# Is the Body a Prison?



## Stowaway (Feb 13, 2015)

Grace and peace!

Recently I agreed that the body is not a prison, and I did so principally based on Genesis 1:31: *"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."* Therefore, I believe that we should praise God and thank Him for our bodies and the richness of experience that they afford us. On this topic, John Murray wrote:



> "The body is not an appendage. The notion that the body is the prison-house of the soul and that the soul is incarcerated in the body is pagan in origin and anti-biblical; it is Platonic, and has no resemblance to the Biblical conception. The Bible throughout represents the dissolution of the body and separation of body and spirit as an evil, as the retribution and wages of sin, and, therefore, as a disruption of that integrity which God established at creation." John Murray



However, I find those to words to be somewhat strong considering that Calvin referred to the body as the "prison-house of the body":



> "Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms, while they are used together differ in their meaning, still, when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it (Eccles. 12:7). And Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ, simply mean, that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, God becomes its perpetual keeper." Calvin (Institutes I.15.2)



Rather than interpreting Calvin and Murray as being in disagreement with each other on this, I would rather try to understand them as speaking in different senses. It's clear from Murray's words that the question involves regarding the body as something non-essential ("an appendage"), whereas Calvin seems to be speaking of the comparison of our present life to the future glory that awaits us as he wrote in his commentary on 2 Corinthians:



> "The groaning of believers, on the other hand, arises from this — that they know, that they are here in a state of exile from their native land, and that they know, that they are here shut up in the body as in a prison. Hence they feel this life to be a burden, because in it they cannot enjoy true and perfect blessedness, because they cannot escape from the bondage of sin otherwise than by death, and hence they aspire to be elsewhere.
> 
> "As, however, it is natural for all animals to desire existence, how can it be, that believers are willing to cease to exist? The Apostle solves this question, when he says, that believers do not desire death for the sake of losing any thing, but as having regard to a better life." Calvin (Commentary 2 Cor. 5:4)



I would also like to mention Augustine because he is often associated with Greek philosophy, and Murray is here taking a stand against the Platonic dualism that has been the basis of a number of heretical doctrines. For example, Augustine in his treaty on the Trinity says the following:



> "And yet, as I said, we are so familiarly occupied with bodies, and our thought has projected itself outwardly with so wonderful a proclivity towards bodies, that, when it has been withdrawn from the uncertainty of things corporeal, that it may be fixed with a much more certain and stable knowledge in that which is spirit, it flies back to those bodies, and seeks rest there whence it has drawn weakness. And to this its feebleness we must suit our argument; so that, if we would endeavor at any time to distinguish more aptly, and intimate more readily, the inward spiritual thing, we must take examples of likenesses from outward things pertaining to the body." Augustine (Trinity 11.1.1)



In the context, however, he is speaking of devoting time to the more excellent things in life, focusing on our spiritual growth, in accordance with 2 Corinthians 4:16: *"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."* I believe that Augustine maintained a sound biblical view with respect to the body: 



> "Great care is also taken, lest by such phrases as, 'walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh,' 'who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' a hatred of the body should be begotten. 'Thus you shall be freed from the body of this death, not by having no body, but by having another one and dying no more. If, indeed, he had not added, "of this death,"… perchance an error might have been suggested to the human mind, and it might have been said, "You see that God does not wish us to have a body." But He says, "the body of this death." Take away death, and the body is good. Let our last enemy, death, be taken away, and my dear flesh will be mine for eternity. For no one can ever "hate his own flesh." Although the "spirit lusts against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit," although there is now a battle in this house, yet the husband is seeking by his strife not the ruin of, but concord with, his wife. Far be it, far be it, my brethren, that the spirit should hate the flesh in lusting against it! It hates the vices of the flesh; it hates the wisdom of the flesh; it hates the contention of death. This corruption shall put on incorruption — this mortal shall put on immortality; it is sown a natural body; it shall rise a spiritual body; and you shall see full and perfect concord — you shall see the creature praise the Creator.'" Augustine (Anti-Pelagian Writings)



I would like to here you comments and insights.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## jandrusk (Feb 13, 2015)

Interesting question, but we should probably define what we mean by prison. If the definition is that which confines an object to restrictive amount of physical space this can be applied to almost anything in our universe. I don't think it's our bodies themselves that makes them a prison per se, but our sin nature and the curse of the fall along with the sentence of death. In the resurrection of our bodies, we will be given a new body. The fact that it will be a body presupposes that it will occupy a finite area of space, but then again I think at that point matter will probably be radically different in a fully redeemed creation.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 13, 2015)

jandrusk said:


> I don't think it's our bodies themselves that makes them a prison per se, but our sin nature and the curse of the fall along with the sentence of death.



Good answer. Thanks!


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 14, 2015)

In my first post, I said:



> "...the question involves regarding the body as something non-essential"



However, I simply can't reconcile the idea that the body is essential to the person in light of Scripture:* "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."* (2 Cor. 4:5)

Webster' definition of essential: "that which makes a thing what it is." 

Applying that to Paul's words, if the tabernacle is essential to us, then without the tabernacle we are not what we are - to be and to not be at the same time and in the same manner.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Feb 14, 2015)

We will get new bodies... so it is also true this body at its best is a foretaste of the better


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 14, 2015)

whirlingmerc said:


> We will get new bodies... so it is also true this body at its best is a foretaste of the better



Agreed. Thanks!


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2015)

The philosophers that Paul debated mocked him when he spoke of the resurrection of the dead. But another question is are we ever described in scripture in non physical ways? Even heaven is described to us in physical terms. So we should affirm the monistic, that is essential unity of body and soul, view of humans the bible reveals. Also think about the different eras that Calvin and Murray lived in. The strict dualism of body and soul was not so prevalent when Murray lived but was when Calvin lived.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 18, 2015)

There and another place Calvin simply reverted to Plato. Just like Homer nods.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 18, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> There and another place Calvin simply reverted to Plato. Just like Homer nods.



Though these mortal bodies will die one day as a result of the fall, unlike our spirits which were made alive while still in these mortal bodies.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 18, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> But another question is are we ever described in scripture in non physical ways?



Yes, the apostle Paul described us precisely in a non-physical way: *"For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." (2 Cor. 4:5)* The "we" that is "in this tabernacle" can't be the tabernacle itself.

I also think your question is somewhat beside the point. Just because the Bible teaches that we are a dichotomy as far as composition doesn't suggest that our life is ever non-physical. Therefore it seems only natural that the Bible would primarily speak of us in physical terms. But it's also a fact that our existence is not always in the body nor in the same body, so it would be contrary to Scripture to suggest that any particular body is essential to who we are.

I believe it would be more correct to say that the body is essential to human life but not to the person.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2015)

Stowaway said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > But another question is are we ever described in scripture in non physical ways?
> ...



Yes but we must always flow from our theology and our theology always should flow from the bible, which I know you believe. But I want to emphasize the whole of scripture on a subject not one or two verses isolated from the rest. The whole of scripture reveals us as a complete unity of body and spirit. Such that we cannot substantially separate the two. Scripture always speaks of us in both inseparable ways so we should as well. Scripture rarely speaks of us as as separate substances, if at all.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 18, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> The whole of scripture reveals us as a complete unity of body and spirit.



That's simply not true with respect to the us as persons. It is _human life_ which is a unity of body and spirit, as I already said. Even Hoekema couldn't state his monistic doctrine without a qualifier restricting it to the current life:

"But even aside from the Greek understanding of dichotomy, which is clearly contrary to Scripture, we must reject the term dichotomy as such, since it is not an accurate description of the biblical view of man. The word itself is objectionable. It comes from two Greek roots: diche, meaning 'twofold' or 'into two'; and temnein, meaning 'to cut.' It therefore suggests that the human person can be cut into two 'parts.' But man in this present life cannot be so cut." Hoekema

In fact I don't know of any theologian that held to a strictly monistic view. It seems clear that the whole of Scripture seems to stand against it:

*"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7*

*"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28*

*"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." 1 Corinthians 15:40*

Thanks!


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2015)

Consider it this way a monistic can make legitimate distinctions between different aspects of ourselves without dichotomies being assumed, which you seem to reject. I'm not saying that we are only physical beings but the distinction between body and soul is merely a logical one not an ontological one. Read the book of Revelations and step back and ask yourself is the images of heaven physical in nature or non physical in nature? What would a non physical description of things be like? Is it even possible to imagine a way of thinking or describing of things that is non physical? These are questions that I ask only to emphasize how the bible celebrates both our spirits and equally important bodies


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 19, 2015)

Have you seen some people? Would you want to be trapped in some of the bodies that walk around? Some people are so ugly they look like animated corpses from The Walking Dead. No way would I want that. THAT would be a prison.
On the other hand, some bodies are temples of beauty. I'd love to have one of those.


