Do clones have souls?

[Never]

I'm asking this in both a spiritual and metaphorical sense. Would a clone be a person? Should the have the same rights and responsibilities? Would it be ethical/moral to create a person for the express purpose of harvesting organs?

At what point should a clone gain 'personhood'? As you can not accidentally clone someone would it be alright to terminate a fetal clone?

 

[glamorilla]

Yes.

Clones have souls. Although not borne of traditional means the creation of a clone is the creation of a new life and thus within sparks the electrical impulses we know as our soul. Creating a clone may seem like going against nature but everything that's supposed to happen is going to happen the way it's supposed to and new and recycled souls know where to go as needed.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

In the case of Britney Spears... no.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I would arge that yes, clones can have a soul. I don't believe that it is something that some god hands down to you. The act of being alive gives you a soul. Is terminating a clone murder? I would state the same thing as I state for humans. If it can live on it's own yes it's murder. If not...then you're just evacuating your uterus (or the test tube or whatever) of cellular material.

 

[mig]

Not trying to be contentious but does anyone have a soul?.

If we do what about animals,I mean animals are people too.

 

[HeavyStick]

yes clones have souls.......as far as cloning britney spears I'll take a dozen of 'em

with a side dish of salma hayek

 

[MunchinMark]

Since a successful clone would be indistinguishable from an identical twin (OK, with some interesting time differences), they would have everything everyyone else has, including all human rights.

Given the strength of religious points of view, I think that it would be suicidal of me to speculate on souls

 

[Mischka]

Would it be ethical/moral to create a person for the express purpose of harvesting organs?

Not my area of expertise, but I don't believe cloning organs requires growing any more cells than necessary for that organ. I don't consider a free-standing lung to be a person, so I'm okay with that kind of cloning.

I can see this debate launching a whole series of bad B movies, where strapped-down cloned humans are repeatedly vivisected for their organs, only to be re-grown and harvested again.

 

[MunchinMark]

We can't do independant organs (even that ear was on a live mouse).

Yet.

tissues- they have been cultivated for years, and interestingly, the person that they were taken from has no legal rights to them. Since such tissue cultures are used in drugs developement they are big money.

 

[Mellon Collie]

Not trying to be contentious but does anyone have a soul?.

If we do what about animals,I mean animals are people too.

Animals are part of Buddha silly.

I do think that a clone should gain 'personhood' and have all the same rights as any person born of a woman. I don't believe we all have cute little souls floating in our bodies but I do believe there is a certain something in humans that sets us apart from one another and every other being on earth, I'm sure the clone would have this same intangible spark. I mean, a clone in just a carbon copy of a person, I think it would have it's own feelings and opinions or whatever.

 

[Never]

mig
"Not trying to be contentious but does anyone have a soul?"

Notice my first sentence says I'm speaking spiritually and metaphorically.

 

[fgarvb1]

I don't know.
I have thought about this off and on for many years.
When i see God i will ask him about that along with several other things. No, i'm not joking or trying to be a smartass.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

IV. THE NATURE OF MAN VIEWED CONSTITUIONALLY:

-----The constitutional nature of man has beenanother topic of debate through the centuries. this is a large area of truth and has wide implications affecting many other ares of doctrine including salvation. Three views are currently held concerning the constituional nature of man. they are monism, dichotomism and trichotomism.

A. Trichotomism:

---This view of man presents him as consisting of three basic parts: spirit, soul, and body. Trichotomism is largely held by evangelicals, and has been taught with different levels of intensity in the history of the church. this line of teaching recognizes the distinctions between man and the "animal world," and that this distinction consists in the fact that man alone has a spirit.

Dr. Erickson records, "This religious element enables the human to percieve spiritual matters and respond to spiritual stimuli. It is the seat of the spiritual qualities of the individual, whereas the personality traits reside in the soul." - Christian Theology, p. 520.

---Tricotomy rests upon scripture as its authority. it is taught in such passages as 1 thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12; and 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:4*1-3*. The Scriptures clearly present the distinct existence of spirit, soul, and body. However, the details of the distinctions between the spirit and the soul are difficult to precisely list. The spirit may be viewed as that part of man which is capable of relationship with god, soul may be seen as the part of man wich is conscious of self, and the body is seen as the part of man which house the immaterial parts, and which is sensitie to the world about us. Such passages as Mark 12:30 record, "And thou shalt love the Lord thy god with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." The terms "heart" and "mind" are understood by those who hold to tricotomy as facets of the human being, but not as distinct parts.

"Employing St. Paul's threefold distinction in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, man is a synthesis of <font face="symbol">pneuma</font>, <font face="symbol">juch</font> and <font face="symbol">swma</font>. The brute is a synthesis of only <font face="symbol"> swma</font> and <font face="symbol"> juch</font>[/size]. Man is composed of a rational soul, an animal soul and a body; the brute is composed of an animal soul, and abody." - Dr. W. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 656.

---At the death of a person, the spirit and the soul are not in any way changed. Both survive the death of the body and are immortal.

~~~~~

*1* 1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

*2* Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

*3* 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

IV. THE NATURE OF MAN VIEWED CONSTITUIONALLY:

B. Dichotomism

---This theory teaches that man consists of ony two basic parts: a body and a nonmateial part. This nonmaterial part is called the soul, and sometimes it is referred to as a spirit. Dichotomy has been widely held in Church History, and is still accepted today by liberal theologians, and by some conservative writers.

---The arguements for dichotomism are usually critics of trochotomy. Such criticisms usually include:

---1. to view 1 Thess 5:23*1* as teaching three distinct pats causes serious problems when compared to Mk 12:30*2* and Lk 10:27*3*.

---2. spirit and soul are used interchangably - Luke 1:46,47*4*

---3. the basic components of man are body and soul Mt 6:25*5*, but are body and spirit in Ecc 12:7*6* (see also Gn 35:18*7* and ps 31:5*8*)

---It can be agreed that man consists of material and non material parts. however, the Scriptures do seem to favour Trichotomy. Special emphasis on either the soul or the body could simply reflect the perspective of the inspired author and the context of the passage.

~~~~~

*1* 1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

*2* Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

*3* Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

*4* Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

*5* Matthew 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

*6* Ecclesiaste 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

*7* Genesis 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

*8* Psalm 31:5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

IV. THE NATURE OF MAN VIEWED CONSTITUIONALLY:

C: Monism:

---This theory suggests that man is a single unit and should not be though of as a two or three part being. Tthose who hold monism claim that the Bible presents man as a whole unit; man is "self," not spirit, soul and body.

"According to monism, to be human is to bear a body. the idea that a humancan somehow exist apart from a body is unthinkable. Consequently, there is no posibility of post-death existence in a disembidied state. immortality of the soul is quite untenable.' - Dr. M. Erickson, Christian theology, p. 525.

--- Althought monism developed against liberalism it cannot be accepted for several basic reasons:

1. the Scriptures do teach an intermediate state between death and ressurection. in this state man is alive and conscious. Luke 23:43*1*; 16:19-31*2*; 2 Corinthians 5:8*3*; Mathew 10:28*4*

2. the Scriptures do teach survival of the soul beyond physical death. 1 Kings 17:22*5*

3. the Scriptures do teach that the believer is "rdeemed." However, our body is yet "unredeemed" . . . it is awaiting the redemption of the body. Romans 8:23*6*

~~~~~

*1* Luke 23:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

*2* Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

*3* 2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

*4* Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

*5* 1 Kings 17:22 And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

*6* Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

IV. THE NATURE OF MAN VIEWED CONSTITUIONALLY:

D. Conditional Unity:

---Man is a unitary compound. Dissolution takes place at death. At the resurrection the components are put back together.

<hr><center>Evaluation:
1. soul/spirit survive death
2. the "person" exists without a body
3. Scripture speaks nothin of the "glue" for these components.
</center><hr>

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

IV. THE NATURE OF MAN VIEWED CONSTITUIONALLY:

---There are several other terms which may be considered in light of the constitution of man. They are best considered as facets of the wordings of mans spirit, soul, and body.

-----A. Heart: This term is used over 600times in the Old Testament and 120 times in th New Testament. In contrats to "soul" is used more than 400 times in all the canon. The word "spirit" is used only a little more frequentlythan "soul" even if one includes reference to the Goly Spirit. Scripture Obvioously gives special emphasis to "heart'.

L.S. Chaffer noted, "In its phycological sense, the term heart refers, alike in boh Testaments to human life an its energyexercised. The physical organ which bears this name is the distributor of the blood and the biblical conception is that the life isin the blood (Leviticus 17:11)*1*. It is natural that the heartshould be deemedthe center of human life. Similarly the heart is the organ that reacts to the human emotionand is thus as easily. Considered the center of sensibility . . . In this mannnerthe word of God relates the termheart to natural slf-knowledge." - Systematic Theology, Vol 2, pg. 187.

-----B. Reigns: The term "reigns" is used 16 times in Scripture. It describes the kidneys as representative of mans inner being. this term considers mans depest emotions. In 6 uses it is associated with the term "heart" and relates to a level of emotions which only god understands.

-----C. Flesh: The sue of this term reveals a 3 fold application it may refer to the human body. Scripture also uses thos wordto describe all humanity and other creatures. The 3rd use of "flesh" relates to mans sinful nature- found in both saved and unregenerate individuals. As such, this use describesour fallen nature or disposition to sin. It manifests itself through the vehicle of the body.

-----D. Mind: Man's thinking, reasoning ability, seems to be in view through the use of this word. The "mind" may be either good or evil depending on the power governing it. Our minds may be defiled(Titus 1:15)*2*, need girding up (1 Peter 1:13)*3*, or they may serve the law of God(Romans 7:25)*4*.

~~~~~

*1* Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

*2* Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

*3* 1 Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

*4* Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

V. THE DERIVATION OF MAN'S IMMATERIAL PARTS:

-----Three major answers to the question of man's immaterial parts may be found in the world today. great men of God have differed over this issue. However, the Scriptures present a clear testimony to the truth. These three major views are:

-----A. Pre-existence:

The advocates of this hypothesis claim on rational grounds and quite apart from Biblical authority that, whatever may have been the original derivation of the immaterial part of man - whether created or eternally existent - it is subject to reincarnation or transmigration from one embodiment - extending to the lowest forms of creature life - to another. This theory, though embraced with varous modifications by men who could avail themselves of Biblical truth, owes it origin wholly to heathen philosophy." - L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 173.

Deuteronomy 4:32*1*; Ecclesiastes 9:6*2* refute pre-existensce.

-----Pre-existence is taught today in New Age Teachings, in Mormonism and in Theosophy. It is occultic in origin, and violates the teaching of God's Word in the following ways:

---1. what God declares in the Scriptures on this topic is rejected and contradicted.

---2. the fact of original sin is rejected. Pre-existence acknowledges the fact of sin, but ignores what the bible teaches about its origin.

---3. actual proof of the doctrine is lacking.

---4. pre-existence teaching completely re-structures anthropology differently than the Bible does.

---5. it makes God guilty of giving man a sinful spiritual part, and then holding man responsible, or of giving man a holy spirit knowing it wil be defild as soon asit enters the body.

-----If one accepts the teaching of conscious, personal pre-exisence, one is faced with the lack of ability to remmber the details of the pre-existent states.

While this theory accounts for inborn sin, such as pride and enmity to God, it gives no explaination of inherited sensual sin, which it holds to have come from Adam, and the guilt of which must be denied." - A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p 490.

-----The doctrine of pre-existence of the human spirit has sadlybeen taught by Plato, Oirgen, Philo and Justin Matyr. Many within otherwise orthodox teaching, have taught this false theory.

~~~~~

*1* Deuteronomy 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?

*2* Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

V. THE DERIVATION OF MAN'S IMMATERIAL PARTS:

B. Creationism:

-----This theory proclaims that God specifically creates asoul and a spirit for each body when it is born. Creationism teaches that only the body is produced by human parents. this teaching is far reaching with regard to implications. it calls into question the actual humanity of Christ, the transmission of original sn as well as basic heredity.

-----This theory has posed serious objections though it was taught by Aristotle, Jerome, Pelagius, Roman Catholics, and Reformed theologians including Dr. charles Hodge. The objections to the belief are clearly presented by Dr. A.H. Strong:

1. "The passage adduced in its support may with equal propriety be regarded as expressing God's mediate agency in the origination of human souls; while the general tenor of Scripture, as well as its representations of God as the Author of man's body, favour this latter interpretation.

2. Creationism regards the earthly father as begetting only the body of his child - certainly as not the father of the child's highest part. This makes the beast to possess nobler powers of propagation than man; for the beast multiplies himself after his own image.

3. The individuality of the child, even in the most extreme cases, as in the sudden rise from obscure families, and surroundings of marked menlike Luther, may be explained by suposing a law of variation impressed uponthe species at its beginning - a law whose operation is forseen and supervised by god.

4. This theory, if it allows that the soul is originally possessed of depraved tendancies,make God the direct author of moral evil; if it holds the soul to have been created pure, it makes God indirectly the Author of moral evil, by teaching that He puts this pure spirt ito a body which wilinevitably corrupt it."

 

[dreamer]

Yes. I believe creatures that are consciously aware of their existance and their emotions have a soul. Actually that may be how I would even describe a soul...as the part of us that is 'aware.'

This is in addition to the 'living energy' of all living things...which I am still undecided about.

To think a clone just because of the nature of it's birth is any less human is FAR FAR more firghtening that cloning is to me. Clones are akin to identical twins. Do twins share ONE soul???

The twins and the clones would have the same genetic makeup...but both have different life experiences, different feelings, different loves and desires. THAT is the soul, and I think a clone would have those same things.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

V. THE DERIVATION OF MAN'S IMMATERIAL PARTS:

C. Traducianism:

-----Traducianism teaches that the body as well as the spirit and soul of man are propagated byt human procreation. this doctrie was perhaps first expressed as a doctrine by Tertullian and later explained more fully by augustine. During the days of the early church it was the dominatnt view but fell into unpopularity during the Dark Ages when creationism arose to extensive acceptance.

-----The traducian concept of the origin of the immaterial parts of man are taught in many different passages of Scripture. Some of these passages include the following:

---1. Genesis 2:1-3: the work of creation was declared by God to be complete. This could hardly be true if God was still creating human spirits and souls for eachconceived person.

---2. Job 10:10: "Hast Thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese?" concerning this verse, Dr. Shedd notes,

"The 'me' here is the wholeperson. the total ego is described as begotten, in Jeremiah 1:5: 'Before I formed thee I the belly I knew thee.' In Psalm 22:9,10 David says, 'thou are He that took me from the womb. I was cast upon Thee from the womb; thou art my God from my mother's belly." - Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 25.

---3. Psalm 139:15,16: The Scriptures declare, "My substance was not hid from Thee hen i was made in secret." The Psalmist, as a whole person, is here seen as having been existence in his embryonic state.

---4. Acts 17:26: The bible teaches that God, "hath made one blood of al nations." Dr. Shedd wrote that,

". . . the apostle was speaking particularly of man as rational, immortal and having the image of God; and therefore in saying that 'man is made of one blood,' he certianly could not have intended to exclude his rationalsoul in this connection." - Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 24.

---5. Romans 1:3: The apostle paul was inspird to write of Jesus, theaching that He, ". . . was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." The use of "flesh" is here applied to Christ's complete humanity in distinction to his diety. Traducianism is also clearly presented in Romans 5:12.

---6. Ephesians 2:3: "We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Man's whole being is under sentence of god's wrath.

---7. 1 Corinthians 15:22: "for as in Adam all die. . . " "Metaphorical" existence could hardly result in actual death and consititute seperation from God.

"to die in adam, both spiritually and physically, supposes existence in Adam both as to soul and body." - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology,Vol. 2, p. 26.

THREE TYPES OF SUPPORT FOR TRADUCIANISM

---1. SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT:

--Hebrews 7:10 reveals a rational and moral act by Levi
--Genesis 2:1-3 sows God resting on the 7th day because creation was complete. God breathed life into only Adam

---2. THEOLOGICAL SUPPORT:

"Creationsim places God in the position of creating a perfect soul(He could not create a sinful one), then having it fall in the case of each newborn infant. The case of the sinlessChrist is in every respect and exception and not the pattern in deciding this question". Ryrie, Baisc theology, p. 194

---3. PHYSIOLOGICAL SUPPORT:

--Man is a union of body, soul and spirit which grows and develops together.

------Perhaps, more than any other theological writer, Dr. Shedd exhaustielyexplores traducian thought. Approximatelyninety pages are devoted to this tpic in his Dogmatic Theology, vol 2, all of whichis heartily recommended reading. The following wil provide a sample of Dr. Shedd's treatment of this important issue:

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

V. THE DERIVATION OF MAN'S IMMATERIAL PARTS:

Traducianism applies the idea of species to both body and soul. Upon the sixth day, God created two human indiiduals, one male and one female, and in them also created the specific psychico-physical nature from which all the subsequent individuals of the human family are procreated both psychically and physically . . ..Creationism confines the idea of species to the body. In this respect, it agrees with the theory of pre-existence; the difference relatingonly to the time when the soul is created. Creationisn and pre-existence both alike maintain thatthe human soul is individual only, and never had a race-existence in Adam. The creationist holds that God on the sixth day created two human individuals, one male and one female, and in them also created the specific physical nature from which the bodies of all subsequent individuals were procreated; the soul in each instance being a new creation ex nilo, and infused into the propagated body. . . . The choice must be made between traducianism and creatism, since the opinion that man as to his soul existed before Adam has no support from revelation.The Bible plainly teaches that Adam was the first man: and that all finite spirits existing before him were angels. The questions betwen traducianist and the creationist is this: when God created the first two human individuals, Adam and Eve, did he create in and with them the invisible substance of all the succeeding generations of men, both as to the soul and the body, or only as to the body? Was the human nature that was created in adam and Eve simple, or complex? Was it physcial solely, or was it phychico-physical? Had the human nature in the first pair two sides or only one? Was provision made for propagting out of the specific nature deposited in Adam, individuals who would be a union of body and soul, or only a mere body withouta soul? The questions, consequently, between the parties involved the quantity of being that was ceated on the sixth day, when God is said to have created "man." The traducianist asserts that the entire invisible substance of all the the generations of mankind was originated ex nihilo, by that single act of God mentioned in Genesis 1:27, by which he created "man male and female." The creationist asserts that only a part of the invisible substance which constitutes their souls eing created subsequently, by as many distinct and seperate creative acts as there are individual souls. Traducianism and creationism agree with each other in respect to the most diffcult point in the problem: namely, a kind of existence that is prior to the individual existence. The creationist concededs that human history does not start with the birth of the individual ma. He does not attempt to explain original sin with no reference to Adam. He maintains that the body and the physcial life of the indivdual is no a creation ex nihilo in each instance, but is derived froma common physical nature that was originated on the sixth day. in so doing, the creationist concedes existence in Adam, quoad hoc. But this race-mode of human existence, which is prior to the individual mode, is the principal difficulty with the problem, and in conceding its reality as to the body, the creationist carries a common burden woth the traducianist. For it is dificult to think of an invisible existence of the human body in adam as to think of an invisible existence of the human soul in him. In reality, it is even more difficult; because the body of an individual man, but fewer connected with traducianism than with creationism. If the mystery of a complete existence in adam on both the psychical and the physical side is accepted, the difficulties connected with the imputation of the first sin and the propagation of corruption are relived. As Turetin says, "there is no doubt that by this theory all the difficulty seems to be removed." It is only the first step that costs. Adopting a revealed mystery in the start, the mystery in this instance, as in all other instances of revealed mysteries, throws a flood of light, and makes all thins plain.

- Dogmatic Theology, Vol 2, p. 7-19

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

V. THE DERIVATION OF MAN'S IMMATERIAL PARTS:

-----Objections to traducianism have been expressed over the years of Church history. dr Charles hodge isthe most credible anti-traducian writer. A serious argument traducianism asks whether or not man has the creative power to produce spirits and souls. The Scriptures address this mater in Zechariah 12:1 which declares, ". . . saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, And layeth the foundation of the earth, And formeth the spirit of man within him." The word "formeth," means to shape something which already exist, as God forms the mountians (Amos 4:13)

-----The Most serious objection to traducianism involves Christology. Creationism claims the traducianist presents a Jesus wo was tainted with original sin. If Jesus received His body, soul and His spirit from Mary, how could He not be tainted with sin? again the scriptures address this very important matter. Hebrews 10:5 teaches, "But a body hast thou prepared Me." Luke 1:35 records the words of the angel to Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: thereforealso that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Hebrews 2:14 gives further light on this vital topic: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also himself likewise partook of the same. . ." On the authority of these verse (and many others); Jesus partook of humanity, yet was perserved fromthe taint of Adamic sinfulness.

-----Dr. L.S. Chafer fully agrees with this basic observation:

"theologians of the traducian group always believed that there was exercised a special divine protection against the Adamic nature being imparted to the Son from the human mother."

-----Only the traducian view can adequately explain both guilt of sin through adam's fall, and provision of possible salvation for all through the incarnation of God the Son and His partaking of humanity. man is a race, not a company as are the angels. The teachings of creationism reduces man to a company, and perhaps unintentionally, casts serious doubts concerning the value of Christ's death for all mankind.

-----When great men of God, of equal study, ability, and devotion disagree, it is wise to allow some flexibility. we need to never compromise on any theological conviction, but at the smae time, we must be careful not to discredit all who have non-essential diferences with us.

 

[Never]

Todd.
Does the term passive aggressive mean anything to you?

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Todd.
Does the term passive aggressive mean anything to you?

Sorry I was just trying to answer your question from my point of view.

Shall I delete my view point for you?