Soul & Spirit - Same or Different?

[Sons to Glory!]

The last couple days on the index page of this forum, a couple authors (Gordon Furguson is one) have been highlighted who have written things about Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's teachings. I've read just a little of the things linked to, and one main subject seems to be the authors' disagreement with the teaching of man being a tripartite being - spirit, soul and body. From what I've read, the augment is made that this view is not supported in the word, and therefore lends itself to an overly mystical approach in Christians. The authors appear to support the idea that man is in fact dichotomous - soul and spirit are synonymous with each other in the Bible.

Personally, I believe man has been made with three main parts, as is said in 1st Thessalonians 5:3, "your whole spirit and soul and body . . ." (the Greek has the article "and" between each). Admittedly I first heard this teaching in the LC, when I arrived in 1974. Everything I read in scripture seems to support this. But I'm curious, do others see man's makeup the same way, or is this another LC Kool-Aid drink I've swallowed and need to reconsider?

[Trapped]

To provide some more granularity regarding the tripartite man teaching, according to Nee/Lee, the three parts of man are further divided up thus:

body - physical body
soul - mind, emotion, will
spirit - conscience, fellowship, intuition
(heart = soul plus conscience)

I did note with interest one of the verses that was referenced in one of the articles you mentioned, Mark 12:30:

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

Heart, soul, mind, and strength. This would mean that, according to the LC teaching, in that verse Jesus is telling us to love God with:

-our whole soul plus 1/3 of our spirit (heart)
-our whole soul (soul)
-1/3 of our soul (mind)
-some % of our body (strength)

It would make no sense for Jesus to tell us to love God but leave 2/3 of our spirit (the main organ to contact God according to the LC, remember) out of it.

I personally doubt Nee/Lee got this teaching right, but look forward to reading others' thoughts.

[jesusislord]

Originally Posted by Trapped

To provide some more granularity regarding the tripartite man teaching, according to Nee/Lee, the three parts of man are further divided up thus:

body - physical body
soul - mind, emotion, will
spirit - conscience, fellowship, intuition
(heart = soul plus conscience)

I did note with interest one of the verses that was referenced in one of the articles you mentioned, Mark 12:30:

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

Heart, soul, mind, and strength. This would mean that, according to the LC teaching, in that verse Jesus is telling us to love God with:

-our whole soul plus 1/3 of our spirit (heart)
-our whole soul (soul)
-1/3 of our soul (mind)
-some % of our body (strength)

It would make no sense for Jesus to tell us to love God but leave 2/3 of our spirit (the main organ to contact God according to the LC, remember) out of it.

I personally doubt Nee/Lee got this teaching right, but look forward to reading others' thoughts.

please stop guessing and stick to the scripture

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-is-the-soul

the spirit have the mind, how does it mind is only within the soul? if it can't be separated, don't do it.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by jesusislord

please stop guessing and stick to the scripture

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-is-the-soul

Who's guessing? Who's not sticking to scripture?

The discussion was about the soul and spirit in the context of Nee and Lee's teaching. I just provided some information on what Nee and Lee taught and showed it didn't make sense.

Originally Posted by jesusislord

the spirit have the mind, how does it mind is only within the soul? if it can't be separated, don't do it.

Can you clarify what you mean?

[Ohio]

Definitely our soul and our spirit are not the same. But I'm not sure we can say that our spirit and soul are different "parts." Describing man is almost as complicated as describing God. Consider all the nuanced descriptions: heart, conscience, will, inner man, hidden man, mind, personality, disposition, self, emotions, etc.

[Freedom]

WL's teaching was very formulaic. Breaking man down into three part, diagram and all, and somehow that was supposed to represent something that nobody else had ever seen before. I would agree that it's much more complicated than that.

There is a statement in the Ferguson article that I think does a good job summarizing the issue with what Nee/Lee taught: "Building a theological system on passages intended to provide practical motivations is highly suspect, to say the least. However, Nee has not only chosen a suspect approach, he has deemed it absolutely essential to our understanding of the Bible."

