As is well know mortalism was an extremely prevalent heterodoxy in seventeenth-century England, and Henry More frequently wrote against it. Mortalists responded to the problem of soul-body interaction by taking a monistic view of the person. On death the person was held to lie 'asleep' in the grave until the general Resurrection on the Last Day. At the Resurrection, it was held, the whole person (body and soul, if they can be meaningfully distinguished) would be resuscitated by God.
I don't think the Bible tells us enough about this topic to make any absolute pronouncements, but I've thought for a while that this viewpoint makes sense and seems to fit with what the Bible does say. Except for the "resuscitation" bit. We will have a new body, not the old one pacthed up a bit. I think.
I've read about mortalism (also known as psychopannychism) before in an article about Isaac Newton, who apparently held this view. The other author (James Force, I think, or Richard Popkin) called it a "heresy." So... am I a heretic??
3 comments:
No - you're not a heretic. The belief in the immortality of the soul is itself erronious. There is nothing about us that is essentially immortal - we are creatures and even 'eternal' life (literally, "life of the age" [to come]) is gift.
As for resuscitation, this is too weak, as you say, since there will be significant discontinuity between our present bodily existence and our future resurrection life, yet it is not simply discontinuity, since it is the seed that is sown which becomes the plant. The tomb of Jesus was empty. His body was transformed, not just replaced. So with us.
There is nothing about us that is essentially immortal
So, Byron, do you tend towards annhilationism? If life eternal (or of the age to come) is a gift, an eternal death doesn't seem like much o a gift?
Off the top of my head, our bodies don't come with us since they are corrupted. A part of this world.
The actual process of how we go from earth to heaven and what happens in beween is i think one of the "small things" mentioned in the other quote you just posted.
But mabey thats just because I don't understand it...
Post a Comment