I was inspired to write this by my last large post, where I gave a few historical images that point to the filioque. I thought of adding another because it is very relevant to the convers
ation, but it's such a big topic in its own right that I think it deserves its own post, so here we are.
To begin, it'd be helpful to explain the actual doctrine of Traducianism. In short, it is the doctrine that man's soul is inherited from his parents in some way. There is no agreement as to how this works--some think that it is the father's soul which is propagated and some that it is a combination of the mother and father. I would tend to agree that it's the man's, but it's not that important. The primary opponent to Traducianism is a view called Creationism, which can get confusing because Young Earth Creationism is often shortened to just "Creationism." This alternative view confesses that the Lord makes every soul individually ex nihilo, from nothing, and it is very popular in the modern day because, well, most don't really know there's any other option.
My purpose here is to at least push you in the direction of the view, not necessarily to completely de
stroy creationism. Augustine, when he discussed the debate, was clear that such a debate came down largely to opinion, since the scriptures aren't super explicit about the process of a soul's generation. For this reason, while I will argue that Traducianism is true, and everyone does have to believe it to a certain extent or else fall into heresy, the most complete form of Traducianism, in which the soul is itself generated from that of one's parents, is not that big of a deal. With that said, another point in my contribution to the discussion is to give the value that such an opinion carries and, as a result, why it is a helpful doctrine.
The first very clear advocate of this doctrine is Tertullian, who talks about it in chapter 27 of his treatise On the Soul, but I think the clearest exposition of the passage is from Gregory of Nyssa his own treatise On the Soul and the Resurrection,
So the remaining alternative is to suppose that soul and body have one and the same beginning. Just as, when the earth receives from the farmer a slip cut off from its root, it produces a tree, not itself putting the power of growth into that which it nourishes, but only giving the start towards growth into the slip which is planted; in the same way we say that what is separated from a human being for the propagation of a human being is itself also in some way a soul-endowed being from a soul-endowed being, a growing being from a growing being…Indeed that which is separated from soul-endowed beings for the constitution of a soul-endowed being cannot be dead (for deadness comes about by deprivation of soul, and lacking would not lead to having). Therefore, we understand that a common transition into being takes place for the compound constituted from both soul and body. The one does not go before, nor the other come later. (Popular Patristics series, pg. 100-101)
This image is actually the origin of the doctrine's name; Traducianism's name comes from the Latin tradux, which refers to the shoot of a tree. You can break off the root or branch of some plants and plant it in the ground to grow a new plant, and similar is true for the soul. One's soul comes as an imprint or image of the original that grows for itself.
This view was by no means unanimous, but it does have a fairly strong backing in tradition. St. Augustine held to a form of it, though he was rather noncommittal and insisted both that the scriptures said little about it and that it was not necessary for salvation, unless one used it to support heresy, Pelagianism in his context (Epistle 190.4.15). His modified form was that the generation of body and soul happened simultaneously but were not inherently connected. That is to say, the soul didn't transfer from the father attached to the biological material, but the two nonetheless happened simultaneously. I would likely disagree with that, but I would argue it's significantly less important than the discussion itself. He used this doctrine to argue for original sin, which I will discuss later, but he also made the point that the doctrine of original sin can still be true even without Traducianism. Next, Jerome, who was firmly a Creationist, did say that "the majority of the Western divines" believed in the doctrine, though patristic scholarship does not necessarily agree with him (Epistle 126.1). Finally, Irenaeus does have a fragment concerning the topic, where he says.
"Now therefore, by means of this which has been already brought forth a long time since, the Word has assigned an interpretation. We are convinced that there exist [so to speak] two men in each one of us. The one is confessedly a hidden thing, while the other stands apparent; one is corporeal, the other spiritual; although the generation of both may be compared to that of twins. For both are revealed to the world as but one, for the soul was not anterior to the body in its essence; nor, in regard to its formation, did the body precede the soul: but both these were produced at one time; and their nourishment consists in purity and sweetness." (Fragment 49)
Admittedly, this is not an incredibly strong quotation. First of all, it's a fragment, so we don't have the context. This doesn't negate its use, but it does harm its strength. With that said, while this could be interpreted as saying one's individual body and soul are created at the same time, but I think it looks more like a confession that they're produced together, hence why they are said to be born as twins. This would point to (though not clearly state) traducianism because of the closeness of each one's connection in "formation" and "nourishment."
As for the scriptural evidence for it, there are quite a few relevant places to look. The first is Genesis 2:2, heavily leaning on St. Paul's interpretation of the passage:
'For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.”' Heb 4:3-4
It seems that by "rest...from all his works" refers to the Lord no longer creating ex nihilo but instead sustaining His creation, since it is only by Him that all things cohere (Col. 1:17). Thus, the creationist perspective wouldn't make sense because it would require our Lord to create souls ex nihilo, which He doesn't do anymore.
Another place in the epistle to the Hebrews also points to such a belief:
“One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.” Heb 7:9-10
This is a very strong passage, in my view, because it seems St. Paul says Levi was present in the loins of Abraham, his great grandfather. The creationist may point to his hesitancy ("One might even say") but I would clarify, he is clear of Levi's presence in Abraham, but he is not as firm about whether you can give Levi credit for Abraham's tithes. Another response could be that Levi was present bodily and not spiritually, since Abraham contained his genetic material, but this is pure eisegesis. To come to this conclusion, you must presume St. Paul is only referring to his presence according to the flesh, which is by no means self evident. Thus, the plain reading of the text points to Levi being bodily and spiritually descendent from Abraham. This also gives a much more concrete mode of presence than mere genetic, which serves to strengthen the apostle's point.
The final relevant text is Romans 5:12-21 and the other numerous passages that confess Original Sin. St. Augustine used the doctrine of mild traducianism to argue for original sin, but this really only works when your audience already are traducians or denied both traducianism and original sin, which do inherently connect. If you believe in traducianism, original sin even seems to be a necessary consequence, since you would inherit the soul with its impurities. However, in the modern era, we more often than not find ourselves among Christians who confess original sin but deny (or, more often, don't know of) Traducianism. Really, this is a difficult position to hold, as it would require God to make the soul anew for every person but actively make them with Original Sin. Perhaps you could argue that original sin is attached to the body, stretching St. Paul's language of the flesh, but this runs afoul of Christ's words that evil flows out of men's hearts (Matt. 15:18-20). In any case, I think it makes much more sense nowadays to argue for Traducianism from Original Sin, rather than in the reverse.
With that said, why does any of this matter? Much of the conversation seems murky and I could easily see a comparison made to the scholastics pondering how many angels can dwell on the head of a pin. However, this is profoundly relevant not only to our confession of original sin, which though largely won, is by no means over. In addition, it also is relevant to our discussion of the Filioque, as I hinted at in my post on the topic. For those who didn't read my post (though it's one of my more popular ones), the Filioque is a part of the Nicene Creed which, in the West, confesses that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, while in the original creed and that which is still confessed in the East, it has no such confession. My point is that the formulation is not wrong but imprecise and that the Church needs to have an ecumenical council to come together to agree on such an important matter of Trinitarian theology. Relevant to the discussion, though, is this question of Traducianism.
In 1 Cor. 2:10-12, St. Paul compares the relationship between God (presumably referring to the Father) and His Spirit to that of man and his own spirit. If we are to confess Traducianism, as scripture seems to confess and with some of the great doctors of the church, then the Filioque naturally follows. If a son takes place in his father's spirit, then surely the Son of God takes part in the Spirit of God, which is exactly what the west confesses in the Filioque.
It's also explains the deep connection between the Spirit of God and our new birth. Why is it that the Holy Spirit is a seal of our new birth? Why is it that our sonship entails our reception of the Holy Spirit? It is because that's what sonship is! To be a son entails that we share in the Spirit of our Father. This also explains why sometimes in tradition we are said to be born of Christ, because He is the vine which we are grafted into and from which we sprout. Just as much as He is our brother, he is the progenitor of our redeemed spirits by means of His own Spirit, as we are born again from the womb that was carved into His precious side.
コメント