|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
The Holy Scripture mentions a three-fold person in all that are born again:
first, the body of flesh and clay, this outward natural being.
Second, the body of corruption, or old man,
which being deadly wounded by the Son of God already, in all that are his,
shall shortly give up the ghost and rot and never rise again.
Third, this holy, heavenly inner man,
of whose health and daily renewing I now discourse,
who is born of an immortal seed
and therefore can no more die than Christ himself.
Roger Williams (1603-1683)
While it may seem self-evident and incidental that mankind is in part material, it is not at all unimportant to Christian doctrine. A correct understanding of the theology of the body will not only help us avoid error it will enable us to affirm truth.
Scripture declares that material part of man is composed of flesh, blood, and bones (Gen. 2:23; 9:4).
This term is used in a number of ways including the-metaphorical usage "body of Christ." It generally refers to the physical aspect of man, the instrument of the immaterial part (e.g., Rom. 6:12).
It may refer to the material part of man, only (Acts 2:30-31; Eph. 5:29).
It may refer to mankind and thus comprehend both the material and the immaterial (1 Pet. 1:24-25; cf. Isa. 40:6-8).
It may refer to the immaterial part of man in an ethical sense with evil connotation, (Rom. 7:18; Col. 2:18; 2 Cor. 1:12; cf. the word "carnal"). It should not be construed from this, however, that there is a necessary connection between material flesh and evil. That this is a false conclusion is demonstrated from the fact that God is creator of the material universe and from the fact that our Lord "became flesh" (John 1:14).
This refers to man's sin nature (immaterial), or, perhaps, to the physical body as conditioned and controlled by sin.
This seems to refer to our mortality (cf. Rom. 6:12).
The passage here contrasts our present limited body with the future body of glory.
These terms refer to the present body which is adapted to the soul (psuchikos) and the resurrection body which will be adapted to the new sphere of spiritual life we will enjoy (pneumatikos).
This makes fornication and all forms of sexual immorality doubly evil for the believer (see v. 18).
IThis reminds us of the transiency of present suffering, on the one hand (v. 18), and the need for the Spirit's aid in prayer, on the other (vv. 26-27).
Therefore, it is a constant reminder to humility.
It is disciplined not as an end in itself but as a means to the end of fulfilling God's purposes.
It has a certain relationship to the" non-rational, animate, material creation (Gen. 2:19) and a marked dissimilarly as well (v. 20).
It is dependent upon the material creation for sustenance (Gen. 1:29; 9:3).
It enables man to propagate his kind (Gen. 1:28; ct. 1 Cor. 7:1-7), and this blessing.
It is the instrument of man’s original dominion over the material creation (Gen. 1:28).
The original discipline of God toward man was in the area of the material in an outward sense, (Gen. 2:16-17). It was the occasion of God's test although the test itself was a moral one relating to obedience.
For all mankind, the future of the body is death, then resurrection. Due to the Fall these bodies are doomed to die, but all will be raised (John 5:28-29). Whereas sometimes Christians tend to maximize the soul and minimize the body, God has made provision for its preservation into eternity.
i. The believer will be raised to eternal life.
ii. His body will go to the grave until the Rapture, (1 Thess. 4:13-17).
iii. It is to be noted that all Christians will not die. The bodies of those living at the Rapture will be immediately changed into glorified bodies without going through death (1 Cor. 15:51-54).
iv. The body will be raised and glorified (Phil. 3:20-21).
v. At the Rapture the believer's soul will be reunited with his glorified body.
vi. The glorified body described (1 Cor.15:42-S0).
vii. It will be incorruptible, glorious, powerful, spiritual, that which bears the image of the heavenly, and immortal.
The unbeliever will be raised to eternal damnation. Following the Millennium, at the Great White Throne Judgment, all the lost will be raised and given an eternal body which can withstand eternal fire (Rev. 20:11-15).
While the body was the result of the direct creation of God, the spirit and soul are more a transmission or impartation from God (Gen. 2:7).
This is a strictly heathen (e.g., Plato) concept although it has been advocated by some Christians (e.g., Origen).
