Sin, Soul, Death and Hell

When faced with such a delightful title, you just might be tempted to move on and read something of a more pleasant nature. However, I am not simply a morbid person obsessed with the dark side of life; rather it is my contention that these topics are ones that each of us must come to terms with sooner or later.

Speaking as a Christian, it is my view that each one of these subjects (sin, soul, death and hell) figure prominently in our understanding of the gospel. Disagreement and division persist however, over the doctrines and beliefs surrounding these terms. In fact, when it comes to how these terms are to be understood, there is no consensus or agreement within the church; instead, strong and sometimes contradictory denominational differences exist. My concern is that either through misunderstanding or the misuse of these subjects, a different gospel is preached.

So I wonder about the source(s) of disagreement and misunderstanding of these commonly held beliefs. Are there historical influences which resulted in those currently held doctrines and traditions? Are such commonly held beliefs Biblical in origin or borrowed from external, non-scriptural sources and then imposed or read into various scriptural passages? It is my personal belief that this has been the case…however each person must decide for them-self.

Often when there are differences in doctrinal views, support is sought from the writings of church fathers, and/or church tradition for the doctrine under discussion. While I do believe there is value in this approach, I also believe a certain amount of caution is necessary. Many of those referred to as church fathers came on the scene several hundred years after the establishment of the church. The context for their writing is sometimes quite different from that which was written and understood by those living in the first century, and first receiving the word.

Augustine of Hippo had a great deal to say on these topics and much of it seemed contrary to what had been taught and held to be true up until his time. But Saint Augustine (as he came to be called) and his writings had a huge influence on the church throughout the mid-evil period and onward to the present day. He is considered a “Church Father,” yet he did not come on the scene until after the church had already been established for over 300 years.

Augustine, Original Sin and Early Conflict:

This section highlights a few of Augustine’s views concerning grace and salvation which help to illustrate how those views directly conflicted with the early Christian church. These conflicts led to several major schisms which are still in the church today. The following points are taken from the article “Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin”: ⁽¹⁾

According to Augustine, human history is the spiritual battle being played out between the seeds of the woman and the seeds of the serpent. He taught that the Church is the direct opposite of all those in the world. In his view the church consists of Christians and those who may be waiting to become Christians through a mysterious rite of initiation. This view formed part of the basis for his peculiar ecclesiology and soteriology.

He played a huge role in changing church teachings on salvation, and theological doctrine that was directly contrary to the historical understanding and prevailing views. This he did by introducing and teaching his peculiar unbiblical views of ‘grace.’ He wrote of a grace that must be divided between those in possession of common or “sufficient grace” and those blessed with “efficacious grace,” by which he meant “the grace which works infallibly in the will of the “elect” to save them.”

Contrary to Augustine’s views However:

The Church had always proclaimed itself to be the refuge for “all” and NOT merely an elect “few.”

“Christ is the universal Savour: He represented the entire human race on the Cross and died for the sins of all, rising from the dead for all. “…that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

“God “wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4) for which reason saving grace is offered to all, a grace which excludes no person from the promises of the Messiah, the God-Man.” (emphasis added)

Augustine’s views on sin were also rather peculiar. Though he did not equate sin or moral evil directly with matter, he always had a certain disdain of the physical, not the least of which was sex. His first public mention of this idea seems to be during a debate with Pelagius. The following is quoted from the article, “Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin:”⁽¹⁾
“…the guilt of “original sin” comes through the sexual act during his debate with Pelagius. For Augustine, sex was evil, but tolerable within the married state, that is, marriage was instituted by God for purpose of restraining the concupiscence. “Faithful spouses use this evil well,” he once commented, “yet the offspring generated from this evil contract guilt.”

He later modified those remarks to say, “not that children coming from an evil action are evil, since, I do not argue that the purpose of begetting of children is evil. As a matter of fact, I assert that it is good, because marriage makes good use of evil lust, and through this good use, human beings, a good work of God, are produced.”

Then, to avoid the appearance of contradicting himself he added that the sexual act, “is not performed without evil, inasmuch as it is the means by which an evil, Adam’s guilt, is transmitted to those born of sexual generation and for which reason, incidentally, children are regenerated in Baptism.”

Augustine (in debating his detractors) used ideas from his own writings as well as phrases which he falsely attributed to early church fathers and which ultimately resulted in, “the Fathers, Greek and Latin, became advocates of “original sin” as well as “irresistible grace” and “predestination.”

Contrary to Augustine and several of his contemporaries, the early church did not have a doctrine of original sin and the eastern church has never adopted the concept. The idea of Original Sin first appeared in the 3rd Century.⁽¹⁾

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Bible does not explicitly state that humanity is born into or with original sin. Romans 5:12 is not a proof text for original sin but is more properly translated to indicate how death entered the world. Scripture does state that sin entered the world through one man (referring to the Fall of Man) and it was through that sin, death entered the world.⁽²⁾

 

 

Manicheism:

Augustine’s Manicheism has been mentioned several times so it is important to have some understanding of what that is and how it served to influence him and his writings. So, what exactly is Manicheism?

Manicheism was at one time referred to as a, “Religion of Light,” and is a dualistic religious system with Christian, Gnostic, and pagan elements. It was founded in Persia in the 3rd century by Manes (c. 216– c. 276). Supposedly the system was based on the primeval conflict between light and darkness. It spread widely in the Roman Empire and in Asia. Like all forms of gnosticism, Manichaeism taught that life in this world is unbearably painful and radically evil because of this conflict between light and darkness. In Manichaeism, inner illumination reveals that the soul, which it says shares in the nature of God, has fallen into the evil world of matter and must be saved by means of the spirit or intelligence.

Mani taught the soul of a righteous individual returns to “Paradise” upon dying. However, he taught that "the soul of the person who persisted in things of the flesh - such as fornication, procreation, possessions, cultivation, harvesting, eating of meat, drinking of wine – is condemned to a series of rebirths in a succession of bodies."

For more on “Manicheism,” see the footnotes in this essay ⁽³⁾

Christianity with a Twist of Gnosticism - A New Recipe?

As noted above, Manicheism is a sub-type of Gnosticism. So now let’s look a bit at Gnosticism and its’ impact on the church. Gnosticism is a philosophy that while very old is still very much alive today and Gnostic philosophy remains an invasive threat to the Christian church.

The following information was taken from, “Gnosticism and the human body” by David Koyzis:⁽⁴⁾

Gnostics believed and taught that salvation is attained through a higher knowledge that is unavailable to most people. Borrowing from the Greek philosopher Plato, they taught that redemption comes from nurturing the intellect while disparaging or belittling our material or bodily existence. They deemed the mind was superior to the body (which is seen as captive to the forces of decay and the messiness of ordinary existence). The Gnostics sought to free the mind from the prison of the body and managed to read this into Christian doctrine. In so doing, the survival of an immortal soul after death came to replace the biblical hope of bodily resurrection as well as a new heaven and new earth.

This Gnostic influence ultimately leads in one of two possible directions: asceticism⁽⁵⁾ or antinomianism.⁽⁶⁾

Ancient Greek view of “the soul,” Influences and Impacts on Christianity

On the subject of soul: It is not my intent to dismiss the existence of the soul but rather to question how one defines the soul and also to be mindful of the influence of classical Greek philosophy and Gnosticism on such views. Support for the following can be found in an article titled, “Ancient Theories of Soul:” ⁽⁷⁾

The Greek notion of soul (including the idea of it being that which animates the body) is evident as early as the sixth century. One question of note, that is tied up in its development, is whether a person's soul does indeed survive the person's death. In a dialogue between Plato and Socrates (set in the final hours of Socrates) the main theme was the idea that the soul is immortal and Socrates went on to discuss his view of the afterlife. In that conversation Socrates is said to have asked, “Haven't you realized that our soul is immortal and never destroyed?” After being challenged on his assertion, Socrates is then said to have responded that not only is the soul immortal, but also that it contemplates truths after its separation from the body at the time of death.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, just how much (if at all) did Plato’s theory/doctrine of soul influence Augustine in particular and much of Christianity in general? The following discussion points on Plato’s doctrine of the soul and its’ influence on Augustine, are taken from the following article, “Plato's Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul.” ⁽⁸⁾

Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul is one of his most influential ideas. It has been adopted, developed, and criticized by philosophers and theologians from late antiquity to the early modern period. No discussion on Plato's views of the immortality of the soul is complete without giving consideration to Augustine and his unparalleled influence on the later traditions of philosophy and Christian theology.

Augustine had already been heavily influenced by his long engagement with both Academic and Platonist thought prior to his conversion to catholic Christianity at the age of 32. For two years following his conversion, he was intensely interested in the problem of proving the soul’s immortality. This is evident in many of his writings. His attitude towards the notion of the immortality of the soul becomes more nuanced in his later work, but he never abandoned the view. Augustine’s works became the most significant conduit of influence for the spread of Plato and Platonism throughout western Europe in the Middle Ages and right on through to the modern period.

Athenagoras (Identified by some early historians as a native of Athens and a Platonist who converted to Christianity) reportedly said:
“the whole nature of human beings in general is constituted from an immortal soul and a body fitted together with it at birth, and God did not assign such a birth and life and whole span of existence to either the nature of the soul on its own (τῇ φύσει τῆς ψυχῆς καθ’ ἑαυτήν) nor to the body separately.” Here the Platonist insistence on the soul’s immortality is the starting assumption. It is then combined with the Aristotelian perspective that the human being is really the compound of soul and body together.

It is said that ultimately, “Augustine has darker reasons for insisting that the dead have bodies: he takes punishments in hell to involve real, bodily pain, as well as psychic anguish, rejecting the view that the fires of hell are a metaphorical representation of torments applying to soul alone (XXI.9).”

The Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body

In his PhD Dissertation at Princeton University titled, “Plato's Doctrine of the Imortality of the Soul,”⁽⁸⁾ Thomas Marshall Miller wrote:
“The immortality of the soul is not a prominent idea in the Christian scriptural canon.” It is only referred to in late deuterocanonical or non-canonical passages, in a few ancient Hebrew writings, whose authors were clearly influenced by Greek philosophy.

The clearest references to life beyond death involve implied punishments and rewards for moral behaviour. This is the case within the context of some parables. Many texts, however, suggest that the punishment of a wicked soul will be its total annihilation.

In Paul’s writings we read in some detail about a particular Christian vision of the afterlife, i.e. “the resurrection of the dead.” Paul contrasts the body we have now with the body which we will obtain in the resurrection. He wrote, “For this corruptible [body] must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal [body] must put on immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:52-53). This is the only passage that mentions “immortality”in the New Testament (except for 1 Timothy 6:16, where immortality is restricted to God).

From an early Christian perspective, it would be wrong to conclude that the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body were seen as mutually exclusive or incompatible ideas. Many ancient Christian thinkers writing on the resurrection viewed immortality of the soul as an idea to be adopted, with certain modifications. The Platonist doctrine was useful for guaranteeing the survival of the individual in the period between death and the bestowal by God of the new spiritual body, thus adding a credible philosophical underpinning to what is essentially a miraculous belief. (As if such ideas are needed to guarantee or add credibility to the promises of our God)

In 1 Corinthians, Paul presents (possibly in opposition to Platonists) a way of conceiving of a postmortem existence which does not depend on the survival of the soul; one in which the body is in some sense cast in a positive light. Platonists, influenced by the denigration of embodied existence, viewed Paul’s idea as absurd.

The earliest Biblical uses and understandings of “soul” ⁽⁹⁾

“Clearly, then, in the Old Testament a mortal is a living soul rather than having a soul. Instead of splitting a person into two or three parts, Hebrew thought sees a unified being, but one that is profoundly complex, a psychophysical being.”

The word often translated as “soul” is “nepes” and it usually simply means or designates life. Nepes is reported to appear 755 times in the Old Testament. The King James Translation uses forty-two different English terms to translate it. The two most common renderings are "soul" (428 times) and "life" (117 times). However, in the Old Testament nepes is never the "immortal soul" but simply the life principle or living being.

In the New Testament, the Greek counterpart to the Hebrew “nepes” is psyche [yuchv] which has a very similar meaning to nepes and frequently simply meaning “life.” Compared to nepes in the Old Testament, psyche appears relatively infrequently in the New Testament. The Pauline Epistles concentrate more on soma (body) and pneuma (spirit) than psyche.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’d like to end this writing with two quotes from two different sources. This first quote is from:
“Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 16.”

“We’ve been trained to think that the history of Christianity is the true context of the Bible

We talk a lot about interpreting the Bible in context, but Christian history is not the context of the biblical writers. The proper context for interpreting the Bible is not Augustine or any other church father. It is not the Catholic Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of late antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is not the Reformation or the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in any of its flavors. It is not the modern world at all, or any period of its history.

The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien to the biblical writers and, therefore, to the Bible. Yet there is a pervasive tendency in the believing Church to filter the Bible through creeds, confessions, and denominational preferences.

I’m not arguing that we should ignore our Christian forefathers. I’m simply saying that we should give their words and their thought the proper perspective and priority. Creeds serve a useful purpose. They distill important, albeit carefully selected, theological ideas. But they are not inspired. They are no substitute for the biblical text.

The biblical text was produced by men who lived in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean between the second millennium BC and the first century AD. To understand how biblical writers thought, we need to tap into the intellectual output of that world. A vast amount of that material is available to us, thanks to modern technology. As our understanding of the worldview of the biblical writers grows, so does our understanding of what they intended to say—and the mosaic of their thinking takes shape in our minds.”

The second quote is taken from: A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History and Political Science School of Graduate and Continuing Studies Olivet Nazarene University. This Thesis was written by Tammy Galvan-Barnett and dated August 2012. It was presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree: Master of Arts in Philosophy of Political Theory.

This quote is taken from the paper is titled, “Approaching Christianity: Exploring the Tragic Impact of Greek Philosophical Thought on Christian Thought,” by Tammy Galvan-Barnett.⁽¹¹⁾

In the introduction of her paper, the author begins her thesis with this illustration:

“Can you add just a little vomit to a glass of milk without spoiling it?”1 In the film,Alleged (2011), depicting the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, distinguished columnist H.L. Mencken presents this question to his young protégé, Charles Anderson. During this time, America was culturally divided. The trial represented the conflict surrounding the nation; it was the voice of the cultural war between the liberals and conservatives. After listening to the trial arguments one day, the two journalists engage in a discussion about ideas for young Anderson’s next article. Mencken insists that “evolution is progress” and that “no legislation should attempt to steal this hope from the people.” Frustrated and perplexed, Anderson replies: “Can’t you believe in both – evolution and religion?” At this point Mencken asks Anderson to consider if a  bit of vomit can be added to a glass of milk without spoiling it.

Now imagine the glass of milk is Christianity and the vomit is Greek dualism…”

And now quoting from page 57 and the conclusion of the article:

“This study clearly demonstrates the tragic impact of Greek philosophical thought on Christian thought; mixing these two very different modes of thought undermines a biblical approach to Christianity. Furthermore, creating a synthesis between Greek philosophy and Christianity taints both modes of thought. Remember the analogy about the glass of milk and the vomit from the introduction? Neither one is left in its pure form when you mix them together.

Greek dualism adulterates genuine Christian faith. In Platonic Christianity, believers place their spiritual life in a private sphere, separate from public life, rather than integrating their faith with all aspects of life. In this dualistic mindset, biblical faith is understood to be private; we divide God’s universe into two kingdoms; we devalue the physical world – ordinary life, the earth, and humanity; and we reduce the doctrine of salvation to a ticket out of hell and an escape from this evil world. Is this the point of Christ’s teachings in the New Testament – to devalue life on earth? Perhaps a more biblical view of salvation means that humans begin living, truly living in the sense that God meant, once they become believers. Why? Because the point of salvation is realizing the saving grace of Christ and once this happens we ought to begin viewing the world through the lens of Scripture, allowing Scripture to shape us and our worldviews.

As my study shows, the physical dichotomy in Greek dualism is not consistent with the teachings of Scripture. God created humans to live in the context of His creation. Christians need not seek to escape this world, but rather look forward to the renewal of all of creation. Furthermore, God desires for us to be part of his redemptive work on earth, to engage in life on earth, and to allow Him to transform our hearts and minds, to view our faith as something that penetrates every aspect of our lives.

Against Greek dualism, Scripture teaches that the physical world is not inherently evil, nor is it without value. To be sure, there is bad in the world, which stems from our rebellious hearts, but the world in and of itself is not bad. The account of creation in the Book of Genesis and God assuming human life affirms the goodness of the physical world and humanity. From this assessment, we find that the Greek worldview and the biblical worldview stand in antithesis to one another. Underlying Greek philosophical thought is dualism, a physical dichotomy; underlying Christian thought is the grand narrative of Scripture –Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Consummation.

Given the drastically different foundations of these two modes of thought, should believers, then, avoid studying classic Greek philosophy? Have we nothing to learn from philosophers such as Plato? On the contrary, escapism is only one aspect of Plato’s legacy, albeit the more influential part as far as the Church is concerned, but nevertheless it is only part. The other part of Plato’s legacy is scholarship. Now, lacking the light of Scripture, Plato’s purpose for constantly grappling and seeking to understand things more deeply was not to wrestle with troubling issues such as genocide, hunger, and environmental degradation. Cultivating the mind and controlling the body, according to Plato, attuned the soul to the Forms – the invisible realm.

Herein lies his error; Plato lacked the corrective lens of Scripture in which to view both the mind and the body and, ultimately, the world as a whole. I am suggesting that Christians allow Scripture to shape their minds and their hearts, their worldviews and their perspectives. Many believers, whether consciously or unconsciously, view Christianity through Greek eyes. For example, the vertical view of salvation which aims to escape this world is of Plato, not Scripture. The devaluation of physical things – the body, earth, etc. – stems from Platonism, not Scripture. Platonic Christianity distinguishes between sacred and secular realms of the cosmos. The authority behind Greek philosophy is knowledge (i.e. the mind, the intellect). The authority behind Christianity is Christ. Mixing Greek philosophy with Christianity distorts Christian faith.

My hope is that this study contributes to the conversation surrounding this topic. Christian theology is often incorrectly interpreted through Platonic metaphysics. I hope this thesis prompts readers to reflect upon their approach to Christianity. The way in which we view the world and faith shapes the way we live, the way we interact with God, man, and nature. My aim throughout this study has been to encourage readers to approach Christianity Biblically, seeking to live in the world but under the Word.”

As I’ve begun to study various doctrinal positions within the Christian church over the past few years, I’ve done so with a genuine desire to seek the truth relative to various teachings I’ve been exposed to throughout my lifetime. During this time I’ve come to accept that some things must remain a mystery for now, some things are not completely clear from the text and some things are very clear and knowable. One thing that is becoming very clear to me is that it is important to read the text within the context under which it was written – how both the writer and the original readers understood what was being conveyed.

Despite what denominational tradition you may have been raised in or how you’ve always been taught to understand various church doctrines, I believe it is important to look for solid scriptural support for the beliefs you hold. To this end, I can do no better than to point to the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who, “...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whethe⁽¹¹⁾r those things were so.”

____________________________

Notes for reference and further study:

⁽¹⁾ https://orthodox-christianity.com/2011/02/augustines-doctrine-of-original-sin/

“Augustine said that all Christians have “sufficient grace,” the grace by which our freedom is restored, the grace to “cooperate” (gratia cooperans) with God; the grace to choose between good and evil; but, yet, only certain individuals among the members of the Church will be saved according to the eternal and hidden decree of God. Thus, “sufficient grace,” “the grace of cooperation,” or even “prevenient grace” is not the grace by which we are elected. The “grace of perseverance” — the “irresistible” and “efficacious grace” — is the grace of salvation. Very simply, members of the Church, the saved and the damned are called and abandoned by God “according to His Purpose.” “Many” are called, but only a “few” are chosen.” (emphasis added)

“Augustine, like Plato and Plotinos, Mani and the Academics, proposed an “elitism”: salvation for the “few.” These “few” are saved unconditionally by the grace of God, which He has irresistibly imposed on them. The “few’ are “the sons of God” who gradually distance themselves from material things, things to which Adam’s sin has subjected them. By grace, the saved escape the bondage of the flesh.” (emphasis added)

Contrary to Augustine and several of his contemporaries, the early church did not have a doctrine of original sin and the eastern church has never adopted the concept. The idea of Original Sin first appeared in the 3rd Century. Early religious philosophers and writers had begun to develop the idea that sin is a natural state in an attempt to understand why men commit acts of evil. These early visionaries sought to explain humanity's need for God's divine grace and the church's influence. The reasonable explanation (they reasoned) was that humans were born with evil in their souls. Cyprian of Carthage, a 3rd-century leader of the Christian Church, supported the idea of Original Sin evident in his writings on infant baptism.

“Saint Augustine of Hippo, who lived from 354 to 430 CE, further developed the Doctrine of Original Sin. Saint Augustine took his influence from the Manichaeism and neo-Platonism belief that all living things had lost the knowledge of their true selves. Saint Augustine developed the belief that the Fall of Man corrupted the human soul so that they are no longer capable of choosing righteousness on their own. Saint Augustine Manicheism's doctrine was based in his view of Romans 5:12. His take on Original Sin would become the widely accepted viewpoint of Western Christianity.”

More on Original Sin: ⁽²⁾For a more in depth dive into Original Sin, Augustine’s views and the faulty translation of Romans 5:12, I would refer you to the video: Dr. Michael Heiser critiques the “church-age” long doctrine of Original Sin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3IkEyhp9FA&t=23s
Dr Heiser also mentions a number of links in that video all of which which can be found at this link: https://drmsh.com/romans-512/

⁽³⁾ Manicheism: (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Manichaeism)
“At its core, Manichaeism was a type of gnosticism—a dualistic religion that offered salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truths. Like all forms of gnosticism, Manichaeism taught that life in this world is unbearably painful and radically evil. In Manichaeism inner illumination reveals that the soul, which shares in the nature of God, has fallen into the evil world of matter and must be saved by means of the spirit or intelligence (nous). To know one’s self is to recover one’s true self, which was previously clouded by ignorance and lack of self-consciousness because of its mingling with the body and with matter. Thus, to know one’s self is to see one’s soul as sharing in the very nature of God and as coming from a transcendent world. Knowledge enables people to realize that, despite their abject present condition in the material world, they do not cease to remain united to the transcendent world by eternal and immanent bonds with it. Thus, knowledge is the only way to salvation…”

“…Whatever its details, the essential theme of this mythology remains constant: the soul is fallen, entangled with evil matter, and then liberated by the spirit or nous. The myth unfolds in three stages: a past period in which there was a separation of the two radically opposed substances—Spirit and Matter, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness; a middle period (corresponding to the present) during which the two substances are mixed; and a future period in which the original duality will be reestablished.”

⁽⁴⁾ https://www.christiancourier.ca/gnosticism-and-the-human-body/

⁽⁵⁾Asceticism is defined as “the practice of strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline : the condition, practice, or mode of life of an ascetic : rigorous abstention from self-indulgence.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/

⁽⁶⁾Antinomianism is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms, or is at least considered to do so. The term has both religious and secular meanings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism

“While asceticism called for fleeing from bodily pleasures, antinomianism took a different approach. If the body is of little importance compared to the soul, then, some reasoned, it matters not what we do with it. This led in some cases to drunkenness, gluttony and sexual promiscuity, against which the Apostle Paul wrote in his two letters to the church in Corinth…

…Remarkably, the notion that I can do with my body as I please is predicated on the very Gnostic dualism that plagued the early church. The real “me” is a transcendent ego that “uses” its body for its own desired purposes. The opposition between the ego and the body, coupled with the belief in the supremacy of the ego, produces a society in which everyone is thought to have absolute ownership over this biological dwelling he or she just happens to inhabit.

By contrast, a biblical worldview affirms, in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, that we are not our own but belong, in body and soul, in life and in death, to our faithful saviour Jesus Christ. Accordingly, we look forward to the day when we will be healed at last as whole persons in resurrected bodies.”

⁽⁷⁾ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/

The Greek notion of soul (including the idea of it being that which animates the body) is evident as early as the sixth century. As the notion of the soul developed from the Homeric poems onward, a question that is tied up in its development is whether a person's soul does indeed survive the person's death.

The Phaedo's Theory of Soul was written as a dialogue between Plato and Socrates on their philosophy concerning the soul and is set in the final hours of Socrates. A main theme in their dialogue is the idea that the soul is immortal and Socrates discusses his view of the afterlife. These views are offered to those participating in the discourse who, at the outset of the discussion, are by no means convinced of the idea.

Plato writes how Glaucon (one of the characters) is taken aback by Socrates' question, “Haven't you realized that our soul is immortal and never destroyed?” Glaucon is said to have expressed wonder and replied, “No, by god, I haven't. Are you really in a position to assert that?” Socrates is then said to have responded that not only is the soul immortal, but also that it contemplates truths after its separation from the body at the time of death.

For Plato, the argument that bears directly on his conception of the soul is the affinity argument which seeks to dispel the worry that the soul is destroyed by being dispersed.

The affinity argument forms a part of the doctrine of Platonic realism and is a form of ancient Greek mysticism. The affinity argument properly is the belief that the person is divided between “Perceptibles” and “Intelligibles.” According to this doctrine, the “Intelligible Being” includes the divine, whose nature it is to rule and to lead. The nature of the Intelligible Being is the idea that souls are intelligible but part-less (ie without parts) and imperishable.

“Framing the argument in the way he does Plato furnishes the conceptual framework needed for saying that body and soul differ in kind, the one being perceptible and perishable, the other being intelligible and exempt from destruction.”

The “Perceptible” is the part of the person that is unintelligible, material and perishable. It includes the physical body. The belief was that when the soul attends to perceptibles, it is negatively affected in such a way that its functioning is at least temporarily reduced or impaired (“dizzy, as if drunk”), whereas there is no such interference when it attends to intelligibles.

⁽⁸⁾ Thomas Marshall Miller, In his PhD Dissertation at Princeton University. “Plato's Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul:” - (http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01vx021h330)

From an early Christian perspective, it would be wrong to conclude that the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body were seen as mutually exclusive or incompatible ideas. Many ancient Christian thinkers writing on the resurrection viewed immortality of the soul as an idea to be adopted, with certain modifications. The Platonist doctrine was useful for guaranteeing the survival of the individual in the period between death and the bestowal by God of the new spiritual body, thus adding a credible philosophical underpinning to what is essentially a miraculous belief. (As if such ideas are needed to guarantee or add credibility to the promises of our God)

As an example of this early Christian strategy, consider the “De resurrectione” attributed to Athenagoras (Identified by some early historians as a native of Athens and a Platonist who converted to Christianity) a text in which knowledge of pagan Greek philosophy is deployed in order to give Christianity intellectual credibility.

