Traducianism vs. Creationism

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Christian's Reasonable Service, Wilhelmus à Brakel, vol. 1, pp. 393-394 (nb: see also pp. 307-314, op sit, as background leveraged in what follows).

Spoiler: à Brakel: The Transmission of Original Sin from Adam to His Descendants

We have thus considered original sin relative to its imputed guilt as well as its inherited corruption. This surfaces the following question: How is original sin transmitted from Adam to his descendants? The manner in which guilt is imputed we have already demonstrated earlier so that the only question remaining is to show how man's natural corruption is inherited. One could be of the opinion that this cannot occur via the body, since it is not the actual object of sin. It also cannot occur via the soul, which, having been created by God, is good. It can also not occur via both body and soul, and thus not by generation. Since the soul is not generated, and since whatever is not true for either part can also not be true for the whole, it could not have come forth in this manner. My answer is: First, why do we need to know how sin is transmitted, since Scripture and experience confirm so clearly that such is the case? A fool can ask more questions than many wise men are able to answer. Tell me then how the body is formed with all its component parts; how the soul is united with the body; how by generating sound with the tongue one can cause someone else to understand abstract concepts; and how high and low tides return at a set time? You will reply that you do not know this, and that you cannot comprehend the “why” and “how.” Who would be so foolish to deny something which he can visibly confirm, simply because he cannot understand it? Such is also the case with original sin.

Secondly, it is certain that God neither is nor can be the author of sin. It is also certain that souls are not reproduced, but are created by God.

Thirdly, the obscurity of this matter is often the result of separating the generation of soul and body too much, as if God created a soul apart from the body, causing it to exist externally to the body for some time, and then uniting it with the body subsequent to this. God, by virtue of His cooperative providence, being the energizing cause of man's generation, forms the soul in union with the body so that it does not exist for one moment apart from the body. From the very first moment of the soul's existence, a man exists—a man who is guilty of the covenant breach in Adam. From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants.

Fourthly, the soul, being formed during the generative process in union with the body, has the essence of a soul and thus is very good and without sin. However, the soul, coming into existence in union with the body and from that first moment forming a human being, is not more noble than the souls of the generating parents and thus is without the image of God. God was not obligated to restore this image to the soul after man had cast it away. It is therefore written in Gen 5:3, “And Adam ... begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,” and thus not after the image of God.

Fifthly, man now being guilty of the covenant breach, not having the image of God according to his soul, and the body (which influences the soul and is united to the same) by generation having an evil state of mind, is in a state of separation from God. As such, man is subject to inner emptiness, and being dissatisfied with himself, is unfulfilled, miserable, craves for something, is restless, and lacks purpose in his activities. He is desirous, but not after God, for he has separated himself from Him; his desires are without restriction, focusing on whatever may appear to be desirable. Such a condition cannot but spawn a variety of lusts as man grows and develops. These lusts in turn spawn self-love, sorrow, wrath, hatred, and envy, which focus on a variety of wrong objects without restraints. Thus one human being generates another human being of like passions, and one sinner another sinner; in like manner the sin of Adam is transmitted to his descendants.

In anticipation of the inevitable yeah, buts concerning À Brakel's loss of the image of God argument, please first avail yourself of the following:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/imageofgod.htm#.WyAoYIpKiMo
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/imageofgodconfessions.html#.WyAp24pKiMo
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/imageofgod.htm#.WyAp74pKiMo

 

[Deleted member 6112]

The Christian's Reasonable Service, Wilhelmus à Brakel, vol. 1, pp. 393-394 (nb: see also pp. 307-314, op sit, as background leveraged in what follows).

Spoiler: à Brakel: The Transmission of Original Sin from Adam to His Descendants

We have thus considered original sin relative to its imputed guilt as well as its inherited corruption. This surfaces the following question: How is original sin transmitted from Adam to his descendants? The manner in which guilt is imputed we have already demonstrated earlier so that the only question remaining is to show how man's natural corruption is inherited. One could be of the opinion that this cannot occur via the body, since it is not the actual object of sin. It also cannot occur via the soul, which, having been created by God, is good. It can also not occur via both body and soul, and thus not by generation. Since the soul is not generated, and since whatever is not true for either part can also not be true for the whole, it could not have come forth in this manner. My answer is: First, why do we need to know how sin is transmitted, since Scripture and experience confirm so clearly that such is the case? A fool can ask more questions than many wise men are able to answer. Tell me then how the body is formed with all its component parts; how the soul is united with the body; how by generating sound with the tongue one can cause someone else to understand abstract concepts; and how high and low tides return at a set time? You will reply that you do not know this, and that you cannot comprehend the “why” and “how.” Who would be so foolish to deny something which he can visibly confirm, simply because he cannot understand it? Such is also the case with original sin.

