A doctrine which we cannot comprehend is not a real doctrine.
My point in what I said was that IMO it's speculation, since the Bible doesn't define it clearly, as it is not a textbook on anthropology. However, I have to disagree with your statement here, as I still am trying to comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, but I believe it is a real doctrine.
Exactly my point, isn't it? The 8 supposed parts don't necessarily CULMINATE in 8 parts. The same is true of the three supposed parts.
That's not really meeting the force of the argument. Again, if the soul is what has the will, then the spirit has no will which means it can do NOTHING and thus contributes NOTHING to the picture. This is gibberish. Secondly, where is your proof that it is the soul that has the will, and not the spirit? Which theologian came up with these rules? On what basis?
I admit that I'm going on teaching I have heard over the years, and it seemed to fit with my reading of scripture. My latest conclusion (which I didn't really explain) is that the soul is more attached to the spirit than the body, thus at death the soul (i.e. consciousness) goes with the spirit (leaves the body). In that sense, I could call it soul-spirit.
Yes it all sounds like speculation. And if it weren't gibberish, I might find it very interesting.
Matter is evil? This sounds like the Gnostic heresy. You need to be more clear.
I assure you I'm not a gnostic heretic. If the body is dead because of sin, doesn't this imply that sin still resides in the nature of the body/soul union, even in Christians? If Paul alludes to resurrection as a future redemption of the body, then doesn't it follow that the "body of sin" (i.e. the physical body) contains the sin nature that needs to be done away with, to translate the man into a new kind of being (having the "spiritual body" of 1 Cor. 15)? If God has subjected the whole creation to corruption (Rom. 8:21-25), then doesn't it mean that the physical nature of man still contains the death, and thus the sin, that must be done away with, in order to defeat the final enemy which is death?
I guess to clarify, the nature of sin is not in the body only, as it is expressed in the body-soul union. But when a Christian dies, the sin nature does not go with him to paradise. (my theory) - more on this below.
It is not saying that matter itself is evil, to say that matter is containing decay and corruption which falls short of God's ultimate glory. Human nature was originally good, until it was corrupted by man's sin. But Jesus came with human nature, not sinful nature. His human nature was pure as Adam's before the fall, and He never corrupted it with any sin, thus He was the "spotless Lamb of God." Thus, He came "in the likeness of sinful flesh," but yet "apart from sinners." So then, to say that the body contains sin is not to say that matter is evil.
The soul 'expresses' the sinful nature? You might get away with such nebulous language with others, but not on my watch. When someone speaks gibberish that none of us can tell for sure what he's saying, I'm going to call him on it.
I don't get you here, as what I said seems intuitively obvious to me. A dead body expresses nothing. Only a living human being has expression. Only a living person can express sin, which to me is obviously equal to saying
committing sin. If a sinful act is done by someone, then what is done is an expression of the sinful nature. Is this gibberish to you?
Furthermore, if a believer goes into paradise (Luke 10) at death, it stands to reason that his spirit-soul union has been separated from the sin nature (or sin-principle, if you will), because a sinner cannot enter paradise. On the other hand, the unbeliever still has the sin nature attached to his soul (because he is not spiritually sanctified), and he goes to torment. I realize this is my opinion, but this is my reading of scripture.
You can start with this article: "
Trichotomy
A Beachhead for Gnostic Influences
By Kim Riddlebarger
Trichotomy
This was an interesting article, and I see some good points in it. However, I also see some of what I think is exaggerative language, such as the claim that trichotomy is a gnostic grid. I admit that I have not studied this in depth enough to conclude whether it is or not.
I see the point made in the discussion about John Murray's commentary on Heb. 4:12. I admit that it is difficult to see this interpretation in that verse. If it weren't difficult, he would have had no need to make such a commentary. No doubt that in his time, there was a significant percentage of Christians with the trichotomist view. I also admit that my reading of scripture has been tainted with Charismatic, Evangelical, and Dispensational teaching (which is essentially revivalist), as my first 20 years of Christian living was in those groups. But I want to point out that even John Murray was subject to revivalist influence, since he conceded to it without repentance. (Now, I'm not trying to say he changed his mind about the OP issue.)
Further, I have ultimately rejected the idea that a man's will is the final authority in his own personal salvation. So then, I also think that the conclusion that trichotomy allows for this doctrine is questionable. I just don't see how trichotomy or dichotomy makes a difference in that. I also don't believe in the "carnal Christian" idea, and I don't see how the OP topic makes a difference there either.
Finally, I haven't studied Chuck Smith's teachings on this enough to discern what he means by "our problem arises from living as redeemed spirits in unredeemed bodies. We desire to be delivered from these bodies of flesh so that we can enjoy the full, rich, overflowing life in the spirit." What the author quotes here could be taken out of context. I don't know whether he is talking about dying and going to heaven, or if he is talking about resurrection. Such is not stated. The author seems to imply that Smith is advocating that the disembodied spirit is in a better condition than living in the world. If Smith is saying this, I'm sure he is getting it from "to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Yet we know that Paul wrote that the final enemy is death, and that the resurrection is the defeat of it. One might conclude that going to paradise after death is a better state than living in this world, and that resurrection is a still better state than that. What then would be wrong with this? I'd need to see a thorough exposition of scripture on this topic.
Most of the people I fellowship with are dispensationalists, although I don't necessarily agree with some of their conclusions. I go to a Bible Church, where the theology is mostly reformed, although we are a group largely associated with Dallas Theological Seminary. I haven't heard any discussion as of yet on this subject. I listen to John MacArthur, Richard Caldwell, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, Erwin Lutzer, Martin Lloyd-Jones, and J. Vernon McGee, and I also read Oswald Chambers, C.H. Spurgeon, et. al. So far I haven't come across any of their teachings that specifically address this topic.
Also in 870 A.D. the Fourth Council of Constantinople officially upheld dichotomy over and against trichotomy.
I still need to investigate this.
TD