Is the Body a Prison?

[Stowaway]

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]

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]

T

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

I

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?

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.

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

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]

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]

H

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

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

 

[Stowaway]

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]

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.

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