Triune or Biune

[cubanito]

The conservative reformers taught man was biune, mind and body, and strongly opposed the liberal reformers (anabaptists, Quackers ect) in their triune version of man. I believe that on this issue, both sides were wrong.
I believe man, the image of God, is also a triune being (possibly uniquely so in Creation).
However, I also think that at the fall, all 3 parts of man were corrupted, and so deny the "divine spark" idea that caused so much navel gazing among "the society of Friends"

Any takers for an argument or even formal debate?

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, I've run into people who talk of man as "body, soul, and spirit" with apparently some differentiation between the latter two terms. But I've never been able to pin down exactly what they make the distinction out to be.

 

[depthdeception]

The conservative reformers taught man was biune, mind and body, and strongly opposed the liberal reformers (anabaptists, Quackers ect) in their triune version of man. I believe that on this issue, both sides were wrong.
I believe man, the image of God, is also a triune being (possibly uniquely so in Creation).
However, I also think that at the fall, all 3 parts of man were corrupted, and so deny the "divine spark" idea that caused so much navel gazing among "the society of Friends"

Any takers for an argument or even formal debate?

Triune or Biune? Neither. The human person is a monism. The "triune" conception of humanity, IMO, betrays an inappropriate understanding of the Christian conception of the Trinity. After all, most triune conceptions of the human person will allow for the bifurcation of the various "parts." However, God, in triune nature, cannot be separated into "persons" in the absolute sense which some believe the human person can be. Therefore, as Jews and Christians affirm that "God is one", so we, as created in the image of God, are also "one."

 

[KEPLER]

The conservative reformers taught man was biune, mind and body, and strongly opposed the liberal reformers (anabaptists, Quackers ect) in their triune version of man. I believe that on this issue, both sides were wrong.
I believe man, the image of God, is also a triune being (possibly uniquely so in Creation).
However, I also think that at the fall, all 3 parts of man were corrupted, and so deny the "divine spark" idea that caused so much navel gazing among "the society of Friends"

Any takers for an argument or even formal debate?

Actually, I think the distinctions are not mind/body, but body/soul, and for the triune folks it's body/soul/spirit. N'est pas?

The vast majority of Christians make the simple distinction of body/soul. The trinue stuff reeks of Gnosticism. Almsot all Pentecostal & Holiness types are triune adherents.

And by the way, what exactly is a "Quacker"? Something you eat with soup? (just kidding!)

 

[Polycarp1]

And by the way, what exactly is a "Quacker"? Something you eat with soup? (just kidding!)

Duck Soup, of course. (Why a duck? Why-a not a goose?)

 

[SolomonVII]

1 Thessalonians23
4 May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I suppose that would be the Biblical evidence of the triune nature of man.

Bibically speaking again, the distinction between soul and spirit is made in this passage as well, the implication here (possibly) being that the distinction is between the substance of the heart, or the substance of the mind:

"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." [Hebrews 4:12]



The controversy of course becomes whether the words 'spirit' and 'soul' refer to somethings essentially different and distinct, or whether the two words are placed in contradiction to each other to emphasis their essential sameness, and how sharp must be a truth that can divide them.

There is nevertheless something within our human experience, in which our understanding of what is right opposes our natural desires which speaks of an inner pyschic turmoil.

Now if our basic attitude is one of dualism, this tension between the carnal self of the natural man becomes identified with the body, as opposed to the spirit that now becomes identified with God.

The problem with such a conception has tended to be a Christian loathing for the body, and especially our carnal sexual desires. 'Flesh' in such a way of thinking, is no longer looked upon symbolically of figuratively anymore, but the battle becomes against the actual flesh.

This attitude is seen so clearly in some theologies in which our healing is linked so graphically and directly to the bloody scourging of Jesus. The more that the body of Jesus is meditated upon as being torn to bloody ribbons by the viscious scourging, the more our healing from the flesh becomes accentuated in this theology.
This, I believe, does not reflect the true Gospel.

