Did Augustine misunderstand Rom 5:12 because of a Latin mistranslation, and what are the implications?

[Knight]

Elsewhere on the board, I saw an endorsement for Murray's book "Imputation of Adam's Sin." What are the main "problems" with Murray's views?

I'll try to address this more over the weekend. In short, I think he is only able to push back the problem with Charles Hodge's view one extra step:

"The members of posterity cannot be conceived of as existing when Adam trespassed. To posit any such supposition is to contradict the meaning of conception and generation as the divinely constituted means for the origin of all members of the race except the first pair. Yet all the members of the race were contemplated by God as destined to exist; they were foreordained to be and the certainty of their existence was thus guaranteed. It is important in this connection to bear in mind that as thus contemplated by God they were contemplated no otherwise than as members of the race in solidaric union with Adam and therefore as having sinned in him. In other words, they are not conceived of in the mind and purpose of God except as one with Adam; they are not contemplated as potentially but as actually one with Adam in his sin. And this proposition is basic to all further thought on the question" (Murray, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, pgs. 90ff.)

The key here is that Murray rejects a real participation and affirms nominalism: there is no correspondence between reality and what God contemplates about reality. According to Murray, we do not really participate in Adam's sin because we did not in any sense exist. Whereas Hodge nominalistically imputed guilt to Adam's progeny without even allowing that they participated at all in Adam's sin, Murray merely pushes the problem back one step by nominalistically imputing culpability to Adam's progeny without even allowing that they really existed to really participate in the culpable Adamic act.

This seems important; surely in the 160-odd years since the thesis and rejoinder, someone took this up?

While I am no expert, I'll venture a few comments since you were looking for a recommendation. George Hutchinson's book on "The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology" (link) is a great book (acknowledged by everyone on all sides of this discussion) that overviews different views and discussions on original sin between ~1830-1960. This is where I learned of Baird, his work (link), and his dispute with Charles Hodge. The book also covers John Murray and others.

Baird wrote "The Elohim Revealed," wherein he defended what Hutchinson calls a "realist" view of original sin (similar to but distinct from that of W. G. T. Shedd; a more defensible view, in my opinion). Charles Hodge responded to Baird's book with a review, and after Baird wrote a rejoinder to Hodge (i.e. the link in the earlier post), Hodge seemingly gave up further response. Baird and other authors (like Robert Landis, link) pretty much level Hodge's views on original sin, which can be summarized in Hodge's statement that "Imputation does not imply a participation of the criminality of the sin imputed" (Hodge, Theology, Vol. II, p. 194). Baird, Landis, and the Reformed tradition (to this point in history) are against Hodge on this point, to say nothing of who in the Reformed tradition would also count as a realist.

Now, another person Hutchinson mentions in his book is Henry Thornwell, a theologian Hutchinson also puts in the "Realist School" (which includes Shedd and Baird). Thornwell wrote a critique of Baird's realism and, perhaps, his former views (link), a critique which probably was written later than Hutchinson seems to think (cf. pages 531-534 here). To answer your question, then, if I had to point to one resource that seems to face up to Baird and the implications of his realism as written in "The Elohim Revealed" and his rejoinder to Hodge I linked earlier, it would probably be Thornwell's critique. That said, I myself still lean towards Baird's view and believe modifications can be made to them to avoid some of Thornwell's criticisms (some of which seem just). But the Reformed, realist view of original sin does seem to have fallen out of favor. I haven't read many try to improve on Baird, Shedd, etc.

I'm trying to make some headway towards this in a slow way. Oliver Crisp discusses Shedd in a book I'm currently reading (link). I'm reading this book on original sin by Ian McFarland, which engages Augustinian differences from, say, Maximus (and as I've been reading on Easter Orthodoxy, I realize how little engagement with them I've seen from a Reformed perspective). Lastly, the one person I have talked to about many of these issues is a SBC guy called Ken Hamrick, who used to have a website but I haven't been able to contact for a while. You can read some of his old posts on SBC Voices, but I mention him only because he is as knowledgeable on this subject - especially in terms of historical theology - as I've had the pleasure to talk to (e.g. link, link, link), and he pointed me in the right direction on several of the points I mention above. I've seen something of a manuscript he's worked on, and I hope he is able to publish it at some point.

 

[pgwolv]

I'll try to address this more over the weekend.

Thank you, I would appreciate it.

