The Origin of Souls: Traducianism and Creationism

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Traducianism is a doctrine that posits the soul of a conceived child is derived from the souls of the child’s parents. This essentially argues that both the body and soul are propagated from the parents.

The creationist view holds that God directly creates a new individual soul ex nihilo for everyone born into this world. Even though the soul is supernaturally created by God, the body for every new human is generated by the parents. In other words, creationism represents the view the body and soul having different origins. There are numerous variations of creationism and when combined with the supposed doctrine of the Age of Accountability becomes even more complex.

Oddly, the question is also raised with this subject matter…Is God the author of sin?

Even though Creationism is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church (CCC 366) and some older Calvinists (Francis Turretin, Hodge), there has always been room for disagreement. Traducianism is the official historic position of the Lutheran Church (FC 1.5, 7, 9, 11). Traducianism is much more popular today and receives wide support. For full disclosure, I am a traducianist and shall marshal evidence on its behalf.

Creationism.

The Bible supports the argument that the soul exists at conception. David wrote, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). We are also told that Jesus existed in Mary’s womb at conception. An angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20).

Under this theory, after the Seventh day and the Fall, God specially creates a new soul ex nihilo when a human being is conceived and places it either in an uncontaminated body or a contaminated one. For creationists, the soul becomes contaminated (therefore sinful) anytime between the moment of conception up to the actual day of the Age of Accountability.

Some creationists believe infants and children are born with no personal sin and guilt (or least morally neutral), and the soul becomes sinful when they first consciously sin at the AoA. For others, Infants and children do sin. They covet, lie, tease, start fights, act up in class, rebel against parental authority, throw tantrums, etc. However, these sins don’t effect the soul until the AoA, when they consciously sin. It is said that God’s grace and mercy allows them to be unaccountable yet saved.

Still others who don’t believe in original sin, these individuals believe a perfectly innocent soul is placed into the body only after conception thereby avoiding the trait of sin.


Observations:

• God seems to be very consistent with how He’s ordered things. Absent a clearer verse from Scripture than we already have, God resting from creating on the seventh day is the norm. God’s work in creating the universe is finished. God ceased to create on the Seventh Day “He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” Heb 4:4, Gen 2:2.
• The biblical idea is that God has ceased creating the universe and is now allowing the forces that He created to maintain it. Although God created these natural forces He exercises a continuous care over them. God ceased created but not governing or preserving it through the natural laws of the universe.
• If souls are created by God rather than by people, then it seems like people are lesser than animals, since animals can create their offspring in entirety. Each according to their own kind… is a pattern that God seems to implement. Creationism allows only a physical or corporeal, not a spiritual, connection between Adam and us.
• Creationism destroys the idea of the miraculous and supernatural, since it incorporates God's supernatural, miraculous creation of the soul (out of nothing or himself) into the natural process of reproduction. This is inherently contradictory, since it makes that which is against natural law a part of nature: it is against natural law that something is created out of nothing.
• This view promotes God as the author of sin. If God creates a pure soul in an pure state and places it in a corrupted body in which over time cannot not do anything but sin, God himself by inference is responsible for this and is not exempt from blame. The mere fact that God allows or permits a pure soul to be tainted by sin at the Age of Accountability shows God is indirectly is responsible for sin. By analogy, if I had an attack dog fenced in my backyard, and I allowed or permitted the dog to roam freely in public, and the dog bites or attacks a person, I am legally liable.
• The main problem: Scripture does not represent the body and soul having different origins.
• Just how the body or soul becomes contaminated is not addressed. The dominate theory is sin is not inherited, it is either imitated or is an external entity.
• How does sin get from the material body to the immaterial soul?
• Creationism locates the seat of sin in the body and carries with it the old heathenish conception of matter as being essentially evil. It views the material part of man with a certain measure of contempt, and has no idea of the dignity of the human body or of its ultimate destiny to be conformed to the likeness of the body of Christ's glory.
• Finally, this theory destroys the whole idea of parenthood. Father and mother, son and daughter are personal terms. No father is the parent of a mere nature or of a material thing, but of a person. And in this case, since personality resides in the soul rather than in the body, he is no father at all, but only the producer of a material thing into which a soul is extraneously insinuate.

Traducianism

The soul of the newborn infant is derived from its parents, in the same way Eve’s soul was derived from Adam. Scripture informs us God breathed life into man only once and we are never told that it was repeated. Therefore, God breathed the breath of life (soul) into Adam not Eve. Eve acquires her soul from Adam. We see a similar instance in the Incarnation. Jesus derives his sinless nature from the Holy Spirit and not from Mary.

In conformity to Scripture, the place where the seat of sin resides is the soul. This is the immaterial part of man. In the Fall, Adam’s sin now resides in his soul. Adam’s sin is passed on from parent to child through propagation. That propagation includes the sinful soul. How this occurs is unknown and how the soul contracts sin is unknown. Scripture is silent on this issue.

With the soul contaminated, we inherit Adam’s sin. When the sinful soul is passed on from parent to child through propagation, this explains how a infant could be sinful and guilty without having committed sins personally. .

This then also relieves God from the charge of being the author of sin or responsible for its continuance. Adam and Adam’s descendants are solely responsible for the continuance of sin. Sin is therefore not an external substance or learned behavior of the environment, but the very part of the essence of what it means to be a person.

Traducianism observations:

• It makes parents real parents as being parents of the whole child (both body and soul).
• Now, it must be stated that on the traducian view, the parents are only the instrumental cause of the new human soul. God is still the efficient cause. Therefore, both creationists and traducianists believe that God creates all souls; creationists claim God does it directly, while traducianists believe He does it indirectly through parents. That is to say, God causes being, while parents cause becoming.
• In addition, the creationist view holds that man is a soul, but man has a body. Traducianists would push back and say that man is a unity of soul and body.
• As a result, traducianists take the image of God to include the soul and body, while creationists take only the soul to be the image of God.
• Traducianism gives the best explanation of inherited original sin is that both fallen soul and body are generated by the human parents. Romans 5:12 appears to indicate that we all sinned “through one man,” which points to everyone’s connectedness to Adam and his original sin.

 

[Qubit]

Scripture teaches that the Soul is what we now call a Genome. All living things have them.

Much has been learned these past few decades. The Church really needs to catch up.

 

[tall73]

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.​

(ESV)​

 

[The Liturgist]

This is an interesting thread @Ain't Zwinglian because you have touched on an area, where, embarassingly, I have never bothered to contemplate what is correct or to research the Eastern Orthodox position. Therefore I am going to reach out to our exceptionally pious mutual friends @prodromos @dzheremi @HTacianas and @FenderTL5 , who might know what are correct answers from an EO or OO perspective.

I would also like to know what our dearly beloved mutual friends @jas3 @chevyontheriver @ViaCrucis and my best friend on ChristianForums, @MarkRohfrietsch , think about this issue, because this is an area which I studied, but where, because of its remoteness from liturgical questions, I frankly can’t remember enough about it, and I think it is important. I think I had leaned away from Traducianism but am frankly unsure of it.

There is also the issue of the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin versus the Augustinian model; both are fully anti-Pelagian, but since the Orthodox model does not connect original sin with concupiscience in the reproductive process, that would have an impact on this issue from our perspective (this is why the Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, because the conception is not where we see the problem). And we do assert that the Blessed Virgin Mary was saved by Christ, although we also believe she did not commit any sins herself, which together with her status as the Mother of God makes her worthy of hyperdoulia, but she still required salvation by Christ, just like everyone else, which she of course received.

 

[The Liturgist]

Scripture teaches that the Soul is what we now call a Genome. All living things have them.

Much has been learned these past few decades. The Church really needs to catch up.

No it doesn’t. Scripture says nothing about the genome; the idea that the soul is our DNA is entirely misleading, since the DNA merely is a set of instructions to the body concerning biological functions.

 

[Qubit]

No it doesn’t. Scripture says nothing about the genome; the idea that the soul is our DNA is entirely misleading, since the DNA merely is a set of instructions to the body concerning biological functions.

What are you talking about. Did you even bother to watch any of the video? There are literally hundreds of verses explaining how it all works right down to where Body, Soul and Spirit are divided in a tangible, quantifiable even Scientific way.

You are way out of touch. Do you actually believe I am the only one that researches and discusses these topics? Again, incredible progress has been made. We have something called the Internet now.

Your post really highlights my point as to why the Church remains in the Dark Ages of incredible ignorance. What, just because *you* are not educated in this subject means the rest of humanity is not either?

You even admit you have not studied...

This is an interesting thread @Ain't Zwinglian because you have touched on an area, where, embarassingly, I have never bothered to contemplate what is correct or to research the Eastern Orthodox position.

I have been studying this topic for decades. Who are you to tell me I am wrong without offering any proof?

Thank God the outdated false teachings you so desperately cling to are finally passing away.

 

[The Liturgist]

What are you talking about. Did you even bother to watch any of the video?

I never watch videos linked to by members explaining unusual doctrinal beliefs unless those members can first provide a written articulation of those beliefs. My time is precious; it takes time to watch a video, much more time than it would take to read a well-written, original summary of the position.

So if you believe my position is in error, debunk me, but please do not refer me to some random video on YouTube.

Now to be clear, there are some very good videos on YouTube of a theological nature, some of which I have shared with like-minded friends, for example, some that contain lectures on salvation by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal. But I do not rely on these instead of written debate; I articulate my own views and then if someone is interested in an explanation by an Orthodox bishop I will refer them.

 

[Qubit]

I never watch videos linked to by members explaining unusual doctrinal beliefs unless those members can first provide a written articulation of those beliefs.

In other words, you are not interested in educating yourself. Moreover, you expect others to provide information to you in the manner in which you dictate. What an entitled attitude to have.

For your information, I have provided tons of 'written articulation' on this forum, other forums, in free downloadable eBooks, you name it.

It is on you to educate yourself, otherwise you have no basis to tell me I am wrong.

My time is precious; it takes time to watch a video, much more time than it would take to read a well-written, original summary of the position.

Tell that to God when he asks you why you rejected his correction. You have no idea how fortunate you are to be able to have access to this kind of research. For free even.

So if you believe my position is in error, debunk me, but please do not refer me to some random video on YouTube.

How about you practice what you preach I as already stated? You obviously either did not bother to even read my post, or you are having trouble comprehending it.

You are the one that has not presented any information to back up your claims.

All you have is a smug arrogant attitude.

And please do not tell me what to do. Who do you think you are telling me how I can or cannot present my evidence on here? Wow, you are something else!

I articulate my own views...

Yeah, sure you do. So far, I am not impressed.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This is an interesting thread @Ain't Zwinglian because you have touched on an area, where, embarassingly, I have never bothered to contemplate what is correct or to research the Eastern Orthodox position. Therefore I am going to reach out to our exceptionally pious mutual friends @prodromos @dzheremi @HTacianas and @FenderTL5 , who might know what are correct answers from an EO or OO perspective.

I would also like to know what our dearly beloved mutual friends @jas3 @chevyontheriver @ViaCrucis and my best friend on ChristianForums, @MarkRohfrietsch , think about this issue, because this is an area which I studied, but where, because of its remoteness from liturgical questions, I frankly can’t remember enough about it, and I think it is important. I think I had leaned away from Traducianism but am frankly unsure of it.

There is also the issue of the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin versus the Augustinian model; both are fully anti-Pelagian, but since the Orthodox model does not connect original sin with concupiscience in the reproductive process, that would have an impact on this issue from our perspective (this is why the Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, because the conception is not where we see the problem). And we do assert that the Blessed Virgin Mary was saved by Christ, although we also believe she did not commit any sins herself, which together with her status as the Mother of God makes her worthy of hyperdoulia, but she still required salvation by Christ, just like everyone else, which she of course received.

I did some research on the EO and OO position and did not find anything definite.

The reason for Creationism as apart of Roman Catholicism has to do with the Immaculate Conception. Rome doesn't just posit a dogma out of thin air without any reasoning behind. Creationism explains how God gave Mary give a perfectly sinless soul in to her body. The miracle here is God didn't allow the sinful body to taint the soul therefore sinless at the time of Jesus' birth.

What is the problem with this? If God did this for Mary, He could do it for everybody....thereby bypassing the cross all together. There would be no need for the cross....all sinless.

 

[The Liturgist]

What is the problem with this? If God did this for Mary, He could do it for everybody....thereby bypassing the cross all together. There would be no need for the cross....all sinless.

Allow me, I beg you, to delicately propose an ammendation to your insight:

To your interesting point I would respond out that God is omnipotent, so He can effect our salvation any way he wants to, but there are clear reasons why God chose to become man and to be crucified. If it were not for Christ, the second person of the Trinity, the Word of God by which all things were made, humbling himself and having the Holy Spirit place Him in His own creation through the Incarnation by the Virgin Mary, and then furthermore die for us on the Cross as the supreme act of love, then we would have no idea what it means to be human. Pontius Pilate was right when he said of our Lord “Ecce, homo” because the Son of Man is what we should be, but are not, because of sin, but because of Him, we can be forgiven and glorified.

Rather, the problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it interferes with the humanity of our Lord, because to quote St. Gregory the Theologian (St Gregory of Nazianzus), what is not assumed is not healed. Insofar as the immaculate conception represents some extraordinary departure from normal human reproduction, it results in our Lord being isolated from our experience of humanity. So the problem is less soteriological and more Christological.

But I do like your observation, and I want to make it clear I am not disagreeing with it, but rather, that I feel stimulated by this dialogue and felt compelled to add this, and I am interested in your response, because dialogue with you is always edifying. By the way I do wish you would open a direct message / conversation with myself and perhaps if you felt comfortable our mutual friend @MarkRohfrietsch some time as I am seeking to improve my understanding of Lutheranism and there are a few aspects of Lutheran theology which seem to be correct, but which lack a correlate in Eastern theology, and vice versa, but I might simply be mistaken, and so I am trying to wrap my head around what these foundational concepts mean, and more than that I would also enjoy fellowship with you on a personal level during my recuperation from my recent illness, particularly since I am due to return to the hospital tomorrow for more procedures. But of course I do not wish to impose. Nonetheless I really greatly enjoy our conversations.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So the problem is less soteriological and more Christological.

Yeap....Excellent observation. It is Christological.

 

[The Liturgist]

other words, you are not interested in educating yourself. Moreover, you expect others to provide information to you in the manner in which you dictate. What an entitled attitude to have.

Not at all. Its not a question of educating myself, it is a question of the format of these forums. My friend @Ain't Zwinglian and i do not agree on everything, but I love him very much and the reverse is also true. This is also the case with all my other friends on the forum, except perhaps with some of the Orthodox members, but even then my view that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are both fully Orthodox is controversial.

But the function of the forum is to facilitate edification through dialogue, and so, forgive me, but if you’re just going to make a bold theological statement, and then not engage in dialogue to describe it, but rather simply refer me to a video and demand that I “educate myself”, that is inadequate. It also violates the principle in debates that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that the burden of proof for someone making a claim rests with them.

I know of no Christian denomination or local church that teaches that the soul is equivalent to the human genome (which furthermore is shared by all humans, as opposed to the individual DNA of each person), and so this being entirely novel, I feel that if you want me to believe it, you should tell me why I’m wrong rather than simply referring me to a video.

Otherwise, consider this: this forum would degenerate to people posting videos at each other, rather than actually debating theology. I mean, I can think of about 20 Orthodox homilies I could link you to, and about a hundred Protestant and Catholic homilies, on the nature of the soul, which contradict your position in various ways. But what would this accomplish? Where there is no dialogue, there is no possibility of learning.

I do not have time to listen to monologues in defense of unusual doctrines, but I am willing to engage in a dialogue regarding those, provided the arguments made by each side are respectful and avoid logical fallacies.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yeap....Excellent observation. It is Christological.

Yes, I thought you would like that. But i think you are also right in that there is a soteriological component in terms of how God wants to save us under normal circumstances.

But occasionally God saves people under non-normal circumstances. Everyone is ultimately saved by faith in Christ, since Jesus Christ is God, but if we consider the case of St. Elias, for instance, he was taken directly to Heaven via a chariot of fire, as opposed ot the normal method of being filled with faith in Christ through the action of the Holy Spirit, and then being grafted onto the Body of Christ, the Church, through Baptism, and then receiving Holy Communion, and having a living faith in Christ that is salvific.

Christ our true God said “I will have mercy on who I will have mercy”, and thus in this manner we can hope for him to save people in non-normal conditions, while acknowledging that there is clearly a path set forth in the Gospels which we should obey.

This is also why I agree with your views on Baptism and on Zwinglianism, because as I see it you are advocating for the path set out in the Gospel, and Zwingli and more extreme restorationists, such as the Baptists, and George Fox, are de-emphasizing that path or even negating it entirely, in the case of George Fox and the Quakers.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have been studying this topic for decades. Who are you to tell me I am wrong without offering any proof?

Thank God the outdated false teachings you so desperately cling to are finally passing away.

Conversely, who are you to tell me that the doctrines you dismiss as outdated, which have been believed by Christians since the time of Christ, are wrong? When Christ ascended into Heaven, no one knew about the existence of DNA or the human genome. Obviously, it exists and is an important part of human biology, a beautiful creation of God, but your claim that it is the soul is extraordinary.

Why should I listen to your belief, which by your own admission is the result of only decades of study, versus listening to that of all Christian churches and denominations since the ascension of Christ approximately 2,000 years ago, and of the Hebrew religion for millennia before then?

If you want me to accept your belief, rather than dismissing my faith as “outdated” and describing it as something that I “desperately cling to”, you might instead find out what I actually believe, compare it with what you believe, and then see if there is some common ground. Because as far as I can tell, based on my knowledge of the Patristic faith, it is not likely that DNA is related to the soul in a material capacity. But I could be wrong. I have been proven wrong on Christian Forums before, in the course of debates, and I do not claim moral or intellectual superiority.

All I am asking you to do is to summarize your position here, on the forum, textually, because I do not have the time to watch your video at present, and also, I would note, many members connect via limited bandwidth mobile services, and have need to conserve their bandwidth, and thus are not in a position to even watch a YouTube video. YouTube is its own forum and its own sphere for debates, whereas this is a forum for Christians who agree with the Nicene Creed and the CF Statement of Faith to discuss denomination-specific differences.

By the way, if your position is not related to specific denominations you might actually want to post a thread about your views in General Theology or Controversial Christian Theology, because you might get more responses there.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah, sure you do. So far, I am not impressed.

I am unimpressed with the idea that a soul can be identified with anything material, in this case a genome. Insulting other people who do not share your novel idea is over the top. If you want to think genomes are souls, go right ahead. But it's silly, philosophically naive, scientifically naive, and not in evidence from the Bible. Thank you.

 

[Qubit]

For the last time @The Liturgist ...

YOU are the one telling ME that I am wrong without providing a single shred of evidence.

• You have provided no links
• You have provided no research
• You have provided no verses
• You have provided no facts
• Etc. etc. etc.

If you have not watched the video, then you have no right to criticize it!

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Why are you having such trouble understanding this simple concept?

Those are the facts and so I am done with you.

I am putting you on ignore. I would suggest you put me on ignore before God gets upset with me for trying to teach you facts.

 

[Qubit]

I am unimpressed with the idea that a soul can be identified with anything material, in this case a genome. Insulting other people who do not share your novel idea is over the top. If you want to think genomes are souls, go right ahead. But it's silly, philosophically naive, scientifically naive, and not in evidence from the Bible. Thank you.

Your opinions are rubbish.

Learn how to debate...

 

[chevyontheriver]

Your opinions are rubbish.

Thank you for your opinion.

Learn how to debate...

A prior thing to learn is WHAT to debate. Some things simply are not worthy of debate. Sorry, but this is one of them. If you think you have won some sort of argument using superior logic and 'internet sources', be my guest to think so. I can't get excited about every erroneous opinion on the internet. I've already given this more time than it deserved. Past tense by the way. Declare victory in your own mind. I'm done.

 

[The Liturgist]

For the last time @The Liturgist ...

YOU are the one telling ME that I am wrong without providing a single shred of evidence.

• You have provided no links
• You have provided no research
• You have provided no verses
• You have provided no facts
• Etc. etc. etc.

If you have not watched the video, then you have no right to criticize it!

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Why are you having such trouble understanding this simple concept?

Those are the facts and so I am done with you.

I am putting you on ignore. I would suggest you put me on ignore before God gets upset with me for trying to teach you facts.

All I am asking you to do is to state your opinion in the forum! I will read your post with an open mind.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't know that this is even worth discussing; does the Bible not say that he knew us before the foundations of creation were lain? If so, how could our souls proceed from our parents?

Sounds like gnosticism to me.