Humans:Body and Soul; Duality or Dualism

[Josheb]

Psychosomatic unity. Amen, brother.

Well.... sorta. It's more like trying to separate the cylinder opening from the manifold opening on an engine, the heartwood from the cambium of a tree, or the electrostatic force from an atomic particles' orbit. Those would be inanimate analogies. It's difficult to provide an inanimate one because humans (being created in God's image) are exclusively unique (redundancy intended). Without getting too analytical, it might be comparable to an effort to separate perception, thought, and affect. It can't be done. The effort is useful for understanding certain aspects of human existence but when it comes down to the foundational reality, we don't have thoughts without some interaction with perceptions, and we don't have emotions without some interaction with perception and other cognitions. Thrown in conduct and the dynamics are exponentially increased. A person thinking, feeling, and acting (metaphorically) blind to the world is psychotically delusional. S/he's lost her/his humanity except as a basic physical organism in the shape of a human. Affectless people are psychopaths or sociopaths and, again, and have lost their humanity, or perhaps the better word is human-ness. These elements cannot be separated and the human God created still exist.

So it is with the body, soul, and spirit. They are useful constructs, but they don't fully grasp the reality of God's created creature.

Think of it this way: Does God have a body, or a soul, or a spirit? Most would say yest to at least one of those questions. We know God can have a body in the strictest sense of the word because He manifests himself with mass quite often in scripture. Jesus has a body. There is nothing in scripture stating his body was abandoned with his ascension. One part of the Trinity has a body and, then, if we grapple with the assertions of aseity and immutability we have to accept some sort of divine physicality. Yet (I doubt) none of us would say God is human like us. No, the reverse is the case, the human creature, being created in God's image, is a body, soul, and spirit because God made us that way..... in his image.

I have to head off to worship now but one last thought. Some folks debate whether the thoughts and emotions are in the soul or in the spirit (or in the physical mass or flesh of the brain). What happens if we ask, "Does God think? Does God have thoughts? Does God have emotions?" because if we try to place these things in God's soul or God's spirit (or physiology, whatever that might be) then we near-instantly run into problems.



What I do know is that to remove one element from the human means the human ceases to be human; s/he ceases to exist.

 

[John Bauer]

Well... sorta.

I can't tell where we differ. When you say "sorta," that seems to imply a difference somewhere. You said that the "unified view" best reflects how the whole of scripture describes the human being, and here you said more clearly, "To remove one element from the human means the human ceases to be human; [he or she] ceases to exist." It sounds to me like you are saying that human nature is an indivisible psychosomatic unity, that the distinctions between body, soul, and spirit can be useful but they're not ontologically separable. A human being cannot be reduced to, or continue to exist as, merely one of these elements. Wherefore the "sorta"? Or perhaps I have misunderstood something.

If, as you say, the removal of any one element—body, soul, or spirit—results in the dissolution of the person, then Platonic dualism is not a tenable option. The persistence of the soul apart from the body is precisely the kind of separation your argument appears to reject. You don't appear to have fallen prey to the Platonic dualism that has influenced so much of Christianity.

Yes, the biblical view is holistic—the body is not a container or prison-house for the "real" self. I think you could agree that categories like body, soul, and spirit are not ontologically distinct substances (whether material or immaterial) which can be peeled apart like components of a machine. They are scriptural terms used in various contexts to describe different dimensions of human life, whether bodily existence, or inner life, or relational openness to God, or what have you. As such, I see these as aspects of the one human person, not separable substances—but aspects in the vein of Berkouwer, not Hoekema.

With respect to your comments on the divine nature, I would offer a caution. The incarnation entails that one person of the Trinity assumed a human nature, including a true human body, but it doesn't follow that God qua God is embodied or possesses physical properties. To infer a form of divine physicality from Christophanies, the incarnation, or the post-resurrection bodily life of Christ risks collapsing the Creator–creature distinction and undermining the doctrine of divine immutability. The Son's human nature is not intrinsic to the divine essence; it was assumed in the flow of history for the purpose of redemption.

 

[Josheb]

I can't tell where we differ.

Good. It simply seemed to me there might be some subtle differences so I thought to clarify my pov. If, after I did so, no differences are observed then big hugs,

It sounds to me like you are saying that human nature is an indivisible psychosomatic unity that the distinctions between body, soul, and spirit can be useful but they're not ontologically separable.

That is correct but I don't use the term "psychosomatic," and think that term is dubious at best and completely misguided at worst. Surely everyone here understands that in modern vernacular the word "psychosomatic," refers to an illness created or exacerbated by internal mental conflicts. I assume you simply mean body/soul (and not body/mind). If we had to coin a a term then it would be somatic/soulish/spiritual but even then the connotative diversity of the terms requires specified definition so we should stick to the simple language "body," "soul" and "spirit". The same holds true of "human nature," because many folks are going to misconstrue that to refer to post-disobedient human nature (and one or two in this forum hold human nature has always been sinful). We are talking about the way God made a human. We are not talking about "human nature" other than that, and we definitely do not want to conflate or confuse human nature with what the dynamic translations call "sinful nature," or what the formal translations refer to when speaking about the post-disobedient flesh.

Ontologically speaking, divisions between body, soul, and spirit are not possible. I might even go so far as to assert the unified condition teleologically and existentially, but I've never worked through those avenues to their exegetical or logically necessary conclusions.

A human being cannot be reduced to, or continue to exist as, merely one of these elements. Wherefore the "sorta"? Or perhaps I have misunderstood something.

It's not that we can or cannot exist with only one element; it is that we cannot/do not exist with any one element missing. It's the difference between existing with only one element verses existing with two elements.

• body alone
• soul alone
• spirit alone
• body and soul
• body and spirit
• soul and spirit

None of those options is found in scripture. The human creature is always all three, and only all three. The nature of any one of those "elements" may change, but they still always exist. The resurrected body, for example may be very different than the body buried but there is still a body. There's no soul or spirit wandering around without a body. If it can be seen then it has mass.

If, as you say, the removal of any one element—body, soul, or spirit—results in the dissolution of the person, then Platonic dualism is not a tenable option.

Yep. However, I am not so rigid in my thinking that I restrict myself or dictate to others the proverbial "thought experiment" is forbidden. Having majored in philosophy during my 10/4 plan* as an undergraduate I thoroughly enjoyed the practice of considering a premise and following it through to its logically necessary conclusions even if, in the end, the premise and all that followed had to be rejected. Knowing what not to think can be just as valuable as knowing what to think. Much of sound Christian doctrine was decided that way (mixed in with divine providence and prayerful supplication ). I credit my salvation with God using those years of study to show me men have long understood the problems and never been able to find the solutions because the solution is found in a person, Jesus the resurrected anointed one of God . Similarly, as a young convert I was greatly influenced by Watchman Nee. It was through his book, "The Spiritual Man," that I first learned of the tripartite construct. The tripartite view has its modern roots in a mistranslation of the KJV. I now reject that paradigm but still consider it can be useful, though ultimately limited and incorrect. Plato was working with what he had and the limits of the early Greek worldview. Aside from the translation error, Nee was a product of all the influences of Christian experientialism and the rise of the social sciences so it seemed right to him to espouse the view(s) he did. I suspect he would now side with you and me were he to read this thread.

The persistence of the soul apart from the body is precisely the kind of separation your argument appears to reject.

Yep

You don't appear to have fallen prey to the Platonic dualism that has influenced so much of Christianity.

Nope. An elaboration would entail an exposition of Greek concepts of the divine and Plato as a progeny of those views. That would not only be tangential but also somewhat misleading because not all dualisms are Platonic, especially not among Christians. I've had discussions/debates with folks who deny the soul, or treat the soul as synonymous with the spirit. Others limit the spirit to a divine spirit of one form or another and deny any existence of a human spirit. Plato's dualism, strictly speaking, was merely one of "forms" or the "real" thing, the thing as it existed in reality, and the "sensible," or what we perceive through our senses, with the latter always being inaccurate due to our limitations (which might not be sin, according to Plato). I, therefore, think it best to simply say "dualistic" without limiting the context or application to the specific dualism Plato asserted. Plato was very influential in early Christian theology but those of use informed enough to debate this op are not beholding to his viewpoint (and it's likely the dualists are influenced by other dualisms that have occurred over the last two millennia).

Yes, the biblical view is holistic—the body is not a container or prison-house for the "real" self.

Yep.

I think you could agree that categories like body, soul, and spirit are not ontologically distinct substances (whether material or immaterial) which can be peeled apart like components of a machine.

Yep.










* Ten years for a four-year degree .
.

 

[Josheb]

Post #23 addresses the op-relevant content. The following is digressive. I'm open to discussing any of the aspects posted below in a different thread.

They are scriptural terms used in various contexts to describe different dimensions of human life, whether bodily existence, or inner life, or relational openness to God, or what have you. As such, I see these as aspects of the one human person, not separable substances—but aspects in the vein of Berkouwer, not Hoekema.

Now this might be where I say, "Sorta," again. To begin with, I enjoy participating in a Reform-oriented forum, but I find there is an over-attachment to the Reformed thinkers at the expense of scripture. I've read Berkouwer and Hoekema but I would not use either to prove or support my viewpoint. I'll use scripture and scripture alone as best I can. I try not to appeal to extra-biblical sources unless the discussion is specifically about those sources. Were we to be having a discussion about those two's viewpoint(s) versus some other theologian (whether also Reformed or not) I'd entertain what the theologians said.

When I read ANY mention of the word "body" in the Bible I do so understanding scripture is using that word for a specific purpose in the context of the unified viewpoint it teaches from beginning to end. I do the same thing anytime I read the word, "soul," or the word, "spirit." I do not read the mention of those words with a dualism or a tripartism in mind. Neither do I read those words with a specific theologian in mind (or I might consider and then compare what all the theologians I can recall have said, measuring the many views with the speed of thought in contrast or comparison to what scripture as a whole teaches.

