• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Can a soul that's created anew carry the 'Adamic sin'?

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
No. Reincarnation is when the same soul inhabits a different body. I'm talking about the recreation of a new but identical body and soul.

Not "outlived". That would imply continuity. I mean an end to soul and body. And then a recreation of a new but identical soul without the body which originally generated it. And without the ability to sin, I guess.

If it seems irrelevant to the argument at hand, it's because it is. Just a thought I had. Sorry. Let me finish my drink, have a smoke, and then I'll see if I have anything meaningful to contribute.

Well then we'd have a bunch of people from thousands of years ago continually springing back into existence, only this time sinless!:blink:
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
Well then we'd have a bunch of people from thousands of years ago continually springing back into existence, only this time sinless!:blink:

Nono, I wasn't talking about how new souls are generated. I was talking about how a soul "bound up with the body in creation" could continue to exist (or, more precisely, exist again) following the destruction of the body. I was addressing a single post of yours, not the topic under discussion. Reread my first post and the post quoted in it.

As I said, it was an off-topic interjection.

The recreation of the soul independent of the body would take place either in the future (at the resurrection) or in the present in heaven.

New thought: if there is such a thing as "imputed righteousness", couldn't there also be such a thing as "imputed sinfulness"? Just as the consequence of imputed righteousness is a restoration of relationship with God and freedom for his holy spirit to sanctify, so too could imputed sinfulness break relationship with God and thereby isolate humanity from the good desires that only God can give. Perhaps the sin of Adam isn't inherited but imputed? This would allow a soul created pure to be nonetheless immediately tainted with sinfulness.

Hmm, I'm missing something here. But I'm not ready to give up on this train of thought.
 
Last edited:

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
The recreation of the soul independent of the body would take place either in the future (at the resurrection) or in the present in heaven.

Oh okay...I get what you are saying.

New thought: if there is such a thing as "imputed righteousness", couldn't there also be such a thing as "imputed sinfulness"? Just as the consequence of imputed righteousness is a restoration of relationship with God and freedom for his holy spirit to sanctify, so too could imputed sinfulness break relationship with God and thereby isolated humanity from the good desires that only God can give. Perhaps the sin of Adam isn't inherited but imputed?

Yes, this seems to make sense, at least if one accepts the concept of imputed righteousness. However then there is the question as to whether imputing the sins of Adam onto the innocents of the future is morally just. But that is a different issue.

Good points.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
But if the soul is bound up with the body in creation, then shouldn't it cease to exist when the body does as well?

No... body and soul are generated simultaneously, but the soul lives on after the death of the body... the body's like a line segment (a line cut off on either end by two definite points) and the soul is like a ray (a definite beginning with no end... just goes on in one direction to infinity).

Edit: Well, if our souls outlived our bodies (or existed independently of them) then it wouldn't need to be recreated.

My point exactly...

Only if you assume some strong form of mind-body supervenience.

But God has the power to sustain spiritual existence apart from physical existence/physical states.

While it is natural for humans to exist with bodies, it is not necessary for a human to exist with a body. Or, to put it another way, destroying a human body, (i.e., causing the body to become medically dead), harms the person but does not destroy the person.

That makes sense.

As far as I know, every human soul that has come into being came into being simultaneously with the body it is related to. Not that it's logically impossible for a human soul to come into being first, but that would be unnatural.

I'm not familiar with the "traducianist" argument, but, based on Samuel's thread, I don't think its conclusion follows from its premises.

I don't quite see how that is... as long as one accepts what you have stated, simultaneous generation of body-soul PLUS the possibility of the body's sinfulness (inherited from Adam) tainting the soul, it works out.

________________________________________________________________________________

The major issue, to my mind, is whether or not the sins of the body can corrupt the soul. Though I'm not sure about the existence of a soul separate from the mind-body complex, if I were to believe in a soul, I would see it as entirely incorruptible... but in Christian metaphysics and eschatology, one must allow for the corruption of soul-stuff, otherwise eternal damnation wouldn't make sense. So, presuming the corruptibility of the soul, and accepting that the soul must be created at the time of the creation of the body-stuff, then I think one is compelled to believe that the sinfulness inherited from Adam must transmit from body to soul... we must accept the bodily transmission of sinfulness, or at the very least the inherent corruption of the flesh post-apple consumption...
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
However then there is the question as to whether imputing the sins of Adam onto the innocents of the future is morally just. But that is a different issue.

It doesn't seem particularly just to impute righteousness to the guilty, either.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
It doesn't seem particularly just to impute righteousness to the guilty, either.

No indeed. It is the whole business of imputing, whether righteousness or sinfulness, that is morally suspect.

No... body and soul are generated simultaneously, but the soul lives on after the death of the body... the body's like a line segment (a line cut off on either side by two definite points) and the soul is like a ray (a definite beginning with no end... just goes on in one direction to infinity).

Then what has the body to do with the soul in the matter of transferring Adam's sin?
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
1.) Why would the creation of a soul without the body be bad?

To better explain this, it would help to make a quick distinction. It wouldn't necessarily be bad for a soul to be created without a body. It would be bad for a human soul to be created without a body. A human soul, (as opposed to an angelic soul), expresses itself and learns about the world through its body. Imagine if a mad scientist grew a human in a sensory deprivation tank and gave it drugs to immobilze it. What do you think would happen to that person's mind?

3.) What are your views on the OP's question?

I agree with autumn.

Adam was a representative head. Part of the consequences of his failure was that (spiritual) life would not be extended to his progeny on the basis of his work.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
Then what has the body to do with the soul in the matter of transferring Adam's sin?

The body provides the direct link back to Adam! If all human souls weren't created with Adam or immediately at the moment of Adam's sin, then how could they inherit his sin? Thus, if souls are created later on, the only connection we have to Adam is through our bodies, unless God goes out of His way to implant original sin into each newly-minted soul, like a factory purposefully releasing products with defects (by, say, denting each new car with a hammer as it leaves the factory), which would defeat the whole point... souls are perfect when created... what is flawed is the body, which passes on its defect to the passenger soul.

Adam and Eve.... from them are all human beings bodily descended... meaning the flesh and blood of human beings, their bloodline, can all be traced back to a primordial first man and first woman... but with this ancestry comes the heritage of original sin... original sin is passed on through the body... through the flesh... through the blood... maybe, in contemporary terms, genetically coded!

Thousands of years later... generations and generations of parents and children later... let's take a random couple... at the moment of conception of the fetus, the fetus is endowed with a unique, pure, immortal soul (with distinct beginning but no end)... as a result of the commingling or joining of body and soul, the Adamic sin rubs off on the soul and the child, when born, must be baptized in ritual cleansing... but it's only ritual... throughout its life, the child, the new body-soul being must accept Christ, ratify Christ's covenant in his/her heart, and be judged worthy of entering heaven as a shriven soul post corpore-partem.
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
No indeed. It is the whole business of imputing, whether righteousness or sinfulness, that is morally suspect.

As are the linked concepts of substitution, atonement and sacrifice. It's basically saying "Let's pretend that this person/thing did the bad thing instead of that person."
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
It would be bad for a human soul to be created without a body. A human soul, (as opposed to an angelic soul), expresses itself and learns about the world through its body.

So a human soul cannot express itself or learn without a body? Where do you get that from?
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
One of St. Augustine's concerns (later mentioned by Bertrand Russell) is that
- if it is the soul that sins, and
- the soul is not transmitted,
- how is it possible for a soul created anew to inherit the 'Adamic sin'?
Isn't the soul that's created anew clean, pure, untained? If it is, and it is not transmitted, then it shouldn't carry the "Adamic sin"!


______________________________________________________________________

- The soul sins through the body with which it is inextricably tied up for the duration of our one life on earth...

- Yes... the soul is not transmitted... it is generated spontaneously at the moment of conception of the fetus...

- Thus, by dint of its tie with the body the soul is able to 'inherit' sin from Adam through an unbroken corporeal line.

So, the soul is created anew, clean, pure, and untainted... it is not transmitted and it is yet able to inherit Adamic sin.

_________________________________________________________________________

The answer may not be the 'right' one, but I believe it's internally coherent and consistent.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Thousands of years later... generations and generations of parents and children later... let's take a random couple... at the moment of conception of the fetus, the fetus is endowed with a unique, pure, immortal soul (with distinct beginning but no end)... as a result of the commingling or joining of body and soul, the Adamic sin rubs off on the soul and the child, when born, must be baptized in ritual cleansing... but it's only ritual... throughout its life, the child, the new body-soul being must accept Christ, ratify Christ's covenant in his/her heart, and be judged worthy of entering heaven as a shriven soul post corporal-partem.

Well that would explain it, I guess. Though the idea of sin rubbing off onto the soul seems a little fantastic.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
One of St. Augustine's concerns (later mentioned by Bertrand Russell) is that
- if it is the soul that sins, and
- the soul is not transmitted,
- how is it possible for a soul created anew to inherit the 'Adamic sin'?
Isn't the soul that's created anew clean, pure, untained? If it is, and it is not transmitted, then it shouldn't carry the "Adamic sin"!


______________________________________________________________________

- The soul sins through the body with which it is inextricably tied up for the duration of our one life on earth...

- Yes... the soul is not transmitted... it is generated spontaneously at the moment of conception of the fetus...


- Thus, by dint of its tie with the body the soul is able to 'inherit' sin from Adam through an unbroken corporeal line.

So, the soul is created anew, clean, pure, and untainted... it is not transmitted and it is yet able to inherit Adamic sin.

_________________________________________________________________________

The answer may not be the 'right' one, but I believe it's internally coherent and consistent.


It is internally consistent only if we accept the bolded premise. But one might just as well make something up entirely to account for the transfer of sin. I am not familiar with the theological school that espouses this belief, though, so I will not press the matter further until I am caught up on the doctrine.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
Well that would explain it, I guess. Though the idea of sin rubbing off onto the soul seems a little fantastic.

But that's the whole problem... we go back to issues Descartes was dealing with... how does the soul, which is immaterial, affect the body, which is material, and vice versa?! This is what I pointed out in my first post... there are very deep issues to be dealt with while considering a traducianist (I just like using that name) explanation...

viz. traducianism perfectly explains transmission of original sin via the body to the initially perfect and uncorrupted soul......

AT THE EXPENSE of an acceptable answer to the question: how does bodily sinfulness transmit to the soul? and also at the cost of accepting simultaneous body-soul generation.

____________________________________________________________

Orangey: I would submit this for your consideration though, a sort of counterfactual thinking....

- If sins of the body could not rub off on the soul, then the soul could not be corrupted by deeds done on the earthly plane.

- If the soul could not be corrupted by deeds done on the earthly plane, then souls could not go to hell.

- If souls could not go to hell, then there is no reason for people to live moral lives on earth.

- If there is no reason for people to live moral lives on earth, then the coming of Christ, His suffering for our sins, His self-sacrifice, and His resurrection, were completely meaningless.

So, the clause "sins of the body cannot rub off on the soul", by reductio ad absurdum, is shown to be false.

Therefore, sins of the body CAN rub off on the soul.

(In essence, the Gospel of Christ compels you to accept that bodily sins affect the soul.)
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
It is internally consistent only if we accept the bolded premise. But one might just as well make something up entirely to account for the transfer of sin. I am not familiar with the theological school that espouses this belief, though, so I will not press the matter further until I am caught up on the doctrine.

Internal consistency is merely a matter of validity (conclusions follow logically from the premises)... i.e. none of the premises need be true.

But, as you're indicating, one has to accept simultaneous generation of body and soul, which is a major blow to people arguing for the SOUNDNESS (validity + truth of all premises) of the argument I laid out.

I'd like to see what you think of my argument [see directly above] for the transmission of sin from body to soul though... it's obviously also extremely important to the truth-value of the line I'm following.

______________________________________________________________

P.S. I don't espouse these arguments. I'm merely playing angel's advocate. I don't think you need to be really well-read on traducianism or any given school of thought to argue some of its main points... I was really just using traducianism as a leaping-off point for this discussion.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
The problem with the Bible is that there are too many (ostensible) contradictions... also terminology gaps between current usage and usage back then...

"The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20)
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Internal consistency is merely a matter of validity (conclusions follow logically from the premises)... i.e. none of the premises need be true.

But, as you're indicating, one has to accept simultaneous generation of body and soul, which is a major blow to people arguing for the SOUNDNESS (validity + truth of all premises) of the argument I laid out.

I'd like to see what you think of my argument for the transmission of sin from body to soul though... its obviously also extremely important to the truth-value of the line I'm following.

______________________________________________________________

P.S. I don't espouse these arguments. I'm merely playing angel's advocate.

I was rather careless in my choice of vocabulary. You are correct, the argument is logically valid (internally consistent) independent of whether or not the indicated premise (or any of the other premises) is true.

The counterfactual argument that you have presented is also logically valid. I can find no inconsistency. I will remark, however, that the entire argument rests upon a great deal of assumptions that we have no good reason to suppose are true. We should be reminded of Ockham in this instance.

P.S. I don't espouse these arguments. I'm merely playing angel's advocate. I don't think you need to be really well-read on traducianism or any given school of thought to argue some of its main points... I was really just using traducianism as a leaping-off point for this discussion.

Ah okay...just thought I might not be understanding something important is all. And I don't personally espouse any of the arguments or beliefs presented either. Just having some fun :).

AT THE EXPENSE of an acceptable answer to the question: how does bodily sinfulness transmit to the soul? and also at the cost of accepting simultaneous body-soul generation.

I can see no other logical way. Even if we admit that souls are transmitted, then we cannot admit that individuals have unique souls. There would also be the matter of explaining how Adam's sin was transferred to his soul originally, and why he should be the only case where his sins are transmitted by soul to future individuals. If we accept that people are born sinful and in need of saving, then we must accept that the body transfers sins to the soul.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
So a human soul cannot express itself or learn without a body? Where do you get that from?

If a human did either of the above without a body, it would be a supernatural event.

Say I had a 30 year old man who's been in a sensory deprivation tank from birth in my basement. If I pulled him out the day after his 30th birthday, and he knew how to speak at all, or do basic arithmetic, then that would be a miracle. Similarly, if he started to telekinetically move the furniture around in my basement, that would be supernatural.

At the very least, the mere potential to do either of the above without a body is not a quality that all humans always have. Admittedly, it's a logical possibility, but it's not actual.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
I don't quite see how that is... as long as one accepts what you have stated, simultaneous generation of body-soul PLUS the possibility of the body's sinfulness (inherited from Adam) tainting the soul, it works out.

It would, but I don't believe the body's sinfulness can taint the soul. The root of sin is spiritual. The body makes the inward sin visible; the root sin becomes manifest in the fruit sin.

The major issue, to my mind, is whether or not the sins of the body can corrupt the soul. Though I'm not sure about the existence of a soul separate from the mind-body complex, if I were to believe in a soul, I would see it as entirely incorruptible... but in Christian metaphysics and eschatology, one must allow for the corruption of soul-stuff, otherwise eternal damnation wouldn't make sense. So, presuming the corruptibility of the soul, and accepting that the soul must be created at the time of the creation of the body-stuff, then I think one is compelled to believe that the sinfulness inherited from Adam must transmit from body to soul... we must accept the bodily transmission of sinfulness, or at the very least the inherent corruption of the flesh post-apple consumption...

We do? I think that raises too many problems. I need to deliver some papers, but I hope to combine this post with the passage from Ezekial you quoted to show how this interpretation is unacceptable for the Christian... to be continued.
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
- If sins of the body could not rub off on the soul, then the soul could not be corrupted by deeds done on the earthly plane.


I don't think this follows at all. I think the soul chooses corruption, and sinful deeds ensue. The deeds themselves don't corrupt it.
 
Top