www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is the Soul Generated or Infused?

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ's Light,

I've just finished the series "God and Gender?" by Orthodox Father Thomas Hopko and have really enjoyed it. Alot of things were familiar being acquainted with several of Fr. Hopko's tape series and yet there were many new things I also learned from him. For instance: the belief in what the Latins call "Traducianism." I was very surprised he endorsed it. I've considered it before, finding it to be a very interesting concept. (Actually I am becoming rather partial to it mainly based on Fr. Hopko's insights).

I have heard that historically this was also the Armenian Church's view. Yet I was surprised that Fr. Hopko affirmed that most Eastern Fathers taught this also. Does anyone have any information about this?

Here's a link to a very informitive article although coming from a slanted Roman Catholic source: The (Old) Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15014a.htm

Take away the apparent Latin Church bias, and I think this demonstrates that this could indeed be the authentic Eastern view as Fr. Hopko stated. Again, I found all this very interesting.

I guess another way to term the doctrine (perhaps more Eastern in terminology) would be "Generationism" as opposed to "Creationism" referring to the origin of the human soul. Is the soul immediately created and infused in us at our conception by God (as Roman Catholics clearly teach). Or, is it generated from the parents as an integral part of the humanity they pass on to their children?

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Dear Brother Der-Ghazarian, this is an interesting inquiry.

From what I have read (in the past), the idea of "soul" is intimately tied to the metaphysics of "existence". That is, when something/someone comes into existence, perforce of their being an entity unto themselves (apart from their progenitors), the new entity attains a "soul". The soul is not some "thing" that is attached to the individual, but rather an immediate concomitant that comes about from "existing". Thus, broadly speaking, every entity that shares "being" or "existence" (which must come from God, the Creator) has a soul. The human soul is unique because of the unique status of human beings in the whole cosmos of existence. But, too, animals also have a "soul" that is unique to them perforce of their ability to share in the "existence" of Creation.

So, when human beings die and their "existence" returns to the Creator, their reality is once again subsumed in a special way into God through their being united with God. Thus, when kids ask if the departed dog is "going to heaven" I can answer with an unequivocal "Yes!". Why? Because "let every living thing praise the Lord", and the family pet has served a purpose, through its existence, and the pet too must share in the totality of existence that comes from God, the Creator. (Can you tell I love dogs?)

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John (El Greco)

Good for you! I consider your words as so many gifts.

Who said "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts?"

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

I thank you for your enlightening reply. In light of what you have said about the difference of our souls compared to that of animals and also the similarities, would you say our souls come to us from our parents or from God? In other words, did God create the first human soul only and all are descended from that? Or, does He create each individual soul? Or are you saying that God creates our whole self, body and soul, at conception? I think that Fr. Hopko clearly endorsed the former view and claimed this was the Orthodox view.

Btw, do you mind if I ask your religious background so I know from what tradition or Church you speak from? I couldn't tell by your profile information. Thanks again.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

p.s. And of course, all dogs go to heaven. Or do they have a judgement too? Not being rational I would think not. But what about Sharks and Mosqitos??? I agree with you that the "new heavens and new earth" must include all of God's Creation.

I kind of like the medieval Scholastic theology on "soul", although somewhat modified.

When a new human being is conceived, by virtue of this "new life" having an "existence" all its own, it shares in "being". By virtue of "being", it has an intimate relationship with God, Who, in the icons is protrayed with the Greek words: O Oon, (little "o" = "the" and "omega-nu"=being). God is understood as the source of all "being", i.e., the "Creator". As soon as the new creature gets "being", it shares in the entire cosmos emanating from God - without whom nothing can exist. As I understand it, this is the "soul". It also explains why traditional theology says that when the first cells come together in a woman's womb, and a new life starts, it shares in "being" and thus has a soul. And any action that removes life from this new being is murder.

I think that we oftentimes neglect to reflect on and pray about (and for) all of creation. The very fact that everything that we see exists because God wills it to exist should fill us with absolute awe at the grandeur of God's handiwork. The complexities of the human body, and of animals and plants and fish, etc. are all witnesses to God's greatness. (I think St. Francis had this perspective; he wasn't just an animal rights activist, but really a contemplative who was just overwhelmed at the totality of Creation.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John
In Catholic (Roman) school we were taught by the good nuns that God placed the soul into the
new human the instant the egg and the sperm joined. Of course, this is a good explanation for children.

I have always wondered about "test tube" babies.
Are scientists forcing God to grant a soul into the cells formed outside the mother's womb? I, myself, think He must be sad at this situation, as the Church teaches against "test tube" fertilization. I picture Him being happy when he can grant a soul to new life in a woman's womb.
(The Church advocates real sex )

What do you think of souls and test tube babies?
denise

Bad Bad Bad. We're talkin I'd-rather-be-gagged-with-rotten-onions-than-to-listen-to-this nonsense-going-on bad.

And....
when they "store" these fertilized test tube
eggs in a freezer somewhere....
not only is it an offense to God's Law but it is also an offense to natural law.
denise

Despite the "gag" reflex, this represents a very real issue.

I know of a woman, an attorney, who very much desires to have a child. Unfortunately, her "chemical composition" kills her husband's sperm. By using "test tube" science, it is hoped to fertilize the egg outside the corporeal environment and then implant the egg where it can grow into the child they very much desire.

Life is not all black and white.

Blessings!

Despite the "gag" reflex, this represents a very real issue. Despite vague appeals to "God's law" or "natural law" (really?), it is not the open-and-closed case some might like.

I know of a woman, an attorney, who very much desires to have a child. Unfortunately, her "chemical composition" kills her husband's sperm. By using "test tube" science, it is hoped to fertilize the egg outside the corporeal environment and then implant the egg where it can grow into the child they very much desire.

Life is not all black and white.

Blessings

Dear Dr John
It is my understanding of the Church's teaching that it is black and white. That only the natural act is considered true means of fertilization.
What happens to the extra fertilized eggs that a couple doesn't want? Is there a "soul" in the
frozen fertilized eggs that are stored?
denise

I tend to think that if one has to look to test tubes for fertilization, perhaps they are ignoring an important sign from God. Maybe their being unable to naturally conceive is God's way of telling them He has other plans for them (maybe not, though, just theorizing) and when they go around and try to conceive unnaturally, they are ignoring God's call.

ChristTeen287

I mean no real offense. But everyone is not Christian, and do not believe that every trip or bump they have in life is a divine message from God. Calling them to one heroic purpose to another.

The Catholic Church, or Methodist, as you are, would have to come up with a better reason then this to compel the state to outlaw test tube fertilization.

Justin

I see your point 287. But there is a problem with that perspective. If a person comes down with cancer, should we just say that "it's God's will" and not do surgery, radiation or chemotherapy? This is the perspective of the Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy's group) who believe that prayer will deliver from illness.

Theologically, I believe that God gave us the power to think and reason, and to be able to do research to improve the lot of humanity and the whole world. So, if it means creating new medicines, or new surgeries (like angioplasties) or a new way of repairing decayed teeth, then "Bring it On!!".

As for the status of the test-tube fertilized eggs, yes, they are "life". And as such are to be taken care of. Unfortunately, many of these fertilized frozen eggs are not viable, and even after implantation will not develop (the equivalent of 'stillbirth'). But nonetheless, they should not be just 'destroyed' as worthless organisms.

Blessings!

Blessings!

In the Catholic Catechism, under section 2377,
page 571

"Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable...."

That sounds pretty black and white to me.

While I sympathize with couples having difficulty conceiving, and I do not find artificial insemination itself as morally unacceptable as the Church does, yet the treatment, or quandry of what to do with the "extra" embryos often results in the morally unacceptable disposal of them.
Does the end (a baby for the couple) justify the
means (disposal of unneeded embryos)?

To Maximus
Why are bringing up the Church needing better reasons for the state to outlaw artificial fertilization? Obviously the Church cannot dictate state law. The Church is against abortion, but that hasn't prevented the state from saying it is lawful.

When I used the phrase "natural law", I was not referring to state laws. I was referring to what God has written in our hearts. Couples forming families and remaining faithful to each other is natural law. Yet today we know that people pretty much do whatever they want sexually. And the state does not have the ability to dictate sexual morals. There are many "natural laws" God has written in man's heart, but because of fallen nature, chose to ignore it. (And I am not saying couples seeking artificial fertilization is a result of fallen nature.)

denise