Biblical anthropology is demonstrably both holist and dualist. It is holist in teaching that God created, redeems, and will glorify humans as whole embodied persons. It is dualist in teaching that God created humans of two ingredients and that he sustains persons apart from their bodies between death and resurrection. This chapter shows that key arguments against dualism are compromised by problematic hermeneutics, conceptual confusions, and faulty reasoning. It also shows that monism cannot account for the texts which imply dualism, (...) and that dualism is compatible with holism. N. T. Wright corroborates the exegesis supporting these conclusions but defines and rejects dualism as incompatible with holism. Nevertheless, his understanding of holism is compatible with virtually all current Christian dualism. However, Joel Green's holistic exegesis, integral anthropology, and practical theology make valuable contributions that dualists can affirm. (shrink)

Christians who affirm standard science and the biblical doctrine of creation often endorse theistic evolution as the best approach to human origins. But theistic evolution is ambiguous. Some versions are naturalistic (NTE)—God created humans entirely by evolution—and some are supernaturalistic (STE)—God supernaturally augmented evolution. This article claims that NTE is inadequate as an account of human origins because its theological naturalism and emergent physicalist ontology of the soul or person conflict with the Christian doctrine that God created humans for everlasting (...) life. Both the traditional Christian account of the afterlife and its modern Christian alternatives involve God's supernatural action and a separation (dualism) of person and body at death. STE can combine with several philosophical accounts of the body-soul relation to provide an adequate Christian account of original human nature. (shrink)

This paper addresses central issues in the debate about inclusive language for God by responding to Andrew Dell’Olio, who offered biblical, theological, linguistic, and ethical reasons for a “supplemental” use of feminine language for God. Since he leaves unclear whether “supplemental” means “secondary to” or “fully equal to” the masculine language of the biblical tradition, it is difficult to determine whether he makes his case. While a secondary role for feminine language for God is legitimate, I argue that giving feminine (...) language a status equal to the Bible’s masculine language for God is not warranted by the standard biblical and theological criteria of the Christian tradition. (shrink)

Green’s book outlines a wholistic vision of human nature, the Christian life, and life after death using “neuro-hermeneutics,” his approach to biblical interpretation integrated with neuroscience and psychology. He argues that a comprehensive vision of Christianity implies body-soul monism and undermines dualism. I respond that these sciences are consistent with dualist as well as monist anthropologies. I examine his exegetical arguments for anthropological monism from the eschatological texts of Luke–Acts and the Corinthian epistles, find them wanting, and show why they (...) actually imply dualism. I conclude that Green has neither undermined dualism nor warranted monism. (shrink)