Featured Trichotomy or Dichotomy

I demonstrated it was off target, as demonstrated by your hurling insult.

 

Insult? Really? You think that was an insult??? As always, Van, you need to be less sensitive. And I certainly don't mean that as an insult, just good advice.

Have a good one. I'll not interact with you anymore on this thread.

 

Right they are together, two aspects of one unity and are divided by a sword. The idea is that something that is joined is separated by God's power.

 

The word "advice" is no where to be found in "sorry you could not internalize it" but rather should be described as disparagement.

 

Getting back to the unity of our spirit and soul, lets use different translation choices. May your life animating power AND your mental awareness and your body be found blameless. Where our human spirit is, with or without our physical body, our mental awareness is. No animating power no awareness. Thus the biblical doctrine is Dichotomy.

 

Hey thanks for the response, John, I love having these discussions when they get a little more in-depth . I always look to them as a source for growth.

First, the above was not meant to invalidate anything, lol, but rather validate something.

Secondly, what the point was was this: When men were created we see the same terminology as we see in regards to whales and "living creatures." That is the reason for the quote from Strong's, simply to show the word usage, not the definition.

So I will ask you to go back and look at the point itself, which is this: the same terminology is used to describe Man and living creatures. Man became a living creature, and whales and living creatures are also called living creatures. Both have a body and a spirit, and both are called living souls.

The point extends to this: Man became a soul, rather than received one.

Continued...

 

I think that is overstating the case. God has communicated with men who are dead, not in relationship with Him, and done so through verbal communication.

That is how the Gospel is given to those who are dead, who do not have the Life of Christ through reconciliation and regeneration.

The means of doing so is not, in my view, a relevant point to the discussion. These are persons in Heaven, and it is very likely they are not glorified, but more likely they are unclothed (separated from their earthly tabernacle). So we are in agreement about that point.

The question before us is whether we are seeing spirits that are souls, or spirits that have souls.

Remember, the key question is going to be "does man have a soul, or is man a soul?"


Continued...

 

Doesn't really help your position: nothing in this says "I will pray with my soul."

The soul (person) is praying in/with his spirit. The "understanding" of man isn't something a man becomes.

First, not sure why you think a Japanese understanding is even relevant. Let's deal with the text, not how the Japanese would understand it, but how the Bible Student should understand it.

Secondly, the point to be had in this passage is that the disciples thought they were seeing a spirit, not a soul. This is the word they used to identify someone they thought dead. The implicit teaching would be in their minds, someone separated from their body (which they thought was in the tomb) was a spirit.

It's as simple as that. That is the understanding of disciples who had sat under Christ for three years.

But we don't stop there, we look to the Lord's response:


Luke 24 KJV

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?


39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.


The point is that Christ verified their understanding of the division of spirit and body in death. That is why He shows them His physical body and asks them to feel that it is real: to verify that the separation of spirit and body was not the case, He was no longer dead.

Of course "spirit" has more meanings than just one, but what I think you fail to recognize is that the use of "spirit" in the case of "a spirit of fear" relates similarly to the idea that "the soul is the seat of emotions," as it is expressed by those trying to defend a trichotomist position.

See what I mean?


Continued...

 

As Van said, you are being a bit insulting in your comments. But that's okay, John, it isn't something that bothers me, lol. I can admit that sometimes a moron.



However, your assessment is incorrect. The fact is that you have missed the point for why this passage was given.

So, let me ask you, do you know any Theologians that draw conclusions based on context? That is what I was doing.

Is that so? That's the only way you draw conclusions in your theology?

So Scripture does not teach implicitly?

Would you mind quoting where I did not use clear statements of Scripture to defend my position? You won't be able to. Unless you fail to quote the Scripture used.

Secondly, it sounds like you are guessing about what "they were thinking?" We can look at the clear statement of Scripture and see exactly what they were thinking, and I posted that in my post to you.

Third, You say theologians "use the clear statements of Scripture to do theology, not the reactions of scared and unspiritual human beings recorded in Scripture," and then you refer to a passage in which a scared woman calls up a dead man for a scared King."

