Traducianism

[Constantine the Sinner]

Is there any consensus in regard to this teaching? I'm a bit curious.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I had to look that up to even see what it was.

Traducianism is one of two biblically plausible views on the origin of the human soul (immaterial nature, spirit) following God's initial creation and mankind's Fall. Traducianism is the theory that human beings are propagated as whole beings, both materially and immaterially (including both body and soul). Creationism, on the other hand, is the view that God specially creates a new soul ex nihilo when a human being is conceived. Both views have their strengths and weaknesses and both have been held by notable theologians of the past.

A third view, which lacks biblical support, proposes that God created all human souls at the same time, prior to Genesis 1, and attaches a soul to a human being at the moment of conception. In other words, all the souls that will ever be were created and pre-existent before Adam. This view is not generally accepted as an orthodox option.
From http://www.theopedia.com/traducianism

I've heard all three views. I have (for myself) leaned toward Creationism (since Scripture says the soul comes from God). I have not yet heard it discussed in terms of Orthodoxy in any case, though. Interested in the replies you may get.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I had to look that up to even see what it was.

Traducianism is one of two biblically plausible views on the origin of the human soul (immaterial nature, spirit) following God's initial creation and mankind's Fall. Traducianism is the theory that human beings are propagated as whole beings, both materially and immaterially (including both body and soul). Creationism, on the other hand, is the view that God specially creates a new soul ex nihilo when a human being is conceived. Both views have their strengths and weaknesses and both have been held by notable theologians of the past.

A third view, which lacks biblical support, proposes that God created all human souls at the same time, prior to Genesis 1, and attaches a soul to a human being at the moment of conception. In other words, all the souls that will ever be were created and pre-existent before Adam. This view is not generally accepted as an orthodox option.
From http://www.theopedia.com/traducianism

I've heard all three views. I have (for myself) leaned toward Creationism (since Scripture says the soul comes from God). I have not yet heard it discussed in terms of Orthodoxy in any case, though. Interested in the replies you may get.

I would naturally assume Creationism, but in Ways of Russian Theology, Father Georges (Florovsky) talks about Creationism being taught in passing in a way that indicated it was some Western idea thinkers in the vein of Peter Mogila were propagating.

I don't know if this would preclude the soul coming from God. After all, bodies also come from God even through they are formed through reproduction. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would naturally assume Creationism, but in Ways of Russian Theology, Father Georges (Florovsky) talks about Creationism being taught in passing in a way that indicated it was some Western idea thinkers in the vein of Peter Mogila were propagating.

I don't know if this would preclude the soul coming from God. After all, bodies also come from God even through they are formed through reproduction. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

I don't know. I have always just had a simple way of approaching it. I wonder if anyone knows of more? Though to me, it's one of those "doesn't really matter for my life" things, at least not in a way I can see, I still admit to being curious.

 

[truefiction1]

I seem to be a proponent of traducianism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the only one I have heard is that God's breathes the soul at conception.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Looks like the Ethiopians teach it.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church teaches Traducianism. God created Adam and Eve and gave them a command to multiply. The soul and body are transmitted to children from parents, there is no separate creation of souls. Body and soul will together be rewarded or punished as one inseparable entity in conformity with the mode and manner of the traducian origin of the soul.

http://ethiopianorthodox.org/english/Lent/devotion.html

 

[~Anastasia~]

Looks like the Ethiopians teach it.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church teaches Traducianism. God created Adam and Eve and gave them a command to multiply. The soul and body are transmitted to children from parents, there is no separate creation of souls. Body and soul will together be rewarded or punished as one inseparable entity in conformity with the mode and manner of the traducian origin of the soul.

http://ethiopianorthodox.org/english/Lent/devotion.html

Hmmmm ....

We of course believe that body and spirit are reunited and judged, as both are involved in committing acts both good and evil.

But I've not heard any official position from EO endorsing Traducianism. It may not be expressly forbidden, but I would doubt thinking it was officially taught.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Hmmmm ....

We of course believe that body and spirit are reunited and judged, as both are involved in committing acts both good and evil.

But I've not heard any official position from EO endorsing Traducianism. It may not be expressly forbidden, but I would doubt thinking it was officially taught.

The Church hasn't expressed an official position on the matter afaik, no. Different Church Fathers have though. I've emailed priests but no answers yet. I'm guessing it's a theologoumenon.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But I've not heard any official position from EO endorsing Traducianism.

and the Ethiopians, being non-Chalcedonian, are not Orthodox.

 

[~Anastasia~]

and the Ethiopians, being non-Chalcedonian, are not Orthodox.

Right, I wasn't very clear in my response. Thanks for pointing that out.

That's a new one though. I know of very few points of doctrinal differences between us, though I haven't been particularly paying attention to compile them.

 

[Petros2015]

Could get interesting if someone truly clones a human depending on what the answer is.

Some possible options:

a) Can't be done - human clones are not viable for some reason. Science scratches it's head wondering why.
b) 1 body with new a unique Spirit? Seems reasonable.
c) 1 Spirit sharing 2 or more bodies? Ok, that would be unexpected. Not sure how that works...
d) 1 body with no Spirit. Uh oh...

I would guess it's probably either b or d. I would hope B. I feel like d could get really scary, especially if nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Could get interesting if someone truly clones a human depending on what the answer is.

Some possible options:

a) Can't be done - human clones are not viable for some reason. Science scratches it's head wondering why.
b) 1 body with new a unique Spirit? Seems reasonable.
c) 1 Spirit sharing 2 or more bodies? Ok, that would be unexpected. Not sure how that works...
d) 1 body with no Spirit. Uh oh...

I would guess it's probably either b or d. I would hope B. I feel like d could get really scary, especially if nature abhors a vacuum.

I did a lot of thinking about this when cloning first became a big deal.

I used to wonder if God might condescend to give a spirit, but I rather doubted that. I didn't think God would be very impressed with these kinds of efforts.

Which left me envisioning a likely human with no soul/spirit. Which would either be kind of vacuous and lacking (if we are lucky) or as you say, possibly very scary with what we might be inviting to fill it.

But now I think - are Satan or his demons limited by not having a body? I don't really think so. Think of the powers of angels? Presumably Satan or demons are physically able to do anything an angel can do (in terms of having or not having a body). And angels appear to be able to do almost everything, including manifest as human. So I think being bound to a human body would actually be restraining and limiting to a demon? Of course, we know that those who are possessed can have great strength and knowledge, beyond what is natural. But I don't think a body lends anything extra to an evil spirit, unless it is simply something like in the counsels of God how the antichrist might come to be -- in which case there would be no point worrying because what will happen (or not) will happen.

But it makes for an interesting foundation for a suspense story, if you're into that kind of thing (and I was).

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Well, the soul or 'anima' is the breath of life. Without a soul, a body is dead. So can cloning make living being succesbsfully? I doubt it, but were it possible to create a 'soul-less' clone, that'd be inviting a demon in? Could that be how the Antichrist comes about?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know of very few points of doctrinal differences between us, though I haven't been particularly paying attention to compile them.

they accuse Chalcedon of being Nestorian which it is not (Chalcedon begins with the writings of St Cyril). and Severus of Antioch, who railed against Chalcedon as Nestorian, is the actual Nestorian (odd sense of heretical irony, which St Maximos the Confessor points out). a buddy of mine did a report on his Christology, and his own words that describe the distinction between the two natures in Christ actually divides them. Severus actually does what he accuses Chacedon of doing.

plus he is a monoengergist.

they also accuse the Tome of Leo as being Nestorian, even though they cannot actually show where the Nestorianism is in the Tome, and often forget that St Leo was one of St Cyril's big supporters at Ephesus and helped commission St John Cassian to write an apology against the Nestorians.

 

[~Anastasia~]

they accuse Chalcedon of being Nestorian which it is not (Chalcedon begins with the writings of St Cyril). and Severus of Antioch, who railed against Chalcedon as Nestorian, is the actual Nestorian (odd sense of heretical irony, which St Maximos the Confessor points out). a buddy of mine did a report on his Christology, and his own words that describe the distinction between the two natures in Christ actually divides them. Severus actually does what he accuses Chacedon of doing.

plus he is a monoengergist.

they also accuse the Tome of Leo as being Nestorian, even though they cannot actually show where the Nestorianism is in the Tome, and often forget that St Leo was one of St Cyril's big supporters at Ephesus and helped commission St John Cassian to write an apology against the Nestorians.

Thank you, Matt. I was aware of the very basic part (counter-charges of Nestorianism) but not the details. That is very helpful in understanding.

I actually tried to talk it out with an OO friend once, but we never got past the language we each were using.

Thank you for the info.

Oh, I did not know they are monergist? (Or just Severus?) Do I understand you correctly? That seems odd ...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Oh, I did not know they are monergist? Do I understand you correctly? That seems odd ...

a lot of them are not, but Severus was. some are monoenergists and for many, Constantinople III is even more of a hump than Chalcedon. the issue with not accepting Chalcedon is not so much that it made a ton of heretics (remember the Orientals left because they accused Chalcedon of being something it was not, not because they innovated doctrine), but it does open the door for a lot of heresy and wackiness.

 

[~Anastasia~]

a lot of them are not, but Severus was. some are monoenergists and for many, Constantinople III is even more of a hump than Chalcedon. the issue with not accepting Chalcedon is not so much that it made a ton of heretics (remember the Orientals left because they accused Chalcedon of being something it was not, not because they innovated doctrine), but it does open the door for a lot of heresy and wackiness.

I hadn't realized that. I have always been most impressed with the fact that they seem closest to us in every way, despite being the first to schism. To me, that has always underscored those things we have in common.

Perhaps that is still true?

I don't know much about the OO really, other than what I read here at TAW. I've never visited a Liturgy.

Thank you for the info.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have always been most impressed with the fact that they seem closest to us in every way, despite being the first to schism. To me, that has always underscored those things we have in common.

Perhaps that is still true?

oh absolutely. there is actually hope in my opinion when it comes to dialogue with the Orientals. I think there is a reason the Ethiopians and Malankar are always students at our seminaries.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

they accuse Chalcedon of being Nestorian which it is not (Chalcedon begins with the writings of St Cyril). and Severus of Antioch, who railed against Chalcedon as Nestorian, is the actual Nestorian (odd sense of heretical irony, which St Maximos the Confessor points out). a buddy of mine did a report on his Christology, and his own words that describe the distinction between the two natures in Christ actually divides them. Severus actually does what he accuses Chacedon of doing.

plus he is a monoengergist.

they also accuse the Tome of Leo as being Nestorian, even though they cannot actually show where the Nestorianism is in the Tome, and often forget that St Leo was one of St Cyril's big supporters at Ephesus and helped commission St John Cassian to write an apology against the Nestorians.

Severus of Antioch was a Myaphisite NOT a Nestorian , or monoenergist