The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

I. Moravian’s Heller-Immortality Not of Man, but From God

A meaningful note was struck by JAMES J. HELLER, ¹ dean and professor of Old and New Testaments at the Moravian Theological Seminary, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, established in 1742. Originally given at a Pastors’ Conference at the Methodist DePauw University in Indiana, these lectures then appeared in Princeton’s scholarly Theology Today. ² After alluding to the ancient “philosophic, spiritualistic, or quasi-scientific speculations about life after death,” Dr. Heller refers to the popular “vague hope that some indefinable part” of one’s personality is “indestructible and may somehow go on living after death has claimed the body.” He then speaks of certain significant “new insights” which throw “fresh light” upon the question by “modern Biblical scholarship.” ³ These he clearly spells out. CFF2 936.3

1. RECENT SCHOLARSHIP CHALLENGES TRADITIONAL “DUALISM.”

Heller cites approvingly the modern “unified psychosomatic” concept of being-that “the soul is not a detachable part of man’s nature capable of independent life and activity.” ⁴ Of the traditional position he says significantly: CFF2 937.1

Picture 1: Dr. James J. Heller
Dr. James J. Heller, dean, Moravian Theological Seminary—man not half mortal and half immortal.
Page 937

“Almost axiomatic to the traditional formulations of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is the belief that man is a being composed of two separate and distinct elements: a material body and an immaterial soul. The latter is believed to survive the death of the body and live on in an active disembodied condition until at the Last Day it is once again joined to its resurrected body. It is precisely this radically dualistic view of man which is challenged by modern science and, on quite independent lines, by recent Biblical scholarship as well.” ⁵ CFF2 937.2

This, of course, is in direct conflict with the traditional notion of an “intermediate state” of intensified conscious activity. But Heller refers to “a growing number of Biblical scholars” who believe such a view to be “unscriptural.” ⁶ He refers to it as “the insupportable assumption that the human soul can separate itself from the body and has the capacity for independent life and activity.” ⁷ Heller then states that the soul is “something which a man is, not something which he has.” That places the gist of his position before us. CFF2 937.3

2. MAN NOT “HALF MORTAL” AND “HALF IMMORTAL.”

Such a position challenges the “traditional dualism of religious anthropology and creedal formulations.” He then gives expression to these pertinent convictions: CFF2 938.1

“Man is not a dichotomy, half mortal and half immortal, but a being whose total psychosomatic existence is at every moment dependent upon God. And if we are to give proper expression to the Biblical teaching about the life to come we shall not speak of a disembodied soul being reunited with its resurrected body, but rather of the restoration of the whole man to the fullness of personal life.” ⁸ CFF2 938.2

He concludes, concerning man as an “indivisible whole“:
“If it is as an indivisible whole that man lives, dies, and is raised to live again, it is then a misnomer to speak of the ‘resurrection of the body,’ for this implies, to the modern mind at least, that only man’s physical nature is involved. We would do better to speak of the ‘resurrection of man,’ or, to use the Scriptural phrase, ‘the resurrection of the dead,’ for the proper object of the resurrecting power of God is nothing less than the whole man.” ⁹ CFF2 938.3

3. LIFE AFTER DEATH “RESTS” ON “IMMORTALITY OF GOD.”

Heller then refers to another traditional assumption that has been challenged: CFF2 938.4

“Traditional definitions of the Christian doctrine of the life to come assume not only that the human soul is a distinct and separable entity but also that it has an inalienable and unlimited capacity to sustain its own life even after death has claimed the body. This assumption, too, is challenged both by modern science and by recent Biblical research.” ¹⁰ CFF2 938.5

Heller expressly states that “man in the entirety of his being is a mortal creature.” He is mortal “by nature.” He is dependent “upon God for the gift and continuance of life.” He “receives from God the gift of immortal life through faith in Jesus Christ.” ¹¹Then comes this impressive declaration: CFF2 939.1

“Life after death in the New Testament is not a corollary of the doctrine of man, but of the doctrines of God and salvation. It is not rooted in the nature and capacities of man, but in the character and saving power of God. The Christian’s hope of eternal life rests not on the immortality of his own soul, but on the immortality of his Gad and Saviour, who, refusing to let him sink into nothingness, holds him in unbroken fellowship with himself until the day of resurrection when he shall be restored to a life that is fully personal, truly human, and in a body of glory suited to the conditions of that realm.” ¹² CFF2 939.2

4. LIFE NOT “INALIENABLE” POSSESSION BUT “LOAN” FROM GOD

Citing Hamma Divinity School’s Dr. T. A. Kantonen-that “‘the decisive consideration is not, are you a man and therefore an immortal being, but, are you in Christ and therefore assured that not even death can separate you from him?’” ¹³—Heller states that “man’s life” is “a trust or a loan which he receives from God, and not a natural and inalienable property.” ¹⁴ Repeating for emphasis that the Bible “holds that man is mortal,” Heller states: “God, by the exercise of his own power, will restore to full personal and embodied life the man who, in the entirety of his being, has succumbed to death.” ¹⁶ Thus it is that “man’s hope for life after death rests, not upon his own frail nature and feeble capacities, but upon the power and love of God which are made available to him in Jesus Christ.” CFF2 939.3

Such is Moravian Dr. Heller’s testimony. CFF2 939.4