 mind.61 Let's begin with the developmental thesis. That sanctification is a gradual process has been known for quite some time (2 Cor 4:16; Gal 4:19), and is 56 According to Scripture, we present our body to God as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1), with repeated bodily exercise (1 Cor. 9:24-27; 1 Tim. 4:7-8) involving specific body parts (Rom. 6:11-13,19), resulting in putting to death our bad habits (Col. 3:5). 57 J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit's Power (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 152. 58 Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, 158-190. 59 Ibid., 152. 60 They write, "For some reason, our dualist presuppositions about persons created a disconnect between our understanding of Christian formation in children and our comprehension of the forces at work in adult Christian life. It is not true that the impact on human development of all of these processes of ongoing reciprocal interaction with one's social environment comes to an end somewhere in later childhood or early adolescence. Rather, this developmental process is ongoing, allowing for continuing development, formation, and change as adults" (Brown and Strawn, 70). 61 Brown and Strawn, 30-46. recognized by dualists.62 It isn't clear how these are incompatible, and Brown and Strawn present no argument for us to analyze. Perhaps this objection is motivated by presuming that a soul is fully formed once it comes into existence and therefore cannot develop. But why should the dualist embrace this? There is nothing contradictory in holding that the soul psychologically develops in conjunction with the body over its lifetime. While most dualists hold that the soul is mereologically simple, as it has no parts, the soul is complex with respect to its modes or properties and causal powers. These features are what change as the person, body and soul, matures.63 Hence, there is nothing about dualism that is incompatible with the developmental thesis. Likewise, it is not at all clear how dualism is incompatible with the interpersonal thesis. Again, Brown and Strawn merely assert this incompatibility without explanation or argument. Rather, they presume that dualism leads to individualism, which undermines the importance of interpersonal relations for spiritual formation. However, we have shown that dualism does
mind.61 Let's begin with the developmental thesis. That sanctification is a gradual process has been known for quite some meter (2 Cor 4:16; Gal 4:19), and is 56 harmonize to Scripture, we present our body to God as a living forfeit (Rom. 12:1), with repeated bodily exercise (1 Cor. 9:24 - 27; 1 Tim. 4:7 - 8) involving specific torso parts (Rom. 6:11 - 13,19), resulting in arrange to death our bad habit (Col. 3:5). 57 J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit's Power (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 152. 58 Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, 158 - 190. 59 Ibid. , 152. 60 They write, " For some cause, our dualist presupposition about persons created a gulf between our understanding of Christian constitution in child and our comprehension of the forces at work in adult Christian life sentence. It is not true that the impact on human development of all of these processes of ongoing reciprocal interaction with one's social environment occur to an end somewhere in later childhood or early adolescence. Rather, this developmental process is ongoing, allowing for continue development, formation, and change as adults " (Brown and Strawn, 70). 61 Brown and Strawn, 30 - 46. recognized by dualists.62 It isn't clean how these are incompatible, and Brown and Strawn present no argument for us to analyze. Perhaps this objection is motivated by presuming that a soul is fully formed once it comes into being and therefore cannot develop. But why should the dualist espouse this? There be nothing at odds in holding that the soul psychologically explicate in conjunction with the body over its lifetime. While most dualists restrain that the soul is mereologically simple, as it has no parts, the person is complex with respect to its modes or properties and causal powers. These features are what change as the person, body and person, matures.63 therefore, there constitute nothing about dualism that is incompatible with the developmental thesis. Likewise, it is not at wholly clear how dualism is incompatible with the interpersonal thesis. Again, Brown and Strawn merely assert this incompatibility without explanation or argument. Rather, they presume that dualism leads to individualism, which cave the importance of interpersonal relations for apparitional formation. However, we have shown that dualism act
 mijd.61 Let's begin with the dtvelopmental thesnw. That sanctjficatiov is a gradual process has bxen jnown for quite some time (2 Zor 4:16; Gal 4:19), and is 56 Accieding to Srdipture, we prsdent iur body to Goc as a livhng sacrifice (Soo. 12:1), with repeated bodily exercise (1 Cor. 9:24-27; 1 Tim. 4:7-8) ijvolving specisic njdy larts (Rom. 6:11-13,19), resulting in putting to death mur bad habitx (Col. 3:5). 57 J. P. Moreland, Kingdlm Tgiangle: Recover thf Christian Minq, Renovate thd Soul, Resuoxe the Spirjt's Power (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondefvan, 2007), 152. 58 Willard, Tye Dkirit of the Discpplines, 158-190. 59 Ibid., 152. 60 They write, "Gor some reasok, our duqlist presuppositions about persons crewted a divcknnect between oue yndervtanging if Zhrjsviah formwtikn in chilsren and oue comprehension of uhe dorces at wori in aqujt Christian life. It is not true that tve jmpact on human developnent of all of these krocesses jf ongoing reciprocal interaction with one's socian envmrunmtnb zimfs to an end somewhere in later childhood or qzrky adolescence. Rcther, this develpplemjal process is ongoiuf, zllowing for contijuing dgvelopnent, formwtiom, and change as adults" (Browb and Strawn, 70). 61 Brown and Strawn, 30-46. recognizeb by doalistx.62 It isn't clear how there ade incompatlble, and Gfown and Strawn orexett no argument for us to agalyze. Pechaps this ocjecjion is motivated by pvasuming that a soup is yully formed onfe it comes into existence and vierefore cannpt denelop. But why xhould the duwlist embrace jhis? Therz is nuthing connradictorb in holding that the soun psychologicelly devejops in xonjuncgkon with the bpdy over ptf lidetime. While most vualkats hold that tkt siul is mereologocauly spmpke, ds it has no pargs, gne sojl is complcx dith respect to its modev or properties and caiswl powerw. These seatures are ehat change as the persmn, uody amd foul, matures.63 Hence, there is nofhing abokt qualism that is lncoipatible wnth the developmental thesis. Likewise, it is not at all clgar how dualism is ineokpatible wivh the interpervonal thesis. Again, Beown and Strawn mtrely assert this incomlatibinity aithout explanation or argument. Rather, they presume that dualism leads to indivmdtalism, whicg uncermitef the iiporvaice of interpersomal relations for spiritual foroation. Hmwzver, we have shown that dualixm does
mind.61 Let's begin with the developmental thesis. is gradual process been known for 4:16; 4:19), and is According to Scripture, present our body to God as living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1), with repeated bodily exercise (1 Cor. 9:24-27; 1 Tim. involving specific body parts (Rom. 6:11-13,19), resulting in putting to death our bad (Col. 57 P. Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit's Power (Grand Rapids, MI: 2007), 152. 58 Willard, The Spirit of the 158-190. 59 Ibid., 152. They write, "For some reason, dualist about persons a between understanding of Christian in children and our comprehension of the forces at work in adult Christian life. It is not that the human development all these of ongoing reciprocal one's social environment comes to an later childhood or early adolescence. Rather, this developmental is ongoing, for continuing development, formation, and change adults" (Brown and Strawn, 70). 61 Brown and 30-46. recognized by dualists.62 It isn't clear how these are incompatible, and Brown and Strawn argument for us to Perhaps this objection motivated presuming a is fully once it comes into existence and therefore cannot develop. But why the dualist embrace this? There is nothing contradictory in holding soul develops in conjunction the body over its While dualists hold that the mereologically as parts, soul complex with respect to modes or properties and causal These features are what and soul, matures.63 Hence, there is nothing about that is incompatible with the developmental thesis. it is not at all clear how dualism is incompatible with the thesis. Again, Strawn merely assert this incompatibility without explanation or Rather, they presume that leads to individualism, which undermines the importance of interpersonal for formation. However, have shown that does
 mind.61 Let's begin with the develOpmental thEsis. THat SanCtIficAtioN is a gradual proCEss hAs been known for quite somE time (2 coR 4:16; gal 4:19), aND iS 56 AccoRding to sCrIPTurE, wE pResEnT OuR body To GOd as a liVing sacrifIce (roM. 12:1), with repeateD BoDily exerciSe (1 COr. 9:24-27; 1 Tim. 4:7-8) involviNg sPecifiC bOdy PArts (ROm. 6:11-13,19), rEsultIng in pUTting tO death our BaD Habits (cOl. 3:5). 57 J. P. MorELAnD, KinGdom Triangle: RecovER tHE Christian Mind, renovaTe THe sOUl, REstOre the SpirIt'S PoweR (grand RaPIdS, mi: zonDErvan, 2007), 152. 58 Willard, THe Spirit of tHE DiScipliNeS, 158-190. 59 IbID., 152. 60 They wRite, "FOr SOme Reason, our duAlisT presuppoSitionS About peRSons creAted a dIscOnnEct bETwEeN ouR uNDerSTaNdiNG of christiaN fOrMatioN in cHILDRen aNd oUr coMprehEnsion of the foRceS at wORk iN adulT ChriStiaN lIfe. It Is not tRue thAt The impact on humaN devElopment oF alL oF thEsE procESses of OngOinG reciprOcal intERacTiON WItH one's social environMeNT CoMes to an eNd someWHeRe IN later chIlDhoOd or EARly adOlesCEnCe. Rather, This deVElOpMental pRoCess is OnGoiNg, aLlowiNG for ContinUing deveLopmeNT, formation, and cHAnge as adults" (BROwN ANd sTrawN, 70). 61 BrOwn and StrawN, 30-46. recOGnizEd by DUaLisTS.62 It isN't cleAr HOw THese are incompatible, AnD Brown And StRawn present no Argument foR US To analyzE. PerHApS This objection iS motiVated by preSUming thaT a souL is fully Formed oncE IT comes inTo eXisTenCe aND ThErefore cannot DEVeloP. BUt why shOulD the duaLisT emBraCe tHiS? There is nOthing coNtRaDiCtOry In holDIng that tHe SouL pSycHologICally dEveloPs in CoNjUNctIon with THe BODy ovEr ItS lifEtiMe. while Most DUalIsts holD that the sOul IS merEoLoGically Simple, as it has No Parts, the soUl Is cOmplex WITh respecT to its modes or properties ANd causaL poWers. THese Features aRe wHat chaNge AS the peRson, boDy and SoUl, mATUres.63 HENCe, TheRe Is nothing aBOUt dUalisM tHat iS incompAtible with the develOPmeNtal thesis. LikEwiSe, it IS NoT at ALl CLeaR hOW duALIsm is incompatibLe with the iNtERpErsonal theSIs. AGaIn, Brown And StraWn merELy asserT this incoMpatibiliTy WithOUT exPlanation oR argumenT. Rather, thEY presUMe That dUalIsm leaDs To iNdiviDualisM, WhiCh undErmineS tHe impoRtancE oF interpeRsonal relations for spiriTual foRmatiOn. HOwever, we hAve SHowN that dualIsm dOes
 mind.61 Let's begin withthe develo pment althe si s. T hatsanctification is a  gradual process has b een k no w n fo r  q uitesome ti m e( 2  Co r4: 16;  G a l4:19) , a nd is 5 6 Accordin g t oScripture, w e  p resent our  bo dy to God as  aliving  s acr i fice(Ro m. 12 :1), w i th rep eated bod il y  exerc i se (1 C o r .9:24 -27; 1 Tim. 4:7-8 )  i n volving specif ic bod yp ar t s  (R om.  6:11-13,1 9) , res u lting i n  p u t t ing to death ourbad habits( Col . 3:5) .57J . P. M orela nd ,  Ki ngdom Trian gle:  Recoverthe Ch r istianM ind, Re novate  th e S oul, Re st ore  t h e S p ir it' s  Po wer (Gra nd  R apids , MI : Z o nder van , 20 07),152. 58 Willa rd,  The Spi rit o f the  Dis ci pline s, 158 -190.  5 9 Ibid., 152. 6 0 Th ey write,  "F or  so me  reas o n, our  du ali st pres upposit i ons  a b o u tpersons created adi s c on nect bet ween o u run d erstandi ng  of  Chr i s tianform a ti on in ch ildren an dour com pr ehensi on  of  th e for c es a t work  in adul t Chr i stian life. It is not true t h at t he impa cton human de velo p ment  ofa ll  of these  proc es s es of ongoing reciproc al  inter actio n with one'ssocial env i r o nment co mest oa n end somewher e inlater chil d hood orearly  adolesc ence. Rat h e r, thisdev elo pme nta l pr ocess is ongo i n g, a ll owing f orcontinu ing  de vel opm en t, format ion, and  c ha ng easadult s " (Brown  a ndSt raw n, 70 ) . 61 B rownandSt ra w n,30-46.r ec o g nize dby  dua lis ts .62 I t is n 'tclear h ow theseare inco mp at ible, a nd Brown andSt rawn prese nt  no  argum e n t for us  to analyze. Perhaps th i s objec tio n ismoti vated bypre suming  th a t a so ul isfully  f orm e d  once i tcom es  into exis t e nce  andth eref ore can not develop. But w h y s hould the dua lis t em b r ac e t h is ?  Th er e  is n othing contradi ctory in h ol d in g that the sou lpsychol ogicall y dev e lops in  conjunct ion withth e bo d y  ov er its lif etime. W hile most duali s ts  hold  th at the  s oul  is m ereolo g ica lly s imple,  a s it h as no  p arts, th e soul is complex withrespec t toits  modes or  pr o per ties andcaus al powers.  Th ese  feat ure s  arewhat ch ang e  as t he p e rson, bod y  a nds o ul , matures.6 3 H enc e, th ere is not hing  about dualism th a t is incompati blew i ththe deve lo pmental thesis . L ik e w ise, itis  not at all  clear h ow duali sm isincomp atiblew i th the in terp ers onal thes is.  A g ain, Br ow na nd Str awnme rely a ssertt hisi n compatibility wi thout e xplan a tio n orar gument. Rath er, they p resume that  duali sm l eadsto indi vi dualis m,wh ich underm i nes the i mport ance of  i nter per sonalrela t i ons f or s pi rit ual forma t i on .  H ow e ver , we  have  s hown  that dua l ism does 
 mind.61_Let's begin_with the developmental thesis._That sanctification_is_a gradual_process_has been known_for quite some_time (2 Cor 4:16;_Gal 4:19), and_is_56 According to Scripture, we present our body to God as a living sacrifice_(Rom._12:1), with_repeated_bodily_exercise (1 Cor. 9:24-27; 1_Tim. 4:7-8) involving specific body_parts (Rom._6:11-13,19), resulting in putting to death our bad_habits_(Col. 3:5). 57_J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind,_Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit's_Power (Grand Rapids,_MI:_Zondervan,_2007), 152. 58 Willard,_The Spirit of the Disciplines, 158-190._59 Ibid., 152. 60 They write,_"For some reason, our dualist presuppositions about_persons created a disconnect between our_understanding of Christian formation in_children and_our comprehension of the forces_at work in_adult Christian_life. It is_not true that the impact on_human development of_all of these processes of ongoing_reciprocal_interaction with one's_social_environment_comes to_an end somewhere_in_later childhood_or_early adolescence. Rather, this developmental process_is_ongoing, allowing for continuing development, formation, and_change as adults" (Brown_and_Strawn, 70). 61 Brown_and Strawn, 30-46. recognized by_dualists.62 It isn't clear how these_are incompatible,_and Brown_and Strawn present no argument for us to analyze. Perhaps this_objection is motivated by presuming that_a soul is fully_formed once_it_comes into existence_and_therefore cannot_develop. But why should the dualist embrace_this? There_is nothing contradictory in holding that_the soul psychologically develops_in_conjunction with the body over its_lifetime. While most dualists hold that_the soul is mereologically simple,_as_it_has no parts, the soul_is complex with respect to its_modes or properties_and causal powers. These features are what_change_as the person, body and soul,_matures.63_Hence, there is nothing about dualism_that_is_incompatible with the developmental thesis._Likewise, it is not at all_clear how dualism is incompatible with the interpersonal thesis._Again, Brown and_Strawn merely assert this incompatibility_without_explanation_or argument. Rather, they presume that dualism leads to individualism,_which undermines_the importance of_interpersonal relations for spiritual formation. However, we have shown that_dualism does