Function of the soul

[Carl Emerson]

There seems to be another reason why we have so much theological debate...

At Eden the weapon of choice that Satan used was to corrupt the desire to know and twist it into a selfish pursuit.

And so it continues - the driver is the unredeemed desire for knowledge.

This leads to Folks demanding that the Bible must answer all questions.

However it is only the intellectually humble that will hear the voice of the author and have it's hidden meanings revealed.

I prefer to fire all questions upstairs - and leave them there.

He will surely reveal all I need to know pertaining to His appointed calling in my life.

That way we become specialists in the task given rather than 'allrounders' chasing every seminar for more 'information'.

 

[dms1972]

FB Meyer, and Oswald Chamber both say the soul has senses corresponding to the five physical senses. This is like something a bit new to me, but I believe I had a glimmer of understanding of this as a child, but the understanding didn't mature at that time and I guess more secular psychological ideas entered in.

I cannot quote all both these old authors say on this, but I'll reference what books it is found in and a few Biblical references:

FB Meyer - Saved and Kept - Chapter 16
Oswald Chambers - Biblical Psychology - Chapter 7

Chambers writes "We have entirely divorced tasting and smelling, seeing and hearing and touching from spiritual conditions, because the majority of christian workers have never been trained in what the Bible has to say about ourselves. It can be proved over and over again, not only in personal experience, but all through God's Book, that He does alter the taste, not merely mental tastes, but physical tastes, the taste for food and drink; but there is something far more practical even than that, the blessing of God on our soul life gives us an added sensitiveness of soul akin to taste or to sight or hearing.

Sense of Hearing: Job 12:11

Sense of Sight : Psalms 119:37

Sense of Tasting : Psalms 119:103

Sense of Smell: Genesis 8:21

Sense of Touch: Acts 17:27, 1 John 1:1 - "These passages refer not to mental feeling, but to real, downright, bodily feeling. The disciples had "felt" God Incarnate in Jesus Christ. This is where the issue is so strong between New Testament teaching and the Unitarian teaching. God does not ignore feeling and the sense of touch; He elevates them. The first effort of the soul towards bringing the body into harmony with the new disposition is an effort of faith. The soul has not yet got the body under way, therefore in the meanwhile feeling has to be discounted. When the new disposition enters the soul, the first steps have to be taken in the dark, without feeling; but immediately the soul has gained control, all bodily organs are brought into physical harmony with the ruling disposition."

 

[Carl Emerson]

FB Meyer, and Oswald Chamber both say the soul has senses corresponding to the five physical senses. This is like something a bit new to me, but I believe I had a glimmer of understanding of this as a child, but the understanding didn't mature at that time and I guess more secular psychological ideas entered in.

I cannot quote all both these old authors say on this, but I'll reference what books it is found in and a few Biblical references:

FB Meyer - Saved and Kept - Chapter 16
Oswald Chambers - Biblical Psychology - Chapter 7

Chambers writes "We have entirely divorced tasting and smelling, seeing and hearing and touching from spiritual conditions, because the majority of christian workers have never been trained in what the Bible has to say about ourselves. It can be proved over and over again, not only in personal experience, but all through God's Book, that He does alter the taste, not merely mental tastes, but physical tastes, the taste for food and drink; but there is something far more practical even than that, the blessing of God on our soul life gives us an added sensitiveness of soul akin to taste or to sight or hearing.


Sense of Hearing: Job 12:11

Sense of Sight : Psalms 119:37

Sense of Tasting : Psalms 119:103

Sense of Smell: Genesis 8:21

Sense of Touch: Acts 17:27, 1 John 1:1 - "These passages refer not to mental feeling, but to real, downright, bodily feeling. The disciples had "felt" God Incarnate in Jesus Christ. This is where the issue is so strong between New Testament teaching and the Unitarian teaching. God does not ignore feeling and the sense of touch; He elevates them. The first effort of the soul towards bringing the body into harmony with the new disposition is an effort of faith. The soul has not yet got the body under way, therefore in the meanwhile feeling has to be discounted. When the new disposition enters the soul, the first steps have to be taken in the dark, without feeling; but immediately the soul has gained control, all bodily organs are brought into physical harmony with the ruling disposition."

To those who are willing, He also redeems the 5 senses.

However the important matter that arises out of this is that the 5 senses are of the soul but the still small voice is in the spirit.

The 5 senses are interpreting reality imperfectly but the Spirit is directly connecting to reality through the conscience and the intuition.

