My studied opinion (which is different from a presumption or mere intuition) necessitates that someone who is “In Life” that is, namely in Jesus Christ by reason of being “A Christian” loosely speaking; cannot be put aside out of that Life to experience existential death. Because they now exist in a state of eternal existential life, being in union with the one who existentially “is” and existentially “lives” being existentially “life”. In essence; I am in ever unfolding, and enfolding union with Life, therefore I live so long as Life shall live.
For the one who is in Life to cease to exist, is to cease being in union with that Life - which is either to be put aside by Life himself (which he promised not to do, ever - promising it would never happen) or to be forsaken by Life (which he also promised not to do, ever).
For those who are already “dead” I do not know specifically their fate. Those who are not In Life, for them my understanding of the soul is less clear - though I believe they will have some form of transcendency as well. Specifically for the Christian however, they who assuredly represent that Imageness, that “Child of God” under any Christian ideal, orthodox or not - if they cease to exist, if they experience existential death; their union with Life is by default severed, and so by default Life has put them aside (at best), or forsaken them (at worst) which goes against his promises that stated otherwise, especially if he is in fullest power having power that overrules Death.
Even if he takes up the life again, he still set it aside and forsook the life that was in union with him. He would have broken his promise, even for a little moment, but that becomes irrelevant by the weight of the fact that “Jesus broke a promise”.
As for the other side of the argument; I believe that if the Human Being has no agency of himself that is transcendent of the three dimensional material world, then he is a lesser image of God who is fundamentally transcendent of that same world. I interpret “Imageness” to imply deeper and higher reflections of the word. To be an image of God, is to be the offspring of God. To be the offspring of God is to be much more than just a machine able to interact with him and mimic his moral-abstracts, his thoughts. It is to be offspring in the grander theme of what it means.
Relevantly speaking, I believe that the image implies as an aspect this;
*
Transcendent as he is Transcendent, albeit in a finite sense (we are not omniessential, or self-evident and self-emanating; we depend on God for our sustained existence), having capacities and Selfness to our Individualities that surpass, or exist beyond the three dimensional material world as it passes through the 4th (time), a soul that interacts with and manifests in the 3dimensional world, but has existence and manifestation within the rest of Existence.*
There is more to our universe than space/matter/time. There is more to God than space/matter/time. God is transcendent above these; Man is God’s offspring; there must be more to Man than space/matter/time, which is transcendent above these.
In conclusion, cessation of an existential Individuality, wholly creates two problems. One for the Christian especially, and the other for all of mankind of which Christians are a part.
a. Jesus breaks his promises, or didn’t mean what he was thought to have meant (and not in a better way, as per Universalism being a better idea than what people thought he meant with ETC); negative trend theology.
b. The image of God is shallow, and like a. there is manifested a negative trend understanding of God which creates a powerful crisis of identity. The lack of transcendency in the human being removes much of the human identity taking him from multi-dimensional depth beyond space/time/matter, and relegates him strictly to being nothing but matter bound existentially to space/time. Among other derogatory trends, that was just an example. It leads to negative trend identity, even if it is gussied up to be appealing it is still a “step down”.
Both of these cause me to believe (after having “considered the lilies of the field”) to reject the two main notions of soulsleep, and hence soulsleep itself.
a. Being in Life is conditional, severance of union with Life is assured and inevitable; even if temporary.
“Jesus didn’t mean what he meant, and breaks his promise, or it is a lesser idea than what I imagined; which God should be able to completely overwhelm in a positive way, in truth, not merely imputed to be “better”.”
b. The image of God is no deeper than its skin, with no transcendent agency or manifestation of Self or the Individuality that expresses the very fundamental heart of who God existentially is; a transcendent being.
“It is almost as if the “child” doesn’t have my DNA at all…sure it looks a little bit like me, acts a little bit like me, but it has a tail and eats from a bowl and barks…”
I believe the Image of God must have a fundamental reflection, even if finite in scope (though not necessarily finite in time, being as the fundamental reflection transcends time, the 4th dimension) of the transcendency of God, whom the image reflects. It must be higher than the presented argument offers.
Ok, how about if I modified what I wrote as follows:
“So there is nothing I or anyone else could say to convince you that the particular understanding of man’s nature for which I’ve been arguing in this thread and elsewhere is true and Scriptural. Your studied opinion that man’s being in the image of God entails that his conscious existence cannot cease - even temporarily - invalidates every possible argument from both Scripture and experience/observation that man is unconscious while dead.”
Is that correct?
But why do you believe that the “life” which believers receive for believing in (and thus being spiritually united to) Christ is “eternal existential life,” or has anything to do with being conscious after death rather than ceasing to consciously exist? You seem to be simply assuming that when (for example) Christ said, “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has age-during life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24) he was referring to the believer’s continuous conscious existence after death, or to his being “existentially alive” both now and after death. If this is what you believe, what are your reasons for believing it? And if it’s not what you believe, then how do you know that having this “life” ensures that a person’s conscious existence will continue after death?
Moreover, if the “life” that believers receive is “eternal existential life,” then the “death” which is the absence of this “life” must be a lack of “eternal existential life.” If man must be in Christ in order to “exist in a state of eternal existential life” and be conscious after they physically die, then it follows that those who are not in Christ (i.e., those who are said to be “dead in sin” and “alienated from the life of God”) do not “exist in a state of eternal existential life.” So in contrast to those who die in union with Christ (and thus die in a state of “eternal existential life”), those who are “dead in sin” and “alienated from the life of God” should simply pass out of conscious existence completely (i.e., experience “existential death”). And if so, any further opportunity for them to gain “eternal existential life” will be over, because being “existentially dead,” they will have no further opportunity to believe and gain the “eternal existential life” that believers have. And if this isn’t what you believe, then how does this not follow, according to your view?
But perhaps in anticipation of this objection, you go on to say:
So you’re unsure of the fate of those who physically die apart from being in union with Christ. But in spite of your lack of certainty, you still seem pretty certain that they will “have some form of transcendency as well.” But if this “some sort of trascendency” doesn’t entail being existentially alive after physical death, then they’re stuck with being existentially dead for all eternity (unless, of course, God chooses to bestow upon them existential life apart from their having been believers in Christ - which is pretty much what I believe God is going to do for every unbeliever at the resurrection of the dead), for this seems to me to be the only alternative to “eternal existential life.” And if this “transcendency” does entail their being existentially alive after physical death, and they never actually become “existentially dead,” then wouldn’t it mean they already had “eternal existential life” in spite of their not being spiritually united to Christ by faith in him?
Moreover, if man is an “immortal soul” as you you’ve said before, then wouldn’t this mean that man has, by virtue of creation (rather than by virtue of his spiritual union with Christ by faith), “eternal existential life?”
Why do you think the Human Being has to be “transcendent of the three dimensional material world” in order to bear God’s image (and be his offspring), and not, say, omnipresent, omniscient or purely “spiritual” without a physical body? Why this and not something else that defines God’s existence?
And why do you say “mimic his moral-abstracts?” Perhaps you didn’t mean it to, but the word “mimic” sounds a bit derogatory. Would you use this word to describe the degree to which you think man “transcends the three dimensional material world?” That is, would you say that man “mimics” God’s transcendence of the physical, material world?
Also, according to my view, man is “more than just a machine.” To call man “just a machine” is a caricature of my view. Man is a rational, self-aware being constituted by a physical body. What kind of machines are you familiar with that can feel and think and love?
But why do you think being God’s offspring entails that man must transcend space/matter/time? If this isn’t a mere presupposition or intuition of yours, then what is it? Why do you believe this to be true? Not even you believe that man shares every divine attribute or characteristic, and even the ones that you think he does share with God are not possessed in the same way, or to the same degree, that God possesses them. So why should a transcendence over space/matter/time be one of them? And why this one but not another, such as omnipresence, omniscience or the lack of a physical body (for even if you don’t think man is constituted by a physical body, you still believe God brought him into existence with one, and that man will, after the resurrection, spend eternity with one)?
I don’t think this is true (nor has it been substantiated by you thus far in our discussion). I deny that Jesus ever promised that believers would never existentially die, and you have yet to prove that having “life” in the sense of which Christ spoke in (for example) John 10:10 (where Jesus declares, “I came that they * may have life and have it abundantly”) means or has anything to do with a continued conscious existence after death in a disembodied state for the believer. If you can prove to me that this “life” means or has anything to do with continued conscious existence after death in a disembodied state, I will at once believe that “soul-sleep” is erroneous. Or if you can at least provide some good reasons why you believe this to be the case, I will find your overall position somewhat more likely. Until then, I can’t help but see this as nothing more than an opinion or intuition of yours that I do not (and need not) share.
Again, I don’t think this is true. It does not follow that a lack of transcendency over space/matter/time relegates man to being “nothing but matter bound existentially to space/time.” According to my view, man is constituted by matter, but he is not “nothing but matter.” Unlike all other organized matter on this planet, the matter by which man is constituted is organized in such a way as to bring forth something that makes him completely unique: rational self-awareness (i.e., a rational, first-person perspective). This makes him like God and enables God to relate to man as his offspring, in distinction from every other “living soul” on this planet.
Not only have you not yet proven that the “life” which believers enter into and receive by faith has anything to do with their being conscious after death in a disembodied state of existence, but even if you could prove this, you yourself must admit that being in this life is “conditional,” for only those who are in union with Christ (by their faith in him) and consequently have the love of God abiding within them have “passed out of death into life.” Everyone else “abides in death” (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14-15). And if having “life” means remaining “existentially alive” (i.e., in a disembodied state) after physical death, then those who “abide in death” will not remain “existentially alive” after physical death.
(I’ll have to pass over what you write in italics, since I’m not entirely sure what you mean by it )
As I asked earlier, why do you think being God’s offspring and image-bearers entails that man must transcend space/matter/time? God is also fundamentally an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being who (unlike his mortal image-bearers) “alone has immortality,” has no body (let alone a mortal one) and who “cannot lie.” Does the fact that man lacks these fundamental attributes of God mean to you that man is (as you say) “a lesser image of God?” If not, then why should a lack of transcendency over space/matter/time entail that man is “a lesser image of God?”
According to my view, the image of God does have “a fundamental reflection, even if finite in scope.” Like the infinite God, finite man is a rational, self-aware being (i.e., a person) who can think and understand and love and have dominion over lower forms of life.*
There is nothing you, or anyone else could say to convince me that the particular understanding of man’s nature for which you have been arguing in this thread and elsewhere is true and scripture - if the interpretation of scripture presented to me trying to convince me entails that man, being the image and reflection, the offspring, of the transcendent God; is less than that image.
Cessation of that fundamental existential transcendency - even temporarily - especially for the Christian is an example of lessening that transcendency.
Any interpretation that degrades the image of God, and God by proxy; is invalid for its negative-trend theological direction.
If you don’t exist, you aren’t alive. If you aren’t alive, you aren’t in Life.
I believe it, because it is the higher, brighter, better, superior, more positive interpretation.
Hence, why soulsleep cannot be true under a paradigm that aligns with Universalism.
I don’t believe anyone is alienated wholly from Life, or else they could have no animacy on Earth. Even the “dead” are dependent on God to “breath”.
If the “dead without Christ” go to “sleep” I can only speculate. God is powerful enough to raise the dead. The dead who come to Christ will live, those who live in Christ will never die.
I am unsure about the fate of those who die “sinners”, but the fate of those who die in Christ should not be existential death. I am comfortable in my understanding to have the freedom to say “I don’t know” when I do not.
But if I may speculate; pre-cross and post-cross there is a world of difference. Jesus now has the keys to Death and Hades, and it is very possible that the soul that was bound for Hades is now embraced by Life, the all consuming fire.
If Jesus embraces the departed sinner’s soul, that soul may undergo much correction and sustaining as it enters into life through destruction.
Christ said he will draw all men to himself. Why should it not be done when they shed their sinful flesh also?
It would. Atheists walk amongst us, so do Satanists, living and breathing. The quality of that life however…is a different story.
Again, I don’t know what happens to those who die apart from Christ. I believe anyone who is the image of God must by default have some transcendency, the quality of that transcendency is largely what I deal with.
Because a babydoll is not a human child, even if it looks like one.
I used term in the way that alludes to a parrot mimicing the human voice, but not actually having human agency.
I would not use the word “mimic” in dealing with transcendency. If man is not transcendent, he never will be.
That is precisely my point. It requires a soul, which I believe to be transcendent of the vessel it animates, and manifests itself through; just as God is transcendent to the universe that He animates, and manifests himself through.
I believe it because I believe there must be some fundamental reflection of God’s fundamental being in man who is his image. I believe it is true because it is good, lovely, and a brighter more noble idea. I believe everything is God-dependent solely. “everything points upward”
Omniessentialness is a thing that is only available to the infinite, on an infinite scope. That man is finite does not negate his transcendency, as that is a fundamental thing expressed in the image of God.
Man has presence, but not omnipresence. Man has transcendency, but that transcendency is God dependent.
I believe that the body is an important part of a man’s identity, just as Creation is an important part of God’s identity. But I do not believe Man is dependent on his body to have existence any more than God depends on Creation to exist.
What would be the point of “soul sleep”. What purpose?
Once a soul has been created, this unique spirit… what would be the purpose of God taking the batteries out of us, so to speak, and essentially turning us off for a period of time?
I’ve been wondering about this myself. Jesus says that He, is the Resurrection (and the Life). I believe there is a literal resurrection to be sure, but I really do think that the weight of Jesus’ words in saying that He is the Resurrection has a lot more to say than just metaphor. It is something to ponder.
As with most things in God’s economy, I feel that the Resurrection may be process and event. An unfolding and consummated reality and realisation occurring in proximity. “An organic schedule” of God.
Hey Aaron, thanks for your thoughtful response. I only have time for a quick reply as I’m quite busy right now.
I am not entirely sure, but I’m willing to bet that the Sadducees believed that once someone died, that was it, nothing left. That could easily be interpreted from talk about Sheol where nobody sees or hears or does anything, which could be interpreted as poetic as the end of existence entirely. However, I’m not very educated on what their official viewpoint on that was.
Anyway, if it were, then Jesus’ argument that they are still alive in at least one respect would go a LONG WAY toward making an argument for the resurrection. For it would imply that God was both God of the Living and that He was preparing them for a resurrection. It makes little sense to me that somebody would go out of existence only to be “resurrected” at a future date. Given that the word “resurrection” comes from a Greek word “anastasis” which means to “stand up” this seems to me to imply that there is somebody in existence to stand up in the first place. This would utterly annihilate their argument, imho.
Partnering this up with all the references to some form of consciousness after death which you would have to make (rather complicated, I think) arguments for being pure metaphors, and you have a task on your hands. I know that you already do that, but I haven’t been keeping up, lol. I just don’t think it’s tenable either logically or biblically, and I’m not sure what the reasoning is behind holding to the viewpoint. Perhaps you could give me an explanation for why it makes sense to you personally and makes for a coherent worldview? That might be more helpful for me to better see where you’re coming from.
Aaron, this is extremely interesting. Lefein and I have been discussing how the spirit could in fact be made up of energy, just on a much higher level. I posited to him that it would be no more possible for us to exist in only 4 dimensions or a few more than it would be for any object to exist in only 2 dimensions, such as in the novel Flatland. Inevitably, in order to exist something must have height as well. Thus, we exist in all 10 (11?) dimensions and therefore there is some aspect of ourselves that is indestructible. In other words, no matter if our visible bodies or even the entire world is destroyed, we would still exist. There are even scientists that think that this universe is just the real universe inverted upon itself and thus an actually negative existence (I’ll round up the link later). If our universe were to snap back into the real universe, all natural laws would be transformed and this universe would be destroyed. This accords very well with the cosmological eschatology of the bible. In that case, how would we exist? Do we already exist in that realm? What’s really going on here!?
I think that scientifically it is not only feasible that our souls exist but it is NECESSARY.
I haven’t followed this whole discussion so pardon me for asking, but do you mean to imply that because the resurrection doesn’t happen immediately that there is no conscious experience after death and before the resurrection? I never understood the afterlife to be a form of the resurrection.
…oh, I did read something about Student saying that it is the beginning of the resurrection. I get it now. Still, I don’t see how that’s entirely unfeasible, as Paul would just be making a distinction between two different states. As we can see throughout the rest of his works, he saw salvation as being progressive from spirit through soul through to the body, all happening in successive degrees. Thus, the germ of resurrection is already happening inside of us at this very moment, beginning with salvation.
Along with being “transcendent,” God is also fundamentally an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being who (unlike his mortal image-bearers) “alone has immortality,” has no body (let alone a mortal one as man presently does) and “cannot lie.” And yet, without sharing these divine attributes, man is still God’s offspring and image-bearer, right? Why then must a transcendency over space/matter/time be an attribute of God’s offspring/image-bearers? Why is this divine attribute considered so essential to you in regards to our being God’s image-bearers and offspring, as opposed to the ones listed above? Why should I or anyone else share your opinion that, in order for man to be considered God’s image bearer and offspring, he must be transcendent over space/matter/time?
But by “fundamental existential transcendency” don’t you mean an existence like God’s in which it is impossible to cease to be “existentially alive?” That is, doesn’t “transcendency” for you pretty much entail that a person cannot cease to be existentially alive? And if so, then of course a cessation of that fundamental existential transcendeny would be an example of “lessening that transcendency.” But this sounds like circular reasoning. To assume that man possesses this “fundamental existential transcendency” (i.e., an existence like God’s in which it is impossible to cease to be existentially alive) and then criticize my view for “lessening” it is, I think, to beg the question. You must prove that man even possesses this “fundamental existential transcendency” (as you understand it) before you can criticize my view for “lessening” it. According to my view, man was not created by God with a “transcendency” over space/matter/time that entails his continued conscious existence after physical death, so for his conscious existence to cease with physical death would not be an example of “lessening” such “transcendency.”
But Lefein, you don’t even think this “Life” (to which you’ve ascribed your own theological/philosophical meaning without really explaining why you understand it the way you do) embraces every possible kind of life that man was created by God to experience and enjoy. It can’t mean physical, embodied life - i.e., the kind of life with which we were brought into existence, and which will be permanently restored to us at the resurrection of the dead (when “death is swallowed up in victory”) - because this life temporarily ceases at physical death. But again, it is this kind of life (physical, embodied life) that God created man to experience and enjoy, both during this present existence and for all time after the resurrection. So couldn’t someone object to your definition of “Life” and assert, “If you don’t physically exist in an embodied state, you aren’t physically alive in an embodied state. And if you aren’t physically alive in an embodied state, your aren’t in Life.” But of course, you said the “life” that believers receive by their spiritual union with Christ will not and cannot cease, for if you thought it could and would cease (even temporarily), your position would be overturned. And this seems to be the only reason you do not include physical, embodied life in the definition of “Life” above. But we presently exist as physical, embodied beings. That is, our “existential life” is presently tied to our having a physical, embodied existence. So why shouldn’t this kind of life (physical, embodied life) be embraced by the “Life” that believers receive and enter into by faith in Christ? Why “existential life” in a mere disembodied state and not “existential life” in a physical, embodied state (which God clearly considers a superior state for man, and more conducive to our present and future happiness)?
Of course, I don’t think this is the kind of “life” that Jesus was talking about when he spoke of that which people can receive and enter into by faith in him. But I see just as much reason to believe he was talking about this kind of “life” as to believe he was talking about “eternal existential life” after death in a disembodied state of existence. Both views are, I believe, equally mistaken.
But why do you think it’s the “higher, brighter, better, superior, more positive interpretation?” What are your reasons for believing this other than your own intuition or presuppositions? Why should I or anyone else agree with you that your interpretation of John 5:24 is “higher, brighter, better, superior and more positive” than my own? Catholics have no doubt traditionally thought it the “higher, brighter, better, superior and more positive” interpretation to understand Jesus’ words in Matt 26:26 or John 6:53-56 literally. I’m sure their interpretation of verses like these creates for them a kind of awe and wonder and mystique that a more figurative interpretation (such as that held by most Protestants) cannot provide. But unless you affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation, you would probably disagree that their interpretation is “higher, brighter, better, superior and more positive” than yours.
Someone could argue that, since physical, embodied life is clearly a superior state for man (for it was not only the state in which we were brought into existence by God, but it is the state in which we will permanently exist after the resurrection) then the “higher, brighter, better, superior, more positive interpretation” of John 5:24 is that the “life” into which believers pass by faith is a “physical, embodied existential life” that will never cease. And just as you would disagree that Jesus meant “physical embodied existential life” in this verse, so I just as strongly deny that he meant both this and “non-physical, disembodied existential life,” and I think my reasons for rejecting the former interpretation are just as valid for rejecting the latter interpretation.
Actually, I was thinking just the opposite: if the above is true (and your only argument to the contrary has been the agnostic appeal, “I don’t know what happens to those who die sinners”) then it is your position that cannot be true under a paradigm that aligns with Universalism. For you, the only people about whom you have any kind of certainty are those who die as believers in Christ. Concerning those who don’t, you’re just not sure; you can “only speculate.” For a believer in UR to have to “speculate” on the post-mortem fates of billions of people is, to me, a sad and contradictory position. What’s more, this agnosticism is, I believe, inconsistent with your position that it is our spiritual union with Christ that secures our “eternal existential life” after death. If you are to be consistent, I believe your view provides little to no hope for those who are “dead in sin” and “alienated from the life of God” when they physically die. As you said, “If you aren’t alive, you aren’t in Life.” Well if a person is “dead in sin” and “alienated from the life of God” then how, pray, can it be said that they are, in any real or meaningful sense, “in Life?” Since they went through this physical, embodied existence and then died in a state of separation from the source of their “eternal existential life,” I don’t see why they wouldn’t just pass out of existence completely. For you (at least, according to some of the statements you’ve made), it is our being in spiritual union with Christ by faith that secures our having “eternal existential life.” And if those who die in unbelief die without having “eternal existential life,” and faith in Christ was the only means by which they could’ve gained it, then their post-mortem situation is pretty bleak to say the least. So even though you claim to be a Universalist, your position is, I believe, even less hopeful than that of the “hopeful universalist” who thinks that man’s “free will” may possibly prevent God from saving everyone he wants to save. At least a person who always has freedom to choose will always have the opportunity to choose God. But a person who ceases to exist has lost all opportunity to be saved if their not ceasing to exist depended on their becoming spiritually united to Christ by faith before they physically died.
But according to my view, everyone who physically dies - whether they were “dead in sin” while physically alive or “alive together with Christ” in a spiritual sense - will be raised by Christ to an imperishable, glorious, powerful existence and become part of the “all in all” that God is destined to become. According to my view, we can be sure that, while everyone (except the last generation alive on the earth) will experience “existential death,” this state is only temporary and will end at the resurrection when all who die in Adam are made alive in Christ to “bear the image of the man of heaven.” According to my view, this blessing can neither be gained by faith in Christ nor forfeited by unbelief.
You seem to be confounding the existential life of human beings that we have by virtue of our creation (and, I would say, being physically alive) with that spiritual blessing that is often referred to as “life” in Scripture, and which is conditioned on faith in Christ. The former is only related to the latter in the sense that the latter cannot be enjoyed except one already possess the former (i.e., those who are not existentially alive cannot enter into and enjoy the “life” that is conditioned on faith in Christ). But of course one can be existentially alive and still be “dead in sin” and “alienated from the life of God” because being dead in sin and alienated from the life of God (in the sense of which Paul speaks in Ephesians) has nothing directly to do with being existentially alive except in the sense already mentioned. The “life” that comes by faith in Christ and the “death” that is the opposite of this life refers to a particular moral or ethical state in which a person exists, and has to do with the disposition of their mind and condition of their heart.
If, when Paul spoke of the “life of God” in Ephesians 4:18, he was referring to God’s being existentially alive rather than non-existent, then those who are “alienated from the life of God” would be non-existent. That is, the moment they became alienated from the life of God and “dead in sin” they would simply cease to exist. But this is not the kind of “life” that Paul is referring to. He’s talking about the moral or ethical state in which God exists - i.e., the disposition of his mind - which manifests itself in his benevolent actions. That is, the “life of God” of which Paul speaks here is an ethical state in which one’s decisions and actions are governed by love. It is a mind set (i.e., what Paul calls “setting the mind on the Spirit”). To be “alienated from the life of God” has nothing to do with the existential life that one possesses by virtue of having been brought into existence as a “living soul,” but rather with the disposition of one’s mind (which, for human beings, is I believe dependent on their having a functioning brain). Notice how, in the context, Paul writes of those who are alienated from the life of God as walking “in the futility of their minds,” as being “darkened in understanding,” and as having “ignorance in them” which is due to their “hardness of heart.” Neither this kind of “death” nor its opposite state of “life” has anything to do with whether or not a person is or will be conscious after death.
I would say that the “fate of those who die bearing God’s image should not be permanent existential death,” but nowhere is it promised in Scripture that those who die in Christ will have a different existential fate than those who die apart from Christ. The state of those who die in faith and unbelief is the same, both before the resurrection (Eccl 3:18-21; 9:2-10) and after the resurrection (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13-18).
I don’t see any indication in Scripture that any human being (except Jesus himself) has or will be freed from Hades (Sheol) until the future resurrection of the dead.
And what “departed sinner’s soul” are you talking about? Their “immortal soul?” If a “departed sinner” is or has an “immortal soul,” then their existential life never ceased nor will cease, right? That is, in spite of the fact that they were not spiritually united to Christ through faith when they died, their existential life will never cease, right?
Well first you have to prove that they are even capable of being drawn to Christ after they have “shed their sinful flesh.” You’ve said things which strongly suggest (or which logically lead to the conclusion) that those who die in unbelief will not even be existentially alive after death, which would of course preclude their being drawn to Christ until their existential life is restored (and again, that’s exactly what I believe will take place for all who die).
So now it’s not eternal existential life that is lost or forfeited by those who are “alienated from the life of God;” rather, it’s the “quality of that life.” Now we’re getting a good bit closer to what I believe. But we seem to be getting further away from some of the key ideas that you’ve been affirming and emphasizing in our discussion, such as that it is by virtue of man’s spiritual union with Christ by faith that he receives and enters into “eternal existential life,” and that it’s this union with Christ that makes a believer’s ceasing to exist so unthinkable. It’s like you’ve been unsure where you stand on this matter for much of our discussion: is “eternal existential life” gained by virtue of our spiritual union with Christ by faith, or by virtue of our being created with (or as) “immortal souls?” It’s like you’ve wanted to affirm both so that you might have an added layer of protection against the doctrinal threat of “soul-sleep,” which has made my attempt to fully understand your position and then argue against it something like trying to nail jell-o to a wall. But since you’ve affirmed quite unambiguously that “man is an immortal soul” and that he has “eternal existential life” by virtue of creation rather than by virtue of his spiritual union with Christ by faith, I’m going to hold you to it (unless you change your view, of course).
Based on what you believe, I think I could tell you what happens to those who die apart from Christ. They continue to be “eternally existentially alive” just as those who are in spiritual union with Christ by faith are. The only difference is that the “quality” of their existence is different. As in this life, they would probably have a decreased capacity to enjoy and appreciate their existence and would be without the love, joy and peace that characterizes the life of one who is in spiritual union with Christ by faith. You also probably believe that those who die apart from Christ are - or will be - undergoing a process in which their sinfulness is purged away in God’s “all-consuming fire” until they receive and enter into the same quality of life as those who died in union with Christ. Perhaps you believe that everyone will have to be “purged” after death to some extent, but that the process will perhaps be of longer duration (and possibly more painful) for those who died apart from Christ than for those who died in union with Christ.
Your caricature of my view doesn’t really answer my questions. I don’t believe we merely “look like” God like a babydoll looks like a human child. I believe we are like God in our being rational, self-aware beings who have an innate capacity to know good and evil, love and exercise dominion over lower forms of life. So again, I must ask: Why, Lefein, do you think that the Human Being must be “transcendent of the three dimensional material world” in order to bear God’s image (and be his offspring), and not, say, omnipresent, omniscient or purely “spiritual” without a physical body? Why this and not something else that defines God’s existence?
That’s what I suspected. But I don’t believe man pretends to have (but doesn’t actually have) rational self-awareness, or pretends to be a moral being or pretends to love. I believe he DOES have rational self-awareness, that he IS a moral being, and that he CAN love. Do you think it’s impossible for God to so modify and organize matter as to bring into existence a being with rational self-awareness, a knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to love?
But why do you think man must be transcendent in the sense that you think he is in order to bear God’s image and be his offspring?
But why do you think that man’s ability to feel and think and love and be self-aware requires that he possess a “transcendent immortal soul?” Assuming this is your “studied opinion” rather than mere intuition or an assumption, how did you come to find this out?
But why must a transcendency over space-matter/time be the way in which man reflects “God’s fundamental being?” Why do you think this to be the case?
Isn’t it your own opinion that this is a “good, lovely and brighter, more noble idea?” And why is it a lovelier, brighter and nobler idea that man be “transcendent” in the sense that you think he is than sharing other attributes of God that man doesn’t - but theoretically could - share?
And couldn’t one say that it is “good, lovely, and a brighter more noble idea” that man only be existentially alive in a physical embodied state, since this is the state for which man was created by God, and is superior to any other state in which man could possibly exist? That is, couldn’t someone argue that it is a “good, lovely and brighter, more noble idea” that God, in his love and wisdom, will not allow man to consciously exist in an inferior state of existence for which he was not created (i.e., a disembodied state), and that the only state of conscious existence man will ever know will be as a physical, embodied being?
It seems reasonable to me that man could, theoretically at least, have been created with such attributes as omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence (in the sense of having the power to do whatever he wants, even if what he wants is fully consistent with God’s will) immortality in the highest sense (i.e., as God possesses), bodiless existence and an inability to lie, and that man could possess all of these attributes without being “omniessential” as God is.
Also, do you think that all of man is fully transcendent in the sense that you think God is transcendent, or do you think that only part of man is fully transcendent in the sense that you think God is transcendent? Or do you think that part of man is only partly transcendent in the sense that you think God is transcendent?
But again, why do you think man must have transcendence in the sense that you think God has transcendence (even if it’s “God-dependent transcendence”) in order to be God’s image-bearer?
Do you think that physical, embodied existence is God’s ideal for man?
There are, I think, some pretty big assumptions underlying your questions. One seems to be that the word “soul” as used in Scripture refers to an immaterial thing or “substance” of some sort which serves as the locus of our consciousness and personal identity, and which was created by God to “carry” our consciousness and personal identity after death. If this (or something close to it) is your understanding of the word “soul,” then it would be rather strange for God to “turn it off,” so to speak, when we die! It would be like God saying, “I’m going to give my human creatures something that will allow them to be conscious after death, but I’m going to turn it off when they die.” That wouldn’t make much sense to me either, and when the word “soul” is understand in this way, it’s no wonder why so many Christians have a difficult time understanding why any believer would or could hold to the doctrine of “soul-sleep!”
But I don’t think the Hebrew and Greek words translated “soul” in Scripture (nephash and psuche, respectively) carry this meaning. Instead, based on how the words are used in Scripture, I believe there is good reason to understand them to denote:
Any creature created with a capacity for respiration and sentient existence (Genesis 1:20-21, 24-25; 2:7; cf. Rev 16:3); and
That which is common to, and characteristic of, all “living souls,” such as natural life/vitality (Gen 1:20, 30; 19:17; 35:18; Ex 4:19; 21:23; Lev 17:11-14; 1Sam 22:23; Job 12:10; Esther 7:7; Prov 12:10; Jonah 4:3) and desire or appetite (Ex 15:9; Deut 23:24; Ps 27:12; Prov 6:30, 23:2; Eccl 6:7, 9; Jer 22:27; Micah 7:3; Hab 2:5).
According to the first meaning, the words translated “soul” refer to the physical, embodied creature itself, and has no reference at all to any aspect of human (or animal) nature that is immortal or conscious after death. Instead, it simply denotes the physical, embodied person themselves (see, for example, Acts 2:41-43; 3:23; 7:14; 27:37; Romans 2:9; 13:1; 1 Corinthians 15:45; James 5:20; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:14; Revelation 18:13). In Leviticus 5:1-4, a soul (nephash) can see, hear, touch and speak with lips. In Deut 14:26, it is said that souls can hunger and thirst. In Jeremiah 2:34, souls are said to have blood. In Leviticus 7:20-27, it is said that souls can eat and be killed. In Lev 17:11-14 the soul of a creature is said to be “in the blood,” and is even equated with the blood. Frequently the Law of Moses commanded that any soul which disobeyed certain laws should be “cut off” or killed (e.g. Ex 31:14; Lev 17:10; 19:8; 20:6; Num. 15:27-31). Through the prophet Ezekiel, God warned the Israelites that “the soul that sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. James 5:20). We are further told that souls can be strangled or snared (Prov. 18:7; 22:25; Job 7:15), torn to pieces by lions (Psalm 7:2) or utterly destroyed by the sword (Josh 11:11; cf. Josh. 10:30-39; Eze. 22:27; Prov. 6:32; Lev. 23:30).
All of these verses make perfect sense if we simply understand that “soul” is being used interchangeably with a mortal, human being. I think it is noteworthy that the first four times that the Hebrew word nephash appears in the Bible it is applied to the lower forms of animal life that God created – i.e., flying, land-dwelling and aquatic creatures. And while the expression nephesh chaiyah (“living soul”) occurs twelve times in the Old Testament, it is (if I’m not mistaken) applied to human beings only once (Gen 2:7)!
Because the Hebrew and Greek words translated “soul” have the primary sense of a breathing, sentient creature when human persons are in view, and commonly refers to a human being’s “life,” it is, I believe, frequently used interchangeably with the human “self.” Hence, the term often seems to be employed emphatically to refer to the persons themselves. For example, when David says, “I humbled my soul with fasting” (Ps. 35:13), it is simply an emphatic way of saying “I humbled myself with fasting.” Similarly, for Job to say, “My soul is weary of life” (Job 10:1) is simply an emphatic way of saying “I am weary of life.” And for Samson to say, “Let my soul die with the Philistines” (Judges 16:30) is simply to say, “Let me die with the Philistines.” For the prophet Jeremiah to say, “They have dug a pit for my soul” (Jer 18:20) is another way of saying, “they have dug a pit for me.” It is said in Psalm 22:9 that no one can “keep alive his own soul” - i.e., keep himself alive. And in Psalm 89:48, it is rhetorically asked whether one could deliver one’s soul from the power of the grave - i.e., keep oneself from the power of the grave.
So what about the words translated “spirit?” Well, in Genesis 1:27 and 2:19 tell us that all “living souls” have something in common: God’s breath, or spirit (see Gen. 7:21-22), which is the attribute or property that makes us all “living souls.” But what is the meaning of the word “spirit” as it appears in Scripture? In both the Old and New Testament, the words for “spirit” (ruach and pneuma, respectively) are the same as the words for “breath,” “air” and “wind.” Even in the English language, the word “spirit” comes from the Latin word meaning “breath”; the English words “inspiration” and “respiration,” for instance, have the same Latin root. From earliest times people could see the intimate connection between breath and life; when a person’s body stops breathing, it also becomes inactive and dies. Breath, then, was appropriately seen as the outward manifestation of life or vitality – which itself was viewed as God’s own spirit or life given to man (see Job 27:3). This observable connection between one’s breathing and one’s life or vitality is, I believe, the reason why the same word is used for both “spirit” and “breath” in the Hebrew and Greek languages.
As is the case with several words in all languages, the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “spirit” (ruach and pneuma) can be used in more than one sense in Scripture. They can refer to:
The wind or a breeze (Gen 3:8; 8:1; Ex 10:13, 19; 15:10; Num 11:31; 2Sa 2:11; 1Ki 19:11; Job 1:19; 8:2; Ps 1:4; 55:8; 83:13; 107:25; Prov 25:14; Ecc 1:6; Isa 64:6; Jer 10:13; 51:1; Eze 1:4; 5:2; Dan 7:2; etc.)
The life or vitality given to human beings and animals that is manifested through breathing (Gen 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22; Num 16:22; 1Ki 10:5; Job 7:7; 12:10; 15:30; Ps 104:29; 146:4; Eccl 3:19; 12:7; Jer 10:14; 10:17; 37:5; 51:17; Matt 27:50; Luke 8:55; 23:46; Acts 7:59; James 2:26; etc.),
A person’s mind, or that which pertains to a person’s mind (e.g., their consciousness, thought-pattern, feelings, mental disposition, etc.) which is made known through their actions and behaviour (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; 29:11; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; Mark 2:8; Luke 9:55; John 3:6; 4:23-24; 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; 18:5; Rom 2:29; 11:8; 1 Cor 2:11; 4:21; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:23; Phil 2:19; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4; 1 John 4:6).
Notice that in all three examples, the word “spirit” simply denotes some kind of invisible, active power or force (i.e., that which is unseen but has visible effects). For example, when Christ said, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63) he meant that his words were an unseen, active force that produced visible effects in people’s lives (i.e., effecting a positive change in a person’s actions and behaviour). But Christ’s words are not “spirit” in the same sense that an angelic being is a “spirit” (Heb 1:14). Nor are angelic beings “spirit” in the same sense that the vitality that is in all mortal, living beings “spirit” (Gen 6:16; Psalm 104:29 ; Eccl 3:19; Luke 8:55; 23:46; James 2:26). Nor is the vitality in all living things “spirit” in the same sense that the disposition/attitude of our mind is “spirit” (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Eccl 7:9; Acts 17:16; Rom 11:8; Eph 4:23). The word “spirit,” while conveying a similar idea (that of an unseen active power or force), does not refer to the same exact thing every time it appears in Scripture. Nor does it refer to a certain kind of “substance” (unless one believes that Christ’s words were made of some kind of substance, or that a person’s attitude, feeling or mental state is made of some kind of substance).
Moreover, because the Hebrew and Greek words translated “soul” (nephesh/psuche) can denote both a sentient creature and those attributes that are common to sentient creatures (such as desire and life), there is occasionally some overlap in meaning between them and the words translated “spirit” (ruach/pneuma). For example, whenever “body” (soma) and “soul” (psuche) are distinguished in the NT (e.g., in Matt 6:25), “soul” appears to stand for the natural life that is common to all biological beings (which must be sustained by food and water, and can be “lost” if one dies, or “saved” if one is kept alive). Whenever body, soul and spirit are distinguished in the NT (e.g., in 1 Thess 5:23), “soul” likely denotes the life or desires (again, that which is common to all “living souls”), while “spirit” refers to the mind or mental disposition of a person. It may also be added that, in both the OT and the NT, the Hebrew and Greek words translated “heart” are (when used in a figurative sense) equivalent to this second definition of “spirit” (i.e., the mind or mental disposition of a person, from which good or evil intentions spring – see Matt 15:18-19).
So when I speak of “soul-sleep,” I’m using “soul” in the sense of “living soul” (i.e., a sentient, embodied being). Both human beings and animals are “living souls” created from the elements of the earth. So when we understood in this way, to ask “What would be the point or purpose of 'soul sleep” or “what would be the purpose of God taking the batteries out of us, so to speak, and essentially turning us off for a period of time” is, to me, like asking, “What is the point or purpose of Adam dying and returning to the dust?” For Adam was a “living soul,” but that’s exactly what happened to him. God “took the batteries out” of him and “turned him off” (so to speak) because Adam was created mortal, and it wasn’t God’s plan for Adam to exist as an immortal yet. But when Adam and all of his posterity are raised immortal at the resurrection of the dead and “death is swallowed up in victory,” it will no longer be possible or part of God’s plan for us to be “turned off!”
Aaron, Thanks for your post. I’ve read through it and will chew on it for awhile and ponder.
Be back later at some point when done thinking about what you’ve said here.
Thanks again,
peace,
sparrow
Why should I step down from my opinion? Why should I go from believing I am more than the body, to being my body?
I don’t see the good in it.
I criticise your view because I find it to be the most hideous thing to come out of theology since Eternal Damnation.
It still dwindles down to the point.
We’re “our body” or “our body is just a part of us”.
If our life is that we are our bodies, I find that view to be beastial at best. I’ll tell that to God to his face, and I have.
“Just my body” or “More than my body”
The latter is by default better.
You’re trying to oversimplify the matter.
It still dwindles down to the point. Just my body, or more than my body.
You’ve ignored much of what I presented.
I suppose Christ lied when he said Hades would not prevail against the Church, that He is the Life and the Resurrection, and that we are in him, and are his body?
I am a part of Christ, I am in Christ, why should I face the very thing Christ defeated?
This is where you are wrong, I don’t “have” to prove anything. You’re mistaking this whole discussion as an effort to convince you to take my belief, when it is me telling you why I find soulsleep to be so completely contemptible, why I believe as I do; and what I believe especially.
You’ve completely misunderstood my whole view already it seems.
None of this is an attempt to understand “my view” - its an attempt to use my view as a springboard for defending your view.
It boils down to this; “Am I my body” or “Am I more than my body”.
If this is so, then there is nothing wrong with this proceedure.
In my opinion, it is perhaps because I don’t view things as so severely black and white as you when it comes to these sorts of things. Humans by default are finite, but that finity does not necessitate lack of transcendency. Transcendency is a directly reflectable aspect of God in the human being. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be transcendent.
I don’t believe it is impossible, but I don’t believe that is the end of what God did when making man.
Because otherwise, Man is just a machine. A really emotional machine.
Same as above, he’s just a machine if not.
As for study; I read, and I thought.
Machine.
You seem to think I have no place for the body in my view.
Why do I think my view is higher? Because I don’t believe man is just an emotional machine that is going to rot in the ground for centuries on end waiting for God to pluck their dust out of the ground and make them again, into machines.
Just because they don’t “feel it” doesn’t mean the fact isn’t there. If I am just a self-aware, rational, emotional machine then I am just that. A machine.
There can be only one God.
I think that the Man is the thing transcendent. His body is just a part of him. You’re not understanding my position.
For God, it is his Person which is transcendent, his beinghood, his individuality.
Because otherwise he’s just a machine.
Just a note of advice; you could make your posts alot more concise if you didn’t requote the same questions.
I believe it is ideal, but I don’t believe it is “necessary”.
I believe I can’t make it any more obvious than I already have, unfortunately. I’ll just have to pass this up I suppose.
Practically, it doesn’t extend beyond matter. If it did the human being wouldn’t require it for existence.
I think that if man is just a machine it is exceedingly insufficient, nigh insulting, to be considered the image of God. God is not a machine, why should his children be?
The worst part about discussing this whole issue, is that currently I have a bad cold, haven’t slept decently for three days, and I have a head blocked up full of mucus. So forgive my heightened distaste for the body right now, as there is a great deal of justification for it.
As for the discussion, I feel that we’ve gotten off track and diverted into a very complicated arena where we simply aren’t understanding each other. I think our definitions are not being understood, or our premises; mutually. I’d prefer starting over, but I don’t feel that even after starting over there would be any better progress.
)
