- Jul 21, 2022
- 376
- 258
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
@BillMcEnaney, a newcomer to Christian Forums, expressed an interest in exploring this doctrine typically associated with Seventh-Day Adventists, namely, soul-sleep. He was hoping that someone could explain this doctrine "because it confused me when an Adventist told me about it" in a private email exchange, he said, someone named Michael Scheifler. As I hold a very similar view, I was happy to engage him on it. We began discussing it in his introduction (here) but he wanted it moved to its own thread. For previous remarks and the lead-up to this post, see his introduction thread.
I began by explaining that Adventists are physicalists of a sort (which I would later have to clarify, in this post here). On their view, I had said, the human body is not possessed of an immaterial soul; rather, the human body just is a material soul. Adventists would disagree with substance dualists, who hold that the human mind is a product of an immaterial soul, but agree with property dualists, who hold that the mind is a product of (but is not reducible to) the physical human brain. So, it parallels but contrasts with reductionism, insofar as mental events are constituted by but not identical with physical events.
It gets a bit complicated because, in one sense,
By way of contrast, Martin Luther did believe in soul sleep in a Cartesian sense, that one has a disembodied immaterial soul that "sleeps" in the intermediate state, to be awakened by Jesus in the resurrection.
McEnaney wondered if Adventists and other soul-sleepers believe that "sleep" is a metaphor for death. Yes, I said, in a way. They believe it's a metaphor for physical death in the same sense that Jesus did. When Jesus told his disciples that Lazarus had fallen asleep and he was going to awaken him, Jesus realized that they took him literally. So, he had to tell them plainly, "Lazarus has died" (John 11:11-14; cf. 1 Thess 4:13-14).
The remainder of this post is my engagement with his response to the above, a discussion that will follow in this thread from here on out.
The existence of God rules out physicalism only if we are dealing with ontological materialism, which assumes among other things that the Universe is a closed system. [1] Carl Sagan is an example of this, saying, "The cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever will be." Clearly, as an evangelical Christian, I am not talking about that. On my use of the term, physicalism refers only to the created realm; it says nothing at all about the creator thereof, who on my view is transcendent and spirit. Unlike ontological materialism, physicalism does not preclude metaphysical emergence, downward causation, holism and so forth, much less a transcendent creator. [2]
Even more precisely, I am speaking not of ontological physicalism but only anthropological physicalism, the object thereof being just humans. After all, you and I are talking about soul-sleep, especially as held by Seventh-Day Adventists, so we need to keep that specific focus in mind. The best argument for anthropological physicalism, in my opinion, was made by the Christian philosopher Lynne R. Baker, who argued for a constitution view of human persons (according to which we are not identical to but rather constituted by physical bodies).
I believe that the only real ontological dualism in Scripture is the creator–creature distinction, the contrast and relationship between God (as creator) and everything else (as his creation). This distinction is a fundamental safeguard for our interpretation of reality. "We should argue that intelligible predication is impossible," Cornelius Van Til said, "except one make the creator–creature distinction basic to one's thought." The creator is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, whereas creation is not infinite but finite, not eternal but temporal, not immutable but mutable in its becoming, as Lane Tipton of the Reformed Forum explained.
Moreover, I hold that the creator alone is supernatural while all of creation is natural—and I do mean all of creation, including angels. Consistent with this creator–creature distinction, only God is supernatural, existing outside of the natural world (without denying immanence). Obviously, our Standard Model of physics is still in its infancy and cannot account for things like angels—it can't even account for 95% of the observable universe (dark matter and dark energy)—but I expect that we could eventually, given a more complete understanding of fundamental physics that is yet to be developed. This is in addition to my belief that human souls are constituted by physical bodies, that there is no such thing as a disembodied soul. (I believe that our resurrection bodies will likewise be physical, whether baryonic or some other kind of matter.) On this view, neither angels nor humans, whether in part or whole, are supernatural (outside of the natural realm). God alone is supernatural, whereas his creatures are entirely natural.
