Traducianism vs. Creationism

[Dachaser]

They absolutely cannot create souls. They can't create bodies either.

Also, note that man has both a material and an immaterial part.

Does the human soul have matter? Does the new soul come into existence by leeching part of the parents soul?

 

[TylerRay]

Does the human soul have matter? Does the new soul come into existence by leeching part of the parents soul?

No, the soul is immaterial. It has no matter. As to the how, as I said, it's a mystery.

 

[RamistThomist]

The part where only God can create would be.

No, it isn't. Traducianists do not say that man creates a soul.

 

[TylerRay]

We're pretty well off topic, aren't we? The OP didn't ask what traducians believe.

 

[Dachaser]

We're pretty well off topic, aren't we? The OP didn't ask what traducians believe.

It seems that is where we got directed into though, which was fine by me, as have learned a lot on this subject matter.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

We're pretty well off topic, aren't we? The OP didn't ask what traducians believe.

The OP is quite broad:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/traducianism-vs-creationism.95713/

I suppose one could simply answer the questions asked without having to dip one's toe into what one actually believes in order to answer the questions.

What is the historical Reformed understanding concerining{sic} the issue of Traducianism vs. Creationism?​

Using "Reformed" in a broad sense...​

Creationism:

John Calvin
Francis Turretin
Charles Hodge
A.A. Hodge
Louis Berkhof

Augustine (according to Berkhof hesitated to choose)

Traducianism:

Tertullian
Martin Luther
Jonathan Edwards
Ezekiel Hopkins
W.G.T. Shedd
Augustus Strong
Gordon H. Clark
Robert Reymond (drawn to the view)​

Is the Soul transmitted from the parents to the new born child (Traducianism), or is a new soul of an individual created at every moment of conception (Creationism)? That issue goes into the question of how Original Sin is transmitted.​

The latter.​

Some Church Fathers held the position of Traducianism, like Augustine.
Now, does the Reformed position of Federal headship lead somebody to any of those two positions, or is there a third option?​

Augustine's view is up for grabs.
In my opinion, federal headship would necessarily lead to creationism.​

I'm not aware if the Reformers or any Confession adressed{sic} that issue too.
Is there an exegetical basis for any of those two positions?​

Plenty of exegesis is provided by the proponents of the two major views—left as an exercise for the reader to search out. I am unaware of what a third option would even look like. I suspect it would be non-confessional so I am uninterested.​

I suspect my terse (yet on topic) answers would likely generate more questions. Hence, the direction this thread must take. I have provided links in prior posts herein to threads where most of what is now being discussed has been discussed (here, here, here, here, here) so we are already treading upon some well-worn paths.

 

[TylerRay]

The OP is quite broad:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/traducianism-vs-creationism.95713/

I suppose one could simply answer the questions asked without having to dip one's toe into what one actually believes in order to answer the questions.

What is the historical Reformed understanding concerining{sic} the issue of Traducianism vs. Creationism?​

Using "Reformed" in a broad sense...​

Creationism:

John Calvin
Francis Turretin
Charles Hodge
A.A. Hodge
Louis Berkhof

Augustine (according to Berkhof hesitated to choose)

Traducianism:

Tertullian
Martin Luther
Jonathan Edwards
Ezekiel Hopkins
W.G.T. Shedd
Augustus Strong
Gordon H. Clark
Robert Reymond (drawn to the view)​

Is the Soul transmitted from the parents to the new born child (Traducianism), or is a new soul of an individual created at every moment of conception (Creationism)? That issue goes into the question of how Original Sin is transmitted.​

The latter.​

Some Church Fathers held the position of Traducianism, like Augustine.
Now, does the Reformed position of Federal headship lead somebody to any of those two positions, or is there a third option?​

Augustine's view is up for grabs.
In my opinion, federal headship would necessarily lead to creationism.​

I'm not aware if the Reformers or any Confession adressed{sic} that issue too.
Is there an exegetical basis for any of those two positions?​

Plenty of exegesis is provided by the proponents of the two major views—left as an exercise for the reader to search out. I am unaware of what a third option would even look like. I suspect it would be non-confessional so I am uninterested.​

I suspect my terse (yet on topic) answers would likely generate more questions. Hence, the direction this thread must take. I have provided links in prior posts herein to threads where most of what is now being discussed has been discussed (here, here, here, here, here) so we are already treading upon some well-worn paths.