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 19, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> Have you seen some people? Would you want to be trapped in some of the bodies that walk around? Some people are so ugly they look like animated corpses from The Walking Dead.



 Keith Richards, anyone?


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 19, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> Consider it this way a monistic can make legitimate distinctions between different aspects of ourselves without dichotomies being assumed, which you seem to reject.



A good example might be the distinction between soul and spirit. Not that I'm fully persuaded, but I tend to agree with Bavinck that the words "soul" and "spirit" refer to the same thing, but they are are not synonymous. Thus, I don't reject the concept of distinctions without dichotomies in every case, but with respect to the dichotomy of body and soul, the Bible clearly teaches such a difference which goes beyond subtle differences in the meaning of words.



> I'm not saying that we are only physical beings but the distinction between body and soul is merely a logical one not an ontological one.



You seem to be letting some philosophy dictate your theology. Try supporting your position with Scripture as I have been doing. For example:

*"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:42,43*

Now, if your position is the biblical one, the presence of the man with Jesus would have to be understood as maintaining the ontological union with his body. That would imply that their bodies would have had to remain together in a physical way, but the Scripture rejects that idea:

*"And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid." Luke 23:53 *

Here's another example in which the apostle Peter finds his personal identity in his soul rather than his body:

*"Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me." 2 Peter 1:13,14*



> Read the book of Revelations and step back and ask yourself is the images of heaven physical in nature or non physical in nature? What would a non physical description of things be like? Is it even possible to imagine a way of thinking or describing of things that is non physical?



First of all, I don't deny that that most of the descriptions in Revelations refer to physical things. I believe, for instance, that the new Jerusalem is physical.

Secondly, asking whether it is "possible to imagine" is not a sound principle of biblical exegesis. If you were to search the Scriptures, you would find that there is no obvious distinction between images that are "physical in nature or non-physical in nature." For instance:

*"And the LORD called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again. Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him." 1 Samuel 3:6,7*

Notice that in this passage the Bible teaches that the ability to discern the physical from the spiritual is only evident as the Lord choose to reveal it. Geerhardus Vos has the following to say about this passage (I'm afraid I don't have his theology in English, so the following is my translation from Portuguese):

"Visions were not always seen with the physical eye; most likely the spoken word was not always received by means of the physical ear." Geerhardus Vos (Teologia Bíblica, "Revelação por meio da fala e da audição", p. 267)

The same thing is similarly taught with respect to the apostle Paul. Since all of our visual experience is mediated by the soul, physical experience and spiritual visions may be indistinguishable:

*"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)" 2 Corinthians 12:2,3*

Therefore, to answer your question, it's easy from me to imagine non-physical descriptions, because the soul only presents experience through non-physical means. Furthermore, I don't see how the descriptions in Revelations could in any way support your claim that there is no ontological difference between body and soul.



> These are questions that I ask only to emphasize how the bible celebrates both our spirits and equally important bodies



I'm actually highly in favor of celebrating both our spirits and our bodies, but that celebration should be rooted in Scripture. However I might interpret "physical descriptions" as somehow to the exclusion of non-physical descriptions, it seems to suggest a physicalism which deprives the Scriptures of the personal quality that God intended them to have. As a result, such a celebration would entail something very materialistic and impersonal.

I believe that in this case, the proper biblical word for this aspect of the human spirit would be "heart":

*"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart... Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" 2 Corinthians 3:3-8*

We can see from this passage that the law of God written on our hearts is the means by which we recognize the goodness of God and the glory of His creation. The same law written in stone (physical manifestation) led to death, but law written in upon our hearts (non-physical manifestation) is the way God saw fit to equip us to recognize His glory. Therefore if our experience were not mediated by the human soul in an essentially non-physical way, Christians would forever remain as spiritually blind as the unrepentant. However, we will recognize the beauty of the new Jerusalem in the brilliant light of God's glory, because the hunger of our souls will forever be satisfied in His goodness:

*"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." Revelation 21:23*


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 22, 2015)

Well but I'm not sure your verses prove exactly what you think. Take 2 Corinthians 12: 2,3 Paul says he didn't know if he was "in the body or not" meaning he had no concept or experience to explain whether or not he could determine whether or not he was physically present or something else. But his experience was both similar and dissimilar to his regular existence that he can't determine what was going on. Take Luke 16: 19-29 the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man who had just passed from this world begs Lazarus for just a drop of water of his tounge. How more physical can you get? Your right that our bodies are put in the ground but we don't know what happens after that or what a "purely" spiritual realm would be like but I know that scripture reveals all spiritual things, as far as I can tell, in more physical terms. 

