Thread: Tripartite or Bipartite?

Which one?

Why?

My reading of the Puritans and Reformers seem to indicate a bipartite consensus. Does WCF IV.2 necessarily teach man is a bipartite creature? Are there any notable tripartite advocates during the reformation era?

natural/spiritual - bipartite



-----Added 2/23/2009 at 03:20:32 EST-----

Just to muddy the water - one might make the case that the regenerate are tripartite

"The majority of modern evangelical scholars prefer the dichotomous view of the human person . . . That is, . . . no real ontological distinction between soul and spirit."

R.E. Olson, The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology, p. 205.

Ok, well I might really not understand this so well, but I said tri because we are mind, body and spirit. I voted before reading what the reformers said, which leads me to think I should read more about it.

It’s a very interesting question, so there is only a difference in perception, is it a synonym?

I know both words soul and spirit are often interchangeable

But these passages always make me wonder about it.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged 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. Hebrews 4:12

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.1 Thessalonians 5:23

Any thoughts on these?

Cesar, you give the primary proof text for those who hold to a Trichotomous view of man in biblical anthropology, which can be found in Tertullian for example. However, I believe the dichotomous view has carried the day.

a view...
for bitartite...

http://twitpic.com/1nkw7 (image keeps disappearing...)

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Cesar, you give the primary proof text for those who hold to a Trichotomous of man view in biblical anthropology. However, I believe the dichotomous view has carried the day.

I know, and that's why I trust those who made a good exegesis of Scripture,

so I lean towards the dichotomous view.

A small confession I used to read a lot of Watchman Nee in my early 20s

Calvin:

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, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it, (Ecc 12: 7) And Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ, simply mean, that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, God becomes its perpetual keeper.

Institutes of the Christian Religion I:XV.2

RC Sproul put me into the Bipartite camp!!!

For what it is worth, Douglas Kelly agrees with Calvin as well. (I was just listening to his lecture on this subject the other day.)

If Sproul is Bipartite that settles it for me, I was going that way, but that settled it

I've held to the bipartite view ever since I joined a reformed church in the mid 90's. It was explained to me by the pastor that the tripartite view is inconsistent with reformed theology and is typically taken by Semi-Pelagians who believe that while the spirit of man is dead in trespasses and sins because of Adam, the soul is still reachable because it is the center of the intellect and the emotions.

I've always associated tripartism (?) with pop psychology-infused evangelicalism a la Minirth and Meyer, Larry Crab, James Dobson, etc.

I've also heard it compared with the Trinity and our being made (tripartite) in God's Image - very dangerous ground.

However, what's interesting is, we are acquainted with a brother (a Five Point Calvinist) who is not sure whether or not we are bipartite or tripartite and doesn't think we can know for sure this side of heaven. And I know for a fact that he does not hold to any of the things I elaborated on.

Just a side note - another thing that scared me away from tripartism is Benny Hinn's using it to explain his (later recanted I believe) 9 persons in the Trinity doctrine.

Originally Posted by Martin Marsh

If Sproul is Bipartite that settles it for me, I was going that way, but that settled it

Glad to help Martin, but really, what he wrote just made a LOT of sense!

Discussion of the Trichotomous vs Dichotomous views of man's constitutional nature is addressed in Robert Reymond, Chas. Hodge, Louis Berkhof, and any decent Systematic Theology. I like Louis Berkhof's discussion (Sys. Theol. p. 191-196). It gives a good historical overview with pros and cons. Reymond contends that the Reformation Creeds all adopt a dichotomous view of man. He references the WCF 32.1 in support.

I thought that only fringe dispy's held to the tri- view.

In Collected Writings of John Murray vol II, chapter 2, The Nature of Man, he affirms man is dichotomy (bipartite). In chapter 3, Trichotomy he traces out this view from history up to the present. He even provides hybrid examples but concludes they can still be classified in one of the two camps.

It is well worth the read.

Originally Posted by sjonee

Ok, well I might really not understand this so well, but I said tri because we are mind, body and spirit. I voted before reading what the reformers said, which leads me to think I should read more about it.

A product of too much Patty Dungan in school, perhaps? I was force-fed that garbage in college, too. (I'm an ER nurse). Trichotomy has been suspect (and rightly so) since the Apollinarian controversy.

Bipartite-And happy about it

Originally Posted by mangum

In Collected Writings of John Murray vol II, chapter 2, The Nature of Man, he affirms man is dichotomy (bipartite). In chapter 3, Trichotomy he traces out this view from history up to the present. He even provides hybrid examples but concludes they can still be classified in one of the two camps.

It is well worth the read.

Thanks for the info. I've got Murray's writings and will look into it. The bi/tri controversy has been something I've really gotten interested in the past few months, but I'm not at all familiar with the various points of vew. I trust Murray and will definitely look into his view and comments.

Originally Posted by Jesus is my friend

Bipartite-And happy about it

But, you voted for tripartite? Accident?

Originally Posted by mangum

Originally Posted by Jesus is my friend

Bipartite-And happy about it

But, you voted for tripartite? Accident?

Hanging chad?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by mangum

Originally Posted by Jesus is my friend

Bipartite-And happy about it

But, you voted for tripartite? Accident?

Hanging chad?

Good one Perg!

Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?

Originally Posted by SRoper

Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "unipartite" doctrine. To my mind, it appears that even the word is self-contradictory.

What do you mean to say?

Originally Posted by SRoper

Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?

Is it even possible? If one were an atheistic materialist, wouldn't he still have to say that a mind exists? And even idealists still have to say that the body exists, even if only as a perception.

I voted Bi Partite. I had this debate with an Assemblies seminarian some time ago and shivered at his pelagian view of corruption.

Originally Posted by mangum

Originally Posted by SRoper

Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "unipartite" doctrine. To my mind, it appears that even the word is self-contradictory.

What do you mean to say?

I would think it would just mean "one part." It would mean that the division between body and mind or body and spirit is arbitrary (or at least, nonessential).

I could be confused. Doesn't bipartite mean that man has a material part and an immaterial part? How does tripartite even work since material and immaterial seem to cover all posibilites? What would be the division?

Originally Posted by SRoper

Originally Posted by mangum

Originally Posted by SRoper

Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "unipartite" doctrine. To my mind, it appears that even the word is self-contradictory.

What do you mean to say?

I would think it would just mean "one part." It would mean that the division between body and mind or body and spirit is arbitrary (or at least, nonessential).

I could be confused. Doesn't bipartite mean that man has a material part and an immaterial part? How does tripartite even work since material and immaterial seem to cover all posibilites? What would be the division?

Generally, bipartite has been defined as separating man into body and spirit/soul, while tripartite separates man into body, spirit, and soul.

So, the entire distinction is whether or not spirit and soul are separate things. (I think.)

Originally Posted by SRoper

Originally Posted by mangum

Originally Posted by SRoper

Where's unipartite? Or is that considered heretical?

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "unipartite" doctrine. To my mind, it appears that even the word is self-contradictory.

What do you mean to say?

I would think it would just mean "one part." It would mean that the division between body and mind or body and spirit is arbitrary (or at least, nonessential).

I could be confused. Doesn't bipartite mean that man has a material part and an immaterial part? How does tripartite even work since material and immaterial seem to cover all posibilites? What would be the division?

As a grad student in Mental Health, the very phrase "unipartite" brings flashbacks of B. F. Skinner (shudder)! Man is two parts - material (mortal) and immaterial (eternal).
Of course, at the resurrection, man will be unified once again forever.