The OP assumes a knowledge of traducianism and creationism, and addresses its inquiries to those who have something to say about the history of those doctrines in Reformed thought, the consistency of either of those doctrines with Reformed theology, or the exegetical bases on which those doctrines are premised.

If I'm deemed to be too picky, I'll desist. However, I don't think the laborious efforts to try and pin down just what traducianism is (which have taken up three quarters of this thread) are warranted.

 

[TylerRay]

I am unaware of what a third option would even look like. I suspect it would be non-confessional so I am uninterested.

I skipped Strong's treatment of "The Preexistance Theory" when I did my outline.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The OP assumes a knowledge of traducianism and creationism, and addresses its inquiries to those who have something to say about the history of those doctrines in Reformed thought, the consistency of either of those doctrines with Reformed theology, or the exegetical bases on which those doctrines are premised.

It may be a wee bit unfair to presume to know what is assumed absent some explicitness. Folks often use theological terminology absent a wholesome grasp of the historical development of the terms themselves. So, taking some time to settle upon what the words means is not necessarily out of bounds.

I agree with what I think you are getting at...we have driven the terms creationism and traducianism to ground. It is time to move on to the actual questions asked (and answered by some of us), versus doing all the heavy-lifting for those not up to speed. Persons wanting to know more about the terms can avail themselves of the materials linked throughout this thread, or even start a shiny new thread where they simply ask for some definitions or pointers to the same.

 

[TylerRay]

I did some poking around in a couple of Systematic Theologies this evening, looking at this topic. I found Hoeksema to be particularly interesting. He doesn't deal with the subject explicitly, but I think he clearly implies the traducianist position. Interestingly enough, every time he states a traducianist view of the origin of the soul, his doctrine of federal headship is near at hand!

p278:

Thus it is plain from Scripture that the universality of sin and death in the human race are to be explained, first, from the fact that the race was created in the one man Adam as an organism. He bore our nature, and that nature was corrupted; and from a corrupt stock springs a corrupt offspring. And, secondly, Scripture teaches us as far as the guilt of sin is concerned, that its universality is due to the fact that the whole race was created in Adam as its head, that therefore we are all responsible for the one sin Adam committed in the first paradise.

p223:

[T]he relation of Adam to the human race was three-fold: he was the first father, the bearer of the entire human nature, so that organically the entire human race was in him; secondly, he was the head of all mankind, so that he legally represented them; and finally, he was the root of the race, so that, figuratively speaking, all the nations, tribes, families, and individuals are branches of the tree of which Adam is the root.

p224:

[Adam] is the father of us all. God created the whole human nature in him. In this sense Augustine was right when he taught that all men were in Adam: to be sure, there was in him not a multitude of individual persons, nor were there in him millions of individualizations of the human nature; but the truth is nevertheless that all human natures that ever would exist were organically in Adam, and they all developed out of him.

 

[TylerRay]

Am I correct that the following quote from Ames implies a traducianist position?

This is from his section on The Propagation of Sin, p127 of The Marrow of Theology.

Propagation is the participation in the condition of Adam by all human posterity descended from him in a natural manner, Job 14:5; Ps. 51:7; Rom. 5:14; Eph. 2:3. This has occurred by God's just ordering. The justice of it appears among men in some ways; first, in the natural law by which inbred qualities are passed on from parents to children; second, in hereditary law by which the burdens of parents are transferred to children; third, in the law of like-for-like by which the rejection of good and the endurign of evil are balanced.

 

[Aco]

It seems to me that this distinction of traducianism vs. creationism in regard to the transmission of sin is unnecessary. Federal headship seems to be sufficient. Regarding the origin of the soul it seems to me that both are viable options, while both positions having their problems.

 

[TylerRay]

It seems to me that this distinction of traducianism vs. creationism in regard to the transmission of sin is unnecessary. Federal headship seems to be sufficient. Regarding the origin of the soul it seems to me that both are viable options, while both positions having their problems.

Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.

That's problematic.

 

[Aco]

Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.

That's problematic.

Good point. Hasn‘t crossed my mind before.

But whats about the soul of Jesus if somebody holds to Traducianism? The soul is said to be an aspect of nature and not of personhood, to avoid Nestorianism. So, if the soul is evil from the very beginning (hereditary corruption), then it seems to me that it could only be avoided by saying that the soul is inherited from the father, therefore Jesus wasn’t affected by sin and corruption.
On the other hand with that position it follows then, that Jesus received his soul from his divine nature (recall that it is said, that the soul is an aspect of nature). This leads one to say that God has a soul.

