Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cesar, you give the primary proof text for those who hold to a Trichotomous of man view in biblical anthropology. However, I believe the dichotomous view has carried the day.
Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms, while they are used together differ in their meaning, still, when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it, (Ecc 12: 7) And Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ, simply mean, that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, God becomes its perpetual keeper.
Glad to help Martin, but really, what he wrote just made a LOT of sense!If Sproul is Bipartite that settles it for me, I was going that way, but that settled it
Ok, well I might really not understand this so well, but I said tri because we are mind, body and spirit. I voted before reading what the reformers said, which leads me to think I should read more about it.
In Collected Writings of John Murray vol II, chapter 2, The Nature of Man, he affirms man is dichotomy (bipartite). In chapter 3, Trichotomy he traces out this view from history up to the present. He even provides hybrid examples but concludes they can still be classified in one of the two camps.
It is well worth the read.
Bipartite-And happy about it
Bipartite-And happy about it
But, you voted for tripartite? Accident?
Bipartite-And happy about it
But, you voted for tripartite? Accident?
Hanging chad?
Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?
Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?
Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "unipartite" doctrine. To my mind, it appears that even the word is self-contradictory.
What do you mean to say?
Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "unipartite" doctrine. To my mind, it appears that even the word is self-contradictory.
What do you mean to say?
I would think it would just mean "one part." It would mean that the division between body and mind or body and spirit is arbitrary (or at least, nonessential).
I could be confused. Doesn't bipartite mean that man has a material part and an immaterial part? How does tripartite even work since material and immaterial seem to cover all posibilites? What would be the division?
Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "unipartite" doctrine. To my mind, it appears that even the word is self-contradictory.
What do you mean to say?
I would think it would just mean "one part." It would mean that the division between body and mind or body and spirit is arbitrary (or at least, nonessential).
I could be confused. Doesn't bipartite mean that man has a material part and an immaterial part? How does tripartite even work since material and immaterial seem to cover all posibilites? What would be the division?