Hi, Paul.

I'm not really sure what you're expecting other people to be able to add to this discussion. Uninformed and subjective personal opinions? You see, the subject that you've raised directly relates to the theological subset of anthropology--the study of humanity from the perspective of God. Speaking personally, I'm not convinced that there are very many people "out-there" in Ex-Revivalist Aimoo land who've studied the matter in sufficient detail to be able to offer an informed opinion, one way or the other, in the first place. Theology, after all, has never been the strength (or consuming interest) of Revivalists.

Did you know that the trichotomist position on the nature of humanity is the one that is favoured by Pentecostals, and  by heretical Christian abberations more generally? And do you understand why this is the case?

My advice to you is this: it would be preferable for you to ask theological/doctrinal questions of your Anglican clergy, in preference to former Revivalists. The former are far better equipped to provide you with the correct answers than are the latter (a very few excluded), which are, of course, the answers that you need.

Blessings,

Ian

 Ian,

A quick look into that and bingo - I have to make a descision.

by Daniel M. Brown

1 Corinthians 14 is one of the most popular chapters in the Bible for Charismatics. Practically every Charismatic author that writes anything on the gifts of the Holy Spirit will refer to this chapter. Ironically, 1 Corinthians 14 is one of the strongest rebuttals against the modern Charismatic teaching on tongues, but Charismatics are completely oblivious to this fact because they read the chapter with a trichotomous mindset. In a nutshell, this argument against Charismatic tongues goes as follows:

No Charismatic claims to understand the tongues-language that he speaks.
1 Corinthians 14 plainly teaches that the Biblical tongues-speaker understood the words uttered from his own lips.
Therefore, the modern Charismatic phenomenon of tongues has nothing to do with Biblical tongues.

When a Charismatic reads 1 Cor 14:14, “my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful,” he reads this to mean that his spirit utters words which is own mind does not understand. Based on a trichotomy or tri-partite view of man, he claims that his spirit speaks a heavenly language that bypasses the mental understanding of his soul. However, a careful study of the scriptures concerning spirit and soul reveals that the Bible does not teach such a concept. This concept of trichotomy is rooted in Greek philosophy, not Biblical doctrine. Although common to Gnosticism and other mystery religions, the Bible knows no such Charismatic concept of edification apart from understanding. Indeed the Bible often uses spirit and soul interchangeably. Scriptures showing thought and cognitive understanding in one’s spirit are inescapable. See Matt 26:41, Mk 2:8, Lk 1:46-47, Acts 17:16, 1 Cor 2:11, 1 Pet 3:3-5.

Further, the Charismatic interprets the word “mysteries” in 1 Cor 14:2 to mean unintelligible utterances, or tongues, from his own lips. However, the Bible never uses the word “musterion” in such a manner. The entire New Testament defines “mystery” as the revelation of the gospel of Christ which was hidden is ages past but is now revealed to His saints. See Matt 13:10, Mk 4:11, Lk 8:10, Rom 11:25, Rom 16:25-27, 1 Cor 2:7, 1 Cor 15:51, Eph 3:2-6, Col 1:25-27. Jesus and Paul clearly use the word “mystery” in a completely different sense than the way Charismatics use it today. Mystery was revelational truth, hidden in the past, but now revealed and understood. Victor Budgen writes in his excellent book,¹ “Far from being something hidden or concealed, a ‘mystery’ is a gloriously ‘open secret’ which we ourselves would never have discovered had not God revealed it.” Clearly, if one does not understand the mysteries of which Paul speaks, he cannot be called a Christian!

Dichotomy versus Trichotomy

Brian Onken astutely observes, in his excellent paper on the dangers of trichotomy,² that the trichotomous mindset leads to a denigration of the intellect and of rigorous doctrinal study. In fact, one of most commonly heard complaints of ex-charismatics is that their Charismatic church had become so anti-intellectual and anti-doctrine that they could no longer in good conscience subject their children to such mindlessness. I personally had a Charismatic pastor up in Connecticut that would tell me, “Dan, your problem is that you worship the Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures! You need to spend less time reading and more time learning to operate in the Spirit.” Anti-intellectualism runs rampant in Charismaticism and is a direct result of trichotomy. Some of the strongest proponents of trichotomy, including Watchman Nee and Andrew Murray, are widely read by Charismatics. Trichotomist authors quite blatantly claim that “soul power,” meaning the power of the intellect, hinders true spirituality. And the only way to live a holy spiritual life is to crucify the flesh and the soul life. Such views are more akin to Gnosticism than they are to a Biblical, Calvinistic, optimistic, postmillennial world view. Reformed folk understand that sin has affected all parts of man, not just his flesh and mind, and that Christ’s resurrection life applies to the total man, not just his spirit. Louis Berkhof observes that, for most of history, the church held to a dichotomy view of man, particularly from Augustine on.³ The trichotomy view saw a revival in the nineteenth century and, not surprisingly, the Pentecostal/Charismatic revival fell right on the heels of it.

Trichotomy also has a strong effect in evangelical denominations who would not normally call themselves Charismatic, particularly the more liberal denominations who have little to no emphasis on the historic creeds and confessions. Southern Baptists come to mind here. Although not calling themselves Charismatic, there is no doubt a strong Charismatic influence in the SBC and many Southern Baptists look like Charismatics without the speaking in tongues. When trying to correct some doctrinal error with such folks, we’ve often heard statements like, “Well, I hear what you’re saying but I’ll just go home and pray and see what the Holy Spirit says to me about these scriptures.” In spite of an often outward display of humility when saying such things, trichotomy has given them an excuse to reject God-ordained church authority and the historic creeds of the church fathers. Trichotomy breeds a hyper-independence and individualistic mindset that is blind to the covenantal and corporate aspects of the Holy Spirit.

In contradistinction to trichotomy, it is Christ Himself, not the Trinitarian Godhead, that shows us what the ideal spiritual man looks like. Christ was the perfect sinless Israelite fulfilling all the requirements of the Law, the true Seed of Abraham through whom all nations are blessed, the eternal heir of David’s throne, who has a fully resurrected body that eats and drinks with His saints. It is this, “One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man;”⁴ it is this Christ, who is both God and Man, who was raised from the dead to be seated on His throne at the right hand of God. And just as the Son submitted His entire dichotomous Being to the Father and His entire dichotomous Being was raised from the dead, so we submit our entire beings to Christ in the hope of our mortal bodies being resurrected at His second coming, 1 Cor 15:20-28, 1 Th 4:13-17. We avoid the error of the Apollinarians, yet we also avoid the error of the Nestorians by neither denying nor confusing Christ’s Divinity and His Humanity.⁵

Numerous reformed authors have dealt with the arguments for dichotomy and trichotomy (as well as monism). So, we’ll only briefly review the arguments here. Dichotomy, or the view that man is a unity of body and soul, or body and spirit, sees material and immaterial parts joined together in man. Spirit and soul are used interchangeably for the same immaterial element in man but from different points of view. A few scriptures supporting dichotomy include; Gen 2:7, Job 32:8, Job 33:4, Eccl 12:7, Is 10:18, and Matt 10:28. Sometimes the scriptures speak of a dichotomy of body and soul, as in Matt 6:25 and Matt 10:28, and other times of a dichotomy of body and spirit, as in Eccl 12:7, 1 Cor 5:3-5, 1 Cor 7:34. Death is referred to as giving up the soul, as in Gen 35:18, 1 Kg 17:21, Acts 15:26, and as giving up the spirit, as in Ps 31:5, Lk 23:46, Acts 7:59. The immaterial part that survives death is referred to as the soul, as in Rev 6:9, Rev 20:4 and as the spirit, as in Heb 12:23, 1 Pet 3:19. The soul communes with God in Jam 1:21 and Heb 6:19 and the spirit communes with God in Rom 8:16 and 1 Cor 6:20. 2 Cor 7:1 speaks of sin affecting flesh and spirit and Eph 2:3 speaks of sin affecting flesh and mind. The dichotomy present in the scriptures is obvious, but so is the interchangeable use of soul and spirit. John Calvin clearly demonstrates the dichotomous view when he writes:

Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms, while they are used together, differ in their meaning, still when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent to soul.⁶

Likewise, Charles Hodge defends the traditional dichotomy view in his second volume:

This doctrine of a threefold constitution of man being adopted by Plato, was introduced partially into the early Church, but soon came to be regarded as dangerous, if not heretical. Its being held by the Gnostics that the pneuma in man was a part of the divine essence, and incapable of sin; and by the Apollinarians that Christ had only a human soma and psuche, but not a human pneuma, the Church rejected the doctrine that the psuche and pneuma were distinct substances, since upon it those heresies were founded. In later times the Semi-Pelagians taught that the soul and body, but not the spirit in man were the subjects of original sin. All Protestants, Lutherans and Reformed, were, therefore, the more zealous in maintaining that the soul and spirit, psuche and pneuma, are one and the same substance and essence. And this, as before remarked, has been the common doctrine of the Church.⁷

The two primary scriptures used to support trichotomy (the view that man consists of three parts; spirit, soul, and body) are 1 Thess 5:23 and Heb 4:12. But the first cannot be used to support trichotomy any more than Mk 12:30 can be used to support tetrachotomy. The second passage does not say “dividing between” but “to division of.” It is talking of the power of God’s word to pierce to the deepest and remotest parts of man, both his immaterial and material parts. It speaks of “soul and spirit” in the same manner that it speaks of “thoughts and intents of the heart,” two views of the same thing. So neither of these passages provide clear support for trichotomy, and of course these must be interpreted in light of the rest of scripture which gives overwhelming evidence for dichotomy.

Pretty easy descision once you look into it further......

Thanks,

misterkilometres.

 Ian & Talmid,

Can I have a little more discussion on the issue of:

But ... I found Brown's arguments that "1 Corinthians 14 plainly teaches that the Biblical tongues-speaker understood the words uttered from his own lips" were pretty unconvincing.  When I read the scriptures he uses in a couple of non-KJV translations, his interpretation doesn't seem to follow at all. Is Brown's perspective  what comes  through  when the passages are read in the koine Greek?

Short answer? Nope. It seems to me that in his haste to distance himself from all things 'Pentecostal', the author of that small piece has well and truly overstated the case, vis. Paul's teaching on the nature of 'tongues'. This foible aside, the remainder of his conclusions are pretty much "on-the-money".

A little more about the foible?  ( Not that I won't use my brain and check out other reliable sources of information - but more for the sake of this thread being a repository for the discussion at hand..) ( maybe I shouldn't use the term repository around here :))

Regards Mr K

Reply to Didaktikon (03/07/2008 02:03:07)


hi ian, i have been great, i really feel i have moved forward and healed.
i have been attending a bible study group, which has been good/interesting, i know it isnt church and i know that it isnt nesissarily the best place for me to be, but it has been interesting seeing how my belifes/understanding of the bible match up with other people who have come from different backgrounds.

i have been seriously concidering finding a church... i know i want an old established traditional church, i think your right bout wanting a church that has been dealing with the hard questions (and the easy ones) for centuries as opposed to a few years, but idont know which one yet.... i also still dont know if i have the ability to discern wether a church is healthy or not, but im praying for gods guidence on that.

i have found that the more rci/rf doctrines an attitudes i have shaken off, the beter i feel and the more secure in my belifes in god, i am not a judgmental person by nature but having had their intolerance instilled in me for most of my life some things were hard to shake off.

i am really happy in my life, i adore my children, have been blessed with truly wonderful friends who have been there for me through everything, and love my job.

just turned 30 and find myself excited for the future, im not afraid of getting old and insted of feeling like i havent achieved everything i wanted to by 30, i feel like im coming into my own. this has to be the best time of my life so far

 Hello All,

Especially to the guests and observers who still attend charismatic churches such as RC/RF, United Pentecostals and AOG,

Please advise your belief on this important issue - what do you prescribe to?

For those in AOG churches, I found this info at:   http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/Articles2006/4819_Nutshell.cfm

Humans live in bodies, have spirits, are souls.

Jesus called himself Son of Man more often than Son of God, emphasizing His identification with mankind (but also His deity).

There are two main views as to what the Bible teaches of the makeup of man: trichotomy (or “three parts”) and dichotomy (“two parts”).

The three-part view teaches that body, spirit and soul are three distinct parts of man.

