This is a difficult philosophical and theological problem that is also
highly controversial - today. The position Jan is advocating seems to be
consistent with what has come to be known as nonreductive physicalism -
which is a monistic understanding of the nature of the person. There are
just some major philosophical/theological problems with this approach, and
is quite unsatisfying. The more traditional dualistic understanding (not
Cartesian but Thomistic) does a better job I think. In this case then, the
person is not a soul, but a body AND soul. This position (of dualism) has
been held by Christians since the earliest days, and to claim in the 20th
century that these folks got it wrong all along (i.e. for 20 centuries)on
such a major theological issue is to call into serious question the role of
the Holy Spirit in guiding the church.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan de Koning
To: Walter Hicks
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Sent: 2/4/2002 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)
As far as I remember, I replied last week that man does not have a soul,
but that man is a soul. I quoted some texts from HS, indicating that
the
word "nephesh" was often translated as "living being", for example in
Gen.1. When the word was used in Gen.2, Adam received a "soul" instead
of
becoming a living being. I believe, I referred to writings of some
theologians.
Jan de K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 04 2002 - 20:51:53 EST