You can't account for your use of the Incarnation
There were some comments on a blog some time back where our dear friends talked about the soul. This got me asking the question: "Where do souls come from?" This has deep implications when viewed in light of both the concept of original sin and also atonement through the incarnation of the god-man.
Among Christian theists there have generally been two answers to this question. Creationists say that God creates each soul as the child is conceived - making God a busy deity indeed - and the other view is called traducianism. Traducianists claim that the soul is the product of man and woman - it seems that not only are egg and sperm a means of uniting DNA but also a "half soul" as well.
Of course this entire line of reasoning is in no way biblically based and any theist claiming that only a Biblical worldview is justified cannot use it. There is no Biblical justification for saying that men's souls are the product of reproduction - in fact there is good evidence from the bible that men's souls are the creation of God.
Eccl 12:7 states "the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it"
Is 57:16 states "I will not contend forever, nor will I always be angry, for from me proceeds the Spirit, and I have made the spirit of life." A contrast between the spirit of God and spirit that animates his animals.
Heb 12:9 states "Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?" God as the father of spirits.
Creationists respond to the traducianists by first giving biblical support for their view - like the verses above - and then argue that God creates the soul pure and places it in man where it is immediately corrupted by the flesh. [How this gets God off the hook as I’m not sure.] The justification of this seems to come from David when he says:
Ps 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me”
It seems that the traducianists are relying upon their own thinking to solve this problem when the answer is right before them - creationism. But does creationism solve this problem and more importantly what are the implications for the incarnation?
Christianity unanimously tells us that Jesus was perfect and without sin. The author of Hebrews tells us that he was tempted like us in every way but without sin. And in another place that he was a high priest able to sympathize with our weakness. Somehow the all corrupting flesh of man is incapable of corrupting the spirit of God himself as the god-man.
This is a glaring inconsistency - which should not surprise us at all. How is it that God is able to be placed within flesh and yet remain unscathed by flesh? It does not matter that Joseph wass not the father for the flesh of the mother is still being used. Perhaps God created his own flesh in Mary? Then God is the author of sin again. Perhaps God has some innate quality that keeps him from being tainted? Then he cannot be tempted in everyway as Hebrews tells us. [This is really a non-sequitor in purview of the doctrines of Christianity. Jesus being tempted in every way is irrelevant when taking into account the total corruption of flesh. Temptation would be considered an "empiracal proof" that the flesh is tainted and can't be used as an argument against his soul being corrupted at conception.] Perhaps Jesus just managed to live in perfect obedience which kept him from being tainted... but this would invalidate the claim that the flesh corrupts making it possible for anyone to be a "Christ." Perhaps God just creates men's souls differently than God's own allowing them to obtain a fallen and corrupted nature once put into flesh? Then we are back to God not being able to be tempted as man and also God creating a soul "imperfectly."
There is no way to reconcile a pure man [a god] being placed within an impure body and remain pure. Theists cannot account for their use of the incarnation as a means for the "perfect atoning sacrifice." Of course they can always fall back upon special pleading and the “God’s ways are mysterious” argument… can’t they?