RE: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)

From: Adrian Teo (
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 20:50:36 EST

  • Next message: Richard Kouchoo: "Re: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)"

    This is a difficult philosophical and theological problem that is also
    highly controversial - today. The position Jan is advocating seems to be
    consistent with what has come to be known as nonreductive physicalism -
    which is a monistic understanding of the nature of the person. There are
    just some major philosophical/theological problems with this approach, and
    is quite unsatisfying. The more traditional dualistic understanding (not
    Cartesian but Thomistic) does a better job I think. In this case then, the
    person is not a soul, but a body AND soul. This position (of dualism) has
    been held by Christians since the earliest days, and to claim in the 20th
    century that these folks got it wrong all along (i.e. for 20 centuries)on
    such a major theological issue is to call into serious question the role of
    the Holy Spirit in guiding the church.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jan de Koning
    To: Walter Hicks
    Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    Sent: 2/4/2002 2:03 PM
    Subject: Re: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)

    As far as I remember, I replied last week that man does not have a soul,

    but that man is a soul. I quoted some texts from HS, indicating that
    word "nephesh" was often translated as "living being", for example in
    Gen.1. When the word was used in Gen.2, Adam received a "soul" instead
    becoming a living being. I believe, I referred to writings of some

    Jan de K.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 04 2002 - 20:51:53 EST