anthropology, christology, soteriology
Instructor: Alan Scholes Institute of Biblical Studies
SESSION 5: OUR SOUL AND SPIRIT (1/7)
Objectives: By the end of this session you should be able to:
1.Recognize the arguments for, and who holds to the “tripartate,” “bipartate,” and “wholistic” views.
2.Distinguish between the three views of the origin of the immaterial.
Session Theme: You are more than just a body!
I.We are more than physical.
A.Arguments for Tripartite view. (Trichotomism)
- 1 Thessalonians 5:23
2.Hebrews 4:12
3.Parallel to Trinity.
4.They seem to be used differently.
a.Soul is who the person is. In Romans 13:1, Numbers 23:10, and Leviticus 21:11 the word soul is used for the person. In Genesis 35:18 and Romans 11:3 the same words for soul are translated "life." Jeremiah 31:25, Leviticus 26:11, and Jeremiah 12:7 teach that the soul is the seat of the emotions.
b.Spirit is the center of the believer's relationship with God according to Luke 1:47, Psalm 51:10-11, and 2 Corinthians 4:16.
5.It was held by Church fathers Clement, Origen, and Gregory; by theologians Roos, Beck, and Delitzsch. It was popularized by writers Andrew Murray, Watchman Nee, Charles Soloman, and Hal Lindsay. Theologically it has been defended by Ryrie and Thiessen.
Thiessen argues for trichotomy
Paul seems to think of body, soul, and spirit as three distinct parts of man's nature (1 Thess. 5:23). The same thing seems to be indicated in Heb. 4:12, where the Word is said to pierce "as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow." In other words, man's immaterial nature is looked upon as one nature, but as composed of two parts. Sometimes the parts are sharply distinguished; at other times, by metonymy, they are used for the whole being.
Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 161.
B.Arguments for Bipartite View. (Dichotomism)
- The fact that there are two different words used for soul and spirit does not prove that the biblical writers thought of them as separate, distinct parts of the human makeup.
Berkhof Argues FOR THE BIPARTITE VIEW
Trichotomists seek support in the fact that the Bible, as they see it, recognizes two constituent parts of human nature in addition to the lower or material element, namely, the soul (Heb., nephesh; Greek, psuche) and the spirit (Heb., ruach; Greek, pnuema). But the fact that these terms are used with great frequency in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that they designate component parts rather than different aspects of human nature. A careful study of Scripture clearly shows that it uses the words interchangeably. Notice the parallelism in Luke 1:46, 47: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." The Scriptural formula for man is in some passages "body and soul," Matt. 6:25; 10:28; and in others, "body and spirit," Eccl. 12:7; I Cor. 5:3, 5.
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 193-194.
2.The Tripartite view is inconsistent. If I Thess. 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 teach three parts, why don't they hold that there are four parts? See Lk. 10:27 and Mark 12:30.
Buswell argues THAT the TRIPARTITE VIEW IS INCONSISTENT
Trichotomists sometimes recite with great emphasis the words of this text, "spirit and soul and body," emphasizing the word as though it were absolutely irrefragable* proof that spirit and soul are distinguishable and separable substantive entities. But the same argument would lead to quadratomy if one should quote Luke 10:27, heart and soul and mind and strength" with the same emphasis. It is surprising that church history has not developed a quadratomy based on the saying of Jesus, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself" (Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30). Christian theology has never been disturbed by any party arguing that "heart" is a distinct substantive entity, or that "mind" is a separable thing in itself. The words "heart," "mind," and "affections," splangchna are not synonyms; and the arguments usually advanced for trichotomy would hold just as well for a substantive distinction between what these three terms designate, as for a substantive distinction between "soul" and "spirit."
Buswell, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 244-245
(*"Irrefragable" means "unanswerable, undeniable.")
3.The Bipartite view has been held by Augustine and the church in the Middle Ages, Luther and Calvin and many contemporary Reformed theologians including Grudem.
C.Arguments for the Wholistic View. (Monism)
1.The distinction between “soul” and “body” is foreign to Hebrew thought and is not made at all in the Old Testament.
2.The different words used in the New Testament (flesh, soul, spirit, etc.) are really just synonyms for the whole person. (See Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., p. 529.)
3.The distinction will lead to a devaluing of the body and asceticism.
4.In the last 70 years, monism has gathered a number of adherents such as postmodern philosopher, Nancey Murphy, and also a number of Calvinists such as Erickson ("contingent monism") and the Reformed theologian, G. C. Berkouwer.
Berkouwer argues for monism
Now, however, the question arises whether, since the [Reformed] Church rejected trichotomy (because of its dualistic background, which broke the unity of man's nature), we do not have even more reason to reject dichotomy. Does not the dualistic tension so visible in trichotomy become even more acute in a dichotomistic view? . . .
Though Scripture gives us no exposition of the nature of all the relationships in man, the whole Scriptural witness deals with the whole man in the actuality of his existence. The problems of dualism and polar tensions can only arise when man is alienated from his created fullness and his relationship to God; these problems are themselves but a reflection of the break which sin and death brought into human actuality. But we can never see man from the Biblical viewpoint as long as we abstract the "real man" from his bodily existence. Christ was concerned with the whole man in His many miracles of healing, when He took as His, and was concerned with, the need and sickness and pain in the whole man (cf. Matt. 8:17). This healing was the sign of the reconciling and victorious Kingdom which in Him and with Him came to be. Because of His bodily resurrection, man is called to His service -- and who else than the whole man would be called? This man is affected by the curse of sin in his whole existence, and the devils must be called out of him, so that an inexorable divine halt may be called to the desecration of his humanity, as God shows His concern for His people in the concreteness of their creaturely existence.
G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, pp. 211, 230-231.
D.The Bible lists many “parts” of a human being:
1.Conscience - Gk. sundeidesis, "an accompanying knowledge." Knowledge of self in relation to right and wrong, Rom. 2:15.
2.Will - the ability to put forth effort and make choices, Dan. 8:4; Lk. 24:51.
3.Heart - the seat of a person's inner life, Matthew 15:1920; 1 Peter 3:4.
4.Mind - the capacity to know and understand, Luke 24:45; Romans 1:28; Ephesians 4:17; etc.
5.Affections (Greek, literally "bowels") -- the seat of emotion, especially sympathetic regard and love, 2 Corinthians 6:12, 7:15; Philemon 12:20 (NASB -- "heart").
E.A possible solution:
1.A recognition that humans were created as a unity.
2.Two major distinctions within that unity -- physical and non-physical.
3.Two primary sub-divisions of the non-physical -- soul and spirit.
4.Several sub-divisions of the soul (or heart).
F.Warning: Some trichotomous theories can lead to viewing the soul (mind and emotions) as bad and only the spirit as good. An example of this would be the aberrant views of Witness Lee, the founder of the “LocalChurch,” who took the trichotomous views of his mentor, Watchman Nee, to a dangerous extreme.
witness lee devalues mind and emotions
We must not serve the Lord by our mind or by our emotions, but in our spirit (Rom. 1:9). When we come to the meetings, we must be dead to ourselves, our desires, our thoughts, and that which we love.... So often we have a certain thought or a certain emotion that we want to express in the meeting. But we must forget our thoughts and emotions and only remember the Lord Himself as life and live by Him....
Witness Lee, The Four Major Steps of Christ, p. 32.
One who is in the mind should refuse his intellect in all spiritual things; he should put aside completely such functions as thinking and considering.... When he reads the Bible, prays, or speaks about spiritual things, he should refuse his thinking, imagining, theorizing, and investigating....
Witness Lee, The Knowledge of Life, p. 33.
II.We have been given an immaterial nature. How? Three views.
A.The Pre-existent Theory. Individual's souls existed before their bodies and the two were joined at conception (or birth).
1.Origin (185-254 AD) was the only Church Father to hold this view.
2.View of the Mormon Church and many Eastern religions (reincarnation).
3.No biblical support for this view.
B.Traducianism. We inherit our non-physical nature from our parents. Arguments for:
1.Seems to best explain our inheritance of a sin nature. (The creationist view might imply that “God created us sinful.”)
2.Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." This seems to indicate that our non-physical nature (including our sin nature) comes from our parents.
3.The Traducian view seems more consistent with the Hebrew view of the connectedness of generations.
EVIDENCE FOR THE TRADUCIAN VIEW
(a) It seems best to accord with Scripture, which represents God as creating the species in Adam (Gen. 1:27), and as increasing and perpetuating it through secondary agencies (1:28; cf. 22). Only once is breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life (2:7, cf. 22; 1 Cor. 11:8. Gen. 4:1; 5:3; 46:26; cf. Acts 17:21-26; Heb. 7:10), and after man's formation God ceases from his work of creation (Gen. 2:2).
(b) It is favored by the analogy of vegetable and animal life, in which increase of numbers is secured, not by a multiplicity of immediate creations, but by the natural derivation of new individuals from a parent stock. A derivation of the human soul from its parents no more implies a materialistic view of the soul and its endless division and subdivision, than the similar derivation of the brute proves the principle of intelligence in the lower animals to be wholly material.
(c) The observed transmission not merely of physical but of mental and spiritual, characteristics in families and races, and especially the uniformly evil moral tendencies and dispositions which all men possess from their birth, are proof that in soul, as well as in body, we derive our being from our human ancestry.
Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 494-495.
4.Traducianism was held by Church Fathers: Tertullian, Rufinus, Apollinarus and Gregory of Nyssa. This is the view of many Lutherans as well as Jonathan Edwards, Shedd, Strong, and (with reservations) Buswell:
Buswell favors traducianism
As between these two views, it does seem to me that there is a certain obvious fact which has been neglected in the historical discussions, and that is the perfect uniformity and regularity of the arrival of a soul whenever a human life begins to be. In our ordinary thinking when we observe such perfect uniformity and regularity in other matters, we usually ascribe the results to the secondary forces which God has created and which He maintains by his divine providence.
Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Vol. I, p. 252.
C.Creationism. Each soul is created by a special act of God (at conception or birth). Arguments for:
1.Creationism reserves greater honor for God (humans are not viewed as “co-creators”).
2.Christ did not inherit a sin nature (therefore the immaterial must be created separately for each person).
3.Traducianism might make procreation seem unholy. (So to preserve the Protestant view of the sanctity of sex in marriage, the Creationist view is favored).
4.This was the dominant view of the Eastern church, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and most Calvinists including Berkhof. (Grudem favors Creationism over the Traducian view.)
Berkhof argues for Creationism
Arguments in favor of Creationism. The following are the more important considerations in favor of this theory.
(1) It is more consistent with the prevailing representations of Scripture than Traducianism. The original account of creation points to a marked distinction between the creation of the body and that of the soul. The one is taken from the earth, while the other comes directly from God. This distinction is kept up throughout the Bible, where body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins, Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 42:5; Zech. 12:1; Heb. 12:9. Cf. Num. 16:22
(2) It is clearly far more consistent with the nature of the human soul than Traducianism. The immaterial and spiritual, and therefore indivisible nature of the soul of man, generally admitted by all Christians, is clearly recognized by Creationism. The traducian theory on the other hand, posits a derivation of essence, which, as is generally admitted, necessarily implies separation or division of essence.
(3) It avoids the pitfalls of Traducianism in Christology and does greater justice to the Scriptural representation of the person of Christ. He was very man, possessing a true human nature, a real body and a rational soul, was born of woman, was made in all points like as we are -- and yet, without sin. He did not, like all other men, share in the guilt and pollution of Adam's transgression. This was possible, because he did not share the same numerical essence which sinned in Adam.
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 199.
III.Conclusion and Application.
1