The two-part view, which is more widely held, says the Bible basically reveals the human composition to be of material and immaterial parts. Genesis 2:7 seems to settle the issue very early in the Scriptures: “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).

Adam’s body is inhabited and brought to life by the breath (or Spirit ... same word) of God. The breath of God yields the spirit of man. These two together compose a soul. Though soul is sometimes used interchangeably for spirit, it appears to represent all an individual is, with or without the body. (See Acts 27:37.)

The NIV captures the thrust of this when, in Luke 9:25, they use the word “self” instead of “soul” as in most versions: “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?”

So if you are an AOG then you should be prescribing to the Dichotomous view - according to AOG...

How would that impact your beleif in tongues being the only sign of receiving the h/s?

For those of you who are UPC - what is your churches' official view on this?

Regards Mr K

 Hello Ian,

On the Son of Man title:

That was just from the hyperlink from AOG, not from me.

I was wanting to show the AOG position on the subject.

I have also asked UPCI for their position on the subject and received the following response:

Paul,

I am guessing you are referring to the nature of mankind. Most people in the
UPCI would hold to a threefold makeup of man; spirit, soul, and body. Some
members hold to a dichotomy; material and immaterial. The United Pentecostal
Church has no official teaching on this doctrine.

I trust this helps. If I have missed your question, let me know and I will
do my best to answer it.

Sincerely,

Robin Johnston
Associate Editor

What was I hoping to acheive by resubmitting the discussion?

Well seeing that a few of the new members are from both AOG and UPC, I thought for their sakes and anyone who may be interested in knowing the different positions on the subject can have additional information.  After all this is a discussion forum, and in the bible and beliefs section.  I am interested to see what others have thought after considering the information in the thread, and maybe that would lead to more discussion.

Mr K.

 Hello Ian,

I get your point ( about there not being too much of a link between s.i.t as evidence of h/s and anthropology), and for me personally, if I get uninformed rambling, that's ok too, seeing as I myself at the start of the thread was rambling on uninformed.  And now I have gained a little more understanding on the matter - so my point ( and outcome hoped for) on revisiting the thread, is to hear from what others think about the subject, maybe they found it useful?  Maybe after seeing the different perspectives they can be in a more informed position as well.
If that is the case - good.  If not, and no-one durst put in a response - then the thread will be history.

Regards Mr K.

Reply to brolga

Ian,

(from chatbox)

Didaktikon: Moth. "I had not previously considered salvation was available between calvary and pentecost, but your highlighting of 'another' comforter has changed my perspective." Well, when you stop to think about it, salvation is Jesus' business. He declared people saved during his 3-odd years ministry. He declared the repentant rebel crucified alongside him, similarly saved. The Spirit came to represent Jesus, but only when Jesus departed to sit at the right hand of the Father. Simple, really  Ian

Firstly, just so I have my thoughts correct; We mediate with the Father through Jesus Christ, ok?

Now, in the light of the Holy Spirit being Jesus' representitive (above) now on earth, is the Holy Spirit now our mediator also?

Ralph

 

 

Reply to brolga

Thanks Eric, I would appreciate that. (ralphhat@internode.on.net)

Ian,

Having just briefly read the biblical meaning of what a mediator is; (mesitēs) one who brings together parties who are out of communication and may be alienated, estranged, or at war with each other, Jesus can be the only one, since the blood he shed on Calvary is the blood of the sinless Son of God, it was shed once for all, and God accepted it in the heavenly Holy Place.

Ralph.

Reply to Episkopeo

Reply to Episkopeo

 From Little Kittel page 1347:

Psyche = " The Whole Person " Part D. The NT. part 2  "If psyche means "physical life," what is at issue is not the phenomenon as such, but the life manifested in individuals. Thus 'pasa psyche' means "everybody" in Acts 2:43, but with an individualizing thrust (3:23). Mat. 11:29 promises rest to the souls of all who come to Jesus. The expression rests on Jer 6:16 and carries the implication of the human self that lives before God and must give account to him. Hence the rest is not that of liberation from the body. It is attained in acts of physical obedience to God, for the physical life that God gives cannot be separated from the life with God that takes shape in prayer, praise, and doing God's will "

.. So the moral of the quote is that we have to watch 'context' when considering a word study.

Happy New Year to All

Eric