Just saying.


Continued...

 

It says precisely that:


Luke 24 KJV

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?


39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


Now, the theologians I hold in high regard draw conclusions based on context as well as identifying the meaning of the words used (by cross referencing their usage), so when we look here the implicit teaching is that the disciples believe a person that had died was separated from their body. And here we see that the person separated from their body (on this occasion, Christ Who had died) would be a spirit, not a soul.

The broader context helps us to establish this, in that the disciples thought he was still dead:


Luke 24 KJV

17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?


18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?


19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:


20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.


21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.


See how they were sad because they had given up on Christ redeeming Israel? This means they no longer (or at least were quite uncertain) believed Jesus was the Christ.

So at this point, would you still say...

... ?


Continued...

 

I agree, and I addressed that.

The Word of God brings death.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


This is true even under the New Covenant, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (though a case could be made they weren't saved, but I believe they were) and those who partake of Communion unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:26-30).

The separation of the spirit from the person (as a whole) is in view, in my opinion. I gave several instances of verses using "soul" as a reference to persons. The people aboard the ship Paul sailed on could have had their spirits separated from their "souls."

Here's another example, one I am sure you will enjoy:


Matthew 10:28

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


In view is simply a man on earth, in his earthly tabernacle. In view is not the eternal destruction of a spirit, but looks to Eternal Damnation in which the lost will have a resurrected body suitable for their eternal judgment.

Men can kill a man's body, but cannot kill entirely. Annihilation is not in view, because we see that God will destroy both the person (soul) and the (eternal resurrected) body of the lost in Hell.

It doesn't mean he will "kill" soul and body, but they will be in an everlasting state of destruction.

So the use of "soul" here refers to the person.


Continued...

 

I can't imagine why.

We see the Lord Himself affirm that someone that dies is a spirit. This is what He proves, that He is not a spirit, but has a body.

That is the primary Biblical usage.

Because people embrace a trichotomy we see false notions and doctrines arise.

Like Soul Sleep.

And please do not make the equally amateurish mistake of overlooking implicit teaching as found in the context.

Nothing in my posting has me "always translating one word in the original by only one word in the target language."

What was addressed was addressed. The points raised are the points raised. Going beyond that to exclude everything I might have to say on the subject is a premature and erroneous conclusion.

And the definitions were not the point, brother: the point was that the whales and living creatures are described as living souls, just as man was when he was created.

That would be the point to address.


God bless.

 

You have yet to show from Scripture that men have souls.

If your entire view is based on two verses as opposed to the numerous verses that suggest man is a soul, rather than has one, okay. But we can see in Creation that man was given a body, then spirit, and became a living soul.

I agree we have not been made "perfect" in regards to our unredeemed bodies, but the context of the passage I gave you is one of salvation and justification on an eternal basis.

I would like to see more than the two verses you stand on so far to see a justification of the position that "The Holy Spirit is then able to live within us without living in our souls with their sin nature."

Where in Scripture is the Holy Spirit said to not live in our souls?


God bless.

 

Strong's Concordance.

Would you deny that they are the words of the text? Or accept Strong's as accurate as it lists the words used?

Secondly, as I said, the definitions were not given to define the words used, simply given to show that they are the words used, and how that impacts our understanding of how man and animals, and every living creature is a living creature.

In other words, again, the point was that man became a soul, he didn't receive a soul.

Not really relevant to the discussion.

What would be relevant is whether you recognize that these are the words used.

Why would I need this when I can allow Scripture to define the terms used?

And then place them in the broader context of the teachings of Scripture.

So we have to go back to the original point I made, man became a soul, and did not receive one. That detracts greatly from a trichotomist view.

And I apologize I wasn't clear enough to make the point easily understandable.


God bless.

 

Sure.

Yes, that is a completion we await, but we have to place everything in its proper context.

Hebrews 12:24 has a view to the temporal:


Hebrews 12 King James Version

18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,


22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


This Epistle (letter) was written to living believers, and the point is that "...you have not come to the Covenant of Law, but to the New Covenant."

The redeemed body of the believer is not in view.

