<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Biblical Anthropology and the Mind-Body Debate, Part 3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/</link>
	<description>Biblical theology, stripped bare of denominational confessions and theological systems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 03:12:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MSH</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-5593</link>
		<dc:creator>MSH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-5593</guid>
		<description>using trinitarianism as a model or analogy to biblical anthropology is a modern approach, not one that the Israelite writer would have thought of or used.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>using trinitarianism as a model or analogy to biblical anthropology is a modern approach, not one that the Israelite writer would have thought of or used.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-5585</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-5585</guid>
		<description>I generally hold a Trichotomist view of human nature. I realize that the concept of soul and spirit are used interchangably in the old testament and even that the idea that the term soul is not clearly demonstrated as purely non-physical. In other words, soul is used to refer to the whole being including the physical body. 

In a sense there is no clear practical division between body, soul, and spirit. I don&#039;t mean to say that there is no division, or that the division is not &#039;real&#039;, but rather its not a division that we can clearly explain or catagorize. We can catagorize it in abstract terms or conceptual terms, but they don&#039;t always match up neatly to reality. I would suggest that in this, human beings are like the Trinity and that this is part of our imaging of the Godhead. 

In the Trinity there are clear division&#039;s conceptually, but in practice it is often difficult if not impossible to distinguish the difference between the action of the idividual persons of the Trinity. Is there any (or many) clear instances in which only one member of the Trinity is active? I would suggest no, that in most or even all cases, when one is active, all are involved. This is an expression of the unity of the Godhead. Likewise it is similarly difficult to say of the human being &quot;this is a function of soul, and that of spirit, and this is of the body&quot; because while the three divisions may exist, they still make up one being. 

I would suggest, further, that God is concerned with the salvation of the whole being, not merely the salvation of the soul or the body or the spirit by itself. In fact such an idea really only makes sense if one takes an almost gnostic view of seperation between spiritual and physical reality. The biblical truth is that we are both spiritual and physical beings and we always will be. You may for a time be seperated from your body, your salvation is not complete in this state. I think the new testament is relatively clear that the fullness of the promise of salvation is not delivered upon until we receive bodily resurrection. 

In fact, this is why I think the New Testament speaks of salvation generally in tenses, you have been saved, you are being saved, and you will be saved. I think that these three tenses of salvation are presented at various points through out the New Testament and I think that they correspond to each facet of the human being. The Spirit is saved in the moment when a person is born again (which I believe occurs at baptism, but I recognize others believe it occurs at the moment of decision etc). This is the &#039;new creation&#039;. At that point you have been saved (because you have been given a new spirit). Yet at the same time you&#039;re soul undergoes an ongoing process of transformation in which the life of God present in your spirit flows through your being, transforming your mind, your heart etc, Thus you are being saved. Lastly, your physical body will be redeemed in the resurrection when you are raised incorruptible in glory, fully revealed at last as the sons of God. Thus you will be saved. 

