The Mormon Times has a short write-up on a presentation given by Terryl Givens at UVU (that's Utah Valley University) on the preexistence in Western thought, the topic of his soon-to-be-released book. While the doctrine certainly has its appeal, it remains a heresy to orthodox Christians. Here, quoting from the article, is one purported theological advantage of accepting the doctrine.
In most historical writings that reference a pre-mortal existence, Givens said the pre-existence served as a solution to a theological problem -- usually that of the argument against the notion that men have free will.
Quoting John Taggart, Givens said, "'If God created our souls, he could have prevented all sin by creating us with better features and more favorable surroundings.'" Givens went on to say "(Taggart's) argument led him to conclude that ... a human spirit rooted in an eternal pre-existence solved this dilemma."
So defenders of the preexistence suggest that holding God to be the Creator of human souls lays some or all of the responsibility for sin at God's feet. Instead, they posit an eternal past for human spirits or souls, mirroring an eternal future. If spirits are uncreated, then God is absolved of the responsibility for having created our flawed nature and corrupt will, which give rise to the world of sin we know so well.
But I'm not sure positing a preexistence or eternal and uncreated souls really delivers on this promise to absolve God. Between a host of preexistent heavenly spirits and a world of bodily enfleshed spirits lies the problematic process of matching spirits to bodies. Problematic, of course, because not all bodies are the same. They come with radically different initial endowments (as an economist would say), including a genetic inheritance that contributes an undetermined but substantial measure of one's earthly disposition and predilections. If God assigns spirits to bodies, the same degree of responsibility seems to follow as if he created spirits using a just-in-time process. "If you had matched me up with a healthy mind and body and with decent parents, I wouldn't have been so evil" seems to be an objection that raises the same or similar issues to just-in-time creation. And it would be hard to avoid the objection by suggesting the matching process occurs independent of God's control.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Todd: Can you explain to me how evil comes to an end in Christian doctrine as long as hell exists and some of God's children are suffering in hell? It is an unusual conception of evil if hell doesn't qualify as such.
Gary,
Hell is the consequense of evil, it is not the source of it. Hell will exist even after Satan is bound. All this means is that the Devil and his followers will no longer be albe to tempt men. The judgement has already taken place and those that were wicked on Earth will remain in Hell. This brings up a bigger question, What is Hell?
Blake, doesn't Jeremiah ask a similar question, and God answers it? I don't have my Bible in front of me. Is it chapter 12?
Gary, we could probably get into discussion sometime as to what defines a child of God. I am looking forward to the day when I completely and forever freed from evil and the celestial presence of God.
Todd: I don't think the definition of a child of God is the issue. A human being is a human being, and it is hard to argue that evil has come to end as long as human beings suffer in the kind of hell envisioned by conventional Christian doctrine.
Sometimes those human beings go far below even the basic instincts of the animals. I am learning this in the book of Jeremiah, too.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.