There are a number of factual errors in this writing. First, many theologians, such as Martin Luther and many Roman Catholic theologians taught traducianism, and not that there is an eternal soul. The immortality of the soul is not the same as eternal. Souls are created in time. I do not know of a single teaching in the Christian church that believes that souls have always existed. Plato and Aristotle’s belief that matter is eternal was never accepted by the Church. The issue of the relationship between philosophy (Platonism, stoicism, and aristotlianism) was that philosophy is a handmaiden to theology. Where philosophy contradicts theology, philosophical ideas are to be rejected. The determination of a meaning of a word is determined by its immediate context, not where one first encounters that term. The assumption that people that believe in the existence of the soul apart from the existence of the body are somehow ignorant of Scripture is simply false.
This article doesn't say there is an "eternal soul" - that's not what it is about. As for Luther, he, at first, taught that man IS a soul, not that one HAS a soul. It was a pope of the RCC that condemned everyone who believed that the soul was not immortal.
The immortality of the soul is not the same as eternal.
A "soul" is not immortal and is not something that is put in a creature's body, including man. The Scriptures portray man and beast as being "souls", and that both have the same "spirit." I realize that goes against what you most likely have been taught, through tradition. "Eternal" is also a word used in place of the Greek "aion" which actually means an era, or age; and the adjective is a plural (aionios), meaning ages. Again, the majority of its usages in the Greek were of limited duration. Proof of that is not wanting!
I do not know of a single teaching in the Christian church that believes that souls have always existed.
Neither do I.
Plato and Aristotle’s belief that matter is eternal was never accepted by the Church.
That certainly wasn't an argument of the article, so why bring it up?
The determination of a meaning of a word is determined by its immediate context, not where one first encounters that term.
I agree that context controls the meaning of a term, but the basic meaning of a term is controlled by its first usage. Latter definitions are not always correct, and gather moss as it is reinterpreted and reinterpreted again and again. Take the word "death" - its first use always meant to become "extinct" or "non-existence". Has it changed over the years? You betcha! Many, when talking about someone who just died mentions that that one is now more alive than ever, playing his harp up in the clouds (a little sarc here!). Anyway, the first use of the word translated as "soul" is the Hebrew term "nephesh" which is translated into Greek by "psuche". In its first use it meant an animated creature (or living being), and is used of both man and beasts. If you don't agree with that, then you're not accepting what Moses wrote in Genesis.
The assumption that people that believe in the existence of the soul apart from the existence of the body are somehow ignorant of Scripture is simply false.
I would disagree! The Scriptures tell us that there is no "soul", i.e., an entity that exists apart from a deceased person or beast. When a man dies, a "soul" is dead. The scripture is very plain on that, provided that one is not caught up in platonic philosophy. Those who don't know what the Bible says about this are ignorant of what it says. It's that plain.