Dear Brennan,
Christadelphians are not to be judged by what the Witnesses of Jehovah, Seventh Day Adventists and others preach: we stand by the Bible, which it its own interpreter.
Mr. Rumble, in “The Anti-immortals”, puts Christadelphians into the same category as these other sects; which shows how little he knows of Christadelphian teaching. Thus he is not qualified to present our case accurately; and you would do better to read our own writings and to compare them with the Scriptures of truth and then with Mr. Rumble’s misuse of the divine revelation. You will find that Christadelphian doctrine of the mortality of the soul is Biblical, while the Roman-pagan doctrine of inherent immortality is contrary to the written Word.
We do not maintain that the word soul refers to the whole man in every case (as Mr. Rumble seems to interpret us). But that it does refer to the whole man in some cases is without doubt. Genesis 2. 7 clearly shows that a living soul in this context stands for slime of the earth into which God breathed. And this living soul, cursed because of sin, became a dying soul, disintegrating, and yielding up to God the breath he gave (Gen. 3. 19; Ecc. 12. 7; Job. 34. 14). Thus Paul says (1 Cor. 15. 45), “The first man Adam was made into a living soul: the last Adam into a quickening spirit”. And there’s the difference!
In the Bible several words in the original tongues are represented by the one English word, soul. These are nedibah (willing, liberal or noble one), nephesh (being or creature), neshamah (breath), psuche (the Greek equivalent—approximately of course —of the Hebrew nephesh). The different words with their different meanings ought to be taken into account in any Biblical consideration of the soul; and passages where “soul” has differing meanings should not be shoved together indiscriminately.
After this examination of “The Anti-immortals” we will present the positive teaching of Scripture concerning the nature of man’s soul. For the present, our task is to destroy the error presented in this booklet, from which we will now take points and deal with them one by one:
“He who made us tells us that our souls are immortal” (p. 10). Mr. Rumble tries to prove that the soul outlives the body; but nowhere throughout his booklet does he attempt to prove that the soul is immortal. Had he proved the first point, he would not ipso facto have proved the second. But, in actual fact, there is nothing in the whole Scripture which says that the soul is immortal. I challenge you to show me one passage in the whole Bible that tells us that our souls are immortal. Moreover, I challenge you to show me anywhere in the Bible where any of the following terms are used: “Immortal soul”, “never-dying soul”, “ever-living soul”; or any other term that means the same thing. You won’t find them; because he who made us did not tell us that our souls are immortal: this statement of Mr. Rumble is simply a Catholic fiction.
“When Christ said to the Jews: Fear not those who can kill the body, but who cannot kill the soul (Matt. 10. 28), there were no protests from the bystanders that to kill the body is to kill the soul because they are one and the same thing! All agreed that the soul is other than the body and not subject to destruction with it.” (p.p. 10-1 1.)
Here Mr. Rumble makes the mistake that I referred to earlier. We do not maintain that body and soul are one and the same thing. We do maintain that the word soul sometimes denotes the whole being; but not the body merely.
Moreover, neither Mr. Rumble or anyone else knows what the bystanders said or thought about the subject. Certainly, had they protested as Mr. Rumble asserts they didn’t, they would have completely misunderstood the meaning of the Lord’s words. But that was common then, and is today—Mr. Rumble being one of the number.
Mr. Rumble says that all agreed that the soul is other than the body and not subject to destruction with it. Once again, he presumes to know too much. I do not know, he does not know, what they agreed to; but Jesus plainly asserted that the soul is capable of destruction with the body, as would have been revealed had Mr. Rumble quoted Matt. 10. 28 in full: “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body into hell”.
How is it, then, that man is able to destroy the body but not the soul? Because the word for soul in this context is “psuche” and has relation to man’s life or being. Men may annihilate the body of a Christadelphian, but they cannot destroy the certainty of his eternal life hereafter: the cessation of his life at death is temporary, and he receives it back in greater measure at the resurrection. Thus, in the light of this certainty, man dies and lives unto God (see,for example, Matt. 22. 32) ; and only God who gave us the earnest of our hope is able to take it away from us (Rom. 8. 37-39 Knox).
3. “So, too, there were no murmurs of disapproval when Christ gave the parable of the Rich Man and the beggar Lazarus,speaking of the beggar as having died and as having been carried at once “by the angels into Abraham’s bosom”, and not as having lapsed into unconscious non-existence. The survival of the soul was accepted by all as the revealed truth” (p. 11).
This comment is full of unproved and unprovable assertions. Were there no murmurs of disapproval? Did all accept the survival of the soul as a revealed truth? Was the beggar carried “at once” into Abraham’s bosom? The Bible does not include the words “at once” nor any other words that could be construed in that way; neither does it assert that Lazarus did not lapse into “unconscious non-existence”.
But let’s examine the parable itself. First of all, Mr. Rumble calls it a parable, and then takes the whole thing literally. Secondly, he makes it mean what his preconceived ideas require it to mean. For example, when the rich man is said to have lifted up his eyes in hell, he understands this as, “In hell his immortal soul lifted up its eyes”. But absolutely nothing is said of souls, mortal or immortal, in this passage. Had you ever noticed? Your wrong ideas concerning hell would lead you to deduce that the souls of Dives and Lazarus would have to be immortal, that is all.
Hell is used of the grave and of the conditions related thereto; of which we hope to say more later. For the present, let me draw your attention to two Catholic translations: First, Knox translates, “The rich man died, too, and found his grave in hell”. However scholarly the Knox version may be, “and found his grave” is a completely dishonest translation of “and was buried”. The Douay translates accurately, “and was buried in hell”. Knox argues that the best manuscripts include the words “in hell” in the next sentence (as does the Authorised Version). Evidently by “best” he means “best for the Roman theory”; because the original manuscripts were not punctuated!
But even if his assertions were true, it would make no difference to the truth that the whole being of Dives was here alive and talking and seeing: he was not an immortal soul. Just taking your own theories concerning the soul, how could spirit without body or (as you believe) senses, feel thirst? Do you sincerely believe that immortal souls thirst for water; or would you say that the water is not literal?
Here space requires that we conclude our letter. Next month, God willing, we shall give our attention to this parable in order to show what the Scripture says about it, and to compare that with what “The Anti-immortals” says about it.
In the meantime, compare what we have written here with the Bible; assess open-mindedly what our examination of this little Catholic booklet has so far revealed, for we are sure that, if you are sincerely prepared to do the Father’s will, God shall reveal his truth to you; and that, one day, we shall be able to take you by the hand and call you “Brother”.
Sincerely,
Dean.
Sample Correspondence Content Type