Holistic Dualism And Trichotomy: Soul Searching
Soul Searching
Picking a topic for this paper was a tough decision and I had to do some serious soul searching; however, once chosen the material seemed to throw itself onto the page. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the 3 most commonly held views of man’s nature, discover the Biblical teaching regarding the Soul and whether or not it is philosophically coherent (answering a few objections along the way), and then to delve a little in depth in the position I find to be the most compelling. The Biblical teaching regarding the Soul is clearly that of Holistic Dualism. Furthermore, Holistic Dualism is philosophically coherent. The first part of this paper will focus on the Biblical aspect, and the latter part will tackle the philosophical …show more content…
portion.
There are three commonly held views that dictate what exactly man is. The first view is the Monistic View. The first part of that comes from mono – which means one – this view is that man is made up of just one kind of material, body, soul, or spirit. The second view is the dichotomist view. The first part being Di – which means two – this view yields that the body is made from two different things most often body and soul. The final view is Trichotomist which, in following the pattern, is the belief that man is made of three different materials, body, soul, and spirit.
After summarizing these positions in a little more detail I will talk about some issues theologically, biblically, and philosophically. My final finding will then be discussed (that of Holistic Dualism, a version of the Dichotomist View) and I will wrap it all up by discussing the importance of this topic.
Summary of Three Positions
As previously mentioned Monism is the view that man is made from one distinct material. This is most often held by idealists or physicalists. With Monism, Man is unable to be split into different categories. Once your body dies you are done for. If one holds to this view they must state that there can be no intermediate state after death and often times cannot state that there is an afterlife in order to stay consistent with their belief. One who holds to this position would say, “Man is a unity, and [this] unity is the body as a complex of parts, drawing their life and activity from a breath-soul, which has no existence apart from the body.”
The next view is Dichotomy. People who hold to this believe in that man can be divided into two different parts Body and Soul. Often times these people will argue that the words Soul and Spirit are used interchangeably throughout scripture. There was a theologian in the early church, named Tertullian, who lived from AD160 - AD220. Tertullian is credited with the origination of this view. The dichotomist argues that mankind is made up of a material substance and an immaterial substance. This has been the most commonly held view throughout church history, especially from AD381 with the Council of Constantinople. Even after the reformation theologians on both sides of the aisle (Lutheran and Reformed) held to some dichotomist view on the make-up of a humans body. During the enlightenment Rene Descartes constructed what is now known as “Substance Dualism” in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Within this view there is the body (i.e., the extended substance) and the soul or mind (i.e., the thinking substance) but they are not living in unity. Think of it like this, the soul is trapped within the body desperately trying to escape and reconnect with the maker. This is where a lot of Christians get the jargon, “I’m a soul trapped in a body. This world is not my home.”
Finally there is Trichotomy, which as aforementioned, means that man is made up of body, soul, and spirit.
This view was developed back in the day by the famous Greek philosopher, Aristotle’s teaching of the soul. With Trichotomy mankind has a physical body, a soul – where reason, emotion, and human interaction are housed – and a spirit – which is the part of man that is spiritual and speak with God. Irenaeus was a theologian during the early church period who believed that man is made in God’s image and because of that they possess a body and a soul; however, when they are converted they gain the third and final material, a spirit. During the Reformation Martin Luther was a Trichotomist. He said, “The first part, the spirit, is the highest, deepest and noblest part of man. By it he is enabled to lay hold on things incomprehensible, invisible, and eternal.” To Luther the spirit is something that is granted by God to the faithful. Those who hold to a Trichotomist view find their Biblical evidence in two major passages. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, which is a prayer from Paul that says, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Robert L. Thomas is one who says that a reading of this through the lens of Trichotomy is the best reading because it defends against non-exegetical arguments that might be presented. A pretty big problem with this is that one must take this passage at face value and to do that with scripture often leads to shallow faith. The other passage would be Hebrews 4:12. In this passage the author says that the Word of God is said to pierce “as far as the division of soul and spirit.” With this passage the Trichotomist argues using the Law of Identity. If there is a possibility of the two being divided then the terms cannot be used
synonymously.
I’ll give you a hint: It’s not a false Dichotomy
Dichotomy seems to be the most Biblical and Philosophically coherent position for one to hold. Man is made up of a body and a soul. The unity between the two is very clear, but there is a definite difference between the two that must be discussed and brought out. As previously mentioned the Bible uses the language of “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus can state, “Now my soul [ψυχή] has become troubled”, in John 12:27 and then a short while later the apostle John is able to say that Christ’s “spirit” [πνεῦμα] is what had become troubled in John 13:21. Another example is when Mary prays for her “soul” praising God the Father and her “spirit” exalting in him in Luke 1:46, 47. These are just a few examples that refute the Trichotomist’s argument, typically drawn from Aristotle, that says the “soul” a part of man’s psyche (the Greek word transliterated is psuche pronounced P-soo-kay) whereas the spirit is something spiritual that is given by God Almighty to his followers. Another rebuttal to the trichotomist argument is that the Bible is clear on the fact that the soul and spirit depart at death. If they are not the same thing then one must answer the question, do they go to the same place? If the answer is “Yes” they must then strive to answer why they are going to the same place? Would it not be feasible to say that they are indeed the same thing, with the same destination? Throughout the New Testament we have examples of soul and spirit being used in this way, such as when Jesus tells the rich young fool, “This very night your soul is required of you” in Luke 12:20. All the while Jesus quotes David when they say, “Into your hands I commit my spirit” in Psalms 31:5; quoted by Jesus in Luke 23:46. Another example is in Ecclesiastes where the Preacher says, “the spirit returns to God who gave it”. Even Stephen, while he is praying, stones flying at his body, breaking it, “Jesus, receive my spirit!” That passage is found in Acts 7:59. The final reference is to Christ on the Cross. Jesus said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit [πνεῦμα]” in John 23:46. In another Gospel is says that the Son of Man’s mission was to “give his life [ψυχή] (Psuche can either be translated as life or soul) as a ransom for many” in Matthew 20:28. He is also described as the Good Shepherd who would give up his life [ψυχή again] for the sheep in John 10:15. This is more evidence supporting the fact that “spirit” and “soul” can be/are used interchangeably even straight from the mouth of the savior of the world as he made the ultimate sacrifice. Wayne Grudem has a good point when he says, the ‘soul and spirit’ are never said to simultaneously depart the body; rather, each time ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ are used in the context of death they are used alone and they are used synonymously.” Another, key example would be the passages where the Apostle Paul shows a dualistic theme. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:8 he says, “to be absent with the body is to be present with the lord.” He then in Philippians 1:21-24 says, “For me to live is Christ, but to die is gain…” In this verse he is saying that he understands he must stay here to do Christ’s work, but when he dies he will be with Christ. This gave him an overwhelming desire for his soul to “depart and be with Christ” (v. 23). These passages and many more seem to show that there is an intermediate state between death and the final resurrection, and that is a problem for those like Nancy Murphey who hold to a non-reductive physicalist soul sleep. Because of the given evidence there is this obvious distinction between the body and the soul. There is also evidence to show that soul and spirit really are able to be used interchangeably, even in context of the Old Testament. Because of all of this I find that the dualistic aspect of the mind-body problem to be the correct route to take.
Picking a topic for this paper was a tough decision and I had to do some serious soul searching; however, once chosen the material seemed to throw itself onto the page. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the 3 most commonly held views of man’s nature, discover the Biblical teaching regarding the Soul and whether or not it is philosophically coherent (answering a few objections along the way), and then to delve a little in depth in the position I find to be the most compelling. The Biblical teaching regarding the Soul is clearly that of Holistic Dualism. Furthermore, Holistic Dualism is philosophically coherent. The first part of this paper will focus on the Biblical aspect, and the latter part will tackle the philosophical …show more content…
portion.
There are three commonly held views that dictate what exactly man is. The first view is the Monistic View. The first part of that comes from mono – which means one – this view is that man is made up of just one kind of material, body, soul, or spirit. The second view is the dichotomist view. The first part being Di – which means two – this view yields that the body is made from two different things most often body and soul. The final view is Trichotomist which, in following the pattern, is the belief that man is made of three different materials, body, soul, and spirit.
After summarizing these positions in a little more detail I will talk about some issues theologically, biblically, and philosophically. My final finding will then be discussed (that of Holistic Dualism, a version of the Dichotomist View) and I will wrap it all up by discussing the importance of this topic.
Summary of Three Positions
As previously mentioned Monism is the view that man is made from one distinct material. This is most often held by idealists or physicalists. With Monism, Man is unable to be split into different categories. Once your body dies you are done for. If one holds to this view they must state that there can be no intermediate state after death and often times cannot state that there is an afterlife in order to stay consistent with their belief. One who holds to this position would say, “Man is a unity, and [this] unity is the body as a complex of parts, drawing their life and activity from a breath-soul, which has no existence apart from the body.”
The next view is Dichotomy. People who hold to this believe in that man can be divided into two different parts Body and Soul. Often times these people will argue that the words Soul and Spirit are used interchangeably throughout scripture. There was a theologian in the early church, named Tertullian, who lived from AD160 - AD220. Tertullian is credited with the origination of this view. The dichotomist argues that mankind is made up of a material substance and an immaterial substance. This has been the most commonly held view throughout church history, especially from AD381 with the Council of Constantinople. Even after the reformation theologians on both sides of the aisle (Lutheran and Reformed) held to some dichotomist view on the make-up of a humans body. During the enlightenment Rene Descartes constructed what is now known as “Substance Dualism” in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Within this view there is the body (i.e., the extended substance) and the soul or mind (i.e., the thinking substance) but they are not living in unity. Think of it like this, the soul is trapped within the body desperately trying to escape and reconnect with the maker. This is where a lot of Christians get the jargon, “I’m a soul trapped in a body. This world is not my home.”
Finally there is Trichotomy, which as aforementioned, means that man is made up of body, soul, and spirit.
This view was developed back in the day by the famous Greek philosopher, Aristotle’s teaching of the soul. With Trichotomy mankind has a physical body, a soul – where reason, emotion, and human interaction are housed – and a spirit – which is the part of man that is spiritual and speak with God. Irenaeus was a theologian during the early church period who believed that man is made in God’s image and because of that they possess a body and a soul; however, when they are converted they gain the third and final material, a spirit. During the Reformation Martin Luther was a Trichotomist. He said, “The first part, the spirit, is the highest, deepest and noblest part of man. By it he is enabled to lay hold on things incomprehensible, invisible, and eternal.” To Luther the spirit is something that is granted by God to the faithful. Those who hold to a Trichotomist view find their Biblical evidence in two major passages. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, which is a prayer from Paul that says, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Robert L. Thomas is one who says that a reading of this through the lens of Trichotomy is the best reading because it defends against non-exegetical arguments that might be presented. A pretty big problem with this is that one must take this passage at face value and to do that with scripture often leads to shallow faith. The other passage would be Hebrews 4:12. In this passage the author says that the Word of God is said to pierce “as far as the division of soul and spirit.” With this passage the Trichotomist argues using the Law of Identity. If there is a possibility of the two being divided then the terms cannot be used
synonymously.
I’ll give you a hint: It’s not a false Dichotomy
Dichotomy seems to be the most Biblical and Philosophically coherent position for one to hold. Man is made up of a body and a soul. The unity between the two is very clear, but there is a definite difference between the two that must be discussed and brought out. As previously mentioned the Bible uses the language of “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus can state, “Now my soul [ψυχή] has become troubled”, in John 12:27 and then a short while later the apostle John is able to say that Christ’s “spirit” [πνεῦμα] is what had become troubled in John 13:21. Another example is when Mary prays for her “soul” praising God the Father and her “spirit” exalting in him in Luke 1:46, 47. These are just a few examples that refute the Trichotomist’s argument, typically drawn from Aristotle, that says the “soul” a part of man’s psyche (the Greek word transliterated is psuche pronounced P-soo-kay) whereas the spirit is something spiritual that is given by God Almighty to his followers. Another rebuttal to the trichotomist argument is that the Bible is clear on the fact that the soul and spirit depart at death. If they are not the same thing then one must answer the question, do they go to the same place? If the answer is “Yes” they must then strive to answer why they are going to the same place? Would it not be feasible to say that they are indeed the same thing, with the same destination? Throughout the New Testament we have examples of soul and spirit being used in this way, such as when Jesus tells the rich young fool, “This very night your soul is required of you” in Luke 12:20. All the while Jesus quotes David when they say, “Into your hands I commit my spirit” in Psalms 31:5; quoted by Jesus in Luke 23:46. Another example is in Ecclesiastes where the Preacher says, “the spirit returns to God who gave it”. Even Stephen, while he is praying, stones flying at his body, breaking it, “Jesus, receive my spirit!” That passage is found in Acts 7:59. The final reference is to Christ on the Cross. Jesus said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit [πνεῦμα]” in John 23:46. In another Gospel is says that the Son of Man’s mission was to “give his life [ψυχή] (Psuche can either be translated as life or soul) as a ransom for many” in Matthew 20:28. He is also described as the Good Shepherd who would give up his life [ψυχή again] for the sheep in John 10:15. This is more evidence supporting the fact that “spirit” and “soul” can be/are used interchangeably even straight from the mouth of the savior of the world as he made the ultimate sacrifice. Wayne Grudem has a good point when he says, the ‘soul and spirit’ are never said to simultaneously depart the body; rather, each time ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ are used in the context of death they are used alone and they are used synonymously.” Another, key example would be the passages where the Apostle Paul shows a dualistic theme. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:8 he says, “to be absent with the body is to be present with the lord.” He then in Philippians 1:21-24 says, “For me to live is Christ, but to die is gain…” In this verse he is saying that he understands he must stay here to do Christ’s work, but when he dies he will be with Christ. This gave him an overwhelming desire for his soul to “depart and be with Christ” (v. 23). These passages and many more seem to show that there is an intermediate state between death and the final resurrection, and that is a problem for those like Nancy Murphey who hold to a non-reductive physicalist soul sleep. Because of the given evidence there is this obvious distinction between the body and the soul. There is also evidence to show that soul and spirit really are able to be used interchangeably, even in context of the Old Testament. Because of all of this I find that the dualistic aspect of the mind-body problem to be the correct route to take.