-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I would say your first mistake is relying on Word Faith heretics like Hinn and Copeland for anything.
I think there is a case for both bipartite and tripartite. Meaning I am not sure it matters.
The best theology book I have ever read is Theology for the Community of God*, by Stanley J. Grenz. He does have a chapter on The trichotomist and dichotomist viewpoints, and first presents Augustus Strong's view, in that the human person is a "substantial dichotomy" and a "functional trichotomy". The dichotomists are correct concerning the human ontology. The human person consists of only two substantial entites. But the trichotomist understanding also reflects a truth about the human essence, namely that we have the capacity to relate to God (spirit), others or ourselves (soul) and the physical world (body).
He goes on to say that modern theologians tend to reject any concept of multiple substantial entities. G.C. Berkouwer capsulized the modern findings:
"We can say that in our times, under the influence of Biblical research, a fairly general consensus of opinion has arisen among theologians. They are increasingly conscious of the fact that the Biblical view of man shows him to us in an impressive diversity, but that it never loses sight of the unity of the whole man, but rather brings it out and accentuates it."
Christian philosopher of science, John Polkinghorne calls for a unitary anthropology. The human person is a psychosomatic unity, an animated body, who "is able to participate in a noetic world of ideas and purposes, as well as being able to act within the physical world." However, this is not a modern invention, but rather goes back to Gen. 2:7 with the terms ruach (spirit) and nephesh (soul). We are living souls.
The book is much more detailed than this, and a good starting point to drop all these old concepts and find a holistic human being, instead of something divisible, where there is no real division.
*158-161.
I think there is a case for both bipartite and tripartite. Meaning I am not sure it matters.
The best theology book I have ever read is Theology for the Community of God*, by Stanley J. Grenz. He does have a chapter on The trichotomist and dichotomist viewpoints, and first presents Augustus Strong's view, in that the human person is a "substantial dichotomy" and a "functional trichotomy". The dichotomists are correct concerning the human ontology. The human person consists of only two substantial entites. But the trichotomist understanding also reflects a truth about the human essence, namely that we have the capacity to relate to God (spirit), others or ourselves (soul) and the physical world (body).
He goes on to say that modern theologians tend to reject any concept of multiple substantial entities. G.C. Berkouwer capsulized the modern findings:
"We can say that in our times, under the influence of Biblical research, a fairly general consensus of opinion has arisen among theologians. They are increasingly conscious of the fact that the Biblical view of man shows him to us in an impressive diversity, but that it never loses sight of the unity of the whole man, but rather brings it out and accentuates it."
Christian philosopher of science, John Polkinghorne calls for a unitary anthropology. The human person is a psychosomatic unity, an animated body, who "is able to participate in a noetic world of ideas and purposes, as well as being able to act within the physical world." However, this is not a modern invention, but rather goes back to Gen. 2:7 with the terms ruach (spirit) and nephesh (soul). We are living souls.
The book is much more detailed than this, and a good starting point to drop all these old concepts and find a holistic human being, instead of something divisible, where there is no real division.
*158-161.
I'm not crazy about that 'wholeistic' approach, especially seeing that the body of decay is easier to see separated from the spirit and "soul" as in ..
2Corinthians 5:1-4 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
2Corinthians 5:1-4 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
Last edited:
K
Created in the "image'' of God. Spirit , mind, Body. When Jesus was baptised a voice from heaven said "this my son in whom I am well pleased" and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove. Then in John 1. We see that word was with God and the word was God and the word became flesh and dwelt among us.
I think its plain and simple.
I think its plain and simple.
E
I look at it this way.
Man was given a body and soul. He was also given a spirit. this spirit allowed the human soul to relate to God. When sin entered the world. The spirit died. And thus the means of relationship with a spiritual being (god) was Broken. When God cam to restor mankind, He made the possibly for his spirit to be made alive again. And thus restore the relationship with God.
A nonbeliever has a body and soul. The body will die, the soul will be given a new body which will reside apart form God for eternity. But his soul will remember everything who he is and what he did. The believer will also be given a new body, yet retain his soul. It is his spirit which will alow him to relate with God for an eternity.
The body is the shell. The soul is our thoughts, our minds. The spirit is what relates with God
Man was given a body and soul. He was also given a spirit. this spirit allowed the human soul to relate to God. When sin entered the world. The spirit died. And thus the means of relationship with a spiritual being (god) was Broken. When God cam to restor mankind, He made the possibly for his spirit to be made alive again. And thus restore the relationship with God.
A nonbeliever has a body and soul. The body will die, the soul will be given a new body which will reside apart form God for eternity. But his soul will remember everything who he is and what he did. The believer will also be given a new body, yet retain his soul. It is his spirit which will alow him to relate with God for an eternity.
The body is the shell. The soul is our thoughts, our minds. The spirit is what relates with God
R
i used to believe in the dualistic division of body and soul or spirit...with soul and spirit being two different words for exactly the same thing...
but then i thought about the biblical teaching where your spirit wants to do one thing but your body wants to do something else...
and i asked myself what part actually -decides what to do-?
so i figured there had to be a third part...which lines up with the doctrine of body and soul and spirit in a threefold division...
the body would be all the physical stuff...the soul would be the thing that includes will and decision making power...and the spirit would be the thing that includes identity and self awareness...
but then i thought about the biblical teaching where your spirit wants to do one thing but your body wants to do something else...
and i asked myself what part actually -decides what to do-?
so i figured there had to be a third part...which lines up with the doctrine of body and soul and spirit in a threefold division...
the body would be all the physical stuff...the soul would be the thing that includes will and decision making power...and the spirit would be the thing that includes identity and self awareness...
Ok, let's have some fun. My picture is this. Picture a lake being fed by a sream/river.
The body is the cavity of the lake.
The stream/river is the spirit flowing into the cavity (body) forming and refreshing the body of water (soul) we call the lake.
With the unregenerate the spirit (stream/river) has been stopped (cut off) from the lake and thus though the lake exists it is not replenished and thus stagnates and dies. The soul is nothing but the body and remnant of the spirit.
With the regenerate the the river once again flows into the lake quickening the stagnant water sitting in the cavity and so the soul (interaction of body and spirit) is made alive.
Thus Gen 2:7 stands as spirit and body with the soul as an interaction between the two. (hehe)
The body is the cavity of the lake.
The stream/river is the spirit flowing into the cavity (body) forming and refreshing the body of water (soul) we call the lake.
With the unregenerate the spirit (stream/river) has been stopped (cut off) from the lake and thus though the lake exists it is not replenished and thus stagnates and dies. The soul is nothing but the body and remnant of the spirit.
With the regenerate the the river once again flows into the lake quickening the stagnant water sitting in the cavity and so the soul (interaction of body and spirit) is made alive.
Thus Gen 2:7 stands as spirit and body with the soul as an interaction between the two. (hehe)
T
The OP listed MANY places where scriptures promoted dualistic division (not exhaustive) and four verses that seemed to promote a trifled division (WITH COMMENTS AS TO WHY THEY MIGHT NOT MEAN THAT) and claimed that those verses were exhaustive. The dualistic illustrations were often extended through large portions of scripture while the multi-division ones were "one-mention-and-done" with no elaboration. It showed what difference it makes - how are we sanctified? Hinn and Haggin have a radically different idea on, for instance, sanctification and that is highlighted in the OP. Sanctification is everything that we do, and everything that is done to us for holy living in this world. It is very practical. I conceded that a tri- or multi-division may be possible but questioned is it necessary? Should we build doctrines (such as sanctification) that REQUIRE a tri-division view while a dual view is not only possible, but much more common in scripture?
People have responded by:
1. Quoting one verse (always one of the ones given in the OP - confirming that they ARE exhaustive) with one mention of a tri-fold division and building doctrine from the verse - IGNORING THE DUALISTIC VERSES GIVEN in the OP
2. Claiming that a tri-fold view is possible, too (point given in the OP)
3. Denying that a tri-fold division is possible
4. Asking why it even matters (IGNORING the process of sanctification, as outlined in the OP)
The OP asked for theological works, (not popular books) that defend the tri-fold view of humans (and, by inference, Hinn and Haggins view sanctification). One person mentioned theological works, but none of the authors mentioned, to my knowledge, promote this view.
So let me rephrase the question, are there any theological writings (not popular books) that come from the tri-division camp of Haggin, Hinn, et. al.?
People have responded by:
1. Quoting one verse (always one of the ones given in the OP - confirming that they ARE exhaustive) with one mention of a tri-fold division and building doctrine from the verse - IGNORING THE DUALISTIC VERSES GIVEN in the OP
2. Claiming that a tri-fold view is possible, too (point given in the OP)
3. Denying that a tri-fold division is possible
4. Asking why it even matters (IGNORING the process of sanctification, as outlined in the OP)
The OP asked for theological works, (not popular books) that defend the tri-fold view of humans (and, by inference, Hinn and Haggins view sanctification). One person mentioned theological works, but none of the authors mentioned, to my knowledge, promote this view.
So let me rephrase the question, are there any theological writings (not popular books) that come from the tri-division camp of Haggin, Hinn, et. al.?