www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is the soul infused or generated?

Dear Ghazar,

The above post suffices for my opinion of the commentaries in the Orthodox Study Bible. However, the scriptural verse does merit attention, as it may appear to contradict the "equation."

Let me first say that I started reading Romanides and was simultaneously tring to explain Matthew 10:28. I then realized that I would have to account for Paul's language and reconcile my equation to it. However, I excitedly showed Romanides' article to a friend, a Protestant minister, and he also couldn't put it down, so I gave it away to him. Now I need to download it again. Here is where my contorted mind was going....

First, I checked the Greek and indeed the English "soul" is correctly translated from "psixhi." Then I looked at the context.

This passage is clearly eschatological. So those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul are those who are only masters of this present world. They are those co-workers of Satan, the prince of this world. The soul/life cannot be killed by them because because it is promised again to us at the resurrection. Even those who would be damned are given life again at the resurrection. But as it says elsewhere, some are given a resurrection unto eternal life and some a resurrection unto judgement. This eternal judgement is what the second part of the passage is referring to; "but fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

In street language, "don't fear those who can only kill you once, fear him who can kill you permanently."

So in an eschatological sense, the soul/life is unperishable, but in a soteriological sense, it is highly perishable and can only be received back at the eschaton at which point it is too late to do anything. And that is why everything ultimately hinges upon our faith during this life in the resurrection in the next life. Otherwise, why should we Christians live as we do?

Or as Paul said in I Corinthians 15:

"for if the dead are not risen, then Christ is not raised. And if Christ is not raised, your faith is in vain; and you are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, then we are above all other men are to be most pitied. But now Christ is risen from the dead....."

He came to give us life, and life abundantly. Everyone will receive life again at the resurrection, but only the faithful will receive life abundantly.

In Christ.

Dear Friends,

Regarding the Orthodox Study Bible, allow me to say that it clearly supports the belief that man is tripartite: Body, Soul and Spirit. I realize that sometimes the notes are a tad clumsy and unimpressive but other times I have found them to be brilliant and very helpful. In fact, as I mentioned before, if it were not for the role this Bible played in my study of the Romanide's article, I certainly would not have as readily accepted the teaching he presents. I.e., the notes in this Bible to nearly all of Romanide's Scriptural references were very beneficial in supporting his arguments. This was to the point that I wondered if he had written those notes himself! Again I know it has many short-commings, but when we consider its accessability, affordability, useability and general accuracy in presenting the basic Orthodox Faith, I think it is a God-send. Its much better than anything comparable that I've seen available for Roman Catholics. The upcoming addition of the newly translated English Septuagint and revised NT text with revised notes will, in my opinion, make it even more beneficial.

Paraphrasing the former president of Chrysler Motors, Lee Iacoca, (I can't help it, I'm from Detroit -the product of a UAW worker [mother] and a Teamster [father])

"If the OSB critics make a better Orthodox Study Bible, buy it."

But as for Andrew's explanation of the Scripture verse, I can buy what he's saying. Looking at it this way, it does indeed fit with his explanation of the meaning of "soul." By the way, Andrew, what would happen to this soul/life at the time of death? Do we remain conscious or asleep until the Parousia?

One last question: How would you define -in simple language- the following and how they work together:

Body (Sarx)-
Soul (psyche)-
Spirit (pneauma)-

Thankfully,
In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

For those who are interested in learning more about this Orthodox Study Bible project, see:

http://www.lxx.org/

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Neat website. Do you know how many books they will include in the Old Testament?

Adam

Dear Adam,

No, I do not know this. This might make a good topic for a new thread. What are the Canons of the Apostolic Churches' Old Testaments? I know the Armenian Church has a traditional Canon which might be at variance with the other Apostolic Churches. The OSB writers do mention that they will not put the so-called "Apocrypha" in a separate section as is the practice of Protestants but will rather place them in the traditional Septuagint order.

Dear Ghazar,

Let me say "asleep in the Lord" and explain that it means in the Kingdom of the Lord vs. "asleep in the world" and thus the Kingdom of this world led by its prince Satan. But "asleep in the Lord" should not let us think that this soul is "alive in Christ." We must pass through death, knowing that it has no sting since Christ has gone before us!

If we understand the "in" to mean "citizen of" then it all starts to come together. At the resurrection, one man's passport says "Lord" or "Heaven" and the other's says "Satan" or "world." We've been told that the border guards will be very strict.

I know that I have not answered fully, but I'm still trying to print out Romanides (so that I don't make any mistakes)!

With love in Christ.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Dear Friends,

Do you think the stories of people feeling connected with the historical events of their ancestors is a support for the generation of the soul?

Adam

Dear Adam,

I definitely would not dismiss it. Look at all of the cross generational similarities, even when children have been separated from parents at birth. look at the incredible similarities in preferences of identical twins who have been separated at birth.

"The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children even unto four generations."

I definitely would consider this as a possibility.

In Christ.

Dear Ghazaros,

I've finally read Romanides' brilliant article. I can't imagine that if he opposes dualism (body & soul) that he doesn't also oppose the tripartite division of the human (body, soul, and spirit).

I can't disagree with any of its thrust, except that perhaps he is being a bit polemical (against the dualists) when saying that: for Paul, sarx and psyche are "exactly the same thing." I think that Paul's use of sarx in Galatians, which Romanides himself points out as an important exception, tells us that they are not "exactly" the same for Paul.

Against dualism, Romanides certainly destroys any falsely-based ideas that the soul is the intellectual or decision-making center of man. he shows this to be "kardia/heart" and "nous/intellect" in Paul's writings.

Yes, sin dwells parasitically in the flesh (sarx), but Romanides can't say this regarding the soul/life (psyche).

Yes, sarx and psyche denote the whole person, but he later tells us that the person is not complete without the spirit of life (to pneuma tes zoes).

According to Romanides:

"pasa sarx" can be found in OT used for "all living flesh" or "all living men."

"pasa psyche" is used in OT for "all souls" or "all living things," but I ask, are passages with "pasa psyche" primarily for "all living men?" In other words, are they used interchangeably, not only in Paul, which he fairly well demonstrates (excepting Galatians), but also in the OT as a whole?

Romanides says that NT usage of "pasa sarx/pasa psyche" is in keeping with OT.

"soma psychikon" is sown but a "soma pneumatikon" is raised. His point here is important. But what I found important in regard to this is that his article leads one to conclude that the "soma pneumatikon" that is raised with not only the "pneuma tes zoes" but also the "agia pneuma" because he reminds us that paul writes "the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Romanides writes that "only those whose spirit has been renewed by union with the Spirit of God can fight the desires of the flesh." Only the "soma pneumatikon" may inherit eternal life.

So we are still left a Romanides' equation of sarx/psyche + pneuma = total man.

But what does scripture call this total man?

It is not "soma" (body) since Romanides tells us that in OT and NT, EXCEPT IN PAUL, that "soma" is a corpse. It has that connotation and the Lord uses "soma" at the Last Supper to indicate that He will pass through death. He uses "haima" or "blood" to indicate "life."

Romanides makes more brilliant soteriological points here linked with the Christian's need to pass fearlessly in front of and through death. Bravo! But that is an aside.

Romanides and Paul leave us with "soma" as the total man. This total man is either sarkikos (fleshly) or psychikos (lively) since the Fall and prior to the Resurrection. After the Resurrection he is pneumatikos (spiritual).

My point is that all of this works, but only within Paul. Romanides is commenting on the whole of scripture, but specifically to Pauline writings. and we know what the other apostles had to say about these writings, "that they are a little difficult to understand."

I think that much of this has to do with the fact that he is writing to the Gentiles and thus battling a predominating dualistic philosophy (then and still now!. At least that is how I estimate, not having done deep, deep work into it as Romanides has obviously done. I would like to hear what others think of this estimate.

I went to James, a good Jew who didn't need to worry about Hellenistic influences as much as Paul did, and looked to see parallels to James 1:21 in 1 Peter 1:9 "receiving the end (results) of your faith, saving (your) souls. This clearly shows the psyche itself to be something worthwile and in need of salvation, not to be discarded as a "soma psychikos" in exchange for a "soma pneumatikos." Note that Peter was also hanging out with the Jews and got himself in hot water with Paul about it because of the inconsistent demands he placed upon the gentiles received into the Church.

James 5:20 "shall save a soul from death (thanatou)" contrasts with Romans 11:14-15 "what shall the receiving of them be, but life from death." Here paul is using "zoi" life (in general) and "nekron" death (in general). The "thanatov" is too specific for Paul's intent here. In James it is specific, saving a particular psyche/soul (AJRubis says "a particular life") from death "thanatou."

so here is where I ended up:

nekron = death (in general)

thanaton = death (specific)

zoi = life (in general)

psyche = (a particular life)

pneuma = breath/spirit (depending on if it is directly from God (Holy Spirit) or the breath that animates breathing creatures (pneuma tes zoes)

sarx = flesh

soma = a body (alive or dead, as in "a corpse")

anthropos = a human (dead or alive)

I still think that the original equation has merit, but perhaps cannot be applied in those "difficult to understand" Pauline writings. So clearly, I need to revisit the original equation.

In Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Andrew,

I have to be honest, most of this stuff is over my head. I think you have made some insiteful observations about Romanaides article. Allow me some time to digest what you have written (and brush up on my Greek).

Trusting In Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Armenian Catholic Christian
www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/ [geocities.com]

Ok, I'm back. Its been a couple years to digest this, I think I'm ready to post on it again.

Dear Brethren,
Here is a very brief presentation I put together on what I believe to be the Orthodox doctrine of the Generation of the Soul. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to some (perhaps many) who are unfamiliar with this doctrine. I'm interested in any reactions (good or bad) some may have.

See: "Is the Soul Infused or Generated"
at the following link: http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/tradition.html

Thank you for the web-site. It is a serious site as far as I can see. I have placed in into my "favorite places" so that I can now and then go in to read and study the wealth of material posted there.

Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!

Shestelle

Dear Ghazar,
Thank you for the link, and greetings in the Risen Christ!
To give you a Catholic approach to the question, Creationism is treated as part of the Body of Catholic Dogma. The sentence "every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God" is what is dubbed a sententia certa. By its intrinsic connection to an infallible assertion, it is considered theologically certain.

Let me flesh this out for you: The Fourth Council of Constance asserted the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and happened to mention that her soul was "created and infused" into her body. The assertion itself concerns the Immaculate Conception, not creationism. But the "creation and infusion" phrase is intrinsic to the infallible assertion. I.E. It is contained in its wording. Therefore creationism is considered theologically certain by Catholics, though it is not infallibly defined per se.

Sorry if this is too wordy.

Christ is indeed Risen!
Usque.

Dear Ghazar,

Indeed He is Risen!

That's all right if it took two years for you to respond with the article which you posted and which I have just read. Your article is a good defence of generationism. And as you poited out so well, Eastern understanding is clearly "generational" vs. "infusional," if one is forced to choose. And as you point out, the West once also shared this approach. At the same time I would not dogmatize that description (generationism). As the scripture asks rhetorically, 'Do we really know how life comes to the flesh in the womb?'

I've taken the two years to better digest Romanides' commentary upon Paul's writing as it bears upon this issue.

Regarding terminolgy, I still hold that we are bound strictly by the scriptural useages, which clearly equate the soul with a body and a spirit.

I thought of you and the other brethren involved in this discussion while chanting the services of the Passion this past week, for when He died on the cross, He gave up His "spirit." The women and the disciples were left with a "body."

Now back to Pauline termnology. Man is sown as a "soulful/lively body" (soma psichikon) but is resurrected as a "spiritual body" (soma pnevmatikos). I think that Paul is pushing the point that while we are living, up until our resurrection, we will always be short of the mark. We will always be tempted by, and at least to some degree, give in to the flesh and the things of this world instead of following the spirit. 'The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Or 'I find it to be a rule.....I do the thing that I don't want to do.'

With the resurrection, the body, while not discarded, is under the dominance of the spirit vs. the cares of the world and the things that sustain our lives (psychi) (our stomachs, etc.). I think that that is where this terminology has its root - in a polemical sense.

If we entertain that option, then we find it very much in congruence with the basic premis that man inherits mortality (inherited sin) and goes on sinning because of his fear of death. He is caring too much for his soma psychikos and not enough for the coming soma pnevmatikos (at the resurrection wherein man is restored to his proper balance of body and spirit - where the body is present but the spirit lord's over it (a true soul/life or "life abundant")- as we see in the risen Christ where he eats and drinks but also passes through the locked doors. (Remember when Peter began to walk on the water, but doubted, and thus fell in).

So that is where I leave it. A soul is the human life. And I will add based upon this dialogue, only complete when the body and spirit are in the proper balance.

With love in the risen Lord,
Andrew

Ghazar and Andrew: I was thinking of you both when reading on the "Horrors!" thread. I would be interested in your comments on that thread.