I realize this has been discussed somewhat before, but I think it might be profitable to present the topic again in the form of a poll.
Do you believe in Creationism or Traducianism and why?
Do you believe in Creationism or Traducianism and why?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
If we sinned in Adam, this appears more biological than mere representation.
Also, if someone else can pay their tithes in the loins of another it appears Traducianism cannot be disocunted.
Also, WE sinned in Adam. If Traducianism is upheld than the charge that "why am I punished for the sins of another" loses its force...it was ME..I was there in the Garden sinning with my Father.
Originally posted by Saiph
Which view is more consistent with the idea of a virgin birth ?
Which one best defeats the doctrine of Pelagianism (Augustine)
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]
6. Acts. 17:26; Rom. 5:12, 15-19; I Cor. 15:21-22, 49
7. Psa. 51:5; John 3:6; Gen. 5:3; Job 15:14
In the course of this paper I wish to discuss and analyze the mind-body question from a conceptual standpoint, look at the scriptural teaching with respect to man's soul-spirit-heart-mind, and finally offer some suggestions for a Christian view of man's constitution. The alternative which I wish to pose for the official dogma of a ghost in a mechanism is, basically, that man is a substantival monism, a material body which is special for reason of its capabilities (not its added substantival ingredient). Historically, theologians have attributed a substantival soul to man in order to guard the teachings of man's dignity, immortality, moral responsibility, and personal identity; I propose that the ghost-machine dogma does not really guarantee these doctrines, and that while my alternative does not render human nature any less mysterious than the official dogma, it has the two-fold advantage of more properly locating the mystery and alleviating unnecessary philosophical problems which are set forth against the dual substance view in this day.
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Are there any books which defend this traducian position so that I can read up.
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
If I am Traducian, then I have to conclude that the New Birth is not a Creatio Ex Nihilo, but a resurrection (like posited above).
Therefore, though sinners are dead in sins, they are alive in soul...? the living dead.
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Do I also need to posit a 3-fold division of man (body, soul, and spirit) which I do not believe in (i.e. Trichotomy).
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Also, if Bahnsen is right (that's a good article he wrote), we should be NEITHER Trichotomists nor dichotomists - but MONOMISTS???
The soul can exist outside the body, and it is our true selves.
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
I was always struck by the opposition to original sin based on the objection, "Why am I punished for something some guy did long ago.."
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Also, here is another related question...
Maybe this ought to be its own thread...
Is the fact that Adam was Fed eral Head and we in him and we all sinned in him...and the fact that some angels fall and some didn't...
Does this show that all angels are of a different genus or species than mankind?
If they were all of one species or genus then the fall of one would have incriminated the rest?
They do not have the same "organic unity" as mankind does it seems.
Any comments?
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I
I see God's creating ex nihilo being finished, and now, he upholds all things through his providence. In this, I like to think of God's "creating" of souls as similar to that of the rest of creation, by use of means (i.e. procreation).
Originally posted by srhoades
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I
I see God's creating ex nihilo being finished, and now, he upholds all things through his providence. In this, I like to think of God's "creating" of souls as similar to that of the rest of creation, by use of means (i.e. procreation).
So what about the two times Jesus fed the multitudes? Did he just relocated a large school of fish and and a barn full of bread or did he create it ex nihilo?
Neither! Rather, I think Jesus miraculously *multiplied* what was *already* there.
If He wanted to create ex nihilo, then why bother starting with 5 loaves and 2 fish?
Originally posted by Saiph
Neither! Rather, I think Jesus miraculously *multiplied* what was *already* there.
If He wanted to create ex nihilo, then why bother starting with 5 loaves and 2 fish?
So Jesus would support Dolly the cloned sheep ?