The spirit and the soul

Quasar92

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 7, 2016
3,762
1,943
100
Lexington, KY 40517
Visit site
✟332,574.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The spirit and the soul is an issue that is confusing to many - and rightfully so. Because we find in the Bible, that the two terms are only too often interchanged.

For example, in Gen.2:7, man became a living soul [KJV]. But in Ecc.12:7, the spirit returns to God who gave it [KJV].

We know that each of us has a body, soul and spirit, as found in 1 Thes.5:23.

However, there are a few passages of Scripture that help clarify the matter for us, such as the following:

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Heb.4:12.

With that, it can be understood that the spirit and the soul are an inseparable duo that can only be separated by God.

For a better understanding of it in my opinion, is to understand the soul is the character, personality, emotions and everything that makes each a one of a kind person, separate and unique from any other. The spirit is the body for the soul, as recorded in 1 Cor.15:44.

The apostle Paul puts it this way: "It is sown a natural body , it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor.15:44.

Your bro in Christ!

Quasar92
 

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
975
Houston, TX
✟153,927.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The spirit and the soul is an issue that is confusing to many - and rightfully so. Because we find in the Bible, that the two terms are only too often interchanged.

For example, in Gen.2:7, man became a living soul [KJV]. But in Ecc.12:7, the spirit returns to God who gave it [KJV].

We know that each of us has a body, soul and spirit, as found in 1 Thes.5:23.

However, there are a few passages of Scripture that help clarify the matter for us, such as the following:

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Heb.4:12.

With that, it can be understood that the spirit and the soul are an inseparable duo that can only be separated by God.

For a better understanding of it in my opinion, is to understand the soul is the character, personality, emotions and everything that makes each a one of a kind person, separate and unique from any other. The spirit is the body for the soul, as recorded in 1 Cor.15:44.

The apostle Paul puts it this way: "It is sown a natural body , it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor.15:44.

Your bro in Christ!

Quasar92

There is another dimension in correct hermeneutics, which is to pay attention to how a word is used in the immediate context. A serious mistake that people make is to assume that a certain word used in scripture has the exact same definition throughout all of scripture, and this is just not the case. For example, there are passages in scripture in which the term "soul" is defined as living human being. This is especially true in the OT. We should understand that words are defined by the context in which they are used, and not having fixed definitions. It is certainly true of the terms: spirit, body, law, judgment, faith, and many others.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

Ron Gurley

What U See is What U Get!
Supporter
Sep 22, 2015
4,000
1,029
Baton Rouge, LA
Visit site
✟87,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Let's do some spiritual math!

God created Man in His own SPIRITUAL Image, Likeness (Genesis 1:26)(ALL NASB)

God has no BODY.(sarx) God has no SOUL.(psyche)

God is SPIRIT. (worship Him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH) John 4:24

Man has a Body/Soul combo which is mortal.
Man has a SPIRIT which is immortal.
Soul and SPIRIT are separate and different.
SPIRIT "communes" with Soul.

Hebrews 4:12 (ALL NASB)
For the "word of God" is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing as far as the division of SOUL(PSYCHE) and SPIRIT(PNEUMA),
of both joints and marrow (BODY/SARX-SOMA),
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the "heart".

of the heart...GREEK 2588...kardia...denotes the (INTERACTIVE) centre of all physical and spiritual life
b.of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence c.of the will and character (CONSCIENCE?)

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Or do you not know that your BODY (/SOUL) is a "temple"(house?) of (God) the Holy Spirit who is IN you,
whom you have from God (the Father_, and that you are not your own?
For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Ecclesiastes 12...Remember God in Your Youth: AT DEATH, SPIRIT returns to God
Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth,
before the evil days come and the years draw near when you will say,
“I have no delight in them”;...
For man goes to his ETERNAL home while mourners go about in the street....
7 then the dust (Body/Soul combo) will return to the earth as it was, (Genesis 2:7)
and the SPIRIT (breath of life) will return to God who gave it. (Genesis 1:26)
8 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “all is vanity!”