At the risk of causing another digression, an obvious comparative example would be the word "Israel." That word should never be read without understanding the word means "God prevails," or "those in whom God perseveres." That is what the word means whether it is applied to Jacob, the Hebrews, those living in a nation-state, or those in Christ. Just as the failure to be consistent with the unified body/soul/spirit teaching causes a variety of debate, so too does the failure to be consistent with "those in whom God prevails" causes debate (and division).

Were you or I living before Berkouwer or Hoekema we might say they agree with us , but the larger, more important, more truthful reality is we all agree with scripture. Scripture teaches the human is unified and body, soul, and spirit are inseparable.

With respect to your comments on the divine nature, I would offer a caution. The incarnation entails that one person of the Trinity assumed a human nature, including a true human body, but it doesn't follow that God qua God is embodied or possesses physical properties.

Start an op. I'll have that discussion with you. For now, I will say that early theologians held God to be noncorporeal, to be Spirit and not Body. I believe that is due to a failure on their part to understand what we now know: mass and energy are simply variations of a common theme and God is the Creator of that condition. Distinctions between the physical and the non-physical are, therefore, always and everywhere incorrect. A false dichotomy. Does this apply to the externally existing Creator? Maybe not, but we do know God manifests Himself in real physical manner, with real physicality. We tend to think of matter as something finite and, therefore, it is impossible for God to have mass but there's no longer any logical reason to think God cannot be infinitely corporeal. I find that to be much more consistent with the whole of scripture than to deny Him all physicality.

Keep in mind scripture states no one can see Him and live. That is a meaningless statement if He cannot be seen at all and if He can be seen then He does, by definition, have mass.

To infer a form of divine physicality from Christophanies, the incarnation, or the post-resurrection bodily life of Christ risks collapsing the Creator–creature distinction and undermining the doctrine of divine immutability.

I did not infer physicality from the incarnation. I asserted the incarnation as an example of eternal, inherent, already existing physicality. If God now has a body (that of Jesus') but did not have one prior to the incarnation, then God is not immutable. The body does not have to be identical, but some corporeality must exist.

The Son's human nature is not intrinsic to the divine essence; it was assumed in the flow of history for the purpose of redemption.

"Human nature"? I do not believe I mentioned Jesus' human nature or limited the incarnation to human flesh. What I said was, "Jesus has a body." I do not assume Jesus' body was merely human and I encourage you not to do so, either. Physiologically, Jesus had abilities you and I do not possess. Those faculties may be the result of his sinlessness (was the pre-disobedient Adam have those same faculties? ). Maybe. We know Adam had the ability to command aspects of creation prior to his fall. Is that all Jesus was doing? I think not. If Jesus was merely human and, therefore, bound and limited to all the limitations of human physicality then some explanation how he could manifest the kind of power he exhibited is necessary. 0.2 amps of electricity is sufficient to kill a person. The energy, or power, it takes to stop wind, or walk on water, is enormous. The power it takes to transcend the subatomic boundaries of time and space are equally exponentially greater than that required to stop wind. I know we do not normally consider these aspects of Jesus' existence or bother to frame our understanding of the gospel in terms of what we know about the physical world but maybe we should. Everything we learn about this world in which we live has theological significance. I listen to Lawrence Krauss' infamous (or is it notorious?) lecture on "A Universe from Nothing," and think, "You fool. God said all of that thousands of years ago. Update your thinking." I don't assume the temporal pregnancy precludes an inherent, eternal physicality and I trust you do not, either. Jesus existed in the form of God (Php. 2:6) and took on the form of a bondservant (Php. 2:7), and the bondservant form happened to be made in the likeness of men (Php. 2:7). In other words, form pre-existed the incarnation. We can discuss whether the "form" was corporeal or not (a bondservant is not a distinct physicality, but human likeness is) but that's fodder for a separate thread.


My position relevant to this op is that humans are body, soul, and spirit, and none of the three can be separated from the human and the human still exist. The rest is digressive.

 

[John Bauer]

If, after [clarifying my point of view], no differences are observed, then big hugs.

It seems we are on the same page—to some extent, anyway. If we dug deeper into this subject, I suspect differences would appear.

Ten years for a four-year degree.

Hahaha!

I enjoy participating in a Reformed-oriented forum, but I find there is an over-attachment to Reformed thinkers at the expense of scripture. I've read Berkouwer and Hoekema but I would not use either to prove or support my viewpoint.

To be clear, I mention these gentlemen and the views they represented on this topic not to "prove or support" my viewpoint but to illustrate and clarify it. For example, if you're familiar with Berkouwer then you have a decent idea where I am coming from. Since I belong to the sola scriptura camp, and not some solo scriptura camp, I am comfortable citing other resources in addition to scripture—especially as someone who is confessionally Reformed. But those theologians and confessional documents themselves appeal to scripture, because they are subordinate to scripture.

Start an op. I'll have that discussion with you.

I may do. But for the time being I have too much on my plate, both here and in real life. But I'll pencil that one in the calendar.