 

[TylerRay]

But whats about the soul of Jesus if somebody holds to Traducianism? The soul is said to be an aspect of nature and not of personhood, to avoid Nestorianism. So, if the soul is evil from the very beginning (hereditary corruption), then it seems to me that it could only be avoided by saying that the soul is inherited from the father, therefore Jesus wasn’t affected by sin and corruption.

That's how some traducianists have dealt with the matter of Christ's sinlessness. For my own part, I think it's enough to point out that Christ's conception was miraculous. It was miraculous in that it was accomplished while Mary was a virgin; it was miraculous in that Christ was conceived sinless; it was miraculous in that the eternal Son of God took on a human nature. I don't need any further explanation than that. If it could be explained, it wouldn't be a miracle.

On the other hand with that position it follows then, that Jesus received his soul from his divine nature (recall that it is said, that the soul is an aspect of nature). This leads one to say that God has a soul.

If Christ doesn't have a human soul, he is not human. Here's how the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it:

Q. 22. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin.

 

[Aco]

Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.

That's problematic.

...It follows further that he received a soulless human nature. If he did receive his human nature from his mother, avoiding the corruption of the soul, then human mature wasn‘t corrupted.

 

[Aco]

That's how some traducianists have dealt with the matter of Christ's sinlessness. For my own part, I think it's enough to point out that Christ's conception was miraculous. It was miraculous in that it was accomplished while Mary was a virgin; it was miraculous in that Christ was conceived sinless; it was miraculous in that the eternal Son of God took on a human nature. I don't need any further explanation than that. If it could be explained, it wouldn't be a miracle.



If Christ doesn't have a human soul, he is not human. Here's how the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it:

I agree in the end with you, the appeal to mystery seems to be the best option.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.

That's problematic.

It is only problematic when attempting to divine how the soul is created. We have no revelation from Scripture on this aspect.

Such an argument, if it were ever genuinely proffered, egregiously ignores the Reformed confessional view concerning imputation. The soul is created by God. We do not know the how of this creative act. We do know, per federal headship, the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin are immediately imputed. This is consistent with the parallel imputation of Christ's righteousness in Romans 5. If this federal imputation is not the case, and the striking parallels of Romans 5 apply, from whence comes our righteousness from Christ?

 

[RamistThomist]

the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin are immediately imputed.

Doesn't the Confession say the guilt is imputed but the corruption conveyed? Two different verbs. We receive the guilt via the federal headship of Adam, but the corruption of our nature is a punishment of that guilt. It is conveyed through the transmission of the soul.

To sum up the difficulties of the debate:

1) The creationist is in the odd position of saying God creates millions of evil souls every day.

2) The traducian is in the strange position of Jesus' soul being immediately sanctified at his conception.

2*) That can be salvaged if another word/concept than sanctified is used.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Doesn't the Confession say the guilt is imputed but the corruption conveyed? Two different verbs. We receive the guilt via the federal headship of Adam, but the corruption of our nature is a punishment of that guilt. It is conveyed through the transmission of the soul.

The confession emphasizes imputation. Granting me ad fontes, notice the sentence of WCF VI.III from the Burges manuscript (also available here):

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.​

In the above it is imputation, not inheritance, which is the operative mode by which guilt, death in sin, and the corrupted nature are conveyed.

Note also in the original, the comma underlying my point that it is by way of imputation, not inheritance, as the method of transmission for guilt, death in sin, and corruption.

This is quite consistent with Romans 5.

Your "summation" of the debate overlooks the actual intent of the authors of our confession in their summaries of Scripture.

 

[TylerRay]

It is only problematic when attempting to divine how the soul is created. We have no revelation from Scripture on this aspect.

Such an argument, if it were ever genuinely proffered, egregiously ignores the Reformed confessional view concerning imputation. The soul is created by God. We do not know the how of this creative act. We do know, per federal headship, the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin are immediately imputed. This is consistent with the parallel imputation of Christ's righteousness in Romans 5. If this federal imputation is not the case, and the striking parallels of Romans 5 apply, from whence comes our righteousness from Christ?

I'll second what Jacob said (post 79). Imputation does not affect moral disposition. The imputation of Christ's righteousness does not change our moral nature. If it did, we wouldn't need regeneration.

In the same way, the imputation of Adam's sin does not immediately affect corruption; instead, it puts us in a legal position of guilt. The two go together, but they are distinct.

Regarding the Confession, note the semicolon. The confession teaches the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin; regarding corruption the Confession simply states that it is "conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation." The Confession neither teaches creationism nor traducianism, and it certainly does not teach that moral corruption comes via imputation.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I fail to see from Romans 5 how death and corruption are independent of guilt. Are they not the immediate consequences of imputed guilt? The curse imputed, not inherited, applies to all, even the infant who dies before actually sinning. The semicolon in the compound sentence connects the same consequences of the guilt imputed to Adam.

To argue that the confession is silent on the matter of traducianism ignores the federal headship clear in the confession. How did traducianism and federal theology coincide at the time of the framers of the WCF? Was there anyone at the time claiming traducianism and federal theology?

 

[TylerRay]

I fail to see from Romans 5 how death and corruption are independent of guilt. Are they not the immediate consequences of imputed guilt? The curse imputed, not inherited, applies to all, even the infant who dies before actually sinning. The semicolon in the compound sentence connects the same consequences of the guilt imputed to Adam.

I never said that "death and corruption are independent of guilt;" I said that they are distinct from guilt, but that they go together.

To argue that the confession is silent on the matter of traducianism ignores the federal headship clear in the confession.

There is nothing in traducianism that conflicts with the federal headship taught in the Confession. It is true that there have been traducianists who denied federal headship; it is equally true that there have been creationists who have denied federal headship, such as Pelagius. However, it would be a gross error to assume that all creationists held the soteriological errors of Pelagius.

How did traducianism and federal theology coincide at the time of the framers of the WCF? Was there anyone at the time claiming traducianism and federal theology?

I provided a quote from Ames above that seems to me to imply traducianism. Other than that, I don't know. I haven't studied the matter.

 

[Afterthought]

To argue that the confession is silent on the matter of traducianism ignores the federal headship clear in the confession. How did traducianism and federal theology coincide at the time of the framers of the WCF? Was there anyone at the time claiming traducianism and federal theology?

In an old post, Rev. Winzer says that generally (and so maybe also at this time period?), theologians differ depending on the perspective they look at the matter.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/significance-of-creationism-vs-traducianism.71304/#post-912619
"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."

 

[Dachaser]

I skipped Strong's treatment of "The Preexistance Theory" when I did my outline.

Like what the Mormons teach?

 

[Dachaser]

Regarding the transmission of sin: consider that if creationism is true, God daily creates human souls with a morally evil disposition. That would mean that the only thing that God has ever created that was not good is the soul of every man after the fall. Further, it would mean that, while God spent six days creating what is good, he has spent the rest of history creating what is evil.

That's problematic.

Would not the soul being created by Him though be as a direct result of the fall affecting all humans save for Christ, so would be Him creating the state in which Adam brought upon us, not God directly Himself?

 

[TylerRay]

Like what the Mormons teach?

Mormons, Hindus, Platonists, and a number of other non-Christian groups teach it.

Would not the soul being created by Him though be a sa direct result of the fall affecting allhumans save for Christ, so would be Him creating the state in which Adam brought upon us, not God directly Himself?

Yes, according to the creationist theory, the reason that God creates those souls morally corrupt is that the persons which those souls partially constitute (together with the bodies) are in Adam federally.

In other words, the imputation of Adam's guilt is the formal cause for which God creates men's souls with a depraved nature (according to the creationist thesis).

 

[Dachaser]

Mormons, Hindus, Platonists, and a number of other non-Christian groups teach it.

Yes, according to the creationist theory, the reason that God creates those souls morally corrupt is that the persons which those souls partially constitute (together with the bodies) are in Adam federally.

In other words, the imputation of Adam's guilt is the formal cause for which God creates men's souls with a depraved nature (according to the creationist thesis).

This would avoid then the criticism being charged of God creating Himself evil/corrupt souls directly.

 

[TylerRay]

This would avoid then the criticism being charged of God creating Himself evil/corrupt souls directly.

No, it wouldn't. He's still the efficient cause. He's still creating something that is not good (contra Gen 1).

 

[Dachaser]

No, it wouldn't. He's still the efficient cause. He's still creating something that is not good (contra Gen 1).

He is not though the one that made it not good.