DialecticSkeptic
Junior
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2023
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 364
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 45
- Location
- Canada
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital status
- Married
- Politics
- Classical Liberal
An orthodox alternative would be one couched in scripture, not post-scriptural man-made doctrine(s).
Then I would point to a monist anthropology, which emphasizes a holistic understanding of human beings, arguing for the inseparability of the body and soul—man does not have a soul, man is a soul. The notion of an immaterial, immortal soul is "fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss" (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, s.v. "soul"; cf. Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology).
There are basically three forms: (1) non-reductive physicalism, (2) emergent monism, and (3) constitutional monism. I hold to the latter, being influenced by Lynne R. Baker, Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000). This view holds that human persons are constituted by their bodies without being identical with the bodies that constitute them (which is why you're still you with an imperishable resurrection body). For the biblical basis, see G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1962).
For example, I've already posted the fact there are no bodiless souls in scripture. Another example would be 1 Corinthians 15, which tells us we will be raised imperishable or incorruptible and immortal. This implies we are not immortal prior to that transformation. Furthermore, Jesus said the one who can destroy both body and soul (Gk. = psychen) in hell should be feared. This necessarily and inescapably implies the soul is not immortal; it can be killed or destroyed. Regardless of what tradition or anything else says, what scripture says is the soul is not an immaterial soul and it is not immortal. Therefore, anyone—Calvin, Berkouwer, tradition, you, me, Ricky, Lucy, Bert or Ernie, it does not matter—who says otherwise is contradicting scripture... the orthodox alternative.
This just tells me that you agree with me regarding an error Calvin made.
But I am curious about what is next, if anything. Or maybe you just wanted to know that there are Calvinists who can point to errors Calvin made.
Berkouwer is great. However, I hope my request for a comparative alternative is now clear to all.
It is not clear to me. I cannot discern how this request corresponds with your opening post. Did Calvin hold erroneous views? Sure, and I provided an example. But what is the relevance of having an alternative view? After all, Calvin's view is erroneous whether I have an alternative lined up or not.
I'm not asking for one theologian's opinion over another's. That would do nothing more than create a competition between fallacious appeals to authorities.
That does not follow. A claim or argument is fallacious in this sense only if someone asserts that P is true because an authority or expert said it is, and without any substantive evidence to support the claim. More importantly, not all appeals to authority are fallacious. If I appeal to an authority who is an expert in a relevant field, accurately conveying their view with substantive evidence in a correct context (e.g., within the context and scope of their research and findings), then that is not fallacious.