεῦμα, the Church rejected the doctrine that the ψυχή and πνεῦμα were distinct substances, since upon it those heresies were founded. In later times the Semi-Pelagians taught that the soul and body, but not the spirit in man were the subjects of original sin. All Protestants, Lutheran and Reformed, were, therefore, the more zealous in maintaining that the soul and spirit, ψυχή and πνεῦμα, are one and the same substance and essence. And this, as before remarked, has been the common doctrine of the Church.”​

Hodge's thoughts, and exegeses of the Greek and Hebrew, starting on page 50 of his Systematic, are pertinent to this discussion.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

I appreciate your irenic and enquiring spirit, Moses.

Logan, in his post #11, referenced Charles Hodge's discussion in his Systematic Theology Vo II (p 53), who says at the end of his 3-page discussion on Tripartite thinking,

“This doctrine of a threefold constitution of man being adopted by Plato, was introduced partially into the early Church, but soon came to be regarded as dangerous, if not heretical. It being held by the Gnostics that the πνεῦμα [spirit] in man was a part of the divine essence, and incapable of sin; and by the Apollinarians that Christ had only a human σῶμα [body] and ψυχή [soul], but not a human πνεῦμα, the Church rejected the doctrine that the ψυχή and πνεῦμα were distinct substances, since upon it those heresies were founded. In later times the Semi-Pelagians taught that the soul and body, but not the spirit in man were the subjects of original sin. All Protestants, Lutheran and Reformed, were, therefore, the more zealous in maintaining that the soul and spirit, ψυχή and πνεῦμα, are one and the same substance and essence. And this, as before remarked, has been the common doctrine of the Church.”​

Of importance are the ecclesial credentials and background of any man who presumes to teach the church new truths (or new to a generation) supposedly derived from Scripture. JB Heard is actually against the Reformation churches and confessions, burdened to bring about a reconciliation (as I noted above) between Rome and Byzantium, while disdaining the Protestant and Reformed. Would this not raise red flags for a person? That's why I asked as to his church affiliation. Do you know it? He is no friend of historic Christianity, as the Reformed see it. He might be a scholarly and learned man, quite impressive to some, but to the shepherds watching over the flock, dangerous to the folds they care for.

Hodge's thoughts, and exegeses of the Greek and Hebrew, starting on page 50 of his Systematic, are pertinent to this discussion.

Hi Steve. Like I said, you can remove the post as I innately believe soul and spirit are not fundamentally synonyms. I don't want to spread a hated position on here. Also, why don't you address Franz Delitzsch or Beck? Would you say Delitzsch is a heretic? No one would dare say that. He's also Lutheran. I don't think you can make that conclusion about JB Heard like I mentioned earlier (he rejects pelagianism and affirms total depravity, you need to read everything to understand his usage of terms, he isn't against reformed churches). I have read Hodge and Berkhof. They never address the arguments made by these authors and the common dichotomists interpretations were addressed in several chapters by the tripartite authors (Delitzsch work was more than 600 pages). Also Delitzsch and JB Heard trace the roots of Dichotomy to mysticism and funny enough - same plato. Also, many doctrines are abused by heretics doesn't make them "fundamentally" wrong. JB Heard wrote against the gnostic usages.

Once again, I have not read one single objection to the arguments put forward in the systematic volumes by these authors and I don't see the confessions addressing how the soul and spirit are different.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

Hi Steve. Like I said, you can remove the post as I innately believe soul and spirit are not fundamentally synonyms. I don't want to spread a hated position on here. Also, why don't you address Franz Delitzsch or Beck? Would you say Delitzsch is a heretic? No one would dare say that. He's also Lutheran. I don't think you can make that conclusion about JB Heard like I mentioned earlier (he rejects pelagianism and affirms total depravity, you need to read everything to understand his usage of terms, he isn't against reformed churches). I have read Hodge and Berkhof. They never address the arguments made by these authors and the common dichotomists interpretations were addressed in several chapters by the tripartite authors (Delitzsch work was more than 600 pages). Also Delitzsch and JB Heard trace the roots of Dichotomy to mysticism and funny enough - same plato. Also, many doctrines are abused by heretics doesn't make them "fundamentally" wrong. JB Heard wrote against the gnostic usages.

Once again, I have not read one single objection to the arguments put forward in the systematic volumes by these authors and I don't see the confessions addressing how the soul and spirit are different.

Also, Luther affirmed the tripartite view in some of his writings. He says :

''Let us take up the words in their order. The first is “my soul.” Scripture divides man into three parts, as St. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 . . . The nature of man consists of the three parts–spirit, soul, and body . . . The first part, the spirit, is the highest, deepest, and noblest part of man. By it he is enabled to lay hold on things incomprehensible, invisible, and eternal. It is, in brief, the dwelling place of faith and the Word of God ..................The second part, the soul, is this same spirit, SO FAR as its nature is concerned, but viewed as performing a different function, namely, giving life to the body and working through the body'' [1]

This is in many ways what these tripartite authors espouse exactly by saying the soul and spirit have the same nature (immaterial vs material body) but different as the bone is different from the spongy marrow tissue.

Luther wrote more that emphasized even more his distinctions mentioned above


[1] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, ed., Jaroslar Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 21:303. McClintock and Strong noted that trichotomy was still held by evangelical Lutherans in the late 1800’s — Cyclopedia of Ecclesiastical Literature,10:549.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Not being a mod or admin here I have no authority to remove anything.