George Hutchinson's book on "The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology" (link) is a great book (acknowledged by everyone on all sides of this discussion) that overviews different views and discussions on original sin between ~1830-1960. This is where I learned of Baird, his work (link), and his dispute with Charles Hodge.

Thank you for the book recommendation and the link, I downloaded "The Elohim Revealed" for further reading.

(similar to but distinct from that of W. G. T. Shedd; a more defensible view, in my opinion).

Do you perhaps have a link to Shedd's work? And are you saying that Shedd's view is more defensible, or Baird's?

Charles Hodge responded to Baird's book with a review, and after Baird wrote a rejoinder to Hodge (i.e. the link in the earlier post), Hodge seemingly gave up further response.

I did not realize the reviewer to whom Baird was responding was Hodge himself! I had thought it was a proponent of Hodge's views. With "gave up," I assume you mean that one hears no more from him in response, but that he did not change his views.

Robert Landis, link

Thanks, I got a copy here.

to say nothing of who in the Reformed tradition would also count as a realist.

What do you mean by this?

Thornwell wrote a critique of Baird's realism and, perhaps, his former views (link),

Thank you, I will be reading this as well. Are his "former views" encapsulated in "The Elohim Revealed," or are there later views of Baird available for me to read?

That said, I myself still lean towards Baird's view and believe modifications can be made to them to avoid some of Thornwell's criticisms (some of which seem just).

I would be interested to discuss this with you after I have read his criticisms, perhaps on here.

But the Reformed, realist view of original sin does seem to have fallen out of favor. I haven't read many try to improve on Baird, Shedd, etc.

What, in your opinion, is the reason for it falling out of favour? Now I am interested in knowing what the general view on the PB is regarding this issue.

Oliver Crisp discusses Shedd in a book I'm currently reading (link).

Have you perhaps read Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views? I see Crisp provides one of the views. My church's bookshop sells this title, and I think it will help me get a more rounded view of this issue.

I'm reading this book on original sin by Ian McFarland

This one?

I've seen something of a manuscript he's worked on, and I hope he is able to publish it at some point.

Please do let me know if you see his work is published.

EDIT: Is the work you are referring to the following he mentions in a comment on his blog?

I have thoroughly addressed the traducianism issue from every angle, in a separate, lengthy, ongoing work (of which you have read some—I’ll send it to you for review when I’m done with it).

Thank you for your engagement, you have also pointed me to work that I can read.

Blessings

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Thank you, I would appreciate it.

PG, I thought you were going to spend this weekend watching the All Blacks defeat South Africa. I could not resist

 

[pgwolv]

PG, I thought you were going to spend this weekend watching the All Blacks defeat South Africa. I could not resist

Haha! Perhaps if I liked rugby... I know, sacrilegious for a South African!

 

[pgwolv]

Lastly, the one person I have talked to about many of these issues is a SBC guy called Ken Hamrick, who used to have a website but I haven't been able to contact for a while. You can read some of his old posts on SBC Voices, but I mention him only because he is as knowledgeable on this subject - especially in terms of historical theology - as I've had the pleasure to talk to (e.g. link, link, link), and he pointed me in the right direction on several of the points I mention above. I've seen something of a manuscript he's worked on, and I hope he is able to publish it at some point.

Is the following quote from him something that you would like to see further developed, from a Calvinist perspective?

If both sides could agree with the older Augustinian principle that the moral nature of all men was in Adam and participated in his sin, then their disagreement would be limited to whether or not God personally condemns individuals for a sin that was only corporate (the race as a whole in Adam) and not personally or individually committed by men.

EDITED to add: I see in Part 1 of Hamrick's article, one comment that states the following:

John Cassian, in his dialog with Augustine, plainly states the Eastern concept of original sin.

You stated

I'm reading this book on original sin by Ian McFarland, which engages Augustinian differences from, say, Maximus (and as I've been reading on Easter Orthodoxy, I realize how little engagement with them I've seen from a Reformed perspective

So I guess understanding the EO view on original sin will help my understanding. Do you have recommended reading for this as well? The book by McFarland?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I know, sacrilegious for a South African!

That is sacrilegious for a South African I must confess the All Blacks lost the last game to your country. My brother lived in East London for a number of years, he backslid and wore a 'Bokies cap one day. Must not distract your insightful thread though

 

[pgwolv]

You can read some of his old posts on SBC Voices, but I mention him only because he is as knowledgeable on this subject - especially in terms of historical theology - as I've had the pleasure to talk to (e.g. link, link, link), and he pointed me in the right direction on several of the points I mention above. I've seen something of a manuscript he's worked on, and I hope he is able to publish it at some point.

Sorry for asking so many questions, but since you have read more on the topic, you are now my go-to source for understanding it

Another interaction on that blog post led to the following comment:

Corporate guilt of Adam’s sin is a theory based on speculation.
It sounds good to the ear and you write very well but it isn’t in the Bible.

Do you hold to corporate guilty of Adam's sin? If so, can it be supported from the Bible?

 

[Knight]

Replies to pgwolv:

Shedd's work: link

McFarland's work (free pdf, save yourself $100): In Adam's Fall

To answer your questions: yes, I think Baird's view is more defensible than Shedd's. The link to Baird's works I provided are nearly comprehensive, I think. His latest, relevant work in this area would be The Gratuitous Imputation of Sin (link), Baird's seeming final word on the subject of original sin and yet another response to Hodge's views. I don't think his view changed much, if at all.

But I think you read me wrong. When I said, "Thornwell wrote a critique of Baird's realism and, perhaps, his former views," I meant Thornwell's former views. Hutchinson essentially claims, in his book, that Thornwell started his life by critiquing Baird and "in the end was driven to the Realistic explanation... more in the direction of Baird than of Shedd" (pgs. 62-63 of Hutchinson's book). I, on the other hand, am suggesting the opposite is the case. I think Thornwell held views that had some alignment with the Realist School but then came to criticize Baird when he saw where some of the perceived implications led. I could be wrong about this - it has been a while since I read on the subject - but pages 531-534 in one of the links I mentioned do, if I recall, make this case.

Yes, so far as I am aware, there is no indication that Hodge changed his views.

I have not read Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views. I'll take a look, thanks.

When I said, "to say nothing of who in the Reformed tradition would also count as a realist," I meant that Landis, Baird, etc. make a good case that the Reformed tradition held - until Hodge - that Adam's progeny participated in Adam's sin, on which account guilt is imputed. Landis has a whole chapter in his book in which he quotes the Reformers on this point. However, that this is true would not imply that everyone in the Reformed tradition falls into what Hutchinson calls the Realist School. That is, not everyone will explain what participation in Adam's sin involves in the same way a "realist" would. Thus, your following question is pertinent:

What, in your opinion, is the reason for it (i.e. the realist school) falling out of favour? Now I am interested in knowing what the general view on the PB is regarding this issue.

I can't be certain, but there is a nominalist, voluntarist streak in some Reformed authors. See Calvin or Gordon Clark on ethics, for example. Or see the widespread rejection of traducianism.

Yes, Ken does allude to his manuscript when he writes in one of the comments, "I have thoroughly addressed the traducianism issue from every angle, in a separate, lengthy, ongoing work..."

You asked:

So I guess understanding the EO view on original sin will help my understanding. Do you have recommended reading for this as well? The book by McFarland?

You can hear and read about that view from sources themselves (highly advised that you do so with caution): link, link. For excellent engagement with them, read Steve Hays' stuff on Triablogue, particularly any of his posts responding to Perry Robinson, Daniel Jones, Jay Dyer, etc. McFarland's book (linked above) covers Maximus the Confessor in chapter 4. You might have a hard time understanding the Eastern Orthodox perspective until you read this, as many EO apologists reference it (again, caution advised).

Frankly, I would not read anything by or about EO until I read Hutchinson's book. That book is one of the most dense (but awesome) ~125 pages of reading you can find. But it's up to you.

Do you hold to corporate guilty of Adam's sin? If so, can it be supported from the Bible?

Yes - of course, your second question is the million dollar one, and Baird et al. were much more capable of defending it than I presently am.

You asked, "Is the following quote from him something that you would like to see further developed, from a Calvinist perspective?"

If both sides could agree with the older Augustinian principle that the moral nature of all men was in Adam and participated in his sin, then their disagreement would be limited to whether or not God personally condemns individuals for a sin that was only corporate (the race as a whole in Adam) and not personally or individually committed by men.

