Interesting and also correct, in that the absence of what we consider as real may be thought of a similar to nothing. It gets interesting to me if we than argue for “nothingness” as that which human beings may contemplate - I take the view this is an awareness of our limitations and (non-experiential) knowledge of death as negation of our being.
I would need to check this, but I think zero came in rather late in the development of maths (or numbers).
This is how I see it. First of all, humans are body, mind, and spirit. That is a fact. The body is created by God to house the mind, and spirit, but it is also important. The body gives us form and thus is important to whom we are. The body also enables us to move and act. The Greeks believed in life after death as did the Jews, but both of them saw this “life” as spirits warehoused in a semi-aware state without bodies. They were spirits, but more dead than alive.
Christians believe in Heaven where we live in full communion with God and others as body, mind, and spirit.
When we die, we are dead in body, mind, and spirit, except we are not dead to God. Nothing can separate us, not even death, from the love of God through Jesus Christ. Romans 8:38-39 God loves us, body, mind, and spirit, even though we are dead to the world. It is through the power of God we are resurrected into heaven or into the New Earth. Thus we maintain our mage of God even after death.
I don’t think we’ll ever be dead in body, mind, and spirit. That would mean we would only stay alive in “God’s mind” or something. That doesn’t fit with the idea that human beings were created to exist “by themselves” beyond God’s being (i.e., ex nihilo).
It also does not fit with your own framework in which you define the spirit as “life itself”. So if your spirit is dead, you don’t have life. As simple as that.
I feel like you’re having a bit of a tunnel vision with regard to this framework that you have produced. It might work a bit, but you’re stretching it too far by saying “that is a fact”. Even if body, mind, spirit in one person were true, it can not in any way correspond with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in three persons. There are many more contradictions than correspondences in your model. E.g., in Colossians 2:9 we read: “For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, …” So when you equate Jesus with the mental, you neglect the bodily aspect of Jesus Christ.
I’m sorry but I just see more harm than benefit coming from forcing the Trinity to correspond with body, mind, and spirit.
I am glad that you do not claim to be a theologian, because that is not what ex nihilo means. It means that the universe has a beginning and thus will have an end. In other words, humans, mind, body, and spirit, are born and we will all die, except those caught up in the rapture.
Indeed the Church’s first view of eternal life was the general Resurrection at the time of the Second Coming of Jesus. There was a problem because many Christians were expecting the Second Coming during their lifetime and were afraid that hose who died before His Coming would miss out.
Paul reassured them that those Christians who died would rise from their graves and participate in the Second Coming and the Final Resurrection. Only later did Paul say, Absent from the body, present with the Lord. Even so Christianity has never to my knowledge claimed that death of a person, body, mind, and spirit, is not real. It is only God’s power that gives us eternal life, and not some power within us.
If I have tunnel vision concerning body, mind, and spirit, it is because the person as the Image of God is a most important Biblical and Theological concept. Let me show you why.
You appear to say that in your view a person is an embodied immortal Spirit or Soul. Neither the mind or the body are truly real or eternal. First, if everyone has an eternal soul, then everyone would have eternal life, not just those who are saved. Second, to be immortal or eternal, something must be immutable, that is not subject to change. If the soul or spirit is not subject to change, then it is not subject to sin and is no need for redemption.
Third, there is no way to say that humans were created in the Image of God, because you say Humans are only one-spirit, and not three and one. Jesus could not be the Perfect Image of God, because Jesus was perfectly Human, that is 1 in your view, rather than 3 and 1. (It is not I who called Jesus the Logos, but the Bible. Jesus is one with the Father, and still different from the Father, since He is not the Father.)
Fourth, if the Body of Jesus was not a really a part of His Person, then the Crucifixion was not real and His death for our sins was not real. Some false versions of Christianity do believe this, but the Church does not. JW’s say that Jesus was really an angel dressed in flesh, so He did not die.
@Christy dismissed the theological importance of humanity was created the Image of God, by saying it only meant that humans are Viceroys appointed to govern the earth for God. Since God did give us this responsibility, which we haven’t carried out very well, God also gave us the abilities to do this task, which means a body to act, a mind to think, and a spirit to care. Otherwise YHWH could have appointed dogs or cats to the Viceroys.
The name BioLogos points to the two aspects of this site, scientific and theological. Some of us have complained that the theological side has been weak. BioLogos does have a theological position, that is the Two Books, or that God reveals Godself both through the Bible and Nature. I agree generally with this position, but BioLogos has in my opinion failed to explicate it theologically and defend it.
I am not forcing the Trinity to conform to the body, mind, and spirit of the human persona. I am exploring how God created humans in God’s image through evolution following the Book of Nature.
Here’s a short first response, I’ll respond to more of your points later. I’m indeed not a theologian, but I usually make sure my assertions have backup. Creation ex nihilo teaches that there is a radical distinction between the created and the Creator. If human beings were only to exist within God’s mind in some way, that distinction would be blurred.
My statement is supported by, for example, this Biologos article by Jim Stump. He treated Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. Jim wrote:
So, creatio ex nihilo asserts a radical distinction between created things, which depend on God for their very existence, and God himself, who does not depend on anything else. If God had created the world out of pre-existing stuff, that dependence relationship would be murkier.
I think that human beings “existing” only in God’s mind would harm the distinction between the Creator and the created.
Besides, having a beginning does not in any way necessitate having an end. So Creation ex Nihilo doesn’t imply that everything has an end.
I’ll respond later with more thoughts. However our interaction doesn’t seem to be bringing us any further along the way. So I think in a few more posts we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the importance of your theory of body-mind-spirit.
BTW, it really improves the conversation if you don’t just say things that sound like “You’re wrong and this is why…” Also, you’re kind of imposing your own stuff on the conversation and combatting all sorts of claims that I didn’t make. It doesn’t feel like we’re having any real exchange in this way.
Thank you for your response. I know that it is not easy to accept criticism, but my best advice is get over it. In fact if you had re-read carefully what Jim, who is a good theologian, wrote, you would have seen that the distinction between God and the creation is God is independent and God creatures, which includes humans are dependent on God.
What you said was making the existence of human beings after death totally dependent on God somehow blurred this distinction. First of all how can being more dependent on God blur a distinction based on being dependent non God.
Second, death means having no natural existence, so if we have any existence it must be rooted in the super natural.
Third, after death we all face judgement which is totally dependent on God. Some people do not believe in heaven because they do not believe in divine justice and they do not think God will judge rightly. If there is life after death and I am not questioning this fact, our fate is totally dependent on God. I am alright with this. I hope you are too.
Also if for a time and time after death does not exist, we exist only in the mind of God, humans do receive a new existence not just in the spirit, but in their resurrected body, mind, and spirit so they are new persons in Jesus Christ, similar to the old persons, but better.
Fourth, if our existence, esp. after death, did not depend on God, this would definitely blur the distinction between God and humanity, God and Creation.
Now there is a problem the other way, which may be a source of the confusion. That is: How can things, which in this case are humans, have an existence which is in any way separate from God if we are totally dependent on God for our existence? The answer is found in my old standby, because humans are created in God’s Image.
God created wanted humans to be God’s viceroys, God’s representatives on earth. To be able to respond to this calling God created us in God’s own Image, which means we are able to create as the Creator created, to think and plan as the Logos thought and planned, and to love as Spirit loves. Thus God gave humans and the whole of creation existence within a carefully limited range governed by God’s natural and moral laws and processes.
Besides, having a beginning does not in any way necessitate having an end. So Creation ex Nihilo doesn’t imply that everything has an end.
If something has a beginning, it is limited. Only God has no beginning and is not limited. If something is limited, logically it has an end. Whether the universe has an end or not, I cannot say for sure, but all indications are that it will. However, I do not expect to be around long enough in the flesh to find out for myself.
I’m sorry @Relates but it seems you are missing my point. Even if your criticism were completely warranted, you wouldn’t have to act so arrogantly about it. We’re just having a conversation here, no need to bite.
Let me try one more time to clarify my point. If we were to exist only in God’s mind, we wouldn’t be made from nothing but from God’s thoughts. That’s not Creation ex nihilo as I understand it. Our existence as created beings is always dependent on God. But if we would only be alive in His mind, we wouldn’t be created beings from nothing, we would be some sort of imaginary beings existing only in God’s fantasy. Ergo, not “ex nihilo”, but “ex Deo”.
