# Creationism or Traducianism?



## Arch2k (Dec 6, 2005)

I realize this has been discussed somewhat before, but I think it might be profitable to present the topic again in the form of a poll.

Do you believe in Creationism or Traducianism and why?


----------



## Peter (Dec 6, 2005)

Creationism, for now, as this is the reformed consensus, though I am not very well versed in the debate and may go either way. The main text for creationism, I believe, is the passage where God breathes Adam's soul into his body, indicating God creates the soul apart from the natural formation of mans physical aspect


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> If we sinned in Adam, this appears more biological than mere representation.
> 
> Also, if someone else can pay their tithes in the loins of another it appears Traducianism cannot be disocunted.
> ...



The creationist side of the coin is that Adam was our representative. His sin is imputed to us (along with the consequences) because he acted on our behalf, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to His people because he acted on their behalf.


----------



## Saiph (Dec 6, 2005)

Which view is more consistent with the idea of a virgin birth ?
Which one best defeats the doctrine of Pelagianism (Augustine)

Augustine: traducianism
Thomas : creationism

Both have merits, but God really did not let us in on the secret.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Which view is more consistent with the idea of a virgin birth ?
> Which one best defeats the doctrine of Pelagianism (Augustine)



Calvin was a creationist. Did he have trouble defeating pelagianism?


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 6, 2005)

Traducianists use the following section of the WCF to defend their view:




> III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity *descending from them by ordinary generation.[*7]
> 
> 6. Acts. 17:26; Rom. 5:12, 15-19; I Cor. 15:21-22, 49
> 7. Psa. 51:5; John 3:6; Gen. 5:3; Job 15:14



Is this a valid proof text for the traducianist?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 6, 2005)

I say creationist for now like Peter.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 7, 2005)

An illustration from farming. I use to raise chickens and I was intrigued by the way the hen had all these eggs inside her right from birth. The eggs would mature and grow and she would lay one regularly but they were all there when she was born. 

This became the illustration for me of how we were all present in Adam. In a mystical, spiritual and perhaps even a physical way we were all present in him when he fell and polluted the whole race. I guess that would cause me to lean heavily toward traducianism. I don't recommend others use my same 'barnyard' hermeneutic but it has certainly influenced me. For what it's worth


----------



## py3ak (Dec 7, 2005)

I think one consideration that must be taken into account, and that seems to often be left implicit is that there is a ground, a basis on which someone represents us. Adam is not our head arbitrarily, but on the ground of union. This (and Biblical evidence) has made me traducianist.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 7, 2005)

I think that I too am a Traducianist, although i would be interested to hear more defenses from the Creationist side.

Q8: How doth God execute his decrees? 
A8: God executeth his decrees in the works of creation [1] and providence.[2] 

1. Rev. 4:11
2. Dan. 4:35

Q9: What is the work of creation? 
A9: The work of creation is, God's making all things of nothing,[1] by the word of his power,[2] in the space of six days, and all very good.[3] 

1. Gen. 1:1
2. Heb. 11:3
3. Gen. 1:31

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God *ended His work which He had done*, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

I see God's creating ex nihilo being finished, and now, he upholds all things through his providence. In this, I like to think of God's "creating" of souls as similar to that of the rest of creation, by use of means (i.e. procreation).


----------



## VanVos (Dec 7, 2005)

Also if one adopts the Bahnsen position on the constitution of man as a substantival monism then the philosophical problem is alleviated. http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa143.htm



> In the course of this paper I wish to discuss and analyze the mind-body question from a conceptual standpoint, look at the scriptural teaching with respect to man's soul-spirit-heart-mind, and finally offer some suggestions for a Christian view of man's constitution. The alternative which I wish to pose for the official dogma of a ghost in a mechanism is, basically, that man is a substantival monism, a material body which is special for reason of its capabilities (not its added substantival ingredient). Historically, theologians have attributed a substantival soul to man in order to guard the teachings of man's dignity, immortality, moral responsibility, and personal identity; I propose that the ghost-machine dogma does not really guarantee these doctrines, and that while my alternative does not render human nature any less mysterious than the official dogma, it has the two-fold advantage of more properly locating the mystery and alleviating unnecessary philosophical problems which are set forth against the dual substance view in this day.



[Edited on 12-7-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## py3ak (Dec 7, 2005)

As far as creation goes, I think regeneration fits more into the category of resurrection (Ephesians 2 makes the connection). It is our current state that is against created nature.

As an additional note, I think you can apply the union as a ground for representation also to our union with Christ --that is not merely a legal union, it is a spiritual union ( the Spirit binds us together). So with Adam --we are not merely bound legally, we are bound by nature and descent.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 7, 2005)

"...the Son also hath life in Himself and He giveth it to whom He will..."
Hmmm....


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Are there any books which defend this traducian position so that I can read up.



Try Traducianism by Gordon H. Clark.

It is a very good article. Gordon Clark also defends traducianism in his book entitled "The Atonement."

I would also point you to the discussions of it in W.G.T. Shedd's dogmatic, and Augustus H. Strong's systematic.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 7, 2005)

I second the motion for the relevant portion in Shedd's systematic: he gives some history to it, as well. I have a friend who was a staunch creationist and would argue with me about it --then he read Charles Hodge (a creationist) and flinched and realized traducianism was correct. In Berkhof's Manual there is a good list of texts --those alone would send me to traducianism.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 7, 2005)

Does Traducianism explain why the body isn't redeemed yet?


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> If I am Traducian, then I have to conclude that the New Birth is not a Creatio Ex Nihilo, but a resurrection (like posited above).
> 
> Therefore, though sinners are dead in sins, they are alive in soul...? the living dead.



Being dead in our sins does not mean that our soul is dead. It means that our NATURE is only inclined toward sins. When God gives us a new nature it is just that (not a new soul). He resurrects the dead man in us, and inclines it toward the things of God.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> Do I also need to posit a 3-fold division of man (body, soul, and spirit) which I do not believe in (i.e. Trichotomy).



Absolutely not. I do not think that the trichotomous position is biblical at all.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Also, if Bahnsen is right (that's a good article he wrote), we should be NEITHER Trichotomists nor dichotomists - but MONOMISTS???



I admit that I have not read the article, but I think that the scripture is clear that man is composed of two parts. The soul can exist outside the body, and it is our true selves. I will have to read the article to see exactly what Bahnen is saying.


----------



## Saiph (Dec 7, 2005)

Jeff,



> The soul can exist outside the body, and it is our true selves.



Or, does the soul take on a different body at death, and another one at the resurrection ? I have never understood this.

2Co 5:6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 

1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 

Phi 3:21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. 

Jam 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

I apologize if this is off topic. We can make a new thread. But this has always intrigued me and confused me. I have no answers regarding such matters. It brings up many dilemmas regarding demon possession and mental derangement as well.

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 7, 2005)

Mark,

I have always understood the soul to exist apart from the body after death....that is until the resurrection at which our original bodies will be resurrected (after the same manner as Christ).

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXII
Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead

I. *The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:[1] but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: [2] the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.[3] And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.[4] Besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.*

1. Gen. 3:19; Acts 13:36
2. Luke 23:43; Eccl. 12:7
3. Heb. 12:23; II Cor. 5:1, 6, 8; Phil. 1:23; Acts 3:21; Eph. 4:10; Rom. 8:23
4. Luke 16:23-24; Acts 1:25; Jude 1:6-7; I Peter 3:19

II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:[5] and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.[6]

5. I Thess. 4:17; I Cor. 15: 51-52
6. John 5:25-29; Acts 24:15; Job 19:26-27; Dan. 12:2; I Cor. 15:42-44

III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to his own glorious body.[g.

7. Acts 24:15; John 5:25-29; I Cor. 15:43; Phil. 3:21


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 7, 2005)

*Supporters of Each:*

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)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> I was always struck by the opposition to original sin based on the objection, "Why am I punished for something some guy did long ago.."



You can ask them a similar question in response. Why do they think they can be saved because of what some guy did 2000 years ago?


----------



## DanielC (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Also, here is another related question...
> 
> Maybe this ought to be its own thread...
> ...



Mankind is unique - created in a world of plurality, Adam was for a moment the only living thing that was alone. Everyone - Eve included - comes from Adam, so Adam is the Protoplast, the head and root, the princpium totius speciei of mankind. Even after Eve was formed, she was brought immediately back to the man so that they might be "one flesh" again - the first family reunion, as it were. This goes hand in hand with our federal, heirarchical structure, and thus we can be regarded as both an organic whole and a plurality, much like the One of whom we are the image. Angels are more like the animals in this regard, having no federal head and presumably, no unity (of marriage) and no powers of propagation.
My


----------



## srhoades (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I
> 
> I see God's creating ex nihilo being finished, and now, he upholds all things through his providence. In this, I like to think of God's "creating" of souls as similar to that of the rest of creation, by use of means (i.e. procreation).



So what about the two times Jesus fed the multitudes? Did he just relocated a large school of fish and and a barn full of bread or did he create it ex nihilo?

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by srhoades]


----------



## gwine (Dec 8, 2005)

I once read (can't remember where or when) that Jesus didn't really feed them himself. Rather, when the crowd saw the disciples passing out their food they (the crowd) were moved to compassion on those amonst them who had nothing and began sharing.

Talk about denying Christ.  (that's twice)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by srhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...




Neither! Rather, I think Jesus miraculously *multiplied* what was *already* there.

If He wanted to create ex nihilo, then why bother starting with 5 loaves and 2 fish?


----------



## Saiph (Dec 8, 2005)

> Neither! Rather, I think Jesus miraculously *multiplied* what was *already* there.
> 
> If He wanted to create ex nihilo, then why bother starting with 5 loaves and 2 fish?



So Jesus would support Dolly the cloned sheep ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Neither! Rather, I think Jesus miraculously *multiplied* what was *already* there.
> ...



Only if Dolly believed in Traducianism.






[Edited on 12-8-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## py3ak (Dec 8, 2005)

Fortunately, _The Diary of Dolly_ has a section in the introduction (p. xviii) where this special sheep's views are set forth. She was drawn to creationism until her own origin was explained to her. At that point she embraced traducianism and became an enthusiastic Edwards fan.


----------



## Saiph (Dec 8, 2005)




----------



## Arch2k (Dec 8, 2005)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 8, 2005)

I knew there had to be some reputable source to back up my conviction.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 8, 2005)

Scholarship is a beautiful thing.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 8, 2005)

On a more serious note,



> > Originally posted by trevorjohnson
> > I was always struck by the opposition to original sin based on the objection, "Why am I punished for something some guy did long ago.."
> 
> 
> ...



That is perfectly true: and the answer to both is the same. "Because I am in union with that person, and they are (or were) my covenant head."


----------

