Doctrine of Man and Sin

Transcription

1 Doctrine of Man and Sin ST504 LESSON 02 of 20 Roger R. Nicole, Ph.D. Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary Corresponding Editor, Christianity Today This is lecture 2 on the doctrine of man and sin. Praise ye the Lord, Praise ye the Lord from the heavens. Praise Him in the heights. Praise ye Him all His angels. Praise ye Him all His hosts. Praise ye Him sun and moon. Praise Him all ye stars of light. Praise Him ye heavens of heavens and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He commanded and they were created. He has established them forever and ever. He has made them the decree which shall not pass. Amen. I was discussing some of the difficulties which attach to the arguments advanced in favor of evolution, and I had begun to mention embryology. Embryology is a science which considers the development of an animal from the earliest form in conception to the mature form that comes out at birth. This is particularly applicable to the situation of the mammals where a new specimen is conceived in the womb of its mother and is protected there until such time as birth occurs. In humanity the distance is of nine months in connection with normal birth, but with other mammals the time varies. But in all cases you have a beginning with one cell formed by the union of an ovum with a spermatozoon, and then the cell multiplies and diversifies itself to the point where when birth occurs you have a very clearly recognizable specimen of the species. Some evolutionists have suggested that this process by which a simple cell develops into a very clearly recognizable form of an animal of the species reproduces in miniature the immense journey which was accomplished by the biological material from a very simple form at the start to the great complexity that is now discovered. One suggestion was made, for instance, that at one point in the development of the human fetus there are some slits that appear pretty much at the level of the lung and which are in some respects similar to the gills in the fish. And so, it is suggested that the human fetus, having developed and diversified itself fairly considerably, arrives at a stage where it is really a fish 1 of 11

2 rather than a human being and that, therefore, this afterwards disappears and the full human form is apparent when birth takes place. This particular argument has been discounted by people who are careful in their scientific understanding, and in the first place it is perfectly apparent that from the very start, the first cell is already marked with human characteristics. It has the right number of chromosomes which are appropriate to humanity and which are not found with other species. And specifically these slits, these bronchial slits that are discovered, never function in the way in which gills function with fish. With the fish, gills are a part of the respiratory system by which they are able to absorb oxygen out of the water. But the fetus, although found in the sac within the womb of the mother which is filled with water, never breathes through those slits. In fact, the oxygen that is needed for the fetus is supplied by the blood of the mother which enters into contact with the fetus through the membrane that encompasses the human being in the whole process of development. There is no clear analogy, therefore, and the development of a human fetus does not in any real way resemble the development that is assumed in evolutionary theory. How ridiculous this is could be seen, I think, clearly if one attempted to compare the development of the whole life with the situation that occurs in connection with a butterfly. For the butterfly starts as a larva which looks like an insect that is crawling on the ground or on a tree. Then later on there is a stage in which it is pretty much immobile as a cocoon, and where no great metabolism occurs. And finally it emerges as an animal gifted with wings and whose style of life is entirely different from the larva. And so, if you say the development of the individual reproduces in miniature the development of the species, one does not see what stage would be involved in being a cocoon. The whole situation does not represent adequately what has occurred, and the analogy is only far-fetched. In addition to the fact that the evidence for evolution is not strong, there are very serious problems that arise with it, specifically in relationship to humanity. And particularly it must be noted that there is an enormous gap between animals even in the most developed form and human beings. Human beings can be recognized not so very much because of the shape of their bones or because of the characteristic features of their organism, but they can be recognized supremely because some of the peculiar endowments of humanity are apparent. Specifically we need to recognize that there is something unique in humanity in the 2 of 11

3 ability to create tools. It is true that some experiments have been made with certain advanced monkeys where they have managed to put together various sticks in order to reach out for a banana, for instance, that was inaccessible otherwise, but animals in principle do not create tools. There is no animal living in the wild and which has tools that are used in order to enhance its life. They are simply taking what is at hand. If there are stones they may take stones to throw them, but they are not producing a cache of stones that they would have in case that there is an attack so that they would be prepared to defend themselves. The principle of tool making is one of the distinguishing features of humanity. And therefore, in biology human beings are in the species of homo faber, F-A-B-E-R. Man, the tool maker. Another element which is unique with humanity is language. It is true that various forms of life make audible sounds, particularly the birds are giving very many sounds that are adorning our landscapes, but they do not actually speak. There is sound that is issued, but there is no articulate language. And they have no way of forming concepts and grouping them into propositions so that you have an articulate form of expression. It is one of the features of humanity that it has the ability to speak. It has the ability to form concepts and then to express them in articulate sounds so that there is communication that develops in this way. This is something that is unique in humanity and which is designed by the providence of God so that precisely there may be contact between Himself and us. For God is supremely the speaker, and it is God who has seen to it that His own truth is encapsulated in the Scripture, which is a body of writings which consists of words and propositions by which precisely the truth of God is made known to us. So, the ability to speak is distinctive of humanity. It is not important to suggest that parrots may reproduce human sounds because in their case they are simply producing sounds without giving any meaning to what they seem to be saying, and it is precisely this feature which sometimes causes confusion to owners of such animals because they may be swearing widely when the minister is coming on a visit not realizing that it is incongruous to come out with swear words in his presence. So, even the animals that can imitate the sounds of the human voice do not actually speak. They do not express themselves in the form of language. That is something that is unique to humanity. 3 of 11

4 And in the third place, human beings are basically religious so that while you have a human being that has not been tempered by a wrong philosophy, you find religion as a basic element of the human life. When you have remnants that may seem to resemble human beings in terms of their skeletal structure, we are not in a position to assert that you have here a human being unless there may be evidence of tool making, of language, or of religion. On that account I consider that the paintings that are found in some caves in southern France must have been produced by human beings. No monkeys are doing paintings on the walls of a cavern. They may be thrusting color in one way or another, but they do not produce a painting. And the activity of human beings as rational beings is that which specifically distinguishes them supremely from animals. At the physical level, the difference is not enormous, but at the level of the nature of the being in question, the difference is immense. And it cannot be considered to be transcended if there are simply some skeletal changes that occur and which would seem to show a propensity in one direction. A well-informed pastor will do well to equip himself with a few books in which there is discussion of these issues. And I would like to recommend particularly a recent work by a lawyer, Phillip Johnson, who has submitted the pretensions of the evolutionary outlook to a strict examination such as would be found in a court of law. He has presented a number of very serious difficulties with the theory of evolution. It is written in such a way that people who are not learned in biology can nevertheless understand what he s talking about, and the issues that he takes are not very minor, but they are major issues in terms of the whole structure of the system. This volume, entitled Darwin on Trial [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010], could be very useful to a minister who is interested in speaking to the members of his church that are at the high school level and who may be confronted with difficulties and with this obligation to make a choice between their faith and what the Scripture says. The Scripture makes it plain that humanity was brought into existence by a special, supernatural act of God. And this is made particularly apparent in the creation of Eve, for the natural process of evolution would be to produce males and females of one species in a parallel manner so that if evolution proceeded it would be carried out with this actual differentiation all the way through where sexual multiplication is present. And therefore, Adam would not have difficulty of finding a helpmate like 4 of 11

5 himself in the created order. But it is plain from Genesis 2 that having passed unto review the various animal forms that were in existence he found no help like himself. And it is in response to [Adam s] yearning to have a helpmate like himself that God in His mercy created Eve and thus established the sexual differentiation as a fundamental element in the life of humanity. The first question that comes before us is what are the constituent elements of humanity? What are the elements which are necessary in order to form a living human being? And we are in the presence of three major lines of approach. The first may be called monism, that is to say, humanity is made up of one single substance whether it be material or immaterial, but there is no composition of diverse substances in a live human being. Then we have what is called dichotomy, D-I-C-H-O-T-O-M-Y, the view according to which there are two elements, two substances that are radically different and which together constitutes a live human being. And finally there is the position known as trichotomy, T-R-I-C-H-O- T-O-M-Y, according to which we do not have two substances but really three substances which are necessary for the existence of a complete, live human being. I will pass these views in review to consider their adequacy in terms of the Scripture and in terms of our experience. First of all, with respect to monism, we can without hesitation reject either materialistic monism, where only matter is considered to be the constituent element of humanity, or idealistic monism, in which there is only spirit. The materialistic outlook does not recognize sufficiently the reality of a thinking process. It does not give attention to the fact that in humanity you have a material part, indeed, that is recognized, but also an immaterial part which is an essential constituent but which is not of material nature. Those who consider that matter is the ultimate substance in the world and that there is no spiritual substance would then have to explain thoughts, as it were, as the product of a gland such as bile, which is the product of the liver. But thought does not express itself in this way. There is no way in which you can take a thought and put it in a bottle, and therefore it is essential to recognize that beyond the material existence which constitutes the totality of a form like a stone or a chemical of one kind or another, a living being has something more than just simply matter. Matter is very essential but perhaps not unique in the vegetable life. In connection with animals you have a more articulate expression of life in an immaterial form, and with humanity you have to be sure two components, one of which is the soul and the other the body. 5 of 11

6 The Lord Jesus in Matthew 10 made the point to His disciples that they should not be afraid of those that could kill the body, but be afraid of him that can destroy body and soul in hell. And in that passage our Lord makes the distinction between the body and the soul as being two basic elements that are found in humanity. Now, idealistic monism in which no reality is posited concerning the material existence of a human being does not seem to satisfy either. This is a theory that is devised by philosophers who, looking for a simplicity of explanation, have attempted to eliminate matter as being a distinct form of existence and have reduced everything to a level of immaterial thought. It is very difficult to understand how a philosopher can hurt the idea of his foot against the idea of a stone. This simply does not work, and the reality of matter is surely one of the things which falls directly under our senses. Furthermore, when a person dies, surely there is a certain amount of matter that remains present. And while there is no life, you still have the material body of that person which then goes into a state of decomposition in which, again, chemical processes are involved. But one cannot say that you have nonexistence from the moment of death. Therefore, idealistic monism does not satisfy. It is true that angels and God Himself are pure spirits so that they do not need and do not have a body in order to manifest self-expression, but humanity is constituted, at least, by two elements. And one who would attempt to oversimplify the matter by refusing to recognize one of them is surely not on the right path. The trichotomist theologians point to some passages in Scripture where there is a distinction between soul and spirit. They will say, therefore, that humanity is constituted by three forms of existence, the spirit, the supreme form, the soul, and finally the body. The way in which they distinguish between soul and spirit is not uniform. What is uniform among them is that a distinction must be made which remains paramount. When pressed to explain how the soul differs from the spirit, sometimes an explanation like this is forthcoming, that the spirit is that element in humanity whereby we come into contact with God. The soul is that element whereby we come in contact with ourselves, and the body is the element by which we come in contact with the outer world. Well, this makes a functional distinction rather than an essential distinction, and one probably would have to say that human consciousness functions in terms of all three of these elements and that it is not a distinction of essence in the presence of which we stand. However, the trichotomist advances certain Bible passages in 6 of 11

7 order to support a view, and the most significant of them all is found in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. In this passage the apostle prays that the Thessalonians might develop in the obedience to God, and he says that their whole being, spirit, soul, and body, be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here we have those three elements that are side by side, spirit, soul, and body. And the trichotomist argues that if spirit and soul were one and the same element they would not be placed side by side in an enumeration but one only of those two words would be used in contrast to the body. Therefore, the passage of 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is considered to be very important in order to articulate some distinction without telling us exactly of what nature it is. Another passage that is advanced is Hebrews 4:12. There we read the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any doubleedged sword. It penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. And here the suggestion by the trichotomist is that by distinguishing soul and spirit or dividing soul and spirit, it is implied that they are different and that while it is difficult to distinguish them properly, nevertheless a distinction is necessary, and it is the Word of God that can accomplish it. One notices at once in this passage that the apostle has four elements that are mentioned, for he speaks about soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and so the passage would seem to support then a division in four rather than a division in three. Meanwhile, the distinction between joints and marrow is not something that is so important as to demand a different substance, and therefore the trichotomists accept this as not having a bearing on the constituent elements, but the division between soul and spirit is so interpreted in that passage. Another line of passages which are advanced are often obscured in translation because the term soul is built on the Greek word psyche. The term soul is psychikos, which is an adjective built on the noun psyche; in the New Testament it is translated in a way in which the term soul is not made apparent in the English. I am thinking in particular of 1 Corinthians 2:14, where we read in the New International Version, The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned. And verse 15, The spiritual man makes judgment about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man s judgment. The contrast here between verses 14 and 15 is that the spiritual man is indeed the man with the word pneumatikos, built on the word spirit (pneuma) in Greek. The man 7 of 11

8 of verse 14 is, in the epistle to the Corinthians, psychikos and pneumatikos, the man that is soulish. And since the word soulish does not occur, at least ordinarily in common language in English, the NIV has given us its interpretation as the man without the spirit. It is the contrast between psychikos and pneumatikos in this passage that is advanced by trichotomists in order to prove their point. Again in 1 Corinthians 15:44, we have a passage of a similar import, for there the apostle Paul says that there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body, and the term natural body is again a soulish body, psychikos versus pneumatikos. And finally, in Jude 19 the same line of distinction is apparent, for there we read, These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. Follow mere natural instincts is simply the word psychikos. They are soulish people versus spiritual people. Here indeed we have a distinction that is established.... However, the point here is not so much that there are people who emphasize one aspect of humanity rather than another, but as the NIV, I think rightly has understood, they are people whose outlook is oriented toward this earth. They are people who have merely natural instincts and who are not oriented toward that which is spiritual, that which comes from the Holy Spirit. And here there is not an attempt by the apostles, rather, Paul or Jude, to distinguish between two different elements in humanity, but rather a contrast between a person that is oriented in terms of natural life and without the regenerating Spirit of God to transform their outlook. A person who is guided and led by the Holy Spirit and who therefore has been raised to a new dimension of life but not gifted with a new constituent element that would be considered as different from the soul. One passage that is sometimes quoted but here again it boomerangs before I put it that way, it is not a good support for the position is the passage in the song of Mary in Luke 1:46 and 47 where Mary said, My soul glorifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Here indeed we have the two words soul and spirit side by side, but those who know something about the Hebrew genius for poetry know that there is parallelism and that part of the poetry of the Hebrews consisted not in having rhymes or metered phrases which would come in in a certain length, but rather in presenting something of the same idea in two parallel forms or in two contrasting forms so that it is by way of parallelism rather than any superficial word play that the genius of poetry is found. Therefore, in Luke 1:46 and 47, instead of finding an argument for a fundamental distinction, we could find an argument for the fundamental resemblance between 8 of 11

9 spirit and soul because precisely they are in a parallel situation in the poetry of the song of Mary. Besides the biblical arguments, the trichotomists suggest to us certain other advantages for their view. They will say, for instance, that psychologically it is helpful for us to make a distinction here because then that articulates more clearly the fundamental difference between humanity and animal life. They say a human being has body, soul, and spirit. An animal has a soul but does not have a spirit, and therefore, the distinction is one of having one additional essence which is a peculiar advantage of a human being. It is a privilege which animals do not possess. This might be superficially helpful in articulating the difference, but then when we try to press what is the difference between soul and spirit the difficulty reappears, and it is sometimes not easy to state precisely what is involved in the difference between animals and humans. In my effort at the beginning of this class to emphasize religion, language, and the ability to produce tools do manifest certain things which are present in humanity and not in animal life. But they do not necessarily represent functions of the spirit as contrasted with the soul. Therefore, the help that we receive here is not considerable. It is thought by some that if we have a trichotomy we will have the possibility of having recourse to more explanations in difficult problems than if we have only two elements. For instance, there are those who believe in the sleep of the soul after death so that when the body is buried the soul lies dormant until the time of the resurrection. Orthodoxy ordinarily has recognized that the soul continues to exist in a state of reduced consciousness but in a state still which is somewhat conscious, and the resurrection is not the crawling up to consciousness of people who are dormant but rather the reunion of a soul that was not clothed with the body, with a body that is constituted by God for eternity. Those who are trichotomists could hold to the sleep of the soul and the continued consciousness of the spirit pending the resurrection. They can take, if you want, some option on both directions. Similarly, when there is a question as to where does humanity receive its immaterial element, is it by transmission from the parents or is it by a direct creation of God, the trichotomist can opt for both saying that the soul is transmitted from the parents while the spirit is created by God, by a direct act of creation in the case of every new being that comes into the world. 9 of 11

10 There are important thinkers who have opted for trichotomy. Among them I might mention France Delage, the great commentator on the Old Testament who also holds a biblical psychology. A man called Beck also holds a biblical psychology. Henry Kramer, who wrote an important theological dictionary of the New Testament which was an antecedent to the great Kittel. Oehler, O-E-H-L-E-R, who wrote an important theology of the Old Testament. VanOosterzee, a Dutch Reformed thinker, O-O-S-T-E- R-Z-E-E. And then J. B. Heard in Scotland, H-E-A-R-D. And Edward White. Heard and White distorted somewhat the trichotomists position in order to support a view of the nature of humanity as fallen and the nature of regeneration that is open to question. They held that when sin occurred the spirit was extinguished and so that humanity functions on two cylinders, if I may put it that way, body and soul. And when regeneration occurs then you have a spirit that is implanted by God almost like a new flame that is placed upon the altar. But regeneration does not consist in the addition to our nature of a new element that we might call spirit but rather in a radical reorientation of our whole nature, body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, to make it terminate merely on the spirit represents a mistaken position. This is also what we find in Watchman Nee, who has made trichotomy a very important element in his approach, and we need to beware of exaggeration in this direction. There are other evangelical thinkers, Ruth Paxson, Mrs. Mary McDonough, who have moved in that direction, but in their cases, again, trichotomy appears to be a disadvantage rather than an advantage. A. H. Strong says that if you do renounce trichotomy you eliminate certain heresies that have occurred in the history of the church, for instance, the heresy of Apollinaris, who held indeed that there were three elements in humanity and who held that the Logos came to occupy in a human nature the place of the spirit so that you had the Logos, the spirit, who came and took unto Himself a human body and a human soul but not a human spirit. The heresy here is not in recognizing three elements but rather in failing to recognize the fullness of the incarnation which our Lord assumed by coming into this world a full human nature with whatever constituent elements are present in it. Therefore, it is unfair to consider that the error of Apollinaris has its foundation in his trichotomist position. It is rather in his inadequate understanding of the incarnation, and the trichotomy is a superficial characteristic, not a permanent element of his particular position. 10 of 11

11 In my next lecture I will articulate some of the arguments, biblical and otherwise, in favor of dichotomy, and then we will proceed to consider the place from which the soul originates and whether it is from God directly or whether it is by means of the transmission that parents provide in the reproduction of human life. Christ-Centered Learning Anytime, Anywhere 11 of 11