I think we need to wake up and start reading the Bible.
Because, over the centuries, both ecclesiastical and pagan traditions have somehow re-built the created man into a loosely connected conglomeration of flesh and imperishable conscious thought.
That’s not to say that we don’t exist both physically and nonphysically. That’d be absurd, because either of these conditions are necessarily dependent upon the other to sustain human life. But, as disciples of Jesus Christ, we’re only deceiving ourselves if we choose to categorize the human makeup into distinct, autonomous entities.
Why?
Because the Biblical authors clearly illustrated the inseparable composition of humanity. For example, note that the apostle Paul, in his letter to all who [were] beloved of God in Rome, called as saints, he recorded the word “he” as a Greek Masculine Pronoun in this well-known revealing passage:
“For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin, for he who has died is freed from sin.” [Rom. 6:5-7] [my emphasis]
Notice also that the apostle Peter viewed human souls in the same light, recording a parallel passage using the same Masculine Gender:
“Therefore, since Christ has suffered In the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God.” [1Pet. 4:1-2] [my emphasis]
Did you notice that there’s nothing in these texts copied above to suggest that only a “sinful part” of the regenerate man has died to sin? If either Paul or Peter were referring to some part of a man, they would’ve used a Neuter Pronoun to modify a thing rather than a person.
But they didn’t.
Human life was perceived and defined by the Biblical authors as an embodiment of the whole person. So, if I understand myself to be a divisible combination of “body” and “soul,” I have a theological dilemma.
Because if I indeed possess something immaterial which I choose to call a “soul” that cannot die [either figuratively or literally], then I have something inside of me that doesn’t need to be freed from sin according to Paul. As a consequence, then, I’d have to conclude that this immaterial, immortal “soul” within me [which would include my thoughts and emotions] is therefore sinless and must remain that way because it cannot die.
After all, what would it need to be freed from?
[So, do I actually “possess” a soul? see: Everybody’s got one? [1]]
But the conundrum wouldn’t stop there.
I’d also have to conclude that the death of my Lord Jesus was merely for the sins in my body and not for my whole self, since my body is the only part of me in which sin is demonstrated.
But perhaps the most obvious question would be the most unsettling:
Why would my resurrection even be necessary if the immortal part of me doesn’t need Jesus Christ’s death to save me since it will never die?
No part of me is off limits to God’s perpetual saving grace through Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, because nothing in the texts of the Bible suggests that sin does not invade everything that I am.
I exist only as the sum of my parts, and He died for all of me.