Is the soul immortal?

[jgredline]

Lets stick to what you posted and run with it for a bit. That will give others a chance to respond.

Sounds good...There was a whole bunch of scripture I wanted to post, so perhaps a little later...

I would like you to clarify something for us. You had said that soul and spirit are interchangable.

Yes ''In some cases'', but certainly not all....

That would dictate that man is a dichotomy. But above you said, "I will say at the outset that man is body, soul and spirit…..Until we are born again we are only body and soul….as our spirit is dead…. " That is a trichotomy.

Very Good Vic...I was going to use those terms, but thought they would confuse some folk, but now that you brought it up, Lets take a brief look at those terms and one more.....

1) Monism : Basically this is the belief that man is ''Soul''...Annihalationist hold on to Gen2;7 as proof of this...They bring in the Hebrew word Nepesh and then will use a liberal concordance to try and make a case that man is indeed ''Monism''...The problem with this view, is what does one do with the rest of the scriptures like the ones I posted in my previous post...I will show how this is false when the time comes.

2) Dichotomy : Basically this view says that man is made up of two parts...When I studied theolgy in college, it was taught that man was Monism and when man became born again he became a ''Dichotomy''
This is the view that many on the reformed side take, because as I stated earlier the word soul and spirit are used interchangeably in some places, mostly in the OT....

3) Trichotomy : Basically this view says that man is made up of three parts...Body, soul and spirit....This is taught in all wesleyian / armenian colleges..This is the belief that man is body and soul ''Dichotomy'' with basically a dead spirit...and when one is born again the Spirit is alive or the Holy Spirit comes in and takes residence and so now we are body, soul and spirit....I believe the bible clearly teaches that all born again believers are a Trichotomy.....A triune being...hmmmmm sound familiar?....

So a non believer is a Dichotomy and a Christian is a Trichotomy....

Knowing what you believe, I'd say you mean that man in his unregenerated nature is just body and soul and that he has no spirit in him. Is that correct?

Yes

 

[Vic C.]

Very Good Vic...I was going to use those terms, but thought they would confuse some folk, but now that you brought it up, Lets take a brief look at those terms and one more.....

This discussion would be meaningless if we omitted speaking about man's dichotomous or trichotomous nature. Let them research it for understanding, as I did.

1) Monism : Basically this is the belief that man is ''Soul''...Annihalationist hold on to Gen2;7 as proof of this...They bring in the Hebrew word Nepesh and then will use a liberal concordance to try and make a case that man is indeed ''Monism''...The problem with this view, is what does one do with the rest of the scriptures like the ones I posted in my previous post...I will show how this is false when the time comes.

Actually, from what I've learned about Annihalationism, this doesn't accurately describe their beliefs. The reason is; they do hold Ecclesiastes 12:7 as a valuable verse in stating their case. Also, we know they believe man has a soul as well, because if the soul-sleep doctrine that Jason alluded to in the OP. ...and of course they believe in a physical body. So, that would sort of make them believers in trichotomy. I could very well be wrong about this. There may be other Annihalation beliefs I am not aware of J.

2) Dichotomy : Basically this view says that man is made up of two parts...When I studied theolgy in college, it was taught that man was Monism and when man became born again he became a ''Dichotomy''
This is the view that many on the reformed side take, because as I stated earlier the word soul and spirit are used interchangeably in some places, mostly in the OT....

Hmm, lol. No comment.

3) Trichotomy : Basically this view says that man is made up of three parts...Body, soul and spirit....This is taught in all wesleyian / armenian colleges..This is the belief that man is body and soul ''Dichotomy'' with basically a dead spirit...and when one is born again the Spirit is alive or the Holy Spirit comes in and takes residence and so now we are body, soul and spirit....I believe the bible clearly teaches that all born again believers are a Trichotomy.....A triune being...hmmmmm sound familiar?....

Yes, I believe I am in this camp as well. 8-)

 

[jgredline]

Actually, from what I've learned about Annihalationism, this doesn't accurately describe their beliefs. The reason is; they do hold Ecclesiastes 12:7 as a valuable verse in stating their case. Also, we know they believe man has a soul as well, because if the soul-sleep doctrine that Jason alluded to in the OP. ...and of course they believe in a physical body. So, that would sort of make them believers in trichotomy. I could very well be wrong about this. There may be other Annihalation beliefs I am not aware of J.

Yes, I am fully expecting Ecc 12:7 to enter the picture....I am also ready for it.. 8-) ...

Now as far as annihalist go, there are a few different types...
You have your SDA type that teach soul sleep ''YUK'' and hold to a tricotomy view....Very easy to prove wrong...

You have your JW annihalaist that hold to more of a dicotomy view....again easy to prove wrong...

Then you have your unitarians who hold to a monistic view...These folks put up more of a fight because they hang their theology on one word...Nephesh...and when the are challenged by the scriptures they will quickly attribute it to ''greek dualistic theology''....when the fact is that the Hebrew language indeed is poetic; and the Hebrew affirms the dicotomy, tricotomy points of view...

In order for annihalsim to have ''any'' chance of surviving this discussion, one would have to hold to a monistic view....The others who hold to other views will point out that the bible is not literal and is methaphoric....They will use these defenses to write of the scriptures that they have no answers to...


However the Word of God is sharper than a two edged sword....

 

[hybrid]

LIfe and death in the sence that you guys are talking are not existance or non existance.

Death is the souls separation from God, while life is the souls communion with God.

Our souls exist for eternity, that is what the bible teaches, we can choice life and enter into heave with God or we can choice death and enter hell without God.

Either way we continue to exist self aware, death is NOT non existance it is separtion, when Adam died he dies spiritually, then the body died, Adam is still in existance this very day.

hi henry,

if god is the source of all life, how can any entity including the soul have any life in it if it is separated from the source of life?

1 timothy 6: 16 is quite straight forward about it.

"the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light" -NIV

if god is the only immortal one, that would leave the human soul out.


.

 

[Vic C.]

Henry has not been here in quite a while. Someone else may have to answer you, if that's ok.

Also, our God is a captial "G" God. :angel:

 

[Drew]

Ok, since we are talking about man, lets see what man is made of….With out this understanding I do not believe it possible to understand the scriptures regarding the Soul…..For the sake of space I will only be listing the scripture reference or the single scripture; Lest I be accused of taking scripture out of context, I would encourage the reader to look up the surrounding verses….OK, lets get started…As I said, here we go again….I will say at the outset that man is body, soul and spirit…..Until we are born again we are only body and soul….as our spirit is dead….

In Gen 2:7 we read. ‘’ 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’’….The KJV USES Living ‘’Soul’’ So here we see that Adam is a unified person with body, soul and Spirit and is alive and well…..

At the end of the first paragraph (above) you seem to state a hypothesis - that man is composed of three distinct parts. Am I correct in understanding your hypothesis?

If so, the hypothesis is only a hypothesis until you provide evidence to support it. Do you consider Genesis 2:7 to be an example of such support.

It most certainly is not and I will explain exactly why. The text of Genesis 2:7 is entirely consistent with the view that I hold - namely that man is not divisible into "parts" and that words like "soul" and "spirit" do not refer to "components" of the human person (although the word "soul" also is used interchangeably with "person"). Instead, they are generally (not always) descriptive terms intended to capture certain "aspects" of human experience / existence.

Consider the analogy of the notion of "personality". We all have a personality. Does this mean that a person's personality is a "thing" that can exist independent of his body.

Of course not.

The Genesis text is entirely consistent with the notion that "soul" refers to the unified (indivisible) human person. In other words, as the term is used here, we are souls, we do not have souls. As for the "breath of life" - this does not require an interpretation that God "inserts" some independent immaterial entity "into" a human body. It could easily be used in the sense of a "life force" that animates the human person and is not "extractable" and can enjoy an independent existence.

I do not know if your intent was to present Genesis 2:7 as evidence to support a "tri-partite" view of man. If so, I do not think it does the job.

I hope to continue the discussion and address your other points.

If I understand your terms properly, I think that the Scriptures teach that man has a "monistic" nature.

 

[jgredline]

At the end of the first paragraph (above) you seem to state a hypothesis - that man is composed of three distinct parts. Am I correct in understanding your hypothesis?