In reformed and evangelical circles this is often referred to as justification, sanctification, and glorification. However, I think the tendency of many is to think of just justification as &#039;salvation&#039; and the others as merely the results of salvation. I think is it more correct to view all of them as salvation as it relates to aspects of our being.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I generally hold a Trichotomist view of human nature. I realize that the concept of soul and spirit are used interchangably in the old testament and even that the idea that the term soul is not clearly demonstrated as purely non-physical. In other words, soul is used to refer to the whole being including the physical body. </p>
<p>In a sense there is no clear practical division between body, soul, and spirit. I don&#8217;t mean to say that there is no division, or that the division is not &#8216;real&#8217;, but rather its not a division that we can clearly explain or catagorize. We can catagorize it in abstract terms or conceptual terms, but they don&#8217;t always match up neatly to reality. I would suggest that in this, human beings are like the Trinity and that this is part of our imaging of the Godhead. </p>
<p>In the Trinity there are clear division&#8217;s conceptually, but in practice it is often difficult if not impossible to distinguish the difference between the action of the idividual persons of the Trinity. Is there any (or many) clear instances in which only one member of the Trinity is active? I would suggest no, that in most or even all cases, when one is active, all are involved. This is an expression of the unity of the Godhead. Likewise it is similarly difficult to say of the human being &#8220;this is a function of soul, and that of spirit, and this is of the body&#8221; because while the three divisions may exist, they still make up one being. </p>
<p>I would suggest, further, that God is concerned with the salvation of the whole being, not merely the salvation of the soul or the body or the spirit by itself. In fact such an idea really only makes sense if one takes an almost gnostic view of seperation between spiritual and physical reality. The biblical truth is that we are both spiritual and physical beings and we always will be. You may for a time be seperated from your body, your salvation is not complete in this state. I think the new testament is relatively clear that the fullness of the promise of salvation is not delivered upon until we receive bodily resurrection. </p>
<p>In fact, this is why I think the New Testament speaks of salvation generally in tenses, you have been saved, you are being saved, and you will be saved. I think that these three tenses of salvation are presented at various points through out the New Testament and I think that they correspond to each facet of the human being. The Spirit is saved in the moment when a person is born again (which I believe occurs at baptism, but I recognize others believe it occurs at the moment of decision etc). This is the &#8216;new creation&#8217;. At that point you have been saved (because you have been given a new spirit). Yet at the same time you&#8217;re soul undergoes an ongoing process of transformation in which the life of God present in your spirit flows through your being, transforming your mind, your heart etc, Thus you are being saved. Lastly, your physical body will be redeemed in the resurrection when you are raised incorruptible in glory, fully revealed at last as the sons of God. Thus you will be saved. </p>
<p>In reformed and evangelical circles this is often referred to as justification, sanctification, and glorification. However, I think the tendency of many is to think of just justification as &#8216;salvation&#8217; and the others as merely the results of salvation. I think is it more correct to view all of them as salvation as it relates to aspects of our being.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Naked Bible &#187; The Mind-Body Problem: Summarizing the Tough Issues</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-1701</link>
		<dc:creator>The Naked Bible &#187; The Mind-Body Problem: Summarizing the Tough Issues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-1701</guid>
		<description>[...] question of whether humans truly have an immaterial component that survives the body upon death. Here is the previous post, which offered three articles for reading.  Here is the post before that, where I included summary [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] question of whether humans truly have an immaterial component that survives the body upon death. Here is the previous post, which offered three articles for reading.  Here is the post before that, where I included summary [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MSH</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-1553</link>
		<dc:creator>MSH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-1553</guid>
		<description>@carson: I don&#039;t know; I&#039;ve not seen Bickle&#039;s work.  I know Grudem is open on the prophetic gifts, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@carson: I don&#8217;t know; I&#8217;ve not seen Bickle&#8217;s work.  I know Grudem is open on the prophetic gifts, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: carson</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-1542</link>
		<dc:creator>carson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-1542</guid>
		<description>Noticed in part 2 you referenced Wayne Grudem. A chapter 4 in Mike Bickle&#039;s book Growing In The Prophetic is built around Grudem&#039;s idea&#039;s on prophecy. Bickle is the director of the IHOP ministry linked to the Bob Jones ministry. 

IHOP ministries has stirred up considerable controversory over the years for questionable positions regarding scripture.

Is Grudem&#039;s work being taken out of context in Bickle&#039;s book? Or is Grudem in line with the Kansas City Prophets?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Noticed in part 2 you referenced Wayne Grudem. A chapter 4 in Mike Bickle&#8217;s book Growing In The Prophetic is built around Grudem&#8217;s idea&#8217;s on prophecy. Bickle is the director of the IHOP ministry linked to the Bob Jones ministry. </p>
<p>IHOP ministries has stirred up considerable controversory over the years for questionable positions regarding scripture.</p>
<p>Is Grudem&#8217;s work being taken out of context in Bickle&#8217;s book? Or is Grudem in line with the Kansas City Prophets?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nobunaga</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-1490</link>
		<dc:creator>Nobunaga</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-1490</guid>
		<description>Yes well,  there are a few things that are beyond criticism in science from my cynical but real view including the golden tax cow &quot;Global warming&quot;. Perhaps i&#039;m paranoid, but i see a trend to try explain all things ONLY in the material, i&#039;m all for this in empirical science but not in theology, this is whats jumping out at me in this blog, the scriptural study of Biblical anthropology takes care of the issue quite easily...... i thought, but i&#039;m no scholar.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes well,  there are a few things that are beyond criticism in science from my cynical but real view including the golden tax cow &#8220;Global warming&#8221;. Perhaps i&#8217;m paranoid, but i see a trend to try explain all things ONLY in the material, i&#8217;m all for this in empirical science but not in theology, this is whats jumping out at me in this blog, the scriptural study of Biblical anthropology takes care of the issue quite easily&#8230;&#8230; i thought, but i&#8217;m no scholar.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonnathan Molina</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-1489</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonnathan Molina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:38:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-1489</guid>
		<description>I think you mentioned before that the NT writers using the Septuagint meant their quotes didn&#039;t always match the OT ...is this what you mean? I&#039;d love to see a post of how this &quot;exactitude attitude&quot; is not mostly the norm in prophecy (you have one already dealing with prophecy here but I wandered about this statement).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you mentioned before that the NT writers using the Septuagint meant their quotes didn&#8217;t always match the OT &#8230;is this what you mean? I&#8217;d love to see a post of how this &#8220;exactitude attitude&#8221; is not mostly the norm in prophecy (you have one already dealing with prophecy here but I wandered about this statement).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MSH</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-1488</link>
		<dc:creator>MSH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-1488</guid>
		<description>@Jonnathan Molina: this point is worth making - especially since there *wasn&#039;t* a need to quote the OT exactly in prophecy -- exactitude with quotations of the OT by the NT is not always (maybe even mostly) the case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jonnathan Molina: this point is worth making &#8211; especially since there *wasn&#8217;t* a need to quote the OT exactly in prophecy &#8212; exactitude with quotations of the OT by the NT is not always (maybe even mostly) the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MSH</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-1487</link>
		<dc:creator>MSH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:30:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-1487</guid>
		<description>@Nobunaga: Science certainly is in flux, because that&#039;s what it&#039;s supposed to do/be (unless we talk global warming where everything is &quot;settled&quot;!).  On the other hand, many theoretical physicists wouldn&#039;t view a ditching of Newton&#039;s own assurance as meaning the spiritual needs to be ditched.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Nobunaga: Science certainly is in flux, because that&#8217;s what it&#8217;s supposed to do/be (unless we talk global warming where everything is &#8220;settled&#8221;!).  On the other hand, many theoretical physicists wouldn&#8217;t view a ditching of Newton&#8217;s own assurance as meaning the spiritual needs to be ditched.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonnathan Molina</title>
		<link>http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-3/#comment-1485</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonnathan Molina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=558#comment-1485</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s something else to throw into the physicalism pot.  If we have no true spirit apart from our physical body, why did Jesus not say &quot;Father into your hands I commit my body?&quot; when he died on the cross?  I mean, sure, he had to quote the psalm to fulfill prophecy, right (so surely that settles that *ahem*) My point is, that was a pretty critical point in his life and he clearly hung his hope on the fact that his spirit could be returned to his dead body in some way.  And everyone always says how coherent Jesus was, how he kept it together during his death throes and was able to recall scripture...so he must have known the impact his words would have for all time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s something else to throw into the physicalism pot.  If we have no true spirit apart from our physical body, why did Jesus not say &#8220;Father into your hands I commit my body?&#8221; when he died on the cross?  I mean, sure, he had to quote the psalm to fulfill prophecy, right (so surely that settles that *ahem*) My point is, that was a pretty critical point in his life and he clearly hung his hope on the fact that his spirit could be returned to his dead body in some way.  And everyone always says how coherent Jesus was, how he kept it together during his death throes and was able to recall scripture&#8230;so he must have known the impact his words would have for all time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

