Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll analyze the human soul's origin according to scripture and its theological implications. The question of the soul's origin is closely connected to the issues of the fall's consequences, original sin, and the transmission of guilt. Contrary to original sin, we affirm what's called ancestral sin. To read more about ancestral sin, read our article here making a biblical case for the doctrine.
THE THREE PRIMARY PERSPECTIVES
Regarding potential views of the soul's origin, there are three primary frameworks/perspectives.
1. Pre-existence of the soul: This view asserts that the human soul exists before physical conception and enters the body at some point before birth. This view is usually coupled with a belief that the soul is eternal in some way.
2. Traducianism of the soul: This view asserts that the human soul is transmitted through procreation and natural generation along with the body. Both the material and immaterial aspects of humans are derived from either one or both of the parents.
3. Creationism of the soul: This view asserts that God creates a soul for each body when it is conceived/generated.
Most of our attention will be focused on Traducianism and Soul Creationism as these seem to be the default frameworks among Christians. It's our opinion that the Soul Creationism view has the best support from the Bible. The Pre-existence view and variants of it are affirmed by Mormonism, the Baha'i faith, and Buddhism. It was also condemned as heresy in 553 AD at the Second Council of Constantinople. Before we get into what the Bible has to say on this matter, it's very important that we lay out the significance of this issue and how it relates to other doctrines.
TRADUCIANISM: A DOCTRINE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH ORIGINAL SIN
Those who affirm Traducianism are often operating within an Augustinian framework. This is largely because Traducianism seems to offer an easier and more direct way of explaining original sin's distinction of perpetually inherited Adamic guilt as one of the fall's consequences. We are not claiming that Traducianism necessarily entails the transmission of Adamic guilt. We are merely pointing out its common and historic use as a means of explaining and rationalizing original sin. This point has been thoroughly acknowledged by many.
"The sinful nature is a matter of the heart (or soul). Unless sinful corruption is passed down through the generations by means of the soul, it could not happen. Such continuity would be broken if the Creationist’s suppositions were true. If God created souls (after Adam and Eve’s) then He would be creating something sinful rather than “good.” That, of course, is unthinkable. He Himself declared His creation “good.”" - Mid-America Institute for Nouthetic Studies, Traducianism
"the creationist perspective doesn’t make sense of the fallen nature of man, while traducianism does. Creationists must suppose that God creates each soul with a sinful nature. However, the best explanation of inherited original sin is that both fallen soul and body are generated by the human parents." - Tim Barnett, How Did You Get a Soul? Creationism versus Traducianism
"Creationism says that our souls are created directly by God in each case, while the body is generated ordinarily within nature. This raises the difficulty of how God can do this without also creating the sinful nature anew. Traducianism emphasizes the soul being connected to our parental line. Here the problem of God’s connection to the sinful nature is resolved. Sin is inherited by each member of Adam’s race. On the other hand, it leaves one either with the difficulty of the origin of the soul or else the sinful nature reduced to the material realm, even implying that sin has independent substance." - Reformed Classicalist, Creationism and Traducianism
"The foremost implication of traducianism is with regard to the doctrine of original sin. Rather than God imputing the depravity resulting from original sin into every human being individually, this disposition is passed on through lineage naturally. This has profound implications for genetics, as it implies that heredity is not only something material. It is the very essence of being human." - Faith and Heritage, Traducianism: The Doctrine of the Soul as Genetic
"After the rise of Pelagianism, some theologians hesitated between traducianism and creationism, believing the former to offer a better, if not the only, explanation of the transmission of original sin." - New Advent, Traducianism
"Some are of opinion that the difficulties pertaining to the propagation of original sin are best resolved by the doctrine of the propagation of the soul (animae traducem); a view held by not a few of the fathers and to which Augustine frequently seems to incline. And there is no doubt that by this theory all the difficulty seems to be removed; but since it does not accord with Scripture or with sound reason and is exposed to great difficulties, we do not think that recourse should be had to it." - Turretin, 9.12.6, cited in Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 713
“Defenders of traducianism have traditionally charged the creationist with an inability to respond to the problem of divinely created souls, which bear the property of original sin…They argue that the direct creation of each individual soul presents a problem for the creationist because there is no clear metaphysical relation that individual souls bear to Adam (i.e., original sin’s relation to the primal sin)” - Farris, The Soul of Theological Anthropology: A Cartesian Exploration, p. 120
As one can clearly see from the above citations, those who are sympathetic to Traducianism argue that 1. If inherited Adamic guilt is a consequence of the fall, Traducianism offers a better explanation of this guilt being passed down. 2. Additionally, the human soul by default has a sinful nature. 3. If Traducianism isn't true, God would be creating something sinful and spiritually condemned in its default and natural state. As Turretin notes, "There is no doubt that by this theory all of the difficulty seems to be removed". Therefore, it would seem that those who already have Augustinian presuppositions are pushed in the direction of Traducianism in order to make their theology more workable.
AUGUSTINE'S STRUGGLE WITH THE SOUL'S ORIGIN
“Teach me, therefore, I beseech you, what I may teach to others; teach me what I ought to hold as my own opinion; and tell me this: if souls are from day to day made for each individual separately at birth, where, in the case of infant children, is sin committed by these souls, so that they require the remission of sin in the sacrament of Christ, because of sinning in Adam from whom the sinful flesh has been derived?” - Augustine of Hippo, Letter 166, Chapter 4.10
“These things, and others which I can advance, I am accustomed to state, as well as I can, against those who attempt to overthrow by such objections the opinion that souls are made for each individual, as the first man's soul was made for him. But when we come to the penal sufferings of infants, I am embarrassed, believe me, by great difficulties, and am wholly at a loss to find an answer by which they are solved; and I speak here not only of those punishments in the life to come, which are involved in that perdition to which they must be drawn down if they depart from the body without the sacrament of Christian grace, but also of the sufferings which are to our sorrow endured by them before our eyes in this present life, and which are so various, that time rather than examples would fail me if I were to attempt to enumerate them.” - Augustine of Hippo, Letter 166, Chapter 6.16
“I therefore ask, what is the ground of this condemnation of unbaptized infants? For if new souls are made for men, individually, at their birth, I do not see, on the one hand, that they could have any sin while yet in infancy, nor do I believe, on the other hand, that God condemns any soul which He sees to have no sin.” - Augustine of Hippo, Letter 166, Chapter 7.21
“These things being so, it is necessary still to investigate and to make known the reason why, if souls are created new for every individual at his birth, those who die in infancy without the sacrament of Christ are doomed to perdition; for that they are doomed to this if they so depart from the body is testified both by Holy Scripture and by the holy Church. Wherefore, as to that opinion of yours concerning the creation of new souls, if it does not contradict this firmly grounded article of faith, let it be mine also; but if it does, let it be no longer yours.” - Augustine of Hippo, Letter 166, Chapter 8.25
In 415 AD, Augustine wrote a letter to his contemporary Jerome (who seemed to never write back) inquiring about the origin of the soul and its relation to original sin and infant damnation. Augustine already affirmed perpetually inherited guilt from Adam as one of the fall's consequences. As a result of this, he also affirmed that the normative fate for deceased infants is eternal damnation because they are guilty from conception. Augustine realizes how this theology of his doesn't seem to be compatible with soul creationism. In chapter 7.21 he asks what the ground is for infant damnation if the infant's soul is made individually by God. Augustine doesn't see how in such a case "they could have any sin while yet in infancy". He repeats the same type of question in chapter 8.25 where he asks why infants are doomed to perdition if their soul is created new by God. Augustine confesses that on this issue "I am embarrassed" and "at a loss to find an answer by which they are solved". You can sense the tension and despair in Augustine's mind as he tries to make sense of this issue.
