Dichotomy, Trichotomy, or something else?

JesusFreak4545

The One Who Nose
Oct 1, 2002
2,040
36
36
a box
Visit site
✟2,419.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Of how many parts is man made up? Do you divide man as body soul and spirit or as just soul and spirit? Or are you one who does not divide man up at all? Is man just one part and all his thoughts and emotions are chemical reactions in the brain that can be explained scientifically. Do you divide man into more than three parts perhaps? I want to know all of your views....this could be interesting.
 
Yesterday at 06:13 PM JesusFreak4545 said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658692#post658692)

Of how many parts is man made up? Do you divide man as body soul and spirit or as just soul and spirit? Or are you one who does not divide man up at all? Is man just one part and all his thoughts and emotions are chemical reactions in the brain that can be explained scientifically. Do you divide man into more than three parts perhaps? I want to know all of your views....this could be interesting.

I am not an expert in this but I think the bible tells us that a man has three parts, body, soul and spirit.

The body and soul are inherent to every individual. The spirit is the active rational attribute of the soul. The soul is the part of one which desires, delights, reflects - which remains alive to God even after the death of the body.

Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments [are] in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

Thus, to divide soul and spirit is difficult, but something which the word of God can and does accomplish:

Hbr 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.

The spirit can be alive (in a true believer) or dead (in an unbeliever).

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

The soul itself can be transformed by an alive spirit. Such a soul become a "valuable soul", such that both spirit & soul will be preserved by God:

1Th 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.

But a soul with a dead spirit is a "worthless soul" and

Mat 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.


As someone once said: The distinction between soul and flesh is physical. The distinction between soul and spirit is logical.
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
I am unity theorist - I think that there is "only" the biological.

I put the word only in inverted commas because to describe the absolutely amzing things that the biological is capable of by using the word "only" seems to me to be a contrary thing to do.

My thoughts are electrical activity in my brain, caused by chemical reactions, in turn caused by the interaction of the biological system that is me with the environment. Of course, where the biological system that is me ends and the enviroment begins is purely a matter of convention.

Soul and spirit and mind are words we use to describe the thing that is special about humans - and that is self awareness. We are detection engines of such finesse that we can even detect ourselves, and we are pattern recognition engines of such power that we recognise what we detect as being us.

Amazing stuff.

"Only" biological, however.
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟15,624.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello folks,

This question interests me, as I'm fiddling with a philosophical model of tripartite 'flavor' right now using sensory input into the mind from both material and spiritual sources.  The unorthodox aspect is that I see the spirit not as a wholly regenerated unit in the new birth, but partially so -- accounting for the "darkness" (Mat 4:16, 1Cor 13:12) even the most spiritual of humans so obviously retain.

I don't think our understanding of the ethereal or spiritual makeup of man is refined enough to be dogmatic about these things.  I find that the trichotomist view is the easier of the two in understanding and describing spiritual/physical interactions, but cannot find particular fault with the dichotomist view.  One of the strongest arguments in favor of dichotomy is that the intellect/consciousness, being integral to the spirit, lives on after death.   The tri- view is more ambiguous in this regard...does the mind die with the body?  If so, is the spirit which remains then simply a sort of "sheet" flapping in the breeze with no cognizance, nor consciousness?  This obviously doesn't make sense.

The trichotomist view doesn't necessarily INSIST that the mind dies with the body, but within this view, what happens to self-consciousness is somewhat ambiguous.

I think either view is valid until we see the relationship between spirit and body in more light.

 

David, I can't accept the monisitic view.  Biological input doesn't seem to me to account for self-awareness and the sense of ethical behavior.

God bless you in your walk(s).
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
Today at 01:56 AM Bernie02 said this in Post #4


David, I can't accept the monisitic view.  Biological input doesn't seem to me to account for self-awareness and the sense of ethical behavior.

God bless you in your walk(s).

Self awareness is, by definition, us being aware of ourselves. This is no different in principle to us being aware of trees, or danger, or food, or anything that is in our environment. 

A cat is aware of its tail, for example - sometimes it seems uncertain as to whether the tail is part if itself or not (sometimes it cleans it, sometimes it attacks it) but it is certainly aware of the tail.

It does not seem to big a step to me to go from detecting something like a tail - or a hand - and then working out it is part of oneself.

 

As to a sense of ethical behaviour, that is a whole different argument, which from my perspective revolves around evolutionary behavioural psychology.

However, simply put, groups of creatures that cooperate are more likely to survive that groups of creatures that do not.

Pure chance would suggest that somewhere two or more organisms would cooperate and enhance their chances of survival.

This cooperation will be perpetuated either genetically (assuming genes have influence in this area) or culturally (it will be learned).

A species that does not have limits to the occasions where it kills members of its own species is not likely to survive, for example.

 

It should be noted that what I am talking about - species selection - is not accepted as mainstream by the evolutionary community. For example, Richard Dawkins believes that altruism has to be explained purely in terms of selfishness at the gene level, as it is genes which replicate or fail to replicate.

However, people like Howard Bloom argue that species selection operates alongside selfish gene selection, and that in humans at the current point in time species selection is the most powerful of the two. He argues that once a species is able to learn and pass on learning then species selection takes control.
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟15,624.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello David,

You're right about self-awareness...I should have considered terms more carefully.  Am new to philosophical thinking and being self-taught, find myself educated beyond my intelligence a great deal of the time.

YOU: "As to a sense of ethical behaviour...groups of creatures that cooperate are more likely to survive that groups of creatures that do not. Pure chance would suggest that somewhere two or more organisms would cooperate and enhance their chances of survival.  This cooperation will be perpetuated either genetically (assuming genes have influence in this area) or culturally (it will be learned)."

I have trouble with the evolutionary model as a viable explanation for ethical/religious impulses.  What cause do you propose for the widespread sense of God in humanity?  I'm sure I'm biased here as have felt (like many others) for many years that base evolutionary theory has been developed to support humanistic rationalism...a religion in its own rite, some suggest.

The well developed sense in the greatest segment of society of what we "ought" and "ought not" do seems to me to go well beyond the ability of biosensory input.   A combination of bio- and spiritual input seems a more logical causative model to explain our grasp of ethics. 

God bless you in your walk.
 
Upvote 0

nikolai_42

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2003
535
12
50
Visit site
✟8,446.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I hold firmly to the tripartite view. Body and soul are both destructible. Spirit is very literally of God. He gave it to us, and to Him it returns. But as undead said, soul and spirit are very close. Yet I would differ on this with him because he said that the soul is that which remains alive to God. I don't see evidence of this, but only that the soul MAY be made alive to God. Yet the spirit is of God, and thus this is how we may be in communion with Him. THEN do we find life. Jesus said that His words were SPIRIT and LIFE. Life is in the spirit, not in the soul. Though the soul may certainly benefit from the life in the spirit. That's the way I see it.
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
Today at 12:35 AM Bernie02 said this in Post #6

Hello David,

You're right about self-awareness...I should have considered terms more carefully.  Am new to philosophical thinking and being self-taught, find myself educated beyond my intelligence a great deal of the time.

I have trouble with the evolutionary model as a viable explanation for ethical/religious impulses.  What cause do you propose for the widespread sense of God in humanity?  I'm sure I'm biased here as have felt (like many others) for many years that base evolutionary theory has been developed to support humanistic rationalism...a religion in its own rite, some suggest.



God is an answer to unanswered and perhaps unanswerable questions. That it has wide appeal arises from the fact that humans are the same, no matter where you go.

The obvious anthropomorphising (that is the wrong spelling but I never get it right - I hope you know what I mean) of gods (making them simply more powerful humans) indicates to me that it is likely that they are made up.

In addition, the afterlife is a fantastic control tool: people do what they are told if they they can be convinced that by doing so they will get infinite reward.

 

As to evolution being made up to support humanistic rationalism, how do you explain the many Christians who accept evolution as being true? Most of the scientists in the west are Christian. Why would Christians support an idea if they believed it undermined or did away with God in any fashion? Might it be that they support it because they think the weight of evidence is so strong that it is likely true and that it holds zero threat to the concept of God?

The well developed sense in the greatest segment of society of what we "ought" and "ought not" do seems to me to go well beyond the ability of biosensory input.   A combination of bio- and spiritual input seems a more logical causative model to explain our grasp of ethics. 

God bless you in your walk.

Society teaches those 'oughts' and 'ought nots' so it is hardly suprising that most people develop a sense of them.


Societies that do not teach them do not survive - after all, you do not want people going around murdering and stealing because the person they murder or steal from may well be you ...
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟15,624.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nik42,

YOU: "I hold firmly to the tripartite view. Body and soul are both destructible."

Do you see the soul as "mind"?  Where in your view does consciousness exist?

Undead,

You said, "The soul itself can be transformed by an alive spirit. Such a soul become a "valuable soul", such that both spirit & soul will be preserved by God"

Where do you find Scripture support for the idea that the soul may become a 'valuable soul'?

