Featured How ‘Free Grace’ Theology Diminishes the Gospel

Question? I have confessed many times that I know, no Greek therefore let me ask your thoughts concerning something that came to mind reading this post. Why it came to mind, by the way, I do not know.

In your opinion and or according to your knowledge, relative to the word of God, how would the gender of words in the Greek effect our understand of themes in the word of God, such as, trichotomist and dichotomists, above?

In other words does the gender of each have anything to say concerning our understanding of body, spirit and soul?

 

Think that bo

Depends on how we really define this issue, as believe that Freewill salvation believers are stating that a sinner comes to salvation by grace alone, thru faith alone, and that there is no other reqirements needed to get fulfilled.

Now if they also teach that a one time profession is good enough, and so not required to mature/grow, nor to live as one ought to now saved, that is a different matter...

As long as they contnue to link Eternal security with the necessity of needing to mature and grow more into image of Christ, then see no real problemm with that belief.

Problem though is that some seem to base their salvation on something done one time, and their lives never really reflecting any change, nor even desire to change...

 

The Biblicist,

God saves the whole person

There is remaining corruption, no one denies this.

I disagree.....that it is only in a judicial sense.
6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Paul speaks of actual living...not only of judicial position....The reigning power of sin has been broken at regeneration.....We are still able to sin, but are not bound by it as when we were unregenerate.
From A Baptist Catechism with Commentary; W.R.Downing

ibid;

 

pt2 Biblicist said;

And yet how does the bible describe Adam pre-fall;
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Man is described here as a material being, and non-material
Hodge in his 3 volume systematic theology refutes the trichotomy idea beginning here by laying out the hebrew saying there is noaccount of anything more than a material body formed of the earth and the living principle derived from God.
The words for soul and spirit are interchanged constantly. See pages 48, 49 of volume two
In speaking on 1thess 5 he offers lk 1:46,47 as a comparison, lk 10:27, hebrews 4:12

.

This is false and sounds like gnostic thought...The spirit is good the body is evil.

Of course we are still able to sin, but we do not have to. The unregenerate man must sin...we no longer are bound to sin... we can mortify it by the power of the Spirit as we are obedient.

B we are to consider all these things, but you speak as if there is a clear-cut difference but that is just not as you describe it as the words are interchanged.

That is what the Dichotomist believes.

here from BB;

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/are-you-a-dichotomist-or-a-trichotomist.69117/

 

¶
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Col 2:11

BTW I agree with you.

Doesn't the above verse mean that; Christ by his obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, removed our body as the means of condemnation from sin through the flesh? As is stated here> Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The sign of that having taken place is:> Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Relative to sin our flesh is considered dead with Christ, so that Christ can live in us? That is a question.

 

Well are to live in light of who we are in Christ.
Eph 5 says we are to walk, or live as children of light....because we have been saved from the reigning power of sin.....the bondage to sin and death has been broken.
As new men in Christ.....we are to exercise self control over our bodily members.....

There is no old man stalking us as a phantom......he is dead. There is a new sherif in town...he now looks to deprive sin of controlling us, as we make no provision for the flesh.

 

I know some may disagree with my presentation but demonstrating that disagreement may provide more problems than they realize. For example, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 clearly state the doctrine and a careful examination of those texts will demonstrate that both texts and contexts fully supports it. What those who oppose are forced to do is to EXPLAIN AWAY what clearly appears to clearly state. When you are forced to explain away a text you have problems. Moreover, when we examine the reasons they give to explain away what it says, their explanation becomes even more cumberson and contradictory.

 

here is another one;

 

http://heidelblog.net/2014/03/reformed-basics-on-dichotomy-and-trichotomy/


1. THE DIFFERENT VIEWS THAT WERE CURRENT IN HISTORY: DICHOTOMY AND TRICHOTOMY.

It is customary, especially in Christian circles, to conceive of man as consisting of two, and only two, distinct parts, namely, body and soul. This view is technically called dichotomy. Alongside of it, however, another made its appearance, to the effect that human nature consists of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. It is designated by the term trichotomy. The tri-partite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God. It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third substance or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely, the soul. The soul was regarded as, on the one hand, immaterial, and on the other, adapted to the body. In so far as it appropriated the nous or pneuma, it was regarded as immortal, but in so far as it was related to the body, as carnal and mortal. The most familiar but also the crudest form of trichotomy is that which takes the body for the material part of man’s nature, the soul as the principle of animal life, and the spirit as the God-related rational and immortal element in man. The trichotomic conception of man found considerable favor with the Greek or Alexandrian Church Fathers of the early Christian centuries. It is found, though not always in exactly the same form, in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. But after Apollinaris employed it in a manner impinging on the perfect humanity of Jesus, it was gradually discredited. Some of the Greek Fathers still adhered to it, though Athanasius and Theodoret explicitly repudiated it. In the Latin Church the leading theologians distinctly favored the twofold division of human nature. It was especially the psychology of Augustine that gave prominence to this view. During the Middle Ages it had become a matter of common belief. The Reformation brought no change in this respect, though a few lesser lights defended the trichotomic theory. The Roman Catholic Church adhered to the verdict of Scholasticism, but in the circles of Protestantism other voices were heard. During the nineteenth century trichotomy was revived in some form or other by certain German and English theologians, as Roos, Olshausen, Beck, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Oehler, White, and Heard; but it did not meet with great favor in the theological world. The recent advocates of this theory do not agree as to the nature of the psuche, nor as to the relation in which it stands to the other elements in man’s nature. Delitzsch conceives of it as an efflux of the pneuma, while Beck, Oehler, and Heard, regard it as the point of union between the body and the spirit. Delitzsch is not altogether consistent and occasionally seems to waver, and Beck and Oehler admit that the Biblical representation of man is fundamentally dichotomic. Their defense of a Biblical trichotomy can hardly be said to imply the existence of three distinct elements in man. Besides these two theological views there were, especially in the last century and a half, also the philosophical views of absolute Materialism and of absolute Idealism, the former sacrificing the soul to the body, and the latter, the body to the soul.

2. THE TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE AS TO THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE. The prevailing representation of the nature of man in Scripture is clearly dichotomic. On the one hand the Bible teaches us to view the nature of man as a unity, and not as a duality, consisting of two different elements, each of which move along parallel lines but do not really unite to form a single organism. The idea of a mere parallelism between the two elements of human nature, found in Greek philosophy and also in the works of some later philosophers, is entirely foreign to Scripture. While recognizing the complex nature of man, it never represents this as resulting in a twofold subject in man. Every act of man is seen as an act of the whole man. It is not the soul but man that sins; it is not the body but man that dies; and it is not merely the soul, but man, body and soul, that is redeemed in Christ. This unity already finds expression in the classical passage of the Old Testament — the first passage to indicate the complex nature of man — namely, Gen. 2: 7: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The whole passage deals with man: “God formed man . . . and man became a living soul.” This work of God should not be interpreted as a mechanical process, as if He first formed a body of clay and then put a soul into it. When God formed the body, He formed it so that by the breath of His Spirit man at once became a living soul. Job 33: 4; 32: 8. The word “soul” in this passage does not have the meaning which we usually ascribe to it — a meaning rather foreign to the Old Testament — but denotes an animated being, and is a description of man as a whole. The very same Hebrew term, nephesh chayyah (living soul or being) is also applied to the animals in Gen. 1: 21, 24, 30. So this passage, while indicating that there are two elements in man, yet stresses the organic unity of man. And this is recognized throughout the Bible.

 

pt 2;
At the same time it also contains evidences of the dual composition of man’s nature. We should be careful, however, not to expect the later distinction between the body as the material element, and the soul as the spiritual element, of human nature, in the Old Testament. This distinction came into use later on under the influence of Greek philosophy. The antithesis — soul and body — even in its New Testament sense, is not yet found in the Old Testament. In fact, the Hebrew has no word for the body as an organism. The Old Testament distinction of the two elements of human nature is of a different kind. Says Laidlaw in his work on The Bible Doctrine of Man: 1 The antithesis is clearly that of lower and higher, earthly and heavenly, animal and divine. It is not so much two elements, as two factors uniting in a single and harmonious result, — ‘man became a living soul.’ ” It is quite evident that this is the distinction in Gen. 2: 7. Cf. also Job 27: 3; 32: 8; 33: 4; Eccl. 12: 7. A variety of words is used in the Old Testament to denote the lower element in man or parts of it, such as “flesh,” “dust,” “bones,” “bowels,” “kidneys,” and also the metaphorical expression “house of clay,” Job 4: 19. And there are also several words to denote the higher element, such as “spirit;” “soul,” “heart,” and “mind.” As soon as we pass from the Old to the New Testament, we meet with the antithetic expressions that are most familiar to us, as “body and soul,” “flesh and spirit.” The corresponding Greek words were undoubtedly moulded by Greek philosophical thought, but passed through the Septuagint into the New Testament, and therefore retained their Old Testament force. At the same time the antithetic idea of the material and the immaterial is now also connected with them.

Trichotomists seek support in the fact that the Bible, as they see it, recognizes two constituent parts of human nature in addition to the lower or material element, namely, the soul (Heb., nephesh; Greek, psuche) and the spirit (Heb., ruach; Greek, pneuma). But the fact that these terms are used with great frequency in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that they designate component parts rather than different aspects of human nature. A careful study of Scripture clearly shows that it uses the words interchangeably. Both terms denote the higher or spiritual element in man, but contemplate it from different points of view.

It should be pointed out at once, however, that the Scriptural distinction of the two does not agree with that which is rather common in philosophy, that the soul is the spiritual element in man, as it is related to the animal world, while the spirit is that same element in its relation to the higher spiritual world and to God.

The following facts militate against this philosophical distinction: Ruach-pneuma, as well as nephesh-psuche, is used of the brute creation, Eccl. 3: 21; Rev. 16: 3. The word psuche is even used with reference to Jehovah, Isa. 42: 1; Jer. 9: 9; Amos 6: 8 (Heb.); Heb 10: 38. The disembodied dead are called psuchai, Rev. 6: 9;20: 4. The highest exercises of religion are ascribed to the psuche, Mark 12: 30; Luke 1: 46; Heb. 6: 18,19; Jas. 1: 21. To lose the psuche is to lose all. It is perfectly evident that the Bible uses the two words interchangeably. Notice the parallelism in Luke 1: 46, 47: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” The Scriptural formula for man is in some passages “body and soul,” Matt. 6: 25; 10: 28; and in others, “body and spirit,” Eccl. 12: 7; I Cor. 5: 3, 5.
Death is sometimes described as the giving up of the soul, Gen. 35: 18; I Kings 17: 21; Acts 15: 26; and then again as the giving up of the spirit, Ps. 31: 5; Luke 23: 46; Acts 7: 59.

Moreover both “soul” and “spirit” are used to designate the immaterial element of the dead, I Pet. 3: 19; Heb. 12: 23; Rev. 6: 9; 20: 4.

The main Scriptural distinction is as follows: the word “spirit” designates the spiritual element in man as the principle of life and action which controls the body; while the word “soul” denominates the same element as the subject of action in man, and is therefore often used for the personal pronoun in the Old Testament, Ps. 10: 1,2; 104: 1; 146: 1; Is. 42: 1; cf. also Luke 12: 19. In several instances it, more specifically, designates the inner life as the seat of the affections. All this is quite in harmony with Gen. 2: 7, “And Jehovah God . . . breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Thus it may be said that man has spirit, but is soul. The Bible therefore points to two, and only two, constitutional elements in the nature of man, namely, body and spirit or soul. This Scriptural representation is also in harmony with the self-consciousness of man. While man is conscious of the fact that he consists of a material and a spiritual element, no one is conscious of possessing a soul in distinction from a spirit.

There are two passages, however, that seem to conflict with the usual dichotomic representation of Scripture, namely, I Thess. 5: 23, “And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”; and Heb. 4: 12, “For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

But it should be noted that: (a) It is a sound rule in exegesis that exceptional statements should be interpreted in the light of the analogia Scriplura, the usual representation of Scripture. In view of this fact some of the defenders of trichotomy admit that these passages do not necessarily prove their point. (b) The mere mention of spirit and soul alongside of each other does not prove that, according to Scripture, they are two distinct sub-stances, any more than Matt. 22: 37 proves that Jesus regarded heart and soul and mind as three distinct substances, (c) In I Thess. 5: 23 the apostle simply desires to strengthen the statement, “And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly,” by an epexigetical 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. He 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. (d) Heb. 4: 12 should not 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.

These quotations are taken from the Kindle edition.

Posted by R. Scott Clark | Friday, March 14, 2014 | Categorized Doctrine of Man, I Get Questions

 

Brethren, are we counting the angels on the head of the pin?

Excellent debate though for those inclined for such.

FWIW I have been in the trichotomy camp since I was made aware of the difference at my alma mater Calvary U.

HankD

 

More on this topic;

 

Hank, I have heard persons in the word of faith camp go wild on the tri view, leading to harmful teaching so it is important.
I do not believe that B has that in mind at all. I do not agree with his conclusions but as I say...the language employed here is a bit difficult, as time permits I will dig out Owen on the "motions of sin" idea.