Also just because I believe in form of monism, ontologically, doesn't logically mean that what God unites in this world he cannot separate in the next. You could be right but I do worry about the tendency to over emphasize the spiritual against the physical, when scripture clearly celebrates both (which you already agreed with, so I'm just saying as food for thought for anyone reading this). Also we may inhabit some physical form in the in between period, who knows.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 22, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> ...he can't determine what was going on.



That's precisely what I was trying to prove. As I said, "physical experience and spiritual visions may be indistinguishable."



> Take Luke 16: 19-29 the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man who had just passed from this world begs Lazarus for just a drop of water of his tounge. How more physical can you get?



Are you suggesting there's a third body? In other words, we die, and get an temporary before the resurrection body? If so, you might what to try to establish that with something more than just a parable.

Charles Hodge addressed this very subject in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. He said it was unscriptural, explaining as follows:

"If the Bible teaches or assumes that a body is necessary to the self-consciousness of the soul, or even to its power to perceive and to express, to act and to be acted upon, then it would be not only natural but necessary to understand the apostle to teach in this passage that the moment the soul leaves its present body it enters into another. Then it would follow either that the only resurrection of which the Scriptures speak takes place at the moment of death, or that there is a body specifically fitted for the intermediate state, differing both from the one which we now have, and from that which we are to have at the resurrection. The former of these suppositions contradicts the plain doctrine of the Bible that the resurrection is a future event, to take place at the second advent of Christ; and the latter contradicts this very passage, for Paul says that the house on which we enter at death is eternal." Charles Hodge (An Exposition of II Corinthians)



> Also just because I believe in form of monism, ontologically, doesn't logically mean that what God unites in this world he cannot separate in the next.



My point is that in the "next world," assuming that you're talking about in the grave, we don't lose our identity. There is something that is essential to what we are as persons, and according to the Scriptures, that something is not the body.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 24, 2015)

I


Stowaway said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > ...he can't determine what was going on.
> ...



Let's take a step back for a moment. My point has, I hope, been a biblical theological argument taking the whole of scripture and what it says rather than particular verses dictating how we interpret everything else. When I made the challenge to come up with a non physical way to describe things I was trying to show that since this cannot be done we must than ask why scripture as a whole doesn't do it either? Sure individual verses here and there might suggest things but as a whole do not, In my humble opinion, prove the point. But people like Michael Horton have suggested that the dualism you refer to has largely been abandoned for a view much closer to mine. See his _Systematic Theology _ here. As far as what happens after death I can't comment physically what happens to us because I don't see scripture doing so. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 24, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> Sure individual verses here and there might suggest things but as a whole do not...



You're wearing me out here.

I've quoted a lot of Scripture and cited numerous theologians, and you haven't even presented a biblical argument yet. You just seem to be speculating based on something that doesn't appear to be scriptural at all. If you can back up what you're saying, please do.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 24, 2015)

I don't know about speculation because I have resisted to go beyond scriptures description of the next life in physical terms, not that that is the final say but it is tha majority description of scripture from beginning to end. I did give the whole book of Revelations as evidence of my view, so I think I have hardly not given support of my view biblically speaking. I just am weary of versism where you give your verses to prove your view and I give mine and we end up nowhere. Rather I like a biblical theological approach that takes the main thrust of all of scripture and goes from there.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 25, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> Rather I like a biblical theological approach that takes the main thrust of all of scripture and goes from there.



So your argument is that it just doesn't feel right as a whole?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 25, 2015)

All right here is my biblical argument. 

1. Genesis 1, God creates all things and all of it is described in physical terms except when he "breathes life " into Adam. All of creation is pronounced good physical and all. No distinctions are made at all between physical and non physical.

2. Skip to Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, and the many places in Daniel which you would refer to as "spiritual visions" are as you said "indistinguishable" from "physical" reality, why? A plain reading of these texts shows that these things are revealed in physical terms because they are in some sense physical. I don't know what a purely spiritual experience would like and scripture no where describes one. In fact the no religion or human being has ever been able to do so. 

3. When Enoch and Elijah are taken with God they are taken body and all. Now what is important here is what the text says and what it doesn't say. It makes no distinction between their bodies and souls. You might say that these two represent special cases and your right they didn't experience physical death. But Moses did and on the mount of transfiguration the apostles physically see Moses and Elijah and again both are in the next world and no distinction is made between their ontological status. 

4. Paul does speak an awful lot about flesh verses the spirit but he nowhere gives a kind of detailed description of what our ontological status is. In fact he'll refer to being "spiritually minded" verses being "carnally (or fleshly) minded" but what he is talking about is our choice of physical living, thinking, and behaving. So even his distinction proves my point. 

5. The entire book of Revelation implies my point at least, again a plain reading of the text implies that in some sense the vision was physical and the participant (like Paul and the others in scripture) were physically some where. The only entity described to be wholly spirit is God.

Now historically speaking one of the first heresies the church dealt with was Gnosticism. Which made to sharp of a distinction between our bodies and soul. It is true that many reformed writers have taken your view but with the advance of science and philosophy that view has waned a bit. Both Micheal Horton and R Scott Clark have said that many doubt the strict dualism you refer to and adopt a view much closer to mine. 

You rightly refer to many verses that refer to people's bodies being buried. Where, a physical concept in and of itself, did they go? In short to be with God. What is the ontological status of them? I don't know. Following Calvin and much of the Reformed tradition where scripture ceases to reveal I shut my mouth of speculation and say yes and amen. The only clues we have is Moses, who is dead and buried, in some physical way appears to the apostles and that we know that the consummation of all things will be both physically and spiritually better than our present state either in this world or the next.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 25, 2015)

Also I want to add that I do not believe your view or anyone holding it to be outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy. I only want to say that my view is also within the bounds and has some grounds for believing it.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 25, 2015)

Thanks for trying to state your position from a more biblical point of view.

You keep insisting on this concept of physical descriptions. I find that kind of puzzling. On what basis do you assert that the "apostles physically see Moses and Elijah"? It seems that you're appealing to some sort of philosophy when you talk like that, because I don't see how you can provide any biblical support for your belief that a description is somehow physical or not. It strikes me as an odd commitment to something extra-biblical. For example: 



jwright82 said:


> The entire book of Revelation implies my point at least, again a plain reading of the text implies that in some sense the vision was physical and the participant (like Paul and the others in scripture) were physically some where. The only entity described to be wholly spirit is God.



I really don't see the book of Revelation supporting your point at all. I also reject your speculation that visions are somehow physical. I have know idea what that could possibly mean, but you seem to claim some knowledge that transcends what Paul himself was claiming.



> It is true that many reformed writers have taken your view but with the advance of science and philosophy that view has waned a bit. Both Micheal Horton and R Scott Clark have said that many doubt the strict dualism you refer to and adopt a view much closer to mine.



You don't even seem to have a clear idea of what my view is. I'm trying to be as strictly scriptural as I know to be.

Why are you accusing me of strict dualism? I never even used the word dualism except to refer to Plato's views. And Horton affirms what I've been saying all along:

"There is no divine soul, preexisting throughout eternity, thrown mercilessly into the realm of time and matter. God breathed life into Adam in creation, and he 'became a living being' (Ge 2:7 NIV) — an embodied soul and an animated body." Michael Horton

As far as what happens after death, I don't have to speculate, because Paul tells us that we will be clothed in a house from heaven:

*"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked." 2 Corinthians 5:2,3*

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 25, 2015)

All right well let's take a step back. Yes you are correct that I am "importing" a philosophy of language at least. When the bible uses words that in any other context would be ordinarily taken to be more physical in nature I simply take them as they are. In Mat 17 it is unmistakable that the language ordinarily taken means they physically walked up the mountain, our Lord was physically transformed in front of them, and they saw with their physicall eyes (the text explicitly says that Moses and Elijah "appeared" in my bible) the two. 

But if your claiming that these are merely spiritual in nature, that is non physical in any sense, than that is itself importing a philosophy as well. One that takes words that ordinarily in any other case would be understood to be referring to physical states of affairs and making them mean, if I understand you correctly, in some non physical spiritual way (whatever that would mean) but they can only be expressed in physical terminology? That In my humble opinion is stretching the ordinary meaning of words to fit a preconceived philosophy of humanity.

