Lecture 5 Body & Soul

Question 1

Man as a “Whole Person” (Monist view)

Answer 1

1. asdf
2. asdf

This takes humans or man as a whole person.

● relationship (relationis)

● being (entis)

The monist view defines humanity in terms of the category of relationship.

In Latin, the term is relationis.

Iinstead of the category of being

that is the category of entis,

We’ve seen this even in discussions on the image of God as image has historically been defined in structural and metaphysical terms, and then as history develops, the conversation has shifted to more ethical, moral and functional terms and we’ve seen a similar shift in discussions regarding what it means to be human in how we think about the intersection between Body and Soul.

the monist position is really thinking about the category of relationship as the defining category of what it means to be a human.

We are relational creatures. As a result, a person is viewed from the perspective of wholeness and completeness, rather than in material and spiritual classifications such as body and soul.

From the monist perspective, a person is viewed from the vantage point of wholeness and completeness rather than in the bifurcation or dichotomy of material and spiritual classifications such as body and soul.

So, according to the monistic view of humanity, a person is one whole being whose existence is defined by a series of interconnected relationships with himself, others, the world and ultimately God.

And so terms, such as soul and spirit and heart and mind are interpreted to suggest that humans are indeed more than matter, but should not be divided.

In terms of hermetically sealed anthropological categories, these are essentially synonyms that describe you.

The real you. The part that makes you tick. The part that in one sense, makes you beautiful and interesting and intriguing.

So these terms, Soul, spirit, heart and mind, according to the monist perspective are essentially synonymous terms that highlight the fact that we are made for knowing, loving and enjoying others and ultimately God. So, the whole person is oriented towards relationship and ultimately, the whole person is oriented toward God.

the monist position wants to say that humans are never isolated beings. We can’t reduce ourselves to a myopic spiritual category that demphasizes the body, and the flesh. That we are, beating hearts, we’re flesh-and-blood creatures.

So humans are never isolated beings but are always in ever known and defined by relationship to others and ultimately to God, as we saw in Psalm 139 O, Lord, you have searched me and known me, you know, when I sit down and when I Rise Up, you discern my thoughts from afar, from the very beginning, you formed me in my inner parts. You knitted me together in my mother’s womb. There’s something deeply, intricate and whole about what it means to be a person.

This position rightly also does affirm that apart from God, we are nothing. So we are dependent creatures. We are nothing and have nothing. All that I am and all that I do is given to me by God.

Now, the most well-known proponent of this view is the 20th century Dutch. Theologian G. C. Berkouwer who was professor at the free Amsterdam University in the Netherlands. And it was also the institution where dr. Sproul went and did doctoral studies and studied under dr. Berkouwer, so he was Doctor Sproles professor at the free Amsterdam University and Berkouwer is the author of a series of studies on dogmatix. He writes a series of constructive theological tomes where he constructively develops the loci of systematic theology and he’s written one volume in his studies of dogmatic series titled, the Image of God. And in this book, Burke Howard denies that a person can be divided between a physical body and a spiritual soul. You can’t put a wedge between those two, physical body, and spiritual Soul, rather man is only one.

We are religious relational persons. We are religious and relational is what it means to be human, nothing more and nothing less. And so, as he says,

“The man of God is a man in his relation, from which we may never abstract him. This is man as he makes his ways through the world, not enclosed in himself, not independent and autonomous but as man of God.” G. C. Berkouwer, Image of God, p. 196

Now, there’s much to commend about this perspective. I think part of Berkouwer’s concern is to avoid a platonic and ultimately unbiblical view that elevates the soul to the exclusion of the body.

So that we view the body as the prison house of the soul.

So all I have to do is think Godly thoughts and be pure of heart and recognize that the flesh is ultimately evil. And I need to discard the cloak of my flesh so that I can kind of spiritually relate to God.

Now ultimately as we know throughout history, this view has led to severe forms of asceticism. And let me be clear. It should be repudiated.

Now, while we may not consider ourselves as platonic, I do think there are strands of evangelicalism especially in North America and in more fundamentalistic circles that have perhaps unwittingly embraced platonic definitions of human beings where we have an extreme dichotomy and we downplay the body and elevate the soul.

So, you will find an emphasis: If I just pray more? Read my Bible more. If I just pursue purity. I’ll somehow overcome temptation. And one since denying the body.

Which aspects of the body are good aspects of Desire are good that we often suppress because of a pseudo spirituality. And we attempt to disembody holiness. If I just disengage from the world. If I disengage from my family and friends, if I don’t listen to anything,read anything, watch anything, say anything, talk to anyone, do anything. Then I can somehow avoid the sin that haunts my soul. And that is a lie from the pit of Hell.

You understand, everywhere you go. Even when you isolate yourself, you bring your sin with you. And so Berkouwer is rightly taking aim at that kind of extreme dualism.

Now I am not a monist. Okay, I’m not. But when you are engaging, other perspectives, you need to learn to listen to what they’re saying, because often times their criticism has truth to it and you need to let the punch land and you need to feel the criticism for those of us who are Duelists and I’ll just put my cards on the table. I’m ultimately a duelist.

But Berkouwer is not wrong. In this criticism here. That we can just enclose ourselves right away from the World, the Flesh and the devil and somehow be okay.

You have to take care of your bodies. You have to think about the way in which sleep affects you. That’s explained, because of lack of sleep, and stress and then your body is affected in funny ways and you know, those triggers in your life.

It’s why diet is important. It’s why exercise can give you clarity of thought. Its wide taking in, the the refreshing smell of salt air can actually crystallize a thought. Because our material and immaterial parts of ourselves are intertwined. And you cannot bifurcate them in extreme ways as if somehow your body is just inherently evil, and the best part of you is just located in the soul. So you’ve just got to dig through right and get to the real spiritual stuff.

It’s wrong. It’s absolutely wrong and it’s pasturely disastrous. When you start thinking about how you’re made, how you think through body types, how you think about the way in which people engage with others, and how they process problems and work and responsibility. We are indeed fearfully wonderfully made and we have to think about the fact that we are embodied creatures.

So Berkouwer, I think , is trying to push against the platonic temptation of many Christians to downplay the goodness of the body. Yes, sin has ravaged the body. I have got a pain that I can’t escape in my lower back. It’s just part of life. There are thorns and thistles that affect your body. You cannot, though, take that to mean, well, the body is just a piece of garbage. You are not garbage. Nothing about you is garbage. Not your body, not your soul. Okay, you’re a sinner. And sin has affected every area of your being on the inside and the out. But you are not garbage. And you have to be able to say that. Do you know how hugely important that is today? As you’re interacting with others. To be able to look at someone, right? And to be able to say you are not trash.

Like it has huge implications. So, while I think Berkouwer is noble, I think it does undermine Biblical teaching that does seem to suggest there is at least a distinction between Body and Soul.

We see this, for example, in the Bible’s teaching on the intermediate state, that upon death, a part of us, the soul,is brought into the presence of God, while another part of us, the body, awaits the resurrection. Now, a unified body and soul experience, in a fallen world is not ideal. Nor is a disembodied soul experience in an intermediate state where the soul is glorified, but the body has yet to be resurrected. That is also not ideal, but it’s better than this fallen world.

So, for example, thief on the cross. Luke 23. Jesus says, truly, I say to you today. You will be with me in Paradise. You, you will be. There seems to be some acknowledgement that there is more to you than the body, but recognizing that you can’t reduce a person to the soul. So, John 19:30 when Jesus had received the sour wine, he said it is finished and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. And yet, his body was in the grave and yet he gave up the ghost as an old translation actually says.

2 Corinthians 5:6-8 says, so we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord. For we walk by faith and not by sight yet,we are of good courage. We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

And then of course, Paul in Philippians 1 says, for me to live is Christ and die is gain.

So when you think through teaching such as the intermediate state, it does seem to suggest that there is a distinction while it is ideal that these two are united. Now there are many today and perhaps most, even in New Testament fields, that are really pushing the monistic view. I’ll give you one.

Joe Greene is a professor of New Testament, at Fuller Seminary. He’s written a book, titled “Body, Soul, and Human Life.” And Green states that the human person does not consist of two or three parts, but is a living whole. He bases this in his understanding of modern science where he argues, as a result of scientific development, in studying things like neurobiology, we must conclude that the soul or the belief in a soul that exists without a body is scientifically uncredible. That you cannot prove through scientific investigation, the existence of the body. And so he denies the intermediate state. And yet, Green wants to affirm the doctrine of Resurrection. So he basically says for a season, we go into the Earth and we cease to exist for a Time. Should have had this quote and I don’t have it. So just listen. Green says, this

“death must be understood, not only in biological terms as merely the cessation of one’s body, but as the conclusion of embodied life, the severance of all relationships, and the fading of a personal narrative. It means that at death, the person really dies. And from the perspective of our humanity, there is no part of us, no aspect of our personhood, that survives death.”

