NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.
By N. V. Hull
DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST. (Continued from Review No. 24, Vol. xxiii.) Elder Hull's Second Article.
Dear Brother,—I have read with interest and care your reply to my first letter, and will, as I am able, examine it in its bearings on the "question" at issue, as explained in the propositions subjoined, of which, as you remember, there are five. I have no objections to discussing that part of the "question" relating to the nature of man first, as you suggest, and then attending to what may remain. The whole question is, "What is the nature and destiny of man, according to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures?" The "propositions" covering the first half of this question, are 1. "That man is composed of matter and spirit." 2. "That the body is mortal, but the spirit is incapable of physical corruption." 3. "That in the resurrection man's body becomes immortal." On the first proposition you say, "The issue between us is not whether man has a spirit or not, but what the nature of the spirit is—whether it is capable of a separate conscious existence, and whether it is immortal." I am sure you would not have made this statement, had you well considered the "proposition," which simply is, "Has man a SPIRIT?" there being no ground for argument as to whether he has a body. Nor is there any controversy as to whether the body is mortal. Nor still have I asserted that the spirit of man is immortal, or that it is so declared by any express statement of Scripture. Neither the terms mortal nor immortal are so applied, so far as I recollect, in the Sacred Oracles. Besides, I do not propose to define the nature of the substance of the spirit of man. As the Bible does not define it, why should I? I think this subject has already been sufficiently befogged by "foolish and unlearned questions." "This is to be a Bible discussion." I deem it impossible for us, in this life, to know the exact nature of a spirit. Jesus, I am aware says, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones;" but this fails of telling what the nature of the substance of a spirit is. I do indeed, in this discussion, expect to prove the capability of the spirit to exist after the death of the body, and when I have so done, the question as to the nature of the spirit is settled, in so far as the interests of this discussion are concerned, unless you shall prove that after this the soul or spirit does really cease to exist. I agree with you, that the Bible teaches, when the question is formally put, that man has a body, a soul, and a spirit. But as the terms soul and spirit are sometimes used interchangeably, I deem it proper to use them so myself, especially as thereby the public are not misled. I am also aware, that in many instances the term soul, as it occurs in the received version, does not mean what it does in popular phrase; and further, that it is often a bad translation of the original Greek word. But this need in no wise stumble us. It may be, however, that in certain instances, we may differ as to the precise meaning of the term in the passages we may quote. If so, we will compare views, stating the points of difference, with our reasons for the opinions affirmed. I will now turn to the passages quoted in my former letter, teaching the duality of man's nature, and more at length bring out the doctrine they appear to me to contain, Matt. x, 28—"And fear not those who will kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." The corresponding text, in Luke xii, 4, 5, reads, "And I say unto you, my friends, fear not those who kill the body, and after that can do no more; but I will warn you whom to fear. Fear him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say to you, fear him." Now, what is here stated, and what inferences may we legitimately draw from the texts? 1. That man has a soul and a body. 2. That man can kill the body. 3. But he can do no more. 4. But God can destroy both soul and body in hell. 5. The soul does not necessarily cease to exist when the body dies, for then the act of killing the body would also kill the soul. 6. Except, then, God by his own special act kills the soul, when the body dies, the soul is unharmed. 7. But the only ground upon which, under any circumstances, it can by possibility be affirmed that God will kill the soul, is in the case of the wicked; but even this not until after the resurrection, because no one affirms that the body is cast into hell until after this; and in the text cited, it is said that both soul and body may be destroyed in hell. 8. It follows, then, that the souls of the righteous will never become unconscious, because man can not destroy them, and God will not. 9. But the power man has to kill the body arises from the nature of the body, rendering it capable of receiving physical harm. 10. Therefore, the soul so differs in its nature from the body, that it is not subject to physical injury from any force that man can expend upon it. Hence it is not matter. 11. But the text broadly asserts, that man cannot kill the soul—not some souls, as for instance the souls of the righteous—but the soul. As an illustration of this, I cite two familiar passages—Luke xxiii, 46, and Acts vii, 50. In the first, Jesus, when dying, committed his spirit to his Father. In the second, Stephen, the martyr, when yielding up his life to his murderers, committed his spirit to the Lord Jesus. Now, in both these cases, you have before you what man can do—he can kill the body; also, what he cannot do—he cannot kill the soul. That it was the human soul of Jesus that he committed to his Father, seems indisputable. It was not his divine nature that was "straitened," but his human. Nor could he, in his divine nature, commit himself to God. The thing was impossible. Besides, in this case Jesus illustrates by example the statement made to his disciples, Matt. x, 28, and shows that the soul does not die with the body—yea, that man cannot kill the soul! How flatly opposed to all this is the statement, that the soul dies, or sleeps with the body. The two are perfect antagonisms, so that if the one be true, the other must be false. Again, in the record of Stephen's death, his faith in his Master's teaching on this subject, stands out in bold relief. Take out that brief statement, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," from the narrative, and the very point upon the idea of the saint's assurance in such a time of trial, is removed. How clearly does it show, that "man cannot kill the soul." What exultation, what triumph, in the hour of danger and death, to know, both by the teaching and example of Jesus, and by the example of his first, and therefore his most honored martyr, that man, when in his diabolical fury he does his utmost, destroying the body by a horrible death, has then done all, as a servant of the devil, that he can. He hath no more that he can do—he cannot kill the soul! I now proceed to examine the other passages quoted by me to prove the double nature of man, and your criticisms upon them. 1 Thess. v, 23—"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless at the coming of the Lord Jesus." On this I said, "I have not introduced this text, in this place, with reference to the doctrine of trichotomy, but only to show further, that there is both a physical and spiritual nature in man." Upon this you remark, "Now, the question is, whether each of these is of itself alone a conscious being so that one man is capable of being received into three men, or whether two of these parts are capable of such separate conscious existence, or only one. If only one is independent of the others in its conscious existence and immortality, tell us which it is, and we will mark the other two 'mortal,' and leave them out of this controversy. The body you have proved is mortal. Which is immortal—the soul or spirit?" You do not deny but that the passage is good for the purpose for which I introduced it, namely, "to show further, that there is both a physical and spiritual nature in man;" but you proceed to raise certain questions which you regard as pertinent to the matter in debate. This text, I suppose, refers—1. To man's spiritual nature; 2. To his animal life or soul; 3. To his physical organization. But it does not follow that because Paul in this case is using exact language, and therefore employs the term soul to distinguish the more animal life of man, and that this dies with the body, therefore it is to be marked "mortal," and "thrown out of this controversy," because it is sometimes used in the same sense as the term spirit in this text, and it is in this sense I use it in this controversy, except in those instances where I give it other and special definitions. Nor should we gain anything by dropping the word soul, and using the term spirit, because that too is used in different senses in the Scriptures. I conclude, then, that your criticism is rather hyper than exact and necessary, and has in it more show than substance. What you say about the "osseous, the muscular, the venous, and the nervous systems," I dismiss as fully answered in the remarks above. Your criticism upon my use of the text, Matt. x, 28, because the term "spirit" is not found in it is answered by my statement, (if my statement is true, and I think it is,) that the words soul and spirit are sometimes used as synonyms, while at other times they are used in different senses. In this text, man's higher or spirit nature is evidently meant, because it may survive the death of the body. But with the death of the body, the animal soul or life must evidently perish. I think, therefore, that in this instance also, your criticism is without force. What you say of the different translations of the Greek words pneuma and psyche, I pass as matters too well understood by critics and Bible students, to need further attention in this connection. 50My next proof was 2 Cor. iv, 16—"For which cause we faint not, but though our outward man perish, our inward man is renewed day by day." On this I said, "This text I think, is unmistakable in its import." You however doubt the correctness of my conclusion, and say, "that there is no proof that the 'inward man' is the soul or spirit." It is figurative language, and doubtless refers to the new man, that is put on at conversion—Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith—the hope of glory; this does not wane, but is renewed day by day. See Col. iii, 9, 10; Eph. iv, 22–24; iii, 16, 17; Col. i, 27. These texts read as follows: Col. iii, 9, 10—"Lie not one to another, putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new man that is renewed in knowledge after the image of him who made him." But this says nothing about the "outward man" and the "inward man," as in 2 Cor. iv, 16, but speaks of the "old man" and "new man," terms having no meaning whatever in common with each other. But let us proceed. Eph. iv, 22–24—"That ye should put off the old man of your former conduct, corrupted by its deceitful desires, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which in God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph. iii, 16–17—"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith," etc., etc. But this is sufficient. The quotation from Eph. iv, 22–24, is of the same character with the one from Col. iii, 9, 10, neither of which speak of the inward man and the outward man, but of the old man and the new man. The passage, however, found in Eph. iii, 16, 17, is in harmony with the one in 2 Cor. iv, 16, and speaks of the "inner man." I am surprised that you, after so many years of study and thought, should confound these different passages, as they certainly, I must think, differ widely in their meaning. For instance, if the "inner man," the "new man," and "Christ dwelling in you, the hope of glory," mean one and the same thing, how is Christ, by his Spirit, working mightily in men's hearts to strengthen Christ in men's hearts! Do you not see brother, that this is badly mixed? That the inner man is the subject of regeneration, so that the image of God is restored in him, seems to me manifest. Your interpretation seems unnatural—forced. I see no occasion to abandon my former view of this matter. You next except to my use of John iii, 6—"That which is born of the spirit is spirit"—because I say it is the spirit of man which is the subject of regeneration. You seem to mistake me, when you ask, "Does this prove that flesh only, and not flesh and spirit, is the man that is born of woman?" Of the question of the origin of souls or spirits, I have said nothing, because it is not included in the question proposed for discussion. I had no thought of asserting that man has no spirit until regenerated. What I say is, that it is the spirit of man that is regenerated, and that this text positively asserts that. Your reference of this text to the resurrection of the body, seems to me wholly without warrant. That the resurrection body will be spiritual, is a doctrine of Scripture, but not taught in this text. Jesus says nothing of the resurrection—it is not the theme of discussion. To discuss the resurrection, when the discourse of Nicodemus was concerning the new birth, would be evasive, and tending to mislead on a subject of infinite interest, not only to the interrogator, but also to the whole world. I dismiss this question for the present, feeling confident, that after further reflection, you will not urge an interpretation which makes Jesus thus to trifle with an earnest inquirer. What you say upon my quotation from 1 Cor. ii, 11, I will pass, seeing the matter is so fully treated in another place, with no other remark, than that I did not cite the passage with reference to whether the spirit of man is conscious when separated from the body, but simply to show that man has a spirit, and that intelligence is one of its attributes. You commence your concluding paragraph by saying, "In your next, it will be well for you to define the term spirit." I believe my engagement does not bind me to this; and I freely confess, that touching the nature of spirits, I have no very satisfactory knowledge. Again you say, "If you think the texts you have quoted prove that the spirit of man has a conscious existence after the body is dead, [which I utterly fail to see,] please quote the texts showing that they cannot cease to live." Until my argument on Matt. x, 28, advanced in this article, is met and fairly overthrown; I think I may consider the question settled as to the existence of the spirit after the death of the body. Not that there are not other texts teaching, as I suppose, the same sentiment, but this is sufficient. Your suggestion, that I prove that spirits can not die, when separated from their bodies, is, I think, extraordinary. By what rule do you require of me to prove a negative? When I prove that the soul lives, although the body dies, no more can be required. What you have now to do, as I understand it, is to show the unsoundness of my argument on Matt. x, 28. If you fail in this, I see not but you are required, by every principle of candor, to accept the doctrine. I think I have now noticed the main points in your argument, and await your second reply.