Also, you say the spirit is either dead or alive...where in Scripture do you see this either/or teaching?  [So you know where I'm coming from, I believe the spirit is BOTH dead and alive, that light and darkness exist simultaneously in the spirit of all humans.]

David,

YOU: "God is an answer to unanswered and perhaps unanswerable questions. That it has wide appeal arises from the fact that humans are the same, no matter where you go."

If it is true that all humans "are the same", why don't all humans believe in God, or why do we not all NOT believe in God?

YOU: "As to evolution being made up to support humanistic rationalism, how do you explain the many Christians who accept evolution as being true?"

Actually, I don't appreciate the slant you put on my words.  If you reread my post, you'll see that I did not state that I believed evolution to be "made up to support humanistic rationalism", but did say "...evolutionary theory has been developed to support humanistic rationalism."  

I explain the "many Christians who accept evolution as being true" as those who put more belief in humanistic rationalism than I do.

YOU: " Most of the scientists in the west are Christian. Why would Christians support an idea if they believed it undermined or did away with God in any fashion?"

The answer to this should be obvious: those who support evolution do not see it as do those of us who see its intrinsic wrongness. 

YOU: "Might it be that they support it because they think the weight of evidence is so strong that it is likely true and that it holds zero threat to the concept of God?"

Again, obviously, yes.  This has been answered above.

YOU: "Society teaches those 'oughts' and 'ought nots' so it is hardly suprising that most people develop a sense of them."

The bible [and virtually all world religions] "teaches those 'oughts' and 'ought nots', so it is hardly suprising that most people develop a sense of them".

Actually, David, I don't know why I'm answering your questions...this thread concerns the trichotomist vs. dichotomist viewpoint, not monism/evolution.

God bless y'all in your walk.
 
Upvote 0

nikolai_42

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2003
535
12
50
Visit site
✟8,446.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Bernie,

My understanding of the nature of man is not great, but what I do think I grasp is that the soul of man certainly does play a part in consciousness and thought. Animals are conscious and have something akin to thought (maybe not rational - just instinctual) so I would have to say, at this point in my understanding, that the soul must interact with the flesh (and maybe even the spirit) to create our consciousness. When Nebuchadnezzar was turned mad by God, the bible says he became like a beast. It says to me that the soul is common to man and beast, but man has a living soul - made possible by the existence of a spirit. That is, a part of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟15,624.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Nik42,

YOU: "My understanding of the nature of man is not great..."

Mine neither.  I've only recently begun to gain an interest in our nature and find both strengths and weaknesses in both tri- and dichotomist views.  I'm interested in exploring them further.

YOU: "...the soul of man certainly does play a part in consciousness and thought. Animals are conscious and have something akin to thought (maybe not rational - just instinctual) so I would have to say, at this point in my understanding, that the soul must interact with the flesh (and maybe even the spirit) to create our consciousness."

I agree with you here that spirit/soul (as mind)/body are tied together and interact.  One problem with the tripartite view (which I favor above the di-) is trying to figure out where the connection is between soul and spirit.  The body obviously dies.  If the soul (which I see -- at this point, at least -- as inseparable from consciousness) also dies, this leaves the spirit, for all intents and purposes, as sort of a sheet flapping in the cosmic breeze, a nameless form without awareness or any of its attendant features...memory, dreams, reason, etc.  This would render the spirit unable to percieve itself or its surroundings any more than, say, a rock. 

So, there must be some connection between spirit and soul (mind) that doesn't make itself immediately apparent, such that the soul or some animated portion of it, continues with the spirit to the afterlife.

In the dichotomist view, this problem is solved.  Since spirit and soul are two features of one substance, if I understand this position correctly, consciousness obviously lives on after physical death.  The theological problem here, as I see it, is that the spirit is considered wholly and completely alive in the new birth in most circles within Christianity, and the corruption which yet exists in the mind cannot be logically explained in light of the belief of complete cleanness.YOU: "When Nebuchadnezzar was turned mad by God, the bible says he became like a beast. It says to me that the soul is common to man and beast, but man has a living soul - made possible by the existence of a spirit. That is, a part of God."

I wonder about things like madness.  Might it be that the soul (as mind) is primarily controlled by the flesh (material) and principally cognizant of itself and its surroundings from a material point of view?  Maybe the spiritual influence on the mind is not in this life strong enough to exert spiritual consciousness fully.  Paul says (concerning spiritual awareness) we see through a glass darkly.  Viewing those with various forms of dementia makes one wonder if the mind, having deteriorated, is linked only to body.  But perhaps the spiritual "link" is merely asleep as it were until physical death occurs...??

Just rambling, trying out some ideas.  What say ye, brethren?
 