This is true in all humanity otherwise they have an excuse in Rom 1:20

 

[Andrewn]

Chambers writes "We have entirely divorced tasting and smelling, seeing and hearing and touching from spiritual conditions, because the majority of christian workers have never been trained in what the Bible has to say about ourselves.

I agree that our spirit has senses corresponding to the five physical senses.

The first effort of the soul towards bringing the body into harmony with the new disposition is an effort of faith. The soul has not yet got the body under way, therefore in the meanwhile feeling has to be discounted.

Here, he seems to ascribe the spirit's function to the soul. I'm not familiar w/ Chamber's book. Does he believe the soul and the spirit are the same?

 

[Carl Emerson]

I like your analysis as it relates to the connection between the soul and the body. But I'm not sure about the connection of the soul and the will. Also, where do the id, ego, and superego fit in this picture? Is the soul equivalent to the id or to the ego?

One thing I like about your analysis is that it ignores Plato's definition of the soul and attempts to connect the concept of the soul to modern psychology which, I believe, is also a more biblical approach.

BTW, @BobRyan would you like to describe your view about this?

Since when has modern psychology been 'biblical' ???

 

[BobRyan]

This is something I've been pondering for a while now. Assuming it actually exists, what role does the soul play in everyday life? The way I see it, we humans experience life through the activities of our bodies. We see with our eyes. We think with our brains, and so forth. I really am not sure what part the soul would have in that process.

What do you all think?

In Gen 2 a "person is" a soul. Adam "became a living soul".

But in other contexts such as Matt 10:28 we are composed of "Soul and body" where the body is killed at death but the soul is not. In 1 Thess 4:13-18 the "person" is in a dormant state in death even though the body is killed and returns to dust.

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as indeed the rest of mankind do, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. 15 For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore, comfort one another with these words.

 

[BobRyan]

As I said before, "There is no disagreement that the word "soul" in the Bible is frequently used to describe the whole being." But after death, the soul departs the body:

Agreed.

But in other contexts such as Matt 10:28 we are composed of "Soul and body" where the body is killed at death but the soul is not. In 1 Thess 4:13-18 the "person" is in a dormant state in death even though the body is killed and returns to dust.

 

[JAL]

You will never CLEARLY conceive of the relation between brain/body and the mind/soul if you indulge in immaterialism. Due to immaterialism, theologians still can't clearly explain how God regenerates us, and what role the brain plays in regeneration. Yet all this is incredibly simple.

Science isn't really necessary here but does confirm the point I wish to make. Scientists already know that thought is a physical process in the brain. Electrochemical currents of thought fire across 100 billion circuits (neurons) in the brain.

A thought, then, is a physical current of thought. When a person says, "Today the thought crossed my mind that..." - he is actually speaking literally. Ok so picture a physical mind/soul removed from the human body. Would this physical soul still have physical currents of thought? Of course! That's how angels think.

Given that thought is just a physical mind in motion, why then do we need the brain? Technically we don't NEED it but it serves a cognitive purpose delightful to God. The neurons/circuits in the brain help move/flow our currents of thought in useful patterns and directions - patterns conducive to sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, sexuality, marriage, reproduction, education, emotional balance, conscience, and so on.

And no, the body doesn't have five "senses" - all conscious experience takes place in the mind/soul. For example the body doesn't hear anything, rather the ear drum modulates sound waves into impulses (a pattern of thought-currents) experienced as sound by the mind/soul. It is the mind/soul that hears.

If the body could hear on its own without the soul present, who is hearing in that case? Doesn't make sense.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi @BobRyan:

Thank you for your generous 5-part message. The bottom line is that, in the NT, your "soul sleep" theory is based solely on 2 verses

I guess you mean 1 Thess 4:13-18 and John 11:11-14 and


John 11:11 This He said, and after that He *said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep.” 12 The disciples then said to Him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. 14 So Jesus then said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead,

1 Thess 4:13-18
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Since Matt 10:28 says the body is KILLED leaving only the soul to still exist and be the thing that is dormant.
28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Eccl 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

And of course Jesus said that without the resurrection those who have died are not the subjects of God, He can only be said to be "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" after they had died -- because of the future resurrection according to Christ - such that without it - the statement is not true

Matt 22:
31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

And of course many other scriptures describing death as a sleep state...

and contradicted by the entire spirit of the Gospel.

I am not at all convinced that the scriptures supporting my statement above are contradicting the spirit of the Gospel . That is an accusation you should have to support with evidence.

I will not repeat what has already been addressed.

I recommend a focus on supporting your claim in the previous line.

No, sleep is of 2 types: NREM and REM.

That is a statement about biology... there is no biological sleep happening with dust. Dead bodies don't engage in any kind of biological sleep not even when they are reduced to dust. That leaves only the surviving entity - the soul (in Matt 10:28) to have any sort of "dormant" state.

One is considered conscious during REM and unconscious during NREM. Still, you can easily awake someone who is asleep.

Agreed. that happens each night - with the living. But I was thinking our topic was the state of death.

As I said before, I don't have a problem saying that the soul is asleep in some sense.

In that case - you seem to agree that the dormant state of the soul does not "contradict the spirit of the gospel".

Our post-mortem spirit is not joined to some other body.

Agreed. And that is also not a contradiction of the spirit of the gospel.

In the Bible (as we see in Matt 10:28 and in Eccl 12) the case for all mankind is that at death the body is killed... returns to dust... is not in a biological "sleep state" at all.

But the spirit returns to God who gave it. Which means there is a resurrection in the future and some people are to be taken up at the rapture (the future appearing of Christ, the destiny of the saints) while others come up in the second resurrection seen in Rev 20 and are subject to the "second death" in Rev 20.

Thus it is not an undesirable state. And 2Co 5 is a good example that proves my point:

2 Cor 5 says that it is NOT a desirable state. The intermediate state is not at all desirable.

2 Cor 5:2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life

In 2 Cor 5 there are TWO clothed states and one naked state
1. First clothed state - in THIS decaying tent body.
2. Second clothed state - having our immortal body given to us as 1 Cor 15 says - at the resurrection
3. The intermediate state -- not joined to any body at all -- naked.

You quoted an extra-biblical source and I didn't object. But anyway, the Bible does say that God is above the heavens.

Refresh my memory please - I don't remember the extra-biblical source you are referring to.

So his throne must be higher than the 3rd heaven:

Psa 8:1 LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth, You who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens!

Psa 57:11 Be exalted above the heavens, God; May Your glory be above all the earth.

Psa 113:4 The LORD is high above all nations; His glory is above the heavens.

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Well first of all I am glad to see that you are willing to go to both OT and NT to support doctrine.

2 Cor 12 tells us that Paradise is in the 3rd heaven.
Rev 2 tells us that the Tree of life is in Paradise
Rev 22 tells us that God's throne is where the tree of life is.

So while God's throne is above both the first and second heaven -- so then "Above the heavens" in that sense - it is actually in the 3rd heaven that Paul speaks of in 2 Cor 12.

Rev 2:7 says that tree of life is in Paradise.
Rev 22:1-3 says that the river of the water of life flows from the throne of God and the Lamb. No problem there.

I am glad you agree - but note that the tree of life is where the throne of God is in Rev 22. That puts it in Paradise - the third heaven.

 

[Jonaitis]

This is something I've been pondering for a while now. Assuming it actually exists, what role does the soul play in everyday life? The way I see it, we humans experience life through the activities of our bodies. We see with our eyes. We think with our brains, and so forth. I really am not sure what part the soul would have in that process.

What do you all think?

It depends on your definition of the soul.

If we mean 'awareness' or 'consciousness,' that is the sole reality of our existence. It is that in which all things appear to perception, sensation, and thought, without which, nothing would exist. In other words, the soul, in this sense, is a fraction of God's life-giving Spirit. We are connected to God through that. The eye that sees your experience is the eye of God; the ear that hears your experience is the ear of God; etc. All things are made of that, else it wouldn't be experienced in consciousness/awareness.

 

[TedT]

This is something I've been pondering for a while now. Assuming it actually exists, what role does the soul play in everyday life? The way I see it, we humans experience life through the activities of our bodies. We see with our eyes. We think with our brains, and so forth. I really am not sure what part the soul would have in that process.

What do you all think?

OR: the word soul only means that a spirit is embedded, (has been sown), into a body. The body is the interface the spirit uses to manage in a physical world. The spirit thinks, the brain does not think but only responds to the thinking of the indwelling spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

It depends on your definition of the soul.

And that depends on context where the term is used.

Genesis 2 - Man became a living soul - speaking of the whole being.

But Matt 10:28 "do not fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul"

 

[JAL]

OR: the word soul only means that a spirit is embedded, (has been sown), into a body. The body is the interface the spirit uses to manage in a physical world. The spirit thinks, the brain does not think but only responds to the thinking of the indwelling spirit.

I think this is a good response to the OP and is largely on the right track. But as I explained at post 108, the puzzle pieces don't fit if we stick to the theory of an immaterial mind/soul. For example, you say the brain responds to the soul - meaning an immaterial soul physically impacts the brain? How?

Conversely, a physically damaged brain harms (immaterial) thinking? How?

 

[Andrewn]

I guess you mean 1 Thess 4:13-18 and John 11:11-14

The literal application is only to the body. So it doesn't make sense to keep repeating these two passages. They don't help your case.

Since Matt 10:28 says the body is KILLED leaving only the soul to still exist and be the thing that is dormant. 28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This verse shows that the soul is different from the body. I guess we agree that they are connected during lifetime and the soul alone survives dissolution of the body after death. So, this particular verse does not help your case, either.

Eccl 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Yes, and when Stephen was dying by stoning, he said the following.

While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep (Acts 7:59,60).

From this episode, we find Stephen asking Jesus to receive his spirit when his body fell asleep or died. Obviously Stephen expected to be conscious with Jesus.

The Apostle Paul also expected to be conscious with Jesus after death:

Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8).

And of course Jesus said that without the resurrection those who have died are not the subjects of God, He can only be said to be "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" after they had died -- because of the future resurrection according to Christ - such that without it - the statement is not true. Matt 22:31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

This passage also shows that the dead are now conscious. It doesn't help your case.

In that case - you seem to agree that the dormant state of the soul does not "contradict the spirit of the gospel".

My point is that consciousness is a function of the spirit, which continues at home with the Lord. OTOH, you either do not distinguish the soul and the spirit or believe that the spirit is dormant as well.

But the spirit returns to God who gave it. Which means there is a resurrection in the future

Is it your belief that the soul is dormant in the grave and the spirit is dormant with God? Or do you believe that the soul and the spirit are the same?

and some people are to be taken up at the rapture (the future appearing of Christ, the destiny of the saints) while others come up in the second resurrection seen in Rev 20 and are subject to the "second death" in Rev 20.

We don't need to get into this controversial eschatology, do we?

Rev 22 tells us that God's throne is where the tree of life is.

No, it doesn't. Rev 22 tells us that the tree of life flows from God's throne. It doesn't say that God's throne is in the 3rd heaven. But, even if God's throne is in the 3rd heaven, still this does not help your case. You really don't have a case. If you had a biblical case it would mean that all Christians throughout all the centuries have been wrong!!

 

[Hawkins]

We think with our brains, and so forth.

If you assumed soul exists, our technology can hardly tell if our brain can function without our soul!

 

[TedT]

For example, you say the brain responds to the soul - meaning an immaterial soul physically impacts the brain? How?

Conversely, a physically damaged brain harms (immaterial) thinking? How?

I remember a cartoon from the fifties in which aliens visited the earth and came to the conclusion that cars were the predominant life form and humans were just parasites...and had nothing to do with the activities of the cars.

I know there are whole denominations of Christians who don't believe humans are a spirit at all but I don't agree, often citing Matthew 13:36-39 as my reason. Neither does the fact that I do not yet know how the spirit interacts with the body prove that there is no spirit and we are just material. I accept the way Pierre Teilhard de Chardin put it: We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.

As for the damaged brain somehow harming the spirit's thinking, damage to the brain does not damage the spirit, that is, the spirit is thinking just fine but the body does not react to the spirit as it usually does, either by acting impaired or by the type of idiot savant enhanced intelligence.

 

[JAL]

As for the damaged brain somehow harming the spirit's thinking, damage to the brain does not damage the spirit, that is, the spirit is thinking just fine but the body does not react to the spirit as it usually does, either by acting impaired or by the type of idiot savant enhanced intelligence.

That's contrary to fact. Damage to the brain DOES damage the mind's ability to think. Which is perfectly consistent with a physical mind. Why is the church so in love with the immaterialism invented by the pagan philosopher Plato?

There is more than one way to "damage" the brain:
....(1) Alcohol/drugs
....(2) Alzheimer's and several other brain disorders:
....(3) Sleepiness. Try passing an exam if you are too sleepy, can't concentrate.

And yet you insist that in all these scenarios;

the spirit is thinking just fine

How does that make sense? The person who is taking the exam, for example, KNOWS he isn't "thinking just fine".

"Thinking just fine" means that in situations #1, #2, #3 above, the person interrogated knows the right answers. How then you can explain his inability, for example, to find his way home?