Language, Truth, and Logic, Research Paper Example

Description of Conditional Unity

 According to Millard J. Erickson’s conditional unity theory, “the normal state of man is as a materialized unitary being”[1]. While we are conventionally taught by interpretations of Scripture that the physical body is full of sin, this theory contradicts this understanding. According to Erikson’s original publication, the body of man is not inherently evil. According to Erikson’s argument, man “is not urged to flee or escape from the body, as if it were somehow inherently evil. This monistic condition can, however, be broken down, and at death it is, so that the immaterial aspect of man lives on even as the material decomposes. At the resurrection, however, there will be a return to a material or bodily condition”¹. Thus, according to Erickson, the physical body is not evil because the ultimate goal of faithful people during at the resurrection is to reclaim the body.

As an important component of Erikson’s argument, it is essential to emphasize that he is not claiming that the conditional unity theory states that people will return to their original body at the time of the resurrection. Instead he is claiming that individuals with return to a new body. Specifically, he claims, “The person will assume a body which has some points of continuity with theold body, but is also a new or reconstituted or spiritual body”¹. Thus, it is not that man is persisting through death. Instead, it is the soul that persists. However, this soul is a component of the many souls that will be saved at the time of resurrection. Thus, in a sense, the identity of the body is not relevant. It is the simple matter of the resurrection that should be emphasized. To highlight this concept, Erickson describes, “We might think of man as a unitary compound of a material and an immaterial element. The spiritual and the physical elements are not always distinguishable, for man is a unitary subject; there is no struggle between his material and immaterial nature”¹. Thus, it is important for individuals to understand that the conditional unity theory indicates that we are all one part of a larger portion of the Lord’s universe. When we are born, we separate from this unity and enter the body. When we die, we return back to the unity. Thus, when we are resurrected, the identity of our body doesn’t matter; it is the simple fact that we are returned to a body that is relevant.

Rationale for Erikson’s Position on Conditional Unity

Erickson provides comprehensive rationale demonstrating that the theory of conditional unity is valid[2]. In particular, Erikson provides information about physical science and computer science and how scientific theories cannot adequately explain the concept of unity. In particular, a computer scientist by the name of Bruce Reichenbach stated that independently of the input that computers are fed, all data unites in one area before a single computer retrieves the data[3]. The original computer does not need to be the one that retrieves the data; instead, it is likely that the individual receiving the data will be another computer system. Thus, this process explains how conditional unity operates. Returning to the body as something newer and more pure is a concept that is observable according to today’s modern understanding of computer technology and physical science. Since this process is physically possible, there is a large degree of support for Erickson’s position on conditional unity.

Specifically, Erickson explains that the human individual is considered to be a unity. However, in the New Testament, the concept of the link between the body and soul is present, but it is not connected to the idea of embodied and disembodied existence in significant detail. Body and soul are frequently described and compared, but they are not stated to be separate components. Thus, the idea that they are separate factors is an assumption that many individuals draw from interpretations of the biblical literature. By the same token, Erickson calls the reader’s attention to sections of Scripture in which in which there is am ore immaterial aspect of the human existence. In particular, he explains that there appears to be a middle state between death and revival. According to 2 Cor. 5:2-4, this intermediate state is not complete and in the coming resurrection (1 Cor. 15), “the person will receive a new or perfected body”[4]. Thus, Erickson suggests that it is essential to look more directly at the literature and draw conclusions based on the whole Scripture by relating relevant pieces of information to the greater work. He shows that by drawing conclusions differently, it is possible for the wrong opinions to be formulated. By drawing from the whole of biblical data, Erikson shows us that out natural state is as a part of this “conditional unity”. Thus, the body is not inherently evil and we are not asked to attempt to escape it. However, we are taught that the body is temporary and that we will have the opportunity to enter into a more perfect state at the time of the resurrection.

Individuals that support Erikson’s conditional unity theory explain that Erickson provides a more scientific means for explaining essential theological phenomena. In particular, he uses a combination of science and information contained within the Scriptures to fill gaps in knowledge and improve our understanding of Scripture in a more modern sense. Thus, the conditional unity theory is based on collection and unification of biblical materials in addition to consideration of the whole Scripture. Widespread support for this belief stems from the concept that Scripture is considered as a whole; as a consequence, there is a large degree of evidence in favor of the theory and it more accurately considers a wider breadth of documentation[5].

Erickson goes against other theories including monism, dichotomy, and trichotomy. Monism states that an individual is made up of a body and soul, while conditional unity states that a person is a body and a soul. These two theories differ significantly because in monism, the soul is considered to be a part of the body. Thus, there is only one component. In this instance, the soul can be considered synonymous with the brain. This point of view considers that the brain is responsible for making sinful decisions, rather than the nature of the soul. While biblical scholars believe that this point of view is consistent with information presented by the Old Testament, it is not consistent with the idea of the soul that is discussed in the New Testament. Since Erickson claims that it is valuable to consider the entirety of Scripture when formulating theories or ideas, he would not agree with monism because this theory is missing the concept of the soul and unity with Christ after the physical body has passed. Erickson believes that the distinction between the body and soul is important and therefore wished to include this understanding in the development of his reports. Specific sections of the New Testament that include a defined separation between the body and the soul include: 2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Matthew 10:28; James 2:26; Philippians 1:23-24; Luke 16:19-31[6].

