"Di" vs. "Tri"

[convicted1]

It seems apparent here:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

...that we possess soul and spirit, two different words and meanings. I think we also possess bodies. :laugh:

Looks like three to me. :thumbs:

Well Brother, neither camp denies three parts, but the "di"camp see the soul and spirit "intertwined". I can see support for both camps.

 

[JamesL]

Winman and Convicted1,
thanks for the appreciation, and the kind words. I have spent a considerable amount of time on this issue, but not simply to settle this issue alone.

I believe this di/tri issue also relates to sin and righteousness as it concerns each "aspect" of a man. It relates to how sin entered the world because of Adam, what does scripture mean with "new creation", regeneration, cleansing, forgiveness, being sealed by the Holy Spirit, etc.

Also, it could possibly relate to how man is created in the image of God. Trichotomists use that as support for their position. I'll give my thoughts on this issue further along in this post.

Quite a few years ago, I became really curious about an issue. If the bible teaches a distinction between soul/spirit/body at the beginning of life, and the same distinction at the end of life, then is it possible that there is a distinction in certain aspects of a man's time between entry and exit?

I found that many disagreements through church history concerning Original Sin, Traducianism vs. Creationism (as it relates to the human soul or spirit), the biblical passages which seem to give conflicting statements regarding forgiveness, justification, etc, can be reconciled through a proper understanding of our metaphysical makeup (nature or natures).

How our "natures" (flesh and spirit) relate to sin and righteousness, was at the forefront of NT thought, too - In the fight against Gnosticism. Understanding how Gnostics thought, compared to what the bible speaks to the issue, makes it very easy to see what attracted Gnostics to Christianity, and/or visa versa.

I always thought Hades and Hell were interhcnageable words for the same place hell, and the lake of fire a seperate place of torment.

Hades (Greek) and Sheol (Hebrew) are simply: The Place of the Dead.
The place associated with fire is Gehenna.
The bible doesn't name any place as Hell, but English translations seem to

I think it would be proper to refer to either place as hell, because people in either place are/will be in utter ruin and despair. However, I used Hell in referring to the Lake of Fire, contrasted against Hades, because that is the most common way Hell is understood.

I was trying to avoid a potential backlash of people accusing me of denying the Lake of Fire, which they typically call "denying the reality of Hell"

I didn't mean to confuse anything, and I see nothing wrong with calling Hades "hell"
Just as I see nothing wrong with calling the Lake of Fire "hell"

Triune God made Adam in His image and likeness, so this makes me wonder if this makes us a "trichotomist" being, too.

I don't believe that Adam was made in the image of God. The text is generally cited as Genesis 1:26-27. But, I don't believe those two verses can properly be understood without verses 28-31.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. )NASB)


In verse 26, when God says "Let us make man", he did not mean Adam. Verse 27 says "God created man...male and female He created them." I believe "mankind" is a better fit, which is the way the NIV words it. Also, I have noticed (in the NASB) the use of three closely related identifiers relating to Adam and Eve:
Adam is The Man
Eve is The Woman
Together, they are Man

But, in the next verse after God created them male and female, He said to them "Be fruitful and multiply. God set procreation in place as part of His creation of "man". This is all mentioned together in the context of the sixth day of creation (verse 31).

So the whole sum of the created Image of God was not found in Adam, it was found in Adam, Eve, and their offspring. And, just as God is not three separate beings, He did not create three separate beings out of dust. God brought Eve "out of man", which is what the name means. Then, from Adam and the one taken from his side, came the child.

So, in my estimation, the image of God is the family structure.

I am also fully aware that 1Corinthians 11:7 does not seem to confirm this. I am still studying that passage and how it relates to Genesis 1. It is quite possible that I am off the mark, but I believe this is the best fit with the overall issue of understanding our metaphysical makeup.

Some might say I'm looking for a way to spin 1Cor 11:7 in favor of my view. Perhaps, as I believe we are all susceptible to that. I don't believe that is my conscious ambition. Perhaps subconsciously, though.


I don't know if you've read the GotQuestions pages that Iconoclast has given links to. They are pretty good starters - bite sized introductions, for the most part. Like I said, I think the flaw of each is thinking of the soul as part of "what" man is, instead of "who" man is

 

[preacher4truth]

Well Brother, neither camp denies three parts, but the "di"camp see the soul and spirit "intertwined". I can see support for both camps.

I don't know about 'neither camp' as I know some who do deny three parts.

That said Scripture (Hebrews 4:12) clearly makes a distinction between the soul and spirit using the illustration of fleshly joints and marrow as an supportive example. I'll stick with the Word here on this over arguments and other opinions unless someone can prove from Scripture otherwise. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[convicted1]

I don't know about 'neither camp' as I know some who do deny three parts.

That said Scripture (Hebrews 4:12) clearly makes a distinction between the soul and spirit using the illustration of fleshly joints and marrow as an supportive example. I'll stick with the Word here on this over arguments and other opinions unless someone can prove from Scripture otherwise. :smilewinkgrin:

I honestly don't know which camp I'm in. I agree with the material and immaterial parts of man, the outer fleshly man, and the inner spiritual man. Now, which is it? The inner man being soul, with the spirit intertwined in it, or soul and spirit being distinctly different? That's the struggle I'm trying to figure out. I see grounds for both, but I am leaning moreso now to "tri"...just not there just yet...

 

[OldRegular]

How do you have a dead spirit and living soul? Wouldn't both be dead in either in the trichotomist camp?

Dead spirit, dead in trespasses and sins, only means dead to God, in my humble opinion of course. Body and spirit of the lost will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't know about 'neither camp' as I know some who do deny three parts.

That said Scripture (Hebrews 4:12) clearly makes a distinction between the soul and spirit using the illustration of fleshly joints and marrow as an supportive example. I'll stick with the Word here on this over arguments and other opinions unless someone can prove from Scripture otherwise. :smilewinkgrin:

Does it really matter? I cannot see how!

 

[convicted1]

Does it really matter? I cannot see how!

This doctrine is a secondary topic that has nothing to do with salvation, imo. Man is material and immaterial and I know that much...

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Important?

Does it really matter? I cannot see how!

I'm in agreement.

Not that this shouldn't be discussed if one is interested. "Theology" literally means 'Study of God'; any way we mortals can get more familiar with God is proper and makes us a bit more suited to serving and living in His Kingdom. But in this case, I don't think knowing the distinction will change my attitude or relationship with God to any extent.

Which probably means when someone points it out to me, it will change me. :forehead slap:

James, I really like your postings. I want to discuss some of the side issues, but I don't want to derail this thread. Perhaps I'll start another.

 

[OldRegular]

This doctrine is a secondary topic that has nothing to do with salvation, imo. Man is material and immaterial and I know that much...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

Now, which is it? The inner man being soul, with the spirit intertwined in it, or soul and spirit being distinctly different?

The Greek names the soul and spirit as two distinctions. I don't see the struggle here. These are obviously differentiated, divided by the Word, compared to joints and marrow which are also differing elements. Have you looked up the two distinct Greek terms and their meanings?

 

[preacher4truth]

Does it really matter? I cannot see how!

I understand, but obviously the Godhead made a determinable distinction between soul and spirit and it is our duty to dig into this deeper at some point. Admittedly I have not as of yet, but I do see the Word showing us a specific separation between soul/spirit.

 

[preacher4truth]

This doctrine is a secondary topic that has nothing to do with salvation, imo. Man is material and immaterial and I know that much...

Goodness I hope I'm not being herein accused of making this topic salvific in nature. I apologize, all I've intended was to show Scripture distinguishes between soul and spirit concerning man.

 

[convicted1]

The Greek names the soul and spirit as two distinctions. I don't see the struggle here. These are obviously differentiated, divided by the Word, compared to joints and marrow which are also differing elements. Have you looked up the two distinct Greek terms and their meanings?

I have, but it was a few years ago. Honestly, I never really gave this much thought until recently. I became interested into figuring this thing out. I thought here was a good platform to get a broader scope of both camps.

Isn't pnuema the word for spirit?

 

[convicted1]

Goodness I hope I'm not being herein accused of making this topic salvific in nature. I apologize, all I've intended was to show Scripture distinguishes between soul and spirit concerning man.

Heaven's no. I was stating that, not thinking for one sec you were making it salvific....sorry about the confusion...

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't know about 'neither camp' as I know some who do deny three parts.

That said Scripture (Hebrews 4:12) clearly makes a distinction between the soul and spirit using the illustration of fleshly joints and marrow as an supportive example. I'll stick with the Word here on this over arguments and other opinions unless someone can prove from Scripture otherwise. :smilewinkgrin:

Hello P4T,

This is a good discussion. Both groups need to appeal to all the verses so,
Let's take a look at Hebrews 4;12
In discussing the power and efficacy of the word of God,The writer points out this truth by using two distinct examples.
Two things that are normally inseparable ,are able to be divided by the word of God....in other words...

joints{bones in the physical body} and marrow{the inside of the bones} normally stay together...but they are able to be divided in this illustration,

then the spirit/soul....normally as C1 said are intertwined are able to be divided apart....so the Di is able to appeal to this text also.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a post from someone {patrick} having a discussion on this...he offers his view which offers on this topic-

There is no support for tripartism in the Scriptures. This is the error of exchanged life proponents who have adopted an erroneous Greek philosophy.

Drawing my arguments from Hodge, the duality of man is clear from Scripture, see James 2:26; 2 Cor. 7:1, Matthew 10:28) where spirit and soul are used interchangeably. God "breathed into his nostrils: the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7. The "breath of life" is the principle of his life, and the "living soul" is the very being of man. The soul is united with and adapted to a body, but can, if need be, also exist without the body. In view of this we can speak of man as a spiritual being, and as also in that respect the image of God.

Soul and spirit are synonymous. I see only dichotomous man taught in Scripture. In Gen. 2:7, God creates man from the dust of the ground and His breath, neshamah, a blast of wind, much like a destructive force. Note it does not say, ruach (spirit), some gentle breathing, such as we read in Gen. 1:2. Thus, in Genesis 2:7, we have a body, a blast of wind, and a nephesh, or as translated "a living soul". God made man from two elements--the dust of the earth and His very own breath. The combination is the nephesh.

Suppose I make salt. I mix sodium with chlorine, and I get salt. Salt is not one of the elements, it is the name of the compound. Likewise, God used clay and mixed His breath with the clay, and the combination was "a living soul". In the Old Testament we always see the term soul designating the combination as a whole, not just one of its components.

God formed the man out of the dust of the earth, breathed the breath of life into him, and he became a living being in whom is a living soul. This is no more than a material body formed and the living principle (soul) derived from God. The soul of man is intermingled with the body and they affect each other. In other words when a person does something his whole being (existence) is involved.

As noted above, the Hebrew and Greek word for soul and spirit are used uniformly in Scripture and are constantly interchanged. The one can and is substituted for the other in Scripture, and what can be predicted of the one, is predicted of the other. The Hebrew and Greek words for soul mean breath, life, the living principle; that in which life and the whole life of the subject spoken of resides. The same is true for the Hebrew and Greek words for spirit. They also mean breath, life, the living principle. Therefore the Scriptures speak of spirit and soul not only of that which lives or is the principle of life to the body, but as that which thinks, feels, and which may be saved or lost, which survives the body and is immortal.

The soul is the man himself in which his personality and identity dwell. It is the EGO. There is nothing higher in man than his soul. Here are a few Scriptural proofs: Matt. 10:28 "Rather be afraid of the One who can destroy both the soul and body in hell". Notice here that the whole man is destroyed (body and soul) in hell. Matthew 16:26, "What can man give in exchange for his soul", Rev. 6:9, "I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God", Rev. 20:4 "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus...", I Peter 1:9 "for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls", James 1:21 "accept the word planted in you, which can save you (your souls)". Every one of these references use the Greek word for soul and not spirit.

There are an abundance of Scriptural references to show that salvation occurs in both the soul/body, ie..the complete man. If this so called the "real you" is in the spirit man then why isn't the word spirit mentioned? Jesus would have surely said be afraid of the one who is able to destroy both your body and spirit. It is evident that the word soul does not designate the mere animal part of our nature, and is not a substance different from our spirit. The Hebrew and Greek words for soul and spirit are further used in the Scriptures to describe both men and irrational animals.

If the Scriptures used the word soul to speak of animals and soul and spirit to speak of men, we would have some grounds for assuming the two are distinct. However Ecclesiastes 3:21 uses spirit to describe both men and animals. The living principle in animals (soul) is irrational and mortal. The soul of man is rational and immortal. The soul of the animal is the immaterial principle which constitutes its life, and which is endowed with sensibility, and that measure of intelligence which experience shows the lower animals to possess. The soul of a man is a created spirit of a higher order, which has not only the attributes of sensibility, memory, and instinct, but also the higher powers which pertain to our intellect, moral, and religious life. As in the animals it is not one substance that feels and another that remembers; so it is not one substance in man that is the subject of sensations and another substance which has intuitions of necessary truths, and which is endowed with conscience and with the knowledge of God. These all belong to one and the same immaterial, rational substance.
_________________
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)

and again;

I have heard in defense of tripartism the following verse and related verses used:

Mark 12:29-30

29Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'

The argument goes that the Heart is equivalent to the spirit of man, the soul is equivalent to the mind of man, and the strength is equivalent to the body of man.

In this verse it appears on the surface that a difference is draw between the heart, soul, and body.

AMR,

How does the heart fit into the soul and body of bipartism or dipartism...which ever it is called?


As I noted above, the dichotomous nature of man is the biblical view. To the writer, the 'heart' was considered the control center of human personality. The soul/spirit the seat of conscious life. The mind the seat of capacity for thought. You lift out heart, but ignore strength, which has to do with bodily power, but we don't hear anyone arguing that man's nature is composed of 4 parts. This should tell you that you are trying to read more into the passage than it actually teaches.

Mark 7:19 reads, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" Jesus makes the "heart of man" the source of sin, but he certainly does not mean the heart beating in our chests.

In 1Thessalonians 5:23, we read Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here the apostle merely desires to bolster the statement, "And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly," by an exegetical statement, in which the different aspects of man's existence are summed up, and in which he feels perfectly free to mention soul and spirit alongside of each other, because the Bible distinguishes between the two. The apostle cannot very well have thought of them as two different substances here, because he speaks elsewhere of man as consisting of two parts, Rom. 8:10; I Cor. 5:5; 7:34; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 2:3; Col. 2:5.

Hebrews 4:12: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Heb. 4:12 cannot be taken to mean that the word of God, penetrating to the inner man, makes a separation between his soul and his spirit, which would naturally imply that these two are different substances; but simply as declaring that it brings about a separation in both between the thoughts and intents of the heart-the inner spiritual, mental and emotional functioning of our person, of our human spirit thinking, planning, emoting, deciding, all through the apparatus of the body (via the brain, the mind, etc.)

There are times when instead of "heart", the center of our "living being" (thanks to the union of our spirit and our body into a living soul), writers of Scripture employed "soul" as a synonymous term. This development is common enough in literature. The specific literary device being used is called synecdoche, where the whole is being substituted for the part.

In the case of the use of "soul" for "heart", the whole of our "living being" is substituted for the nucleus of that person (where all thoughts, emotions, decisions and pangs of conscience occur). This substitution has parallels in English: “my very being longs for thee”. Problems of interpretation only arise if one mistakenly takes this common literary use to mean that somehow the "soul" is a separate entity of our makeup (rather than the entire "being" we have seen it to be, encompassing our body and spirit in a living union).

Note these renderings of Proverbs 23:7 and how the literary device is used by the KJV but more clearly rendered in other translations:

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. (KJV)

For as he thinks within himself, so he is. He says to you, "Eat and drink!" But his heart is not with you. (NASB)

for he is like one who is inwardly calculating. "Eat and drink!" he says to you, but his heart is not with you. (ESV)

When I say I have accepted something with my mind but my heart cannot, it does not mean I am saying my mind and heart are separate cognitive functions, but only that a certain aspect of my mind (emotion) cannot accept it.

AMR
_________________
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)

 

[Iconoclast]

here are some more;

http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-trichotomy-is-wrong-biblical.html

http://scripturethoughts.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/body-soul-and-spirit-trichotomy-or-dichotomy/

http://www.monergism.com/topics/anthropology/trichotomy-vs-dichotomy

 

[Iconoclast]

Pink offers a tri view;
For the Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." It should be evident that the first thing emphasized here is that Christianity consists not so much of external conduct, as the place which the Word of God has within us. The Word of God "piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit" is the effect which it produces, under the application of the Lord, when a sinner is regenerated. Man is a tripartite being, consisting of spirit and soul and body. This, we believe, is the first and deepest meaning of Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." God Himself is a Trinity in Unity, and such He made man to be.