If so, the hypothesis is only a hypothesis until you provide evidence to support it. Do you consider Genesis 2:7 to be an example of such support.

It most certainly is not and I will explain exactly why. The text of Genesis 2:7 is entirely consistent with the view that I hold - namely that man is not divisible into "parts" and that words like "soul" and "spirit" do not refer to "components" of the human person (although the word "soul" also is used interchangeably with "person"). Instead, they are generally (not always) descriptive terms intended to capture certain "aspects" of human experience / existence.

Consider the analogy of the notion of "personality". We all have a personality. Does this mean that a person's personality is a "thing" that can exist independent of his body.

Of course not.

The Genesis text is entirely consistent with the notion that "soul" refers to the unified (indivisible) human person. In other words, as the term is used here, we are souls, we do not have souls. As for the "breath of life" - this does not require an interpretation that God "inserts" some independent immaterial entity "into" a human body. It could easily be used in the sense of a "life force" that animates the human person and is not "extractable" and can enjoy an independent existence.

I do not know if your intent was to present Genesis 2:7 as evidence to support a "tri-partite" view of man. If so, I do not think it does the job.

I hope to continue the discussion and address your other points.

If I understand your terms properly, I think that the Scriptures teach that man has a "monistic" nature.

A perfect example of the monistic view.....A view the most open theist hold to.....

OK, Drew...How do you explain these verses....

In John 12:27, Jesus says, “Now is my soul troubled,†whereas in a very similar context in the next chapter John says that Jesus was “troubled in spirit†(John 13:21).

In Luke 1:46–47: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.†(Here Mary is referring to Jesus as God…I could not help but sneek this in)

iF we are indeed monistic, then these verses would contridict each other, would they not?

 

[Drew]

OK, Drew...How do you explain these verses....

In John 12:27, Jesus says, “Now is my soul troubled,†whereas in a very similar context in the next chapter John says that Jesus was “troubled in spirit†(John 13:21).

In Luke 1:46–47: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.†(Here Mary is referring to Jesus as God…I could not help but sneek this in)

iF we are indeed monistic, then these verses would contridict each other, would they not?

First of all, we all must acknowledge that words like soul and spirit mean different things in different contexts. For example, in one text, it is stated that the "soul is in the blood" while in another it is stated that "man became a living soul". Clearly the word "soul" cannot mean the same thing in these 2 passages. If different Hebrew words are used in these two texts, please let me know and I withdraw this as an example and attempt to provide another example.

I am sort of surprised that you would think these texts pose a problem. If we entertain the hypothesis that "soul" and "spirit" are used to describe characteristics of the (monistic) human person, then these texts are entirely consistent with one another.

The John references simply show that the words "soul" and "spirit" are being used to describe the "felt experiences" of the human person. Remember, the word "spirit" and "soul" are used in this sense all the time in American english. Examples: "She is my soul-mate", She has a strong spirit". People use these expressions (in the secular world) with no intent to express a belief in any kind of immaterial soul or spirit. I see no evidence that this is not the case in respect to the quotes from John.

The exact same thing could be said of the Luke texts.

Why do you think that these texts pose a problem for the monist? Is it because different words (soul ve spirit) are used to describe what seems to the same thing (i.e. how can a soul be troubled and a spirit be troubled)? I assume that this this is your point. How is this a problem exactly - there is often an overlap between the meaning of different words.

Consider the example of how we use the words "gut" and "heart". We might say "my gut tells me to do X" and then later say "My heart tells me to do X". There is no contradiction at all.

Please clarify the precise nature of the contradiction that you think is created for the monist.

 

[hybrid]

Henry has not been here in quite a while. Someone else may have to answer you, if that's ok.

that's okay vic, all is welcome to respond.

Also, our God is a captial "G" God. :angel:

i don't supposed you to be a pedantic grammatist, so your point is well taken.


if i may raise up a few pointers of my own for anybody to answer...

1. is the promise/gift of eternal life is to be given to righteous and wicked alike or only for the righteous?

2. based on genesis 2:7 on the account of man's creation, which statement closely reflects the verse....

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.- KJV

a. spirit + soul + body = man (redudtionist approach)

or

b. spirit + body = man's soul (holistic approach)


.

 

[jgredline]

First of all, we all must acknowledge that words like soul and spirit mean different things in different contexts. For example, in one text, it is stated that the "soul is in the blood" while in another it is stated that "man became a living soul". Clearly the word "soul" cannot mean the same thing in these 2 passages. If different Hebrew words are used in these two texts, please let me know and I withdraw this as an example and attempt to provide another example.

I am sort of surprised that you would think these texts pose a problem. If we entertain the hypothesis that "soul" and "spirit" are used to describe characteristics of the (monistic) human person, then these texts are entirely consistent with one another.

The John references simply show that the words "soul" and "spirit" are being used to describe the "felt experiences" of the human person. Remember, the word "spirit" and "soul" are used in this sense all the time in American english. Examples: "She is my soul-mate", She has a strong spirit". People use these expressions (in the secular world) with no intent to express a belief in any kind of immaterial soul or spirit. I see no evidence that this is not the case in respect to the quotes from John.

The exact same thing could be said of the Luke texts.

Why do you think that these texts pose a problem for the monist? Is it because different words (soul ve spirit) are used to describe what seems to the same thing (i.e. how can a soul be troubled and a spirit be troubled)? I assume that this this is your point. How is this a problem exactly - there is often an overlap between the meaning of different words.

Consider the example of how we use the words "gut" and "heart". We might say "my gut tells me to do X" and then later say "My heart tells me to do X". There is no contradiction at all.

Please clarify the precise nature of the contradiction that you think is created for the monist.

Actually Drew, I agree with most of what you wrote here....I made the mistake of saying that you were a monist....When according to what you have written are more in line with the dicotomy point of view....

I will go and read your post again just to be sure I really do agree with what you wrote.... :wink:

 

[Drew]

Hi jg:

I am pretty sure that I do not ascribe to what you describe as the"dichtomy" view. I am pretty sure that I fall into the "monist" category.

I do not believe that man has a "physical" part an "immaterial" part that cen exist if the body is gone. I think its "all or nothing" - without some kind of "body" there is nothing.

 

[jgredline]

Hi jg:

I am pretty sure that I do not ascribe to what you describe as the"dichtomy" view. I am pretty sure that I fall into the "monist" category.

I do not believe that man has a "physical" part an "immaterial" part that cen exist if the body is gone. I think its "all or nothing" - without some kind of "body" there is nothing.

Fair enough. We will let the scriptures decide...I don't think I will be able to post much today, but will try this evening.

 

[Drew]

I want to be as clear as I can be in order to avoid confusion.

I do not believe that the writers of Scripture ever intended either of the words “soul†and “spirit†to connote an immaterial entity that somehow “inhabits†a human body. I believe that these terms are most frequently used as descriptive terms, terms that capture certain aspects of an “indivisible-into-components†human being.

In other words, I believe that when the words “soul†and “spirit†are being used in this way, they are being used in much the same way secular society uses terms like “personality†and “mindâ€Â. Secular people refer to the mind and to the personality of a person, intending only to capture certain features of the human person whom they also believe to be monistic – of one substance. Such people do not believe that a mind is an immaterial entity that lives inside a human body. It is rather a “window†term (to use CP_Mike’s terminology) that describes certain features of a human person who is considered to be indivisible into components. When the body dies, the mind and the personality are gone as well.

Granted, the word “soul†is not always used in the Scriptures in the same way that we use words like “mind†and “personalityâ€Â. Sometimes the word “soul†is used to refer to the whole person as in “man became a living soulâ€Â. I imagine that the same might be true of the word “spiritâ€Â. Maybe not.

There is nothing at all incoherent or self-contradictory about asserting that “soul†and “spirit†are generally used as merely descriptive terms – terms that capture aspects of human personhood like the words “mind†and “personality†do. As such, there is no necessity whatsoever to assume that these words refer to immaterial “ghosts in the machine†that survive human death.

Now, of course, having demonstrated that my interpretation of the intended meaning of these terms is plausible and coherent, I still need to provide an actual case to support my interpretation. Of course, it is possible that these words do indeed refer to immaterial essences that survive death. I do not believe that this is the case and hope to make arguments to this effect in later posts.

For the present, though, the reader should be awarthat the state of affairs that I have described is both possible and not without precedent – we refer to “the†mind and “the†personality without ever intending our audience to believe that we are referring to an immaterial quantity that can survive physical death.

 

[Vic C.]

I want to be as clear as I can be in order to avoid confusion.

I do not believe that the writers of Scripture ever intended either of the words “soul†and “spirit†to connote an immaterial entity that somehow “inhabits†a human body. I believe that these terms are most frequently used as descriptive terms, terms that capture certain aspects of an “indivisible-into-components†human being....

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Eccl 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Hmm, two cases of the physical returning to the dust, one example of the spirit returning to God and one example of no man ever ascending to Heaven. One has to ask, "how can the spirit return to God, if it is indivisible from the physical body?"

 

[guibox]

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Eccl 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Hmm, two cases of the physical returning to the dust, one example of the spirit returning to God and one example of no man ever ascending to Heaven. One has to ask, "how can the spirit return to God, if it is indivisible from the physical body?"

When understands that the 'ruach' which is translated as 'wind' is the life spark that makes man a 'nephesh' (compare Eccl 12:7 with Job 27:3 and Genesis 2:1,2) and that this life spark is not the 'immortal soul', we see that what goes back to God is merely the life force and not the cogitating, thinking, emotional part of man. The 'spirit' when working in the context of a 'nephesh' takes many functions of higher thought. However, to say that the 'ruach' works this way completely on its own is not supported by the Bible.

Instead, it is akin to an engine. Will carburator or valve work on its own in its intended function? No, but put it with an engine and it plays a functional part despite any lack of function it cannot do on its own.

Notice that Eccl 12:7 doesn't say that it is the 'saved spirit' that goes back to God. Rather the context of the chapter is for ALL mankind. See also Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

 

[Drew]

Hmm, two cases of the physical returning to the dust, one example of the spirit returning to God and one example of no man ever ascending to Heaven. One has to ask, "how can the spirit return to God, if it is indivisible from the physical body?"

I agree with guibox and my posts were admittedly misleading when I suggested that "spirit" and "soul" were analogous to "personality" and "mind". The life force analogy is better - the important point being that it is entirely coherent that this life force may not have the capacity to manifest thought, emotion, etc. without being embodied.

Below is a speculation of mine on this matter. While the speculation may be incorrect, I think it at least shows the plausibilty of "something" returning to God that is not capable of conscious self-awareness (which most people assume to the case with the soul / spirit).

Here is my speculation: Let's imagine that, at death, the "information" that in a sense fully specifies "who we are" is "uploaded" by God. As a set of information, "it" cannot experience conscious self-awareness. This information will be used by God at some point in the future to "re-constitute" us - the information will become "embodied" at some future time. Only then will conscious self-awareness return.

I speculate that God has created a world where humans can only have conscious self-awareness when the "abstract specification" of a person, as represented by this information, is actually embodied - actually wrapped in a physical body.

I am aware that most Christians believe that conscious self-awareness can "float free" of a physical shell. I think this is probably not the case for at least three reasons that I can think of:

1. We have co-opted Greek dualist ideas and projected these on a Hebrew culture which may never have held such a view;

2. The scriptures are at least consistent with this assumption of necessary embodiment.

3. There is evidence from neuroscience that suggests that conscious awareness is intimately linked to physical embodiment.

 

[stranger]

. . .
I am aware that most Christians believe that conscious self-awareness can "float free" of a physical shell. I think this is probably not the case for at least three reasons that I can think of:

1. We have co-opted Greek dualist ideas and projected these on a Hebrew culture which may never have held such a view;

2. The scriptures are at least consistent with this assumption of necessary embodiment.

3. There is evidence from neuroscience that suggests that conscious awareness is intimately linked to physical embodiment

Drew,

Your use of 'free float' would be some sort of 'out of body experience' where the 'consciousness' is projected from the body to some external point and then viewed from that point as a perspective. This consciousness would be projected in a state of unconsciousness.

With so called first hand accounts where reliability is not suspect - the event has to interpreted and this is best done by those who have had these experiences. The other question I have is can this projection of consciousness outside the body be enacted by the will?

Point 2 (in your quote) is fair enough in many cases but not all - so I would not think that citing this as evidence is conclusive.

 

[Drew]

Your use of 'free float' would be some sort of 'out of body experience' where the 'consciousness' is projected from the body to some external point and then viewed from that point as a perspective. This consciousness would be projected in a state of unconsciousness.

With so called first hand accounts where reliability is not suspect - the event has to interpreted and this is best done by those who have had these experiences. The other question I have is can this projection of consciousness outside the body be enacted by the will?

I don't think I understand what you are saying here. In any event, my belief is that in order for any human person to be a subject of experience of any kind - to have any felt experience of one's own existence - there must be a "physical" body. In other words, I do not believe that we can experience anything , thoughts, emotions, sensations, love, joy, pain, peace - whatever, without having a body.

I suspect that this view is not very widely held and if the likes of jgredline read this, there is gonna be trouble, I assure you! (jg - this is meant in a friendly "spirit"!)

Point 2 (in your quote) is fair enough in many cases but not all - so I would not think that citing this as evidence is conclusive.

In order for my point 2 to be "wrong", someone will need to show evidence that Scriptures speak against the necessity for embodiment for conscious experiences. Remember, I have not claimed anything more than consistency of my position with the Scriptures. This is not the same thing as a claim that the Scriptures support my position preferentially over other positions. There is an important difference here.

 

[jgredline]

I don't think I understand what you are saying here. In any event, my belief is that in order for any human person to be a subject of experience of any kind - to have any felt experience of one's own existence - there must be a "physical" body. In other words, I do not believe that we can experience anything , thoughts, emotions, sensations, love, joy, pain, peace - whatever, without having a body.

I suspect that this view is not very widely held and if the likes of jgredline read this, there is gonna be trouble, I assure you! (jg - this is meant in a friendly "spirit"!)

Drew
yes, I do disagree for this simple reason and I am hoping you can answer this question.....Drew; Tell me then. What happens when a person is born again?

By the way, I was out most of the weekend so other than checking in I have not had much internet time, so I will post in here as time permits....

 

[Drew]

Drew; Tell me then. What happens when a person is born again?

Even if I cannot answer this question fully, I hope that what I do write will address this question in the specific context of the issue of the immortal soul.

I believe that when a person is born again, there is a kind of "legal" transaction where the person's sins are washed clean by Christ's substitutionary sacrifice - Jesus "pays the price" for that person's sins. I no longer ascribe to OSAS and I do not think that a one-time act of acceptance of Jesus' gift is sufficient for salvation unto eternal life. However, I suspect that this is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Do I believe that when a person is born again, God reaches down and effects some kind of fundamental change to that person? Yes I do believe this. However, and this what I think you are really interested in knowing, I think this "rebirth" is brought about by God making changes in the fundamental constitution of a single unified human person.

One most definitely does not have to believe in the existence of an immortal soul to believe that God causes a radical transformation in the fundamental character of a human person.

Consider the following analogy: A surgeon performs brain surgery on a person and completely fixes a problem of violent behaviour - I believe that such things do occur. By tinkering with the "physical", the surgeon has brought about a change in behaviour and personality. I trust the analogy is clear.

I am not, repeat not, a "secular physicalist". I simply think that human beings are of one "substance" and we Christians simply have not yet identified a mechanism by which God causes a rebirth that we generally describe by the word "spiritual". Maybe we will never be able to give an account of this process.

However, and this point I wish to underscore, I see no justification , either "logical" or Scriptural for the necessity of a "free floating" immortal essence in order for God to do a work of regeneration in a human being. The surgical example shows that it is indeed possible to fundamentally change a person, at the deepest of levels, by slicing out a few neurons here and there.

If we humans can do things like this, imagine the power of God to change our natures by "tweaking" the design of whatever monistic substance it is that we are fundamentally made out of.

Now, I have little doubt that the above will elicit howls of protest from many quarters. Prithee, howl away.