Dichotomy is the theory most similar to the concept of conditional unity[7]. However, while these individuals believe that both the body and soul are components that make up the human existence, these individuals believe that there is no separation between the two parts. This theory considers that the body is a material component of existence, while the soul is an immaterial component. However, the soul is considered to be the true identity of the individual under this definition, while the body is said to simply exist to house the soul. The conditional unity theory contradicts this understanding because it explains that the body is actually a part of an individual’s identity, although it is not perfect. When the soul leaves the body, it is so that it could eventually return to a different body that is a more perfect version of its previous existence. Thus, the concept of the soul leaving the body and then returning to the Earth is an idea that distinguishes the conditional unity theory from the dichotomy theory.

Last, the trichotomy theory is distinct because it is the belief that man is made up on three components instead of one or two. As such, man is said to be made up of the body, soul, and spirit. Under this definition, the body is said to make up all physical components of life, while the spirit is defined as the individual’s personality characteristics and memory. Last, the spirit is the part of being that is said to return to God. Many aspects of the Scripture use the words spirit and soul interchangeably. In this theory, the two words are used to describe separate components of existence. Erickson would therefore disagree with individuals that support this theory as well because it is apparent that individuals that believe this concept have not taken the full context of the Scripture into consideration. Spirit and soul are therefore synonyms; both are what return to Christ after the passing of the body.

Implications of Conditional Unity

Conditional unity requires that man be treated as a unity. Since all individuals come from the same place and return to the same place, all men are united. Specifically, Erickson states that the “spiritual condition cannot be dealt with independently of his physical and psychological condition”¹. Thus, it is important for individuals to treat their physical body well as well as their soul. The mental and physical state of existence is inherently connected so it is important for individuals to respect the health of both of these components. Since both components are a part of the unity and therefore considered a gift, it is necessary to treat them correctly as a relationship with God.

A second implication of conditional unity is that man is a complex being. As such, his “nature is not reducible to a single principle”¹. Tied into this concept is the third implication of traditional unity. There are many aspects of man’s nature and it is therefore essential to attend to and respect these components. It is important for us to consider that Jesus once became a man and as a consequence, the gospels is an appeal to the whole man, not just the soul. The body must be respected because it is a part of what we are.

As we understand, there are many parts of human nature. However, the fourth implication of conditional unity states that we must not focus on only one aspect of this nature. Sin infects both our body and our soul. Thus, it is not just our responsibility to rid the body of sin, it is equally important for us to rid it from the soul. Contrary to many popular beliefs under this assumption, the body is not intrinsically evil because it is part of the whole. Specifically, Erickson argues “the Christian should not aim at bringing the body under the control of the soul”¹. God helps us renew our entire being, including our body and our soul. One component is not more important than the other.

Last, Erickson shows that “human nature is not inconsistent with the scriptural teaching of a personal conscious existence between death and resurrection”¹. It is important for us to understand that the conditional unity theory is consistent with Scripture, which is why Erikson supports this assumption[8]. Furthermore, it is essential to understand the relationship between the conditional unity theory and Scripture to show how this theory more accurately describes the relationship between the body and the soul compared to the other theories available.

Analysis of Conditional Unity

According to 2 Corinthians 5:1-4:

“For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life”.

This passage shows the most significant rationale for the conditional unity theory. Specifically, it describes the process of the human casting away its body to unite with Christ, then returning to a more perfect form. Specifically, this section claims that “we will not be spirits without bodies”, showing that the intermediate phase between life and rebirth will not be long. Our present bodies are not perfect, so casting them away for “heavenly bodies” is beneficial. Based on this understanding, it is apparent that our soul can leave from our body and then reenter a new, more perfect version of our bodies at the time of resurrection. Because our bodies will become “heavenly”, they will not be the same as before. Instead, they will be new to reflect the purity that has been achieved through this process.

In Paul’s letter to the Philippians, he explains, “But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better (1:22-23). This is a seemingly contradictory statement compared to the one just posed. However, it is natural for us to wish to leave our imperfect bodies and enter unity with Christ. Based on other parts of the Scripture, we know that when we return to the Earth, it will be in a more perfect form and that the purpose of our flesh will no longer be to labor. At the time of the resurrection, we will still be one with Chris even though we have returned to a body.

Overall, the conditional unity theory is supported because by looking at more complete view of the Scripture, it is apparent that the body and soul are two separate components instead of one or three. While death separates us from our physical body and brings us into the unity, we eventually return to a new and different body that is more perfect than the one that we left. It is important for us to understand that from birth until the time of resurrection, we are a part of the unity. This is an essential realization for interpreting other parts of Scripture as well because it provides the reader with a helpful understanding to interpret the remainder of this work.

Bibliography

A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (New York: Dover, 1946), 198.

Bruce Reichenbach, Is Man the Pheonix? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 82-84.

Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1999).

David S. Dockery, “Millard J. Erickson: Baptist and Evangelical Theologian”, JETS 32(1989): 519-532.

Enns Paul, Moody Handbook of Theology (Grand Rapids, Moody, 2014).

Hemi Bergson, Creative Evolution (New York, Henry Holt, 1913), 236.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lectures and Conversations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), 65-69.

Paul Helm, “A Theory of Disembodied Survival and Re-embodied Existence,” Religious Studies 14 (1978): 19.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Doctrine (Michigan: Baker Book House, 2001), 189.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990), 537-540.

[1]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990), 537-540.

[2]A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (New York: Dover, 1946), 198.

[3]Bruce Reichenbach, Is Man the Pheonix? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 82-84.

[4]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Doctrine (Michigan: Baker Book House, 2001), 189.

[5] David S. Dockery, “Millard J. Erickson: Baptist and Evangelical Theologian”, JETS 32(1989): 519-532.

[6]Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1999).

[7] Paul Helm, “A Theory of Disembodied Survival and Re-embodied Existence,” Religious Studies 14(1978): 19.

[8]Hemi Bergson, Creative Evolution (New York, Henry Holt, 1913), 236.