The Concept of Human Personhood
__________________
A Position Paper
Presented to
Dr. Bruce Ware
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for 27070A
__________________
by
Ovidiu Cristian Simon
osimon039@students.sbts.edu
April 27, 2016
Issue
One of the great truths of the
Christian faith that we see at work all around us is that ideas have
consequences, and ideas are not something that humans lack. They can actually
be taken as a proof of the fact that humans are created in God’s image, being
very inventive, always trying to create new things. Unfortunately, man’s mind tainted
by sin, comes up with ideas that are not always great. As Christianity fades
away from our culture, the ideas are getting worse and worse but no matter
what, ideas have a knack for making their way from mind to culture. Ironically,
when people who see themselves as the center of the universe create ideas that
reach the culture, the consequences prove to be disastrous for humanity itself,
and at the same time dishonoring to God.
I firmly believe that consequences
we see manifested today, such as abortion, euthanasia, or experimenting with
human embryos, are all coming out of a wrong understanding of the human
personhood. In this position paper I will argue the fact that every human
being, regardless of their state of development, their capacity to survive or
their usefulness to society, is a person created in the image of God, having a
body and a soul which they “inherited” from their parents at the moment of
conception. This view is classically known as Traducianism. I will argue this
view by way of exegesis in key biblical passages and by discussing and showing
the fallacies of other views such as the naturalistic view of the human
personhood, the pre-existentianism of the soul, and the creationist view.
Positions on the issue
Probably the most damaging view to the dignity of the human
personhood is the naturalistic view of the human being, namely the concept that
man is a monistic being that only has a body, nothing more than a glorified
animal.
According to this view, man was not created with a specific
purpose by a divine creator in his own image, but his existence is owed
entirely to chance. Scientists that promote this view tell us that the world
came into existence approximately 14 billion years ago through a big explosion
otherwise known as the Big Bang. After a few billion years, the earth started
to form, and after some more time passed the first living cell had come into
existence, formed out of the dust of the earth under conditions that made it
possible[1]. This
first living cell survived by being able to reproduce itself and through random
changes, the DNA of later forms has increased leading it to various species,
and eventually, after millions of years the first man was fully evolved, again,
with the capacity to reproduce and survive.
Speaking of human beings, Lawrence Kraus, an atheist
professor of physics said that
The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came
from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from
a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I
know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t
exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the
things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time.
They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could
get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget
Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.[2]
Being
only dust that has taken a specific shape – even the best shape out of all -
through random chances, we can see how the value of the human life all of a
sudden has no meaning. If there is no soul there, no eternal part, even our
emotions and our deepest longings are reduced to nothing more than simple
chemical reactions that could just as well not happen, or could be changed
through other chemicals. When it comes to euthanasia, this view has no
consistent reason for why we should not
be stopping some chemical reactions from happening. The only difference between
a living body and a dead one is the fact that these reactions are happening in
one and not in the other. But chemical reactions are also happening in test
tubes, so if we want to just entertain ourselves by them this might be a
cheaper way to do it.
The
same reasoning applies when it comes to testing on human embryos, or even adult
humans for that matter. What is the problem with reshaping this star dust a
little? After all, a little creativity has hurt no one, and since the survival
of the fittest has brought us here, we might want to just learn how to become
even fitter. Abortion is also the product of the same reasoning. Everyday
people are throwing out trash that is made out of start dust, trash that would
otherwise become very inconvenient. Thinking this way offers no reason for not
disposing of those embryos as well, and the fact that there is no eternal soul
to any of these nicely shaped packages of star dust, there should be no regrets
when we are disposing of them either, they are just going back into
nothingness.
A different view on the
transmission of the souls has started with the ancient philosopher Plato, and
it is called pre-existentianism. The conclusions that Plato drew without having
God’s revelation are simply astounding. From his discussion about the world of
the forms, to the knowledge innate to us from birth, to the reward in the
afterlife, all lead us to conclude that he was a very thoughtful man that
understood a lot of things rightly (or at least partially). Plato also argued
for the immortality of the soul, but unfortunately he put it in the context of
reincarnation, setting a doctrine that has been followed by many after him.
Talking about this through the voice of Socrates in his Republic, he said that
“the souls must always be the same, for if
none be destroyed they will not diminish in number. Neither will they increase,
for the increase of the immortal natures must come from something mortal, and
all things would thus end in immortality.”[3] To
further argue this he used the analogy of sleep, saying that just as sleep
comes after being awake and being awake comes after being asleep, so does death
comes after being alive and life comes after being dead.
The
eastern monistic pantheism worldview has developed along similar thought
patterns, adding the fact that whatever state one is in is a matter of his
karma. This is probably the most dangerous kind of thinking when it comes to
the value of the human life from the perspective of reincarnation. Since one’s
karma dictates what he will be in this life based on the good he has done in
the previous one, there is no desire of others to change someone current state
of living, no matter how bad it might be. One must suffer through that life in
order to have a better one in the future. The only thing that makes this
thinking better than the naturalist’s is that this one does not usually
advocate for euthanasia or abortion, although when this happens they do not
condemn it harshly (like when some Hindu wives are killed at the husbands
funeral).
Furthermore, Mormons believe in
pre-existentianism as well. Preaching about this subject, Joseph Smith said
that “there never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal
with our Father in heaven.”[4]
However, when it comes to issues of euthanasia or abortion, Mormons see life as
a precious gift from God that cannot be taken by us, but must be preserved and
defended. Still, I do not believe that their theology provides a good basis for
defending life because it does not see it as the only and crucial chance to
make matters right with God by trusting in Jesus while here on earth.
Whatever the case might be, I
think we can clearly perceive that once we leave this door open and we think
that the life we live on earth is not the first nor the last one here, then
life on earth all of a sudden becomes something significantly less valuable
than it is from the Christian worldview perspective. If you have endless
chances to make things right, endless chances to live the best life possible,
if the life a person lives here on earth is not the only chance he gets to meet
with God and find salvation, why would it matter if any of those lives are cut
short by euthanasia or abortion? Even more, why would we not abort a child or
kill a person if their future does not look very bright? In fact, we can argue
that we actually help that baby by giving its soul the chance to be born into a
richer family with better chances for success. We are actually helping that
dying old man by releasing him from that body and giving his soul the chance to
inhabit a new one.
As the final opposing view to
consider in this portion of the paper, Roman Catholicism presents the soul’s
transmission in terms of creationism. Although it is called Roman Catholic,
this view is nonetheless held by many orthodox Christians and it has a very
strong scriptural support.
What this view basically suggests
is that God creates each individual soul at the moment of conception of each
first human cell and unites that soul with that first cell. A very strong
scriptural support for this opinion comes from verses like Ecclesiastes 12:7 or
Isaiah 42:5, verses that clearly affirm the fact that God gave the spirit to
the body. This debate is actually an in-house debate between genuine Christians
with slightly different views, and proponents of creationism fight just as
ardently against the evils of abortion, euthanasia and experimenting with human
genomes as any other Christians who understand what is at stake. Seeing a
person as purposefully designed and created by God in His providence in His own
image definitely helps when trying to establish the value of a person. Whether
it would be by this model that souls are created or by the model that I am
proposing, when we see God in His infinite wisdom as the one working to form a
person, then we dare not tamper with his doing. This is the reason why
Catholics, although they are so different from us on important issues related
to soteriology, are still willing to be engaged in the same anti-abortion war
that we are fighting in as well.
What this view cannot account for
is the way sin is inherited by that soul. If God created the soul at conception
and God only creates good things, how does sin taint that soul? We rightly
believe that the soul is the moral part of a person that does the sinning even
when it is helped by the body, but if the soul starts as being good, then we
should credit the inheriting of a sinful nature to the body. In this case, we
risk falling into other ancient heresies that equate the body as evil and the
soul as good[5]. For
further consideration, I think we can find a better model in Scripture that
accounts for the transmission of the soul, and we will turn to it next.
Support for my position
As previously mentioned, the
position I will be supporting in this paper is known as Traducianism. The
etymology of this word is from the Latin traduco, a word that means to
pass, or to transfer. Thus, what this word implies when it comes to our conversation
is the fact that the human soul is passed or transferred, inherited from the
parents of one person. The soul did not preexist in eternity past; it did not
inhabit a different body previously; it was not created by God at the moment of
conception, but rather, God created human beings in such a way that they are
able to produce new souls along with the bodies of new persons. They are able
to be “fruitful and multiply” after their “own kind”. These new souls are thus
transferred from the parents (both bringing their equal share) to the
children.
Genesis 2:7 presents God creating man in His
own image by breathing
“into his nostrils the breath of life”. The Bible does not record this sort of
activity happening anywhere else but here. Actually, after God created
everything (including man), He finished. His creation was over and He rested
from His work. The activity that took place in the six days of creation was
unique, never to happen the same way again. God was done creating a “very good”
creation (Genesis 1:31), and He is now in the business of sustaining it “by the
Word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3).
Wayne
Grudem[6]
argues that the likeness of God in which man is created could include, among
others, the ability to create other human beings like him. Since we are all
made in the image of our ancestors (Genesis 5:3) who go all the way back to
Adam who was made in the image of God, we ourselves can still claim that we are
created in the image of God. We are “God’s offspring” as Paul famously argued
with the Athenians (Acts 17:29). This makes us no less valuable in God’s sight
than Adam himself.
Another
good argument for this view comes from Psalm 51, a psalm that talks about the
way people inherit sin. David argues here that he was a sinner at birth, indeed,
even conceived in sin. These verses could only make sense if David inherited
the sin nature from his parents. Consider this. If God only creates good
things, then the newly created soul must be inherently good. If David
originally had a “clean slate”, if he was an immaculate new soul which God only
counts as guilty by imputing to it Adam’s sin, why would David say then that he
was conceived in sin? He said it because he knew that he did not only inherit
guilt from Adam, but that “even from the womb” people “go astray” (Psalm 58:3).
He inherited Adam’s sinful nature. If people were merely guilty, as the
creationist view seems to imply, there would be no explanation for the sin that
happens so early in a child’s life. This could make sense though if the child
possesses a sin nature, a nature that loves to sin, a nature inherited from the
fallen Adam. Again, as argued in the first sections of this paper, if we want
to account sin to the body only, then this would lead us back into old heresies
that considered the body as evil and the soul as good. We do not want to go
there! The Bible clearly states that the soul is the morally accountable part
of a person. The souls of sinful people are now punished in Hell for sins. The
body might facilitate our sin, but it is not the one responsible for it.
The
Traducianist view on the transmission of the soul also makes sense when we
think of the different passages in the Bible that tell us about a descendant
that was present in his ancestor at a specific point in time when he was not
yet conceived. This does not mean that he preexisted, but that the makings of
him were present there. For example, in Hebrews 7:9-10 we find Levi was “in the
loins” of his ancestor Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek. Levi was the great
grandson of Abraham, but he was not born yet when Abraham payed these tithes.
In fact, not even Abraham’s son Isaac was born at this time. Yet they were
present there because the one whom they would inherit, in whose likeness they
would eventually be made was there. We might not know exactly how this
functions, but we do have to believe it is so since the Bible affirms it.
Furthermore,
we find in Scripture the fact that God “visits” the sins of the parents on the
children for a few generations (Number 14:18). This cannot mean that God is
punishing the children for the sins of the parents of which they themselves are
not responsible. In other places, the Bible clearly teaches that “the soul who
sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). God is committed to justice and does not
punish a person for another one’s sin. Yet, we do see here that children
inherit so much of the character of their parents that many times they fall
into the exact same sins, sins that “run in the family”. At any point in time,
these children can repent and stop this chain, but by seeing the matter from
this perspective, we can better understand how God can visit the sins of the
parents on the children.
Traducianism
is also evident with other character traits that are not necessarily sinful,
but that cannot be accounted to the physiological DNA only. Things like
someone’s temper, attitudes, sense of humor, fears, joys, etc., can all traced
back to their parents even when someone has never met them or lived with them.
Indeed, these things happen even when someone deliberately tries to avoid being
like his parents.
The model
of Traducianism summarizes all of these biblical and non-biblical evidences that
point to the theory that souls are created and passed along rather than
created. God designed things in such a way that a person inherits his body
along with his soul from his parents. Understanding all of these evidences, we
return to our discussion about the evils of euthanasia, abortion and
experimenting with human genomes. I believe we can clearly see that Traducianism
provides the best arguments against such evils. Firstly, we can understand that
we are made in the image of God. When we tamper with that image, we are tampering
with the glory of God. There is no escape from this reality. This is the reason
why God demanded someone’s life in murder cases. Life is sacred not because of
its usefulness, not because of its beauty, not because of its timelessness, not
because of some kind of social construct, but because it is made in the image
of God.
Secondly,
when we understand that every soul has potential to generate more souls and
still we decide to kill it, then we are interrupting a long series of potential
human beings who could have lived their God-given life to bring Him glory.
Finally,
knowing that God is the sustainer of all life, then again, what need have we to
tamper with the way life is supposed to work? By experimenting with human
beings and changing their basic structure, we border rebellion against God’s
design. Every human being, from conception to the moment God decides it is over
for them, has the God-given right to live. We as Christians should hope and
pray that every one of these image-bearing souls would live their life in such
a way that it would bring glory to God and that one day they will come to the
saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Objection to my position
The strongest objection against my position can only come from a one that
tries to find its arguments in Scripture, and that would be the creationist
view. Particularly, as I have briefly mentioned in the first part, that God
creates each individual soul at the moment of conception, and then it imputes
to that soul the guilt of Adam’s sin. Thus, humanity’s guilt is not an
inherited one, but it is one imputed by God as he looks at Adam as our
representative and forerunner. Furthermore, this view would argue that there
should not be a problem accepting this imputation since we do not have a
problem when we argue that Christ imputes us with his righteousness, and that
Christ is another one of our representatives. The problem for my view would
then be that I am willing to accept one imputation as a valid means of being
justified before God but not the other as a valid means of being found guilty.
As support, promoters of this view would quote Romans 5:12 and 18, verses that
states that just as death came through Adam, life comes through Jesus. Although
these people would try to equate the two scenarios and say they both refer to
some kind of imputation, I do not believe that these verses are telling us
about the way death came to us through Adam. It merely states that it did, and
that life comes from Jesus.
Thus, I would agree that Adam was our representative, but the way we
inherit his guilt is by inheriting his nature. Otherwise, as I have argued
before, our sinful nature would not make sense. If we did not inherit his
nature, then we would not be sinful, just guilty. Inheriting his nature gives
an answer for our guilt as well as our sinful nature.
Another objection to my position would come from naturalism. This worldview
would argue that because we do not see anything except for the body and because
no one has ever seen a soul apart from the body, then people do not have a
soul. They have chemical reactions happening in them. As simple as it sounds,
this argument can actually be a very powerful one. We would think that if the
soul was really there, then we should be able to find some kind of method of
testing its presence. Since no one has ever empirically proven the presence of
the soul, the conclusion should be obvious. Against such views, I could argue
by appealing to the conscience that every person has and that makes him feel
guilty and morally accountable for his actions. This conscience cannot be
explained away by any chemical or physiological theory. Exploited more, this
argument can even eventually lead to a conversation with that person about the
Gospel of Jesus, the only One who can take away the guilt, the One who died for
our sins and who will one day receive our redeemed souls and eventually give us
a glorified body to go with them.
In summary, souls must find their original creation in the breath of life
given to Adam. All other theories leave us without the clearly expressed image
of God and void of the sinful natures so obviously present within us.
Bibliography
Allison, Gregg R., Historical Theology, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2011).
Appenzeller, Tim, “Earth
in the Beginning” National Geographic Magazine, December 2006. Accessed
March 28 2016.
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/early-earth.html.
Cracroft, Richard H., A Believing People,
(Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1974).
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).
Plato, The Republic, (Champaign,
Illinois: The Guttenberg Project, 1990).
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason &
Science. ‘A Universe from Nothing’ by Lawrence
Krauss, AAI, 2009. YouTube
Video, 16:49. Posted [October 2009]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo#t=16m49s
[1] Tim Appenzeller, “Earth in the
Beginning”, National Geographic Magazine, December 2006, Accessed March
28 2016, http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/early-earth.html
[2] Richard Dawkins Foundation
for Reason & Science. ‘A Universe From Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss, AAI,
2009. YouTube Video, 16:49. Posted [October 2009]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo#t=16m49s
[3] Plato, The Republic of
Plato, (Champaign, Illinois: 1990), Chapter X
[4] Joseph Smith, The King
Follett Sermon in A Believing People, ed. Richard H. Cracroft, (Provo,
Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1974), 170.
[5] Gregg R. Allison, Historical
Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), p. 326
[6] Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 484.
