I guess it all goes to the creation of the souls. Judaism shares pagan belief in the pre-existence of the souls.
The Orthodox, as far as I know, teach traducianism. The doctrine teaches that God created a soul of Adam and that through his soul all humans inherited the same life. Thus, when he fell, all the generations inherited a defective soul, corrupted by sin.
Correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding that the Catholic teach creationism of the soul, although the early Latin Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine, were leaning towards the former. The doctrine of creationism of the souls teaches that God creates a souls for each newly conceived human being.
Early Gnostics embraced the Judaic belief that all the souls were created before the foundation of the world.
Early Reformers, to the best of my knowledge, still maintained creationism doctrine of the souls, but some of the 21st century followers of Reformation, and most sects and cults that appear on these threads seem to embrace the Judeo-pagan belief of pre0-existing souls.
The early Church condemned Origen's and the Gnostic belief in the pre-existence of the souls because of its association with re-incarnation, which the Church rejects.
How do we end up with a defective soul? Obviously, the doctrine of the pre-existenceI of the souls and the doctrine of creationism implicitly suggest that God deliberately created or creates defective souls. Traduconism simply explains it by saying we are getting " by his transgression.
The Catholics, of course, do not believe that God creates defective souls with each conception, but do not offer an xcplanation at which moment does the soul of a new human being become defective.
The Protestants who believe in the pre-existence of the souls simply say that God ordained some to hell and some to heaven, then created all the souls, and predestined each human being with an "appropriate" ready-made soul, which is pulled off the heavenly storage shelf and "plugged" in at the moment of conception, or perhaps even at some other moment.
From their mindset, it is perfectly just and proper for God to do that (neglecting to acknowledge that it is not characteristic of the revealed God in our lord Jesus Christ).
Moreover, the Reformed (Calvinists) cannot assume that a baby is innocent because the soul of the baby is already dead in sin.
That looks like a pretty good summary, thanks.
You’re correct, as far as I know, about the RC view, although I read that there are some modern exceptions, and as you noted, there was some back and forth way back.
I do definitely prefer some of the resulting conclusions from Traducianism and I think that in general, the Eastern Orthodox way of handling original sin seems healthier, at least compared to how some in the West use it in early catechism. Whether this is a necessary result of the theology or a failure of humans, I’m not sure. I also wasn’t raised in the East, so it could be that humans there could also misuse teaching of inherited sin while still be correct to the letter.
The objection to Traducianism, or so I read, is in “organic process of giving rise to a spiritual substance” and I don’t know the Eastern response to this objection. I would accept “it’s a lesser problem than you have otherwise.”
The West avoids the objection of God creating the soul in a fallen state, by attributing the creation of the soul to God and the fallen part from the parents. Which would seem, to me anyway, to mitigate the objection to Traducianism, but I’m not sure how it removes it.
However, with this mitigation, East and West end up at pretty much the same point pretty quickly. From there the theology can manage to avoid cascading errors about God all the way up to predeterminism, utterly depraved and so on.
thanks for your post..
From their mindset, it is perfectly just and proper for God to do that (neglecting to acknowledge that it is not characteristic of the revealed God in our lord Jesus Christ).
Moreover, the Reformed (Calvinists) cannot assume that a baby is innocent because the soul of the baby is already dead in sin.
Does anyone have any evidence for these strange comments that appear to be condemning innocent newborns to hell sight unseen?
I tend to avoid the Religion Forum, so I am not up on the latest interpretations here. But, I have to say condemning newborns to hell before they have a chance to do good or ill seems like pure bilge to me.
You continue to misstate the reformed position, Kosta.
A person's "innocence" has nothing to do with his salvation. All men are fallen and none deserves redemption. We are saved by God's unmerited mercy alone through the innocence, obedience and sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
See post 5,196.