September 29, 2008
Insomnia
I think i'm suffering from it. It has been over 3 days now; i take about 2 - 3 hours to get into sleep. help!!
September 28, 2008
Notes of Farewell
[note] Notes I handed out to my friends (6 of them) before leaving.
"The world is a circular logic,
making no sense if refracted,
a false complacency is diefied,
like a fool we are easily satisfied,
an eternal bliss exchanged for rags,
a one dimensional philosophy eventually drags,
sense perception is all there is,
so they say, who determine our duties,
a few stand against that tide,
countering and rebuking what they hide,
we are taunted like an animal,
striving emphatically to an apex sentimental"
"but i am finite and i will not satisfy,
the eternal satisfaction is beyond me,
there is a door at the end,
love will lead you on from there,"
- Chelms Varthoumlien
September 26, 2008
Interim report of Orissa FFM
INTERIM REPORT
CONCERNED CITIZENS’ INDEPENDENT FACT- FINDING MISSION
KANDHAMAL, SEPTEMBER 2008, ORISSA
Released on 25th of September 2008 at a Press Conference in IWPC, New Delhi
(Speakers at Press Conference: Prof. Manoranjan Mohanty, Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Ms. Sagari Chhabra, Ms. Seema Mustafa and Mr. Bijulal MV)
Orissa has been in the news in the recent years because of the people’s movements against the mega projects in Kashipur, Kalinganagar, Niyamgiri, Lanjhigrah, Jagatsinghpur and Paradip which have contributed to large scale displacement of people. But another trend which was growing during the past decade – the rise of communal forces led by the Sangha Parivar has taken a serious turn since the last week of August with systematic attacks on Christians in Kandhamal district and elsewhere. Christians are only 2.36% of India’s population, but have a rich tradition of founding and running the most prestigious educational and health-care institutions of the country.
However, the past couple of months witnessed violent attack on Christians in some states. Particularly, since August 24th, the Christians in Orissa have experienced the worst ever communal violence, their churches have been burnt, Christian orphanages and other institutions have been set on fire, pastors attacked, one was killed, one nun was burnt alive while another was gang-raped. All this followed the night of August 23 when the controversial VHP leader, Swami Laxmananda Saraswati and his four associates were killed by a group of armed assassins, while celebrating Janmashtmi at Jalespata Ashram.
In the wake of this continuing violence a fact- finding team of concerned citizens across the country visited Orissa. The group consisted of scholars, journalists and activists;
Members of the fact-finding Team
- Prof. Manoranjan Mohanty, University of Delhi
- Prof. Amit Bhaduri, Prof (Emeritus) Jawaharlal Nehru University (J.N.U)
- Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, J.N.U
- Ms. Seema Mustafa, Senior Journalist & Editor, Covert
- Ms. Sagari Chhabra, Film-maker & Writer, Delhi
- Mr. Bijulal MV, Delhi Solidarity Group and Indian Social Institute, Delhi,
- Dr. Prasad, National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR – NDMJ)
- Mr. Vincent Manoharan, National Secretary, NCDHR, Delhi
- Dr. Prakash Louis, Director, Bihar Social Institute, Patna
- Mr. Prafula Samantrai, President, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Orissa
- Mr. Rajesh Jena, Advocate, Bhubaneswar
The team visited the camps and villages from 15th September 2008 to 18th and interacted with people from diverse backgrounds, religions and castes. The team also held consultations with state authorities, political party leaders and elected representatives and social workers.
The terms of reference (ToR) of this team included:
Visit the affected areas, meet the victims and enquire into the incidents/violence
Meet relevant government officials and others
Look into the role played by religious fundamentalist forces in the violence
Make recommendations to appropriate bodies
Who killed Swami Laxmananda Saraswati?
While the Maoists have claimed that they did so, the VHP insists on blaming the Christians and exacting their ‘revenge’. The fact is that the Swami was the centre of much controversy in the region and had many criminal cases pending against him and only a high level judicial inquiry can find the truth behind the killing, which was condemned by all sections of society. This was not a ToR of the team and the team did not go further into the details of this.
Villages and towns visited during the Fact-finding mission
Kalinga, Tikabali, Nuogan, Baliguda, Mereka, Paburiam Tiangia, Malikapada, Sarang guda, Pabingia, Kasipadar, Dimligud, Kasingpada, G.Udayagiri, Mandakia, Boruigia, Nilangia, Bakingia, Raikia and Phulbani.
Extent of violence:
In Kandhamal district alone 27,000 people became refugees and started living in camps, while 101 churches were attacked.
Situation In The Camps:
In G. Udayagiri block at a primary school, ‘Hathishala’ over 900 people were living in tents and in the school building. There were 269 men, 365 women, 114 girls and 153 boys. Despite the number of children, none of them received milk and all got a basic dole of ‘chidwa’ for breakfast and dal-chawal for lunch and dinner.
The following are testimonies recorded by the team. The true identities of the people met are not being revealed as they are under threat as the violence is continuing.
Testimonies of the people at camps; ‘Hathishala’ camp, G.Udayagiri:
Role of VHP & Bajrang Dal:
A woman of Raikula said “ A large crowd shouting slogans of Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad came in a mob. They broke into our house and burnt it. All our belongings are no more. In fear we ran into the jungle. We stayed there for four days with our children, who got fever and diarrohea. We did not eat for four to five days and walked over forty kilometres to get to a camp.
Another woman from Raikula said; “We were attacked by the Bajrang Dal and the RSS. They said ‘stop being a Christian and become a Hindu’. They even burnt our Church. I have been a Christian from birth. Last December, in 2007, they came with guns, ‘katras’, small axes, big axes and swords. This time on 27th August ’08 they came again and burnt everything. If we attempt to go back home they threaten to kill us.”
A man from Raikula said; “ I am a teacher in a school, about 12 kilometres from here. There are two tribes in Kandhamal; the Kandhas are Hindu and the Panas are largely Christian. We Panas have been Christians for many years and don’t want to become Hindus. Now regarding the killing of Swami Lakshmanand Saraswati, we don’t know who killed him. The Naxalites write and claim they killed him, but they suspect the Christians. They have driven us out from our land and property. The Panas belong to the Kui tribe. Here in the camp you can see, we are in a terrible condition. It has been raining for two weeks and the tents are leaking. Neither the police nor the government is taking the responsibility in protecting us.”
Killed for Returning Home:
Man from Raikula, “One man, Purender Nayak, of Nilungia, went back to see the condition of his house. They killed him and cut his body into pieces. The VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS are coming from other districts and making the Kandhas do this. Even now, even while we are at the camp, they come outside to abduct and rape our girls. We have no hope at all”.
Orphanage attacked:
He also said, he ran an orphanage and for three days he did not know the condition of the children. “Some faithful people took them to the camps, but I still do not know the whereabouts of one girl - Taruna Pradhan aged twelve”. He also stated that the police do not respond to calls before the incident, but would come after the houses are burnt. The mob would carry kerosene and consume a local liquor ‘kalu’. He also stated that the few Kandhas who were Christian were also being driven out.
Pregnant Women:
The team met several women who were in advanced stage of their pregnancy. A woman in her pregnancy from village Raikula said “I was pregnant, but when they came I ran. I miscarried the baby.”
Another woman who is nine months pregnant, also gets only rice and dal twice at the camp. She said “They killed my father-in-law and were searching for my husband who is a pastor. They could not find him, because he had already left. The government is supporting them (the attackers).
A man asked if Christians could be shifted elsewhere where they could be kept safely. He said; “This is the work of the RSS, VHP and BJP who provide moral support, petrol and kerosene. Innocent tribals are not like them. He said 25 people related to the camp inmates had been killed.”
At the Habak High School camp, the people named the local people by name who were involved in burning their homes after forcing them to convert to Hinduism in Kiriamaha, Udayagiri.
Pastor killed along with his mother:
A man belonging to village Bakingiya, Police station area of Raikia, said “Fifty to sixty people persons attacked us. First they destroyed the church and then they came to my house. The pastor of the Baptist church was reading the Bible, they forced him to throw the Bible. He refused, they cut him with an axe and burnt him with petrol. His name was Samuel Diggal. His mother, Janamah Diggal was also burnt. She is also dead.”
A man belonging to village Rudangia Police station in G. Udayagiri stated “the mob killed Fidem Nayak, aged 52, Shashi Kant Nayak, aged 60 and Madan Nayak aged 45. All three were Christian pastors. Nobody has been arrested till today.”
Hindu preaching amity killed:
A Hindu, Dasrath Pradhan, was killed because he preached amity between Hindus and Christians. The team met his sister who told us “they first called him for a meeting and then cut his body into three pieces.” The team also met his mother who was an eye-witness to this.
The above testimonies reveal the attacks on the Christians was a pre-planned communal attack as only Christian houses were singled out and burnt. The people also told us the names of the local people involved, but they were led by a mob that came from outside and included the VHP and the Bajrang Dal.
Security Within Camps - Cause For Concern:
Security situation in the Udayagiri camp is a real matter of concern. It was reported to us that on 28 August around 7 p.m. three crude bottle bombs exploded in the camp premise. However no one was harmed since they landed in the open space close to the entrance. Some rowdy elements who came in bikes have thrown the bombs, whose identity could not be ascertained. People narrated their plight before reaching the camps. In several cases they were forced to stay in the forest with out food or proper clothing to protect themselves from cold. Many of them were forced to leave their villages with no time left but to save lives. It was reported to us that some people in their own village colluded with outsiders (names of the perpetrators of violence as reported, are with the team) and mobs of nearly 500 strong most of them wearing saffron head bands with weapons like guns, swords and other sharp weapons came in large numbers to chase all those who were unwilling to convert to Hinduism. Many people were forced to convert to Hinduism in fear and were asked to burn the bible as the first step of ‘conversion’ in many cases. Tonsuring, taking an oath to remain in Hinduism and drinking ritual water for purification were the other practices imposed on them.
Hubbacka High School Camp G. Udayagiri
At the time we reached this camp where the largest number of families were staying, the officials informed us only three policemen of the CRPF were at the gate. It was reported to us that the state police had earlier committed dereliction of duty by letting an anti- social element enter the camp on September 06 around 10 a.m., who threatened the inmates.
This person was identified as one of the perpetrators of violence in a village, from where many were living in the camp. He was held by the police, taken to the police station, right opposite to the camp, and later let off by them without registering an FIR. It was alleged that later, this person went to a police station 23 kms away from Udayagiri, where he registered a complaint against a few people in the camp who helped the police detain him while he was creating mischief in the camp. Conditions under which they lived in the forests at the time of organized violence were similar to that of the first camp. The people said that the number of victims as appeared in media doesn’t reflect the truth. A group of four persons instantaneously recollected the name of five men killed between 25 August to 28 August in gram panchayat Kathinga alone.
Dasrath Pradhan age 35-38 25 August
Bikram Naik 38 28
Parkhita Naik 33 28
Trinato Naik 42 25
Dibya Singh 32 25
Visit to the villages and towns in Kandhamal district where violence had occurred:
The team visited several villages in Kandhamal district. The villages were: Villages visited during the Fact-finding: Kalinga, Tikabali, Nuogan, Baliguda, Mereka, Paburia,m Tiangia, Malikapada, Sarang guda, Pabingia, Kasipadar, Dimligud, Kasingpada, G.Udayagiri, Mandakia, Boruigia, Nilangia, Bakingia, Raikia and Phulbani.
Only Christian Houses And Churches Gutted:
We saw several villages with Christian houses gutted but did not see any Hindu houses that were gutted. Several churches were extensively damaged. This also shows the intensity and nature of the one-sided orchestrated attacks.
Team threatened & blockaded
At Bakingia village there is extensive gutting of a large number of houses. It is clear that a large amount of petrol or kerosene has been used as the damage is extensive. In some houses there are locks; which implies that the mob jumped through the roof to burn the inside of the house. All the houses belong to the Christians and at the end of the road a Church is badly damaged; its brick structure has been broken down. No one is willing talk “We were not here; we have seen nothing” is the standard response. As we take photographs, a group of nearly forty women surrounded us with lathis – sticks and umbrellas. They blocked our exit with large stones, so we are unable to leave the village. They call us ‘foreigners’. They eye us with aggression. Very reluctantly the group allows us to leave. As we drove further, the road was blocked by huge stones; we managed lift some of them for our vehicles to drive up. At the end of the road we noticed a van full of men. They drove into the village giving us sullen looks.
Justification for violence given:
In Nilingia in G.Udayagiri several Christian houses had been gutted and a church has been damaged. Panima Pradhan a Kandha justified the burning of the Christian houses. Her body language was aggressive, pointing at the poster of the swami outside her house she said “ Why was he killed?” When we ask her the connection between her neighbour’s house being gutted and his death she responds “Why did they run away, that is why their houses were burnt.” A group of about twenty people kept a watch on us, as we walk away.
Meeting the officials:
It was also clear from the testimonies given by the people that the attacks were well planned and the police movement was blocked by the blockade of roads. In one case the police officials said that ‘it took the six hours to travel eighty kilometres’, which was the case for all the four days since the violence began. All these indicate the pre-planned nature of the violence and the ability of the perpetrators of violence to ‘effectively’ take over the law and order situation in their control.
Dereliction of Duty:
While the mayhem took place, the police was a silent spectator. Only in one instance, the CRPF fired at rioters killing two. While the state government repeats its alibi that it was short of police and had not got the paramilitary forces required; that is 10 battalions instead of the 4 CRPF battalions dispatched. This argument does not hold water. To maintain the law and order of just one district, the Orissa police forces along with 4 CRPF battalions were enough, if stopping communal violence was really the aim.
The district officials were not in a position to tell the team of the number of arrests. They also informed us that they are working in accordance with the Supreme Court direction on maintaining law and order. On enquiring on the general complaint from the people regarding many instances of inaction and dereliction of duty by the state police while controlling violence, the district officials said that arrests cannot be done in many situations ‘because if arrests are made the situation would have further deteriorated’. Such statements are self-explanatory and proves that the police was not undertaking the primary responsibility to stop violence by booking the culprits.
The team also met the DIG police R.P Koche, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Satyabrat Sahu, under whose jurisdiction comes the Kandhamal district including its law and order and the refugee camps. Team also met Madhusudan Padhi, Commissioner cum Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education. After being initially told that they were not present at the circuit house in Phulbani, the officials finally agreed to meet us.
Where are the internally displaced people going?
Mr Sahu, said :”At the peak there were 27,000 people in the camps now there are only 17000 don’t you appreciate this?” While the number in the camps may have reduced by ten thousand people, the fact is that the people are not returning home, due to continuing terror and their psychological insecurity. In reality, it appears that, they are leaving the inhospitable conditions in the camps for undisclosed destinations and could well become the homeless of India.
Improper Collection of data:
Mr R.P Koche the DIG police shared statistics of the police. The data recorded by the state, showed 2863 houses burnt yet showed only 230 criminal cases registered. When asked why no arrests had been made we were told; “it would increase the tension in the area.” The police has recorded only 35 cases of injury whereas a visit to the camps reveals that the incidence of violence was much higher. In other words there is improper collection and recording of data.
Lack of Nourishing Diet for Children and Pregnant Women:
Mr. Madhu Sudan Padhi, IAS, specially stationed at Phulbani ridiculed the use of the word “refugees” and asked if the team knew the definition. When told there were several women who were in an advanced stage of pregnancy in the camps who should get special diet and medical attention he proudly announced; “already twelve children have been born in the camps. You are telling us nothing new.” Requests that at least the children and pregnant women get milk, have not been not acceded to until now as far as we know.
History:
The tensions within Orissa and specifically within Kandhamal are not new. On 22 January 1999, the Australian missionary Graham Stuart Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death by a crowd in Keonjhar district. Again on 9th September, 1999 Father Aruldoss was killed by fundamentalist groups and on 24 December ‘07 as the Christians were preparing for Christmas, Hindutva forces unleashed a reign of terror against them. The violence continued for a month as hundreds of houses, institutions and property were destroyed and several were killed. In the last decade, violence against minority groups in Orissa has included social and economic boycotts, forced conversion – ‘ghar wapsi’, intimidation, murder, arson, rape, looting and other extra-legal actions.
Underlying Tensions:
In Hinduising Adivasis and polarising relations between them and Dalits in the area, the Sangh Parivar has engineered a rivalry between Kandha Adivasis and pana Dalit Christians in Kandhamal, instigating against the latter’s campaign for scheduled tribe status. Dalit Christians under the law forfeit their right to affirmative action. In current law, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (scheduled castes) order, 1950 held caste and religion to be mutually exclusive; ‘no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu (later amended to include the Sikh or the Buddhist) religion shall be deemed to be a member of the Secheduled Caste’ (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2006.) In other words, Dalits who convert to Christianity are divested of scheduled caste status and affirmative action afforded by the state via the ‘reservation’ system. This Christian leaders contend, impacts the ability of Dalit Christians to secure resources routinely controlled by those from upper caste backgrounds. Dalit converts to Hinduism are not denied such rights.
State institutions are in internal disagreement over the issue of affirmative action for religious minorities. Responding to a writ petition the Supreme Court asked the government for arguments and guidelines on broadening the assistance of reservation to scheduled castes that convert to Christianity. The government deferred the issue to the Ranganath Mishra National Commission for Linguistic and Religious Minorities. The Mishra report advocated the benefits of reservation to Dalit converts to Christianity and Islam and that religion be disassociated from scheduled caste status in implementing affirmative action. In 2007 the Supreme Court referred the matter back to the Central government , which remains pending. The Pana Christians in Kandhamal have been demanding Scheduled Tribe status.
Fascisation of Orissa:
Orissa’s population is 36.8 million (census 2001) and Christians are only 2.4% of the state’s population. Hindutva mythogises the demise of Hinduism raising the bogey of ‘conversion’ and creating a fear that Christianity will swamp Hinduism. Hindu cultural dominance organises Hindu nationalism. The Sangh parivar seeks to build a cadre that targets Christians, Muslims, and Dalits. This conflict has been camouflaged as a tribal versus Dalit one; it is essentially the Hinduised tribals enacting violence against Dalit Christians. The RSS has 6000 shakhas in Orissa with 1, 50,000 cadres. It has 391 Saraswati Shishu Mandir schools, with 1,11,000 students preparing for future leadership. Vanvasi Kalyan ashram runs 1,534 projects and schools in 21 adivasi concentrated districts. The sangh has initiated 1200 Ekal Vidyalayas in Orissa. The structure to spread the concept of Hindutva is wide.
Political Economy of Orissa:
The Sangh Parivar’s agenda is enabled by some staggering inquities in the state. 47.15% of the total population lives in poverty while 57% of the rural population is poor. In Orissa, about 2.5 hectares of irrigated agricultural land is required for a family of five to meet subsistence, while an average family owns about 1.29 hectares. Kashipur, Bolangir and Kalahandi are known for hunger, malnutrition and starvation deaths.
Timing of the attacks:
The timing of these anti-Christian attacks is not an accident. With elections around the corner, the Sangh Parivar is striving to cause communal polarization in the society and polity, so that Hindus impacted by the propaganda, would support Hindutva and the BJP. The fact that these attacks have started in end August, almost in tandem, with similar characteristics is clear evidence that these were pre-planned and directed to the same aim: Hindu polarization leading to BJP victories in the coming State and General Elections scheduled for early 2009.
Recommendations by the team
For Central Government:
- A warning under article 355 is not sufficient; the Centre should issue precise directions under Articles 256 and 257 directing the Orissa state government to take necessary action to curb violence expeditiously.
- Central Government should declare the entire Kandhamal district as an area of communal disturbance and issue directions to the State Government under article 355 for immediate action of the State Government for curbing this internal disturbance.
- CBI enquiry should be ordered to enquire and investigate the killing of Swami Lakhmananda Saraswati and the violence perpetrated after that.
For State Government:
- The State Government should take all necessary immediate steps to bring normalcy to the district of Kandhamal.
- Preventive arrests as well as FIRs must be lodged so that the perpetrators can be brought to book and speedy trial should be initiated to punish them
- The Government officials should be booked for the dereliction of their duty and the wilful negligence in protecting the victims and stopping the violence.
- The impunity being enjoyed by both the Hindutva fundamentalist forces should be cracked by proceeding legally against them.
- State Government should allow the free entry of civil society and human rights organizations into Kandhamal district to have their assessment and also to help the victims.
- The State Govt should provide police protection to Churches and institutions and also the areas where Dalit and Tribal Christians live.
- The Relief camps should be kept going and infact improved in terms of providing adequate and nutritious meals to those who are housed there. Pregnant mothers and children in the camps should be given extra care in the camps. Sanitation and medical facilities should be improved in the camps. Free medical treatment should be provided to those who got injured during the attacks. Special classes should be conducted for children.
- Confidence building measures should be chalked out by the government before the victims return to their homes.
- Govt should provide police protection for those who are prepared to go to their places.
- The damaged and burnt houses should be rebuilt by the government enabling the victims to go there.
- Extensive and proper damage assessment should be done by the government with the help of civil society organizations and govt should ensure full compensation .
- Govt should follow the directions given by the Orissa High Court and Supreme Court of India.
- Govt should ban the entry of the VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS into Kandhamal district.
- An all party meeting should be organized to have Peace Committees formed for the State, District, Block and Village levels where civil society organizations should also be included as committee members.
- The Panchayat heads who were involved in inflicting violence should be brought under the law.
- A long term strategy should be worked out to render justice to the victims and to promote peace and secularism in Orissa.
(On behalf of Independent Concerned Citizens’ Fact finding Team)
Contacts: 9968161012 / 9868165471 / 26680883
Creation or Traducianism? by Dr. Francis Turretin
Creation or Traducianism
The Scholastic Reformer explains how the soul is created.
by Dr. Francis Turretin
Thirteenth Question: The Origin of the Soul
Are souls created by God, or are they propagated? We affirm the former and deny the latter.
I. Although there are various opinions of theologians and philosophers about the origin of the soul, yet principally there are two to which the others can be referred: one asserting the creation, the other the propagation, (traducem) of the soul. The former holds all souls to have been immediately created by God and by creating infused; thus to be produced from nothing and without any preexisting material. The latter, however, maintains that souls are propagated. The former is the opinion of almost all the orthodox (with many of the fathers and Scholastics). The latter is embraced by the Lutherans. Tertullian was the author of propagation (traducis) in Treatise on the Soul (ANF 3:181-235), whom the Luciferians and many of the Latins followed. Augustine suspends his judgment (epechei) on this point and, although often discussing the question, still would not determine anything about it (cf. Letter 166 "To Jerome" [FC 30:6-31]; Letter 190 "To Optatus" [FC 30:271@881; The Retractions 1.1 [3] [FC 60:9@101). He testifies that "he still did not know what was to be held" (ibid., 2.82 [561 [FC 60:244; PL 32.653]).
II. Those who believe in propagation do not all think and speak together. Some hold the soul to be propagated from the semen of the parents and produced from the potency of matter. But this is rejected by most as less likely because if it de, pended upon the virtue of the semen, it would also be corporeal and subject to corruption. Others hold it to be from the soul of the father by propagation, yet in a manner inscrutable and unknown to us (Martinius, Miscellanearum Disputationum, Bk. 3, Disp. 7 [1603], pp. 541-42). Others maintain that the soul of the father procreates the soul of the son from a certain spiritual and incorporeal seed (as Timothy Bright). Finally, others (the more common opinion) think the soul is propagated by the soul, not by a decision and partition of the paternal soul, but in a spiritual manner, as light is kindled by light (so Balthasar Meisner and most Lutherans).
III. However, we endorse the creation of the soul: (1) from the law of creation; (2) from the testimony of Scripture; (3) from reasons. (1) From the law of creation, because the origin of our souls ought to be the same as of the soul of Adam; not only because we ought to bear his image (1 Cor. 15:47, 48), but also because his creation (as the first individual of the whole species) is an example of the formation of all men (as the wedlock of our first parents was an example for the rest). But the soul of Adam was created immediately by God, since "he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7). Thus it is evident his soul was not produced from potent material, but came to him extrinsically through creation and was infused into the body by the breath of God himself. Nor ought it to be objected that we cannot argue from Adam to ourselves because the same thing might be said of the origin of the body (which nevertheless is not the case, since ours is generated from seed, while that of Adam was created from the dust of the earth). Although there may be a disparity by reason of the efficient cause on account of the diversity of the subjects (because as the body is elementary and material, it can be produced by man through generation; but the soul, being immaterial and simple, cannot spring from any other source than God by creation), yet with respect to the material cause a comparison may rightly be made. For as the soul of Adam was created out of nothing, so also are the souls of his posterity; and as his body was formed of the dust of the earth, so also our bodies from seed (which itself also is earthly and material). Therefore the mode of action with respect to Adam was also singular, yet the nature of the thing is the same in both cases. This is confirmed by the production of Eve herself whose origin as to the body is described as from a rib of Adam, but of the soul no mention is made. Hence it is plainly gathered that the origin of her soul was not different from that of the soul of Adam because otherwise Moses would not have passed it over in silence (his purpose being to describe the origin of all things). And Adam himself would have mentioned this origin, yea he would have declared it specially; he would have said not only "this is bone of my bones," but "soul of my soul" (Gen. 2-23). This would have set forth more strongly the bond of wedlock, which should be not only in the bodies, but also in the souls. Finally, if Adam's soul and ours had a different origin, they could not be said to be of the same species because his was from nothing. Ours, however, would be from some preexisting material wholly dissimilar.
IV. Second, from the testimony of Scripture, in which God is spoken of as the author and Creator of the soul in a peculiar manner distinct from the body: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Ecc. 12:7). Here a manifest difference is marked between the origin and the destruction of the body and the soul. The one is said to return to the dust (whence it was taken); the other, however, to return unto God (who gave it). Therefore since the body returns thither whence it had its origin, so also the soul. This is more clearly confirmed by the fact that God is said to "give the spirit" (which cannot be understood of the common giving by concourse with second causes). For he also gives the body itself no less than the soul because he is the first cause of both (nor would he well be said by antithesis [kat'antithesin] to have given the spirit). Rather this is understood concerning the proper and peculiar mode of origin (which does not belong to the body). Nor ought it to be said that this is to be referred to the first creation of Adam. The scope, the words and circumstances of the text prove that it treats of the ordinary birth and destruction of men. Accordingly their bodies return to the dust (i.e., to the earth) whence they were taken, while their spirits return unto God, the judge, who gave them (either for glory or for punishment).
V. "The word of the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zech. 12:1). Whence a multiple argument is drawn for the creation against the birth of the soul (psychogonian). (1) He is said to form the spirit of man within him; therefore he ought to produce it immediately without the intervention of man. (2) The formation of the spirit is joined with the stretching out of the heavens and the founding of the earth, as of the same order and grade. Therefore since the former two are works of omnipotence, made immediately by God and without second causes, so the last ought to be also. Nor can this be referred to the mediate production of God because thus man would be admitted to a participation of causality, which the text does not allow (since it asserts the production of the soul as well as that of the heaven and earth to be peculiar to God). However, this is falsely restricted to the first production of man since it ought to be extended equally to all. Hence when it speaks of the production of the soul elsewhere, the Scripture does not use the singular (as if referring to the one soul of Adam), but the plural (Ps. 33:15; Is. 57:16). But man here is not taken individually for Adam, but specifically for any man.
VI. "We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence:shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" (Heb. 12:9). And Peter calls him in a peculiar manner a "faithful Creator of souls" (I Pet. 4:19). In Num. 16:22, God is called 'the God of the spirits of all flesh.' So too Is. 57:16: "For I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.' Now why should God be called "the Father of spirits" in contradistinction to "the fathers of the flesh” unless the origin of each was different? And yet if souls are propagated, the parents of the body and the soul should be the same. Indeed "the flesh" here cannot signify the old man or inborn corruption because then it would not be opposed to spirits (pneuniasi) in the plural, but to spirit (pneumati) in the singular. Rather it designates the body, and they are called 'fathers of the flesh" who generate the flesh. So the word "spirit" ought not to be referred to spiritual gifts (which are not treated of here), but to the other part of man opposed to the body. Nor can the omission of the pronoun hamon (with respect to the flesh) be a hindrance because it is to be repeated apo koinou (since he speaks about the same according to the principles and origin of the diverse parts). Hence in Num. 16:22, he is called "the father of the spirits of all flesh" (i.e., of all men). Again he cannot be called "the Father of spirits" mediately, as he is called "the father of the rain" (job 38:28) because he is its author (although not immediately). Thus the antithesis between the fathers of the flesh and the father of spirits would not stand, and the force of the apostolic exhortation to afford greater obedience to God than to earthly fathers would fall. Nor if the concourse of God is not excluded from the production of the flesh (although attributed to earthly fathers because he is the universal first cause), ought the concourse of man in the production of the spirit to be excluded (because he is the particular second cause).
VII. Third, the same thing is proved by arguments from reason. The soul is propagated by generation, either from both parents or from one only; either as to its totality or only as to a part. But neither can be said. Not the former because thus two souls would coalesce into one and be mingled. Not the latter, for if from one (either the father or the mother only) no reason can be given why it should be propagated by the one rather than by the other (since both parents are equally the principle of generation). If the whole is propagated, then the parents will be without it and so will be deprived of life. If a part, it will be divisible and consequently material and mortal. Nor can it be reasonably replied here that neither the whole soul nor a part of it is propagated, but a certain substance born of the soul and (as it were) an immortal seed of the soul. For it is taken for granted that there is a seed of the soul by which it either generates or is generated; yet such a seed cannot be granted (which does not fall from the soul), and therefore proves it to be material and divisible.
VIII. Again, all modes of propagation are pressed by the most serious difficulties; nor can they be admitted without overthrowing the spirituality of the rational soul. Not the first, which is held by those who consider the soul to be produced from the power of seed so that it is begotten with the body. For the effect cannot (in the total genus) be more noble than its cause; nor can things corporeal and elementary be so elevated as to produce a spiritual and rational thing. If generated from seed, with the seed also it will be corrupted. Men and brutes would have the same origin and consequently the same destruction. Not the second, which is held by those who think the soul of the son to be from that of the father in a manner inscrutable and unknown by us. This entangles rather than unfolds the matter. For the father produces the son either from some preexistent matter or from none; not from none because he would thus create; not from some because either it would be the corporeal substance of a seed (which has just been proved to be false) or it would be a certain spiritual substance of the soul (which again cannot be said). This is true because that spiritual substance is made either from the whole soul of the father or from a part only. Not from the whole because thus the soul of the father would vanish and be converted into that spiritual seed. Not from a part because thus the soul of the father would be divisible into parts, and because that substance is corruptible and perishes in the very instant the soul is produced. But then it will no longer be a spiritual or incorruptible substance. Thus it would follow that there are two spirits in the begotten man: the soul of the son and the spiritual substance from which his soul was produced. Besides, it is repugnant to the nature of seed for it to remain after the generation of the thing (because it ought to be transmuted into what springs from the seed).
IX. Not the third even though it may seem preferable to others. They hold that it is said to be propagated not by alienation, but by communication (as when light is kindled from light without any division of the other). (1) But the communication made of one and the same thing and without any alienation occurs only in an infinite and not in a finite essence (in which the same numerical essence cannot be communicated to another, but a similar only is produced). (2) The soul of the son cannot be produced from that of the father; neither terminatively (because the terminus a quo perishes, the terminus ad quem being produced), nor decisively (because the soul is without parts [ameristos]), nor constitutively (because the soul of the father is not a constitutive part of the soul of the son). (3) The similitude of the light does not apply. Besides the fact that the flame and candle are corporeal substances (while here the subject is a spiritual), it is certain that light is produced from the potency of the material. Nor can it be kindled without a decision of fiery particles transmitted from the lighted to the extinguished torch (which cannot be said of the soul).
X. Since, therefore, the opinion of propagation labors under inextricable difficulties, and no reason drawn from any other source forces us to admit it, we deservedly embrace the option of creation as more consistent with Scripture and right reason. This was also evidently the opinion of most of the heathen philosophers themselves. Hence the following expression of Zoroaster according to Ficinum: "You must hasten to the sunlight and to the father's sunbeams: thence a soul will be sent to you fully enslaved to mind" (Chre speudein se pros to phaos, kai pros patros augas Enthen epemphthe soi psyche! polyn hessamenif noun, Theologia Platonica de immortalitate animorum 10 [1559], p. 160). Aristotle asserts that "the mind or intellect, and that alone enters from without, and is alone divine" (ton noun thyrathen epeisienai kai theion einai monon, Generation of Animals 2.3.27-28 [Loeb, 170-711). Cicero says, "No origin of the soul can be found upon earth for there is nothing in the soul mixed and concrete that seems to be or born from the earth and made.... Thus whatever that is which perceives, knows, wishes and flourishes, is heavenly and divine and on that account must necessarily be eternal" (Tusculan Disputations 1.66 [Loeb, 76-791).
XI. God is said to have rested from all his work (Gen. 2:2), not by retiring from the administration of things, but by ceasing from the creation of new species or individuals (which might be the principles of new species). Thus he works even now (Jn. 5:17) by administering the instituted nature and multiplying whatever was; not, however, by instituting what was not. Now the souls which he creates every day are new individuals of species already created.
XII. Although the soul is not propagated, the divine blessing given at first (Gen. 1:28) does not cease to exert its power in the generation of men. For God always cooperates with the generators and the generation, not only by preserving man's prolific power, but also by infusing the soul into the disposed body.
XIII. It is not necessary in order that man may be said to generate man that he should generate all natures or essential parts of the compound. Otherwise, the blessed virgin did not beget true God and man. Rather it suffices that he prepares and works up the material and renders it fit for the introduction of form and attains the union of the soul with the body (by which man is constituted in his being as man and is made such a physical compound). For generation tends to the compound, not however to the production of both parts. As man is said to kill a man (who dissolves the union of the soul with the body although he does not even touch the soul), so man generates man because he joins together those parts from which man springs although not a soul-begetter (psychogonos). Nor ought he who generates the whole man to be forthwith the producer of the whole of man.
XIV. Adam can be said to have begotten man after his own image, although he did not produce the soul. The cause of the similitude is not the propagation of the soul, but the production of bodies of the same temperament with the parents. For from the different temperament and humors of the body, different propensities and affections are also born in our souls.
XV. When souls are said to have "gone out of the loins of Jacob" (Gen. 46:26), they are not understood properly, but synecdochically for the "persons" (a most usual manner of expression with the Scriptures). Moreover, there was no need that Jacob should contribute anything to the production of these souls. It suffices that he concurred to their conjunction or subsistence in the body mediately or immediately. Therefore they are said to have gone out, not as to being or substance simply, but as to subsistence in the body and union with it.
XVI. Although Christ was no less in Abraham (according to the flesh) than Levi (who was tithed in his loins, Heb. 7:9-10*), it does not follow that Levi was in him according to his soul (so that the soul of Levi was propagated and that a distinction may be preserved). Rather Levi (with respect to person) was in Abraham according to seminal mode and the natural powers of the father and mother (from whom he was to be bom). But Christ was in him only as to the human nature with regard to the mother; not, however, as to his divine nature and person. Thus his person could not be tithed; but as a superior he tithed Abraham and blessed him in Melchizedek (his type), not as man, but as the Mediator, God-man (theanthropos), performing a kingly and priestly office.
XVII. The propagation of original sin ought not to cause a denial of the creation of souls and the adoption of propagation because it can be sufficiently saved without this hypothesis (as will be demonstrated in its place). Although the soul is not materially from Adam (as to substance), yet it is originally from him as to subsistence. And as man is rightly said to beget man (although he does not beget the soul), so an impure progenerates an impure, especially (the just judgment of God intervening) that by which it was established that what he had bestowed upon the first man, he should at the same time have and lose for himself as well as his posterity. Now although it is curious to inquire and rash to define why God infuses a soul tainted with sin and joins it to an impure body, it is certainly evident that God did not will (on account of the sin of man) to abolish the first sanction concerning the propagation of the human race by generation. Thus the order of the universe and the conservation of human nature demanded it.
Courtesy of A Puritans Mind
The Scholastic Reformer explains how the soul is created.
by Dr. Francis Turretin
Thirteenth Question: The Origin of the Soul
Are souls created by God, or are they propagated? We affirm the former and deny the latter.
I. Although there are various opinions of theologians and philosophers about the origin of the soul, yet principally there are two to which the others can be referred: one asserting the creation, the other the propagation, (traducem) of the soul. The former holds all souls to have been immediately created by God and by creating infused; thus to be produced from nothing and without any preexisting material. The latter, however, maintains that souls are propagated. The former is the opinion of almost all the orthodox (with many of the fathers and Scholastics). The latter is embraced by the Lutherans. Tertullian was the author of propagation (traducis) in Treatise on the Soul (ANF 3:181-235), whom the Luciferians and many of the Latins followed. Augustine suspends his judgment (epechei) on this point and, although often discussing the question, still would not determine anything about it (cf. Letter 166 "To Jerome" [FC 30:6-31]; Letter 190 "To Optatus" [FC 30:271@881; The Retractions 1.1 [3] [FC 60:9@101). He testifies that "he still did not know what was to be held" (ibid., 2.82 [561 [FC 60:244; PL 32.653]).
II. Those who believe in propagation do not all think and speak together. Some hold the soul to be propagated from the semen of the parents and produced from the potency of matter. But this is rejected by most as less likely because if it de, pended upon the virtue of the semen, it would also be corporeal and subject to corruption. Others hold it to be from the soul of the father by propagation, yet in a manner inscrutable and unknown to us (Martinius, Miscellanearum Disputationum, Bk. 3, Disp. 7 [1603], pp. 541-42). Others maintain that the soul of the father procreates the soul of the son from a certain spiritual and incorporeal seed (as Timothy Bright). Finally, others (the more common opinion) think the soul is propagated by the soul, not by a decision and partition of the paternal soul, but in a spiritual manner, as light is kindled by light (so Balthasar Meisner and most Lutherans).
III. However, we endorse the creation of the soul: (1) from the law of creation; (2) from the testimony of Scripture; (3) from reasons. (1) From the law of creation, because the origin of our souls ought to be the same as of the soul of Adam; not only because we ought to bear his image (1 Cor. 15:47, 48), but also because his creation (as the first individual of the whole species) is an example of the formation of all men (as the wedlock of our first parents was an example for the rest). But the soul of Adam was created immediately by God, since "he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7). Thus it is evident his soul was not produced from potent material, but came to him extrinsically through creation and was infused into the body by the breath of God himself. Nor ought it to be objected that we cannot argue from Adam to ourselves because the same thing might be said of the origin of the body (which nevertheless is not the case, since ours is generated from seed, while that of Adam was created from the dust of the earth). Although there may be a disparity by reason of the efficient cause on account of the diversity of the subjects (because as the body is elementary and material, it can be produced by man through generation; but the soul, being immaterial and simple, cannot spring from any other source than God by creation), yet with respect to the material cause a comparison may rightly be made. For as the soul of Adam was created out of nothing, so also are the souls of his posterity; and as his body was formed of the dust of the earth, so also our bodies from seed (which itself also is earthly and material). Therefore the mode of action with respect to Adam was also singular, yet the nature of the thing is the same in both cases. This is confirmed by the production of Eve herself whose origin as to the body is described as from a rib of Adam, but of the soul no mention is made. Hence it is plainly gathered that the origin of her soul was not different from that of the soul of Adam because otherwise Moses would not have passed it over in silence (his purpose being to describe the origin of all things). And Adam himself would have mentioned this origin, yea he would have declared it specially; he would have said not only "this is bone of my bones," but "soul of my soul" (Gen. 2-23). This would have set forth more strongly the bond of wedlock, which should be not only in the bodies, but also in the souls. Finally, if Adam's soul and ours had a different origin, they could not be said to be of the same species because his was from nothing. Ours, however, would be from some preexisting material wholly dissimilar.
IV. Second, from the testimony of Scripture, in which God is spoken of as the author and Creator of the soul in a peculiar manner distinct from the body: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Ecc. 12:7). Here a manifest difference is marked between the origin and the destruction of the body and the soul. The one is said to return to the dust (whence it was taken); the other, however, to return unto God (who gave it). Therefore since the body returns thither whence it had its origin, so also the soul. This is more clearly confirmed by the fact that God is said to "give the spirit" (which cannot be understood of the common giving by concourse with second causes). For he also gives the body itself no less than the soul because he is the first cause of both (nor would he well be said by antithesis [kat'antithesin] to have given the spirit). Rather this is understood concerning the proper and peculiar mode of origin (which does not belong to the body). Nor ought it to be said that this is to be referred to the first creation of Adam. The scope, the words and circumstances of the text prove that it treats of the ordinary birth and destruction of men. Accordingly their bodies return to the dust (i.e., to the earth) whence they were taken, while their spirits return unto God, the judge, who gave them (either for glory or for punishment).
V. "The word of the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zech. 12:1). Whence a multiple argument is drawn for the creation against the birth of the soul (psychogonian). (1) He is said to form the spirit of man within him; therefore he ought to produce it immediately without the intervention of man. (2) The formation of the spirit is joined with the stretching out of the heavens and the founding of the earth, as of the same order and grade. Therefore since the former two are works of omnipotence, made immediately by God and without second causes, so the last ought to be also. Nor can this be referred to the mediate production of God because thus man would be admitted to a participation of causality, which the text does not allow (since it asserts the production of the soul as well as that of the heaven and earth to be peculiar to God). However, this is falsely restricted to the first production of man since it ought to be extended equally to all. Hence when it speaks of the production of the soul elsewhere, the Scripture does not use the singular (as if referring to the one soul of Adam), but the plural (Ps. 33:15; Is. 57:16). But man here is not taken individually for Adam, but specifically for any man.
VI. "We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence:shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" (Heb. 12:9). And Peter calls him in a peculiar manner a "faithful Creator of souls" (I Pet. 4:19). In Num. 16:22, God is called 'the God of the spirits of all flesh.' So too Is. 57:16: "For I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.' Now why should God be called "the Father of spirits" in contradistinction to "the fathers of the flesh” unless the origin of each was different? And yet if souls are propagated, the parents of the body and the soul should be the same. Indeed "the flesh" here cannot signify the old man or inborn corruption because then it would not be opposed to spirits (pneuniasi) in the plural, but to spirit (pneumati) in the singular. Rather it designates the body, and they are called 'fathers of the flesh" who generate the flesh. So the word "spirit" ought not to be referred to spiritual gifts (which are not treated of here), but to the other part of man opposed to the body. Nor can the omission of the pronoun hamon (with respect to the flesh) be a hindrance because it is to be repeated apo koinou (since he speaks about the same according to the principles and origin of the diverse parts). Hence in Num. 16:22, he is called "the father of the spirits of all flesh" (i.e., of all men). Again he cannot be called "the Father of spirits" mediately, as he is called "the father of the rain" (job 38:28) because he is its author (although not immediately). Thus the antithesis between the fathers of the flesh and the father of spirits would not stand, and the force of the apostolic exhortation to afford greater obedience to God than to earthly fathers would fall. Nor if the concourse of God is not excluded from the production of the flesh (although attributed to earthly fathers because he is the universal first cause), ought the concourse of man in the production of the spirit to be excluded (because he is the particular second cause).
VII. Third, the same thing is proved by arguments from reason. The soul is propagated by generation, either from both parents or from one only; either as to its totality or only as to a part. But neither can be said. Not the former because thus two souls would coalesce into one and be mingled. Not the latter, for if from one (either the father or the mother only) no reason can be given why it should be propagated by the one rather than by the other (since both parents are equally the principle of generation). If the whole is propagated, then the parents will be without it and so will be deprived of life. If a part, it will be divisible and consequently material and mortal. Nor can it be reasonably replied here that neither the whole soul nor a part of it is propagated, but a certain substance born of the soul and (as it were) an immortal seed of the soul. For it is taken for granted that there is a seed of the soul by which it either generates or is generated; yet such a seed cannot be granted (which does not fall from the soul), and therefore proves it to be material and divisible.
VIII. Again, all modes of propagation are pressed by the most serious difficulties; nor can they be admitted without overthrowing the spirituality of the rational soul. Not the first, which is held by those who consider the soul to be produced from the power of seed so that it is begotten with the body. For the effect cannot (in the total genus) be more noble than its cause; nor can things corporeal and elementary be so elevated as to produce a spiritual and rational thing. If generated from seed, with the seed also it will be corrupted. Men and brutes would have the same origin and consequently the same destruction. Not the second, which is held by those who think the soul of the son to be from that of the father in a manner inscrutable and unknown by us. This entangles rather than unfolds the matter. For the father produces the son either from some preexistent matter or from none; not from none because he would thus create; not from some because either it would be the corporeal substance of a seed (which has just been proved to be false) or it would be a certain spiritual substance of the soul (which again cannot be said). This is true because that spiritual substance is made either from the whole soul of the father or from a part only. Not from the whole because thus the soul of the father would vanish and be converted into that spiritual seed. Not from a part because thus the soul of the father would be divisible into parts, and because that substance is corruptible and perishes in the very instant the soul is produced. But then it will no longer be a spiritual or incorruptible substance. Thus it would follow that there are two spirits in the begotten man: the soul of the son and the spiritual substance from which his soul was produced. Besides, it is repugnant to the nature of seed for it to remain after the generation of the thing (because it ought to be transmuted into what springs from the seed).
IX. Not the third even though it may seem preferable to others. They hold that it is said to be propagated not by alienation, but by communication (as when light is kindled from light without any division of the other). (1) But the communication made of one and the same thing and without any alienation occurs only in an infinite and not in a finite essence (in which the same numerical essence cannot be communicated to another, but a similar only is produced). (2) The soul of the son cannot be produced from that of the father; neither terminatively (because the terminus a quo perishes, the terminus ad quem being produced), nor decisively (because the soul is without parts [ameristos]), nor constitutively (because the soul of the father is not a constitutive part of the soul of the son). (3) The similitude of the light does not apply. Besides the fact that the flame and candle are corporeal substances (while here the subject is a spiritual), it is certain that light is produced from the potency of the material. Nor can it be kindled without a decision of fiery particles transmitted from the lighted to the extinguished torch (which cannot be said of the soul).
X. Since, therefore, the opinion of propagation labors under inextricable difficulties, and no reason drawn from any other source forces us to admit it, we deservedly embrace the option of creation as more consistent with Scripture and right reason. This was also evidently the opinion of most of the heathen philosophers themselves. Hence the following expression of Zoroaster according to Ficinum: "You must hasten to the sunlight and to the father's sunbeams: thence a soul will be sent to you fully enslaved to mind" (Chre speudein se pros to phaos, kai pros patros augas Enthen epemphthe soi psyche! polyn hessamenif noun, Theologia Platonica de immortalitate animorum 10 [1559], p. 160). Aristotle asserts that "the mind or intellect, and that alone enters from without, and is alone divine" (ton noun thyrathen epeisienai kai theion einai monon, Generation of Animals 2.3.27-28 [Loeb, 170-711). Cicero says, "No origin of the soul can be found upon earth for there is nothing in the soul mixed and concrete that seems to be or born from the earth and made.... Thus whatever that is which perceives, knows, wishes and flourishes, is heavenly and divine and on that account must necessarily be eternal" (Tusculan Disputations 1.66 [Loeb, 76-791).
XI. God is said to have rested from all his work (Gen. 2:2), not by retiring from the administration of things, but by ceasing from the creation of new species or individuals (which might be the principles of new species). Thus he works even now (Jn. 5:17) by administering the instituted nature and multiplying whatever was; not, however, by instituting what was not. Now the souls which he creates every day are new individuals of species already created.
XII. Although the soul is not propagated, the divine blessing given at first (Gen. 1:28) does not cease to exert its power in the generation of men. For God always cooperates with the generators and the generation, not only by preserving man's prolific power, but also by infusing the soul into the disposed body.
XIII. It is not necessary in order that man may be said to generate man that he should generate all natures or essential parts of the compound. Otherwise, the blessed virgin did not beget true God and man. Rather it suffices that he prepares and works up the material and renders it fit for the introduction of form and attains the union of the soul with the body (by which man is constituted in his being as man and is made such a physical compound). For generation tends to the compound, not however to the production of both parts. As man is said to kill a man (who dissolves the union of the soul with the body although he does not even touch the soul), so man generates man because he joins together those parts from which man springs although not a soul-begetter (psychogonos). Nor ought he who generates the whole man to be forthwith the producer of the whole of man.
XIV. Adam can be said to have begotten man after his own image, although he did not produce the soul. The cause of the similitude is not the propagation of the soul, but the production of bodies of the same temperament with the parents. For from the different temperament and humors of the body, different propensities and affections are also born in our souls.
XV. When souls are said to have "gone out of the loins of Jacob" (Gen. 46:26), they are not understood properly, but synecdochically for the "persons" (a most usual manner of expression with the Scriptures). Moreover, there was no need that Jacob should contribute anything to the production of these souls. It suffices that he concurred to their conjunction or subsistence in the body mediately or immediately. Therefore they are said to have gone out, not as to being or substance simply, but as to subsistence in the body and union with it.
XVI. Although Christ was no less in Abraham (according to the flesh) than Levi (who was tithed in his loins, Heb. 7:9-10*), it does not follow that Levi was in him according to his soul (so that the soul of Levi was propagated and that a distinction may be preserved). Rather Levi (with respect to person) was in Abraham according to seminal mode and the natural powers of the father and mother (from whom he was to be bom). But Christ was in him only as to the human nature with regard to the mother; not, however, as to his divine nature and person. Thus his person could not be tithed; but as a superior he tithed Abraham and blessed him in Melchizedek (his type), not as man, but as the Mediator, God-man (theanthropos), performing a kingly and priestly office.
XVII. The propagation of original sin ought not to cause a denial of the creation of souls and the adoption of propagation because it can be sufficiently saved without this hypothesis (as will be demonstrated in its place). Although the soul is not materially from Adam (as to substance), yet it is originally from him as to subsistence. And as man is rightly said to beget man (although he does not beget the soul), so an impure progenerates an impure, especially (the just judgment of God intervening) that by which it was established that what he had bestowed upon the first man, he should at the same time have and lose for himself as well as his posterity. Now although it is curious to inquire and rash to define why God infuses a soul tainted with sin and joins it to an impure body, it is certainly evident that God did not will (on account of the sin of man) to abolish the first sanction concerning the propagation of the human race by generation. Thus the order of the universe and the conservation of human nature demanded it.
Courtesy of A Puritans Mind
September 24, 2008
A Sharing Moment | Testimony, Ministry & Issues
sonalGangte Church, New Delhi, India
Sunday, August 7th, 2008
Chelms Varthoumlien
Being in Canada for 2 and half years now, I have adapted myself into a society that seemingly is the covetous lifestyle endorsed by the mass media and exported across oceans – and I do thank God for providing me the strength that I needed to accept this change. Growing up from a Christian home, I was a child notoriously known to be a polar opposite to the faith my parents proclaimed. I felt God was a joke. From over consuming a style of life – very much distorted by Satan – I lead a life that was meaningless, a fanciful false reality that conjured more false ones. I wasn’t looking for the truth. I was looking for pleasure. A narcissistic fantasy where I was secure in my own bubble, curled in a fetus position.
But now, when I look back at the years that have gone passed. I realized each step was preordained, having a significant impact to the way I live now and will live. A lesson was being taught to me consistently. As a man who remains unable to pick up a large boulder from his path due to his lack of physical strength. Training oneself and being prepared beforehand would prove to be wise. Thus God foreknew what was ahead of me and he prepared me, refining me from dirt, similar to how God refined David, Joseph and more. He used certain circumstances to build up a person, thus enabling that person to over haul the large boulder that he would soon come across and perhaps even bigger. Now God continues to refine me and will continue to do so until I am at last with him.
Currently I am involved with a campus ministry called Campus for Christ. Campus for Christ is an international and an Interdenominational worldwide Christian organization dedicated to glorifying God by helping to build movements of evangelism and discipleship around the world. The purpose of Campus for Christ is to help change the world by turning lost students into Christ-centered labourers. Former President of the United Nations General Assembly, Charles Malik, once said, "The University is the clear-cut fulcrum with which to move the world. More potently than by any other means, change the university and you change the world." That's what we believe! Our strategy in accomplishing this is to win, build, and send:
It is now the 21st century and human history has come a long way since the 2nd century Christians who took hold of their inheritance from the eternal God, and valiantly went against the tide that the world was surging at them. From the Apostle John writing to his contemporaries warning them about a deception that was percolating through their beliefs, to the reformation era when Protestantism sprang forth from a perverted establishment. Satan who clothes himself in sheep’s clothing, prancing around as an angel light, deceiving people where ever he goes, has been deceiving people since Adam and Eve.
In the western society – albeit being considered highly modern in its infrastructure – has been a victim to great deceptions. The Bible has numerous prophecies about the end times that are to befall on this world, and I believe most of them have found their home in the comfort of the so called “free-world”. The society now continues to progress into a philosophy of liberation – A naturalistic approach of getting rid of the old and bringing in the new. Carl Henry says that “The Modern Era sought to liberate humanity from... fate or existence in a God-ordered universe, Secular science promised a new freedom for humanity and progress for the planet. The intellectual order of the world was relocated in human reasoning.” (Henry, PNS, as cited in Dockery, CP, 36) As a result, man has now become a measure of all things and not God – humanism is the sole perpetrator.
Humanism was born in the Garden of Eden. When Adam decided to do it his own way and set up his own Eden outside the parameters of God (Ravi Zacharias). Human reasoning thus replaced reliance on God in the modern Era. Malcolm Muggeridge says that “"It is difficult to resist the conclusion that 20th century man has decided to abolish himself. Tired of the struggle to be himself, he has created boredom out of his own affluence, impotence out of his own erotomania, and vulnerability out of his own strength. He himself blows the trumpet that brings the walls of his own cities crashing down. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, having drugged and polluted himself into stupefaction. He keels over, a weary battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.” What results when man becomes the measure of things? It is nothing but chaos. The Nazi regime for example, came out from the minds of the most educated people of that time and it resulted in a termination of millions of lives. People often retort with a question “how many people are killed in the name of God?” but I ask them “how many people are killed in the name of Godlessness?” Killing in the name of God is an infrastructure set up by people by their illogical outcome, whereas killing in the name of godlessness is a result of logical outcome; keeping God out of the picture, they become the measure of all things, but who? Hitler? Stalin?
Humanism has degraded our human essence to something purely matter, pulling us farther away from our spiritual essence, the modern world is encouraging us to deny the objective truth, be materialistic, be the measure of all things and be the boss of our own lives. Jesus knew this and said "Man shall not live by bread alone," because he knew there was something far greater in the need of man, than merely a stomach that is in need to be filled.
Sunday, August 7th, 2008
Chelms Varthoumlien
Being in Canada for 2 and half years now, I have adapted myself into a society that seemingly is the covetous lifestyle endorsed by the mass media and exported across oceans – and I do thank God for providing me the strength that I needed to accept this change. Growing up from a Christian home, I was a child notoriously known to be a polar opposite to the faith my parents proclaimed. I felt God was a joke. From over consuming a style of life – very much distorted by Satan – I lead a life that was meaningless, a fanciful false reality that conjured more false ones. I wasn’t looking for the truth. I was looking for pleasure. A narcissistic fantasy where I was secure in my own bubble, curled in a fetus position.
But now, when I look back at the years that have gone passed. I realized each step was preordained, having a significant impact to the way I live now and will live. A lesson was being taught to me consistently. As a man who remains unable to pick up a large boulder from his path due to his lack of physical strength. Training oneself and being prepared beforehand would prove to be wise. Thus God foreknew what was ahead of me and he prepared me, refining me from dirt, similar to how God refined David, Joseph and more. He used certain circumstances to build up a person, thus enabling that person to over haul the large boulder that he would soon come across and perhaps even bigger. Now God continues to refine me and will continue to do so until I am at last with him.
Currently I am involved with a campus ministry called Campus for Christ. Campus for Christ is an international and an Interdenominational worldwide Christian organization dedicated to glorifying God by helping to build movements of evangelism and discipleship around the world. The purpose of Campus for Christ is to help change the world by turning lost students into Christ-centered labourers. Former President of the United Nations General Assembly, Charles Malik, once said, "The University is the clear-cut fulcrum with which to move the world. More potently than by any other means, change the university and you change the world." That's what we believe! Our strategy in accomplishing this is to win, build, and send:
- WIN - Through various forms of initiative evangelism, as well as through the many outreach events we put on throughout the year, it is our hope that every student every year at universities across Canada will have the opportunity to hear about Jesus Christ.
- BUILD - Discipleship Groups, weekly large group meetings, and special retreats like Summit and Winter Conference, all serve to better equip and "build" students up in their faith.
- SEND - We also want to send students out to their jobs and on Spring and Summer Projects to be lights in the world for Christ.
All of these commitments are based on our Lord's commands: And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)
It is now the 21st century and human history has come a long way since the 2nd century Christians who took hold of their inheritance from the eternal God, and valiantly went against the tide that the world was surging at them. From the Apostle John writing to his contemporaries warning them about a deception that was percolating through their beliefs, to the reformation era when Protestantism sprang forth from a perverted establishment. Satan who clothes himself in sheep’s clothing, prancing around as an angel light, deceiving people where ever he goes, has been deceiving people since Adam and Eve.
In the western society – albeit being considered highly modern in its infrastructure – has been a victim to great deceptions. The Bible has numerous prophecies about the end times that are to befall on this world, and I believe most of them have found their home in the comfort of the so called “free-world”. The society now continues to progress into a philosophy of liberation – A naturalistic approach of getting rid of the old and bringing in the new. Carl Henry says that “The Modern Era sought to liberate humanity from... fate or existence in a God-ordered universe, Secular science promised a new freedom for humanity and progress for the planet. The intellectual order of the world was relocated in human reasoning.” (Henry, PNS, as cited in Dockery, CP, 36) As a result, man has now become a measure of all things and not God – humanism is the sole perpetrator.
Humanism was born in the Garden of Eden. When Adam decided to do it his own way and set up his own Eden outside the parameters of God (Ravi Zacharias). Human reasoning thus replaced reliance on God in the modern Era. Malcolm Muggeridge says that “"It is difficult to resist the conclusion that 20th century man has decided to abolish himself. Tired of the struggle to be himself, he has created boredom out of his own affluence, impotence out of his own erotomania, and vulnerability out of his own strength. He himself blows the trumpet that brings the walls of his own cities crashing down. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, having drugged and polluted himself into stupefaction. He keels over, a weary battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.” What results when man becomes the measure of things? It is nothing but chaos. The Nazi regime for example, came out from the minds of the most educated people of that time and it resulted in a termination of millions of lives. People often retort with a question “how many people are killed in the name of God?” but I ask them “how many people are killed in the name of Godlessness?” Killing in the name of God is an infrastructure set up by people by their illogical outcome, whereas killing in the name of godlessness is a result of logical outcome; keeping God out of the picture, they become the measure of all things, but who? Hitler? Stalin?
Humanism has degraded our human essence to something purely matter, pulling us farther away from our spiritual essence, the modern world is encouraging us to deny the objective truth, be materialistic, be the measure of all things and be the boss of our own lives. Jesus knew this and said "Man shall not live by bread alone," because he knew there was something far greater in the need of man, than merely a stomach that is in need to be filled.
September 22, 2008
God Does Not Repent Like a Man - John Piper
November 11, 1998
After Saul disobeys Samuel, God says, "I regret [= repent] that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands" (1 Samuel 15:11). Some have argued that since God "repents" of things he has done, therefore he could not have foreseen what was coming. Else why would he repent or regret, if he knew in advance the consequence of his decision?
However, this is not a compelling argument against God's foreknowledge. First of all, the argument assumes that God could not, or would not, lament over a state of affairs he himself chose to bring about. That not true to human experience; and more importantly, God's heart is capable of complex combinations of emotions infinitely more remarkable that ours. He may well be capable of lamenting over something he chose to bring about.
Not only that, God may also be capable of looking back on the very act of bringing something about and lamenting that act in one regard, while affirming it as best in another regard. For example, if I spank my son for blatant disobedience and he runs away from home because I spanked him, I may feel some remorse over the spanking - not in the sense that I disapprove of what I did, but in the sense that I feel some sorrow that spanking was a necessary part of a wise way of dealing with this situation, and that it led to his running away. If I had it to do over again, I would still spank him. It was the right thing to do. Even knowing that one consequence would be alienation for a season, I approve the spanking, and at the same time regret the spanking. If such a combination of emotions can accompany my own decisions, it is not hard to imagine that God's infinite mind may be capable of something similar.
Now the question is: Does the Bible teach that God laments some of his decisions in the sense that I have described above (which does not imply that He is ignorant of their future consequences), or does the Bible teach that God laments some of his decisions because he did not see what was coming?
The answer is given later in 1 Samuel 15. After God says in verse 11, "I repent that I have made Saul king," Samuel says in verse 29, as if to clarify, "The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent" (KJV). The point of this verse seems to be that, even though there is a sense in which God does repent (verse 11), there is another sense in which he does not repent (verse 29). The difference would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future).
For God to say, "I feel sorrow that I made Saul king," is not the same as saying, "I would not make him king if I had it to do over." God is able to feel sorrow for an act in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will to do it for wise reasons. And so later, when he looks back on the act, he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience.
Hence we have our precious fighter verse in Numbers 23:19 - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" I say it is precious, because here God's commitment to his promises hangs on his not repenting like a man. In other words, God's promises are not in jeopardy, because God can foresee all circumstances, he knows that nothing will occur that will cause him to take them back.
Resting in the confidence of God's all-knowing promises,
Pastor John
After Saul disobeys Samuel, God says, "I regret [= repent] that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands" (1 Samuel 15:11). Some have argued that since God "repents" of things he has done, therefore he could not have foreseen what was coming. Else why would he repent or regret, if he knew in advance the consequence of his decision?
However, this is not a compelling argument against God's foreknowledge. First of all, the argument assumes that God could not, or would not, lament over a state of affairs he himself chose to bring about. That not true to human experience; and more importantly, God's heart is capable of complex combinations of emotions infinitely more remarkable that ours. He may well be capable of lamenting over something he chose to bring about.
Not only that, God may also be capable of looking back on the very act of bringing something about and lamenting that act in one regard, while affirming it as best in another regard. For example, if I spank my son for blatant disobedience and he runs away from home because I spanked him, I may feel some remorse over the spanking - not in the sense that I disapprove of what I did, but in the sense that I feel some sorrow that spanking was a necessary part of a wise way of dealing with this situation, and that it led to his running away. If I had it to do over again, I would still spank him. It was the right thing to do. Even knowing that one consequence would be alienation for a season, I approve the spanking, and at the same time regret the spanking. If such a combination of emotions can accompany my own decisions, it is not hard to imagine that God's infinite mind may be capable of something similar.
Now the question is: Does the Bible teach that God laments some of his decisions in the sense that I have described above (which does not imply that He is ignorant of their future consequences), or does the Bible teach that God laments some of his decisions because he did not see what was coming?
The answer is given later in 1 Samuel 15. After God says in verse 11, "I repent that I have made Saul king," Samuel says in verse 29, as if to clarify, "The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent" (KJV). The point of this verse seems to be that, even though there is a sense in which God does repent (verse 11), there is another sense in which he does not repent (verse 29). The difference would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future).
For God to say, "I feel sorrow that I made Saul king," is not the same as saying, "I would not make him king if I had it to do over." God is able to feel sorrow for an act in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will to do it for wise reasons. And so later, when he looks back on the act, he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience.
Hence we have our precious fighter verse in Numbers 23:19 - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" I say it is precious, because here God's commitment to his promises hangs on his not repenting like a man. In other words, God's promises are not in jeopardy, because God can foresee all circumstances, he knows that nothing will occur that will cause him to take them back.
Resting in the confidence of God's all-knowing promises,
Pastor John
September 15, 2008
Charles Spurgeon Suite
Spurgeon was one of the greatest evangelist and orators in history. His suite is lavishly furnished with two TV’s, a marble Jacuzzi with six -eight foot high marble columns, mirrored ceilings, three stained glass windows and a hand carved queen-size cherry bed with lace canopy. Enjoy the view and serenity from the beautiful bay window overlooking Historic Mansion Row. $220
Courtesy of Honeymoon Mansion Bed & Breakfast and Wedding Chapel
:: This Month ::
1. Do you think absolute silence is real & why (theoretically, meta-phsyically, conceptually, politically, whatever)?? *a question i pose for discussion*
2. What are your thoughts on the concept of noise in context to different settings? (is it a relative concept?)
2. What are your thoughts on the concept of noise in context to different settings? (is it a relative concept?)
The mind that resounds
I am always set to seek an answer that is waiting to be questioned. A rhetoric of ideas, concepts, theories, that seemingly precedes all rational thoughts the moment they enter my thinking. I'm stuck in my own fragmented ideologies about life and truth. Determined by the meta-physics and the divine. I know there is an external experience waiting to be discovered once we begin to rediscover a lot of imposed prejudices and presuppositions.
Ever questioned the invisible firewall that language imposes on us living beings? The law of language works in a particular way that ideas and the rhetoric of our own conscious is at times so darn difficult to make the conjunction between two individually determined minds. A meeting between words determined by grammar. Logic then determines and recognizes the absurdity of contradictory phrases, leading rhetoric to determine when and how to use the "phrases" mastered by grammar and logic
I guess this explains why Artist -- usually the abstract, surreal and theoretical -- have a difficulty being accepted by the masses.
I'm a person that likes systematics, an orderly reconstruction of chaos. It makes sense to me, that i don't have to live with a constant tumor in my brain that keeps me bed ridden. There is a sense of liberation (not in a bad way) when systematic is introduced into any mess (not in a bay way either), and i feel at peace knowing that. But some people would fairly argue against the 'liberated' systematic; I don't blame them, i think they are just being extra careful.
[im bored of typing now]
Ever questioned the invisible firewall that language imposes on us living beings? The law of language works in a particular way that ideas and the rhetoric of our own conscious is at times so darn difficult to make the conjunction between two individually determined minds. A meeting between words determined by grammar. Logic then determines and recognizes the absurdity of contradictory phrases, leading rhetoric to determine when and how to use the "phrases" mastered by grammar and logic
I guess this explains why Artist -- usually the abstract, surreal and theoretical -- have a difficulty being accepted by the masses.
I'm a person that likes systematics, an orderly reconstruction of chaos. It makes sense to me, that i don't have to live with a constant tumor in my brain that keeps me bed ridden. There is a sense of liberation (not in a bad way) when systematic is introduced into any mess (not in a bay way either), and i feel at peace knowing that. But some people would fairly argue against the 'liberated' systematic; I don't blame them, i think they are just being extra careful.
[im bored of typing now]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)