p. 302 | Nature of the Soul by J. H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 12, 1883

Nature of the Soul.

By J. H. Waggoner

It is said that if the soul be "a simple, pure, uncompounded, unorganized entity or substance," then it must be indestructible and necessarily immortal. But who knows that such is the nature of the soul? It is a sheer assumption, without one particle of evidence to sustain it. The argument that is founded on it amounts simply to this: If the soul be indestructible, it is indestructible. If it is immortal, it is immortal. But the assumption leads to a broader conclusion than this. The logical mind of Plato saw it, and therefore he concluded that the soul, if such be its nature, could have had no beginning, as well as, will have no end. That man, so far as his soul is concerned, is an uncreated being; that when a child is born, a soul enters his body, and when he dies, it goes out again, either to enter some other body, or to exist in a ghostly state forever; and that the number of such souls, is eternally the same, neither being increased by new births, nor diminished by death. But Christian men, who cannot but admit that God created man, and that he has a definite beginning, by rejecting the former part of this conclusion, vitiate the latter part; because both parts must go together. For it is evident, that what had a beginning, may have an end; what has been created, may be uncreated. If the soul of man is not of such a nature as to exclude the idea of its creation, it certainly is not of such a nature as to save it from destruction.

But granting the assumption, that the soul is "a simple, pure, uncompounded, unorganized substance or entity," and that it has a beginning, the question arises: When is that beginning? Are souls made beforehand and kept in readiness to meet human demand? or are they made to order, and put into the child's body at birth, or at some period before or after its birth? We press this question upon those, who hold that the soul is an entity separate and separable from the body, and independent of it. It is not an idle question, but one that is important for them to consider. If they are unable to answer it, let them tell us, at least, if they can, whether it be a full-grown, mature, responsible soul, at the outset, or does it grow in strength and maturity and responsibility with the body. The former supposition would be fatuous, and lead to the absurd conclusion that new-born infants are equally responsible for their moral exercises and acts with adults. If they take the latter supposition, then, we would ask them, why the soul may not fall, as well as rise with the body? How can they show that the soul does not follow the fortunes of the body, but is independent of it.

Let them show us how it is possible for such a "simple, pure, uncompounded, unorganized entity" as they suppose the soul to be, to carry on all the varied and complex operation of thought, feeling, and action within the body and independent of it; or, at least, let them show us that this is possible.

If they shall admit that the soul is, or may be an organism, then it may be disorganized, and, like all other organisms, its functional action ceases when this organism shall be broken up.

But if they still insist that the soul is a "simple, unorganized entity," they must admit that a bodily organism is necessary to the exercise of its functions. If the soul had no conscious life or activity until it was united with the body; what evidence is there to show that it can maintain its individual life, and fulfill its functions, after the bodily organization is destroyed? There is every evidence possible in the nature of the case, to show that the body is as necessary to the soul, as the soul is to the body; and that they are mutually dependent on each other. An injury to the brain, through which the soul is supposed to act, effects the soul, in the same degree; it may cause insanity; it may cause insensibility for a time; it may cause death. Is it reasonable to suppose that while any injury to the brain that is not fatal, injuriously affects the soul, a fatal injury does not injuriously affect its consciousness and activity at all, but only gives it greater freedom of action and of feeling?

The fact is, the whole argument for immortality founded on the nature of the soul, rests upon a pure assumption, and this constitutes the only difficulty there is in meeting it. Indeed, it can only be a waste of words between us and those who hold it, until they shall establish their postulate by some show of reason.

It is said that Franklin proposed to the Savants of France this question, Why the weight of a vessel of water should not be increased by putting a fish into it? After arguing the question for a long time and giving many weighty reasons for their various views, some one proposed to try the experiment, and see if such were the fact. It was then discovered that their arguments were all worthless; for the supposition itself was false. And so it is with arguments in regard to the immortality of the soul founded on the supposition that it is "a pure, simple, uncompounded, unorganized entity." Let them show that such is the nature of the soul, or, at any rate, tell us what the nature of the soul is before they challenge us to show that the conclusion, or rather the half of the conclusion, they are willing themselves to adopt is false.

The late President Dwight, of Yale College, in his Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 163, says:—

"Among Christians, I know of but one who has regarded the immortality of the soul as susceptible of demonstration. Should we believe with this ingenious writer, that the soul, metaphysically considered, is so formed, as naturally to be immortal, we must still acknowledge, because it cannot be denied, that its existence may terminate at death or at any other supposable period. Whatever has been created can certainly be annihilated by the power which created it. The continuance of the soul must therefore depend absolutely on the will of God. But that will can never be known, by creatures, unless he is pleased to disclose it. Without revelation, therefore, the immortality of the soul must be entirely uncertain."

We may add to what has been so truly said, we never knew one man even, who was able to demonstrate the immortality of the soul from the Scriptures, or to point to one text in all the Bible that asserted or even hinted at any such doctrine. But there are hundreds of texts, as we have shown, that assert the contrary, and as many more, that expressly declare that immortality is the special gift of God and only received by a new birth.

But it should be remembered, that our inquiry is concerning man himself, and not concerning any one or more of the various parts of which he is supposed to be made up. The physical, or material elements that enter into his composition, when they shall be separated by death, may continue to exist in their elemental state, or may enter into other combinations, and so continue, under one form or another, to exist forever. Indeed, we have no evidence that any elemental substance is ever annihilated. The same may be said of the spiritual elements, or living forces that enter into his composition, they may well be supposed to exist forever under some form or condition or other, we know not what; nor need we stop to inquire, for our inquiry does not relate to these elements, however many or few they may be; but to the composite man. Is he immortal—the sensitive, thinking, conscious, active, responsible creature that he is—is he immortal, mortal?

The fact is, this Platonic philosophy has thrown this whole subject into confusion. It has led us off, into inquiries concerning one part of man and has taught us to ignore the main question concerning the destiny of man himself. We have come to speak of the soul of man, and to reason about it, as though it were something distinct from the man himself; and ministers preach about it, as though it had a character and destiny of its own, and that this is all that is worth considering. But this is neither consistent with the teachings of science, nor of reason, nor of revelation. Science regards man as an integer; though he is a complex and composite creature, yet he is one creature and not two or more. So does law, both human and divine; and so does the gospel. It was upon the whole man that God laid his original prohibition—"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou must surely die." It was the whole man that sinned and fell. It was the whole man that came under the sentence of death—"Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." It is the whole man that was redeemed, and is to be raised, and judged and saved or destroyed. This is the question which we most need to have answered; the question that Job asked, "If a man die shall he live again," and shall he live forevermore? And no answer can be given to it, either by reason or in nature. It is only answered in the word of God, and it is for this very purpose that a divine revelation has been given to us—to tell us of the life everlasting and the way of attaining it. Why, then, should we betake ourselves blindly to heathen oracles, or to the oracles of the wisest of men, whose wisdom God has declared to be foolishness, when "we have a more sure word of prophecy"? Unto this "we do well to take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." —From "Life Everlasting," by Prof. Pettingell.