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it (Body/Soul combo)
And SPIRIT to those who walk in it,

Zechariah 12:1 ...Thus declares the Lord
who stretches out the heavens,
lays the foundation of the earth, and
forms the SPIRIT of man within him,

1 Thessalonians 5:23
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.

THUS: ManKIND is divided into 3 parts:
1. SPIRIT = (~God conscience/ spiritual GOD Image = pneuma),
2. SOUL = (~psyche / personality / God CHARACTER~ Likeness = psyche) and
3. BODY = (~man's machine, controlled by brain bucket/CNS = sarx/SOMA)

The SOUL of Mankind (male and female) is also a DYNAMIC REACTION of its 3 parts:
1. MIND...the process of intellect...stored knowledge...its function is "thinking"/ THOUGHTS / "reasoning"
2. WILL...your decision maker...your computer-reactor...your balancer
3. EMOTIONS...how you "feel"...natural reactions / intuitive responses

The Body of Man has its 5 senses / sensors (maybe 6?) to interact with environment....Biology 101

The Soul of Man is the "snowflake" individual personality which starts with some genetic predispositions and is generally developed in and around the brain "bucket" and CNS electrical conductions...Psychology 101

The Spirit of Man searches for its Creator,..Bible 101
At the time of salvation, the battle begins:
OLD MAN: BODY / SOUL against God ...VERSUS... NEW MAN: BODY / SOUL / SPIRIT / Indwelling God The Holy SPIRIT.

Jewish tradition (?) believed that you:
1. KNOW in your "heart"...Spirit / conscience
2. FEEL in your "gut"...emotions
3. DECIDE in your "head"/brain...mind

MIND:

Proverbs 15:14
The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly.

The mind...Hebrew 3820...leb...I.inner man,...will, heart, understanding

Proverbs 18:15
The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

Matthew 22:37...And He said to him, “
‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

MIND...Greek 1271...dianoia...I.the mind as a faculty of understanding, feeling, desiring; IV.THOUGHTS, either good or bad

Romans 12:2
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind,
so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

Philippians 4:7
And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension,
will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The spirit and the soul is an issue that is confusing to many - and rightfully so. Because we find in the Bible, that the two terms are only too often interchanged.

For example, in Gen.2:7, man became a living soul [KJV]. But in Ecc.12:7, the spirit returns to God who gave it [KJV].

We know that each of us has a body, soul and spirit, as found in 1 Thes.5:23.

However, there are a few passages of Scripture that help clarify the matter for us, such as the following:

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Heb.4:12.

With that, it can be understood that the spirit and the soul are an inseparable duo that can only be separated by God.

For a better understanding of it in my opinion, is to understand the soul is the character, personality, emotions and everything that makes each a one of a kind person, separate and unique from any other. The spirit is the body for the soul, as recorded in 1 Cor.15:44.

The apostle Paul puts it this way: "It is sown a natural body , it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor.15:44.

Your bro in Christ!

Quasar92
Over the last 100 years a huge number of pastors have bought into trichotomy. However:
(1) Even today, very few professional theologians endorse it.
(2) For the first 1900 years of church history, virtually no one believed it.
What I'm saying is that, among professional theologians, the church has always held to dichotomy where we are only two parts mind and body. I too am a dichotomist.

And why stop at 3 parts? Scripture has lots of terms: spirit, soul, mind, body, heart, conscience, will/strength, and flesh. So why not 8?

Trichotomy quickly disintegrates into gibberish. It's not a real doctrine - neither a false doctrine nor a true doctrine - because it's too incoherent for anyone to even comprehend. It's one big list of contradictions. For example, suppose you claim that the soul is the sinful nature. In order to sin, the soul must be the WILL. Ok so if the soul is the will, what then is the spirit? If it has no will, it can't actually DO anything and thus contributes NOTHING to the divine-human relationship.

