Page 13

Page 13

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Rota Sonl sad Spirit

of God is an immanence of God (cf. John xiv. 23; Rom. viii. 9 sqq.; J. C. K. Hofmann, Weissagung and Erfiillung, i. 17 sqq., Nordlingen, 1841), or a created spirit (cf. Job xxxii. 8, xxxiii.

3. Pauline 4). According to the New Testament, Doctrine. the Holy Spirit which dwells in be lievers is always distinguished from the spirit of the believer (cf. Rom. viii. 16). Two views of the Pauline psychology are: (1) That Paul knows no pneuma of the natural man (Holaten, Weiss, Holtzmann); (2) that he knows such a pneumta, but not as divine or related to God (Liidermann, Pflei derer). The Scriptures, however, leave the question of the relation of the human spirit to the Spirit of God unanswered. Holsten's view rests on a dual istic conception of the opposition of the flesh and spirit (see FLESH), as the opposition of the finite and infinite, where spirit is identical with the in finite. But the Pauline doctrine of pneuma is that of a divine principle of life, related to the human spirit. Liidermann and Pfleiderer abandon Hol sten's position and recognize a Pauline pneuma tou anthropou, but their theory is neither clearer nor more acceptable. L iidermann conceives of the pneuma as a substantial subject for the amts, not to be interchanged with the psyche; no substance is, however, supposable which is not identical with some human power. Pfleiderer admits that Paul knows of a pneuma alongside of the sarx (Paulinis mus, 3d ed., p. 215). He appears to regard the pneuma as the general divine spirit of life-the Old Testament nephesh, identical with the psyche. But when he conceives it as the indifferent substratum both of the noun and of the sarx, without relation to God, he is at odds with the apostle. According to Weiss, God recognizes no pneuma which belongs to man by nature, for he always thinks of the psych as in immediate unity with the sarx, hence the psyche can not be the bearer of a bodily life independent of the higher spiritual life. H. J. Holtzmann (Lehr buch der neutestmaentliehen Theologie, ii. 15 aqq., Leipsic, 1897) maintains that according to Paul there is no natural pneuma in man; if Paul appears to teach the contrary, this is due to use of popular instead of exact language. It may, however, be de clared that Paul knew of a pneuma tou dnthropau, that the pneuma hagion never takes the place of our spirit, or fills in a cleft caused by sin. The psychi kos of Jude 19 is not in contradiction to the human pneumu, but to the Holy Spirit of redemption (cf. Rom. viii. 9, 11, 14, 16; I Cor. ii. 3-1). Regenera tion, due to the " outpouring of the Spirit " (Isa. xliv. 3-4; Joel ii. 28-29; John iii. 5-6; Titus iii. 6), is the self-appropriation of God's grace through the Holy Spirit in relation to our spirits. Moreover, the Spirit assures our spirit that we are children of God.

The spirit of man is God's Spirit-spirit of God's Spirit-only so far as it is of like nature with this; it is not then strictly created " out

4. Spirit, of nothing," nor an emanation, nor an Divine and indusa in corpore Spiritus divini, ut Human. its dicam, particula (Oehler), yet this last is nearest the truth. The Spirit of God entering the human organism begets the soul which therefore bears and propagates the

imperishable because divine power of life. The connection of the human spirit, which is thus the ground of the human soul, with the Spirit of God is one of essential fellowship of spirit with spirit. The distinction between soul and spirit is the peculiar characteristic of the Biblical idea of the nature of man. The Scriptures do indeed cont<un trichotomy (not that of Plato, however), resting on the experience of sin and salvation (I Thess. v. 23; Heb. iv. 12), but this does not exclude a decisive dichotomy, as I Pet. ii. 11 where the soul or spirit is regarded simply with reference to its spiritual destination as the bearer of the divine principle of fife (cf. Phil. i. 27).

On the basis of the foregoing discussion one finds a solution of various debated questions. First, as to creationism and traducianisnr. If the soul bears the spirit, sot as sin indwelling of the

g. Origin Spirit of God, but as spirit of God's of Soul Spirit, and is so connected with cor-

and Spirit. poreality that thin can only become the body of the soul, then the trans mission of the bodily life is at the same time the transmission of the soul, and with the soul the spirit. Life is from life, soul from soul.. There is thus no room for a creative act in which spirit originates (cf. Pa. cxxxix. 13, 7; Isa. lull. 16; Zech. xii. 1; Job xxxiii. 4), all life is from the Spirit of God (Ps. civ. 30; Acts xvii. 28). Traducianiam and not gen erationism is right. The preference of Scholasticism and Roman Catholic theology for creationism de pends on their theory of sin, especially original sin and sensuousness; on the other hand, Lutheranism, on account of its deeper knowledge of sin, eapegially of original sin, declared for traducianism. Although this view is without explicit Scriptural proof, yet it is recommended by the doctrine of the world, by the relation of God to the world and to creative po tencies, as well as by the conception of soul and spirit. (cf. F. H. R. Frank, System der ehristlichen Wahrheit, i . 382 aqq., Erlangen, 1878).

The task of man lies in willing and determining his soul in accordance with the inner divine principle of life. He has, however, through sin turned from his spiritual divine destination,

6. Conse- so that now his own will strives against quences the impulse of the spirit, and the latter of Sin. makes itself felt only in the conscience. The divine nature appears only as a demand, a law awaking the consciousness to the sense of its inner discord (cf. Rom. ii. 15) between the divine principle of life and the noes tes sarkos (see FLESH). The side of man's nature turned from God and to the world apart from. God gets the upper hand and he becomes flesh-say^kikos and sarkinos, i.e., kata sarka, and sarx. Thus the soul, in spite of its immanent spirit, becomes sinful, and the entire life of the spirit suffers. Hence the divided ego, pictured by the apostle is Rom. vii., the half hearted man, constantly wavering between God and himself, is a divided soul (Jas. i. 8, iv. 8; cf. Matt. xxvi. 41). So far as the divine; principle of life is not renewed by the Holy Spirit, the sinner is psy chikas in opposition to pneumatikos. As a conse quence of sin he no longer controls his life, but has become a victim of Phthora, i .e., of death as the op position of eternal life. In the loss of his corporeal-