By Kenneth Samples
Part 4 of 4

What is the best explanation for how the human soul comes into being?

The Bible presents human beings as a unity of body and soul (Matthew 10:28). But just how did God bring about the origin of the human soul? Is there a specific position on this issue that holds greater explanatory power than another? Or is this profound topic an inexplicable mystery?

In part three of this series I explored the position of traducianism, the view that human beings derive both their bodies and souls from their parents through procreation. In this final article I will examine the viewpoint known as creationism.

What is Creationism?

Not to be confused with the doctrine of how God brought about the origin of the cosmos, creationism (or creatianism) is the view that each individual human soul is directly created by God ex nihilo (out of nothing) before being united with the body. This perspective postulates that the soul is created pure but is subsequently corrupted along with the body through the process of conception. The exact timing of the soul’s implantation in the body is debated, though many would argue in favor of the time of physical conception.

Biblical and Theological Support for Creationism

As I mentioned in my previous discussion of traducianism, Scripture does not address the topic of the soul’s origin in any formal or explicit way. Therefore, inferences and implications from Scripture must be drawn carefully and weighed accordingly.

1. Scripture appears to distinguish between the origin of man’s soul and body (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9).
2. The position of creationism seems more in keeping with the pure spiritual nature of the soul.
3. One of creationism’s strongest appeals is that it also preserves the soul as a simple, indivisible substance.
4. The creationism view seems to safeguard the sinless nature of Jesus Christ’s human soul better than does traducianism.

Concerns and Criticisms of Creationism

1. None of the biblical arguments are clinching or determinative in their support of creationism.
2. Creationism seems to have a much harder time explaining the transmission of original sin among humanity than does traducianism.
3. The position of creationism may serve to detract from man’s unity of body and soul.

In evaluating the positions of traducianism and creationism, important theological issues, such as the image of God and original sin, certainly impact the analysis.

Though creationism stands as the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, historic Christianity has never collectively issued an official orthodox position concerning the human soul’s origin. Believers would do well to carefully put all aspects of the Christian worldview to the test.

For a discussion of the human soul and the various positions concerning its origin, see the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), s.v. “Soul.”

For more about the historic Christian view of human nature, see my book, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test, especially chapter 10.

By Kenneth Samples
Part 3 of 4

What is the best explanation for how the human soul comes into being?

The question of how God brought about the origin of the human soul involves deep mystery. For many, the theological doctrine that humans are made in the direct image and likeness of God (imago Dei: Genesis 1:26–27) raises profound inquiries about God’s own essence or being. It may be that at some level this question will remain unanswered—at least in this life.

Nevertheless two basic views concerning the origin of the human soul have been set forth in church history—traducianism and creationism. This article will briefly explore the position of traducianism whereas part four will examine creationism.

What is Traducianism?

Sometimes referred to as “generationism,” traducianism is the view that human beings derive both their bodies and souls from their parents through procreation. This perspective insists only Adam’s soul was created directly by God. All other human beings have their immaterial soul passed on through a spiritual–physical union or process.

Biblical and Theological Support for Traducianism

The Bible does not address the topic of the soul’s origin in any formal or explicit way. Therefore inferences and implications from Scripture must be carefully drawn and weighed accordingly.

1. God’s breathing into man the breath of life is not said to have been repeated after Adam (Genesis 2:7).
2. Scripture seems to convey the idea that descendents are in some sense in the loins of their fathers (Genesis 46:26; Hebrew 7:9–10).
3. Since the Bible teaches man is a unity of body and soul (Matthew 10:28), it seems reasonable to conclude that both component elements of man had a simultaneous beginning.
4. From a biblical perspective begetting involves passing on the image of God, therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the immaterial aspect of man is passed on in this act (Genesis 5:3).
5. Since it can be argued God has ceased creating (Genesis 2:2), it can thus be concluded that no new souls are being created by God but rather are passed on through this natural–spiritual generation.
6. Traducianism appears to be the superior explanatory model in terms of explaining how sin is transmitted to all of humanity.

Concerns and Criticisms of Traducianism

1. None of the biblical arguments are clinching or determinative in their support of traducianism.
2. This perspective could be viewed in a secondary sense as making the parents the creator of the child.
3. Affirming traducianism makes it more difficult to explain the sinless human nature of Jesus Christ (his body and soul being passed on from his mother Mary).
4. Some think in vetro fertiliztion and the possibility of cloning count against the truth of traducianism.
5. Others think traducianism detracts from the view that embryos have a soul and are to be recognized as full persons.

While containing theological strengths and weaknesses, traducianism remains a provocative and possible explanatory theory for the soul’s origin. Yet among theologically conservative Christians, traducianism remains the minority position.

Next week I’ll review the more popular position known as creationism.

Click here for the original post.

By Ryan Turner

The following is a paper that I wrote for seminary titled “Women as Model Disciples in the Gospel of Mark.”  All of the Scripture references below come from the NKJV Bible.

Introduction

In the Gospel of Mark, women occupy a central portion in the mission and message of Jesus as examples of model disciples.  Sometimes these examples are general, but sometimes they are specific. Generally, women are subjects of Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom and discipleship.  They follow Him as part of the general multitudes and receive his teaching.  Specifically, they have faith in His ability to perform miracles.  They exhibit sacrifice in being willing to give up all of their possessions for others.  They see the events of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus.  In fact, they are the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus.  Despite the various functions that women play in the Gospel of Mark, they frequently serve as models of discipleship in contrast to unbelieving men and women.  Therefore, Mark uses the examples of women as model disciples to tie together the various parts of his Gospel into a unifying theme.

Women as General Followers of Jesus

Mark’s gospel contains a call to discipleship which includes not only men, but also women.  Mark records, “Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins”, (Mk. 1:5).  The simple fact that “all of the land of Judea” and “those from Jerusalem” went out for baptism indicates that there most likely were women receiving the baptism of John, who was a forerunner of the Messiah.  Second, in the same chapter, when Jesus begins His ministry, He preaches in Galilee, “Repent, and believe in the gospel”, (Mk. 1:15; cf. Mk. 6:12). Due to this universal proclamation for Galileans, women definitely are to receive the gospel.  Third, also in chapter 1, Mark records the popularity of Jesus when Simon states, “Everyone is looking for You”, (Mk. 1:37).  Fourth, the crowd of people who give Jesus the triumphal entry into Jerusalem cry, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!”, (Mk. 11:9).  Again, they emphasize the universal appeal of coming to Jesus.  In this same passage, these people “spread their clothes on the road” indicating their submission and service to the Messiah (Mk. 11:8).  Therefore, women are an integral part of the call of Jesus to discipleship.

Mark continues his theme of women as disciples of Jesus.  In Mark 14:24, Jesus states, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.”  Finally, perhaps the climatic verse for this general call to discipleship is Jesus’ later statements in Mark 8:34-38, where He speaks to “the people” and “His disciples” about the cost of following Him.  He states, “Whosoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.  For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it”, (Mk. 8:34-35).  This crowd definitely consisted of women who are clearly a part of Jesus’ call to discipleship.

Women as Part of the Multitudes

As disciples of Jesus, women were often among the multitudes that followed Jesus and received his teaching.  First, Mark records, “Then He went out again by the sea; and all the multitude came to Him, and He taught them”, (Mk. 2:13; cf. Mk. 5:21, 31; 7:33; 10:1; etc.).  Second, He later notes the large numbers of people who came to Jesus, “Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread” (Mk. 3:20).  Third, when Jesus gives his parable of the Sower (4:3-9), the multitudes are present to hear his message (Mk. 4:1-2).  In this same pericope, Jesus states, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”, (Mk. 4:9; cf. Mk. 4:23).  Jesus indicates that whoever has ears should listen to his message, whether it is men or women.  Fourth, many of the people from the city in the country of the Gadarenes came out to see Jesus after hearing of his ability to cast out demons (Mk. 5:14-15).  Mark later records that “all marveled”, (Mk. 5:20).  Sixth, Mark later records the heart that Jesus has for the people that followed Him.  Jesus states, “I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat.  And if I send them away hungry to their own houses, they will faint on the way; for some of them have come from afar”, (Mk. 8:2-3).  As a result of this compassion, Jesus feeds these five thousand people!  Therefore, this miracle of Jesus feeding the five thousand illustrates the compassion and care that Jesus had for the multitudes, which generically contained women.

Women and Examples of Healing as Models of Discipleship

As a result of women being a part of the multitudes that followed Jesus and heard his teaching on discipleship, they saw miracles. These miracles occur in a number of instances.  First, Simon’s wife was sick and Jesus responded and healed her.  Mark records Jesus’ response to hearing the news of her sickness, “So He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and immediately the fever left her”, (Mk. 1:31).  However, this healing illustrates a discipleship theme.  After Simon’s wife is healed, “she served them”, (Mk. 1:31).  Mark illustrates that out of gratefulness for being healed, she does what the greatest in the kingdom do: they serve! (cf. Mark 10:43-45)  Second, Mark records about a woman who had an issue of blood and she spent all she had on physicians, only to get worse (Mk. 5:25-26). However, “When she heard about Jesus, she came behind Him in the crowd, and touched His garment”, (Mk. 5:27).  She believed that Jesus could heal her if she only touched Him!  In typical Markan fashion, Mark records, “Immediately the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of the affliction”, (Mk. 5:29).  Jesus immediately knew that something had happened, and He questioned who touched Him.  In fear, the lady comes forward and “told Him the whole truth”, (Mk. 5:33).  In response to her confession, Jesus states, “Daughter, your faith has made you well.  Go in peace, and be healed of your affliction”, (Mk. 5:34).  This detailed passage illustrates a couple of important facts about this woman. First, she had faith that Jesus could heal her, even if she only touched Him.  Second, she told Him the truth, even if it would mean getting into trouble.  Therefore, this passage again illustrates the importance of women as model disciples by virtues of faith and truth.

Click here for the full article.

“Show me your God!” the doubter cries.
I point him to the smiling skies;
I show him all the woodland greens;
I show him peaceful sylvan scenes;
I show him winter snows and frost;
I show him waters tempest-tossed;
I show him hills rock-ribbed and strong;
I bid him hear the thrush’s song;
I show him flowers in the close -
The lily, violet and rose;

I show him rivers babbling streams;
I show him youthful hopes and dreams;
I show him maids with eager hearts;
I show him toilers in the marts;
I show him stars, the moon, the sun;
I show him deeds of kindness done;
I show him joy; I show him care,
And still he holds his doubting air,
And faithless goes his way, for he
Is blind of soul, and cannot see! 

John Kendrick Bangs (1862-1922)

By Lee Strobel

By Kenneth Samples
Part 2 of 4

What is the best explanation for how the human soul comes into being?

In this article I will define three positions that have been set forth in church history in attempts to explain the mysterious origin of the human soul. In later installments in the series I will examine more deeply the two most viable perspectives.

Three Main Views on the Origin of the Soul

1. Pre-existence: This view holds that human souls exist eternally in a previous and higher state before being united with human bodies in the time-space world.

This theological perspective was deeply influenced by ancient Greek philosophy. Distinguished philosopher Plato (427–347 BC) believed in eternally existent souls. This view has been associated with such Eastern religious concepts as reincarnation and the transmigration of souls (souls entering into a new body after death). In Christian history this position was held by the controversial church father Origen (AD 185–254) as well as by the heretical movement known as Gnosticism. Subsequently in Christian history this position was condemned as a doctrinal heresy. Today the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) holds to a version of this doctrine.

2. Traducianism: This view maintains that human beings derive both their bodies and souls from their parents through procreation (sometimes referred to as “generationism”). This perspective insists that only the soul of Adam was created directly by God whereas all other human beings have their immaterial soul passed on through a spiritual-physical process.

The position of traducianism was first held and defended by the North African church father Tertullian (c. AD 160–220) in his work De anima (xxvii). Even the greatest of the church fathers, Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430), initially leaned toward a traducian interpretation, though he later insisted that the soul’s origin is inexplicable. Some within the Eastern Orthodox tradition have accepted this view. Since the time of the Reformation, this perspective on the soul’s origin has been especially popular in Lutheran theology. It remains a viable doctrinal position today among some evangelical theologians though clearly a minority position. The viewpoint’s strongest appeal is that it is perceived as being the best explanatory theory regarding how original sin is transmitted to all of humanity.

3. Creationism: The view that each individual human soul is directly created by God before being united with the body (sometimes the term appears as “creatianism”). This perspective postulates that the soul is created pure but is subsequently corrupted along with the body through the process of conception.

This position was strongly defended by medieval scholastic scholars like Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and has become the official view of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) also affirmed the creationism position as do most Reformed theologians. Among contemporary evangelical theologians, creationism remains the dominant position on the soul’s origin. The viewpoint’s strongest appeal is that it appears to preserve the concept of the soul as being a simple, indivisible substance.

In future installments in this series I will explore the arguments both biblical and philosophical for and against the positions of traducianism and creationism.

For more about the historic Christian view of human nature, see my book, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test, especially chapter 10.

By Kenneth Samples
Part 1 of 4

I once asked my public-college philosophy students if they thought human beings possessed a soul. A student quipped, “James Brown certainly does!” Popular musicical entertainer, James Brown, may have been called “the Godfather of Soul,” but he’s certainly not the only one to possess a soul.

In this article I will briefly describe how I understand Scripture’s teaching concerning the constituent aspects and ultimate union of human nature. In further installments of this series I will then explain and evaluate three theological views concerning the origin of the human soul.

Christian Anthropology

In his helpful book, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts, evangelical Christian theologian John Jefferson Davis summarizes the meaning of the imago Dei (image of God):

“God created man and woman in his own image and likeness. Creation in the image and likeness of God includes the moral and spiritual nature, intellect, feelings, will, and dominion over the lower creation. God created man and woman as morally responsible agents.”

Being made in the image of God means humans are both physical and spiritual creatures. In fact, the human person represents a union of material (physical) and non-material (spiritual) aspects. There remains a theological debate about how to best describe the Bible’s true perspective concerning the constituent nature of human beings. Some believe in trichotomy—the view that human beings are made up of three component parts (body/soul/spirit). Others embrace the position of dichotomy—the view that human beings are a union of body and soul-spirit.

Dichotomy

I view the position of dichotomy as the most biblically consistent position for four basic reasons:

1. The terms “soul” and “spirit” are used interchangeably in both the Old and New Testaments (Genesis 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59).

2. Some passages refer to more than the three constituent elements of body/soul/spirit (“heart,” “mind:” Matthew 22:37) which makes me think the meaning of the text shouldn’t be taken overly literally. The best interpretation of Matthew 22:37 is the admonition to love God with one’s entire being not in multiple distinct parts.

3. Theologically speaking, both “soul” and “spirit” reference that immaterial aspect of a human being’s nature found in union with the body (Genesis 2:7).

4. The totality of human existence is referenced sometimes in terms of “body and soul” (Matthew 10:28) and at other times as “body and spirit” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

These reasons lead me to conclude that human beings, via the imago Dei, are a union of material and immaterial aspects.

In the next installment of the series I will begin a discussion concerning three views of the soul’s origin. So check back with Today’s New Reason to Believe next Tuesday.

To consider all the relevant scriptural passages relating to the constituent aspects of human nature, see Davis’s Handbook of Basic Bible Texts.

For more about the historic Christian view of human nature, see my book, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test, particularly chapter 10

By Ravi Zacharias

By Don Closson 

While traditional Christian beliefs never seem to suffer from a shortage of critics, the diversity and intensity of the current group of antagonists is impressive. We have the so called “New Atheists,” mostly consisting of individuals from the scientific community, modern day Gnostics both in academia and of Da Vinci Code fame, as well as Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups too many to mention. However, one critic stands out, primarily because of his academic pedigree and the impact that his books are having in the popular culture and among Christians.

Bart Ehrman is a product of evangelicalism’s center. Educated at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, he knows how conservative Christians think because he used to be one. His recent book Misquoting Jesus has been called “one of the unlikeliest bestsellers” of the year, and with it he has managed to bring to the public’s attention the obscure world of New Testament textual criticism.

Having professed faith in Christ while in high school, Ehrman went off to college with a simple trust in the New Testament text, a trust that included verbal, plenary inspiration. In other words, he believed that God had inspired and preserved every word of the Bible. By the time Ehrman began doing graduate work at Princeton, he was having serious reservations about the text and its source. He now considers himself an agnostic and writes books that question most of what his fellow classmates at Moody and Wheaton believe.

How did a bright, well-educated evangelical become so disillusioned? Even Dr. Ehrman’s detractors acknowledge his credentials and intelligence. One book that attempts to refute his views says that he is “known for his indefatigable scholarship and provocative opinions.”[1] The provocative opinions will be the focus of this article.

Just what is Ehrman’s complaint regarding the New Testament text? His first point is that we do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament, and the Greek copies that we do have were made too long after the originals. He also says that these Greek manuscripts contain more variants, or places where the manuscripts are different, than there are words in the entire New Testament itself. Finally, he complains that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and that, whoever the real authors of these texts were, they were not eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus. As Ehrman sees it, these facts create an insurmountable problem for Christians.

Our focus will be on Dr. Ehrman’s assertion that the variants in the New Testament text have corrupted it to the point that it cannot be trusted to communicate God’s truth to us today.

Click here for the full article.