One more example. In order to sin, the soul must be the mind (because it must comprehend what it's doing and why it's wrong). Ok but if the soul is the mind, what then is the spirit? Mindless? Without a mind, it comprehends NOTHING and thus contributes NOTHING to the divine-human relationship.

I could go on with more examples...
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
975
Houston, TX
✟153,927.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Over the last 100 years a huge number of pastors have bought into trichotomy. However:
(1) Even today, very few professional theologians endorse it.
(2) For the first 1900 years of church history, virtually no one believed it.
What I'm saying is that, among professional theologians, the church has always held to dichotomy where we are only two parts mind and body. I too am a dichotomist.

And why stop at 3 parts? Scripture has lots of terms: spirit, soul, mind, body, heart, conscience, will/strength, and flesh. So why not 8?

Trichotomy quickly disintegrates into gibberish. It's not a real doctrine - neither a false doctrine nor a true doctrine - because it's too incoherent for anyone to even comprehend. It's one big list of contradictions. For example, suppose you claim that the soul is the sinful nature. In order to sin, the soul must be the WILL. Ok so if the soul is the will, what then is the spirit? If it has no will, it can't actually DO anything and thus contributes NOTHING to the divine-human relationship.

One more example. In order to sin, the soul must be the mind (because it must comprehend what it's doing and why it's wrong). Ok but if the soul is the mind, what then is the spirit? Mindless? Without a mind, it comprehends NOTHING and thus contributes NOTHING to the divine-human relationship.

I could go on with more examples...

It seems to me that you would have a problem with Heb. 4:12 which indicates there is a division between soul and spirit, something like the division between the joint and marrow of bone. Also 1 Thes. 5:23 indicates that Paul's anthropology had 3 parts to the man, since he lists them out (spirit, soul, and body).

We can surmise and speculate on what all this means, but suffice it to say that those 3 parts could be classified as 3 majorly different categories. The reason why we don't say "8 parts" is that those which you listed are subsets of those 3 categories. Also, will is a part of the soul, therefore you can't say the soul is the will, and so forth. The parts might be categorized as follows:

body consists of flesh and chemistry
soul consists of mind, "heart" (as a metaphor), conscience, will, emotion, intuition, etc.
spirit consists of life? And here is where speculation can really take off.

As far as where does the sinful nature reside, Paul writes in Rom. 8 "the body is dead because of sin" which tells me that the nature of sin resides in the body. Since the soul is integrated in the body, it is obviously affected by that nature, and this is where we all struggle with sin. I'm sure many would disagree and claim that the soul contains the sinful nature; but I say it's all speculation. Certainly the soul is what expresses the sinful nature.

Where you say that the church and theologians all held to dichotomy, this is the first I have heard of that, and I have listened to many hours of church history reviews and follow several modern day theologians. Can you please give some proof of your statement?
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It seems to me that you would have a problem with Heb. 4:12 which indicates there is a division between soul and spirit, something like the division between the joint and marrow of bone. Also 1 Thes. 5:23 indicates that Paul's anthropology had 3 parts to the man, since he lists them out (spirit, soul, and body).

We can surmise and speculate on what all this means, but suffice it to say that those 3 parts could be classified as 3 majorly different categories. '
A doctrine which we cannot comprehend is not a real doctrine.

The reason why we don't say "8 parts" is that those which you listed are subsets of those 3 categories.
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.
Also, will is a part of the soul, therefore you can't say the soul is the will, and so forth.
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?

The parts might be categorized as follows:
body consists of flesh and chemistry
soul consists of mind, "heart" (as a metaphor), conscience, will, emotion, intuition, etc.
spirit consists of life? And here is where speculation can really take off.
Yes it all sounds like speculation. And if it weren't gibberish, I might find it very interesting.

As far as where does the sinful nature reside, Paul writes in Rom. 8 "the body is dead because of sin" which tells me that the nature of sin resides in the body.
Matter is evil? This sounds like the Gnostic heresy. You need to be more clear.