There is nothing problematic about how the KJV translates that verse. Whether Adam became a living soul (KJV), a living being (NIV), or a living creature (ESV), at no point in this text is Adam ever a disembodied soul or being. The dust did not embody a soul or being, it became one. This fact, along with the KJV translation, is fully consistent with the biblical view of people being souls, not having one, wherein the term nefesh ("being") in the Hebrew Bible usually refers to the whole person (i.e., there is no conflation because there is no distinction) and never to anything immaterial or immortal. The concept of an immaterial and immortal soul, distinct from the body and surviving its death, did not appear in Judaism before the Babylonian exile; it was a later development resulting from interaction with Persian and Hellenistic philosophies. As the esteemed Old Testament scholar Brevard Childs said, a person "does not have a soul, but is a soul." (For more, see James D. Tabor, "What the Bible Says About Death, Afterlife and the Future," The Jewish Roman World of Jesus [website].)
That may be so (I cannot speak about your experiences), but it's not exactly relevant to our discussion. All I can do is try to assure you by our discussion that I'm representing their position in the strongest possible light, as someone who has very similar beliefs on this doctrine informed by extensive in-depth Bible study and philosophical debates. I hope that I know more than you think they did (a reference to something that was said earlier).
I don't think that was about only Jews. The first five chapters of Romans is about the desperate condition of all mankind, both Jew and Gentile alike, as sinners before a holy God, which chapters 2 and 3 make especially clear.
If you want to argue that some people are without sin, well, that's a very different discussion. (And please tread carefully.)
---
Footnotes:
[1] I have capitalized the term Universe to indicate that it includes the totality of all that exists, whether that is the observable universe or a larger multiverse.
[2] As I understand it, ontological materialism, physicalism, and naturalism represent a nested hierarchy of views, from the strongest (ontological materialism) to the weakest (ontological naturalism). So, for example, while all physicalists are naturalists, not all naturalists are physicalists. James Ladyman, Philip Kitcher, and Sean Carroll are all examples of non-physicalist naturalists.
I began by explaining that Adventists are physicalists of a sort (which I would later have to clarify, in this post here). On their view, I had said, the human body is not possessed of an immaterial soul; rather, the human body just is a material soul. Adventists would disagree with substance dualists, who hold that the human mind is a product of an immaterial soul, but agree with property dualists, who hold that the mind is a product of (but is not reducible to) the physical human brain. So, it parallels but contrasts with reductionism, insofar as mental events are constituted by but not identical with physical events.
It gets a bit complicated because, in one sense,
- Adventists don't believe in soul sleep (since they reject the idea of immaterial souls surviving the dead human body)
- Adventists do believe in soul sleep (if we respect their belief that the human person is a soul).
By way of contrast, Martin Luther did believe in soul sleep in a Cartesian sense, that one has a disembodied immaterial soul that "sleeps" in the intermediate state, to be awakened by Jesus in the resurrection.
McEnaney wondered if Adventists and other soul-sleepers believe that "sleep" is a metaphor for death. Yes, I said, in a way. They believe it's a metaphor for physical death in the same sense that Jesus did. When Jesus told his disciples that Lazarus had fallen asleep and he was going to awaken him, Jesus realized that they took him literally. So, he had to tell them plainly, "Lazarus has died" (John 11:11-14; cf. 1 Thess 4:13-14).
The remainder of this post is my engagement with his response to the above, a discussion that will follow in this thread from here on out.
