Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Gospels & Acts' started by Ed Walsh, May 3, 2018.
I agree with all of that. What exactly was your original question?
Does Jesus have two souls?
God has a soul. He is spoken of as having every divine property normally ascribed to a soul. The soul has intellectus, voluntas, and other such properties.
1. God has intellectus.
2. God has voluntas.
3. These are aspects of the soul (admittedly, they are all identical with the divine essence, but that raises issues of simplicity which we need not go into here).
Jesus has every divine property of the Godhead. Therefore, Jesus has two souls.
God does not have a soul in the same sense as we do though, for God has a mind, but He is also Spirit/Being period.
Man is Spirit, the aspect of him that can commune and have a relationship with God, soul, the aspect of his mind/will. and the physical body itself.
God just has the mind aspect though...
I do not think God has a soul. A soul is created - hence it is the animating principle in man, created by God and put in man. The Confession speaks of Christ having a "reasonable [rational] soul." Note that it is not plural, but singular. God is a Spirit, and does not have parts.
God has the aspect of a Mind, but not a soul, as he does not require to have such a thing.
I am simply saying God has the properties of will and intellect (admittedly they are identical given divine simplicity). Faculty psychology normally locates these in the soul. And given that God has these properties, and given that God is mind, then saying God has a soul matches with biblical language about God's soul.
P1. Of course, God doesn't *have* these properties in a Platonic sense. God doesn't participate in the form of intellect.
P2. nor does God have them in the Thomist sense (because Thomism is wrong).
P3. And since God is incorporeal, he doesn't *have* them somewhere in his body.
I am not going to die on the hill of God's having a soul. Mind and Soul are roughly synonymous in the pre-modern tradition, so I rest content with that.
Nevertheless, the bible speaks of God and soul. They might be anthropomorphic, but let's resist the urge to call it such for as long as we can.
Lev. 26:30. And I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols, and my soul will abhor you.
Ps. 11:5. The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
What does that even mean?
What is the difference between S/spirit and S/soul (I capitalize soul because if applied to God, it would be identical to everything in God)?
I think we need to be very careful when stating theological principles in as tricky a subject as the Person and Natures of Christ. Failure to do so is what causes problems. One example in this thread's subject: failure to distinguish between the anhypostatic and enhypostatic with respect to Christ's human nature causes an error with respect to His impeccability. When the Bible speaks of God's "soul" (nephesh) it is speaking of His individual "living-ness" so to speak. God is the source of life (nephesh) and He makes Adam a living being (zosan psyche - 1 Cor. 15:45) by breathing life into him (close relation between "breath" and "soul"). Christ indeed has two wills, but does not have two (created) souls.
I get all that, which I was i somewhere above said I wasn't going to die on that hill. And while God doesn't have a soul in the same way we do, Scripture's does speak that way and I tried to address those passages.
I was also coming at it from the Richard Muller angle where his textbook lists soul as having (Or being) will and intellect, and God certainly has those properties.
If it is not a hill you want to die upon, why continue to press the point?
Just making a statement, "Jesus has two souls" in a response, pressing even further by "which soul", without no modicum of trepidation, is what started this sidebar discussion in this thread.
If you want to qualify that statement within some philosophical boundaries, go right ahead. Would that this had been done at the time of the original declaration. Or perhaps you made that bold declaration in hopes of stimulating what has proceeded therefrom?
I fail to see how such a naked declaration, "Jesus has two souls" is edifying. Rather it is confusing to anyone with an understanding of the simplicity of God and even a terrible potential stumbling block to those possessing less knowledge about the matter. A wee bit of fear and trembling should accompany our words when it comes to such weighty matters.
As I noted, any notion of the "soul of God", if we are going to use the phrase at all, must be simply that the soul of God is God himself. That is quite different from saying God possesses a soul, which is what your original declaration plainly reads, given you took no time to qualify your statement.
AMR's soul is not AMR himself. It is a part of what AMR actually is. AMR is a body and a soul. A dichotomy of two parts. More importantly, AMR is not a trichotomy (body, soul, spirit). Spirit and soul are synonymously used when speaking about the created moral agent.
Accordingly, Our Lord is not right now sitting at the right hand of God the Father with two souls. Rather His glorified body and soul exists at that seat in the human nature of Jesus, along with the mystical union of the divine nature of the Second Person of the Godhead, both natures neither separated, confused, mixed, or divided, but united in one indistinguishable subsistence.
I thought I specifically made that clear. I said God does not *have* a soul like we have one (if only because we are substance dualists, he is not).
And given divine simplicity, everything in God is God, which means Mind = God, Will = God, and if the bible uses the word Soul, well, at the very least it doesn't seem unreasonable to use soul as a predicate of God.
You did, albeit following your opening declaration:
Which is the point I have been trying to make. Your actual specifics followed plenty of head-scratching by others, including the staff, when you made that opening "two souls" post. Naked profundity serves no one well, brother.
If you are going to make such statement, which I assume you know will be met with questions for clarification, why not simply tease out what you mean in the first instance and save us all plenty of time?
When I originally said it, I was operating under the two-minds Christology. And I was under the assumption that most people in the West, Christian or not, shared the view that soul more or less overlaps with mind. Further, the biblical texts where it says God's having a soul.
Because of these assumptions, I didn't bother to spell out everything I believed. While I stand by my original comments 100%, I now realize that not everyone was on the same page regarding philosophical presuppositions. Mea culpa.
A mea culpa seasoned with a "yeah, but" that Scripture didactically claims God has a soul?
So others, unlike yourself, are misinterpreting these passages that you see to be as locus classicus to your assertions.
If this is not a hill you are willing to die upon, please hesitate a wee bit to claim evidence to the contrary.
I am not saying they are misinterpreting them. I am responding to the reaction, "God doesn't have a soul." To which I said, "True, he doesn't have a soul like we do, but the Bible doesn't make the statement you make."
Is soul and spirit the same thing?
My understanding is that the soul are the mind/will/emotional aspect of man, and the Spirit is that aspect that communes with God, has fellowship with Him, and is dead in all until born again.
Sounds a lot like what I just said.
We would be in the definite minority here holding to that position then, as I think the traditional Reformed/Calvinistic approach holds to just body/soul, as spirit and soul to them would be same thing.
Sorry, I need to clarify. I agree that the soul includes (not in a compositional, spatial sense) mind/will/etc. That's Reformed Orthodoxy (see Muller's dictionary). And if God has properties x, y, and z.....
But reject trichotomism.
So you would see the mind.will as being aspects of the soul, but you would not see the spirit as another aspect of us?
If the soul is another substance (and I am a substance dualist of sorts), then I deny that the spirit is yet a third substance.
So the soul and spirit to you when used in the scriptures would be referring to the very same aspect of us?
Negatively, they wouldn't be denoting different substances.
What aspect in us then gets born again, and is still dead in lost sinners?
Cannot be the soul, as both lost and saved have them.