[countmeworthy]

It is difficult to explain the difference between the spirit and soul but I do believe there is a difference. I do adhere to 1st Thessalonians 5:3.

The only way I can explain it is growing up Catholic and going to mass regularly, the prayers were dead. I did not know any better back then. But being at mass did not draw to Jesus. Some or even many Catholics may disagree with me and that is their prerogative. Yet, I am sure there are many Catholics that do pray to the LORD from the depth of their being and do not know they are doing so. ( I am leaving praying to Mary or the saints out of this). After I got saved, I learned to pray even to call on the Lord from the depth of my being.

I often here people use the Lord Jesus Name in vain. They are not calling on Him from a pure heart, a loving heart or even a contrite heart. They are using their soulish flesh to release their frustration and anger but in doing so they are degrading His Precious and Holy Name. They are not calling on Him to help them out of their situation.

Using these examples it is easy for me to then distinguish the soul from the spirit. It is the only way I know how to explain it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The last couple days on the index page of this forum, a couple authors (Gordon Furguson is one) have been highlighted who have written things about Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's teachings. I've read just a little of the things linked to, and one main subject seems to be the authors' disagreement with the teaching of man being a tripartite being - spirit, soul and body. From what I've read, the augment is made that this view is not supported in the word, and therefore lends itself to an overly mystical approach in Christians. The authors appear to support the idea that man is in fact dichotomous - soul and spirit are synonymous with each other in the Bible.

Personally, I believe man has been made with three main parts, as is said in 1st Thessalonians 5:3, "your whole spirit and soul and body . . ." (the Greek has the article "and" between each). Admittedly I first heard this teaching in the LC, when I arrived in 1974. Everything I read in scripture seems to support this. But I'm curious, do others see man's makeup the same way, or is this another LC Kool-Aid drink I've swallowed and need to reconsider?

[UntoHim]

Gordon Ferguson, in his article, has refferenced this excerpt from something called The College Press Commentary

"That idea is further underlined with the combination “spirit, soul and body.” Much discussion of this phrase has concerned whether it indicates that human beings are trichotomous, consisting of three distinct aspects described by these terms, or dichotomous, really consisting of two aspects, body and spirit. In favor of the former interpretation is the fact that all three terms are used here; in favor of the latter is the difficulty in distinguishing clearly between the meaning of “spirit” (pneuma) and “soul” (psychē). However, it must be conceded that Paul is not discussing the precise nature of humanity but is offering assurance of God’s protection. The combination of three terms here is probably only intended as a means of underlining the comprehensive nature of that protection; it is no more a systematic presentation of human nature than is the combination “heart, soul, mind and strength” in Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27. Paul, like the other New Testament writers, repeatedly indicates that God’s purpose is to save the whole person, not just some part."
-
I think this is a pretty fair representation of what is taught by most orthodox, evangelical protestant teachers, scholars and apologists. To be sure, what Nee originally brought forth back in the day in mainland China in the middle of the 20th century, Witness Lee took and ran with until it reached all new heights of exaggeration and absurdity, until we ended up with "Get out of your mind get your spirit in gear!"
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Gordon Ferguson, in his article, has refferenced this excerpt from something called The College Press Commentary

"That idea is further underlined with the combination “spirit, soul and body.” Much discussion of this phrase has concerned whether it indicates that human beings are trichotomous, consisting of three distinct aspects described by these terms, or dichotomous, really consisting of two aspects, body and spirit. In favor of the former interpretation is the fact that all three terms are used here; in favor of the latter is the difficulty in distinguishing clearly between the meaning of “spirit” (pneuma) and “soul” (psychē). However, it must be conceded that Paul is not discussing the precise nature of humanity but is offering assurance of God’s protection. The combination of three terms here is PROBABLY only intended as a means of underlining the comprehensive nature of that protection; it is no more a systematic presentation of human nature than is the combination “heart, soul, mind and strength” in Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27. Paul, like the other New Testament writers, repeatedly indicates that God’s purpose is to save the whole person, not just some part."
-
I think this is a pretty fair representation of what is taught by most orthodox, evangelical protestant teachers, scholars and apologists. To be sure, what Nee originally brought forth back in the day in mainland China in the middle of the 20th century, Witness Lee took and ran with until it reached all new heights of exaggeration and absurdity, until we ended up with "Get out of your mind get your spirit in gear!"
-

