Glorious and Depraved (9): The Origin of the Soul/Spirit

When a child is conceived and then born, where does that child’s immaterial soul/spirit come from? Has it always existed and is sent at conception or birth to this body, does God create it at conception or birth and attach it to this body, or does it somehow come from the parents? The three views are pre-existence, creationism, and traducianism.

The belief that all human souls have pre-existed, either from eternity or less, has been a tenet of several belief systems, including Plato, Buddhism, Chinese mythology, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, the latter particularly among the adherents of Origen, and the offshoot of Mormonism. There is no Biblical testimony to this idea. For the Christian father Origen, it was a conclusion that helped explain why Jacob was chosen over Esau (Romans 9:11-14), that is because in their pre-existence as spirits the two had done good or evil, and helped explain how God could love Jeremiah before he was conceived (Jeremiah 1:5). But if we existed before we were incarnated (given bodies), why even be incarnated, where and when, it seems, we lose consciousness of our previous existence? And why are we made sinners in Adam (Romans 5:12-19) rather than, as Origen argued, by virtue of our previous existence? The early church condemned this view as unorthodox.

Traducianism, the passing of the parents’ spirit or soul into their offspring through procreation, also has no direct Scriptural warrant. It too is an inference based on the inherited sin nature. If God was creating our souls at conception or birth, He surely does not create sinful souls and so they become sinful by being incarnated, given bodies. That surely seems objectionable, so it makes more sense that our sinful souls are part of what is passed on by our parents. Sometimes Hebrews 7:10, which says that Levi was in the loins of his ancestor Abraham when Abraham met Melchizedek, us used as support for this idea of traducianism. But that does not have to be the understanding of the author of Hebrews to establish his point. It has also been argued that the seeming transmission of personality traits from parents to children or grandchildren indicates the transmission of the soul. But is that the only explanation of such shared traits?

If it is Scriptural evidence we are looking for, creationism (each individual soul is an immediate creation of God at the time of conception and “acquires…that complex of sin by which humanity as a whole is burdened,” Berkhof, Systematic Theology) might seem to have it:

…and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

Yahweh, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares… (Zechariah 12:1)

Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! (Hebrews 12:9)

If it makes a difference to you, Augustine and Luther were undecided on the issue, Lutherans generally have embraced traducianism, and Calvin, and really the majority of church leaders, embraced creationism (Encyclopedia Britannica). Augustine, in responding to Jerome, who held the view of creationism, said, “If that opinion of the creation of new souls is not opposed to this established article of faith [the inheritance of Adam’s sin] let it be also mine; if it is, let it not be thine.” Maybe that is the best view to take.

In favor of the creationist view:

• It is more consistent with the concept of the soul as indivisible, whereas traducianism seems to involve dividing the soul to pass it on.
• It avoids the potential problem of Christ inheriting a sin nature from his mother.

Against this view:

• It could make God the indirect author of moral evil in that He created a pure soul and joined it to corrupt humanity (but, it is not so much that God joins a pure soul to a sinful body, but that because of Adam’s sin God withholds from those born of men his original righteousness and preserving influence, resulting in a natural movement toward unrighteousness by all)
• It seems to regard the body only being begotten by parents and thus does not explain inherited personality traits (but it may be that the body bears responsibility in larger ways than we know for having an effect upon our spirits and how they are limited in their expression; e.g., if one’s brain chemistry, inherited from parents, is prone to depression, won’t that affect the spirit’s ability to be otherwise since it is so tied to the body?)
• It has God still creating, rather than resting from His creation. But this does not seem be something God is prohibited from doing.

As Berkhof says,

It must be admitted that the arguments on both sides are rather well balanced…The few Scriptural passages that are adduced as favoring the one theory or the other, can hardly be called conclusive on either side…it is necessary to speak with caution on the subject. We ought not to be wise above that which is written…It seems to us that Creationism deserves the preference…Creationism does not claim to be able to clear up all difficulties.

We do know that God takes personal agency in the baby’s development in the womb (and after) from David’s testimony in Psalm 139:

Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother’s womb. ¹⁴ I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; ¹⁵ my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth. ¹⁶ Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence. (NET)