Soul, Personhood, and Immortality: A Holistic Covenantal Anthropology

John Bauer · Aug 10, 2025

Disclaimer: This work is a personal theological synthesis and should not be understood as representing the formal doctrine of any church, denomination, confession, or theological tradition. While it engages and integrates ideas from multiple sources, it is offered solely as my own constructive articulation.

Soul, Personhood, and Immortality: A Holistic Covenantal Anthropology

This model stands in continuity with the Hebraic “whole person” anthropology of scripture. In the Old Testament, nephesh (“soul”) and in the New Testament, psyche, refer not to a separable, immaterial component but to the whole living person in relation to God. Human beings are portrayed as embodied creatures whose life depends entirely on God’s sustaining breath (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:29). The biblical hope is resurrection in a renewed creation, not the persistence of an immortal essence apart from the body.

In this holistic covenantal anthropology, the Hebraic whole-person view is developed systematically through the integration of Lynne R. Baker’s constitution view, Herman Dooyeweerd’s concept of the enkaptic structural whole, G. C. Berkouwer’s covenantal anthropology, Anthony Hoekema’s psychosomatic unity, J. Richard Middleton’s eschatological telos of the imago Dei, and Edward Fudge’s doctrine of conditional immortality. This synthesis preserves the holistic anthropology of scripture while grounding human identity, continuity, and destiny in God’s covenant faithfulness rather than in an inherent immortal substance.

Introduction

The soul is not a separable, immaterial substance distinct from the material body, a view that emerged from later theological developments influenced by Hellenistic categories. Biblically speaking, the soul is the person—the whole human person in covenantal relation to God. As a psychosomatic unity, the human soul is biologically constituted but defined theologically by vocational identity, covenantal accountability, and eschatological destiny. Scripture presents this holistic anthropology in terms of man being constituted as a covenant creature made in the image of God, thus man's self-consciousness is a covenant-consciousness.

And to be truly human is to be in Christ. Outside of him, personhood remains disoriented and broken—and terminal (as the wicked are said to perish entirely). Christ is not merely the solution to a fallen anthropology, he is its fulfillment, pattern, and telos from the beginning. He is not merely an exemplar of restored humanity; he is the eschatological archetype in whom true humanity is defined and reconstituted. Our glorification, then (Rom 8:30), is the full realization of personhood: perfected covenant consciousness, embodied in resurrection glory, fully restored to communion with God.

In this view—shaped by Baker, Berkouwer, Dooyeweerd, Hoekema, Middleton, and Fudge—the human person is a psychosomatic unity, a covenantal creature made in the image of God, constituted biologically but defined theologically by vocation, covenantal accountability, and eschatological destiny. True selfhood is not reducible to physical processes nor identifiable with an immaterial substance, but is centered in the religious heart—man's supra-modal direction before God. Personhood is historically embedded, narratively shaped, and eschatologically oriented toward resurrection life in union with Christ.

Anthropological Structure — What We Are:

Psychosomatic Unity (Hoekema)
- From Anthony Hoekema comes the valuable affirmation of psychosomatic unity—that man is an integrated whole of body and soul, without dualistic partitioning.
- In relation to the intermediate state, this view does not affirm conscious disembodied existence as a necessity for continuity, but rather sees the person as preserved in covenant by the faithfulness of God, awaiting resurrection.
- Continuity is grounded in divine faithfulness, not metaphysical survival.
Personhood as Constitution (Baker)
- Following Lynne R. Baker, this view affirms that persons are constituted by, but not identical with, their bodies.
- First-person perspective is seen not as autonomous self-awareness, but as covenantal self-consciousness: the creature's capacity to know, trust, and obey God.
- Baker's insight, that personhood is not reducible to biology, is preserved while her secular framing is theologically reinterpreted.

Anthropological Orientation — Our Relation to God:

Man Before God (Berkouwer)
- From G. C. Berkouwer comes the insistence that anthropology must be relational and covenantal, not metaphysical or speculative.
- Terms like soul or spirit are treated as relational descriptors, not metaphysical parts.
- The person is not a sum of components but stands as a whole in covenant before God.
Religious Heart as Center (Dooyeweerd)
- Drawing from Herman Dooyeweerd, the person's true identity lies in the heart—the religious center that transcends all modal functions.
- The soul is not a substance nor an aspect, but the directionally oriented center of human life, grounded in the law-order of God.
- Human dignity is rooted in the heart's relation to God, not in rational or psychological functions.

Anthropological Destiny — Our Eschatological End:

Creational and Eschatological Embodiment (Middleton)
- J. Richard Middleton's emphasis on creational embodiment and resurrection hope is also key.
- The human person is not meant to escape the body but to be glorified in the body, ruling and reflecting God in the new creation. Salvation is not soul-flight but the restoration of whole persons in a renewed creation.
- The imago Dei is not a static attribute but a dynamic calling: To reflect God’s rule in creation, to live in communion with God, and to represent him as a vice-regent.
Conditional Immortality (Fudge)
- Informed by Edward W. Fudge, this view emphasizes that immortality is a salvific gift granted only to believers, wherein Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. Man is not inherently immortal; God alone possesses immortality (1 Tim 6:16).
- Those who remain spiritually separated from God will, in the end, be metaphysically separated from him. The human being subsists in metaphysical dependence on God, the self-existent and only source of all being. In the final judgment, the wicked are utterly cut off; that dependence is severed, and with it their very being.
- This flows from Hoekema's psychosomatic unity, Baker's constitution view, Berkouwer's covenantal anthropology, the religious heart in Dooyeweerd's anthropology, and the glorification telos in Middleton’s theology of the imago Dei, such that the image of God is consummated in the fullness of resurrection life, Christocentric perfection, and eternal communion with God. In the eschaton, God will be all in all; those cut off from him perish entirely. Only in spiritual union with Christ is metaphysical union fully realized in glorification.

More on Dooyeweerd

Dooyeweerd sees the human being as an "enkaptic structural whole," meaning a complex unity with multiple irreducible aspects. The term "enkaptic" comes from the Greek "enkapsis," which Dooyeweerd uses to describe a special kind of relationship between different individuality structures that are bound together in a meaningful whole without losing their distinct identities or characteristics—differing structures, interlaced or interwoven, forming a complex unity, while each structure retains its own internal integrity and unique character.

In Dooyeweerd’s philosophy, an enkaptic structural whole is not a simple part-whole relationship. Instead—and here it coincides with Baker's constitution view—the different individuality structures in the whole are “restrictively bound” together, meaning one depends on the other in some way for its meaning or existence, but without destroying the peculiar character of either structure. For example:

A statue (an aesthetic individuality structure) is enkaptically bound to the marble (a physical individuality structure) from which it is formed. This illustrates Dooyeweerd’s enkaptic structural whole—and, in Baker’s terms, a constitution relation, which is one kind of enkaptic relation. The marble and the statue are so enkaptically bound as to constitute a singular whole; this enkaptic constitution means the marble remains marble even though it constitutes (is part of) the statue, while the statue as a whole is more than just the marble because the sculptor has given it form and meaning, making it the kind of thing it is.
In the same way, the human person (a covenantal–vocational individuality structure) is so enkaptically bound to the body (a physical–biological individuality structure) as to constitute a singular whole, a psychosomatic unity. The body remains a body even though it constitutes the person, while the person as a whole is more than just the body because God has endowed it with a first-person perspective (Baker), a covenantal identity and accountability before him (Berkouwer), an oriented religious heart (Dooyeweerd), and a destiny unto glorification in Christ (Middleton). This enkaptic constitution, defined covenantally, means that life endures only within the bond sustained by the self-existent God (Hoekema), and apart from that bond it ceases altogether (Fudge).

When Dooyeweerd calls the human being an "enkaptic structural whole," he means that a human is a complex unity composed of multiple irreducible individuality structures (such as biological, psychological, cultural, and spiritual aspects) woven together in such a way that each aspect remains distinct yet intrinsically connected to the others in the person’s existence. This avoids reductive dualism or mechanistic reduction, showing the deep interconnectedness of body, soul, and spirit, as well as the multifaceted dimensions of human experience that operate simultaneously and meaningfully.

In summary:

Enkaptic = interwoven, interlaced binding of diverse individuality structures in a whole.
The whole and its parts retain distinct identities and internal principles.
The relation is one of constitutive interdependence, in which each structure contributes to the meaningful unity of the whole while retaining its own integrity and distinctive properties.
Human beings, for Dooyeweerd, are enkaptic wholes made up of many irreducible but integrated modal aspects.

This concept is important for understanding his philosophical anthropology and broader metaphysics, giving a holistic and integrated picture of reality grounded in his modal theory and the sovereignty of God over all aspects of existence.

Addendum

Immortality is covenantal continuity, not ontological continuity. Out of the preceding integrated framework flows the idea that human beings don't inherently possess immortality by virtue of an enduring ontological essence. Life is sustained only within a covenantal bond with the self-existent God, and apart from that bond it ceases altogether.

makesends · Aug 11, 2025

John Bauer said:
Disclaimer: This work is a personal theological synthesis and should not be understood as representing the formal doctrine of any church, denomination, confession, or theological tradition. While it engages and integrates ideas from multiple sources, it is offered solely as my own constructive articulation.

I'm not sure what you are articulating, here —your own view as a result of, or expressed as, a synthesis of the several views you describe? Or, rather, just a "book report" style short description of each view? I'm not sure I see a final description/ conclusion.

John Bauer said:
Soul, Personhood, and Immortality: A Holistic Covenantal Anthropology
This model stands in continuity with the Hebraic “whole person” anthropology of scripture. In the Old Testament, nephesh (“soul”) and in the New Testament, psyche, refer not to a separable, immaterial component but to the whole living person in relation to God. Human beings are portrayed as embodied creatures whose life depends entirely on God’s sustaining breath (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:29). The biblical hope is resurrection in a renewed creation, not the persistence of an immortal essence apart from the body.

In this holistic covenantal anthropology, the Hebraic whole-person view is developed systematically through the integration of Lynne R. Baker’s constitution view, Herman Dooyeweerd’s concept of the enkaptic structural whole, G. C. Berkouwer’s covenantal anthropology, Anthony Hoekema’s psychosomatic unity, J. Richard Middleton’s eschatological telos of the imago Dei, and Edward Fudge’s doctrine of conditional immortality. This synthesis preserves the holistic anthropology of scripture while grounding human identity, continuity, and destiny in God’s covenant faithfulness rather than in an inherent immortal substance.

Introduction
The soul is not a separable, immaterial substance distinct from the material body, a view that emerged from later theological developments influenced by Hellenistic categories. Biblically speaking, the soul is the person—the whole human person in covenantal relation to God. As a psychosomatic unity, the human soul is biologically constituted but defined theologically by vocational identity, covenantal accountability, and eschatological destiny. Scripture presents this holistic anthropology in terms of man being constituted as a covenant creature made in the image of God, thus man's self-consciousness is a covenant-consciousness.

And to be truly human is to be in Christ. Outside of him, personhood remains disoriented and broken—and terminal (as the wicked are said to perish entirely). Christ is not merely the solution to a fallen anthropology, he is its fulfillment, pattern, and telos from the beginning. He is not merely an exemplar of restored humanity; he is the eschatological archetype in whom true humanity is defined and reconstituted. Our glorification, then (Rom 8:30), is the full realization of personhood: perfected covenant consciousness, embodied in resurrection glory, fully restored to communion with God.

In this view—shaped by Baker, Berkouwer, Dooyeweerd, Hoekema, Middleton, and Fudge—the human person is a psychosomatic unity, a covenantal creature made in the image of God, constituted biologically but defined theologically by vocation, covenantal accountability, and eschatological destiny. True selfhood is not reducible to physical processes nor identifiable with an immaterial substance, but is centered in the religious heart—man's supra-modal direction before God. Personhood is historically embedded, narratively shaped, and eschatologically oriented toward resurrection life in union with Christ.

Anthropological Structure — What We Are:

Psychosomatic Unity (Hoekema)

From Anthony Hoekema comes the valuable affirmation of psychosomatic unity—that man is an integrated whole of body and soul, without dualistic partitioning.

In relation to the intermediate state, this view does not affirm conscious disembodied existence as a necessity for continuity, but rather sees the person as preserved in covenant by the faithfulness of God, awaiting resurrection.

Continuity is grounded in divine faithfulness, not metaphysical survival.

Personhood as Constitution (Baker)

Following Lynne R. Baker, this view affirms that persons are constituted by, but not identical with, their bodies.

First-person perspective is seen not as autonomous self-awareness, but as covenantal self-consciousness: the creature's capacity to know, trust, and obey God.

Baker's insight, that personhood is not reducible to biology, is preserved while her secular framing is theologically reinterpreted.

Anthropological Orientation — Our Relation to God:

Man Before God (Berkouwer)

From G. C. Berkouwer comes the insistence that anthropology must be relational and covenantal, not metaphysical or speculative.

Terms like soul or spirit are treated as relational descriptors, not metaphysical parts.

The person is not a sum of components but stands as a whole in covenant before God.

Religious Heart as Center (Dooyeweerd)

Drawing from Herman Dooyeweerd, the person's true identity lies in the heart—the religious center that transcends all modal functions.

Several places throughout, I'm not sure of what is being said, because of certain terms lacking explanation —for example, Dooyeweerd's use of the term, "law-order of God." I can only guess he means something like what we might call, God's say-so, or God's Decree. But I understand it is necessary to keep it brief.

John Bauer said:
The soul is not a substance nor an aspect, but the directionally oriented center of human life, grounded in the law-order of God.

Human dignity is rooted in the heart's relation to God, not in rational or psychological functions.

So much of this rings true with me, above and below this comment, philosophically consistent with the fact of God being the very source and sustenance of existence, and theologically consistent with God's utter sovereignty and the power or drive of his purpose in creating. You've probably heard me say that the best self-esteem comes from knowing that I am only ever whatever God's purpose is for me, and what he sees 'as me'.

John Bauer said:
Anthropological Destiny — Our Eschatological End:

Creational and Eschatological Embodiment (Middleton)

J. Richard Middleton's emphasis on creational embodiment and resurrection hope is also key.

The human person is not meant to escape the body but to be glorified in the body, ruling and reflecting God in the new creation. Salvation is not soul-flight but the restoration of whole persons in a renewed creation.

The imago Dei is not a static attribute but a dynamic calling: To reflect God’s rule in creation, to live in communion with God, and to represent him as a vice-regent.

Conditional Immortality (Fudge)

Informed by Edward W. Fudge, this view emphasizes that immortality is a salvific gift granted only to believers, wherein Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. Man is not inherently immortal; God alone possesses immortality (1 Tim 6:16).

Those who remain spiritually separated from God will, in the end, be metaphysically separated from him. The human being subsists in metaphysical dependence on God, the self-existent and only source of all being. In the final judgment, the wicked are utterly cut off; that dependence is severed, and with it their very being.

This flows from Hoekema's psychosomatic unity, Baker's constitution view, Berkouwer's covenantal anthropology, the religious heart in Dooyeweerd's anthropology, and the glorification telos in Middleton’s theology of the imago Dei, such that the image of God is consummated in the fullness of resurrection life, Christocentric perfection, and eternal communion with God. In the eschaton, God will be all in all; those cut off from him perish entirely. Only in spiritual union with Christ is metaphysical union fully realized in glorification.

More on Dooyeweerd
Dooyeweerd sees the human being as an "enkaptic structural whole," meaning a complex unity with multiple irreducible aspects. The term "enkaptic" comes from the Greek "enkapsis," which Dooyeweerd uses to describe a special kind of relationship between different individuality structures that are bound together in a meaningful whole without losing their distinct identities or characteristics—differing structures, interlaced or interwoven, forming a complex unity, while each structure retains its own internal integrity and unique character.

In Dooyeweerd’s philosophy, an enkaptic structural whole is not a simple part-whole relationship. Instead—and here it coincides with Baker's constitution view—the different individuality structures in the whole are “restrictively bound” together, meaning one depends on the other in some way for its meaning or existence, but without destroying the peculiar character of either structure. For example:

A statue (an aesthetic individuality structure) is enkaptically bound to the marble (a physical individuality structure) from which it is formed. This illustrates Dooyeweerd’s enkaptic structural whole—and, in Baker’s terms, a constitution relation, which is one kind of enkaptic relation. The marble and the statue are so enkaptically bound as to constitute a singular whole; this enkaptic constitution means the marble remains marble even though it constitutes (is part of) the statue, while the statue as a whole is more than just the marble because the sculptor has given it form and meaning, making it the kind of thing it is.

In the same way, the human person (a covenantal–vocational individuality structure) is so enkaptically bound to the body (a physical–biological individuality structure) as to constitute a singular whole, a psychosomatic unity. The body remains a body even though it constitutes the person, while the person as a whole is more than just the body because God has endowed it with a first-person perspective (Baker), a covenantal identity and accountability before him (Berkouwer), an oriented religious heart (Dooyeweerd), and a destiny unto glorification in Christ (Middleton). This enkaptic constitution, defined covenantally, means that life endures only within the bond sustained by the self-existent God (Hoekema), and apart from that bond it ceases altogether (Fudge).