The "spirit" is the highest part of man, being the seat of God-consciousness. The "soul" is the ego, the individual himself, and is the seat of self-consciousness; man has a "spirit," but he is "a living soul." The "body" is his house or tabernacle, being the seat of sense-consciousness. In the day that man first sinned, he died spiritually. But in Scripture "death" never means extinction of being; instead, it always signifies separation (see Luke 15:24). The nature of man’s spiritual "death" is intimated in Ephesians 4:18, "alienated from the life of God." When Adam disobeyed his Maker, he became a fallen creature, separated from God. The first effect of this was that his "spirit" no longer functioned separately, it was no more in communion with God. His spirit fell to the level of his soul.

The "soul" is the seat of the emotions (1 Sam. 18:1, Judges 10:16, Gen. 42:21, etc.). It is that part of our nature which stirs into exercise the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." The unregenerate man is termed "the soulical man" (1 Cor. 2:14), the Greek word there being the adjectival form of "psyche" or "soul." That is to say, the unregenerate man is entirely dominated by his soul, his lusts, his desires, his emotions. Spiritual considerations have no weight with him whatsoever, for he is "alienated from the life of God." True, he has a "spirit," and by means of it he is capable of perceiving all around him the evidences of the "eternal power and godhead" of the Creator (Rom. 1:20). It is the "candle of the Lord" (Prov. 20:27) within him; yet has it, because of the fall, no communion with God. Now at regeneration there is, literally, a "dividing asunder of soul and spirit." The spirit is restored to communion with God, made enrapport with Him, "reconciled." The spirit is raised from its immersion in the soul, and once more functions separately: "For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit" (Rom. 1:9); "my spirit prayeth" (1 Cor. 14:14) etc.

 

[Iconoclast]

here is John Owen:

The object of this piercing is the “soul and spirit.” Some think that by
yuch>, the natural and unregenerate part of the soul is intended; and by
pneu~ma, that which is in it renewed and regenerate. And there is some
ground for that explication of this distinction; for hence is a man wholly
unregenerate called yuciko>v, <460214>1 Corinthians 2:14; say we, “the natural
man.” And though yuch>, absolutely used, doth denote either the being of
the rational “soul,” or “life,” which is an effect thereof; yet as it is opposed
to the “spirit,” or distinguished from it, it may denote the unregenerate
part, as sa>rx, the “flesh,” doth, though absolutely it signifies one part of
the material substance of the body. From hence is an unregenerate person
denominated a]nqrwpov yuciko>v. So the spiritual part is frequently called
pveu~ma, the “spirit,” as <430306>John 3:6; and are generate person
pneumatiko>v, the “spiritual man,” <460215>1 Corinthians 2:15. According to
this interpretation, the sense of the words is, that the Word of God, the
Lord Christ, by his word and Spirit pierceth into the state of the soul, to
198
discover who or what is regenerate amongst us or in us, and who or what
is not so. The principles of these things are variously involved in the souls
of men, so that they are not ofttimes discernible unto them in whom they
are, as to whether of them is predominant. But the Lord Christ makes
merismo>v, a “division” with a distribution, referring all things in the soul to
their proper source and original. Others judge, that whereas our apostle
makes a distinction between soul and spirit, as he doth in other places, he
intends by yuch>, “the soul,” the affections, the appetites, and desires; and
by pnei~ma, “the spirit,” the mind or understanding, the to< hJgemoniko>n,
the “conducting part” of the soul. And it is most probable that he here
intends the same: for setting out the penetrating power of the Word of God
with reference unto the souls of men, he distributes the soul into as it were
its principal constituent parts, or faculties of it; that is, the mind, that leads,
conducts, and guides it; and the passions, that steer and balance it, wherein
all the most secret recesses and springs of all its actings do lie. And this
sense is confirmed from the following words, wherein the same thing is
asserted under a different notion, — namely, of the “joints and marrow.”
That which in the soul answers the joints and marrow in the body, by way
of allusion, is that which is intended. Joints and marrow in themselves are
things sensual and fleshly, that have no concern in this matter; but in the
body they are doubly considerable, —
[1.]

 

[convicted1]

This doctrine is a secondary topic that has nothing to do with salvation, imo. Man is material and immaterial and I know that much...

Brother P4T, the reason I made this statement wasn't because I thought you were making it salvific, but that this is a topic worthy of debate, but not worthy of being "a hill to die on". Things like this have nothing salvific about them, yet they do edify His children when we discuss them.