# Creationism v. Traducianism



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 3, 2010)

Am reading W.G.T. Shedd's _Dogmatic Theology_ right now and he makes a pretty convincing case for Traducianism. 

Thoughts from the board.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 3, 2010)

I say traducianism because I have never been able to wrap my mind around the matter of depravity being truly and instantly present in all humanity, while adhering to the creationist framework. I am interested to see this debate, however.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 3, 2010)

Creationism because:

_Then King Zedekiah swore secretly to Jeremiah, "As the LORD lives, *who made our souls*, I will not put you to death or deliver you into the hand of these men who seek your life." (Jer 38:16)

The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and *formed the spirit of man* within him: (Zec 12:1)
_


----------



## ClayPot (Sep 3, 2010)

I hold to the creationist viewpoint. I just read Zec 12:1 yesterday, and I instantly thought of the creationist viewpoint regrading the creation of the soul. 

The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: (Zec 12:1)


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 3, 2010)

larryjf said:


> Creationism because:
> 
> _Then King Zedekiah swore secretly to Jeremiah, "As the LORD lives, *who made our souls*, I will not put you to death or deliver you into the hand of these men who seek your life." (Jer 38:16)
> 
> ...



I get that, and that is what makes this tough for me. How do you reconcile your view with the doctrine of original sin? Does God create the soul/spirit without sin and then, _*subsequently*_, it becomes sinful? If so, how? when? Certainly, God does not create a sinful soul...


----------



## paculina (Sep 3, 2010)

Can someone please explain in plain English what Traducianism is? I have no idea! Thanks!


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 3, 2010)

The terms can be confusing! In this case, “creationism” is not being contrasted with evolution as it often is. Rather, this regards the origin of the human soul, or spirit. There have traditionally been two theological views. The first, “creationism,” holds that God immediately (that is, directly and without an intermediary) creates each soul at the time of conception. The other view, “traducianism,” holds that God does use intermediaries; that is, He brings about the existence of each human soul mediately. 
The typical charge against creationism is that it can be seen to implicate God in actively creating a soul that is sinful. By contrast, the traducianist view states that God created Adam and Eve with sinless souls and, as part of that creation, enabled them to reproduce according to "ordinary generation.” This clears God of any charge of being the author of sin. Nevertheless, traducianism in no way denies that God is the ultimate Creator of everyone and everything. “They [Adam and Eve] 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” (WCF, VI.3).


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Sep 3, 2010)

Creationism. 

Generally, the soul is considered simple and not composed of parts. Traducianism seems to suggest that the soul of the child somehow separates itself from the soul of the parent. Furthermore, which parent, the father, the mother, or both?

However, the more troubling aspect of traducianism if its effect on Christology. If in Adam human nature as a whole sinned, it would seem that the human nature of Christ would be sinful, which is of course not true of our Lord.

Berkhof leans towards creationism in his Systematic.

---------- Post added at 09:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------




kainos01 said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Creationism because:
> ...


 
God *imputes* to us the disobedience of Adam; he does not create a sinful soul.


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 3, 2010)

I prefer traducianism, but not by a large margin. I would like to point out the import of the above-mentioned WCF 6.3:

III. They being the root of 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.

As Taylor pointed out, the guilt of sin is indeed imputed; on the other hand, the corrupted nature is "conveyed." A forensic imputation would not explain why Adam's descendants sin. I take "descending" to be a causal participle. Something about "ordinary generation" conveys the corrupt nature. Christ was not conceived by ordinary generation and thus does not partake of the corrupt nature. The creationist viewpoint takes on gnostic overtones in that there is a supposed pure soul corrupted by attachment to an impure body. 

Scripturally speaking, I think the exegetical evidence is a bit thin for either side. We see God make a soul for Adam, but not for Eve. Also, God ceased from creative activity at the end of the Genesis account. Of course, we can find counter-examples to this, but creationism involves God involved in _regular_ creative activity.

Regarding Zech. 12:1, that could refer to the original creation of Adam's soul in keeping with the reference to creating the cosmos. The verbal form is ambiguous with regard to time. Even if not, it would simply join the list of texts like Jer. 38:16, which testify that God makes souls, but not how. (Actually, many versions translate that something along the lines of, "who gave us life," again the Hebrew being rather ambiguous.)

Look at this verse for a moment: Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." Obviously that doesn't mean that God immediately created Job without natural causes. Many Biblical references to things God "made" or "formed" are the results of natural causes, and that makes sense. God is the creator of my cat just as much as he is the creator of the first cat, but in a different way. 

So, I don't think the discussion is that important, but I do lean toward traducianism because I think it fits better within the total framework of theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

Creationism as I believe it aligns most clearly with the immediate imputation of Adam's sin and guilt, by God, to all his posterity.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 4, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Am reading W.G.T. Shedd's _Dogmatic Theology_ right now and he makes a pretty convincing case for Traducianism.
> 
> Thoughts from the board.


