Dichotomy or Trichotomy?

[skypair]

See here for the whole article - it is thorough.
javascript:toggle('fnf_iii.ii.ii-p7.9');

Thanks, JD. that explains a lot.

But in 1John 3:9, doesn't the Bible say that the saved person cannot sin because His "seed" is in him? Yeah, it does. So that pretty much negates one of the objections. We KNOW that the spirit (mind, emotions, and will) still have sinful thoughts but the soul/conscience remains "pure" to use Paul's terminology.

skypair

 

[jdlongmire]

Skypair - I appreciate your lust for the truth, but at some point you need to understand that the spirit will lead us into all truth if we get past the point that we individually are the arbiters of truth.

Just saying, "yeah, but" in the face of deeply Scriptural understanding and explanation is not a defense, it is stubborn pride. Make your case in the manner and with as much scholarship and substantiation as the teachers you have been shown - that is - take the breadth of Scripture with the understanding of the language, culture and history along with rigorous reasoning and prayer - then your argument may be credible.

As it is, it seems as if you are making up your theology from scratch as you go along. A dangerous course that has historically been shown to be fraught with error.

Blessings.

 

[Allan]

Here is an excert from the "Moody Handbook of Theology":

Origin of the nonmaterial part of man.

(1) Theory of preexistence. This view, which advocates that the human soul has existed previously, has its roots in non-Christian philosophy; it is taught in Hinduism and was also held by Plato, Philo, and Origen. This theory teaches that in a previous existence men were angelic spirits, and as punishment and discipline for sin, they were sent to indwell human bodies. There are a number of problems with this view: there is no clear statement of Scripture to support this view (although the idea may have been presented in John 9:2); no one has any recollection of such an existence; the doctrine of sin is not related to Adam’s sin in Genesis 3 but to sin in an angelic sphere.

(2) Creation theory. This theory teaches that each human soul is an immediate and individual creation by God; the body alone is propagated by the parents. This view is held by Roman Catholics and many Reformed Christians, among them Charles Hodge. There are two reasons for this view: it maintains the purity of Christ—with this view Christ could not inherit a sinful nature from His mother; a distinction is made between a mortal body and an immortal soul—parents may propagate a mortal body but only God can produce an immortal soul. The problems with this view are: it necessitates an individual fall by each person because God can create only perfection; it does not account for the problem of why all men sin.

(3) Traducian theory. This view, ably defended by William G. T. Shedd, affirms that the soul as well as the body is generated by the parents. “Man is a species, and the idea of a species implies the propagation of the entire individual out of it. . . . Individuals are not propagated in parts.” The problems with this view are: how can parents pass on the soul, which is nonmaterial?; and Christ must have partaken of the sinful nature of Mary if traducianism is true.

The strengths of traducianism are as follows. It explains the depravity of man. If the parents pass on the nonmaterial nature then it explains the propagation of the sin nature and the tendency, from birth, of every human being to sin. The sin nature cannot be explained if God creates each soul directly. Traducianism also explains the heredity factor—the intellect, personality, and emotional similarities of children and their parents. If creationism were correct the similarities should not be as prevalent and noticeable. The Scripture seems to affirm the traducian position (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12; Heb. 7:10).

Composition of the nonmaterial part of man.
While most will acknowledge that man has a nonmaterial constitution, what is the nature of the nonmaterial part of man? Are the soul and the spirit distinct, or are they the same? Generally, the Eastern church believed that man was trichotomous—consisting of three parts—body, soul, and spirit. Originally, the Greek and Alexandrian church Fathers held this view, including men like Origen and Clement of Alexandria. The Western church, on the other hand, generally held to the dichotomous position: man is body and soul. Men like Augustine and Anselm held to this view.

(1) Dichotomous view.

Dichotomy comes from Greek dicha, “two,” and temno, “to cut.” Hence, man is a two-part being, consisting of body and soul. The nonmaterial part of man is the soul and spirit, which are of the same substance; however, they have a different function. The support for the dichotomous view is: (a) Genesis 2:7 affirms only two parts. God formed man from the dust of the ground, breathed life into him, and he became a living soul (cf. Job 27:3). (b) The words soul and spirit may be used interchangeably. Compare Genesis 41:8 with Psalm 42:6, and Hebrews 12:23 with Revelation 6:9. (c) Body and soul (or spirit) together are mentioned as constituting the entire person (cf. Matt. 10:28; 1 Cor. 5:3; 3 John 2).

