Conference yukon::christian_v7

    I believe that is referring to the triune nature of God reflected in
    the triune nature of humans.
    
    Mike

    RE: .32
    
    In keeping with Mike's answer in .33, I commented on Genesis 1:26,27 in
    note 219.119.
    
    I take "man" to mean humankind.
    
    /Wayne

    
    There is no objective way to conclude a biblically based trifold nature in
    humans.  Of course I've heard all the arguments but they are constructs.
    
    A man has only two dimensions, the material and the immaterial.  Any
    further division is speculation.
    
    jeff
    

    RE: .36
    
    Really?  In what "objective way" do you conclude that man is NOT
    tripartite?  Unless, of course, you've concluded that God is not
    tripartite.
    
    Scripture to me seems clear on the subject.  In other words, my
    "speculation" (AHD defines as meditation or reflection on a given
    subject) on both the nature of man and the nature of God are indeed
    Biblically-based.
    
    /Wayne

    
    No doubt, the Bible defines God's triunity clearly and without
    equivocation .
    
    No doubt, the Bible does not define man as triune, rather as consisting
    of two unities: the material and the immaterial.  The idea that the
    spirit and the soul are distinct entities is an awkward construct. 
    I assume everyone accepts the body as material.
    
    jeff
    
    

    RE: .39
    
    | No doubt the Bible does not define man as triune...
    
    No doubt?  Really?
    
    What do you make of 1 Thessalonians 5:23?  Was Paul confused?
    
    And what of Hebrews 4:12 presenting the word of God as able to divide
    asunder the soul and spirit?
    
    You may hold a different interpretation than mine, but please don't say
    "the idea that the spirit and soul are distinct entities" cannot be
    seen in Scripture.  Is making the distinction difficult with human
    reasoning?  Yes!  Thus the sharpness and power of God's Word.  In other
    words, without the revelation of God's Word to our heart, we would be
    unable to make the distinction.
    
    /Wayne

    Re: Glen
    
    It's basically a problem of a literal interpretation of an infallible
    Word vs. a liberal interpretation of a fallible Word.  Even in here,
    some claim to uphold an infallible Word, but they really don't when it
    comes down to it.
    
    Re: Jeff
    
>    No doubt, the Bible does not define man as triune, rather as consisting
>    of two unities: the material and the immaterial.  The idea that the
>    spirit and the soul are distinct entities is an awkward construct. 
>    I assume everyone accepts the body as material.
    
Hebrews 4:12  
    For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged
 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.

1 Thessalonians 5:23  
    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.

    Wow, Wayne!  The Holy Spirit gave us the exact same 2 references in a
    notes collision! ;-)

    
    You're right, Wayne.  "No doubt" was a rash and inaccurate statement.
    
    What I meant to say is that there is no meaningful or practical 
    distinction to be made, biblically, concerning divisions of the 
    immaterial part a person.
    
    And furthermore, the triune nature of God is one of three 
    persons acting in unison.  A human's nature cannot be described in the 
    same way as three distinct persons, acting individually and in unison. 
    We are one person, acting only alone and in unison with no one else.
    The biblical triunity of God does not map to a biblical "triunity" of man.
    
    There are actually dangers, reflected overwhelmingly in the worldliness
    and weakness of much of Christendom, in this idea of man's triunity. 
    It has led to the Christian self-help movement, Christian psychology,
    and other things, which I estimate as bad things, not good.
    
    It's a big topic, I guess. And I don't have too much time
    unfortunately.
    
    jeff 
    

    RE: .43
    
    Hi, Jeff.
    
    Thanks for agreeing that this is a topic worthy of meditation and
    discussion versus the truth being fully comprehended to the exclusion
    of further consideration.
    
    And, if you'll look at my treatment of the Trinity and man in note
    219.119, then please see that I claim man was created in God's image;
    therefore, something can be see about God in His creation.  Certainly
    we are not triune as God is triune in terms of our body, soul and
    spirit being capable of separate personification.  Rather, I submit
    that we might better grasp the reality of triunity by examining how we
    as creatures operate.
    
