An Argument for the Existence of the Soul

  

                                                                                      (NYC)

One of my Cru campus ministry leaders, when I was an undergraduate at Northern Illinois University, was Stewart Goetz (along with William Lane Craig). I am so thankful God placed me in such a high-powered intellectual environment. (Add John Peterson to this environment, too.) 

Stu is a brilliant theistic philosopher, the author of many publications, to include his commentary and critique on metaphysical physicalism in Naturalism. 

J. P. Moreland cites Stu's argument for the existence of the soul. Here it is.

"Stewart Goetz has advanced the following type of argument for the nonphysical nature of the self, which I have modified:

(1) I am essentially an indivisible, simple spiritual substance. 

(2) Any physical body is essentially a divisible or complex entity (any physical body has spatial extension or separable parts). 

(3) The law of identity pertains (if x is identical to y, then whatever is true of x is true of y, and vice versa). 

(4) Therefore, I am not identical with my (or any) physical body. 

(5) If I am not identical with a physical body, then I am a soul. 

(6) Therefore, I am a soul."

From Moreland, The Soul: How We Know It's Real and Why It Matters (pp. 118-119). 

I'll be presenting this argument in my Faith Bible Seminary class in October.

Living for a Fullness That Is Beyond Ourselves

Bangkok

Miroslav Volf's A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good is a beautiful read! Chapter 1 is worth the price of the entire book - on the nature of "prophetic religion," with the double-movement of "ascent" and "descent," both of which are needed, and needed in a certain way. 

In Ch. 2 Volf writes of the meaning of labor, of work. Volf ties work in with the existential matters of life's meaning and purpose. 

"There are many possible ways of construing the meaning of work. One purpose that immediately comes to mind is to put bread on the table—and a car into the garage or an art object into the living room, some may add. 

Put more abstractly, the purpose of work is to take care of the needs of the person who does it... But when we consider taking care of ourselves as the main purpose of work, we unwittingly get stuck on the spinning wheel of dissatisfaction. 

What we possess always lags behind what we desire, and so we become victims of Lewis Carroll’s curse, “Here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.” 

In our quiet moments, we know that we want our lives to have weight and substance and to grow toward some kind of fullness that lies beyond ourselves. Our own selves, and especially the pleasures of our own selves, are insufficient to give meaning to our lives. When the meaning of work is reduced to the well-being of the working self, the result is a feeling of melancholy and unfulfillment, even in the midst of apparent success." (Kindle Location 639)

The antidote to the "rat race" and boredom of work is to live for "some kind of fullness that lies beyond ourselves."

For example, live for this cause.

Top Ten Books (My List)

Special Mention

• Almost any book by Dallas Willard.
• Almost any book by Flannery O'Connor.

The Historically Christian View of Marriage: Part 1 (Preston Sprinkle)

Part 2 is HERE. ("Arguments Against the Historic Christian View")

To Abide in Christ Is to Trust Him

(Store in Soho, NYC)

This quote is from my book Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

***

Abiding is a type of trusting. 

I bought a new chair for my home office. I had the previous chair for twenty years. I trusted it. I knew it would hold me. Therefore, I had no anxiety about it. It would be contradictory to say, “I trust the chair I’m sitting in, but am afraid it won’t hold me.” 

To abide in Christ is to trust him. I “put my trust in the Lord.” Which means, 

• If God was a chef, I would eat his cooking. 
• If God was a shepherd, I would listen for his voice and follow. 
• If God was a rock, I would stand on him. 
• If God was a fortress, I would make my home in him. 
• If God was a river, and I a tree, I would send my roots to him. 
• If God was a vine, and I a branch, I would attach myself to him. 
• If God was a fire, I would be consumed by him. 
• If God was water, I would drink of him.
• If I was a cup, I would be filled to overflowing by him. 
• If God was a hidden treasure, I would seek him. 
• If God was a word, I would read him. 
• If God was my Lord, I would obey him. 
• If God was a chair, I would sit on him. 

I would do these things every day… after day… after day. 

There is a cumulative effect that results from a lifetime of trusting in God. A psychological confidence, a certitude, emerges. It is like the confidence I had because of sitting in the same chair for twenty years, and finding that, through it all, it still holds.

Self-Contradictory Statements (e.g., subjective relativism)

 

Self-Contradictory Statements (e.g., subjective relativism)

                                                              (Downtown Monroe)

In my Logic classes at MCCC one of the teachings was on the irrationality of subjective relativism and cultural relativism. This is a handout I gave students, to illustrate. 

LOGIC: SELF-CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS

My brother is an only child.

John is a bachelor and his wife’s name is Linda.

There is no such thing as truth.

             1. There is no such thing as truth.

             2. Therefore, premise 1 is not true.

 All the statements I make are false.

             1. All S are F.

             2. Premise 1 is S.

             3. Therefore, Premise 1 is F.

1. We cannot know truth.

2. Statement 1 is true.

All human behavior is determined.

            1. All human behavior is determined.

             2. Making statements is an example of human behavior.

             3. Premise 1 is a statement.

                  4. Premise 1 is determined.

                  5. Therefore whoever believes Premise 1 is determined to believe Premise 1.

I only believe things that you can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

1.    I only believe things that you can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

2.    I believe statement 1.

3.    Therefore, I believe something that cannot be

 seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled.

There is no such thing as free will.

             1. There is no such thing as free will.

          2. Statement 1 was not freely chosen. 

           3. Any person who believes Statement 1 does not freely believe Statement 1, but was causally determined to believe Statement 1.

           4. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe that Statement 1 is true.

*****

PERHAPS THE MOST FAMOUS 20TH-CENTURY 

PHILOSOPHICAL EXAMPLE OF SELF-CONTRADICTION

IS "THE VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE."

The "verification principle." (VP)

             1. A statement is true IFF (if and only if) it : a) can be empirically verified; 

             or b) is mathematical (tautological). (This is called the VP.) 

            2. The VP is a statement. 

             3. The VP itself can be neither a) empirically verified; 

              nor is it b) mathematical (tautological; redundant; definitional ).

            4. There the VP is false (by its own criteria).

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: "Most propositions and

questions which have been written about philosophical matters are not false, but

senseless. We cannot, therefore, answer questions of this kind at all, but only

state their senselessness. Most questions and propositions of the philosophers

result from the fact that we do not understand the logic of our language."

All truth is relative.

                1. All truth is relative to individual knowing subjects.

            2. Statement 1 is true.

            3. Statement 1 is relative (and thus, by definition, is not 

            universally applicable).

            4.  Therefore Statement 1 is false.

Which is absurd.

Heaven, the Soul, and the Afterlife (Chinese)

 I'll teach this four-session intensive course in October, for Faith Bible Seminary.

Be Quick to Listen, Be Slow to Text

 

                                                                    (Lake Michigan)

I don't use social media or texting to share negative things, or work out interpersonal conflict. For such things Face-to-Face is best.

When face-to-face, first listen. Understand before opening your mouth. Be a slow cooker, not a microwave.

Henri Nouwen writes:

"When you write a very angry letter to a friend who has hurt you deeply, don't send it! Let the letter sit on your table for a few days and read it over a number of times. Then ask yourself: "Will this letter bring life to me and my friend? Will it bring healing, will it bring a blessing?" You don't have to ignore the fact that you are deeply hurt. You don't have to hide from your friend that you feel offended. But you can respond in a way that makes healing and forgiveness possible and opens the door for new life. Rewrite the letter if you think it does not bring life, and send it with a prayer for your friend." (Bread for the Journey)

Be quick to listen, slow to text. 

***

MY BOOKS ARE...

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity

31 Letters to the Church on Discipleship

Encounters with the Holy Spirit

31 Letters to the Church on Praying 

The Great Invasion: Thirty-one Days of Christmas

The Real Strength of a Church

 

(Pear tree, in my neighbor's back yard.)

Americans measure success metrically. Churches that have conformed to American culture do the same. The American success questions are:

How big is your building?

How many attend on Sunday mornings?

How large is your budget?

Many pastors evaluate their ministry metrically. At times, I've succumbed to that too.

The problem with this is: metrics do not indicate the real strength of a church. Remember the early church. No buildings. Small group meetings in homes. Virtually no budget. Little infrastructure to maintain. Non-programmatic. Costs no money to be a disciple. A band of praying people who have learned to abide in Christ. Think of the church, today, in China.

In John 14-16 Jesus tells his disciples that the key to his ministry is that he is in the Father, and the Father is in him. He instructs them to live in him. To abide, to dwell, to "remain" (Greek meno) in him. To be like a branch that is constantly attached to Jesus, the Vine. Then, and only then, will they "bear much fruit."

The indicator of church strength is its fruit-bearing capacity.

Disconnected branches bear no fruit. (Jesus says this.)

The real strength of a church is its connected branches. 

My task, as a pastor, is to equip God's people for the works of ministry. The beginning of this is helping people get connected. Without that, bad things happen (no real fruit). Jesus says, "Toss those branches into the bonfire."

Pastors - would you rather have a small group of connected branches, or a pile of disconnected people? Maybe just twelve? Twelve connected branches could change the world, right? They could change your community.

Guidelines for Civil Discourse - #5: Fear Speaking Badly of Others Made in God's Image

 

(Frost on my car window)

Have you ever met a Christian who never spoke badly of another person? I have met a few.

Apparently, Bill Johnson is one of those. Thank you, C.H., for posting this.

"In a recent meeting, someone said to Bill Johnson, "I notice that you never talk about people. You never talk badly about people. And I'm just wondering what's going on in your heart? How did you discipline yourself to NEVER speak negatively of other people, even people who are sometimes a pain?"
Bill, with tears running down his cheeks, said, "I fear Jesus in them. That I would speak badly about someone made in the image of God, that is so valued by God that Jesus died for them. And that I would portray them as something less valuable than that. I fear how God would deal with a person who would betray the people made in his image."

***
See...

Guidelines for Civil Discourse: #1 - Love Others

Guidelines for Civil Discourse: #2 - Never Mock People

Guidelines for Civil Discourse - #3: The Other Is Not Your Enemy

Guidelines for Civil Discourse - #4: Never Insult a Brother or Sister