(2) Trichotomous view.

Trichotomy comes from Greek tricha, “three,” and temno, “to cut.” Hence, man is a three-part being, consisting of body, soul, and spirit. The soul and spirit are said to be different both in function and in substance. The body is seen as world-conscious, the soul as self- conscious, and the spirit as God-conscious. The soul is seen as a lower power consisting of man’s imagination, memory, and understanding; the spirit is a higher power, consisting of reason, conscience, and will. The support for the trichotomous view is: (a) Paul seems to emphasize the three-part view in desiring the sanctification of the entire person (1 Thess. 5:23). (b) Hebrews 4:12 implies a distinction between soul and spirit. (c) 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:4 suggests a threefold classification: natural (fleshly), carnal (soulish), and spiritual (spiritual).

(3) Multi-faceted view.

Although soul and spirit are common terms used to describe the nonmaterial nature of man, there are a number of additional terms that describe man’s non-physical nature. Hence, man’s nonmaterial nature can be understood as multi-faceted.

There are at least four terms used to describe man’s nonmaterial nature. Heart: The heart describes the intellectual (Matt. 15:19-20) as well as the volitional part of man (Rom. 10:9-10; Heb. 4:7). Conscience: God has placed within man a conscience as a witness. The conscience is affected by the Fall and may be seared and unreliable (1 Tim. 4:2); nonetheless, it can convict the unbeliever (Rom. 2:15). In the believer it may be weak and overly scrupulous (1 Cor. 8:7, 10, 12). Mind: The unbeliever’s mind is depraved (Rom. 1:28), blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4), and darkened and futile (Eph. 4:17-18). In the believer there is a renewed mind (Rom. 12:2) that enables him to love God (Matt. 22:37). Will: The unbeliever has a will that desires to follow the dictates of the flesh (Eph. 2:2-3), whereas the believer has the ability to desire to do God’s will (Rom. 6:12-13). At conversion, the believer is given a new nature that enables him to love God with all his heart, mind, and will.

 

[Rubato 1]

I'm w/you, skypair. To me, your explanation above makes perfect sense.

 

[Allan]

According to Ryrie's "Basic Theology" :

C. Traducianism

This view holds that the soul is transmitted along with the body through the processes of natural generation. William G.T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology [New York: Scribners, 1891], 2:7ff.) cites three kinds of support for this view.
(1) Scriptural:
Hebrews 7:10 indicates a rational and moral act on the part of unborn Levi; Genesis 2:1-3 states that God rested on the seventh day of Creation because His work of Creation was finished. No fresh acts, like creating new souls, are indicated; and verse 7 does not allow for the breath of life to be breathed into anyone else other than Adam.

(2) Theological:
creationism places God in the position of creating a perfect soul (He could not create a sinful one), then having it fall in the case of each newborn infant. The case of the sinless Christ is in every respect an exception and not the pattern for deciding this question.

(3) Physiological:
man is always seen as a union of soul and body; therefore, it is more natural to consider both the psychical and physical as developing together.

It seems to me that traducianism provides a more natural explanation than creationism does. I agree with J.O. Buswell’s observation: “As between these two views, it does seem to me that there is a certain obvious fact which has been neglected in the historical discussion, and that is the perfect uniformity and regularity of the arrival of a soul whenever a human life begins to he In our ordinary thinking when we observe such perfect uniformity and regularity in other matters, we usually ascribe the results to the secondary forces which God has created and which He maintains by His divine providence. For this reason, and for this reason only, I am inclined toward the traducian view, but I do not feel that it can be firmly established on the grounds of any explicit scriptural teaching” (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962], p. 252).

 

[Allan]

This is what raised the question for me. I was reading Hodge's Systematic Theology and so I asked what folks believed.

Hodges also held to the "Creation theory" view (like the Catholics and many Reformed) rather than to the "Traducian theory".

And as I posted in relation to "Moody Handbook of Theology" this view does cause some problems for the Dichotomous view.

Do you also hold to a 'Creation theory' as well??

----------------------------------------

For me regarding the problem for the Traducian theory is solved simply in understanding that the sin nature (which relates to the immaterial part of man) is passed on by the Father and not the Mother. Thus Mary had to be a virgin that Christ would be sinless because the child could only taken on or partake in the nature of His Father. The mother passed on the essense of natural body which is corrupted (hunger, thirst, fear, et..) but the father passed on the sin nature which is fallen (depraved, darkened, bound, et..).