“Again, if only one soul was made from which are derived the souls of all men who are born, who can say that he himself did not sin when the first man sinned?” - Augustine of Hippo, The Problem of Free Choice, p. 196
We also see Augustine allude to this in his work "The Problem of Free Choice" which is thought to be written sometime between 388 and 395 AD. This question of his seems rhetorical. If all souls are derived from Adam and were therefore "in him" when he sinned, one could conclude that all souls participated with Adam in the sin to some degree.
“In his final, incomplete work to Julian of Eclanum, he insists that every soul (and not only every body) was contained in Adam when he sinned: this is the only way Augustine believes that his doctrine of inherited guilt can be sustained.” - A History of Mind and Body in Late Antiquity, p. 223
“In truth, Augustine was unhappy with Traducianism, because it implied a material conception of the soul, a conception wholly uncongenial to his platonism which, as we know, presents the soul as completely spiritual. Yet, he believed that if Traducianism were rejected, it would be impossible to explain the necessity for infant-Baptism; that is, if God injected the created soul directly into the body, then, the guilt of Adam’s sin could not pass from parent(s) to child. Man, then, would not be totally depraved and grace would be subordinate to his will. The idea of predestination, as Augustine defined it, becomes illogical.” - The Influence of Augustine of Hippo on the Orthodox Church, p. 184
“Creationism made original sin very difficult to explain; traducianism was functional in this respect, but it was a materialist and even biologist theory that ran counter to Augustine’s Platonism…” - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Saint Augustine, 6.1
Scholars and Academics have likewise pointed this out about Augustine. Blosser points out in "A History of Mind and Body in Late Antiquity" that toward the end of Augustine's life he seemed to settle on Traducianism as the only way that inherited guilt of the original sin can stand. The problem with this, of course, is that Traducianism was inconsistent with Augustine's belief in Platonism.
W.G.T. SHEDD: A 19TH CENTURY AUGUSTINIAN
W.G.T. Shedd was an American Presbyterian theologian who lived from 1820-1894 AD. In his Dogmatic Theology, he articulates his belief in Traducianism and echoes the same thoughts that Augustine had regarding the connection between original sin and Traducianism.
“Second, the theological argument strongly favors traducianism. The imputation of the first sin of Adam to all his posterity as a culpable act is best explained and defended upon the traducian basis. The Augustinian and Calvinistic anthropologies affirm that the act by which sin came into the world of mankind was a self-determined and guilty act and that it is justly chargeable upon every individual man equally and alike. But this requires that the posterity of Adam and Eve should, in some way or other, participate in it. Participation is the ground of merited imputation, though not of unmerited or gratuitous imputation (Shedd on Rom. 4:3, 8). The posterity could not participate in the first sin in the form of individuals, and hence they must have participated in it in the form of a race.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 732-733
“Now if the traducian postulate be true, namely, that Adam and his posterity were specifically one in the apostasy, all that is said of the individual Adam can be said of his posterity. The posterity committed the first sin prior to its imputation to them, and it was imputed to them as a culpable and damning act of disobedience. And the first sin corrupted the nature of the posterity simultaneously with its commission, and this corruption, like its cause the first sin, was prior to its imputation to them as culpable and damning corruption. There is certainly nothing unjust in imputing the first sin and the ensuing corruption to the posterity, on the ground that they were the author of both.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 734
“If each individual soul never had any other than an individual existence and were created ex nihilo in every instance, nothing mental could pass from Adam to his posterity. There could be the transmission of only bodily and physical traits. There would be a chasm of six thousand years between an individual soul of this generation and the individual soul of Adam, across which "original sin" or moral corruption could not go "by natural generation.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 736
“These difficulties in respect to participation in the sin that is imputed and its transmission are felt by those who hold to the imputation of original sin and yet reject traducianism. Hence, the creationist partially adopts traducianism. The theory of representative union is compelled to fall back upon the natural union of Adam and his posterity for support. Turretin does this (9.9.11–12):” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 737
“The universality of sin is best accounted for by traducianism. The fall being that of the species in the first pair is of course coextensive with the species.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 751
Notice that Shedd says if it were true that souls were individually created ex nihilo by God, the "original sin" could not be passed on by Adam to his descendants. As he says, there would be a "chasm of six thousand years" between Adam's sin and the creation of individual souls now. Shedd attests to the fact that original sin is best accounted for by the view of Traducianism. Shedd says that if Traducianism is true then there is "nothing unjust" in holding all of Adam's posterity guilty for his sin. In Shedd, we see that what Augustine noticed in regard to original sin, its transmission, and the soul's origin was not exclusive to him. Shedd, as an Augustinian in the Presbyterian tradition, noticed the same issues 1400 years later and sided firmly with the Traducian view.
ORIGINAL SIN PROOFTEXTS THAT LEAN ON TRADUCIANISM
As far as we can tell, many and/or most affirmers of original sin and inherited Adamic guilt as a result actually don't believe in Traducianism. Rather, they believe in the Soul Creationism view of the soul's origin. This is intriguing because many proof texts for original sin and its transmission lean on a Traducian understanding of the soul's origin.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
These are a few examples. To argue that guilt is transmitted to the soul from these verses is to assume that being "in the likeness" and "image" of the parents refers to the soul. It's to assume that immaterial souls are technically brought out of material parents. It's to assume that mothers conceive immaterial souls in addition to physical bodies rather than God creating the soul ex nihilo when a mother physically conceives. We could speak more on this, but we will turn to W.G.T. Shedd's comments on the Traducian interpretative underpinning of these proof texts.
“Adam "fathered a son after his own image" (5:3). There is no longer any creation of man ex nihilo by supernatural power; but only the derivation of individual men out of an existing human substance or nature, by means of natural law, under divine providence and supervision.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 726
“First Cor. 15:22 supports traducianism: "In Adam (tō adam) all die." The article shows that Adam here, as in Gen. 1:17, denotes Adam and Eve inclusive of the species. To "die in Adam" implies existence in Adam. The nonexistent cannot die. Merely metaphorical existence in Adam is nonexistence. Merely physical existence in Adam without psychical existence would allow physical death in Adam but not spiritual death. To die in Adam both spiritually and physically supposes existence in Adam both as to soul and body.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 729
“The word hēmarton in Rom. 5:12 strongly supports the traducian view. The invariable usage in both the Old and New Testaments makes it an active verb. There is not a single instance of the alleged passive signification. Had the apostle meant to teach that all men were "regarded" as having sinned, he would not have said pantes hēmarton, but pantes hēmartēkotes ēsan48 as in Gen. 44:32; 43:9. But if all "sinned" in Adam in the active sense of hēmarton, all must have existed in him. Nonentity cannot sin; and merely physical substance cannot sin (Shedd on Rom. 5:12).” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 730
“The transmission of a sinful inclination is best explained by the traducian theory. "Original sin," says Westminster Larger Catechism 26, "is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so that all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin" (Job 14:4; Ps. 51:5; 58:3; John 3:6; Eph. 2:3). This moral corruption, resulting from the first transgression, could not be transmitted and inherited unless there were a vehicle for its transmission, unless there were a common human nature, both as to soul and body, to convey it…The transmission of sin requires the transmission of the sinning soul. Sin cannot be propagated unless that psychical substance in which sin inheres is also propagated. Sin cannot be transmitted along absolute nonentity. Neither can it be transmitted by a merely physical substance.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 736
Take notice where Shedd says "The transmission of sin requires the transmission of the sinning soul" and "Sin cannot be transmitted along absolute nonentity". He again points out the gravity of why Traducianism is needed to cleanly make the connection for original sin's transmission. When he mentions the Westminster Larger Catechism and its usage of the verses we touched on above, he argues that "the Traducian theory" is the best explanation. He says that the transmission of moral corruption "could not be transmitted and inherited" unless there were a common soul and body that's also transmitted.