Since the soul is integrated in the body, it is obviously affected by that nature, and this is where we all struggle with sin. I'm sure many would disagree and claim that the soul contains the sinful nature; but I say it's all speculation. Certainly the soul is what expresses the sinful nature.
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.

Where you say that the church and theologians all held to dichotomy, this is the first I have heard of that, and I have listened to many hours of church history reviews and follow several modern day theologians. Can you please give some proof of your statement?
TD:)
You can start with this article: "Trichotomy
A Beachhead for Gnostic Influences
By Kim Riddlebarger
Trichotomy

Also in 870 A.D. the Fourth Council of Constantinople officially upheld dichotomy over and against trichotomy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
975
Houston, TX
✟153,927.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
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:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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.
Understandably you feel that's a good comeback, but perhaps I'm more consistent/insistent on comprehension than you realize. Although I am a Trinitarian, I can't accept the orthodox enunciation of it (i.e. it needs reform/improvement) precisely because it is incomprehensible (as some orthodox scholars admit). It's gibberish. In fact, it is so problemmatical that some orthodox statements, in trying to salvage it, end up denying the Trinity altogether. Although this is probably getting off-topic, I agree with the church father Tertullian (the man who invented the word Trinity) that God is a physical substannce. This leads to a very easy to comprehend definition of the Trinity as three subsections of that one physical substance. Whereas the orthodox view is that God's substance is 'spirit' understood as the antithesis of matter and thus indivisible into parts. He is thus an indivisible three - yes, good luck comprehending THAT.

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.
I don't accept nebulous language. Attached? Physically attached? How big is the spirit? How big is the soul? Do they talk to one another? If so, by sound waves?

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?
Sure. On MY assumptions (a physical soul intermixed with the physical body like milk and water), Paul's statement makes perfect sense. He's referring to the physical soul in bodily form (the mixture means that the evil soul is literally part of our body) and thus Paul is not a gnostic, as he's not regarding ordinary matter as evil, but rather the soul. So neither I nor Paul am gnostic, but the question is whether YOUR ontology (your own set of assumptions) can escape gnosticism. Again, for me, the soul IS my physical body (at least part of that body) - what about you?
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?
See previous comment.

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?
I've never heard anyone refer to COMMITTING sin as EXPRESSING sin. So no I wouldn't call your language obvious, and this nebulous trichotomy, of all doctrines, especially cries out for the utmost clarification at all junctures.

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.
Ok this DOES look like it's headed towards gnosticism. The sinful nature is the evil body left behind? But I'll read on.
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.
Ok this 'explanation' doesn't convincingly mitigate the intensity of the previous assertion. So far what I've seen is an assertion of gnosticism (ordinary matter classified as evil).


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.
More of the same - you're still implying that removing the 'evil body' is the way to purify the soul. In reality, the Holy Spirit purifies the soul by altering/removing its wicked desires, causing the soul to desire what is good.

I'll stop there. Maybe I'll look at the rest of your post in a little while.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
tdidymas said:
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.
Her thesis is fairly plausible. Let me clarify. Most trichotomists probably regard animals as dichotomous. Thus animals lack the 'spirit' as a 'spiritual' element and thus are doomed to a lower, body-based, earthly experience. This can indeed lead to a tendency to disparage the body and even regard ordinary matter as our sinful nature - which is precisely the mistake you seem to be making. Your own statements convince me that her thesis is plausible.

But that wasn't the reason I pointed you to the article. I just wanted to respond to your request for evidence that most professional theologians over the last 2000 years have been staunch dichotomists.

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.
Not sure if you're still commenting on the article or responding to me. If me, then you're still missing the force of my argument about the will. If the spirit has no will, it can't play a significant role in redemptive economy. I thought I was clear enough.

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."
Doesn't his statement sound just like your own statments that I criticized above? The idea that leaving the evil body behind is how to purify the soul? Sincet that's her point, her evaluation of Chuck Smith is possibly accurate.
What the author quotes here could be taken out of context.
Admittedly true.
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."
Yes. OR, maybe he really is gnostic as she alleges.