 

[jdlongmire]

I'm w/you, skypair. To me, your explanation above makes perfect sense.

You may agree, but what have you done to "test everything and keep the good"? - if you are only depending on your own reason and emotions, you will likely be in error.

That is - something may "make sense" but be completely in error. (Naturalism, for instance.)

The Spirit will not lead away from God's word. Plumb the depths of your beliefs, understand what presuppositions you bring to your rationale. Build on the good work of godly men that seek only God's glory.

 

[jdlongmire]

There are two reasons for this view: it maintains the purity of Christ—with this view Christ could not inherit a sinful nature from His mother; a distinction is made between a mortal body and an immortal soul—parents may propagate a mortal body but only God can produce an immortal soul.

Traducianism falls on this point.

The problems with this view are: it necessitates an individual fall by each person because God can create only perfection; it does not account for the problem of why all men sin.

Unless God's perfect creation is flawed by the inherited sin of Adam transmitted from generation to generation through the flesh. Which is what Scripture teaches.

The Father did not create a "divine sperm" and fertilize Mary's egg, otherwise Jesus would have inherited the sin of Adam, through the flesh of Mary.

As it was, she was only the vessel. A blessed vessel, for sure, but nothing more.

This misunderstanding is how the RCC has moved into error concerning the immaculate conception of Mary and elevating her as co-redemptrix.

She only gave the infant Christ her womb - not her flesh. Christ was knit together sinless as the second Adam. Sinless Man through sinful Man, but not of sinful flesh.

 

[Allan]

[/I]Unless God's perfect creation is flawed by the inherited sin of Adam transmitted from generation to generation through the flesh. Which is what Scripture teaches.

So God creates a perfect thing but 'at some point' (you can't pin point when) that creature is then tainted by sin. So you have man being conceived without sin but then that sinless being becomes tainted with sin at some point afterward.

The Father did not create a "divine sperm" and fertilize Mary's egg, otherwise Jesus would have inherited the sin of Adam, through the flesh of Mary.

You make no sense here. The child takes on the Fathers nature therefore Jesus would only take on the nature of God (sinless and without spot) not the nature of Adam (that which is sin stained). The fact the 'sperm' being 'divine' (without taint) negates all sin corruption thus any link to Adams nature.

As it was, she was only the vessel. A blessed vessel, for sure, but nothing more.

....
She only gave the infant Christ her womb - not her flesh. Christ was knit together sinless as the second Adam. Sinless Man through sinful Man, but not of sinful flesh.

So you advocate that Mary merly held Jesus as He grew supernaturally but did not share in any way with him of herself? She was merly an incubator? SWell that is a very unbiblical position.
If she did not share aspects of herself with Him then He would not have the frailties of flesh and even death to that flesh.

This misunderstanding is how the RCC has moved into error concerning the immaculate conception of Mary and elevating her as co-redemptrix.

This is a complete fabrication or another misunderstanding. Mary is not without sin but the sin nature is not passed on through the mother but the father. You err in your (mis)conceptions.

 

[Brother Bob]

Traducianism falls on this point.



Unless God's perfect creation is flawed by the inherited sin of Adam transmitted from generation to generation through the flesh. Which is what Scripture teaches.

The Father did not create a "divine sperm" and fertilize Mary's egg, otherwise Jesus would have inherited the sin of Adam, through the flesh of Mary.

As it was, she was only the vessel. A blessed vessel, for sure, but nothing more.

This misunderstanding is how the RCC has moved into error concerning the immaculate conception of Mary and elevating her as co-redemptrix.

She only gave the infant Christ her womb - not her flesh. Christ was knit together sinless as the second Adam. Sinless Man through sinful Man, but not of sinful flesh.

God's ways are beyond our understanding. All I know is Jesus had not sin, yet was of the seed of David, according to scripture. I can't take it beyond scripture.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

BBob,

 

[Allan]

Build on the good work of godly men that seek only God's glory.

IOW - you mean the Reformers and those like minded - right? :laugh:

I say build your theology upon the Word of God and not the Word of God upon your Theology. And if Godly men of a certain theological persuasion agree then praise the Lord and if those same don't agree then praise God as well as long as you are persuaded according that which the Lord has shown you. But ALWAYS keep yourself ready to change your view if God so shows you.

 

[jdlongmire]

So God creates a perfect thing but 'at some point' (you can't pin point when) that creature is then tainted by sin. So you have man being conceived without sin but then that sinless being becomes tainted with sin at some point afterward.

Who said Man was conceived without sin?

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

The moment life enters the flesh, the whole being is tainted with sin

You make no sense here. The child takes on the Fathers nature therefore Jesus would only take on the nature of God (sinless and without spot) not the nature of Adam (that which is sin stained). The fact the 'sperm' being 'divine' (without taint) negates all sin corruption thus any link to Adams nature.

Incorrect - if Mary's egg was used, Jesus would have been tainted by the sin of Man.

So you advocate that Mary merly held Jesus as He grew supernaturally but did not share in any way with him of herself? She was merly an incubator? SWell that is a very unbiblical position.

How so? Show me.

If she did not share aspects of herself with Him then He would not have the frailties of flesh and even death to that flesh.

Christ was murdered and did not inherit the wages of sin.

This is a complete fabrication or another misunderstanding. Mary is not without sin but the sin nature is not passed on through the mother but the father. You err in your (mis)conceptions.

Sin is passed through the flesh. Again:

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

 

[jdlongmire]

God's ways are beyond our understanding. All I know is Jesus had not sin, yet was of the seed of David, according to scripture. I can't take it beyond scripture.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

BBob,

And how is that problematic?

He was the seed of David according to his fleshly parents.

 

[Brother Bob]

Who said Man was conceived without sin?

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

The moment life enters the flesh, the whole being is tainted with sin


Incorrect - if Mary's egg was used, Jesus would have been tainted by the sin of Man.


How so? Show me.


Christ was murdered and did not inherit the wages of sin.


Sin is passed through the flesh. Again:

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Were you there when you were being conceived????? I thought the egg had to be fertilized first.

BBob,

 

[Rippon]

Were you there when you were being conceived????? I

BBob,

BB, that has absolutely nothing to do with the truthfulness of Psalm 51:5 :"Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."( NRSV )

 

[Allan]

BB, that has absolutely nothing to do with the truthfulness of Psalm 51:5 :"Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."( NRSV )

Yes, you are a sinner through the transmission of the sin by the father. Without a father there is no creation of a child thus it is concieved IN or already in sin. Why, because the sin nature was passed on AT conception and therefore he was concieved already in sin.

Why do you believe Jesus had to be born of a virgin?
If to fulfill prophesy, still why was it necessary?

 

[Brother Bob]

BB, that has absolutely nothing to do with the truthfulness of Psalm 51:5 :"Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."( NRSV )

Probably the sin was the "act of lust" of which Mary did not have when conceived by the Holy Ghost.

If what you say is true, then how can "the soul that sinneth shall die"???? If it is already dead, it can't die.

BBob,

 

[Rippon]

So God creates a perfect thing but 'at some point' (you can't pin point when) that creature is then tainted by sin. So you have man being conceived without sin but then that sinless being becomes tainted with sin at some point afterward.

JD doesn't believe that and neither do you.You don't do you?Psalm 51:5 is true.

 

[Allan]

So God creates a perfect thing but 'at some point' (you can't pin point when) that creature is then tainted by sin. So you have man being conceived without sin but then that sinless being becomes tainted with sin at some point afterward.

JD doesn't believe that and neither do you.You don't do you?Psalm 51:5 is true.

It seems that is what he is saying.
He states "the moment life enters the flesh", thus you have God creating a being without sin because He doesn't create beings IN sin. Then you have God stuffing (so to speak) the spirit into the flesh (at some point) and thereby tainting it the sinless soul 'now' with sin. The person was made without sin and then by God cast into sin by God Himself placing that soul into sinful flesh.

The implications go on from there...

But here's the kicker - what makes the flesh sinful since we sin by nature not due to flesh??
Is itself sinful or is it corrupted (as in no longer perfect)?

 

[jdlongmire]

It seems that is what he is saying.
He states "the moment life enters the flesh", thus you have God creating a being without sin because He doesn't create beings IN sin. Then you have God stuffing (so to speak) the spirit into the flesh (at some point) and thereby tainting it the sinless soul 'now' with sin. The person was made without sin and then by God cast into sin by God Himself placing that soul into sinful flesh.

The implications go on from there...

But here's the kicker - what makes the flesh sinful since we sin by nature not due to flesh??
Is it sinful or is it fallen/corrupt?

There is no sinless being born of Post-Fall Man (of not through, as Christ was). The soul is imparted simultaneously with the knitting of the flesh. Body and soul are inextricably bound. Body and soul are immediately tainted by Adam's sin. Our sin nature is bound up in our body and soul. Our whole person.