Therefore, we see that not only is Traducianism connected to original sin as far as being the best explanation for the transmission of guilt, but that it's also connected to original sin by being an interpretive underpinning for multiple original sin prooftexts.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: ROMANS 5:12
“As a matter of fact, the Bible is so specific as to say you sinned when he sinned--"...because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). The tense (Aorist) indicates that it happened at one point in time, that is, when Adam sinned you were there and participated in it” - Richard L. Strauss, Whose Team Are You On?
“When the Greek text says “because all sinned”, it uses a verb tense called the aorist. This tense is used when the verb was performed and completed at a singular point in time in the past. By using the aorist tense, Paul is saying that all men sinned at one point in time and death was the result.” - Clay Garrison, Federal Headship: A Brief Exposition of Romans 5:12-19
“but then he adds that thing at the end of verse 12, "For all have sinned." Now what are you saying? When did we do that? It's an aorist, a simple aorist, all have sinned. In one point, in time past, all have sinned. You say, "When did we all do that?" In the loins of Adam; we were duly constituted there in the loins of Adam. We were bound up in the loins of Adam. We sinned in Adam for he was the race. And that's why babies die, not because they commit deeds of sin but because they already sinned in Adam and they can be punished justly.” - John MacArthur, Adam and the reign of death
“The word translated “sinned” in Greek grammar is in the aorist tense, which means that at one point in time all men sinned. That one point in time was the time that Adam first sinned by disobeying God’s command. His sin became all mankind’s sin, because we all, all of the human race was in his loins, we are his descendants.” - McCleary Community Church, The Reign of Death
“The phrase” All sinned, is what we call an aorist indicative verb in the Greek grammar. And it basically indicates completed past action, very simple. It is completed past action. Paul is saying here that something happened and it was completed in the past. What is it that happened? What is it that was completed in the past? All men sinned. All men sinned. We sinned in Adam.” - David Harrell, the deadly invasion of sin
We've previously covered these quotes and Romans 5 at length in this article. We recommend you read that article if you want a full breakdown of the chapter and how it relates to original sin. Notice how these interpretations convey that somehow all humans were present at the fall. We're told that "when Adam sinned you were there and participated in it". We're told that "We were bound up in the loins of Adam" and "all of the human race was in his loins".
“Again, if only one soul was made from which are derived the souls of all men who are born, who can say that he himself did not sin when the first man sinned?” - Augustine of Hippo, The Problem of Free Choice, p. 196
“In his final, incomplete work to Julian of Eclanum, he insists that every soul (and not only every body) was contained in Adam when he sinned: this is the only way Augustine believes that his doctrine of inherited guilt can be sustained.” - A History of Mind and Body in Late Antiquity, p. 223
“Second, the theological argument strongly favors traducianism. The imputation of the first sin of Adam to all his posterity as a culpable act is best explained and defended upon the traducian basis. The Augustinian and Calvinistic anthropologies affirm that the act by which sin came into the world of mankind was a self-determined and guilty act and that it is justly chargeable upon every individual man equally and alike. But this requires that the posterity of Adam and Eve should, in some way or other, participate in it. Participation is the ground of merited imputation, though not of unmerited or gratuitous imputation (Shedd on Rom. 4:3, 8). The posterity could not participate in the first sin in the form of individuals, and hence they must have participated in it in the form of a race.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 732-733
As we've pointed out previously, this idea of all souls deriving from Adam, being contained in Adam, and participating in the sin of Adam is thoroughly Traducian. Again, we observe how closely Traducianism is connected to the doctrine of original sin.
THE A PRIORI ARGUMENT & TRADUCIANISM
THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL IN GENESIS
Gen 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Genesis 2:1-3 is the subject of one of Traducianism's most prominent arguments. This argument is that since God rested from his work on the seventh day He, therefore, no longer creates new things. This is paired with Hebrews 4:4 and Exodus 20:11 which restate Genesis 2:3. So we're actually dealing with these three verses together for this argument. We will now let other sources speak about this point for Traducianism.
“Genesis 2:1–3 teaches that the work of creation was complete on the sixth day: "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created and made." If the human soul has been a creation ex nihilo, daily and hourly, ever since Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, it could not be said that "on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made." Compare Exod. 20:11: "In six days God made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day"; and Heb. 4:4: God "rested from all his works." - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 729
"Traducianism seems to have overwhelming support from Scripture. First, God said that He had finished His work of creation on day six (Gen. 2:2) and is resting from His work (Heb. 4:4). Therefore, it would contradict Scripture if He is creating souls today." - Tim Barnett, How Did You Get a Soul? Creationism versus Traducianism
"Several arguments are adduced in favor of this theory...It is said to be favored by the Scriptural representation...(c) that God ceased from the work of creation after He had made man, Gen. 2:2;" - ThirdMill, How does the soul of man originate?
The problem with this argument is that it essentially entails a soft form of Deism where instead of not intervening in the universe after creation, God simply doesn't create after creation. Surely Shedd would affirm that God is daily regenerating new believers. Yet, God won't and isn't daily creating new souls? This seems inconsistent and it doesn't bear out with how we know God had interacted with his creation since the beginning.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Was Jesus wrong when he said the Father was presently working? Was Paul wrong when he said God presently works things after his will? Was it wrong for God to say that he creates new heavens and a new earth which foreshadows Revelation 21? Certainly not. We therefore must better understand Genesis 2:1-3. If an employee told their boss that they stopped working at 5pm on Friday, would any rational person take this to mean that the employee never worked again after 5pm that Friday? Of course not. When it comes to God and his creative acts in Genesis, this simply means that God rested from creating new species and kinds of things that would be the building blocks and groundwork for future things. God never retired from administrating and working with his creation. Ceasing from work at a particular time doesn't inherently imply a ceasing of all work forever never to work again. This is just specifically about God's creative acts in Genesis. This Traducian argument is highly underwhelming, problematic, and flatly contradictory to other passages in the Bible.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
This verse lends itself to the Soul Creationism view. When Adam was created, we see a distinction between the formation of his physical substance and the formation of his immaterial substance. Shedd mentions this verse in passing but doesn't seem to acknowledge this point and respond to it. We would see the distinction in Genesis 2:7 as the model and pattern for future humans. We assume the Traducian view would see it as a special exception.
Gen 2:21-22 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
These verses are sometimes used to argue for Traducianism. Shedd comments on them in his Dogmatic Theology.
“The same creative act which produced the body of Eve out of a rib of Adam produced her soul also. By a single divine energy, Eve was derived from Adam, psychically as well as spiritually. This goes to show that when a child of Adam is propagated, the propagation includes the whole person and is both psychical and physical.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 725
Shedd places a lot of weight on the fact that we don't see a distinction between the formation of the physical substance and the immaterial substance with Eve. Both the body and soul of Eve were derived from Adam's rib in this view. This raises questions about exactly where the propagation of the soul comes from. Traditionally the Traducian view argues that souls are propagated "in the loins" of the parents rather than other body parts like ribs. So certainly, even in their view, the creation of Eve is an exception to some extent. We believe that Shedd is placing unwarranted emphasis on something that wasn't explicitly mentioned (the creation of Eve's soul) simply due to narrative and contextual reasons.
