Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?

[Freedom]

I might be opening a can of worms here, but I wanted to have a discussion on this subject. The POV that I'm coming from is that as I became disillusioned with the LC, I realized that much of what they call exercising the spirit was just show. This led me to question just what importance the teaching of the human spirit/three parts of man actually had. When the actual practice of the teaching was bizarre things like yelling and shouting, it just made me start to wonder what purpose it all really served in the first place.

WL taught that the spirit is the organ to contact God, by which we have God-consciousness and it differentiates us humans from the animals. The other key point to the teaching was the idea that to use/exercise the spirit was to open your mouth. There is a LC song with a line that goes something like "have you found your human spirit? It's connected to your mouth..." It all made sense to me at one point in time, and the supposed simplicity of it, just seemed compelling. The real shocker for me was when I began to consider that there are countless numbers of Christians who are neither aware of nor accept the tripartite view of man, yet they have no problem knowing and contacting God. So in summary I don't buy into the notion that those who don't hold a certain view of man are only 'accidentally' contacting God.

Of course, the elephant in the room is all the verses that seemingly support the teaching of the three parts of man. It is not my intention to address these verse in detail just yet, but I want to explain just why I'm not so keen on this idea of the three parts of man. As a bit of a humorous, tongue-in-cheek example, consider the following verse:
Ecc 3:21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? (NKJV)

Spirit of the animal?!? I thought we were told in the LC that only man has a spirit? In interest of full disclosure, it is of little concern to me what this verse actually means. That is actually partially the point that I want to make, because I doubt the phrase spirit of the animal is of much concern to anyone. If by chance someone decided to develop a teaching that animals have a spirit, and used this verse as their proof-text, then and only then would it be considered a significant verse - and only by those who actually bought into such a teaching. In like manner, I believe that this is what WL often did with certain verses.

With respect to the teaching of the three parts of man, there are a several verses that are given a great amount of importance in the LC. Interestingly, these verses aren't viewed as being important in the actual context of what they're talking about, but because they support something that WL taught. When I read 1 Thess 5:23, what sticks out to me is the phrase sanctify you completely. The listing of body, soul and spirit seem to be there to emphasize this. The way I think about it is when Paul wrote this, was his intention to define a doctrine of a tripartite nature of man or to emphasize being sanctified completely? I would say the latter. I think the same can be said of Heb 4:12. When I read that verse, what I see as being the key point is that the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. The mention of the division of soul and spirit along with joints and marrow seems to be more metaphorical than anything else. Anyways, I'm curious to hear what others have to say on this subject.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I might be opening a can of worms here, but I wanted to have a discussion on this subject. The POV that I'm coming from is that as I became disillusioned with the LC, I realized that much of what they call exercising the spirit was just show. This led me to question just what importance the teaching of the human spirit/three parts of man actually had. When the actual practice of the teaching was bizarre things like yelling and shouting, it just made me start to wonder what purpose it all really served in the first place.

Great questions.

First of all, exercising our spirit has much to do with exercising our conscience to obey the Lord and righteousness, and exercising our faith in the face of the endless difficulties in life. The LC methods of exercising the spirit by raising the volume is no different than the Pharisee who stood on the street corner "praying" for show. Someone needs to direct these fine folks to an available "closet," like in the recent video WarRoom.

I found, after years of "practice," that connecting our spirit to our mouth is both good and bad. I have always loved the verse in Psalm 81, "open your mouth wide and I will fill it," which helped me many times in my walk. Personally I believe public calling on the Lord was helpful decades ago in the Recovery, but like every other practice, it got institutionalized into a morbid decaying ordinance. That was all too evident during the Whistler quarantine of TC after 3 hours of so-called testimony, "let's all rise and call on the Lord 5 times."

