 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > “Across the Spectrum” - The Human Constitution debate | Forum Quick Jump
|
| Where do you stand in the human constitution debate? | | Monism, humans beings are merely a body of flesh and bones? - 0.0% | | Dichotomy, humans are a union of body and soul? - 20.0% | | Trichotomy, human beings are threefold union of body, soul, and spirit? - 80.0% |
| | 31 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 | | [ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ] |
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/4/2006 9:31 PM (GMT -6) |   |
John N. Darby said...
sparknheart said...
... I like the term that the body is the sense-consciousness, the soul is the self-consciousness, and the spirit is the God-consciousness or moral-consciousness. How does this square with your view? Sounds like it squares very well with my view - and I really like that threefold consciousness description! Did you coin that, or can you refer me to where you first read it?
Hello John,
Here's some more on the "threefold consciousness description" I got from John Woodward.
"The threefold makeup of man fits with many aspects of his design and role. In regard to life, the body has biological life, the soul has personal life, and the (regenerated) spirit has eternal life (cf. the usage of the New Testament vocabulary for life: bios , psuche , and zoe). In regard to aptitude, the body is fitted for the environ-ment of earth, the soul is fitted for personal relation-ships, and the spirit is fitted for worship (John 4:23; Rom 12:11). In regard to spiritual gifts, the body can carry out the soul's decisions, and the soul can cooperate with the spirit (when endued with a gift). Paul indirectly confirms this distinction in his corrective remarks to the Corinthians: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding [soul] is unfruitful." (1 Cor 14:14 cf. 14:2,15,16). In regard to awareness, the body is sense-conscious, the soul is self-conscious, and the (regenerated) spirit is God-conscious (1 Cor 2:14). In regard to organic qualities, the life of the body is distinct from the life of plants, the life of the soul is distinct from the life of animals (depending upon higher reason instead of instinct),and the life of the born-again believer's spirit is distinct from the unbeliever's spirit (Eph 2:1; Jude 19).
In the soul and spirit there are a variety of func-tional attributes. These faculties involve both parts, but are primarily attributed to one or the other. Watchman Nee's extensive work is representative of the allocation of faculties to the soul and spirit among trichotomist writers in this century. Nee identified the faculties of the soul as will, intellect, and emotions. The spirit's faculties include intuition, communion, and conscience.152 The flesh, when used ethically, is associated with the soul. The thought patterns, emotional conditioning, and habits of man in a fallen world are still hostile to the Spirit of God (Gal 5:16). The heart seems to be used as a synonym for the soul and spirit together, with an emphasis on values and affections."
Love is like a ball in a game of catch: throw it and it will come back to you; hold onto it and that ends the game. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 10/4/2006 9:43:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/11/2006 11:01 PM (GMT -6) | | "Hi Sahid,
I’ve heard others say that the two fold (dualism) view is misunderstood. Can you please elaborate on why you think this is the case? "
Well, I'm feeling kinda anti-intellectual recently, so this might not be any good... I think that people are physical beings. But there is also something more. Consciousness and choice-making (actual not just apparent choice-making) seem to hint that there is more than the physical.
I've had people try to explain the trichotomist stuff to me and I just don't get it. I don't feel it. I've yet to hear of a distinction between soul and spirit that doesn't sound like a forcing of the number three into a system. To my ears it sounds like an effort to rationalize certain biblical passages. I've been out of the dualist/trichotomist debate for a while so I dont remember all the passages, but one that I think rings true is the one where God creates man. He breathes into the shaped dust. Dust/Breath. That's why I've always had a problem when people correct me and say that dualists have body and soul not spirit. Spirit means breath, so I like body/spirit better.
Of course there is no sense to be made in how these two different substances can possibly be joined. We can postulate a bridge of some kind (I think that's what some trichotomists try to do), but making the bridge a third substance just creates more problems. It is strikingly similar to the substances of the Son confusion. Just like in that debate, I don't see any need for a third "bridge" substance. I'm sure some will say that these are two entirely separate issues (Jesus' humanity/divinity and anthropology), but I think they share quite a bit in common.
But more than anything, I think we'd be do good to back off our increasingly subtle and complex categorizations. Our categories, once formed, have a tendency to restrict our thinking when they were meant to aid it. I actually disagree with this: "You can't come to salvation unless you understand sin." I think that in many circumstances a genuine "understanding" of things like sin and salvation is facilitated my moving away from intellectual conceptualizations. Obviously I'm not strictly opposed to philosophy or theology, but they are easy drugs to OD on.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/15/2006 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | um, well. The problem I was referring to was where two substances meet. How can the physical affect the nonphysical or vice versa? These are not completely disjointed pieces. If we make a three substance categorization, then we have three relationships to make sense of instead of just one for dualists. If on the other hand, your trichotomy is basically dualism with an overlap between the two substances, then you've explained how they affect eachother, but you've done so at the expense of rational thinking (IMHO). If there is physical and nonphysical, then the idea of overlap is nonsense. I'm not sure which way you are taking it though.
The way I see it, neither the dust of the earth nor the breath of God is necessarily exclusively physical or nonphysical. Maybe our bodies are accurately descibed as "physical only" and maybe spirit is accurately described as "nonphysical only," but I'm not sure that's the message intended in Genesis. Such categorizations and definitions are not always helpful. Why does Aristotle get to define our terms? I'd prefer to say there is something of creation as well as of creator in us and leave it at that. I'm content with this level of depth (or superficiality), because I don't see further categorizations and definitions as pragmatically valuable. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this one might fall under the heading of vain philosophy. Sorry to be a wet towel.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 10/15/2006 11:17:35 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/15/2006 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: If we make a three substance categorization, then we have three relationships to make sense of instead of just one for dualists.
Jeff: Right, but we don't really "make sense" of it whether we're dualists or trichotomists. We know somehow they are related causally. And we can learn about how which mental states are correlated with brain-states and so forth. But we can't get any deeper than that. I just take a trichotomist view on hermeneutical grounds alone.
But I think we can distinguish between the raw ego experience and the unknown causality responsible for mental association, sense perception, pain, pleasure, etc. So it seems we have to posit that either,
1) the soul is the ego AND the causal agent responsible for non-physical activity we have no control of (like association, categories of thought),
2) or the soul is NOT the causal agent that produces non-volitional mental effects/activity.
Maybe the bible can give us help here, or maybe it can't. But the distinction can be made between volitional mental effects and non-volitional mental effects.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 31 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|