A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part VII
Body + Spirit = Soul (A Necessary Preface to the consideration of the word ‘Unseen’)
It is at this point that Alex’s writing will take
a tonal shift. As you can clearly see, his argument has grown more personal as
the articles have progressed – which usually happens when an eternal torment
believer is struck with the realization that eternal torment is not in the
text. I have hidden much of his back-handed remarks (without evidence)
in his commentary, but I will not hide them from any who seek to read them.
Alex has replied that this is contrary to reason,
and that the lack of eternal torment in the text would give him great joy. So,
let me get this straight, Alex… you are saying that it would bring you great
joy if there were not an eternal punishment because some are
theoretically irredeemable, and that they would be flayed perpetually? So the opposite
of your current stance would bring you great joy? Like, the great
joy that all of the disciples speak of…? The “joy” that serves as the element
of the word “grace?” The “joy” that God Himself is described with (1
Tim. 1:11?) Why on earth are you adhering to something that many scholars
(who do not have the same writing style as myself, and thus will not
piss you off nearly as quickly) find questionable at best, and
detestable at worst? Why are you arguing with something that you would be so
relieved to realize is absent from the text, unless you do like this
theory of eternal torment, and would want to see people you don’t like,
or who did a “lot of really bad stuff” be flayed permanently?
Because of this tonal shift, I will be slightly
shifting the form my commentary takes. I will not make any attempt to reply to
the personal remarks, and I will not be replying to every instance of “logical
fallacy” anymore. I had some fun with it for the majority of this refutation,
but I do not wish to beat a dead horse. I will note it, for sure, and
you will be able to read it here (I will underline it whenever I cite these
instances, so that you are aware of the lazy rebuttal,) but I won’t be
remarking on it out of respect for myself and the topic.
“You stated, ‘Before I begin, there are a few things
to get out of the way. First, I want to clarify that the word ‘unseen,’ as this
word should be translated in English, is used far more often in the Old
Testament (with 70 occurrences of the word.) I will not be going over
all 70 uses of this word, but first I will be discussing many of its
uses in the Hebrew Old Testament (where the word is not hades, but sheol.)
Second, I want to reiterate the truth of the soul of
man. Oftentimes the word soul and spirit are mixed for… kicks and
giggles, I guess. God makes clearer the distinction. I quoted it earlier, but here
is Gen. 2:7, the most comprehensive explanation as to what the soul is–’”
Yahweh Elohim formed the human out of soil from the
ground, and He blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human became
a living soul.
“You are correct that ‘sheol’ is used in the Old
Testament. However, that word does not mean ‘unseen.’ This is why word studies
are important. This is why we must see how the word is used by people of the
time period. Why? Because the writers of the New Testament were using Greek to
convey their messages to Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles. Luke is writing to
Theophilus, a Greek man, and as such, he uses Greek terminology that Theophilus
will understand. Why would Luke write with terminology that Theophilus is
unfamiliar with? How is that even logical?”
Alex has not stated why the word hades, which
carries the Greek elements “UN-SEEN,” should not be translated as
“unseen.” He heard the claim and took an opposite view without hearing the
evidence (and without providing his own,) which further establishes his
confirmation bias. I don’t know what he’s asking in regards to Luke, but Luke
uses the word “unseen” twice – both of which will be covered later in this
refutation.
In my first draft of this, I purposefully ignored
the middle portion, where Alex claims that we must consider the way these words
were used by the Greeks at the time of writing. I ignored this because I have
replied to this argument elsewhere on my blog under different contexts (Preexistence Response, Part II, for example.) Of
course, Alex isn’t expected to have read every article I’ve ever written, but
he would be expected to do his research on his opponent’s position on a
few of these topics before writing a book.
My reply, then, in summary, is that the Greeks
are not God. They learned the language that He created, because
He is the Source of all. I advise my opponent, once again, to focus on God’s
employment of these terms (which is kind of important in a book told
from God’s perspective) and stop worrying about the considerations
of the men around them. While man’s perspective is interesting, it
is not vital to the context of the book God wrote unless God Himself
tells us that it is necessary. Their feelings and reasonings are flavor
text if He did not inspire it. In the meantime, telling me that “we must
understand how the writers of the New Testament used Greek, so we shouldn’t
translate the word with the Greek elements “UN-SEEN” as unseen,” is
not an argument, but a declaration. The burden of proof remains on Alex to
tell us why we should not connect these simple dots.)
In my original argument, after citing Gen. 2:7, I
said, “Body + spirit = soul. Simple enough?” Alex replied,
“No. It’s not even that at all. 1 Thess. 5:23
and Gen. 2:7 both show that mankind is made up of three distinct parts.
The idea that the body and spirit combined make the soul is un-biblical.
Here is more evidence.
For the body, read Judges 8:30, Ps. 139:13-16, Rom.
6:12, Heb. 9:27, and Gen. 3:19. These verses show that the body has a
gender, five senses, is a wonder, is able to be corrupted by sin, is doomed to
die, and returns to dust after death.
For the spirit, read Job 3:8, 4:24, Ecc. 12:7, Eph.
2:1, Rom. 7:6, and 2 Cor. 7:1. These show that the spirit may be breath or
wind, may be dead because of sin, may be corrupted by sin, and that it
returns to God after death. It is what animates or gives life to the
body.
In no way, however, does the body and spirit
make the soul. The soul is the personality of a person as per
Psalm 42:2, Job 30:25, Song of Songs 1:7, and Jer. 31:25. The soul has a bodily
shape, as per Luke 16:23. It can be corrupted by sin as per Micah 6:7.
It is what is saved at calvary as per Heb. 10:39 and Jam. 1:21. And, it
is what goes to either heaven or hell, per Matt. 10:28 and 2 Cor. 5:6-8.
The soul is not some mixture of body and
spirit like you are saying. Heb. 4:12 clearly demonstrates this. It is a medium
of body and spirit, a sort of interchangeable world which collides with the
spiritual world (spirit) and the fleshy world (the flesh.) The greatest
evidence of there being a body, soul, and spirit is your sinful struggle in
life.”
There’s a lot to unpack, citation-wise, in
Alex’s argument here. At first, I believed this was a comprehensive, structured
piece of argumentative writing. Rudimentary scrutiny proved otherwise.
It took Alex much more in his reply to explain his position (and even
then, it’s rudimentary, at best.) Thus, the next article will spend ample
amount of time replying to the claims above, as well as his reply (where
applicable.)
First: we already cited Genesis 2:7 above. Alex
claims that there are three parts to a man shown in the verse.
Unfortunately, since he makes this claim and does not elaborate on it, I
am left to disagree on principle. Yahweh states that He formed the human
out of the soil of the ground. This is, undoubtedly, the flesh that
makes up our bodies today. Yahweh then states that He blew the breath
of life into the nostrils of the man. So – the body, that is,
the flesh that we are composed of, was formed in the first half, and the
spirit is formed in the second half. The conclusion of Yahweh’s action
here is that the human “became a living soul.”
Alex replies that we “must account for
personality,” or what I’m saying makes no sense. It’s extremely difficult
for me, on a fundamental level, to understand what Alex is asking me. There
must be some theology out there that I haven’t studied, or some kind of
reasoning that I haven’t delved into, that will contextualize his question. The
soul is the seat of sensation, which comes about because your
body and your spirit are conjoined. Sensation, by definition, includes
the five senses. It is through these five senses that your personality
is crafted. Thus, in certain contexts (like some we are about to consider,) the
“soul” considers aspects of our human experience (including our individual
perspective, and, as such, our personality.) The soul is not limited to
the personality, but includes it. The weaving of your personality is not
the soul’s (exemplified in the five sense’s) sole function.
To quote Knoch, concerning this verse, in U.R.
Vol. 5, p.362–
“If soul meant ‘life,’ as our translators so often
suggest, why was it not written with the Greek word for ‘life’ in the original
instead of the word for ‘soul?’ We have already convinced ourselves of the fact
that soul and life are utterly distinct by the phrase ‘living soul.’ If we
translate the word nephesh (soul) in that phrase as it is so often
translated, we come to the absurd conclusion that, as the result of the
impartation of the breath of life, man became a ‘living life.’ Could Job
have said, ‘My life is weary of my life?’”
Yahweh does not say that man became the
flesh, or the man became the spirit, leaving us to realize that the result
of being formed from the ground and being given the breath of life
is to become a living soul.
Body + spirit = soul. This is a simple conclusion
brought about by a simple study of the text. Without the body and spirit
working together, the soul cannot experience what it does.
Second: let’s take a look at 1 Thess. 5:23–
Now may the God of peace Himself be hallowing you
wholly; and may your unimpaired spirit and soul and body be kept blameless in
the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Paul is not speaking here of the relation of
the spirit and soul and body to each other. The
passage is clearly expositing a separate doctrine. The spirit and soul
and body are here considered in their own rite as blameless in
the presence of our Lord. That they are spoken of separately, as
distinct objects, does not erase the fact that body + spirit = soul. The
fact presented in Genesis 2:7, that the soul is the effect of the union
of the breath of life with the body, is not taught, or refuted, by this
verse, and is thoroughly in harmony with the twofold constitution of man. It
has, literally, nothing to do with this debate, save the fact that it
highlights a distinction between the soul and the spirit (which I am not
in disagreement with, nor do I think Alex is in disagreement with. Honestly, I
don’t know what his aim is in disagreeing with this point at all.)
The “soul” is not a distinct “part” that
makes “up” a man, as the body and spirit. Alex did not prove his point by
citing these two verses with no proper explanation, and as such his claim that
“soul and body and spirit” make up three parts of a person is
inconclusive.
Moving on, I do not see the point to any of Alex’s
discussion with the verses concerning a “body.” Alex told me earlier that word
studies are important, and yet none of these verses indicate a “word
study” on “body” in any way. None of these verses use the word body, and
their consideration of the body is either circumstantial or inferential.
As such, these verses do not affirm or deny… well,
anything, really. They’re just kinda… placed here… like, in a string. There are
only four persons that know, with certainty, the doctrine that
Alex is trying to prove: God, Christ, Satan, and Alex himself. The problem with
telling you this is that I’m going to be the big silly oaf who didn’t do
his homework if I don’t cite each verse, here, so I will. For your reading
pleasure,
Gen. 3:19–
By the sweat of your brow shall you eat your bread,
until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken.
Judges 8:30–
Gideon came to have many sons, offspring from his
thigh, for he came to have many wives.
Ps. 139:13-16–
For You Yourself achieved the making of my innermost
being; You overshadowed me in my mother’s belly. I shall acclaim You, for You
are fearfully distinguished; Marvelous are your works.
You have known my soul very thoroughly; my
skeleton was not suppressed from You, when I was made in concealment; I was
woven together as in the nether parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my embryo, And my days, all of them
were written upon Your scroll; The days, they were formed when there was not
one of them.
Rom. 6:12–
Let not Sin, then, be reigning in your mortal body,
for you to be obeying its lusts.
Heb. 9:27–
And, in as much as it is reserved to the men to be
dying once, yet after this a judging.
For as pretty as these verses are, not one of
them contributes to Alex’s objection that the body and the flesh and the
soul make up a man (Alex has since claimed, in his reply, that this wasn’t the
purpose for these citations, which begs the question: why did he cite them
at all, then? Why is this pertinent to his point in any way?) I’m also not
very impressed with Alex’s conclusions concerning what these verses
teach about us, but this is already long enough as it is.
Alex continues by using verses concerning the
“spirit.” Once again, for your reading pleasure,
Job 3:8–
May those who curse the day revile it, Who are
equipped to rouse the dragon.
Unfortunately, there is no “Job 4:24,” so…
uh… Ecc. 12:7–
And the soil returns to the earth, just as it was,
And the spirit, it returns to the One, Elohim, Who gave it.
Rom. 7:6–
Yet now we were exempted from the law, dying in that
in which we were retained, so that it is for us to be slaving in newness of
spirit and not in oldness of letter.
2 Cor. 7:1–
Having, then, these promises, beloved, we should be
cleansing ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, completing
holiness in the fear of God.
Eph. 2:1–
And you, being dead to your offenses and sins…
Once again, no coherent doctrine seems to be
imparted to us through this string of verses, and the lack of a “Job 4:24” has led
me to believe that my initial assessment, being that this may be a coherent,
founded argument, is incorrect.
The only verse that does seem to pertain to
Alex’s claim is Ecc. 12:7, but, as I pointed out in the original series of
articles, this verse assists my claim, breaking down where the
two composite aspects of man go when they die. If these two parts that make up
a man vanish, then the soul becomes unseen when they die. To
quote A.E. Knoch again, this time in his book “Spirit, Spirits, and
Spirituality,” p. 43–
“Electricity is, in some ways, com parable with
spirit. We have often compared a human being to an electric lamp, in which the
filament is the material body, the electric current the spirit, and the light
the soul. If the current is stopped the light, like the soul, goes to the ‘unseen.’
(Ps. 9:17.) The filament remains.”
Alex’s final paragraph allegedly ties this
argument together. Keep in mind that he began his paragraph, yet again, with
the claim that the soul is not the sum of the “body” and the “spirit” of
a man.
He claims, instead, that the soul is the personality
of a man. This may, in truth, give me an opportunity to expound upon
the word ‘soul’ and its meaning in the original text, for, it seems to be much
more complicated for Alex to determine its meaning. Thankfully, we once
again have all the modern-day resources such as a Concordance on our
side, as well as a concordant translation to assist us in noting each
and every use of the word psuche, soul, without any potential mistranslation
of the word.
Let’s see if the verses Alex has cited back his
claim, and consider the instances of the word ‘soul’ in each verse to verify whether
it is the effect of the combination of the body and spirit.
Psalm 42:1-2–
As a deer is panting over the channels of water, So
is my soul panting for you, O Elohim! My soul thirsts for Elohim, for
the living El; When shall I come and appear before Elohim?
This verse does not state that the soul has a
function of personality, but an emotional sensation. We can
rightly infer, from Genesis 2:7, that it is the joining of the body and
the spirit that enables this emotional sensation. Per my original
series of articles, it follows that, when God is referring to every soul
returning to the “unseen,” it is in relation to these emotional sensations that
we are feeling becoming, literally, unseen, when we die.
This answer is practical, realistic, and
effective. We can enter any verse with this idea in mind, where the
‘soul’ is mentioned. For example, let’s take a look at the next three verses
that Alex cites. Job 30:25, Job speaking–
Would I not lament for one in hardship of days? My
soul was always sorry for the needy.
Song of Songs 1:7–
Do tell me, you whom my soul loves – where do you
graze your flock?
Jer. 31:25, Yahweh speaking–
I will satiate the faint soul, And every soul that
pines, I will fill.
The soul thirsts, sorrows, grazes, and faints.
These are all aspects of human feeling. The soul, then, references
the experiences of man (which one can only have during this
joining of ‘body’ and ‘spirit.’)
This is, of course, a small sample of the instances
of ‘soul’ in the scriptures. This word, soul, is found over 700 different
times, and translated in over 40 different ways in the King James. This,
of course, is unacceptable, for no word has forty different meanings, nor
are we the ones to be the judge of that. There is no good reason we can’t
translate this word as soul every single time (and, to this day, no one
has given me one.)
Unfortunately, Alex gave me what may be my least
favorite argument here, in his reply, defending the 40+ different
translations of the same word:
“That is just a fact of definition. You make it seem
as though a word having multiple definitions is a problem. It is not. Context
will lead you to the proper definition.”
This is, honestly, the saddest argument I’ve seen
from Alex – and I don’t say this with any element of… well, “anger,” but I
guess a lack of respect on a theological level. How on earth am I supposed to
take this seriously? Forty different translations of the same word is
not a problem?? I could see a few different translations in an
imperfect, stitched-together language like English, but Hebrew? The
living word?? You’re joking. It’s wholly irrational to presume
that this is acceptable in any way – so irrational, in fact, that I
believe I will be making a separate sub-series of articles shortly against this
specific claim.
For my short answer, I must ask the same
question Knoch did: If soul meant ‘life,’ as our translators so often suggest,
why was it not written with the Greek word for ‘life’ in the original instead
of the word for ‘soul?’ Why did God not write “haya” (the Hebrew
word for ‘life’) wherever our English translators thought it fit to translate nephesh
as ‘life’ instead of ‘soul?’ The notion that “context” means that we
should discard the standard elements and harmonious definition
of a word is completely backward. A context may indicate the usage
of a word, and its manner of use. It does not change the word
entirely from one to another. This is, in layman’s terms, an
excuse for a little concept called “changing the word of God,” and it’s exactly
the disrespect and irreverence that God is calling out in Romans 1 (which,
again, contextualizes Alex’s actions, found in Rom. 2:1-2.)
(When I finish this sub-series of articles,
I will return to this series, and this article specifically, and insert the
link here. Unless I’ve, like, died first or something, but, y’know… whatever.)
For more information on a proper study of
the word ‘soul,’ I recommend some of the concordant literature that Alex is avoiding
like the plague. You can find it on their site, for free, under the header
“Unsearchable Riches,” Volume 100, beginning of page 147. I will share the link
here:
Unsearchable Riches Volume 100.pdf
As we proceed through the remainder of this study,
I will presume that you have read the evidence concerning the soul in
the above study. They draw similar conclusions as I do, here, but there is far
more evidence and information that they consider that I do not have time to
go into. Moreover, I do not find it necessary to expound upon a completed
study, beyond the few specific instances that Alex will cite here in an attempt
to tell God what he thinks ‘soul’ really means, as if God
couldn’t employ the word properly.
Anyway, Alex says that Luke 16:23 proves that the
soul has a ‘bodily shape.’ Luke 16:23–
And in the unseen, lifting up his eyes, existing in
torments, he is seeing Abraham from afar, and Lazarus in his bosom.
This verse does not reference the ‘soul,’ or its
bodily shape. I guess you could argue that the rich man, to some extent, is
‘tormented,’ which is something you feel, so… I mean, the ‘soul’ plays a
part, I guess, but there is simply no reference to a ‘bodily shape.’
Alex claims that the soul can be corrupted by
sin, per Micah 6:7, but I’ll do him one better – every soul already has been
corrupted by sin, and the proof is in the fact that we are dying. Here’s
Romans 5:12–
Even as through one man sin entered into the world,
and through sin, death, and thus death passed through into all
mankind, on which all sinned…
I have gone into great detail on this verse as
well, already, and you can read about it in the article below:
#33. Romans 5:12 - How Sin Rolls (Conciliation Series, Part
V)
"Heaven or Hell?" Or: How I Learned to Start Worrying By Loving the Lie
I do not feel a need to reiterate Alex’s verses
that he uses to point out that Christ saves the souls of mankind, found
in Heb. 10:39 and Jam. 1:21, but I will reiterate that his claim that
the ‘soul’ goes to ‘heaven or hell’ upon dying, per Matt. 10:28 and 2 Cor.
5:6-8, is completely unfounded, and the burden of proof is completely on
his end to establish how these verses make such a claim. We already
considered Matt. 10:28, where we ourselves noted, with a proper translation,
how difficult it is to force a figure of ‘eternal torment’ into Jesus’ claim –
for the words “hell” (with its pre-supposed modernist definition,) “eternal,”
and “torment” are not at all found in the verse.
Let’s briefly consider if any such phrase
is found in 2 Cor. 5:6-8–
Being, then, courageous always, and aware that, being
at home in the body, we are away from home from the Lord (for by faith are we
walking, not by perception,) yet we are encouraged, and are delighting rather
to be away from home out of the body, and to be at home with the
Lord.
I am left to assume, since Alex does not expound
on this citation, that this verse is not so much in reference to “hell” so much
as it is “heaven.”
So! Does the verse state that, when you die, you
go to heaven?
May it not be coming to that! Or did we already
forget that we’ve already been shown the meaning of death, both in Gen.
3:19 and Ecc. 12:7, and its practical effect on our soul as expounded in Ps.
9:17? When you die, your body returns to the soil, and your spirit returns
to Elohim. As proven in the original series of articles and the clear
verses stated here, your soul, your seat of sensation, is now
unseen. Every single soul is under this curse (Ps. 9:17, Rom. 3:10-18.)
(Yes, this pertains to the topic of hell, on the
grounds that we must both point out the lack of a theological “torment
chamber you go to when you die” by
showing the lack of sensation at all when we die. The notion that we go
to “heaven” the moment our last breath commences is just as flawed as the
notion that we could go to “hell” in the same example.)
If this is the case in death, then how would
we be going to heaven when we die?? How would our seat of sensation, which
has ceased in death, somehow still exist that we may experience life in
death? This strange idea is one that has yet to be proven by Alex, and,
since he did not prove it (more declared it than proved it,) we
have no reason to treat it as fact.
In case you’re wondering – no, the verse above
does not say that we are “going to heaven when we die,” but that the
location that the Lord is right now is where our home will be.
Since we are in this body, we are not at home with The Lord.
The questions still remain:
1) Where is The Lord?
2) When will we be seated at
home with Him?
It is a complete assumption to claim that, from 2
Cor. 5:6-8, we are somehow given the answers to these questions. The answer as
to where the Lord currently is can be found in both Acts 7:55–
Now, possessing the fullness of faith and holy
spirit, looking intently into heaven, [Stephen] perceived the glory of God, and
Jesus, standing at the right hand of God…
And Eph. 1:20–
[God’s strength] is operative in the Christ, rousing
Him from among the dead and seating Him at the right hand among the
celestials…
Jesus is at the right hand of God, seated among
the celestials. The word ‘celestials’ is not ‘heaven,’ though
‘heaven’ plays a role in its name. The word ‘celestials’ carries the elements
“ON-HEAVENLIES,” which denotes, literally, a location on top of the
heavens (heavens, plural.)
Moreover, we are told that the dead in Christ are not
currently ‘in heaven’ at any point in Scripture, but that the dead in
Christ (those whose souls are currently unseen) will be resurrected during
a future event, where they will be gathered together in the clouds to
meet Christ, and snatched away (1 Thess. 4:13-18.) It is at this point
(arguably sometime in the very near future) that believers will, in theological
terms, be ‘raptured’ away, silently commencing the final 7 years of Revelation
(2 Thess. 2:3-10.)
This is, of course, a much deeper
theological topic that requires its own study, and, Lord willing, I will
reach these verses in Thessalonians through my in-depth study of Paul’s
letters, and expound upon them before this great day arises. Nonetheless, these
verses show us, with certainty, that the blessing that is meant to be
imparted on believers will occur at a future date – not at some
magical moment while we are already dead, for death is the opposite of
life (Ecc. 3:2, John 11:25-26, Rom. 6:23, 1 Cor. 15:22,) not some “transition,”
and the dead do not know anything (Ecc. 9:5.)
Alex dismisses all of this in his reply by
telling me to stay on topic (which… I was, until he claimed that
the soul goes to ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ upon death.) He continues, in his original
rebuttal, with these citations without support:
“The soul is not some mixture of body and spirit like
you are saying.”
Reading this clearly, I’m not saying that.
“Hebrews 4:12 demonstrates this clearly.”
For the word of God is living and operative, and keen
above any two-edged sword, and penetrating up to the parting of soul and
spirit…
The verse delineates between the ‘soul’ and
the ‘spirit,’ but does not deny the fundamental truth concerning them,
as laid out back in Gen. 2:7. For some reason, Alex seems to believe that I am
arguing that the “body and spirit” are the same as “the soul,” which I
never claimed. I am saying, in long-winded and repetitious fashion, what
Genesis 2:7 is saying: that the unification of these two distinct aspects
of our constitution establishes the soul.
“It is a medium of body and spirit, a sort of
interchangeable world which collides with the spiritual world (spirit) and the
fleshy world (the flesh.) The greatest evidence of there being a body, soul and
spirit is your sinful struggle in life.”
As the verse Alex cited does not say that
the ‘soul is a medium between the body and the spirit,’ it is apparent that
Alex reasoned this view from the verse, instead of considered
what Heb. 4:12 did say. This statement, then, is conjecture, not
fact.
Alex has replied that it is possible for a concept
to exist in a verse without the verse directly stating it, which is true,
and a fair rebuttal from my opponent. So, I will elaborate: a “medium” is a form
of communication between one thing and another. The body and
spirit are not communicating with each other through the soul, and it
would take a fair amount of explaining to rationalize this view with Hebrews
4:12. The soul and spirit are distinct, but in opposition to each
other (hence the necessity for their parting, or delineation.) How
can something be a medium for its opposition? That would be like saying
Christ is a Mediator between God and Sin herself. What kind of sense does that
make?
Moreover, any believer reading these articles now
will note that the “sinful struggle” no longer plays such a role in the spirit,
as we have been joined with the spirit of Christ, into His death (to
Sin, Rom. 6:3,) and have thus been transferred into His death and
resurrection (Rom. 6:3-11.) It is this very notion that is being
referred to in Hebrews 4:12. To quote Knoch for a third time in this
article (I think I’m just getting lazy, but whatever)–
“Since the soul, which consists of the sensations
or feelings which we experience, is the effect of flesh as well as spirit, it
also is out of harmony with the spirit. They are, in practice, exceedingly
difficult to separate. Only the keen sword of the word of God can part the soul
from the spirit (Heb. 4:12). Indeed, much, if not most, of present day
spirituality is really sensuality, using that word in its highest sense.
Feelings and emotions are popularly confused with spiritual power. Almost the
whole machinery of modern evangelism seems constructed to captivate the soul of
the sinner, rather than to vivify his spirit. Meetings and men are judged
entirely by their effect on the feelings. The soulish has taken the place of
the spiritual.”
(Goodness, the beauty in Knoch’s statement here is
sublime – especially since Alex’s exact issue this entire time
has been the effect of my argumentation on his feelings as opposed to
the argument itself.)
Anyway, that we have been spiritually joined to
Christ in His death and thus partake of His life has been thoroughly proven in
my Romans study, in the links below:
Romans 6:3 - How to Piss Off an Entire Religion (Conciliation
Series, Part XIV)
Romans 6:4 - That's Right, Paul was Going Somewhere With That
(Conciliation Series, Part XV)
Romans 6:5-6 - Our Flesh? That Silly Old Thing? (Conciliation
Series, Part XVI)
Romans 6:6 - Our Flesh? That Silly Old Thing? Pt. 2
(Conciliation Series, Part XVII)
Romans 6:6-7 - Our Flesh? That Silly Old Thing? Pt. 3
(Conciliation Series, Part XVIII)
Romans 6:8-9 - Life, Life, Life (Conciliation Series, Part
XIX)
Romans 6:9-11 - More Life, Life, Life (Conciliation Series,
Part XX)
Believers are not subject to Sin, and, over the
course of our lives, we come to be at peace with the nature of Sin and
its effects, knowing that we are being delivered out of its authority now,
and will be delivered from its presence in our bodies entirely at
our snatching away (Phil. 3:20-21.)
This will undoubtedly clash greatly with Alex’s
pre-supposed notions as to what Scripture says, for he is,
unfortunately, under sin’s thumb right now, in returning to church every week.
The churches we go to claim that we are guilty, and must
continually re-commit ourselves every week to the Lord, or He will become
dissatisfied with our lack of faith. The churches do not find
Christ’s sacrifice to be enough for salvation, and firmly believe that man must
do something to push salvation over the edge.
Alex replies to the previous paragraph by claiming
that this “may be true” of Catholics, but is a complete lie in relation
to Baptists and Pentecostals. I reply that I don’t know which Baptist church
Alex has been going to, but the Baptist church I’ve grown up in has been
very straightforward: you must realize just how guilty you
are, and the only way out is to repent of the sins that you are charged
with. This is, quite literally, making your repentance the center of
salvation, as opposed to God’s accomplishment on the cross, through Christ
alone. The Pentecostals are no better, requiring not only repentance,
but some requiring baptism (sometimes more than once!) These groups are,
fundamentally, ignorant to the completed work, and believe that you must
add your own repentance into the mix as the barrier for entry. To
bring it home, all three (Catholics, Baptists, and Pentecostals alike) proclaim
that you will (or, in the case of the Catholics, “may”) be burned alive for
eternity by the very One that’s trying really really really hard to save
you!
God, in contrast, makes no such claim. God
points out that believers are justified through Christ’s faith, in
grace (Rom. 3:21-26.) That is, they are not guilty – so far
removed from guilt, in fact, that God, with the word ‘justified,’ indicates
a judgment far beyond forgiveness. We are not merely “pardoned,” the way
the Israelites were, for a “pardon” reflects the notion that “you sinned, but
God’s letting it slide” (this is how modern church works, and it is in nearly
every major church creed.) Yet believers today are justified, which
reflects the notion that “God considers you not guilty of the sin at all.”
Because of Christ’s death to Sin, and your spirit being joined to His,
He now considers you to have not even sinned to begin with. This
blessing begets no condemnation for believers (Rom. 8:1,) which is the exact
opposite of the church’s “guilty” charge.
So, again: who should a believer believe? The
church, which claims you’re guilty unless you repent and accept Christ’s
sacrifice? Or God, Who brazenly declares that you aren’t guilty
because of His unmerited favor (grace) through the death of Christ?
The Wrap-up to the Preface
“You then stated, ‘This distinction [between soul, body and spirit] is
crucial, for God then says something crucial concerning our soul, in
Ps. 9:17. Observe–”
The wicked shall return to the unseen, all the nations,
forgetful of Elohim.
Alex then says,
“As I’ve shown, the body returns to the dust. The dust is
something seen, not unseen.”
No one is speaking of the
body in Psalm 9:17, and the body is not said to become “unseen,” so we
aren’t getting off on the right foot.
“You know what is ‘unseen?’ The spirit and the soul.”
Well, not really; you can
see everyone’s soul, when they are living. We can see when someone feels
the sensations of their animated body. Unless you’re blind, it is easy to see
this in another.
“I cannot see them. I can see your body, and I can see the ground.”
This is exciting.
“I cannot see your soul or your spirit.”
Maybe Alex is blind. I
don’t know; I haven’t met him. Alex asks me for a “beaker of soul.” I would
sooner ask for a “beaker of body.” The question is senseless. You can see the
sensation that one clearly has in their body, Alex. I can see the sight
others have. When someone hears me. When someone tastes something good.
When someone touches me. When someone smells my farts. When you
are looking at a corpse, you cannot see the soul of an
individual, for the body and spirit are disconnected (which has,
in a sense, “unplugged” the soul.)
“It makes sense, then, that the soul and the spirit may return to the
unseen.”
Boy, I sure hope this
candid remark from Alex remains the case, and he doesn’t turn around later and
claim that ‘unseen’ is somehow a stand-in for a location of eternal torment,
considering every soul becomes unseen upon death, and the word unseen
is found almost a hundred times across the Old and New Testaments, and is so
difficult for translators that they must sometimes not translate it
as “hell,” but as “grave,” to highlight their misapprehension of the word!
Boy.
“This ‘unseen’ must, then, by definition, be some sort of spiritual
place? Could it be hell as I say it is?”
Damn! So close.
So unlike Gehenna,
which is a “proper locative noun,” the word “unseen” is just a noun. It
does not solely have to refer, then, to a place, but a person or thing.
As there is hardly ever a definite article provided for the term ‘unseen,’
we cannot claim it a “person.” And, since we have already considered every
single use of the term in the New Testament, we can thoroughly establish that
the “place” where souls go when they die is a figure for the absence
of life, not a big torture chamber. The idea that, after death, every soul
which returns to the unseen is tortured, is absolutely terrifying – not
to mention the fact that all souls become unseen in death. No god would
be worthy of praise upon enacting such an atrocity (especially considering
that little fact that God actually loves us.)
Alex says, in his reply:
“Well, it seems like you do not read in scripture where God has
committed so many ‘atrocities’ in the Old Testament. It is even more radical
when you realize He is the cause behind people’s actions, too. Of
course, this makes sense, because you believe that the same God who burned down
Sodom and Gomorrah caused Hitler to kill the Jews, the crippled, the old, and
the gay. Likewise, you think that God caused every rapist to rape their
victims. And you have a problem with hell? In either case, the argument
is still unrefuted. Hades has a definition of hell which you decide to ignore.”
To this, I reply that God
did not commit an “atrocity” in the Old Testament at all. The
punishments inflicted on man during this time are completely justified,
as God loves man, but hates sin. He had to spend the
period of time from Adam to Christ displaying man’s failure to be
righteous on their own terms (through the law – Rom. 3:19-20, 5:20,) and enforce
His authority as the God Who hates sin. That He is, absolutely, willing
all in accord with the counsel of His will does not alter or deny these
relative truths in any way. He is the same God as He was in the Old
Testament.
During this period of
time, He is displaying an unconditional peace toward man (2 Cor.
5:18-21.) There are different aspects of His character that are being
displayed during each administration, and this current administration unfolds
His highest blessings. One of these blessings includes apprehending the
“secret of His will,” which is not merely that He “makes bad people do bad
things,” but that He is using those bad things to humble both
those who committed them, and those who were afflicted by them,
in order to bless them with life beyond the reach of death (Ecc. 1:13, 1 Cor.
15:22-28.)
Alex points at these few
examples and then calls God a big meanie for making them happen. I would reply…
we are talking about the God that kills and makes alive. Maybe don’t
worry about the “Holocaust,” and worry about the 100+ people He kills every
minute. Every single one that dies will be made alive, will
be shown their purpose, and will be able to appreciate Christ all
the more (1 Cor. 15:22-28, Phil. 2:9-11.)
Alex seems to be saying
all of this (repeatedly, since article 1,) to indicate that, if God has all of
these “bad” things occurring, then an “eternal hell,” by comparison, isn’t so
bad. I will remind Alex that, if we are solely considering humanity’s timeline from
the scriptural point of view, that we have only been on this planet for roughly
6,000 years. This number (6,000 years) is not eternity. There is a dramatic
difference between a punishment set for a specific period of time and
a never ending or timeless punishment. It is one thing for
God to tell a story of good vs. evil (which, by definition, requires the
existence of evil to tell its story,) with the good guys winning,
ultimately benefiting every living thing, in realizing the cruel and
unjust nature of sin (and the loving and just nature of Christ by
contrast.) Yet it is another matter entirely for God to try to
tell a story, and then have it get royally screwed by some unknown source of
power that the all-knowing God was not aware of nor had any consideration for,
which led Him to throwing His Son out there in a desperate attempt to save some,
casting the rest of His creatures into a fiery furnace (a la Nebuchadnezzar,)
where they suffer to this day because they just couldn’t be good enough. In the
latter story, the bad guys win, because God loses most of
creation. What kind of existence is that?
As for the evil we have
suffered, yes. It hurts. I agree. At one point in my life, I was suicidal over
it. I have been through it as much as the next. But there is nothing He
enacted toward man that was any worse than the extreme torture inflicted
on His own Son. No man, thankfully, has ever suffered that badly.
Moreover, it was the worst suffering that God enacted that is now the
fountain of the greatest blessings that all men will inevitably
experience! The curse of sin which has corrupted our fellow brothers is being
reversed – even on Alex.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment