www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Tripartite nature of Man

Dear Friends,

I see that there has recently been a new wave of turbulent times on the forum. Sorry I missed it (not really). I have an uncontroversial question. Does anyone know of a good, simple explanation of the Eastern view of the Tripartite nature of man (i.e. Body, Soul and Spirit)? I'm looking especially for an explanation which differentiates between the functions of Soul and Spirit.

Also does anyone understand the differences between Traducianism and Generationism in referrence to the human soul?

I'm looking for either referrence works or your own explanation. Thanks for any help you can offer.

Trusting in Christ's Light, Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee: www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

"Doxa to Theo panton eneken" (Glory be to God for all things) The last words of St. John Chrysostom before he fell asleep in the Lord; the result of his exile to Armenia and continual forced marches untill his physical exhaustion and death: a glorious proto-martyr for the Armenian Church

Hi,

Well, I am not an Eastern Christian, so I do not know how valuable is my opinion that this theory is wrong, and there are no differences between Soul and Spirit.

At least in scripture, these two terms seem to be used to describe the same thing, and when they appear near each other, it seems more poetic parallelism than enumeration of two distinct concepts.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

Thanks for your post. Actually I am familiar with the Latin position that there's no significant difference between the two. But there was enough difference for St. Paul to differentiate between them in Holy Scripture and I am under the impression that there is evidence that the Tripartite understanding of man is the dominant Tradition in the East. So I'm looking for more information on this Tradition. But thanks for your response.

Ghazar

Dear Ghazar,

I believe that the soul, in the eastern understanding, includes the faculties of the will and the intellect (which includes memory and understanding). The spirit is the deepest part of the soul which bears the imprint of the creator. This would be the part that adheres to, communicates with, and longs for God.

I am only an amateur philosopher, so perhaps someone else can help you more.

Peace of Christ,

Tammy

Dear Friends,

Fr. Michael Pomazansky in his "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" states categorically that the "spirit" is the highest part of the human soul and is not separate from the soul.

Alex

I believe most of the Fathers identify man as composed of body(sarx), soul/mind (nous), and spirit (pneuma). Whether the nous is a part of the pneuma is debatable, I think some fathers go one way some the other, I would have to research to see who leaned which way. Personally I favor the tripartite definition as it shows man as a reflection of the Trinity, whereas bipartite definitions lends itself to dualism which sees the body as evil.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thank you friends for your help thus far. My question relates to my ongoing studies on what is called "Generationism," i.e., the belief that our soul along with our bodies is passed on from our parents (as opposed to "Creationism" i.e., God has not rested from creating and continues to create a soul with each new human being). According to Fr. Thomas Hopko (Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir Orthodox Seminary) Generationsim is the primary teaching endorsed by the Eastern Fathers and the historic view of the Eastern Church. It was also entertained and many times endorsed by many Latins Fathers as well (most notably St. Augustine). It was condemned by a Pope and latter declared to be unresolved by another Pope. One Pope during the Crusades ordered my Church to renounce this belief as a prerequsite for Church re-unification (and military aid).

My question would be, for those who hold to Generationsim, would the Spirit also be passed on from the parents? Or is it perhaps directly from God while body and soul come from the parents? If the spirit is "part" of the soul, then it must also be received from our parents.

If anyone knows of books or Fathers who touch on this question, please let me know.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
wm. Ghazar der Ghazarian

Dear Ghazar,

I hesitate to venture into this, because I am not a theologian, and hesitate to answer, you obviously have done your homework, and have ideas about this of your own. But the whole idea of a 'tripartite' view of man, makes me quite nervous. It has too many dangers.

In science, we take something apart in order to understand it. A very dangerous method, in theology. The very act of disection, in theology, is a tragedy and an error.

Why separate the 'soul' or the 'spirit' in the question of its origins? It strikes me as quite 'un-eastern', if I can be so bold.

Maybe some fathers seemed to favor 'generationalism' as they were agonizing over the question of original sin and how we participate in it. (Tertullian, in 'de anima') (Maybe Saint Augustine mentions the idea, but he doesn't make it his own.) But it is not how the fathers habitually speak about man.

I don't think it is correct to suggest that the eastern fathers supported generationalism. Efforts to divide and distinguish and 'disect' the human person in an effort to understand him, seem doomed to failure and prone to error (scripture doesn't do it). Efforts to distinguish 'parts' in man and in this way to understand how a new creation already enters the world broken, is not helpful at all.

Bodies, souls and spirits are not born, or generated, or conceived. 'Persons' are conceived and born. It is true that 'persons' are both spiritual and corporial. (Do not divide, what God has united.) Persons (not souls or spirits of persons) are really born of human parents, and are really created by God. Persons (not souls or spirits of persons) enter already fallen in a fallen world, broken in a broken world, sick in a world in need of healing. Fallen-ness does not reside either in the soul, or in the spirit, or in the body, but in the person, by virtue of his broken relationships, and imperfect divine image.

The fathers, speak of persons, relationships between persons, and relationships between persons and God, and broken and healed human beings. Are not persons defined by relationships, rather than by constituent parts? (This reminds me of the orthodox teaching about the Trinity). This question of generationalism doesn't arise in patristic discourse, and doesn't shed light on the question of the transmission of original sin. In its extreem form, it tends eventually to Manichaeism, like a thin edge of a wedge.

An interesting question, I look forward to reading what you have discovered in your research.

Nick

On the other point, Saint Paul does use both expressions, but does not 'differentiate' between the two. And so the fathers use Pauline language as Paul uses it.

Dear Nicholas (happy belated name-day),

While I totally reject your accusations, I do accept your spirit of admonition and caution.

I think you are over-reacting to my questions and accuse me of doing things I haven't done. I have not "dissected" man. Rather, I am asking about the way God has composed man. Therefore your accusation of "error" is baseless.

-On Generationism and Creationism:
If you reject Fr. Hopko's statement that the authentic Eastern view is Generationism, then this is between you and he. The fact that many Eastern and Western Fathers affirmed this teaching (including St. Augustine), is supported by many writers. Besides this, I believe the doctrine makes more sense than that of Creationism, especially in regards to the human soul and our fallen state. Generationism does not "divide what God has joined" as you accuse. Rather, it affirms the God-given unity. If you were familiar with Fr. Hopko's presentation and with the doctrine, you would see how ridiculous and baseless your accusation is. Generationism is the antithesis of an artificial dissection of man. Only Generationism adequately affirms the truth that "fallen-ness does not reside either in the soul, or in the spirit, or in the body, but in the [total] person," as you have written. Generationism affirms man's organic unity in the deepest way possible. But this thread wasn't to debate this point. Believe whatever you like.

-On my so-called "dissection" of man:
By your accusations against my QUESTION which you name an "error," you display that you don't really know what is meant by the tripartite nature of man. Those who describe man thus are no more "dissecting" him than is the Church dividing the Holy Trinity by acknowledging that Three Persons share One Divine Essence. If anyone is being "un-Eastern" it is you my brother by not acknowledging that such a Mystery of triune unity within man is perfectly possible and Orthodox.

-On St. Paul:
You stated that he does not 'differentiate' between Soul and Spirit. You accuse me of dissecting them. Yet St. Paul is the very one who differentiates between the two (1 Th 5:23) just as much as he (in the same passage) differentiates between body and soul. In this passage he affirms we are tripartite. There's no mistaking it. In Hebrews, he speaks of a division between soul and spirit, albeit one which is deep and mysterious (Heb 4:12).

Remember my original question was if anyone knew of any writings of the Church Fathers which discusses difference between soul and spirit. If anyone does not hold to the tripartite nature of man, then they need not reply because this question was posed to those who do. If you don't want to believe in Generationism, the tripartite nature of man, or anything else, that's your choice. If you don't find these concepts helpful, that's up to you. Some (like myself) actually do find them very helpful and illuminating. I'm posing a question to those who might be interested in this topic and might have information which might be of help for me.

Finally your statement, "Generationism doesn't arise in patristic discourse, and doesn't shed light on the question of the transmission of original sin," I've already seen to be blatantly wrong. You may want to research this a little more before you make such sweeping assertions. This is a discussion forum and of course, you are perfectly free to post your evaluation and opinions of this question -even if I didn't ask for them. But I am looking for some specific information which I hope someone else (who is interested in this question) might be able to provide.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns. I'm going to go celebrate with my son, Ambrose, who's name day it was today.

Trusting in Christ's Light, wm. Ghazar der Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee: www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

"Doxa to Theo panton eneken" (Glory be to God for all things) The last words of St. John Chrysostom before he fell asleep in the Lord; the result of his exile to Armenia and continual forced marches until his physical exhaustion and death: a glorious proto-martyr for the Armenian Church

Dear Ghazar,

I told you I was no theologian, and I suppose I proved it. I am sorry if my post sounded like an accusation. I didn't mean it.

You ask for an explanation of the tri-partite view of man in the fathers. I also would like to hear it, do you have one? Is there a difference between man's soul and his spirit? I would very much like to hear it (but what if there isn't one?)

The Hebrew's quote is wonderful, but I don't think that the text is affirming that there is a difference between man's soul and his spirit.

Elsewhere, I was certainly not clear at all, I wrote a very sloppy post. I am so sorry.

The error I was refering to, was Traducianism, a particular form of Generationism. (condemned in 498, letter of Anastasius II to the French Bishops).

You are right, that Creationism is affirmed by Origen, Jerome, (not Augustine, who is not clear on the point), but then clearly by Thomas Aquinas. Summa q. 118, a. 2. But was it affirmed by the eastern fathers? You say it is, and at the same time, ask if there are any references?

But I certainly did not mean to start a controversy, when you rightly point out that your question was not meant to be controversial, and I humbly apologize.

Nick

Dear Nicholas,

No hard feelings, brother, and thanks for your explanation. I'm sorry if my tone was at all offensive. To respond to a few of your points:

Well, if there isn't one, this answers my question as well. It doesn't pose a problem for me at all. But their is a school of Eastern Christian thought which affirms that man is tripartite. You should be aware of this. How dominant or traditional this school is, I have yet to find out.

It may be, it may not. We have the Thessalonians quote as well to consider.

This is true, yet I have also read that a later Pope also spoke to this a found the question still unresolved. The distinction between Traducianism and Generationism is very suttle, (if one accepts a distinction at all). Lastly, I'm not a Latin-Roman Catholic, so one unilateral declaration of a Pope doesn't settle all questions for me as it would some Catholics.

First of all, I asked for references for the Spirit/Soul distinction, not for proofs for Generationism. Actually, what you state above I don't think is correct. Did you mean "Generationism" where you have "Creationism"?

Btw, I do have some referrences. I have a document I am preparing, for which I am still collecting information. Its a very rough draft with a lot more info. coming. You can view the draft of the document "Is the Soul Generated or Infused" at:


I usually don't like to post works still in progress but unfortunately, this is an exception.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Actually,

I don't want the document viewed yet. It is in too much disarray. I'll try to send it soon.

Well, my friend,

You have me re-reading Gregory Nyssa. Check out "on the making of man" especially chapters 28, 29. Clearly creationism. He can say what I cannot put very well, about the essential unity... "but as man is one, the being consisting of soul and body, we are to suppose that the beginning of his existence is one, common to both parts..." i.e. his origin in God, I can't type the whole thing.

Interesting, there is no tripartite, in fact in 29.2 he asserts "for as our nature is conceived as twofold, according to the apostolic preaching..." Does that settle that?

Nick

No, it doesn't prove a thing actually. Its funny you should quote St. Gregory of Nyssa. He is a well known proponent of Generationism:

"So the remaining alternative is to suppose that soul and body have one and the same beginning. Just as, when the earth receives from the farmer a slip cut off from its root, it produces a tree, not itself putting the power of growth into that which it nourishes, but only giving the start towards growth to the slip which is planted; in the same way we say that what is seperated from a human being for the propagation of a human being is itself also in some way a soul-endowed being from a soul-endowed being, a growing being from a growing being. If the cutting was too short to contain all the energies and motions of the soul, we should not be at all surprised. The seed of grain does not appear immediately as an ear (for how would it contain so much in so little?), but as the earth nurses it with appropriate food, the grain becomes an ear, not changing its nature while it is in the soil but revealing and perfecting itself by the operation of its nourishment. So just as the growth of a sprouting seed proceeds gradually to its goal, in the same manner also when a human being is formed the power of the soul appears according to the measure of the bodiliy stature. First the power enters into the embryo which is formed within the womb through the capacity for receiving nourishment and growing... Indeed that which is seperated from soul-endowed beings for the constitution of a soul-endowed being cannot be dead (for deadness comes about by deprivation of soul, and lacking would not lead to having). Therefore we understand that a common transition into being takes place for the compound constituted from both soul and body. The one does not go before, nor the other come later. -On the Soul and Resurrection Chp. 9

p.s. Just because one speaks about man as a dichotomy does not necessarily prove he rejects the notion that man is also a trichotomy. More on that later.