God created a set number of souls for all men for all time which souls partook individually in some sinful act in a previous state. These souls appear in cycles of reincarnation.
i. It is wholly without scriptural support.
ii. It directly contradicts the Genesis account of man's creation in God's image.
iii. It directly contradicts Paul’s statements that sin and death in the race are to be traced to Adam's sin, that is, it destroys the unity of the race (Rom. 5:12 ff.).
This theory is advocated by Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians in general.
The soul of each human being is immediately created by God and joined to the body at conception, birth, or sometime in between.
i. From scripture. Scripture represents the body as coming from earth and the soul as coming directly from God (Gen. 2:7; see also Eccles. 12:7; Isa. 42:5; 57:16; Zech. 12:1; Heb. 12:9).
ii. From the immaterial part of man. Generally, the soul is viewed as indivisible, with which this view accords, while traducianism... seems to require the division of essence.
iii. From Christology. Christ was sinless because He did not share the same numerical essence which sinned in Adam.
i. Sin must be imputed to each soul after its creation or else you have God creating a sinful being. He creates a pure soul which is immediately imputed with sin.
ii. It views men as propagating mere bodies rather than men, that is, whole persons. The scripture, however, presents Adam as fathering a son in his own likeness which surely means more than a body (Gen. 5:3).
iii. The scriptures cited may be understood as expressing God's mediate agency (i.e., his providence rather than his original creative work) in the origination of the soul (as is sometimes set forth of the body as being formed by God, for example, Ps. 139:13-14).
… we do not hesitate to interpret these later passages as expressive of mediate, not immediate creatorship--God works through natural laws of generation and development so far as the production of man's body is concerned. None of the passages [adduced by the creationists] forbid us to suppose that he works through these same natural laws in the production of the soul. [ii]
The term "traducian" is from the Latin word meaning "to transfer." Thus it refers to the propagation of the soul. (In modern English the word means “to malign.") This view is generally advocated by the Lutherans. Also, it is espoused by Shedd (Reformed) and Strong (Baptist). The concluding statement by Berkhof, under his presentation of creationism should be noted. He writes.
This need not necessarily mean that the soul is created first in separation from the body.... It may simply mean that the soul, though called into being by a creative act of God, yet is pre-formed in the psychical life of the fetus, that is, in the life of the parents, and thus acquires its life not above and outside of, but under and in, that complex of sin by which humanity as a whole is burdened. [iii]
This is theological double-talk. For all practical purposes, it is traducianism.
The immaterial as well as the material part of man is propagated by human generation. Thus the whole race was potentially in Adam. The soul was mediately created by God.
Shedd notes that this theory best accords with scripture because it "teaches that man is a species, and the idea of a species implies the propagation of the entire individual out of it." [iv]
i. Eve is included in the creation of Adam (Gen. 1:26-27).
ii. While the new birth is not of human origin in any sense, in contrast our natural birth is, in toto (John 1:13). This passage seems to call for a contrast between the immediate creation of new life in Christ and the mediate creation of new life through "natural generation.”
iii. The whole tribe of Levi was in Abraham's loins and therein are viewed as performing a rational and moral act (Heb. 7:9-10).
iv. To die in Adam implies existence in Adam (1 Cor. 15:22).
v. The fact that God completed his creative work in six days implies that some other method for the perpetuation of the immaterial part of man must be true (Gen. 2:1-3).
"Sex in man implies a species, and a species implies that the entire invisible rudimentary substance of the posterity is created in the first pair of the species."[v] Throughout nature the pattern is reproduction after the kind with God involved mediately rather than immediately. "God's method is not the method of constant miracle." [vi] Man is always a union of the material and the immaterial. There is no instance when he is a brute.
It is observable that mental and psychical (non-physical) traits are heritable which suggests that something more than the body is propagated.
