THE CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITY The informal Case Study:
Cover these questions before you begin:
1. Do you think that man has an immaterial and material part?
2. If so, what is the immaterial part?
3. When does a person gain this immaterial part (e.g., conception, birth, "age of accountability?")
After this, you are to go through the different theories about the constitution of man covered in class. (Refer to your notes.) Be sure to explain the significance of the body.
Finally, you are to explain the different theories concerning the creation of the soul. Demonstrate the relevance of this topic to the current issue of abortion.
The Constitution of Man
Words that the Bible uses with reference to the constitution of man:
Body = swma soma= 1 Corinthians 6:19
Soul = yuch psuche = Matthew 16:26
Spirit = pneuma pneuma 1 Corinthians 2:11
Mind = nouj nous dianoia dianoia =Romans 12:2 -Mark 12:30
Heart = kardia cardia = Mark 12:30
Flesh = sarx sarx = Matt. 26:41
Gut, bowels = splagcnon splagchnon = Philippians. 1:8
Two Main Alternatives:
1. Physicalism (Naturalism or Monism)
2. Dualism (Trichotomy or Dichotomy)
Monism
Definition: Gk. monos, "one" or "alone." The teaching that the spirit, soul, and body are all essentially the same or that the spirit and soul do not exist without the body. This often goes by the name "soul sleep."
Adherents: Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Christadelphians, J.A.T. Robertson, neo-orthodoxy.
Dualism: The understanding that the constitution of man is pluralistic in nature, since there is an intermediate state of existence to which the immaterial/immortal part(s) of man goes to await the resurrection
Adherents: Most of Orthodox Christianity
Trichotomy: Gk. trikha, "three parts," and temno, "to cut" The teaching that man is made up of three essential parts: body, soul, and spirit
Body: All that is physical.
Soul: Reason, emotions, will, memories, personality, dispositions.
Spirit: The seat of our being, that which relates to God.
Adherents: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Watchman Nee, Bill Gothard, C.I. Scofield
Dichotomy: Gk. dicha, "two parts" and temno, "to cut." The teaching that man is made up of two essential parts: material (body), and nonmaterial (soul/spirit)
Material: All that is physical
Non-material: Spirit, soul (used interchangeably)
Adherents: Augustine, John Calvin, Hodge, most of historic orthodox Christianity
Conditional Unity: This position affirms both the essential unity of the material and immaterial part of man and the existence of an intermediate state. A person does not have a body and a soul, but is a body and a soul, neither of which alone make up the whole person.
Adherents: Millard Erickson, Anthony Hoekema, Charles Sherlock
Positive Implications of Conditional Unity:
1. The Bible speaks of a unified self in terms of both judgment and redemption.
2. When man fell, he fell as a whole person.
3. When man is redeemed, he is redeemed as a whole person.
4. Our physical condition is intricately linked to that of our soul/spirit. When our soul/spirit is troubled, it has direct and immediate effects on our body.
5. The condition of our soul is intricately linked to our physical condition. When we are unhealthy, fail to get proper exercise, or are chemically depressed, our spirit/soul suffers.
Views Body/Brain = (are the same)
Monism
Views Body/Brain ≠ (are not the same)
Trichotomy
Dichotomy
Conditional Unity
Gnostic Dualism: Man's constitution is physical and spiritual. The physical body is a burdensome, temporary and material confinement out of which we long to escape.
Adherents: Many uninformed Christians who have not taken Humanity and Sin through TTP.
Negative Effects:
1. Produces in some cases an unbalanced view on what it means to be human.
2. Creates a negative view on physical pleasures that God gave man as gifts (sex, food, etc.).
3. Causes people to believe that this life does not really matter.
4. Devalues the physical by placing it secondary to the spiritual.
5. Disillusions people about the nature of their eternal existence.
When does ensoulment take place?
Pre-existence Theory : This theory teaches that people's souls/spirits are eternal and, therefore, preexist the creation of their bodies. The sin nature can be attributed to the former state of existence in which the person sinned.
Adherents: Origen, Delitzsch
Creation Theory: This theory is that God Himself creates each person's soul individually, and then places the soul in the body.
Adherents: Grudem, Hodge, Berkhof, Calvin, and Roman Catholics
Traducian Theory: Comes from the Latin tradux, meaning "inheritance, transmission." This theory teaches that the soul is created in and with the body by the parents. While God is the ultimate creator of all things, he uses people intermediately or as secondary causes.