Secondly, it is certain that God neither is nor can be the author of sin. It is also certain that souls are not reproduced, but are created by God.

Thirdly, the obscurity of this matter is often the result of separating the generation of soul and body too much, as if God created a soul apart from the body, causing it to exist externally to the body for some time, and then uniting it with the body subsequent to this. God, by virtue of His cooperative providence, being the energizing cause of man's generation, forms the soul in union with the body so that it does not exist for one moment apart from the body. From the very first moment of the soul's existence, a man exists—a man who is guilty of the covenant breach in Adam. From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants.

Fourthly, the soul, being formed during the generative process in union with the body, has the essence of a soul and thus is very good and without sin. However, the soul, coming into existence in union with the body and from that first moment forming a human being, is not more noble than the souls of the generating parents and thus is without the image of God. God was not obligated to restore this image to the soul after man had cast it away. It is therefore written in Gen 5:3, “And Adam ... begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,” and thus not after the image of God.

Fifthly, man now being guilty of the covenant breach, not having the image of God according to his soul, and the body (which influences the soul and is united to the same) by generation having an evil state of mind, is in a state of separation from God. As such, man is subject to inner emptiness, and being dissatisfied with himself, is unfulfilled, miserable, craves for something, is restless, and lacks purpose in his activities. He is desirous, but not after God, for he has separated himself from Him; his desires are without restriction, focusing on whatever may appear to be desirable. Such a condition cannot but spawn a variety of lusts as man grows and develops. These lusts in turn spawn self-love, sorrow, wrath, hatred, and envy, which focus on a variety of wrong objects without restraints. Thus one human being generates another human being of like passions, and one sinner another sinner; in like manner the sin of Adam is transmitted to his descendants.

In anticipation of the inevitable yeah, buts concerning À Brakel's loss of the image of God argument, please first avail yourself of the following:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/imageofgod.htm#.WyAoYIpKiMo
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/imageofgodconfessions.html#.WyAp24pKiMo
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/imageofgod.htm#.WyAp74pKiMo

First of all, note that A Brakel maintains a clear distinction between the imputation of guilt, and the transmission of corruption. That's just what I have been arguing for.

To deal with his treatment point by point:

My answer is: First, why do we need to know how sin is transmitted, since Scripture and experience confirm so clearly that such is the case? A fool can ask more questions than many wise men are able to answer. Tell me then how the body is formed with all its component parts; how the soul is united with the body; how by generating sound with the tongue one can cause someone else to understand abstract concepts; and how high and low tides return at a set time? You will reply that you do not know this, and that you cannot comprehend the “why” and “how.” Who would be so foolish to deny something which he can visibly confirm, simply because he cannot understand it? Such is also the case with original sin.

I agree entirely with his point here--a lack of knowledge of how sin is transmitted can be no argument against the fact of its transmission. However, the question of how it is transmitted, when posed as an honest question, is a fair and legitimate question. In fact, A Brakel lists other questions that were mysterious in his day that we now understand, such as how the tide turns, how the body is formed, etc.

Secondly, it is certain that God neither is nor can be the author of sin. It is also certain that souls are not reproduced, but are created by God.

The first claim is certainly true, and is the conundrum of the creationist. I disagree with the second, and he hasn't proven his assertion.

Thirdly, the obscurity of this matter is often the result of separating the generation of soul and body too much, as if God created a soul apart from the body, causing it to exist externally to the body for some time, and then uniting it with the body subsequent to this. God, by virtue of His cooperative providence, being the energizing cause of man's generation, forms the soul in union with the body so that it does not exist for one moment apart from the body. From the very first moment of the soul's existence, a man exists—a man who is guilty of the covenant breach in Adam. From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants.

Here, he dismisses one of the creationist's potential solutions to the problem--there can be no space of time between the creation of a good soul and the transmission of corruption to that soul.

