 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| 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 9/22/2006 2:43 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
There are three major models, from three differing schools of thought, in regards to the makeup of man's constitutional nature.
What is the human constitution, the makeup of man?
- Monism, is he merely a body of flesh and bones?
- Dichotomy, is he a union of body and soul?
- Or Trichotomy, human beings are threefold unions of body, soul, and spirit?
What does the Bible say? And what difference does it make?
The Bible clearly teaches that man is a unified being. However, this unity is divisible into two aspects, material and immaterial. In the Bible these aspects are variously termed, body and soul [e.g., Matt. 10:28], body and mind [e.g., Rom. 12:1-2], body and spirit [e.g., 1 Cor. 7:34; James 2:26], flesh and spirit [e.g., 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1], flesh and heart [e.g., Rom. 2:28-29], and, of course, the outer man and inner man [e.g., 2 Cor. 4:16]. Human beings, though they were created to live in the physical world, are also capable of existing in the spiritual realm as disembodied souls or spirits [e.g., Heb. 12:23; Rev. 6:9-11].
Now there are a few texts which, because they seem to distinguish between the soul and the spirit, lead Christians to hold that man has three parts — not only the body and soul, but the body, soul, and spirit [1 Thes. 5:18; Heb. 4:12; 1 Cor. 14:14]. This is the threefold view, or trichotomy.
Where do you stand in the human constitution debate?
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) : 9/22/2006 3:05:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/22/2006 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Think of the misunderstandings, erroneous assumptions and wasted time we could save in our discussions here if we're to first share knowledge of our theological foundation. So often we drill down, working our ways backwards, trying to make a point.
Come on, Corey, Meph and everyone else that hangs their hat on Universalism. Or for that matter everyone with a theology, period.
The Universalist bases their eschatology and theology on many presuppositions.
I think it would be helpful to understand a few of those, so let’s start with the human constitution debate?
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) : 9/22/2006 3:44:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/22/2006 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Um...ok.
My position is CONDITIONAL UNITY, where there are corporeal and incorporeal aspects to one human organism. The "soul" and "spirit" are within what we term the incorporeal aspect. The "body" is what we term the corporeal aspect. And the incorporeal aspect CAN be separated from the corporeal in certain situations, but is NORMALLY directly linked to the corporeal aspect.
Best of all worlds.
This position can accomodate all the relevant Christian eschatological frameworks concerning the human fate at death.
This position is currently held by some evangelicals.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/22/2006 4:27:45 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/22/2006 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/22/2006 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 9/23/2006 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | I hold the trichotomy view. It seems, to me at least, essential for understanding New Testament spirituality, such as Paul's struggle in Romans 7, his exhortations to walk in the spirit instead of in the flesh, and his teaching of how Christians have died and risen in Christ. But it would be interesting to see how the other views interpret these significant spiritual teachings in the New Testament. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/24/2006 9:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks ya’ll for responding. There’s some good potential for this topic to be discursive and fruitful with respect to a better understanding of what makes us tick metaphysically, ontologically, socially, teleology, morally, spiritually, neurologically, emotionally and more. I think it gives rise to the possibility of finding biblical rewards in anthropology as we break down the nature, origin and destiny of humankind. And with a better understanding of the anatomy of man's constitutional nature, produces a fuller theology, soteriology, eschatology and most important a fulfilling walk in our faith with the Lord.
So please be patient as we carefully unpack and weigh the arguments for the differing views regarding this topic.
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/24/2006 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
John N. Darby said...
I hold the trichotomy view. It seems, to me at least, essential for understanding New Testament spirituality, such as Paul's struggle in Romans 7, his exhortations to walk in the spirit instead of in the flesh, and his teaching of how Christians have died and risen in Christ. But it would be interesting to see how the other views interpret these significant spiritual teachings in the New Testament.
Interesting chapter you refer to, John. I also hold the Trichotomy view, possibly for many of the same reasons as you. I think all Disciples of Christ can relate to Paul’s struggle. If God calls us to be perfect, as he is perfect, then we’re going to need to accept his helping hand of grace to lift us out of our depravity. I believe Christians are called to be filled with the Holy Spirit, in doing so we need to open all doors of our life so Jesus can dwell in our house amicably. Since God is Holy and pure, we need to consecrate ourselves (all rooms), and the more we do this then the more He can empower us to live a holy and sanctified life. While our bodies are a temple, like jars of clay, there are inner rooms of our moral conscience that the Spirit of God dwells. It is a miraculous union of the body, soul and spirit working as distinctive entities, each part with its own function yet integrated as one unique being. While each of the three parts separates us from all other creatures of God, it is our Spirit that defines the amigo Dai in man, for God is spirit. 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?
Thanks,
Mark
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) : 9/24/2006 9:59:25 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/24/2006 10:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...I'm terribly interested in something, Sparknheart. You said: The Universalist bases their eschatology and theology on many presuppositions. I think it would be helpful to understand a few of those, so let’s start with the human constitution debate? I may be wrong in thinking this...but it appears to me that you may have had some kind of idea that the human constitution issue (and one's stance on it) has a significant effect upon the universalism discussion. That's the way that I interpreted your thoughts. If my interpretation is correct, could you share the way in which you see the human constitution issue as being significant to the universalism discussion we've been having? I'd really like to know your perspective here. Then I'd like to know how you feel that "conditional unity" sits within the significance that you see.
You read me write, Meph. But it’s not only the subject of universalism that is impacted by differing views of man’s constitution. You recall our heated discussion about Terri Schiavo? Check out the following thread and search for conditional unity: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/archives/2005/03/terri_schiavo_a.html
I’m still studding the conditional unity view, but feel free to chime in with your perspective.
Thanks,
Mark
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/24/2006 10:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...If I had to choose I'd say dualism. But I'm not sure these categories are more helpful than misleading.
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?
Thanks,
Mark
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2006 7:29 AM (GMT -6) | | An idea.
I will talk about this using the human brain.
Body:
The wetware of neural pathways that form the physical aspect of our memories, thoughts, emotional reactions, etc.
Soul:
The non-physical aspect that operates by the synthesis of the memories, thoughts, emotional response, etc. held by the wetware into a sense of identity and self-understanding
Spirit:
The non-physical aspect that forms the relational core of personhood that relates to and CAN steward the soul. The spirit grounds the functionality of the synthesizing process of the soul.
Conditional unity says that all of these are different aspects of human reality that work in tandem. This is why human personality is expressed through brain activity and why brain function (or dysfunction) affects personality, identity, and behavior. Under normal circumstances, these aspects are unified in human experience, but there can be a separation between the physical and non-physical aspect. (Christ's physical and non-physical aspects were separated for a time.)
When despair exists in a human being, the soul is left to it's own devices and creates it's OWN synthesis of memories, thoughts, and emotional responses to a FALSE sense of identity and self-understanding. The spirit is "dead" insofar as it doesn't play the part of stewarding the synthesizing process of the soul. The spirit still has an awareness of God...because of the nature of it's dispositional reality. However, this "knowledge of God" is SUPPRESSED by the darkened soul. Because of all this, the despairing human being inevitably overshoots or undershoots what it has been created to be.
When despair is being removed from human beings, the spirit is renewed to God and linked up with the Holy Spirit. This empowers the spirit to "renew" the soul...which may have tons of false self-understandings and beliefs. As the soul is renewed, the body will make necessary adjustments to the self-concept of the soul. The body and soul are aligned with the human spirit, which is in unity with God's spirit.
We are fearfully and wonderfully made...
Does this make sense to y'all?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/26/2006 8:00:15 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2006 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
MephEternal, I've noticed elsewhere that you seem to use the term "despair" in place of the term "sin" - that is, in describing what the Scripture normally describes as "sin" (hamartia), you instead use the term "despair" (exaporeomai) . Seeing that these terms are not synonymous ("despair"/exaporeomai meaning the loss of hope, "sin"/hamartia meaning a willful offense against God and/or man), may I ask the reason for this exchange of terminology?
I am using the Kierkegaardian sense of the word "despair." SK masterfully uses the term in description of what actually goes on with sin. And his use of the term MATCHES WELL with the biblical identification of hamartia. Missing the mark...primarily with respect to one's self-relation to God. Not only that, but as people like scholar Paul Sponheim have noted, SK's language and concepts go VERY WELL with certain aspects of the process view of reality. From my perspective, it goes REALLY WELL with describing the dispositional ontology articulated by Doc. So...since SK's language of despair fits the biblical and metaphysical frameworks...I use it.
Here's is D. Anthony Storm's Kierkegaard commentaries on "The Concept of Anxiety" and "Sickness Unto Death"
The Concept of Anxiety
sorenkierkegaard.org/kw8.htm
Sickness Unto Death
sorenkierkegaard.org/kw19.htm
Hopefully, you can see what I'm talking about.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2006 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Let me add, in our conversations here, "Despair" is an inverse way of looking at telos. When one's life doesn't match up with what they were created for, they are in despair. This, of course, has all sorts of echos to the concept of hamartia - missing the mark. By understanding one's despair, we also understand one's purpose.
YES, Corey. YES!
And THAT will be important when we frame this whole thing in terms of God's "subjective aims" (which deal with divine telos) and what deviation from those aims entails.
Check it...
"Sin" = Missing the mark
"Despair" = Failing to be what you were created to be.
"Frustration of divine subjective aims" = When the "actual entity" does NOT attain "satisfaction" relative to the divine subjective aims for that actual entity. (Within Doc's dispositional ontology, within his reconstruction of Hartshorne's dipolar process view.)
See any similiarity?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/27/2006 12:40 AM (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?
John,
I will look through my notes regarding the threefold consciousness description, soon. I was working on this awhile back and had to put it down for a spell. I utilize multiple resources with slightly different blends of the same thing, coming together as a synthesis.
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/27/2006 1:21 AM (GMT -6) | |
John N. Darby said...
MephEternal, I've noticed elsewhere that you seem to use the term "despair" in place of the term "sin" - that is, in describing what the Scripture normally describes as "sin" (hamartia), you instead use the term "despair" (exaporeomai) . Seeing that these terms are not synonymous ("despair"/exaporeomai meaning the loss of hope, "sin"/hamartia meaning a willful offense against God and/or man), may I ask the reason for this exchange of terminology?
MephEternal said...
I am using the Kierkegaardian sense of the word "despair." SK masterfully uses the term in description of what actually goes on with sin... So...since SK's language of despair fits the biblical and metaphysical frameworks...I use it.
Despair is not sin!
Sin is an action, manifested through the sense-conscience.
Despair is an emotion, manifested through the self-conscience.
Unbridled emotions give rise to vices.
Virtues flow from emotions bridled by the Spirit of God, the moral-conscience.
Vices acted out become sins.
The act of sin is first manifest as a vice in the self-conscience.
The act of love is first manifested as a virtue through the moral-conscience.
The following is a list of the seven major vices(along with their corresponding virtues) that trace back to Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. John Cassian:
Vice Virtue
-
Pride ---- Humilty
-
Greed ---- Generosity
-
Envy ----- Love
-
Wrath ----- Kindness
-
Lust ------ Self-control
-
Gluttony -- Faith and Temperance
-
Sloth --- Zeal
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) : 9/27/2006 1:26:34 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/30/2006 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Spark: Despair is not sin!
Sin is an action, manifested through the sense-conscience.
Despair is an emotion, manifested through the self-conscience.I know that you already know this. But there are other conceptions of terms than your own. Personally, I think SK's terminology is very helpful. As have others.
Yes my conception is very subjective, that is the very reason why I avoid using it whenever possible. Fortunately that’s not the case when I use the term "sin", for that definition has been both etched in stone and written on tablets of the heart. In some inner circles it’s been know by the term, umm shush now… the “Moral Conscience” or God-Conscience”. Ouch!
Finding it as beautifully attractive as you do, I know that you already know this, emotional “despair” in itself does not charge or convict many folks in the court of law. How conveniently lovely, yes? Granted, despair might be a byproduct of the absence of virtue, which leads to… umm what’s your word for evil? But is despair equivalent to sin, is it a mere synonym. Maybe you could use it as an excuse with your wife when busted committing the sin of adultery. “I’m sorry honey, I confess to the despair of my unfaithfulness”. Maybe her true despair kicks ya where it hurts. But you just might run into a little more trouble using such an excuse in a real court of law; the juridical system is kind of funny that way.
But for sake of argument let me try it on. Oh yeah, I like it. As my man James Brown once said, ooh it feels good.
Speaking of the King of Soul, that reminds me of Living in America….yeah good god!
Yeah, I think the kids in America will like the idea, hmm. I repent of my despair, ok? MTV kids will like it a lot, in fact I think their way past you. I think they have already repented of their despair and their moral conscience has been completely washed clean (or suppressed).
MTV ran a special on the ten deadly sins (vices), here are a few words in response by J. MacArthur:
"Sin, according to MTV, is not based on absolute moral standards, instead it is a question of each persons own preference. In other words, what is sin to me may not be sin to you. The MTV program ends with an appeal for universal tolerance. Listen to this, "The real danger of sin according to MTV is anything that does damage to your ego." That's sin. "And no sin," listen to this one, "is as evil as the killjoy attitude of those who think sin is an absolute standard that offends a holy God." Thinking that is the worst sin. That is how perverse the culture has become. The entire production, the entire defense of sin, reminds me that we live in a culture given over by God to its own evil lusts. People love their sin and they will go to extreme ends to justify and rationalize it, and as long as they do that, they damn themselves. Right? Because if you don't define the disease properly, you will never come to the proper cure. You can't come to salvation unless you understand sin."
Obviously then, this kind of thinking is deadly and damming to those who are deceived by it.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/mtv.htm
How ironic for those people that don’t “abide in God” (God is love- 1 John 4:7-21), yes the Triune love of an intolerant Holy Godhead, for those selected few that confess Jesus as Lord ), finds His ways of holiness equivalent to “conscious torment”.
"Love believes all things all things - and yet is never deceived". - Soren Kierkegaard “Works of Love”.
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) : 9/30/2006 11:28:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 31 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:11 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 |
|
|