This article first appeared in the Practical Apologetics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 22, number 3 (2000). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
 
One of the reasons I love the game of golf is that it puts me in touch with people whose worldviews are radically different from mine. One such person is Matt.2 This year Matt and I had an opportunity to team up as partners in a golf tournament. While driving to the tournament, we first talked about golf and then about God. Matt, a lawyer by profession, was convinced that humans are mere material beings. To his way of thinking, if we were to die during our drive, we would simply cease to exist. For him, the notion of a soul that exists beyond the grave was absolutely absurd.
 
Like so many others in our culture, he was firmly committed to Sagans creed The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. In addition, he had embraced the mantra of Madonna I am a material girl living in a material world. From his perspective, human beings are merely material brains and bodies. As we continued our drive to the golf course, I attempted to convince Matt that there are compelling reasons to believe human beings have an immaterial aspect to their being that transcends the material.
 
I pointed out that from the perspective of logic we can demonstrate that the mind is not identical to the brain, by proving that the mind and brain have different properties. In other words, The subjective texture of our conscious mental experiences the feeling of pain, the experience of sound, the awareness of color is different from anything that is simply physical. If the world were only made of matter, these subjective aspects of consciousness would not exist. But they do exist! So there must be more to the world than matter.3 An obvious example concerns color. A moments reflection is enough to convince a thinking person that the experience of color involves more than mere wavelengths of light.4
 
I went on to argue that, from a legal perspective, if human beings were merely material, they could not be held accountable this year for a crime committed last year simply because physical identity changes over time. Physically, we are not the same person today that we were yesterday. Every day we lose multiplied millions of microscopic particles. In fact, every seven years virtually every part of our material anatomy, apart from aspects of our neurological system, changes.5 From a purely material perspective, therefore, the self who did the crime in the past is not literally the same self who is present at the time of punishment.6 Appealing to Matt's legal background, I suggested that a criminal who attempted to use this line of reasoning as a defense would not get very far. Legally and intuitively we recognize a sameness of soul that establishes personal identity over time.7
 
As we were nearing the golf course, I quickly moved on to an argument from libertarian freedom. If we are merely material beings, I noted, then freedom of the will does not exist. Instead, we are fatalistically relegated to a world in which mechanistic material processes determine everything.8 Realizing that at this point Matt might have begun thinking about the golf tournament, I used a golf illustration to make sure I had his attention.
 
The distance a golf ball flies is fatalistically predetermined by such factors as club head speed, angle of impact, and wind velocity. In concert with Newton's laws of motion, the precise distance the ball will travel is thus fatalistically determined by the physical processes involved. Likewise, if I am merely material, my choices are merely a function of such factors as genetic make-up and brain chemistry. My decisions are therefore not free, theyre fatalistically determined.
 
I pointed out that the implications of such a notion are profound. In a worldview that embraces fatalistic determinism I cannot be held morally accountable for my actions, since reward and punishment make sense only if we have freedom of the will. In a solely material world, reason itself is reduced to the status of a conditioned reflex. Moreover, even the very concept of love is rendered meaningless. Rather than being an act of the will, love is relegated to a robotic procedure that is fatalistically determined by physical processes. If Madonna is merely a material girl living in a material world, then she really has no freedom of choice.
 
In short, I presented Matt with three compelling reasons to believe human beings have a soul that continues to exist apart from the body. First, logically or intuitively, we recognize nonphysical aspects of humanity, such as ego. Furthermore, legally, even though our physical identity changes from year to year, we recognize a sameness of soul that establishes personal identity. Finally, libertarian freedom of the will presupposes that we are more than mere material robots. These three reasons give us warrant to conclude that human beings have an immaterial nature that transcends the material body. In the Christian worldview, this immaterial aspect of humanity is called the soul.9 It is precisely because the human soul is not dependent on material processes for its existence that it can survive the death of the physical body.10
 
Well, I could see the golf course looming on the horizon, so our discussion had to be put on hold. For the next four hours we focused on beating a little white ball from one hole to the next. By the time we returned to my car, our visions of golf glory had dematerialized. While we had not crashed on the way to the tournament, we had definitely crashed during it. Nothing seemed to go right. As we headed home, we dejectedly replayed every single shot over and over again in our minds, all the while dreaming of what might have been.
 
Eventually, our conversation moved from mere earthly vanities to eternal verities. As a lawyer, Matt was significantly impressed by the logical, legal, and libertarian freedom arguments I had presented on the way to the tournament. But, he was not yet convinced of life beyond the grave. And so, during the course of the next few hours I conjoined these arguments to the overwhelming evidence for a Creator11 and for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.12
 
By the time I had finished telling Matt about the resurrection, we were pulling into his driveway. While we continued to talk, I told him how some 20 years ago someone had explained to me what I was now explaining to him. I described how, after I had examined the evidence, the Creator of the cosmos had become the Lord and Savior of my soul and that today He is more real to me than the very flesh upon my bones.
 
While I would like to tell you that Matt yielded his life to Christ in the driveway that evening, I cant. What I can say is that since that day he and I have had numerous conversations about the afterlife and the existence of the soul. I am reminded that all the evidence in the world will not change someones heart only the Holy Spirit can do that. People reject the evidence not because they cant accept it but because they wont. Though Matt has not yet yielded his life to the Creator of his soul, I remain hopeful that the whole story has not yet been told.
 
â014 Hank Hanegraaff
 
NOTES
 
1.
Adapted from chapter 10 of Hank Hanegraaffs new book, Resurrection (Nashville: Word, 2000). Available through CRI.
2.
Matt is not his real name.
3.
Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 52 (emphasis in original). Dr. Moreland, in particular, has greatly enhanced and expanded my thinking on the existence and nature of the immaterial aspect of humanity the soul, including the mind.
4.
Moreland and Habermas explain, Mental events are feelings of pain, episodes of thoughts, or sensory experiences. Physical events are happenings in the brain and central nervous system that can be described exhaustively using terms from chemistry and physics. However, physical events and their properties do not have the same features as do mental events and their properties.An experiment will help you see the difference. Picture a pink elephant in your mind. Now close your eyes and look at the image. In your mind, you will see a pink property (a sense datum or sensory way of experiencing). There will be no pink elephant outside you, but there will be a pink image of one in your mind. However, there will be no pink entity in your brain; no neurophysiologist could open your brain and see a pink entity while you are having the sense image. The sensory event has a property pink that no brain event has. Therefore, they cannot be identical. The sense image is a mental entity, not a physical one. (Ibid., 49).
5.
Ibid., 58.
6.
Ibid., 59.
7.
Moreland and Habermas write, Physicalists [who hold that the mind is identical to the brain] and property dualists [who hold that the mind, while distinct from the brain, is a property or attribute of the brain ï0E6 the mind depends on the brain for its existence] have no alternative but to hold that personal identity through change is not absolute (Ibid., 58). In essence, physicalists and property dualists are relegated to the unenviable task of trying to rationalize what are called person-stages; the self is really a contiguous series through time of closely resembling but not identical selves. Continuity of self can be accounted for only by positing an immaterial self, that is, a soul. (See ibid., 5760.)
8.
See ibid., 6062.
9.
For a discussion of the nature of the soul, see ibid., chapter 3.
10.
While biblically we continue to exist in a conscious state after the death of our physical body, we are not complete until we are reunited with our resurrected bodies at the second coming of Christ (see John 5:28-29; 2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 1:22-24; 1 Thes. 4:16). The sum substance of the self is a psyche/soma a soul/body.
11.
See Hank Hanegraaff, The FACE that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution (Nashville: Word, 1998).
12.
See Resurrection, Part 1.
 

So what would the point be that you would hope people receive from this post?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

..I fully expected you {of all people,'IBIJ'} to be the Only one to
ask that question; given your {'ah-hem'} close-mindedness to certain
heretical {to you}, ways of understanding/interpreting the Bible.
 
..But for-the-record, perhaps you only scanned the article {rather than
actually having read it with an 'open mind'}.. Otherwise, why were you
the Only person who acted like they didn't 'get' the point of the article?!;
but, the portion of the article that seemed to be speaking of people like
yourself, was:
 
"I am reminded that all the evidence in the world will Not change someone's
heart, only the Holy Spirit can do that. People reject the evidence not because
they can't accept it, but because they Won't"{!}
 
{'HoM' comment: Now admittedly, I posted Mr. Hanigraaf's{sp?} essay of sorts,
that argued for the existence of the indwelling human-soul from a logician's point-
of-view.. although, he also has a considerable {'mainstream'} Christian-apologetics
background.
..Let me know, 'IBIJ' if you'd be interested in reading what Mr. Hanigraaf {whom
"JEBUS" and I, are in agreement with}.. but tends to be even More 'well-spoken';
ie. Christian-apologetics, being his area of scholarly-study, and I'll look for his
arguments Re. the indwelling and Eternal human-soul from a Biblical perspective,
on the "Web."
..P.s. If you happen to decline my offer, a non-caustic turndown would be
appreciated.