Again, you spent most of your post combatting all sorts of claims that I never made. Please refrain from doing that. Besides, my annoyance was triggered by your way of expressing criticism, not by the fact that you disagree with me. Constructive feedback is always welcome, it’s more about the attitudes that you express in your writing.
Anyway, it seems that your motivation to engage in actual conversation with me is currently at a low level. So if you continue with this tone I don’t see the point in continuing our exchange. If you want my feedback on your theory, I’m happy to share my thoughts. But if your replies are going to be stingy like this, it won’t bring much good for either of us.
I am sorry that you think I am arrogant because I have strong opinions. I think that you should know by now that people have strong opinions about theology. You say that I am wrong and I think that you are wrong. It is par for the course.
Please, let me make one thing very clear. I never said that living human beings live only in God’s mind. I would say that God does \create human beings, but not ex nihilo, but of DNA, flesh, and bones. See Psalm 139.
Only deceased human beings live in God’s mind before they are resurrected, so there is no question of creation ex nihilo. Now please give me your opinion as to how human beings exist after they are dead and before they are resurrected.
These people are not a fantasy. They are real folks like my parents who have lived long and good lives. They know God and God knows them. How can God be in a position to judge their lives if God does not know who and what they are?
God does not fantasize as we fantasize. God only knows what is true, so if God would recreate someone who is dead and whose body is decomposed, God could do it from nothing, not ex Deo, as we can recreate something from memory.
You certainly did say that having people who are deceased live only in God’s mind would blur the line between God and the Creation, because creatures are always dependent on the Creator.
It seems you and me are approaching the matter from a different starting point. I think it is important not to have very strong opinions on some of the issues we’re discussing. You might be right on some things, but then again you might also be mistaken.
In the Patristic writings, a useful distinction was made between (area 1) theological doctrine (the core spiritual teachings of the Church) and (area 2) theologoumena (individual opinions on theology, literally “theological things”). The main deal is to discern accurately between issues which belong to area 1 and those that belong to area 2. This is also what went wrong for Ken Ham and colleagues (their opinion on Genesis 1 was raised to the level of doctrine).
Elements of area 2 shouldn’t be asserted too strongly, although they can of course be the subject of respectful discourse. Actually, I didn’t mean to say that your ideas are “wrong” (although I do see some apparent inconsistencies). Rather, I meant to express that you’re raising a theological opinion (area 2) to the level of a theological doctrine (area 1).
In my humble opinion, there are issues with assuming that human beings will only exist in God’s mind during some time. This doesn’t mean your whole idea is wrong, but maybe that it needs some improvements. I personally don’t have a strong opinion about what happens between our death and resurrection (it belongs to theologoumena for me). My personal guess is that when we die, we live without time. As such, the Second Coming is an instant occurrence from the perspective of a dying person. So there is no “period in between”, even though from our earthly perspective there is. Jesus said to the criminal hanging next to Him, “Truly, I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” So when you die, Paradise will be established immediately and just after the Second Coming. But from the perspective of us on Earth, it is still taking a long time. Again, this is merely my opinion and I wouldn’t press the matter on anyone.
Thank you for that clarification, but that is not the question.
The question is the Image of God, which for me is a core doctrine of the Church. We also discussed the Resurrection of the Body which is part of the Apostles Creed.
Now please tell me again why a human being is not created by God as body, mind, and spirit, and why this Trinity is not the Image of God.
So could you describe to me where in the core doctrines of the Church or the Apostles’ Creed your mind-body-spirit “triunity” was represented in any way, historically?
As far as I know, the doctrines concerning the Image of God and the Resurrection of the Body were never chained to your theory.
I think the main reason why I wouldn’t subscribe to your theory is that I don’t see it being taught in the Scriptures or in the doctrines of the historical Church. This doesn’t mean your theory is completely wrong, but rather that it falls in the category of theologoumena.
As I have expressed earlier, I also see some issues with it. Among these is the issue of comparing the Trinity of three persons with the unity between three elements of one person. Another problem is the lack of correspondence between Father and “body”, or Son and “mind”. I already pointed out these problems I perceive. This doesn’t mean that you are “wrong”, but I personally don’t see the elegance of your framework.
As I tried to say before, but you failed to hear me, this blog or any blog is not the right medium for the kind of exposition of doctrine that you require.
If you are really interested in understanding the Trinity as the Image of God, I will send you my book. Just send me a private message with your contact info.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.