Are there, in Logos, Debate-type books about...

… that whole debate on whether Soul and Spirit are the same? You know what I mean? Some people say we have a Soul/Spirit, and some people say we have a soul AND a spirit.

I'm looking for some sort of, you know, "4 views on the Soul/Spirit debate" type of book. Is there such a thing, as there are for many other topics within Christianity ?

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Accepted answers

All comments

Don Awalt

There is a lot in Logos! I did some playing around with the question using Study Assistant, which I show here. I tried to think of varying questions/elaborations to give you some idea of the kinds of things Study Assistant can be used for, to research sources for this. I tried to get different citations each time. You could spend hours on this question probably! There was more, But I was cut off - see next post..

Soul and spirit views

> What are the different views on whether humans have a soul and a spirit, or a soul?

The central debate hinges on whether the immaterial dimension of human nature comprises one unified component or two distinct elements. Dichotomy and trichotomy represent the two primary models addressing the distinction between the human soul and human spirit.[1]

Dichotomy treats soul and spirit as functionally equivalent aspects of a single immaterial reality. Dichotomists regard the soul and spirit as substantially one, differing only in the functions which these names serve to emphasize.[2] Under this framework, the spirit functions as the part of the soul that connects with God.[1] The Latin Church’s leading theologians distinctly favored the twofold division of human nature, with Augustine’s psychology giving prominence to this view.[3]

Trichotomy posits three distinct elements. Those holding this view typically believe the physical body connects us with the physical world, the soul constitutes the essence of our being, and the spirit establishes our connection with God.[1]This tri-partite conception originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the body and spirit relating through an intermediate element—the soul—analogous to how the material universe and God relate through a third substance.[3] The trichotomic conception found considerable favor with Greek Church Fathers of the early Christian centuries, appearing in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa.[3] However, after Apollinaris employed it in a manner affecting the perfect humanity of Jesus, it was gradually discredited.[3]

The biblical evidence remains ambiguous. While some verses use soul and spirit interchangeably, other passages do not present them as precisely the same thing.[1] Hebrews 4:12 suggests a dividing point between soul and spirit discernible only to God, yet neither the dichotomous nor trichotomous interpretation can be explicitly proved.[1] The question is not vital, and neither dichotomy nor trichotomy has been treated by the Church as an article of faith.[2]

[1] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002–2013). [See here, here, here, here, here.]
[2] Francis J. Hall, Creation and Man, Dogmatic Theology (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912), 194–195.
[3] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 191–192.

> What other resources discuss this debatable question?

Several substantial theological works address this question beyond the resources mentioned earlier. John Frame’s Systematic Theology examines both dichotomy and trichotomy, noting that dichotomists claim humans consist of body and soul, while trichotomists argue for body, soul, and spirit—with the body as material existence, the soul as intellect/will/emotions, and the spirit as God-consciousness.[1] Frame’s analysis is particularly useful because he argues that biblical writers often multiply such terms to describe human completeness rather than to make precise metaphysical distinctions, and that Scripture typically uses “spirit” and “soul” interchangeably.[1]

Tucker and Finkbeiner’s 50 Most Important Theological Terms defines trichotomy as belief in three elements—body, soul, and spirit—with the soul traditionally associated with intellect, emotions, and will, while the spirit relates to God.[2]Their work helpfully presents both how trichotomists cite 1 Thessalonians 5:23 as evidence for two distinct immaterial parts[2] and how others interpret this verse as teaching complete sanctification rather than describing different immaterial aspects.[2]

MacArthur and Mack’s Introduction to Biblical Counseling takes a more prescriptive approach, explaining why biblical counseling adopts dichotomy—understanding body and soul as two elements where soul and spirit represent the immaterial aspect viewed from different vantage points, with their numerical essence being one.[3] They also acknowledge that trichotomy better explains how someone can be physically alive yet spiritually dead, which many gospel presentations employ.[3]

Finally, Wiley’s Christian Theology proposes a middle position: essential dichotomy alongside practical trichotomy, where the immaterial aspect connects with the physical world through the soul and with the spiritual world through the spirit, yet both constitute one person.[4]

[1] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 801.
[2] J. Brian Tucker and David Finkbeiner, 50 Most Important Theological Terms (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2021).[See here, here, here.]
[3] John MacArthur F., Jr and Wayne A. Mack, Master’s College, Introduction to Biblical Counseling: Basic Guide to the Principles and Practice of Counseling (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1997), 376–377.
[4] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1940–1952), 2:19.

> Is there a variation in belief based on christian denomination?

Yes, denominational traditions show distinct patterns in their approach to this question, though the division is not absolute.

The Latin Church’s leading theologians favored the twofold division of human nature, with Augustine’s psychology giving this view prominence, and by the Middle Ages it had become standard belief.[1] The Roman Catholic Church maintained this dichotomist position through Scholasticism.[1] The Reformation brought no change in this respect, though a few lesser theologians defended trichotomy.[1] This means that both Catholic and mainstream Protestant traditions—Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican—have historically aligned with dichotomy.

The Greek or Alexandrian Church Fathers of the early Christian centuries favored the trichotomist conception, found in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa.[1] However, after Apollinaris employed trichotomy in a manner affecting Christ’s perfect humanity, it was gradually discredited, though some Greek Fathers still adhered to it while Athanasius and Theodoret explicitly repudiated it.[1] This created an East-West divide that persists somewhat today.

During the nineteenth century trichotomy was revived by certain German and English theologians, including Delitzsch, Beck, and others, but it did not meet with great favor in the theological world.[1] In more recent times, it has been defended by Old Testament scholar Franz Delitzsch, by Gleason Archer, and more popularly by the Scofield Reference Bible, by Watchman Nee, and by Bill Gothard.[2] This suggests trichotomy has found modest support in evangelical and Pentecostal circles, though it remains a minority position.

Both theories are supposed to be supported by Scripture, and both have had their defenders in all ages of the church.[3]Denominational preference reflects theological tradition more than definitive biblical mandate.

[1] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 191–192.
[2] Robert Gonzales Jr., “Man’s Constitution As A Physical-Spiritual Unity,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review(2009), 6:1:30.
[3] J. I. Marais, “Psychology,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr et al. (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 2496.

> Can you tell me more about what the Early Church Fathers believed?

The Greek Church Fathers of the early Christian centuries, particularly Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, embraced trichotomy[1]. Though influenced by Greek philosophy to some degree, these early Christian trichotomists sought to ground their position primarily in Scripture[2], appealing to passages that seemed to distinguish between soul and spirit.

However, this Eastern consensus faced a significant challenge. After Apollinaris employed trichotomy in ways that compromised Christ’s full humanity, the view gradually lost credibility, though some Greek Fathers continued defending it while others like Athanasius and Theodoret explicitly rejected it[1]. Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, had taught that the divine Logos replaced the rational soul in Christ, creating a theological crisis that discredited the tripartite framework[3].

The Western Church developed differently. Latin Church theologians distinctly favored the twofold division of human nature, with Augustine’s psychology giving this view prominence, and by the Middle Ages dichotomy had become standard belief[1]. This Western preference persisted through the Reformation.

It’s important to recognize that even among those classified as trichotomists in the early Church, many were actually emphasizing subdivisions within the immaterial aspect rather than proposing three genuinely distinct substances[4]. The terminology itself could obscure whether thinkers truly held three separate elements or were simply using different language to describe the immaterial dimension from various perspectives. The early patristic period thus reveals not a unified Eastern position but rather developing theological vocabulary struggling to articulate the relationship between soul and spirit.

[1] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 191–192.
[2] Robert Gonzales Jr., “Man’s Constitution As A Physical-Spiritual Unity,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review(2009), 6:1:30.
[3] James Orr, ed., in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: 1915 Edition (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1999).[See here.]
[4] John Macpherson, Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898), 193.

Don Awalt

Here is more:

> tell me more

The early Church Fathers held varied positions on human composition, reflecting both philosophical influences and scriptural interpretation.

Irenaeus, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa[1] championed trichotomy among the early theologians. Irenaeus taught that unbelievers remain composed of body and soul, while believers possess body, soul, and spirit—a distinction that led to his development of the trichotomist view.[2] Some early church fathers influenced by Platonic philosophy, such as Irenaeus and the Alexandrian theologians, believed in three distinct substances—body, soul, and spirit—though some scholars argue trichotomy derives more from Greek philosophy than from divine revelation.[3]

However, not all patristic thinkers agreed. Tertullian opposed trichotomy and supported the dichotomist view that humans are body and soul or spirit.[2] This represents an important internal division within early Christianity—the Eastern Fathers leaning toward trichotomy while Western voices like Tertullian defended dichotomy.

The philosophical context shaped these debates significantly. Trichotomy has roots in Greek philosophy, where dualistic thinking held that mind and matter were inherently incompatible—mind belonging to the invisible world and being essentially good, while matter belonged to the visible world and was essentially evil. Since the two were completely incompatible, Greek philosophers taught that a third substance called “spirit” united body and soul.[1]

Although influenced by Greek philosophy to some degree, early Christian trichotomists sought to support their position primarily from Scripture.[1] The patristic period thus reveals theologians wrestling with how to integrate classical philosophy with biblical categories while articulating the immaterial dimensions of human nature.

[1] Robert Gonzales Jr., “Man’s Constitution As A Physical-Spiritual Unity,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review(2009), 6:1:29–30.[2] Richard C. Gamble, The Whole Counsel of God: God’s People in the Western World (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2021), 3:107.[3] Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 219.

> can you elaborate on the early church fathers who disagreed, like Tertullian, and why?

Tertullian strongly opposed trichotomy, and his influence was considerable, resulting in the view coming to be viewed with disfavor by the majority of Christians even until the present time.[1] However, Tertullian’s opposition wasn’t primarily philosophical—it was theological and heretical in nature.

The principal reason for opposition to trichotomy was the use made of it to support certain heresies. The Gnostics, who held that the spirit was not capable of sin because it was part of the divine essence, made trichotomy contribute to that heresy. The Apollinarians held an erroneous Christology which required trichotomy for its support.[1]

The Gnostics regarded the spirit of man as an emanation from God and, therefore, a part of the divine essence, maintaining that the spirit of man was incapable of sin.[2] This created a serious problem: if the spirit cannot sin, how could humans be held morally responsible? The Apollinarians applied their tripartite conception of man to Christ, maintaining that in assuming human nature, He partook only of the body and soul, but that the spirit in man was in Christ replaced by the divine Logos. Thus according to this theory Christ had only a deficient human nature.[2] This undermined the doctrine of Christ’s complete humanity and redemptive work.

Tertullian’s strong opposition was influential, and even Augustine’s seeming indifference was indirectly much against trichotomy, for his influence was so great on all doctrinal questions that nothing without his open support could hold a position of much favor in the more orthodox thought of the Church.[3] The combination of these powerful voices, coupled with trichotomy’s association with dangerous heresies, effectively marginalized the view in Western Christianity.

[1] Russell R. Byrum, Christian Theology (James L. Fleming, 2005), 286.[2] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1940–1952), 2:18.[3] John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 1 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1892), 399.

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

Thanks for this, Don, but I AM looking more particularly here for one book, in Logos, that might debate the point.

Don Awalt

@Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell let's see if others have suggestions. I think most books addressing soul and spirit do so as chapters within broader systematic theology or anthropology texts rather than as exclusive monographs presenting varying views.

Yasmin Stephen

Probably not what you're looking for but this came to mind: The Soul: How We Know It's Real and Why It Matters

(Caveat: I own this book but have not read it)

I asked the SA …

> Does the book, The Soul: How We Know It's Real and Why It Matters (by J P Moreland), make an argument for the soul and spirit as one or as separate?

Moreland distinguishes the spirit as “that faculty of the soul through which the person relates to God,”[1] which indicates he treats soul and spirit as related but functionally distinct rather than identical. The mind represents another faculty—the dimension containing thoughts and beliefs[1]—suggesting a more granular understanding of the immaterial self than a simple binary.

However, Moreland’s treatment also shows flexibility in terminology. His discussion of Old Testament anthropology uses “soul or spirit” interchangeably, describing this immaterial entity as one that grounds conscious functions, constitutes personal identity, and survives bodily death.[1] This linguistic interchangeability suggests the terms function somewhat synonymously in biblical usage, even if Moreland’s systematic definitions distinguish them by function.

The framework Moreland employs—particularly his articulation of Thomistic substance dualism, where the soul “diffuses, informs, unifies, animates, and makes human the body”[1]—presents the soul as a unified principle that animates the whole person rather than as one compartment among many. Yet his vocabulary definitions carve out the spirit as a specific faculty within that unified soul, oriented toward divine relationship.

So Moreland’s position appears to be: the soul and spirit are not entirely separate entities, but the spirit is a distinct faculty or dimension of the unified soul—much as the mind is another faculty. They work together as aspects of a single immaterial principle rather than as two independent substances.

---

The search was constrained to results authored by J P Moreland with the title The Soul: How We Know It’s Real and Why It Matters. Would you like me to search your entire library instead?

[1] J. P. Moreland, The Soul: How We Know It’s Real and Why It Matters (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 69–70, 149.