What is the soul?

The following is the topic of discussion I started on my face book page, which has already started some interesting dialogue. So I thought I would start the ball rolling here and ask….What is the soul?

 Do humans have a soul, or is the soul part of mythical lore? What about animals, do they have a soul? If we have a soul, where does it come from. What does it do? If we have a soul, is it ours to keep; or like what is seen in horror movies, can we or someone else sell it?

Advertisements

About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to What is the soul?

  1. Tiribulus says:

    Craig Benno says: The following is the topic of discussion I started on my face book page, which has already started some interesting dialogue. So I thought I would start the ball rolling here and ask….What is the soul?

    Do humans have a soul, or is the soul part of mythical lore? What about animals, do they have a soul? If we have a soul, where does it come from. What does it do? If we have a soul, is it ours to keep; or like what is seen in horror movies, can we or someone else sell it?

    well, for those who still refuse to exalt the wisdom of men over the revelation of God, the book of beginnings tells us the origin of man and his “soul”. In Genesis 1″27 we are told simply:
    So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

    A quick aside here is that God says He created both male and female in His image. This is further declared in ch.5 v.2 where we are told that He called THEIR name Adam, which some fine modern translations render as “man, mankind” etc., but the Hebrew is “Adam” which does mean those things and is also the first man’s name. The point is they are ontologically and qualitatively equal.

    Then in the 2nd chapter we are given more detail and are told:
    the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
    There is a great mystery here. The uniform testimony of the rest of scripture is that God is a unique eternal and infinite being of which there is only one and who exists in entire ontological distinction from all that He has made. Therefore, whatever it means that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, it cannot mean that He extended or divided Himself into man so that man is somehow a part of God.

    On the other hand, man is the only of God’s creatures that is said to bear the image and likeness of God and also the only of His creatures reported to have been brought to life by the special act of receiving his breath of life directly from God Himself. Hence man is “close” to God by God’s own act of creation in ways that no other being in the universe ever could be.

    We also see here that the physical body of man is formed of the elements of his physical environment and that it cannot “live” without the animating presence of the soul. I am a dichotomist. I believe that man is comprised of a material and an immaterial component that together complete him. (different, but related topic) As we are taught other places in scripture though, the soul CAN and does survive without the body, but the very fact of the resurrection shows that man is by God’s design not all that he was created to be without a physical body.

    Man, this can get long, but I only have a little while here. There are several words in each of the testaments and their respective languages that indicate, and describe man’s immaterial nature. Ruach, nephesh, leb and neshama for example in the old testament and pneuma, psuche, phronema and cardia for instance in the new. The soundest case can be made in my view that these various words for “spirit, soul, heart, mind” etc, while not strictly synonymous, are in fact telling us about the same single entity. (yes, I’ve heard EVERY trichotomous argument, but still disagree) That is, the invisible, metaphysical life essence of man in it’s various aspects and functions as brought forth from nothing by a mind numbingly powerful act of almighty God. Only God can get something from nothing.

    Of the highest significance here as well is a quick rundown of what it means that man is created in the image and likeness of God. The short answer is that God Has designed man with the capacities to participate in some of His own attributes. Theologians refer to these as “communicable” attributes. Those qualities of God which He is able to share with His creatures. Some of God’s attributes CANNOT be shared. Infinity, beginning-less eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence and others.

    Man can however display some of God’s nature on a finite created scale. High powers of reason, accountable moral agency, (though God is accountable only to Himself), creativity, precise spoken communication AND dominion over his environment (though God has no environment in the same way we do) are some of what it means that we bear the image and likeness of God.

    As another aside, these truths make the viewing of one or more of the anthropological progressions, that is to say, “races” or “ethnicities” of men, as innately SUPerior or INFerior to any or all of the rest truly sinful. ALL men descend from the first man Adam and are therefore equally “man” in the sight of God who Himself has made it so. ALL Christians are also born again into the last Adam, Jesus Christ and as such are brethren in both covenants by temporal blood and eternal Spirit. The closest relation possible. What is unthinkably abhorrent to the Lord is alleged Christians who would idolatrously elevate the one aspect of man’s being that has nothing to do with the image of God over all the rest and define themselves by the color of their skin. There is a long history of this in the church and we need to knock it off forthwith. It doesn’t matter who does it, it’s wrong and it grieves the heart of God who created ALL men (and women) in His own image and likeness and sent His Son to die for ALL KINDS of them. (most times when we see inclusive statements about Christ dying for “all” or “the word”, that’s what it means, but that’s REALLY another whole topic.)

