Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

wof and the two natures of man

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • wof and the two natures of man

    In man two natures are combined. He is at the same time spirit and matter, heaven and earth, soul and body. For this reason, on one side he is the son of God, and on the other he is doomed to destruction because of the Fall; sin in his soul and sickness in his body bear witness to the right which death has over him. It is the twofold nature which has been redeemed by divine grace. When the Psalmist calls upon all that is within him to bless the Lord for His benefits, he cries, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, Who... forgiveth all thine iniquities, Who healeth all thy diseases" (Psalm 103:2-3). When Isaiah foretells the deliverance of his people, he adds, "The inhabitant shall not say, I am sick; the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity" (Isaiah 33:24).
    ---> Insert your denial here. <---

  • #2
    2 Cor 5:1-5
    Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

    2 Peter 1:13-14
    13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.

    Allen (Unless noted otherwise, Bible quotations are from the 1984 edition of the NIV)

    Faith--Sees the invisible, believes the incredible, and receives the impossible.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by AlFin View Post
      2 Cor 5:1-5
      Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

      2 Peter 1:13-14
      13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
      Have no idea what you are implying about the OP. Prooftexting is always a confusing practice.

      Are you agreeing with the statement in the OP?
      ---> Insert your denial here. <---

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tallen View Post
        In man two natures are combined. He is at the same time spirit and matter, heaven and earth, soul and body. For this reason, on one side he is the son of God, and on the other he is doomed to destruction because of the Fall; sin in his soul and sickness in his body bear witness to the right which death has over him. It is the twofold nature which has been redeemed by divine grace. When the Psalmist calls upon all that is within him to bless the Lord for His benefits, he cries, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, Who... forgiveth all thine iniquities, Who healeth all thy diseases" (Psalm 103:2-3). When Isaiah foretells the deliverance of his people, he adds, "The inhabitant shall not say, I am sick; the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity" (Isaiah 33:24).
        Wahahahahahaha....except he's like the One in whose image he is made: three. Not two. In this you have always erred.

        Man's soul/psyche/nephesh has a dwelling...the body...and man's soul has life/breath ruach/pneuma...the spirit. These words, though often used to mean "life" are never interchangeable. The soul of the flesh in in the blood, as it is written. The spirit is the breath, by definition of "spirit" in both languages. As a man breathes so his soul lives. God breathed into Adam's nostrils, and only then did he become a living soul.

        I haven't left, Ted. I just put away another school year.
        Last edited by tbeachhead; 06-29-19, 01:41 PM.
        Pete

        ~(8-[)}<><===> (flames of new anointing, béret, non-prescription glasses to help critics and their ilk feel more secure, mustache, beard...and tie.) I serve a God who walked this earth for thirty years before He did a single miracle.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

          Wahahahahahaha....except he's like the One in whose image he is made: three. Not two. In this you have always erred.

          Man's soul/psyche/nephesh has a dwelling...the body...and man's soul has life/breath ruach/pneuma...the spirit. These words, though often used to mean "life" are never interchangeable. The soul of the flesh in in the blood, as it is written. The spirit is the breath, by definition of "spirit" in both languages. As a man breathes so his soul lives. God breathed into Adam's nostrils, and only then did he become a living soul.

          I haven't left, Ted. I just put away another school year.
          Just quoting your buddy Andrew Murray..., thought you'd like it.
          ---> Insert your denial here. <---

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tallen View Post

            Just quoting your buddy Andrew Murray..., thought you'd like it.
            Always appreciate Andrew Murray...and clearly he didn't get it all right, either. And, of course, you're obfuscating because you missed the point of my response..."You err...with the best of them" Simple as that.
            Pete

            ~(8-[)}<><===> (flames of new anointing, béret, non-prescription glasses to help critics and their ilk feel more secure, mustache, beard...and tie.) I serve a God who walked this earth for thirty years before He did a single miracle.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

              Always appreciate Andrew Murray...and clearly he didn't get it all right, either. And, of course, you're obfuscating because you missed the point of my response..."You err...with the best of them" Simple as that.
              Bump...since the nature of man is essential doctrine, this invention of a bipartite man, in no way comparable to the tripartite God in whose image he is made, should be scrutinized and revisited...by both of us who remain.
              Pete

              ~(8-[)}<><===> (flames of new anointing, béret, non-prescription glasses to help critics and their ilk feel more secure, mustache, beard...and tie.) I serve a God who walked this earth for thirty years before He did a single miracle.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

                Bump...since the nature of man is essential doctrine, this invention of a bipartite man, in no way comparable to the tripartite God in whose image he is made, should be scrutinized and revisited...by both of us who remain.
                Naaa..., I'll stick with my Reformed roots and be quite content.

                "1. THE DIFFERENT VIEWS THAT WERE CURRENT IN HISTORY: DICHOTOMY AND TRICHOTOMY. It is customary, especially in Christian circles, to conceive of man as consisting of two. and only two, distinct parts, namely, body and soul. This view is technically called dichotomy. Alongside of it, however, another made its appearance, to the effect that human nature consists of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. It is designated by the term trichotomy. The tri-partite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God. It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third substance or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely, the soul. The soul was regarded as, on the one hand, immaterial, and on the other, adapted to the body. In so far as it appropriated the nous or pneuma, it was regarded as immortal, but in so far as it was related to the body, as carnal and mortal. The most familiar but also the crudest form of trichotomy is that which takes the body for the material part of man’s nature, the soul as the principle of animal life, and the spirit as the God-related rational and immortal element in man. The trichotomic conception of man found considerable favor with the Greek or Alexandrian Church Fathers of the early Christian centuries. It is found, though not always in exactly the same form, in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. But after Apollinaris employed it in a manner impinging on the perfect humanity of Jesus, it was gradually discredited. Some of the Greek Fathers still adhered to it, though Athanasius and Theodoret explicitly repudiated it. In the Latin Church the leading theologians distinctly favored the twofold division of human nature. It was especially the psychology of Augustine that gave prominence to this view. During the Middle Ages it had become a matter of common belief. The Reformation brought no change in this respect, though a few lesser lights defended the trichotomic theory. The Roman Catholic Church adhered to the verdict of Scholasticism, but in the circles of Protestantism other voices were heard. During the nineteenth century trichotomy was revived in some form or other by certain German and English theologians, as Roos, Olshausen, Beck, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Oehler, White, and Heard; but it did not meet with great favor in the theological world. The recent advocates of this theory do not agree as to the nature of the psuche, nor as to the relation in which it stands to the other elements in man’s nature. Delitzsch conceives of it as an efflux of the pneuma, while Beck, Oehler, and Heard, regard it as the point of union between the body and the spirit. Delitzsch is not altogether consistent and occasionally seems to waver, and Beck and Oehler admit that the Biblical representation of man is fundamentally dichotomic. Their defense of a Biblical trichotomy can hardly be said to imply the existence of three distinct elements in man. Besides these two theological views there were, especially in the last century and a half, also the philosophical views of absolute Materialism and of absolute Idealism, the former sacrificing the soul to the body, and the latter, the body to the soul." Systematic Theology, Berkhof

                Read Berkhof and you will essentially find my orthodox and historical view of man.
                Last edited by Tallen; 07-23-19, 11:37 PM.
                ---> Insert your denial here. <---

                Comment


                • #9
                  If anyone is interested, I doubt anyone is, I would refer you to A. H. Strong's Sytematic Theology where he spends a lengthy amount of time looking at this issue and comes to this conclusion. I would suggest taking the time to read his thoughts.

                  "We regard the trichotomous theory as untenable, not only for the reasons already urged in proof of the dichotomous theory, but from the following additional considerations:"

                  You can download Strong's Systematic free:

                  https://www.google.com/search?q=a+h+...obile&ie=UTF-8

                  You can download Berkhof's Systematic here:

                  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...e-as-an-ebook/
                  ---> Insert your denial here. <---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post
                    Always appreciate Andrew Murray...and clearly he didn't get it all right, either.
                    And just like Murray getting all right, you don't get very much right.

                    And, of course, you're obfuscating because you missed the point of my response..."You err...with the best of them" Simple as that.
                    I don't think you know what obfuscation means. How is pointing out who said that, obfuscation. 😆

                    ---> Insert your denial here. <---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I absolutely love this...and are you suggesting that this guy is authoritative? It's no wonder that you appear as confused lately as the lit you read. There is so little of scripture in this "analysis" and so much of self-serving conjecture as to baffle all credulity.

                      You say at the end of the post, "Read Berkhof and you will essentially find my orthodox and historical view of man" I'd suggest that this is more than enough, and it's so entertaining I sat reading for almost an hour. I'm baffled to find any semblance of credibility or reason to give over my reason and knowledge of the scripture to this. Would this be one of the reformers who, unlike Calvin, Zwingli and Luther rejected sausage, and did not in fact celebrate the Sausage Rebellion to spite the Pope and Lent?
                      Originally posted by Tallen View Post

                      Naaa..., I'll stick with my Reformed roots and be quite content.

                      "1. THE DIFFERENT VIEWS THAT WERE CURRENT IN HISTORY: DICHOTOMY AND TRICHOTOMY. It is customary, especially in Christian circles, to conceive of man as consisting of two. and only two, distinct parts, namely, body and soul. This view is technically called dichotomy.
                      And so the first act of argument is to beg the question? "...especially in Christian circles...?" In his opening statement, he belies his own reason. Created in God's image and likeness, it is not "especially Christian" in any way to deny the tripartite nature of man. To baffle further, he soon goes on to name the names of those who rejected the concept that man is bipartite and therefore was not created in God's image, and bears no resemblance at all to the Living God Who is Three in one.

                      Alongside of it, however, another made its appearance, to the effect that human nature consists of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. It is designated by the term trichotomy. The tri-partite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God.
                      The tripartite nature of man is revealed in chapter 1 in Genesis, and is upheld right through the book of Maps. God fashioned Adam's body from the dust, he breathed into his nostrils, spirit, and man became a living soul...The three were one from that point on. The soul of the animal is in his blood. The Life of the blood is in the breath/spirit. The Word of God (which Jesus, the Word, calls bread) is consumed with the blood in communion, and the Spirit brings life. The word itself is living and active, and sharper than a two-edged sword, able to divide soul and spirit...which division you and your ilk are forced to deny with mind-boggling alacrity...Well...of course! You have to deny it.

                      It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third substance or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely, the soul. The soul was regarded as, on the one hand, immaterial, and on the other, adapted to the body. In so far as it appropriated the nous or pneuma, it was regarded as immortal, but in so far as it was related to the body, as carnal and mortal. The most familiar but also the crudest form of trichotomy is that which takes the body for the material part of man’s nature, the soul as the principle of animal life, and the spirit as the God-related rational and immortal element in man.
                      None of which matters in the least. How Greeks contemplated life without the spirit does not define life in the Spirit as exemplified by God Himself, who works in harmony at all times three in One.

                      Paul's own struggle between soul and flesh is only mitigated when he walks in the Spirit, as he demonstrates in Romans 7 and 8.
                      The trichotomic conception of man found considerable favor with the Greek or Alexandrian Church Fathers of the early Christian centuries. It is found, though not always in exactly the same form, in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. But after Apollinaris employed it in a manner impinging on the perfect humanity of Jesus, it was gradually discredited.
                      Discredited?

                      By whom? These outrageous claims are ludicrous without credible support. Whenever scholarship places demands on the examiners credulity, it loses the patina of scholarship, Ted. Scripture needs to be refuted. You cannot divide soul and spirit if there is neither soul nor spirit, or if they are of one substance.


                      Some of the Greek Fathers still adhered to it, though Athanasius and Theodoret explicitly repudiated it. In the Latin Church the leading theologians distinctly favored the twofold division of human nature. It was especially the psychology of Augustine that gave prominence to this view.
                      In other words, all authority to make any claim anywhere was relegated to the contention of rabbis, none of whom bore in themselves any weight of true authority, and who were willing, on the basis of their own opinion, enlightened or otherwise, claim the moniker of "orthodox" despite the differences with Alexandrians or otherwise?

                      What a mess your theology is derived from.


                      During the Middle Ages it had become a matter of common belief. The Reformation brought no change in this respect, though a few lesser lights defended the trichotomic theory. The Roman Catholic Church adhered to the verdict of Scholasticism, but in the circles of Protestantism other voices were heard. During the nineteenth century trichotomy was revived in some form or other by certain German and English theologians, as Roos, Olshausen, Beck, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Oehler, White, and Heard; but it did not meet with great favor in the theological world. The recent advocates of this theory do not agree as to the nature of the psuche, nor as to the relation in which it stands to the other elements in man’s nature. Delitzsch conceives of it as an efflux of the pneuma, while Beck, Oehler, and Heard, regard it as the point of union between the body and the spirit. Delitzsch is not altogether consistent and occasionally seems to waver, and Beck and Oehler admit that the Biblical representation of man is fundamentally dichotomic. Their defense of a Biblical trichotomy can hardly be said to imply the existence of three distinct elements in man. Besides these two theological views there were, especially in the last century and a half, also the philosophical views of absolute Materialism and of absolute Idealism, the former sacrificing the soul to the body, and the latter, the body to the soul." Systematic Theology, Berkhof

                      .
                      In other words, there is no authoritative claim to inspiration beside what the author of Hebrews has written to erase or deny the inspiration thereof? Ted...you have nothing here. And you want me to read Strong's? Does he use scripture at all?
                      Pete

                      ~(8-[)}<><===> (flames of new anointing, béret, non-prescription glasses to help critics and their ilk feel more secure, mustache, beard...and tie.) I serve a God who walked this earth for thirty years before He did a single miracle.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Tyfyt

                        ---> Insert your denial here. <---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tallen View Post
                          Tyfyt
                          Yeah...you're welcome and thank you for posting. I could not have made this up...I have really become curious as to what you base your theology on! This guy's appeal to his version of history, wherein he places parameters by proclamation is absolutely eye-opening. And you called my responses to your intriguing doctrines "verbose?" Who would even read this stuff, if it weren't suggested by a respected friend?
                          Pete

                          ~(8-[)}<><===> (flames of new anointing, béret, non-prescription glasses to help critics and their ilk feel more secure, mustache, beard...and tie.) I serve a God who walked this earth for thirty years before He did a single miracle.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

                            Yeah...you're welcome and thank you for posting. I could not have made this up...I have really become curious as to what you base your theology on! This guy's appeal to his version of history, wherein he places parameters by proclamation is absolutely eye-opening. And you called my responses to your intriguing doctrines "verbose?" Who would even read this stuff, if it weren't suggested by a respected friend?
                            Obviously 1) you dont know anything about Berkhof or Strong, and 2) you didnt read either Systematic that deals with your error at length. But it was great to see how you responded through ignorance. Another great thread where you assert yourself as infallible without ever dealing with the links shared. One of the best examples of your technique, ever.
                            ---> Insert your denial here. <---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tallen View Post

                              Obviously 1) you dont know anything about Berkhof or Strong, and 2) you didnt read either Systematic that deals with your error at length. But it was great to see how you responded through ignorance. Another great thread where you assert yourself as infallible without ever dealing with the links shared. One of the best examples of your technique, ever.
                              “”Man is dichotomous because Christians have said so since I said so.”” What more do I need to read? You defined “begging the question” for anyone misled to think you had scripture in your reasoning.
                              Pete

                              ~(8-[)}<><===> (flames of new anointing, béret, non-prescription glasses to help critics and their ilk feel more secure, mustache, beard...and tie.) I serve a God who walked this earth for thirty years before He did a single miracle.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X