The imputation of Adam's sin to the race is best explained according to the traducian theory (see later discussion in chapter 26). That is, sin is imputed in view of participation, not merely representation in Adam's sin. The transmission of sinful inclination is thus best explained. As Shedd notes:
On this scheme, the justice and propriety of each particular, and of the whole are apparent. The first sin, which it must be remembered consisted of both an internal lust and an external act, of both an inclination and a volition, is justly imputed to the common nature because it was voluntarily committed by it is justly inherent in the common nature, because justly imputed and is justly propagated with the common nature because justly inherent. [vii]
It conflicts with the doctrine of Christ's sinlessness since all human nature is said to have sinned in Adam. This objection overlooks the fact that as all aspects of Christ's birth were supernatural so was this one. His human nature was perfectly sanctified in His conception by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). The very act of sanctification suggests that apart from this his human nature, coming from Mary in an ordinary way, would have been sinful. (Note: the creationist's view must make an exception of Christ, too, as regards the imputation of Adam's sin to the race.) (See also 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:l5; 7:26; 1 Peter 1:l9; 2:22; 1 John 3:5).
This is true only if the soul is originated by propagation, or, if it is propagated by physical propagation. The traducianist view, however, says that the soul originated by God's creative power, but only once on the sixth day of creation week. Also, he says that the transmission is by psychical not physical propagation. In addition as Thiessen notes, '… this is true of divisibility by man, but not by God. He can divide and distribute a primary substance that is not visible by a method wholly different from that by which man divides a material substance." [viii]
This view would require that all of Adam's sins should be imputed to all the race (as well as those sins of the other ancestors of each man). The relation of the race to Adam's sin was at one point only, namely, the specified probationary statute regarding the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good-and-evil. Subsequent sins were in relation to the moral law. "The creationist says Adam ceased to represent the race after the first sin, and the traducianist says that Adam ceased to be the race-unity after that sin." [ix]
As we approach this section of our study of the immaterial part of man's nature it needs to be noted that we use the word "partition" only for analytical purposes. There is no intention of saying that man is merely a grouping of loosely related elements. Also, while we begin with analysis it is important to go on to synthesis. The fact is man is singular in the final analysis although complex in make-up.
While there are exceptions, as a general rule the Western church has held to dichotomy and the Eastern Church to tracheotomy.
Strong gives what is possibly the most emphatic and certainly one of the clearest presentations of the dichotomous view. Man has a twofold nature,--on the one hand material, on the other hand immaterial. He consists of body, and of spirit, or soul. That there are two, and only two, elements in man's being is a fact to which consciousness testifies. This testimony is confirmed by Scripture, in which the prevailing representation of man's constitution is that of dichotomy.
Dichotomous from dicha, “in two,” and temno, “to cut,” composed of two parts. Man is as conscious that his immaterial part is a unity, as that his body is a unity. He knows two, and only two, parts of his being—body and soul. [x]
i. "The record of man's creation (Gen. 2:7), in which as a result of the inbreathing of the divine Spirit, the body becomes possessed and vitalized by a single principle—the living soul.”
ii. “Passages in which the human soul or spirit, is distinguished, both from the divine Spirit from whom it preceded, and from the body which it inhabits."
iii. “The interchangeable use of the terms 'soul' and 'spirit.'"
iv. "The mention of body and soul (or spirit) as together constituting the whole man." [xi]
In addition to these arguments Thiessen adds:
i. "... by the fact that 'spirit' as well as “soul' is ascribed to brute creation (Eccles. 3:21; Rev. 16:3)."
ii. "... by the fact that 'soul' is ascribed to Jehovah."
iii. "... by the fact that the highest place in religion is ascribed to the soul (Mark 12:30; Luke 1:46; Heb. 6:18, 19; James 1:21)."
iv. "… consciousness testifies that there are two elements in man's being…."[xii]
One of the strongest proponents of trichotomy is Ellicott who, in writing on 1 Thessalonians 5:23 says,
Finally, then, to sum up all, let us say that our text has led us to these conclusions:--that body, soul and spirit are the three component parts of man’s nature. That the spirit may be regarded more as the realm of the intellectual forces, and the shrine of the Holy Ghost. That the should may be regarded more as the region of the feelings, affections, and the impulses, of all that particularly individualizes and personifies. Lastly, that those three parts, especially the two incorporeal elements, are intimately associated and united, and for the media of communication, both with each other and with the higher and the lower elements. So that thus we may put before our thoughts these five things,--the invisible kingdom of God, and may say,--that as the body is the medium of communication between the soul and the phenomenal world, so the soul is the medium of communication between the body and the spirit, and the spirit the medium between the soul and the Holy Spirit of God.[xiii]
i. In both the Old and New Testaments there are separate words in the original language for soul and spirit. While it is true that meaning is largely determined by usage there is no evidence that these words are absolute synonyms and to assume the conclusion rather than prove it. In light of these facts there is only one conclusion.
If then, the two words represent immaterial parts of man, and never are postitively identified as the same, it must be concluded that they are not the same, but instead refer to separate immaterial constituents in the nature of man. Why the need for two terms to represent the same conception? The very names are a positive distinction between the tow conceptions (S. L. Johnson, Jr., “A Survey of Biblical Psychology in the Epistle to the Romans,” Unpublished doctor’s dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 1949, pp. 155, 164-65).
ii. The progress doctrine. If the scriptures as a whole are to be prop.rly interpreted this principle cannot be overlooked. It has been amply demonstrated in almost every area of doctrine that full and complete revelation has been reserved for the New Testament writers although a truth may have existed in seed form, so to speak, in the Old Testament writings. Laidlaw recognizes this principle when he writes:
There is a progress in the revelation of which Scripture is the record. The proper influence of this fact upon theology has become an axiom of all enlightened study of that science. … Without attention to this element of progress it is impossible to construct any adequate biblical psychology. [xiv]
In his writing later in the same work, Laidlaw gives an example of this principle as it relates to the development of the term spirit.
It is clear that the distinction between the psychical man and the spiritual man, the psychical body and the spiritual body, is one radical to the theology of Paul's epistles. But instead of being rooted in a philosophical analysis of the constituents of the human nature, it is mainly born of two disclosures of advancing revealed thought. The one is the clear revelation of the personality of a third hypostasis in the Godhead, definitely and fully indicated in the New Testament by the term Spirit, Holy Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ. The other is the spiritual union of redeemed humanity with God through Christ Jesus. [xv]
iii. The direct statement of scripture. There are five important passages in the New Testament in which clear distinctions are drawn between the soul and the spirit whereas there is not one which sets these two terms forth as absolute synonyms.
· 1 Thessalonians 5:23. After presenting and answering each of the explanations of this verse that are set forth by various dichotomists Johnson gives two reasons why the trichotomous position is established from this verse. [xvi]
The first reason is the presence of the three words, body, soul and spirit, in the verse. In the second place, the trichotomous view is supported by the grammatical construction and choice of words as set forth by the Apostle Paul. The word holokleron, translated “whole" in the Authorized Version and "complete" in the New American Standard Bible, is a secondary predicate and as such is to be taken with all three of the nouns rather then with "spirit" alone. The resultant thought, then, is that the spirit in all its parts, the soul in all its parts and the body in all its parts, be preserved unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ellicott verifies this fact as he writes:
For observe, the position of the epithet [holokleron] shows that the prayer is not (as the ordinary reader of the Authorized Version, or the uncritical reader of the original might be led to imagine) that the whole spirit, soul, and body, and three associated together, may be preserved, but,—that each part may be preserved in its completeness. Not mere associated preservation, but preservation in an individually complete state, is the burden of the Apostle's prayer. [xvii]
· Hebrews 4:12. The primary supports for trichotomy from this verse are, first of all, the occurrence of the two words in the verse with no positive proof that they are identical, end secondly, the relationship of "soul and spirit" to "both joints and marrow.” After analyzing the relationship of these two groups of words in the original, Johnson concludes:
In other words, then, there is a bond between the two groups of words, represented by the te. The bond, however, is not that supposed by Lenski, Luneman, and others, but rather the common bond of relationship to the nature of man in its entirety. [xviii]
Westcott concurs with this explanation.
It is more simple and free from objection, to regard the two compound clauses as coupled by the te, so that the first two terms taken together represent the immaterial elements in man; while the two which follow represent the material elements. Thus the four in combination offer a general view of the sum of man's powers in his present organization. The divine revelation penetrates through all. No part of human nature is untouched by it.[xix]
· 1 Corinthians 2:14-15. The use of psuchikos, translated "natural" and pneumatikos, translated "spiritual," seems to be a strong case for a distinction between the soul and spirit as set forth in these verses. Recognizing the problems involved in the translation of this passage it is still felt that this not only is an acceptable, but the preferred interpretation.
· 1 Corinthians 15:44. In the context of this verse the Apostle has been setting forth the manner of the resurrection of the body. He now sets forth the difference in nature between the present and the resurrection body. If it is true that the soul and spirit are the same then the Apostle Paul is certainly guilty of attempting to prove the same by the same. Although it may not be said that the distinction between the two is proved in this passage it is at least sustained.
· Philippians 1:27.
There was to be unity in the spirit as a prerequisite for contending with one soul for the faith of the gospel. In this verse, if pneuma is equivalent to psuche, then the addition of the latter would certainly make for a tautological construction. In this verse, too, there is an inkling of the relationship of the pneuma to the psuche. In view of the fact that this subject will be taken up in more detail later, it is only necessary at this point to note the definite inference that the psuche receives its impressions from the pneuma. Unity in the inner spirit is to reflect itself in the contending with one soul. [xx]
i. The first argument set forth in substantiation of dichotomy was that the record of man's creation in Genesis 2:7 sets him forth as composed of only two parts. Since a proper understanding of this verse is so important the following full quotation from Johnson is given:
In the first place, the material of the formation of man should be noted, namely aphar min-haadhamah. It is not fanciful to see in this part a reference to man's body. This God formed first.
In the second place, this verse states that God breathed into man's nostrils nishmat chayim. This fact is peculiar to the creation of man, and it distinguishes man from the rest of the creation. The expression nishmat chayim is of infrequent occurrence, and almost always deslgnates the breath of life. It is seen in this verse to be directly related to God, though not God Himself anymore than the breath of man is man himself. This breath of life constitutes man's spirit, nishmat being the equivalent of ruach.
In the third place, Genesis 2:7 states that the result of this breathing of the breath of life into man's body produced a nephesh chayah. One should notice the distinction between chayim and chayah. The soul is never designated as nephesh chayim. It is chayah, because it derives its life from the spirit. The nephesh chayah is thus equivalent to man's soul.
The conclusions that may be reached from a study of this verse are as follows: (1) Man is a tripartite being, composed of body, soul, and spirit. (2) It can be seen from the verse also that the spirit is directly related to God Himself. This aspect of the spirit is verified by many passages in both the Old and New Testaments. Proverbs 20:27 is a good illustration. (3) The order of the creation indicates that the soul is the bearer and the agent of the life that proceeds from the spirit. The verse also suggests the fact that the soul is dependent upon the spirit, and, in fact may be termed the lower of the two immaterial parts of man. [xxi]
Lest it be objected that this negates the previously advanced argument from the progress of revelation it should be pointed out that there is a difference between the record of God's objective, historical working, and man's subjective comprehension of truth.
Many facts of revelation which received their final form in New Testament teaching may be discovered in the Old Testament from the vantage point of completed revelation, but this does not prove that they were so understood at the time of inspiration. A more valid objection relates to the meaning of nephesh chayim (living soul) in this context. In light of its use in Genesis 1:20, 24 it more likely refers to the concept of animation.
ii. The second argument is based upon passages in which the human soul, or spirit, is distinguished, both from the divine Spirit, and from the body. Since this proves nothing more than the fact that the soul, or spirit, is not identical with the Holy Spirit or the human body no answer is needed. It is not a proof for dichotomy.
iii. Thirdly, dichotomy is supported by the argument that the terms soul and spirit are used interchangeably. This apparent problem may be answered on the basis of the literary device known as synecdoche, the putting of a whole for the part or a part for the whole. In this case it is the putting of a part for the whole.
Further, there is a flaw in the logic of those who claim such interchange of terminology.
The fact that words are used in the same sense in certain passages does not make the concepts represented by the words identical. Just because an animal has two legs in the front and two legs in the rear, it does not follow that the animal must be a horse. Likewise, soul and spirit may have similar meanings under certain circumstances, but this fact does not demand that they be identical. The fact that they have similar meanings may be explained by the peculiar relationships and functions of the two entities. [xxii]
iv. The fourth argument is that body and soul, or spirit, are mentioned as together constituting the whole man. The answer to this argument is very similar to that advanced above. The fact that body may be used with soul or spirit proves nothing by way of contrast but that soul, or spirit, represents an immaterial part of man's nature. To assume that either term comprehends the whole of man's immaterial nature in actuality is to assume the conclusion rather than to prove it.
v. The arguments that spirit as well as soul is ascribed to the brute creation and that soul is ascribed to Yahweh are very weak when the verses from which they are taken are considered in context, and when the variety of meaning which can be given to the Hebrew words as therein used is considered.
vi. Of more consequence, is the argument that the highest place in religion is ascribed to the soul as well as to the spirit. Mary's words in Luke 1:46-47 are used in support of this argument. The answer to this line of argument is to be found in the relationship of the soul to the spirit.
It is essential that one see that the verb megalunei [does magnify) is in the present tense, and that the verb egalliase [has rejoiced) is in the aorist tense. Here the relationship between the soul and the spirit is brought out clearly. Here, too, is the key to the problem of why the soul may sometimes have the same functions as the spirit. [xxiii]
In his observation on the word "spirit" Pember also notes this relationship.
This last, as we remarked above, can only act upon the body through the medium of the soul: and we have a good illustration of the fact in the words of Mary:--"My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Here the change in tense shows that the sprit first conceived joy in God, and then, communicating with the soul, roused it to give expression to the feeling by means of the bodily organs. [xxiv]
Thus it is seen that the "... soul may be used to express the functions of the spirit, and their distinction still be maintained." [xxv]
vii. The argument that man's consciousness testifies to only two elements in his nature is at best an argument from silence. That man is aware of only two parts to his nature does not prove there are only two but that the psychical has predominance and the spiritual has been neglected. (At this point it should be noted that it is not biblical teaching which says that only the regenerated man has a spirit. It is true that only his spirit is alive to God, but every man possesses a human spirit with the faculties necessary to possess the life of God, 1 Cor. 2:11).
One further objection to dichotomy should be noted. This could be classed as a practical objection, rather than a doctrinal, and it is felt to be a serious one. Because of a failure to distinguish between the functions of the soul and the functions of the spirit the scriptural doctrine of the Christian life has suffered.
There are certain areas of importance such as the mind and the will which have not been related properly to the Christian life as a result of the blurring of the soul and spirit into one entity. This is not to say that the trichotomist is any less guilty of neglecting these vital areas than the dichotomist, but the reason in his case is a failure to develop the doctrine to the full.
Since God speaks to man in the spirit, which is the seat of the mind, which speaking in turn is designed to influence soul and body, it is of greatest moment that we listen there for His voice rather than in psychical feelings or physical appetites.
The immaterial part of man, viewed as an individual and conscious life, capable of possessing and animating a physical organism, is called psuche; viewed as a rational and moral agent susceptible of divine influence and indwelling this same immaterial part is called pneuma. The pneuma then, is man's nature looking Godward, and capable of receiving and manifesting the pneuma hagion; the psuche is man's nature looking earthward and touching the world of sense. The pneuma is man's higher part, as related to spiritual realties or as capable of such relation; the psuche is man's higher part, as related to the body, or as capable of such relation. [xxvi]
i. Soul. That immaterial part of man which is the subject of his human life and is that which unites the body and the spirit.
ii. Spirit. That immaterial pert of man which is the life principle animating the soul, and is the realm of the intellectual forces (1 Cor. 2:11) and the shrine of the Holy Spirit (in the Christian).
The personality is not to be construed as a separate part of man apart from his nature; rather the elements of personality identified below are to be understood as qualities of the immaterial part of man's nature; they are properly functions of the spirit administered by the soul through the body.
i. Heart. The heart is the central seat and organ of man's conscious life in its moral and intellectual aspects. It is a term which comprehends all the elements of personality. In the New Testament, especially the epistles, with the addition of specific terms for will and mind it may sometimes be used in a more restrictive sense as representing the sensibilities of man (the emotional qualities of personality). The heart as fallen is seen in passages as Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 1: 24, 26; 2:5 while the renewed heart is described in Romans 5:5; Philippians 4:7; Colossians 3:15; cf. Ephesians 4:26-27; 5:2; James 1:2; 1 Peter 1:8.
ii. Mind. The term mind refers to the faculty of moral judgment and reflective thought generally associated with the intellectual (rational and critical) capacity in man. The mind, too, is viewed as fallen (Rom. 1:28; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:17; Phil. 3:19) and as renewed (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23).
iii. Will. Will is that faculty of a rational, conscious being by which he has power to choose a course of action and continue in it. "After the fall man's ability to sin became inability not to sin." [xxvii] Man's will is fallen (Rom. 7:18) and renewed in Christ (Phil. 2:13).
iv. Conscience. This is that property of personality whereby one may be aware as to whether or not he is doing God's will (in the broadest sense of that term as it refers to eternal, universal, moral law as established in the scripture). It is probably not to be viewed as a separate faculty or part of the personality but rather as the mind, heart, and will functioning together in relation to moral issues. In other words, it relates to man's moral sense whether recognized as God's will or not.
In his helpful discussion Zuck points out that there are two kinds of consciences: commending and condemning. A commending conscience is pure, good, noble and unoffensive; a condemning conscience is weak, defiled, evil and seared. [xxviii] Thiessen notes that "two questions are often asked concerning conscience. First, is conscience indestructible? And secondly, is it infallible?” [xxix] In answer to the first question he notes that though the Bible does describe the conscience as defiled (1 Cor. 8:7; Titus 1:15) and seared (1 Tim. 4:2) "nowhere does it intimate that conscience can be destroyed." [xxx] The problem is that the knowledge with which it has to work is perverted due to the fall and therefore "it does not form a sound basis of judgment." [xxxi]
Because the unsaved man is spiritually dead, that is his spirit is separated from the Spirit of God, he is represented as one in whom the soul rather than the spirit is dominant (1 Cor. 2:14). This means that his personality will in turn be naturally (psuchikos) oriented. The saved man is represented as one in whom the spirit is dominant, and when the spirit is controlled by the Holy Spirit; he is called a spiritual man. When the spirit is dominant, the personality will be spiritually oriented.
However, if the believer allows the old nature, the flesh (in its ethical sense as the seat of sin), to dominate his life, he is viewed as a carnal man whose personality is self-oriented rather than Spirit-oriented. Consequently, to all outward appearances, the carnal man will seem to be much the same as the natural man in his thoughts, feelings, and choices.
The nature of the unsaved person is described in scripture as being from Adam, the natural head of the race (Rom. 5:12-13; 1 Cor. 15:45-48) and corruptible (1 Pet. 1:23). All we are in Adam is this referred to as the “old man” (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22) and this in turn involves an old life principle motivated by the flesh, the seat of sin's activity (Rom. 7:25). We sometimes refer to this as the old nature.
The believer, in addition to rather than in place of the old nature (Rom. 7:21-25), has a new nature. This is from Christ, the supernatural head of a new race (Rom. 5:15-21; 1 Cor. 15:45-48) and is incorruptible (1 Pet. 1:23). He thus may be described as a “new man" (Eph. 4:24) referring to all we are in Christ. This new man involves a new life principle (John 1:12-13; 3:3-15; 1 Pet. 1:3), motivated by the mind (Rom. 7:22-25) which is empowered by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:4-8) which is sometimes referred to as the new nature. Just as what we now are in Christ must be worked out in daily living so what we were in Adam must not be worked out in daily living.