I posted some nice links and as time permits open up those scriptures and see if it clicks....

 

Well I agree it's not something to "go wild" over.

Personally, I don't believe either view (which ever is wrong) is "dangerous" other than my concern that it's just one more teaching to divide the church.

HankD

 

Both views have to address the same concerns.

 

HankD, truth has always caused division, certainly you are aware.

This is not a bad thing, thus division in the church as you say over teaching, (which is doctrine) is at times, when properly handled, a very good thing.

Much of the problem is people don't want to spend the time to understand sound doctrine and find it through study. Many loathe correction which is a biblical mandate, 2 Timothy 3:16, 4:2. Look around, it's not difficult to find examples of this.

Too many are content to believe what they've always heard and believed when it is blatantly false, thus when sound doctrine is presented, these cannot endure this, so they gather up teachers to preach what they want to hear, 2 Timothy 4.

 

You're right.

HankD

 

OK then - trichotomy and why I am in that camp:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Not only is the conjunction kai used between spirit, soul and body but as clumsy as it would be in English, the definite article is used before each noun (body, soul, spirit) assuring each it's distinctiveness - but not separateness (IMO).

I'm not going to engage anyone in this debate - as someone has said - it's not a hill to die on.

Have fun gentlemen (and ladies, if they enter in on the debate).

HankD

 

I think Berkhof does about a good as job as can be done by those who oppose these two texts as evidence for the trichotomy of man. However, his responses are very very weak and easy to overthrow.

1. It is a sound rule in exegesis that exceptional statements should be interpreted in the light of the analogia Scriptura, the usual representation of Scripture. In view of this fact some of the defenders of trichotomy admit that these passages do not necessarily prove their point.[/QUOTE]

First, who says they are exceptional statements? They are exceptionally clear statements but there are many other passages that can be drawn from to prove the trichotomy of man. Romans 7:14-25 teaches it very clearly as I have already pointed out.



2. The mere mention of spirit and soul alongside of each other does not prove that, according to Scripture, they are two distinct substances, any more than Matt 22:37proves that Jesus regarded heart and soul and mind as three distinct substances.

But it is not the mere mention of them side by side. It is the context of wholeness that is being explained and the grammatical context where the conjunctions and definite article make a clear grammatical statement.

Matthew 22:27 I have already explained fully. The "soul" refers to self-consciousness made up of intellect and affections which are expressed by the volition. The term "soul" also is translated "life" and that is what it should have been translated here and that is precisely what it means here. Whatever a person sets their affections or intellect upon is the manifested life of words and actions. This inner activity expressed outwardly involves the "strength" from attitude to action. These words provide a complete analysis of the Biblical teaching of the soul of man. The command here is that "all" the mind (the will driven by the intellect) and "all" the heart (the will driven by the afffections) and all the "soul" = "life" which is the manifestion of either/or intellect and affections as seen in words and actions, and all the "strength" or force behind the inner and outer activities be demonstrate in love for God. This passage beautifully expressed the full function of the soul with regard to its inner activity as evidenced outwardly.

1. In 1 Thess 5:23 the apostle simply desires to strengthen the statement, “And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly,” by an epexigetical 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. He 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; 1 Cor 5:5; 210

Yes, "wholly" is then explained. The separating conjunctions with definite articles demonstrate each aspect is distinct but yet one person. The same construction is used with the Trinity in Matthew 28:19. Man is made in the triune image of God.

Berkhof's treatment is very very weak.

 

This may impress some but it does not impress me at all. This is an old theological tactic of attributing a doctrine you don't agree with to some historical origin that may have similarities.

Of course, man is basically TWO parts - material and immaterial - no debate here. However, it is the Biblical texts that present this division between spirit and soul rather than some Greek source or some later heretical apostate church source. Such a tactic is simply a smear campaign as the biblical text itself provides the source for division. If the Biblical text provided no such division then such an approach may be called for but the division is found in scripture.

Genesis 2:7 is poorly understood by dichotomists. First, the writer uses the Hebrew plural and not a singular which the KJV translates as a singular "life" when it is actually "lives" plural. The term translated "breathed" has no reference to oxygen as God has no lungs and what is breathed is not air but "lives" plural. It is the "spirit" aspect of man that animates the physical aspect as James clearly says the "body without the spirit is dead." Man became a living "soul" or possessed self-conscious life, but he also had "spiritual life" in the sense of union with God and that is was suffered death "in the day he ate" while his "soul" did not die "in the day he ate" nor does the soul cease with physical death (Mt. 10:28)..