RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I embraced traducianism a few years ago when I read WGT Shedd. And it does have some explanatory power, but I've come across several difficulties (some of which were pointed out by Oliver Crisp).
1. Traducianism demands that the soul be "fissile." Here's the problem. The soul by definition is a metaphysically simple entity. It cannot be cut apart, yet traducianism seems to say that "part" of my soul came from one (or both) of my parents.
2. If traducianism is true, and if it is applied to Christ's human nature, then the following must obtain:
2.1. Christ has a fallen human nature, since it came from a previous lump, which was itself "fallen."
2.1.1. This can be solved by saying the human nature of Christ was immediately sanctified by the Holy Spirit upon conception.
2.1.2. Thus, we have the action of Christ's saving work being applied to Christ before the atonement!
2.2. One could opt for some form of immaculate conception of Mary, but this obviously won't work for Protestants (and in any case it punts the problem).
1. Traducianism demands that the soul be "fissile." Here's the problem. The soul by definition is a metaphysically simple entity. It cannot be cut apart, yet traducianism seems to say that "part" of my soul came from one (or both) of my parents.
2. If traducianism is true, and if it is applied to Christ's human nature, then the following must obtain:
2.1. Christ has a fallen human nature, since it came from a previous lump, which was itself "fallen."
2.1.1. This can be solved by saying the human nature of Christ was immediately sanctified by the Holy Spirit upon conception.
2.1.2. Thus, we have the action of Christ's saving work being applied to Christ before the atonement!
2.2. One could opt for some form of immaculate conception of Mary, but this obviously won't work for Protestants (and in any case it punts the problem).