Fourthly, the soul, being formed during the generative process in union with the body, has the essence of a soul and thus is very good and without sin. However, the soul, coming into existence in union with the body and from that first moment forming a human being, is not more noble than the souls of the generating parents and thus is without the image of God. God was not obligated to restore this image to the soul after man had cast it away. It is therefore written in Gen 5:3, “And Adam ... begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,” and thus not after the image of God.

Here, A Brakel begins to propose his solution--that the soul is good in its essence, i.e., insofar as it is a soul, created by God, it is good; but it is evil it its moral disposition, due to the circumstances in which it is created. I don't think this solves the problem. To say that God created it good in one sense and evil in another sense doesn't do away with the fact that it is evil.

Or is he saying that the evil body of a man corrupts the good soul? The Scriptures indicate that sinful concupiscence is the root of sin, do they not? that comes from the evil disposition of the mind and will of a man, i.e., of his soul, which is radically corrupted.

Fifthly, man now being guilty of the covenant breach, not having the image of God according to his soul, and the body (which influences the soul and is united to the same) by generation having an evil state of mind, is in a state of separation from God. As such, man is subject to inner emptiness, and being dissatisfied with himself, is unfulfilled, miserable, craves for something, is restless, and lacks purpose in his activities. He is desirous, but not after God, for he has separated himself from Him; his desires are without restriction, focusing on whatever may appear to be desirable. Such a condition cannot but spawn a variety of lusts as man grows and develops. These lusts in turn spawn self-love, sorrow, wrath, hatred, and envy, which focus on a variety of wrong objects without restraints. Thus one human being generates another human being of like passions, and one sinner another sinner; in like manner the sin of Adam is transmitted to his descendants.

The first sentence here is a summary of his fourth point. I agree with the second sentence onward.

Patrick, perhaps you could clarify A Brakel's fourth point. Just how does he understand the transmission of corruption itself? Is the soul created in a corrupt state, or is it instantly corrupted upon creation because of its union with the body?

 

[Dachaser]

First of all, note that A Brakel maintains a clear distinction between the imputation of guilt, and the transmission of corruption. That's just what I have been arguing for.

To deal with his treatment point by point:

I agree entirely with his point here--a lack of knowledge of how sin is transmitted can be no argument against the fact of its transmission. However, the question of how it is transmitted, when posed as an honest question, is a fair and legitimate question. In fact, A Brakel lists other questions that were mysterious in his day that we now understand, such as how the tide turns, how the body is formed, etc.


The first claim is certainly true, and is the conundrum of the creationist. I disagree with the second, and he hasn't proven his assertion.


Here, he dismisses one of the creationist's potential solutions to the problem--there can be no space of time between the creation of a good soul and the transmission of corruption to that soul.


Here, A Brakel begins to propose his solution--that the soul is good in its essence, i.e., insofar as it is a soul, created by God, it is good; but it is evil it its moral disposition, due to the circumstances in which it is created. I don't think this solves the problem. To say that God created it good in one sense and evil in another sense doesn't do away with the fact that it is evil.

Or is he saying that the evil body of a man corrupts the good soul? The Scriptures indicate that sinful concupiscence is the root of sin, do they not? that comes from the evil disposition of the mind and will of a man, i.e., of his soul, which is radically corrupted.


The first sentence here is a summary of his fourth point. I agree with the second sentence onward.

Patrick, perhaps you could clarify A Brakel's fourth point. Just how does he understand the transmission of corruption itself? Is the soul created in a corrupt state, or is it instantly corrupted upon creation because of its union with the body?

God creates the soul for each human that he brings to conception, and the soul created By Him has to be established with the corruption effects from the fall of Adam upon it. God is not creating it evil Himself, but is crating it based upon the results of what Adam did to us, not what God did to us.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

God creates the soul for each human that he brings to conception, and the soul created By Him has to be established with the corruption effects from the fall of Adam upon it. God is not creating it evil Himself, but is crating it based upon the results of what Adam did to us, not what God did to us.

Again, according to that view, God is still creating something that is not good. That fact cannot be gotten around, even admitting that he creates it evil because of the fall.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I disagree with the second, and he hasn't proven his assertion.

I assume you reviewed Chapter 10, which I noted in my post above, upon which the author leverages for his later assertion concerning the creation of souls by God.

If so, could you interact with his arguments therein in order to substantiate your disagreement?

As to the fourth point, the instantaneous creation of a human being, devoid of the image of God, is the point being made regarding corruption. See also the author's pointed arguments concerning something more noble coming from something less noble in Chapter 10, op. sit.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I assume you reviewed Chapter 10, which I noted in my post above, upon which the author leverages for his later assertion concerning the creation of souls by God.

No, sorry. I didn't realize that he dealt with that question at any length.

If so, could you interact with his arguments therein in order to substantiate your disagreement?

I will very soon. I can't promise when that will be.

As to the fourth point, the instantaneous creation of a human being, devoid of the image of God, is the point being made regarding corruption. See also the author's pointed arguments concerning something more noble coming from something less noble in Chapter 10, op. sit.

I see. So, does he just leave the question of how corruption (i.e., a sinful, depraved nature) is transmitted a person's offspring unanswered, then?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Here is the relevant material from A Brakel (pp 312-314). I'll comment soon.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I see. So, does he just leave the question of how corruption (i.e., a sinful, depraved nature) is transmitted a person's offspring unanswered, then?

From the author's third point:
"From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No, sorry. I didn't realize that he dealt with that question at any length.

Ok, then.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

From the author's third point:
"From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants."

That's the imputation of guilt; not the transmission of the sinful nature. From the author's introductory remarks:
"The manner in which guilt is imputed we have already demonstrated earlier so that the only question remaining is to show how man's natural corruption is inherited."

As long as this point continues to be missed, we will continue to talk past one another.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That's the imputation of guilt; not the transmission of the sinful nature. From the author's introductory remarks:
"The manner in which guilt is imputed we have already demonstrated earlier so that the only question remaining is to show how man's natural corruption is inherited."

As long as this point continues to be missed, we will continue to talk past one another.

Actually, brother, we will continue to talk past one another until one of us actually reads the other accurately and thoroughly. I have been quite plain about the topic, but you seem to be overlooking my perspicuity.

May I also suggest a former discussion on the matter at hand that is edifying?
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/does-the-wcf-teach-traducianism.57041/

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Actually, brother, we will continue to talk past one another until one of us actually reads the other accurately and thoroughly. I have been quite plain about the topic, but you seem to be overlooking my perspicuity.

Can you make your point explicit, please?

I have maintained, along with Jacob (and A Brakel), that there is a fundamental distinction between the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin, and the conveyance of depravity. You misrepresented my position, claiming that I was teaching that "death and corruption are independent of guilt." When I tried to clarify, I received no response. I really think that the this fine distinction is at the root of our disagreement. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it given explicitly, not via a link or a block quote.

 

[Dachaser]

From the author's third point:
"From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants."

When Adam fell, God judged Him for that act of sin, and also all of us that were to come after him, as we are born into sin.

So when we are physically conceived, are we then sinners in our souls themselves, and not by a genetic material sin aspect in us?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Can you make your point explicit, please?

I have maintained, along with Jacob (and A Brakel), that there is a fundamental distinction between the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin, and the conveyance of depravity. You misrepresented my position, claiming that I was teaching that "death and corruption are independent of guilt." When I tried to clarify, I received no response. I really think that the this fine distinction is at the root of our disagreement. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it given explicitly, not via a link or a block quote.

Actually, I represented your position quite accurately. You want to make distinctions between imputation and the consequences thereof. I see no such distinctions and have made this quite clear. Death and corruption are not independent, distinct, etc., of the curse.

I kindly ask that you not appeal to my "misrepresentation" of your position as a lever to motivate me to be more explicit than I have been in this thread. I have done my heavy-lifting, yet by your own admission you have failed to avail yourself of the totality of my efforts, and have but maintained "disagreement" absent substantive interaction with the same.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Actually, I represented your position quite accurately. You want to make distinctions between imputation and the consequences thereof. I see no such distinctions and have made this quite clear. Death and corruption are not independent, distinct, etc., of the curse.

You make a distinction yourself by pointing out that one is the consequence of the other. Something cannot be its own consequence, can it?

I kindly ask that you not appeal to my "misrepresentation" of your position as a lever to motivate me to be more explicit than I have been in this thread. I have done my heavy-lifting, yet by your own admission you have failed to avail yourself of the totality of my efforts, and have but maintained "disagreement" absent substantive interaction with the same.

