The Origin of Souls: Traducianism and Creationism

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you for your opinion.

A prior thing to learn is WHAT to debate. Some things simply are not worthy of debate. Sorry, but this is one of them. If you think you have won some sort of argument using superior logic and 'internet sources', be my guest to think so. I can't get excited about every erroneous opinion on the internet. I've already given this more time than it deserved. Past tense by the way. Declare victory in your own mind. I'm done.

My one short post was more time than this discussion is worth.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't know that this is even worth discussing; does the Bible not say that he knew us before the foundations of creation were lain? If so, how could our souls proceed from our parents?

Sounds like gnosticism to me.

Yes, I think you’re right. I had always assumed God had created our souls.

 

[The Liturgist]

Your post really highlights my point as to why the Church remains in the Dark Ages of incredible ignorance. What, just because *you* are not educated in this subject means the rest of humanity is not either?

Which church are you talking about, by the way?

 

[FenderTL5]

I have been studying this topic for decades..

If this is true, then you should be able to provide a simple written summary or a few bullet points of your position(s) that would not require watching 3 and half hours of video.
Posting the video as a more thorough source seems perfectly acceptable to me, but insisting others watch it without a synopsis first is asking for an investment of time that many are not willing to make..

Reading subsequent posts, you should learn some manners.

 

[FenderTL5]

Yes, I think you’re right. I had always assumed God had created our souls.

Agree, I don't know that I've heard that souls were a product of parental procreation before. If I have, I never gave it much thought.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I don't know that this is even worth discussing; does the Bible not say that he knew us before the foundations of creation were lain? If so, how could our souls proceed from our parents?

Sounds like gnosticism to me.

I hope you are not marshaling an argument for the pre-existence of human souls....that before the foundation of the world God created a warehouse full of souls and them plots them into a person at conception? Multiple problems here. Multiple.

That's Platonism and clearly is gnostic (soul/good.... body/bad). Contrast this to Genesis....God's creation was good.

The pre-existent of course comes from Plato's theory of ideals. It Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Pheado, he says,

We recall an ancient theory that souls arriving there come from here, and then again that they arrive here and are born here from the dead. If that is true, that the living come back from the dead, then surely our souls must exist there, for they could not come back if they did not exist, and this is a sufficient proof that these things are so if it truly appears that the living never come from any other source than from the dead. If this is not the case we should need another argument. Plato Pheado 70.d

The Fifth Ecumenical council also known as the Second Council of Constantinople condemned the teaching and Anathematized it as heresy.

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.
The Anathemas Against Origen I

Pre-existence solves nothing about the problem of evil because even if we were souls with properties and personalities, God would know each of those personalities "before" creating them (even without time, souls are still ontologically reliant on God for their existence and properties), so he would know who would rebel. I don't know why a loving God wouldn't simply just not create that soul. If God did create that soul this would de facto make God the author of evil and liable for sins continuance.

Creationist have a bear of a time with the problem of evil. You will notice when studying this issue....the problem of evil is clearly ignored. They run away from it always.

My advice to my fellow CF'ers....push the problem of evil. Make them solve two issues at the same time. Is God the author of evil and responsible for its continuance?

Jesus had a pre-existent divine nature, but a created body and soul......this is the only example we have in Scripture.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus had a pre-existent divine nature, but a created body and soul

Actually, I think you’re engaging in accidental Nestorianism. Our Lord is fully theandric, fully divine and fully human, without change, confusion, separation or division. So with regards to the soul, the sixth ecumenical synod established that He has a human will and a divine will; he is consubstantial with us and consubstantial with God. So that doesn’t sound correct.

However, I don’t think anyone is saying that God pre-created our souls, as Judaism believes, rather, I think that the majority position is that the soul is created by God for us when we are conceived.

This is not a soteriological problem, or a hamartiological problem, because hereditary sin afflicts human nature, but is not, contra St. Augustine, related to reproduction, if we follow St. John Cassian. But even if we do follow St. Augustine, I don’t think we need Traducianism.

Now I could be wrong on this, but since our friend @MarkRohfrietsch has taken such a clear view, and is a leading Evangelical Catholic like yourself, I think we might comfortably follow his lead, since the idea that the soul is the result of the reproductive process alone seems inadequate, and we don’t need Traduciainism in order to refute Origen.

Nonetheless I do appreciate your reference to the Fifth Ecumenical Council and your concerns about the Origen problem, which is why I really enjoy dialogue with you, as that was very sharp on your part.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I think that the majority position is that the soul is created by God for us when we are conceived.

So are you saying human beings are half breds?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

his is not a soteriological problem, or a hamartiological problem, because hereditary sin afflicts human nature, but is not, contra St. Augustine, related to reproduction, if we follow St. John Cassian. But even if we do follow St. Augustine, I don’t think we need Traducianism.

Clear avoidance of the problem of evil.

 

[prodromos]

Therefore I am going to reach out to our exceptionally pious mutual friends @prodromos @dzheremi @HTacianas and @FenderTL5 , who might know what are correct answers from an EO or OO perspective

 

[The Liturgist]

So are you saying human beings are half breds?

God forbid, no. And neither is Jesus Christ; rather, he is fully human and fully divine without change, confusion, separation or division.

Clear avoidance of the problem of evil.

God did not create evil because evil cannot be created; it is a destructive force which is un-creatable. Evil is basically anything we do in opposition to the love of God, which causes us to experience the burning fire of His love as wrath.

So I am not trying to avoid this issue at all. What I am going to avoid is saying that God created evil within us, because that is contradicted by Orthodox doctrine, but I am also trying to avoid Traducianism for the reasons given by our friend @MarkRohfrietsch .

But I mean, I could be wrong, this area is frankly one I haven’t considered.

 

[The Liturgist]

View attachment 350898

Forgive me Prodromos, I feel like an idiot here, but could you nursemaid me through this theological difficulty? For instance, is this an undefined theological area from an Orthodox perspective, a realm of theoloumemnon, or do we have a doctrinal position? Because really, I have only encountered the issue of Traducianism once before, and I cannot recall what the correct position was on it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So I am not trying to avoid this issue at all. What I am going to avoid is saying that God created evil within us, because that is contradicted by Orthodox doctrine, but I am also trying to avoid Traducianism for the reasons given by our friend @MarkRohfrietsch .

What reason has Mark given? An opinion with no Scripture? He said "I don't know that this is even worth discussing" What is wrong with you And you think it is worth discussing? This is an argument from Mark's authority rather than Scripture.

SCRIPTURE DOES NOT REPRESENTS THE BODY AND SOUL HAVING DIFFERENT ORIGINS.

Please show me the error of my ways my friend using Scripture. I don't want to hear about Augustine or Cassin. Pure Scripture. You irk me when you interpret Mark's comments as authoritative when clearly he is hedging his bets and he ADMITS IT.

 

[The Liturgist]

You know what @Ain't Zwinglian , forgive me, I did not mean to upset you regarding this issue, and I am not feeling well; I have to go to the hospital tomorrow for tests, and I am just not at the top of my game. I value my friends and fellowship on CF.com more than anything, and I am completely out of my depth on this issue. I will, out of respect for you, Mark and everyone else, look into this, but I need to study this issue.

However, perhaps we can take a step back and agree that the view expressed by another member that the soul is DNA is erroneous regardless? Since that idea I don’t think is indicated by either a creation or a traducian approach. Also I felt you and I reached a common understanding when we discussed, earlier in this thread, the Theotokos.

I would send this to you via a private message but it doesn’t seem to be possible to send you such a message.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

If so, how could our souls proceed from our parents?

Yes, I think you’re right. I had always assumed God had created our souls.

I believe Mark doesn't understand the what is going on here and asks a perfect legitimate question. He admits he doesn't know. And I admit I don't know what he trying convey. Message sent may not be message received.

I take Mark's question as innocent. I don't know what he is asking in this question specifically but I willing guess.


********

All sinners are know by God personally.

What about Jeremiah? God knew who Jeremiah is.....IN THE WOMB.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

And what about St. Paul?

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace,

As all Christian sinners...

Romans 8:29​

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I have to go to the hospital tomorrow for tests,

Oh I know that one very well. I don't have much time on this earth either.

The question I raise about myself before the great Judgment. HOW CLOSE WAS I TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE? When this question is asked..... all the rules of interpretation I have studied interplay. How close did I get?

I want a grade by Jesus Himself. This is what I want.

 

[prodromos]

Forgive me Prodromos, I feel like an idiot here, but could you nursemaid me through this theological difficulty? For instance, is this an undefined theological area from an Orthodox perspective, a realm of theoloumemnon, or do we have a doctrinal position? Because really, I have only encountered the issue of Traducianism once before, and I cannot recall what the correct position was on it.

My reply was "No eye deer". I thought that would have been obvious

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Traducianism is a doctrine that posits the soul of a conceived child is derived from the souls of the child’s parents. This essentially argues that both the body and soul are propagated from the parents.

Genesis 2:7 "God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul" This serves as a model as to what happens in the womb.

The creationist view holds that God directly creates a new individual soul ex nihilo for everyone born into this world. Even though the soul is supernaturally created by God, the body for every new human is generated by the parents. In other words, creationism represents the view the body and soul having different origins. There are numerous variations of creationism and when combined with the supposed doctrine of the Age of Accountability becomes even more complex.

Oddly, the question is also raised with this subject matter…Is God the author of sin?

Even though Creationism is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church (CCC 366) and some older Calvinists (Francis Turretin, Hodge), there has always been room for disagreement. Traducianism is the official historic position of the Lutheran Church (FC 1.5, 7, 9, 11). Traducianism is much more popular today and receives wide support. For full disclosure, I am a traducianist and shall marshal evidence on its behalf.

Creationism.

The Bible supports the argument that the soul exists at conception.

Nowhere does the bible say this. This is a conclusion based on an interpretation based on the assumption that the bible says this. It does not. YOUR FIRST ASSUMPTION is WRONG.

David wrote, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5).

nothing about conception, it is not talking about a soul it is talking about the sinful nature and being conceived. it does not say he was alive.

We are also told that Jesus existed in Mary’s womb at conception. An angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20).

it is not talking about consciousness, but conception or origin, something began at conception, but it was not life.

Under this theory, after the Seventh day and the Fall, God specially creates a new soul ex nihilo when a human being is conceived and places it either in an uncontaminated body or a contaminated one. For creationists, the soul becomes contaminated (therefore sinful) anytime between the moment of conception up to the actual day of the Age of Accountability.

Some creationists believe infants and children are born with no personal sin and guilt (or least morally neutral), and the soul becomes sinful when they first consciously sin at the AoA. For others, Infants and children do sin. They covet, lie, tease, start fights, act up in class, rebel against parental authority, throw tantrums, etc. However, these sins don’t effect the soul until the AoA, when they consciously sin. It is said that God’s grace and mercy allows them to be unaccountable yet saved.

Still others who don’t believe in original sin, these individuals believe a perfectly innocent soul is placed into the body only after conception thereby avoiding the trait of sin.


Observations:

• God seems to be very consistent with how He’s ordered things. Absent a clearer verse from Scripture than we already have, God resting from creating on the seventh day is the norm. God’s work in creating the universe is finished. God ceased to create on the Seventh Day “He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” Heb 4:4, Gen 2:2.
• The biblical idea is that God has ceased creating the universe and is now allowing the forces that He created to maintain it. Although God created these natural forces He exercises a continuous care over them. God ceased created but not governing or preserving it through the natural laws of the universe.
• If souls are created by God rather than by people, then it seems like people are lesser than animals, since animals can create their offspring in entirety. Each according to their own kind… is a pattern that God seems to implement. Creationism allows only a physical or corporeal, not a spiritual, connection between Adam and us.
• Creationism destroys the idea of the miraculous and supernatural, since it incorporates God's supernatural, miraculous creation of the soul (out of nothing or himself) into the natural process of reproduction. This is inherently contradictory, since it makes that which is against natural law a part of nature: it is against natural law that something is created out of nothing.
• This view promotes God as the author of sin. If God creates a pure soul in an pure state and places it in a corrupted body in which over time cannot not do anything but sin, God himself by inference is responsible for this and is not exempt from blame. The mere fact that God allows or permits a pure soul to be tainted by sin at the Age of Accountability shows God is indirectly is responsible for sin. By analogy, if I had an attack dog fenced in my backyard, and I allowed or permitted the dog to roam freely in public, and the dog bites or attacks a person, I am legally liable.
• The main problem: Scripture does not represent the body and soul having different origins.

read Hebrews 10:5 "When Christ entered into the world a body was created for HIm" Notice that the body was created before the soul entered it. And Genesis 2:7 "God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul. " Notice it was after the body was formed and when the breath of God came into the body that the body became a living soul. this becomes the model for the process of life forming. at conception the formation of the body begins at some point the breath of God enters the body and at the point it becomes a living soul.

• Romans 5:12 appears to indicate that we all sinned “through one man,” which points to everyone’s connectedness to Adam and his original sin.

this is talking about the legal structure. Adam was the head, and because he sinned, sin entered into the world. The implication is that If he had not sinned, sin would not have entered into the world, because woman sinned first, but she was second.

 

[The Liturgist]

My reply was "No eye deer". I thought that would have been obvious

Ah yes we need a swooshing sound effect here because to my great chagrin that went right over my head. When I go to the hospital today I should request they reinstall my brain.

 

[tall73]

Nowhere does the bible say this. This is a conclusion based on an interpretation based on the assumption that the bible says this. It does not. YOUR FIRST ASSUMPTION is WRONG.

He listed both views. The one you gave this response to is not the one he holds.