At What Point is the Human Soul/Spirit Created?

[Teallaura]

Can you maybe go into the theological difficulties you see? I think maybe one could argue that God no longer "creates" after the 6th day, or something. I'm not sure how strong a theological argument that might be though.

I honestly don't even see the basis here. Finishing creation and never creating again are not the same thing.

[Rushing Jaws]

Can you maybe go into the theological difficulties you see? I think maybe one could argue that God no longer "creates" after the 6th day, or something. I'm not sure how strong a theological argument that might be though.

Creationism has the weakness that as God creates each human soul ex nihilo, it is not clear how the guilt of Adam is transmitted to each later person.

Traducianism has the opposite problem. It preserves the solidarity of all mankind, at the price of making the human soul something that the child inherits from its parents. (Which has the further drawback that it seems to amount to a denial that the soul of man is purely spiritual, and not material.)

[Adrift]

I honestly don't even see the basis here. Finishing creation and never creating again are not the same thing.

Agreed. I'm giving him the satisfaction of a doubt however.

[Adrift]

Creationism has the weakness that as God creates each human soul ex nihilo, it is not clear how the guilt of Adam is transmitted to each later person.

Can you explain the mechanism behind this belief? Are you asserting that the guilt must in some way be transmuted physiologically? And if so, why?

Traducianism has the opposite problem. It preserves the solidarity of all mankind, at the price of making the human soul something that the child inherits from its parents. (Which has the further drawback that it seems to amount to a denial that the soul of man is purely spiritual, and not material

I'm having a hard time following the logic. Where do you find the soul an inherited property in this theory? And what is wrong with the idea that the soul is spiritual and not material?

[seer]

Creationism has the weakness that as God creates each human soul ex nihilo, it is not clear how the guilt of Adam is transmitted to each later person.

Traducianism has the opposite problem. It preserves the solidarity of all mankind, at the price of making the human soul something that the child inherits from its parents. (Which has the further drawback that it seems to amount to a denial that the soul of man is purely spiritual, and not material.)

It depends on what you think happened at the fall. We do not inherent Adam's guilt but his nature that will sin. My view is that Adam was filled with the Holy Spirit, and that he lost that when he sinned. And now his offspring are born without that inherent influence. And that God's Spirit could not reenter our sinful vessels without the Sacrifice of Christ (Like the Old Testament Tabernacle) making us clean again. Hence we are now "born again, regenerated."

[Sparko]

It depends on what you think happened at the fall. We do not inherent Adam's guilt but his nature that will sin. My view is that Adam was filled with the Holy Spirit, and that he lost that when he sinned. And now his offspring are born without that inherent influence. And that God's Spirit could not reenter our sinful vessels without the Sacrifice of Christ (Like the Old Testament Tabernacle) making us clean again. Hence we are now "born again, regenerated."

The bible is pretty clear that the flesh is where the sinfulness comes in anyway, which would be inherited from the parents. That is why we age and die too. Our bodies are sinful and fallen. One day we will get glorified bodies which will be sinless.

[Adrift]

The bible is pretty clear that the flesh is where the sinfulness comes in anyway, which would be inherited from the parents. That is why we age and die too. Our bodies are sinful and fallen. One day we will get glorified bodies which will be sinless.

When Paul talks about the flesh sometimes he's talking about the body, but other times he's referring to one's worldly nature, rather than the physical body. I suppose a worldly nature could also be inherited in a sense, but that might be stretching it. I might have to dig into some of the passages that suggest that flesh is where the sinfulness comes in, and what it means by that exactly.

[seer]

When Paul talks about the flesh sometimes he's talking about the body, but other times he's referring to one's worldly nature, rather than the physical body. I suppose a worldly nature could also be inherited in a sense, but that might be stretching it. I might have to dig into some of the passages that suggest that flesh is where the sinfulness comes in, and what it means by that exactly.

My view is not that we gained something from the fall (a sinful nature), but that we lost something. The indwelling Holy Spirit. So now the animal nature rules.

[KingsGambit]

When Paul talks about the flesh sometimes he's talking about the body, but other times he's referring to one's worldly nature, rather than the physical body. I suppose a worldly nature could also be inherited in a sense, but that might be stretching it. I might have to dig into some of the passages that suggest that flesh is where the sinfulness comes in, and what it means by that exactly.

I think the "worldly nature" thing is really a metaphor on his part and trying to systematize both usages together misses the point altogether.

[Sparko]

When Paul talks about the flesh sometimes he's talking about the body, but other times he's referring to one's worldly nature, rather than the physical body. I suppose a worldly nature could also be inherited in a sense, but that might be stretching it. I might have to dig into some of the passages that suggest that flesh is where the sinfulness comes in, and what it means by that exactly.

My thinking is that when Adam and Eve sinned, their perfect bodies became corrupted. They began to age and eventually died. Sin was like a physical addiction to the fallen human nature. We are unable to not-sin. We can stop ourselves from a particular sinning moment, but eventually we will give in and sin.

I am trying to remember a chart a sunday school teacher gave us one time...

Adam and Eve before the fall = Able to sin or not sin.
Unsaved Humans (spiritually dead with fallen flesh) = unable to not sin.
Saved humans (spiritually reborn with fallen flesh)= able to sin or not sin*.
Glorified humans = unable to sin.

or something like that.

*I am not sure of the "saved" line. It seems we have more power to not sin because of the Holy Spirit, but we still do.

So our spirit still has something to do with it, but our flesh is what holds us back even though we are saved.

[Adrift]

My view is not that we gained something from the fall (a sinful nature), but that we lost something. The indwelling Holy Spirit. So now the animal nature rules.

Yes, I agree with that assessment (mostly).

[Adrift]

My thinking is that when Adam and Eve sinned, their perfect bodies became corrupted. They began to age and eventually died. Sin was like a physical addiction to the fallen human nature. We are unable to not-sin. We can stop ourselves from a particular sinning moment, but eventually we will give in and sin.

I am trying to remember a chart a sunday school teacher gave us one time...

Adam and Eve before the fall = Able to sin or not sin.
Unsaved Humans (spiritually dead with fallen flesh) = unable to not sin.
Saved humans (spiritually reborn with fallen flesh)= able to sin or not sin*.
Glorified humans = unable to sin.

or something like that.

*I am not sure of the "saved" line. It seems we have more power to not sin because of the Holy Spirit, but we still do.

So our spirit still has something to do with it, but our flesh is what holds us back even though we are saved.

Interesting. I agree with some of this of course. I'm probably someplace between your view and seer's (assuming you're saying something different at all).

[Adrift]

I think the "worldly nature" thing is really a metaphor on his part and trying to systematize both usages together misses the point altogether.

On whose point, Paul's?

[Sparko]

Interesting. I agree with some of this of course. I'm probably someplace between your view and seer's (assuming you're saying something different at all).