Traducianism vs. Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
PuritanCovenanter said:
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?
Click to expand...

PuritanCovenanter said:
Last point.... to make this applicable.


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/
Click to expand...

Who are you talking to? Tyler and I have been very specific in which propositions we are debating. The last few posts seemed like a string of sentences which contained good material, but didn't address any of the specific propositions we set forth.
 
earl40 said:
Is it evil to create a soul that is able to sin?
Click to expand...

No. Because it is finite, it is mutable.

Of course, we can punt that back one step and ask why God created a world in which sin is possible. Or why didn't God create a world where everyone acted perfectly.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
No. Because it is finite, it is mutable.
Click to expand...

So there would be no problem I see with creationism. :)

BayouHuguenot said:
Of course, we can punt that back one step and ask why God created a world in which sin is possible. Or why didn't God create a world where everyone acted perfectly.
Click to expand...

I suspect God wishes to display the ectypal truthfulness of justice which is not innate to God properly speaking.
 
earl40 said:
So there would be no problem I see with creationism.
Click to expand...
Creationism does not say that God creates a soul that is able to sin, but rather that He creates a soul that is not able not to sin, for we are not born as Adam was before the Fall; we are born as Adam was after the Fall. How to apprehend this idea is what is being considered in this discussion
 
kainos01 said:
Creationism does not say that God creates a soul that is able to sin, but rather that He creates a soul that is not able not to sin, for we are not born as Adam was before the Fall; we are born as Adam was after the Fall. How to apprehend this idea is what is being considered in this discussion
Click to expand...

Goes beyond that. True, God creates a soul not able not to sin, but a soul that is also morally guilty and corrupt.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Goes beyond that. True, God creates a soul not able not to sin, but a soul that is also morally guilty and corrupt.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was taking it incrementally in order to respond, first, to Earl's suggestion that God creates a soul able to sin. Indeed, however, the soul created is not merely a tabula rasa that will/must sin; it is already sinful.
 
kainos01 said:
Creationism does not say that God creates a soul that is able to sin, but rather that He creates a soul that is not able not to sin, for we are not born as Adam was before the Fall; we are born as Adam was after the Fall. How to apprehend this idea is what is being considered in this discussion
Click to expand...

So in your opinion it would be not be good for God to create a creature with a soul that is unable to not sin? This obviously makes God the author of sin in your opinion? PS. I ask in that there may be a way out of such if one thinks in a supralapsarianism type of way....I wish Rev. Winzer were still around.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Goes beyond that. True, God creates a soul not able not to sin, but a soul that is also morally guilty and corrupt.
Click to expand...

This may boil down to the "as if" speech of imputation. We consider Jesus to be really sinful "as if" He sinned and took the penalty for our sin. Just as much as the reprobate is sent to hell because he is guilty "as if" he personally sinned in Eden.
 
earl40 said:
So in your opinion it would be not be good for God to create a creature with a soul that is unable to not sin? This obviously makes God the author of sin in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Trying to untangle your first sentence - but, if I understand your question correctly, I believe that this is the charge that creationism must defend itself against. Traducianism doesn't face that particular charge (and must, rather, defend allegations regarding the Person of Christ).
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
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?
Click to expand...
Jesus was born in our likeness as being in human flesh, but due to His Virgin Birth, was able to bypass the effects of the fall, and was without corrupted sin nature.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Tyler and I have been very clear. We are saying that if one holds to creationism, then one is led to the logical deduction that God creates an evil soul.
Click to expand...
No, rather that God is creating the soul based up what the effects of the fall Adam bestowed upon all of us.
 
kainos01 said:
Trying to untangle your first sentence - but, if I understand your question correctly, I believe that this is the charge that creationism must defend itself against. Traducianism doesn't face that particular charge (and must, rather, defend allegations regarding the Person of Christ).
Click to expand...

It is funny how we sometimes must use a double negative when discussing the state of man. :)

I look it this way. Man is created by God with a propensity to always sin without God given faith. I guess this may be viewed by many as thinking God is the author of sin, but I think Romans 9:26 does explicitly say God made (formed) some to be like Essau. All the blame goes to man and all the glory to God which I think Paul had in mind in Romans 9 with his question.
 
If God creates individual souls than we cannot be saved. Christ had to assume the whole man - nature and soul in order to save any of us. And both of those need to be organically tied to one another otherwise the incarnation is mere symbolism. That’s not being dealt with.
 
earl40 said:
It is funny how we sometimes must use a double negative when discussing the state of man. :)

I look it this way. Man is created by God with a propensity to always sin without God given faith. I guess this may be viewed by many as thinking God is the author of sin, but I think Romans 9:26 does explicitly say God made (formed) some to be like Essau. All the blame goes to man and all the glory to God which I think Paul had in mind in Romans 9 with his question.
Click to expand...
So, you have no problem with saying that God creates man with a depraved nature?
 
earl40 said:
This may boil down to the "as if" speech of imputation. We consider Jesus to be really sinful "as if" He sinned and took the penalty for our sin. Just as much as the reprobate is sent to hell because he is guilty "as if" he personally sinned in Eden.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The soul *is* morally guilty and corrupt, not *as if* morally guilty.
 
“Jesus was born in our likeness as being in human flesh, but due to His Virgin Birth, was able to bypass the effects of the fall, and was without corrupted sin nature.“

Jesus was born sinless because he was not in Adam. Sin is ethical not physical So sin is not in our DNA or genes per say. Our sin nature is part of judgment being in Adam and so the effects of that judgment are passed on.
 
Goodcheer68 said:
“Jesus was born in our likeness as being in human flesh, but due to His Virgin Birth, was able to bypass the effects of the fall, and was without corrupted sin nature.“

Jesus was born sinless because he was not in Adam. Sin is ethical not physical So sin is not in our DNA or genes per say. Our sin nature is part of judgment being in Adam and so the effects of that judgment are passed on.
Click to expand...
IF Jesus had been born through natural means, he would have had a sin nature, and so would have been disqualified to be our messiah.
 
Dachaser said:
IF Jesus had been born through natural means, he would have had a sin nature, and so would have been disqualified to be our messiah.
Click to expand...
That's precisely what some traducianists have argued (I don't buy into that particular thinking myself--I think it's a moot point). It's strange for a creationist to argue that way.
 
TylerRay said:
That's precisely what some traducianists have argued (I don't buy into that particular thinking myself--I think it's a moot point). It's strange for a creationist to argue that way.
Click to expand...
The Virgin Birth was the means by which Jesus bypassed being tagged along with all of the rest of us as being fallen sinners in Adam.
 
Dachaser said:
The Virgin Birth was the means by which Jesus bypassed being tagged along with all of the rest of us as being fallen sinners in Adam.
Click to expand...
The Virgin birth was not the means by which Christ was sinless. Christ was not in Adam therefore his nature did not receive the curse. The way you state it it makes sin to have some kind of substance that resides in Adam. Sin is ethical not metaphysical. Our nature is sinful due to imputation and judgment.
 
Goodcheer68 said:
The Virgin birth was not the means by which Christ was sinless. Christ was not in Adam therefore his nature did not receive the curse. The way you state it it makes sin to have some kind of substance that resides in Adam. Sin is ethical not metaphysical. Our nature is sinful due to imputation and judgment.
Click to expand...
IF Jesus birth Father would have been Joseph, then he would have had a sin nature.
 
Goodcheer68 said:
The Virgin birth was not the means by which Christ was sinless. Christ was not in Adam therefore his nature did not receive the curse. The way you state it it makes sin to have some kind of substance that resides in Adam. Sin is ethical not metaphysical. Our nature is sinful due to imputation and judgment.
Click to expand...

Very good point. The Reformed (and the whole church, really) have always taught the following:

1) Sin is a privation. It doesn't have positive existence.
2) Sin is accidental to the structure of the soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

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