Re: [asa] Worthy of response?

At 10:52 AM 9/5/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:

>Since ensoulement is a metaphysical / spiritual question, it simply
>can't be settled by this kind of physical evidence. It's perfectly
>reasonable to respond that "God could implant two souls that later
>separate out" because we aren't considering something that can be
>described or bounded by physical laws (unlike the age of the earth).

@ But how many "biologists" are there who have stepped out of their
narrow area of expertise into "scientism" and find "evidence" to
prove all sorts of things that are useful for giving cover to
politicians and their "constituents"? (In this case, the
multi-BILLION-dollar abortion industry).

Abortion is the #1 sacrament in the church of the religious
left. Heretics don't get government funding for their "research".

But this is what the case is, in spite of what they choose to believe:

"...the relationship between what is called the body, soul, and the
spirit. ....under the
<http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html>Semitic Totality
Concept a man is a unity.

But this does not necessarily equate with the constituent elements
being inseparable; it simply means that to make a whole man, the
elements "belong" together. The question would remain as to whether
the elements can indeed exist separately and whether a practical
dualist view is warranted in terms of the afterlife. ...[..]

SPIRIT: 7307. ruwach, roo'-akh; from H7306; wind; by resemblance
breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; fig. life,
anger, unsubstantiality; by extens. a region of the sky; by
resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (includ. its
expression and functions):--air, anger, blast, breath, X cool,
courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain,
([whirl-]) wind (-y).

SOUL: 5315. nephesh, neh'-fesh; from H5314; prop. a breathing
creature, i.e. animal or (abstr.) vitality; used very widely in a
lit., accommodated or fig. sense (bodily or mental):--any, appetite,
beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-]
contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy
of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own,
person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves,
+ slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

In general and by appearances, we would suggest the thesis that the
"soul" as defined here is the combination of the body and spirit,
which creates the unified whole of a person (or an animal -- cf. Gen.
1:21). ..... [..]

The question we wish to pose, then, is not, according to the Bible,
"Does the soul survive death?" but, "Does the spirit survive death?"
...the NT distinguishes soul and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23, Heb, 4:12)
and also rightly decries those who regard "spirit" and "soul" as
complete synonyms.

But he never gets around (where we have read) to a full discussion of
what exactly man's "spirit" is and what happens to it after death.
The word is often used figuratively of one's emotional attitude
(i.e., a "revived spirit") but it is clearly also used to refer to
sentient entities (both good and evil) and -- as classically
formulated in James 2:26 ("For as the body without the spirit is
dead, so faith without works is dead also.") is clearly a separably
identifiable entity within a human, whatever its condition after a body dies.

2 Cor. 5, Paul's excursus on the resurrection body compared to the
old one, uses the metaphor of a tent, which suggests, obviously, an
"inhabitant"! (Though where exactly the "inhabitant" rests and in
what state is not stated.)

Hebrews 4:12 confirms this, speaking of the "division of soul and
spirit" comparably to bones and marrow -- the latter being a
component of the former.

It should be noted first of all that "spirit" being described in
terms of "breath" should not by any means be taken to assume that the
two are the same thing.

As various organs are connected with certain things by the Hebrews
(see more <http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nobrain.html>here so it is
that we would expect the spirit to be linked to a certain part of us
-- the equation no more makes the two the same thing than we may
assume that kidneys do not exist because they are called "reins". ...
[...]" ~ James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.html

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 5 12:04:30 2007