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

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 18:06:24 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today"

    What Adrian wrote below does not answer my posting. Thomistic views are
    not reformed, and I pointed out that almost all philosophies, including
    Thomism is based on Greek philosophy. For that reason Vollenhoven had
    trouble with it and showed the original Hebrew and Greek bible texts, which
    no-where indicated a dualism. If so, show the bible texts,then we may be
    able to discuss. Again, time and again it has been shown that the medieval
    RC philosophers based their theories on the philosphies of either Plato, or
    Aristotle, and argued on the base of Greek philosophy rather than the Bible.

    Jan de K.

    At 05:50 PM 04/02/02 -0800, Adrian Teo wrote:
    >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 : Tue Feb 05 2002 - 18:03:22 EST