INTRODUCTION
The Christian life is a multi-faceted one. It is a life of devotion, of community, of
learning, and of service. Throughout the
process of human development, the Christian may experience periods of time
where focus on certain aspects increases as others decrease. Additionally, some may come to feel that
certain aspects of Christian life are relatively unimportant to their
particular walk. The study of theology
is often relegated to this arena of low importance, either because it is too
time consuming, the concepts too difficult to understand, or a general distaste
for academic endeavor. Indeed, some
argue that the study of theological matters is of little importance in the
practical, everyday Christian life. Its
issues, they contend, have limited relevance and are often insoluble. Therefore, they prefer to leave theological
inquiry to those in academia.
Theological study, however, can be of great benefit to Christians of all
levels of education. While many cogent
arguments could be made for the study of theology, even among laymen, Millard
Erickson identifies three reasons that theology is needful: the correctness of
doctrine affects the believer’s relationship to God, truth and experience are
related, and it assists in sifting through the plethora of available
philosophical options in the modern world.[1]
While theology is generally defined as “the study or science
of God,”[2]
its purview includes more than beliefs about God himself. Doctrines of the nature of man, of sin, of
the Church, and of end times are all addressed by theologians in creating a
complete system of belief. Since it is
man who is formulating the theology, it stands to reason that the study of man
– his origins, composition, and relationship to God – stands tall on the
theological landscape. Taking this down
a layer further, the soul of man – that which separates him from the rest of
creation – is of particular interest to theologians. But what, precisely, is the nature of this
soul? Where does it come from? The question of the soul’s origin may seem,
on the surface, to be a simple matter.
However, unbeknownst to many, it has been a topic of intense debate for
the entirety of Christian history. Amid
the debaters, two schools of thought have dominated the scene. Classical theologians, such as Tertullian and
Augustine, as well as their modern day counterparts, have weighed in on the
question. They have generally held
either that the soul is generated by a special act of creation for each human
being, or that the soul is generated through the reproductive process of
humanity with God at the source but not necessarily active in every soul
generation. The first of these positions
is called creationism. The second is
known as traducianism. [3]
This paper will first analyze some of the arguments for each position. Next, ethical issues will be considered that
may be impacted by one’s position on the origin of the soul. Finally, recommendations will be made for
modern Christianity in light of an awareness of the debate.
WHY STUDY ENSOULMENT
Among the various topics of theological study, one might be
tempted to ask, “Why study ensoulment?”
As the debate between traducianism and creationism has little likelihood
of being resolved definitively, it may be seen as irrelevant or a waste of
time. The study of this subject,
however, can yield significant returns in the Christian life, both in private
devotion and engagement in the world around us.
Ultimately, even a cursory study of the subject will result in three
particular enhancements to the Christian life.
First, it will
contribute to a sense of awe and wonder at the mystery of God. In an age
where Christianity is fraught with theologians and laymen who think they can
explain any aspect of God and the Christian experience, a potentially insoluble
issue like the origin of the soul can serve to remind us that God’s ways are
above our ways and his thoughts above our thoughts. This sense of wonder can serve to
re-introduce an awe and reverence that is missing from much of contemporary
Christianity.
Second, it can give us
pause in our theological assumptions.
Many Christians hold theological positions that are not well-informed in
the light of solid exegesis. Studying a
matter that has been one of contentious debate throughout the centuries can
encourage the Christian to thoroughly investigate the biblical data on a matter
before taking a hardline stance on a particular issue.
Finally, it will serve
to transform ethical conversations facing modern Christians. Many of the ethical dilemmas that Christians
discuss today can be informed by a study of the origin of the soul. Issues such as abortion, genetic
modification, and cloning loom large in contemporary society, and an
understanding of the discussion regarding ensoulment can assist in framing
these conversations in a way that is consistent with the rest of our theology.
TWO VIEWS: CREATIONISM AND TRADUCIANISM
The creationist standpoint maintains that the human soul is,
in each instance, created by a specific act of God and infused into the body at
a point of divine choosing. According to many traditions, this ensoulment
happens at forty days after conception.[4] Others move the date later, sometimes to the
moment of birth itself.[5] Though the timing of ensoulment has been
debated within the creationist camp, advocates are unified on the principle of
a clear distinction between the body, which is generated through natural
reproductive processes, and the soul, which is the result of a specific
creative act of God. This view has been
promoted by many throughout the history of Christianity as being the most
consistent with the biblical data and has ancient roots both in Aristotelian
philosophy and Hebrew thought.[6]
One classic example of the creationist point of view can be
found in the seventeenth-century Reformed theologian Francis Turretin. Turretin argues doggedly for the creationist
perspective as being in keeping with the law of creation, the testimony of
Scripture, and natural reason.[7] From the law of creation, he pointed out that
the formation of Adam ought to serve as an “example of the formation of all
men,” and that the soul of Adam came directly from the breath of God, the soul
of each man can reasonably be expected to originate in the same manner. If man is to bear the image of Adam, as Paul
asserts in 1 Cor 15:47-48, Turretin says that this must carry over to the
origin of soul as well as the body.[8] For Scriptural support, he turns to Zechariah
12:1 and Hebrews 12:9 as prime examples.
In these passages, God is described as having “formed the spirit of man
within him,” and as “the Father of spirits” (HCSB). Referring to the Hebrews reference, Turretin
asks, “why should God be called ‘the Father of spirits’ in contradiction with
‘the fathers of the flesh’ unless the origin of each was different?”[9] Louis Berkhof echoed Turretin, writing that
creationism “is more consistent with the prevailing representation of Scripture
that traducianism.”[10] As to the requirements of reason, Turretin
argues that the nature of the soul itself does not lend itself to the
possibility of parental propagation.
Traducianism, he says would require that the soul was either propagated
in its entirety from the parents, leaving them without souls of their own, or
in part, resulting in the conclusion that the soul is divisible. Both of these options, says Turretin, are
unacceptable.[11] Offering several other logical arguments for
creationism (or, rather, against traducianism), Turretin concludes by
repudiating common traducianist positions regarding the presence of Levi in the
loins of Abraham (Heb 7:9-10) and the necessity of traducianism for the
transmission of original sin.
Another proponent of creationism was Herman Bavnick. Like Turretin, Bavnick was a Reformed
theologian, albeit two centuries later.
Bavnick concedes that “in the strength of their arguments traducianism
and creationism are almost equal,”[12]
but argues for creationism, in part, because of its widespread adoption among
Christian theologians from a variety of traditions. Bavnick asserts, as did Turretin, that it is
only the Lutherans who accepted the traducianist view.[13]Following
a litany of observations about the Lutheran perspective on the nature and
destiny of man, Bavnick asserts that creationism is more in keeping with the
biblical perspective on the nature of salvation, and man’s being “included
under the covenant head” of Adam (thereby resolving the traducianist’s problem
of the transmission of original sin) with each individual “having their own
independence and responsibility”.[14]
Traducianism
The creationist position finds its most significant opponent
in the theory of traducianism. According
to this theory, “the souls of men as well as their bodies are derived from
their parents.”[15] Traducianism holds that, while the soul of
Adam was directly created by God, the souls of every other human being (save
Christ) are generated naturally. This
ability to generate souls, then, is part of God’s design for human
reproduction. Through the reproductive
process, the immaterial as well as the material being are derived from Adam,
who embodied the entire substance of humanity.
This humanity,, then, is distributed from the natural parents to their
offspring, carrying with it original sin.[16] Advocated initially by Tertullian,
traducianism was held by such Church fathers as Clement of Alexandria, Gregory
of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor, to name a few.[17]
One of the most noteworthy proponents of traducian position
was Presbyterian theologian William Greenough Thayer Shedd. Writing in the late nineteenth century, Shedd
provided a defense of traducianism that has been a bulwark of the argument ever
since. According to Shedd, while there
are difficulties with both creationism and traducianism, the latter theory is
far less problematic.[18] With an expository style reminiscent of
Turretin (who Shedd rebuts explicitly in his work), Shedd argues for traducianism
from the viewpoints of Scripture, systematic theology, and physiology.[19] Shedd’s initial biblical argument is that
man, as described in the Bible is a species, both male and female, and that
“the idea of a species implies the propagation of the entire individual out of it.[20] In other words, for a species to reproduce,
it must reproduce everything required for the offspring to be properly called a
member of the species. For man, this
includes the soul. He makes much of the
change in terminology following Genesis 2.
Where, in the first two chapters, God created man, now Adam “begat a son
after his own image” and Eve became “the mother of all living.”[21] Certain other Scriptures, according to Shedd,
forbid the idea that the propagation of man by reproduction is only
physical. Citing Christ’s words in John
3:6, he argues that it is “the total person . . . soul and body” that is born
of the flesh and reborn of the Spirit.
Various other supports are offered that man, even unregenerate man is
both body and spirit, both being naturally generated. many other scriptures are cited in support of
the theory, creating one of the most cogent arguments for traducianism in
modern history. Shedd also argues that a
theology of original sin requires a traducianist view. Both the imputation of Adams sin upon his
descendants and the tendency toward further sin solves “the difficulty of
accounting for the transmission of sin upon the creationist throry” and
resolves Turretin’s uneasy blend of “Adamic unity” and “Adamic representation”
which Shedd believes is problematic in creationist theology.[22] From physiology, Shedd argues that man is “at
every point in his history, embryonic as well as fetal, a union of soul and body”[23] He calls the idea of the soul being created
apart from the generation of the body “contrary to all the analogies in nature”
and says that it jeopardizes the whole idea of personal identity by separating
the two.[24] All in all, Shedd says that traducianism best
fits the biblical record, and supports the theology of original sin better than
creationism.[25]
While Shedd’s
defense of traducianism is among the most dogmatic, and the most extensive
(spanning over 60 pages), many modern theologians agree with him that
traducianism is the better fit for the biblical data. Millard Erickson, who calls humans “for the
most part . . . unitary beings”[26]
agrees that Hebrews 7:9-10 lends significant support to traducianism, and
utilizes the likelihood of soul propagation in his discussion against abortion.[27] Even thrologians who are critical of some of
the classic traducianist arguments (e.g. Shedd) tend to be forthright enough to
admit that “[a]rguments against traducianism that are worthy of serious
consideration
are not easy to come by.”[28]
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
The discussion of the origin of the soul predates
Christianity itself, and has puzzled the minds of even the most able
theologians. Today, the discussion carries
with it a new dimension, for it has far reaching implications for many ethical
issues that were remote or non-existent just a century ago. Lindsay Disney and Larry Poston agree:
It
can be readily understood how significant one s view regarding ensoulment is
for these phenomena. Simply put, if one is a Traducianist, completely convinced
that an embryo is a fully-ensouled human being from the first seconds of its
existence, then the destruction of unused fertilized eggs, the harvesting of
stem cells from fetal tissue, forms of contraception that are essentially
abortifacients, and all elective abortions performed at any stage of the
gestation period would be considered the termination of human life. If,
however, one is a convinced Creationist, holding that
ensoulment does not occur until—at the earliest—the fortieth day after
conception, and possibly not until as long as thirty days after birth itself,
then one s convictions concerning the abovementioned procedures may be vastly
different from those of the Traducianist.[29]
While traducianists tend to be
vehemently pro-life, holding that there is indeed a soul present from the
moment of conception, there is little incontrovertible proof that the traducian
position is correct. Despite this,
traducianists can become overly dogmatic in their position, glossing over the
possibility of theological error in favor of erring on the side of caution. Millard Erickson advocates for prudence in
the face of uncertainty when, discussing abortion, he writes, “when dealing
with an issue as momentous as the possible destruction of a human life,
prudence dictates that a conservative course be followed,” and “a conscientious
Christian will treat a fetus as human, since it is highly likely that God
regards a fetus as a person . . .”[30] While this prudence may be applauded, it can
often be taken to the extreme, denying the possibility of error , and even
inventing additional false supports for the ethical position. Thomas Clark, in his analysis of this dilemma
wrote that pro-lifers often do this because,
lacking
a secular rationale, pro-life forces nevertheless try to marshal apparently secular
support for the fetal right to life. One stratagem is to generate moral concern
for early stages of human life by playing on their later stages. ... Abortion
opponents never carry posters depicting newly conceived embryos, which when
magnified look more like buckyballs than people[31]
Creationists, on the other hand, can, in good conscience,
suppose that God does not create a soul for a fetus that he knows will not come
to term. This logic avoids common
traducianist dilemmas regarding the millions of naturally discarded and aborted
fetuses and the body’s discarding of fertilized eggs. They may, however, oppose abortion on other
grounds. Disney and Poston ask of the
creationist view, “Does all of the above imply that since a fetus in the
earliest stages of the gestation period may be without a soul, termination of a
pregnancy or the destruction of fertilized ova are inconsequential acts?” Answering in the negative, they point out
that “Creationists may well be just as opposed to abortion, stem cell research,
and certain forms of contraception as Traducianists. But their objections will
be of a different nature.”[32]
CONCLUSION
The debate over the origin of the soul is one fraught with
uncertainty and controversy. Whether the
soul is generated by a special creative act of God for every human being, or it
is transmitted from parents to their offspring as part of the divinely designed
reproductive process, is a matter that has been debated throughout the history
of Christianity. While many theologians
are dogmatic in their opposing positions, many others admit that there is no
iron-clad answer in the Bible.
It is the opinion of this author that traducianism has the
least difficulties. Though many
creationists are persuasive in their arguments (Bavnick especially, and
Turretin a bit less), the counter-arguments of traducianists like Shedd and
Franz Delitzsch seem more meritorious.
They are far from conclusive, but the scriptural supports seem strong. These matters ought to be studied by
Christians, as they will inevitably increase our faith, deepen our awe of God,
and remind us that there is much to be revealed when we see him face-to-face.
Regardless of the position one takes on the
creationist/traducian spectrum, an awareness of the ambiguity of the matter
ought to encourage us to be selective in how we frame our arguments, cautioning
against dogmatism in unresolved issues, and encouraging an active engagement
with the scientific community as more of the wonders of God’s world become
clear. Let us be firm in matters of
salvation and flexible in periphery ones, that our witness may be true and our
God’s mysteries be respected.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bavinck, Herman. God
and Creation. Vol. 2 of Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2004.
Boyd, Jeffrey H.
"What DNA Tells Us about the Human Soul." Calvin Theological
Journal 33, no. 1 (April 1, 1998): 142-159. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 10, 2013).
Crisp, Oliver D.
"Pulling traducianism out of the Shedd." Ars Disputandi 6,
(January 1, 2006): ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed January 25, 2013).
Delitzsch, Franz.
A System of Biblical Psychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1977.
Disney, Lindsey,
and Larry Poston. "The breath of life: Christian perspectives on
conception and ensoulment." Anglican Theological Review 92, no. 2
(March 1, 2010): 271-295. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed January 15, 2013).
Elwell, Walter
A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2001.
Erickson, Millard
J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998.
Greggo, Stephen
P. "Soul origin: revisiting creationist and traducianist theological
perspectives in light of current trends in developmental psychology." Journal
Of Psychology & Theology 33, no. 4 (December 1, 2005): 258-267. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed January 25,
2013).
Hershenov, David
and Rose J. Koch-Hershenov, "Fission and Confusion." Christian
Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality 12, no. 3 (December
2006): 237-254. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost
(accessed January 25, 2013).
Jersild, Paul.
"Rethinking the human being in light of evolutionary biology." Dialog
47, no. 1 (March 1, 2008): 37-52. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed February 10, 2013).
Koch-Hershenov,
Rose. "Totipotency, Twinning, and Ensoulment at Fertilization." Journal
Of Medicine & Philosophy 31, no. 2 (April 2006): 139-164. Religion
and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed January 25, 2013).
Meyer, John R.
"Embryonic Personhood, Human Nature, and Rational Ensoulment." Heythrop
Journal 47, no. 2 (April 2006): 206-225. Religion and Philosophy Collection,
EBSCOhost (accessed January 25, 2013).
Shedd, William
Greenough Thayer. Dogmatic Theology, (classic Reprint Edition). Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969.
Strong, Augustus
Hopkins. Systematic Theology a Compendium. Philadelphia, PA: Judson
Press, 1958.
Turretin,
Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison
Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992.
Wiley, H. Orton. Christian
Theology: Volume II. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1958.
[1]
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 1998), 29-31.
[2]
Ibid., 22.
[3]
A third view, that or pre-existence of the soul, was held by some Christian
philosophers, such as Origen. According
to re-existentialism, souls exist (in Heaven or otherwise) and await assignment
to a body. In historical Christianity,
this view, largely Platonic in origin, has been rarely advocated. Though a form of this view has been adopted
by some groups such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and some
new-age groups, it will not be treated in this paper.; Lindsey Disney and Larry
Poston. “The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and
Ensoulment.” Anglican Theological Review,
92 no 2 (Spring 2010): 271-295 ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed January 15, 2013), 275.
[4]
Disney and Poston, The Breath of Life,
278.
[5]
Ibid., 277.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison,
Jr (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992), 477.
[8]
Ibid., 477-478.
[9]
Turretin, Institutes, 479.
[10]
Louis Berkof in Disney and Poston, The
Breath of Life, 277.
[11]
Turretin, Institutes, 480
[12]
Herman Bavinck, God and Creation, vol. 2 of Reformed Dogmatics
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 581.
[13]
Ibid., 584; Turretin, Institutes,
477.
[14]
Bavnick, Reformed Dogmatics, 587.
[15]
H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology: Volume II (Kansas City, MO: Beacon
Hill, 1958), 28.
[16]
Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology a Compendium (Philadelphia,
PA: Judson Press, 1958), 493-494.
[17]
Disney and Poston, The Breath of Life,
276.
[18]
William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, (classic Reprint Edition)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), 19.
[19]
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology,19 ff.
[20]
Ibid.
[21]
Ibid., 20.
[22]
Ibid., 33,36.
[23]
Ibid., 75.
[24]
Ibid., 76-77.
[25]
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology,94.
[26]
Erickson, Christian Theology, 554.
[27]
Ibid., 570.
[28]
Oliver D. Crisp "Pulling traducianism out of the Shedd." Ars
Disputandi 6, (January 1, 2006): ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed January 25, 2013), 22.
[29]
Disney and Poston, The Breath of Life,
287-288.
[30]
Erickson, Christian Theology, 573.
[31]
Thomas W. Clark in Disney and Poston, The
Breath of Life, 288.
[32]
Disney and Poston, The Breath of Life,
292.
No comments:
Post a Comment