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.
Nothing is wrong with it, as long as we don't classify ordinary matter as evil. Even to insinuate, as some might, that Adam tainted our souls biologically, is gnosticism. Biology is just the mechanics of ordinary matter. Mechanics are neither evil nor sinful.
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The spirit and the soul is an issue that is confusing to many - and rightfully so. Because we find in the Bible, that the two terms are only too often interchanged.
For example, in Gen.2:7, man became a living soul [KJV]. But in Ecc.12:7, the spirit returns to God who gave it [KJV].
We know that each of us has a body, soul and spirit, as found in 1 Thes.5:23.
However, there are a few passages of Scripture that help clarify the matter for us, such as the following:
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Heb.4:12.
With that, it can be understood that the spirit and the soul are an inseparable duo that can only be separated by God.
For a better understanding of it in my opinion, is to understand the soul is the character, personality, emotions and everything that makes each a one of a kind person, separate and unique from any other. The spirit is the body for the soul, as recorded in 1 Cor.15:44.
The apostle Paul puts it this way: "It is sown a natural body , it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor.15:44.
Your bro in Christ! Quasar92
One Biblical hermeneutic to which I subscribe is to let the earlier inform the later. Paul's letters were originally last, with James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude, coming before and Revelation after. The sequence also implies this principle. Doing this, then, Paul's seeming mention in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 of a tripartite division cannot be used to trump the idea of all the rest that man IS a soul. Man does not HAVE a soul but IS one.

Why then the Pauline divergence on this? Well, Paul, contrary to Western assumptions is NOT laying out an anthropological diagram for the purpose of new revelation. No. He is using a Semitic emphatic form similar to Jesus' quoting the Torah that one should love God with all their, "heart, soul, [mind] and strength". This Semitic manner of speaking leaves no question. The person in view is any person in their entirety. For example, "heart and mind" are synonyms, no? Or, can one imagine loving God with all one's strength but leaving out their heart? No. Both Paul and Jesus in order to signal they mean the whole person use a Semitic emphatic form.

Note: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude are sometimes called catholic epistles, because they are more generally applicable in church life. Paul's letters to gentile churches tend to be incidental and focused upon localized problems, therefore the greater context of the NT comes to play when exegeting Paul's letters.

Note2: Revelation is last due to the necessity of "getting" all that came before in order to make sense of it.
 
Last edited:
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

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟146,199.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
..."For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Heb.4:12.

With that, it can be understood that the spirit and the soul are an inseparable duo that can only be separated by God.

For a better understanding of it in my opinion, is to understand the soul is the character, personality, emotions and everything that makes each a one of a kind person, separate and unique from any other. The spirit is the body for the soul,...

I believe and I have understood spirit is like attitude. Can be compared to team spirit. Soul I believe is like whole persona and body is where the soul dwells.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceJoyLove

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2017
1,504
1,145
62
Nova Scotia
✟66,922.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Within this scripture, the Greek word 'psyche' is translated as both "soul" and "life"...

Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

"Life" eternal is without end or beginning...beyond confines of time and space as it relates to perceiving/perception of our be-ing...(nature of man/flesh or nature of God)
 
Upvote 0

Noxot

anarchist personalist
Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
8,191
2,450
37
dallas, texas
Visit site
✟231,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
soul is sometimes a symbol of the fallen nature of man because the greek word is related to coldness. the soul is the celestial body in the other world - the world of spirits, hell, and heaven. there is a sense of separation of soul and spirit only because of the fallen nature of humanity. soul usually denotes something higher than the flesh but not as high as spirit.

for some there is no separation of soul and spirit because they have been reunited by their interiors being reopened by God and by the soul going from lesser things to deeper and higher things of heaven.

spirit is the most profound aspect of humanity and the most mysterious. it is the part closest to God and it is the only way that man can know God. as Christians we should all be living in our spirit as much as possible because it is nearest to God and can hear God.

a non-cold soul would be called a nous, or a mind. mind and spirit are the same thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceJoyLove
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
975
Houston, TX
✟153,927.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I believe and I have understood spirit is like attitude. Can be compared to team spirit. Soul I believe is like whole persona and body is where the soul dwells.

Be careful about defining words with out-of-context definitions. It appears to me that you're trying to work around the problem of assuming that 'spirit and soul' are separate items.

Words are defined by their usage in any language, including the Bible. There are places where 'spirit' means 'attitude' (or purpose), such as Num. 5:30 "spirit of jealousy," in which 'spirit' is being used metaphorically as emotional attitude. But in the context of 1 Thes. 5:23 it is talking about something ontological, so in that context 'spirit' is not used metaphorically.

One mistake people make is to assume things in scripture that may not have been the original intention. Many people take "spirit and soul and body" as 3 separate things, because that may be a common usage of the word 'and' in modern times. This is a natural and common mistake. If we understand that it isn't the case in the historical context of 1st century Hebrew writers, we can explain it better than trying to work around the assumption error.
TD:)
 
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

JohnRabbit

just trying to understand
Supporter
Feb 12, 2009
4,383
320
i am in alabama
✟55,288.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
One Biblical hermeneutic to which I subscribe is to let the earlier inform the later. Paul's letters were originally last, with James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude, coming before and Revelation after. The sequence also implies this principle. Doing this, then, Paul's seeming mention in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 of a tripartite division cannot be used to trump the idea of all the rest that man IS a soul. Man does not HAVE a soul but IS one.

Why then the Pauline divergence on this? Well, Paul, contrary to Western assumptions is NOT laying out an anthropological diagram for the purpose of new revelation. No. He is using a Semitic emphatic form similar to Jesus' quoting the Torah that one should love God with all their, "heart, soul, [mind] and strength". This Semitic manner of speaking leaves no question. The person in view is any person in their entirety. For example, "heart and mind" are synonyms, no? Or, can one imagine loving God with all one's strength but leaving out their heart? No. Both Paul and Jesus in order to signal they mean the whole person use a Semitic emphatic form.

Note: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude are sometimes called catholic epistles, because they are more generally applicable in church life. Paul's letters to gentile churches tend to be incidental and focused upon localized problems, therefore the greater context of the NT comes to play when exegeting Paul's letters.

Note2: Revelation is last due to the necessity of "getting" all that came before in order to make sense of it.
excellent post! :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

JohnRabbit

just trying to understand
Supporter
Feb 12, 2009
4,383
320
i am in alabama
✟55,288.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Let's do some spiritual math!
ok, we've done the "spiritual math" now let's see the grade! :oldthumbsup:

God created Man in His own SPIRITUAL Image, Likeness (Genesis 1:26)(ALL NASB)
this is wrong.

God did create man in His Own Image but only in the physical sense, not spiritual!


1Cor 15
46
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural (physical), and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

we have to state things correctly as not to contradict other parts of the bible! :oldthumbsup:

God has no BODY.(sarx) God has no SOUL.(psyche)
again, wrong.
in exodus 33, God used His hand to cover moses and allowed moses to see His back side. this would imply that He has a front side!

look in the mirror and you'll see God's body!
(only in the physical sense) :oldthumbsup:

God is SPIRIT. (worship Him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH) John 4:24
correct!

one out of three!

we have to do better than this before we can make statements! :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
975
Houston, TX
✟153,927.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I understand Bible so that they are different things, but obviously, I recommend people to think by themselves what the Bible means.
The Bible says what it says and means what it means. BTW, I didn't say "different" things, I said "separate" things. Do you understand the difference?
TD:)
 
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

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟146,199.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Bible says what it says and means what it means. BTW, I didn't say "different" things, I said "separate" things. Do you understand the difference?
TD:)

Ok, that’s true, I misinterpret it, sorry. But still, if they are separate, they are not the same.

:)
 
Upvote 0