S
I lean toward a bipartite (dichotomy) anthropological view of man myself. I think that it is obvious that scripture often uses the word spirit and soul interchangeably and when they are both mentioned it is nothing more than parallelism and repetition simply a way of saying the whole of man.
I see no significant separation intended in saying spirit and soul. It is just an parallelism expression of that inner spiritual man whether you call it soul or spirit.
For example when he says you should love God with all your heart, soul, mind, body and strength does he intend to teach that we are a 5 part human anthropology? What would that be called anyway? Pentapartite? Pentchotomy? Obviously it is expressive of all that make up our being from our perspectives and includes our whole person.
I have often suspected that way too much is being taught on the difference between Spirit and Soul that cannot be proven from scripture as to where one stops and the other begins. It just seems like speculative conjecture and not what the text intended. When two teachers present different views as to the definition of soul and spirit neither can authoritatively prove which one is correct as both are guesses. Would someone attempt to define the difference between heart, soul, and mind he would contradict himself as he had already taught that the mind was the soul. Is the heart the spirit? Who determines who is correct. Which category does strength fit into? Is it body? Is is determination? Is the emotions, the heart or the mind, or the soul? I think the author would say "that was not the point, it was a way of expressing all that we are should be devoted to serving and Loving God."
For this reason I have rejected most books and teachings I have heard on these differences that make up soul and spirit. If there is an intended difference in select texts it would be similar to the one I mentioned about Loving God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, and etc... these individual parts are expressions of whatever we call them, love God with everything that makes up your conscious being.
I see no significant separation intended in saying spirit and soul. It is just an parallelism expression of that inner spiritual man whether you call it soul or spirit.
For example when he says you should love God with all your heart, soul, mind, body and strength does he intend to teach that we are a 5 part human anthropology? What would that be called anyway? Pentapartite? Pentchotomy? Obviously it is expressive of all that make up our being from our perspectives and includes our whole person.
I have often suspected that way too much is being taught on the difference between Spirit and Soul that cannot be proven from scripture as to where one stops and the other begins. It just seems like speculative conjecture and not what the text intended. When two teachers present different views as to the definition of soul and spirit neither can authoritatively prove which one is correct as both are guesses. Would someone attempt to define the difference between heart, soul, and mind he would contradict himself as he had already taught that the mind was the soul. Is the heart the spirit? Who determines who is correct. Which category does strength fit into? Is it body? Is is determination? Is the emotions, the heart or the mind, or the soul? I think the author would say "that was not the point, it was a way of expressing all that we are should be devoted to serving and Loving God."
For this reason I have rejected most books and teachings I have heard on these differences that make up soul and spirit. If there is an intended difference in select texts it would be similar to the one I mentioned about Loving God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, and etc... these individual parts are expressions of whatever we call them, love God with everything that makes up your conscious being.
- 2
- 1
- Show all