Okay, that’s the extreme position of the monist argument. That we are only embodied creatures and there’s nothing immaterial about us. So when we die, we die and yet he’s a Christian and he wants to maintain the reality of the resurrection. And so at some point in the future, we will exist again at the resurrection of our bodies at that point.

Question 2

Man as Body, Soul, and Spirit (Trichotomist view)

Answer 2

The trichotomous View divides a person into three constituent parts, Body Soul and Spirit.

According to this view, the soul mediates and triangulates the body, and the spirit. Right, so you have the body and the spirit here.

And it’s the soul that mediates, the two that keeps them together. The soul is the glue that holds together the body and the spirit. Here, the spirit represents the essence of the person or the immaterial part of the person. We Are Spiritual creatures intended for our relationship with God. And so the spirit In the words of one trichotomous Watchman Nee.

“The spirit is the noblest part of man and occupies the innermost area of his being.”

So, the spirit represents this immaterial core, that animates the person, and it’s the most noble part of a person.

Next, the body represents the material composition of the person. We are corporal, physical beings who need daily sustenance, such as food, clothing, and rest, and there is no objection there. We are physical beings and we do need these things.

But third, the soul joins the body and the spirit. And the Soul becomes the life force. It is the seat of the mind, and the will, and the emotions, which drive the body and the soul. The soul is what mediates the body and the spirit. So Nee says that,

“… the spirit is the noblest part of man. The body is the lowest part. and between these two is the soul. The body is the outer shelter of the Soul. And the soul is the sheath of the spirit. The spirit, transmits its thoughts to the soul. And the sole exercises, the body to obey the spirits order.”

And so the soul is what translates the spiritual components of a person to the body; becomes the conduit by which we commune with God.

Now, you can in some ways think of apollinarianism where the son assumes everything but a human soul and the second person of the Trinity, the Eternal Word, as an Eternal Soul operates on the human Christ. Because it’s the soul that mediates the body and the spirit and enables, in this case, the Incarnate Christ to do, the will of the father. If you’re interested in this kind of thought and a critique of trichotomous position, you can look at the Calvin University philosopher, John Cooper who has written a book titled Body, Soul, and life Everlasting, and I would commend it to you.

Now, how do we get to this position exegetically?

The trichotomous position really is trying to deal with a series of texts. So Berkouwer’s point that the Bible speaks of a variety of component parts is undeniable. So for example, Deuteronomy 6 is the Shema says here.

“Oh, Israel. The Lord. Our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your might.

Now, heart is a lava. That’s a noun.

Soul is a second noun. Nefesh.

And might is actually an adjective at this point Moed

Luke 10:27 says, building off of the Shema.

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might, and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself.

Heart is a noun (kardia)

Soul in Greek is a noun (psyche) Where we get our word psychology. The study of the Soul

Strength is also a noun (ischus)

Mind is a noun (dianoia).

understanding is (sunesis) which is synonym for mind, both refer to the intelligence.

And so at this point, you’ve got one, two, three, four component parts of the person, the heart, the soul, the strength, and the mind.

Now in Matthew 22:37, Jesus, omits strength, you shall love the Lord, your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

Likewise and Mark 12:30. Jesus says that we are to love God with our heart. Soul, mind and strength, and yet mind and strength are reversed.

But then, in Mark 12:30, Jesus says that we are to love God with all of our heart and understanding and strength. And the term understanding is (sunesis) which is synonym for mind, both refer to the intelligence.

So if each one of these refers to a different part of the person, then we are left with actually five separate categories. And if not, why, three? Why 4? Why 5? why not five?

in many ways with Berkouwer, we should resist the temptation to divide each of these into self-contained ontological categories within the individual, as if inside of you somehow metaphysically, you’ve got a part of you that’s the heart, and the soul, and the strength, and the mind, and the understanding and somehow, you can kind of take care of each one of those things like you do your muscle groups. Rather these appear to be synonymous, especially as you see them, almost interchangeable in the gospels. They are synonymous terms that suggest we are to love God with our whole being.

Again, in this and I still think the monist position is pushing us in a helpful direction. I don’t think the Bible intends for us to extract these multiple categories here.

So, where do we get the threefold division?

Well, two key texts are in 1st Thessalonians, 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12.

In 1st Thessalonians, 5:23 Paul gives a benediction. Now may the God of Peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

spirit is pneuma,

soul is psyche.

Body is soma

Now notice here, the focus of course, is that God gives peace to the whole person.

So he doesn’t just bless this point, the spirit and not the soul in the body. So at least, we can say that there’s something here about the whole person that is being blessed.

Now, while the text appears to speak of two immaterial components, that is spirit and soul, and one material component, that is the body, there is no more reason to divide the spirit and the Soul, then there is to divide heart, soul, mind, and strength. Notice there is a clear parallelism in the text.

Now may the God of Peace himself sanctify you completely, meaning perfectly entirely. The idea here is that God would sanctify you in a way that you would reach your teleological end. You would reach perfection.

And in the second line here, may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think these represent synonymous parallels, where you’ve got an idea stated in the first line that God is going to sanctify you completely, but that won’t be realized until the eschaton and teleological end. And the second line then reinforces and expands upon the first. May the whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I think it is best to take spirit and soul and body as a synecdoche referring to the eschatological realization of our resurrected state. That is a literary device where the part represents the whole

Cooper, does explain this helpfully as well as Rob Raymond in his systematic theology.

Now I’m going to get through one more text and then I’ll ask some questions as well. Next is Hebrews 4:11-13.

“Let us therefore strive to enter that rest so that no one may fall by the same sort of Disobedience…”We’re entering into our eschatological, rest for the word, verse 12, “…for the word of God is living and active sharper than any two-edged sword. Piercing the division and soul of the piercing to the division of Soul, and Spirit of joints and of marrow. And discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. No creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.”

Now, the trichotomous position insists that the soul, and the spirit can be divided into two separate ontological categories within one person.

So here you have the division of Soul and Spirit. There you have it.

Now, this is one of those cases where we have to be careful, not to isolate a phrase and arrest it out of its context.

So, it’s important to note that both spirit and soul are governed by the principle participle piercing. The text does not say the word of God divides between the soul and the spirit or that it separates the soul from the spirit. You might even say that you cannot divide spirit and soul anymore than you can divide thoughts and intentions of the heart.

So there is a parallel between Soul and Spirit, joints and marrow, thoughts and intentions.

The emphasis here of the text is on the action and judgement of the word of God. Not the alleged parts of the soul. The point of the passage is that the word of God is able to pierce down into the deep recess of a person’s soul and being and discern every secret thought, even the intentions of the heart. Not just what we do or say, but even what we think about in our inner being. It seems that the trichotomous view is an attempt to wrestle with the effects of regeneration and sanctification on the entire person. There are things that we can appreciate.

And so they might say, for example, that a person can be regenerated in the spirit, but still struggle with sin in the body.

But I do think this creates a spiritual schizophrenia. And I think it can lead to ultimately excusing, sinful behavior. So, that sin is the result of taint on my soul or a problem with my body. The devil kind of made me do it because that part of me isn’t regenerated. It’s only the spirit, maybe, that’s regenerated or the soul that’s regenerated.

Rather we have as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 7, we have a war against sin that affects both Body and Soul, flesh and spirit.

Jesus, likewise tells his disciples in Matthew, 26 Watch and pray lest you fall into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

So there Jesus certainly is clearly reducing things down to two constituent parts.

Following his teaching on not being unequally yoked, then finally, the Apostle Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 7 “since we have these promises beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit bringing Holiness to completion in the fear of the Lord.

So, in one sense with a trichotomist, we want to recognize that there are immaterial aspects of the person. There’s no denying the bottom of the scriptures refer to the spirit and the soul and speak of the intentions of the heart. Things that clearly move beyond physical aspects of the person, beyond the body and the flesh. And yet, I think it’s an err to misunderstanding of the text to somehow extrapolate from these biblical synonyms, different kinds of component parts of an individual. So if 3, why not for why not five, why not six?

I think certainly the Bible does seem to indicate there are immaterial aspects, but it’s a stretch of exegesis to push beyond ultimately as will see, two

Question 3

Man as Body and Soul (Dichotomist view)

Answer 3

All right, the dichotomous position states that a person is comprised of two distinct, yet inseparable parts, the material body and the immaterial soul.

In other words, humans are neither wholly material, nor wholly spiritual.

And so, you cannot reduce a person to either chemical components or psychological impulses. Rather man is a body/soul unit. A psychosomatic unit.

To quote, Charles Hodge.

“Man, according to scripture, is created spirit in vital union with a material organized body.”

What you actually have here in Hodge, is an attempt to recognize the inextricable link between the material and immaterial. that we cannot have crass dualism, but we’re recognizing there is inner penetration between the body and the soul. It is a psychosomatic unit.

So the man, according to scripture, is a created spirit in vital Union with a material organized body that God creates both spirit and body.

So in sum, to review where we have been, a monist such as Burkhour is, right to suggest that man is a whole unit.

et the trichotomist are right to suggest that there is a kind of division within a person so that to reduce a person to an undifferentiated monad is to flatten the nature of personhood. You can’t reduce a person to biology and chemical reactions.

And so dualism and dichotomy, I recognize that they are slightly different, but for the sake of the argument here. Dualism is an attempt to recognize that the essential composition of humans is “a holistic dualism,” to use the language of the Calvin University philosopher, John Cooper, and I like that term, holistic dualism.

That’s in contrast to the crass dualism of platonic thought, that will downplay the importance of the body.

We want to affirm the goodness of the body and the reality of the soul. And that God intended those two to operate in union with one another.

So, biblical texts.

Genesis 1:27. So God created man in his own image. In the image of God. He created him male and female he created them.

Genesis. 2:7, is the actual key text that I want to refer to

Genesis 2:7, the Lord God, and Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1,

Genesis 2:7, the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils, the Breath of Life, and that the Man became a living creature. Or a Living spirit here. So according to Genesis, 2:7 man is a living creature, who consists of the dust of the ground and the breath of life.

And so recognition of the material body is based on our understanding that we come from the dust of the ground. Recognition of the breath of life is an attempt for us to make sense of the fact that we are also immaterial beings.

So, notice that God here creates the body, then the soul. He dignifies the body. And then he in-breathes, he breathes into the body and God animates man with the creation of what we might call the soul.

And at this point there is no analogy or affinity with the rest of creation. Man is distinct from animals. In no other creature does God breathe his very own life into that creature or that animal.

And so, the body is dignified and good because it has been endowed with the breath of God.

So body and soul are not antithetical. No, the body is good.

And so commenting on this text, the wise preacher of Ecclesiastes says the dust returns to the Earth as it was and the spirit returns to God, who gave it. Ecc 12:7

And so it appears that, yes, there is a form of parallelism, but the second line tends to extend here the first line and Nuance what is being said. And so the dust returns to the Earth, the spirit returns to God. We’re essentially trying to reckon with these two qualities, these two constituent parts of the person, the body, and the soul.

Likewise Jesus, I think picks up on this in Matthew. 10:28.

Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

This is where we get the idea of a psychosomatic union. So you have a psychosomatic unit in the person. So, there is something that men can kill, namely a body, but there is something that men cannot kill, namely the soul. And so, Jesus affirms, both physical and metaphysical realities. God, alone is sovereign over body and soul. This also seems to be the basic point of Philippians 1.

For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, …the word for flesh there is the word sarx (a synonym of soma) Synonymous terms flesh and body here….If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor to me, yet, which I shall choose. I cannot tell, I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ for that as far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

It does appear that Paul is wrestling with the tension of the material and immarterial aspects of the person.

And then as we’ve already seen, in Luke 23, wherever you put the comma, I do believe that when we die, we go to be with the Lord. And Jesus, of course, says the same basic thing in Luke 23:46, father into thy hands, I commit, my spirit.

So as Jesus commits his spirit and is with the father, I think the implication is likewise, the thief will be with him before the Lord. Interesting enough, I think you see something analogous to this in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9 at the Transfiguration where you have the presence of Moses and Elijah. There identity is preserved and yet, they have yet to be fully glorified because the resurrection hasn’t even happened.

How that happens, I am not entirely sure. But we do have some account of Moses and Elijah and their identity being preserved in some way at the Transfiguration.

Another interesting text on this is 2 Corinthians 5:8 where Paul says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

So again, there’s still attention after the fall between the dust of the ground and the breath of life, and I think all of these are reckoning with Ecclesiastes 12:7. What it means for the dust to return to the Earth and what does it mean for the spirit to return to God?

Question 4

Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 32.

Answer 4

“The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies…

So, there is a partial realization of the beatific Vision there.

…And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.”

So in many ways, the dichotomous position here is trying to work back from some of these texts that describe, as we said, the intermediate state and how we think through them in light of eternal life, and eternal perdition. It’s an attempt to try to wrestle with some of these things.

Number two, this is chapter 32 section 2 …

“At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.”

It’s kind of a curious paragraph. I think it’s trying to do a couple of things. It’s trying to recognize the reality that the intermediate state is a temporary state that will come to an end at the resurrection and return of Christ. Two, it’s trying to acknowledge, there is continuity of identity between this world and that, which is to come.

And third, it’s attempting to also reckon with the reality of glorification. I think that’s what the parenthetical statement is, although with different qualities, is getting at. In the new Heaven and new earth we will be unable to sin in body and soul. And so we’ll be blessed with different qualities because we’ll be presented before our father without spot or wrinkle to pick up the language of Ephesians 5.

And then, finally, the bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor and the bodies of the just, by his Spirit unto honor. And maybe made conformable to his own glorious body.

In many ways, our understanding of the body is trying to make sense of the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. So everything that happens to Christ, in one sense happens to his people. And so his body becomes the standard of our glorified body. It’s what he longed for in John 17, where he returned to the fellowship he had with his father before the foundation of the world, yet, he returns in human flesh. And so he becomes the Forerunner of what it means to glorify God eternally and perfectly with a body soul unit.

Something along those lines, but God will be glorified. It’s not necessarily saying that God will be dishonored by their existence. I think it’s saying that they will be raised to lives that dishonor God. I think that’s the point.

So we will be incapable of sinning in our resurrected bodies, but they will continue to have the ability to sin in their bodies. I believe so. Because every sin incurs the judgment of God, and with every judgment, it will increase their hatred for him and their dishonor of him.

Edwards develops this a lot in his, in his sermons. Actually picks this up quite a bit. God, glorify the damnation of Sinners. He kind of picks this up some of their

It’s a lot. I know it’s a lot. Alright.

Question 5

The origin of the Soul.

Answer 5

As Protestants, really, most of Christendom throughout history, has rejected the platonic notion of the pre-existence of the soul. We have an immortal subsistence in that we have the ability to live forever in our souls. But that’s not to suggest that the soul was never created. It has a point in time when it comes into being and then it has the ability to exist forever. So Christianity almost universally rejects the platonic notion of the pre-existence of the soul and within the reformed tradition and within the Christian tradition, more broadly. There are essentially two different answers to the question of how the soul is actually formed.

Question 6

creationism.

Answer 6

This position focuses on the vertical dimension of the formation of the soul. That is the soul is the immediate creative act of God who unites the soul to the body at conception.

So creationism affirms that God supernaturally creates each and every soul. This is, of course,based on Genesis 2:7 which we’ve already seen where God breathes into the nostrils of man, the Breath of Life. And you might say well that was pre-fall. Well, then Ecclesiastes. 12:7 again says, the spirit returns to the God who gave it. God gave the spirit to man even after the fall. But in addition to Genesis 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 12:7, you have a series of other texts that might indicate what is known as creationism.

First, you have Isaiah 57:16 - For I will not contend forever. Nor will, I always be angry for the spirit would grow faint before me and the breath of life that I made.

Again that seems to be an echo of Genesis 2, but a restatement of it, for all humanity.

Next, you have Zechariah 12:1. The Oracle of the word of the Lord concerning Israel.

Thus, declares the Lord who stretched out the heavens and founded the Earth, and formed the spirit of man within him.

Again, an echo of creation, but applied to humanity.

And then finally, in the New Testament you have Hebrews 12:9 -

Besides this, we have had earthly fathers, who disciplined us, and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the father of spirits and live?

The idea here is that he’s the father who creates and governs and rules over the spirits and we live as a result of it.

And then we might also reference in this context Psalm 139, which we began the class with and verses 13 and 14, which is the classic text on the creationist position.

“For you formed my inward parts. You knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful, are your works and my soul knows it very well.”

So here we have a clear statement of God knitting us together in our mothers’ wombs.

The idea here is that the soul then becomes this immediate creative activity of God, where he unites the immaterial constituent, part of the person to the body at conception. Maybe the classic statement of this here is then again from Charles Hodge

“Our bodies are derived from our earthly parents. Our souls are derived from God.”

That’s the clearest statement of the creationist position that I have found. Our bodies come from our parents. So our bodies are derived from our earthly parents. Our souls are derived from God.

So the soul is an immediate creation of God. It is made from nothing and without any pre-existing material. The soul is infused into the body by the breath of God.

The two probably most prominent theologians who have affirmed this in reform history are Francis Turretin and then Charles Hodge.

Hodge would have relied on Turretin., and as his main textbook, even at Princeton, but they represent the clearest expression I know of this argument.

Question 7

Traducian argument

Answer 7

Second then is the Traducian argument.

This is from a Latin word. Traducs that means root. This is a Latin term where we get our word, traducianism.

So this position comes from the Latin term traducs. root, and focuses on the horizontal dimension, for the formation of the Soul.

After the immediate creative activity of God in the creation of Adam, the soul then is mediated through the natural process of procreation. You see this argument found in tertullian in his book, a treaty on the soul.

You also have this basic position held by most Lutheran’s today.

Now, this position states that the entire person body and soul is entirely generated or derived through the natural means of procreation. Thus Body and Soul alike are supplied to us from our parents. And so, for example, in Genesis 2:21- so the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh and there you have the creation of Eve.

And then probably more importantly here is in Romans 5:12 - Therefore just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

So the traducianl argument is trying to say, God made Adam, but then once that happened, then the rest of humanity follows the normal course of procreation. And, however, we understand Body and Soul, it has to be understood through the normal process of the creation of humans.

Now, it does seem that traducianism is attempting to reckon with the doctrine of original sin. And so it’s attempting to guard the suggestion that God creates a sinful soul. And so it wants to emphasize the federal headship of Christ. And so, as our federal head, Adam’s guilt becomes ours.

Now this view, unfortunately fails to explain exactly how the soul then is created. Because how exactly is the soul passed down from parent to child? How does an immaterial soul derive from material seed if I can put it euphemistically that way. How can the soul be propagated?

If the soul is spiritual, how can it be passed down from parent to child, through intercourse, to put it more crassly.

So does the traducian argument ultimately reduce a person to a materialistic or biological composition?

It also opens the door for a deistic view of the world where God creates and then he disengages. So this view assumes that God no longer acts upon his creation in any kind of divine intervention in any way.

On this Gehardest Voss is incredibly helpful in exposing the deist assumptions of the traducian perspective in his reformed dogmatics.

Now, the most prominent reformed traducian theologian, I know of is W.G.T. Shed, William Shed in the 19th century did mount a definitive argument for the traducian position. A substantial criticism of that though has been offered by Oliver Crisp, who is an analytic philosopher and he’s written an article, like Pulling Traducianism out of the shed or something like that and it’s a really clever but philosophically robust kind of dismantling of Sheds argument. And Crisp, i’s probably the world’s expert on shed among other things as well.

Now, I will say this, I don’t believe that this is a matter of firm kind of confessional Orthodoxy. I think my own position and I’ve pointed that out, I think the confession assumes a creationist position. I think it’s absolutely possible to be a traducianist and be a reformed Orthodox. Christian. I think that is absolutely possible. I do think it is a challenge to the creationist, how you answer the question of original sin and how that affects the soul? But both the traducian and the creationist have to get it through the federal headship of Christ of Adam. And so I want to absolutely affirm that original sin is explained in terms of federal headship, which we’ll get to after the midterm. But I recognize that the creationist position in some ways is still not entirely satisfactory when it comes to that question, but it’s the weakest part of the argument. I will grant that, but I think all in all I think scripture and the history of the church have certainly convinced me more of the first position. I will say though probably maybe five years ago or so, I leaned towards the traducianism argument. I thought Shed was right, but I have shifted my position and Oliver Crisp was helpful as well as paying more attention Turritan’s argument was really helpful. But, I think both of them are within the pale of reformed Orthodoxy. It does illustrate how there is diversity still within confessional reformed theology. And this is one of those areas there.