 
Make sure to also read Turretin from the creationist position. 

One thing to keep in mind is that our corrupt natures are a divine punishment for or sin in Adam according to God's decree. Otherwise, we would not have sinful natures.


----------



## christiana (Sep 4, 2010)

Isaiah 57:16 (New King James Version)

16 For I will not contend forever,
Nor will I always be angry;
For the spirit would fail before Me,
And the souls which I have made.

---------- Post added at 06:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 AM ----------

If we got our soul from our parents that would defeat our 'being chosen before the foundation of the world'.
I have this theory that God made our souls in eternity past and then in His time clothed them with humanity. Is something wrong with that?


----------



## larryjf (Sep 4, 2010)

Adam's sin being imputed to us doesn't really tell us anything regarding the distinction between the soul and the body since it is imputed to the person as a whole.

The specifics about how and when the imputation of sin occurs upon the soul seems to reach into areas beyond Scripture and therefore cannot be answered with any certainty.


----------



## Whitefield (Sep 4, 2010)

christiana said:


> I have this theory that God made our souls in eternity past and then in His time clothed them with humanity. Is something wrong with that?


 
Mormons believe this theory, and it is the reason they advocate having as many children as possible - they are providing earthly vessels for all those souls God has waiting in heaven.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 4, 2010)

larryjf said:


> Adam's sin being imputed to us doesn't really tell us anything regarding the distinction between the soul and the body since it is imputed to the person as a whole.
> 
> The specifics about how and when the imputation of sin occurs upon the soul seems to reach into areas beyond Scripture and therefore cannot be answered with any certainty.


 
One argument that one runs into from time to time from transducianists is that their view does a better job explaining the transmission of the sinful human nature to posterity. However this is wrong-headed because the sinful nature of man is not passed on by an accident of nature, but rather by God's decree as punishment for the race's fall in Adam.


----------



## baron (Sep 4, 2010)

I voted what. So far the results are 12 for Creationism and 10 for Traducianism now both views can not be right, right. Does it matter what view you hold or don't hold?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

larryjf said:


> Adam's sin being imputed to us doesn't really tell us anything regarding the distinction between the soul and the body since it is imputed to the person as a whole.
> 
> The specifics about how and when the imputation of sin occurs upon the soul seems to reach into areas beyond Scripture and therefore cannot be answered with any certainty.


 
It is germane as most traducianists are realists. Traducianism was favored by Lutherans and anti-Federal theologians. Traducianism typically sees souls as sub-divided from Adam's original substance. Consequently, this leads to a Realistic view of the Fall as souls are thought to have really participated in the Fall of Adam as their substance was in Adam when he fell. Federal theologians saw men as naturally descending from Adam and Eve but their soul was immediately created by God at the time of conception and the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin was immediately (federally) imputed.

Previous discussions on this topic lead me to believe there are traducianists who are also federalists and as long as federalism is preserved I suppose I'm ambivalent about the topic.


----------



## christiana (Sep 4, 2010)

> Mormons believe this theory, and it is the reason they advocate having as many children as possible - they are providing earthly vessels for all those souls God has waiting in heaven


.

Oh well, much more studying indicated here. Please dont confuse me with the mormons!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

baron said:


> I voted what. So far the results are 12 for Creationism and 10 for Traducianism now both views can not be right, right. Does it matter what view you hold or don't hold?


 
John,

I certainly wouldn't ask this question of most Christians. I think it's fair to say that it's not a hill I'm going to die on. Usually the consequences of certain views are more spelled out in comprehensive Systematic Theologies. Sometimes the question is not whether it really matters whether or not someone holds to Traducianism but what else do they believe concerning the propagation of sin from Adam to his posterity. I believe a denial of federal imputation is not inconsequential but that is not directly related to Tracucianism per se.


----------



## Whitefield (Sep 4, 2010)

christiana said:


> > Mormons believe this theory, and it is the reason they advocate having as many children as possible - they are providing earthly vessels for all those souls God has waiting in heaven
> 
> 
> .
> ...


 
LOL. I'm not equating you with the Mormons. But thought you might test your theory against those who have written against the Mormon idea of the pre-existence of the soul.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 4, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Adam's sin being imputed to us doesn't really tell us anything regarding the distinction between the soul and the body since it is imputed to the person as a whole.
> ...



For the record, my (tentative) traducianism in no way abrogates my federalism!


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 5, 2010)

I'm just a bit curious as to what a possible third view would be, which is an option in the poll. Anyone out there able to come up with a third view?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2010)

Jason,

A third option is the pre-existence of the soul. It's not a Biblical option but it's an option.