Good men, like Delitzsch, err. When you reference Luther, quoting him (just above) to say, "The second part, the soul, is this same spirit, so far as its nature is concerned, but viewed as performing a different function", this is in accord with Hodge's critique of tripartitism.

 

[Logan]

I don't see the confessions addressing how the soul and spirit are different.

The confessions don't because they are clearly dichotomous.

E.g., Westminster Larger Catechism 16 and 17
"God created all the angels spirits..."
"formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls".

One of the proof texts is Eccl 12:7 "then shall the dust [body] return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

"Body and soul" are assumed throughout, there is no hint of distinguishing a spirit from a soul---indeed the two seem to be used interchangeably, as Scripture often seems to.

Trichotomy is not explicitly rejected by the various confessions, but it also isn't even considered as a possibility within them.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

Not being a mod or admin here I have no authority to remove anything.

Good men, like Delitzsch, err. When you reference Luther, quoting him (just above) to say, "The second part, the soul, is this same spirit, so far as its nature is concerned, but viewed as performing a different function", this is in accord with Hodge's critique of tripartitism.

AS FAR AS....showing that Luther meant more of a difference. There are more clear Luther quotes that shows he believed in the tripartite. If you want, I could dig them out.

 

[Moses PsalmCII]

The confessions don't because they are clearly dichotomous.

E.g., Westminster Larger Catechism 16 and 17
"God created all the angels spirits..."
"formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls".

One of the proof texts is Eccl 12:7 "then shall the dust [body] return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

"Body and soul" are assumed throughout, there is no hint of distinguishing a spirit from a soul---indeed the two seem to be used interchangeably, as Scripture often seems to.

Trichotomy is not explicitly rejected by the various confessions, but it also isn't even considered as a possibility within them.

I would reiterate the difference I have been mentioning in the thread for soul and spirit and the sense in which I can accept dichotomy. However, I woold totally disagree that scripture doesn't distinguish them. Paul doesn't say body, body, spirit, spirit. He says body soul spirit. I believe disagreeing in this way doesn't reflect on the confessions. And if the confessions explicitly rejected the tripartite view then I would reject the confessions as my allegiance is to scripture first and my convictions from it. But I see no reason to be unconfessional on this for the LBCF

 

[Northern Crofter]

I think it is fair to say that some forms of trichotomy are heretical when they deviate from the Biblical teaching of the unity of man and his "total depravity." But so are some forms of dichotomy, especially those that slip into the error of Platonic dualism (there is duality in Scripture, but not dualism - these are not the same thing). I appreciate M's dogged approach to Biblical truth. Simply because some heretics believe in a form of trichotomy does not make it heretical, just as the Trinity is not unBiblical even though held by some synagogues of Satan. The issue in my view returns to creation - what does it mean that man was created in the image of God? Rocks have a physical body and nothing more - they could be caused to cry out but not by choice. Animals have a physical body but also the ability to emote - a donkey's mouth can be opened to express its "mind." I would argue that animals have a will but, of course, not a soul. If man is not trichotomous from creation, what separates man from beast? Confessionally, man is different and distinct: "After God had made all other creatures, he created man" (WCF 4.2).

I'm not convinced any Confession was written to promote or deny either dichotomy or trichotomy. I would say the recognition of men having "reasonable and immortal souls...having the law of God written in their hearts; and..." "...their own will, which was subject unto change..." (2 separate topics - note the semi-colon - in one long description of man being made in God's image) allows for a Biblical trichotomy to be considered within Confessional bounds, with the WCF using souls/hearts synonymously, but referring to the "will" (spirit?) of man separately. The distinction between heart and will appears elsewhere in the WCF - for example: "taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;" is followed by the separate phrase "renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;"(10.1). It is worth noting the proof texts for both phrases include verses from Ezekiel which are clearly trichotomous (x and x and x): "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 36:26); "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 11:19).

The fact that man is a dichotomy of physical and non-physical being (as in the aforementioned reference to body/soul in eternity - WCF 33) does not necessarily preclude that man is not also trichotomous, with the non-physical being divided into spirit and soul. I have found this helpful in my understanding of my own sanctification and understanding why, if my soul is saved, I still struggle with sin: "I delight in the Law of God, concerning the inner man. But I see another Law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captive unto the law of sin, which is in my members" (Romans 7.22-23). In other words, "the spirit indeed is ready, but the flesh is weak" (Matt. 26.41). Again, the Confession seems to capture this: "They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified....This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh" (WCF 13.1-2) My heart/soul is "saved" ("The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts" WCF 14.1), but my spirit - my will and my personality - is still being sanctified and so still struggling against my sinful nature.

Lastly, I also find in my witness to the world, a view of man as a simple dichotomy is difficult to distinguish from dualism. And I would say that even dualism is quickly dying and giving way to materialism as the world attempts to make all one, with the will, mind, and emotions all chemical/physiological operations of the physical body and the physical world. I remember making this argument in a paper 25 years ago at university with an ardent Marxist professor - presenting dichotomous man as needing God would have been quickly refuted with "all your faith and soul stuff are really caused by chemical reactions in your brain." Presenting man as a being who has soul of immortal subsistence, a spirit in need of renewal, and a body in need of redemption, and explaining how, in Christ and His Church, these needs are met, was not as easily refuted. Maybe our emotions and impulses are chemically produced within the body or influenced by our environment. If so, holding that there is part of our being that is immaterial and immortal is an important distinction.