Alright, before we read that
verse, let's do have a prayer before the Lord. Our Father,
we pray that You may direct us in the truth, that You might
steer us away from error and those things that are hard and
difficult. We pray You might give us a good
Christian spirit about it. We ask, Lord, this evening that
You open our understanding, that our minds be open and attentive
unto the things that are to be spoken here in this place. For
we ask it in the name of Christ our Lord and Savior. Amen. Alright, in Genesis chapter 5,
we're coming to verse 3 for our text of the evening to get us
started on our way. This is the book of the generations
of Adam. In the day that God created man,
in the likeness of man made He Him. male and female created
He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the
day when they were created. And Adam lived a hundred and
thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness after his
image, and called his name Seth." Now I just want you to pay attention
to those words there. in His own likeness after His
image, and called His name Seth. And of course, Psalm 51 and 5,
you know by heart, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin
did my mother conceive me. Now before we get started, I
want to run a disclaimer, if you will. I would like to make
a special appeal this evening to you that if possible, you
may listen to all that is about to be said, hear it out unto
the end, and then see if this matter is reconcilable with the
nature of man and of original sin. And if possible, that you
might reserve judgment until you have heard the end of the
matter, and let the whole reasoning be heard, let all of the evidence
be presented, and then give or render a verdict. Again, recognize
that there are some things that Christians do not agree on, they
never have, and they never will, and that there are good people
on both sides of some of the issues about which we disagree,
and eschatology, as an example, might be a good case. There are
some persons that agree with one thing and some with another,
and yet are they lovers of God and lovers of the Scripture.
But not only that, but on some matters God has convinced us
to be of another mind after first holding a position on a particular
matter. And then finally, I ask you to
consider your experience in sitting under me and under my preaching. In that, I'm not one to go off
half-cocked without considering something. I'm not one to quickly
change positions on a matter without thinking it out and sounding
it out, and then seeking to build a case from the Holy Scripture. and deliberately then pursue
the truth of any matter that all things and all Scripture
might be honoring unto our God. Now having said all of that,
let's spend our time on the matter at hand, the question that I
have raised this evening, and to consider the matter, and diligently
consider it, the matter of the origin of the soul. That is,
how does the soul come to be? How does our soul come into being
and how is it that we possess it? Now that all have a soul
is indeed the testimony of the Scripture and the belief of Christianity. It is also the testimony of Scripture
that that soul may be saved or that soul may be lost according
to the good pleasure and sovereignty of God. We also agree that it
is the animating principle of the body, that without it the
body is dead. As James said, the body without
the spirit is dead. But we want to focus this evening
on the question, how is the soul originated? How does it come
into being? How does it receive It's existent. And this note, somewhere in the
discussion, we might consider the origin of the soul of Adam
and that also of Christ. For Genesis 2 and verse 7, man
became a living soul. We are taught by the Scripture
that Christ had a human soul. Isaiah 53 and verse 10 and Matthew
26 And verse 38, that our Lord also had a human soul. But our present inquiry is not,
does man have a soul? Because this is clearly the testimony
of Scripture and the belief of Christians. Instead, we consider
how the soul came into being. And again, we understand that
God is as much the author of the soul as He is the body, in
that He gives each of them its being. But the question is, how,
by what means does God give the human soul its existence as it
lived in you and me and in others? How is it brought forth so that
it is in union with our body all the days of our life until
the end when it is separated. Now before we get specific on
that particular question, let's acknowledge something that I
think will help us and get many things out of the way. And that
is that there are several views of the origin of the soul. We look at four of them or consider
four of them that perhaps have been the most popular in history
and down through the ages. First of all, there is a position
taken by some long ago that all souls whatsoever were created
in Adam, and some say that all souls of those descendants of
Adam are derived from that soul given to the first man, as if
they partake of the soul of Adam. there is the view, some say,
that all souls were pre-existent. This was the opinion, I'm sad
to say, of Origen in Christendom, that all souls existed in a previous
state, that they were made by God all at one time and in eternity. And this notion is espoused by
such as Plato. And according to John Gill, Plato
believed that millions of souls existed before the existence
or the creation of mankind. And so they were then sent forth
into bodies when bodies were created. Now thirdly, some, according
to William D. Tichet, believe that souls glide
into the body of their own account. They see a new body, they go
there, and they enter and take up their abode. Now it would
seem, if they could glide in, they might also be able to glide
out. But fourthly, there is another
view, and that is the view of reincarnation. This is rather
popular in the world, has been for quite some time, and this
is the belief that a particular soul may reappear in a new or
a different body over and over again. You will find this traceable,
I think, to Hinduism, and therefore has no part in Christianity. This is traceable to the Hindu
belief, but some in Christianity nevertheless have spoused a form
of reincarnation. Based upon karma, so it was,
and it exists in a modified form now in the West, that is the
West part of the world, and in some forms also, includes animals,
that reincarnation might occur even in animals. But in mainline
Christianity, Christianity that stands upon the Scripture, there
are basically but two views of the manner of the soul's origin. of its origin and of its existence,
how it comes to be, how it has its life and its being. And those
two views are as follows. Number one, there is the view
called creationism, which as the name implies, teaches that
God directly creates each soul in order that it might inhabit
the body. that every new soul is a direct
creation of God, what He creates new each time someone is born
into the world. And we emphasize creation, a
new soul created out of nothing. It is not the assigning of a
pre-existent soul, but it is the creation of a brand new soul. Needless to say, this has occurred
billions and billions of times in the world. In fact, as many
times as there has been a child, a son or a daughter born into
the world. This is called creationism. The other view that you might
find in Calvinism is that of tradutionism, which is the view
that the soul, as well as the body, is propagated by natural
generation, and that the whole person, by natural generation
so, that the parents are actually the parents of the whole person,
everything after its own kind. And then remember our text that
Adam begat in his likeness and in his image. With that in mind,
let's go on our way. Let us concede between these
two that each one of these positions has a major question to answer
in defense of their position. There is a problem to solve,
and it is a gigantic problem, no matter which position is taken. For example, Creationism has
this question. If God directly creates each
and every soul, is it created pure or is it created corrupt
to fit the natural depravity of man? When it is in union with
human nature, it certainly is corrupted. Therefore, this comes
the question, how to fit or how to reconcile this view with original
sin, and particularly in the case of the Armenian. And we
shall see original sin is denied or is greatly weakened by many
that take the position of creationism. More about that later. Traditionism,
on the other hand, has this inexplicable question to answer, how the parents
can be the propagators of a non-cooperal entity, something that can live
apart from the body, something that lives forever and is immortal. But in the final, I submit that
it supplies the best connection between original sin, total depravity,
and the souls of men. And also between federal headships,
between the federal headship of Adam and the imputation of
Adam's sin and Adam's guilt unto all mankind. So the question
is this. What is become of these connecting
links to Adam if each soul is at first created by God absolutely
pure and then is corrupted in its union with the body? Note
the connection to Adam. But by being given to a person
with a corrupt and fallen nature. This would seem to break the
connection between federal headship and the direct imputation of
Adam's sin unto all mankind. Now, the conviction or the connection
to Adam seems to be lost if, as Robert L. Dabney once wrote,
quote, the soul of each child has an antecedent holy existence
independent of a human father." These are just some things to
think about. If we have only our bodies from
Adam, and not the soul propagated down through Adam, how then can
it be proved that we sinned in Adam? Is sin only in the body,
or is it also in the soul? Now, if we have our souls directly
from God by a creative act, a separate creative act from the propagation
of the body, then the soul only becomes depraved separate or
independent of Adam's sin and of Adam's fall. And then there
is the question, does the fleshly body contaminate, does it impose
depravity upon the soul, or is it vice versa? If God creates
the soul directly, It must be a pure soul, does it not? Or
else he had created it in corruption and depravity. Or is sin first
and foremost in the soul, which spreads its corruption then to
all the body and all of the faculties thereof? How can depravity be
hereditary if God creates a new pure soul for each and every
new creature that he gives existence? Now all of this goes to the question,
or comes down to the question, how is depravity propagated? And the answer must have a proper
connection to Adam. Because we read, in Adam all
sin, Romans 5.12. We read, in Adam all die, 1 Corinthians
15 and verse 22. Furthermore, remember what our
text said in Genesis 5 and 3, in Adam lived 130 years, and
then begat a son in his own likeness and in his own image. So we ask,
was the likeness and the image only physical, only pertaining
to the flesh and blood body of Adam? Or was it the entire person,
including the soul as well? Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 15.49,
We have borne the image of the earthly, that is, the image of
Adam. At this point, let's make another
connection that might help us on our way, that being what theologians
have termed or called realism. Because, as Louis Burkhoff wrote,
it is quite common to combine tradutionism with a realistic
theory system in atom absolutely out of nothing for
every one form. Now the arguments of creationism
are good ones and they are some of the following. Number one,
Adam's soul was created, they say, infused directly by God
into the body of Adam and so must be all souls after that
pattern, they say, else they do not bear his image. in the same fashion that Adam
was. Now does this destroy the connection
unto Adam? He was created, we are procreated
through the parents. His body by God, ours by procreation
from our mother and our father. Robert L. W. who fell over on
the side of Traditionism said, By some argument, we could prove
that we are not even of the same corporal species, that is, if
we followed that argument out to the end. Secondly, as to creationism,
those proof texts which speak of the soul as a special work
of God, as being a direct creation of God, such as Zechariah chapter
12 and verse 1. The Lord stretches forth the
heavens. lays the foundation of the earth,
and forms the spirit of man within him." There is Isaiah 57 and
verse 16, God speaks there, "...of the souls which I have made."
Number 1622, the God of the spirits of all flesh, and in Hebrews
12 and verse 9, The Father of Spirits, the Lord God is called
in Ecclesiastes 12 and 7, the Spirit shall return unto God
who gave it. Now these texts seem to favor
creationism, do they not? And yes, God is the major author
and maker of our whole being. for he gives to all life and
breath and all things." Acts 17 and verse 25. And Ken agree
with Job 33 and verse 4, "...the Spirit of God has made me, and
the breath of the Almighty has given me life." And this occurred
for Job by natural procreation. Not a direct creation as in Adam
and Eve, but by natural procreation. For by His own testimony He was
conceived, Job 3 and 3, and was born, and was given supple. Thus the Spirit of God made Him
by the process of procreation, is how God brought Him into being.
Yes, the Scripture speaks of the soul as a special work of
God, and it does the same thing for the body. And here's a very
strong argument. It does the same for the body.
Though all bodies are procreated by and through their parents,
Psalms 100 and verse 3, the Lord is God. It is He that has made
us. Psalms 119. And 73, thy hands
have made me and fashioned me. And yet was he procreated by
his mother and father. Job 10 and verse 8, thy hands
have made me and fashioned me together round about. And yet
he was procreated by his mother and his father. And that great
text in Jeremiah 1 and verse 5, I formed thee in the belly. And yet, it was by an act of
procreation. We have that text in Genesis
46 and 26, and it speaks of the souls that came out of Jacob's
loins, yet we understand that it is a description of procreation. They are his offspring. His being
the parent of the whole person called the souls that came out
of the loins of Jacob. If the first sort of text concerning
the spirit be made to teach the immediate and direct creation
of God of the soul, then the second must be used to teach
the same concerning the body. And yet the latter is by propagation
from our parents. God gives us our bodies and our
being. He does so by propagation from
mother and father. so then must Job 10 and verse
8, thy hands have made me, fashioned me together round about. On the other hand, if the latter
is accomplished by procreation, and it most certainly is, why
not also consider that for the former? Robert L. Dabney put
it this way, quote, by some inexplicable law of generation, parents of
the proper parents of the whole person of their children." So
that Ecclesiastes 12 and verse 7, speaking of death, then shall
the dust return to the earth as it was and the Spirit unto
God who gave it. The dust refers to the body and
to Adam's creation. See Genesis 2.17 and 3 and verse
19. The point being, if Ecclesiastes
12 and verse 7 proves that the Spirit came directly from God's
hand by a separate and creative act, then it also proves that
our bodies came as directly from the dust as did Adam, and none
of us would argue that that is the case indeed. Now a point
for Traditionism please, though not a major one, is this. How can Creationism account for
what someone called the inherent and middle peculiarities of family
traits. Think about that for a moment.
How can creationism consider or account for that? Traditionism
can. That is, the inheritance of middle
peculiarities and family traits. In other words, you act like
your mom and your daddy. And you have the same traits
and habits and such like. Now, if this was God's immediate,
direct creation, physical resemblances would be the only resemblance,
but they're not. Physical resemblances to our
parents are not the only resemblances that we have. We have their personality,
their conscience, their character traits. are passed unto us, similar
unto our parents. You're going to be like one or
the other of your parents, or you're going to be 50-50 or 60-40,
somewhere split in that direction, like mother and father. And Adam
begat a son in his own likeness and image. And then Robert L. Dabney asked, how could this
be if Adam's parental agency did not produce the soul in which
alone the image adheres? unto his offspring. And what
of other non-corporal members? How about our mind, our conscience,
our heart? If only that which is corporal
or fleshly is procreated, does God not create a new conscience
for each child, or is it propagated by and through the parents? Often
the conscience of the offspring is similar to that of the parents
in that they think alike and act alike and have the same opinion. The conscience is the God consciousness,
and if created new for each one, then being defiled, or it is
part of the parental propagation, one or the other. So let's consider
a point, that one factor in such matters is, who holds certain
positions? Who is a creationist? Who is
a traditionist? Who are we in bed with, if we
espouse one or the other, of these positions. It is most likely
true that most Reformers or most Calvinists then and now do favor
Creationism over Traditionism. That's mostly true. But you should
know that Creationism was the view of Pelagius, of Sicinius,
it is the view of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is the view of
almost any Arminian that you will ever encounter. So let's
ask ourselves a question. Why the Arminian favors the view
of creationism? It allows him his best ground
on which to establish an age of accountability and to proclaim
infants as innocent and not accountable before God for their sin. But there's much more behind
this, namely the denial of original sin. Because the imputation of
Adam's sin and total depravity is something that most Arminians
object to or are in error about. So that if they ever thought
about it, or had the matter presented unto them and pressed upon them,
they might favor creationism as being more favorable to their
view of the state of man by birth, that he is not condemned by Adam's
imputed sin, nor is he guilty because of the imputation of
Adam's sin. So at this point, let us insist,
the focal point of this, the relation to establish is as Gordon
Clark put it, and I quote, to connect the origin of souls with
a federal headship and the imputation of guilt from Adam, unquote. And it appears that traditionism
is the best way to tie that knot and tie it biblically. For it
establishes the federal and the corporal unity of the race with
Adam. For Adam and Eve were the common
parents of all of the race, that of one blood God hath made all
nations, for to dwell upon the face of the earth, Acts 17, 26,
there is a connection of all unto Adam, and thus Adam begat
in his likeness and in his image. And because of time, we must
leave some matters to our private meditation, think upon them quietly
and privately, such as the question, and who can answer it? Number
one, when do infants receive their soul? How does abortion
relate to the souls of those that are slaughtered or those
that are lost in miscarriage? And secondly, Jesus had a soul,
a human soul. We said in Isaiah 53 and 10,
Matthew 26, 38, Mark 14, and verse 34. Of course, the soul
of Jesus was absolutely sinless. So was the soul of Jesus by creation? In other words, did He have a
divine soul or did He have a human soul? And this was a great argument
between Philpott and some others in history. So the closing application. This is a matter exceedingly
deep. Some would say it is an insoluble mystery. A matter about
which good men have disagreed and some very good men have considered
the matter and been unable to decide for one position or the
other. Some might say it is not a matter
for us to debate. Best left to private meditation
or fellowship or for close friends only. But admittedly, it is not
a matter upon which we ought to base our fellowship with any
other Christian. We ought not to determine or
break fellowship over the question. It is not a qualifying question
for admittance into an assembly of God's people. We do not ask,
what do you believe about the origin of the soul, before we
let you become a member. Let there be no strike between
us over this, for remember, we be brethren. I would exhort you
though in closing that you keep one thing in mind in regard to
this matter. I think this keeps coming back
and is the most important question, and that is, what is best related
to original sin and imputed guilt and human depravity? Which side
fits that the best? This is the heart and the core
of the matter.