Meaningful Music #3: Father of Mine by Everclear

This past Sunday, I celebrated Father’s Day a week early with my dad, and thanked him for being present in my life. Sadly, so many children grow up without their fathers, and their absence is devastating. “Father of Mine” by Everclear is a first person account of the damage inflicted on a child whose “daddy gave me a name, then he walked away.”

Singer Art Alexakis was six years old when his parents divorced. His mother raised him, and he rarely saw his father. He was old enough to remember his father being there as he recalls:

“Take me back to the day

Yeah, when I was still your golden boy

Back before you went away

I remember blue skies, walking the block

I loved it when you held me high, I loved to hear you talk

You would take me to the movie

You would take me to the beach

Take me to a place inside that is so hard to reach”

The song begins with the traumatic moment when he was abandoned.

“You know I just closed my eyes

My whole world disappeared”

In the second verse, Alexakis delivers a scathing rebuke:

“Father of mine 

Tell me, where did you go?

Yeah, you had the world inside your hand

But you did not seem to know

Father of mine

Tell me, what do you see?

When you look back at your wasted life

And you don't see me”

He goes on to describe how hard it was for him to be without his protector:

“I was ten years old doin' all that I could

Wasn't easy for me to be a scared white boy in a black neighborhood”

The ways his father attempted to be a part of his life were grossly insufficient.

“Sometimes you would send me a birthday card with a five dollar bill

Yeah, I never understood you then and I guess I never will”

The third and final verse hits hardest, as Alexakis bares his soul, describing the damage done:

“I will never be safe

I will never be sane

I will always be weird inside

I will always be lame”

Yet, through the pain he has experienced, he has learned for himself what it truly means to be a father. It means being present to protect and guide your child through the years as they grow and face challenges. It means being someone they know will always love them.

“Now I'm a grown man

With a child of my own

And I swear, I'm not gonna let her know

All the pain I have known”

This is what truly makes “Father of Mine” so meaningful. Alexakis could sit with his sorrow and anger and lash out at the world, but he fights back against the evil he endured with a dedication to do what is good out of love for his own child. He desires to do what is right and by expressing this in song, encourages others who have similarly suffered to devote themselves to the responsibility to love and care for their children.

More Meaningful Music:

1. "The End of the Innocence" by Don Henley

2. "Neon Gravestones" by Twenty One Pilots

Meaningful Music #2: Neon Gravestones by Twenty One Pilots

Many songs have been written over the years about struggles with depression or the grief that follows when someone has taken their own life. “Neon Gravestones” stands apart for how it critically evaluates the way our culture treats the subject of “self-deletion.” Tyler Joseph and Josh Dun of alternative rap duo, Twenty One Pilots, call out subtle deception with defiant resistance. 

The Problem

“And my problem?

We glorify those even more when they...”

“We” refers to the leaders of the culture, the influencers, whether that be celebrities or the media. Tyler and Josh are aware that they are highly influential, especially with youth, so they include themselves here. The problem is that, whether intentionally or not, the influencers have collectively glorified suicide. That word, or any of its synonyms, never appears in this song, and that is clearly intentional. As they want to emphasize , they are “just pleading that ‘it’ does not get glorified.”

“Neon gravestones” represent the glamorization of self-inflicted death. They appear beautiful and tempting, but they are a deception. 

“What's my problem?

Don't get it twisted

It's with the people we praise who may have assisted”

This song is not meant to be an indictment of those who have taken their own lives, but rather of those who have communicated that “an earlier grave is an optional way.” 

The Temptation 

“I could give up, and boost up my reputation

I could go out with a bang, they would know my name

They would host and post a celebration”

As a famous musician, Tyler Joseph confesses that it is tempting to truly make a name for himself by taking his own life at the height of his fame. He could be “legendary,” like others before him who have gone that route. If he dies a natural death much later in life, it will go unnoticed by most, and only those who truly love him will care. 

“Promise me this

If I lose to myself

You won't mourn a day

And you'll move onto someone else”

Joseph urges us to not reward him if he should give in to the temptation. It is better that he should be forgotten. The phrase, “lose to myself” is meant to convey that giving in is failure. It is not heroic. It should not be celebrated. While it may be unrealistic to ask his fans to not mourn in such a situation, this can be seen as him wanting an easier way forward. The thought of millions of people mourning for him could feed his pride and be his own “neon gravestone.” If he knew that wouldn’t happen, perhaps he wouldn’t be so strongly tempted. 

Resistance 

“Neon gravestones try to call for my bones

But they won't get them

No, they won't get them”

Joseph is defiant against the cultural pressures. He has decided he will not let the enemy win!

“And could it be true that some could be tempted

To use this mistake as a form of aggression

A form of succession, a form of a weapon

Thinking "I'll teach them, " well, I'm refusing the lesson”

The message communicated by cultural elites is dangerous, and the young are especially vulnerable. Joseph is taking a stand for himself, but also for his listeners, that they will not be deceived. By calling attention to this battle, and by choosing his side, he is empowering others to join him. Together, we will resist the temptation and fight for our own lives and the lives of others, because life itself is worth fighting for!

“Find your grandparents or someone of age

Pay some respects for the path that they paved

To life they were dedicated

Now, that should be celebrated!”

How do we show our defiance? We celebrate life itself in the midst of a culture of death. We choose to live, and we give honor to those who have shown us how to do so. They are the ones we ought to look up to. If we exchange our defeated heroes for those who never stopped fighting, we can likewise learn to fight every temptation to give up and give in. 

Conclusion 

As one of the most influential artists for young people today, it is greatly encouraging that Twenty One Pilots are using their platform to promote positive, life-affirming messages. “Neon Gravestones” is just one of a growing catalog of meaningful songs they have written that are making a difference in people’s lives. More of this, please!

More Meaningful Music:

1. "The End of the Innocence" by Don Henley

Meaningful Music #1: The End of the Innocence by Don Henley

To inaugurate this series, I can think of no song more personally appropriate than “The End of the Innocence.” This is where my love for music was truly born. 

It was the summer of 1989. I just suffered my first panic attack after my parents convinced me to ride the “parachute ride” at Knotts Berry Farm in Southern California. That event would lead to countless episodes of crippling situational anxiety, which occur to this day. Soon after, I remember going clothes shopping for “back to school,” and hearing a beautiful song with an intriguing piano hook being played from the speakers of that department store. I didn’t comprehend the meaning at the time, but I could tell it was meaningful.

“Remember when the days were long
And rolled beneath a deep blue sky
Didn't have a care in the world
With mommy and daddy standing by”

Growing up in what I will call a “moderately fundamentalist” home, rock music, even Christian rock, was a no-no. Flashback five years prior, my three older brothers and I took an interest in watching the music video show on our local TV station. I know it must’ve been 1984 because both Van Halen’s and The Pointer Sisters’  songs called “Jump” were in the rotation. We all seemed to enjoy it, but my Dad gave us a talk one day about how sinful it was to listen to those songs. Going forward, I carried my Dad’s conviction that this music was wicked and remember throwing a fit a few years later when I rode home from church one day with my oldest brothers while they listened to a secular pop rock station. But something changed that day in the department store. This wasn’t “sex, drugs, and rock & roll.” This was moving. This wasn’t hedonistic or devil-worshiping. This was meaningful music!

“When happily ever after fails
And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales”

While “The End of the Innocence” doesn’t really “rock,” it opened my mind to the possibility that there could be good songs in popular music. I had enjoyed what I grew up with, but this was the first time I had really loved music.

In retrospect, “The End…” was the perfect song to represent what was happening in this moment of my life. As children, we look up to our parents in a way that is unrealistic. We trust their every word. I believed my parents were right in all that they taught me. My parents were right that I was physically safe on the parachute ride. Unfortunately, they were wrong in assuring me that I would be OK. The myth of parental infallibility died that day, and the door was opened to question what I was told.

In Christian tradition, it is often believed that children become accountable for their sins around the age of 12 or 13, and I happened to be 12 when this all took place. The innocence of childhood had been shattered by the effects of a sin-fallen world as experienced through the evil of psychological trauma. In its place was the forming of my own identity, shaped by my upbringing, but differentiated. I was becoming my own person.

“But somewhere back there in the dust
That same small town in each of us”

As I reflect on this time in my life, I do not hold any resentment towards my parents. I could take the uncharitable route and blame them for mistakes they made. I could assume the worst intentions in those areas where we disagree. Or I can recognize that they wanted what is best for me, and made choices they believed were in my best interest. It is in my best interest to step outside my comfort zone. It’s tragic that I was traumatized by something most people would not be bothered by, and they could not have known that was a danger in my case. I also want my son to be brave and try things that are a little scary. 

As for the warnings against popular music, I can see the wisdom in that as well, even if I have taken a different approach. I cannot deny that much of popular music is corrupt, and the industry itself promotes all sorts of wickedness for profit. The same is true of the entertainment industry more broadly. The difference between myself and my parents is that the approach they would take towards movies and television, by judging each work individually and finding value in those that have good messages overall, I have also applied to music. Do I find value in an artist’s work, even if I don’t approve of every lyric they have written or everything they say or do away from their music? Often times, yes. It’s OK to judge each work on a case-by-case basis. I don’t have to endorse Don Henley’s politics or personal behavior to be able to say that this song has brought something beautiful into my life, and I am thankful for it!

While my love for “The End of the Innocence” didn’t translate to a love for all things Don Henley, I would very soon after discover “Another Day in Paradise” by Phil Collins. That song would develop into a love for Phil’s music, and especially for Genesis, who would become my favorite band and influence my musical taste more than any other artist.

Will Jesus Save All Infants?

In the online world of theological debate, everyone is talking about “infant damnation.” This is in response to the “#baalgate” controversy, in which Warren McGrew (aka “Idol Killer”) compared the mentality of those who hold this doctrine to that of ancient pagan worshipers of Baal who offered their babies as sacrifices in exchange for their own rewards. His comments were taken by many Calvinists as a slam against Calvinism in general, though he has clarified that he was speaking only of those who also affirm infant damnation. Regardless of whether or not his comparison is valid, the spotlight is shining on this important, yet highly unpleasant topic. While most contemporary Calvinists outright reject infant damnation, some, including one of McGrew’s most vocal critics, James White, affirm it to one degree or another. Why would anyone support such a troubling doctrine? Why is this even a question? 

Historical Background 

The doctrine of infant damnation is inseparably tied to the doctrine of original sin, which can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.). Prior to Augustine, all orthodox Christians agreed that each and every human being suffers the consequences of Adam’s sin, which are a natural bent towards sin and, ultimately, death. This view is commonly referred to as “ancestral sin.” What makes original sin distinct is the added imputation of guilt for all humanity thereafter. All of Adam and Eve’s children, and all children thereafter, were then conceived with his willful sin attributed to their account, and thus they are justly deserving of eternal punishment. This view is echoed by 18th century preacher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards: 

“It is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments.” 

For Augustine, water baptism was necessary to wash away original sin for each and every person, infants included. Without baptism, the soul would certainly be punished in hell for all eternity. This became the predominant view within the Roman Catholic Church, at least until limbo emerged as a more gracious alternative. “Limbo of the infants” can be defined as an eternal state for those who did not personally commit sin, but also did not receive baptism for the removal of original sin. Opinions have varied through the ages, with some proposing it as a mild form of punishment. Others, such as Thomas Aquinas, suggested that it is experienced by inhabitants as a place of everlasting joy, while they remain ignorant of the greater joy of heaven. In any case, limbo is a permanent state. Such a “middle place” was previously condemned by Augustine:

“…let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness…”

In the past few centuries, many Catholic theologians have expressed hope that even unbaptized infants could be saved. In 2007, the International Theological Commission, under Pope John Paul II, release the document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” It reads: 

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.”

While landing short of affirming the salvation of all infants, this represents considerable movement in that direction since Augustine. It is worth noting that no view regarding the eternal destiny of infants has ever been made official Catholic doctrine, which has allowed for this shift. However, the affirmation of the necessity of baptism into the Catholic Church has been consistent.

On the Protestant side, it has always been a question of Heaven or hell with no third option. While reformers such as Calvin and Luther echoed Augustine in regard to God’s justice in damning all humans souls to hell, they also maintained that God has the right to choose to save whoever He pleases. As such, the vast majority of Protestants have maintained that at least some infants who die are saved. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states: 

“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ.” (10.3)

Many Calvinistic Protestants insist this doesn’t imply that there are reprobate infants who are cast into hell, but the wording leaves room for most adherents of infant damnation to affirm the statement.

Calvinists divide into at least four camps. Most believe God elect all infants to salvation by appealing to the goodness of God’s grace. Loraine Boettner says: 

“The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen.”

Some Calvinists believe that God elects some infants and not others irrespective of their parents, just as he elects and reprobates all people for no reason in and of themselves. Others believe that the children of believers are counted as elect, while those of unbelievers are not. A very small minority believe all infants are punished eternally in hell. (Yes, they do exist) What unites all Calvinists is that salvation is not granted on the basis of faith. 

Arminians and other non-Calvinistic Protestants have the challenge of showing how God can grant salvation to those who haven’t yet placed their faith in Christ. To justify universal infant salvation, most simply appeal to the goodness of God. The only way around this would be to allow for the possibility of postmortem salvation. If infants could be given a chance to mature and place their faith in Christ, then no exceptions would need to be made. A small minority of Protestants have presented postmortem opportunity for salvation as a way in which many could be saved. Among them are C.S. Lewis, and more recently, Jerry Walls. 

Weighing Our Options 

For all our differences, it is interesting how most Christians across denominations seem to be converging on this issue from a variety of angles. That being said, there remains no consensus. From what I’ve observed, there are seven ways Christians have answered the question, “What happens to babies when they die?” What are the pros and cons for each position? Allow me to present and critique each.

Universal Damnation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy, suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This view is consistent in that it upholds that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ alone. Since infants have not come to understand the Gospel and respond in faith, they have not obtained salvation. This also upholds the universal need for a Savior.

Cons: It is simply unfathomable that the same God revealed in Jesus Christ would condemn billions of children throughout history to eternal punishment without any ability to commit personal sin, or to trust Him to forgive them of such sins they have yet to commit. This view presents God as having the opposite posture towards children as that of Jesus in Scriptures such as Mark 10:14 and Matthew 18:2-6. Also, the Holy Spirit-led conscience of believers cries out against this. It would seem that for this to be true, the Trinity would be hopelessly divided.

Covenantal Election of Infants

Summary: Children of the elect are saved. The rest suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: Comfort can be given to Christian parents who grieve the loss of a child. King David can be cited as an example of one who would be reunited with his child in eternity. One might also point to the conversion of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-40, most notably verse 31: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Cons: In addition to those of #1, this view lacks consistency in a number of ways. First, it creates a class of “elect” who die without professing faith in Christ. Salvation cannot be through “faith alone” unless this is coupled with the belief in postmortem salvation. Once postmortem salvation becomes a possibility, why then should that be limited to those children with elect parents? Second, how do we suppose that salvation is transferred from parents to children? Can it be father or mother, or must both parents be saved? What if they aren’t believers when the child is conceived, but one or both become believers later in life, after the infant dies? Also, if salvation is transferred, how would it be lost if the child survives to an age that he or she rejects Christ? This distinctly Calvinistic version of infant damnation would have to either reject the Perseverance of the Saints or conclude that salvation was never transferred from the parents. The most glaring issue for the Calvinist is that election based upon the faith of the parents is conditional election.

Unconditional Election of Infants

Summary: Elect children are saved irrespective of their parents. All other children suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This seems to me to be the most consistently Calvinistic position. There is truly nothing in the child upon which God bases his decision to save. Election is unconditional. The remaining children are left to the eternal consequences of their sinful state.

Cons: Like #2, salvation cannot be said to be through “faith alone” unless there is postmortem opportunity for salvation. Also, this is not comforting for grieving Christian parents. If most adults are not saved believers, certainly most infants would also not be saved, since God saves infants in the same manner as adults. Moral objections to #1 also apply here.

Damnation of Unbaptized Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All others who die without baptism suffer eternal punishment.

Pros: This is a very clear method for knowing if your child is saved. If your child has been baptized, you are assured they are saved if they should die in infancy.

Cons: This does nothing to comfort those who have suffered miscarriages or whose child died before he or she could be baptized. While eternal punishment may be of a lighter form than for adults who added their own personal sin, the implications are still awful for the majority of infants who have died throughout history. From a Protestant perspective, it is easy to see how this can create a system rife for abuse. Since salvation can only be obtained through baptism into the Roman Catholic Church, believers can also have their salvation revoked by the same authority. 

Limbo of the Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All other infants who die remain in limbo for all eternity.

Pros: Children don’t suffer eternal punishment. This middle ground seems more just in that God is neither rewarding with Heaven nor punishing with hell those who have not done anything to deserve either.

Cons: While this offers some consolation, parents are still left grieving the loss of their unbaptized children for all eternity. They have no hope of being reunited. The default position of humans then is to remain lost, and that is a troubling conclusion when considering the salvific work of Jesus. Is He the Savior of all humanity from conception or just a portion? While God may show them mercy, it seems there is no salvific grace for those who die too young, through no fault of their own.

Universal Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are saved.

Pros: This is truly good news for all parents who grieve the loss of infants, and for the children themselves. The heart of Jesus for children we see in the Gospels is consistent with the gracious gift of salvation for those who have suffered the consequences of sin without personally committing sin.

Cons: As with the previous options, other than universal damnation, salvation is not through “faith alone” since infants are incapable of consciously placing faith in Christ. Thus, the standard for receiving the gift of eternal life is inconsistent across the human race. This may not be a dealbreaker in itself, but it is especially problematic for the Reformed. Central to Calvinism is Unconditional Election. If all who die as infants are saved, how is this not a condition for salvation? For God to say, “You died as an infant. Therefore, I will save you,” is a very clear example of God choosing to save an individual with respect to something about that individual. While most Calvinists today believe all infants who die are saved, they do so in a way that undermines Calvinism.

Postmortem Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are given the postmortem opportunity to express faith in Christ and be saved.

Pros: In addition to upholding the goodness of God and Trinitarian unity in the welcoming of children, this position also has the advantage of a consistent standard of salvation through faith in Christ alone. There would be no theoretical case of a child being welcomed into Heaven while refusing to worship Christ as Lord. 

Cons: There is no guarantee that all infants would willingly place their faith in Christ. Here is where our views on the created state of human souls will make a huge difference. If souls are created in a fallen, totally depraved state, then it would seem that they would universally reject Christ postmortem, just as they would in this life. However, if souls are created innocent, and not in a hardened state of rebellion against God, it would seem quite likely that most, if not all, would willingly receive the offer of salvation in Christ. So our views on original sin will determine whether we think this will result in some infants being damned. Perhaps the greatest challenge for this view is the lack of clear biblical support. Hebrews 9:27 is often cited as evidence against postmortem opportunities, though it must be interpreted in an absolute, immediate, and final sense to rule them out.

Where I Stand 

As children often repeat in Sunday school, “God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good!” Do we as Christians sincerely believe this? Do we believe what Jesus said about children?

“Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19:13-14)

Considering the goodness of God and his love for children, the only good options are #6 and #7. In years past, I would have ruled out the possibility of postmortem salvation, but I lean towards that view now, especially as I consider how it can resolve all of these difficulties. The words of Jesus, counter to Augustinian anthropology, suggest that children are predisposed to believe. He cites them as possessing the kind of faith we should all desire to have. It is only as we grow older that we can become cynical and jaded. Thus, hearts become hardened. They don’t begin that way. For this reason, I am convinced that all infants, given the opportunity by Christ Himself to place their faith in Him, will do so. 

This could even make sense of the Catholic conviction concerning baptism. If infants have the opportunity to grow enough to place their faith in Christ, it’s no stretch to imagine that they might also have the opportunity to be baptized in a temporary dwelling place prior to entering the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. 

I am not convinced that Hebrews 9:27 rules out postmortem opportunities, and I do think that Scripture teaches of the “Harrowing of Hell” in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6. In these verses, it seems that Peter is teaching that Jesus preached the Gospel to lost souls in Hades while He was bodily in the grave prior to His resurrection. If I am interpreting 4:6 correctly, Jesus was giving these people the opportunity to receive Him as Savior or be judged for their sins in their rejection. There are alternate theories to explain these verses, but I believe this makes the most sense, and is consistent with the expressed desire of God to save each and every person (see 2 Peter 3:9). If God was willing to give wicked sinners another chance to believe and be saved, why wouldn’t He give innocent children that opportunity?

Logically, it would seem that some form of postmortem faith in Christ is necessary for any view where infants are saved. Faith can only be exercised by those who have developed the maturity to understand and believe, and it seems reasonable to assume that infants in the afterlife will not remain infants forever. So the question then is WHEN do they express faith in Christ: before or after they enter Heaven? Additionally, evidences from near death experiences suggest that individuals who have died as infants are present, and they mature in the afterlife. Of course, NDEs are controversial, and it’s debated whether they say anything about eternity. I believe they make a compelling case for postmortem opportunities, but that’s a topic for another day.

Some might object that if infants are not personally guilty of sin then they do not need a Savior. Infants have not sinned, but those who died suffered the consequences nonetheless. Is their suffering in vain? Will those who suffered the cruel injustice of abortion be vindicated, or will such evil remain eternally victorious? Everyone needs a Savior because everyone dies. Only Jesus has the power to raise us up out of our graves. 

I am convinced that the Good News of the Gospel is for all of the human race. Jesus has redeemed the totality of mankind. It is only those who willfully reject Him that will not receive His salvation. It is never a matter of Him first rejecting us. Whether it’s through an act of instantaneous transformation, or the grace to simply allow these souls to choose life with Jesus, I cannot know for certain, but I can be sure that our God loves these infants. He sympathizes with their suffering, and will call them to Himself with His arms stretched out to receive them.

And what a glorious reunion that will be for those of us who have lost a child so young! Many of us have experienced the sorrow of miscarriage, and never had the joy of meeting our child face-to-face. Yet something within our souls knows that this isn’t the end. We will meet them someday, and we will never again have to say goodbye.

Concluding Thoughts 

Looking back on the history of infant damnation within Christendom has left me with conflicted emotions. On one hand, I am saddened to see how pervasive this doctrine has been throughout the centuries. On the other hand, I am greatly encouraged that the Holy Spirit is at work, pricking the conscience of believers to a place where we can all hope for the salvation of “the little ones.” We are, slowly but surely, being brought into conformity with Christ.

Who Gave Me My Soul? (Traducianism vs Creationism)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. 
4. 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 

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 

(Exodus 20:11)

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:

1. Adam’s soul is created by God. (Genesis 2:7)
2. Eve’s soul is generated from Adam‘s rib. (2:21-22)
3. Whole human beings derive from Eve. (3:20)
4. Seth was derived from Adam’s likeness and image. (5:3)
5. Souls derive from and are located in human blood. (Leviticus 17:11, Acts 17:26)

While #1 and #2 would be special cases, adding the “loins of his father” view leaves us with four differing locations. Such inconsistencies reveal that it is best not to view these texts as equally pertaining to the soul’s origin. 

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!