Traducianism vs. Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
You're starting to sound like a traducianist.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Worth a look:

Shedding traducianism: Oliver Crisp’s analysis of Shedd’s traducianism in light of Herman Bavinck
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...
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. ;)
 
TylerRay said:
So, you have no problem with saying that God creates man with a depraved nature?
Click to expand...

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.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Not exactly. The soul *is* morally guilty and corrupt, not *as if* morally guilty.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
@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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

fivepointcalvinist
  • Locked
Creationism Museum Set To Open Next Year
Replies
0
Views
2K
fivepointcalvinist
fivepointcalvinist
B
  • Locked
Paul vs. Gamaliel
Replies
6
Views
2K
arapahoepark
arapahoepark
B
  • Locked
"Bimonthly" vs. "Semimonthly"
Replies
9
Views
2K
Edward
Edward
KMK
  • Locked
Kings vs. Chronicles
Replies
11
Views
6K
KMK
KMK
B
  • Locked
Poole vs. Henry
Replies
6
Views
3K
PeterR
P
Back
Top