    In Genesis 1:20 and 2:7 man and animals are both described as “living soul”, “living being, “living creature” with a very similar Hebrew construction for each. Whatever it exactly means, we can reliably surmise that animals do have souls though not bearing the image and likeness of God and not being eternal. They cease to exist when dead, while man persists after physical death in anticipation of the resurrection when he will be united to a new body either prepared for glory or fitted to everlasting perdition depending upon which Adam, and hence which covenant they died in. The first or the last.

    There is very much more detail in these topics, but that’s all I have time for now.

  2. Tiribulus says:

    This is your blog Craig. I’m not pickin a fight but It’s ok to disagree with me ya know 😀

    • Craig Benno says:

      Hi Greg. It’s now 1pm Sunday here in Western Sydney Australia. We are both on different time frames and I will never ignore a commentator here.

      Sometimes I have other commitments which keep me from replying right away. As for your other comment, I’m digesting it and will get back to it soon.

  3. Tiribulus says:

    Well, that’s fair enough too.

  4. Craig Benno says:

    Lets start again… are you saying that the soul is a separate part of the body, or is it a integral part of the body. I like Bultman who said that man doesn’t have soma, he is soma.

  5. Tiribulus says:

    Why ya gotta do this to me? You know how I’m gonna react to Bultmann.

    Man IS an organism that consists of a materiel and immaterial nature that together make up his full benig. The material nature is just so many chemicals arranged in an astronomically complex confluence of combinations without the immaterial nature which gives it life. It also IS however essential enough to what man is by design so as to render man incomplete without it.

    “Jesus cried out with a loud voice and yielded up His spirit (pneuma πνεῦμα”) Matt. 27:50
    Yet there was His body (soma σῶμα) waiting for Joseph of Arimathea.

    Absent from the somatos, present with the Lord. 2 Cor 5:8
    You knew I was gonna say this which means you already have an answer. Go ahead,

    I have to go to bed man.

    • Craig Benno says:

      I have problems with Bultman also. But, he was also one of the first Christians in this century to do a fairly thorough anthropological study and hence despite my dislike of him in some areas; he is worthy to mention in this discussion.

      When Jesus gave up his spirit, was he actually handing over his spirit to him, or was he actually breathing out his last breath… Pneuma is used interchangeably with breath, wind. spirit etc.

      Within the framework of soul, do you think the soul is immortal, or it dies when the body dies?

  6. Tiribulus says:

    I don’t believe Bultmann (or Barth) were Christians at all if biblical standards are taken seriously, but that’s another discussion that always goes nowhere because when it comes to people they like, folks are more than willing to dismiss biblical standards or stick their fingers in the ears crying LA LA LA I can’t hear you.

    So out comes the your Socratic sword. I’ll save ya some time my friend. I believe from the depths of my soul that the reformed scholastics got the gospel as right as it will EVER be gotten until the Lord Himself descends from heaven with a shout. I am not open minded or susceptible to revision in this regard in any way. Never will be.

    So yes. I believe that once created, each individual soul has a neverending future. I am neither a soul sleeper or an annihilationist. Soul sleep I see as biblically unfounded, but not fatally so. Annihilationism is heresy straight up and is born of an emotional desire to recreate God in our own image. He actively torments the damned for all eternity in the full ferocity of His hatred of sin. You do seem busy so if your aim might be to change my mind, I’ll tell you up front, you are wasting your time.

    God sure doesn’t have any problem breaking my heart lately.

  7. Tiribulus says:

    Craig Benno says: Gee you draw a lot of conclusions and assumptions out of a question.
    I’m right enough of the time to make it tough to quit though wrong enough of the time to where maybe I should.
    Honestly, I hadn’t anticipated this discussion. I will try my best to answer properly when I can. I will confess though that eschatology is my weakest area of study.

    • Craig Benno says:

      The soul becomes an interesting subject when we start to unpack it completely. My problem with us being dualistic – body and soul, or Tri – body, soul and spirit comes out of understanding the resurrection.

      If we are “tri” where does our soul and spirit go? What purpose do they have. What happens to them when we are resurrected?The same questions can be asked within a dualistic framework about the soul.