    The dangers you note in Christendom I would suggest come from an
    improper understanding of both our Creator and us the creatures.  In
    other words, if anything but the Word of God is used in an attempt to
    divide the soul and spirit, then problems will be encountered.  God put
    us together in His image, and we are not intended to break ourselves
    apart.
    
    By the way, as you might have guessed, I'm a stickler for definitions.
    In a word study of evil I found that the Hebrew word translated evil in
    the O.T. means to destroy by breaking in pieces.  To me, that put a new
    light on Satan's work in the world and how he might attack us, whether
    divisions in the church, marriages ending in divorce, family strife,
    secular psychology, "new age" thinking, understanding of God our
    Creator and His creation, etc.  Satan works to break apart that which
    God would bring together.
    
    Anyway, the conclusion I meant for readers to take from my treatment of
    man created in the image of Triune God was that all aspects of our
    being must be taken together to gain full knowledge of who we are.  So
    much more God!
    
    May the Word of God dwell in us richly.
    
    /Wayne

In response to Mike's note (and maybe Wayne's), I offer the following Scripture
to counter the notion that Paul was a trichotomist.  And for the record, I am
puzzled by the dogmatic nature of Mike's position.  I cannot readily understand
how someone who so strongly supports the authority of the Bible, such as Mike
does, comes to such a conclusion.  Can it be that the position is established
extrabiblically and then Scriptures are used to support that position?  I
can think of no other explanation.

If you want to use Scripture as the defense for the trichotomistic position and
if you submit two passages, I Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12, then if I
submit five or six which are in contradiction, will that change your mind?
Let's see.

Paul did not teach the trichotomy of man.  In fact, the preponderance of
Scripture addressing this subject demonstrates dichotomy, the material (body)
and the immaterial (spirit).

Romans 8:10: "And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin,
              yet the spirit is alive because of its righteousness."

I Cor 5:5: "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction
            of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the 
            Lord Jesus."

I Cor 7:34 "...And the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned
            about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body
            and spirit;..."

II Cor 7:1 "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves
            from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in
            the fear of God."

Col 2:5 "For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you
         in spirit..."


Now I don't deny that the two verses you mention in support of trichotomy seem
obvious.  But study of the Greek clearly eliminates the Hebrews passage from
supporting the trichotomist position.  Thessalonians requires more in depth
study but in no case can one verse support a position when five or six verses
are opposed to that position.  

jeff

Hi, Jeff.

I've already established that I'm a stickler for definitions.  Please don't take
offense as I try to establish common understanding of words and meaning.

Firstly, I'm not familiar with the word trichotomy--I can't find that word in
the dictionary.  However, dichotomy I understand: Division into two (usually)
contradictory parts or categories.  From that definition I would infer that your
use of trichotomy is meant to establish division into three parts.

Common usage implies contradictory parts.  My position that we (by way of
analogy with our Creator) can be viewed as tripartite, existing as the integra-
tion of three functions, i.e., body, soul and spirit, could not be further from
division into CONTRADICTORY parts.  Tripartite is a word I find in the diction-
ary without connotation of contradiction.  I believe I've been clear about the
need to take all together as one.

Secondly, I'm going to make a few comments regarding your suggestion that Mike
and I have established our position "extrabiblically" and then use Scripture to
support that position.  Jeff, that's a serious charge!  I think Mike has been
clear about his commitment to bring his thinking into the captivity of God's
Word.  In fact, you have essentially labeled us who hold that man can be viewed
as a tripartite creature as heretics.  I believe heresy describes any action by
which the Word of God is made to support opinion or behavior derived outside the
Word itself.  In other words, I would regard anyone who first seeks to justify
or rationalize their position with Scripture before seeking to understand the
Scriptural position as a heretic.

Moreover, the notion that man is tripartite is NOT uncommon, and, in fact,
might be regarded as orthodox among conservative scholars.  In other words,
there is a strong Biblical base for the position.  I'm not impelled to come back
at you as you've come at Mike (and perhaps me).  However, I would be more than
happy to search the scriptures together with you off-line.

| If you want to use Scripture as the defense for the trichotomistic position
| and if you submit two passages, I Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12, then if I
| submit five or six which are in contradiction, will that change your mind?
| Let's see.

** Are you suggesting that if I don't change my mind based on your understand-
   ing of the Scripture you present, then I am not seeking the mind of Christ?
   Anyway, if you were to present Scripture clearly contradicting my position,
   then most certainly I would comply with the Scriptural position.  The Word
   of God is infallible and I regard the Bible as my standard for faith and
   conduct.  Were the Holy Spirit to commend truth in your position with God's
   Word, then, to my best knowledge of myself, I would change my mind.  I
   believe I hold my opinions with a pure heart, i.e., I filter all my views
   through Scripture, desiring that the Holy Spirit reveal any selfish motives
   in my thinking.  That's my mindset, for the record.

| Paul did not teach the trichotomy of man.  In fact, the preponderance of
| Scripture addressing this subject demonstrates dichotomy, the material (body)
| and the immaterial (spirit).

** I would agree that Paul did not teach "trichotomy" according to the defini-
   tion established above.  Scripture clearly does teach a dichotomy between
   the flesh and the spirit.  However, I do not take that to necessarily
   require than man comprises only two parts.  In other words, I do not see
   contradiction of a tripartite view of man in the five verses you quoted.
   There are many more verses talking about the soul of man.  Because the
   verses you present didn't mention soul, am I to take that to mean that there
   is no such thing as the soul?  We must take all of Scripture together to
   gain a full understanding of Truth.

   I won't speak for Mike, but the two verses I quoted were NOT the sole base
   of my position.  Rather, they seemed the most clear "standalone" indicators
   of a tripartite view of man because all three parts/words appeared in the
   same context.  As I'm sure you know, body, soul and spirit are separate and
   different Greek words.

   One other thing:  I will not level a charge of poor scholarship at you,
   Jeff, just because I don't yet appreciate your thinking.  I sense you are a
   thoughtful, serious, caring person.  I do not know how you study Scripture--
   you indicated a working knowledge of Greek to "eliminate the Hebrews
   passage" which I found intriguing--but I will assume you are AT LEAST as
   conscientious a scholar as me.

   And I'm not going to throw a bunch more Scripture back at you, not because
   there is none, rather because I don't feel playing darts with the Word
   would be constructive.  Contact me off-line if you want to pursue this
   further.  Again, I would not seek to change your mind because I don't view
   this particular difference of opinion as a stumblingblock to our salvation.
   I do find, though, much peace, enjoyment and fulfillment in regarding my-
   self as having been created in God's image and in loving Him "with all my
   heart, and with all my soul, and with all my strength, and with all my
   mind." (Luke 10:27, KJV)  In other words, I find a tripartite view of
   myself helpful in relating to God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  By the
   way, how many parts are indicated in this verse from Luke and how would
   you collapse them into two and I into three? :-)

| Now I don't deny that the two verses you mention in support of trichotomy
| seem obvious.  But study of the Greek clearly eliminates the Hebrews passage
| from supporting the trichotomist position.  Thessalonians requires more in
| depth study but in no case can one verse support a position when five or six
| verses are opposed to that position.

** Amen, Jeff, no one verse can stand alone to support a position against the
   weight of all other Scripture!  The inerrant Word does not contradict it-
   self.  If contradiction seems apparent, then we must dig deeper, usually
   getting into the original manuscripts and language of the inspired writers.
   And we must take Scripture line upon line, precept upon precept, relying
   upon the selfsame Holy Spirit who indwells us to lead us into Truth.

May we together grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

/Wayne

    Jeff, I don't see how your verses contradict the triune nature of man. 
    In addition to what Wayne and I have already quoted, you have the
    entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15.  There we exchange our physical
    bodies for a glorified body - just as Christ did - but it's *still* a
    body.  We still have a soul (mind, will, and emotions) as Christ did. 
    We, as believers, still have the Spirit, as Christ did.
    
    btw - I know the Westminister Confession is important to you.  What
    does it say with respect to man's nature?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    I Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12
    talk of spirit, soul, and body/joints-and-marrow
    
    Romans 8:10, I Cor 5:5, I Cor 7:34, II Cor 7:1, Col 2:5
    talk of spirit and body/flesh
    
    Matthew 22:37 talks of heart, soul and mind
    Jesus replied: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
    all your soul and with all your mind.'"
    
    Mark 20:30 (and Luke 10:27) talk of heart, soul, mind, and strength
    Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
    with all your mind and with all your strength.
    
    Mike defines soul as: 
     >We still have a soul (mind, will, and emotions)
    
    Why do Matthew 22:37, Mark 20:30 (and Luke 10:27) mention
    soul and mind explicitly, if they are the same?
    
    What about heart, I assume that means spirit?
    
    How about some definitions?
    
    
    Jill2

    Hi Mike,
    
>    Jeff, I don't see how your verses contradict the triune nature of man. 
    
    If you don't see it, then let's not discuss this further.  I don't
    think it can be more plain.
    
>    In addition to what Wayne and I have already quoted, you have the
>    entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15.  There we exchange our physical
>    bodies for a glorified body - just as Christ did - but it's *still* a
>    body.  We still have a soul (mind, will, and emotions) as Christ did. 
>    We, as believers, still have the Spirit, as Christ did.
   
    You are making distinctions between spirit and soul that do not exist
    in Scripture.
     
>    btw - I know the Westminister Confession is important to you.  What
>    does it say with respect to man's nature?
 
    I'll check it and see.
    
    jeff   
    thanks,
    Mike

>    Why do Matthew 22:37, Mark 20:30 (and Luke 10:27) mention
>    soul and mind explicitly, if they are the same?
    
    It's an inclusive relationship, not an identical one.
    
    Mike

    
    Hi Wayne,
    
    Trichotomy does not require contradiction of parts.
    
    I asked a rhetorical question concerning how such views as "man's
    tripartite nature" come into being when, what I consider rather simple
    and straightforward exegesis of the Scripture, all of it, presents such
    a clear and convincing verdict against the view.
    
    I think evangelicalism is full of such views today.  There is a good
    book which I highly recommend to everyone, "The Scandal of the
    Evangelical Mind" written by Mark Noll, a sympathetic figure.
    
    Furthermore, the whole Christian self-help movement is a direct result
    of this tripartite view of man.  The medical doctors get the body, now
    the psychologists get the soul, and God is left with the spirit (in
    this view).
    
    The tripartite view of man is false, and extrabiblical, and has
    resulted in spiritually sick Christians expecting spiritual healing from 
    man instead of God.  And I don't care what Larry Crabb says! ;)  Or
    Frank Minirth and Meier, James Dobson, or the rest!
    
    jeff
    

>    Furthermore, the whole Christian self-help movement is a direct result
>    of this tripartite view of man.  The medical doctors get the body, now
>    the psychologists get the soul, and God is left with the spirit (in
>    this view).
    
    Jeff, I see this self-help, psycho-babble movement as a result of
    humans failing to immerse themselves in the Great Physician and relying
    on their own or humankind's ways to take care of their own needs. 
    We need to get back to the fact that Jesus is Everything!  Jesus is all 
    you need!  I most certainly wouldn't blame this on a tripartite view of
    humankind.
    
>    The tripartite view of man is false, and extrabiblical, and has
>    resulted in spiritually sick Christians expecting spiritual healing from 
    
    There you go again.  You haven't demonstrated this as fact, yet you
    continue to treat it as fact even though it contradicts scripture.
    
>    man instead of God.  And I don't care what Larry Crabb says! ;)  Or
>    Frank Minirth and Meier, James Dobson, or the rest!
    
    I'll grant you that much.  Psycho-babble is ruining Christians, but I
    believe it happens for different reasons.  Psycho-babble is one of the 
    dangers of Promise Keepers.
    
    Mike

|   Trichotomy does not require contradiction of parts.

** Okay.  I just suggested that "common usage" implied contradiction based on
   the definition of dichotomy, which I find in the dictionary, and trichotomy,
   which I can't find in the dictionary.

   If you're saying trichotomy = tripartite (whose definition I can find in
   the dictionary), then we have established a common understanding.
    
|   I asked a rhetorical question concerning how such views as "man's
|   tripartite nature" come into being when, what I consider rather simple
|   and straightforward exegesis of the Scripture, all of it, presents such
|   a clear and convincing verdict against the view.

** Okay, now you've established from whence you come.  A rhetorical question
   is one to which no answer is expected or to which the answer is obvious.
   Thus, I take you to mean that searching the Scriptures for a fuller under-
   standing is not what you want to do--you already know the Truth.

   So be it.
    
|   I think evangelicalism is full of such views today.  There is a good
|   book which I highly recommend to everyone, "The Scandal of the
|   Evangelical Mind" written by Mark Noll, a sympathetic figure.

** Hmmm...the dictionary defines evangelicalism as:

   1) Of or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially the Gospels of
      the New Testament.

   2) Of or being a Protestant group emphasizing the authority of the Gospel.

   To the degree that I emphasize the authority of the Gospel, I would label
   myself evangelical.  If evangelical to your thinking implies something other
   than reliance upon the whole Word of God, including the O.T., then please
   don't think of me as evangelical.
    
|   Furthermore, the whole Christian self-help movement is a direct result
|   of this tripartite view of man.  The medical doctors get the body, now
|   the psychologists get the soul, and God is left with the spirit (in
|   this view).

** Really?  Faulty application of the tripartite view of man necessarily
   implies that the view itself is erroneous?  Excuse me.

   Again, I think I've clearly stated that integration, NOT differentiation,
   leads to understanding.  Breaking into pieces that which God would bring
   together is evil by definition.

   Please don't attribute to my understanding the error in "the whole Christian
   self-help movement."  Thanks.
    
|   The tripartite view of man is false, and extrabiblical, and has
|   resulted in spiritually sick Christians expecting spiritual healing from 
|   man instead of God.  And I don't care what Larry Crabb says! ;)  Or
|   Frank Minirth and Meier, James Dobson, or the rest!

** We disagree about the tripartite view of man being false.  We agree that
   improper understanding of our nature "has resulted in spiritually sick
   Christians" perhaps looking more to men than God.  I would argue that
   improper understanding of the Godhead has resulted in "sick" Christians,
   too.

   Just to be clear:  I, too, see much that is problematic with modern
   "Christian" psychology.  To the degree Christian psychology seeks an
   understanding outside or beyond the Word of God, to that degree is certain
   danger, if not outright deception.

   We agree that reconciliation of extra-Biblical notions with the Truth of
   God's Word is imprudent and ill advised.

I'm done, Jeff.  I've attempted to share a concept and experience that I've
found enlightening and helpful in relating to God, i.e., the Holy Spirit has
commended to my heart truth leading to life and godliness, your "problem" with
my heart-knowledge not withstanding.

May grace and peace from God our Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
comfort of the Holy Spirit, be unto us.

/Wayne

    Hi,
    
    I really didn't want to get involved in this bun-fight. But what the
    hey ;'}
    
    For those that know my history, let's think back to late 1989 (before I
    became a Christian)...
    