Really!? Ferguson said above: "probably," therefore he admits it's just his take on it. And everyone I read interprets scripture to say we have three parts (in the image and likeness of the triune God who created us). And I don't think I'm just reading those who are considered on the fringe. But even if these authors are on the fringe, I see the aspect of three all over creation, in scripture, and yes, in man too.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Really!? Ferguson said above: "probably," therefore he admits it's just his take on it. And everyone I read interprets scripture to say we have three parts (in the image and likeness of the triune God who created us). And I don't think I'm just reading those who are considered on the fringe. But even if these authors are on the fringe, I see the aspect of three all over creation, in scripture, and yes, in man too.

Sons to Glory! Could you please tell us of what practical application and benefit it is to know the difference between our soul and our spirit? I think we're all familiar with the verses used by Nee and Lee to support the tripartite view, so please don't just quote those verses as "proof". Now I happened to think that scripture does make a distinction, although I'm not sure it is not a distinction without a difference, and more importantly, what is the real practical application and benefit of knowing about the difference between our soul and our human spirit.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory! Could you please tell us of what practical application and benefit it is to know the difference between our soul and our spirit? I think we're all familiar with the verses used by Nee and Lee to support the tripartite view, so please don't just quote those verses as "proof". Now I happened to think that scripture does make a distinction, although I'm not sure it is not a distinction without a difference, and more importantly, what is the real practical application and benefit of knowing about the difference between our soul and our human spirit.
-

If Christ is joined to our spirit (He is), then to know our spirit is to know Him, and therefore to know the difference between what's just ourselves and what's actually Christ. Hope that's not too simplistic an answer.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ferguson said above: "probably," therefore he admits it's just his take on it. And everyone I read interprets scripture to say we have three parts (in the image and likeness of the triune God who created us).... even if these authors are on the fringe, I see the aspect of three all over creation, in scripture, and yes, in man too.

If everyone you read interprets scripture in only one way, then perhaps you should broaden your reading list. Read people that you don't agree with, read people that challenge your thinking. Then read people who challenge them! If you only read people who say exactly what you're thinking, how can you learn, grow, change?

And you say, "I see the aspect of three all over creation, in scripture, and yes, in man too." But others see other aspects - for example, I see the aspect of seven in Revelation chapter 1. John looks up from prayer, sees "the one on the throne", then "the seven before the throne", then "the one walking in between the seven in front of the throne". Doesn't look like a trinity to me.

Or, consider the verse cited by Trapped. Mark 12:30

Originally Posted by Trapped

To provide some more granularity regarding the tripartite man teaching, according to Nee/Lee, the three parts of man are further divided up thus:

body - physical body
soul - mind, emotion, will
spirit - conscience, fellowship, intuition
(heart = soul plus conscience)

I did note with interest one of the verses that was referenced in one of the articles you mentioned, Mark 12:30:

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

Heart, soul, mind, and strength. This would mean that, according to the LC teaching, in that verse Jesus is telling us to love God with:

-our whole soul plus 1/3 of our spirit (heart)
-our whole soul (soul)
-1/3 of our soul (mind)
-some % of our body (strength)

It would make no sense for Jesus to tell us to love God but leave 2/3 of our spirit (the main organ to contact God according to the LC, remember) out of it.

So, what 'aspect' did Jesus see? That's the real question. I'm not aware that he presented systematic theology. I don't see the "three parts of man" in "Love the LORD your God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength."

And I don't see the 'trinity' in "the One on the throne, the Seven Spirits burning before the throne, and the One walking in the midst of the Seven Lampstands". Yet that is what I am reading in Scripture.

We all see what we're conditioned to see. Or, we see what we see after we reject our conditioning. Imagine a young boy growing up in the Gaza Strip. He's probably conditioned to see the Jews one way, as how they relate to his immediate and extended family, his tribe, his nation and people. History will be fabricated in order to create a view, which he will be expected to share, and pass on to the next generation. That's his 'aspect' of reality, or view of the world around him.

But suppose he decides that whatever path this leads him to is wrong (creating IEDs, bombing civilians, participating in rock-throwing or more organized violence). Suppose he rejects antagonism. That doesn't mean that he becomes a Christian. He might become agnostic, or pacifistic Islamist, or atheist or Buddhist. So, he rejects one 'aspect' and creates another, but is he nearer objective 'truth' as we're trying to collectively define it here? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Rejecting views, and holding others, is not perforce truth.

But Soul & Spirit - different or same or unknown isn't getting me, personally, closer to Jesus. It just presents me with someone's aspect, or view. But I want to know Jesus' view. I want to know the view of Paul (might lend to tripartite interpretation) and John (might not).

We all know where the 'tripartite' view brought us once - deeper into Witness Lee's lair. Now, someone can show me how it brings us closer to Jesus' view, his living, his walk, his glory? Certainly he didn't teach it.

(btw, some of my favourite authors taught the tripartite view, long before Watchman Nee [think Desiderius Erasmus, the "Enchiridion"]. But I'm willing to hold it at arms length, anyhow. Jesus taught, you must be willing to lose your soul, lose your favorite authors best writings)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

If everyone you read interprets scripture in only one way, then perhaps you should broaden your reading list. Read people that you don't agree with, read people that challenge your thinking. Then read people who challenge them! If you only read people who say exactly what you're thinking, how can you learn, grow, change?

But Soul & Spirit - different or same or unknown isn't getting me, personally, closer to Jesus. It just presents me with someone's aspect, or view. But I want to know Jesus' view. I want to know the view of Paul (might lend to tripartite interpretation) and John (might not).

We all know where the 'tripartite' view brought us once - deeper into Witness Lee's lair. Now, someone can show me how it brings us closer to Jesus' view, his living, his walk, his glory? Certainly he didn't teach it.

(btw, some of my favourite authors taught the tripartite view, long before Watchman Nee [think Desiderius Erasmus, the "Enchiridion"]. But I'm willing to hold it at arms length, anyhow. Jesus taught, you must be willing to lose your soul, lose your favorite authors best writings)

Well said and thanks for jumping in! So I don't go about looking for authors who only have a tripartite view, by any means. And I couldn't say for sure that everyone I read believes that. I will say that I don't think anyone I read regularly has seemed to indicate that soul & spirit are synonymous - I would notice that as it's not according to my tripartite filter.

I've read a good deal of stuff about the dichotomy idea, but the light I believe I've received shows me man has a soul that can be divided from spirit. If one person thinks they're the same and another doesn't, no big whoops! It's certainly not an essential article of the faith. Could we go round and round with verses ad nauseam? Sure. But to what end - people get set in their thinking, and only the Lord can illuminate them otherwise.

And your last paragraphs were spot on in the respect that all this stuff has to be measured by, "Does it bring me into a better walk with Jesus and help me see Him more?"

Any way, I'm kinda done - not interested in the ad nauseam (sorry UntoHim if you think I'm taking my ball home). I just wanted to see what others on here think about the subject, and I've heard that.

[jesusislord]

https://biblearchive.com/blog/man-as...or-trichotomy/

[jesusislord]

I found a dichotomy view

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-is-the-soul

the bible did not support trichotomy at all, I hold scriptures above men's teaching.