There is a usefulness then, in placing the battle between good and evil more on the sphere of the inner man and our innter turmoil, lest it is our very created bodies that are identified wiht evil and sin.

But to the extent that it is our intellect that now becomes the white knight rescuing us from our baser, irrational emotional selves, we now are entering into the sins of the enlightened modern man. Reason becomes the new idol for this man, and it is his emotions that must be controlled and subordinated to the intellect.

In the end, this is merely a different kind of dualist thinking, in which our emotions become synonymous with our the carnal natures of our flesh, and again it is our 'emotional' carnal flesh that is being opposed

In summary, an understanding of our human nature that results in the disdain for our flesh that occurs when body is opposed to soul, can therefore lead to a false understanding.

And conversely an understanding of our irrational emotional/carnal faculties as needing to be subordinated to our intellects can likewise lead to the same false concepts of who we are.


One of the challenges of we post-moderns then, is to come to a better understanding about the nature of man.

To the extent that the triune categorization remains Biblically based in the fullness of scripture though, where the terms for spirit and soul are seen to be used interchangeably, the triune concept may yet be of value.

For as long as our triune differention is not between spirit(mind) and soul(heart), but between Spirit and spirit, or between Soul and soul, Gnostic denigration of God's Creation may yet be prevailed against.

For when the challenge of sin and evil is confined to the spiritual plane, and with our physicality sacramentally being given over to the glory of God through the Church, our bodies become the actual Temples from which the glory of God shines trhough.

 

[Mikecpking]

Here is something that should clear this up:

The error

Traditional Christian doctrine has been very unhelpful in giving us a biblical understanding of personhood, it has usually presented one of two views as being the correct way of defining the components of human being. They have been as follows:-

• Tripartite

This is the view that the human individual is composed of three components; 'the body', 'the soul' and 'the spirit'. This fails to take a whole biblical picture, and bases itself upon a misinterpretation of two verses:-

'May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely;

and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless

at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ'

[ITh 5:23]

'Indeed, the word of God is living and active,

sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit,

joints from marrow;

it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart'.

[Heb4:12]
​

In context these statements are clearly the rhetorical words of a preacher, they are not foundational theological statements. They must be interpreted against the broad biblical background of statements about personhood; and not it against them.

• Bipartite

This is the view that the human individual is composed of two components; 'the body' and 'the soul', with the 'spirit' being the quintessence of the 'soul'.

Neither of these two views are satisfactory, because:-

• they create the impression that the human person is comprised of three [or two] quite distinct elements [like a Neapolitan ice cream!], rather than a totality.

• they do not do justice to the range of biblical vocabulary with the variety of senses in which it is used.

• they are influenced by Greek philosophy rather than by Jewish thought; the words of the New Testament have too frequently been filled with concepts from Greek speculation while the Hebrew ideas they are translating have been forgotten.

• to imagine 'body', 'soul' and 'spirit' as distinct entities is to fundamentally misunderstand the biblical concepts.

• in ITh 5:23 the verb and adjective are both singular; the implication is 'keep the whole of you', not 'parts' of you.

• in Heb 4:12 the implication is to 'permeate every dimension' of a person, not separating 'parts'..

• neither of the models give any direct mention to the 'heart' which is a key biblical concept.

Bearing these facts in mind we must now attempt to resolve our thinking about the riddle of human nature by looking more closely at the way in which the biblical words are used.

The key

The Bible leads us towards an understanding of our personhood in its totality by approaching it in terms of our physical body. To the Hebrew mind 'personality' resulted from an 'animated body', it was not, as the Greeks thought, an 'incarnated soul'. The important biblical truth is that a person does not have a body they are a body. The Hebrews never thought about the body in isolation and for its own sake, they were only interested in the whole person and their relationship with God.

So the Bible sees the human body as the pathway into the whole person; it sees the physical body as the medium of an individuals personal life. Added to this, an organic and inseparable connection is seen between the physical and the spiritual dimensions of a person. As a result we see that various physical organs are spoken of as being connected with particular aspects of inner feelings and spiritual experience [eg breath, blood, heart, liver, kidneys, bowels etc]. In fact, at first sight, one could be forgiven for imagining that each individual person is composed of a number of unrelated and isolated centres of inner activity, seemingly independent of any unifying factor. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth; and understanding this paradox is in fact the essential key to understanding biblical anthropology.

The key to the biblical doctrine of personhood is understanding that the Hebrew mind saw no contrast or distinction between the 'one' and the 'many', the 'whole' and the 'part'. This results in two fundamental conclusions upon which everything else is built>

• the human person is a unity; a physical and spiritual totality which is an indivisible whole.

• the whole may be represented and seen in each particular part. At

any moment any part can stand for the whole person. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew scriptures mention some 80 parts of the human body, and yet, as we shall see, there is no single word for the 'whole'; almost any part can be used to represent the whole.

So in studying biblical anthropology we are presented with personhood as a totality and a whole; an indivisible unity. What the nature and substance of that unity is, is illuminated by a wealth of pictures which have their root in physical organs and observable phenomena from which they provide a 'bridge' into the spiritual depths of human personality:-

• each picture gives a vivid description of some aspect of the inner spiritual processes of personhood.

• each picture serves as a window into the whole person.

• each picture represents the whole person from a particular point of view.

Putting all the pictures together we have a series of windows each looking in on personhood as a whole, but highlighting different aspects of our unity from different perspectives. Imagine a free standing room with a window in each of the four walls and one in the ceiling; looking through each window gives you a view of the whole room, but each window also gives you a unique perspective on the whole room. The same is true of each of the biblical words.

The teaching of the Bible about personhood is profound. At first sight its approach may appear naive, but on examination we discover a treasury of pictures which interlock with one another in the most complex manner. Their variety of emphasis and colour, their subtle nuances in sense and feeling, all express deep truths about a person as a spiritual being.

The New Testament naturally builds from its Hebrew foundations. While it makes no clearer dogmatic statements than the Hebrew Bible, it does provide a centre around which all the fluid Hebrew ideas can arrange themselves - this is the personality of Jesus. Paul's treatment of the nature of personhood is the most elaborate in the New Testament, due to his emphasis on

'personal experience'. While he enlarges the biblical vocabulary he uses the new words in the
established biblical manner and framework. Also the New Testament emphasis on both the
present and future experience of the Kingdom of God, and its promise of the 'resurrection of
the body1, bring a new force to the whole subject. — « - ^

THE PICTURE - WINDOWS Nephesh - Psyche - Soul

The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.


'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-

• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].

• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.

• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].

• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].

• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].

The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.

This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.

 

[Mikecpking]

continued..

Ruah - Pneuma - Spirit

This 'picture - window' into personhood highlights our unique relationship with God.'Ruah' has its roots in the 'wind' which emphasises both its powerful and yet subtle nature. 'Ruah' is used in a number of different contexts:-

• for the wind in nature.

• for the nature of God's being ['Spirit of God', 'Holy Spirit']; dynamic, overwhelming, at times completely dominating [Jg 6:34], the root of prophesying [ISam 10:5-6] and abnormal strength [Jg 14:6].

• for demonic activity [ISam 16:14].

• for the 'principle of life' [akin to 'nephesh' often used interchangeably]. It is the life force present everywhere; independent, universal, it does not die.

• for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.

Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open to the influence of God. 'Ruah' particularly stresses:-

• the direction of the will, it is the energy behind willing and acting, that which urges good and evil [Isa 29:24; Ps 51:12].

• the deep emotions; passion [Jg 8:3], grief [Gen 26:35] zeal [Hag 1:14], often seen in the panting of excitement or distress which is different from normal breathing.

• the seat of individual moral qualities and attitudes [Ecc 7:8; Isa 57:15; Num 14:24]. Ezekiel sees the Messianic age as a period when individuals will be permeated by Yahweh's 'ruah' which in turn will renew their own [11; 19; 18:31; 36:26; 39:29]. This is one of the most important words in Paul's vocabulary with his emphasis on regeneration, sanctification, fellowship with God [Gal. 5:22-23 etc].

