speratus asks: Since God is not the author of evil, would you say God creates morally neutral souls who become totally and equally corrupt due to the covenant relationship between Adam and his posterity? Is there an order of corruption?
As you know Creationism is the view that each individual soul is to be regarded as an immediate creation of God—owing its origin to a direct creative act of God. The soul is supposed created pure, but united with a depraved body. This need not necessarily mean that the soul is created first in separation from the body and then polluted by being brought into contact with the body—which would assume that sin is something physical. It may simply mean that the soul, though called into being by the immediate and creative act of God, yet is preformed in the physical life of the foetus, that is, the life of the parents, and thus acquires its life not above and outside of, but, under and in, that complex of sin by which humanity as a whole is burdened.
Would you say God uses human means to effect His decree (transmission of original sin to Adam's progeny)? There does seem to be an order of corruption, whether chronological or logical, in your approach. The pure soul somehow acquires the guilt of original sin.
In an earlier thread, Pilgrim postulates that God could create a depraved soul. Asked " is there anything inconsistent with God immediately creating a depraved soul as part of the curse?"
Quote
Pilgrim replies Sticky wicket, that question is! I could easily answer yes as well as no. I tend to side on the "no" side, i.e., there is nothing inconsistent with God creating a depraved soul. This is how I would justify that. Since all ex nihilo creation has ceased, anything which is brought forth is from something already existent, either in form or relational. We all, being part of the human race; from Adam, inherit something from our predecessors. But what about the soul? To this I cannot comment as this would tread upon the "mystery" of the origin of the soul, which I have already stated, is beyond my comprehension. But as to the ethics of the question, again, I see no violation of God's justice nor holiness if, in fact, He does create a soul in a corrupt state. It certainly does no violation to the freedom of man, since from the Fall, the guilt incurred by Adam is imputed to all. And, as part of that Original Sin, the corruption of nature was part of the just punishment of God. Thus, for God to create a soul which is depraved, then He is only doing that which He Himself judged to be righteous.
Quote
J Edwards addsNotes from Berkhof’s ST. You need to purchase this book!
Berkhof is on my shopping list, as well as Gerhard who favored Traducianism and Chemnitz who considered the controversary an open question.
Quote
Chemnitz, Loci, I, “De Peccato Originis,” ed. 1599, I, 567 sqq. ..let us learn from this example to cut short, piously, firmly, and in well-founded simplicity, these subtle disputations which endanger faith. As to the causa efficiens [of original sin], it is sufficient to know that the fall of our first parents justly resulted in this, that they transmitted to all their offspring the very same nature, both as to body and as to soul, as was theirs after the Fall. In what manner, however, the soul contracts this evil, faith can safely ignore, because the Holy Spirit did not want to make it known to us through certain and clear Scripture testimonies.