You are getting into deep waters. I have corresponded with him about this. I understand his reason for holding this, for according to the realist position, Adam's progeny did not personally exist at the time of Adam's sin. Some have misunderstood the realist school as thinking that, whereas the realist would actually argue that the mode of existence of Adam's progeny at the time of Adam's sin was not as persons. See, for example, Baird's reference to Odo of Tournay (an 11th century bishop) in "The Elohim Revealed," emphases mine:

"Sin is spoken of in two modes - as natural and personal (naturale et personale). That is natural with which we are born, which we derive from Adam, in whom we all sinned. For in him was my soul - generically, and not personally (specie non persona); not individually, but in the common nature. For the common nature of all human souls was, in Adam, involved in sin. And therefore every human is criminal, as to its nature; although not so personally. Thus the sin which we sinned in Adam, to me indeed is a sin of nature, but in him a personal sin. In Adam it is more criminal, in me less so; for in him, it was not I who now am, but that which I am (non qui sum sed quad sum), that I sinned. There sinned in him, not I, but this which is I (non ego, sed hoc; quad sum ego). I sinned as (generically) man, and not as Odo (Peccavi homo non Odo). My substance sinned, but not my person (Peccavi substantia non persona); and since the substance does not exist otherwise than in a person, the sin of my substance (peccatum substantiae) attaches to my person, although not a personal sin. For a person sin is such as - not that which I am - but I who now am, commit - in which Odo, and not humanity (Odo non homo), sins - in which I a person, and not a nature, sin. But inasmuch as there is no person without a nature, the sin of a person is also the sin of a nature, although it is not a sin of nature (peccatum personae est etiam naturae, sed non naturale)."

Thus, I see why Ken would say what he did. But as to whether I would like to see the bold quote you highlight further developed - particularly the statement as to "whether or not God personally condemns individuals for a sin that was only corporate" - I would need to think about that more. I have corresponded with Ken about this and pushed back against this. I'll only convey a few of my thoughts in the below quote from one of my email. While much could be missed without the larger context of what else we had been discussing (which presuppose a realist theory of imputation), I do think this might answer why I would not necessarily wish to see the strict sense of his quoted statement further developed:

My current thought is that we are indeed “personally” guilty. The mode of existence at the time of “our” participation was indeed different than “our” mode of existence is now, true...

If we’re saying that human nature is the soul, and that this soul was numerically one “in” Adam (since it is not itself absolutely identical to Adam), then at least in terms of the human race, if no one had propagated from Adam, only Adam would be punished (leaving aside Eve for the sake of simplicity). Adam’s mode of existence was indeed as a person, and hence I can see why one might argue that the punishment [of his] person is just, whereas our mode of existence was not [yet] as persons…

But this argument, I think, is open to being responded to as follows: his sin was due to or stemmed from [the exercise of] his nature [which he propagates to us, his progeny]. The person of Adam was penalized in virtue of the fact he exercised his natural powers – his will – towards sinful ends. Likewise, a change in our mode of being does not change that in virtue of which we participated in Adam’s sin (in a different mode of being, our being now as being of the very nature that sinned). In both Adam and us (in our current mode of being), the ground of the imputation of sin to us is the same as to Adam: the [shared] agency in rebellion to God’s precept by our nature or natural powers. If the person Adam was condemned just because of the exercise of his natural powers, and if his nature is the same as ours such that we really participated, the ground of our condemnation now that our mode of being is that of persons is the same as that of Adam. The change in mode of existence such that the nature has been individualized or personalized in us requires us being condemned on the same grounds as Adam was.

When I responded in this way, Ken responded amicably that this might be possible, and we followed up with light discussion along these lines. Perhaps he was just being nice. He is not Reformed, but as we have been corresponding about issues that neither of us have seen many others write about, we tend to keep the talks friendly.

 

[pgwolv]

To answer your questions: yes, I think Baird's view is more defensible than Shedd's.

I can't be certain, but there is a nominalist, voluntarist streak in some Reformed authors. See Calvin or Gordon Clark on ethics, for example. Or see the widespread rejection of traducianism.

Thanks for all the links and feedback.

Regarding realism and traducianism: what do you make of the critique that modern biology teaches us that a person is not contained in "seed form" in their male ancestors? The Biblical writers believed that the male contained the seed, literally a tiny version of the full person, which was implanted in the womb. Biology shows that this is not literally the case, so it seems contrary to these views. Perhaps I will get a better answer in understanding Baird's view more fully.

 

[Knight]

Thanks for all the links and feedback.

Regarding realism and traducianism: what do you make of the critique that modern biology teaches us that a person is not contained in "seed form" in their male ancestors? The Biblical writers believed that the male contained the seed, literally a tiny version of the full person, which was implanted in the womb. Biology shows that this is not literally the case, so it seems contrary to these views. Perhaps I will get a better answer in understanding Baird's view more fully.

Biology pertains to the material world. A consistent traducianism pertains to the spirit of man, not the material of man. One easy way to understand this is that it is not as though we are accounted guilty because of biological material that has been passed down through Adam. We are not like gnostics, who thought the material world is evil.

Rather, it is Adam's spirit was propagated out of him, the same spirit by which the first sin occurred, on account of which we participated in said sin, and on account of which we are imputed guilty of said sin. Biology is irrelevant to this issue.

EDIT: I will add that I am skeptical about the extent to which "biology" (i.e. biologists) are able to "show" (i.e. prove) anything to be the case. I hold that scientific conclusions are always tentative and open to revision. So even if it were the case that this issue did relate to biology, I would have no problem simply going by what God's word says on the matter. I hold to a revelational epistemology along the lines of Gordon Clark (with modifications).

 

[Charles Johnson]

Thanks for all the links and feedback.

Regarding realism and traducianism: what do you make of the critique that modern biology teaches us that a person is not contained in "seed form" in their male ancestors? The Biblical writers believed that the male contained the seed, literally a tiny version of the full person, which was implanted in the womb. Biology shows that this is not literally the case, so it seems contrary to these views. Perhaps I will get a better answer in understanding Baird's view more fully.

Biology cannot explain the origin of the soul, which is immediately created by God.
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
Eccl. 12:7

 

[Knight]

Biology cannot explain the origin of the soul, which is immediately created by God.
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
Eccl. 12:7

That verse no more proves that the soul is immediately created than James 1:17 proves that every good gift is given immediately by God.

 

[Charles Johnson]

That verse no more proves that the soul is immediately created than James 1:17 proves that every good gift is given immediately by God.

The verse clearly posits a natural origin for the body as to its material cause, and a supernatural one for the soul. What other distinction is being made?

 

[Knight]

The verse clearly posits a natural origin for the body as to its material cause, and a supernatural one for the soul. What other distinction is being made?

As Gordon Clark points out:

Berkhof then argues for Creationism, first on an exegetical basis. Ecclesiastes 12:7, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it,” indicates “different origins” for soul and body. This is not surprising: Genesis 2:7 says so. But neither verse specifies the mode of propagation. God immediately formed earth into a body for Adam; does that mean that God immediately does the same for every individual? How Isaiah 42:5 fits into Berkhof’s theory is difficult to say.

You are conflating the "origin" of the soul with the "mode of propagation." Traducianism has to do with the latter, not the former.

 

[Charles Johnson]

As Gordon Clark points out:



You are conflating the "origin" of the soul with the "mode of propagation." Traducianism has to do with the latter, not the former.

As it concerns the individual, where he received his soul from and how it is propagated are identical, for both the traducian and the creationist. I am not conflating; rather, you are making an improper distinction.

 

[Charles Johnson]

As Gordon Clark points out:



You are conflating the "origin" of the soul with the "mode of propagation." Traducianism has to do with the latter, not the former.

Polanus defends the creation of the soul on p. 2081, if you wish to consider one of the fuller treatments of the matter in the reformed tradition.

 

[Knight]

As it concerns the individual, where he received his soul from and how it is propagated are identical, for both the traducian and the creationist. I am not conflating; rather, you are making an improper distinction.

You can't be serious. Traducianism and immediate creationism are contraries precisely on the matter of human propagation and the soul:

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, human propagation is of the whole being, both material and immaterial aspects: an individual's soul is derived from the soul of one or both parents. This implies that only the soul of Adam was created directly by God (with Eve's substance, material and immaterial, being taken from out of Adam), in contrast with the idea of creationism of the soul, which holds that all souls are created directly by God.

 

[Charles Johnson]

You can't be serious. Traducianism and immediate creationism are contraries precisely on the matter of human propagation and the soul:

You misunderstood what I said.

 

[Knight]

You misunderstood what I said.

I'm sorry, then. Can you explain in different words your original point?

 

[Knight]

Was the only point of post 41 that Adam's soul was immediately created?

 

[Charles Johnson]

As it concerns the individual, where he received his soul from and how it is propagated are identical, for both the traducian and the creationist. I am not conflating; rather, you are making an improper distinction.

I am saying that, for the traducian, the soul has its proximate origin with the parents, and its mode of propagation through them. Thus, their is an identity between proximate origin and mode. For the creationist, both are from God. Thus, against, there is an identity.
Eccl. 12:7 is saying that, for the individual man, his soul is from God, and it will return to God. His body is from matter, and it will decompose into matter. At the level of the individual, everything returns to where he received it from upon his death and the dissolution of his body. That is the analogy. It does not say that his soul will return to his parents, but to God.

 

[Knight]

I am saying that, for the traducian, the soul has its proximate origin with the parents, and its mode of propagation through them. Thus, their is an identity between proximate origin and mode. For the creationist, both are from God. Thus, against, there is an identity.
Eccl. 12:7 is saying that, for the individual man, his soul is from God, and it will return to God. His body is from matter, and it will decompose into matter. At the level of the individual, everything returns to where he received it from upon his death and the dissolution of his body. That is the analogy. It does not say that his soul will return to his parents, but to God.

Okay. So for starters, I didn't misunderstand you at all. I already pointed out that the traducian affirms that only Adam's soul was immediately created by God. Again, according to traducianism, this is not the case for his progeny. So like I said, you have conflated the origin of the soul (God) with its mode of propagation.

To see this more clearly, to apply what you are saying to Adam: "I am saying that, for the traducian, [Adam's] soul has its proximate origin with the parents..." Wrong. For the traducian, Adam's soul was immediately created by God. Therefore, for the traducian, the origin of the/Adam's soul is clearly not the same as its mode of propagation to Adam's progeny.

Now, regarding Ecclesiastes, what I said before still holds true. Proximately, while we receive our souls from our fathers, ultimately, since there is not an infinite regress of fathers, our souls trace back to the immediate creation of Adam's soul by God. So it is entirely intelligible, on traducianism, to affirm that the soul returns to its ultimate creator: God.

Finally, reread Clark's reductio in the form of a parallelism: "God immediately formed earth into a body for Adam; does that mean that God immediately does the same for every individual?" You did not respond to this. If the soul's return to God is meant to suggest an immediate creation of the soul, would not the bodies return to dust suggest its immediate creation from the dust? But this is absurd.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Okay. So for starters, I didn't misunderstand you at all. I already pointed out that the traducian affirms that only Adam's soul was immediately created by God. Again, according to traducianism, this is not the case for his progeny. So like I said, you have conflated the origin of the soul (God) with its mode of propagation.

Except I was not at any point referring to Adam's soul. It's not a valid refutation to apply my words to a completely different context that I was not referring to and show that they are not plausible there. Any refutation must deal with the original sense and scope of one's words.
I'm not interesting in debating this any more here though, because it's not actually particularly relevant to the thread, which is on Rom. 5:12.

 

[Knight]

Except I was not at any point referring to Adam's soul. It's not a valid refutation to apply my words to a completely different context that I was not referring to and show that they are not plausible there. Any refutation must deal with the original sense and scope of one's words.
I'm not interesting in debating this any more here though, because it's not actually particularly relevant to the thread, which is on Rom. 5:12.

It is your choice to not respond further. I will only repeat that it is relevant to the traducian position that the origin of Adam's soul is not the same as the mode of the soul's propagation to his progeny which, at face value, a literal reading of your words imply. If you agree with my statement and only disagree that your words imply such, feel free to consider the matter closed.

 

[Charles Johnson]

It is your choice to not respond further. I will only repeat that it is relevant to the traducian position that the origin of Adam's soul is not the same as the mode of the soul's propagation to his progeny which, at face value, a literal reading of your words imply. If you agree with my statement and only disagree that your words imply such, feel free to consider the matter closed.

It's not what my words imply, because I distinguished the proximate origin of the soul for traducians, and for a man alive today, from a traducian perspective, his soul has the impartation of a soul to Adam as its remote origin/cause, not proximate.

 

[Knight]

It's not what my words imply, because I distinguished the proximate origin of the soul for traducians, and for a man alive today, from a traducian perspective, his soul has the impartation of a soul to Adam as its remote origin/cause, not proximate.

Which is fine, now that you have clarified yourself. My main point is that Ecclesiastes 12:7 has nothing to do with whether traducianism or immediate creationism is true. If that was never something you intended to suggest and I have been talking past you, then my bad and I have no other comment.