Paul told Timothy to "pursue ... with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart." (2 T 2.22) Even in Paul's day this practice had become a show. I am convinced that anything in our Christian life can become just a show. Once calling on Jesus got degraded in LC-land, prayer followed, as did testimonies and prophecies. Raise the volume and get me a few Amens! And, btw, the LC's are not the only Christians in danger of this.

As far as believing the 3 parts of man being the truth, cast in stone, I am not so sure it matters. What is crucial is that we realize there is a war within us. We have a self that needs to be denied, because it is just contrary to God and His ways, but there are numerous LC extremes here that are more damaging than helpful.

[Timotheist]

The Bible does indeed distinguish the spirit from the soul... that should be a given. The spirit is given from God, and returns to God upon death. The soul is yours, and yours to be sanctified. The resurrection is a reunification of the spirit with the soul. It is the soul that will be judged.

I definitely think Lee went too far in attributing certain attributes to spirit and soul. I personally am not willing to go much beyond my description above in describing the difference.

Good question.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The Bible does indeed distinguish the spirit from the soul... that should be a given.

I agree that the Bible distinguishes between the two. My question, however, is if this distinction is something that should lead us to a tripartite view or if perhaps means something different? Consider these verses:
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…” (NKJV)

At the surface it seems to indicate that two parts of her being were simultaneously giving glory to God. I’m not entirely convinced, however, that’s what these verses are saying. I have to quote something that I saw OBW post on a different thread: “Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself.” It's a good point, and it's summarizes the reason why I question whether or not this kind of distinction between the soul and spirit means what it is often presumed to mean.

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The spirit is given from God, and returns to God upon death.

Does it? It doesn’t seem like this was the case with Saul:
1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him. (NKJV)

Or here:
Josh 5:1 So it was, when all the kings of the Amorites who were on the west side of the Jordan, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel until we had crossed over, that their heart melted; and there was no spirit in them any longer because of the children of Israel. (NKJV)

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The soul is yours, and yours to be sanctified. The resurrection is a reunification of the spirit with the soul. It is the soul that will be judged.

I agree that the soul needs to be sanctified and is what we should be concerned with. Who we are is what we are accountable for. It seems that the soul is indeed what is matters. In Rev 6:9, the souls of martyrs were recognized:
When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. (NKJV)

My question here is why only the soul is mentioned? Obviously the Bible makes a big deal about man’s soul. WL, however, downplayed the soul. He instead taught that we need to have a “strong spirit”. If that were true then I might expect the martyrs to be recognized by how ‘exercised’ they were. If the spirit is so important, then you might expect that it would be something that people can be recognized by.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

My question here is why only the soul is mentioned? Obviously the Bible makes a big deal about man’s soul. WL, however, downplayed the soul. He instead taught that we need to have a “strong spirit”. If that were true then I might expect the martyrs to be recognized by how ‘exercised’ they were. If the spirit is so important, then you might expect that it would be something that people can be recognized by.

Bible indicates we both are a soul and have a soul, since our soul is our life and who we are. A strong healthy spirit should not be characterized by volume, but by faith, worship, and the rich content of scripture.

[OBW]

This has been discussed some years back. Mostly in terms of dealing with Nee's specific verses that claim certain characteristics for the soul v the spirit.

And the findings were that many (toward most) of the items within the spirit were also characteristics of the soul. Both decide, will, consider, and so on. It almost appears that there is something added to the soul of man that makes it all more than the soul of other animals. More so than the notion that there was some independent/separate "organ" added to man.

And while there is some argument for separation, it is so difficult that it takes a sharp, two-edged sword to figure out the difference. And the difference is likened to joints and marrow. All part of the support structure of the human body. No, the two are not identical, but neither is complete without the other. And since we generally think of a soul as being complete, then the spirit is more about nuances of the soul than some independent thing.

And if there is so little to really distinguish the two, but more like aspects of the soul that are beyond that of an animal, the idea of "exercising your spirit" (which is not found in the bible — not that this completely disposes of the issue) is of uncertain meaning. And that is probably perfect for Lee because that means he can define it (like he does so many other things).

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree that the Bible distinguishes between the two. My question, however, is if this distinction is something that should lead us to a tripartite view or if perhaps means something different? Consider these verses:
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…” (NKJV)

At the surface it seems to indicate that two parts of her being were simultaneously giving glory to God. I’m not entirely convinced, however, that’s what these verses are saying. I have to quote something that I saw OBW post on a different thread: “Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself.” It's a good point, and it's summarizes the reason why I question whether or not this kind of distinction between the soul and spirit means WHAT IT IS OFTEN PRESUMED TO MEAN.

Does it?

It doesn’t seem like this was the case with Saul:
1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a DISTRESSING spirit from the LORD troubled him. (NKJV)

You pose an interesting question, Freedom, and your choice of Biblical examples (Mary and Saul) have given me pause for thought and much reflection. It seems to me that whenever we tackle this issue of the distinction between the soul and the spirit, the definition of these two 'organs' is always dogmatically and unconsciously assumed. We have been taught that the 'spirit' is the deeper part of man and that the soul is the seat of the 'mind, will, and emotions'. This, I believe, is classic Nee, and promulgated further by Lee. We have accepted these definitions as if these two 'men of God' somehow, in a lab somewhere in China, were able to isolate 'a soul', observe it, dissect it, and carry out extensive tests on it, in order to come up with a near scientifically precise description of what it is.

Seriously, how did these gentlemen receive this knowledge of something so profound and intangible that it has eluded all others in all ages and climes? What kind of instruments did they use? I have read bygone tales of the corpses of freshly-executed criminals being drawn, and quartered, and excavated, in this quest to fathom the secrets of the soul. All without result! Where is the Biblical evidence that the "mind, will, and emotions" reside in the soul? Though I am not saying that this belief is totally without merit, it still begs the question of whether this is not yet another LC mantra and dogma that the sheep have mindlessly and uncritically accepted?

Freedom's example of Mary, I think, provides some insight. Her soul 'magnified' the LORD and her spirit 'rejoiced'. Could it not be that the soul is the region where we think, and reason, and deliberate, and calculate, etc, while the spirit is that region in us where our 'emotions' (like rejoicing) lie? And wasn't it Saul's spirit that was 'distressed', and not his soul?

Perhaps, we have been sold a faulty bill of goods that has produced in our thinking this false dichotomy of the different functions of the soul and the spirit; and the plain truth is right before our noses and lies in plain sight in everyday language. Is it not usually said of an extraordinarily happy person, even amongst unbelievers, that that person seems to be 'in high spirits'? Why must we look for esoteric and abstruse meanings for things that the LORD has plainly set forth (in what should be taken as ordinary language) in his Word?

Just my two pieces-of-eight, mateys...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Freedom's example of Mary, I think, provides some insight. Her soul 'magnified' the LORD and her spirit 'rejoiced'. Could it not be that the soul is the region where we think, and reason, and deliberate, and calculate, etc, while the spirit is that region in us where our 'emotions' (like rejoicing) lie? And wasn't it Saul's spirit that was 'distressed', and not his soul?

But if you read through the lengthy list of verses that Nee originally provided as his base evidence of the three parts and their interior functions, too often you find the spirit being described as doing something that another verse gives to the soul and visa versa. In the end, I do not say that there is no distinction in the two, but it is not as simple as thinking v emotions. The spirit reasons and the soul is emotive.

We began to ponder if it is not that the spirit is (for lack of better terminology) and overlay on the soul that connects man to the spiritual world of God. Something that the lower animals do not possess. So it is not that the basic activities of either are peculiarly unique, but rather it is the spiritual aspect of their joint activities that reaches beyond ourselves.

