I do not agree with him on this particular issue is all.You've talked about A. H. Strong a lot on other threads. You should read him on this point.
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.
I do not agree with him on this particular issue is all.You've talked about A. H. Strong a lot on other threads. You should read him on this point.
So God granted the power to generate and create souls to humans then?Our physical part (our body) generates our children's physical part. Our non-physical part (our soul) generates our children's non-physical part.
We don't create; we procreate.So God granted the power to generate and create souls to humans then?
My point is not that you should agree with him, necessarily. My point is that you don't understand the issues, and that you could benefit from studying them.I do not agree with him on this particular issue is all.
Isn't the Creation by God of the human soul though the traditional Reformed position, or at least the one most widely held over the years?
The soul is immortal though, so how can something physical like us generate a non physical and spiritual component?
Thats a fascinating point. What is the typical creationist response?
Interesting: I was curious why Strong didn't mention Shedd, since Shedd's defense of traducianism became the definitive work on the subject. Turns out that Strong's ST was published two years before Vol 1 of Shedd's came out.
I confess I haven't gotten Shedd yet. It's been on my list of things to buy for some time (especially since it's required reading for students in my Presbytery). Does anyone know if he references Strong?
Adam was created by God and was physically alive, and then God placed in him the soul, so would that not be the same for all humans then?See what I said above. We are in Adam's loins seminally. Our souls aren't being generated. They are being traduced.
What did John Calvin hold with on this subject?Shedd is a sheer literary delight. He is one of my top three. He's woefully unbalanced on some issues, but he is always a joy to read.
Shedd doesn't reference Strong. Strong does mention Shedd's debate with Beecher on eternal punishment.
What did John Calvin hold with on this subject?
Adam was created by God and was physically alive, and then God placed in him the soul, so would that not be the same for all humans then?
Adam wasn't alive before he had a soul.Adam was created by God and was physically alive, and then God placed in him the soul, so would that not be the same for all humans then?
Shedd does not. Gomes, in the introductory materials of Shedd, refers to Strong a few times.Does anyone know if he references Strong?
See extracts here:Thats a fascinating point. What is the typical creationist response?
What were the main reasons he held to that view?Creationism
Due to the immaterial aspect of mankind, our immortal soul, has to come from a pre existing Eternal being, as mortal cannot generate immortal.Adam wasn't alive before he had a soul.
If the bodies of everyone after our first parents are not created by God immediately (but are the products of natural generation), why should we expect it to be otherwise with the soul?
The 2 biggest reasons that leaped out to me in those links were the fact of God creating Adam to be physically alive, and then added to him the immaterial spiritual component, and also that Jesus being not tainted by the fall and having the sin nature requires the creation position it would seem.
The traducianist holds that the immortal soul of the child is derived from the immortal soul of the parent.Due to the immaterial aspect of mankind, our immortal soul, has to come from a pre existing Eternal being, as mortal cannot generate immortal.
Which parent though?The traducianist holds that the immortal soul of the child is derived from the immortal soul of the parent.
Traditionally, traducianists have said the father. However, I'm not sure that that's essential to the view. I'm willing to concede that it could come from either parent, or from both in some respect.Which parent though?
Those holding to Creationism would see the scriptures teaching to us while humans can produce the material aspects of us, that it still takes God to create the immaterial aspect of us.Traditionally, traducianists have said the father. However, I'm not sure that that's essential to the view. I'm willing to concede that it could come from either parent, or from both in some respect.
Note that traducianists have never claimed to understand the minute details of how the soul of of a child traduces from that of a parent. There's a great deal of mystery involved. Convinced by scripture and plain reason that his view is the correct one, the traducianist submits to the mystery. The secret things belong to the Lord.
What were the main reasons he held to that view?
Those holding to Creationism would see the scriptures teaching to us while humans can produce the material aspects of us, that it still takes God to create the immaterial aspect of us.
See:What were the main reasons he held to that view?
The part where only God can create would be.We know that, but that's not an argument.
The answer to how Jesus was born untainted and not corrupted by the Fall of Adam would seem to be where we find which of these 2 views fit the scriptures best.
Nobody's arguing that men can create men. We're arguing about whether men beget men in their totality, or whether they only beget their bodies, while God creates the soul.The part where only God can create would be.
I am just wondering whether material based humans can create immaterial based souls.Nobody's arguing that men can create men. We're arguing about whether men beget men in their totality, or whether they only beget their bodies, while God creates the soul.
You should really try to understand these issues before you start opining about them.
They absolutely cannot create souls. They can't create bodies either.I am just wondering whether material based humans can create immaterial based souls.