Should we say that what we call the soul is essentially separate from the body? Or is the soul so connected to the body that the soul and the body cannot be said to be separate 'substances'?

The line of questioning is important, theologically, because of the afterlife and the fact that the body is corruptible (it loses life). For instance, if we say that the soul and the body are not separate -- monism -- how can it be that the soul 'lives on' when the body dies? (There are, of course, theistic monist solutions to these problems, in particular, the Aristotelian-Thomistic: basically, it is the 'intellective' or rational aspect -- the uniquely human aspect -- of our soul that lives on when the 'vegetative' and 'sensitive' aspects -- the mere animal aspects of our soul -- are corrupted through natural death.)

If we take a dualist stance, however -- the immaterial soul, say, is the 'real me' and the body is just like the real me's accidental 'vehicle' -- how do we reconcile this with the real importance that Christianity places on the human body (the resurrection of the body, etc.)? According to the faith I cannot simply do away with the body as some dualists (Plato, Avicenna, Descartes) have done, for my body is at least a significant part of who I am.

Where ought we stand?

__________________
Nathan Tyler
Reformed Baptist
University of Toronto (Student: Hons. B.A. in Philosophy)
Ontario, Canada

1689'er

http://nathantyler.wordpress.com

I think the spirit/soul aspect of man has priority but that doesn't diminsh the importance of the body. Paul and Peter call the body a house or tent for the soul hence demonstrating the priority of the soul. But Christ promised to prepare for us mansions of glory, so our souls will no longer habitate a "tent" but will then reside in a "mansion", i.e. a glorifed, resurrected body.

__________________
Jim
An Elder, Harvest Reformed Church (RCUS),Minot, ND
http://www.harvestreformedchurch.org/
http://tbftgoggi.wordpress.com/

Upon a life I did not live; upon a death I did not die, Another's death, Another's life, I'd rest my soul eternally
Omnia dicta fortiora,si dicta Latina
Si vis pacem, para bellum

A living soul (Genesis 2:17) includes the body.

__________________
Patrick
Member, PCA
Chandler, AZ
ReformedTheologyInstitute.com

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

I think we have to take a dualist stance -- but with a monistic qualification. Yes, your soul and your body are distinct, but it take both to really be you.

Whatever else we say about the aspects of the human personality and how they relate to each other, at least we have to say this: there is life without body; you exist without your body. The “already, not yet” also pertains to you after you die. Without your body, you won't really be fully "you" me until your body is raised. You are not as fully in fellowship with God as you will be. It’s a kind of good-better-best scenario. We are coporeal beings, which is why we will be given a new body -- yet one that has some sort of continuity with our current body. It is INDEED a very important part of who you are.

I don't know the monist solutions to the intermediate state. I'd be interested in hearing them.

__________________
Clark Brooking
Pastor
Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Clarksville, MD