Adherents: Tertullian, Luther, and Jonathan Edwards
Imago Dei: (Lat. "image of God"). Refers to the fact that humanity carries a unique resemblance to God
Typical Questions:
Do humans carry dignity as God's image bearers?
Do humans alone carry the image of God? What about animals? Do they have the image of God?
What affect did the fall have on the image of God? Did humanity lose this image after the Fall?
How should the fact that man is created in the image of God affect the way we treat one another?
The Image of God characteristics:
Personality: Like God, people are individual beings with self consciousness.
Eternality: Like God, people will exist into eternity.
Relationality: Like God, people have a capacity and drive for relationships.
Volitionality: Like God, people have the freedom and ability to make volitional choices according to their will.
Rationality: Like God, people have the ability to think, contemplate, and reflect on abstract ideas, future plans, and past events, advancing toward a more beneficial existence through problem solving.
Spirituality: Like God, people are spiritual beings possessing an immaterial part of their constitution.
Physicality: Unlike God, people have a material part of their constitution that is corporeal. But like God, people have senses that come as a direct result of our physicality, such as man's ability to see and to hear.
Morality: Like God, people are inherently moral creatures, understanding that there is good and evil (although this was gained as a result of the Fall).
Dominionality: Like God, people have been given authority to rule over creation, using all its resources for their benefit, enjoyment, and survival.
How did the fall affect the Imago Dei?
Options:
1. Man fully retains the imago Dei and only misrepresents it through personal sin.
2. Man fully lost the imago Dei. It is restored only in Christ.
3. The imago Dei has been retained in all men, but marred by sin. It is restored in Christ.
Chapter 4 Creation of the Soul Q&A
ReplyDeleteMaybe a few questions and answers for anyone wishing to comment. These are the questions and answers about when ensoulment takes place.
1. Many people would see this lesson as irrelevant to real life and therefore not important. Do you think the study of the creation of the soul is relevant? Please explain.
As it applies to the Imago Dei, yes I agree it is an important study to know how we are created in the image of God. Scripture distinguishes between the body and the soul/spirit. The study of when ensoulment takes place will definitely determine ones view upon abortion. Pro-abortionists may believe that ensoulment takes place once the fetus takes their first breath [using Gen 2:7 as a focus on the breath of life, and man became a living soul]. It can answer difficult question like “Is the soul corrupted”? And can help to distinguish an orthodox view versus having a Gnostic dualistic view.
2. The pre-existence theory says that our souls pre-existed the creation of our body. How have you seen this view implicitly evidenced by people’s beliefs?
By the interpretation of scripture that we have imputed sin as our souls were physically [the non-physical] present with Adam and Eve during the fall and they would suggest this is why we are also responsible for original sin.
3. The creation view of the soul has been popular throughout church history. Why do you think that this view is attractive?
Although it is platonic in nature, this view may allow for the moving away of original sin as viewed in the pre-existence theory. Not that it is a denial of original sin, but that God creates the soul and then places the soul in the body. The pre-existence theory could have also have been viewed as Gnostic by some standards. Last but not least it seems to alleviate the paradox about Jesus not having original sin. Rather than just pushing the problem in reverse by suggesting Mary as sinless [Immaculate Conception], this view puts Christ as sinless because Mary is not implicitly viewed as sinless in scripture.
This view could also have problems, simply because Jesus was eternal [as spirit] not created in his deity. In other words, Jesus existed in eternity-past [non-created] and does not have the sinful nature. So Jesus would not be prone to original sin [spirit/soul] simply because he was never part of creation during the fall but was the creator before the incarnation [flesh]. To view the flesh as what we long to escape would be Gnostic dualism to the core. And the creation theory would not necessarily fit Jesus’ soul as being created or placed in the body at the same time. That suggesting that Jesus’ soul/spirit did not exist before his physical birth, which has major implications towards Christ’s deity and of course the Trinity.
I do believe that the emphasis being children born of parents which is mother and father is what associates one with original sin [the process of conception-being born into sin]. Since Jesus did not have a mortal father, this along with being eternal [spirit/soul] and the virgin birth having implications that would or may exclude Jesus from this inherited sin. I could be wrong, but I believe some may have viewed this throughout history.
4. The traducian view of the soul says that parents are intermediate causes for the creation of the soul. Do you think that it is possible for this to be the case? Please explain why or why not.