I really wish you would point to specific examples in order to substantiate what you're saying here. You've been pretty unclear in some of your posts here, providing links and block quotes with little or no comment. Perhaps I'm just stupid, but I need some help in discerning what you're getting at in such posts as 91 and 101.

 

[Goodcheer68]

"Thus, God daily creates the souls of men which are individua, that is, unique personal entities within the same human species".

It seems to me that there needs to be an organic unity amongst the whole of Human nature and that of the soul as well in order for Christ to saves any of us.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Charles Hodge has it correct here I believe. He (Christ) was made in all points like we are, yet without sin. One thing I have always heard is that when we start to get Christ wrong we get more incorrect. His Soul came from God as well as his body came from Mary, yet without the taint of sin in Adam. His Father was God. His Mother was not God. We are not like that. So something must be causing the problem in us that didn't plague Christ. We are descendents of Adam carnally. Christ wasn't.

The mind (brain) of man is susceptible to our fallen human carnal creation. It is opposed to thinking correctly about God. I refer you to Roman's chapter 7. It is fallen and broken and sin imputed to us from Adam. It is attached to our soul somehow. It is a mystery to me. But to charge God with creating something evil seems to be a violation of blasphemy. Even if he creates it in a fallen human.

3. A third argument in favour of creationism and against traducianism is derived from the Scriptural doctrine as to the person of Christ. He was very man; He had a true human nature; a true body and a rational soul. He was born of a woman. He was, as to his flesh, the son of David. He was descended from the fathers. He was in all points made like as we are, yet without sin. This admitted on both sides. But, as before remarked in reference to realism, this, on the theory of traducianism, necessitates the conclusion that Christ's human nature was guilty and sinful. We are partakers of Adam's sin both as to guilt and pollution, because the same numerical essence which sinned in him is communicated to us. Sin, it is said, is an accident, and supposes a substance in which it inheres, or to which it pertains. Community in sin supposes, therefore, community of essence. If we were not in Adam as to essence we did not sin in him, and do not derive a corrupt nature from him. But, if we were in him as to essence then his sin was our sin both as to guilt and pollution. This is the argument of traducianists repeated in every form. But they insist that Christ was in Adam as to the substance of his human nature as truly as we were. They say that if his body and soul were not derived from the body and soul of his virgin mother he was no true man, and cannot be the redeemer of men. What is true of other men must, consequently, be true of Him. He must, therefore, be as much involved in the guilt and corruption of the apostasy as other men. It will not do to affirm and deny the same thing. It s a contradiction to say that we are guilty of Adam's sin because we are partakers of his essence, and that Christ is not guilty of his sin nor involved in its pollution, although He is a partaker of his essence. If participation of essence involve community of guilt and depravity in the one case, it must also in the other. As this seems a legitimate conclusion from the traducian doctrine, and as this conclusion is anti-Christian, and false, the doctrine itself cannot be true

CH Systematic Theology Volume II p. 72

Charles Hodge and AA Hodge have both written on this. Charles Hodge wrote specifically about 3 views in volume 2 of his Systematic Theology. pp. 65-

Maybe we need to read on how sin has effected man and how sin is imputed in creation.

3. It is obviously most unreasonable and presumptuous, as well as dangerous, to make a theory as to the origin of the soul the ground of a doctrine so fundamental to the Christian system as that. Yet we see theologians, ancient and modern, boldly asserting that if their doctrine of derivation, and the consequent numerical sameness of substance in all men, be not admitted, then original sin is impossible. That is, that nothing can be true, no matter how plainly taught in the word of God, which they cannot explain. This is done even by those who protest against introducing philosophy into theology, utterly unconscious, as it would seem, that they themselves occupy, quoad hoc, the same ground with the rationalists. They will not believe in hereditary depravity unless they can explain the mode of its transmission. There can be no such thing, they say, as hereditary depravity unless the soul of the child is the same numerical substance as the soul of the parent.

CH Systematic Theology Vol. II p. 73

Just a few additional thoughts added here.

The Spirit of Christ and understanding this is important maybe.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[RamistThomist]

Charles Hodge has it correct here I believe. He (Christ) was made in all points like we are, yet without sin. One thing I have always heard is that when we start to get Christ wrong we get more incorrect. His Soul came from God as well as his body came from Mary, yet without the taint of sin in Adam. His Father was God. His Mother was not God. We are not like that. So something must be causing the problem in us that didn't plague Christ. We are descendents of Adam carnally. Christ wasn't.

The mind (brain) of man is susceptible to our fallen human carnal creation. It is opposed to thinking correctly about God. I refer you to Roman's chapter 7. It is fallen and broken and sin imputed to us from Adam. It is attached to our soul somehow. It is a mystery to me. But to charge God with creating something evil seems to be a violation of blasphemy. Even if he creates it in a fallen human.



Charles Hodge and AA Hodge have both written on this. Charles Hodge wrote specifically about 3 views in volume 2 of his Systematic Theology. pp. 65-

Maybe we need to read on how sin has effected man and how sin is imputed in creation.



Just a few additional thoughts added here.

The Spirit of Christ and understanding this is important maybe.

A traducian can agree with everything you have said (except the part about the Hodges being right).

 

[RamistThomist]

But to charge God with creating something evil seems to be a violation of blasphemy.

The argument is a reductio ad absurdum. It is to draw an absurd conclusion based on the opponent's premises. We are not saying God created evil.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Is he creating evil souls Jacob? Is the soul created in each man created different than that of Christ? What is different? Is the soul generated by man and not God individually? If so, how is it there seems to be so many contradictory things in the scripture that seem to state that God creates the soul individually. That doesn't mean how another man's soul has influence upon another fallen man. For instance a father sinning and the son also reaping the problem. You didn't comment on Christology or the scriptures I posted above. There is a difference.

It is blasphemy to grant wickedness or evil to God.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

And please don't use scripture out of place saying God creates evil based upon Isaiah.

In Isa_45:7 we are led by the context to understand by darkness and evil the penal judgments, through which light and peace, or salvation, break forth for the people of God and the nations generally. But as the prophecy concerning Cyrus closes with this self-assertion of Jehovah, it is unquestionably a natural supposition that there is also a contrast implied to the dualistic system of Zarathustra, which divided the one nature of the Deity into two opposing powers (see Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien, p. 135). The declaration is so bold, that Marcion appealed to this passage as a proof that the God of the Old Testament was a different being from the God of the New, and not the God of goodness only. The Valentinians and other gnostics also regarded the words “There is no God beside me” in Isaiah, as deceptive words of the Demiurugs. The early church met them with Tertullian's reply, “de his creator profitetur malis quae congruunt judici,” and also made use of this self-attestation of the God of revelation as a weapon with which to attack Manicheesism. The meaning of the words is not exhausted by those who content themselves with the assertion, that by the evil (or darkness) we are not to understand the evil of guilt (malum culpae), but the evil of punishment (malum paenae). Undoubtedly, evil as an act is not the direct working of God, but the spontaneous work of a creature endowed with freedom. At the same time, evil, as well as good, has in this sense its origin in God - that He combines within Himself the first principles of love and wrath, the possibility of evil, the self-punishment of evil, and therefore the consciousness of guilt as well as the evil of punishment in the broadest sense. When the apostle celebrates the glory of free grace in Rom_9:11., he stands on that giddy height, to which few are able to follow him without falling headlong into the false conclusions of a decretum absolutum, and the denial of all creaturely freedom.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is he creating evil souls Jacob?

No. That's the whole point of Traducianism--I get to say no to that question.

Is the soul created in each man created different than that of Christ?

Structurally, no.

Is the soul generated by man and not God individually?

Is the term "individually" modifying man, God, or soul? It's not clear what you are asking.

If so, how is it there seems to be so many contradictory things in the scripture that seem to state that God creates the soul individually.

No more contradictory than saying God rested from all his labors on the sixth day.

For instance a father sinning and the son also reaping the problem.

That's not part of the debate.

You didn't comment on Christology or the scriptures I posted above.

They didn't prove creationism. You just copied and pasted several passages and left it at that.

It is blasphemy to grant wickedness or evil to God.

No one is saying that. The point of a reductio ad absurdum is that if one holds position x, and an obviously wrong conclusion follows, then there is a problem with the premise.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Is he creating evil souls Jacob?

I know you addressed this to Jacob, but I'd like to try to clarify:
The traducianist holds that God only created the soul of Adam, and that all other souls are propgated from the soul (or souls) of their parent (or parents). The creationist has a hard time getting around the idea that God creates morally depraved souls every day. So, when I've said things like, "But God is still creating depraved souls," what I've meant is, "If creationism is true, God is still creating morally depraved souls." It's an argument against creationism.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So, when I've said things like, "But God is still creating depraved souls," what I've meant is, "If creationism is true, God is still creating morally depraved souls." It's an argument against creationism.

I understand that Tyler. God does not create depraved moral souls. Maybe you need to read about depravity and morality as it is transferred. I have addressed this above.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I understand that Tyler. God does not create depraved moral souls. Maybe you need to read about depravity and morality as it is transferred. I have addressed this above.

Sorry--I thought you were understandng us as claiming that God creates evil souls.

I agree--the transmission of corruption is at the crux of the issue. I've tried to emphasize that throughout this thread. I can't find any place where Hodge answers that matter in the quotes you provided. He seems to imply that he can't give a satisfactory answer--"They will not believe in hereditary depravity unless they can explain the mode of its transmission." If I'm missing something, please point it out.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Explain that Tyler if you can. I mean explain the depravity and the transmission as it is opposed to God and creating a soul.

No. That's the whole point of Traducianism--I get to say no to that question.


Structurally, no.


Is the term "individually" modifying man, God, or soul? It's not clear what you are asking.

Responding to Muck from Tyler,
It is clear. The topic and context explain it by this thread. I am not modifying anything here. Individual means a single man. Come on. Please don't turn this into If I Know I Exist context. To whom am I addressing?[/QUOTE]

from Jacob,

No more contradictory than saying God rested from all his labors on the sixth day.

What are you claiming here since we know all things are held together by Him? Even after and during his Sabbath.
You have much to learn about a Sabbath.

That's not part of the debate.

They didn't prove creationism. You just copied and pasted several passages and left it at that.


No one is saying that. The point of a reductio ad absurdum is that if one holds position x, and an obviously wrong conclusion follows, then there is a problem with the premise.

Well, someone has. Want me to prove you wrong? It is not reductio ad absurdum but by your claim.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This obviously has to do with the doctrine of Original sin. How does it transfer and who are we to obey. There are underlying doctrines aligned with this discussion. I will repeat with King David, "In sin was I conceived."

Jesus was born of another Father than we were. He came from Adam and David through Mary but not by Adam. Something is messed up here. We need a Saviour. If not, Christ wouldn't have come and he was not totally like us. He was made in all points like us but he was not like us in eternal ways. His Father was Eternal and not Adam. Figure that out? A Virgin Birth?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Last point.... to make this applicable.

Would you rather be happy and humble or a jerk?

from me
Read Science and epistemology knowledge. Been both a jerk and someone who who is too humbled. BTW, you can be a jerk and be happy or be a jerk and be humble. Ask Jesus who called people out and thought he was a jerk by those who hated his ways. Ask people who confront me and know ....

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/the-love-of-god/

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Explain that Tyler if you can. I mean explain the depravity and the transmission as it is opposed to God and creating a soul.

In my view, the corrupt soul of the offspring is propagated by the corrupt soul of the parent. I can't explain the details of that; but I'd rather have the mystery of how a soul is propagated from another than the mystery of how God can create a soul that is corrupt from the beginning without being the author of that corruption.

Responding to Muck from Tyler,
It is clear. The topic and context explain it by this thread. I am not modifying anything here. Individual means a single man. Come on. Please don't turn this into If I Know I Exist context. To whom am I addressing?

Which of your posts are you referring to here, brother? Are you referring to something you wrote, or something you quoted from Hodge?

From a search on the page, I see that the only place you used the term "individual" was in post #100. So, I'm going to infer that you're asking me to respond to your argument that the Scriptures seem to indicate that God creates each individual soul immediately:

Is the soul generated by man and not God individually? If so, how is it there seems to be so many contradictory things in the scripture that seem to state that God creates the soul individually.

I'd just point out that the Scriptures use the same language concerning the body, such as in Psalm 139 13-15:

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Or Jeremiah 1:5:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

 

[earl40]

I wonder if this all comes down to the 4 fold state of man? For instance we should all agree that Adam was created with the moral ability to sin. In my thinking the idea of Jesus being morally able to sin is important in that we, like Adam, are still created with the ability to sin, unlike Jesus. In other words, Jesus was excluded without that "state", unlike us who are created with the ability to sin.