jswranch Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Current American Protestantism teaches we are a body soul and spirit. CCC we are Body and Soul. At first I thought this was a non-issue, but am now finding a larger issue of how salvation/relation to God works. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Could you elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 [quote name='jswranch' post='1055437' date='Sep 1 2006, 10:01 PM'] Current American Protestantism teaches we are a body soul and spirit. CCC we are Body and Soul. At first I thought this was a non-issue, but am now finding a larger issue of how salvation/relation to God works. Thoughts? [/quote] Which version of American protestantism are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1055630' date='Sep 2 2006, 08:01 AM'] Which version of American protestantism are you referring to? [/quote] Well, I have seen it now from Episcopal, Evangelical, Baptist, and Pentacostal sources. [quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1055617' date='Sep 2 2006, 07:09 AM'] Could you elaborate? [/quote] CCC: God created us as a soul consisting of a body and a spirit Protestant: God created us as an individual consisting of a body, soul, and spirit. As usual, they do not seem to have thought out exactly which part is which (intellect, emotion, fortitude, will etc), and if they have thought out the details, they do not agree within themselves. Is this an issue? How does the church justify her position from scripture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted September 3, 2006 Author Share Posted September 3, 2006 Ok, may have answered some of my own question. Here is a quote from a Baptist church on the subject. [quote]Trichotomism In this belief, man is composed of three elements. The first of these elements is the physical body and is composed of flesh and bones. The second element is the soul and it is the area of the human life where we find reason and emotions. The third element is the spirit and this is the center of man's religious nature. It is here that man is able to perceive spirituality. We find evidence of trichotomism in 1 Thess. 5:23, Heb. 4:12 and 1 Cor. 2:14-3:4. It is believed that at death, the three natures of man separate. The soul is believed to be associated with the body and therefore is mortal. The spirit, however, in immortal and will live on after death. (Erickson 521, Cooper 9) This was the belief held by many of the early Alexandrian church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. Dichotomism This belief is the one most widely held by Christian throughout the history of the church. In this view man consists of only two elements; the material and the immaterial; the body and the soul/spirit. This view of often call dualism. (Erickson 522) This view holds that the soul/spirit are actually the same thing because in Scripture, they are often uses synonymously as in Luke 1:46-47, Matt. 6:25; 10:28. [Gen 2:7, 1Cor5:3, 1Cor7:34 They also hold that if we can say there are three elements that make up man, then we must also say there are more such as in Luke 10:27 where there are four ; heart, mind, soul and strength. How many is it? The dichotomist's view is that this is only an example of the whole person when they separate soul and spirit. [LK1:46] Dichotomism states that the body and soul/spirit is separated at death. It states that the body is dependent on the soul/spirit for life but that at death, the soul/spirit separates from the body and lives on. (Cooper 10, Erickson 523) The dichotomist position was the one held by Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin. It remains today as the orthodox and the liberal position on the nature of man. [/quote] The church appears to have handled this issue already. Ott, page 96 describes the De Fide of Body and Soul declared at 4th Lateran Council in opposition to Origen. Further down, Ott writes [quote]Again incompatible with Chruch dogma is the trichotomism taught by Plato, the gnostics, manichaeans... according to which man is composed of three essential component parts, the body, the animal soul, and a spiritual soul. [/quote] But is the trichotomism here the same as the one taught by some Prots today even though they use the same term? I am not certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 off the top of my head, Doesnt SHeed use the Concept of a body, soul and spirit in a human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 [quote name='Revprodeji' post='1056929' date='Sep 4 2006, 10:09 PM'] off the top of my head, Doesnt SHeed use the Concept of a body, soul and spirit in a human? [/quote] Not sure but Trichotomism really seems to be [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]condemned by the Church. From the Newadvent site on 'soul.'[/url] [quote]This Pauline system, presented to a world already prepossessed in favour of a quasi-Platonic Dualism, occasioned one of the earliest widespread forms of error among Christian writers -- the doctrine of the Trichotomy. According to this, man, perfect man (teleios) consists of three parts: body, soul, spirit (soma, psyche, pneuma). Body and soul come by natural generation; spirit is given to the regenerate Christian alone. Thus, the "newness of life", of which St. Paul speaks, was conceived by some as a superadded entity, a kind of oversoul sublimating the "natural man" into a higher species. This doctrine was variously distorted in the different Gnostic systems. The Gnostics divided man into three classes: [/quote] Seems this 'man=body+soul+spirit' was a Gnostic thing for a long time. Also, here is a line from the Athanasian Creed: [quote]For as [u]the reasonable soul and flesh is one man[/u], so God and man is one Christ.... This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. [/quote] Though I am not certain if the context applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I have a friend borrowing my book, but I thought I read about it in Theology for beginners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 human beings are body and [b][i]spirit[/i][/b]. here's how i've always understood it: the soul is the animating principle of a living thing, or that which gives life to a living thing. a spirit is a type of soul that can exist and act w/o a body. thus, bugs and plants and dogs have souls. human beings have a type of a soul that is called a spirit. in other words, human beings have spiritual souls. read this: [url="http://www.cts.org.au/2000/soulsandspirits.htm"]http://www.cts.org.au/2000/soulsandspirits.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batteddy Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 [quote name='phatcatholic' post='1057129' date='Sep 5 2006, 03:23 PM'] human beings are body and [b][i]spirit[/i][/b]. here's how i've always understood it: the soul is the animating principle of a living thing, or that which gives life to a living thing. a spirit is a type of soul that can exist and act w/o a body. thus, bugs and plants and dogs have souls. human beings have a type of a soul that is called a spirit. in other words, human beings have spiritual souls. read this: [url="http://www.cts.org.au/2000/soulsandspirits.htm"]http://www.cts.org.au/2000/soulsandspirits.htm[/url] [/quote] phatcatholic is correct. Soul and spirit mean two different thing...but our soul IS a spirit. Animals have a soul, the metaphysical "form" of Life, but it is not a spirit. It is not conscious or self-aware. It is just the metaphysical "template" that animates it. Whereas our souls are spiritual souls. The "form" of our body...is Conscious and Self-Aware. It has intellect and Free Will. Finally the Angels are Spirits but not souls. They have a mind, a consciousness...but no body. They are pure Form, without biological organic material life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted September 6, 2006 Author Share Posted September 6, 2006 (edited) Phat & batteddy, Ok test this statement: Man consists of a spirit and a body. The term 'soul' has many meanings to include spirit, man, entire human, that which is in the image of God, mind, and principal of life in a living/breathing/biological/material being. Edited September 6, 2006 by jswranch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 [quote name='jswranch' post='1057664' date='Sep 6 2006, 06:47 AM'] Phat & batteddy, Ok test this statement: Man consists of a spirit and a body. The term 'soul' has many meanings to include spirit, man, entire human, that which is in the image of God, mind, and principal of life in a living/breathing/biological/material being. [/quote] i wouldn't equate "soul" with "man" or "entire human." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 [quote name='jswranch' post='1055437' date='Sep 1 2006, 08:01 PM'] Current American Protestantism teaches we are a body soul and spirit. CCC we are Body and Soul. At first I thought this was a non-issue, but am now finding a larger issue of how salvation/relation to God works. Thoughts? [/quote] Both are valid and they are not mutually exclusive. Bipartite and tripartite anthropologies are both present in Catholic thought throughout history and are really just two ways of describing the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 [quote name='phatcatholic' post='1060206' date='Sep 10 2006, 12:27 PM'] i wouldn't equate "soul" with "man" or "entire human." [/quote] Why not? When we say 'our [u]souls[/u] will spend eternity in heaven at the resurection of the body' do we not mean our own personal entire human existance will be there, thus the use soul can mean entire human in this instance? [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1060209' date='Sep 10 2006, 12:31 PM'] Both are valid and they are not mutually exclusive. Bipartite and tripartite anthropologies are both present in Catholic thought throughout history and are really just two ways of describing the same thing. [/quote] Help my understand. I see you telling me Dichotomy and Trichotomy are both ok, but I see Ott saying: [quote]Again incompatible with Chruch dogma is the trichotomism taught by Plato, the gnostics, manichaeans... according to which man is composed of three essential component parts, the body, the animal soul, and a spiritual soul. [/quote] He also cites other strong statements against trichotomism. I called Tim Staples at CA and he also affirmed that it was a heresy (not that he is a church uber-scholar). [url="http://www.catholic.com/audio/2006/MP3/ca060905b.mp3"]Here is the call in show. Forward to about 33 minutes.[/url] Also, is not CCC 362-368 fairly certain on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Christians can affirm a tri - partite anthropology. In fact, Paul seems to do so on a couple of occasions. The issue with the Gnostics has to do with whether the body is redeemed within that scheme. Tha quote from the Athanasian Creed is about another issue altogether, the question of whether Jesus has a human soul or not. (He did!) Be careful how you use New Advent. It can be helpful in some cases (the NPNF series is nice.) But a lot of the info is really antiquated. nick.. I'm not sure what "spiritual souls" are. It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too! If you want to distinguish between humans and animals, just use a standard tri - partite division of the soul (appetitive, part concerned with honor, and rational/spiritual). You can then argue that animals don't have a rational soul. This also takes care of the (apparent) problem with the "spirit" terminology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now