An example of such a strategy (and used to explain the necessity of a bodily resurrection) was to argue that, “the whole nature of human beings in general is constituted from an immortal soul and a body fitted together with it at birth, and God did not assign such a birth and life and whole span of existence to either the nature of the soul on its own (τῇ φύσει τῆς ψυχῆς καθ’ ἑαυτήν) nor to the body separately.” Here the Platonist insistence on the soul’s immortality (as the starting assumption) is combined with the Aristotelian perspective that the human being is really the compound of soul and body together.

A similar picture emerges from the explicit confrontation between Platonist and Christian ideas about postmortem existence in Augustine’s later work, “De civitate dei.” in this work he asserts that “the human soul is truly held to be immortal,” in the sense that “it never ceases to live and feel in some way, however slight.” For Augustine, after death souls will receive one new body that will last for the rest of time.

“Augustine has darker reasons for insisting that the dead have bodies: he takes punishments in hell to involve real, bodily pain, as well as psychic anguish, rejecting the view that the fires of hell are a metaphorical representation of torments applying to soul alone (XXI.9).”

“The immortality of the soul is not a prominent idea in the Christian scriptural canon. In ancient Hebrew writings, it is referred to in only a very few passages in late deuterocanonical or non-canonical passages whose authors were clearly influenced by Greek philosophy (cf. Wisdom 2:23-3:4; 4 Maccabees 14:6, 18:23). The notion is not found at all in the New Testament,where the term ψυχή frequently means merely “life.” In the Gospels, statements about the afterlife in general are in fact neither particularly consistent nor particularly prominent. The clearest references to postmortem existence involve allusions to punishments and rewards for moral behaviour, often in the context of parables (e.g. Matthew 25:31-45, Luke 16:19-31). Many texts, however, suggest that the punishment of a wicked soul will be its total annihilation. And many of the more positive promises of Jesus (e.g. Luke 17:21: “the kingdom of god is within you”) can be read as applying to alleged future historical events in this world or even strictly to this life now.

It is only in the Pauline letters that we hear in some detail about a particular Christian vision of the afterlife, namely “the resurrection of the dead” (ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν). At 1 Corinthians 15:42-55, Paul contrasts a “psychic body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν), which we possess now, with a “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν), which we will obtain in the resurrection (15:44). “The dead,” he writes, “will be raised as incorruptible (ἄφθαρτοι), and we will be changed. For this corruptible [body] (τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο) must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal [body] must put on immortality” (15:52-53). This passage includes the only mentions of “immortality” (ἀθανασία) in the New Testament (except for 1 Timothy 6:16, where immortality is restricted to God). The ψυχή itself is not mentioned, and the “psychic body,” i.e. our earthly body shaped by and suited for the soul, is what will be replaced by the “spiritual body” (the precise nature of which is left obscure).”

(9) The earliest Biblical uses and understandings of “soul” are noted in: Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Soul (link:https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/soul/)

Soul [N] - “The Old Testament. The Hebrew word so rendered is nepes [v,p,n]. It appears 755 times in the Old Testament. The King James Version uses 42 different English terms to translate it. The two most common renderings are "soul" (428 times) and "life" (117 times)…” It is further noted that the term is to be understood in the context and usage of that particular time period rather than how that word may have come (over time) to be understood.

“Nepes ... in the Old Testament is never the "immortal soul" but simply the life principle or living being. Such is observable in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, where the qualified (living) nepes [v,p,n] refers to animals and is rendered "living creatures." The same Hebrew term is then applied to the creation of humankind in Genesis 2:7, where dust is vitalized by the breath of God and becomes a "living being." Thus, human being shares soul with the animals. It is the breath of God that makes the lifeless dust a "living being" — person.”

“Nepes [v,p,n] qualified by "dead" means a dead individual, a corpse ( Num 6:6 ). More significant here is that nepes [v,p,n] can mean the corpse of an individual even without the qualification "dead" ( Num 5:2 ; 6:11 ). Here nepes [v,p,n] is detached from the concept of life and refers to the corpse. Hebrew thought could not conceive of a disembodied nepes.”

“Clearly, then, in the Old Testament a mortal is a living soul rather than having a soul. Instead of splitting a person into two or three parts, Hebrew thought sees a unified being, but one that is profoundly complex, a psychophysical being.”

“The New Testament. The counterpart to nepes in the New Testament is psyche [yuchv] (nepes [v,p,n] is translated as psyche [yuchv] six hundred times in the Septaugint). Compared to nepes in the Old Testament, psyche [yuchv] appears relatively infrequently in the New Testament.... The Pauline Epistles concentrate more on soma [sw'ma] (body) and pneuma [pneu'ma] (spirit) than psyche [yuchv].”

“This word has a range of meanings similar to nepes. It frequently designates life: one can risk his life ( John 13:37 ; Acts 15:26 ; Rom 16:4 ; Php 2:30 ), give his life ( Matt 20:28 ), lay down his life ( John 10:15 John 10:17-18 ), forfeit his life ( Matt 16:26 ), hate his life ( Luke 14:26 ), and have his life demanded of him ( Luke 12:20 ).”

“The adjectival form "soulish" indicates a person governed by the sensuous nature with subjection to appetite and passion. Such a person is "natural/unspiritual" and cannot receive the gifts of God's Spirit because they make no sense to him ( 1 Cor 2:14-15 ). As in the Old Testament, the soul relates humans to the animal world ( 1 Cor 15:42-50 ) while it is the spirit of people that allows a dynamic relationship with God.”

“There are passages where psyche [yuchv] stands in contrast to the body, and there it seems to refer to an immortal part of man. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" ( Matt 10:28 ). While Scripture generally addresses humans as unitary beings, there are such passages that seem to allow divisibility within unity.”

The following points and information serve to help illustrate Augustine’s Dualist doctrine of soul and body. These points are taken from: “Augustine’s Philosophical Anthropology: Immortality of Human Soul in a Composite Soul-Body” ⁽¹⁰⁾ (https://cafn.us/2011/01/26/augustine%E2%80%99s-philosophical-anthropology-immortality-of-human-soul-in-a-composite-soul-body/)

“An individual human person is an essential body and soul composite. The soul apart from the body and vice-versa cannot be recognized as the whole man. The man has to have both the degenerative material body and the immortal soul together as a unity.”

“Augustine used the Platonic tradition as his philosophical framework to harmonize and shape the Christian philosophical anthropology that is compatible with the teachings of the Christian Scriptures.”

Frederick C. Copleston claims that Augustine used much of the Neo-Platonic ideas while formulating the Christian world and life view. Despite the fact that he had been a Platonist before his conversion to Christianity, his view on the soul seeks to reinterpret the Platonic and Neo-Platonic view of the immortality of the soul. For Augustine, the souls are created but immaterial substance (simultaneously created) that bears the image of God.

Note: Frederick Charles Copleston SJ CBE FBA was an English Roman Catholic Jesuit priest, philosopher, and historian of philosophy, best known for his influential multi-volume “A History of Philosophy.”

“Unlike Platonism, the anthropology of Neo-Platonism does not consider the soul as the principle of life. “Soul is related to Intellect in much the same way as Intellect is related to the “One.” As the One is virtually what Intellect is, so Intellect is comparable to what Soul is.” “Having said this, the soul transcends everything except the One, because everything emanates from the One. Therefore, the human is more like God.”

“Augustine reasons his arguments for the immortality of soul thusly:
Augustine argues that the soul must be a reality because of its capacity to reason. He holds that Truth exists in the soul and is inseparable from it and since Truth is immortal, the soul is immortal. Essentially, he applies “the Truth” to the soul and argues back to the truth again to imply the undividable correlation between soul and truth.”

“In other words, the soul is a rational being actualizing its essence into the material and corporeal body in order to be a fully human being. “Since the truth can only exist in an incorporeal substance that is alive, and is inseparably connected with it as with its subject, this incorporeal substance, i.e. the soul, must everlastingly live.” In view of the fact that only living substances can reason and the soul is living. Therefore, the soul must be necessarily an incorporeal substance in order to do reason. Thus, the soul is immortal.”

Augustine insists that if the truth is to be immortal, then he reasons, unquestionably on a Platonic basis, that the human soul must be immortal, since the truth can only exist in the incorporeal soul. Thus it is that the soul is superior and manipulates the body in order to have sensory experiences.

“Augustine writes that the soul is immortal because God created them and intended them to be immortal.” (A completely unscriptural view.) He believes it is the soul that bears the very image of God and therefore the soul is superior to the body. Also he argues that God created the soul as a “simple spiritual substance” that does not decompose and whatever does not decompose lives.

“After examining Augustine’s position on the immortality of the soul and the soul-body composite as a union, we can easily assume how much Greek Philosophy and individual philosophers had influenced his thought. The Platonic traditions and the Neo-Platonic thought can be easily traced in his writing, as sometimes he expressly declares and deliberates their thoughts into his works. His philosophical theology of original sin, free will, and the nature of human soul was very influenced by Neo-platonic.”

⁽¹¹⁾https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=hist_mapt