    I had this flesh and bones body. (ok, it's not all that great, but it
    gets me around, ok? ;') I also have this knowledge of "me-ness". This
    something that is so intimately "me", that I know it's not just my
    body. I can lose bits and pieces of my physical body, and I would still
    be "me". Is this, as far as I can tell, my "soul"?
    
    Ok, so we have determined that I am of (at least) 2 parts. My physical
    flesh and blood and bones body is one part. My soul, my 'psyche' (I
    guess), the something that is uniquely "me", the bit that thinks,
    loves, hates, feels anger, all of that, is "me".
    
    Ok, the Bible says that we are dead before we come to Christ. So, the
    implication is that when I came to Jesus in January 1990, something in
    me came 'alive'.
    
    What was that?

    RE: .65
    
    Hi, Jill2.
    
    I suggested some definition in note 219.119 according to my
    understanding of body, soul and spirit.  In my mind, what I presented
    is consistent with both Scripture and the dictionary.
    
    As for definition of the heart (in this context) from AHD:
    
     1) The heart regarded as the seat of emotions, i.e., mood, compassion,
        affection and character or fortitude.
    
     2) The most central and material part: the heart of the matter.
    
    Scripture seems clearly to regard heart as the core or essence of our
    being:
     
    "...for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.  A good
    man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things:
    and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."
    (Matthew 12:34,35, KJV)
    
    There are many other relevant passages of Scripture, but let this
    suffice for purposes of discussion to say the Biblical heart is the
    seat of motivation and intent.
    
    The dictionary goes on to define idioms:
    
     1) By heart meaning by memory.
     2) Heart and soul meaning completely; entirely.
     3) With all (one's) heart meaning with great sincerity; very gladly.
    
    These definitions do not contradict Scripture; therefore, I take them
    to be true.
    
    In my studied opinion, the body is that part of us which can be "seen"
    with our physical senses, whereas the heart is that part of us which
    cannot be sensorily perceived.  The Bible says that we cannot know the
    heart of another person unless that person chooses to reveal their
    heart to us.
    
    To reconcile my thoughts with Jeff Benson's, I would say:
    
    	material   = body
    	immaterial = heart
    
    both equally real and objective.
    
    Only God can know the heart of a man or woman without that man or woman
    first choosing to reveal their heart.  That's where Hebrews 4:12 comes
    into the picture, presenting God's Word as "a discerner of the thoughts
    and intents of the heart."  In context, I take thoughts to be
    associated with the soul and intents with the spirit.  Herein lays the
    problem:  Can the heart be divided into two parts, soul and spirit?  I
    certainly can't physically see or prove the division, I can only see
    through revelation of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit bearing
    witness with my spirit.
    
    I believe the Word of God removes all ambiguity by saying we are to
    love God with all our heart and soul and strength and mind.  If we are
    inclined to split hairs, then the Word lists all the hairs to obviate
    misunderstanding around how much or what part of us God desires.
    
    As Jeff so well put, nothing but pain and sorrow accrue to our attempts
    to divide ourselves in terms of what God gets and what man keeps.
    
    Hope my limited attempts to share infinite Truth are helpful.
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .75
    
    Good stuff!  And I would hope "what was that?" is not a rhetorical
    question. :-)
    
    By the way, what is a "bun-fight?"
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .64
    
    We have digressed from angelology.
    
    So, I agree with Mike, moving the "discussion" of man's makeup might be
    appropriate.
    
    I don't think we've yet attained the intensity of dialog "enjoyed"
    between Mark Metcalfe and Tony Barbieri, though.  Whew! :-)
    
    The only hitch I see is that topic 271 concerns the "Sinful Nature" of
    man, not man as created by God, per se.
    
    Mods, do as you see fit.  If one were to scan this conference looking
    for wisdom on how man is made, I'm not sure an obvious path would be
    "Angelology." :-)
    
    Peace unto the brothers and sisters.

 I'll move it over the weekend as I get time (and delete this note)



 Jim

    I couldn't find trichotomy in my AHD at work this afternoon, but I did
    find trichotomy in my Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College
    Edition at home tonight.
    
    Some pertinent WNWD definitions:
    
    	dichotomy  - division into two parts, especially when these are
    	             sharply distinguished or opposed.
    	trichotomy - [after dichotomy] division into three parts.
    
    Editorial comment:  The WNWD seems to support my assertion that tri-
    chotomy connotes division into opposing or contradicting parts.  Thus,
    I feel trichotomizing either God or man is wrong.  However, sinful man
    is dichotomous (flesh and spirit) according to Scripture.  Whether
    flesh (sarx) as part of this dichotomy necessarily includes the physi-
    cal nature or body (soma) to represent the tangible/visible or material
    as opposed to the invisible or immaterial spirit (pneuma) is unclear to
    me.  That sarx and pneuma are at war is clear, and as such describe two
    opposing (real though perhaps unseen) principles in the heart of man.
    
    	tripartite - 1 divided into three parts; threefold
    	             2 having three corresponding parts or copies
    	             3 made or existing between three parties, as an
    	               agreement
    	triune     - being three in one.
    	trinity    - 1 the condition of being three or threefold
    	             2 a set of three persons or things that form a unit
    
    God is the triunity of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Man
    is tripartite, a trinity of body, soul and spirit.  "Soma and pneuma
    may be separated; pneuma and psuche (soul) can only be distinguished."
    (Cremer)

 Notes moved here from 825 (one may have disappeared into cyberspace..sorry,
 folks).




 Jim Co mod

 More notes moved here from 825..they may be out of sequence


 with apologies...



 Jim

      Hi,
    
        Just a couple thoughts...
    
        I think the scripture referring to God creating man in His image
        is extremely open-ended and its meaning has been subjected to
        much speculation.
    
        As far as 'tripartite' goes, I think I agree with it, but I don't
        believe one can separate man into different components in the 
        sense that any of the components can exist without the other.  I believe
        if one destroys the physical part of man, the 'spirit' part is also
        destroyed, i.e. the mind is not the brain, but the mind requires,
        as part of its existence, the operation of the brain.  The more the
        brain gets impaired, the less functional is the mind.
    
        Getting back to being created in the image of God, I personally
        prefer to be as 'nonspeculative' as possible.  I know we are changed
        from glory to glory (image to image) and thus (to me) to be made
        in His image is to reflect the character of God.  We were made as
        creatures who could, to some degree, appreciate and appropriate
        agape and have that be our own image.
    
        Thats what it means to be made in His image.  Anything more than
        that I am not sure about.
    
        Except two things!  On that verse speaking of image (Gen. 1:26-28),
        two things are mentioned.  One thing is being created male and 
        female and being commanded to be fruitful and multiply.  If this
        is relevant to being created in His image, it seems to me it refers
        to our ability to procreate.  The second thing is the giving of
        DOMINION.  God has dominion and we are given dominion.  I wonder
        if animals look to us a bit in the way that we look to God.  I
        mean, clearly they can't comprehend deity, but maybe it was meant
        to be that they somehow could see something in us as we reflect
        God's love and respond to that in a positive way - albeit in a 
        vastly more limited way than man can respond to God's love.
    
        This part about animals may sound strange, but what did God 
        mean when He gave us dominion?  Isn't His entire govt. based on
        selfless love?  I think a lot of us know that if a person has
        a dog and truly loves that dog, the dog is typically well-behaved
        and a loving, faithful pet.  If someone severely mistreats his
        dog, the dogs behavior often reflects that.  Thus the law of beholding
        also applies to the animals.  By beholding, animals become changed.
    
        I think animals were meant to behold our reflection of the love
        of Christ and that is the essence of our dominion.
    
        Anyway, those are the two things mentioned in connection with the
        text.  Being created male and female and being commanded to
        be fruitful and multiply.  And being given dominion.  I added the
        part about reflecting God's character because there are actual
        scriptural references to being changed into His image and the
        context is character change.
    
    							Tony
             

    Hi, Tony.                                                       
    
    A couple of my thoughts spurred by your's:
    
    I both understand and appreciate your assertion that man cannot be
    divided into separate or independent parts--that's an underlying
    premise to this discussion, in my opinion, and bears repeating!
    
    Something I find interesting, i.e., worthy of "speculation" in the
    sense of meditation in order to fully understand, is what Genesis 2:7
    ("And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
    into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
    KJV) might imply about how we're constituted.
    
    I "see" body as from dust of the ground.  I "see" spirit as the God-
    given/breathed life-giving principle necessary for becoming a living
    soul.  My conclusion is that both a body and a spirit are needed to
    effect a living soul, and a living soul is "different" from either the
    body or the spirit.  In other words, a living soul is NOT without a
    body and a spirit, but man as a living soul is more than a body or a
    spirit.
    
    An important question then is:  What really happens when a living soul
    dies, i.e., a person ceases to be "seen" as alive?  You suggest that
    the spirit is destroyed if the body is destroyed.  I do not see spirit-
    ual death necessarily resulting from physical death.  However, I do see
    physical death ultimately resulting from spiritual death.  Of course,
    you used the word "destroy" and I used the word "death", and that might
    be the crux of another discussion. :-)
    
    As you know, I think for the believer being absent from the body
    (receiver) and present with the Lord (giver) refers to the spirit.
    
    Your "speculation"/point about procreation and dominion is well taken.
    I believe we are stewards of God's creation, accountable to Him for how
    we regard and use life!
    
    Thanks for sharing your GOOD thoughts, Tony!
    
    /Wayne

      Why your welcome Wayne!  I have appreciated your inputs very much
      and let me say that your force of logic is only exceeded by mine!!!
      (just kidding of course and as we agree, our minds MUST be
    surrendered to the Lord Jesus Christ)
    
    							Tony

    RE: .16 & .31
    
    So, man is a living soul in whom a dichotomy (flesh and spirit) exists.
    What does that mean?
    
    1 John 2:15-17 (KJV) says "Love not the world, neither the things that
    are in the world.  If any man love the world, the love of the Father is
    not in him.  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and
    the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but
    is of the world.  And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but
    he that doeth the will of God abideth forever."
    
    Thus the Word of God gives insight by characterizing the world's appeal
    to man as a living soul:
    
     1) LUST OF THE FLESH - passionate desire for self-satisfaction which
        springs from the base sin nature, appealing to EMOTION and basic
        needs (see Genesis 3:6 - tree was good for food);
    
     2) LUST OF THE EYES - desire to "see", to "know" and to "have" which
        springs from the higher aspects of the sin nature, appealing to
        INTELLECT (see Genesis 3:6 - tree was pleasant to the eyes,
        desirable to make one wise); and
    
     3) PRIDE OF LIFE - confidence in self (to get) versus dependence on
        God (to give), appealing to VOLITION (see Genesis 3:5 - be as gods,
        knowing good and evil).
    
    Christ was tempted in all aspects as we are (yet without sin):
    
     1) Luke 4:2-4  - Need for food;
    
     2) Luke 4:5-8  - Power and possession (apart from God); and
    
     3) Luke 4:9-12 - Self sufficiency, establish own identity, be master
                      of own fate.
    
    One definition of spiritual death is loss of the mind of Christ in our
    earthly life (see John 3:36).  "The minding of the flesh is death, but
    the minding of the Spirit is life and peace." (Romans 8:6, KJV)  "For
    if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit
    do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.  For as many as are
    led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God...The Spirit itself
    beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and
    if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if
    so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together."
    (Romans 8:13-17, KJV)
    
    Where are our souls seeking satisfaction?  1 Thessalonians 5:19 says
    "Quench not the Spirit." (KJV)
    
    /Wayne