Although I did indeed scan the article, perhaps I was the only one that responded because I was the only one that scanned the WHOLE document? Perhaps not.
 
However, if I set out to follow your understanding of the truth only to find out that the truth you are teaching me is not fully disclosed within God's Word then what would result from my salvation experience?
 
Case in point. Can you show me even one verse that specifically mentions a coming rapture in Scripture?
 
"Non-caustic" reply? Hmmmm... I guess my sarcasm does have it's problems at times though it can also be used as a tool in the right hands. As for your challenge, I will decline; though I will do so by making a counter challenge.
 
Since I bring only my own understanding of God's Word to the table of discussion, it would seem appropriate for you to do the same while quoting whomever or whatever you would desire. I'd much rather speak to you directly thru the written word than to some text scrawled by some third party. So if your willing to use Greek, Hebrew, apologetics, or whatever you desire within your own words then I'll gladly take your challenge. I will only bring God's Word with me, and you can trust that I will challenge every position I find being put forth that is not clearly documented within God's Word.
 
How was that for a lack of sarcasm?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

To, 'IBIJ'.. Congrats, for your lack of sarcasm, but I'm afraid
that that will be about the extent of any 'new ground' that will
be breeched in our quest for mutual understanding!
 
..As I stated earlier, any number of what I'll call the 'finer-
points' of what I believe the Bible teaches, do Not bear on
what I consider to be vital to ones' God-offered salvation;
..so therefore, just as you declined my offer to 'dig up'
appropriate Scripture-verses relating to every person's 'triune'
and ongoing existence, ie. body, soul & spirit {many of which
of the pertinent verses I've since discovered, are included in
my prior {2 posts back} submitted post.. though not in the main
article itself}.. so shall I decline your challenge, simply be-
cause like all {or perhaps most all} of our other Bible under-
standing differences, aside from it not having a direct bearing
on how an unbeliever can receive God's gift of Eternal Life,
{with Him}.. despite your apparent belief to the contrary, Re.
debating/bringing forth, various portions of Scripture, to try
to prove someone's 'right'; the 'talking-points' for Each Side
of any number of {Bible} interpretation differences, can be
'googled'!..'doh' {as if most of us didn't already know that!}
 
..I assert that there is little value in 'parroting' an argument/
belief-system that agrees with our own respective points-
of-view {since '7th-Day Adventist' Bible-beliefs, are also
on the "Web"}.. which I have No doubt that You would
Also be 'parroting', even if not via the "copy-and-paste"
method{!}
..Finally, I already know, what with your propensity for Always
wanting to 'get-in-the-last-word'.. is apparently {and erroneously}
in your own mind, tantamount to having 'Won' a debate{!!?}
 
..On that basis 'IBIJ', I'll let you 'Win' this time, {since my Bible-
interpretation-debating-days With You, are Now officially over with..
{as with, "JEBUS," 'gamma'.. and presumably, "grandpa13"}.
 
Ps. If you think, that further debate would shed any much further
'light' on various matters; given everyone's ability to 'google'
"Rapture," "Human Soul," "Hell"/"Lake-of-Fire," "Sabbath," and
whether or not it has been superceded by the Bible's 'N.T.' ref-
erence to 'JC' being "The Lord of the Sabbath"{!}.. then to quote
a time-worn but appropriate euphanism: 'It just so happens that I
also own a bridge in Brooklyn, that I'd be happy to sell to you'!
 
{The last statement/quote, is Not to be taken literally, just in case
you are selectively humorless}.

Are you still there? ;) I hope so... okay... you had to give me one line of sarcasm. :) -- Now I'll move on to my response while attempting to limit my sarcasm even though it's so fun. (smirk)
 
YOU SAID:
> ..As I stated earlier, any number of what I'll call the 'finer-
> points' of what I believe the Bible teaches, do Not bear on
> what I consider to be vital to ones' God-offered salvation;
 
MY RESPONSE:
Since your rather new to these dialogs you likely missed some of my historically related posts. So, at the risk of boring others may I demonstrate how missunderstanding a simple point of what I am teaching can mean the difference between eternal heaven and the second death in hell?
 