Well sure, our hope does not stop at the salvation we enjoy in Christ right now, we groan for our heavenly bodies, lol.

but that isn't in view here.

Yes, this is in a context dealing with the glorification of the believer.

And yes, the "perfection" is in regards to being redeemed bodily. "Perfection" means completion. In that regard we are not yet complete, but that is not salvific in regards to the Atonement. It is salvific in regards to bodily resurrection, to wit, the redemption of our bodies.

This is a much-debated issue. Personally, I regard the "perfect" here to be our knowledge and understanding of things when we are in the Eternal State.

Consider the souls seen in Heaven, asking, "How long, oh Lord, til you avenge our blood?"

They had died, were in Heaven, yet did not have complete knowledge of everything. In the Eternal State we will know all things, because history of this Creation will have wrapped up, and the New heavens and Earth will have replaced this one.

But it's debatable.

I agree. This refers to that time when we will be like Christ, glorified.


God bless.

 

Van and I go way back. He's always like this, very quick to accuse people. I have more than once put hm on ignore.

The point of the passage is to increase our faith, so that we can step out of the boat like Peter, not teach dichotomy or trichotomy. The word "spirit" meant "ghost," as I tried to indicate with my reference to the witch of Endor and Saul and Samuel. I produced no theology from either passage.

I teach theology. It's what I do for a living.

The stories of Scripture are there to illustrate and illumine theology and the Christian life, not teach it implicitly or explicitly.

You lost me here. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I taught no theology from either the Samuel/Saul story or the walking on the water story. I simply linked them as the possible progression of thought of the disciples saying "Ghost!" when they saw Jesus. Since I teach theology for a living, I'm pretty sure I would know when I did theology with a passage of Scripture.

 

In this passage also, they thought they saw a ghost. It's a simple semantic point. The Bible is not teaching either trichotomy or dichotomy in Luke 24:36-39. That's why they were "terrified." They were afraid of ghosts, just like little Eri in my church in English who asked me for counseling about ghosts.

As for Luke 24:17-21, again, there is no trichotomy or dichotomy there. I'm very puzzled at your choices of proof texts.

 

Exactly! I'm glad to finally get this out of the way. Trichotomy does not teach that man receives a soul, but that he is a soul.

My point was that those words must be translated according to context, and the meaning of a single Hebrew or Greek word can be quite different according to context. Example: πνεῦμα (pneuma) sometimes means a ghost, and sometimes means the Spirit of God. The two meanings could not possibly be more different. In many languages (including English), the one Greek word can be translated with various different words, unlike the original Greek, which wrapped up various meanings in one Greek word.

Au contraire. I believe exactly as you are saying here, that man is a soul, not that he receives one. And I am a trichotomist.

 

Well, yes, "the soul (person) is praying in/with his spirit." I agree totally. And that is trichotomy. Dichotomy teaches that spirit and soul are the same, two different words for the same thing. Dichotomy is defined by one systematic theologian as "the view that the human is composed of two elements, a material aspect (the bod6) and an immaterial component (the soul or spirit" (Christian Theology, 3rd ed., Millard J. Erickson, p. 478).

My point was the same linguistic point I've been trying to make all along. The disciples thought they say a "ghost," not simply some disembodied spirit. A "ghost" is the immaterial part of a dead human being, usually thought of as inimical to humans, therefore scary.

Sigh. No, they thought they had seen a ghost, something to fear, an inimical disembodied person. There is no way this proves dichotomy.

I see it but as a linguist I cannot agree.

 

Folks, if you are going to argue for dichotomy, you have to argue for two parts to a human: material and immaterial. The immaterial is called by different names, usually either soul or spirit or both as synonyms. One theologian even adds "mind" and "heart" as other synonyms (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 193).

As soon as you give ground indicating that "soul" and "spirit" both exist in a person, you've lost to the trichotomist.

Baptist theologian A. H. Strong wrote, "It must be acknowledged that πνεῦμα (spirit) and ψυχή (soul), although often used interchangeably, and always designating the same indivisible substance, are sometimes employed as contrasted terms" (Systematic Theology, p. 484).