Traducianism or Creationism?

[Bob Jones V]

What is the Origin of the soul?

Traducians says this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of human beings.

Creationists say that God creates a soul at each conception.

 

[AverageJoe]

Question....why would there be a soul without a body? Once the body is created, the soul is there.

 

[Ransom]

I lean toward traducianism, because of two problems I see with creationism:

• Gen. 2:2 implies that the work of creation was completed, whereas creationism would require the continual creation of new persons.
• If God personally creates a new soul every time a person is conceived, how is it that these souls are subject to original sin?

That said, both theories are scripturally plausible. The alternative is pre-existence, in which God created all souls at some time in the past, and they are attached to bodies upon conception. This view, which was famously taught by Origen, was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Constantinople.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Question....why would there be a soul without a body? Once the body is created, the soul is there.

The soul is immaterial and as such, it cannot be transmitted through the parents. I believe it is created by God upon conception, not transferred through the parents. I believe traducianism is somewhat heretical.

 

[Ekklesian]

Creationists say that God creates a soul at each conception.

I'm a creationist, and I don't say that. We were all created in Adam on the Sixth Day, and the natural life we receive is that breath that God breathed into Adam's nostrils, corrupted now, because of Adam's sin.

 

[Bob Jones V]

I'm a creationist, and I don't say that. We were all created in Adam on the Sixth Day, and the natural life we receive is that breath that God breathed into Adam's nostrils, corrupted now, because of Adam's sin.

So, according to "YOU", where and when is the soul created?

 

[Ekklesian]

So, according to "YOU", where and when is the soul created?

I can say with a great deal of confidence that Creation was finished on the Sixth Day. There is no more creation going on, except the New Creation in Christ. So, we were created in Adam, soul and all. But neither do I subscribe to the superstitious idea of a kind of guff where unborn souls are stored waiting for a body.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

I lean toward traducianism, because of two problems I see with creationism:

• Gen. 2:2 implies that the work of creation was completed, whereas creationism would require the continual creation of new persons.
• If God personally creates a new soul every time a person is conceived, how is it that these souls are subject to original sin?

That said, both theories are scripturally plausible. The alternative is pre-existence, in which God created all souls at some time in the past, and they are attached to bodies upon conception. This view, which was famously taught by Origen, was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Constantinople.

I had to deal with this in my Biblical Anthropology class. I agree with you although things really started to get convoluted and I noticed that both theories have their shortcomings. In my opinion:

Traducianism is correct because humans beget humans and humans are spiritual as well as physical. It also explains why children often have similar personality and character traits of their parents. If Creationism were true, everyone would be "God-like" which poses another problem as to the imputation of sin as you have stated. If every soul were a "New Creation," every soul would be without sin and would therefore require each human to have their own personal "adamic fall." This is why Pelagius held to the creation position. However, there are many in the Reformed camp who hold to Creationism but I have not seen a substantive argument for such as of yet. I dug deep enough to write the paper and moved on.

The problem with traducianism is how could Christ be born sinless if Mary was a sinner. This was how the textbook presented it anyway (Moody Handbook of Theology). They didn't make the case that sin came from the father and seeing that the virgin birth (Incarnation) takes the father out of the picture, this becomes a non-issue.

We can theoretically state that Creationism is true in that God is the author of and is sovereign over all life.

 

[AverageJoe]

I lean toward traducianism, because of two problems I see with creationism:

• Gen. 2:2 implies that the work of creation was completed, whereas creationism would require the continual creation of new persons.
• If God personally creates a new soul every time a person is conceived, how is it that these souls are subject to original sin?

That said, both theories are scripturally plausible. The alternative is pre-existence, in which God created all souls at some time in the past, and they are attached to bodies upon conception. This view, which was famously taught by Origen, was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Constantinople.

It could be that the souls were there...somewhat in limbo waiting for the time their bodies would be created by the union of their parents. But, I'm not quite sure. There are lots of possibilities of what and where the souls were created...Guess it's something God didn't feel we needed to know.