Michael Horton
1. Does the Bible teach the immortality of the human soul?
The answer is yes.
Yet Michael Horton makes some statements in "Chapter 27 - A Dwelling Place" (pages 906 to 918) of his The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way (2011) that on the surface seems wrong.
I think there are two reasons why Michael Horton makes these infelicitous statements:
(a) He does not define the term "immortal" or "immortality"; and
(b) He confuses "immortality" with "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
2. Merriam-Webster defines "immortality" as unending existence:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immortality
The Bible teaches that human souls are immortal - human souls have a temporal beginning but no temporal ending.
The Bible also teaches "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
But "immortality of the human soul", “everlasting life" and "everlasting death" are different concepts.
"Everlasting life" is that quality of human life a person possesses, after the final judgment, by virtue of his living in communion with God without end.
"Everlasting death" is that quality of human life a person possesses, after the final judgment, by virtue of his *not* living in communion with God and this also without end.
Let:
"P" stands for "A human person has an immortal soul".
"Q" stands for "A human person has everlasting life".
"R" stands for "A human person has everlasting death".
The relationships between these propositions can be stated as:
P does not imply Q.
P does not imply R.
P implies (Q or R).
Q implies P.
R implies P.
(Q or R) implies P.
(Q and R) implies P.
3. By not defining "immortality" and distinguishing "immortality" from "everlasting life" and "everlasting death", Michael Horton makes some infelicitous statements.
(Horton 2011, 908): "However, in Scripture there is no assumption that the soul is immortal. Rather, like the body, it is a created substance with a beginning and an end. Immortality was the goal held out to Adam and Eve in the Tree of Life, and not merely for the soul but for the whole person. It is this immortality that was forfeited by Adam but has been promised to those who trust in Jesus Christ."
I am very uncomfortable with these statements of Michael Horton's.
Human souls "with a beginning and an end"?
If *only* those who believe in Jesus Christ has an immortal soul, then what happens to the souls of those who do not believe in Jesus Christ?
Will their human souls be annihilated?
4. (Horton 2011, 908): "The pagan idea of the immortality of the soul and the Christian doctrine of the gift of everlasting life issue in radically different worldviews."
I agree with this statement.
But why would Horton contrast "the pagan idea of the immortality of the soul" with "the Christian doctrine of the gift of everlasting life"?
There is also the "Christian doctrine the immortality of the soul": God created the human soul with a temporal beginning but without temporal ending.
Why wouldn't Horton contrast "the Christian doctrine the immortality of the soul" with "the pagan idea of the immortality of the soul"?
Why would Horton compare apples with oranges instead of apples with apples?
5. (Horton 2011, 910): "As I argued in considering human personhood in chapter 12, Christianity denies any confusion of the Creator and creature. No more than our bodies are our souls in any sense divine or intrinsically immortal. If the soul survives physical death, it is only because God grants this life as a gift in Christ."
Again, I am not comfortable with the way Michael Horton presents things.
Both the souls of believers and non-believers survive physical death.
If the soul survives physical death only because God grants this life as a gift in Christ, then we must also say that the souls of non-believers survive physical death "because God grants this life as a gift in Christ".
This sounds very weird and probably is not true.
Also, I believe the human soul is intrinsically immortal.
But I hold this belief not because I believe that the human soul is divine, but because God in his divine plan decrees that He will create human beings with an immortal soul.
As a good Calvinist, I believe the intrinsicality of the immortality of the human soul is rooted in the Divine Decrees.
6. (Horton 2011, 913): "Christianity therefore does not build on the pagan ruins of the immortality of the soul, but brings 'immortality to light through the gospel.' It is an immortality that is bestowed as a gift in the resurrection, not a given of our nature as such. In other words, immortality finds its definition in eschatology and soteriology rather than anthropology."
Immortality is rooted in neither soteriology nor eschatology.
Immortality is rooted in the Divine Decrees and the doctrine of Creation.
God created human beings with an immortal soul.
On the other hand, "everlasting life" and "everlasting death" are both soteriological and eschatological in character.
Soteriological means "of or relating to the doctrine of salvation".
Eschatological means "of or relating to the doctrine of end times or last things".
7. (Horton 2011, 915): "The concept of the essential immortality of the soul is not a subset of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body but its antithesis. Especially in contrast to contemporary assumptions - even among many Christians - it is significant that Christianity does not teach salvation by death."
I believe Michael Horton is again confusing "immortality" with "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
I agree that "the concept of the essential immortality of the soul is not a subset of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body", but so what?
Is there any reason why it should be?
The Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not a subset of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body either.
So what?
Is there any reason why the concept of the Christian doctrine of resurrection of the body should contain the concept of the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul?
It is not obvious and I do not see how and why.
I think Michael Horton is confusing “immortality" with "everlasting life" and "everlasting death" and comparing apples with oranges.
By the way, there is no need to saddle "the immortality of the soul" with "essential".
Also, why is "the immortality of the soul" an antithesis of "the resurrection of the body"?
The antithesis is not obvious and Horton should explain how it is so.
8. (Horton 2011, 915): "For believers, at the resurrection the whole person -embodied soul and ensouled body - will be granted the gift of everlasting life (immortality)." (Italics in original.)
If immortality is equate with everlasting life, then what of everlasting death?
Unless the human soul of a condemn person is annihilated after final judgment, it will be immortal in everlasting death.
If immortality is equated with everlasting life and if the soul is immortal in everlasting death, then can everlasting life be equated with everlasting death?
Of course not.
Instead of equating immortality with everlasting life, Michael Horton should follow common usage and distinguish between the concepts "immortality", "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
Confusing these concepts will only issue in confused theology.
Reference:
Horton, Michael. 2011. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
End.
The answer is yes.
