On another thread the subject of the tripartite nature of man was brought up. That is that man comprises of a body, soul and spirit. It appears that this is a position disputed by some as error and that those who believe and teach such are liable to go into other extremes of error.I would like to consider if the doctrine of man being tripartite is in fact error or not.The scriptures state clearly in at least two places regarding this truth...."And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess 5:23).Here there is a clear distinction between spirit, soul and body."For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb 4:12).Here we see that although the soul and spirit are very closely connected and can be hard to separate, they are in fact separate (in the same way as joints and marrow are seperate) and the Word of God is that which can show us what is in fact soul and that which is spirit.Now I would agree that any teaching that over emphasises the separation of any of the three elements can lead to erroneous doctrine and practice because we should view our lives as a whole. One part always affects the other and one part cannot be treated separately. However the truth seems clear to me that our make up is clearly three parts, body, soul and spirit.In addition to the clear scripture references there are also types in scripture that also speak into this reality. For example the temple had three parts, the outer court, the holy place and the holy of holies. Also there are three heavens spoken about in scripture, the physical atmosphere of heaven around the earth (sky), the spiritual heaven where spiritual principalities operate and the heaven of God's throne. God Himself is tripartite, Father Son and Holy Spirit.Therefore my question is,on what basis do people question this teaching and why should it be any basis for error any more that any truth that is pushed beyond it's limits can become error?
Therefore my question is,on what basis do people question this teaching and why should it be any basis for error any more that any truth that is pushed beyond it's limits can become error? Heydave
Thank you amrkelly for emphasizing the difference between soul and spirit and how glossing over those differences to the point of denying they exist is in conflict with Biblical truth. I agree with both you and Heydave that the Bible teaches the truth of soul and spirit. Anyone who says this teaching is in error are themselves in error.But Heydave was asking for such people who think soul and spirit being separate entities is heretical to come forward and explain their position. I also would like to hear how they could argue such a bizarre thing. I've never run across anyone who holds such a position myself. Perhaps they assume that the teaching of soul and spirit implies that we are two separate persons in one body. I've never heard anyone say that and if they did it would be wrong. We are tri-PART, body, soul and spirit.I also welcome anyone who denies the truth of soul and spirit to explain their position.
I think we have 3 parts and I think the Bible teaches that. Being created in Gods image means we were created as spiritual beings. Our spirit is tainted by sin until we are born again. The "new creation" we become refers to our spirit. Our "soul" is simply our mind and emotions. These are not re-created when we are saved but we are able to transform them through the renewing of our minds (rom 12:) assuming that our spirit is reborn. Our body is simply our flesh, obviously.
Well there seems to be a consensus in affirming that the bible teaches man has a body soul and spirit. Maybe I was wrong, but I was sure it was suggested that there were those who considered this to be wrong and would even lead to error. I just wanted to understand why they took that view.
Now, I might be stating this incorrectly, but I believe that those who believe in "soul sleep" object to dichotomy or trichotomy because they believe that the entire body will be raised at the final resurrection and that their "soul" will not be severed at death in some disembodied state. I know of some perfectly wonderful Christians who believe this and while I disagree (but not super strongly) it is not grounds to divide over IMO.
Well there seems to be a consensus in affirming that the bible teaches man has a body soul and spirit. Maybe I was wrong, but I was sure it was suggested that there were those who considered this to be wrong and would even lead to error. I just wanted to understand why they took that view. Heydave
In seeking to understand why the trichotomous view is held with such concern by some believers, I would like to explain my thinking a little further. To do this I must have a point of reference. My point of reference will be the following comment I made earlier.
There has always been an occult equivalence of these terms which have over time become so closely paralleled with the true meaning of these words, that today claiming a trichotomous understanding of man, is beginning to be expressed itself as an occult insight. In short if you hold such an understanding you will eventually be called a sorcerer.
Thou prayest, and judgest him that prayeth not. Thou fasteth, and condemneth him that fasteth not. Whosoever doeth not that thou doest, thou thinkest thyself better than he: beware lest thy fast pertain to thy flesh. Thy brother hath need of thy help, thou in the mean space mumblest in thy prayers unto God, and wilt not be known of thy brother’s necessity. God shall abhor these prayers: for how shall God hear thee while thou prayest, when thou which art a man canst not find in thy heart to hear another man. Perceive also another thing. Thou lovest thy wife for this cause only, that she is thy wife. Thou doest no great thing, for this thing is common as well to infidels as to thee: or else thou lovest her for none other thing but because she is to thee pleasant and delectable. Thy love now draweth to thee fleshward. Erasmus 1501