Stowaway
Puritan Board Freshman
Grace and peace!
I've been reading Anthony Hoekema's book Created in God's Image, which, in my overall opinion, is an excellent treatment of Christian anthropology. However, I just want to makes some observations about his analysis of the question between trichotomy or dichotomy. He rejects the idea trichotomy as almost all orthodox theologians have, but then he goes on to say the following:
He went on to talk about the Greeks, and I agree with him that we should have a much higher opinion of God's creation than the Greeks did. Plato, for instance, considered the body as being of an inferior substance, and furthermore, the Greeks didn't have any belief consistent with the resurrection.
I also agree with Hoekema that there are a number of dangerous doctrines that can be associated with idea of dichotomy just as much with that of trichotomy. However, the improper application of a concept is no reason to reject the concept itself. The question isn't whether or not the distinction can be twisted by false teachers, but whether the Bible actually applies principles to soul/spirit which could not equally be applied to the body, or vice-versa.
Then Hoekema goes on to say:
Hoekema also seems to be claiming to know something that even the apostle Paul didn't claim when he said, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven." (2 Corinthians 12:2) In addition to the apostle's account, Herman Bavinck also speaks of the possible separation of body and spirit: "[The human being as spirit] is similar to the angels, also being able to think about spiritual and heavenly things, and also, if necessary, to exist without the body." (Reformed Dogmatics, "The Whole Person as the Image of God" -- translated from Portuguese version)
The only other theologian that I know of that holds to a similar view to Hoekema's is Berkouwer whose reasons for rejecting dichotomism are similar to those of Hoekema. Berkouwer refers to Bavinck for support, saying:
"Thus Bavinck attacks trichotomy not with the argument that Scripture knows nothing of three substances, and refers to two only, but rather with the argument that it knows nothing of any original dualism between spirit and matter." Berkouwer (Man: The Image of God, p. 209)
I believe he's referring to the following comment by Bavinck:
"Trichotomism, which is fundamentally rooted in the dualism of Plato and has repeatedly found acceptance in the schools of Gnostic and Theosophic thought, sees here two distinct substances. But that is wrong. Hebrews 4:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:12 don't contain any more a list of constitutive elements of the human being than, shall we say, Luke 10:27, and therefore prove nothing." (Reformed Dogmatics, "The Whole Person as the Image of God" -- translated from Portuguese version)
It strikes me as kind of odd that Bavinck is refuting trichotomism by attacking Plato's dualism. (In contrast, Charles Hodge speaks of Plato's doctrine of the "threefold constitution of man.") However, in the cited passage, Bavinck isn't speaking of the dichotomy between spirit and matter, as Berkouwer says. Rather, he's denying that soul and spirit can be regarded as two distinct substances. Referring to Genesis 2:7, Bavinck speaks of God's breath as the "principle of life" which is sometimes referred to as the soul and other times as the spirit, depending on the context. In other words, he denies that the words have equivalent meanings, but, even so, they refer to the same principal of life which is connected to the body:
"But the human being is a 'soul' because, from the beginning, his spiritual component (in contrast to the spiritual component of angels) is adapted and organized for a body and is tied, both by his intellectual and spiritual life, to external sensory faculties;" (Reformed Dogmatics, "The Whole Person as the Image of God" -- translated from Portuguese version)
Although I agree with most of Hoekema's reasons for wanting to reject the dichotomous position, there are occasions where the distinction is supported by Scripture.
Please let me know if I'm mistaken.
Thanks!
Mike
I've been reading Anthony Hoekema's book Created in God's Image, which, in my overall opinion, is an excellent treatment of Christian anthropology. However, I just want to makes some observations about his analysis of the question between trichotomy or dichotomy. He rejects the idea trichotomy as almost all orthodox theologians have, but then he goes on to say the following:
"It is my conviction, however, that we should reject dichotomy as well as trichotomy. As Christian believers we should certainly repudiate dichotomy in the sense in which the ancient Greeks taught it." Hoekema
He went on to talk about the Greeks, and I agree with him that we should have a much higher opinion of God's creation than the Greeks did. Plato, for instance, considered the body as being of an inferior substance, and furthermore, the Greeks didn't have any belief consistent with the resurrection.
I also agree with Hoekema that there are a number of dangerous doctrines that can be associated with idea of dichotomy just as much with that of trichotomy. However, the improper application of a concept is no reason to reject the concept itself. The question isn't whether or not the distinction can be twisted by false teachers, but whether the Bible actually applies principles to soul/spirit which could not equally be applied to the body, or vice-versa.
Then Hoekema goes on to say:
I believe his argument would have been more convincing if he wouldn't have had to use the qualifier "in this present life." Of course he did so because the principle has limited application beyond this present life. Before the resurrection, the body in the grave is separate from the spirit (see Phil. 1:24, for instance). Therefore, on that ground alone, the dichotomous distinction has a theological application."But even aside from the Greek understanding of dichotomy, which is clearly contrary to Scripture, we must reject the term dichotomy as such, since it is not an accurate description of the biblical view of man. The word itself is objectionable. It comes from two Greek roots: diche, meaning 'twofold' or 'into two'; and temnein, meaning 'to cut.' It therefore suggests that the human person can be cut into two 'parts.' But man in this present life cannot be so cut." Hoekema
Hoekema also seems to be claiming to know something that even the apostle Paul didn't claim when he said, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven." (2 Corinthians 12:2) In addition to the apostle's account, Herman Bavinck also speaks of the possible separation of body and spirit: "[The human being as spirit] is similar to the angels, also being able to think about spiritual and heavenly things, and also, if necessary, to exist without the body." (Reformed Dogmatics, "The Whole Person as the Image of God" -- translated from Portuguese version)
The only other theologian that I know of that holds to a similar view to Hoekema's is Berkouwer whose reasons for rejecting dichotomism are similar to those of Hoekema. Berkouwer refers to Bavinck for support, saying:
"Thus Bavinck attacks trichotomy not with the argument that Scripture knows nothing of three substances, and refers to two only, but rather with the argument that it knows nothing of any original dualism between spirit and matter." Berkouwer (Man: The Image of God, p. 209)
I believe he's referring to the following comment by Bavinck:
"Trichotomism, which is fundamentally rooted in the dualism of Plato and has repeatedly found acceptance in the schools of Gnostic and Theosophic thought, sees here two distinct substances. But that is wrong. Hebrews 4:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:12 don't contain any more a list of constitutive elements of the human being than, shall we say, Luke 10:27, and therefore prove nothing." (Reformed Dogmatics, "The Whole Person as the Image of God" -- translated from Portuguese version)
It strikes me as kind of odd that Bavinck is refuting trichotomism by attacking Plato's dualism. (In contrast, Charles Hodge speaks of Plato's doctrine of the "threefold constitution of man.") However, in the cited passage, Bavinck isn't speaking of the dichotomy between spirit and matter, as Berkouwer says. Rather, he's denying that soul and spirit can be regarded as two distinct substances. Referring to Genesis 2:7, Bavinck speaks of God's breath as the "principle of life" which is sometimes referred to as the soul and other times as the spirit, depending on the context. In other words, he denies that the words have equivalent meanings, but, even so, they refer to the same principal of life which is connected to the body:
"But the human being is a 'soul' because, from the beginning, his spiritual component (in contrast to the spiritual component of angels) is adapted and organized for a body and is tied, both by his intellectual and spiritual life, to external sensory faculties;" (Reformed Dogmatics, "The Whole Person as the Image of God" -- translated from Portuguese version)
Although I agree with most of Hoekema's reasons for wanting to reject the dichotomous position, there are occasions where the distinction is supported by Scripture.
Please let me know if I'm mistaken.
Thanks!
Mike