Gen 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Preceding the creation of Eve, the context is about finding a suitable helper for Adam. None of the creatures were like Adam though. He didn't find any of them suitable. What does Adam say after the creation of Eve? What was his focus? The focus is that Eve was like Adam. She had bones and flesh like him. The contextual focus isn't on the immaterial but rather on the material and how Eve was like Adam and therefore suitable. Therefore, repeating the distinction mentioned about Adam's creation wasn't necessary for the narrative. The creation of her flesh and bone was the focus. The de-emphasis on the immaterial doesn't warrant the collapsing of the material and immaterial into one. The verse doesn't mention Adam's rib propagating and generating Eve's soul. We were already given a fairly precise account of Adam's creation. We would argue that this was done in part because he was the first human God created. It's unnecessary for the narrative to repeat the same precise distinctions every time a human is created. Therefore, we don't find this verse to be convincing in favor of Traducianism.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
We now come to the next verses in Genesis that are often argued to be in favor of Traducianism. Let's see what Shedd has to say.
“In and with them was also created the entire human species, namely, the invisible substance, both psychical and physical, of all their posterity. This one substance or "human nature" was to be transformed into millions of individuals by sexual propagation. The creation proper of "man" was finished and complete on the sixth day. After this, there is only the generation of "man." The biblical phraseology now changes. Eve is "the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20). Adam "fathered a son after his own image" (5:3). There is no longer any creation of man ex nihilo by supernatural power; but only the derivation of individual men out of an existing human substance or nature, by means of natural law, under divine providence and supervision.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 726
It's far from clear that these two verses are saying anything that explicitly confirms Traducianism. If these verses said Eve was the mother of all souls and that Adam begat a son from and after his own soul there would be a more compelling case. We want to draw attention again to the issue of where the soul is generated/propagated from in the Traducian model. According to the Traducian model, in Gen 2:7 it seems to be ex nihilo from God. But in Gen 2:21-22 it's the rib. But in Gen 3:20 it would be connected to Eve. Lastly, in Gen 5:3 it's connected to Adam. It seems to us that with each proof text for Traducianism, the source of the soul's generation is different. Obviously, Shedd believes that it is the procreative act between a male and female that generates the immaterial soul. However, again we point out that in each of these proof texts, the subject of origination seems to change.
Affirming that Eve is the "mother of all living" doesn't inherently mean anything that conflicts with Soul Creationism. Of course, we affirm that all humans alive today can trace their ancestry back to Eve as the first human mother. We would agree with Traducianists in so far as the physical creation of humans isn't derived from supernatural power. At present, our bodies aren't brought forth from dust or ribs. We would simply push back against Shedd's assumption that this is also true of the immaterial soul.
When it comes to Genesis 5:3, the issue primarily hinges on what it means to beget someone in your likeness and image. These words in and of themselves simply refer to something being like or similar to another thing in appearance. We would argue the focus is the same as what Adam said in Genesis 2:23 when he pointed out that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. She was like him. If someone painted a portrait of you, they've created a painting that's an image of you and depicts your likeness. But this wouldn't mean that the painting now possesses the same essence and attributes as you. Yet this is what the Traducian view interprets Genesis 5:3 to mean. When man was made in the image of God in Genesis 1:26-28, surely the Traducian doesn't interpret this to mean that God generated Adam's soul from his own essence and therefore Adam's soul was also divine. We again point out that the Traducian view places unwarranted emphasis on something that wasn't explicitly mentioned (the creation of Seth's soul) simply due to narrative and contextual reasons. The Traducian view assumes that the begetting of Seth by Adam in his likeness and image includes the generation and propagation of both a material body and an immaterial soul.
Gen 5:6-12 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died. And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
The context of Genesis 5 is about Adam's descendants to Noah. The purpose isn't to detail precise human anthropology. This passage doesn't draw distinctions between the generation of the flesh and soul. But neither does it mention women or the procreative act. Should we, therefore, assume that the men in Genesis 5 were begetting other men all by themselves? Of course not. Again, the purpose of the passage is to detail a genealogy. Must the Traducians demand each generation of the geology to say "And X procreated with Y, and generated Z's body. But God created Z's soul" in order to demonstrate Soul Creationism in this passage? Such a demand would create unnecessary redundancy and not make sense for the narrative. We again point to our view that Adam's creation was a model and pattern for future humans rather than a single exception of Soul Creationism. Genesis 5:3 simply demonstrates that humans create after their own kind with a similitude of bodies after the same temperament. The verse doesn't say that Adam begat a son from his soul after his likeness and image. Yet, the Traducian view assumes this is included in the begetting and generation because a distinction isn't made.
This concludes our analysis of Genesis on this topic. The Traducian view makes so much of so little in this book. It compiles verses to support the view that in context don't intend to detail precise human anthropology. The proof texts in Genesis for Traducianism lead to an inconsistent understanding of where the human soul is generated. In Genesis 2:7, it's God. In 2:21-22, it's a human rib. In 3:20, it's a woman. In 5:3, it's a man. The Traducians' over-emphasis on the lack of distinctions and precision, if consistently applied, could logically lead to the conclusion that women or men can generate souls on their own. We take the distinction between the formation of Adam's body and soul as a pattern and model for future humans. The Traducian view takes it as an exception. While Genesis doesn't give us much precise and clear language on this topic, we will see later books that certainly do.
ACCORDING TO THE FLESH
The next point we want to examine is the fact that many verses single out the flesh as what's connected between humans and their fathers/prior generations. This fact combined with the truth that the Bible commonly distinguishes the flesh from the spirit/soul is evidence that this connection of the flesh with fathers/prior generations is constructed to exclude the soul as being directly connected to parents through generation and procreation. First, let's look at a sample of verses that distinguish the flesh/body from the spirit/soul which points to a difference in substance.
Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mar 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.
Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Rom 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
2Co 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Php 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
1Pe 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
1Pe 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
With these verses as our baseline, we clearly see a normative distinction between the flesh and spirit/soul. Why is making this distinction relevant? Let's see what Shedd has to say.
“In Rom. 1:3 it is said that Christ "according to the flesh (kata sarka) was made of the seed of David." The term flesh here denotes the entire humanity of our Lord, antithetic to his divinity, denominated pneuma hagiōsynēs. Christ's soul and body together constituted his sarx; and this is represented as being "made of the seed of David." St. Paul employs the verb ginōai to denote a generation, in distinction from a creation, in the origin of Christ's humanity. The connection forbids the confinement of this generation to the physical side of his human nature, so that his human body only, not his human soul, sprang from David (Shedd on Rom. 1:3).” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 727
Shedd falsely concludes that flesh "sarx" includes the material body and immaterial soul. This would need to be argued for contextually in each verse. As we've seen, many verses clearly distinguish the flesh from the soul/spirit. This is Shedd's response to the verses we will soon look at. We believe it's fundamentally flawed to conflate the body and soul together as constituting the flesh "sarx". Now let's examine verses that single out the flesh as what's generated and propagated by fathers/prior generations.
Act 2:30-31 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
In these verses, a connection is made between Jesus and David. Jesus is "the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh". The soul is not mentioned in this connection. In fact, the very next verse distinguishes between Jesus' flesh and soul.
