Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

Thank you for your response, Ohio,

Regretfully, I cannot wrap my head around what it is exactly you are trying to say. I don't mean you any offense, but the construction of your sentences I am finding a little bit problematic. Perhaps you're tired. Might you try considering re-writing your reply a little bit more lucidly to more clearly bring out your points? Thank you.

...

Can anyone else help out with SheepDawg's conundrum?

You have to read my post in context with SheepDawg's post.

He makes two comparisons using Mark and Romans. He contends that the comparisons are similar, but they are not. He appears to be facetiously introducing conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and Paul for some reason. In the first comparison, he linked the heart and the flesh. In his second, he linked the law in our members with the law in our mind. By equating these comparisons, he attempted to prove that Jesus' teaching was at odds with Paul's.

I explained that neither our heart nor our flesh is physical, of course. Jesus said that all manner of evil came from within, probably referring to our fallen flesh, and passed thru our heart and come out of us, which can corrupt us. This is in contrast to food which comes into our stomach and passes out of us, never going thru our heart, so it could never can corrupt us as the Pharisees implied. Our heart is not the source of evil, since our heart can also love God, and out of it are the issues of life.

Does this help? Perhaps you can rework your original post after you register. It would help me.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I explained that neither our heart nor our FLESH is physical, OF COURSE.

This is sooo, so, so funny! ! !

I have nothing to say.. Lol! ..

Originally Posted by Freedom

Perhaps this "conundrum" exists only because you want it to exist. Lets rewind from Romans 7 back to chapter 3 where Paul references several Psalms in his discussion of sin:
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

What Paul quotes in Rom 3 represents the same theme that Jesus spoke about- "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man". In other words, Paul was on the same page as Jesus. .

Thank you for 'opening my eyes' and showing me the link between what Jesus said and what Paul said. Very valid.

"Conundrum" solved, I guess...(or at least that's what you think, isn't it?)

Originally Posted by Ohio

I explained that neither our heart nor our flesh is physical, of course. Jesus said that all manner of evil came from within, PROBABLY REFERRING TO OUR FALLEN FLESH, and passed thru our heart and come out of us, which can corrupt us. This is in contrast to food which comes into our stomach and passes out of us, never going thru our heart, so it could never corrupt us as the Pharisees implied. OUR HEART IS NOT THE SOURCE OF EVIL, since our heart can also love God, and out of it are the issues of life.

So, Jesus was "probably" referring to our fallen flesh, although the record reflects that he said "out of the heart of man" (and not "probably" out of his heart). He did not mention the word 'flesh'. And when you say that the "heart is NOT the source of evil" I just wonder who, now, is truly at "odds" with and in "conflict" with the Lord Jesus? This explanation of yours, I'm sure you know, amounts to 'conjecture' on your part, at best; and a flat-out denial of the express words of Jesus, at worst. Am I wrong?

Nevertheless, for entirely different reasons, I agree with the general tenor of your argument. However, I was essaying to make a much wider point than what you have seen. I was not just 'facetiously introducing a conflict between Paul and the Lord Jesus' for the heck of it (and, by the way, I object to that word "facetiously"; I intended no humor), rather I 'introduced' the imagined conflict and intended it to be received as a 'rhetorical and polemic device' to illustrate and color the much broader issue I desired to cover.

But I have no more heart to pursue this topic. It is potentially a Pandora's box and I am sensing and discerning that we have not all been irradiated and been made level with the same amount of light; and my spirit will not allow me to continue further. Some things ought not to be shared. I'm sorry. But thank you all for your responses and taking the trouble to trouble your bibles to search for scriptures to refute me. But please feel free to engage me on other threads.

God bless.
________________________________________
"The heart is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

Nevertheless, for entirely different reasons, I agree with the general tenor of your argument. However, I was essaying to make a much wider point than what you have seen. I was not just 'facetiously introducing a conflict between Paul and the Lord Jesus' for the heck of it (and, by the way, I object to that word "facetiously"; I intended no humor), rather I 'introduced' the imagined conflict and intended it to be received as a 'rhetorical and polemic device' to illustrate and color the much broader issue I desired to cover.

OK SheepDawg, fair enough. I'll st on the sidelines while you make a "much wider point than I have seen."

Sorry about the early pushback. Boards like this are noted for that, me in particular, and we do get ex-LC'ers from time to time who apply stray points in an attempt to discredit the scriptures. I'm sure you can understand that.

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK SheepDawg, fair enough. I'll st on the sidelines while you make a "much wider point than I have seen."

Sorry about the early pushback. Boards like this are noted for that, me in particular, and we do get ex-LC'ers from time to time who apply stray points in an attempt to discredit the scriptures. I'm sure you can understand that.

Dear Ohio,

When I said, "much wider point than what you have seen" I did not mean that in the way of "Oh, here is something fresh and new the Lord has revealed to me in the Scriptures that I have seen and nobody else, including you". No. I meant that statement only in regards to, and limited to, the information I myself had given in my earlier post. That, that information was insufficient for you to discern my intentions. I meant that there was no possible way that you could have known what I intended to talk about based on that little information.

And what I meant by "much broader issue" was simply that I wasn't really engrossed with whether Jesus and Paul were saying different things or not. Of course they weren't. I simply meant to say that I wanted to lead the conversation to something else I thought would be of interest to everyone (though in keeping with the subject of the thread). I'm sure you probably know your bible backwards and forwards in Chinese, back to front in Aramaic, and up side down in Spanish. So I wasn't saying, "hey, Ohio, you ignorant hillbilly, here's something that you don't know". Not at all. I just wanted to introduce another interesting spin on things that are familiar to you and everybody else.

I ain't no Mota, bro.

Grace and Peace.

I came across the board and the topic by chance as I have been asking the same question.

The best answer I found so far is from "Systematic Theology" chapter 23 "The Essential Nature of Man" by Wayne Grudem. The outline of the chapter may be found at http://www.christianessentialssbc.co...007/041507.pdf. The lecture audio may be found at http://archive.scottsdalebible.com/a...415WGrudem.mp3

Also I found a helpful article titled "What About Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit?" by Gordon Ferguson at http://gordonferguson.org/articles/w...ul-and-spirit/

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter

I came across the board and the topic by chance as I have been asking the same question.

The best answer I found so far is from "Systematic Theology" chapter 23 "The Essential Nature of Man" by Wayne Grudem. The outline of the chapter may be found at http://www.christianessentialssbc.co...007/041507.pdf. The lecture audio may be found at http://archive.scottsdalebible.com/a...415WGrudem.mp3

Also I found a helpful article titled "What About Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit?" by Gordon Ferguson at http://gordonferguson.org/articles/w...ul-and-spirit/

Hi Peter,

Welcome! I know UntoHim, the owner and moderator of this board, admires Wayne Grudem.

I've never really understood the impulse to categorize man as bipartite. I know some some do, most notably to me, R.C. Sproul. He has said that tripartitism "causes problems" with excessive subjectivity, being sense oriented, and so forth.

I think those who are bipartite are a bit apprehensive of spiritual experience. If you tend toward bipartitism you are going to naturally be cerebral. That fits Sproul's MO.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Peter

I came across the board and the topic by chance as I have been asking the same question.

The best answer I found so far is from "Systematic Theology" chapter 23 "The Essential Nature of Man" by Wayne Grudem. The outline of the chapter may be found at http://www.christianessentialssbc.co...007/041507.pdf. The lecture audio may be found at http://archive.scottsdalebible.com/a...415WGrudem.mp3

Also I found a helpful article titled "What About Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit?" by Gordon Ferguson at http://gordonferguson.org/articles/w...ul-and-spirit/

Thanks for all that Peter. I remember back around 1970 being completely enthralled with the three circles of man, each divided into three sections. I was ignorant and naive back then.

Now I see our non-material aspect is the awareness reading these words right now. But I'm not sure what happens to it when our body passes.

I don't, however, need scripture to break it all down. I just trust in God. That's His business, not mine. Like my birth, like my death.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter

Also I found a helpful article titled "What About Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit?" by Gordon Ferguson at http://gordonferguson.org/articles/w...ul-and-spirit/

Never paid much attention to the "tripartite man" theory. Apparently was "recovered" by some lady in Brookline Massachusetts in 1922 (Mary McDonough).

Something so critical lay fallow for so many centuries, and uncovered thus, and made the centre-piece of God's move on earth ("economy", "dispensing" &c) in the 20th century?

Or yet another rabbit-hole?

I thought Peter's linked article by Gordon Ferguson was spot-on: "Building a theological system on passages intended to provide practical motivations [i.e. faith in God's complete salvation of the whole person, being "so great a salvation"] 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"

[OBW]

I tend more bipartite because I find the so-called distinctions between soul and spirit (which Nee, and then Lee, tried so hard to separate in a neat way) to be so overlapping, by definition, with each other that they could not be separated. And the only place where there is a reference to separating them requires a sharp, two-edged sword of the Spirit.

My reason for somewhat combining them is that the record I see would appear to treat "spirit" (of man) as if it is a part of the soul that is not otherwise found in other animals rather than something completely separate. That is not for the purpose of avoiding more spiritual things. But spiritual is more a part of all of life rather than something unique to "non-secular" experience. In other words, something that is "spiritual" is not so because it is separated from ordinary experience and relegated to what might (without denigration) be called religious experience. Instead, it is spiritual because it comes from the life of ones who are living according to the spirit. That should include the way that we pray, read, learn, drive, shop, "kill time," and so on.

While there are sometimes events, feelings, realizations, emotions, etc., that occur while within somewhat more "religious" undertakings, like praying, reading and meditating on scripture, worship of God (both individually and corporately), I am slow to rely on feelings or emotions, primarily for two reasons.

1. The first goes back to my AOG upbringing (which you may recall or find in one the first posts in my blog) which is very dependent on emotional experiences — even to the extent of making mockery of what God is fully capable of doing and even sometimes does. But a core of believe that insists that the right prayers will bring miracles of all sorts, including causing you to speak in tongues.

2. The second is because of my time in the LRC. There, it was so often the emotional sense created by the belief of spiritual superiority. Also, a propensity to get us whipped-up so that the next thing said (which was too often the important thing) was accepted without reasonable consideration. Too often the sheer litany of otherwise irrelevant verses to which we all shouted "amen" and "hallelujah" to in ever-raising chorus (and rightly so) just made our response to the next statement, which was as erroneous as the day is long, an even louder "hallelujah." No, that did not always happen. But it is just like standing up in the middle of an unrighteous lynching to "call on the Lord three times" so that we can salve ourselves that we are doing the right thing.

And not part of the numbered reasons, insisting on tripartite seems to need a reason. And for the LRC, they had one. So that you could become your own source of God. You don't pray to God, you turn to your spirit. You don't really read and study the scripture. You turn to your spirit. That separate organ that is higher than your soul. That place that is capable of telling you that something is right (or wrong) without any actual tracking to something of scripture or sound teaching. That place that uses your group-think training so that you know how to feel better about going along with the group. That place that has all the teachings of Nee, Lee, and the "brothers" saturated so that you will always feel like they want you to feel.