• the experience of being in touch with God and under God's influence. The human 'ruah' searches out God's ways [Ps 77:7; Isa 26;9], it can be stirred or hardened by God [Jer 51; 11; Dt 2:30].

'Ruah' presents us with human nature's in interplay with the nature of God. It is stressing a person open to and transmitting the life of God [Rm 8:16; ICor 2:10-11]. It has no physical 'animal' character, [never associated with blood], transcending mere desire or feeling.

Leb - Kardia - Heart

'Leb' is a 'window - word' that looks in at personhood in terms of deepest emotions and from the perspective of intellect and will. 'Leb', in some ways, draws together every spiritual process. It is'conscious spiritual activity'.

It was early recognised that emotions and intense feelings produce physical effects in the heart [slow, quick, intermittent pulse rates, sometimes strong pain]. So it has come to picture the epicentre of the human person as an emotional being. Other bodily organs have been drawn alongside to add other facets to this idea:-

• Kidneys: the unfathomable depths of an individual, centre of emotions that only God can search out and test [Jer 11:20; 12:2; Isa 29:13].

• Bowels: emotions that can be deeply agitated; seething fermenting, troubling [Job 30:27; Lam 1:20].

• Inwards-Belly: emphasising the unique character of human spiritual nature in contrast to the external world [Phil 3:19; Jn 7:38].

• Bones: the basic structural element in man; spiritually and emotionally as

well as physically [Ps 35:10; Pr 3:8], they suffer seismic shock in emotional distress [Jer 23:9].

The other very important emphasis of 'leb' is personhood in terms of their inner direction; the deliberate conscious activity of the will and the responsibility it brings.

What comes from an individuals heart is 'the distinct property of the whole person' making them responsible for it. The 'responsible will' is central to the biblical concept of the 'heart'. Making God's will our own requires a new heart [Ezk 36:26].

Paul in his writings uses 'kardia' with all the senses of the Hebrew 'leb', but enlarges it by the introduction of two other words that emphasis 'will' and ' responsibilities':-

• Mind [nous]: human intellectual capacity [Phil 4:7] which may be good or bad. It may be immoral, vain, corrupt defiled [Rm 1:28; Eph 4:17]. It contains God's law [Rm 7:23] and in a Christian is renewed transforming life [Rm 12:2], imparting the mind of Christ [ICor 2:16].

• Conscience [suneidessis]: human faculty for moral judgment. It can be defiled [ICor 8:7] or pure [ITim 3:9]. It is that consciousness of 'being right within one's heart' [Rm2:15].

So 'leb' is conscious spiritual activity, stressing the sense of responsibility.

Contrast : Nephesh, Ruah, Leb

It will be quite clear that 'nephesh', 'ruah', and 'leb' overlap one another at significant points.

The distinctions between 'nephesh' and 'leb' at the higher level of understanding is very difficult. They are often used interchangeably [cf Ex 6:9 with Jg 16:16; Ecc 7:8 with Job 6:11], and yet they are not the same. The distinction is found back at their roots.

The overlap between all three is to be expected when we remember each is considering the whole man from a slightly different angle. Their contrasting stresses may be seen as:-

• Nephesh : instinctive 'animal' activity.

• Leb : conscious spiritual activity.

• Ruah : personhood open to the influence of the nature of God.

'Nephesh' and 'leb' stand in contrast with 'ruah' between them. 'Nephesh' and 'ruah' stress the 'lower' and 'higher' levels of consciousness.

 

[Mikecpking]

continued:

Basar - Sarx - Flesh

'Basar' is the 'window - word' that looks at 'the whole life substance of personhood organised in visible form'. It is common to both human and beast. As we have seen we do not have a body, we are a body. 'Basar' is 'nephesh' in its outward form, the same reality is involved, a person as a living being. It is the whole tangible form of a person controlled by the 'nephesh', [there are different Hebrew words for simply the muscular parts of the body and for a lifeless corpse]. The Hebrew scriptures do not have a word for 'the body' in the way we would understand that term [the whole]. 'Basar' is 'flesh', though [as we shall see] the New Testament term 'body' is rooted back into it.

The Bible places high value on a person's physical aspect, 'basar' affirms our physical existence. It destroys the Greek idea, that has so often polluted Christian thinking, that 'the flesh' is a prison cell, the enemy of the spirit, which incarcerates the 'real self in matter.

However the Bible also affirms that the physical alone does not give complete meaning to personhood. 'Flesh' is simply the whole person from one particular perspective:-

• it is personhood in corporeal form: often used as a personal pronoun [2Cor 5:5; Eph 5:28]; notice how 'flesh', 'longs after God' [Ps 63:1], 'rejoices in God' [Ps 84:2].

• it is personhood in external and visible in contrast to internal and spiritual [Gal 4:13-14; 2Cor 12:7].

• it is personhood in earthly solidarity with earthly existence [Phil 1:24; Gal 2:20]. It is God's chosen will for us to be part of this world, our God-given sphere of life. It is neutral. John stresses Jesus came 'in the flesh' [Jn 1:14; Un 4:2].

• it is personhood in contrast to God: human as opposed to divine. It is 'mere mortals' in their weakness, their impotence, their mortality, temporary, perishable; in contrast to the power and eternal nature of God.

• it is personhood in opposition to God; flesh has been exploited by the rebellious forces of 'this age' and has fallen under sin and death [Rm 8:12; Gal 5:13]. It is a person living for this world. Their God-given place has taken over as the principle of his life and conduct [humanism]. An individual in their self-sufficiency. For this reason flesh will neither 'glory before God' [ICor 1:29], nor 'inherit the kingdom' [ICor 15:50]. In this sense 'being in the flesh' is incompatible with being a Christian [Rm 8:8]; not because it is evil but because it distorts a person's relationship with God.

'Flesh' is the whole person in visible form and it is good. Dependent life which requires a physical organism to sustain it. It stresses human impotence and the fact that ultimately we are wholly perishable. There is no promise of resurrection for the 'flesh'.

Basar - Soma - Body

The word 'body' is unique as a 'picture - window' into the whole person. It is a word that takes on particular significance in the New Testament vocabulary of Paul. The word 'flesh' [ ['sarx'] properly translates the Hebrew 'basar'. The word 'body' ['soma'] must find its origin in the same Hebrew root, but it develops quite differently. Paul speaks of 'the body of the flesh' [Col 2:11]; this makes a complete identity between 'body' and 'flesh'. It is significant that the Greeks stressed the contrast between 'body' and 'soul', while Paul draws the contrast between 'body' and 'flesh'.

• it is what personhood is. The whole person is an expression of the very core of their being. Hence fornication is a sin against the body [ICor 6:18]. It is the 'body' that is the temple of the Holy Spirit [ICor 6:19-20].

• it is personhood made for God. It emphasised the strength of human creativity [ICor 6:13-20]. In contrast to 'flesh' it is not merely the external as opposed to the spiritual. It is not merely the human as opposed to the divine.

• it is personhood in solidarity. 'Body' stresses that which binds one individual to another. It contrasts the Greek idea which saw the body as the boundary that separated one person from all others. The 'body' never stresses the individual [singular or plural are not significant], it is social. It emphasises the solidarity of the human race [Heb 13:3]. Biblically a person's individuality is found only in their relationship before God [Jer 31:29-30]. It is in the vertical direction that biblical individualism is seen.

• it is the whole person destined for God. 'Body' stresses an individual's 'goal', 'destination', and 'end' in God, rather than their origins; 'the body is for the Lord' [ICor 6:13]. Only the resurrection reveals a person's true destiny, and only the 'body' carries an individual into their resurrection, and that as part of the 'Body of Christ'. Before the body is raised it is essential that it dies first [Jn 12:24; ICor 15:36]. 'Flesh' must be replaced by a 'resurrection body'.



Comments, anyone?

 

[KingZzub]

Man is triune, as seen by Hebrews 4.12 and 1 Thess. 5.23

 

[Bobber]

1 Thessalonians23
4 May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe we are a spirit...we have a soul...and we live in a physcial body....and in Hebrews 4:12 it declares that soul and spirit can be divided...if they can be divided then they can't be one....here I believe is the truth of the matter....with our spirits we contact spiritual things...with our mind we contact soulical things....consider that the Bible states, "Trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not to our own understanding..."Proverbs 3: 5 What's our heart? The inner most core of our being. Our spirit. So our minds represent how from the natural realm

we respond to things occuring....but our souls or our mental capacites need to be trained....if Gods word says one thing but our minds say another thing we go with the promise of God...thus trust the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding....and the physical body is that which gives us expression in the physical universe....this gives us hope when it comes to discipling the body...Paul states that he kept his body under 1 Cor 9:27 ...notice he didn't say he kept

himself under....but his body....the body is a mere vehicle of expression or suit we need to operate in the physical realm....remember your spirit can live outside your body, but your body can't live without the spirit....its lifeless and degenerates imediately....why because the real person the spirit is gone...

 

[Mikecpking]

Man is triune, as seen by Hebrews 4.12 and 1 Thess. 5.23

Hi Zzub,
Please see 3 posts before yours, man is NOT triune as there is no mention of the Heart, flesh as opposed to body, no mention of bones and inwards belly..

 

[Mikecpking]

I believe we are a spirit...we have a soul...and we live in a physcial body....and in Hebrews 4:12 it declares that soul and spirit can be divided...if they can be divided then they can't be one....here I believe is the truth of the matter....with our spirits we contact spiritual things...with our mind we contact soulical things....consider that the Bible states, "Trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not to our own understanding..."Proverbs 3: 5 What's our heart? The inner most core of our being. Our spirit. So our minds represent how from the natural realm

we respond to things occuring....but our souls or our mental capacites need to be trained......

Hi Bobber,
It goes a little deeper than that. We don't have souls, we are souls (gen 2:7). Nor is the mind 'the soul'. Please look at DT12:23 'the soul is in the blood'.. The heart (Hebrew Leb) is not the same as Spirit 'Ruah) even though you quite rightly noted that there is overlap.

 

[gheetam]

Hi Mike

I read with interest on what you wrote - I taking a Bible class on Anthropology this year - and our dear leacturer have told us to do a debate on Tripartite vs Bipartite.

I am assigned for Bipartite and basically I believe in Tipartite - could u help me out here? You explanation is bit complicated - I am trying to understand and I think I got the essence of it - Is there anyway - you can explain this in a simpler term? (I am sorry I such in a blur!)

Any websites - that I can check out on this?
Thanks so much!!!!

 

[Mikecpking]

Man is triune, as seen by Hebrews 4.12 and 1 Thess. 5.23

But the Hebrews and NT writers never saw people as 'Triune', but as a whole or unity.

 

[hlaltimus]

He, or she, is triune by compartment and biune by major division. It might be more properly said that man is a complex dichotomy in difference to a simple dichotomy such as my house dog. She has a physical body and a consciousness of being, complete with independant will and so must be admitted to having a simple "soul", but she does not have a spirit as the "spirit of MAN is the lamp of the Lord.", not Rover. Man, having the addition of a spirit is a complex dichotomy as his spirit and soul are both spiritual or breathlike or unseen, yet never-the-less real, just like our breath is unseen and yet real. Since the body and soul and spirit of a human may all be distinguished between each other by different functions we may safely consider ourselves as being triune by way of compartment, and yet we are biune by way of major division and redemptively as well. Our material bodies are just that; material, while our souls and spirits are both alike immaterial and so we are biune by that major division. Also, we read of only two resurrections in the Holy Bible, not three. God Almighty is saving us in two operations: Our spirit & soulish inward man now and our physical outward man at the general resurrection day /or/ the spiritual parts of man is being saved now with the physical part of man later. So you see we are biune in that sense, and yet still three in compartment.

 

[Mikecpking]

He, or she, is triune by compartment and biune by major division. It might be more properly said that man is a complex dichotomy in difference to a simple dichotomy such as my house dog. She has a physical body and a consciousness of being, complete with independant will and so must be admitted to having a simple "soul", but she does not have a spirit as the "spirit of MAN is the lamp of the Lord.", not Rover. Man, having the addition of a spirit is a complex dichotomy as his spirit and soul are both spiritual or breathlike or unseen, yet never-the-less real, just like our breath is unseen and yet real. Since the body and soul and spirit of a human may all be distinguished between each other by different functions we may safely consider ourselves as being triune by way of compartment, and yet we are biune by way of major division and redemptively as well. Our material bodies are just that; material, while our souls and spirits are both alike immaterial and so we are biune by that major division. Also, we read of only two resurrections in the Holy Bible, not three. God Almighty is saving us in two operations: Our spirit & soulish inward man now and our physical outward man at the general resurrection day /or/ the spiritual parts of man is being saved now with the physical part of man later. So you see we are biune in that sense, and yet still three in compartment.

Did you look at the refutal of the triune and bipartite view of personhood on page one of this thread? Souls are not something separate from the living body and makes no mention of the heart which actually makes 4!

 

[cubanito]

Gee, I forgot I had started this thread, so sorry.

There is only one qualitative difference between mankind and all other animals: worship.

Reason, language, upright posture, opposable thumbs, use of tools, cultural heritage, morality, taboos, all these and more are readily found among animals.

But no animal buries their dead (no, not the elephants, that's a myth). No animal makes an idol. ALL human cultures do these, without exception.
If scientists wanted to be accurate, they should change our designation from homo sapiens to homo religiosus. It is our sole distinguishing feature from all other animals. A mentally retarted adult, or a small child clearly have lower IQ's and language skills than some apes and dolphins. Yet only the humans pray.

So, we have a body. It is clearly separable from the rest of us, or "the resurrection of the FLESH" has no meaning. We have reason, and so do the animals. Most of us, but not all, are smarter than the animals, so it is but a matter of degree. Yet there is something demonstrably different about humans than all other animals: a spiritual awareness.

A second line of reasoning. We were created in God's image. Scripture calls us "gods" as Jesus reminds us. We are like miniature statues of God, which is what "image of" refers to. So God is Triune, not an easily understood concept, but a revealed fact. And so we are biune, or monistic? Not a very good self portrait of God, methinks.

Please note, there's no doubt that Gnosticism mixed the Greek idea of physical-bad, mental/spiritual-good into Christianity. Yet this works the same for bipartite as for tripartite. The true Christian message is that ALL of man was corrupted by Adam's sin.

Why is this important? Well, I don't think it ranks in the top ten Doctrines, and I would agree the Bible is not unequivocably clear on this (though what verses are cited point to tripartite, methinks). However, I think the Reformers were overly concerned with human reason. I think they were too caught up in the fervor of the Renaissance and elevated reason too highly, at times. As a presbyterean pastor once said to me: "Sometimes reformed services seem to be for disembodied brains." I think the Bible calls for a balance, and recognizing there is a spiritual dimension to man, yet not elevatindg that above the other atributes either, is best.

JR

JR

 

[BrandonGray]

I heard somewhere that the star of david was made of two triangles. One symbolizing god as father son and holy spirit and the other as man:mind soul and body. I might be wrong so please correct me if I am.

 

[seekingpurity047]

I believe in Biune, but I am very open to the Triune position. It's not something that I have figured out on a biblical perspective. When it comes to man being biune or triune, it's mostly philosophy and the bible. So, I wouldn't mind learning more about it.

To the glory of God,

Randy