<010127> Genesis 1:27 ? ?And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him?; 31 ? ?And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.? <450512>Romans 5:12 ? ?Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.? The theory of pre-existence would still leave it doubtful whether all men are sinners, or whether God assembles only sinners upon the earth.
(b) If the soul in this pre-existent state was conscious and personal it is inexplicable that we should have no remembrance of such pre-existence, and of so important a decision in that previous condition of being. If the soul was yet unconscious and impersonal, the theory fails to show how a moral act involving consequences so vast could have been performed at all.
Christ remembered his pre-existent state so why should not we? There is every reason to believe that in the future state we shall remember our present existence; why should we not now remember the past state from which we came? It may be objected that Augustinians hold to a sin of the race in Adam ? a sin which none of Adam?s descendants can remember. But we reply that no Augustinian holds to a personal existence of each member of the race in Adam, and therefore no Augustinian needs to account for lack of memory of Adam?s sin. The advocate of pre-existence, however, does hold to a personal existence of each soul in a previous state, and therefore needs to account for our lack of memory of it.
(c) The view sheds no light either upon the origin of sin, or upon Gods justice in dealing with it, since it throws back the first transgression to a state of being in which there was no flesh to tempt, and then represents God as putting the fallen into sensuous conditions in the highest degree unfavorable to their restoration.
This theory only increases the difficulty of explaining the origin of sin, by pushing back its beginning to a state of which we know less than we do of the present. To say that the soul in that previous state was only potentially conscious and personal, is to deny any real probation, and to throw the blame of sin on God the Creator. Pfleiderer, Philos. of Religion, 1:228 ? ?In modern times, the philosophers Kant, Schelling and Schopenhauer have explained the bad from an intelligible act of freedom, which (according to Schelling and Schopenhauer) also at the same time effectuates the temporal existence and condition of the individual soul. But what are we to think of as meant by such a mystical deed or act through which the subject of it first comes into existence? Is it not this, that perhaps under this singular disguise there to conceal the simple
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?