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 5, 2010)

To the creationists, I would like to see some interaction both with the wording of the confession and to a logical problem that I have seen in creationism.

III. They being the root of 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.

My reading of this passage combines both what we might call realist and federal approaches. The beginning phrase, "They being the root of mankind" provides the ground for the two actions, 1) guilt imputed and 2) death and corrupted nature conveyed. My inclination is to take "descending from them by ordinary generation" as a modal phrase, explaining the mean by which these actions (or at least action 2) take place. The adjective "ordinary" further reinforces that the mode of the generation has something to do with the execution of the actions. The separate verbs used for the actions, "imputed" vs. "conveyed," may signify a difference in the way these two actions come to pass. 

Logically, I have trouble understanding how imputation suffices to explain the corruption of human nature. For example, we use the word impute to refer to the means by which we are justified, but we do not use it likewise for our sanctification. We acknowledge that imputation is a forensic or commercial term in which someone has something credited to them, but it does not change his actual (or natural) characteristics. Thus, when we receive Christ's imputed righteousness, we gain the status of righteous individuals; we do not simply on the basis of imputation become righteous. Nothing in us has changed. In sanctification, we actually become righteous, and so the terms of imputation are inappropriate. So, to come back to our discussion, I understand how Adam's guilt can be imputed to his posterity, because guilt is a word denoting status, and thus falls into a category in which imputation makes sense. I do not understand how corruption of nature could be imputed; that seems to me to be a confusion of categories, and it strikes me that the WCF recognizes this by using the word "conveyed" to describe how we inherit that nature. So, how is it conveyed? The answer cannot be by imputation, nor do I accept that God personally corrupts the nature of the souls that he creates, nor do I accept the answer that the purely created souls somehow become impure when they are attached to the bodies.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2010)

Are you aware that the Reformers rejected the Lutheran view of Traducianism and were Federal Theologians? 


> It is a far more important question, whether the soul of each man is immediately created, or, whether it is generated by the parents. The former is known, in theology, as “Creationism,” the latter as “Traducianism.” The Greek Church from the first took ground in favour of creationism as alone consistent with the true nature of the soul. Tertullian in the Latin Church was almost a materialist, at least he used the language of materialism, and held that the soul was as much begotten as the body. Jerome opposed that doctrine. Augustine was also very adverse to it; but in his controversy with Pelagius on the propagation of sin, he was tempted to favour the theory of traduction as affording an easier explanation of the fact that we derive a corrupt nature from Adam. He never, however, could bring himself fully to adopt it. Creationism became subsequently the almost universally received doctrine of the Latin, as it had always been of the Greek, Church. At the time of the Reformation the Protestants as a body adhered to the same view. Even the Form of Concord, the authoritative symbol of the Lutheran Church, favours creationism. The body of the Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century, however, adopted the theory of traduction. Among the Reformed the reverse was true. Calvin, Beza, Turrettin, and the great majority of the Reformed theologians were creationists, only here and there one adopted the ex traduce theory. In modern times discussion on this point has been renewed. Many of the recent German theologians, and such as are inclined to realism in any form, have become more or less zealously the advocates of traducianism. This, however, is far from being the universal opinion of the Germans. Perhaps the majority of the German philosophers agree with Günther: “Traducianism has its functions in respect to the animal life of man; on the other hand, the province of Creationism is with the soul; and it would travel out of its province if it extended the immediate creative action of God to that animal life, which is the principle of his body’s existence.”
> 
> Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 2: Systematic theology (67–68). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.



My point above (as in another thread when this was discussed) is that there were no Federal Traducionists. Realism is more associated with Traducianism and I'm not aware of any Realistic Creationists. As for your other questions:



> 4. CREATIONISM. This view is to the effect that each individual soul is to be regarded as an immediate creation of God, owing its origin to a direct creative act, of which the time cannot be precisely determined. The soul is supposed to be created pure, but united with a depraved body. This need not necessarily mean that the soul is created first in separation from the body, and then polluted by being brought in contact with the body, which would seem to assume that sin is something physical. It may simply mean that the soul, though called into being by a creative act of God, yet is pre-formed in the psychical life of the fœtus, that is, in the life of the parents, and thus acquires its life not above and outside of, but under and in, that complex of sin by which humanity as a whole is burdened.
> 
> a. Arguments in favor of Creationism. The following are the more important considerations in favor of this theory: (1) It is more consistent with the prevailing representations of Scripture than Traducianism. The original account of creation points to a marked distinction between the creation of the body and that of the soul. The one is taken from the earth, while the other comes directly from God. This distinction is kept up throughout the Bible, where body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins, Eccl. 12:7; Isa 42:5; Zech. 12:1; Heb. 12:9. Cf. Num. 16:22. Of the passage in Hebrews even Delitzsch, though a Traducianist, says, “There can hardly be a more classical proof text for creationism.” (2) It is clearly far more consistent with the nature of the human soul than Traducianism. The immaterial and spiritual, and therefore indivisible nature of the soul of man, generally admitted by all Christians, is clearly recognized by Creationism. The traducian theory on the other hand, posits a derivation of essence, which, as is generally admitted, necessarily implies separation or division of essence. (3) It avoids the pitfalls of Traducianism in Christology and does greater justice to the Scriptural representation of the person of Christ. He was very man, possessing a true human nature, a real body and a rational soul, was born of a woman, was made in all points like as we are,—and yet, without sin. He did not, like all other men, share in the guilt and pollution of Adam’s transgression. This was possible, because he did not share the same numerical essence which sinned in Adam.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 6, 2010)

I just found an article by Gordon Clark on traducianism that may be of interest. He interacts with Hodge, Berkhof, and Buswell's objections.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> I just found an article by Gordon Clark on traducianism that may be of interest. He interacts with Hodge, Berkhof, and Buswell's objections.


 
Steve,

One problem I've noticed with some of Clark's presentation (as well as some of his disciples) is that they don't seem to interact, historically, with the _meaning_ of the WCF. In the article he says:


> Berkhof’s fifth and last objection is equally faulty. Briefly, it is that traducianism would result in Christ’s having a depraved human soul. But this assumes that Adam was Christ’s representative and federal head. This, however, is not the case; and the Westminster Confession explicitly rules it out: “...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” (VI, 3). Incidentally, the verb conveyed suggests traducianism. The birth of Christ was miraculous and is not to be subsumed under the otherwise universal rule.


Does "conveyed" suggest traducianism? Why? Because we are all English speakers do we assume that going back to see what the framers of the WCF meant by that sentence does not apply?

In other words, Clark suggests that the WCF intended to communicate traducianism. Consequently, the writers of the WCF would have been Federal Traducianists. Is there historical evidence offered of this? No, it is simply asserted. He doesn't interact with Hodge as he points out the historical scene regarding Traducianism.

I am not saying that, because the WCF framers, would have stood in the Reformed stream on this topic that they must have been right about Creationism but, if one is going to call for "testimony" for a view, it is improper to make the witnesses speak as if they are Traducianists if this has not been established historically.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 6, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> > I just found an article by Gordon Clark on traducianism that may be of interest. He interacts with Hodge, Berkhof, and Buswell's objections.
> ...


 
I would be interested in your interaction with the rest of his points - he does say that the "conveyed = traducian" link is "incidental" to his position. I am still not unshakably resolved in this matter, BTW (or a diehard Clarkian, by any means!). I just thought that Clark offered an interesting response.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2010)

Steve,

Honestly, I'm not a philosopher. I probably come off as more "dogmatic" than I really am. To some extent my position is one of being more comfortable standing next to Reformed thought as it has been on this topic rather than newer views but, as I said, I wouldn't die on that hill. As I stated in my original post, my most firm conviction on the issue is not even a Traducian/Creationist issue, per se, and that is the issue of the imputation of Adam's guilt. I'm decidedly Federal in my theology of immediate imputation as I believe Realism creates massive problems with Romans 5. Having read _The Imputation of Adam's Sin_ by Murray, I am firmly convinced of immediate imputation of sin and guilt to Adam's posterity.

For my part, then, I receive the revelation that I believe is clear about imputation in the Scriptures and can stand firmly on that ground even if I'm not really comfortable dealing with the other philosophical issues point by point.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 6, 2010)

Rich,
I am pretty much in the same boat! As I mentioned above, I am a federalist through and through. Like you, I am probably not enough of a philosopher to split these hairs. However, as I put my *in*cosiderable skills to work on this, I can see some justification for the traducianist view. More, in fact, than I can for the creationist view. Granted, much of Reformed theology has been on the side of creationism (as has Roman Catholicism, for that matter). Yet traducianism is hardly a "newer view," though I don't think you were really saying that it was. Tertullian and Jerome held to traducianism, and Augustine confessed near the end of his life that he could not resolve the matter either way to his own satisfaction (_Retractationes_ 1.1.3). From what I have studied, the view prevailed into the middle of the Middle Ages.
At any rate, this isn't a hill for me to die on either. It's just one of those things that I like to "chew" on now and then.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 6, 2010)

Charlie, I think some contemporary creationists do tend to minimize the transmission of the corruption of sin. However, Turretin was a creationist, and yet had no problem also writing that the taint of sin "is usually propagated by and contracted by ordinary generation" (XIII.11,3). As our legal, covenantal union with Christ is not opposed to our spiritual union with Him, so our legal, covenantal union with Adam is not opposed to our natural union with him.


----------

