People love origin stories. We have an inate desire to know, not only those we care about, but also how they came to be the people we care about. We long to connect the present to the past. Origin stories help us to know others more deeply, and to understand how we fit into a grander story. Hollywood gives us origin stories for our favorite superheroes, and even villains, because we have this longing to see the bigger picture. Tracing family history has been of high importance since the time of Moses, and likely from the beginning, as evidenced by the genealogies recorded in Scripture. The practice remains popular to the present day. Origin stories often form the basis of how we introduce ourselves to others. Whether it be on a first date, a job interview, or in a social gathering, we are often prompted to share family history, where we grew up, how we came to where we live now, and so on. Just as this background information helps us to know others, it can also teach us important things about ourselves. Yet all of these details come from the physical world. If we are more than just bodies, as Christians believe, what can we say about the origin of our souls? And what does this mean for us in our own stories?
Four Views
There are four basic views on the soul’s origin:
- Physicalist: The soul emerges from the body of the individual post-conception. Those who take this option will insist that the soul is dependent on the body for its existence, and thus ceases to exist when the body dies. A small minority of Christians hold this view, and many atheists who are not strict naturalists also believe in a body-dependent emergent soul.
- Traducian: The soul of a child is the product of the souls of its parents. This is the most commonly held view of Protestants and Roman Catholics. Unlike physicalists, they believe that the soul survives physical death.
- Creationist: While the body is a product of human parents, the soul is created by God. Most believe this happens at the moment of conception. This is believed to be the predominant view of Christians prior to 400 A.D. and that of most Eastern Orthodox Christians today.
- Pre-existence: Souls are created by God prior to conception, and then placed in bodies at a later time. This was deemed heretical at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 A.D.
Since pre-existence is universally rejected by the Christian church, and physicalism is an option very few Christians find tenable, I will focus on the views of Traducianism and Creationism.
Assessing the Case for Traducianism
Most people in the West assume that our souls come from our parents. I recently read a story of a mother and daughter separated at birth and reunited decades later. The mother spoke of how she could see aspects of her personality in her daughter, and how that confirmed that she was hers. Any parent who watches their child develop can relate, but it’s especially compelling when a parent’s nurturing influence is absent. The appeal of Traducianism is easy to see for anyone who looks at their child’s “soulish” qualities and sees their own. For Christians though, such a conclusion must at the very least be compatible with Scripture. Proponents, like apologist Tim Barnett, cite two key arguments for its support:
1. The Sabbath Rest
(Exodus 20:11)
Therefore if the Sabbath rest cannot be in reference to the forming of things with existing material, why should we assume it is in reference to ex nihilo creation events? This puts the Traducian believer in an uncomfortable position: affirming that the Creator of the universe sustains His creation, personally intervenes in various ways, becomes one of us, dies on the cross for our sins, defeats death and Satan while resurrecting into a glorified body, and prepares a place for us in eternity, yet He is resting. Perhaps it’s worth reconsidering what is meant by the Sabbath rest to make sure that it doesn’t mean more to us than intended.
Scriptural Support for Creationism
For the sake of brevity, I will focus on what I believe to be the five strongest texts in support of the creationist view. Beginning in the Old Testament:
1. “The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
“And the souls which I have made” is a strange thing for God to say if sinful human souls are responsible for creating sinful human souls.
Since the universe and all that is in it was completed in six days, God is resting, and therefore cannot be responsible for presently creating human souls. The soul of Adam was clearly created by God on day six (Genesis 2:7), and he was created in the image of God (1:26-27), but all of his children were created in his image (5:3). From this, the Traducian concludes that God created humans with the ability to create humans completely, body and soul. That soul then carries the likeness of its creators.
This argument assumes two things: first, the Sabbath is continual, and second, the six days of creation describe God creating all of every kind of thing he would ever create, not just new kinds of things. If either of these assumptions is false, Creationism remains a valid option. The former would be false if God rested on the seventh day, and then got back to the business of creating on day eight. I am willing to grant that day seven is ongoing. The latter assumption is false, and it is easily demonstrated in Scripture. For example, 1 Kings 18:20-40 records the encounter between Elijah and the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel, in which the true God of Israel sends down fire from heaven as a demonstration of His power. 2 Kings 4:1-7 records how the prophet Elisha multiplies a widow’s oil, and similarly, Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes to feed the multitudes (Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:12-17, John 6:1-14). Also, Jesus turns water into wine (John 2:1-11), which undoubtedly involves the introduction of new material into the water, if this is to be real wine and not an illusion of wine. Unless we assume a naturalistic explanation to each of these, along with the vast body of miracles throughout both Old and New Testament, then we must admit that God is still in the business of creating.
The Traducian might form a distinction between creating with existing material and ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation, so they can affirm the words of David:
“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.”
(Psalm 139:13-15)
Yet the six day creation account is not limited to ex nihilo creation. In fact, much of what is created is formed from existing material. Case in point, the body of Adam is formed from the dust of the earth, and Eve is formed from Adam’s rib. Verse 11 says: “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.” Similarly in verse 24, “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.”
Therefore if the Sabbath rest cannot be in reference to the forming of things with existing material, why should we assume it is in reference to ex nihilo creation events? This puts the Traducian believer in an uncomfortable position: affirming that the Creator of the universe sustains His creation, personally intervenes in various ways, becomes one of us, dies on the cross for our sins, defeats death and Satan while resurrecting into a glorified body, and prepares a place for us in eternity, yet He is resting. Perhaps it’s worth reconsidering what is meant by the Sabbath rest to make sure that it doesn’t mean more to us than intended.
2. Augustinian Original Sin (Imputed Guilt)
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—”
(Romans 5:12)
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) is generally credited as the first to clearly articulate this view, summarized as follows: Adam, as our representative, committed sin in the Garden of Eden. The guilt for this sin is imputed to all of his children, and consequently, every human being thereafter.
Assuming this to be true, Traducianism is the only way to keep God free of blame for the creation of sinful souls. Therefore, if Augustinian original sin (AOS) is true, Traducianism must be true. If it is not true, Traducianism could still be true, but the positive case is substantially weakened. I’m not going to go deeply into the arguments for and against inherited guilt, since I cannot do it justice here. (This is a helpful look at the subject.) I will suffice it to say that I side with the pre-Augustinian position of “ancestral sin.” Ancestral sin maintains that all humans are born with appetites for sin in their flesh, but their souls are innocent until they personally commit sin.
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
(Ezekiel 18:19-20)
If AOS is false, and either assumption around the Sabbath is false, we are left with little biblical basis for Traducianism.
One Last Biblical Argument?
“Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.”
(Hebrews 7:9-10)
This verse (and others similar) is perhaps the best remaining Scriptural evidence for Traducianism. Will Compere points out some significant issues that arise from this. First, if we are to believe that souls originate in the loins of male ancestors, we have a problem when paired with similar origin proof texts. He notes five other locations of origin:
- Adam’s soul is created by God. (Genesis 2:7)
- Eve’s soul is generated from Adam‘s rib. (2:21-22)
- Whole human beings derive from Eve. (3:20)
- Seth was derived from Adam’s likeness and image. (5:3)
- Souls derive from and are located in human blood. (Leviticus 17:11, Acts 17:26)
Compere points to another glaring issue with the “loins” view. Everyone has two grandparents. Does this mean our fathers carry half of our souls in their loins? We have two grandfathers, four great grandfathers, and eight great great grandfathers. Did they carry 1/8 of our souls in their loins? And we need to multiply everything by two if we are to square “fathers” with the standard Traducian view that the soul is created by father AND mother. Either one ancestor carries your soul and the others do not, or you must view the soul as something composed of parts. We have no problem as Christians affirming that our biology involves the combination of countless people throughout the ages, but it seems to be a very strange way to view the soul.
Add to this the very uncomfortable conclusion that if our souls were present in the loins of our male ancestors, then souls are pre-existent. Now, if every human soul was present in Adam, this might give some justification for the imputation of guilt since we were all present at the scene of the crime. However, that comes at the cost of embracing pre-existence, and possibly some kind of collective human conscience in Adam. I don't think any Traducian believer would affirm this, so it is probably not helpful for his case to take this route. A better option is simply to affirm, along with the Creationist, that “loins of his father” refers to biological ancestry.
Scriptural Support for Creationism
For the sake of brevity, I will focus on what I believe to be the five strongest texts in support of the creationist view. Beginning in the Old Testament:
1. “The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
(Job 33:4)
These words of Elihu, the friend of Job whose counsel notably goes unchallenged by God, suggests a similarity between the creation of Adam and the creation of himself. Just as Adam was physically formed by the Spirit of God, and just as God breathed life into him, so he also breathed life into Elihu. The implication is not that Elihu is a special case, but that we are similarly brought into existence by God.
2. “Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.”
(Ecclesiastes 12:6-7)
“Your Creator” implies God’s personal involvement in our creation. But most significantly, it is said that the spirit will “return to God who gave it.” You can’t return what was never given in the first place. Therefore, this is strong support that our souls come from God.
3. “For I will not contend forever, Nor will I always be angry; For the spirit would fail before Me, And the souls which I have made.”
(Isaiah 57:16)
“And the souls which I have made” is a strange thing for God to say if sinful human souls are responsible for creating sinful human souls.
4. “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?”
(Hebrews 12:9)
“Human fathers” are contrasted with the “Father of spirits.” If these terms mean anything, they must mean that the two are not the same. Therefore, Traducianism must be false.
5. “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.”
(Acts 17:24-29)
While Traducians point to verse 26 to make their case, the broader context of Paul’s message to the Athenians is devastating to their position. “He gives to all life, breath,” as verse 25 states, could be adapted to the Traducian view if such giving is understood in reference to God as the “Prime Mover.” This could carry into verse 26, where the entirety of the human race is formed from “one blood.” Of course, the Creationist doesn’t deny biological ancestry, so this works with either view. Where Traducianism falls apart is in the latter half of the verse and following. “And has determined their pre-appointed times” can work in two ways; 1) God has determined every detail of human history, therefore ensuring that you would be conceived at a specific time to specific parents, or 2) God has determined for you to exist at a specific time, but that could have been a different time to different parents. Option one could be true with either Traducianism or creationism, but option two could not be true with Traducianism. Therefore, Traducianism requires meticulous determinism to be true.
Consider how many variables had to be just right for your parents to meet and expand that outwards to your grandparents, great grandparents, and so on. Tracing that all the way back to the beginning, and you can see how staggeringly improbable your existence would be if you could only come to exist through your parents at the right time. No problem for the meticulous determinist, but this is an insurmountable problem for Traducians who affirm libertarian free will. Some Traducians are determinists, and won’t be fazed by this. The problem is, verse 27 becomes nonsensical if determinism is true. “In the hope that they might” strongly implies a variable outcome. Every individual could or could not seek for God and find Him. If meticulous determinism is true, God is not “hoping” for what he has determined will or will not happen. Therefore, if God’s placing of individuals in their place and time is because he is actually hoping it will lead them to seek Him and find Him, then meticulous determinism is false. And if meticulous determinism is false, Traducianism is incompatible with the preceding verses. Creationism is left standing. Which leads us to interpret “we are the offspring of God” in the following verses to be saying that God is the Creator of each and every human soul.
Advantages of Creationism
1. The Incarnation
Christians universally affirm that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary. Since Traducianism sees the soul as the product of the souls of both parents, this would mean that Jesus was dependent upon Mary for His existence. Half of His soul would come from Mary. He could not have been born to a different mother without being an entirely different person. There might be a way out by allowing Jesus to be a unique case, like Adam. To be fair, the Creationist must also except that Jesus is unique in that He is the pre-existing Son of God, the eternal Word of God. A key difference would be that for Traducianism, Mary would be unique in being the only mother in history who contributed nothing to the creation of her child’s soul. Creationists can still affirm that Mary contributed everything to Jesus that any mother can contribute to her child.
2. Anti-Abortion Arguments
In the article linked above, Tim Barnett argues that Creationism weakens the argument against abortion because one could suggest that the soul is created by God separately from the physical act of the parents. This would allow for its creation to occur anywhere between conception and “first breath” outside the womb. While it is true that a Creationist could hold such a view, it is also true that someone could hold a similar view as a Traducian. One could argue that the soul contributions of the parents emerge later on as the child develops, much like its nose or any of its physical traits do. What someone could believe is much less important than what they do believe. Creationists and Traducian believers usually agree that the soul is present at conception. So I see no advantage for Traducianism. In fact, I would argue that the Creationist has a stronger case against abortion.
Traducianism could give parents a stronger sense of rights to their children. If I am the child’s creator, I might feel justified in choosing whether or not it should be born. However, if it is God’s creation, I am a steward of the life He has placed in mine. God, as the Father of its soul, has the right to the life He has given.
Additionally, Creationists can rightfully claim that abortion is the taking of innocent life. Since Traducians usually affirm imputed guilt, every human life is on some level guilty of sin and deserving of death from the moment of conception. The Creationist can affirm that souls are absolutely innocent until they consciously choose to sin. The taking of innocent human life is the very height of injustice. Of course, even assuming imputed guilt, the child could not possibly be guilty of a crime against the mother, father, or anyone else, and is unjustly punished by the legal standards of our society. But the affirmation of absolute innocence of the victim makes abortion even more grievous. Therefore, while Traducians do have sufficient reasons for opposing abortion, Creationists who affirm that God creates human souls at conception have the strongest basis for defending the right to life.
3. Identity
The most crucial advantage of Creationism is the grounding of our identity as human beings created in the image of God. Most Traducians, who claim that our souls are made in the image of our parents, will also affirm that every individual is made in God’s image. The problem is that the image of our parents, when applied to the soul, greatly conflicts with the image of God. Some of us have wonderful parents, but many do not… or perhaps one parent is objectively bad. If Traducianism is true, the soul of the child cannot help but be defined by the sins of the parents.
Children naturally look to their parents to find their identity, but we ultimately discover that no human relationship can fulfill us. As Christians, we discover that our true identity is found in unity with God. As a Creationist, this makes perfect sense. We find ourselves when we find the One who created us as personal beings. We long to be united with our personal God. This gives hope to those who have suffered abuse, or whose parents were addicts, or criminals, or completely absent. It gives hope to those who were told by parents that they were an “accident,” or that they wish they were never born. It even gives hope to those, like myself, whose parents were pretty great overall, yet flawed in their own ways. We are not defined by the circumstances of our birth, yet our Creator has chosen those circumstances as a means to draw us to Himself. None of us are accidents. We are all here because God wants us here.
Creationism gives us the best reason to believe that our lives have purpose and meaning and value. Each of us, by virtue of the fact that we exist, are a testament to the fact that our Creator is alive and active in our world today. Life truly is a miracle!