Yes, because God can use people intermediately or as secondary causes, much like Moses, or even the birth of Isaac. This view seems to best explain the inheritance of original sin. Opposing this view could lead to a Gnostic understanding of the separation between the body and the soul by placing a more important value upon the soul than the body. I must admit that this view seems to best support conditional unity [a person is a body and soul].
5. Do you think that it is possible to be a creationist and to support abortion? Keep in mind that, according to the creationist view, we cannot be absolutely certain when God joins the soul with the body? Why or why not?
Yes it is possible to be pro-abortion for a creationist because they could state that the Bible is not specific on when ensoulment takes place, a recent past president views ensoulment as such. They would view the fetus as merely a body or matter that is not a full creation because they may believe that the fetus does not yet have a soul, and if it does not have a soul it is not a complete person. Some could also state that because the fetus does not breathe [Gen 2:7] it is not truly alive as we are outside the womb. Although they forget that the fetus has a heartbeat and how long can one live without a heartbeat or blood for that matter? I would simply ask the pro-abortionists, how importantly does the Bible portray blood?
6. The study of the creation of the soul has become somewhat of a theological pastime. Most people have never dealt with the issues presented in this lesson. Why do you think this is the case?
It’s much too difficult simply because there is no exact conclusion in scripture when ensoulment takes place and by whom. Most do not like to hold things in tension.
7. How is your thinking most challenged by this lesson? Please explain.
Selecting a view from the three that best explains when ensoulment actually takes place. Although I do not believe in the pre-existence theory the remaining two views also have their share of problems when it comes to ensoulment and of course how Christ was not affected by imputed sin.
There are three questions that were asked on the post in which I will share some thoughts and hopefully give some good food for thought.
ReplyDelete1. Do you think that man has an immaterial and material part?
Yes I do. The part that is identified as the immaterial part I believe is our "spirit" which is our spiritual existence. I believe another immaterial part is our "soul" which is the life within our body and can be identified at times as our emotions and our heart, and even at times who we are as a person. The material part is our body, the physical aspect of our existence. One is our spirit, another is our soul, and another is our body, and it is important to see that there are distinctions with "spirit" and "soul", and the "body". Some say that the spirit and soul are one of the same but I don't believe that can be 100% correct since Hebrews 4:12 gives an indication that this is not so.
"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 and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
Another point is from 1 Thess. 5:23 which states: "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."
Clearly within Scripture the spirit, soul, and body are distinct, though there maybe some similarities.
2. If so, what is the immaterial part?
That is the "spirit" and "soul" of man. Both these words have many applications in the Scriptures and at times can be very similar. Here are a couple theological ways to understand "spirit" and "soul".
psuche: Denotes "the breath, the breath of life," then "the soul," in its various meanings. The NT uses "may be analyzed approximately as follows: (a) the natural life of the body, Mt. 2:20; Lu. 12:22; Ac. 20:10; Re. 8:9; 12:11; cp. Le. 17:11; 2Sa. 14:7; Es. 8:11; (b) the immaterial, invisible part of man, Mt. 10:28; Ac. 2:27; cp. 1Ki. 17:21; (c) the disembodied (or "unclothed" or "naked," 2Co. 5:3,4) man, Re. 6:9; (d) the seat of personality, Lu. 9:24, explained as == "own self," Lu. 9:25; Heb. 6:19; 10:39; cp. Isa. 53:10 with 1Ti. 2:6; (e) the seat of the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desires, Mt. 11:29; Lu. 1:46; 2:35; Ac. 14:2,22; cp. Ps. . 84:2; 139:14; Isa. 26:9; (f) the seat of will and purpose, Mt. 22:37; Ac. 4:32; Eph. 6:6; Php. 1:27; Heb. 12:3; cp. Nu. 21:4; De. 11:13; (g) the seat of appetite, Re. 18:14; cp. Ps. . 