tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331156725554508589.post5640915434272950452..comments2023-10-04T05:09:54.848-05:00Comments on Contra Mundum: Why Trichotomy is Wrong, The Biblical Evidence For DichotomyAndyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02908788730958708701noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331156725554508589.post-85061607430406983022013-09-05T14:42:27.462-05:002013-09-05T14:42:27.462-05:00Thanks for interacting. I would suggest that you r...Thanks for interacting. I would suggest that you read the entire series. It will clarify why I assert that man is, by constitution, dichotomous. These are not philosophical arguments, they are biblical ones. As the Reformers said, “If it is not Biblical, it is not theological.” Philosophical categories may occasionally help us organize our thinking or systematize our explanations, but at the end of the day, the only thing any Christian should ever care about is what Scripture actually says. This is not a denominational issue, and nothing on my blog ever is. I would place myself in the Reformed camp, because I believe this represents the true teaching of Scripture and has a demonstrable stream of continuity throughout 2,000 years of Church history to back it up.<br /><br />As far as the analogy to the Trinity goes, Christians have always rejected as heretical the notion that God is 1/3 Father, 1/3 Son and 1/3 Holy Spirit. God is not comprised of parts. He is one in His divine Essence while subsisting in Three Persons. The problem with making a trichotomous view of man an analogy for the Trinity is that, even if I am composed of 3 “parts” (which I deny), I am still only ONE person. That makes this a horrible analogy for the Trinity, for it denies that God is actually Three Persons. As far as the terms “soul” and “spirit” go, check my whole series and you will see that I have gone through the whole Bible to demonstrate that the terms, both in Hebrew and Greek, are used interchangeably. <br />Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02908788730958708701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331156725554508589.post-86822997906575301792013-09-05T09:11:00.160-05:002013-09-05T09:11:00.160-05:00I am not a theologian, nor a student of philosophy...I am not a theologian, nor a student of philosophy, and I speak from a mere Christian point of view of no particular denomination. <br /><br />But it is my understanding that those that do not accept Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary, are dead in the spirit, but still possess a "personality" i.e. soul, and a body. <br /><br />I am of the belief that some human beings are dichotomous and others are trichotomous in that they are alive in the spirit. I illustrate this as being fashioned in the Image of God, who has three parts, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus. Through original sin, what was once trichotomous, becomes dichotomous, as the spirit has died. It is only through the sacrifice of Jesus that one can become trichotomous once again. This is my reasoning. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331156725554508589.post-12929389847525761382012-05-09T15:27:41.950-05:002012-05-09T15:27:41.950-05:00Thanks for your time in replying to my article. I ...Thanks for your time in replying to my article. I did not take 1 Corinthians 15:44-47 into account because, as the context clearly shows, this passage is not describing the composition of man. It is addressing the nature of a man at the resurrection. The comparison is between corruptible animal bodies, and incorruptible glorified bodies. <br /><br />On the passage in question, Matthew Henry writes, “Believers shall at the resurrection have bodies, made fit to be forever united with spirits made perfect. To God all things are possible. He is the Author and Source of spiritual life and holiness, unto all his people, by the supply of his Holy Spirit to the soul; and he will also quicken and change the body by his Spirit. The dead in Christ shall not only rise, but shall rise thus gloriously changed. The bodies of the saints, when they rise again, will be changed. They will be then glorious and spiritual bodies, fitted to the heavenly world and state, where they are ever afterwards to dwell. The human body in its present form, and with its wants and weaknesses, cannot enter or enjoy the kingdom of God.” <br /><br />Notice that Henry speaks of “spirits” made perfect; and in the very next breath says that our bodies will be raised by the supply of the Holy Spirit to our “soul.” Henry, like all orthodox theologians of the Church saw the two words as synonymous. The contrast of the passage is not between soul and spirit, but between the earthly body and the heavenly, glorified body of the resurrected believer.<br /><br />As far as James 3:15 goes, again the contrast is not between soul and spirit but between natural, unregenerate “wisdom” and spiritual, i.e., heavenly “wisdom.” That this is the proper way to understand the use of the word ψυχική, is evident from the way in which the same word is employed by Jude in verse 19 of his Epistle where he writes, “οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.” Here Jude defines ψυχική as unregenerate, because he says they πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες (have not the Spirit).<br /><br />As for the Hebrews passage, I spent the whole next part of this 8 part series treating the proper exegesis of it and 1 Thess. 5:23Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02908788730958708701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331156725554508589.post-68845375349188938672012-05-04T09:49:45.005-05:002012-05-04T09:49:45.005-05:00Thank you sir for this well documented scriptural ...Thank you sir for this well documented scriptural thorough work. I understand that your work is not accomplished yet and still on the process. However, If I find that your conclusion jumps over putting the other side evidences into scrutiny.<br /><br />I would think that these scriptures have to be taken into consideration,<br /><br />I. first, Paul heare clearly compare the natural (soul-oriented) man as opposed to the new creatino in Christ, that is the spiritual man,<br /><br />"... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul (ψυχην)," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit. But not the spiritual first, but the natural (ψυχικον); afterward the spiritual. The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven. " (1Co 15:44-47)<br /><br />II. Coupled with this scripture from James,<br />"This is not the wisdom coming down from above, but is earthly, sensual (ψυχικη), devilish," (Jam 3:15) the point is made clearer as a solid biblical line of thought.<br /><br />III. This scripture is the most challenging one against the Bichotomy theory, "For the Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb4:12)<br />Unless one interprets this Pauline passage as complete literary exaggeration, it tells exactly all what Trichotomists need in support for their theory! <br /><br />I do not claim a point finally made. I am only adding the yonder side argument. Actually I think that scripture is not meant in the first place with deciding upon such a philological debate. <br /><br />Accept my appreciation in Christ,<br />Deacon Basil, a, k, a, Christopher Mark!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331156725554508589.post-85868623254040134382011-09-25T20:44:49.269-05:002011-09-25T20:44:49.269-05:00Thanks for posting this, Andy. I remember studyin...Thanks for posting this, Andy. I remember studying this issue when I was a Pentecostal student at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God. The professor sided with the bi-partite view, although he conceded that it might be "possible" that the tripartite view was correct. He had to make that concession since Pentecostals place the final emphasis on experience and not on Scripture.<br /><br />Non-cessationist "Reformed" ministers and theologians are not truly Reformed in my opinion.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.com