(POINT:) People stay in the ground when they die till Jesus returns again.
 
As many here know my wife died on April 3rd 2003 from her fight with cancer. For the sake of argument let's say that she went to heaven and as some believe she watches over me and my life day by day. (NOTE: With some decisions that I've made since her passing that would quite literally make her heaven hell; but none-the-less I digress). Can we agree that there will be a coming anti-Christ? Most do, accepting those who believe that Nero was the anti-Christ and thus the anti-Christ has already been (which is the entire premise populated by the counter-challenge series to Left Behind called The Last Disciple -- both of which are based off of actual events that took place when the Catholic church was attempting to disprove that they were the breeders of the prophecy in Daniel 12; though you won't here anyone tell you that.) Anyway, back to my point. Since the coming anti-Christ will be able to do marvelous miracles including raising our dead loved ones to deceive even the very elect if that were possible (and this can all be documented in Scripture); let's say my wife shows up on the door step one day. If I fully believe she is alive and well in Heaven verse believing that she is dead in the grave; which path is more likely to lead me in the wrong direction? If she's dead in the grave until the 2nd coming there's no way she could be at my door step. Not necessarily so if she's in Heaven and alive and well. The question then becomes what is standing at my door step rather than who is standing at my door step. Can we both agree that just as their were demons in the Scriptures they are unfortunately alive and (slight sarcasm alert) errrr aaaa well today? Since I understand that demons can manifest themselves as dead loved one's it will be much harder for this demon to guide me in the wrong direction to the wrong Jesus, no?
 
That's why it's critical that we study God's Word to find out exactly what IT says and does not say, rather than believing or listening to anyone else no matter how many accolades they have before or after their name.
 
YOU SAID:
"I decline your challenge"
 
MY RESPONSE:
That's truly your choice. There have been many "Christians" before you who have attempted to take such challenges though maybe not literally and each has done there own way. Me? I'm still here (until March), willing to speak with anyone on any Biblically based subject they might want to sink their teeth into. For the record, Jebus and I are still dialoging just not on this platform. Per his direction we are choosing to follow a prescribed Bible study plan thru a chapter in Daniel. We can do the same if you wish, or not. Your call, though it's probably safer for you to continue down the road you've chosen. Looking back I have many enemies and others' who simply will not talk to me because I'm so "screwed up". Would I change direction given the chance? Not a chance, accepting leading more by asking questions rather than giving answers.
 
YOU SAID:
> your propensity for Always
> wanting to 'get-in-the-last-word'
 
MY RESPONSE:
I've been accused of this before, and quite frankly it baffles me. If you say something to me wouldn't it be logical that I respond? Yet if I do respond I'm somehow "getting in the last word"? Well, yeah... at least until you respond again and then you are the one "getting in the last word" at least until I respond again. One of my many degrees is in Communication, and well... I learned there that to communicate verbally you have to have at least two parties dialoging. So what you may see as my attempting to "get in the last word" is quite honestly what I see as the necessary process for communication to take place.
 
YOU SAID:
> Ps. If you think, that further debate would shed any much further
> 'light' on various matters; given everyone's ability to 'google'
> "Rapture," "Human Soul," "Hell"/"
> Lake-of-Fire," "Sabbath,"
 
MY RESPONSE:
While being a successful Web Master in my own right who capitalizes upon Google for prophet, there is indeed a problem with Google. Actually it's not with Google at all. I remember growing up asking adults "how do you spell?" and the usual phrase of "look it up!" being returned. It's a real education having a parent that is a teacher - LOL... hey... I didn't say it would be 100% free of sarcasm. Anyway, one of my normal responses to such reactions was...
 
"how can I look it up if I don't know how to spell it?"
 
Same goes with your Google theory. Above you mentioned a variety of topics, most dealing with mainline denominational doctrine and then threw in the most obvious Adventist doctrine you knew of. I'm not saying you didn't know more Adventist doctrine, but I never even knew there was such a phrase as...
 
"the state of the dead"
 
Until after studying Adventism for more than a little while. So now I revert to childhood (yeah, just try to stop the sarcastic reply to that ;) )... "how does a person GOOGLE what they don't even know exists?
 
Anyways, I hope we talk more and I'll do my best to hold back the sarcasm just for you. :)
 
Cheers and I hope your Thanksgiving was a good one
IBIJ