Unfortunately, within the conditionalist camp, people hold a variety of beliefs regarding the nature of the soul, spirit, mind, brain, and body and how they relate to consciousness, thought, continuity of existence, physical death, etc. This means that the permutations of possible positions become rather large. Addressing each variation would be difficult. As a result, this paper will discuss the general principles dealing with anthropological monism and anthropological physicalism and attempt to show why they are heretical.

But first, some quotes from the pro-annihilationist camp which are, unfortunately, wrong.

• “The Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, represent individual personality as a complex and totally mortal monism, a unity that can be viewed from different perspectives, but that cannot be broken into separately existing parts.”¹Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, Kindle Locations 2954-2956). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. underline added
• “…man is one indivisible entity, not a combination of two, body and soul.”²Ed., Date, Christopher M. and Highfiled, Ron. A Consuming Passion: Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of Edward Fudge, Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. (Kindle Locations 4500-4501).  underline added
• John [the apostle] has a distinct monist view of human existence; in other words, man is one indivisible entity, not a combination of two, body and soul.”³ibid. Locations 4500-4501, underline added

Monism and Physicalism and proper logical inference

Anthropological monism is the position that the characteristics of a human being whether they are thought, soul, consciousness, brain, or body, are all comprised of or the result of being one single substance. Since the one substance is the same substance of the universe, matter, etc., then the human brain is part of the one substance. Since this one substance is governed by the laws of physics, then the mind, which emanates from the physical brain, is also governed by the laws of physics. Therefore, when the physical body dies, the human mind/soul completely ceases to exist.  However, this position is self-refuting because if the physical brain is governed by the laws of physics (motion, chemistry, electricity, etc.) and the mind emanates from that physical brain, then this means that the mind is also limited to the laws of physics – as well as chemistry since the brain has lots of chemical reactions in it. But, if the mind is limited to the laws of physics and chemistry, then it cannot be trusted to produce proper logical inference since the laws of physics and chemistry don’t produce logic. They only produce the necessary reactions. Therefore, anthropological monism is self-refuting because it forces doubt upon the validity of its own position since it logically must assert that its own position is the result of neurochemical reactions in the brain, which in turn are nothing more than the reactions to stimulus produced by our senses. How, then can any truth be known? This means anthropological monism cannot be true.

Anthropological physicalism

Anthropological physicalism is the position that the human person is only a physical thing and that the soul must be explained in physical terms, i.e., mass, volume, energy, properties, etc. Therefore, the human being is a physical system without a separate soul. When the physical body dies, the soul ceases to exist. Anthropological physicalism is self-refuting for the same reasons as anthropological monism. Anthropological physicalism (like anthropological monism) requires that the brain be limited to the laws of physics and chemistry. This means that the mind, which proceeds from the physical brain, is dependent upon it for its own existence. But since the brain is restricted to the laws of physics and chemistry, then so too must the mind. But, the laws of physics and chemistry do not produce proper logical inference. Therefore, the position of anthropological physicalism cannot be trusted since it refutes itself.

For clarification, proper logical inference deals with logical necessity. For example, if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C. Another example would be, all men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Therefore, Socrates was mortal. So, the proper logical inference is the process of reasoning where we move from premises to logical conclusions. Furthermore, logical reasoning is a process of the mind, not of chemistry and not of the laws of physics, which describe such things as acceleration, conservation of energy, etc. We do not find the laws of logic ( the Law of Identity, the Law of Non-contradiction, the Law of Excluded Middle, etc.) under rocks. We cannot photograph them, measure them, weigh them, etc. This is because they are abstractions; that is, they are “of the mind” and are not the result of physics and chemistry.

Jesus’ two natures and his intermediate state

If a conditionalist holds to anthropological monism or anthropological physicalism, then aside from both positions being self-refuting (as well as unbiblical, i.e. 2 Cor. 12:2), it must be the case that when a person dies, the human soul ceases to exist. This further necessitates that when Christ died, his human nature ceased to exist. This would deny the true incarnation since it destroys the hypostatic union (that the person of Jesus has two natures: divine and human) and would be a grave heresy. Furthermore, upon Christ’s resurrection, there would have to be a re-creation of the human spirit of Jesus, which was then united with the divine nature, which would be a second incarnation. The second human soul would not be the same one as the first due to the continuity issue.

Continuity Illustration:  One chair or two chairs?

If I were to build a chair out of twenty pieces of wood, I would have a particular instance of a chair. I then burn that chair so that it no longer exists. If I were to take another twenty pieces of wood that are exactly identical to the first twenty and build another chair that is exactly identical to the first, then is the second chair the first chair, or are they different chairs that are exactly alike? Though they are exactly the same, they are not the same chair since the particular instance of the 1st chair is not the same instance of the 2nd chair. They are different chairs.

What about the human spirit of Jesus? If Jesus’ human nature ceases to exist upon death, as both anthropological monism and physicalism require, then another human spirit must be created that is identical to the first. But, is it the same human spirit? Logic would suggest that it is not. But, if it is not, then the resurrected Christ, who consists of one person with two natures would not be the same Christ that was crucified. This is because the continuity between the first and second human spirits does not exist; after all, we call them 1st and 2nd human spirits, which necessarily means they are not the same.

Error Begets Error

I believe that one error leads to more errors. Furthermore, in my opinion, most of the conditionalists that I’ve encountered and have read are looking for reasons to believe in their conditionalism, despite what God’s word says. Nevertheless, I don’t offer my opinion as proof of anything. It is just my opinion. I suspect that a lot of conditionalists are starting with the premise of annihilation, and then by working backward, they must attack, to some degree, the incarnation of Christ. Let me explain. Let’s start with one of their presuppositions and work from it.

1. The wicked will be annihilated and not exist, because…
2. The human soul/spirit does not have the natural characteristic of eternal existence and ceases to exist upon physical death.  Therefore…
3. When Jesus died on the cross his human soul/spirit ceased to exist.  Which means…
4. The hypostatic union, an essential Christian doctrine, is now denied.

If we were to reverse this order and start with Christ, we can see why anthropological monism and anthropological physicalism would both be wrong. It could go something like this…

1. The hypostatic union (Jesus is both God and man) is an essential Christian doctrine that cannot be denied.
2. When Jesus died on the cross, the hypostatic union was not destroyed and continued after death, which means the human soul/spirit of Christ continued in its conscious state since we cannot divide the natures of Christ according to the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
3. Jesus represents the perfect man. Therefore since Jesus’ human nature continued after death, this implies that people also continue to exist after death.
4. If people continue to exist in a conscious state after death, then this lends support to the traditional view of eternal conscious torment and conditionalism is wrong.

Of course, I could reword this and fine-tune both sets of statements, but I hope you get the point. Where you begin, determines where you end, and if you begin with man, you must reinterpret Christ.

Scripture and the existence after death apart from the physical body

The Scriptures give us several places where we see people who are alive without their physical bodies. Please consider the following scriptures.

1. Matthew 17:2–3, “And He was transfigured before them, and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.”
2. Luke 16:22–24, “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom, and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 “In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 “And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’”
3. 2 Corinthians 5:8, “we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”
4. 2 Corinthians 12:2–4, “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.”

In the first set of scriptures in Matthew 17:2-3, we see an account of the Transfiguration where Jesus was glorified and was speaking to Moses and Elijah. Since the General Resurrection of believers has not yet occurred, then Jesus was speaking with two individuals who are alive apart from their physical bodies.  (See the article Matthew 17:2-3, Christ’s Transfiguration, Moses, and Elijah)

In the second set of scriptures in Luke 16:22-24, Jesus spoke of two people who died and both were conscious after death. Now, some say this is a parable and some say it is not. Either way, Jesus is speaking about conscious existence after death and the torment that one of them is in as he cries out from the flames.  (See the article Luke 16:19-31, the rich man and Lazarus)

In the third set of scriptures 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul clearly says that he preferred to be absent from his body, that must be his physical body, and to be at home with the Lord. Paul further reiterates this concept in Philippians 1:23 which says “but I am hard-pressed for both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better. He is speaking in both 2 Corinthians and Philippians of dying and going to be with the Lord Jesus…apart from the body and before the General Resurrection. (See the article 2 Cor. 5:8, Separated from the body and at home with the Lord)

In the fourth set of scriptures 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, Paul speaks of an individual who was either in the body or out of the body and who experienced things when he was caught up to paradise.  It was there that he heard inexpressible words. This clearly refutes the idea of anthropological monism as well as anthropological physicalism which both state that upon a person’s physical death, the spirit/soul ceases to exist. Here, Paul is obviously contradicting that notion.  (See the article 2 Corinthians 12:2, in the body or out of the body, caught up to heaven )

Conclusion

If any particular conditionalist holds to either anthropological monism or anthropological physicalism, he is adopting a false position that supports heresy. Sure, there are variations of views held by their proponents, but the basic principles apply. There are logical problems with these views dealing with the resurrection and the continuity of the person regarding existence, to nonexistence, and then existence again. Furthermore, this is seriously problematic when we apply this to the person of Christ, where the two positions would each necessitate the violation of the continuity of the hypostatic union, which is a violation of the incarnation where the one person of Christ has two distinct natures. Finally, some scriptures speak of people existing after death and apart from the body who are conscious, which necessitates existence apart from the physical body. Clearly, the Bible refutes both anthropological monism and anthropological physicalism.