---
The existence of God rules out physicalism only if we are dealing with ontological materialism, which assumes among other things that the Universe is a closed system. [1] Carl Sagan is an example of this, saying, "The cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever will be." Clearly, as an evangelical Christian, I am not talking about that. On my use of the term, physicalism refers only to the created realm; it says nothing at all about the creator thereof, who on my view is transcendent and spirit. Unlike ontological materialism, physicalism does not preclude metaphysical emergence, downward causation, holism and so forth, much less a transcendent creator. [2]
Even more precisely, I am speaking not of ontological physicalism but only anthropological physicalism, the object thereof being just humans. After all, you and I are talking about soul-sleep, especially as held by Seventh-Day Adventists, so we need to keep that specific focus in mind. The best argument for anthropological physicalism, in my opinion, was made by the Christian philosopher Lynne R. Baker, who argued for a constitution view of human persons (according to which we are not identical to but rather constituted by physical bodies).
I believe that the only real ontological dualism in Scripture is the creator–creature distinction, the contrast and relationship between God (as creator) and everything else (as his creation). This distinction is a fundamental safeguard for our interpretation of reality. "We should argue that intelligible predication is impossible," Cornelius Van Til said, "except one make the creator–creature distinction basic to one's thought." The creator is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, whereas creation is not infinite but finite, not eternal but temporal, not immutable but mutable in its becoming, as Lane Tipton of the Reformed Forum explained.
Moreover, I hold that the creator alone is supernatural while all of creation is natural—and I do mean all of creation, including angels. Consistent with this creator–creature distinction, only God is supernatural, existing outside of the natural world (without denying immanence). Obviously, our Standard Model of physics is still in its infancy and cannot account for things like angels—it can't even account for 95% of the observable universe (dark matter and dark energy)—but I expect that we could eventually, given a more complete understanding of fundamental physics that is yet to be developed. This is in addition to my belief that human souls are constituted by physical bodies, that there is no such thing as a disembodied soul. (I believe that our resurrection bodies will likewise be physical, whether baryonic or some other kind of matter.) On this view, neither angels nor humans, whether in part or whole, are supernatural (outside of the natural realm). God alone is supernatural, whereas his creatures are entirely natural.
There is nothing problematic about how the KJV translates that verse. Whether Adam became a living soul (KJV), a living being (NIV), or a living creature (ESV), at no point in this text is Adam ever a disembodied soul or being. The dust did not embody a soul or being, it became one. This fact, along with the KJV translation, is fully consistent with the biblical view of people being souls, not having one, wherein the term nefesh ("being") in the Hebrew Bible usually refers to the whole person (i.e., there is no conflation because there is no distinction) and never to anything immaterial or immortal. The concept of an immaterial and immortal soul, distinct from the body and surviving its death, did not appear in Judaism before the Babylonian exile; it was a later development resulting from interaction with Persian and Hellenistic philosophies. As the esteemed Old Testament scholar Brevard Childs said, a person "does not have a soul, but is a soul." (For more, see James D. Tabor, "What the Bible Says About Death, Afterlife and the Future," The Jewish Roman World of Jesus [website].)
That may be so (I cannot speak about your experiences), but it's not exactly relevant to our discussion. All I can do is try to assure you by our discussion that I'm representing their position in the strongest possible light, as someone who has very similar beliefs on this doctrine informed by extensive in-depth Bible study and philosophical debates. I hope that I know more than you think they did (a reference to something that was said earlier).
I don't think that was about only Jews. The first five chapters of Romans is about the desperate condition of all mankind, both Jew and Gentile alike, as sinners before a holy God, which chapters 2 and 3 make especially clear.
If you want to argue that some people are without sin, well, that's a very different discussion. (And please tread carefully.)
---
Footnotes:
[1] I have capitalized the term Universe to indicate that it includes the totality of all that exists, whether that is the observable universe or a larger multiverse.
[2] As I understand it, ontological materialism, physicalism, and naturalism represent a nested hierarchy of views, from the strongest (ontological materialism) to the weakest (ontological naturalism). So, for example, while all physicalists are naturalists, not all naturalists are physicalists. James Ladyman, Philip Kitcher, and Sean Carroll are all examples of non-physicalist naturalists.
Last edited:
