Talk:Tripartite (theology)

Impartial?

"However, this reduced man to an inanimate object, like a stone or tree, and severely undermined man’s humanity. Man was "a kind of unfeeling and inept material that had to be moved from one place to another."[63] The doctrine of sola gratia, under the influence of Augustine's understanding of grace, undermined human freedom by stressing that grace is not merely indispensable but irresistible."

This does not seem impartial. Thoughts?

And this,

"After Apollinarianism was condemned at Constantinople in A.D. 381, another heresy tarnished the Pauline distinction of soul and spirit. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTomAber (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is incredibly biased. No Reformed theologian would accept this characterisation as legitimate; such a statement could only reasonably be quoted in an article describing Catholic attitudes towards Reformed theology, not in an article discussing the tripartite division. It's also highly contentious whether the doctrine of total depravity or grace had anything to do with the historic Reformed embrace of the bipartite division. Calvin, for instance, is happy to allow for "subtle" distinctions between soul and spirit when they are used together in the Biblical text, but argues against a full-orbed tripartite division on exegetical grounds, not theological ones. Similarly, many contemporary Reformed theologians *do* embrace the tripartite division while maintaining their distinctive theology of grace and the traditional understanding of total depravity. Very little of this is acknowledged in the article, which looks like it's been written by some over-zealous catholic Seminarian. It needs to be re-worked and the both quotes need to be removed, especially the first one.

"Why not bring the meat back to life?"

So, what is the difference between soul and spirit? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some Christians (including myself) see it like this:

The soul is what makes the body alive. The soul is our personality, our consciousness, our self-awareness, our mind. There is nothing supernatural about the soul, and atheists should have no problems believing in the existence of the human soul.

The spirit, on the other hand, is God's seed in us. It is the spirit that makes us God-like creatures. The spirit is our connection to God. The spirit is something supernatural. Romans 8:16 talks about a link between the Holy Spirit and our spirit.

If you will permit an oversimplification: Plants have bodies; animals have bodies and souls; humans have bodies, souls, and spirits. --Oz1cz (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice! 99.53.232.144 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if all theologians could explain things so well we might make some progress! The last sentence is, IMHO, not too much of an oversimplification. In Genesis 1 the word 'bara' - create - is used three times, in v1 to introduce the whole of the physical creation, in v21 when animals are created, and in v27 when man is created. Elsewhere 'asah' - make - is used. This certainly separates plants, animals and man into three stages of creation. It is consistent with man being first constituted vegetarian and the subsequent prohibitions on the consumption of blood. (It also supports a fundamental - ie non-evolutionary - difference between animals and man.) I should research this more, Pember might be a good start, but does anyone know of an RS for this creation-based support for the tripartite view that we could add? .John M Brear (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oz1cz says 'plants have bodies; animals have bodies and souls; humans have bodies, souls, and spirits.' What an excellent summary of the tripartite view!

Regarding the Hebrew word bara and how it is used to refer to 3 stages of creation: it appears to me that this concept supports evolutionary theism rather than non-evolutionary creationism. Calebjbaker (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is this article still being flagged as "improperly using one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them." I don't think this is the case anymore. How can this be removed? Or what further needs to be done to satisfy these requirements? There are tons of secondary sources being referenced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budro6 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)