Upvote 0

nikolai_42

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2003
535
12
50
Visit site
✟8,446.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Hmmm....what say I? Well, as I was reading your post, I was reminded of something that I have been sort of convinced of for a long time but there is really no 'proof' of per se. I don't know that scripture addresses this sort of thing because it gets more into metaphysics and abstract philosophy of being that is all interesting, but useful for little else than entertaining speculation. Yet not entirely. Let me see if I can 'splain.

 Awareness is a very tricky phenonmenon. Neither you nor I can definitively tell what the other is aware of. We can only take our clues from the responses we get from each other. Even then, we have to trust that our awareness of those responses is accurate. We have to trust our own awareness. All this is something that takes place (as near as I can tell) in the mind of man. It is a soulish thing that goes along with Adam eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. But put together with the corruption and death that goes along with it and you have a fallen instinct - one which cannot reliably be trusted because it was formed in sin.

 But in Adam (that is all of he and his race) there is that which God has left that is capable of responding to Him. That is the spirit. And for the majority of mankind, the spirit life is dim or non-existent - most people live in the flesh. And this is not by choice, but by reason of God's hope that we were made subject to VANITY. That vanity encompasses SO MUCH. One of the things it encompasses is self-awareness. We are aware of ourselves and capable of independent, self-centred thought. And this is the prime motive of the mind of man - self. It must reference everything to itself because that is the center of its being and the only way it operates on its own. BUT...if the man begins to walk in the realm of spirit (which is ONLY possible with the liberty that God gives through Jesus Christ) then that awareness changes entirely and that man becomes aware of something that he was totally blind to before being brought to Jesus Christ! There is something in man that, according to the natural mind, exists independent of the will of man and functions based on something higher than man's OWN thoughts and OWN will. That is man's spirit.

 When someone enters into that glorious liberty of the Sons of God, they begin to walk with a new center - Christ. And this can only be done in the spiritual realm. And to walk in that realm requires ever progressive and expanding death - death to self and the natural realm where the mind of man desires its own control and its own sphere of influence. The Spirit of God brings what was once 'me' to death and out of that death arises something far greater and vaster than 'me' can ever be. Just like a seed dies to produce a plant. Or a caterpillar goes into a cocoon to produce a butterfly, it doesn't appear to the natural mind of man what the spiritual realm in God is. It can't grasp it either because it has a TOTALLY different center of gravity - Jesus Christ in God.

 What I'm trying to show is that the spirit, to the natural man, seems 'other' or 'outside' and not part of 'self'. But even at that, the spirit operates in man and so that natural man sees it as part of himself, as part of the same being, even though it operates on a completely different level and the mind cannot apprehend that which the spirit can. It is not a product of man's thought or will, but only existent in a man's being - sowed tightly to the spirit of man so that the only tailor that can separate the two is God - His Word to be precise. The mind 'thinks' it is part of the same being, but cannot relate to it in the least. So when a man 'decides' to follow Christ, it isn't an act of the will so much as it is the death of man's self-will and acquiescing to the call that God places in man's spirit (the only thing that can communicate with God properly). The mind and spirit occupy the same vessel but both will 'admit' that the other is a foreign body. So when we operate in the spirit, we are starving the natural 'me' (and when in the natural 'me' or 'mind' starving the spirit).

 I don't know if that clears my thoughts any or muddies the waters! :eek:
 
Upvote 0
26th February 2003 at 02:32 AM Bernie02 said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=676029#post676029)

If the soul (which I see -- at this point, at least -- as inseparable from consciousness) also dies....


That would mean everytime you fell asleep, your soul would die. But Jesus said that only God has the power to destroy a soul...in hell. We don't go to hell (or heaven) everytime we fall asleep.

I think somehow you are on the wrong track.
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟15,624.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello Nik42,

Your post was interesting.  I see quite a few parallels in our views, but some differences, too.

I want to make sure I understand your position before I comment further.  Am I correct that you see the separation of God and man, or that our "fallen instinct" as you put it, is in the mind (as soul) and not the spirit?  I assume this by your reference to mind and spirit viewing one another as a "foreign body".  You seem to infer this also in alluding to "spirit life" being more or less in some humans -- which seems to place the fallen nature in the mind or soul and not the spirit.  How would you define the "flesh"?

You also infer (if I understand you correctly) that awareness or consciousness are qualities of both mind and spirit in your statement, "...the mind cannot apprehend that which the spirit can."  This seems to suggest that both are aware or possess cognizance.

Am I on track with your views here, or have I misunderstood?

Undead:

I think you misunderstood me.  I was not suggesting that the soul actually dies, only identifying a philosophical problem I see as presently inherent in the trichotomist view...which is the one I lean towards, by the way.  My point was to show that it's unlikely that the mind does die...the spirit without cognizance would be meaningless.  I just think that the dichotomist view accounts somewhat better for the soul or mind living on after death, being of the same basic "substance".  The tripartite view does not explain very well the connection of spirit/mind.  That's not to say the connection isn't there....I believe it must be.  I just don't yet see it.

Actually, both have to overcome the fact that consciousness appears to be tied very directly with sensory input or the brain.  A hard blow to the head, too much alcohol, lack of sleep...many things -- all sensory in nature -- obviously directly affect consciousness.  I'm trying to understand where the connection is between mind and spirit, which we seem to have very little evidence of (and neither theology nor moral philosophy properly account for.)

I'm not sure that consciousness actually ceases in terms of being "dead" when we sleep, on the other hand. 

God bless you in your walk.
 
Upvote 0

nikolai_42

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2003
535
12
50
Visit site
✟8,446.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Today at 09:00 AM Bernie02 said this in Post #14
Hello Nik42,

Your post was interesting.  I see quite a few parallels in our views, but some differences, too.

I want to make sure I understand your position before I comment further.  Am I correct that you see the separation of God and man, or that our "fallen instinct" as you put it, is in the mind (as soul) and not the spirit? 


 Basically, that's right, Bernie. It's not easy for me to express properly because I don't understand it fully, but essentially, there must be a part of us that we have been given that is able to communicate with, and understand the things of, God. That is the spirit. When Jesus says that a) God is a spirit and b) they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, He tells us that (as near as I can tell) the only part of us that can understand God is our spirit. The only part of us that can communicate effectively with God is our spirit. Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom for partly that reason (as I see it). So the spirit has a quality about it that sets it apart from the rest of man.

 Then we see Paul speaking of putting to death the flesh and the deeds of the flesh and walking in the spirit. For as we put the flesh to death, the spirit strengthens. As we live more in the flesh, the spirit weakens. The flesh and the spirit are ALWAYS at variance, they constantly strive against one another.

"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

 Galatians 4:29

Also...

"  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
  For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

 Galatians 5:16-18

Galatians is a WONDERFUL book in speaking of the things of the spirit vs. the things of the flesh (and the law external vs. the principle internal).

The life of the flesh is downward, the life of the spirit is upward.

 I assume this by your reference to mind and spirit viewing one another as a "foreign body".  You seem to infer this also in alluding to "spirit life" being more or less in some humans -- which seems to place the fallen nature in the mind or soul and not the spirit.  How would you define the "flesh"?

 The spirit resides in a fallen vessel. As such, those who live in the flesh more than the spirit are living more in Adam than not. But those who are putting to death the deeds of the flesh are living more in the spirit. The mind of man is natural and cannot grasp the things of God. The soul of man is fallen and cannot (in tandem with the mind) please God. The spirit is either alive or dead to God. Until God's spirit awakens ours, it is dead. Until we become 'aware' of Him (only possible in spirit) we don't even realize we have a spirit. Until we are convicted of our sins (by His Spirit convicting us in ours), we cannot hope to please Him because we don't even look for Him, nor do we have any idea of His standards.

 The 'flesh', as I read it, can be defined either specifically (our mortal bodies) or generally (anything that tends towards the fallen nature). Usually, the latter. As the flesh is gratified (the lusts of our fallen man) more and more, the soul is consumed with the things of this world and the spirit life dies away.

You also infer (if I understand you correctly) that awareness or consciousness are qualities of both mind and spirit in your statement, "...the mind cannot apprehend that which the spirit can."  This seems to suggest that both are aware or possess cognizance.

 Absolutely! The mind of man is aware of earthly things and the spirit of heavenly. But just as not all flesh is the same flesh, not all 'awareness' is the same awareness (if that makes sense). Just as Jesus arose in a glorified body, so is our spirit able to be 'aware' of the things of God. We can see the struggle in Paul between these two 'awarenesses' when he says this:

" For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
  Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."

 Romans 7:15-19

 But ALL of ROMANS 7 is a good chapter to read on this.

Am I on track with your views here, or have I misunderstood?


 Pretty close! Some things are not clearly presented when distilled down to simple generalizations (for example, that both the spirit and the mind possess awareness). While on the surface they appear true, the assumptions that go along with them can be very wrong.

Hope this is enlightening.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟15,624.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Greetings Nik42,

Thanks for confirming your view. Like you, I also see that our relationship with God is through the spirit, though it’s easier for me to try to understand this relationship in the tripartite context.

We also agree that "as we put the flesh to death, the spirit strengthens" -- though I believe we part ways fairly radically on what this means. I understand the spirit to be that which the "spiritual death" or being "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2.1) refers to. The death that came upon Adam being the fall from life in righteousness and harmony with God to a principle of death, upon which destruction is decreed. From this death principle in the spirit, I believe the corruption of spiritual death spread in causative fashion to mind (soul) and body. The fact of physical death and that we have evil thoughts bears this out.

A big problem I see in most modern views of the relationship between spirit and mind is that it seems practically all of Christianity has come to see the spirit as wholly free from this principle of death, either by inherent virtue (minority view, I think) or made so in the new birth or regeneration. The problem with this is that it carries some very subtle but real consequences for us, if wrong, in that it places cleanliness and righteousness squarely where it does not belong, effectively calling darkness light and light darkness (Isa 5:20). I don’t mean to suggest that Christians are running around purposefully deluding themselves about their standing in Christ, but that this error serves very subtly to move one away in thinking about our relationship with God from a true state of literal moral filthiness to a literal state of cleanliness.

The problem seems to me to be a misuse of the classical causal relationship used to demonstrate one tripartite model (in this case, that of A.W. Pink). Simply put, if the mind and body are effected by a cause of spiritual death -- this death nature ‘flowing’ from spirit to mind and body and corrupting the whole man since Adam -- then the presence of continuing sin in the one who shows evidence of having received regeneration must either mean the spirit is not wholly regenerate or the one we suppose to be regenerate is not truly so.

Briefly, the trichotomy-based philosophical model of mind I’ve been toying with is that the intellect/consciousness receives biosensory input from the material world (from the brain by means of the senses) -- sort of our "objective" input -- while simultaneously receiving spiritual input from both spheres (regenerate and unregenerate) of the spirit ("subjective" input). The two mix in the mind (intellect/ reason/understanding) to form the will. This will is thus not "free" in the sense normally thought of, but influenced by this amalgamation of spiritual/material input into the mind (soul). The will is always held captive to some degree by the bias of wickedness imparted to the mind by the unregenerate portion of the spirit. Here, I can agree with you that God speaks to us through the spirit -- through that portion of it alive and receptive to the things of God.

I’ll stop here so this post doesn’t become overlong. I know this view is very different from the way you see these things, Nik42. What weaknesses do you see in what I’ve presented so far?

God bless you in your walk.
 
Upvote 0

nikolai_42

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2003
535
12
50
Visit site
✟8,446.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Today at 10:18 PM Bernie02 said this in Post #16

Greetings Nik42,

Thanks for confirming your view. Like you, I also see that our relationship with God is through the spirit, though it’s easier for me to try to understand this relationship in the tripartite context.

We also agree that "as we put the flesh to death, the spirit strengthens" -- though I believe we part ways fairly radically on what this means. I understand the spirit to be that which the "spiritual death" or being "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2.1) refers to. The death that came upon Adam being the fall from life in righteousness and harmony with God to a principle of death, upon which destruction is decreed. From this death principle in the spirit, I believe the corruption of spiritual death spread in causative fashion to mind (soul) and body. The fact of physical death and that we have evil thoughts bears this out.


 I think this is our biggest difference here. I see the spirit as immortal - the part of man that can't really die, but the part of man that isn't entirely man's. Ecclesiastes  says that "The spirit returns to God who gave it." indicating to me that it doesn't die, but that the life that man has in the flesh and the soul is fallen and condemned to die. Were one to live in the spirit, that one would find life.

 I should add that the verses I quoted in Galatians referring to living in the spirit must be understood to mean FIRST that we must live in the Spirit of God. I take that to be a given, and that the part that we carry out is living in that Spirit - which can only be done in spirit - with our spirits. That life (by God's Spirit) imparts life to the entire man, not just the spirit. But the flesh isn't automatically transferred to life when one becomes a believer - one has to come to the point where all the deeds of the flesh are put to death. That is something that must be gone through - with the guidance of the Spirit of God. Our discernment becomes refined by reason of use (as the apostle ALSO says).


A big problem I see in most modern views of the relationship between spirit and mind is that it seems practically all of Christianity has come to see the spirit as wholly free from this principle of death, either by inherent virtue (minority view, I think) or made so in the new birth or regeneration. The problem with this is that it carries some very subtle but real consequences for us, if wrong, in that it places cleanliness and righteousness squarely where it does not belong, effectively calling darkness light and light darkness (Isa 5:20). I don’t mean to suggest that Christians are running around purposefully deluding themselves about their standing in Christ, but that this error serves very subtly to move one away in thinking about our relationship with God from a true state of literal moral filthiness to a literal state of cleanliness.

 I agree with you that many run around feeling invincible and acting like it. And more troublesome is, as you say, the tendency to make light into darkness and vice-versa. The idea of perseverance and poverty of spirit is dirty in today's church, I'm afraid. But I'm not sure it's directly a result of not understanding their inner man - just the pride of the flesh overcoming them as infants in Christ. The result is a bunch of perpetually young believers.

The problem seems to me to be a misuse of the classical causal relationship used to demonstrate one tripartite model (in this case, that of A.W. Pink). Simply put, if the mind and body are effected by a cause of spiritual death -- this death nature ‘flowing’ from spirit to mind and body and corrupting the whole man since Adam -- then the presence of continuing sin in the one who shows evidence of having received regeneration must either mean the spirit is not wholly regenerate or the one we suppose to be regenerate is not truly so.

 I don't know if there is a material difference, but I see it more as an alienation of man from the operation of the spirit. It's not something I'm absolutely clear on because there are those who employ true witchcraft in spiritual contact. That is neither life, nor soulish - it really is spiritual, but not of God. So while I don't agree that spiritual death is true with all in Adam (Paul said that Adam was made a living 'soul' and Christ a life-giving Spirit), I'm not sure it is as simple as saying that the spirit is lost in the shuffle of our fleshly and soulish life. I am inclined to believe that there are those that have taken the self-willed path to the spirit (the adversary's way) and the result of that may well be death of the spirit (and most definitely death of the soul and flesh). So the result may be a spirit that most aren't really aware of, that others have tried to apprehend by their own will, and then those that apprehend through Christ.

Briefly, the trichotomy-based philosophical model of mind I’ve been toying with is that the intellect/consciousness receives biosensory input from the material world (from the brain by means of the senses) -- sort of our "objective" input -- while simultaneously receiving spiritual input from both spheres (regenerate and unregenerate) of the spirit ("subjective" input). The two mix in the mind (intellect/ reason/understanding) to form the will. This will is thus not "free" in the sense normally thought of, but influenced by this amalgamation of spiritual/material input into the mind (soul). The will is always held captive to some degree by the bias of wickedness imparted to the mind by the unregenerate portion of the spirit. Here, I can agree with you that God speaks to us through the spirit -- through that portion of it alive and receptive to the things of God.

 I think you are really close. But I believe the part you would call 'dead spirit' is really the soul. I see no evidence for any death in spirit in man, but the soul that sinneth IT shall die. To be honest, I think I really believe that in the one who knows not Christ, the soul and spirit are so close that they cannot tell the difference. I believe the verse in Hebrews sheds a lot of light on this:

"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. "

  Hebrews 4:12

 The difference between soul and spirit is as fine as the difference between thoughts and intents (indeed, the soul may only think and the spirit may be the intention, I don't know) - and only the Word of God (alive, living, active, not the written word) can allow man to live in the spirit - the only way man can worship God. Otherwise, he will not be able to tell what is from his own man (soul) and what is from God (through his spirit).


I’ll stop here so this post doesn’t become overlong. I know this view is very different from the way you see these things, Nik42. What weaknesses do you see in what I’ve presented so far?

God bless you in your walk.

 Thank you, Bernie. I'm not so sure we are as far apart as I am with a lot of others. Unless I'm missing something. I'm enjoying this discussion and look forward to hearing from you again - should you have anything to add or any more to say.
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟15,624.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello Nik42,

I’m enjoying our discussion, too. Thanks for participating.

YOU: "I see the spirit as immortal - the part of man that can't really die"

Actually, I do too -- but I believe "immortal" only means that the spirit cannot be made to die by any other means than God’s hand. Jesus warns us in Mat 10:28, "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."...which agrees with Isa 10:18. There is a plethora of interpretation as to soul and spirit in both Greek and Aramaic, as I’m sure you’re aware. You may see soul in both passages as "mind" while I see them as "spirit". I doubt either of us, despite our convictions, can show our particular view to be irrefutably true.

It’s interesting to me, though, that Paul wrote, "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1Thes 5:23) Why would the apostle present his hope this way unless he saw a real possibility that the entire man -- in this case as body/soul[mind]/spirit -- might not be fully sanctified and saved from death.