That would be something that is described as so connected as to take a very sharp knife or sword to separate. And when that verse goes into describing that two-edged sword, was the purpose to say it had verses to separate soul and spirit, or to state that it has power and precision in our lives beyond mere words. Just finding verses that say this or that is not so "sharp." If it were that easy, it could be described are somewhat blunt. Bluntly stated as this is this and that is that. But once you really look at all those verses, they step all over each other thereby making the simplistic analysis that Nee provided a sham.

And he was good at saying whatever he wanted and everyone just taking it at face value. But it seems that if you do not simply take his word for it and allow yourself to make an analysis of what is or is not true, his "this means that" statements too often fall apart.

Yes, there is a distinction between soul and spirit. But it is so deep and hard to understand that even mere words bluntly stated in the scripture cannot do it for you. Rather it is the living and operative word (not the letter) that is sharp.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Seriously, how did these gentlemen receive this knowledge of something so profound and intangible that it has eluded all others in all ages and climes?

Good question. At the very least their bland assertions should not be received as if it were so, simply because it is convenient to their ministry.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him. (NKJV)

Couldn't the phrase "a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him" also be interpreted to being "inwardly disturbed"?
In LC circles being inwardly disturbed is likened to thinking negatively, critically etc.
Instead if could very likely be conviction by the spirit which causes one to be troubled, distressed, inwardly disturbed.
Back to the subject Freedom was touching on, many of these verses that emphasize the soul is contrary to LSM/LC theology. In that culture, soul=bad.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I found, after years of "practice," that connecting our spirit to our mouth is both good and bad. I have always loved the verse in Psalm 81, "open your mouth wide and I will fill it," which helped me many times in my walk. Personally I believe public calling on the Lord was helpful decades ago in the Recovery, but like every other practice, it got institutionalized into a morbid decaying ordinance. That was all too evident during the Whistler quarantine of TC after 3 hours of so-called testimony, "let's all rise and call on the Lord 5 times."

In a strange way, it does seem that certain LC practices were helpful, such as the admonitions to open our mouths (that has been beneficial in the real world). At the same time, the fruit of so many LC practices is something rotten to the core. It's hard to reconcile these things that seemed positive with the overwhelming negative aspects that we discuss here. That is my approach to this subject of the three parts of man. To me it goes beyond being able to prove or disprove it. Even if what WL taught was true, was it something that was actually beneficial, or just overemphasized?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In a strange way, it does seem that certain LC practices were helpful, such as the admonitions to open our mouths (that has been beneficial in the real world). At the same time, the fruit of so many LC practices is something rotten to the core. It's hard to reconcile these things that seemed positive with the overwhelming negative aspects that we discuss here. That is my approach to this subject of the three parts of man. To me it goes beyond being able to prove or disprove it. Even if what WL taught was true, was it something that was actually beneficial, or just overemphasized?

I would say it's true, but overemphasized. To have the practice of everyone having an opportunity to speak is one thing, but to say it's "releasing one's spirit" I disagree. What is considered "spiritual" in LC settings may very well be soulish. It's never so clear when referring to non-LC Christians as "being in the denominations" or even condescending talk of fellow non-LC ministers, evangelists, etc such as Greg Laurie, Billy Graham, etc.
It very well may be so-called negative speaking that leaves one "inwardly disturbed" is a product of the spirit.

[micah6v8]

Hope this article will be of help. (I am still reading it myself)

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1931-2_121.pdf

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hope this article will be of help. (I am still reading it myself)

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1931-2_121.pdf

Thanks for the link. I skimmed through the article, it looks interesting. I will read it when I get the chance.

[NewManLiving]

While the Bible is abundantly clear about the tripartite nature of man, The LSM practice of exercising the spirit by shouting, standing on chairs, etc. is not mentioned in scripture. However, the extreme nature of the LSMLC encourages such practice as a means to stir up their adherents. It is a form of group-think. There is nothing new about this and is practiced by other groups both political and religious. The Shouters is a good example of this type of error on the religious end, while history is full of loud, enthusiastic political groups - China included, on the political end