Well, if the soul is depraved and God's creating it,
then God just created a depraved soul to inhabit that body.
That's doesn't feel very good.
Yes.
Dr. Heiser, in this day and age with science and genetic cloning,
and when cloning is an actual thing, if it's not already,
do clones have souls in it?
If they do, where do they get them if God creates our souls?
It's another easy question.
This will be on the exam, by the way.
The Scripture never gives us a clear answer as to the origin of the soul.
Which is why there are three views of this.
Now, since in our discussion, we'll take the easy part first.
Since in our discussion, we've divorced the image from biology,
it doesn't matter how you get a human.
If it's human, it's an imager of God, period.
Get it in a Petri dish, get it by cloning, get it the old fashioned way.
Okay, they're human, they're images of God.
The harder part is the origin of the soul.
So there are three views of this.
One view historically, and these have all been offered by theologians,
and you know, let's be honest.
They all have verses that seem to say what they say.
But they also all have verses that contradict them,
that present problems, which is why this is a discussion.
So the first view historically is known as traducianism.
That's the idea that when a man and a woman,
or a guy that's good in the Petri dish,
creates, you know, fashions a human being, a human life form,
that along with the biology, the soul is also created.
So somehow the soul is derivative of the biology.
Now, if you're sitting there thinking, well, how can something immaterial
be generated or derivative from something physical?
Aha, you've stumbled on the problem.
You've stumbled on what led to view number two.
View number two is known as creationism.
This is not creationism in terms of what happens with the days in Genesis.
This is the idea that when you create a human being, the soul is not created.
But God, at that moment of conception, creates the soul
and puts it in that thing. Okay, in the conceptus.
That's why it's called creationism. Okay.
Third view, I should say, why would anybody object to that?
Well, A, we don't have a verse that actually says it.
B, because of the early church discussion on
the way the early church typically defines depravity.
Okay, you're depraved from conception.
Well, if the soul is depraved and God's creating it,
then God just created a depraved soul to inhabit that body.
That doesn't feel like a good idea.
It doesn't seem like that's consistent with the nature of God.
And how would that be linked to Adam anyway,
if the material didn't create the spiritual?
So there were problems with that. Third view,
and this is a view that doesn't get talked too much about in Christian circles,
because I think it's easy fodder for bad thinking.
The third view is that the soul pre-exists the moment
that the conceptus is made.
Now, that's a derivative of creationism,
because that means God created it some other time.
Not at the moment of the conceptus, but like some other time.
But it's known as pre-existence, pre-existence of the soul.
The reason why this gets a bad rap is because really of church history,
major figures in church history didn't like it.
And so it tends to not get talked about.
But I think in our day and age, more often than not, it's because
it's easy to confuse that idea with eternal pre-existence,
which is a very like Eastern religion idea.
And it's also possible to confuse that with transmigration of the soul,
which is reincarnation.
Okay, transmigration of the soul is not the same thing
as pre-existence of the soul.
Transmigration of the soul says it goes from one body to the other.
Okay, pre-existence just says, oh, it was around a while
before the conceptus was made. That's all it says.
So they're not the same things, but yet in Eastern religion
they get married. Okay.
So if you want to know a verse for pre-existence of the soul,
see if I can pluck this out of my head here.
Let's see here, see if it's, oh, yeah, look at that.
I remembered it.
Job 15, «Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:
“Should a wise man...» he's going off on Job.
«“Should a wise man answer with windy knowledge,
[it's my life verse, by the way],
and fill his belly with the east wind?
Should he argue in unprofitable talk,
or in words with which he can do no good?
But you are doing away with the fear of God
and hindering meditation before God.
For your iniquity teaches your mouth,
and you choose the tongue of the crafty.
Your own mouth condemns you, and not I;
your own lips testify against you.»
Basically, they've been trying to convince Job that he's suffering
because he must have sinned. Okay.
And then he says, «“Are you the first man who was born?
Or were you brought forth before the hills?
Have you listened in the council of God?»
Now, some take that to suggest that Job's, the real Job, the soul Job,
they're wondering if he thinks or maybe they think this too,
and they want to know if he believes it.
That Job was around in the council of God before Adam was made.
Now, I certainly don't think that the verse has to be read that way.
It can be read quite differently.
But those who want to argue for pre-existence will go to this verse,
and one or two others, to try to give
pre-existence of the soul kind of a leg up.
All right, get the idea on the table. So there you go.