So you don’t misunderstand me, I don’t propose that the spirit is dead in the sense the body is dead...that is, in that it ceases to exist, suffers decay, becomes nonexistent or loses cognizance. Like traditional views on this subject, I understand spiritual death to be a principle in which the life of righteousness, virtue and right standing with God is completely severed and replaced with a love of sin, wickedness and unrighteousness; a total separation in this regard from God or from relationship with him. I do believe, though, that the immortal spirit, unless regenerated to new life, is doomed to final death and destruction in the final judgment (the second death of Revelation). In this sense, I’m something of an annihilationist.

To me, the contradistinction between "flesh" and "spirit" used by Jesus, Paul and Peter refer not to separate entities (such as soul [mind] and spirit), but to two distinct principles existent [or potentially existent] within the spirit of all humans: spiritual life and death. Thus, walking "according to the spirit" to me means walking according to/in relation to that portion of the spirit which is alive in regeneration. When Paul teaches, "...walk by the Spirit and you will not carry out desires of the flesh" (Gal 5:16), he is saying that we have power by the Spirit to overcome (Rev 2 & 3) the death that still exists within. The will is largely influenced by the spiritual death that remains, such that the notion of "free" will is not possible. But to the one in whose spirit the life of God’s Spirit has been imparted, the principle of life now does battle with the principle of death. The ongoing work of sanctification, to me, is itself a process of death of the "dead" portions of the spirit ("I die daily"; 1Cor 15:31) to new life in ongoing regeneration (Jn 12:24). This death is accomplished in suffering (1Pet 4:1-2), which produces faith.

This simultaneous existence of both life and death answers logically the problems created by the view of a totally ‘alive’ spirit by placing sin squarely back where it has always been -- in the spirit. The battle that takes place is thus in the spirit, the mind being merely the "processing point" and words/actions being the "output" of the will. I see the will as the product of the mind, not a separate entity. Paul pointed out that our battle is in the spiritual realm (Eph 6:12).

YOU: "I am inclined to believe that there are those that have taken the self-willed path to the spirit (the adversary's way)..."

I subscribe to the sovereign grace view of total depravity, that we are born completely "dead" and brought to life. But you make a good point, too, Nikolai, about the use of our will to chose the easier path. Since I believe all life (regeneration) is created in the midst of suffering, it seems only natural that our will, having experienced this "death" of some portion of our "spiritual death", would wish to say, "Whoa, I think I like the darkness better...it doesn’t hurt so badly!" But even this leads to death in the wrath of God, which falls upon all unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). Here seems to me to be the mystery of God’s sovereignty...that our will is allowed to "do evil", but that the doing ultimately leads back to the death of "death" that we are running from in the first place. Thus, our will operates within an ever-shrinking circle of His sovereign will and mercy for us. Pretty metaphysical, huh?

YOU: "But I believe the part you would call 'dead spirit' is really the soul. I see no evidence for any death in spirit in man, but the soul that sinneth IT shall die.... The difference between soul and spirit is as fine as the difference between thoughts and intents"

I think here, we’ll have to agree to disagree, Nikolai. Yet I bet we both also agree that there’s a lot of room for interpretation, too. I’ve been working on an 80,000 (and growing) word ms. on the spiritual aspect of salvation, and in researching the most common words for soul [<I>nephesh/psuche</I>], spirit [<I>ruwach/pneuma</I>] and heart [<I>leb</I> or <I>lebab/kardia</I>], have found they have many shared meaning elements in both the Greek and Aramaic which allow them the freedom to be used interchangeably where context allows. I quickly found that religious thinkers and writers from ages past to this day commonly substitute these words. The jury seems to remain pretty much "hung" to the relationship between spirit and soul. Regardless, we all recognize that death and life exist in both the ethereal and corporeal realms.

God bless you in your walk.
 
Upvote 0
I have always wondered the same things about catholics.&nbsp; Why so many traditions.&nbsp; I grew up catholic but recently gave it up and became nondenominational because there were way too many traditions.&nbsp;&nbsp; I feel so much closer to God since.&nbsp; Some of the catholics that I have come across are (sorry to say this) hypocrites.&nbsp; Holier than thou on Sundays and Holy Days and live the rest of the time they want to.&nbsp; Just because some one goes to church (and keeps traditions) doesn't mean a thing, except for they are like the Pharasies.&nbsp; But I have met some catholics that are religious and actually go by the bible and the traditions.&nbsp; I guess what works for some may not work for others but as long as someone doesn't lose the main focus which is God and Jesus and doesn't get caught up in the traditions and lives&nbsp;a life that is pleasing to God then it is okay.&nbsp;&nbsp; But one thing that&nbsp;I do have to ask (preferably a catholic) were in the bible does it say anything about lent, or ash wednesday, or not eating meat on fridays? I am just curious.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums