The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

III. Dean Vidler-“Inherent” Immortality Not Biblical Doctrine

Men of both liberal and conservative schools have alike challenged the traditional Innate Immortality view as having no Biblical basis. The liberal ALEC R. VIDLER, canon of St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, and since 1956 dean of King’s College, Cambridge-as well as for many years editor of the Anglican Theology-refers to the Genesis records of “creation” and the “fall” as “myths.” ²¹ Nevertheless, he is keenly aware of the current widespread interest, in these “tumultuous times,” concerning “eschatology.” This term, he says, embraces the “‘four last things: death, judgment, heaven, and hell.’” ²² Then he notes the preoccupation of many “with the question of their own survival of death or with the immortality of the soul.” ²³ That introduces the question. CFF2 846.3

1. TERM NOT IN BIBLE OR EARLY CREEDS

Dr. Vidler then makes this sweeping statement on the pagan nature and origin of the Innate Immortality presumption: CFF2 847.1

“The immortality of the soul-if it means that there is a part of every man, a kind of soul-substance, that is immortal—is not a Christian doctrine, though it has often been supposed to be and is still frequently confused with the Christian doctrine. The expression ‘immortality of the soul’ does not occur in the Bible or the [early] creeds, though admittedly some [early] theologians have made use of it. The Bible is preoccupied with God and his relation to mankind. It does not speak about any inherent capacity of the human soul to survive death.” ²⁴ CFF2 847.2

Vidler quotes Dr. O. C. Quick’s cryptic statement in Doctrines of the Creed, page 263:
“‘Many believers in God reject belief in the immortality of the soul. And on the other hand, some have believed in the imortality of the soul, while rejecting belief in God.’” ²⁵ CFF2 847.3

2. RESURRECTED MEN NOT “DISEMBODIED SPIRITS.”

Like hundreds of others, Vidler contrasts “immortality” and “resurrection.” CFF2 847.4

“It is not of the immortality of the soul but of the resurrection of the body that Christian belief, like the Bible, speaks. In God’s new, immortal creation men are not ghosts; they are not disembodied spirits; they are not absorbed into an unconscious cosmic soul. They retain their personal identity, for God’s purpose for them is an inheritance in which nothing will be lacking to a fully personal relationship. The work of Christ is to bring not only souls but whole men into a complete and eternal relationship with God.” ²⁶ CFF2 847.5

3. “WHOLE MAN” DIES, “EVERY PART OF HIM.”

Vidler deprecates such terms as “passing on” in speaking of death, when instead it is “the whole man, every part of him,” that dies. To the Canon, death is ever an enemy, not a welcoming friend. He speaks strongly: CFF2 848.1

“There is another point about the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, as distinguished from that of the immortality of the soul, which should not be overlooked. The word ‘immortal’ means not subject to death, and applied to man it must mean that there is at any rate part of a man which need not and in fact cannot die. The word ‘resurrection’ on the other hand presupposes the death of the whole man, every part of him. And this is in line with the whole tenour of the New Testament, for there the fact of universal death is taken seriously. ‘In Adam all die.’ It does not use euphemisms such as ‘passing on’ or ‘passing over’ which are popular nowadays. Death with all that it entails of separation, tragedy and mystery is a bitter necessity. The death of a man is not only natural like the death of animals or vegetables; it is also unnatural. We rebel against it.” ²⁷ CFF2 848.2