If you do not embrace dualism than why insist that our identity is strictly tied to our spirits? I know that your looking for me to provide "proof" texts as you have to back up my point of view. None can be provided if by that you mean some verse that explicitly states what I'm saying. But on the other hand I would argue per WCF chp. 1 that I have reached my conclusion by "good and necessary consequence" of scripture as a whole. Also I see no problem interpreting physical expressions in an ordinary way because of WCF chp. 7 in which God condescends to us freely in his revelation. Or as Calvin would say he "accommodates" to our finite state as humans.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 25, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> I only want to say that my view is also within the bounds and has some grounds for believing it.



I actually find that to be kind of doubtful. Besides the fact that there isn't a single verse in the Bible to support your position, it also seems to contradict the Westminster standards. The Larger Catechism includes the following:

_Q. 17. How did God create man?_

A. After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and dominion over the creatures; yet subject to fall.

The following proof texts accompanied this question:

*"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7*

*"Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?" Job 35:11*

*"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7*

*"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28*

*"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43*



jwright82 said:


> All of creation is pronounced good physical and all



That, of course, is simply false. However, it lead me to wonder about what you believe concerning the angels, because your cosmogony doesn't seem to have any room for spiritual creatures. The Large Catechism has the following:

_Q. 16. How did God create angels?_

A. God created all the angels spirits, immortal, holy, excelling in knowledge, mighty in power, to execute his commandments, and to praise his name, yet subject to change.

*"Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire." Psalm 104:4*

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 25, 2015)

Stowaway said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > I only want to say that my view is also within the bounds and has some grounds for believing it.
> ...



Well if we take the confession to articulate a philosophy than I guess your right. I don't and most people don't take it to be articulating a philosophy. But even the verses you mention one use physical language to express what they mean, two only mean what you suggest if a prior philosophy of humanity is presupposed. As far as Angels are concerned when ever have they appeared in scripture in some non physical way? I confess a substantial monism in regards to humanity. Our body and soul are one. Only logical distinctions can be made not ontological ones.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 25, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> In Mat 17 it is unmistakable that the language ordinarily taken means they physically walked up the mountain, our Lord was physically transformed in front of them, and they saw with their physical eyes (the text explicitly says that Moses and Elijah "appeared" in my bible) the two.



I can accept that they physically walked up the mountain. Whether Christ was "physically transformed" I can't say. I also like the word "appeared."

However, what I'm talking about it is the unnatural way you are trying to force a the idea of "physical" where the text suggests no such interpretation. I really don't know what a "physical description" is supposed to mean. If you were speaking of a description of something physical, that would be different. In many cases your claims are clearly false, because angels for instance are not corporeal beings.



> But if your claiming that these are merely spiritual in nature, that is non physical in any sense, than that is itself importing a philosophy as well.



First of all, I never did make such a claim, but if I had, it wouldn't be imported from a philosophy but based on the Bible. Like Hodge said, it's simply unbiblical to invent the idea of an intermediate body. There is plenty of scriptural reasons to agree with Hodge, some of which have already been cited.



> If you do not embrace dualism than why insist that our identity is strictly tied to our spirits?



The apostles were the ones who tied their identity to their spirits. I simply agreed with them.


----------



## Toasty (Feb 25, 2015)

2 Corinthians 5:8 says, "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord." There is a distinction between body and soul. Just because there is a distinction between body and soul does not mean that matter is evil or that the body is evil.


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 25, 2015)

Toasty said:


> 2 Corinthians 5:8 says, "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord." There is a distinction between body and soul. Just because there is a distinction between body and soul does not mean that matter is evil or that the body is evil.



I agree. That is one of the huge errors made because of an incorrect view of anthropology.

There are a number of others as well, such as believing that we have two natures in conflict with each other or believing that the soul can become as God.

Thanks for the response!
Mike


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 25, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> Well if we take the confession to articulate a philosophy than I guess your right.



Let me see if I got this right. If we take the Confession as not articulating a philosophy, then that leaves room to interpret the Confession according to whatever philosophy we might choose to embrace. The literal meaning of the words becomes putty in your hand to interpret however you like. Is that right? Do you interpret the Bible in the same way?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 25, 2015)

T


Stowaway said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > In Mat 17 it is unmistakable that the language ordinarily taken means they physically walked up the mountain, our Lord was physically transformed in front of them, and they saw with their physical eyes (the text explicitly says that Moses and Elijah "appeared" in my bible) the two.
> ...



