# Traducianism vs. Creationism



## Aco (Jun 2, 2018)

What is the historical Reformed understanding concerining the issue of Traducianism vs. Creationism? Is the Soul transmitted from the parents to the new born child (Traducianism), or is a new soul of an individual created at every moment of conception (Creationism)? That issue goes into the question of how Original Sin is transmitted.
Some Church Fathers held the position of Traducianism, like Augustine.
Now, does the Reformed position of Federal headship lead somebody to any of those two positions, or is there a third option?
I'm not aware if the Reformers or any Confession adressed that issue too.
Is there an exegetical basis for any of those two positions?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2018)

Almost everyone held to Creationism. There are difficulties with both. The classic text on traducianism is WGT Shedd's Dogmatic Theology.
https://puritanboard.com/threads/reconsidering-traducianism.94845/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 2, 2018)

Aco said:


> What is the historical Reformed understanding concerining the issue of Traducianism vs. Creationism?



This paper by Gordon H. Clark isn't exactly a "historic" view of the subject. But it is a good survey of some more modern theologians such as A. A. Hodge, J. Oliver Buswell, Louis Berkhof, and G. T. Shedd

Here's Gordon H. Clark's take on Traducianism
https://goo.gl/osQG2L

This is his introductory paragraph:

The various theological doctrines are so interwoven that it is sometimes difficult to know in what order to discuss them. As a professor once said of a work on philosophy (and no doubt of all works on philosophy, so also with theology) one cannot understand the first chapter until after he has understood the last chapter. The nineteenth-century theologian, W. G. T. Shedd, had prepared for the subjects just discussed in our previous section by a long passage on the origin of individual souls. He put it in his chapter on “Creation.” A. A. Hodge might well have done so, for he holds to the immediate creation of every soul at the moment of conception. But Shedd holds that the souls of the children are as much derived from their parents as their bodies are. The plan of the present treatise is to connect the origin of souls with federal headship and the imputation of guilt from Adam. The origin of souls was mentioned in that section, but its discussion was deferred.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Aco (Jun 2, 2018)

It seems to me that Creationism could lead into Nestorianism.
God is Spirit, and the Scriptures don't make a clear distinction between a soul and a spirit in a person, to my knowledge. If a person dies, the soul continues to exist and therefore also real personhood.
It seems to me that Personhood and Soul have to be related. If not, then the soul seems to be an inexplicable irrational entity.
If Christ's soul is created at the conception and the preexistent Person of the Son takes on flesh, you have to persons.
I also don't see how Traducianism would solve that problem


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> This paper by Gordon H. Clark isn't exactly a "historic" view of the subject. But it is a good survey of some more modern theologians such as A. A. Hodge, J. Oliver Buswell, Louis Berkhof, and G. T. Shedd
> 
> Here's Gordon H. Clark's take on Traducianism
> https://goo.gl/osQG2L
> ...



The Clark piece is really good. He shows how strong the positive case for traducianism is. It's one of the reasons I haven't outright dismissed traducianism. The biggest difficulty with traducianism is that it seems to say that souls are "fissile," which is hard to square with the soul's being an immaterial object.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2018)

Aco said:


> It seems to me that Personhood and Soul have to be related. If not, then the soul seems to be an inexplicable irrational entity.
> If Christ's soul is created at the conception and the preexistent Person of the Son takes on flesh, you have to persons.



Souls are are a subset of nature, not persons. If soul = person, then Christ would be two persons, which is off-limits.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Aco (Jun 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Souls are are a subset of nature, not persons. If soul = person, then Christ would be two persons, which is off-limits.



Yes, but could it be said that Christ had two souls?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 2, 2018)

Aco said:


> Yes, but could it be said that Christ had two souls?


God Himself does not a soul, at least not as we would commonly define that term.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 2, 2018)

Aco said:


> It seems to me that Creationism could lead into Nestorianism.
> God is Spirit, and the Scriptures don't make a clear distinction between a soul and a spirit in a person, to my knowledge. If a person dies, the soul continues to exist and therefore also real personhood.
> It seems to me that Personhood and Soul have to be related. If not, then the soul seems to be an inexplicable irrational entity.
> If Christ's soul is created at the conception and the preexistent Person of the Son takes on flesh, you have to persons.
> I also don't see how Traducianism would solve that problem


Most of the reformed have seemed to hold with the Creation position on the human soul, at least among the authors that I have read upon this subject.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 2, 2018)

Aco said:


> Yes, but could it be said that Christ had two souls?


See this post and forward:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-of-his-temptations.95514/page-3#post-1167730


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 2, 2018)

Aco said:


> Yes, but could it be said that Christ had two souls?


Christ is fully human, so he has a human soul as well as a human body. Anything that doesn't have a soul can't be a human.

God is simple. He isn't made up of parts. God doesn't _have _a soul. He _is _that he is. And what he is is very different than a human soul.

So Christ has both a human body and a human soul (which, taken together, make him human), and he is God.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## bookslover (Jun 2, 2018)

Creationism for the win. Too many difficulties with traducianism.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 3, 2018)

I wrote an outline of Augustus H. Strong's treatment of the subject. Strong was a traducianist.

I) The Creation Theory
A) “[H]eld by Aristotle, Jerome, and Pelagius, and in modern times has been advocated by most of the Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians. It regards the soul of each human being as immediately created by God…”​
B) Best representatives:
i) Turretin
ii) Hodge
iii) Martensen
iv) Liddon​
C) Untenable for the following reasons:
i) “The passages adduced in its support may with equal propriety be regarded as expressing God’s mediate agency in the origination of human souls.”​
(a) Passages include:
(1) Eccl 12:7
(2) Is 57:16
(3) Zech 12:1
(4) Heb 12:9​
(b) Just as these passages refer to God as the creator of the soul, other passages equally refer to God as the creator of the body:​
(1) Ps 139:13-14
(2) Jer 1:5​
ii) “Creationism regards the earthly father as begetting only the body of his child—certainly as not the father of the child’s highest part. This makes the beast to possess nobler powers of propagation than man; for the beast multiplies himself after his own image.”

iii) “The individuality of the child, even in the most extreme cases, as in the sudden rise from obscure families and surroundings of marked men like Luther, may be better explained by supposing a law of variation impressed upon the species at its beginning—a law whose operation is foreseen and supervised by God.”

(a) This he proposes in opposition to the creationist’s contention “that there is a marked individuality in the child, which cannot be explained as a mere reproduction of the qualities existing in the parents.”​iv) “This theory, if it allows that the soul is originally possessed of depraved tendencies, makes God the direct author of moral evil...”
(a) “The decisive argument against creationism”​
II) The Traducian Theory
A) “This view was propounded by Tertullian, and was implicitly held by Augustine. In modern times it has been the prevailing opinion of the Lutheran Church. It holds that the human race was immediately created in Adam, and, as respects both body and soul, was propagated from him by natural generation—all souls since Adam being only mediately created by God…”
i) “Traducianism holds that man, as a species, was created in Adam. In Adam, the substance of humanity was yet undistributed. We derive our immaterial as well as our material being, by natural laws of propagation, from Adam…”​B) Remarks on Traducianism:
i) “It seems best to accord with Scripture, which represents God as creating the species in Adam (Gen 1:27), and as increasing and perpetuating it through secondary agencies (1:28; cf. 22). Only once is breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life (2:7; [he cites many other passages here]), and after man’s formation God ceases from his work of creation (Gen 2:2).”

ii) “It is favored by the analogy of vegetable and animal life, in which increase of numbers is secured, not by a multiplicity of immediate creations, but by the natural derivation of new individuals from a parent stock.”

iii) “The observed transmission not merely of physical, but of mental and spiritual, characteristics in families and races, and especially the uniformly evil moral tendencies and dispositions which all men possess from their birth, are proof that in soul, as well as in body, we derive our being from our human ancestry.”

iv) Traducianism allows for significant variation of child from parent in spiritual constitution, just as the body may be significantly different than that of the parent; this variation is often presented as a proof for creationism, but is not inconsistent with the traducian view.​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I wrote an outline of Augustus H. Strong's treatment of the subject. Strong was a traducianist.
> 
> I) The Creation Theory
> A) “[H]eld by Aristotle, Jerome, and Pelagius, and in modern times has been advocated by most of the Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians. It regards the soul of each human being as immediately created by God…”​
> ...


I do not see though humans passing on a sin gene to ourchildrem, but that God has already judged all to be under the corrupting effects of the fall, so He indeed creates the human soul, but is not the One to be responsible for its corruption.
The aspect of us that is immaterial would be the part created in us by God, just as He breathed that into already existing Adam.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not see though humans passing on a sin gene to ourchildrem, but that God has already judged all to be under the corrupting effects of the fall, so He indeed creates the human soul, but is not the One to be responsible for its corruption.
> The aspect of us that is immaterial would be the part created in us by God, just as He breathed that into already existing Adam.


Nobody is arguing for a "sin gene."

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Nobody is arguing for a "sin gene."


The sin nature would be passed from parents to child through genetics though in one view, correct?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The sin nature would be passed from parents to child through genetics though in one view, correct?


No, sir. The morally corrupt soul of the child comes from the morally corrupt soul of the parent. Genetics relates to the body, not the soul.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> No, sir. The morally corrupt soul of the child comes from the morally corrupt soul of the parent. Genetics relates to the body, not the soul.


What you are saying that that the immaterial non physical aspect of humanity is passed along somehow through a soul transference or something?
The soul is immortal, so if God does not create it in us, how can a moral being do that?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What you are saying that that the immaterial non physical aspect of humanity is passed along somehow through a soul transference or something?
> The soul is immortal, so if God does not create it in us, how can a moral being do that?



As to your first question: you should read up on traducianism. There are some resources listed above from G. H. Clark, W. G. T. Shedd, and A. H. Strong. For a basic introduction, you could google it. Here's a good definition from the Wikipedia page:


> In Christian Theology, *traducianism* is a doctrine about the origin of the soul ... , holding that this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of human beings. That is, an individual's soul is derived from the souls of the individual's parents.



I don't really understand your second question.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What you are saying that that the immaterial non physical aspect of humanity is passed along somehow through a soul transference or something?
> The soul is immortal, so if God does not create it in us, how can a moral being do that?



Let's look at it this way. We all agree that our "minds are darkened," etc. Where did that darkening come from? The creationist comes very close to saying that God is creating an evil soul every time someone is conceived.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The soul is immortal, so if God does not create it in us, how can a moral being do that?



I think you meant to say mortal. To answer your question, we were already in Adam's loins, and our souls are passed down (traduced). A mortal being is specifically not creating a soul in us.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Interesting: I was curious why Strong didn't mention Shedd, since Shedd's defense of traducianism became the definitive work on the subject. Turns out that Strong's ST was published two years before Vol 1 of Shedd's came out.

I confess I haven't gotten Shedd yet. It's been on my list of things to buy for some time (especially since it's required reading for students in my Presbytery). Does anyone know if he references Strong?


----------



## TheInquirer (Jun 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's look at it this way. We all agree that our "minds are darkened," etc. Where did that darkening come from? The creationist comes very close to saying that God is creating an evil soul every time someone is conceived.



Thats a fascinating point. What is the typical creationist response?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

No, would say its rather that God is creating the soul that would be consistent with what all human beings have after being corrupted by the fall of Adam.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think you meant to say mortal. To answer your question, we were already in Adam's loins, and our souls are passed down (traduced). A mortal being is specifically not creating a soul in us.


The soul is immortal though, so how can something physical like us generate a non physical and spiritual component?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

TheInquirer said:


> Thats a fascinating point. What is the typical creationist response?


God did not create sin, as Adam chose to put himself and all after him under the corruption of the Fall. so God is create souls that would be consistent with that state and condition.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think you meant to say mortal. To answer your question, we were already in Adam's loins, and our souls are passed down (traduced). A mortal being is specifically not creating a soul in us.


Isn't the Creation by God of the human soul though the traditional Reformed position, or at least the one most widely held over the years?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The soul is immortal though, so how can something physical like us generate a non physical and spiritual component?


Our physical part (our body) generates our children's physical part. Our non-physical part (our soul) generates our children's non-physical part.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Isn't the Creation by God of the human soul though the traditional Reformed position, or at least the one most widely held over the years?


Read the rest of the thread. That question has been answered.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God did not create sin, as Adam chose to put himself and all after him under the corruption of the Fall. so God is create souls that would be consistent with that state and condition.


You've talked about A. H. Strong a lot on other threads. You should read him on this point.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> You've talked about A. H. Strong a lot on other threads. You should read him on this point.


I do not agree with him on this particular issue is all.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Our physical part (our body) generates our children's physical part. Our non-physical part (our soul) generates our children's non-physical part.


So God granted the power to generate and create souls to humans then?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So God granted the power to generate and create souls to humans then?


We don't create; we procreate.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not agree with him on this particular issue is all.


My point is not that you should agree with him, necessarily. My point is that you don't understand the issues, and that you could benefit from studying them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Isn't the Creation by God of the human soul though the traditional Reformed position, or at least the one most widely held over the years?



It's more widespread, but that is different from being "traditional" or even correct.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The soul is immortal though, so how can something physical like us generate a non physical and spiritual component?



See what I said above. We are in Adam's loins seminally. Our souls aren't being generated. They are being passed along.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2018)

TheInquirer said:


> Thats a fascinating point. What is the typical creationist response?



Probably that Adam's sin was imputed to us and the guilt/darkening is federally applied.

Traducianists like Shedd believe in federalism, so that can't really be an objection. I don't think federalism alleviates the charge.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Interesting: I was curious why Strong didn't mention Shedd, since Shedd's defense of traducianism became the definitive work on the subject. Turns out that Strong's ST was published two years before Vol 1 of Shedd's came out.
> 
> I confess I haven't gotten Shedd yet. It's been on my list of things to buy for some time (especially since it's required reading for students in my Presbytery). Does anyone know if he references Strong?



Shedd is a sheer literary delight. He is one of my top three. He's woefully unbalanced on some issues, but he is always a joy to read.

Shedd doesn't reference Strong. Strong does mention Shedd's debate with Beecher on eternal punishment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> See what I said above. We are in Adam's loins seminally. Our souls aren't being generated. They are being traduced.


Adam was created by God and was physically alive, and then God placed in him the soul, so would that not be the same for all humans then?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Shedd is a sheer literary delight. He is one of my top three. He's woefully unbalanced on some issues, but he is always a joy to read.
> 
> Shedd doesn't reference Strong. Strong does mention Shedd's debate with Beecher on eternal punishment.


What did John Calvin hold with on this subject?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What did John Calvin hold with on this subject?



Creationism


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Adam was created by God and was physically alive, and then God placed in him the soul, so would that not be the same for all humans then?



That's what you're trying to prove.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Adam was created by God and was physically alive, and then God placed in him the soul, so would that not be the same for all humans then?


Adam wasn't alive before he had a soul.

If the bodies of everyone after our first parents are not created by God immediately (but are the products of natural generation), why should we expect it to be otherwise with the soul?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Does anyone know if he references Strong?


Shedd does not. Gomes, in the introductory materials of Shedd, refers to Strong a few times.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 6, 2018)

TheInquirer said:


> Thats a fascinating point. What is the typical creationist response?


See extracts here:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/reconsidering-traducianism.94845/#post-1157700

More:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/reconsidering-traducianism.94845/#post-1157813

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Creationism


What were the main reasons he held to that view?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Adam wasn't alive before he had a soul.
> 
> If the bodies of everyone after our first parents are not created by God immediately (but are the products of natural generation), why should we expect it to be otherwise with the soul?


Due to the immaterial aspect of mankind, our immortal soul, has to come from a pre existing Eternal being, as mortal cannot generate immortal.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See extracts here:
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/reconsidering-traducianism.94845/#post-1157700
> 
> More:
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/reconsidering-traducianism.94845/#post-1157813


The 2 biggest reasons that leaped out to me in those links were the fact of God creating Adam to be physically alive, and then added to him the immaterial spiritual component, and also that Jesus being not tainted by the fall and having the sin nature requires the creation position it would seem.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Due to the immaterial aspect of mankind, our immortal soul, has to come from a pre existing Eternal being, as mortal cannot generate immortal.


The traducianist holds that the immortal soul of the child is derived from the immortal soul of the parent.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The traducianist holds that the immortal soul of the child is derived from the immortal soul of the parent.


Which parent though?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Which parent though?


Traditionally, traducianists have said the father. However, I'm not sure that that's essential to the view. I'm willing to concede that it could come from either parent, or from both in some respect.

Note that traducianists have never claimed to understand the minute details of how the soul of of a child traduces from that of a parent. There's a great deal of mystery involved. Convinced by scripture and plain reason that his view is the correct one, the traducianist submits to the mystery. The secret things belong to the Lord.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Traditionally, traducianists have said the father. However, I'm not sure that that's essential to the view. I'm willing to concede that it could come from either parent, or from both in some respect.
> 
> Note that traducianists have never claimed to understand the minute details of how the soul of of a child traduces from that of a parent. There's a great deal of mystery involved. Convinced by scripture and plain reason that his view is the correct one, the traducianist submits to the mystery. The secret things belong to the Lord.


Those holding to Creationism would see the scriptures teaching to us while humans can produce the material aspects of us, that it still takes God to create the immaterial aspect of us.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What were the main reasons he held to that view?



He didn't go into it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Those holding to Creationism would see the scriptures teaching to us while humans can produce the material aspects of us, that it still takes God to create the immaterial aspect of us.



We know that, but that's not an argument.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What were the main reasons he held to that view?


See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-sin-nature-passed-through-the-father.87847/#post-1087553

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-sin-nature-passed-through-the-father.87847/#post-1087594


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> We know that, but that's not an argument.


The part where only God can create would be.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-sin-nature-passed-through-the-father.87847/#post-1087553
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-sin-nature-passed-through-the-father.87847/#post-1087594


The answer to how Jesus was born untainted and not corrupted by the Fall of Adam would seem to be where we find which of these 2 views fit the scriptures best.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The part where only God can create would be.


Nobody's arguing that men can create men. We're arguing about whether men beget men in their totality, or whether they only beget their bodies, while God creates the soul.

You should really try to understand these issues before you start opining about them.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Nobody's arguing that men can create men. We're arguing about whether men beget men in their totality, or whether they only beget their bodies, while God creates the soul.
> 
> You should really try to understand these issues before you start opining about them.


I am just wondering whether material based humans can create immaterial based souls.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am just wondering whether material based humans can create immaterial based souls.


They absolutely cannot create souls. They can't create bodies either.

Also, note that man has both a material and an immaterial part.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> They absolutely cannot create souls. They can't create bodies either.
> 
> Also, note that man has both a material and an immaterial part.


Does the human soul have matter? Does the new soul come into existence by leeching part of the parents soul?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Does the human soul have matter? Does the new soul come into existence by leeching part of the parents soul?


No, the soul is immaterial. It has no matter. As to the _how, _as I said, it's a mystery.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The part where only God can create would be.



No, it isn't. Traducianists do not say that man creates a soul.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2018)

We're pretty well off topic, aren't we? The OP didn't ask what traducians believe.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> We're pretty well off topic, aren't we? The OP didn't ask what traducians believe.


It seems that is where we got directed into though, which was fine by me, as have learned a lot on this subject matter.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> We're pretty well off topic, aren't we? The OP didn't ask what traducians believe.


The OP is quite broad:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/traducianism-vs-creationism.95713/

I suppose one could simply answer the questions asked without having to dip one's toe into what one actually believes in order to answer the questions.

_What is the historical Reformed understanding concerining{sic} the issue of Traducianism vs. Creationism?_​
Using "Reformed" in a broad sense...​
*Creationism*:

John Calvin
Francis Turretin
Charles Hodge
A.A. Hodge
Louis Berkhof

Augustine (according to Berkhof hesitated to choose)

*Traducianism*:

Tertullian
Martin Luther
Jonathan Edwards
Ezekiel Hopkins
W.G.T. Shedd
Augustus Strong
Gordon H. Clark
Robert Reymond (drawn to the view)​
_Is the Soul transmitted from the parents to the new born child (Traducianism), or is a new soul of an individual created at every moment of conception (Creationism)? That issue goes into the question of how Original Sin is transmitted._​
The latter.​
_Some Church Fathers held the position of Traducianism, like Augustine.
Now, does the Reformed position of Federal headship lead somebody to any of those two positions, or is there a third option?_​
Augustine's view is up for grabs.
In my opinion, federal headship would necessarily lead to creationism.​
_I'm not aware if the Reformers or any Confession adressed{sic} that issue too.
Is there an exegetical basis for any of those two positions?_​
Plenty of exegesis is provided by the proponents of the two major views—left as an exercise for the reader to search out. I am unaware of what a third option would even look like. I suspect it would be non-confessional so I am uninterested.​
I suspect my terse (yet on topic) answers would likely generate more questions. Hence, the direction this thread must take.  I have provided links in prior posts herein to threads where most of what is now being discussed has been discussed (here, here, here, here, here) so we are already treading upon some well-worn paths.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The OP is quite broad:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/traducianism-vs-creationism.95713/
> 
> I suppose one could simply answer the questions asked without having to dip one's toe into what one actually believes in order to answer the questions.
> ...


The OP assumes a knowledge of traducianism and creationism, and addresses its inquiries to those who have something to say about the history of those doctrines in Reformed thought, the consistency of either of those doctrines with Reformed theology, or the exegetical bases on which those doctrines are premised.

If I'm deemed to be too picky, I'll desist. However, I don't think the laborious efforts to try and pin down just what traducianism is (which have taken up three quarters of this thread) are warranted.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am unaware of what a third option would even look like. I suspect it would be non-confessional so I am uninterested.


I skipped Strong's treatment of "The Preexistance Theory" when I did my outline.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The OP assumes a knowledge of traducianism and creationism, and addresses its inquiries to those who have something to say about the history of those doctrines in Reformed thought, the consistency of either of those doctrines with Reformed theology, or the exegetical bases on which those doctrines are premised.


It may be a wee bit unfair to presume to know what is assumed absent some explicitness. Folks often use theological terminology absent a wholesome grasp of the historical development of the terms themselves. So, taking some time to settle upon what the words means is not necessarily out of bounds. 

I agree with what I think you are getting at...we have driven the terms _creationism_ and _traducianism_ to ground. It is time to move on to the actual questions asked (and answered by some of us), versus doing all the heavy-lifting for those not up to speed. Persons wanting to know more about the terms can avail themselves of the materials linked throughout this thread, or even start a shiny new thread where they simply ask for some definitions or pointers to the same.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 10, 2018)

I did some poking around in a couple of Systematic Theologies this evening, looking at this topic. I found Hoeksema to be particularly interesting. He doesn't deal with the subject explicitly, but I think he clearly implies the traducianist position. Interestingly enough, every time he states a traducianist view of the origin of the soul, his doctrine of federal headship is near at hand!

p278:


> Thus it is plain from Scripture that the universality of sin and death in the human race are to be explained, first, from the fact that *the race was created in the one man Adam as an organism. He bore our nature, and that nature was corrupted; and from a corrupt stock springs a corrupt offspring.* And, secondly, Scripture teaches us as far as the guilt of sin is concerned, that its universality is due to the fact that the whole race was created in Adam as its head, that therefore we are all responsible for the one sin Adam committed in the first paradise.



p223:


> [T]he relation of Adam to the human race was three-fold: *he was the first father, the bearer of the entire human nature, so that organically the entire human race was in him*; secondly, he was the head of all mankind, so that he legally represented them; and finally, he was the root of the race, so that, figuratively speaking, all the nations, tribes, families, and individuals are branches of the tree of which Adam is the root.



p224:


> [Adam] is the father of us all. *God created the whole human nature in him. In this sense Augustine was right when he taught that all men were in Adam*: to be sure, there was in him not a multitude of individual persons, nor were there in him millions of individualizations of the human nature; but *the truth is nevertheless that all human natures that ever would exist were organically in Adam, and they all developed out of him*.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 10, 2018)

Am I correct that the following quote from Ames implies a traducianist position?

This is from his section on The Propagation of Sin, p127 of _The Marrow of Theology._


> Propagation is the participation in the condition of Adam by all human posterity descended from him in a natural manner, Job 14:5; Ps. 51:7; Rom. 5:14; Eph. 2:3. This has occurred by God's just ordering. The justice of it appears among men in some ways; first, *in the natural law by which inbred qualities are passed on from parents to children*; second, in hereditary law by which the burdens of parents are transferred to children; third, in the law of like-for-like by which the rejection of good and the endurign of evil are balanced.


----------



## Aco (Jun 11, 2018)

It seems to me that this distinction of traducianism vs. creationism in regard to the transmission of sin is unnecessary. Federal headship seems to be sufficient. Regarding the origin of the soul it seems to me that both are viable options, while both positions having their problems.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 11, 2018)

Aco said:


> It seems to me that this distinction of traducianism vs. creationism in regard to the transmission of sin is unnecessary. Federal headship seems to be sufficient. Regarding the origin of the soul it seems to me that both are viable options, while both positions having their problems.


Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.

That's problematic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Aco (Jun 11, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.
> 
> That's problematic.



Good point. Hasn‘t crossed my mind before.

But whats about the soul of Jesus if somebody holds to Traducianism? The soul is said to be an aspect of nature and not of personhood, to avoid Nestorianism. So, if the soul is evil from the very beginning (hereditary corruption), then it seems to me that it could only be avoided by saying that the soul is inherited from the father, therefore Jesus wasn’t affected by sin and corruption. 
On the other hand with that position it follows then, that Jesus received his soul from his divine nature (recall that it is said, that the soul is an aspect of nature). This leads one to say that God has a soul.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 11, 2018)

Aco said:


> But whats about the soul of Jesus if somebody holds to Traducianism? The soul is said to be an aspect of nature and not of personhood, to avoid Nestorianism. So, if the soul is evil from the very beginning (hereditary corruption), then it seems to me that it could only be avoided by saying that the soul is inherited from the father, therefore Jesus wasn’t affected by sin and corruption.


That's how some traducianists have dealt with the matter of Christ's sinlessness. For my own part, I think it's enough to point out that Christ's conception was miraculous. It was miraculous in that it was accomplished while Mary was a virgin; it was miraculous in that Christ was conceived sinless; it was miraculous in that the eternal Son of God took on a human nature. I don't need any further explanation than that. If it could be explained, it wouldn't be a miracle. 



> On the other hand with that position it follows then, that Jesus received his soul from his divine nature (recall that it is said, that the soul is an aspect of nature). This leads one to say that God has a soul.



If Christ doesn't have a human soul, he is not human. Here's how the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it:


> Q. 22. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
> A. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin.


----------



## Aco (Jun 11, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.
> 
> That's problematic.



...It follows further that he received a soulless human nature. If he did receive his human nature from his mother, avoiding the corruption of the soul, then human mature wasn‘t corrupted.


----------



## Aco (Jun 11, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> That's how some traducianists have dealt with the matter of Christ's sinlessness. For my own part, I think it's enough to point out that Christ's conception was miraculous. It was miraculous in that it was accomplished while Mary was a virgin; it was miraculous in that Christ was conceived sinless; it was miraculous in that the eternal Son of God took on a human nature. I don't need any further explanation than that. If it could be explained, it wouldn't be a miracle.
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ doesn't have a human soul, he is not human. Here's how the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it:



I agree in the end with you, the appeal to mystery seems to be the best option.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 11, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.
> 
> That's problematic.


It is only problematic when attempting to divine how the soul is created. We have no revelation from Scripture on this aspect.

Such an argument, if it were ever genuinely proffered, egregiously ignores the Reformed confessional view concerning _imputation_. The soul is created by God. We do not know the how of this creative act. We do know, per federal headship, the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin are _immediately_ imputed. This is consistent with the parallel imputation of Christ's righteousness in Romans 5. If this federal imputation is not the case, and the striking parallels of Romans 5 apply, from whence comes our righteousness from Christ?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 11, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin are _immediately_ imputed.



Doesn't the Confession say the guilt is imputed but the corruption conveyed? Two different verbs. We receive the guilt via the federal headship of Adam, but the corruption of our nature is a punishment of that guilt. It is conveyed through the transmission of the soul.

To sum up the difficulties of the debate:

1) The creationist is in the odd position of saying God creates millions of evil souls every day.

2) The traducian is in the strange position of Jesus' soul being immediately sanctified at his conception.

2*) That can be salvaged if another word/concept than sanctified is used.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 11, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Doesn't the Confession say the guilt is imputed but the corruption conveyed? Two different verbs. We receive the guilt via the federal headship of Adam, but the corruption of our nature is a punishment of that guilt. It is conveyed through the transmission of the soul.



The confession emphasizes _imputation_. Granting me _ad fontes_, notice the sentence of WCF VI.III from the Burges manuscript (also available here):

They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed*;* and the same death in sin*,* and corrupted nature*,* conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.​
In the above it is _imputation_, not _inheritance_, which is the operative mode by which guilt, death in sin, and the corrupted nature are _conveyed_.

Note also in the original, the comma underlying my point that it is by way of _imputation_, not _inheritance_, as the method of transmission for guilt, death in sin, and corruption.

This is quite consistent with Romans 5.

Your "summation" of the debate overlooks the actual intent of the authors of our confession in their summaries of Scripture.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 11, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It is only problematic when attempting to divine how the soul is created. We have no revelation from Scripture on this aspect.
> 
> Such an argument, if it were ever genuinely proffered, egregiously ignores the Reformed confessional view concerning _imputation_. The soul is created by God. We do not know the how of this creative act. We do know, per federal headship, the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin are _immediately_ imputed. This is consistent with the parallel imputation of Christ's righteousness in Romans 5. If this federal imputation is not the case, and the striking parallels of Romans 5 apply, from whence comes our righteousness from Christ?


I'll second what Jacob said (post 79). Imputation does not affect moral disposition. The imputation of Christ's righteousness does not change our moral nature. If it did, we wouldn't need regeneration.

In the same way, the imputation of Adam's sin does not immediately affect corruption; instead, it puts us in a legal position of guilt. The two go together, but they are distinct.

Regarding the Confession, note the semicolon. The confession teaches the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin; regarding corruption the Confession simply states that it is "conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation." The Confession neither teaches creationism nor traducianism, and it certainly does not teach that moral corruption comes via imputation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 12, 2018)

I fail to see from Romans 5 how death and corruption are independent of guilt. Are they not the immediate consequences of imputed guilt? The curse imputed, not inherited, applies to all, even the infant who dies before actually sinning. The semicolon in the compound sentence connects the same consequences of the guilt imputed to Adam.

To argue that the confession is silent on the matter of traducianism ignores the federal headship clear in the confession. How did traducianism and federal theology coincide at the time of the framers of the WCF? Was there anyone at the time claiming traducianism and federal theology?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 12, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I fail to see from Romans 5 how death and corruption are independent of guilt. Are they not the immediate consequences of imputed guilt? The curse imputed, not inherited, applies to all, even the infant who dies before actually sinning. The semicolon in the compound sentence connects the same consequences of the guilt imputed to Adam.


I never said that "death and corruption are independent of guilt;" I said that they are distinct from guilt, but that they go together.



> To argue that the confession is silent on the matter of traducianism ignores the federal headship clear in the confession.


There is nothing in traducianism that conflicts with the federal headship taught in the Confession. It is true that there have been traducianists who denied federal headship; it is equally true that there have been creationists who have denied federal headship, such as Pelagius. However, it would be a gross error to assume that all creationists held the soteriological errors of Pelagius.


> How did traducianism and federal theology coincide at the time of the framers of the WCF? Was there anyone at the time claiming traducianism and federal theology?


I provided a quote from Ames above that seems to me to imply traducianism. Other than that, I don't know. I haven't studied the matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 12, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> To argue that the confession is silent on the matter of traducianism ignores the federal headship clear in the confession. How did traducianism and federal theology coincide at the time of the framers of the WCF? Was there anyone at the time claiming traducianism and federal theology?


In an old post, Rev. Winzer says that generally (and so maybe also at this time period?), theologians differ depending on the perspective they look at the matter.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/significance-of-creationism-vs-traducianism.71304/#post-912619
"Most theologians consider it from one angle and decide on traducianism; then they turn to another angle and become confessed creationists. Usually reformed theologians lean towards creationism because it ends up providing less problems. But the differences are based on seeing only one sense in which man is immaterial. In reality, while there is only one immaterial entity called the spirit or soul, those two different terms represent slightly different meanings. When those meanings are observed it is obvious that the "spirit" is the immaterial part of man as he relates to God and the "soul" is the same immateriality as it relates to the world. The two are distinguishable; and therefore the discussion between creationism and traducianism is ultimately meaningless, although following the discussion will help to bring out some very important points of theology."


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I skipped Strong's treatment of "The Preexistance Theory" when I did my outline.


Like what the Mormons teach?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.
> 
> That's problematic.


Would not the soul being created by Him though be as a direct result of the fall affecting all humans save for Christ, so would be Him creating the state in which Adam brought upon us, not God directly Himself?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Like what the Mormons teach?


Mormons, Hindus, Platonists, and a number of other non-Christian groups teach it.


Dachaser said:


> Would not the soul being created by Him though be a sa direct result of the fall affecting allhumans save for Christ, so would be Him creating the state in which Adam brought upon us, not God directly Himself?


Yes, according to the creationist theory, the reason that God creates those souls morally corrupt is that the persons which those souls partially constitute (together with the bodies) are in Adam federally.

In other words, the imputation of Adam's guilt is the formal cause for which God creates men's souls with a depraved nature (according to the creationist thesis).


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Mormons, Hindus, Platonists, and a number of other non-Christian groups teach it.
> 
> Yes, according to the creationist theory, the reason that God creates those souls morally corrupt is that the persons which those souls partially constitute (together with the bodies) are in Adam federally.
> 
> In other words, the imputation of Adam's guilt is the formal cause for which God creates men's souls with a depraved nature (according to the creationist thesis).


This would avoid then the criticism being charged of God creating Himself evil/corrupt souls directly.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> This would avoid then the criticism being charged of God creating Himself evil/corrupt souls directly.


No, it wouldn't. He's still the efficient cause. He's still creating something that is not good (contra Gen 1).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> No, it wouldn't. He's still the efficient cause. He's still creating something that is not good (contra Gen 1).


He is not though the one that made it not good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 12, 2018)

The Christian's Reasonable Service, Wilhelmus à Brakel, vol. 1, pp. 393-394 (_nb_: see also pp. 307-314, _op sit_, as background leveraged in what follows).



Spoiler: à Brakel: The Transmission of Original Sin from Adam to His Descendants



We have thus considered original sin relative to its imputed guilt as well as its inherited corruption. This surfaces the following question: _How is original sin transmitted from Adam to his descendants?_ The manner in which guilt is imputed we have already demonstrated earlier so that the only question remaining is to show how man's natural corruption is inherited. One could be of the opinion that this cannot occur via the body, since it is not the actual object of sin. It also cannot occur via the soul, which, having been created by God, is good. It can also not occur via both body and soul, and thus not by generation. Since the soul is not generated, and since whatever is not true for either part can also not be true for the whole, it could not have come forth in this manner. My answer is: First, why do we need to know how sin is transmitted, since Scripture and experience confirm so clearly that such is the case? A fool can ask more questions than many wise men are able to answer. Tell me then how the body is formed with all its component parts; how the soul is united with the body; how by generating sound with the tongue one can cause someone else to understand abstract concepts; and how high and low tides return at a set time? You will reply that you do not know this, and that you cannot comprehend the “why” and “how.” Who would be so foolish to deny something which he can visibly confirm, simply because he cannot understand it? Such is also the case with original sin.

Secondly, it is certain that God neither is nor can be the author of sin. It is also certain that souls are not reproduced, but are created by God.

Thirdly, the obscurity of this matter is often the result of separating the generation of soul and body too much, as if God created a soul apart from the body, causing it to exist externally to the body for some time, and then uniting it with the body subsequent to this. God, by virtue of His _cooperative providence_, being the energizing cause of man's generation, forms the soul in union with the body so that it does not exist for one moment apart from the body. From the very first moment of the soul's existence, a man exists—a man who is guilty of the covenant breach in Adam. From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants.

Fourthly, the soul, being formed during the generative process in union with the body, has the essence of a soul and thus is very good and without sin. However, the soul, coming into existence in union with the body and from that first moment forming a human being, is not more noble than the souls of the generating parents and thus is without the image of God. God was not obligated to restore this image to the soul after man had cast it away. It is therefore written in Gen 5:3, “And Adam ... begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,” and thus not after the image of God.

Fifthly, man now being guilty of the covenant breach, not having the image of God according to his soul, and the body (which influences the soul and is united to the same) by generation having an evil state of mind, is in a state of separation from God. As such, man is subject to inner emptiness, and being dissatisfied with himself, is unfulfilled, miserable, craves for something, is restless, and lacks purpose in his activities. He is desirous, but not after God, for he has separated himself from Him; his desires are without restriction, focusing on whatever may appear to be desirable. Such a condition cannot but spawn a variety of lusts as man grows and develops. These lusts in turn spawn self-love, sorrow, wrath, hatred, and envy, which focus on a variety of wrong objects without restraints. Thus one human being generates another human being of like passions, and one sinner another sinner; in like manner the sin of Adam is transmitted to his descendants.



In anticipation of the inevitable _yeah, buts _concerning À Brakel's loss of the image of God argument, please first avail yourself of the following:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/imageofgod.htm#.WyAoYIpKiMo
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/imageofgodconfessions.html#.WyAp24pKiMo
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/imageofgod.htm#.WyAp74pKiMo


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The Christian's Reasonable Service, Wilhelmus à Brakel, vol. 1, pp. 393-394 (_nb_: see also pp. 307-314, _op sit_, as background leveraged in what follows).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, note that A Brakel maintains a clear distinction between the imputation of guilt, and the transmission of corruption. That's just what I have been arguing for.

To deal with his treatment point by point:


> My answer is: First, why do we need to know how sin is transmitted, since Scripture and experience confirm so clearly that such is the case? A fool can ask more questions than many wise men are able to answer. Tell me then how the body is formed with all its component parts; how the soul is united with the body; how by generating sound with the tongue one can cause someone else to understand abstract concepts; and how high and low tides return at a set time? You will reply that you do not know this, and that you cannot comprehend the “why” and “how.” Who would be so foolish to deny something which he can visibly confirm, simply because he cannot understand it? Such is also the case with original sin.


I agree entirely with his point here--a lack of knowledge of how sin is transmitted can be no argument against the fact of its transmission. However, the question of how it is transmitted, when posed as an honest question, is a fair and legitimate question. In fact, A Brakel lists other questions that were mysterious in his day that we now understand, such as how the tide turns, how the body is formed, etc.



> Secondly, it is certain that God neither is nor can be the author of sin. It is also certain that souls are not reproduced, but are created by God.


The first claim is certainly true, and is the conundrum of the creationist. I disagree with the second, and he hasn't proven his assertion.



> Thirdly, the obscurity of this matter is often the result of separating the generation of soul and body too much, as if God created a soul apart from the body, causing it to exist externally to the body for some time, and then uniting it with the body subsequent to this. God, by virtue of His _cooperative providence_, being the energizing cause of man's generation, forms the soul in union with the body so that it does not exist for one moment apart from the body. From the very first moment of the soul's existence, a man exists—a man who is guilty of the covenant breach in Adam. From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants.


Here, he dismisses one of the creationist's potential solutions to the problem--there can be no space of time between the creation of a good soul and the transmission of corruption to that soul. 



> Fourthly, the soul, being formed during the generative process in union with the body, has the essence of a soul and thus is very good and without sin. However, the soul, coming into existence in union with the body and from that first moment forming a human being, is not more noble than the souls of the generating parents and thus is without the image of God. God was not obligated to restore this image to the soul after man had cast it away. It is therefore written in Gen 5:3, “And Adam ... begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,” and thus not after the image of God.


Here, A Brakel begins to propose his solution--that the soul is good in its essence, i.e., insofar as it is a soul, created by God, it is good; but it is evil it its moral disposition, due to the circumstances in which it is created. I don't think this solves the problem. To say that God created it good in one sense and evil in another sense doesn't do away with the fact that it is evil.

Or is he saying that the evil body of a man corrupts the good soul? The Scriptures indicate that sinful concupiscence is the root of sin, do they not? that comes from the evil disposition of the mind and will of a man, i.e., of his soul, which is radically corrupted.



> Fifthly, man now being guilty of the covenant breach, not having the image of God according to his soul, and the body (which influences the soul and is united to the same) by generation having an evil state of mind, is in a state of separation from God. As such, man is subject to inner emptiness, and being dissatisfied with himself, is unfulfilled, miserable, craves for something, is restless, and lacks purpose in his activities. He is desirous, but not after God, for he has separated himself from Him; his desires are without restriction, focusing on whatever may appear to be desirable. Such a condition cannot but spawn a variety of lusts as man grows and develops. These lusts in turn spawn self-love, sorrow, wrath, hatred, and envy, which focus on a variety of wrong objects without restraints. Thus one human being generates another human being of like passions, and one sinner another sinner; in like manner the sin of Adam is transmitted to his descendants.


The first sentence here is a summary of his fourth point. I agree with the second sentence onward.

Patrick, perhaps you could clarify A Brakel's fourth point. Just how does he understand the transmission of corruption itself? Is the soul created in a corrupt state, or is it instantly corrupted upon creation because of its union with the body?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 13, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> First of all, note that A Brakel maintains a clear distinction between the imputation of guilt, and the transmission of corruption. That's just what I have been arguing for.
> 
> To deal with his treatment point by point:
> 
> ...


God creates the soul for each human that he brings to conception, and the soul created By Him has to be established with the corruption effects from the fall of Adam upon it. God is not creating it evil Himself, but is crating it based upon the results of what Adam did to us, not what God did to us.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God creates the soul for each human that he brings to conception, and the soul created By Him has to be established with the corruption effects from the fall of Adam upon it. God is not creating it evil Himself, but is crating it based upon the results of what Adam did to us, not what God did to us.


Again, according to that view, God is still creating something that is not good. That fact cannot be gotten around, even admitting that he creates it evil because of the fall.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 13, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I disagree with the second, and he hasn't proven his assertion.


I assume you reviewed Chapter 10, which I noted in my post above, upon which the author leverages for his later assertion concerning the creation of souls by God. 

If so, could you interact with his arguments therein in order to substantiate your disagreement?

As to the fourth point, the instantaneous creation of a human being, devoid of the image of God, is the point being made regarding corruption. See also the author's pointed arguments concerning something more noble coming from something less noble in Chapter 10, _op. sit_.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I assume you reviewed Chapter 10, which I noted in my post above, upon which the author leverages for his later assertion concerning the creation of souls by God.


No, sorry. I didn't realize that he dealt with that question at any length.



> If so, could you interact with his arguments therein in order to substantiate your disagreement?


I will very soon. I can't promise when that will be.



> As to the fourth point, the instantaneous creation of a human being, devoid of the image of God, is the point being made regarding corruption. See also the author's pointed arguments concerning something more noble coming from something less noble in Chapter 10, _op. sit_.


I see. So, does he just leave the question of how corruption (i.e., a sinful, depraved nature) is transmitted a person's offspring unanswered, then?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

Here is the relevant material from A Brakel (pp 312-314). I'll comment soon.


> Question: How are the souls of men brought forth? Does this occur by seminal procreation or by transmission and ignition as one candle transmits light to another candle? Or does God create the soul whenever man by procreation comes into existence?
> 
> Answer: First, the soul is a spiritual entity, and thus is not physical in any sense. Therefore the soul cannot be brought forth by means of corporal and seminal procreation, for that which is causal cannot bring forth something which is toto genere, that is, of a nobler generation than the cause itself. If one maintains that the soul does not proceed from the body, but from the soul, I would ask, “Is it from the soul of the father, the mother, or from both?” It neither proceeds from both, for there is no mixture of souls, nor does it proceed from one of the two, for then the question remains, “Does it proceed from the father or the mother?” This question one will not be able to answer. In what manner would it be transmitted from the soul of the parents? If the personal soul of one of the parents would be transmitted in its entirety, the parent would be without a soul. If the transmission were partial, the soul would be divisible, and having parts it would not be a spirit but a body. If one maintains that the soul is brought forth causaliter, that is, as the effecting cause, by the souls of the parents, the question must be asked, “Out of what?” It is neither produced seminally nor by the complete or partial transmission of the soul. It would then of necessity be brought forth out of nothing, which is not possible for that is a creative act which is the proper work of God alone. The comparison of a burning candle igniting another candle and thus transmitting its flame is not applicable here, as fire is material in nature. Thus, one candle transmits its flame to the other by way of molecular transmission, since it finds matter to feed upon.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 13, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I see. So, does he just leave the question of how corruption (i.e., a sinful, depraved nature) is transmitted a person's offspring unanswered, then?


From the author's third point:
"_From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants._"


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 13, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> No, sorry. I didn't realize that he dealt with that question at any length.


Ok, then.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> From the author's third point:
> "_From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants._"


That's the imputation of guilt; _not_ the transmission of the sinful nature. From the author's introductory remarks:
"The manner in which guilt is imputed we have already demonstrated earlier so that the only question remaining is to show how man's natural corruption is inherited."

As long as this point continues to be missed, we will continue to talk past one another.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 13, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> That's the imputation of guilt; _not_ the transmission of the sinful nature. From the author's introductory remarks:
> "The manner in which guilt is imputed we have already demonstrated earlier so that the only question remaining is to show how man's natural corruption is inherited."
> 
> As long as this point continues to be missed, we will continue to talk past one another.


Actually, brother, we will continue to talk past one another until one of us actually reads the other accurately and thoroughly. I have been quite plain about the topic, but you seem to be overlooking my perspicuity.

May I also suggest a former discussion on the matter at hand that is edifying?
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/does-the-wcf-teach-traducianism.57041/


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Actually, brother, we will continue to talk past one another until one of us actually reads the other accurately and thoroughly. I have been quite plain about the topic, but you seem to be overlooking my perspicuity.


Can you make your point explicit, please?

I have maintained, along with Jacob (and A Brakel), that there is a fundamental distinction between the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin, and the conveyance of depravity. You misrepresented my position, claiming that I was teaching that "death and corruption are independent of guilt." When I tried to clarify, I received no response. I really think that the this fine distinction is at the root of our disagreement. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it given explicitly, not via a link or a block quote.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> From the author's third point:
> "_From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants._"


When Adam fell, God judged Him for that act of sin, and also all of us that were to come after him, as we are born into sin.

So when we are physically conceived, are we then sinners in our souls themselves, and not by a genetic material sin aspect in us?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 13, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Can you make your point explicit, please?
> 
> I have maintained, along with Jacob (and A Brakel), that there is a fundamental distinction between the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin, and the conveyance of depravity. You misrepresented my position, claiming that I was teaching that "death and corruption are independent of guilt." When I tried to clarify, I received no response. I really think that the this fine distinction is at the root of our disagreement. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it given explicitly, not via a link or a block quote.


Actually, I represented your position quite accurately. You want to make distinctions between imputation and the consequences thereof. I see no such distinctions and have made this quite clear. Death and corruption are not independent, distinct, etc., of the curse.

I kindly ask that you not appeal to my "misrepresentation" of your position as a lever to motivate me to be more explicit than I have been in this thread. I have done my heavy-lifting, yet by your own admission you have failed to avail yourself of the totality of my efforts, and have but maintained "disagreement" absent substantive interaction with the same.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Actually, I represented your position quite accurately. You want to make distinctions between imputation and the consequences thereof. I see no such distinctions and have made this quite clear. Death and corruption are not independent, distinct, etc., of the curse.


You make a distinction yourself by pointing out that one is the consequence of the other. Something cannot be its own consequence, can it?



> I kindly ask that you not appeal to my "misrepresentation" of your position as a lever to motivate me to be more explicit than I have been in this thread. I have done my heavy-lifting, yet by your own admission you have failed to avail yourself of the totality of my efforts, and have but maintained "disagreement" absent substantive interaction with the same.


I really wish you would point to specific examples in order to substantiate what you're saying here. You've been pretty unclear in some of your posts here, providing links and block quotes with little or no comment. Perhaps I'm just stupid, but I need some help in discerning what you're getting at in such posts as 91 and 101.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 13, 2018)

"Thus, God daily creates the souls of men which are individua, that is, unique personal entities within the same human species".

It seems to me that there needs to be an organic unity amongst the whole of Human nature and that of the soul as well in order for Christ to saves any of us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2018)

Charles Hodge has it correct here I believe. He (Christ) was made in all points like we are, yet without sin. One thing I have always heard is that when we start to get Christ wrong we get more incorrect. His Soul came from God as well as his body came from Mary, yet without the taint of sin in Adam. His Father was God. His Mother was not God. We are not like that. So something must be causing the problem in us that didn't plague Christ. We are descendents of Adam carnally. Christ wasn't. 

The mind (brain) of man is susceptible to our fallen human carnal creation. It is opposed to thinking correctly about God. I refer you to Roman's chapter 7. It is fallen and broken and sin imputed to us from Adam. It is attached to our soul somehow. It is a mystery to me. But to charge God with creating something evil seems to be a violation of blasphemy. Even if he creates it in a fallen human.



> 3. A third argument in favour of creationism and against traducianism is derived from the Scriptural doctrine as to the person of Christ. He was very man; He had a true human nature; a true body and a rational soul. He was born of a woman. He was, as to his flesh, the son of David. He was descended from the fathers. He was in all points made like as we are, yet without sin. This admitted on both sides. But, as before remarked in reference to realism, this, on the theory of traducianism, necessitates the conclusion that Christ's human nature was guilty and sinful. We are partakers of Adam's sin both as to guilt and pollution, because the same numerical essence which sinned in him is communicated to us. Sin, it is said, is an accident, and supposes a substance in which it inheres, or to which it pertains. Community in sin supposes, therefore, community of essence. If we were not in Adam as to essence we did not sin in him, and do not derive a corrupt nature from him. But, if we were in him as to essence then his sin was our sin both as to guilt and pollution. This is the argument of traducianists repeated in every form. But they insist that Christ was in Adam as to the substance of his human nature as truly as we were. They say that if his body and soul were not derived from the body and soul of his virgin mother he was no true man, and cannot be the redeemer of men. What is true of other men must, consequently, be true of Him. He must, therefore, be as much involved in the guilt and corruption of the apostasy as other men. It will not do to affirm and deny the same thing. It s a contradiction to say that we are guilty of Adam's sin because we are partakers of his essence, and that Christ is not guilty of his sin nor involved in its pollution, although He is a partaker of his essence. If participation of essence involve community of guilt and depravity in the one case, it must also in the other. As this seems a legitimate conclusion from the traducian doctrine, and as this conclusion is anti-Christian, and false, the doctrine itself cannot be true
> 
> CH Systematic Theology Volume II p. 72



Charles Hodge and AA Hodge have both written on this. Charles Hodge wrote specifically about 3 views in volume 2 of his Systematic Theology. pp. 65-

Maybe we need to read on how sin has effected man and how sin is imputed in creation.



> 3. It is obviously most unreasonable and presumptuous, as well as dangerous, to make a theory as to the origin of the soul the ground of a doctrine so fundamental to the Christian system as that. Yet we see theologians, ancient and modern, boldly asserting that if their doctrine of derivation, and the consequent numerical sameness of substance in all men, be not admitted, then original sin is impossible. That is, that nothing can be true, no matter how plainly taught in the word of God, which they cannot explain. This is done even by those who protest against introducing philosophy into theology, utterly unconscious, as it would seem, that they themselves occupy, quoad hoc, the same ground with the rationalists. They will not believe in hereditary depravity unless they can explain the mode of its transmission. There can be no such thing, they say, as hereditary depravity unless the soul of the child is the same numerical substance as the soul of the parent.
> 
> CH Systematic Theology Vol. II p. 73



Just a few additional thoughts added here. 

The Spirit of Christ and understanding this is important maybe. 



> Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
> Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
> Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
> Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
> ...






> 1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
> 1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
> 1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
> 1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
> 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Charles Hodge has it correct here I believe. He (Christ) was made in all points like we are, yet without sin. One thing I have always heard is that when we start to get Christ wrong we get more incorrect. His Soul came from God as well as his body came from Mary, yet without the taint of sin in Adam. His Father was God. His Mother was not God. We are not like that. So something must be causing the problem in us that didn't plague Christ. We are descendents of Adam carnally. Christ wasn't.
> 
> The mind (brain) of man is susceptible to our fallen human carnal creation. It is opposed to thinking correctly about God. I refer you to Roman's chapter 7. It is fallen and broken and sin imputed to us from Adam. It is attached to our soul somehow. It is a mystery to me. But to charge God with creating something evil seems to be a violation of blasphemy. Even if he creates it in a fallen human.
> 
> ...



A traducian can agree with everything you have said (except the part about the Hodges being right).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But to charge God with creating something evil seems to be a violation of blasphemy.



The argument is a reductio ad absurdum. It is to draw an absurd conclusion based on the opponent's premises. We are not saying God created evil.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2018)

Is he creating evil souls Jacob? Is the soul created in each man created different than that of Christ? What is different? Is the soul generated by man and not God individually? If so, how is it there seems to be so many contradictory things in the scripture that seem to state that God creates the soul individually. That doesn't mean how another man's soul has influence upon another fallen man. For instance a father sinning and the son also reaping the problem. You didn't comment on Christology or the scriptures I posted above. There is a difference. 

It is blasphemy to grant wickedness or evil to God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2018)

And please don't use scripture out of place saying God creates evil based upon Isaiah. 



> In Isa_45:7 we are led by the context to understand by darkness and evil the penal judgments, through which light and peace, or salvation, break forth for the people of God and the nations generally. But as the prophecy concerning Cyrus closes with this self-assertion of Jehovah, it is unquestionably a natural supposition that there is also a contrast implied to the dualistic system of Zarathustra, which divided the one nature of the Deity into two opposing powers (see Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien, p. 135). The declaration is so bold, that Marcion appealed to this passage as a proof that the God of the Old Testament was a different being from the God of the New, and not the God of goodness only. The Valentinians and other gnostics also regarded the words “There is no God beside me” in Isaiah, as deceptive words of the Demiurugs. The early church met them with Tertullian's reply, “de his creator profitetur malis quae congruunt judici,” and also made use of this self-attestation of the God of revelation as a weapon with which to attack Manicheesism. The meaning of the words is not exhausted by those who content themselves with the assertion, that by the evil (or darkness) we are not to understand the evil of guilt (malum culpae), but the evil of punishment (malum paenae). Undoubtedly, evil as an act is not the direct working of God, but the spontaneous work of a creature endowed with freedom. At the same time, evil, as well as good, has in this sense its origin in God - that He combines within Himself the first principles of love and wrath, the possibility of evil, the self-punishment of evil, and therefore the consciousness of guilt as well as the evil of punishment in the broadest sense. When the apostle celebrates the glory of free grace in Rom_9:11., he stands on that giddy height, to which few are able to follow him without falling headlong into the false conclusions of a decretum absolutum, and the denial of all creaturely freedom.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is he creating evil souls Jacob?



No. That's the whole point of Traducianism--I get to say no to that question.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is the soul created in each man created different than that of Christ?



Structurally, no.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is the soul generated by man and not God individually?



Is the term "individually" modifying man, God, or soul? It's not clear what you are asking.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> If so, how is it there seems to be so many contradictory things in the scripture that seem to state that God creates the soul individually.



No more contradictory than saying God rested from all his labors on the sixth day. 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> For instance a father sinning and the son also reaping the problem.



That's not part of the debate.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> You didn't comment on Christology or the scriptures I posted above.



They didn't prove creationism. You just copied and pasted several passages and left it at that.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is blasphemy to grant wickedness or evil to God.



No one is saying that. The point of a reductio ad absurdum is that if one holds position x, and an obviously wrong conclusion follows, then there is a problem with the premise.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is he creating evil souls Jacob?


I know you addressed this to Jacob, but I'd like to try to clarify:
The traducianist holds that God only created the soul of Adam, and that all other souls are propgated from the soul (or souls) of their parent (or parents). The creationist has a hard time getting around the idea that God creates morally depraved souls every day. So, when I've said things like, "But God is still creating depraved souls," what I've meant is, "If creationism is true, God is still creating morally depraved souls." It's an argument against creationism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So, when I've said things like, "But God is still creating depraved souls," what I've meant is, "If creationism is true, God is still creating morally depraved souls." It's an argument against creationism.


I understand that Tyler. God does not create depraved moral souls. Maybe you need to read about depravity and morality as it is transferred. I have addressed this above.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 13, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I understand that Tyler. God does not create depraved moral souls. Maybe you need to read about depravity and morality as it is transferred. I have addressed this above.


Sorry--I thought you were understandng us as claiming that God creates evil souls.

I agree--the transmission of corruption is at the crux of the issue. I've tried to emphasize that throughout this thread. I can't find any place where Hodge answers that matter in the quotes you provided. He seems to imply that he can't give a satisfactory answer--"They will not believe in hereditary depravity unless they can explain the mode of its transmission." If I'm missing something, please point it out.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2018)

Explain that Tyler if you can. I mean explain the depravity and the transmission as it is opposed to God and creating a soul.


BayouHuguenot said:


> No. That's the whole point of Traducianism--I get to say no to that question.
> 
> 
> Structurally, no.
> ...




Responding to Muck from Tyler,
It is clear. The topic and context explain it by this thread. I am not modifying anything here. Individual means a single man. Come on. Please don't turn this into If I Know I Exist context. To whom am I addressing?[/QUOTE]

from Jacob,


BayouHuguenot said:


> No more contradictory than saying God rested from all his labors on the sixth day.


What are you claiming here since we know all things are held together by Him? Even after and during his Sabbath.
You have much to learn about a Sabbath.

That's not part of the debate.




> They didn't prove creationism. You just copied and pasted several passages and left it at that.
> 
> 
> No one is saying that. The point of a reductio ad absurdum is that if one holds position x, and an obviously wrong conclusion follows, then there is a problem with the premise.



Well, someone has. Want me to prove you wrong? It is not reductio ad absurdum but by your claim.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 14, 2018)

This obviously has to do with the doctrine of Original sin. How does it transfer and who are we to obey. There are underlying doctrines aligned with this discussion. I will repeat with King David, "In sin was I conceived."

Jesus was born of another Father than we were. He came from Adam and David through Mary but not by Adam. Something is messed up here. We need a Saviour. If not, Christ wouldn't have come and he was not totally like us. He was made in all points like us but he was not like us in eternal ways. His Father was Eternal and not Adam. Figure that out? A Virgin Birth?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 14, 2018)

Last point.... to make this applicable. 



> Would you rather be happy and humble or a jerk?


from me
Read Science and epistemology knowledge. Been both a jerk and someone who who is too humbled. BTW, you can be a jerk and be happy or be a jerk and be humble. Ask Jesus who called people out and thought he was a jerk by those who hated his ways. Ask people who confront me and know ....

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/the-love-of-god/


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 14, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Explain that Tyler if you can. I mean explain the depravity and the transmission as it is opposed to God and creating a soul.


In my view, the corrupt soul of the offspring is propagated by the corrupt soul of the parent. I can't explain the details of that; but I'd rather have the mystery of how a soul is propagated from another than the mystery of how God can create a soul that is corrupt from the beginning without being the author of that corruption.



> Responding to Muck from Tyler,
> It is clear. The topic and context explain it by this thread. I am not modifying anything here. Individual means a single man. Come on. Please don't turn this into If I Know I Exist context. To whom am I addressing?


Which of your posts are you referring to here, brother? Are you referring to something you wrote, or something you quoted from Hodge?

From a search on the page, I see that the only place you used the term "individual" was in post #100. So, I'm going to infer that you're asking me to respond to your argument that the Scriptures seem to indicate that God creates each individual soul immediately:


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is the soul generated by man and not God individually? If so, how is it there seems to be so many contradictory things in the scripture that seem to state that God creates the soul individually.



I'd just point out that the Scriptures use the same language concerning the body, such as in Psalm 139 13-15:


> For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
> I will praise thee; for I am fearfully _and_ wonderfully made: marvellous _are_ thy works; and _that_ my soul knoweth right well.
> My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, _and_ curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.



Or Jeremiah 1:5:


> Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, _and_ I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2018)

I wonder if this all comes down to the 4 fold state of man? For instance we should all agree that Adam was created with the moral ability to sin. In my thinking the idea of Jesus being morally able to sin is important in that we, like Adam, are still created with the ability to sin, unlike Jesus. In other words, Jesus was excluded without that "state", unlike us who are created with the ability to sin.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Well, someone has. Want me to prove you wrong? It is not reductio ad absurdum but by your claim.



Tyler and I have been very clear. We are saying that if one holds to creationism, then one is led to the logical deduction that God creates an evil soul.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This obviously has to do with the doctrine of Original sin. How does it transfer and who are we to obey. There are underlying doctrines aligned with this discussion. I will repeat with King David, "In sin was I conceived."
> 
> Jesus was born of another Father than we were. He came from Adam and David through Mary but not by Adam. Something is messed up here. We need a Saviour. If not, Christ wouldn't have come and he was not totally like us. He was made in all points like us but he was not like us in eternal ways. His Father was Eternal and not Adam. Figure that out? A Virgin Birth?





PuritanCovenanter said:


> Last point.... to make this applicable.
> 
> 
> from me
> ...



Who are you talking to? Tyler and I have been very specific in which propositions we are debating. The last few posts seemed like a string of sentences which contained good material, but didn't address any of the specific propositions we set forth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Tyler and I have been very clear. We are saying that if one holds to creationism, then one is led to the logical deduction that God creates an evil soul.



Is it evil to create a soul that is able to sin?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Is it evil to create a soul that is able to sin?



No. Because it is finite, it is mutable. 

Of course, we can punt that back one step and ask why God created a world in which sin is possible. Or why didn't God create a world where everyone acted perfectly.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. Because it is finite, it is mutable.



So there would be no problem I see with creationism. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> Of course, we can punt that back one step and ask why God created a world in which sin is possible. Or why didn't God create a world where everyone acted perfectly.



I suspect God wishes to display the ectypal truthfulness of justice which is not innate to God properly speaking.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So there would be no problem I see with creationism.



All sides agree that the soul is mutable. Mutable doesn't mean the same thing as "a nature stained with macula."


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 14, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So there would be no problem I see with creationism.


Creationism does not say that God creates a soul that is _able to sin_, but rather that He creates a soul that is _*not* able *not* to sin, _for we are not born as Adam was _before_ the Fall; we are born as Adam was _after_ the Fall. How to apprehend this idea is what is being considered in this discussion

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> Creationism does not say that God creates a soul that is _able to sin_, but rather that He creates a soul that is _*not* able *not* to sin, _for we are not born as Adam was _before_ the Fall; we are born as Adam was _after_ the Fall. How to apprehend this idea is what is being considered in this discussion



Goes beyond that. True, God creates a soul not able not to sin, but a soul that is also morally guilty and corrupt.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Goes beyond that. True, God creates a soul not able not to sin, but a soul that is also morally guilty and corrupt.



Agreed. I was taking it incrementally in order to respond, first, to Earl's suggestion that God creates a soul able to sin. Indeed, however, the soul created is not merely a _tabula rasa_ that will/must sin; it is already sinful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> Creationism does not say that God creates a soul that is _able to sin_, but rather that He creates a soul that is _*not* able *not* to sin, _for we are not born as Adam was _before_ the Fall; we are born as Adam was _after_ the Fall. How to apprehend this idea is what is being considered in this discussion



So in your opinion it would be not be good for God to create a creature with a soul that is unable to not sin? This obviously makes God the author of sin in your opinion? PS. I ask in that there may be a way out of such if one thinks in a supralapsarianism type of way....I wish Rev. Winzer were still around.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Goes beyond that. True, God creates a soul not able not to sin, but a soul that is also morally guilty and corrupt.



This may boil down to the "as if" speech of imputation. We consider Jesus to be really sinful "as if" He sinned and took the penalty for our sin. Just as much as the reprobate is sent to hell because he is guilty "as if" he personally sinned in Eden.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 14, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So in your opinion it would be not be good for God to create a creature with a soul that is unable to not sin? This obviously makes God the author of sin in your opinion?



Trying to untangle your first sentence - but, if I understand your question correctly, I believe that this is the charge that creationism must defend itself against. Traducianism doesn't face that particular charge (and must, rather, defend allegations regarding the Person of Christ).


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This obviously has to do with the doctrine of Original sin. How does it transfer and who are we to obey. There are underlying doctrines aligned with this discussion. I will repeat with King David, "In sin was I conceived."
> 
> Jesus was born of another Father than we were. He came from Adam and David through Mary but not by Adam. Something is messed up here. We need a Saviour. If not, Christ wouldn't have come and he was not totally like us. He was made in all points like us but he was not like us in eternal ways. His Father was Eternal and not Adam. Figure that out? A Virgin Birth?


Jesus was born in our likeness as being in human flesh, but due to His Virgin Birth, was able to bypass the effects of the fall, and was without corrupted sin nature.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Tyler and I have been very clear. We are saying that if one holds to creationism, then one is led to the logical deduction that God creates an evil soul.


No, rather that God is creating the soul based up what the effects of the fall Adam bestowed upon all of us.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> Trying to untangle your first sentence - but, if I understand your question correctly, I believe that this is the charge that creationism must defend itself against. Traducianism doesn't face that particular charge (and must, rather, defend allegations regarding the Person of Christ).



It is funny how we sometimes must use a double negative when discussing the state of man. 

I look it this way. Man is created by God with a propensity to always sin without God given faith. I guess this may be viewed by many as thinking God is the author of sin, but I think Romans 9:26 does explicitly say God made (formed) some to be like Essau. All the blame goes to man and all the glory to God which I think Paul had in mind in Romans 9 with his question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 14, 2018)

If God creates individual souls than we cannot be saved. Christ had to assume the whole man - nature and soul in order to save any of us. And both of those need to be organically tied to one another otherwise the incarnation is mere symbolism. That’s not being dealt with.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 14, 2018)

earl40 said:


> It is funny how we sometimes must use a double negative when discussing the state of man.
> 
> I look it this way. Man is created by God with a propensity to always sin without God given faith. I guess this may be viewed by many as thinking God is the author of sin, but I think Romans 9:26 does explicitly say God made (formed) some to be like Essau. All the blame goes to man and all the glory to God which I think Paul had in mind in Romans 9 with his question.


So, you have no problem with saying that God creates man with a depraved nature?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

earl40 said:


> This may boil down to the "as if" speech of imputation. We consider Jesus to be really sinful "as if" He sinned and took the penalty for our sin. Just as much as the reprobate is sent to hell because he is guilty "as if" he personally sinned in Eden.



Not exactly. The soul *is* morally guilty and corrupt, not *as if* morally guilty.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No, rather that God is creating the soul based up what the effects of the fall Adam bestowed upon all of us.



Is the soul corrupt and sinful or not?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus was born in our likeness as being in human flesh, but due to His Virgin Birth, was able to bypass the effects of the fall, and was without corrupted sin nature.



Is the corruption passed through the male semen?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is the corruption passed through the male semen?


Is there any scripture that says that it is?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is the soul corrupt and sinful or not?


Yes, due to us all being seen as being fallen in Adam.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 14, 2018)

“Jesus was born in our likeness as being in human flesh, but due to His Virgin Birth, was able to bypass the effects of the fall, and was without corrupted sin nature.“

Jesus was born sinless because he was not in Adam. Sin is ethical not physical So sin is not in our DNA or genes per say. Our sin nature is part of judgment being in Adam and so the effects of that judgment are passed on.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

Goodcheer68 said:


> “Jesus was born in our likeness as being in human flesh, but due to His Virgin Birth, was able to bypass the effects of the fall, and was without corrupted sin nature.“
> 
> Jesus was born sinless because he was not in Adam. Sin is ethical not physical So sin is not in our DNA or genes per say. Our sin nature is part of judgment being in Adam and so the effects of that judgment are passed on.


IF Jesus had been born through natural means, he would have had a sin nature, and so would have been disqualified to be our messiah.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> IF Jesus had been born through natural means, he would have had a sin nature, and so would have been disqualified to be our messiah.


That's precisely what some traducianists have argued (I don't buy into that particular thinking myself--I think it's a moot point). It's strange for a creationist to argue that way.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> That's precisely what some traducianists have argued (I don't buy into that particular thinking myself--I think it's a moot point). It's strange for a creationist to argue that way.


The Virgin Birth was the means by which Jesus bypassed being tagged along with all of the rest of us as being fallen sinners in Adam.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Virgin Birth was the means by which Jesus bypassed being tagged along with all of the rest of us as being fallen sinners in Adam.


The Virgin birth was not the means by which Christ was sinless. Christ was not in Adam therefore his nature did not receive the curse. The way you state it it makes sin to have some kind of substance that resides in Adam. Sin is ethical not metaphysical. Our nature is sinful due to imputation and judgment.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

Goodcheer68 said:


> The Virgin birth was not the means by which Christ was sinless. Christ was not in Adam therefore his nature did not receive the curse. The way you state it it makes sin to have some kind of substance that resides in Adam. Sin is ethical not metaphysical. Our nature is sinful due to imputation and judgment.


IF Jesus birth Father would have been Joseph, then he would have had a sin nature.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

Goodcheer68 said:


> The Virgin birth was not the means by which Christ was sinless. Christ was not in Adam therefore his nature did not receive the curse. The way you state it it makes sin to have some kind of substance that resides in Adam. Sin is ethical not metaphysical. Our nature is sinful due to imputation and judgment.



Very good point. The Reformed (and the whole church, really) have always taught the following:

1) Sin is a privation. It doesn't have positive existence.
2) Sin is accidental to the structure of the soul.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> IF Jesus birth Father would have been Joseph, then he would have had a sin nature.



That's not what we are talking about. Sin doesn't have a positive existence. It is a stain (macula) on the soul.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's not what we are talking about. Sin doesn't have a positive existence. It is a stain (macula) on the soul.


The sin nature is some how tied into procreation though, as David said that in sin he was conceived, so God had to have a miracle way for Jesus to be conceived in the womb of Mary.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The sin nature is some how tied into procreation though, as David said that in sin he was conceived, so God had to have a miracle way for Jesus to be conceived in the womb of Mary.


You're starting to sound like a traducianist.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The sin nature is some how tied into procreation though, as David said that in sin he was conceived, so God had to have a miracle way for Jesus to be conceived in the womb of Mary.


Worth a look:

Shedding traducianism: Oliver Crisp’s analysis of Shedd’s traducianism in light of Herman Bavinck


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The sin nature is some how tied into procreation though, as David said that in sin he was conceived, so God had to have a miracle way for Jesus to be conceived in the womb of Mary.



And now you are a traducianist.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And now you are a traducianist.


Where are you on this topic nowadays?

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/reconsidering-traducianism.94845/

I am finding it difficult to determine.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Worth a look:
> 
> Shedding traducianism: Oliver Crisp’s analysis of Shedd’s traducianism in light of Herman Bavinck


God imputing to all of us the judgment that He placed upon Adam when he fell is not the exact same thing as us receiving sin natures now? God has all in Adam as guilty before Himself due to what Adam did in our stead, but we also have sin natures that are distinct from that, or is the judgment of God towards us cause us being born with a sin nature?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God imputing to all of us the guiltu judgment thaqt He placed upon Adam when he fell is not the exact same thing as thesin nature that we possess, is it? God has all in Adam as guilty before Himself due to what Adam did in our stead, but we also have sin natures that are distinct from that, or is the judgment of God towards include being born with a sin nature?


David,

Return to your post and correct the grammar, spelling, and construction, such that I can actually understand what you are asking. I am unable to parse it as it is written.

I have reminded you time and again to review your posts once you select the button to submit it: to go back and clean things up such that the reader can actually interact with your posts. Please refrain from hair-triggered posting without due care to the formatting and grammar. Please do not post another post along the lines of "_what I meant to say was..._". Just clean up your post such that it can stand alone: mean what you say and say what you mean.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Where are you on this topic nowadays?
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/reconsidering-traducianism.94845/
> 
> I am finding it difficult to determine.



I lean towards traducianism. It has problems, but fewer.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So, you have no problem with saying that God creates man with a depraved nature?



Romans 9 question give the assumption that God "formed" all men in certain conditions. "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" In saying this I am not saying God created fresh evil, but in my opinion He did create fallen men which includes the spiritual condition of the soul.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not exactly. The soul *is* morally guilty and corrupt, not *as if* morally guilty.



We may have a definite disagreement here in that the federal headship goes both ways "as if" Jesus was a sinner, and men "as if" we sinned instead of Adam. Imputation _is a covering_ and looks like "as if" we never sinned.


----------



## Aco (Jun 15, 2018)

Reading through some of the comments here, some made a good point in emphasising the ethical aspect over against the metaphysical. 
The problem of Traducianism vs. Creationism seems only to come up when the question of the origin of the soul is asked. 
Federal headship is sufficient for Imputation of sin. Adam‘s sin is imputed to every individual because everybody sinned in Adam, doesn‘t matter when they‘ve been born. This ethical decay causes the natural corruption of the creation. 
So, saying that God creates an evil and depraved soul (in the case of Creationism) misses this important distinction between the ethical and metaphysical aspect. While God may have created every single soul directly, it doesn‘t follow that he created it "directly" evil and corrupt. It becomes such on account of Adam‘s sin which causes the natural corruption. Arguing against this point, seems to be inconsistent. You would have to say that Reformed theology makes God the author of sin, rejecting the distinction in primary and secondary causes.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2018)

Aco said:


> Reading through some of the comments here, some made a good point in emphasising the ethical aspect over against the metaphysical.
> The problem of Traducianism vs. Creationism seems only to come up when the question of the origin of the soul is asked.
> Federal headship is sufficient for Imputation of sin. Adam‘s sin is imputed to every individual because everybody sinned in Adam, doesn‘t matter when they‘ve been born. This ethical decay causes the natural corruption of the creation.
> So, saying that God creates an evil and depraved soul (in the case of Creationism) misses this important distinction between the ethical and metaphysical aspect. While God may have created every single soul directly, it doesn‘t follow that he created it "directly" evil and corrupt. It becomes such on account of Adam‘s sin which causes the natural corruption. Arguing against this point, seems to be inconsistent. You would have to say that Reformed theology makes God the author of sin, rejecting the distinction in primary and secondary causes.


You could also say that God is creating each human soul that would be now consistent with the corruption from the fall that Adam brought upon all of us.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> You could also say that God is creating each human soul that would be now consistent with the corruption



What does it mean for a newly-created soul to be consistent with the corruption?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What does it mean for a newly-created soul to be consistent with the corruption?


God would be creating the new soul in a fashion fit for its corrupted state from the fall.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God would be creating the new soul in a fashion fit for its corrupted state from the fall.



Is it guilty? Remember, the "corruption of our whole nature" is part of sin.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is it guilty? Remember, the "corruption of our whole nature" is part of sin.


Was the sin nature given to us by God creating it that way , or by Us being found guilty in Adam and thus would result in that sin nature?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 15, 2018)

@Ask Mr. Religion, As promised, I'll try answering A Brakel now.


> Question: How are the souls of men brought forth? Does this occur by seminal procreation or by transmission and ignition as one candle transmits light to another candle? Or does God create the soul whenever man by procreation comes into existence?
> 
> Answer: First, the soul is a spiritual entity, and thus is not physical in any sense. Therefore the soul cannot be brought forth by means of corporal and seminal procreation, for that which is causal cannot bring forth something which is toto genere, that is, of a nobler generation than the cause itself. If one maintains that the soul does not proceed from the body, but from the soul, I would ask, “Is it from the soul of the father, the mother, or from both?” It neither proceeds from both, for there is no mixture of souls, nor does it proceed from one of the two, for then the question remains, “Does it proceed from the father or the mother?” This question one will not be able to answer. In what manner would it be transmitted from the soul of the parents? If the personal soul of one of the parents would be transmitted in its entirety, the parent would be without a soul. If the transmission were partial, the soul would be divisible, and having parts it would not be a spirit but a body. If one maintains that the soul is brought forth causaliter, that is, as the effecting cause, by the souls of the parents, the question must be asked, “Out of what?” It is neither produced seminally nor by the complete or partial transmission of the soul. It would then of necessity be brought forth out of nothing, which is not possible for that is a creative act which is the proper work of God alone. The comparison of a burning candle igniting another candle and thus transmitting its flame is not applicable here, as fire is material in nature. Thus, one candle transmits its flame to the other by way of molecular transmission, since it finds matter to feed upon.


Again, I'm content leaving the matter of how a soul is begotten of another a mystery. I can't explain it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.



> Secondly, Scripture states clearly that God creates a new soul each time within the fruit of the womb. “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Eccles 12:7). Thus, we have two matters under consideration, the body and the soul, and the destiny of both—the one to the earth and the other to God. This agrees with their origin—from the earth and from God. As the body originates from the earth, the soul has its origin in God. “The burden of the Word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zech 12:1). As God brought forth heaven and earth by His omnipotence and without any secondary cause, He has also formed the soul within the inner recesses of man, that is without intervention of secondary causes in this formative act. Consider also Heb 12:9 where God is called the “Father of spirits,” in contrast to “fathers of our flesh” (cf. Isa 63:16; 1 Pet 4:19).


As I've said elsewhere (and as I noted in my outline of Strong), The Scriptures use the same language when referring to the formation of the body. See posts #119 and #13.



> Thirdly, the soul, subsequent to the death of man, exists independently, and is therefore also independent from the body at the very beginning. The soul is immortal and cannot be killed. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul” (Matt 10:28). If the soul had its origin in man, it could be killed by man as is true for the body, for the effecting cause can destroy its creation, but man is not able to destroy the soul and thus he is not the effecting cause of the soul.


I really don't see how this follows. Does the effecting cause really have to have the ability to undo its effect?



> Objection #1: If only the body of man would be generated and not the soul, man would not bring forth another man, since man consists of body and soul.
> 
> Answer: This generation does not consist in bringing forth either matter or form. Neither matter nor body are brought forth since man does not create that which previously had been created by God, nor is the form or soul brought forth as has been demonstrated in the first proof. Rather, this generation is an act of those who generate, and through this act substance and form are brought together; in this way the entire composition is brought forth. Thus, the generation of man is the result of human activity which results in the union of soul and body, and the fruit of the womb thus receives and is brought forth with its inherent nature, its humanity. Consequently, a man brings forth a man, although he brings forth neither the substance of the body nor the soul. Observe this for instance in the birth of the Lord Jesus, the God-man, who was born out of Mary.


Some of his philosophical jargon is unfortunately over my head a bit. Perhaps you could render his answer in more contemporary terms, Patrick?

If what he is saying is that by the act of procreation the body is formed from preexisting matter, and that the newly created soul is instantaneously joined to the body (the act of procreation being a second cause in this union), then fair enough. However, the whole man is still not really begotten from the substance of the parents.



> Objection #2: “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins ...” (Gen 46:26). Here it is stated expressly that the souls of Jacob‟s descendants had their origin in him.
> 
> Answer: It is a common, metaphorical manner of speech, in Scripture as well as in daily conversation, to refer to persons as “souls.” The entire matter is named after one of its constituent parts. One also says, “so many heads,” thereby referring to so many people. These persons came forth out of Jacob by generation. The union of their soul and body and their existence issued forth from him, be it immediately as with his own sons, or mediately as with his grandchildren.


I agree with A Brakel here. The objection is a bad one.



> Objection #3. God fully completed the work of creation in the first six days (Gen 2:2). Consequently, God does not create the soul on a daily basis.
> 
> Answer: During the first six days God created every species, subsequent to which He no longer creates new species. Rather, He maintains His creation either by special continuation, as with the angels, or by continuing the species, as He does with the human race which maintains its stability by generation. Thus, God daily creates the souls of men which are individua, that is, unique personal entities within the same human species.


God created _everything_ in those six days, not just species. Everything existed, either actually or potentially at the end of those six days. A Brakel doesn't give any indication to think otherwise. His only example of something that God continues to create is the soul of man--if he were to use this as a proof for his statement that God merely created the species during the six days but continues to create individuals, he would be begging the question.

If he were to argue that God created all the individuals in each species (actual or potential) during that week, with the exception of human beings, that would be special pleading.

Unfortunately, I can't press A Brakel on these questions at all without violating my conscience concerning necromancy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Was the sin nature given to us by God creating it that way , or by Us being found guilty in Adam and thus would result in that sin nature?



That's what I am asking you.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's what I am asking you.


Is that the main difference between the 2 views discussed here?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Is that the main difference between the 2 views discussed here?



I don't know if it is the main difference.


----------