When Dooyeweerd calls the human being an "enkaptic structural whole," he means that a human is a complex unity composed of multiple irreducible individuality structures (such as biological, psychological, cultural, and spiritual aspects) woven together in such a way that each aspect remains distinct yet intrinsically connected to the others in the person’s existence. This avoids reductive dualism or mechanistic reduction, showing the deep interconnectedness of body, soul, and spirit, as well as the multifaceted dimensions of human experience that operate simultaneously and meaningfully.

In summary:

Enkaptic = interwoven, interlaced binding of diverse individuality structures in a whole.

The whole and its parts retain distinct identities and internal principles.

The relation is one of constitutive interdependence, in which each structure contributes to the meaningful unity of the whole while retaining its own integrity and distinctive properties.

Human beings, for Dooyeweerd, are enkaptic wholes made up of many irreducible but integrated modal aspects.

This concept is important for understanding his philosophical anthropology and broader metaphysics, giving a holistic and integrated picture of reality grounded in his modal theory and the sovereignty of God over all aspects of existence.

Not that this at all denies what Scripture presents as a 'putting-off' of this body, which it calls this 'tent', and being clothed, but I mention it as a kind of antithesis for the sake of perspective.

John Bauer said:
Addendum
Immortality is covenantal continuity, not ontological continuity. Out of the preceding integrated framework flows the idea that human beings don't inherently possess immortality by virtue of an enduring ontological essence. Life is sustained only within a covenantal bond with the self-existent God, and apart from that bond it ceases altogether.

I think I completely agree with this, except that your conclusion seems to me to fall short of what you have so far presented as our very ontology being God's work (my words). It falls short in that you suppose the ceasing to be a necessary logical conclusion to God abandoning them altogether. I think that jumps a few logical steps.

And there, I don't mean to say that they continue to exist—not at all. I'm saying that the terminology you use is necessarily time-passage assuming, or assumes a necessary sequence of events / states. In this matter is touched the mystery of just what life is, and what death is (particularly the "second death"). What you describe as a ceasing, I find myself compelled to describe as mere fact. THAT is what they are. Already, but not yet.

This is partly why I think the what the Bible describes as what WE take to mean one suffers in hell for an infinite time, I prefer to think of as merely fact—intensity of experience, perhaps. Neither with beginning nor with ending, but simply, what it is to be abandoned by God.

And conversely, what we are when glorified. In this sense, I say, neither the born-again, nor the reprobate, are yet complete persons. One way I think of it is that we will be utterly changed, and they will be utterly abandoned. That is who God created.

Forgive my inability to be clear. Ha! and yes, in part because it is not a complete thought.

John Bauer · Aug 18, 2025

makesends said:
I'm not sure what you are articulating, here—your own ... synthesis of the several views you describe? Or, rather, just a "book report" style short description of each view?

The former, as I tried to state clearly in the disclaimer—"This work is a personal theological synthesis"—wherein "personal" meant my own.

And it should be evident in the post itself. For example, it is Baker's thesis that persons are constituted by, but not identical with, their bodies. Building on that, I said this first-person perspective is not an autonomous self-awareness but a covenantal self-consciousness, articulated as the creature's capacity to know, trust, and obey God. And I made sure to add, "Baker's insight, that personhood is not reducible to biology, is preserved while her secular framing is theologically reinterpreted" (emphasis added).

If I was sharing a kind of "book report" of these different views, I would have called it a theological overview, not a synthesis.

makesends said:
Several places throughout, I'm not sure of what is being said, because of certain terms lacking explanation —for example, Dooyeweerd's use of the term, "law-order of God." I can only guess he means something like what we might call God's say-so, or God's decree. But I understand it is necessary to keep it brief.

Indeed, the intent was to keep it brief and to the point, knowing that any clarifications that might be needed could be added later upon request.

Like this, here. What did Dooyeweerd mean by the term "law-order of God"? For him—and for me to a large extent—all of created reality is structured and ordered by God through his law. This "law-order" is not just moral law but the totality of laws governing every aspect of creation—physical, logical, ethical, juridical, and so forth. And he ties this not only to structure but also to direction. Structurally, creation is good and ordered under God's law. Directionally, the human heart—the religious center of existence—can either live in obedience (directed toward God) or in apostasy (directed toward idols).

Thus, the law-order of God sets the boundaries and meaning of human life but requires covenantal orientation of the heart to be lived rightly.

makesends said:
So much of this rings true with me, above and below this comment, philosophically consistent with the fact of God being the very source and sustenance of existence, and theologically consistent with God's utter sovereignty and the power or drive of his purpose in creating. You've probably heard me say that the best self-esteem comes from knowing that I am only ever whatever God's purpose is for me, and what he sees 'as me'.

Where would you offer some pushback? Anywhere? I put these ideas out there in order to subject them to biblical and theological scrutiny. (But it's fine if you have none to offer.)

makesends said:
I think I completely agree with this, except that your conclusion seems to me to fall short of what you have so far presented as our very ontology being God's work (my words). It falls short in that you suppose the ceasing to be a necessary logical conclusion to God abandoning them altogether. I think that jumps a few logical steps.

And there, I don't mean to say that they continue to exist—not at all. I'm saying that the terminology you use is necessarily time-passage assuming, or assumes a necessary sequence of events / states. In this matter is touched the mystery of just what life is, and what death is (particularly the "second death"). What you describe as a ceasing, I find myself compelled to describe as mere fact. That is what they are. Already, but not yet.

This is partly why I think the what the Bible describes as what we take to mean one suffers in hell for an infinite time, I prefer to think of as merely fact—intensity of experience, perhaps. Neither with beginning nor with ending, but simply, what it is to be abandoned by God.

And conversely, what we are when glorified. In this sense, I say, neither the born-again, nor the reprobate, are yet complete persons. One way I think of it is that we will be utterly changed, and they will be utterly abandoned. That is who God created.

Forgive my inability to be clear. Ha! and yes, in part because it is not a complete thought.

I am having a really hard time understanding what you're saying here. You say my view jumps a few logical steps—but where?

Maybe you misunderstand my view. I don't know. You wrote that I "suppose the ceasing to be a necessary logical conclusion to God abandoning them altogether." But in this view there is no sequence, moment, or intermediate step between (a) cut off metaphysically from God and (b) non-being. "In him we live and move and have our being," scripture says (Acts 17:28), so to be cut off metaphysically from God is immediate non-being. It is not eventual, not even a fractional second.

On the matter of temporal language ("the terminology you use is necessarily time-passage assuming"), this is where I'm really puzzled by your critique. Any human language we use is tensed. Even scripture itself is saturated with temporal categories from Genesis to Revelation, and God clearly deemed such language adequate for revealing eternal truth—not only in scripture but even in the divine Son becoming a temporal human being and using temporal language. So, to fault the use of temporal language seems misguided, perhaps even unfair.

makesends · Aug 18, 2025

John Bauer said:
The former, as I tried to state clearly in the disclaimer—"This work is a personal theological synthesis"—wherein "personal" meant my own.

And it should be evident in the post itself. For example, it is Baker's thesis that persons are constituted by, but not identical with, their bodies. Building on that, I said this first-person perspective is not an autonomous self-awareness but a covenantal self-consciousness, articulated as the creature's capacity to know, trust, and obey God. And I made sure to add, "Baker's insight, that personhood is not reducible to biology, is preserved while her secular framing is theologically reinterpreted" (emphasis added).

If I was sharing a kind of "book report" of these different views, I would have called it a theological overview, not a synthesis.

I understand that, but I'm saying that what little I found as your synthesis, in the end, was more of a sketch than a well-developed, or thorough, description of what you believe. But, no big deal: I understand the need to keep it brief.

John Bauer said:
Indeed, the intent was to keep it brief and to the point, knowing that any clarifications that might be needed could be added later upon request.

Like this, here. What did Dooyeweerd mean by the term "law-order of God"? For him—and for me to a large extent—all of created reality is structured and ordered by God through his law. This "law-order" is not just moral law but the totality of laws governing every aspect of creation—physical, logical, ethical, juridical, and so forth. And he ties this not only to structure but also to direction. Structurally, creation is good and ordered under God's law. Directionally, the human heart—the religious center of existence—can either live in obedience (directed toward God) or in apostasy (directed toward idols).

Thus, the law-order of God sets the boundaries and meaning of human life but requires covenantal orientation of the heart to be lived rightly.

Ok. Thanks for that explanation.

makesends said:
So much of this rings true with me, above and below this comment, philosophically consistent with the fact of God being the very source and sustenance of existence, and theologically consistent with God's utter sovereignty and the power or drive of his purpose in creating. You've probably heard me say that the best self-esteem comes from knowing that I am only ever whatever God's purpose is for me, and what he sees 'as me'.

John Bauer said:
Where would you offer some pushback? Anywhere? I put these ideas out there in order to subject them to biblical and theological scrutiny. (But it's fine if you have none to offer.)

makesends said:
I think I completely agree with this, except that your conclusion seems to me to fall short of what you have so far presented as our very ontology being God's work (my words). It falls short in that you suppose the ceasing to be a necessary logical conclusion to God abandoning them altogether. I think that jumps a few logical steps.

And there, I don't mean to say that they continue to exist—not at all. I'm saying that the terminology you use is necessarily time-passage assuming, or assumes a necessary sequence of events / states. In this matter is touched the mystery of just what life is, and what death is (particularly the "second death"). What you describe as a ceasing, I find myself compelled to describe as mere fact. That is what they are. Already, but not yet.

This is partly why I think the what the Bible describes as what we take to mean one suffers in hell for an infinite time, I prefer to think of as merely fact—intensity of experience, perhaps. Neither with beginning nor with ending, but simply, what it is to be abandoned by God.

And conversely, what we are when glorified. In this sense, I say, neither the born-again, nor the reprobate, are yet complete persons. One way I think of it is that we will be utterly changed, and they will be utterly abandoned. That is who God created.

John Bauer said:
I am having a really hard time understanding what you're saying here. You say my view jumps a few logical steps—but where?

Maybe you misunderstand my view. I don't know. You wrote that I "suppose the ceasing to be a necessary logical conclusion to God abandoning them altogether." But in this view there is no sequence, moment, or intermediate step between (a) cut off metaphysically from God and (b) non-being. "In him we live and move and have our being," scripture says (Acts 17:28), so to be cut off metaphysically from God is immediate non-being. It is not eventual, not even a fractional second.

On the matter of temporal language ("the terminology you use is necessarily time-passage assuming"), this is where I'm really puzzled by your critique. Any human language we use is tensed. Even scripture itself is saturated with temporal categories from Genesis to Revelation, and God clearly deemed such language adequate for revealing eternal truth—not only in scripture but even in the divine Son becoming a temporal human being and using temporal language. So, to fault the use of temporal language seems misguided, perhaps even unfair.

I admit that I most likely overstate my point in order to show the difference I'm trying to get across. And I happily admit that what happens in this temporal frame really does happen, and in sequence, (though I doubt that our view (that causal sequence is necessarily time sequence and vice versa) is valid). I can't say for sure where God's temporal references and God's use of our language to convey eternal truth is anthropomorphically done and where not.

The logical steps I think are being jumped have to do with the search for "what happens" as opposed to "who are they", or better, "who/what is God, and so what are the reprobate. The position of Annihilationism draws a conclusion that the reprobate "cease to exist", which to me necessarily implies that at some POINT IN TIME they stop existing. 1) Time being relative, I find that idea problematic. If valid, it seems to me, it would imply that it is only a point of view thing--from another position they are maybe still alive, from another long dead from the beginning? I don't know... I just don't think it is that simple to say, if time is a valid benchmark. 2) If, on the other hand, the reprobate are [at least clinically] not chosen for and not intended for salvation, to God they are only what they are, tools and otherwise, refuse. He does have that right, as owner of his creation. They never were more, except as whatever good God does by them. When he has removed himself, they are at the most wraiths. But to put it that way is misleading. I tend to think of it as THAT (whatever God had for them) is all they ever were, though we loved what we saw. What we saw was not what they are, to God, who is the ONLY one who knows the truth of who they are.

Thus, to me, I am left with no reference to time in what 'happens to them', but only the intensity of God's no-longer having anything to do with them. Admittedly, there are a lot of other things that I also tend to think are valid thoughts, that at least on the surface contradict some of that, and I have not developed any of it enough to sort that out. But Annihilationism (as I understand it) doesn't answer those questions for me either.

But I see I've wandered afield of the title of the OP, though that is where your post goes as a matter of course, though the title does not. The covenant of God concerns his own, and not the reprobate. I don't see where Annihilationism is a valid doctrine, though, if one must depend on a point at which all unbelievers are potentially elect, and then upon a 'later' point in which they are found to be reprobate, ok, if it gives them comfort to say they cease to be. Myself, I don't know what existence IS, well enough to say they cease to be.

Anyhow, thanks for listening.

Hobie · Aug 21, 2025

John Bauer said:
Disclaimer: This work is a personal theological synthesis and should not be understood as representing the formal doctrine of any church, denomination, confession, or theological tradition. While it engages and integrates ideas from multiple sources, it is offered solely as my own constructive articulation.

Soul, Personhood, and Immortality: A Holistic Covenantal Anthropology
This model stands in continuity with the Hebraic “whole person” anthropology of scripture. In the Old Testament, nephesh (“soul”) and in the New Testament, psyche, refer not to a separable, immaterial component but to the whole living person in relation to God. Human beings are portrayed as embodied creatures whose life depends entirely on God’s sustaining breath (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:29). The biblical hope is resurrection in a renewed creation, not the persistence of an immortal essence apart from the body.

In this holistic covenantal anthropology, the Hebraic whole-person view is developed systematically through the integration of Lynne R. Baker’s constitution view, Herman Dooyeweerd’s concept of the enkaptic structural whole, G. C. Berkouwer’s covenantal anthropology, Anthony Hoekema’s psychosomatic unity, J. Richard Middleton’s eschatological telos of the imago Dei, and Edward Fudge’s doctrine of conditional immortality. This synthesis preserves the holistic anthropology of scripture while grounding human identity, continuity, and destiny in God’s covenant faithfulness rather than in an inherent immortal substance.

Introduction
The soul is not a separable, immaterial substance distinct from the material body, a view that emerged from later theological developments influenced by Hellenistic categories. Biblically speaking, the soul is the person—the whole human person in covenantal relation to God. As a psychosomatic unity, the human soul is biologically constituted but defined theologically by vocational identity, covenantal accountability, and eschatological destiny. Scripture presents this holistic anthropology in terms of man being constituted as a covenant creature made in the image of God, thus man's self-consciousness is a covenant-consciousness....

Addendum
Immortality is covenantal continuity, not ontological continuity. Out of the preceding integrated framework flows the idea that human beings don't inherently possess immortality by virtue of an enduring ontological essence. Life is sustained only within a covenantal bond with the self-existent God, and apart from that bond it ceases altogether.

If I may, what are your thoughts on how you see this of this study on the section on the soul...

Body, Soul, Spirit

Man, like all beings endowed with life, originated from two elements,—namely, from earthly material (עָפָר, אֲדָמָה), and from the Divine Spirit (רוּחַ), Gen. 2:7, comp. Ps. 104:29 f., 146:4. As in general נֶפֶשׁ, soul, originates in the בָּשָׂר, the flesh, by the union of spirit with matter, so in particular the human soul arises in the human body by the breathing of the divine breath (נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים) into the material frame of the human body. But although the life-spring of the רוּחַ, from which the soul arises, is common to man and beast, both do not originate from it in the same way. The souls of animals arise, like plants from the earth, as a consequence of the divine word of power, Gen. 1:24 (תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ). Thus the creating spirit which entered in the beginning, 1:2, into matter, rules in them; their connection with the divine spring of life is through the medium of the common terrestrial creation. But the human soul does not spring from the earth; it is created by a special act of divine inbreathing; see 2:7 in connection with 1:26. The human body was formed from the earth before the soul; in it, therefore, those powers operate which are inherent to matter apart from the soul (a proposition which is of great importance, as Delitzsch rightly remarks). But the human body is still not an animated body; the powers existing in the material frame are not yet comprehended into a unity of life; the breath of life is communicated to this frame directly from God, and so the living man originates. According to the view of many, the specific difference between the life of the human soul and that of animals is expressed by the use of the term נְשָׁמָה in 2:7 (2). This, however, cannot be established, for in 7:22 ("All in whose nostrils was the breath of life died"), the exclusive reference of the expression נְשָׁמָה to man (as merely another expression for כֹּל הָאָדָם, ver. 21), coming between the general terms comprehending man and beast, which stand both before and after it, is not natural. In Deut. 20:16, Josh. 10:40, 11:11–14, כָּל־נְשָׁמָה denotes only men; but in these passages the special reference of the expression is made clear by the connection,—in the passage in Deuteronomy by ver. 18, and in the book of Joshua because from 8:2 onward the cattle are excepted from the חֵרֶם. Otherwise one might as well prove from Josh. 11:11, where כָּל־הַנֶּפֶשׁ is used exclusively of man, that the human soul alone is called נֶפֶשׁ. But it is correct that in the other places in the Old Testament in which נְשָׁמָה occurs it is never expressly used of the mere animal principle of life; p 150 comp. Isa. 42:5, Prov. 20:27, Job 32:8, and Ps. 150:6 (כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָה). Thus the substance of the human soul is the divine spirit of life uniting itself with matter; the spirit is not merely the cause by reason of which the נֶפֶש contained beforehand in the body becomes living, as Gen. 2:7 has by some been understood (3). For in the עָפָר as such, in the structure of dust, there is, according to the Old Testament, as yet no נֶפֶשׁ, even latently. This is first in the בָּשָׂר, in the flesh; but the earthly materials do not become flesh until the רוּחַ has become united with it, 6:17, 7:15, Job 12:10, 34:14 f. It is no proof against this (as has further been objected) that in some passages (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6), the dead body from which, according to Gen. 35:18, the soul has departed, is called נֶפֶשׁ מֵת before it crumbles to dust. I believe this expression is to be understood as a euphemistic metonymy, just as we speak of a dead person without meaning to say that the personality lies in the body; or perhaps in this designation of a dead person the impression is expressed which the corpse makes immediately after death, as if the element of the soul had not yet entirely separated itself (thus Delitzsch) (4). But as the soul sprang from the spirit, the רוּחַ, and contains the substance of the spirit as the basis of its existence, the soul exists and lives also only by the power of the רוּחַ; in order to live, the soul which is called into existence must remain in connection with the source of its life. "God's spirit made me" (רוּחַ אֵל עָשָׂ֑תְנִי), says Job. 33:4, "and the breath of the Almighty animates me" (וְנִשְׁמַת שַׁדַּי תְחַיֵנִי, with the imperfect). The first sentence expresses the way in which the human soul is called into being; the second, the continuing condition of its subsistence. By the withdrawing of the רוּחַ the soul becomes wearied and weak, till at last in death it becomes a shadow, and enters the kingdom of the dead (comp. § 78); while by the רוּחַ streaming in, it receives vital energy. With this explanation the Old Testament usage in connection with the terms נֶפֶשׁ and רוּחַ becomes intelligible. In the soul, which sprang from the spirit, and exists continually through it, lies the individuality,—in the case of man his personality, his self, his ego; because man is not רוּחַ, but has it—he is soul. Hence only נַפְשִׁי, נַפְשְׁךָ, can stand for egomet ipse, tu ipse, etc., not רוּחִי, רוּחֲךָ, etc. (not so in Arabic); hence "soul" often stands for the whole person, Gen. 12:5, 17:14, Ezek. 18:4, etc. When man is exhausted by illness, his רוּחַ is corrupted within him, Job 17:1 (רוּחִי חֻבָּלָה), so that the soul still continues to vegetate wearily. When a person in a swoon comes to himself again, it is said his spirit returns to him, 1 Sam. 30:12 (וַתָּֽשָׁב נֶפֶשׁ) compared with Judg. 15:19. But when one dies, it is said the soul departs, Gen. 35:18; his soul is taken from him, 1 Kings 19:4, Jonah 4:3. When a dead person becomes alive again, is is said the soul returns again, 1 Kings 17:22 (וַתָּֽשָׁב נֶפֶשׁ). It is said of Jacob, whose sunken vital energy revived when he found his son again, that his spirit was quickened, Gen. 45:27 (וַתְּחִי רוּחַ). On the contrary, of one who is preserved in life it is said, חָיְתָה נֶפֶשׁ, [the soul lives] Jer. 38:17–20. When God rescues one from the jaws of death, it is said, Ps. 30:4, "Thou hast brought up my soul out of Sheol;" comp. Ps. 16:10 (5).—Man perceives and thinks by virtue of the spirit which animates him (Job 32:8; Prov. 20:27); wherefore it is said in 1 Kings 10:5, when the Queen of Sheba's comprehension was brought to a stand, that "there was no spirit in her more" (לֹא־הָיָה בָהּ עוֹד רוּחַ); but the p 151 perceiving and thinking subject itself is the נֶפֶש (comp. § 71). The impulse to act proceeds from the רוּחִ, Ex. 35:21; hence one who rules himself is a משֵׁל בְּרוּחוֹ, Prov. 16:32. But the acting subject is not the רוּחַ, but the נֶפֶשׁ; the soul is the subject which sins, Ezek. 18:4, etc. Love and attachment are of course a thing of the soul, Gen. 34:3 (וִתִּדְבַּק נַפְשׁוֹ) and ver. 8 (חָשְׁקָה נַפְשׁוֹ); and so in Cant. 5:6, the words of the beloved, נַפְשִׁי יָצְאָה, cannot be explained, "I was out of my senses" (as De Wette thinks), but the bride feels as if her very personality had gone forth from her to follow and seek her beloved. In many cases, indeed, נֶפֶשׁ and רוּחַ stand indifferently, according as the matter is looked upon—that is, to use Hofmann's words (Schriftbeweis, i. p. 296), according as "the personality is named after its special individual life, or after the living power which forms the condition of its special character." Thus it may be said on the one hand, "Why is thy spirit so stubborn?" (מַה־זֶּה רוּחֲךָ סָרָה), 1 Kings 21:5; on the other hand, "Why are thou so bowed down, O my soul?" (מַה־תּשְׁתּוחֲחִי נַפְשׁי), Ps. 42:12. Of impatience it may be said, "The soul is short" (וַתִּקְצַר נֶפֶשׁ), Num. 21:4, and "shortness of the spirit" (קֹצֶר רוּחַ), Ex. 6:9; compare Job 21:4. Trouble of heart is "bitterness of the spirit" (מֹרַת רוּחַ), Gen. 26:35; and of the soul (הֵמַר נַפְשִׁי), Job 27:2, it is said וַתּפָֽעֶם רוּחוֹ, Gen. 41:8, and נַפְשִׁי נִבְהֲלָה מְאֹד, Ps. 6:4. Compare with this in particular the climax in Isa. 26:9 (6). From all this it is clear that the Old Testament does not teach a trichotomy of the human being in the sense of body, soul, and spirit, as being originally three co-ordinate elements of man; rather the whole man is included in the בָּשָׂר and נֶפֶשׁ (body and soul), which spring from the union of the רוּחַ with matter, Ps. 84:3, Isa. 10:18; comp. Ps. 16:9. The רוּחַ forms in part the substance of the soul individualized in it, and in part, after the soul is established, the power and endowments which flow into it and can be withdrawn from it (7), (8)...Oehler, G. F., & Day, G. E. (1883). Theology of the Old Testament (pp. 149–152). Funk & Wagnalls.

John Bauer · Aug 22, 2025

Hobie said:
If I may, what are your thoughts on [Oehler's view of the human soul]?

Well, I sure do have a warm spot in my heart for Lutherans. And any opponent of Schleiermacher is a friend of mine. You were quoting Gustav Friedrich Oehler, a 19th-century Lutheran theologian in Germany—although it wasn't "Germany" until 1871, a year before his death. He lived most of his life in the Kingdom of Württemberg.

Anyway.

There are differences between his view and mine, but they are relatively few. He believed that a human being is a unitary soul-in-body, which on closer inspection looks more like a quasi-dualism than a psychosomatic unity (e.g., he speaks of the soul departing the body). In my covenantal anthropology, taking after Berkouwer, nephesh and ruach do not map onto Platonic or Greek categories; they are not distinct ontological parts of man but different ways of describing the whole person in relation to God.

I do agree with Oehler quite strongly on one major point, though, which is that the Old Testament doesn't teach a trichotomy of the human being, wherein body, soul, and spirit are three coordinate elements of man. But, as I said, he is still a quasi-dualist, which means I push further than he does, landing on a Berkouwerian holistic monism (psychosomatic unity)—which I think makes better sense of those passages he cites than his view does.

I also agree with him that "the soul exists and lives" only by remaining "in connection with the source of its life"—although, for me, the "soul" is not some immaterial part of man that survives the body, but rather is basically a synonym for "person." When that connection is severed, which is a metaphysical separation from God, the soul is no more. Again, spiritual separation is the first death, and metaphysical separation is the second death. What Oehler described has resonance with my definition of the second death.

He also seems to believe that only Adam was made of dust by God, while everyone else exists by ordinary generation (in the womb). I would disagree with him there. For one thing, scripture says that animals were likewise "formed out of the ground" (Gen. 2:19). For another thing, all mankind is made of dust by God (Ps. 103:14; Job 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:48). So, everyone is dust-animated-by-God, not just Adam.

Hobie · Aug 22, 2025

John Bauer said:
Well, I sure do have a warm spot in my heart for Lutherans. And any opponent of Schleiermacher is a friend of mine. You were quoting Gustav Friedrich Oehler, a 19th-century Lutheran theologian in Germany—although it wasn't "Germany" until 1871, a year before his death. He lived most of his life in the Kingdom of Württemberg.

Anyway.

There are differences between his view and mine, but they are relatively few. He believed that a human being is a unitary soul-in-body, which on closer inspection looks more like a quasi-dualism than a psychosomatic unity (e.g., he speaks of the soul departing the body). In my covenantal anthropology, taking after Berkouwer, nephesh and ruach do not map onto Platonic or Greek categories; they are not distinct ontological parts of man but different ways of describing the whole person in relation to God.

I do agree with Oehler quite strongly on one major point, though, which is that the Old Testament doesn't teach a trichotomy of the human being, wherein body, soul, and spirit are three coordinate elements of man. But, as I said, he is still a quasi-dualist, which means I push further than he does, landing on a Berkouwerian holistic monism (psychosomatic unity)—which I think makes better sense of those passages he cites than his view does.

I also agree with him that "the soul exists and lives" only by remaining "in connection with the source of its life"—although, for me, the "soul" is not some immaterial part of man that survives the body, but rather is basically a synonym for "person." When that connection is severed, which is a metaphysical separation from God, the soul is no more. Again, spiritual separation is the first death, and metaphysical separation is the second death. What Oehler described has resonance with my definition of the second death.

He also seems to believe that only Adam was made of dust by God, while everyone else exists by ordinary generation (in the womb). I would disagree with him there. For one thing, scripture says that animals were likewise "formed out of the ground" (Gen. 2:19). For another thing, all mankind is made of dust by God (Ps. 103:14; Job 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:48). So, everyone is dust-animated-by-God, not just Adam.

Thanks for the feedback, this is one of the harder subject matters and its good to see studies that shed more light on it and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in bringing greater understanding.

Josheb · Monday at 8:45 PM

John Bauer said:
Disclaimer: This work is a personal theological synthesis and should not be understood as representing the formal doctrine of any church, denomination, confession, or theological tradition. While it engages and integrates ideas from multiple sources, it is offered solely as my own constructive articulation.

Soul, Personhood, and Immortality: A Holistic Covenantal Anthropology
This model stands in continuity with the Hebraic “whole person” anthropology of scripture. In the Old Testament, nephesh (“soul”) and in the New Testament, psyche, refer not to a separable, immaterial component but to the whole living person in relation to God. Human beings are portrayed as embodied creatures whose life depends entirely on God’s sustaining breath (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:29). The biblical hope is resurrection in a renewed creation, not the persistence of an immortal essence apart from the body.

In this holistic covenantal anthropology, the Hebraic whole-person view is developed systematically through the integration of Lynne R. Baker’s constitution view, Herman Dooyeweerd’s concept of the enkaptic structural whole, G. C. Berkouwer’s covenantal anthropology, Anthony Hoekema’s psychosomatic unity, J. Richard Middleton’s eschatological telos of the imago Dei, and Edward Fudge’s doctrine of conditional immortality. This synthesis preserves the holistic anthropology of scripture while grounding human identity, continuity, and destiny in God’s covenant faithfulness rather than in an inherent immortal substance.

Introduction
The soul is not a separable, immaterial substance distinct from the material body, a view that emerged from later theological developments influenced by Hellenistic categories. Biblically speaking, the soul is the person—the whole human person in covenantal relation to God. As a psychosomatic unity, the human soul is biologically constituted but defined theologically by vocational identity, covenantal accountability, and eschatological destiny. Scripture presents this holistic anthropology in terms of man being constituted as a covenant creature made in the image of God, thus man's self-consciousness is a covenant-consciousness.

And to be truly human is to be in Christ. Outside of him, personhood remains disoriented and broken—and terminal (as the wicked are said to perish entirely). Christ is not merely the solution to a fallen anthropology, he is its fulfillment, pattern, and telos from the beginning. He is not merely an exemplar of restored humanity; he is the eschatological archetype in whom true humanity is defined and reconstituted. Our glorification, then (Rom 8:30), is the full realization of personhood: perfected covenant consciousness, embodied in resurrection glory, fully restored to communion with God.

In this view—shaped by Baker, Berkouwer, Dooyeweerd, Hoekema, Middleton, and Fudge—the human person is a psychosomatic unity, a covenantal creature made in the image of God, constituted biologically but defined theologically by vocation, covenantal accountability, and eschatological destiny. True selfhood is not reducible to physical processes nor identifiable with an immaterial substance, but is centered in the religious heart—man's supra-modal direction before God. Personhood is historically embedded, narratively shaped, and eschatologically oriented toward resurrection life in union with Christ.

Anthropological Structure — What We Are:

Psychosomatic Unity (Hoekema)

From Anthony Hoekema comes the valuable affirmation of psychosomatic unity—that man is an integrated whole of body and soul, without dualistic partitioning.

In relation to the intermediate state, this view does not affirm conscious disembodied existence as a necessity for continuity, but rather sees the person as preserved in covenant by the faithfulness of God, awaiting resurrection.

Continuity is grounded in divine faithfulness, not metaphysical survival.

Personhood as Constitution (Baker)

Following Lynne R. Baker, this view affirms that persons are constituted by, but not identical with, their bodies.

First-person perspective is seen not as autonomous self-awareness, but as covenantal self-consciousness: the creature's capacity to know, trust, and obey God.

Baker's insight, that personhood is not reducible to biology, is preserved while her secular framing is theologically reinterpreted.

Anthropological Orientation — Our Relation to God:

Man Before God (Berkouwer)

From G. C. Berkouwer comes the insistence that anthropology must be relational and covenantal, not metaphysical or speculative.

Terms like soul or spirit are treated as relational descriptors, not metaphysical parts.

The person is not a sum of components but stands as a whole in covenant before God.

Religious Heart as Center (Dooyeweerd)

Drawing from Herman Dooyeweerd, the person's true identity lies in the heart—the religious center that transcends all modal functions.

The soul is not a substance nor an aspect, but the directionally oriented center of human life, grounded in the law-order of God.

Human dignity is rooted in the heart's relation to God, not in rational or psychological functions.

Anthropological Destiny — Our Eschatological End:

Creational and Eschatological Embodiment (Middleton)

J. Richard Middleton's emphasis on creational embodiment and resurrection hope is also key.

The human person is not meant to escape the body but to be glorified in the body, ruling and reflecting God in the new creation. Salvation is not soul-flight but the restoration of whole persons in a renewed creation.

The imago Dei is not a static attribute but a dynamic calling: To reflect God’s rule in creation, to live in communion with God, and to represent him as a vice-regent.

Conditional Immortality (Fudge)

Informed by Edward W. Fudge, this view emphasizes that immortality is a salvific gift granted only to believers, wherein Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. Man is not inherently immortal; God alone possesses immortality (1 Tim 6:16).

Those who remain spiritually separated from God will, in the end, be metaphysically separated from him. The human being subsists in metaphysical dependence on God, the self-existent and only source of all being. In the final judgment, the wicked are utterly cut off; that dependence is severed, and with it their very being.

This flows from Hoekema's psychosomatic unity, Baker's constitution view, Berkouwer's covenantal anthropology, the religious heart in Dooyeweerd's anthropology, and the glorification telos in Middleton’s theology of the imago Dei, such that the image of God is consummated in the fullness of resurrection life, Christocentric perfection, and eternal communion with God. In the eschaton, God will be all in all; those cut off from him perish entirely. Only in spiritual union with Christ is metaphysical union fully realized in glorification.

More on Dooyeweerd
Dooyeweerd sees the human being as an "enkaptic structural whole," meaning a complex unity with multiple irreducible aspects. The term "enkaptic" comes from the Greek "enkapsis," which Dooyeweerd uses to describe a special kind of relationship between different individuality structures that are bound together in a meaningful whole without losing their distinct identities or characteristics—differing structures, interlaced or interwoven, forming a complex unity, while each structure retains its own internal integrity and unique character.

In Dooyeweerd’s philosophy, an enkaptic structural whole is not a simple part-whole relationship. Instead—and here it coincides with Baker's constitution view—the different individuality structures in the whole are “restrictively bound” together, meaning one depends on the other in some way for its meaning or existence, but without destroying the peculiar character of either structure. For example:

A statue (an aesthetic individuality structure) is enkaptically bound to the marble (a physical individuality structure) from which it is formed. This illustrates Dooyeweerd’s enkaptic structural whole—and, in Baker’s terms, a constitution relation, which is one kind of enkaptic relation. The marble and the statue are so enkaptically bound as to constitute a singular whole; this enkaptic constitution means the marble remains marble even though it constitutes (is part of) the statue, while the statue as a whole is more than just the marble because the sculptor has given it form and meaning, making it the kind of thing it is.

In the same way, the human person (a covenantal–vocational individuality structure) is so enkaptically bound to the body (a physical–biological individuality structure) as to constitute a singular whole, a psychosomatic unity. The body remains a body even though it constitutes the person, while the person as a whole is more than just the body because God has endowed it with a first-person perspective (Baker), a covenantal identity and accountability before him (Berkouwer), an oriented religious heart (Dooyeweerd), and a destiny unto glorification in Christ (Middleton). This enkaptic constitution, defined covenantally, means that life endures only within the bond sustained by the self-existent God (Hoekema), and apart from that bond it ceases altogether (Fudge).

When Dooyeweerd calls the human being an "enkaptic structural whole," he means that a human is a complex unity composed of multiple irreducible individuality structures (such as biological, psychological, cultural, and spiritual aspects) woven together in such a way that each aspect remains distinct yet intrinsically connected to the others in the person’s existence. This avoids reductive dualism or mechanistic reduction, showing the deep interconnectedness of body, soul, and spirit, as well as the multifaceted dimensions of human experience that operate simultaneously and meaningfully.

In summary:

Enkaptic = interwoven, interlaced binding of diverse individuality structures in a whole.

The whole and its parts retain distinct identities and internal principles.

The relation is one of constitutive interdependence, in which each structure contributes to the meaningful unity of the whole while retaining its own integrity and distinctive properties.

Human beings, for Dooyeweerd, are enkaptic wholes made up of many irreducible but integrated modal aspects.

This concept is important for understanding his philosophical anthropology and broader metaphysics, giving a holistic and integrated picture of reality grounded in his modal theory and the sovereignty of God over all aspects of existence.

Very good and commendable survey of leading Protestant and generally Reformed theologians. However, I also think the op an example of unnecessary intellectualization because the simple fact is there are no disembodied souls or disembodied spirits in the Bible. The uniform standard is a 1:1 correlation between the body buried and the body raised. This has been called the "unified," or "noumenous" viewpoint. It has stood for a long time as an alternative to dualism and tripartitism; a viewpoint with greater consistency with whole scripture that does not require a theologian to explain it. Simply put, to remove any component of the human creature (body, soul, or spirit) is to render the whole non-existent. To be human is to have a unique combination of body, soul and spirit (as well as a unique combination of intellect, affect, volition and behavioral faculties) capable of housing God.

John Bauer said:
Addendum
Immortality is covenantal continuity, not ontological continuity. Out of the preceding integrated framework flows the idea that human beings don't inherently possess immortality by virtue of an enduring ontological essence. Life is sustained only within a covenantal bond with the self-existent God, and apart from that bond it ceases altogether.

Yep. this position is otherwise known as conditional immortality (which is unblessedly associated with some misguided theologies such as that of the SDAs and Open Theism

). The only humans possessing immortality are those found dead in Christ

.

Hobie · Tuesday at 8:42 AM

{Edit}

Genesis 3:19
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Job 7:21
Why then do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity? For now I will lie down in the dust; And You will seek me, but I will not be."

Job 14:10:12
But man dies and lies prostrate man expires, and where is he? "As water evaporates from the sea, and a river becomes parched and dried up, so man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer, he will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep.

Psalm 115:17
The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.

Psalm 146:4
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing

Over and over again the Bible says that the dead know nothing. There are many more text making it clear the go to the grave and have no desires, no breath, no plans. The dead don’t think. They don’t praise the Lord. They return to the earth, as dust. Their plans perish and they wait for Christ to raise them up at the resurrection. The resurrection of the saints from the grave is at the second coming, and it is in bodily form like Lazarus, not some spirit floating around, and it is from the grave not being plucked from the clouds playing harps or drifting along somewhere.

John 11:24
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Ecclesiastes 3 even tells us that man has no advantage over the beasts. All go to one place, which is dust.
Ecclesiastes 3:19-20
For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.

Josheb · Tuesday at 8:32 PM

Hobie said:
Need to read your Bible my brother, the dead in Christ turn to dust and await the resurrection at the end.

As is often the case when reading the Dispensationalist's posts, the positions are heavy on Old Testament content and neglectful of New Testament content. According to Jesus,

Luke 23:43
And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

The thief next to him would be with Jesus in paradise and not be turning to dust awaiting resurrection. According to Paul,

2 Corinthians 5:8
We are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

When we're absent from the body we're with Jesus. Jesus is the prototype for what happens. Martha was wrong and it is telling Jesus' response was not posted.

John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in me will live, even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Modern futurists interpret scripture selectively. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians he said,

1 Thessalonians 4:14-18
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. 15For 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. 16For 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. 17Then 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. 18Therefore, comfort one another with these words.

Paul, therefore, COULD NOT have been talking about a lot of dead people lying around someplace awaiting a future resurrection. Neither could he have been telling his readers they would all die, their bodies rot away only later to be raised (which in your interpretation would mean reconstituted) multiple millennia later. If the dead in Christ went with Jesus, then there are no dead in Christ to be raised later (except for those who died between Calvary and some supposed future resurrection). 1 Thes. 4:14 means there are already a pile of people with Jesus in heaven.

Paul was writing about events he and the Thessalonian readers would be experiencing. However, even without the preterist reading (notice I did not say "preterist interpretation"), the text cannot be read to say dead people lay around in some unidentified location for thousands of years when there are already people raised from the grave living with Jesus.

John 14:3
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you also will be.

Jesus did go. He prepared a place for the disciples. That place is not laying around empty for multiple millennia.

Philippians 3:20-21
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our lowly condition into conformity with [m]His glorious body, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. Even when we die, we live.

Those who believe Jesus comes only one more time (not just modern futurists), that is those who practice onlyism,* have to structure death and resurrection with intervals. The simple facts of scripture are that nowhere does scripture ever use the phrase "Second Coming," and Jesus comes many times in many ways for many purposes. Every time God judged Israel with war, He sent His mighty right arm to execute that judgement. One time he used Assyria, another time He used Babylon. Jesus came to Paul on the Damascus Road, striking him blind, knocking him off his donkey, and bringing salvation to a man dead in sin. He has come to every one of us bringing salvation, even when it did not require his striking us blind and landing us on our backsides.

Colossians 3:1
Therefore, if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

The saint has already been raised up with Christ. When/she dies his dead body of flesh does rot in the grave, but he is raised anew in a transformed body, a spiritual body to be with the Lord. The Bible uses the words alive/life, death/dead and raised/resurrected in very diverse ways. Just as not all mentions of "life" or "death" are synonymous, neither are all mentions of "raised" synonymous.

Otherwise, God has a lot of people He has saved fruitlessly waiting and He's never told them why.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Dead people who've been laying around waiting do not work. They cannot perform good works having turned to dust awaiting the end. That condition would be the epitome of fruitlessness and inherently contradictory to the purpose of salvation.

* "Onlyism" is the practice of unwittingly inserting the word "only" into scripture where it does not exist, or unnecessarily and inappropriately interpreting scripture to mean an "only" should exist, as in Jesus comes back only one more time. Scripture never states any such thing.
.

Hobie · 2025-09-17T15:05:58-0400

What's 'Dispensationalist's' got to do with it? You are not seeing what scripture says, whether New or Old testament. Now as for the thief, Christ did not go to heaven when He died but not until after the resurrection.

John 20:16-17
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So we can see that Jesus did not go to 'Paradise' after His death that day either, as He was buried and remained in the tomb until His resurrection. The day of His resurrection He appeared to Mary, stating that He had “not yet ascended to My Father” but that now He was ascending to "My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God”. So what is in the text with the thief on the cross has punctuation that was not given in the original.
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The obvious implication is that He could not have promised the thief that He would be with him in Paradise on Friday. and Jesus and the thief did not die at the same time as Jesus died Friday and the thief was still alive, and his legs were broken to keep him from escaping as it usually took several days for those who were crucified to die.

Josheb · 2025-09-17T18:57:11-0400

Hobie said:
What's 'Dispensationalist's' got to do with it?

Do you really want to know? If you say yes then I will expect you to show up for the ensuing conversation and show up with manners and respect because...

Hobie said:
You are not seeing what scripture says...

Is disrespectful.

PLEASE KEEP THE POSTS ABOUT THE POSTS AND NOT THE POSTERS!

I see what scripture says just fine so please keep the dross of personal commentary about me out of the thread.

The evidence of Post #9 demonstrably shows a selective use of scripture, one that is overwhelmingly weighted with Old Testament verses and a profound neglect of New Testament content. That's not an opinion; it's an objectively verifiable fact anyone cannot verify by simply reading the post and counting how many quotations are from Old and how many from New (7 out of the 8 texts quoted are from the OT). In other words, Post 9 does not show what scripture says!

And if you genuinely want to know what Dispensationalism has to do with these facts then say, "Yes, Josh, I genuinely do not understand the relevance of Dispensationalism and would sincerely like to know and understand that observation."

Hobie said:
, whether New or Old testament.

It matters. Implying the whole of scripture does not matter is another problem to be solved.

Do you want to know the relevance of Dispensationalism or not?

Hobie · 2025-09-17T19:07:01-0400

Josheb said:
Do you really want to know? If you say yes then I will expect you to show up for the ensuing conversation and show up with manners and respect because...

Is disrespectful.

PLEASE KEEP THE POSTS ABOUT THE POSTS AND NOT THE POSTERS!

I see what scripture says just fine so please keep the dross of personal commentary about me out of the thread.

The evidence of Post #9 demonstrably shows a selective use of scripture, one that is overwhelmingly weighted with Old Testament verses and a profound neglect of New Testament content. That's not an opinion; it's an objectively verifiable fact anyone cannot verify by simply reading the post and counting how many quotations are from Old and how many from New (7 out of the 8 texts quoted are from the OT). In other words, Post 9 does not show what scripture says!

And if you genuinely want to know what Dispensationalism has to do with these facts then say, "Yes, Josh, I genuinely do not understand the relevance of Dispensationalism and would sincerely like to know and understand that observation."

It matters. Implying the whole of scripture does not matter is another problem to be solved.

Do you want to know the relevance of Dispensationalism or not?

Looking at the truth shows God respect, and that is what we must do so He is glorified, and thats why we must look at line upon precept in His Word, and not throw out what we dont like and saying its superfluous and labeling others with useless idioms certainly is not what God desires.

Josheb · 2025-09-17T19:56:22-0400

Hobie said:
Now as for the thief, Christ did not go to heaven when He died but not until after the resurrection.

John 20:16-17
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So we can see that Jesus did not go to 'Paradise' after His death that day either, as He was buried and remained in the tomb until His resurrection. The day of His resurrection He appeared to Mary, stating that He had “not yet ascended to My Father” but that now He was ascending to "My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God”. So what is in the text with the thief on the cross has punctuation that was not given in the original.

All of that is true BUT we're not talking about what happened then. Post #9 is about what happens now when a person dies. Jesus explicitly stated the thief would be with him in paradise. John 20:16-17 makes no mention of the thief, and it makes no mention of paradise. What you've just done is post non sequitur. What you need to do is [post verses about the thief and about paradise.

Logically.... because Jesus stated he and the thief would be in paradise that day, the interpretation of John 20:16-17 relevant to Post 9 is very limited. Either Jesus was mistaken (or lying) when he said to the thief what he stated, or Jesus and the thief went to paradise that day and, therefore, paradise during his three days in the grave Jesus was also in paradise. Then he either left paradise to walk around the planet before his ascension, or paradise transcends both the grave and the earth and Jesus was still in paradise when he spoke to Mary. Those are the only two options. What is not an option is Jesus being in a holding area while his body decays in the grave (as Post 9 implies). This is very important because one of the promises of God was that His anointed one would NOT see decay in the grave.

Acts 2:29-31
Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with a oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay.

Now..... the matter of the thief's body of flesh seeing decay is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that the thief was not with Christ. Post #9 states, "the dead in Christ... await the resurrection at the end." All of the Old Testament verses were written during a time when the prevailing understanding of life was that when you died you were dead and there was no life after death. That very position is what separated the Sadducees from the Pharisees. Pharisaism did not begin until the intertestamental period. Prior to that Judaism's teaching on death was nihilistic. That is why the Old Testament cannot be understood without the New Testament. That is why Posts 5's and 9's reliance on the OT and neglect of the NT is faulty.

Matthew 22:23-29
On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25Now there were seven brothers among us; and the first married and died, and having no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26It was the same also with the second brother, and the third, down to the seventh. 27Last of all, the woman died. 28In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her in marriage.” 29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, since you do not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God.

The Sadducees, a group of people who believed and taught life ended at the grave, were discussing life on the other side of the grave. The Master of life and the grave explicitly told them without qualification they did not understand scripture. Posts 5 and 9 contain a pile of Old Testament scripture void of New Testament explanation and you have the temerity to tell someone who posts New Testament scripture they do not see what scripture says.

Stow that dross.

Jesus told the thief he'd be in paradise that day. Jesus never mentioned the thief would be in some storage area waiting resurrection. It would be reasonable to imagine a storage area where it not for the fact Paul explicitly stated to be out of the body is to be with the Lord. If the body of flesh decays (as you and I both agree) then the believer is out of the body. S/He is out of the body of flesh, and s/he is out of the body of Christ on earth (2 Cor. 5:8 can be interpreted out of the individual's physical body of flesh, or out of the earthly Church, the body of Christ). Either way, the believer is with the Lord. Either the Lord is still in paradise and not in heaven (which we know is not the case) or the person with the Lord is in heaven and not waiting around in some holding area, a holding area that is never explicitly mentioned anywhere in scripture.

Therefore, Post 9 mishandles the John 20 text.

Hobie said:
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The obvious implication is....

Nope. That is not the "obvious implication." The supposed explanation posted in Post 9 commits the exact same kind of mistakes found in Posts 5 and 9. That explanation ignores a pile of relevant content found elsewhere in scripture. It ignores all the passages cited and quoted in Post #10 and all the relevant scriptures I haven't yet quoted.

Revelation 7:9-10
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

Dispensationalists read that passage much differently than the rest of Christendom. Revelation does not explicitly report Jesus physically coming to earth until chapter 21 (which is after the thousand-year reign of chapter 20). What Revelation reports is that there is a multitude of people already in heaven worshiping Jesus to the glory of his Father. This multitude is living in heaven prior to...

Revelation 20:11-13
Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

There is a multitude of people living in heaven prior to God opening the grave and the dead standing before God in the final judgment. If there is a holding place, then it is before Christ's throne and the people contained thereon are dynamically worshiping God.

Hobie said:
that He could not have promised the thief that He would be with him in Paradise on Friday. and Jesus and the thief did not die at the same time as Jesus died Friday and the thief was still alive, and his legs were broken to keep him from escaping as it usually took several days for those who were crucified to die.

One other mistake made in Posts 5 and 9 is assuming time works the same way on the other side of the grave as it does here on earth.

Matthew 17:1-3
Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.

Moses and Elijah were alive. They were alive and recognizable, and they'd been glorified. The resurrection of the dead as Post 9 asserts it had not yet occurred. Jesus had not yet been crucified or resurrected (or ascended).

Posts 5 and 9 are hugely inconsistent with the hole of scripture.

Josheb · 2025-09-17T20:02:42-0400

Hobie said:
Looking at the truth

Did not happen in Posts 5 and 9.

Hobie said:
shows God respect,

It is not possible to disrespect God's people and respect God.

Hobie said:
and that is what we must do so He is glorified

Posts 5 and 9 do not do so.

Hobie said:
, and thats why we must look at line upon precept in His Word,

Posts 5 and 9 do not do that.

Hobie said:
and not throw out what we dont like

...which is what Posts 5 and 9 do. Posts 5 and 9 neglect what the New Testament says. It ignores how the New Testament explains every single one of the Old Testament verses posted in Posts 5 and 9, and Post 13 is arguing over these mistakes.

Hobie said:
and saying its superfluous and labeling others with useless idioms certainly is not what God desires.

Never happened. No one said anything was "superfluous" and no one posted "useless idioms."

Do you dispute the relevance of the New Testament in its entirety?

Soul, Personhood, and Immortality: A Holistic Covenantal Anthropology

DialecticSkeptic