God's Creation of Souls

[RICHinCHRIST]

I was eating dinner this week with my family and I was listening to my sister speak about something. It struck me once again that we have polar opposite personalities. As she was speaking, my mind began to wander (as it often does) and I thought about a comment made by Doug Wilson in his debate with Steve. In that debate, if I remember correctly, Wilson made a philosophically deep comment about God's predestination and His choice to use sin and perhaps even to be the author of it. He said, in essence: "If two unregenerate people commit sexual immorality and conceive a child who becomes a Christian... wouldn't God have predestined that person to have come into existence, even if it was through a sinful act?" I may be remembering what he said incorrectly, but it made me begin to think about God's creation of personalities (or souls).

This is my question. Is the essence of a soul contained within the sperm and egg when they meet, or does God plant a specific soul of His choice into a germinated egg apart from its genetic attributes? In other words, does the soul depend on which sperm and egg meet, or is it dependent on God's choice to plant a certain personality into the germinated egg? I have a feeling that the sperm and egg by themselves (and their respective gene pools) give rise to merely physical attributes (such as: hair or eye color, bone type, height, etc.) whereas God is the one who crafts the personality and inputs it into the physical person who has been created by the parents. Therefore, no matter what the sexual reason might have been (sinful or not), God chooses to input whatever soul He desires into whichever baby He desires, irregardless of the parental genetic pool. So, in Doug's example, the people themselves made a sinful choice. God would have desired for them not to have made that choice. But even though He had wished they didn't commit that sin, He is choosing to input a soul into that child. If they hadn't sinned (since they have the will to have chosen otherwise), God simply would have inputted that same soul into another germinated egg from different parents. In either case, the person would have existed, irregardless of whether they were conceived in sin or not. So, in essence, I could have just as well been the same soul I am even if I had a completely different family and was born in a different country. I still would have existed, but just as someone else (who looks differently and has different environmental influences). God just chose that I would be the soul I am, in the body I have, because He saw it in my best interest (Acts 17:26-28).

The reason why I make this distinction is because if the soul is inherent within the actual gene pool of the sperm and egg themselves, then there are almost infinite possibilities for people of different personalities dependent upon which sperm meets which egg. If, on the other hand, God is the one who inputs a soul He desires to shape into a human mold, then Wilson's argument falls apart. The reason this is is because if a man and woman commit a sin and create a child, God is merely reacting to their bad decisions and inputs the soul of His choice into the created human mold. If the sperm and egg themselves could create life, then parents (even sinful ones) would be in control of when God creates a person (and the possibilities of a personality are nearly endless considering how many sperm and egg combinations there could be--EDIT: However, God does open and close the womb so He would always be in control). Now that I put my thoughts into text, I realize that in God's infinite intelligence and wisdom, He could even foreknow exactly which sperm and eggs would meet, and could have inputted the possibility to create each soul in those combinations since He knew which ones would meet in advance.

Have I just made a very simple concept into a philosophically confusing one? Or am I missing a fundamental scientific truth that I must have learned in 7th grade but have since forgotten?

[dseusy]

RICHinCHRIST,

I like your thought process and I appreciate you transparently sharing it- I've been thinking about the same things and God brought me to a parable describing His kingdom...

"Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, "Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?" And he said to them, "An enemy has done this!" The slaves said to him, "Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?" But he said, "No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'" Matthew 13

"Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, 'Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.' And He said, 'The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.'" Matthew 13

I think having ears is critical- trying to process this and find some special blend of predestination and choice without listening to the Spirit's leading may be fruitless. 1 John 2:27, Matt. 23:10, Romans 12:2, 1 Corinthians 2:14

Thoughts?

[Paidion]

Rich, I doubt that souls (in the Platonic sense) exist. When God made Adam's body, and breathed into it the spirit of life, Adam BECAME a living "soul", that is, a living being. He didn't receive a soul; he became a soul.

I don't believe in predestination, either — that is, that some or all events have been pre-determined to happen. The scriptural word translated as "predestination" is more like "pre-appointed." A person who is appointed in this life does not need to meet that appointment. This "pre-appointment" refers to God's purpose. What God intends for our best, may not take place if we do not coöperate with Him. It is His purpose also that no one should perish, but that all come to repentance. Yet, as is obvious, most people do not come to repenetance, at least in this life.

So the couple which you give in your example, produced a "soul", that is a living human being, because copulation is the method God chose for reproduction in humanity. This fact in no way implies that God was directly responsible for the couple's act, or the child's formation.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I think having ears is critical- trying to process this and find some special blend of predestination and choice without listening to the Spirit's leading may be fruitless. 1 John 2:27, Matt. 23:10, Romans 12:2, 1 Corinthians 2:14

Thoughts?

My post was not to support the idea of individual predestination as described in Calvinism. Rather, it was trying to deconstruct the Calvinist argument I mentioned. If God simply chose to give life to a human apart from its genetics, it would not necessitate God predestinating that soul to heaven or hell (God could choose to create a soul that would give that person the best circumstance by which to find God (Acts 17:26-28). However, if the genetics itself has the capability to give life, then God has given the capability to men and women to create souls (apart from His revealed will, in immoral circumstances). In Doug Wilson's example, God would need the sin of the parents in order to create that unique soul (if it was His place to foreknow his or her existence). If God just leaves the genetics to do the work for Him, then sin would be necessary for Him to create certain individuals whom He desires to save (if He foreknows them). However, if God creates a soul apart from genetics merely, then God could create a soul for his or her best possible outcome (despite who the parents may be). Like I said, though, one could argue that God, in His infinite intelligence and wisdom, chose to input all of the possibilities (and realities) of souls that could ever be into the human race from the beginning. In other words, when God created Adam, He did not see only Adam, but also the genetic pool by which would come all souls in the future. Therefore, God could maneuver it in a way so all the humans who would ever live would be known by Him in advance (each and every union of sperm and egg). Due to my understanding of foreknowledge (classical Arminian view), this would not be hard for God.

Rich, I doubt that souls (in the Platonic sense) exist. When God Adam's body, and breathed into it the spirit of life, Adam BECAME a living "soul", that is, a living being. He didn't receive a soul; he became a soul.

I haven't studied this very much. I think you are right that Adam became a soul. But he still maintained physical attributes from genetics which were separate from him being a soul.

I don't believe in predestination, either — that is, that some or all events have been pre-determined to happen. The scriptural word translated as "predestination" is more like "pre-appointed." A person who is appointed in this life does not need to meet that appointment. This "pre-appointment" refers to God's purpose. What God intends for our best, may not take place if we do not coöperate with Him. It is His purpose also that no one should perish, but that all come to repentance. Yet, as is obvious, most people do not come to repenetance, at least in this life.

Agreed.

So the couple which you give in your example, produced a "soul", that is a living human being, because copulation is the method God chose for reproduction in humanity. This fact in no way implies that God was directly responsible for the couple's act, or the child's formation.

Since you are an open theist, I can see why you would say this. It seems very odd to me that God would not know which souls would live in advance (especially in light of Acts 17:26-28, not to mention countless other passages). If every sperm and every egg could create a different soul, then there would be quadrillions to the quadrillionth power of different possibilities for all the souls in the world to have existed. I'm not saying this is beyond the intelligence of God, but you would think that knowing all of those possibilities (not only for the creation of souls, but also how they would live among eachother!) would move God to try and intervene in some way in His created order. I'm not sure how "free" our will is... but I surely don't think it is free enough to be in control of the creation of another soul apart from the will of God!

[Paidion]

Code: Select all

I think you are right that Adam became a soul. But he still maintained physical attributes from genetics which were separate from him being a soul.

Why do you think physical attributes are separate from the soul? Prior to Adam's becoming a soul ("nephesh"), he was just a lifeless body. The soul (the "self" or "being") is simply the animated body, animated by the spirit of life. Genesis also speaks of the "soul of beasts".

Is it possible to touch the dead soul of a person? The following verse states that it happens:

Numbers 19:11 ‘He who touches the dead nephesh of anyone shall be unclean seven days.

Of course, no translator renders the word "nephesh" as "soul" in this verse! They render it as "body".

I'm not sure how "free" our will is... but I surely don't think it is free enough to be in control of the creation of another soul apart from the will of God!

Aren't there billions of events occuring on earth every day which are contrary to God's will? Does God will all the tortures? The rapes? The sexual abuse of children? I don't think so. Did not Christ teach His disciples to pray, "May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven?" Such a prayer implies that His will is not always being done on earth. So why could a couple not produce a soul (that is a living being, a child) apart from the will of God?

[RICHinCHRIST]

Aren't there billions of events occuring on earth every day which are contrary to God's will? Does God will all the tortures? The rapes? The sexual abuse of children? I don't think so. Did not Christ teach His disciples to pray, "May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven?" Such a prayer implies that His will is not always being done on earth.

I agree that there are billions of things that happen contrary to God's will. Perhaps I should have said, "apart from God's foreknowledge", not "will". All I'm saying is that there are two possibilities for the sinful scenario (with my understanding of foreknowledge):

1) God gives a personality to a child on the basis of His foreknowledge of their future circumstances, apart from merely genetics.

2) If God allows the genetics to create the personality for Him, then He intelligently inputted all the genetic possibilities into Adam. Based on His foreknowledge, He was able to see in advance all possible combinations and knew exactly which personality would be created in all scenarios (whether they were caused by sin or not).

So why could a couple not produce a soul (that is a living being, a child) apart from the will of God?

I believe they can create the physical attributes of the child, yet God is the one who chooses which personality that child will receive. If the genetics have the capability to give the personality (or mind, or spirit, or whatever) to the child, then I believe God foreknew exactly which sperm would germinate which egg and create whichever specific combination. If this is the case, I believe God foreknew these details and formed Adam's genetic capabilities accordingly.

[Paidion]

Rich, just now, I realized that I haven't been following this thread. I hadn't read your most recent post until today. That's over 4 months of neglect.

As I see it, each of us IS an soul, as Adam was after the breath of life had been breathed into him. In Adam's case, God directly created him. First, He created Adam's body from earth, and then He made Adam alive by breathing into that body the breath of life. But in our case, God doesn't directly create us (I'm stating the obvious). We have been generated from our parents' bodies, and they from their parents', etc., right back to Adam and Eve. Not only are our physical aspects generated in this way, but our mental aspects as well. God directly creates neither our physical nor our mental aspects. As I see it, a human being is not made up of two separate entities, a body and a soul. That is a concept promulgated by Plato and other Greek philosophers. I don't HAVE a soul; I AM a soul. In the New Testament, the Greek word "ψυχη" (psyche), translated by some as "soul", actually means "self".

Consider the use of "ψυχη" (rendered as "soul" in virtually all translations) in the following parable of our Lord:

And [Jesus] told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be? (Luke 12:16-20 ESV)

If the rich man's "soul" is his consciousness, the "real" person, separate from his body as per Plato, then who is it that is talking to the rich man's "soul"? In the parable the rich man addresses his "soul"! Or does he possess two "souls" one of which talks to the other?

The whole problem evaporates when we understand that the psyche is the self, and not a separate entity. The rich man is talking to himself. Then God tells him that that night his self (or life) is required of him. In other words, he will die. He will no longer exist, until the day God raises him to life again.

Jesus emphasized raising up his disciples on the last day. John records his having said it four times, apparently in a very short period of time: John 6:39, 40, 44, 54. He must have considered it to be very important. But if we have an "immortal soul" as in the Platonic view, then Jesus raising us up on the last day, doesn't seem to have much importance at all. If we go to heaven at death as disembodied spirits or "souls", then why not rejoice in being with the Lord and with our departed loved ones forever! What's the big deal about being attached to a body?

However, Paul presents our future resurrection as a very big deal indeed! He said, "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor 15:52). Now if the "real person" is the soul, and can exist apart from the body, we don't die. Only our body dies, and we simply "walk through a door", as it were, into our heavenly abode. But Paul seems to be saying that if the dead are not raised, there is nothing else. We might as well eat, drink, and be merry. We might as well enjoy ourselves as much as possible in any way that is possible. For this is the only life we will ever have — that is, if there is no resurrection.

[jeremiah]

right on man, it seems that if there were a separable entity of a human that could survive it's bodily death, then this would make paul's statements in that passage next to meaningless. i could almost here the gnostics on his heels saying " yes indeed paul, let us eat and drink, but stop this nonsense of no hope if these bodies are not raised, our spirit's separation is its only true freedom."

grace and peace...

[darinhouston]

I can accept that there is no "soul" separate from the living body, but what of a man's "spirit?" There does appear to be a "spirit" separable from the body since a man can experience things "in the spirit" and since when one dies, he is present (in some sense) with the Lord though his body lies lifeless awaiting the resurrection. Could God's breath of life not impart a spirit within each of us that both animates us (creating a living soul) and giving us the individual essence which makes us bear His image, spiritually?

[Paidion]

The "breath of life" which God breathed into Adams WAS the "spirit of life" and because it was breathed into the body which God created, the two became a living soul or being. Concerning the creation of the animals, it is not stated whether or not God first created their bodies, and then breathed life into them. For birds and beasts are among the creatures said to have "life." (Gen 1:30) Is this "spirit of life" which God breathed into man and animals alike, a conscious entity? Or is it simply the life principle which God imparts to create living beings? This might be represented by the following equation

Body + spirit (life) = soul (being)

Though Solomon wrote, "...the spirit returns to God who gave it," this in no way necessitates that the spirit is a conscious entity which survives death. It may be that that it is simply the life principle which returns to God.

In the New Testament, the words "soul" and "spirit" have a somewhat different meaning. "Soul" means "self", and "spirit" seems to refer to the emotional aspect of a person.

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.


But then, what does Paul mean when he spoke of his spirit being present with the brethren, when he was physically absent?

1Co 5:4,5 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Surely Paul didn't refer to his consciousness being present, since his consciousness resided in his body at the time and nowhere else. My thought is that Paul was referring to the spirit of his teaching, of which the Corinthians were aware. They knew that Paul did not approve of the man's sin, and that he would have disciplined the man in some way.

Now I admit that it seems plausible that Jesus and Stephen may have thought of their spirit as some sort of entity which will identify them when they are raised to life.

Luke 23:46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

Acts 7:59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

On the other hand, they may have simply, with their last breath, committed themselves totally to the Father, trusting in Him to raise them to life again.