Comments on: Dualism and the Goodness of Heaven https://www.tyndalephilosophy.com/2013/04/30/dualism-and-the-goodness-of-heaven/ Official Blog of the Tyndale UC Philosophy Department Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:51:37 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.com/ By: Rich Davis https://www.tyndalephilosophy.com/2013/04/30/dualism-and-the-goodness-of-heaven/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Thu, 02 May 2013 15:50:56 +0000 https://www.tyndalephilosophy.com/?p=644#comment-71 I wonder what Merricks thinks of the incarnation. When God the Son (a divine, immaterial person) takes on a human nature (/body), isn’t that a case of dualism? If so, then dualism isn’t coherent on Christian theism.

By contrast, on his view (and this, to my mind, would be a reductio of the position), wouldn’t Merricks be committed to saying that there are *two* persons involved in the incarnation: a disembodied divine person + an animate human body? After all, *other* human bodies (e.g., yours and mine) are persons on his view. So why wouldn’t Jesus’ body–the one assumed in the incarnation–also count as a person in its own right?

There’s something Nestorian lurking in the nearby bushes, I think.

]]>
By: Paul Franks https://www.tyndalephilosophy.com/2013/04/30/dualism-and-the-goodness-of-heaven/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Thu, 02 May 2013 14:18:20 +0000 https://www.tyndalephilosophy.com/?p=644#comment-70 Hi there, thanks for commenting on my post. Unfortunately, I’m not quite sure what point you’re making. I think you’re raising the general point that something unique is accomplished by having a resurrection body. With that, I think both Merricks and I would happily agree. Our disagreement is regarding whether there is an intermediate, non-bodily, existence prior to the resurrection. He suggests such an existence would de-value the resurrection and I disagree, but we both affirm the value of the resurrection itself.

]]>
By: dlubbe https://www.tyndalephilosophy.com/2013/04/30/dualism-and-the-goodness-of-heaven/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Thu, 02 May 2013 08:50:20 +0000 https://www.tyndalephilosophy.com/?p=644#comment-69 I’m not a professional so this might be missing the point of what you getting at. If so sorry.

I think the earthy body necessary comes to an end (something good). So, if we put sin aside, by which I’m saying – death or rather, going to sleep, is not due to sin in this case. Then it seems to me that the body is not eternal and hence is subject to being replaced (different properties altogether). But from biblical data we do seem to have a continuity personhood now and then (to be a person in eternity). Hence, I think the biblical necessity of the resurrection has to do with the restoration of the image of God in humanity (sin issue) and the fulfilment of the new creation (ascension transformation).

So my problem is with the use body.

]]>