My point is that scripture uses physical language therefore we must. If you could suggest an alternative to the physical language being used than by all means employ it. By physical I mean words that would in any other context would ordinarily be interpreted as physical in nature. If I said a stranger appeared over the horizon you would have no trouble interpreting what I mean, that is that I physically saw someone I did not know coming physically towards me over the horizon. I can't force language that is not already in use. Since the bible employs physical language so do I.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 25, 2015)

Stowaway said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Well if we take the confession to articulate a philosophy than I guess your right.
> ...




No theologically speaking we cannot interpret the confession any way we want. There are philosophical consequences as well as apologetically minded consequences to our confession but primarily it is theological in nature.


----------



## aadebayo (Feb 26, 2015)

jandrusk said:


> Interesting question, but we should probably define what we mean by prison. If the definition is that which confines an object to restrictive amount of physical space this can be applied to almost anything in our universe. I don't think it's our bodies themselves that makes them a prison per se, but our sin nature and the curse of the fall along with the sentence of death. In the resurrection of our bodies, we will be given a new body. The fact that it will be a body presupposes that it will occupy a finite area of space, but then again I think at that point matter will probably be radically different in a fully redeemed creation.



Thanks, this is spot on. At creation, Adam and Eve had their bodies and God said that all was good. It is our sin and the curse that has resulted from it that has brought about the situation that we now find our selves in. Romans 5:12 explains it precisely. The text reads


> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


----------



## Stowaway (Feb 26, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> Stowaway said:
> 
> 
> > jwright82 said:
> ...



I think I understand what you're getting at. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Based on your words, "Well if we take the confession to articulate a philosophy than I guess your right," you admitted that you don't accept the Confession inasmuch as it may seem to "articulate a philosophy." It seems that you are saying that when the Westminster standards or the Scriptures are speaking too philosophically without theological implications, then you believe you can reinterpret them as you will.

For example, the Catechism says the angels are spiritual beings, but you think that's too philosophical, so you believe they actually have bodies.

I'm curious how you determine whether something has theological implications or when you believe the Bible is speaking too philosophically.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 4, 2015)

I


Stowaway said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Stowaway said:
> ...



No what I'm saying, sorry it took so long to respond, is our confession is primarily theological in nature. When you read the words "spiritual" or "soul" you interpret it through your own philosophy of humanity. I also interpret it as well but like you not in in a way that contradicts it. Because it is theological in nature it accommodate multiple philosophical views while setting up clear boundaries as well, like denying we have a soul or body. 

I prefer the phrase "physical" because it is ontologically neutral, what do I mean. If someone seems to have a pain in their hand I can describe that pain from multiple ways of talking. I can biologically describe the pain in stating that nerve endings in say the hand are sending messages to the brain hence they are cringing and holding their hand. If my friend's wife leaves him and he is in pain it is not the same thing as a hand hurting but he will have biological "pain" as well but we would never reduce that kind of pain to mere nerve endings. But I as the observer have only physical terminology to describe both instances to you. 

If I say that lady's hand hurts and you asked me how I know that I would say that I saw her cringe in pain, that is I can only answer you in physical terms. If you ask me how I know that my friend is in pain I can again only answer in physical terms, he looks ands sounds depressed (I see him cry about it). But in both instances my describing pain in physical terms in no way makes any comment on whether or not we have "bodies" or "souls", I am simply describing them as they appear to me.


----------



## Stowaway (Mar 5, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> I also interpret it as well but like you not in in a way that contradicts it.



In that case, I'd love to hear your "physical" interpretation of the following:

*"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7*

*"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7*

*"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28*

*"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43*

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 5, 2015)

H


Stowaway said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > I also interpret it as well but like you not in in a way that contradicts it.
> ...



All those verses merely prove my point you as well as me incorporate a philosophy of humanity into our interpretation of those verses.


----------



## Stowaway (Mar 6, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> All those verses merely prove my point you as well as me incorporate a philosophy of humanity into our interpretation of those verses.



Nonsense. What these verses prove is that the Scriptures are not silent on these matters, and you can't simply substitute your idle speculations for subjects that the Bible clearly addresses.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 8, 2015)

Stowaway said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > All those verses merely prove my point you as well as me incorporate a philosophy of humanity into our interpretation of those verses.
> ...



So you do not think that you incorporate a philosophy of humanity into your reading?


----------

