Does the WCF teach Traducianism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ClayPot

Puritan Board Sophomore
Does the WCF teach traduciansim?

In case some reading this don't know, there are two main views of our souls. Creationism is the view that God creates our souls and gives them to us directly (presumably at conception?). Traducianism is the view our souls are essentially passed to us from our parents through normal procreation. God doesn't do anything "directly" for this happen, it is just a natural part of procreation. (Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood these incorrectly.)

The WCF says this about the fall of man:

Chapter VI

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

III. 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.

Does this teach traducianism? Since the corrupted nature is conveyed by ordinary generation, it seems to point in this direction (from my understanding of traducianism). Thoughts?
 
Then King Zedekiah swore secretly to Jeremiah, "As the LORD lives, who made our souls, I will not put you to death or deliver you into the hand of these men who seek your life." (Jer 38:16 ESV)

The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: (Zec 12:1 ESV)


The WCOF that you quoted speaks to the "nature" of man, and not to the "spirit/soul" of man.
 
Does the WCF teach traduciansim?

In case some reading this don't know, there are two main views of our souls. Creationism is the view that God creates our souls and gives them to us directly (presumably at conception?). Traducianism is the view our souls are essentially passed to us from our parents through normal procreation. God doesn't do anything "directly" for this happen, it is just a natural part of procreation. (Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood these incorrectly.)

The WCF says this about the fall of man:

Chapter VI

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

III. 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.

Does this teach traducianism? Since the corrupted nature is conveyed by ordinary generation, it seems to point in this direction (from my understanding of traducianism). Thoughts?

I've always understood this to mean that all offspring created through normal procreation would be corrupted and inherit the guilt of original sin. I think this says that the corrupted nature passes to the posterity, but not how it is passed. I don't see this as saying anything specific about the generation of the soul. I thought that it was phrased this way to show that Christ could be born without sin because his conception was not ordinary.
 
Does then God place sinless souls into fallen, corrupted, totally depraved bodies at conception/birth?
 
Does then God place sinless souls into fallen, corrupted, totally depraved bodies at conception/birth?

I certainly hope not since this would border on gnosticism. I do not know the history of the WCF on the matter, but the HC definitely teaches traducianism as proven by Ursinus' commentary on it.
 
A couple of other things to consider...

The body and soul come from a different origin:

Ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it

If the parents give of all of their soul to their child, then they have no soul left unto themselves. If they give part of their soul to their child, then the soul is divisible and therefore material.

As far as whether or not God imparts a sinful soul is a more specific question. I would suggest that the Scriptures don't tell us that the soul is corrupted by God. It is quite possible that it's corrupted upon it's being joined with the body...but these things pry into the hidden things of God in my estimation.
 
I would suggest that the Scriptures don't tell us that the soul is corrupted by God. It is quite possible that it's corrupted upon it's being joined with the body...but these things pry into the hidden things of God in my estimation.

A good reminder that God doesn't teach us about everything we want to know. Sometimes we must humble ourselves and simply be content with what God reveals.

-----Added 12/26/2009 at 12:41:56 EST-----

I certainly hope not since this would border on gnosticism. I do not know the history of the WCF on the matter, but the HC definitely teaches traducianism as proven by Ursinus' commentary on it.

Which question teaches this? Just wondering so I can look into the matter. Thanks.

Is the WCF neutral on the question of how we obtain our souls? It is often stated that the Three Forms of Unity and the WCF teach the same theology and I was just wondering if they agree on this point (or at least don't contradict each other).
 
A couple of other things to consider...

The body and soul come from a different origin:

Ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it

If the parents give of all of their soul to their child, then they have no soul left unto themselves. If they give part of their soul to their child, then the soul is divisible and therefore material.

As far as whether or not God imparts a sinful soul is a more specific question. I would suggest that the Scriptures don't tell us that the soul is corrupted by God. It is quite possible that it's corrupted upon it's being joined with the body...but these things pry into the hidden things of God in my estimation.

Some limit this “organic” union of human beings to the body. They are called “creationists.” They believe that by a mysterious process not understood by man, then (some say at the moment of conception, others say at a later time) creates a new soul and places it within the body. This view we believe to be in error. It is the soul as much as the body that bears the imprint of original sin.- G.I. Williamson THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH FOR STUDY CLASSES.

See also WGT Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol II. Pp 7ff.
 
It seems unlikely to me that the Assembly made traducianism confessional; but it also seems obvious that traducianism is not excluded by the language of the confession.
 
Psalm 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance (embryo), being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

There was no less activity on God’s part in the knitting together David’s material parts that of his immaterial parts. And yet the whole of his person is the product of his parents union.
 
It seems unlikely to me that the Assembly made traducianism confessional; but it also seems obvious that traducianism is not excluded by the language of the confession.

:up: It seems that the Assembly was intentionaslly vague on this issue. Both the "Creation Theory" and the "Traducian Theory" have had able proponents on each side.

I believe the Traducian theory best fits with the teaching of Scripture that God breathed the breath of life into man's nostrils only once (Gen 2:7). After forming man, God rested from His work of Creation (Gen 2:2). Certainly there are more involved explanations and reasons for the position, more ably defended by the likes of Tertullian and Augustine.

It is worth noting however, that men like Hodge and Berkof held the "Creation Theory" with respect to the origin of souls. In the light of other contributions to theology by such men as these, I would not be overly upset if they were shown to be correct. :D
 
The Confessions teach that the guilt of this sin was imputed, not inherited. This is consistent with a Creationist view.
 
What role would the virgin birth and Jesus being without original sin have in this discussion?
 
The Confessions teach that the guilt of this sin was imputed, not inherited. This is consistent with a Creationist view.

Hebrews 7:9-10 and Psalm 51:5, state explicitly that the parent produces a sinful child at the moment of conception. This is consistent with the Traducian view.

-----Added 12/26/2009 at 04:31:17 EST-----

Well Jesus' spirit is eternal, unlike ours.

Careful. As "fully God" and "fully man" Jesus has a human soul as well, right? :D
 
Hebrews 7:9-10 and Psalm 51:5, state explicitly that the parent produces a sinful child at the moment of conception. This is consistent with the Traducian view.
Explicitly? Hardly. Neither state what you just noted. This may be produced by broader exegesis and hermeneutical work but the passages themselves do not state this explicitly.

I assume you must know that the former passage is used by Realists to infer their view while the latter passage is also consistent with a Creationist view if we believe the Lord is involved in conception.

There are several texts that support a Creationist view:

Gen 2:7 – Soul of Adam was immediately created by God. Also, Adam doesn't call Eve "soul of my soul" when he meets her.
Eze 18:2-4 - "All souls are mine..."
Eccl 12:7 – "...the spirit returns to God who gave it...."
Zec 12:1 - "...formed the spirit of man within him...."
Psalm 33:15 - "...He who fashions the hearts of them all...."
Isa 57:16 - "...the spirit would grow faint before me, and the breath of life that I made...."
Heb 12:9 - "...the Father of spirits...."
Num 16:22 - "...the God of the spirits of all flesh...."

That aside, we are dealing with the Confessional interpretation here. Note that the text emphasizes imputation. Notice the sentence:

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.

Imputation, not inheritance, is the operative mode by which guilt, death in sin, and the corrupted nature are conveyed.

Do you disagree that guilt, death, and corruption are imputed? If you agree with the Confession that guilt, death, and corruption are imputed then who does the imputing? The parents? How is this consistent with a traducian view?
 
That aside, we are dealing with the Confessional interpretation here. Note that the text emphasizes imputation. Notice the sentence:

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.

Imputation, not inheritance, is the operative mode by which guilt, death in sin, and the corrupted nature are conveyed.

Do you disagree that guilt, death, and corruption are imputed? If not, then do the parents impute this guilt by the child inheriting corruption therefrom?

I think you may be misreading the Confession there a bit, Rich. I'm sure Chris can tell us if the semicolon is original or not, but taking it as it stands with the semicolon, the guilt of sin is imputed. Then death in sin and corrupted nature is conveyed. Speaking strictly, is it possible to impute anything but guilt or righteousness?
Armourbearer commented helpfully on this point some time ago:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/does-eve-share-covenant-headship-adam-38650/#post479959
 
That aside, we are dealing with the Confessional interpretation here. Note that the text emphasizes imputation. Notice the sentence:

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.

Imputed is the operative mode by which guilt, death in sin, and the corrupted nature are conveyed.

Do you disagree that guilt, death, and corruption are imputed? If not, then do the parents impute this guilt by the child inheriting corruption therefrom?


Rich:

I need to be careful because I certainly hold the Westminster in high esteem. So please don't misunderstand me.

I do not disagree with the confessions stance that "the guilt of this sin was imputed" to Adam. But, as I read the section you have provided I understand "and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation" to be more consistent with the Traducian position. To Adam it was imputed, to Adam's posterity it is "conveyed by ordinary generation."

I am not convinced that the imputation of guilt to Adam equates to the origin of the soul to his posterity.

As for Eve, it is significant the she was not a product of natural generation, but one of special creation from the rib of Adam.
 
Didn't the Levites pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?

Hebrews 7:7-10
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.



How was it that Levi was in the loins of Abraham if Traducianism is rejected?
 
I will not argue the sentence reading but it is clear that guilt is imputed. Are the death and corruption independent of the guilt? Romans 5 indicates otherwise.

Again, the question remains, who imputes guilt? The parents? How is the imputation of guilt and the sin and death that results from the guilt of sin consistent with a traducian view?
 
I think your questions will answer themselves if you ask yourself, Is Adam's guilt imputed to him?
 
I can't believe that have changed so much. Not that my views on this issue have changed, but that I really could care less about the argument anymore. :lol:
 
Hebrews 7:9-10 and Psalm 51:5, state explicitly that the parent produces a sinful child at the moment of conception. This is consistent with the Traducian view.
Explicitly? Hardly. Neither state what you just noted. This may be produced by broader exegesis and hermeneutical work but the passages themselves do not state this explicitly.

I assume you must know that the former passage is used by Realists to infer their view while the latter passage is also consistent with a Creationist view if we believe the Lord is involved in conception.

There are several texts that support a Creationist view:

Gen 2:7 – Soul of Adam was immediately created by God. Also, Adam doesn't call Eve "soul of my soul" when he meets her.
Eze 18:2-4 - "All souls are mine..."
Eccl 12:7 – "...the spirit returns to God who gave it...."
Zec 12:1 - "...formed the spirit of man within him...."
Psalm 33:15 - "...He who fashions the hearts of them all...."
Isa 57:16 - "...the spirit would grow faint before me, and the breath of life that I made...."
Heb 12:9 - "...the Father of spirits...."
Num 16:22 - "...the God of the spirits of all flesh...."

That aside, we are dealing with the Confessional interpretation here. Note that the text emphasizes imputation. Notice the sentence:

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.

Imputation, not inheritance, is the operative mode by which guilt, death in sin, and the corrupted nature are conveyed.

Do you disagree that guilt, death, and corruption are imputed? If you agree with the Confession that guilt, death, and corruption are imputed then who does the imputing? The parents? How is this consistent with a traducian view?


The WCF appears to make a distinction between imputed sin and original sin. Death and sin and the corrupt nature are not imputed. Guilt is imputed. The rest are conveyed by ordinary generation. So I do disagree with how you are stating this, and believe the WCF is not saying exactly that neither.


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.(Original sin/ corrupt nature)

-----Added 12/26/2009 at 06:35:56 EST-----

I would suggest that the Scriptures don't tell us that the soul is corrupted by God. It is quite possible that it's corrupted upon it's being joined with the body...but these things pry into the hidden things of God in my estimation.

A good reminder that God doesn't teach us about everything we want to know. Sometimes we must humble ourselves and simply be content with what God reveals.

-----Added 12/26/2009 at 12:41:56 EST-----

I certainly hope not since this would border on gnosticism. I do not know the history of the WCF on the matter, but the HC definitely teaches traducianism as proven by Ursinus' commentary on it.

Which question teaches this? Just wondering so I can look into the matter. Thanks.

Question 7. Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?

Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; (a) hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. (b)


Because Eve is mentioned, one can certainly conclude it teaches traducianism. I took exception to this in my Elder Covenant because of Eve's name being mentioned and disagree with Ursinus on this point. Like I said, read his commentary on the HC and he speaks clearly as a traducian on the matter.
 
Question 7. Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?

Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; (a) hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. (b)

Forgive me if i'm being dull, but the origin of the depravity of human nature is a different question from the origin of the human soul...right?

Being conceived and born in sin certainly doesn't tell us at what point the soul becomes corrupt, beyond the fact that it's corrupt at conception. At conception the body and soul are together, but are we told anywhere that the soul is created at the same time as the body?

At our first death (natural death) the body and soul are separated. Isn't it possible that at creation they were separate as well? This would allow for the corruption of the soul to take place at the joining together with the body.

At our first death is the body still corrupt? - Yes, and as it rots in the ground this is obvious.
But at our first death our soul is not corrupt, it goes directly into the presence of our Lord without the stain of sin.
At the very least this shows me that it is possible to have the body and soul disconnected and in different states (one corrupt and one pure).
 
I can't believe that have changed so much. Not that my views on this issue have changed, but that I really could care less about the argument anymore. :lol:

As I recall, many years ago you defended me to Pastor Way as not necessarily being a dogmatic kook for holding to traducianism. Evidently up till that point he had only encoutered virulent traducianists who practically made it a fundamental of the faith.
 
I think your questions will answer themselves if you ask yourself, Is Adam's guilt imputed to him?

The questions do not answer themselves. Adam's guilt is not imputed to himself anymore than Christ's righteousness is imputed. You know very well the answer to the question.

My main point in this discussion is that it makes no logical sense for guilt to be said to be imputed while death in sin and corruption are somehow conveyed genetically. Death in sin and corruption are the consequences of guilt as Romans 5 makes clear. Are you reading the Confession that a person is conceived with corruption and death inhering in the soul that they receive from their parents and the Lord imputes guilt to that soul independently of death and corruption? I'm trying to understand how you conceive this and, were it so obvious from the language, I would not be asking for you to extend your understanding.

I can't believe that have changed so much. Not that my views on this issue have changed, but that I really could care less about the argument anymore. :lol:

I don't know that I really consider it a dividing line on the soul's origin, although I believe the Scriptural data for a traducian view is very thin. My main concern is that Traducianism is less consistent with the issue of the imputation of Adam's Sin. I find that issue to be more critical to a proper understanding of the imputation of Christ's righteousness so I'm merely trying to understand how a traducian view preserves this.
 
Didn't the Levites pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?

Hebrews 7:7-10
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.



How was it that Levi was in the loins of Abraham if Traducianism is rejected?

How was it that Levi was in the loins of Abraham if Realism is rejected?
 
I think your questions will answer themselves if you ask yourself, Is Adam's guilt imputed to him?

The questions do not answer themselves. Adam's guilt is not imputed to himself anymore than Christ's righteousness is imputed. You know very well the answer to the question.

Just a clarification, Rich, not that it's all that germane to the main question at hand: Imputation is 'reckoning', that's all. Accounting - crediting - holding accountable for, etc. - in the Greek, λογίζομαι. Adam's guilt was imputed to himself naturally, to us covenantally. Imputation does not require the state of one person to be imputed to another - that is merely one type of imputation. Our SIN, in fact, is explicitly said NOT to be imputed to US. Imputation of a state of righteousness or sinfulness is either natural or covenantal. To this end see Leviticus 17:4, Ps 31:2, Rom 4:8, etc.

My main point in this discussion is that it makes no logical sense for guilt to be said to be imputed while death in sin and corruption are somehow conveyed genetically. Death in sin and corruption are the consequences of guilt as Romans 5 makes clear.

They are consequences, but they are also now the natural state of human flesh - they were emphatically NOT the natural property of human flesh prior to the Fall. Further, as Job argues in Job 14:4, no clean can be brought out of an unclean. Death and corruption are now a natural property of human flesh - we inherit these things naturally. The guilt is not only imputed but the state of corrupted flesh is possessed by us in our very nature.

Are you reading the Confession that a person is conceived with corruption and death inhering in the soul that they receive from their parents and the Lord imputes guilt to that soul independently of death and corruption?

Don't you think God does both? Imputation, again, is a reckoning, rather than a 'granting' of anything. It seems to me that you are thinking of imputation in terms of God actively corrupting an otherwise perfect and holy soul. Death and corruption are the natural consequences of being born organically from tainted human nature. As Job argues, how can a clean be brought forth from an unclean? Imputation of guilt is another matter, and it is the act of a judge. I certainly can be mistaken here, but this is how I think the Confession teaches these concepts.

I don't know that I really consider it a dividing line on the soul's origin, although I believe the Scriptural data for a traducian view is very thin. My main concern is that Traducianism is less consistent with the issue of the imputation of Adam's Sin. I find that issue to be more critical to a proper understanding of the imputation of Christ's righteousness so I'm merely trying to understand how a traducian view preserves this.

Seems to me that imputation of guilt and inheritance of a sinful nature are both very clearly spoken of in the confession and catechism. We are guilty both for Adam's sin by covenantal imputation, and our own by actual possession. Whether either of these has anything to do with the question of traducianism vs. creationism is not clear, as the mechanism of the creation of a soul is beyond the Scriptural text. Yes, Scripture says that God gives the soul. God also gives life, and physical being. However, it is also clear that my soul is not merely IMPUTED with Adam's guilt, but my soul itself is flawed. It is NOT "very good". I have a hard time believing that the way the soul becomes flawed is by introduction of it to the flesh at conception...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top