Featured Trichotomy or Dichotomy

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Exx 12:7
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: Acts 13:36
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. From Ezek 18:20

The soul of David?

A. Inert?
B. Kinetic?
C. Asleep?
D. All the above?
E. A combination of any above?

“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,[fn] “he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. Acts 2:29-33

34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

‘The LORD said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,

did not ascend into the heavens --------- I believe the spirit of him returned to God who gave it but what about the soul called David?

 

I know, I've been around here since 2010.

But I still have to agree with him that the remarks were a bit insulting. Not taking sides, here, just pointing it out. Many of your comments equate to "I'm a great theologian, you are not, and thus I am the final authority on this subject. Furthermore, what you are saying is rather stupid, so you should just abandon the nonsense you believe and agree with me."



Would it be that hard to answer in kindness and possibly make a friend out of a brother in Christ?

Just saying.

I don't see it as a passage to increase our faith, but to show the lack of faith on the part of the disciples, and to show the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And what else we can glean is that the Lord verifies their use of the term implicitly, since He does not corrects their view that a person (soul) that is disembodied is properly called a spirit.

That they thought they were seeing a ghost was mentioned in the original post I gave to you mentioning this passage:

And while you might think you "produced no theology" in your statement, it is certain that you were seeking to support your theology. I do not see how the two are not the same.

And ...?

Lots of men teach theology, but that doesn't make them right.

But illuminating theology is not "doing theology" or "producing theology," right?

I'm not sure why you felt you had to instruct me concerning their reaction. I had already made that statement, yet you reiterate my own statement as though this was something new.

This was in response to this statement (though the quote did not include the first sentence. I include it now because it is relevant):

Two points:

1. You charged me with "forming theology" from a group of scared, uneducated fishermen. Then make the comment that basically states "No real theologian does this." You include yourself in the group of "real theologians" that uses Scripture to do (?) theology, the implication being that my Theology is not real.

Do you really not see how condescending and insulting such a statement would be found in those who hear it? But as I said, it doesn't bother me, I can admit I am a complete moron at times, lol.

2. More importantly, you are doing precisely what you say you don't do. You are supporting your view by using a reference to another passage that has a disembodied spirit being raised. I have my doubts that it was in fact Samuel because I have a hard time believing that a witch has the power to call up the Saints of God. but I am not dogmatic on that point.

By the way, there is another ghost story in Scripture: the spirits of Moses and Elijah on the mount of Transfiguration.


Continued...

 

You sought to support the trichotomist view with your statement, even as I sought to support my own view with Luke 24. Here is your statement again:

John of Japan said: ↑
2. You are forming your theology from the reaction of a group of scared, uneducated (except by Jesus) fishermen. No theologian I know of does theology that way. Rather, we use the clear statements of Scripture to do theology, not the reactions of scared and unspiritual human beings recorded in Scripture. Also, I rather think they were thinking back to the one genuine "ghost" in Scripture, Samuel being called up for King Saul.

In this statement you seem very confident that it was Samuel.

As far as no theologian forming their theology based on scared individuals, well, that is just a basic principle of salvation in the first place. Men fear God because He is the One Who will judge them.

While "reverent fear" might be a good definition for fear, it is a healthy choice to decide to fear God based on the fact that He is the One that destroys both soul (the person as a whole which men cannot kill, but the body only) and body (the everlasting body the wicked will reside in when they enter into Hell and Eternal Judgment).

I think, therefore, that basing Theology on scared individuals is something that any good Theologian would recognize.

Implicitly Scripture is adding details that add to our Theology. The question is whether we are adding the right details, lol.

I cannot see why.

Are you denying that the Lord confirms that the fear of the disciples—that a person who was dead was a spirit—is not true? That He was not a spirit?

That is a dichotomist perspective, not a trichotomy.


Continued...

 

Then you would be a dichotomist.

A trichotomy makes "the soul" an immaterial aspect of man, separate from the spirit.

You tried to support this view here:

The "soul" is not the real immaterial self, it is a term used to define man both as the whole (a/the person) as well as the part of him that is sentient.

It is properly used in reference to a disembodied spirit because the spirit is still "the person."

As I said, Hebrews 4:12 is a good proof text, but it can be viewed as referring to the death of an individual, where the person as a whole is separated from their earthly body.

Not sure why you felt you had to make this "point." Do you see something in my post that is out of context? If so, it would be nice if you posted that and pointed it out to me. I am just as desirous to be corrected of error, and more so, in fact, than I am in just being right.

You just don't know how hard it is to be right all the time.




Continued...

 

No, you would be a dichotomist.

That is the heart of the issue, does a man have a soul or is man a soul?

In order for you to be a trichotomist, you would need to show that man has a soul. You sought to do that with these two verses:

John of Japan said: ↑

To me, there are two passages that categorially teach trichotomy, and I can't see how anyone explains those away:

1 Thess. 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."

Heb. 4:12--"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged 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."

Having said that, there are definitely places in Scripture where the words are seemingly synonymous. I have no problem with that. Most words are polysemous, having more than one meaning and/or usage.


"Seemingly" indicates your position is that they are not synonymous. While I agree there are different usages for the term soul, you are here trying to make them two different things. That Biblical usage makes the term a reference to the person as a whole (and thus we can understand most passages by replacing soul with person), when we consider the immaterial aspect of man his sentient aspect of that immaterial condition is that of the spirit. You can call a dead man departed from his body a soul (and Scripture does), but he is properly identified as a spirit, even as our Lord indicates in Luke 24.

It's not trichotomy, it is simply referring to the fact that his prayers are not fleshly/carnal. This would fall better into a context of "a spirit" such as a spirit of fear.

You have, seemingly, admitted that man is two parts. Your reference to this book of Theology seems to verify that, given the definition you provide.

That is what those of us who identify with the Dichotomy view have been arguing: that man is two parts, not three.


Continued...

 

John—a ghost is a disembodied spirit.

That was the point of introducing Luke 24 into the discussion.

You are giving what we have in Scripture a modern understanding and usage of the word. This is why what people in Japan think is irrelevant. Only what Scripture teaches is relevant.

"Ghost" is the Old English translation of spirit, right?

You are distinguishing two things, a ghost, and a spirit. That is not what Scripture is doing in Luke 24. There is no distinction in Scripture between a ghost (meaning the modern understanding of a ghost, usually an entity that haunts) and a spirit.

Ghost, spirit—doesn't matter, lol.

They thought Jesus Christ was still dead.

Their view of someone being dead was that their spirit left their earthly body.

Christ lets them touch HIs body to affirm He is—a spirit.

The Resurrected Body of Christ is certainly something we "use" to "do" Theology.

While I might not say this "proves" a dichotomy of man's makeup, it certainly goes a long way in helping us to unlock this aspect of our Theology.


Continued...

 

How does you being a linguist invalidate the point? Could you perhaps give a different reason rather than being a linguist?

I agree, and I would suggest to you that you are a dichotomist.

But I have to disagree with the limitations and definitions you have chosen: the term soul is not simply synonymous with spirit, because it can be 1) used in Scripture to speak of a person as a whole (body and spirit) and also used to speak of the spirit alone (i.e., souls in Heaven).

Just as the intents of the heart are part of the thoughts of the heart, we rely on context to determine the intent (lol). A separation of the soul and the spirit would be, I believe, a reference to death. A separation of thoughts and intent would also be another result of the Word of God, and that would be separating evil intent from good intent.

Do you understand what I mean by that?

When we are cleansed through the Word our evil intent should be separated from our thoughts.

Hope that makes sense, lol.


So, folks, if you are going to argue for a trichotomyu, you're going to have to argue for three parts to a human: material (body), immaterial (spirit), and something else immaterial (a "soul" that is immaterial and cannot be used in a context that speaks of a person as a whole).

Who has done that? You are having a hard time doing that yourself. You have only given two verses that suggest that there are two immaterial aspects of man, and they have been (whether sufficiently or not in you view aside) addressed, and I feel answered at least sufficiently enough to warrant a direct response.

I'm sorry, but "I'm a real theologian" doesn't really address the issue.

And in a Dichotomist view, Mr. Strong is wrong. He is one of my heroes and a constant companion in my search for truth, but I do not rely on his definitions, I rely on the definitions provided to us in Scripture.

The fact is they do not "always designate the same indivisible substance." A soul can be separated from his body, but a soul cannot be separated from his spirit, because the spirit is still the soul (person). The spirit remains sentient while the body does not, that is the soul (person).


Thanks, again for the responses. This is one issue that I feel is drastically important to our Theology. How one views this issue will have a great impact on how he/she interprets Scripture. Because of the trichotomist view we see error introduced to the belief systems some hold. Soul Sleep, for example, hinges on the "soul" being an immaterial aspect of man, and allows for the trichotomist to insert an eternal context into that which should be considered temporal (such as the example of Ezekiel 18).


God bless.

 

I can't help you with that. I said very clearly that the Bible stories are not theology, but support theology.

I was just answering your assumption that I did not know theology and how it is done. I wasn't bragging--didn't claim to be a "good teacher" or "more intelligent than you" or anything like that--just a teacher.

I did not call myself a "real theologian," and don't think of myself as one. You are putting words into my mouth. I only teach it--don't claim to have contributed to the field, which is what a "real theologian" does. I have no journal articles published on theology.

No, I don't. Again, I was not claiming to be a real theologian, but only that I know and teach theology. You are free to call that "bragging," or "insulting" or whatever. But you are misinterpreting my statements, not taking them literally but putting words into my mouth. And personally, I take that as insulting.

 

I'm out of here, folks. This thread has gotten too hot for me; I'm being accused of all sorts of things. I'm sure my esteemed opponents can argue without me. And I have a ton of work to do today. Plus, the writer of the OP is not participating. Have a good day, everyone.

 

Yet you denied this:

John of Japan said: ↑

2. You are forming your theology from the reaction of a group of scared, uneducated (except by Jesus) fishermen. No theologian I know of does theology that way. Rather, we use the clear statements of Scripture to do theology, not the reactions of scared and unspiritual human beings recorded in Scripture. Also, I rather think they were thinking back to the one genuine "ghost" in Scripture, Samuel being called up for King Saul.


See the contradiction? You are using the event of a scared witch and a scared king to support your theology.

When I do it you say "No theologian I know does this."

John of Japan said: ↑

2. You are forming your theology from the reaction of a group of scared, uneducated (except by Jesus) fishermen. No theologian I know of does theology that way. Rather, we use the clear statements of Scripture to do theology, not the reactions of scared and unspiritual human beings recorded in Scripture. Also, I rather think they were thinking back to the one genuine "ghost" in Scripture, Samuel being called up for King Saul.


No theologian does this, rather we ...

Why would you not be a theologian? Do you not seriously study and teach Theology?

That makes you a Theologian as far as I am concerned. Perhaps not recognized as one by those who think they alone can define who a Theologian is, but you are a serious partaker of the Word of God.

And I didn't put words in your mouth. I am simply sitting how your statements came across. If you don't see it in your words, okay.

You being a "real theologian" is not something I said you said explicitly, but implicitly. That is how it came across. My statement was this:

It is very possible I have misinterpreted your statements, and if I have I apologize. My intent is to look at the issue and you have not really addressed anything I have said. At least, not to my satisfaction, lol.

You said this:

John of Japan said: ↑

This negates nothing about trichotomy. Please don't make the mistake of the amateur linguist/Bible translator of always translating one word in the original by only one word in the target language.


If it wasn't your intention of implying I am an amateur (which doesn't bother me, particularly when I am now seeing your understanding of what a "real theologian" is, then I did misinterpret.

But if you cannot see how this would come across as an implied insult then I think you are overlooking it a bit.

With repeated statements of "I am a linguist who teaches theology" it came across with the implication "you are not, so you need to take my word for it." All that was desired was a reasoned response to the points made. We went through all of that just to come around to you agreeing with the very view being expressed by the Dichotomist. You reiterated my own point concerning the disciples seeing a ghost.

And you didn't answer several questions relevant to the discussion itself.

So again, no intent on my part to upset you, and for that I apologize.

I hope you aren't going to go away mad from this discussion, but if you are—could you leave the ball?




God bless.

 

Again, there was not intent to upset you, just a looking for a serious discussion with someone I thought would be able to reason this out according to what Scripture teaches.

Pointing out how statements come across is not the same thing as "accusing someone" of something, just pointing out that the remarks come across that way.

I hope you will reconsider rejoining the discussion, because it is an issue that is going to help shape the Theology some people hold to.


God bless.

 

I am humbled. I now see that I should never, ever, tell anyone on the BB what I do for a living, since that is insulting. (Sarcasm alert.)

If you are truly a professional linguist, let me know so I can treat you with the proper respect in the future--and I mean that sincerely. I simply assumed you were an amateur by the way you approached the subject--and for the record, there is no shame in being an amateur at anything. But a professional in anything spends 1000s of hours and dollars to become one. It is not a light thing to be a professional linguist.

And I am leaving the thread but not angry. I simply have no time right now to answer your very long and involved posts. And if I offend you by saying your posts are long and involved--sigh--I apologize.

 

I don't see a problem in being proud of your profession, but it seems that this seems to hinder you in discussion. One example might be that you fail to read what your antagonist is saying.

For example, your response to my post was nothing but a reiteration of what I had said. You missed the point of the post altogether.

Just thinking out loud here, John. Do you think one has to be a professional in order to be able to internalize something?

So you will treat a brother in Christ with respect—if they are a professional?

I don't see the "professionals" in the Lord's Day being the ones internalizing truth.

Not really, lol. But like I said, John, I'm okay with it. I think sarcasm has its place.

And I asked you to point out what it was that you thought was in error, or—unprofessional.

I did that because I sincerely value the thoughts of someone who is so involved with languages. You need only read the post to see that they were given directly to you for you consideration.

And it doesn't seem they received very much consideration. For that I am disappointed.

Secondly, the assumption is, in my view (and of course I am biased, lol), completely off-base. What little commentary you gave concerning the usage of the words translated "living soul" did not draw conclusions that were relevant to the thread. Meaning, "You are in error because..." or, "This is an inappropriate usage, there is no correlation."

I again invite you to look at them. I don't post simply to be right, or to make people think I am a professional, but to challenge my own views. Just no better way to strengthen Theology than to test it in the fire of opposing views.

I agree. Most of the men who spoke for God were "amateurs." Funny how God likes to use amateurs.

This is true, but that doesn't mean the professional is always right, nor that he cannot learn from those that haven't had to pay for understanding.

And I am glad you are not. Again, I would ask you to give some serious thought to the posts I presented to you, and consider the commentary concerning the two proof texts given.

And I apologize that I had to be the one to tell you that you are a dichotomist, rather than a trichotomist.



(I use the winking smiley face as a "facetious moment alert")

They were actually very short in my own perspective. I had hoped the discussion would be long and involved—that's a good way to learn.

No apologies necessary.

By the way—where's the ball?




God bless.