Quote:
Originally Posted by KSA
Tripartite man is one of the core teachings in LC. This teaching also had an immense influence on my Christian life. I have no doubt that there is a difference between our spirit and our soul. However, I think that in LC we had some unhealthy tendencies. For example, many there think that the things of the soul are negative and bad. Therefore a big stress on how bad are our opinions and soulish attachments. As a result, the cross was understood mainly as the denial of the soul. We were taught to get out of our mind and get into our spirit. There is much to discuss here.
|
KSA, I agree, and I commend to you the writings of Erasmus of Rotterdam, who in the 16th century was probably more widely read than Luther. Here is an exerpt from his "Handbook for the Christian Soldier". This is a translation from the original 1501 Latin version, English translation date is uncertain. Erasmus is explaining to the "soldier" who is endeavoring to "fight the good fight" what his "equipment" consists of, and the "terrain" on which he struggles.
Of three parts of man, the spirit, the soul, and the flesh.
Chap. vii.
These things afore written had been and that a great deal more than sufficient: Origene in his first book upon the epistle of Paul to the Romans maketh this division. nevertheless that thou mayst be somewhat more sensibly known unto thyself, I will rehearse compendiously the division of a man, after the description of Origene, for he followeth Paul making three parts, the spirit, the soul and the flesh, which three parts Paul joined together, writing to the Thessalonieences. That your spirit (saith he) your soul and your body may be kept clean and uncorrupt, that ye be not blamed or accused at the coming of our Lord Jesu Christ…
…To conclude therefore, the spirit maketh us gods, the flesh maketh us beasts: the soul maketh us men: the spirit maketh us religious, obedient to God, kind and merciful. The flesh maketh us despisers of God, disobedient to God, unkind and cruel. The soul maketh us indifferent, that is to say, neither good nor bad. The spirit desireth celestial things: the flesh desireth delicate and pleasant things: the soul desireth necessary things: the spirit carryeth us up to heaven: the flesh thrusteth us down to hell. To the soul nothing is imputed, that is to say, it doth neither good nor harm: whatsoever is carnal or springeth of the flesh that is filthy: whatsoever is spiritual proceeding of the spirit, that is pure, perfect and godly: whatsoever is natural and proceedeth of the soul, is a medium and indifferent thing, neither good nor bad. Wilt thou more plainly have the diversity of these three parts shewed unto thee as it were with a man’s finger? Certainly I will essay.
I included only the introduction, and a concluding paragraph; the body of the chapter, and the book, I leave hopefully for you to read. Erasmus puts the soul in the middle: sometimes it is tainted by the fears and lusts of the flesh, sometimes it senses and expresses the divine and eternal things. Please do not be put off by his use of "gods" and "beasts" in his description of men; he is being alliterative, poetic.
In theology, if I remember rightly, the LSM view is similar to Erasmus (i.e. the soul is "neutral" -- see "Man and the 2 Trees", for instance), so much so that I wonder if they cribbed him without attribution. In practice, the soul was denigrated too much, or ignored.
"Turn to your spirit, brother!" The whole thing was simplified to the point of being ridiculous and even harmful to the weaker and damaged ones. And whom of us did not come into the local churches lugging a battered soul? Very few, I bet.