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Again, we see the same connection between Jesus and David. The implication here is that David's seed generates and propagates flesh. Yet, in the Traducian view, the soul is also included in this generation and propagation. But the soul is again not mentioned.
Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
If Paul believed human souls were generated and propagated by other humans, why would he take the time to clarify that Abraham is a father "as pertaining to the flesh"? This would seem to be an unnecessary clarification if Traducianism were true. It would seem that Paul understands our physical bodies are generated and created by a different source than our souls.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
In Romans 9, Paul refers to ethnic Israel as his kinsmen according to the flesh. If Traducianism were true, we would be related to others of the same ethnic background in flesh and soul since both are propagated and generated by parents when they procreate. Yet, the soul is not mentioned.
Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Similar to Romans 9:3 and 9:8 we see that the Ephesians were "Gentiles in the flesh". If Traducianism were true, it would seem that not only the flesh but the soul would be tied to/included in ethnic/national identification because it would also be generated by the same source. But if our souls were created by the same source (God), this statement makes complete sense because it would be our flesh that is unique in ethnic/national identity.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
This verse comes at this issue from two angles. First, we see the same language we've seen thus far regarding fathers and flesh. Second, we see a contrast between that and the Father of spirits. Shedd responds by saying that this verse doesn't say "Father of our spirits".
"God is not called the "Father of our spirits," which would be the required antithesis to "fathers of our flesh." He is denominated "the Father of spirits" generally, not of human spirits in particular...Had the writer intended to set the human spirit in contrast with the human body, as the creationist interpretation supposes, he would have said "the Father of our spirit" (tou pneumatos hēmōn) instead of "the Father of spirits" (tōn pneumatōn)." - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 727-728
We don't see how Shedd's distinction of this verse talking about "generally" instead "particular" answers the point. Of course, we would affirm it's more precise for God to be the "Father of spirits" generally speaking because not only did He create our spirits but He has also created other spirits (i.e. angels and other heavenly beings). Hebrews cites and paraphrases a lot of Old Testament passages. When this verse is compared to verses that use similar language like Numbers 16:22, 27:16, and Ecclesiastes 12:7, it would seem that human spirits are probably included in God being the Father of spirits "generally" as Shedd says. This would certainly fit the flow and point of the verse. Again, it's on the Traducian view to demonstrate that "fathers of our flesh" includes both material and immaterial substances. To conclude this point, we don't believe Shedd's rebuttal of generality rather than particularity removes human souls from being included in said generality.
With these verses we've looked at, we form the following argument:
P1: The Bible regularly distiguishes the flesh from the soul/spirit as being separate substances.
P2: Biblical authors often point out human descent and generation pertains to the flesh and don't mention the soul/spirit as included in this descent and generation.
Conclusion: Therefore, unless otherwise stated it seems that the Biblical authors don't have the immaterial substance in mind when referring to human descent and generation. As a result, the origin of the immaterial soul/spirit is different than the origin of the material flesh.
GOD: THE CREATOR AND GIVER OF LIFE
Num 16:22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?
Num 27:16 Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation,
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 57:16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
1Pe 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
There are many ways in which these verses connect God to the creation of humans. He is said to be the God of the spirits of all flesh twice. He is said to be the giver of spirits. He is said to give breath and spirit to people on the earth. He is said to be the maker and creator of souls. He is said to be the former of man's spirit. He is said to be the creator of humans. If language like this isn't sufficient to demonstrate Soul Creationism, we'd ask what language would be? Shedd comments on some of these verses in his dogmatic theology; but he fails to mention many others.
“God "forms the spirit of man in him" (Zech. 12:1). The verb yāṣar ṣ in this place favors the traduction of the soul (see Lewis's note in "Genesis" in Lange's Commentary, 164). "The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life" (Job 33:4). This is true also from the traducian position: "The God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. 16:22). The context shows that "spirit" here is put for the whole man: "Shall one man sin, and you be angry with the whole congregation." "Father of spirits" (Heb. 12:9). The antithesis is not between the body and soul of man, but between man and spirits generally. If we are subject to our earthly fathers, ought we not to be subject to the universal Father?” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 732
While it can be true that the spirit, flesh, or soul can be used as a Synecdoche (a figure of speech in which a part is put for the whole), we've also noted previously how many verses clearly distinguish the substances of humans. Shedd essentially makes the same argument that he did on pages 727-728. This argument is that God is the Father of spirits generally and not particularly. We'll repeat what we said earlier on this point. We don't believe the argument for generality rather than particularity inherently removes human souls from being included in said generality. We also find it puzzling that Shedd appeals to Lange for the word "forms" somehow favoring Traducianism.
“One of the most noteworthy uses of the verb יָצַר is its application to the human generative process ; it is also to be observed how this is ascribed directly to God, as though, in every case of the individual gestation in the womb, there was something of a creative power and process : see Jer. i. 5…"before I formed thee in the womb.” - Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, p. 164
On the page that Shedd cites from Lange, he points out that this word is ascribed to God and how with each human's creation it's as though "there was something of a creative power and process". How exactly does this "favor the traduction of the soul" as Shedd says? If anything, this seems exactly in line with Soul Creationism. Shedd's argument for the few verses he does address seems to be an appeal for spirit, soul, etc. referring to the "whole person" in each case. We're unsure of how Shedd arrives at this conclusion in pretty much each of these verses. "Spirit of man" in Zec 12:1 seems to be clearly a non-physical substance. Num 16:22 and 27:16 also make a distinction between the flesh and the spirit. When these verses are combined with the verses that delineate genealogies "according to the flesh", we believe it becomes clear that there is, in fact, a distinction between the flesh, the soul, and their origins. Even if Shedd is correct that these verses are referring to the "whole person" we believe it would prove too much and wouldn't bolster the Traducian view.
THE CREATION OF LIFE IN THE PSALMS
The Psalms are of course poetic and less precise than some of the other verses we've looked at. But we want to point out again how the Scriptures talk about God being involved in the creation of humans in some active capacity.
Psa 33:15 He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.
Psa 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Psa 127:3-5 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
Psa 139:13-16 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Psalm 139 certainly speaks of fetal development and talks about God possessing (erecting, creating, procuring) David's reins. The more clear verses are Psa 33:15 and 100:3 where it's said that God "fashioneth their hearts" and "made us". Children are said to be a heritage (an inheritance) of God. Shedd doesn't interact with these verses in regard to the issue of Traducianism.
THE CREATION OF LIFE IN JOB
Similar to the Psalms, the book of Job also speaks some to the creation of life and God's active involvement.
Job 31:14-15 What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Job says that God made and fashioned him in the womb. Elihu says God's spirit made him and God's breath gave him life. Elihu seems to be taking this from Genesis 2:7.
To us, it seems that the Traducian view would need to add qualifiers to nearly all of these verses we've looked at to make the view plausible. That qualifier is the notion that God created our souls only in the sense that he first created Adam's soul and all future souls were derived, generated, and fissured from that one initial soul. But none of these verses make such distinctions or qualifiers.
THE TRADUCIAN ARGUMENT FROM BLOOD
There are three primary verses concerning blood that are used to argue for Traducianism. Let's take a look at them.
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
The first two verses come from Leviticus. These verses are used by some but not all advocates of Traducianism. For example, Shedd doesn't mention these verses at all in his Dogmatic Theology.
"There are numerous reasons why I believe traducianism to be the biblical position: Scripture states that that the human soul is in our blood (Lev. 17:11)." - Faith and Heritage, Traducianism: The Doctrine of the Soul as Genetic
This argument interprets "life" to the soul. There are multiple bizarre implications and questions that come with this argument. For one, if the soul is in the blood, when you lose blood would you not be losing part of your soul? Second, to argue that the soul is in blood conveys that blood is the origin of the soul and conflicts with other prooftexts for Traducianism that are used to argue that the soul is propagated through sperm. So which is it? Third, if the soul is tied to blood, what happens to it upon death? Blood doesn't just vanish once someone dies. Fourth, if the soul is in the blood, would eating blood include the eating of a soul? This argument seems to imply that the soul is physical and not a distinct substance from the flesh. Additionally, this might imply soul sleep. These problems are perhaps why Shedd doesn't mention these verses in his Dogmatic Theology. All these verses mean is that blood is necessary to keep the body functioning and it gives the body vitality. Blood is what carries oxygen and nutrients to organs. If you lost 40% of your blood, you'd die. There are all sorts of bizarre implications and issues with the use of these two verses to prove Traducianism.
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
The next verse concerning blood is Acts 17:26. Let's look at Shedd's comments on it.
“Traducianism is taught in Acts 17:26: God "has made of one blood all nations." The natural interpretation of this text is that men of all nationalities are made of one common human nature as to their whole constitution, mental and physical. There is nothing to require the creationist qualification—"every man, as to his body"—but everything to exclude it. For the apostle was speaking particularly of man as rational, immortal, and having the image of God; and therefore in saying that "man is made of one blood," he certainly could not have intended to exclude his rational soul in this connection.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 728
The error of Shedd in his assessment of this verse is that he assumes "blood" in this verse includes all aspects of humanity both material and immaterial. We've pointed out this error in previous sections. Shedd seems to often collapse flesh, soul, spirit, and blood in every relevant verse into one category of referring to "the entire humanity". As we've covered previously, there are many verses that clearly distinguish the material substance from the immaterial substance. While the flesh, soul, spirit, etc. can be used at times as a Synecdoche (a figure of speech in which a part is put for the whole), we would argue this shouldn't be taken for granted. Furthermore, even if a Synecdoche was used, it wouldn't necessarily follow that Traducianism is true.
In the context of Acts 17, Paul is in Athens addressing the Athenians on Mars' hill about their superstition and altar to the unknown God. We argue that Traducianism isn't part of Paul's argument. Let's look at the context.
Act 17:23-25 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Paul is declaring "the unknown God" to the Athenians. The primary appeal Paul makes is God's creation. The main thing we want to point out with these verses is how Paul says that God "giveth to all life, and breath,". We call Genesis 2:7 and Isaiah 42:5 back to your attention.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
We again point out our view that Adam's creation in Genesis is a pattern for future humans rather than an exception. We see this language of God giving breath again in Isaiah where God gives breath and spirit to people on earth. We argue that this language is most likely a reference to the creation of the immaterial soul. Notice in Acts 17 that "giveth to all life, and breath," is present tense. Yet, in the Traducian view, God is no longer creating souls like He did with Adam in Genesis 2:7. If God is giving breath presently, it would seem that he's creating souls presently. It seems to us that this language from Paul in Acts 17:25 does indicate Soul Creationism.
Act 17:27-29 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Immediately following this Traducian prooftext, Paul indicates that our life, movement, and being is "in him" (referring to God). Paul then argues that since humans are the offspring and made in the image of God, we ought to not think God is like an idol. Paul is arguing for the greatness, power, and superiority of God over the pagan deities. God is greater than the pagan deities because He created everything. He needs nothing. He's the giver of life and breath. Humans are made in His image. He is greater than idols.
Regarding verse 26, we point out that the Traducian view doesn't fit the overarching argument that Paul is making. Paul is arguing for God's active working, creation, and power. Paul isn't making a point that God created Adam's soul ex nihilo but then stopped creating. He isn't pointing out that all souls are from Adam's loins. Adam isn't even mentioned in this passage. It's about God's creation and giving of life. All humans are offspring of God and have their being, life, and breath from Him. God has made all nations of men from one blood. All nations have "bounds of their habitation" that have been determined by God.
Psa 22:27-28 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.
Psa 86:9-10 All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.
Paul is speaking similarly to David in the Psalms. Paul's point is that even the Athenians are made in God's image. Their lineage can be traced back to the Genesis account and they descend from the first man God made. There's no human or nation of people that has been made outside of God's creation because He made all people and gave them life. All people are his image bearers. Because of all these truths, the Athenians should seek and find "the unknown God" who is the creator of heaven and earth. If this passage had to be placed under any view of the soul's origin, we'd argue Soul Creationism fits best considering the flow of Paul's argument about God's creation and giving of breath and life to all people. He is still active in creation after the Genesis account. Why must blood in verse 26 be taken to mean the material and immaterial? To us, it seems that the focus of the passage is on all nations' ancestry tracing back to the creation account in Genesis where God made the world and all things therein as Paul says in verse 24. This of course is absolutely not a point of contention. Traducianism is not the only view that says all humans descend from Adam. We believe it's incorrect to overturn the constant theme in this passage of God's active and present creation in favor of a view that entails God no longer actively creating (see the previous section on Genesis). Therefore, Acts 17:26 does not provide convincing support for Traducianism.
"IN ADAM" AND THE TRADUCIAN ARGUMENT
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
“First Cor. 15:22 supports traducianism: "In Adam (tō adam) all die." The article shows that Adam here, as in Gen. 1:17, denotes Adam and Eve inclusive of the species. To "die in Adam" implies existence in Adam. The nonexistent cannot die. Merely metaphorical existence in Adam is nonexistence. Merely physical existence in Adam without psychical existence would allow physical death in Adam but not spiritual death. To die in Adam both spiritually and physically supposes existence in Adam both as to soul and body.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 729
1Co 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:12-17 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
1Co 15:20-21 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:52-55 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
We agree with Shedd that "to die in Adam implies existence in Adam." We just disagree that the type of death in context is clearly death due to physical mortality. The chapter begins with Jesus' physical death, resurrection, and glorification. Paul then goes on to talk about the bodily physical resurrection of the dead. This directly precedes the proof text in question. Toward the end of the chapter, Paul talks about the dead being raised incorruptible with an immortal body. Contextually, this is the death that is swallowed up and defeated. If Paul had in mind the idea that all human souls were in and with Adam when he sinned and became spiritually dead/condemned, why would he have not spoken of the death in Adam being past tense? Paul said that "all die" present tense. This death is presently going on. But the being "made alive" in Jesus is future tense. Yet we know Christians are spiritually alive now. Therefore, this is talking about a future resurrection of the dead. Spiritual condemnation/death is not in view in this chapter. There's no contextual reason to read a shift into the middle of this passage from the material flesh to the immaterial soul. We suspect Shedd's use of this prooftext for Traducianism stems from an already prior affirmation of original sin. Because he affirms that Adam's guilt is transmitted to all his posterity, he sees spiritual condemnation being transmitted from Adam in addition to physical mortality. The Traducian view would offer a clear explanation of how this occurs. Yet, the context does not work in favor of the Traducian perspective.
Rom 7:8-11 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Elsewhere, Paul does speak of a kind of death due to sin. But it's not "in Adam" or as a direct result of Adam's sin. Instead, it seems to be due to his own sin. Therefore, we conclude that 1 Corinthians 15:22 doesn't provide convincing support for Traducianism.
THE TRADUCIAN ARGUMENT IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
In the gospel of John, there are two verses used in support of Traducianism.
Joh 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
We will now look at comments from the Traducian perspective on these verses.
“Traducianism is taught in John 1:13. Here, the regenerate are said to be "begotten (egennēthēsan) not of blood (human seed) nor of the will of the flesh (sexual appetite) nor of the will of man (human decision)." This implies that the unregenerate are "begotten of blood and of the will of the flesh and of the will of man." But an unregenerate man is an entire man, consisting of soul and body. His soul and body, therefore, were "begotten and born of blood and of the will of the flesh and of the will of man." In this passage, the soul sustains the same relation to generation and birth that the body does; both come under one and the same category.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 727
“In John 3:6 Christ is speaking to Nicodemus, and "that which is born of flesh" is Nicodemus’ unregenerated soul rather than his physical body. The verb indicates that Nicodemus received his unregenerated soul from his parents.” - Clark, The Trinity Review, Traducianism, p. 3
"In this text, therefore, as in John 3:6, sarx comprehends the whole man, soul and body." - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 728
A major problem we have with arguing for Traducianism through the mention of substances that are "born" is that this doesn't go back far enough in life to ascertain what the origin of that substance is. Words like "born" and "birth" usually denote the point at which a baby leaves the womb as a fully developed human rather than the point at which a baby is conceived. There are many clear references to this in the Bible.
Mat 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Jesus was physically born in Bethlehem. However, Mary conceived the Son of God at an earlier point. Mary didn't conceive Jesus in Bethlehem.
Mat 2:3-5 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
The natural reading of "born" in this passage obviously doesn't entail Herod demanding to know where Mary would first conceive Jesus by the Holy Ghost. This is talking about where Mary would give birth to Jesus.
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luk 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
The angel tells Mary that her child who was to be born will be called the Son of God. After Jesus' birth, he was then named the name Mary was told before she conceived. The order of events is conception first, birth second, naming third. At this point, it's relevant to point out that "born" and "conceived" don't have the same underlying words in Greek. The word "conceived" is usually derived from συλλαμβάνω (sullambanō) or καταβολή (katabolē). But the word "born" is usually derived from γεννάω (gennaō), τίκτω (tiktō), or γεννητός (gennētos). Simply put, if a biblical author means to convey conception rather than birth, there are words at their disposal to convey such an idea.
Luk 1:57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.
In this verse, "brought forth" has the same underlying Greek γεννάω (gennaō) as "born" in some of the other verses we've looked at. Elisabeth's son was born when she delivered him. "Brough fourth" isn't a reference to conception in this verse.
Luk 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.
In this verse, "delivered" has the same underlying Greek γεννάω (gennaō) as "born" in some of the other verses we've looked at. Contextually, this means that one is "born" when they've been delivered from their mother's womb.
Rom 9:10-12 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Gen 25:22-23 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
These verses show a distinction between the conception of Rebecca's children and the birth of Rebecca's children. The children "struggled together within her" but weren't born yet.
Heb 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
Moses wasn't hidden for three months after he was conceived. Rather, he was hidden for three months after he was brought forth from the womb. It was able to be seen that "he was a proper child".
Through the Bible, we see that one cannot assume conception as the meaning when we see the word "born". For the sake of brevity, we will not look at Old Testament examples. However, it must be noted that there are over twenty instances (mostly in Genesis) where conception and birth are distinguished from one another as distinct events. These events need not be unnecessarily conflated. Let's recall the comments from Shedd and Clark.
In this passage, the soul sustains the same relation to generation and birth that the body does; both come under one and the same category.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 727
The verb indicates that Nicodemus received his unregenerated soul from his parents.” - Clark, The Trinity Review, Traducianism, p. 3
Traducian scholars make the critical mistake of conflating birth with the beginning of existence. It's not a point of contention as to whether both body and soul are birthed from the womb. Of course, at the point of birth, there is a whole person consisting of body and soul. However, the body didn't begin to exist at that point. No, that's nine months before the point of birth. Likewise, the soul began to exist before the point of birth. The Soul Creationism perspective has no problem affirming that whole people are born of the flesh or that the soul was born of flesh. This is because as we've shown, birth doesn't inherently equate to conception and the beginning of existence.
Joh 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
With these verses, the context is about receiving Jesus who is the Word of God which became flesh. Those who are sons of God are those who have received and believed on his name. The point of this passage isn't that human souls are transmitted through procreation and natural generation along with the body. Rather, the point is that becoming a son of God derives and results from God's gracious choice to make those who believe on the Son his children. Being a son of God doesn't derive and result from nationality, physical birth, or what meritorious things humans do. It's ultimately God's grace and how He's decided to go about making people his sons.
Joh 3:1-8 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
The same mistake regarding what "born" and "birth" mean is carried into the next proof text of John 3:6. We would like to point out how Nicodemus conveys that the first birth is when you exit your mother's womb. We, therefore, see in the very context of John 3 that birth is not conflated with the beginning of a substance's existence. Yet, for the Traducian view to be plausibly argued in this passage, that's exactly what birth needs to refer to. Contextually, Jesus is talking about what needs to take place for a condemned person to enter God's kingdom. They must be "born again". The clarification Jesus makes isn't to point out that the beginning of the soul's existence is derived from human parents. Rather, it's that the first birth encompasses the whole person being born and is physically observable. But the second birth doesn't encompass the whole person and isn't physically observable. It's a spiritual event. This is most evident in verse 8 where Jesus says, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." What's needed for a condemned person to enter God's kingdom is a spiritual rebirth rather than a physical rebirth as Nicodemus misunderstood. Being "born of flesh" does not inherently mean that the beginning of the soul's existence is derived from human parents. We again point out that the Traducianists have misunderstood and conflated birth with conception.
"OUT OF HIS LOINS" AND THE TRADUCIAN ARGUMENT
We now arrive at the final three proof texts used to argue for Traducianism.
Gen 46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six;
Exo 1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.
Heb 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Out of these three verses, Hebrews 7:9-10 is the most oft-cited in favor of Traducianism. It's the only one of these three that Shedd cites in his Dogmatic Theology when he makes his case for the view.
“In Heb. 7:10 it is said that "Levi," that is, the whole tribe of Levi (v. 9), "was yet in the loins of father, when Melchizedek met" Abraham. Here Abraham is called the father of Levi, though he was Levi's great-grandfather. Levi and his descendants are said to have had an existence that was real, not fictitious, in Abraham. But it contradicts the context to confine this statement to the physical and irrational side of Levi and his descendants. The "paying of tithes" which led to the statement is a rational and moral act and implies a rational and moral nature as the basis of it.” - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 728-729
The argument from these verses is that whole people both material and immaterial are contained and generated in/from their parents. From our point of view, it seems that the goalposts are always shifting with each set of Traducianism proof texts as far as where human souls originate. This is a sign of a flawed argument and doctrine.
1st. God made Adam as an exception in Genesis 2:7
2nd. Eve's soul is generated from a human rib in Genesis 2:21-22
3rd. Whole persons derive from Eve in Genesis 3:20
4th. The entirety of Adam's son Seth was derived from his likeness and image in Genesis 5:3
5th. Human souls derive from and/or are in blood in Leviticus 17:11, 14 as well as Acts 17:26
6th. Now, with these prooftexts, the soul/whole person is in the loins of males.
One obvious reason why the Traducian interpretation of these verses is incorrect is that it gets human biology objectively wrong both scientifically and biblically. Males don't have descendants in their loins who possess "an existence that was real" as Shedd says. This would mean that humans are technically conceived prior to the procreative act. This idea contradicts a multitude of passages in the Bible.
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.Gen 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
Gen 38:18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.
1Ch 7:23 And when he went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare a son, and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house.
Scripture repeatedly ties the conception of a new individual human with the procreative act. We could also look at verses like Genesis 21:2, 25:21, 29:32, 30:5, and more which focus on women conceiving children. The Traducian interpretation of these verses implies that women aren't needed to generate human souls if individual souls are already in the loins of males.
We also want to point out that this mode of generation (whole souls/persons with a real existence being in the loins of males) seems to contradict conventional definitions of Traducianism.
Merriam-Webster: "a theological doctrine that the human souls of new infants are generated from the souls of their parents at the moment of conception much in the same manner as the generation of human bodies"
Dictionary.com: "the doctrine that the human soul is propagated along with the body."
Collins Dictionary: "the doctrine that a child's soul is generated by the child's parents"
Theopedia: "Traducianism is the theory that human beings are propagated as whole beings, both materially and immaterially (including both body and soul)."
The Free Dictionary: "the doctrine that a new human soul is generated from the souls of the parents at the moment of conception."
Notice that conventional definitions of Traducianism are that the soul is generated by parents along with the body at conception rather than souls pre-existing before conception in the loins of males. Yet, the use of these proof texts for Traducianism conveys that souls pre-exist somehow before conception.
Another question/problem we have with the Traducian interpretation of these verses is what happens to those individual souls in the loins of men if the man were to die before each soul is given a body? Do they go to heaven? Do they go to hell? Do they cease existing? Certainly, if these souls had "an existence that was real" according to Shedd, it would seem to follow that they'd be judged like everyone else.
The last problem of many we'll mention has to do with our genealogy. We all have eight great-grandparents. If this model of the soul's generation is true (that real existing souls were in the loins of our ancestors), which great-grandparent had your soul? How does all that work? We obviously don't have eight souls that comprise us. This problem becomes more perplexing the further back you go in a genealogy. If we go back a few generations further, each person should have 64 distinct great-great-great-great grandparents. Do each of these ancestors contain an individual soul within themselves that all come together to form you? Or, do they all simply pass their physical genetics and information on to you resulting in your makeup and personhood being unique to you?
We argue the latter makes the most sense and best explains these verses. Whole people and souls being "in the loins" of an ancestor is best understood as a Synecdoche (a figure of speech in which a part is put for the whole). This usage is quite common today usually in the form of crude comedy (see here for an example from Repo Man and here for an example from F is for Family). Statements like these don't mean that whole people with "an existence that was real" are in the loins of their parents. Rather, it just means that part of what makes people who they are can be traced and derived from the seminal mode. This obviously isn't to say that all of who people are is derived from the seminal mode. That's not what's meant by the expression. This is where the use of the Synecdoche comes in. In the case of these verses, they simply mean that these were the number of people at a given location or point in time who can be said to "come from" their ancestor Jacob. There were a certain number of people at that time who could trace and derive part of what makes them who they are from Jacob. This is also the case for Levi being "in the loins" of Abraham. The same could be said of historic figures like Thomas Jefferson. It's estimated that he has hundreds of living descendants. One could rightly say these people came from his loins. But again, this wouldn't mean that their entire personhood and essence dwelt within Thomas Jefferson. It's just a Synecdoche. Let's circle back around to the proof text in Hebrews.
Heb 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
For context, Hebrews 7 makes the argument that the Levitical priesthood was inferior to and is superseded by the Melchisedecian priesthood. The point is that Levi's ancestor Abraham, as great as he was, still paid tithes to Melchisedec which conveys subservience. And Levi, being Abraham's descendant, was also in a subservient role. The wording of "And as I may so say" conveys that the following statement is typological due to the qualifying and limiting phrase at the beginning of verse nine. The point of Hebrews 7 is Christ's superiority over the Levitical priesthood. The aim is not to make ontological claims about the origin of human souls.
A CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST TRADUCIANISM
We now move to Christological concerns with Traducianism. It's our opinion that affirming inherited Adamic guilt along with Traducianism is incompatible with Chalcedonian Christology (if you don't affirm a Chalcedonian Christology this argument isn't applicable to you).
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us." - Council of Chalcedon, The Chalcedonian definition, 451AD
The Chalcedonian definition pulls from Hebrews 2:17 and 4:15 regarding Christology. Given everything we've discussed so far, if Tradicianism is true it would seem that Jesus' human soul would have to be part of/derived from Adam's soul like the rest of humanity. Coupled with the idea that Adam's guilt is transmitted to his progeny via inheritance of the soul from human parents, it seems to follow that Jesus would have also inherited original sin and Adam's moral guilt along with the rest of humanity. To put it another way, Christ being part of the “one metaphysical entity” according to his humanity seems to entail that he has all those properties common to human beings in Adam’s lineage. This would include original sin and guilt if such concepts were also affirmed. Such an idea seems to contradict the truths of Jesus' innocence and sinlessness.
We will now formulate our argument point by point:
Point 1 - All souls that descend from Adam are souls that inherit guilt for Adam’s sin. [According to original sin]
Point 2 - Christ’s soul is descended from Adam. [In Traducianism]
Point 3 - Therefore, Christ is guilty of Adam’s sin. [Derived from 1 and 2]
Point 4 - Christ is sinless. [Universally held true belief]
We want to point out that points three and four entail a clear contradiction. But, I think everyone would agree that affirming point four takes preeminence and priority over point three. It's non-negotiable. Therefore, to preserve point four, point three must be false. But point three follows from points one and two. Therefore, either one or both of points one and two are false. One could deny point two and affirm that Christ is sinless. If someone takes this route and Traducian anthropology is still maintained, we continue to run into more problems.
Point 1 - All members of humanity have souls that descend from/ are derived from Adam's soul. [In Traducianism]
Point 2 - Christ is not descended from Adam's soul. [Denying the previous second point]
Point 3 - Therefore, Christ is not a member of humanity. [Derived from 1 and 2]
Point 4 - Christ is a member of humanity. [Universally held true belief]
We again want to point out that points three and four entail a clear contradiction. All Christians affirm that Jesus Christ has a human nature. So we must affirm point four. Therefore, to affirm point four, point three must be false. But point three follows from points one and two. Since point three follows from points one and two, either one or both of these points are false. At this point, one could simply deny both Traducianism and inherited guilt (as we do) and avoid these Christological problems.
To deny that Jesus' soul is not descended from Adam but affirm Traducianism would seem to require that God commits a special act of creation with Christ’s human soul, similar to the act of creating the original soul of Adam (which is a pattern for our view rather than an exception). In this scenario, Jesus would not stand in continuity with Adam as far as the soul is concerned. As a result, he would not inherit the original sin and Adam's moral guilt.
On the Traducian view of the soul's origin, humanity exists as one metaphysical entity. Each individual human exists in a tight relationship to the overall metaphysical whole that is humanity. For Christ to stand outside of this metaphysical whole with a soul that is similar, but unrelated and of different origin to the rest of humanity calls into question how a robust understanding of Christ being “like us in all things” can be true for the Traducian view. Soul Creationism, on the other hand, can avoid the problem altogether, as it is not committed to such a strong understanding of the metaphysical unity of the entire human race. Therefore, on this point, we believe Soul Creationism is preferable over and above Traducianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment