Conditional Immortality is Biblical

Intro Thanks for posting this debate. I too look forward to this interesting discussion. Starting off, it is important to clarify the two positions of the pro and con. Pro: Contrary to the belief of an immortal human soul (a soul that survives past the death of the body), Conditional Immortality argues that immortality can only be achieved through the judgment of the Divine: the one and only being who is truly immortal. In laymen’s terms, this argument is simple: God has the power to grant the human soul immortality, but this isn’t guaranteed (or natural for the soul). Those who accept Jesus Christ will continue to exist through eternal salvation, while those who reject Jesus Christ will die, no longer existing in any physical or spiritual form. This contrasts with the idea of hell, which is popular in many forms of contemporary Christianity. As the Pro correctly points out, Conditional Immortality rejects this idea because the soul is only immortal through the acceptance of Jesus Christ. Since eternal damnation implies an immortal soul is required to experience an eternity of punishment, Conditional Immortality must reject this view. Now to the Con’s position. First, it’s important to recognize that as Con, I’ve been asked to “defend the traditional idea that the soul is naturally immortal”. Given the common idea of an immortal soul within many forms of Christianity, and Pro framing this debate using Christian interpretations, I will use a mainstream, Christian interpretation of immortal souls. This interpretation can best be summed up in the Westminster Confession1: a reformed confession of faith made in 1646 by the Church of England that remains influential for many forms of Christianity world-wide. The Westminster Confession defines the soul and the outcomes of accepting/rejecting Jesus Christ as this: “The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect of holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.” (Chapter 32) Simple put: souls are immortal and will either go to heaven or hell. Pro raises a very important question: where in the Bible does this idea come from? The answer: it doesn’t. While most Christian faiths believe in an immortal soul, most biblical scholars agree that specific references to this idea are absent within the bible2. Greek Influences So what gives? No religion exists within a vacuum. In other words, Christian beliefs aren’t born solely and directly out of the Bible. Early Christianity was influenced both from its Hebrew roots3, and ancient Greek philosophy4. Several early Christian writers touched on the influence of Greek philosophy, including: Clement of Alexandria5 – "Philosophy has been given to the Greeks as their own kind of Covenant, their foundation for the philosophy of Christ ... the philosophy of the Greeks ... contains the basic elements of that genuine and perfect knowledge which is higher than human ... even upon those spiritual objects." Eusebius6 – “But when I read those books of the Platonists I was taught by them to seek incorporeal truth, so I saw your 'invisible things, understood by the things that are made’.” Immortal Soul Arguments In defending the traditional idea of the Immortal Soul, I’m required to draw from these influences unless I want to commit a fallacy against my own position. The idea of an immortal soul found its way into Christian thought primarily from the teachings of Socrates and Plato7. In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates distinguishes between two kinds of “things”8: things that are “perceptible, composed of parts, and subject to dissolution and destruction”, and things that are “ not perceptible, but intelligible (grasped by thought), not composed of parts, and exempt from dissolution and destruction.” A relevant example of this idea would be the difference between Man and God. Man is perceptible: humans can be seen and destroyed. God is not perceptible: we can neither see God nor destroy God. From this distinction, Socrates argues that through logic, the “genuine and perfect knowledge which is higher than human” according to Clement, a soul must be immortal. He makes four arguments to support this claim: Affinity Argument: this is the basic argument that souls must belong to the “not perceptible” category of things since we cannot see souls, but can think about souls. Souls aren’t physical or perceivable and therefore don’t play by the same rules as other physical objects, like the human body. Recollection Argument: it’s a common assumption that if I can get into heaven, I will recall details about my past life. This suggests that the soul is capable of retaining knowledge. What about a priori knowledge, or knowledge I’ve gain without having experienced or learned? Babies are a good example of this. Humans are born knowing (subconsciously) how to do certain things: cry, eat, smile, sleep, etc. In a religious debate such as this, the argument would be “this knowledge comes from God”. If this is the case, then the soul must carry this knowledge before birth, which gives credence to the idea of a soul before life. Cyclical Argument: Socrates argues that life and death are opposing, yet interconnected like hot-cold, asleep-awake. One comes from the other: death comes from life and vice versa. These relationships need a constant: something that sleeps and wakes requires a body (take away the body and there is no sleeping or waking). Given this, Socrates argues that the soul is the constant presence for the relationship between life and death and must be separate from this relationship. Therefore, the soul must be immortal. Form of Life Argument: like other “not perceptible” things, a soul can’t admit to being the opposite of something it naturally is. For example, the number three, being an odd number, can never be the opposite, even number. Love can never be hate. Therefore, if the soul is life, and gives life to the body, then it can never be the opposite: death. These are some fairly complex arguments to make, so I’m going to end with a basic summary of my position and the challenges this position presents to Conditional Immortality. Summary First, I can’t adequately defend the con’s position (the traditional idea of immortality) from Biblical grounds alone because this traditional idea doesn’t stem from this source. The Greek influences that many modern Christian faiths draw from are important. Furthermore, my evidence above highlights that many Christian historians and theologians found divine knowledge and the pursuit of spiritual truth to be at the very core of this philosophy. Second, drawing from this philosophy, the soul is a unique, immaterial thing that, if we accept even the Conditional Immortality’s view of, can’t be mortal. Using this view alone, a soul is something that, through the salvation of Jesus Christ, can live forever while retaining a continued existence (i.e. retaining the same memories, thoughts, preferences, etc). Many ancient Greeks, and many Christian faiths, viewed the soul as something separate from the body, capable of holding knowledge and using the body to experience the material world. If Conditional Immortality wants to maintain its position, it has to grant these qualities about the soul in order to allow for eternal salvation. If my soul can’t retain the things that defined my experiences in life, then my resurrection would be like hitting the reset button. If my soul isn’t in control of my body, then my body could go on living after the annihilation of my soul. Finally, if Conditional Immortality upholds these qualities about the soul, then Socrates’ arguments for an immortal soul generates some complex questions Conditional Immortality needs to account for. How can a soul be made in the image of God, be immeasurable yet knowable like all other “not perceivable” things, and yet be destructible? If souls fall into this same general category of things as God, then how can they ever possess the opposite of their defining feature? Can God ever be imperfect? Can God ever possess the opposite of being all-powerful? If no, then how can a soul possess the opposite of life & life giving properties? Furthermore, how can souls carry knowledge and experience into death through salvation, but not carry knowledge and experience into life for the things we know a priori (before)? If a body is capable of life, death, and life again through resurrection, like a human is capable of waking, sleeping, and waking again as long as his body continues to exist, then how can anything move through death without the constant of an immortal soul? There are logical properties the soul must have in order to be called a “soul” that Conditional Immorality fails to explain, and that the traditional view accounts for. Therefore, a “conditionally immortal” soul simply can’t exist unless the Pro can show how and why our most fundamental concept of the soul (beyond whether it’s mortal or immortal) must be changed. 1. http://www.reformation21.org... 2. McMinn; Phillips (2001), Care for the soul: exploring the intersection of psychology & theology, pp. 107–8. 3. Shaye J.D. Cohen 1987 From the Maccabees to the Mishnah Library of Early Christianity, Wayne Meeks, editor. The Westminster Press. 168 4. Cook, "How Deep the Platonism," 269-286 in Farms Review of Books, vol. 11, no. 2 (1999). 5. Miscellanies 6. 8 6. Confessions 7. 20 7. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240 8. http://plato.stanford.edu...