107:9; Pr. 6:30; Isa. 5:14 ("desire"); 29:8; (h) persons, individuals, Ac. 2:41,43; Ro. 2:9; Jas. 5:20; 1Pe. 3:20; 2Pe. 2:14; cp. Ge. 12:5; 14:21 ("persons"); Le. 4:2 ('any one'); Eze. 27:13; of dead bodies, Nu. 6:6, lit., "dead soul;" and of animals, Le. 24:18, lit., "soul for soul;" (i) the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect:, 1st person, Joh. 10:24 ("us"); Heb. 10:38; cp. Ge. 12:13; Nu. 23:10; Jud. 16:30; Ps. . 120:2 ("me"); 2nd person, 2Co. 12:15; Heb. 13:17; Jas. 1:21; 1Pe. 1:9; 2:25; cp. Le. 17:11; 26:15; 1Sa. 1:26; 3rd person, 1Pe. 4:19; 2Pe. 2:8; cp. Ex. 30:12; Job. 32:2, Heb. "soul," Sept. "self;" (j) an animate creature, human or other, 1Co. 15:45; Re. 16:3; cp. Ge. 1:24; 2:7,19; (k) "the inward man," the seat of the new life, Lu. 21:19 (cp. Mt. 10:39); 1Pe. 2:11; 3Jo. 1:2. "With (j) compare a-psuchos, "soulless, inanimate," 1Co. 14:7. "With (f) compare di-psuchos, "two-souled," Jas. 1:8; 4:8; oligo-psuchos, "feeble-souled," 1Th. 5:14; iso-psuchos, "like-souled," Php. 2:20; sum-psuchos, "joint-souled" (with one accord"), Php. 2:2. "The language of Heb. 4:12 suggests the extreme difficulty of distinguishing between the soul and the spirit, alike in their nature and in their activities. Generally speaking the spirit is the higher, the soul the lower element. The spirit may be recognized as the life principle bestowed on man by God, the soul as the resulting life constituted in the individual, the body being the material organism animated by soul and spirit. ... "Body and soul are the constituents of the man according to Mt. 6:25; 10:28; Lu. 12:20; Ac. 20:10; body and spirit according to Lu. 8:55; 1Co. 5:3; 7:34; Jas. 2:26. In Mt. 26:38 the emotions are associated with the soul, in Joh. 13:21 with the spirit; cp. also Ps. . 42:11 with 1Ki. 21:5. In Ps. . 35:9 the soul rejoices in God, in Lu. 1:47 the spirit. "Apparently, then, the relationships may be thus summed up 'Soma, body, and pneuma, spirit, may be separated, pneuma and psuche, soul, can only be distinguished' (Cremer)."* [* From notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 205-207.] (Vines Expository Dictionary, Soul)
pneuma: Primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT uses of the word may be analyzed approximately as follows: "(a) the wind, Joh. 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Heb. 1:7; cp. Am. 4:13, Sept.; (b) the breath, 2Th. 2:8; Re. 11:11; 13:15; cp. Job. 12:10, Sept.; (c) the immaterial, invisible part of man, Lu. 8:55; Ac. 7:59; 1Co. 5:5; Jas. 2:26; cp. Ec. 12:7, Sept.; (d) the disembodied (or 'unclothed,' or 'naked,' 2Co. 5:3,4) man, Lu. 24:37,39; Heb. 12:23; 1Pe. 4:6; (e) the resurrection body, 1Co. 15:45; 1Ti. 3:16; 1Pe. 3:18; (f) the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desires, Mt. 5:3; 26:41; Mr. 2:8; Lu. 1:47,80; Ac. 17:16; 20:22; 1Co. 2:11; 5:3,4; 14:4,15; 2Co. 7:1; cp. Ge. 26:35; Isa. 26:9; Eze. 13:3; Da. 7:15; (g) purpose, aim, 2Co. 12:18; Php. 1:27; Eph. 4:23; Re. 19:10; cp. Ezr. 1:5; Ps. . 78:8; Da. 5:12; (h) the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect: 1st person, 1Co. 16:18; cp. Ge. 6:3; 2nd person, 2Ti. 4:22; Phm. 1:25; cp. Ps. . 139:7; 3rd person, 2Co. 7:13; cp. Isa. 40:13; (i) character, Lu. 1:17; Ro. 1:4; cp. Nu. 14:24; (j) moral qualities and activities: bad, as of bondage, as of a slave, Ro. 8:15; cp. Isa. 61:3; stupor, Ro. 11:8; cp. Isa. 29:10; timidity, 2Ti. 1:7; cp. Jos. 5:1; good, as of adoption, i.e., liberty as of a son, Ro. 8:15; cp. Ps. . 51:12; meekness, 1Co. 4:21; cp. Pr. 16:19; faith, 2Co. 4:13; quietness, 1Pe. 3:4; cp. Pr. 14:29 (k) the Holy Spirit, e.g., Mt. 4:1 (see below); Lu. 4:18; (l) 'the inward man' (an expression used only of the believer, Ro. 7:22; 2Co. 4:16; Eph. 3:16); the new life, Ro. 8:4-6,10,16; Heb. 12:9; cp. Ps. . 51:10; (m) unclean spirits, demons, Mt. 8:16; Lu. 4:33; 1Pe. 3:19; cp. 1Sa. 18:10; (n) angels, Heb. 1:14; cp. Ac. 12:15; (o) divine gift for service, 1Co. 14:12,32; (p) by metonymy, those who claim to be depostories of these gifts, 2Th. 2:2; 1Jo. 4:1-3; (q) the significance, as contrasted with the form, of words, or of a rite, Joh. 6:63; Ro. 2:29; 7:6; 2Co. 3:6; (r) a vision, Re. 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10." * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp 204,205.] Notes: (1) For phantasma, rendered "spirit," Mt. 14:26; Mr. 6:49, AV, see APPARITION. (2) For the distinction between "spirit" and "soul," see under SOUL, last three paragraphs. * The Holy Spirit The "Holy Spirit" is spoken of under various titles in the NT ("Spirit" and "Ghost" are renderings of the same word, pneuma; the advantage of the rendering "Spirit" is that it can always be used, whereas "Ghost" always requires the word "Holy" prefixed.) In the following list the omission of the definite article Mr. s its omission in the original (concerning this see below): "Spirit, Mt. 22:43; Eternal Spirit, Heb. 9:14; the Spirit, Mt. 4:1; Holy Spirit, Mt. 1:18; the Holy Spirit, Mt. 28:19; the Spirit, the Holy, Mt. 12:32; the Spirit of promise, the Holy, Eph. 1:13; Spirit of God, Ro. 8:9; Spirit of (the) living God, 2Co. 3:3; the Spirit of God, 1Co. 2:11; the Spirit of our God, 1Co. 6:11; the Spirit of God, the Holy, Eph. 4:30; the Spirit of glory and of God, 1Pe. 4:14; the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead (i.e., God), Ro. 8:11; the Spirit of your Father, Mt. 10:20; the Spirit of His Son, Ga. 4:6; Spirit of (the) Lord, Ac. 8:39; the Spirit of (the) Lord, Ac. 5:9; (the) Lord, (the) Spirit, 2Co. 3:18; the Spirit of Jesus, Ac. 16:7; Spirit of Christ, Ro. 8:9; the Spirit of Jesus Christ, Php. 1:19; Spirit of adoption, Ro. 8:15; the Spirit of truth, Joh. 14:17; the Spirit of life, Ro. 8:2; the Spirit of grace, Heb. 10:29." * [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 193.] The use or absence of the article in the original where the "Holy Spirit" is spoken of cannot always be decided by grammatical rules, nor can the presence or absence of the article alone determine whether the reference is to the "Holy Spirit." Examples where the Person is meant when the article is absent are Mt. 22:43 (the article is used in Mr. 12:36); Ac. 4:25, RV (absent in some texts); 19:2,6; Ro. 14:17; 1Co. 2:4; Ga. 5:25 (twice); 1Pe. 1:2. Sometimes the absence is to be accounted for by the fact that Pneuma (like Theos) is substantially a proper name, e.g., in Joh. 7:39. As a general rule the article is present where the subject of the teaching is the Personality of the Holy Spirit, e.g., Joh. 14:26, where He is spoken of in distinction from the Father and the Son. See also 15:26 and cp. Lu. 3:22. In Ga. 3:3, in the phrase "having begun in the Spirit," it is difficult to say whether the reference is to the "Holy Spirit" or to the quickened spirit of the believer; that it possibly refers to the latter is not to be determined by the absence of the article, but by the contrast with "the flesh;" on the other hand, the contrast may be between the "Holy Spirit" who in the believer sets His seal on the perfect work of Christ, and the flesh which seeks to better itself by works of its own. There is no preposition before either noun, and if the reference is to the quickened spirit it cannot be dissociated from the operation of the "Holy Spirit." In Ga. 4:29 the phrase "after the Spirit" signifies "by supernatural power," in contrast to "after the flesh," i.e., "by natural power," and the reference must be to the "Holy Spirit;" so in Ga. 5:17. The full title with the article before both pneuma and hagios (the "resumptive" use of the article), lit., "the Spirit the Holy," stresses the character of the Person, e.g., Mt. 12:32; Mr. 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Lu. 2:26; 10:21 (RV); Joh. 14:26; Ac. 1:16; 5:3; 7:51; 10:44,47; 13:2; 15:28; 19:6; 20:23,28; 21:11; 28:25; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:7; 9:8; 10:15. The Personality of the Spirit is emphasized at the expense of strict grammatical procedure in Joh. 14:26; 15:26; 16:8,13,14, where the emphatic pronoun ekeinos, "He," is used of Him in the masculine, whereas the noun pneuma is neuter in Greek, while the corresponding word in Aramaic, the language in which our Lord probably spoke, is feminine (rucha, cp. Heb. ruach). The rendering "itself" in Ro. 8:16,26, due to the Greek gender, is corrected to "Himself" in the RV. The subject of the "Holy Spirit" in the NT may be considered as to His Divine attributes; His distinct Personality in the Godhead; His operation in connection with the Lord Jesus in His birth, His life, His baptism, His death; His operations in the world; in the church; His having been sent at Pentecost by the Father and by Christ; His operations in the individual believer; in local churches; His operations in the production of Holy Scripture; His work in the world, etc. (Vines Expository Dictionary, Spirit)
3. When does a person gain this immaterial part (e.g., conception, birth, "age of accountability?")
From Scripture we are told that God breathed into us life and we became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7) Now we as living souls had a physical aspect and obviously had a soul and was a living soul, but where does the aspect of the "spirit" come in. We as we are being conceived within the womb are being made into a living soul through the process in which God has designed the birth process. As to our "spirit" which is the eternal aspect nothing is mentioned on this being made, given to us at a certain time. The answer to this is from silence, which is very interesting. God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate what they were not supposed to eat. Well they did not die right then when they ate, but they as Scripture indicates died spiritually and that is how sin entered into the realm of mankind. We are told to have a spiritual nature through out the Scriptures, and in the NT we are told that we are dead spiritually unless we come to accept Christ and then are reborn, or born again. So I believe from observational reading that we are born with the spiritual aspect and that is was there from the very beginning of our life process from the womb. To say this came later, after we were born, would be a far stretch.
This is my observations and thoughts on these questions. I hope this helps and is useful.
KP
Personally I do not feel that having a either trichotomist or dichotomist view is nothing to be overly concerned about—creating a division between the two camps. I do agree that both camps have their share of difficulties, but both are very viable views within orthodox Christianity.
ReplyDeleteThe Trichotomy view uses the following verses:
1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12
1 Thess 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself make you completely holy and may your spirit and soul and body be kept entirely blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Dichotomist view point :
1 Thessalonians 5:23 is speaking of the completeness of man. (All of who we are). Some other examples of where this is not the case about the spirit—where spirit is not spoken about. Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27. (No mention of spirit in these verses—great commandments). Therefore these are not a parts list.
Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart.”
Dichotomist view point :
It should be noted that joints and marrow are not separable substances. Joints and marrow are two aspects of one thing, so we would view the two aspects of one body, a physical entity. We could therefore view the soul and spirits as two aspects of one entity.
Dichotomy used synonymously :
Luke 1:46-47 “my soul exalts the lord and my spirit has begun to rejoice (NET Notes: Or “rejoices.” The translation renders this aorist, which stands in contrast to the previous line’s present tense, as ingressive, which highlights Mary’s joyous reaction to the announcement. A comprehensive aorist is also possible here.)
Isa 26:9 I look for you during the night, my spirit within me seeks you at dawn, for when your judgments come upon the earth, those who live in the world learn about justice.
Here are the typical responses to the trichotomy view.
1. The Bible often uses descriptive terms to speak of the different aspects of man's nature. This does not necessitate a constitutional division of the person. For example, does Mark 12:30 promote a four-fold division of the constitution of man?
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and all your strength.”
2. If it were true that the composition of man reflects the plurality of the Trinity, then each component—body, soul, and spirit—is a separate person. The comparison with the Trinity is not consistent and carries no weight. (Separate consciousness)
3. The word “Dead” is being taken too literally. To be dead simply means to be separate from. Our entire being is separate from God as a result of the fall. Therefore, our entire being is dead, not just the spirit.
Defense of Dichotomy:
1. Unless the Scripture explicitly teaches that the immaterial part of man is a plurality, it should be assumed that is one.
2. When there seems to be a distinction made in Scripture between the soul and spirit, it is not an ontological distinction but a functional distinction. It can be compared to our modern day distinction between the heart and the mind. For example, someone may say that they have accepted something in their mind, but their heart cannot accept it. They are not saying that their heart has a separate cognitive function other than their mind, but that a certain aspect of their mind (i.e. emotion) cannot accept it.