Moses PsalmCII
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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