# Traducianism



## Scott (Mar 20, 2007)

Is traducianism consistent with reformed theology? I know some reformed reject traducianism. If traducianism is not true, then how did Christ avoid original sin?

SC 16 says:
Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

In what way would "ordinary generation" transmit original sin? Traducianism? Something else?


----------



## ADKing (Mar 20, 2007)

Traducianism is normally associated with Lutheran thought. A majority of the Reformed theologians would have taught creationism--that is, each individual soul is created by God.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 20, 2007)

ADKing said:


> Traducianism is normally associated with Lutheran thought. A majority of the Reformed theologians would have taught creationism--that is, each individual soul is created by God.


 
Isn't the difference between traducianism and creation more of the mode of creation, not who created (i.e. mediate or immediate)?

I for one find many advantages to traducianism. From what I remember, there are many reformed who held to it, but small in comparison to those who held to creationism (similarly to supra vs. infra). I think that Berkhof, Turretin and Clark give helpful discussions on the issue.


----------



## ADKing (Mar 20, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Isn't the difference between traducianism and creation more of the mode of creation, not who created (i.e. mediate or immediate)?
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Yes. Thank you for the clarification. Both positions agree that God creates. It is a question of whether he creates each soul immediately or mediately. Historically the reformed have answered he creates immediately, though as you point out there are always the minority who have disagreed.


----------



## Ravens (Mar 20, 2007)

I'm undecided on the issue, but traducianism has always better explained (in my mind) the corrupted nature we are born with; the imputed guilt is easily taken care of in both schemes, based on Adam's federal headship, but I think creationism's explanation of God creating a soul ex nihilo and, in essence, "making" it corrupt is difficult to digest.

Though its equally difficult to imagine how intercourse between two souls could unite via bodily intercourse and give birth to another soul.

So I dunno.


----------



## Scott (Mar 20, 2007)

JDWiseman said:


> I'm undecided on the issue, but traducianism has always better explained (in my mind) the corrupted nature we are born with; the imputed guilt is easily taken care of in both schemes, based on Adam's federal headship, but I think creationism's explanation of God creating a soul ex nihilo and, in essence, "making" it corrupt is difficult to digest.


That is the answer I would like too. If God directly makes the new soul, how can it be sinful and evil?


----------



## VanVos (Mar 20, 2007)

What about man as substantival monism. Wouldn't that alleviate the philosophical problem of creationism versus traducianism.

VanVos


----------



## JOwen (Mar 20, 2007)

Scott said:


> That is the answer I would like too. If God directly makes the new soul, how can it be sinful and evil?



Add to this that the book of Genesis says God *stopped creating* after day six. This to me is a big problem for creationism. Not that I'm for traducianism.


----------



## Scott (Mar 20, 2007)

Is it fair to say that under both traducianism and creationism that sin is inherited from the male? Is that the point of the "ordinary generation" language in the shorter catechism? A human man was the only one of two natural halves of birth removed in the virgin birth. 

And original sin is Adam's sin, not Eve's sin. Does not having a male human as a father mean that he is not descended from Adam, even though Mary was descended from Adam?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 21, 2007)

I found this little summary informative in pointing to notable proponents as well as strengths and weaknesses associated with each view:
http://www.owentew.com/traducianism_vs__creationism.htm


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 21, 2007)

ADKing said:


> Traducianism is normally associated with Lutheran thought. A majority of the Reformed theologians would have taught creationism--that is, each individual soul is created by God.



And on the Seventh Day God rested . . . then got right back to work.  

The creationist argument has some problems. See . . . 
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=56


----------



## Scott (Mar 21, 2007)

Gomarus said:


> I found this little summary informative in pointing to notable proponents as well as strengths and weaknesses associated with each view:
> http://www.owentew.com/traducianism_vs__creationism.htm



Very helpful article. Thanks!


----------



## py3ak (Mar 21, 2007)

W.G.T. Shedd has a good section on this in his _Dogmatic Theology_. Several people I talked to who read it have become traducianists.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 21, 2007)

Here is Turretin on the subject. Louis Berkhof and Charles Hodge are both worth reading (both available online). I think John Brown of Haddington addresses this too. See also Calvin's _Institutes_, Book II, Chap. 1, Sec. 7.


----------

