• 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'?

LIND

New member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
48
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"!
 

autumn

New member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
106
MBTI Type
eNFP
Guilty of it? No.
Affected by its repercussions? Definitely.
Very important distinction for a very important question!

autumn
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I am not very familiar with this subject matter, so could you please explain what is meant when you use the word "transmitted"? Do you mean passed down from before, like an inheritance? Because if that is what you meant, then yes, it would seem that the concept of "Adamic sin" is irreconcilable with the belief that the soul is not transmitted.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
When you say 'created anew' do you mean a newborn child or a converted soul?
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
When you say 'created anew' do you mean a newborn child or a converted soul?

Wouldn't a converted soul have already sinned?
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Yes, but if I understand correctly, there are Wesleyan lines of thought in which an act of grace (Sanctification) removes the Adamic sin nature. In essence, the soul is purified or reborn. I was unsure if maybe this belief had roots in older theological thought.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
But that's the whole question, isn't it? If a soul is reborn as pure and untainted (either a new soul or one that has undergone "sanctification"), then we can't believe in Adamic sin at all because it would have been sin transmitted from Adam to all new souls. Or at least this is my understanding of "Adamic sin".
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
I guess I don't see why the reborn soul has to have the same taint as the original. Why do they have to be of exactly the same nature? They are not transfered in the same way.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Well I always thought the idea of the doctrine was that all people are supposedly born sinners because of the sins of the first people, namely Adam and Eve, and that this was the reason for the whole Jesus sacrifice drama. If a soul were no longer inherently sinful (aka it did not inherit Adam's sins) then it would have no need of preemptive saving (meaning Jesus would not have needed to die on the cross to save the sins of future people).

However, as it pertains to the OP, this belief is incompatible with the belief that the soul is not transmitted.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
If one follows a traducianist line of thinking, then it is somewhat easier to explain how original sin is transmitted...

1) Adam is the first man and Eve the first woman.

2) All of humanity today is somehow (genetically, 'bodily') descended from Adam and Eve.

3) The body and soul of each human being are generated simultaneously.

EDIT: 3a) The body somehow passes on its sinful taint to the soul at the time of generation.

4) Thus, the bodily inheritance of original sin is transmitted to the soul generation after generation with every human being on earth.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Problems arise though... can the soul be tainted by the body? What about all those human beings from 'different tribes' who suddenly popped up (we first see them shortly after Adam and Eve leave the garden)? Wouldn't they escape original sin? Etc. etc. etc.

Logically speaking, the Bible's very shoddy on these sorts of questions. Though then again, the New Testament's sort of like a clean slate, theologically, and can be used to contradict much of what goes in the Old Testament, since Jesus' covenant is the covenant to end all covenants, as it were. Haven't read much OT or NT for a while, so excuse my rank amateurism.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
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?
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
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?

Perhaps the "soul" at the time of death is "backed up" in the memory of God? In other words, he remembers perfectly everything about how we are at the moment of death, enabling him to recreate a new "us" in an identical state to the old "us".

I don't actually believe that. Just thought it was an interesting albeit done-to-death concept.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Perhaps the "soul" at the time of death is "backed up" in the memory of God? In other words, he remembers perfectly everything about how we are at the moment of death, enabling him to recreate a new "us" in an identical state to the old "us".

I don't actually believe that. Just thought it was an interesting albeit done-to-death concept.

Recreating us in flesh or in soul?
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Recreating us in flesh.

Oh, like reincarnation? I think that would count as what the OP was calling "transmittance". And yeah, if we believed in that sort of thing, then the passing on of Adam's sins would make more sense.

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

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
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?

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.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
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.

So then would souls exist before they are embodied? If this is the case, then the "traducianist" argument would be undermined, as Adam's sins would not have been transferred to the soul from the body.
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
Oh, like reincarnation? I think that would count as what the OP was calling "transmittance". And yeah, if we believed in that sort of thing, then the passing on of Adam's sins would make more sense.

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.

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

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.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
So then would souls exist before they are embodied? If this is the case, then the "traducianist" argument would be undermined, as Adam's sins would not have been transferred to the soul from the body.

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.

The only being I know that has the power to bring a human soul into existence without a body is God, but God wouldn't do that because he's infinitely good.

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

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
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.

The only being I know that has the power to bring a human soul into existence without a body is God, but God wouldn't do that because he's infinitely good.

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

1.) Why would the creation of a soul without the body be bad?

2.) I am not familiar with that argument either, I was also going by Samuel's post. And no, it doesn't make sense that because a soul is created simultaneously with the body that it should inherit Adam's sin.

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