      Within the framework of the resurrection, why do we even need a resurrection if the soul / spirit is eternal / immortal…within this context, I am drawn to Genesis where God says we need to stop them from eating from the tree of eternal life – for the wages of sin is death.

      If the soul / spirit doesn’t die with the body, then there is no true complete death. And if there is no complete death, then we don’t need the resurrection.

  8. Tiribulus says:

    Like all issues, exegesis is the first step. In other words you are offering conclusions before the first phrase is exegeted or interpreted. At least in this conversation. The resurrection is when our now sinless immaterial nature is permanently joined with our new physical nature. The same as Jesus walked out that tomb with. You know the drill here man.

    In the day you eat of it you shall surely die
    They certainly didn’t die physically on that day though the exegesis of 2:17 allows for it if that would have been what happened. But it didn’t.

    I tell you the truth, this day you will be with me in paradise
    Except their bodies were both dead. Jesus appears to tel lthis man “I’ll do ya one better. Not only will I remember you when I come into my kingdom, but TODAY, you will be with in paradise. (παραδείσῳ) Lexically, this is certainly referring to somewhere good. Not the grave only.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Are you saying death didn’t enter into the world when they ate of the fruit? Till then, they didn’t know what death was…

      Within the construct of the Greek in that passage I tell you the truth… It can read…Today, I tell you / promise you, that you too will be in paradise with me.

      This interpretation actually fits into the construct of last days when all will face the king.

    • Craig Benno says:

      2nd question. If Jesus was fully human, did he have a soul?

  9. Tiribulus says:

    Spiritual death entered the world. Not physical death though the clock toward it started ticking that day.

    “I tell you the truth today… you will be with in paradise.”
    In other words, I’m telling you today TODAY that some day you will be with me in paradise. The word of faith people take that view.as do the Jehovah’s Witnesses while EVERY reputable translation puts the English comma after λέγω and not after σήμερον because some version of that statement ( Ἀμήν σοι λέγω) occurs numerous times throughout the NT and is always an independent phrase ending after λέγω with what comes next being what He is truly saying. In the his case “today you will be with me in paradise”.

    All I know is is that Jesus was conceived by God and that He was and is as much human as you or I and as much God as the Father and the Spirit. I no longer probe beyond what is revealed. I have no idea how the incarnation works and don’t care.

    • Craig Benno says:

      I too am not that interested in how the incarnation works and nor do I think the Biblical authors were that interested in it either. (On that note, nor do they concentrate on any theory of the atonement – hence we can only have theories how the atonement works)

      But getting back to the issue of the soul. The dualistic position of us having soul / body is actually a greek mindset and not Hebraic mindset. Plato was the philosopher who started the rot of promoting that we have both a soul / body and that both are independent of each other – though acknowledging they are interdependent on each other.

      In regards to the promise of death if you eat the tree – that is rubbish that God was talking about a spiritual death and not a bodily death.. he was talking about complete death..and that once you eat of the tree you will die… no where does the promise indicate instant death upon eating it.

  10. Tiribulus says:

    Except that we see instant death come upon the man and creation. Unless the thoughts of men’s hearts would have been only evil continually even if Adam and Eve had told the serpent to get lost like Jesus did. Paul calls us the walking dead in Eph. 2. By nature children of wrath. This could get long man. What’s your point?

    Do I smell some new perspective influence here now too? Lemme ask you a question please. Were Adam and Eve real people? Dust of the earth? God brings directly to life? FIRST specially created man? Woman from the side of the man? No death before? That’s a REALLY simple question and if it isn’t to you then we are wasting each others’ time?

  11. Tiribulus says:

    Then I will look forward to your answer. 😀

  12. Craig Benno says:

    Greg. You are yet to make the case that the death spoken about in Genesis was a spiritual death. Unless you mean by spiritual that we are completely spiritual beings (therefore our bodies are spiritual also) and we completely die.

    I read the Scriptures saying the wages of sin is death.. not – the wages of sin is death…but the soul will never die. 😉

  13. Tiribulus says:

    Jesus on the cross told the thief that he would be with Him that day in paradise after they died. Yes He did. The overwhelming preponderance of historic orthodoxy confirms this for like millenia. I know Wright and his buddies have no regard for that which is why I have no regard for them.

    Yes, sin is death and Paul says we were dead in it while walking around the earth. That’s what happened in the 3rd of Genesis. We all died in Adam. That’s why physically living men were practicing death, only evil continually by the 6th chapter. Cain was alive when he killed Able. This was just the urge of his biology that caused this? The whole argument of Romans 7 is the plainly stated reality of the flesh warring against the spirit. I couldn’t care less about all this eggheads and their worship of 2nd temple Judaism. This is the gospel revealed to us in these last days by His Son. Not pharisee-ism

    Come on man. You know what I’m gonna say. Save me the typing and state your case please. I was simply giving my view. Not fishing for a debate though I was and am interested in your view too. I have a half dozen other conversations I’m juggling. Not that you’re not important. I just hadn’t planned on this.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Greg. There is no difference between spiritual death and natural / physical death. The point is, the wages of sin since Adam has been death. But, the hope in Christ is the forgiveness of sin, fulfilled in eternal / resurrected life.

  14. Tiribulus says:

    That my friend is an assertion. Not an argument.

    The word “spirit” occurs 14 times it the fist 15 verses of Romans 8. With the exception of verse 15 (spirit of slavery) and maybe verse 10. it clearly refers one way or another to the Spirit of God. The ESV translation committee even capitalize it to indicate that. (in their opinion as V. 10 may be referring to the spirit of man) Anyway in verse 16 we find “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,” That is a direct parallel opposition. THE Spirit and OUR spirit.

    The Spirit itself ( αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα) all in the nominative case indicating subject. Our spirit, the spirit of us, (τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν), the article and the predicate noun are in the dative case and the pronoun “ἡμῶν” is a personal possessive one in the genitive case. OF US. OURS. The ESV squad render that int he power case accordingly. THE Spirit and OUR spirit. Both πνεῦμα, one God’s, one ours.

    And you still didn’t answer the nearly universal recognition of ( Ἀμήν σοι λέγω) as a phrase unto itself that while occurring over 70 times in the NT, NEVER has a self evident qualifier like that absolutely anywhere else. “Truly I tell you today? Really? “Well thank you Jesus for clarifying that it is today we are having this dying conversation because had you not I might have thought it was tomorrow. Or yesterday.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Greg, you are missing out on the Jewish rhetorical nature of the emphasis when Jesus says, I tell you the truth today—you too will be in paradise.

      However, if we go on your current belief system, that we enter heaven as soon as we die, or enter hell as soon as we die… when does the resurrection take place?

  15. Tiribulus says:

    My last hurried post was filled with typos I hope you were able to decipher. This one likely will too.

    We’re just not gonna touch Romans 8 huh?
    Jewish rhetorical nature that He only used once out of 73 times in the NT? And went pretty much unnoticed by the church for a couple thousand years?

    However, if we go on your current belief system, that we enter heaven as soon as we die, or enter hell as soon as we die… when does the resurrection take place?
    I don’t know the details. As I say, Eschatology is my weakest area of study. I don’t however believe that anybody is in their final state until the end of this age. The resurrection is essential for that because we are not complete without our bodies. We have a material and an immaterial nature that together form an organism of God’s “very good design”. Those are separated at the death of the body for a time until the resurrection. After which comes the judgement.

    I have yet to be dissuaded of the following though my personal studies are once again not as strong as I’d like in this area:

    “CHAPTER XXXII.
    Of the State of Man After Death,
    and of the Resurrection of the Dead.

    I. 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; 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.

    II. 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 self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.

    III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor, and be made conformable to his own glorious body. “

  16. Tiribulus says:

    Truly I say to you. Today you wil be with me in paradise.
    The rich man and Lazarus.
    I am not settled on a whole list of details as I say. You asked what is the soul? I gave a very unoriginal but very accurate historically orthodox view. The only kind I care about. Originality at this late date equals heresy. Period. I have not seen an exception yet. Anytime I see the word “new” or “fresh” in the title of a book or article? I know what’s comin. None for me thanks, I’m drivin.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Greg. You haven’t proven your case that the soul is a separate part of the human body by Scripture. You haven’t shown through Scripture how the soul is immortal / or eternal in and of its self. In many ways, if we have died a spiritual death… within your understanding of our soul – it is dead.

  17. Tiribulus says:

    Without Christ, IT IS DEAD.
    It is dead, dying and moving toward final death, Our bodies are also dead and dying. Indeed the entire creation is dead and dying.
    In Christ I have been made alive and been given a coupon good for the redemption of my body when Jesus returns. The promise of God and the presence of His Spirit in which I am sealed awaiting that day.

    I AM SAVED, I AM being saved AND I will be finally and fully saved at the resurrection.

    I am sancified, I am growing in sanctification AND will be fully sanctified when my fully cleansed and enlivened soul reunites with new immortal glorified body.

    Paul says. You were DEAD in trespasses and sins. THAT’S WHAT DEATH IS. Not ceasing to exist, but LIVING in sin IS DEATH. Sinners will do it for eternity. Live in sin which IS death. This is why after the fall all this sin broke out everywhere. Because spiritually dead men were walking around in the earth. That was the only kind there was until Jesus was born without a human Father to pass that death on to Him. Adam was the covenant head. Not Eve. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Him was life and that life was the light of men.

    Again:
    The word “spirit” occurs 14 times it the fist 15 verses of Romans 8. With the exception of verse 15 (spirit of slavery) and maybe verse 10. it clearly refers one way or another to the Spirit of God. The ESV translation committee even capitalize it to indicate that. (in their opinion as V. 10 may be referring to the spirit of man) Anyway in verse 16 we find “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,” That is a direct parallel opposition. THE Spirit and OUR spirit.

    The Spirit itself ( αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα) all in the nominative case indicating subject. Our spirit, the spirit of us, (τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν), the article and the predicate noun are in the dative case and the pronoun “ἡμῶν” is a personal possessive one in the genitive case. OF US. OURS. The ESV squad render that in the lower case accordingly. THE Spirit and OUR spirit. Both πνεῦμα, one God’s, one ours.

    What’s your evidence? Bultmann? Who didn’t even believe in the resurrection and butchered the scriptures like Jack the Ripper?

    I’m not trying to be unkind, but you are simply asserting I’ve made no case, ignored where I have and then simply made assertions as if that were advancing a position. I have also freely admitted my weakness in some of these areas.

    I like you Craig. And my heart bled reading your story. Sincerely. I am not an angry hateful man, though I’ve done a poor job at times of showing it. I don’t understand where you’re gong here.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Greg. I am not talking about salvation. I am talking about the make up of humanity. Having a soul as is traditionally understood (though its important to note that our so called tradtional understanding come out of the 4th / 5th century)

      But having a soul as you think it means, or not – it doesn’t effect our salvation in one iota.

      • Tiribulus says:

        I’m only using salvation and sanctification as further examples of the principle of “already, not yet” that is ALL over the bible. Men are born already dead in sin and not yet as dead as they will be in future apart from Christ. The post conversion elect are already born again into new life in Christ and have the seed and first fruits of the new and everlasting covenant, but are NOT yet all that they will be at their future resurrection and glorification.

        The dead in Christ are already in the presence of the Lord, paradise, as Jesus promised the thief, but the redemption that has been bought for them is NOT YET fully realized.

        EVERY doctrine we have came out of the 4th or 5th century, including the trinity Mr. Trinitarian Dance you. 😀 Even the doctrines of God and Christ weren’t hammered out until those councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. That’s to be expected when distance is ticking away from the apostles and the gospel is spreading like wildfire and going through hands like there’s no tomorrow. Thank God He put the brakes on and oversaw the codification of some overall stability when He did, which is exactly what we should expect He’d do too.

        I’m not sure if you mean by that last statement that not believing in an immaterial soul.isn’t damnable heresy or if you mean that it just doesn’t have any bearing on the gospel. Or both?

        I’ll believe WHATEVER the bible says. Is there a particular reason you have (and you have) ignored most of the passages I’ve brought? Like Romans 8 or the rich man and Lazarus or the FACT of the phraseology of the Lord’s promise to the thief on the cross?

        tiribulus@gmail.com

      • Craig Benno says:

        Greg…I think you need to work on your eschatology some more…as the resurrection doesn’t take place till the end times.

  18. Tiribulus says:

    I know that man LOL!. What would make you think I didn’t?

  19. Tiribulus says:

    We are not communicating. I’ll assume it’s my fault, but I don’t know the solution. You asked me for scriptures that demonstrate an immaterial soul for man and I have, with nary a syllable of meaningful response from you my friend.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Greg, the problem is, you have thrown up a heap of scriptures to proof text your argument – but non of them point to a immaterial or immortal soul.

      The fact is our tradition of the immortal immaterial soul dates back to Plato, and was re-established by Aristotle and is greatly influence by the French philosopher Descartes.

      Apart from Aristotle who was working on the assumptions of Plato, there is no history of any deep theological thought that has gone into the the anthropology of the soul – instead, even the reformers still continued on in the RC tradition and understanding.

  20. Tiribulus says:

    Could you please address what I’ve brought from Romans 8?

    And what Roman Catholic tradition would that be?

    Just so we’re clear. You’re saying that the entire church had this wrong until Rudolph Bultmann? That’s what you’re saying?

    • Craig Benno says:

      Greg…nope. The early church fathers didn’t believe in an immortal soul..

      Btw, in regards to your quote from Jesus on the cross… We know Jesus is complete truth and cant lie. He told the thief, that I tell you, today you will be in paradise with me.

      Now that cannot mean heaven. Because Jesus was dead in the tomb for 3 days..and he didn’t go to the father till afterwards.

      So, that leaves us with asking,..what does Jesus mean by paradise?

  21. Tiribulus says:

    what does Jesus mean by paradise?
    Father into thy hands I commit my Spirit [while my body stays here in this tomb] (and by the way I’m bringin this guy with me.)

    Augustine most assuredly taught an immortal soul, off the top of my head.

    Must sleep Craig. 1 am here. Romans 8 please?

  22. Tiribulus says:

    We’re just not gonna touch my exegesis of Romans 8 are we?

    That is NOT an accurate translation OR the church universal would have been translating and understanding it that way for the past 2000 years. Raw lexical/etymological possibility is BOT sound communication. Not even in English. USAGE determines meaning. Not etymology alone.

    The book of Hebrews is virtually a hermeneutics textbook for the Old Testament. Folks today need to understand that there was a WHOLE lot more revealed in the New Testament than in the old or by those apostate scribes and pharisees.. NOBODY would have understood beforehand what the writer of Hebrews brought forth about Christ from the old testament. People don’t seem to notice that the Jews of Jesus day were very much baffled and offended by his nearly every word. Who cares what the Jews of the 2nd temple and all their apocalyptic BS thought? Thy were Jesus number one enemies and the fact that Wright and his allies cannot see that is reason enough to discount their “work”.

    As I said. The fact that Augustine of Hippo, by far the most influential theologian of the 1st 5 centuries, unarguably taught an immaterial soul is the instant death knell to the notion that the patristics knew nothing of it.

    Are you giving these short non answers just to see how far you can lead me along here? 🙂

  23. Tiribulus says:

    How bout mini essays? Forgive me, but I’m not egtting out of this socratic campaign you’re conducting here.

    I repeat:
    Could you please address what I’ve brought from Romans 8?

    And what Roman Catholic tradition would that be?

    Just so we’re clear. You’re saying that the entire church had this wrong until Rudolph Bultmann? That’s what you’re saying?

  24. Tiribulus says:

    Lemme try it again and please delete the first one.

    How bout mini essays? Forgive me, but I’m not getting anything out of this hyper abbreviated Socratic campaign you’re conducting here.

    I repeat:
    Could you please address what I’ve brought from Romans 8?

    And what Roman Catholic tradition would that be?

    Just so we’re clear. You’re saying that the entire church had this wrong until Rudolph Bultmann? That’s what you’re saying?

  25. Craig Benno says:

    Greg, please remember your a guest on my blog and that you are a ambassador for the king. 🙂

    Within the framework of Romans 8 and spiritual death.. what your saying is that till new birth / salvation everyone has a dead soul they are carrying around with them. If the soul is dead, then it can’t me immortal nor eternal.

    However, here is the rub. Hebrew thought has no tradition of humans having a soul which is distinct to the body. Augustine’s thought on the soul is purely a mix of Platonic and Aristotelian thought. And so if we insist on that Paul is teaching about a the context of a Platonic soul in Romans 8 then we are guilty of eisegesis and not doing exegesis.

  26. Tiribulus says:

    I’m not ignoring you man. This happens to me all the time. I get myself involved in more stuff than I have time for, 😦

  27. Greg Smith says:

    Man have I been buried. Didn’t plan on this erupting into a time consuming debate like this.

  28. Pingback: Edward Hara and I Discuss “Authority”. Rome vs. Westminster

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s