Are we immortal or not?

mattrose · Post by **mattrose** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:49 pm

I believe that God alone is immortal (1 Timothy 6:16).

Prior to writing my thesis, I believe I was under the impression that most advocates of eternal torment believed in the inherent immortality of the soul. Their reasoning was, thus, logical. If a person IS going to live forever and refuses to repent, they'll have to live forever in hell. This view is behind the most basic defense of the eternal torment view (God doesn't SEND anyone to hell). In effect, God has no choice but to let them live in hell b/c they are immortal souls.

But I was flabbergasted to find that some (many?) advocates of eternal torment ADMIT that we are not inherently immortal. Take this quote from Christopher Morgan, for example...

"Orthodox theologians have consistently taught that only God is inherently immortal... there is no disagreement on these things between the conditionalists and those holding a historic view of hell. The real issue is whether God grants endless existence to unbelievers for the purpose of punishing them.... the wicked will be punished consciously forever in hell, not because they exist as immortal souls but because God will sustain them."

I find this line of thinking shocking and repulsive.

I have long thought that the best argument for my view (eventual extinction with interim hope?) is that God alone is immortal. The natural consequence of being disconnected from God (The source of life) is death. Eternal torment is ONLY possible if God were the kind of God to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE just to torture them, but such a God doesn't exist.

I can lovingly disagree with someone who just insists on believing that we're created immortal (perhaps they consider this part of the 'image of God' and it, for some reason, can't be taken away?). But I can only shake my head in sadness at Morgan's quote.

steve · Post by **steve** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:28 pm

My reaction was just the same when I read similar quotes from Morey and others! However, I believe that the original traditionalists did in fact believe in innatism.

Paidion · Post by **Paidion** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:56 pm

I also believe as the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy — that God alone has immortaliy (1Timothy 6:16), and I am a restorationist — that everyone, sooner or later,will of his own free will repent and come under the authority of Christ.

I don't believe in the soul at all, in the sense that I possess a soul, whether immortal or not, which is separate from the body. Rather, I believe that I AM a soul (or "self" or "being"). Body and mind are two different aspects of the being which I am. God created a physical body (Adam) from earth, breathed the breath of life (or "spirit" if you will) into Adam, and he BECAME a living being (or "soul"). So there is no such thing as our "having" a soul which survives death. We are mortal, and so far we all die — with the exception of Enoch and Elijah. They are the only two human beings whom God sustained alive. I believe that they are still alive to this day, though I don't know where they are. Some think that they will be returned to the earth as the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation, and then be killed and die for the first time, and then be raised to life after 3 days. I'm not sure about that one.

So my belief is that when I die, I'll be truly dead. I won't exist as a bodiless spririt or soul. Indeed I won't exist at all. But Christ will raise me to life in the resurrection. Don't ask me how He can raise me to life as the same person I am now, but He can do it. God is omnipotent.

mattrose · Post by **mattrose** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:36 am

Paidion wrote:I also believe as the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy — that God alone has immortaliy (1Timothy 6:16), and I am a restorationist — that everyone, sooner or later,will of his own free will repent and come under the authority of Christ.

I don't believe in the soul at all, in the sense that I possess a soul, whether immortal or not, which is separate from the body. Rather, I believe that I AM a soul (or "self" or "being"). Body and mind are two different aspects of the being which I am. God created a physical body (Adam) from earth, breathed the breath of life (or "spirit" if you will) into Adam, and he BECAME a living being (or "soul"). So there is no such thing as our "having" a soul which survives death. We are mortal, and so far we all die — with the exception of Enoch and Elijah. They are the only two human beings whom God sustained alive. I believe that they are still alive to this day, though I don't know where they are. Some think that they will be returned to the earth as the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation, and then be killed and die for the first time, and then be raised to life after 3 days. I'm not sure about that one.

So my belief is that when I die, I'll be truly dead. I won't exist as a bodiless spririt or soul. Indeed I won't exist at all. But Christ will raise me to life in the resurrection. Don't ask me how He can raise me to life as the same person I am now, but He can do it. God is omnipotent.

1. I don't think I could be as confident about 'everyone' freely repenting as you seem to be. How can you predict what free creatures will choose to do in the future?
2. I generally agree with the 'I don't have a soul, I am a soul' stance, although I do think the term may have evolved over the course of biblical history
3. I don't agree with you about 'soul sleep' or whatever you'd prefer to call it. I think all believers continue to live consciously after death (though I'm not totally opposed to the language I once heard from NT Wright about God downloading ourselves onto his hard drive until resurrection day, which might be a more agreeable metaphor to your position).

jriccitelli · Post by **jriccitelli** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:44 am

I trust Paul's words are correct and Paul meant it when he said 'absent from the body, present with the Lord'.

I am even 'open minded' to the hard drive idea, or sudden light speed (twinkling of an eye?) 'project us into the time when all will rise at the end time' idea, but in either case 'we' are 'something'.
And as we went over in the 'What about the soul', and 'Gods creation of souls thread', we are 'more' than flesh and bone.
As you quoted; 'I once heard from NT Wright about God downloading ourselves onto his hard drive until resurrection day'
What is the ourselves then? You have to say then we are a 'self' then, without the body (thank God). Or put another way, Is 'ourselves' a noun or something else? Whatever the 'thing' we are, we are that thing, no matter what you call us. (Are we things, or are we souls?) Are we men, or are we Devo?

steve7150 · Post by **steve7150** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:57 am

Re: Are we immortal or not?

New postby jriccitelli on Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:44 am
I trust Paul's words are correct and Paul meant it when he said 'absent from the body, present with the Lord'.

Yes i think Paul thought there are two states of being for the believer (in the body) or (present with the Lord) otherwise why would he say "to die is gain"?
or "i would rather depart and be with Christ" , If you are sleeping or dead why would that be a gain or depart to be with Christ?
I think this aspect of postmortem existence changed with the resurrection of Christ, that's why we have all the OT statements re the dead knowing nothing because it was before the resurrection.

Singalphile · Post by **Singalphile** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:01 pm

An argument for universal immortality could be made from 1 Corinthians 15, I think. Particularly the last few verses.

1 Corinthians 15:50
50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

I think it likely that he is just talking about believers here and throughout the chapter, but if not, then one could perhaps reasonably think that everyone will be raised immortal. I doubt it, but maybe!

jeremiah · Post by **jeremiah** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:01 am

hello Matt,

why would you think the term evolved over biblical history? would you explain what you mean?

grace and peace.

mattrose · Post by **mattrose** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:32 am

jeremiah wrote:hello Matt,

why would you think the term evolved over biblical history? would you explain what you mean?

grace and peace.

Well, it'd actually be strange if the term did NOT evolve over biblical history. The Bible was written over a span of 1600+ years, in different parts of the world, by approximately 40 different authors, using 3 (though mostly 2) languages. We have seen that in the last 400 years alone the English language has changed pretty substantially (KJV English is almost a different language).

Clearly, the term 'soul' referred to a living being in the creation account. I think this is the standard biblical definition of soul. But some of the NT references, it seems to me, use the term at least as a specific aspect of humanity and quite possibly in a dichotomist(Matt 10:28?) or even trichotomist (Matt 22:37) sense. Now obviously Jesus wasn't both a dichotomist AND a trichotomist (nor was Matthew as an author). The term just seems to be fairly flexible in Jesus day, like a lot of terms are in our day.

But I'm no language expert... my statement was more a hunch based on the biblical evidence. Use of the word 'soul' seems to have evolved at least in the sense that it became more elastic (capable of small set of slightly different meanings).

jeremiah · Post by **jeremiah** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:50 pm

hello matt,

but where and why does it seem to you that the nt authors used the term how your saying they do? why would it be necessary to see matt 10:28 or 22:37 in a dichotomist or trichotomist sense?

when you say, specific aspect of humanity, do you mean a separate entity that is able to leave the body upon death?

grace and peace..