Significance of Creationism vs Traducianism

[Unoriginalname]

What is the significance of the debate over creationism vs traducianism? I am curious as to what practical problems someone would run into if they held to traducianism (I am under the impression that that is the wrong view.) I have only really seen this debate brought up in older systematics so is there a reason for that as well?

 

[Bonnyjars]

Eric

I would like to make two points:

Firstly, I think that you first will need to define "traducianism" -- starting somewhere, in this case the OED: I can find two separate meanings:

(a) the doctrine of the transmission of the soul from the parents; (b) rarely the doctrine of the hereditary transmission of original sin

Secondly, again, you will need to define what you mean by the term "creationism" for the original meaning of the term in this context does not mean what would normally be understood by the term today.

This notion was called Traducianism by the Schoolmen, the system opposed to it being termed Creationism

(Wilberforce writing in 1848 - before Darwin!)

Clearly the term derives from the earlier debates which go right bacK at least to the time of Tertullian at the end of the second Century AD. So whatever "creationism" means in your question it may not mean quite what you might think it does.

I suspect the modern discussion that you are looking for would be about the mediated or immediate imputation of sin. I am quite prepared to get involved in that discussion if you wish

John

 

[rbcbob]

 

[KMK]

What is the significance of the debate over creationism vs traducianism? I am curious as to what practical problems someone would run into if they held to traducianism (I am under the impression that that is the wrong view.) I have only really seen this debate brought up in older systematics so is there a reason for that as well?

From Berkhof:

Creationism does not claim to be able to clear up all difficulties, but at the same time it serves as a warning against the following errors: (1) that the soul is divisible; (2) that all men are numerically of the same substance; and (3) that Christ assumed the same numerical nature which fell on Adam.

 

[py3ak]

You might find this previous discussion helpful.

This discussion shows why people care about it, and that it is a debate not to be had in isolation.

This is a very attractively phrased post, although it should be noted that William Whitaker has no difficulty affirming the point considered too facile.

And this discussion might also prove illuminating.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You might find this previous discussion helpful.

This discussion shows why people care about it, and that it is a debate not to be had in isolation.

This is a very attractively phrased post, although it should be noted that William Whitaker has no difficulty affirming the point considered too facile.

And this discussion might also prove illuminating.

Great summary Ruben. Do you ever read things you wrote in the past and think: "Did I write that?" I don't even know if I could reconstruct those thoughts from scratch at this point but still remain convinced that Creationism accords with the imputation of Adam's guilt. Bruce's post is, indeed, an illuminating point to consider.

For a thumbnail sketch of why it would be consequential to consider this from a Systematic standpoint, if we look at Romans 5 we read:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(Romans 5:18-21 ESV)

Notice the symmetry between the first and second Adam that Paul is pressing:

Adam - Trespass -> Condemnation
Christ - Righteousness -> Justification

If our guilt for the one trespass is not by imputation then how does this parallel the accounting of Christ's righteousness to us? This is not a problem for anti-Federalists who deny imputation but we believe the Scriptures teach that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

In other words, the logic of Romans 5 impels us to conclude that Adam's guilt is imputed to us federally because we understand from other clear passages that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us federally. If we conclude that Adam's guilt is not federally imputed then this will lead us to conclude that the manner of our righteousness from Christ is likewise not federally imputed.

Backing this up to traducianism, the view holds that men's souls are a subdivision of Adam's original soul such that men's souls really are present in Adam at the time of the transgression. We are guilty because we "really" participated in the sin of Adam. Guilt is not imputed but it is guilt arising from our real participation in it. Likewise, then, are we righteous in Christ because we are really righteous? It's not as if we can say that believers participate in a subdivision of Christ's human soul so we can't say that we participated really in His obedience in that manner so how does the parallel work in the passage cited?

I'm not saying that my short answer satisfies all objections but it should help the reader understand why this issue is not insignificant when you start unpacking some of the implications of traducianism.

 

[py3ak]

Great summary Ruben. Do you ever read things you wrote in the past and think: "Did I write that?" I don't even know if I could reconstruct those thoughts from scratch at this point but still remain convinced that Creationism accords with the imputation of Adam's guilt.

Sometimes!
Obviously traducianism doesn't necessarily negate federalism. What we have sometimes lost in our time is any emphasis on the transmission of corruption.

 

[MW]

What is the significance of the debate over creationism vs traducianism?

The extremely limited nature of human thought! Most theologians consider it from one angle and decide on traducianism; then they turn to another angle and become confessed creationists. Usually reformed theologians lean towards creationism because it ends up providing less problems. But the differences are based on seeing only one sense in which man is immaterial. In reality, while there is only one immaterial entity called the spirit or soul, those two different terms represent slightly different meanings. When those meanings are observed it is obvious that the "spirit" is the immaterial part of man as he relates to God and the "soul" is the same immateriality as it relates to the world. The two are distinguishable; and therefore the discussion between creationism and traducianism is ultimately meaningless, although following the discussion will help to bring out some very important points of theology.