Is the soul infused or generated?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Post Reply
Gideon
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon 10 March 2003 4:47 pm

Is the soul infused or generated?

Post by Gideon »

Is the soul infused or generated?

Gideon

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Gideon, I have seen infused and generate defined in ways that oen could easily see both. How are you defining the 2 terms?

User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

I don't want to speak for Gideon

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

I don't want to speak for Gideon, but I'd imagine the difference is as follows...

infused - the soul is created directly by God, and placed in the womb of the mother at some point by God (either at the moment of conception or at some point later on.)

generation - the soul, while spiritual, is created through the intermediary of the parents; their procreative act somehow generates the soul.

All I know for sure, is that the RCC officially rejects the latter view, which at least some people held onto in the west during the Middle Ages. I'd be interested to see what the Church has to say about this in Her tradition (at this point, I'm inclined to say "infused" at the moment of conception.)

Seraphim

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

I would suggest, based on my admittedly lacking knowledge of patristic anthropology, that the human soul is "infused". Consider, for example, the teaching that human beings were originally (before the fall) suppose to reproduce through means other than sexual relations. There is no speculation--from what I've read--as to exactly how this reproduction would have happened, but it seems to me that this belief would favor infusion of the soul rather than an actual physical act somehow generating the soul. This would also fit in with the idea that man is a theanthropic organism: part of him being divine (by grace) and part of him human. Of course, God can make us "divine" through grace even after birth (e.g., Ex. 7:1), but if we are speaking of the grace of God and the working of God in the creation of a new human being, I would think that God's working would come in as a supernatural act (just like the original creation of the soul was), and not by merely adding a supernatural touch to a natural, sexual act (an act that won't even be necessary--or desired--among those in heaven). Ok, just some thoughts... am I right? wrong? I dunno...

Justin

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

A quick joke!

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Seems to make sense to me. Justin, you mean you do not have some great patristics to explain it all. You normally do. Color me disapointed. ;-) :P

Last edited by 尼古拉前执事 on Tue 18 March 2003 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply