Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My one short post was more time than this discussion is worth.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.
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.
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?
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.I have been studying this topic for decades..
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.Yes, I think you’re right. I had always assumed God had created our souls.
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.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.
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
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
Jesus had a pre-existent divine nature, but a created body and soul
So are you saying human beings are half breds?I think that the majority position is that the soul is created by God for us when we are conceived.
Clear avoidance of the problem of evil.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.
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
So are you saying human beings are half breds?
Clear avoidance of the problem of evil.
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.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 .
If so, how could our souls proceed from our parents?
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.Yes, I think you’re right. I had always assumed God had created our souls.
Oh I know that one very well. I don't have much time on this earth either.I have to go to the hospital tomorrow for tests,
My reply was "No eye deer". I thought that would have been obviousForgive 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.David wrote, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5).
it is not talking about consciousness, but conception or origin, something began at conception, but it was not life.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).
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.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.
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.
- 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.
My reply was "No eye deer". I thought that would have been obvious
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?