Yet Michael Horton makes some statements in "Chapter 27 - A Dwelling Place" (pages 906 to 918) of his The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way (2011) that on the surface seems wrong.
I think there are two reasons why Michael Horton makes these infelicitous statements:
(a) He does not define the term "immortal" or "immortality"; and
(b) He confuses "immortality" with "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
1a. Correction: Friday, June 22, 2012
I should have wrote:
He confuses "immortality" with "everlasting life"
instead of:
He confuses "immortality" with "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immortality
The Bible teaches that human souls are immortal - human souls have a temporal beginning but no temporal ending.
The Bible also teaches "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
But "immortality of the human soul", “everlasting life" and "everlasting death" are different concepts.
"Everlasting life" is that quality of human life a person possesses, after the final judgment, by virtue of his living in communion with God without end.
"Everlasting death" is that quality of human life a person possesses, after the final judgment, by virtue of his *not* living in communion with God and this also without end.
Let:
"P" stands for "A human person has an immortal soul".
"Q" stands for "A human person has everlasting life".
"R" stands for "A human person has everlasting death".
The relationships between these propositions can be stated as:
P does not imply Q.
P does not imply R.
P implies (Q or R).
Q implies P.
R implies P.
(Q or R) implies P.
(Q and R) implies P.
3. By not defining "immortality" and distinguishing "immortality" from "everlasting life" and "everlasting death", Michael Horton makes some infelicitous statements.
(Horton 2011, 908): "However, in Scripture there is no assumption that the soul is immortal. Rather, like the body, it is a created substance with a beginning and an end. Immortality was the goal held out to Adam and Eve in the Tree of Life, and not merely for the soul but for the whole person. It is this immortality that was forfeited by Adam but has been promised to those who trust in Jesus Christ."
I am very uncomfortable with these statements of Michael Horton's.
Human souls "with a beginning and an end"?
If *only* those who believe in Jesus Christ has an immortal soul, then what happens to the souls of those who do not believe in Jesus Christ?
Will their human souls be annihilated?
4. (Horton 2011, 908): "The pagan idea of the immortality of the soul and the Christian doctrine of the gift of everlasting life issue in radically different worldviews."
I agree with this statement.
But why would Horton contrast "the pagan idea of the immortality of the soul" with "the Christian doctrine of the gift of everlasting life"?
There is also the "Christian doctrine the immortality of the soul": God created the human soul with a temporal beginning but without temporal ending.
Why wouldn't Horton contrast "the Christian doctrine the immortality of the soul" with "the pagan idea of the immortality of the soul"?
Why would Horton compare apples with oranges instead of apples with apples?
5. (Horton 2011, 910): "As I argued in considering human personhood in chapter 12, Christianity denies any confusion of the Creator and creature. No more than our bodies are our souls in any sense divine or intrinsically immortal. If the soul survives physical death, it is only because God grants this life as a gift in Christ."
Again, I am not comfortable with the way Michael Horton presents things.
Both the souls of believers and non-believers survive physical death.
If the soul survives physical death only because God grants this life as a gift in Christ, then we must also say that the souls of non-believers survive physical death "because God grants this life as a gift in Christ".
This sounds very weird and probably is not true.
Also, I believe the human soul is intrinsically immortal.
But I hold this belief not because I believe that the human soul is divine, but because God in his divine plan decrees that He will create human beings with an immortal soul.
As a good Calvinist, I believe the intrinsicality of the immortality of the human soul is rooted in the Divine Decrees.
6. (Horton 2011, 913): "Christianity therefore does not build on the pagan ruins of the immortality of the soul, but brings 'immortality to light through the gospel.' It is an immortality that is bestowed as a gift in the resurrection, not a given of our nature as such. In other words, immortality finds its definition in eschatology and soteriology rather than anthropology."
Immortality is rooted in neither soteriology nor eschatology.
Immortality is rooted in the Divine Decrees and the doctrine of Creation.
God created human beings with an immortal soul.
On the other hand, "everlasting life" and "everlasting death" are both soteriological and eschatological in character.
Soteriological means "of or relating to the doctrine of salvation".
Eschatological means "of or relating to the doctrine of end times or last things".
7. (Horton 2011, 915): "The concept of the essential immortality of the soul is not a subset of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body but its antithesis. Especially in contrast to contemporary assumptions - even among many Christians - it is significant that Christianity does not teach salvation by death."
I believe Michael Horton is again confusing "immortality" with "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
I agree that "the concept of the essential immortality of the soul is not a subset of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body", but so what?
Is there any reason why it should be?
The Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not a subset of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body either.
So what?
Is there any reason why the concept of the Christian doctrine of resurrection of the body should contain the concept of the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul?
It is not obvious and I do not see how and why.
I think Michael Horton is confusing “immortality" with "everlasting life" and "everlasting death" and comparing apples with oranges.
By the way, there is no need to saddle "the immortality of the soul" with "essential".
Also, why is "the immortality of the soul" an antithesis of "the resurrection of the body"?
The antithesis is not obvious and Horton should explain how it is so.
8. (Horton 2011, 915): "For believers, at the resurrection the whole person -embodied soul and ensouled body - will be granted the gift of everlasting life (immortality)." (Italics in original.)
If immortality is equate with everlasting life, then what of everlasting death?
Unless the human soul of a condemn person is annihilated after final judgment, it will be immortal in everlasting death.
If immortality is equated with everlasting life and if the soul is immortal in everlasting death, then can everlasting life be equated with everlasting death?
Of course not.
Instead of equating immortality with everlasting life, Michael Horton should follow common usage and distinguish between the concepts "immortality", "everlasting life" and "everlasting death".
Confusing these concepts will only issue in confused theology.
Reference:
Horton, Michael. 2011. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
End.
