Traducianism or Creationism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
InSlaveryToChrist

InSlaveryToChrist

Puritan Board Junior
Which do you think is a more Biblical view of the birth of a post-fall human soul: Traducianism or Creationism? I know very little Scriptural support for either, but here is something I've found out.

For Traducianism:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:" (Gen. 5:3)

For Creationism:

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Eccl. 12:7)

Please, share me your position in this debate and give some Scriptural support for your position. Thanks.

I personally find Traducianism more convincing, but I've run across a huge problem: How to think of Jesus' birth. If the soul of a child is inherited from his/her parents or his/her father only (look Gen. 5:3, Seth was born in the image of his father), how do we explain the fact that Jesus' soul was without sin?

:banghead: I'm sorry for making a new thread about this topic! I noticed this has been discussed at length before. HOWEVER, something I would still like to discuss is Jesus' birth in light of Traducianism.
 
Last edited:
In my estimation the virgin birth supports the traducianist understanding better than the creationist as it sees the the male seed as carrying on the sin nature. In the creationist paradigm the sin of Adam is imputed to each individual person and the virgin birth would be unnecessary at the very least. :2cents:
 
MLCOPE2 said:
In the creationist paradigm the sin of Adam is imputed to each individual person and the virgin birth would be unnecessary at the very least. :2cents:
Click to expand...

If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, then he would just be a man, not God. So a miraculous birth is needed in the creationist paradigm.
 
Isaiah 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Hebrews 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

I tend to lean on a view that is both Traducianistic and Creationistic. I grant birth is a miraculous work of God, in which God creates some part of the born person in the womb of a woman, but I also grant that some part of the person already exists in his/her father. People tend to think that the Bible's terms, "soul" and "spirit," are synonymous, but I prefer to think that God immediately creates our spirits in our birth, and that our souls are derived from our "immediate" fathers. The only problem I have now is to properly define "spirit" and "soul."
 
If we truly sinned in Adam then Traducianism seems the best choice.

Also, if God finished creating after that first creation week and does not continously create every minute through the production of new souls, then Traducianism seems the best choice.
 
Pergamum said:
If we truly sinned in Adam then Traducianism seems the best choice.

Also, if God finished creating after that first creation week and does not continously create every minute through the production of new souls, then Traducianism seems the best choice.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't believe we actually sinned in Adam, but rather are guilty because of the sin of our representative. I don't understand why Traducianism has to mean that we truly sinned in Adam, rather than being guilty of his sin. Just because some part of us has always been in the loins of Adam does not indicate we do whatever he does.
 
We sinned in Adam the same as Levi paid tithes in Abraham.

Does God daily, hourly, and by the minute, create new souls?

I believe this is an issue of divine justice; rather than God merely and arbitrarily designating Adam as federal head and designating us is "sinful" due to his representation, he was declared as our representative precisely because of our shared nature and our inherent union such that it can truly be said that we sinned in Adam and sin is not merely imputed to another's account arbitrarily but any representation was due to our inherent union.

Genesis 46:26 speaks of “the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins.”

Acts 17:26 says God hath made of one blood all nations and I assume this means the full person (both material and immaterial parts) and not merely the body (the soul being created at a later time, at the point of conception).

Also, as the human race continues propagating, not only are physical traits propagated, non-physical characteristics, too, are propagated as well. This is better explained by Traducian arguments.

Of course traducianism raises the question of where the soul comes from, the father or the mother, or both? If we say that the soul is passed down by the father due to Genesis 46 then we must treat Mary and Jesus as a special case. If we say that both the father and the mother pass down the soul, then I cannot conceive of both parties carrying around half a soul or the soul dividing in such a manner.

In Westminster 6:3 it says:
They 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.
Click to expand...

I would love to know more about why this word "conveyed" was chosen. If anyone has notes/minutes on the choice of this word, I would love to read them.

God breathed the spirit into Adam and he was made in the image and likeness of God, but Adam's sons were made in his image and likeness and it is not said that God individually breathes the spirit into each one upon conception.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------
InSlaveryToChrist said:
Pergamum said:
If we truly sinned in Adam then Traducianism seems the best choice.

Also, if God finished creating after that first creation week and does not continously create every minute through the production of new souls, then Traducianism seems the best choice.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't believe we actually sinned in Adam, but rather are guilty because of the sin of our representative. I don't understand why Traducianism has to mean that we truly sinned in Adam, rather than being guilty of his sin. Just because some part of us has always been in the loins of Adam does not indicate we do whatever he does.
Click to expand...

Samuel,

Some people agree with you and say things like this:

On one hand, we suffer the consequences of Adam's disobedience and have inherited a sinful nature from him (Rom. 5:12-23). The Bible states that ". . . through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12). {All Bible quotes are from the NASB} Adam sinned. We didn’t. He was in the Garden of Eden. We were not. When we face God on the day of judgment, the Lord won’t say to us, "Adam sinned, so you are going to pay for it." We are responsible for our own sins, not the sins of others.
Click to expand...

But for some reason I find the answer above a little unsatisfying.

However, those who separate original sin from actual committed sin often seem to do so to defend the belief that all infants die and go to heaven because God would never punish a baby merely for inheriting a sin-nature but would only punish us for actual sins committed.

I would love to hear others' thoughts on that issue.
 
Perg,
I've long struggled with the idea that God would send us to hell merely on the basis of Adam's sin, but here is my question for anyone that does: "On what ground do you insist that a person must be accountable only for his own sins? Where does the Word of God make such a claim? Nowhere." Here is something interesting for everyone to consider:

Imagine if God had from the beginning put all men in a covenant relationship with each other that everytime an individual sinned everyone else was guilty of it, but not the one who actually committed the sin, and everytime an individual did something good, the merit of it was imputed to everyone else, but not the one who actually did the good. Then, after 6000 years of this has lasted, someone comes to suggest that individuals should only be accountable for their own actions. Guess who is going to be laughed to scorn?

My point is that there is no good reason to be inferred from anywhere that we should only be accountable for our own actions. Someone may object that this seems to be the case with God, so why shouldn't it be with us, too? God is under no covenant relationship other than the ones He's decided to put Himself to. God Himself decides how justice is done, not us. He may put us to any covenant relationship He ever desires.
 
Samuel,

Do you believe that such a thing would be just?

God's choice to have mercy on some is righteous and just because all were condemned already. Your hypothetical scenario does not state that all mankind is already guilty and hell-deserving and appears arbitrary.
 
Pergamum said:
Samuel,

Do you believe that such a thing would be just?
Click to expand...

Actually, that is precisely the covenant relationship God's elect have with Christ. Christ, the innocent, is bruised for our sins, and we, the sinners, are blessed because of Christ's obedience to God's law.

God's choice to have mercy on some is righteous and just because all were condemned already. Your hypothetical scenario does not state that all mankind is already guilty and hell-deserving and appears arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Was Christ already guilty and hell-deserving? Were we already guilty and hell-deserving BEFORE Adam's sin? Of course not. If Adam was our representative, then whatever he did, whether good or bad, was due to us. And the same is true about Christ; if He sinned, we would suffer for His sins.
 
Samuel,

I am not sure I would say "Whatever he [Adam] did" for after the first sin, he and the whole race fell (and sins after this were his own, it seems, and not the race's as a whole).

Also, Christ went to the Cross voluntarily. I think that makes a difference.
 
Pergamum said:
Samuel,

I am not sure I would say "Whatever he [Adam] did" for after the first sin, he and the whole race fell (and sins after this were his own, it seems, and not the race's as a whole).
Click to expand...

I do realize that and agree. Adam was fired from his office as our representative after he fell. But everything he did before his fall, he did as our representative, and it was due to us, also. There is a little difference between Adam and Christ's covenant relationship with us in that Adam was not guilty of the future sins of his posterity, and in that although the merits of the pre-fall Adam were imputed to us, they remained in his own account also (unlike Christ).

Also, Christ went to the Cross voluntarily. I think that makes a difference.
Click to expand...

I grant that, but it does not nullify the fact that God has put us in these covenant relationships with Adam and Christ regardless of our own wills.
 
Was Adam fired or did he lose his job because he died?

Samuel, can you explain your phrase that the merits of the pre-fall Adam were imputed to us?
 
Pergamum said:
Was Adam fired or did he lose his job because he died?
Click to expand...

I think that is a both-and answer; Adam was fired, and lost his job because he died spiritually.

Samuel, can you explain your phrase that the merits of the pre-fall Adam were imputed to us?
Click to expand...

Well, actually that was on the presupposition that Adam was our representative from the beginning of his creation. I'm not exactly sure if that was the case.

I think I will let the more educated and experienced people carry on this discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top