The Transmission of the Soul © 2015 Paul Henebury

Home , Creationism (soul), Traducianism

[This article was adapted from a series of Therefore, it is unsurprising to learn that he posts on Dr. Henebury’s BLOG.1] did not believe in a physical resurrection of the body. In Origen’s view human spirits How do we get our souls? How are our were originally disembodied before the souls transmitted to each of us? world was formed, and they were created Three Distinct Views of How the Soul has bodiless as free beings. This is their proper been Transmitted in the History of state according to him. In fact, their Christianity goodness was really situated in their freedom.  The Pre-Existence of the Soul  Creationism As Colin E. Gunton says in his book The  Traducianism Triune Creator: These spirits, called to live in eternal First – the Doctrine of the Pre- contemplation of God, fell away from Existence of the Soul him and misused their freedom so that they could be restored to unity [Obviously, we know this is not taught by with the divine only through the the Scriptures anywhere, but it has been 2 taught in Christian history.] redirection of that freedom.

The man who is most famous for bringing Basically, that redirection of the spirit’s this doctrine into the church is the third freedom came about by the creation of the century scholar Origen, who was born in world, along with what we might call the Alexandria in Egypt, and died in Caesarea, ‘imprisonment’ of these spirits; preexistent Palestine in the year 254 A.D. Origen’s souls put into human bodies. So, view of the pre-existence of the human according to Origen, all the material soul begins with his rather confused creation really is, is a kind of training doctrine of God. Origen believed that God ground, so that we can learn how use our created just as many spirits as he could freedom again. And when we die we are handle, before he created the material again disembodied. world. Because he was shot through with Hence, platonic thinking, Origen believed that the realm of immaterial forms or ideas was Our world is created out of nothing, where we sprang from and where we were but for a purpose and its function is headed to. educational or pedagogic for the training of the fallen spirits in virtue

1 https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/09/0 5/the-transmission-of-the-soul-pt-1/ 2 Colin E. Gunton, The Triune Creator, 58, The Transmission of the Soul

so that they are qualified to return to make us view this present life as unity with the One.3 transitional or unimportant and make us think of life in the body as less There is Origen’s view. This view was desirable and the bearing and condemned as heretical, and it certainly is raising of children as less important.4 heretical. Nevertheless, it has been taught in the history of the church, and (Actually, Grudem’s treatment of Mormonism teaches something like this Creationism and Traducianism is very today. Moreover, the view of the Pre- unsatisfactory and one of the more Existence of the Soul needs to be kept in disappointing aspects of his book). mind as a heretical view because it does have a lot in common with the Eastern Second – The Doctrine of religious view of reincarnation, where the Creationism soul just keeps coming back into new There are two positions on this issue which bodies as it tries to escape the wheel of are deemed orthodox: “Creationism,” and karma. “Traducianism.” Of course, this belief would have as its By “Creationism” is not meant the corollary the opinion that the material world creationism of the Answers in Genesis or is not part of God’s final eschatological the Institute for Creation Research or plan. Everything is going to be realized in some similar agency, as valuable as their an immaterial future in glory. And so work is. We’re not dealing here with the Origen is one of the sources for this pagan origins of the world, or the origins of man, notion that heaven, somewhere in the by- or the age of the earth or anything like that. and-by, is just purely a spiritual Here we’re talking about the origin of the experience; where souls float around and soul, and of the souls of individual people. enjoy spiritual communion with no material or bodily substance to mess things up. Where then do our souls come from? Creationism answers that God Wayne Grudem writes, creates a new soul in each person at [In relation to the preexistence of the conception, sometimes even at birth. This soul] There is no support for this view is held almost uniformly by reformed view of Scripture; before we were covenant theologians, though not by all of conceived in the wombs of our them. There are some exceptions: mothers we simply did not exist, we Jonathan Edwards, W.G.T. Shedd, Gordon were not. Of course God looked Clark, Robert Reymond, and J. Oliver forward into the future and knew that Buswell, come to mind; but for the most we would exist but that is far part, covenant theologians are creationists, removed from saying that we and there is a reason for that which we will actually did exist at some previous discuss as we continue. time. Such an idea would tend to

3 Ibid, 59 4 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 484

It appears also that even though John an original creation verse! Note, Calvin did not express himself very much “…Stretches out the heavens, lays the on this issue, there is a quotation from foundation of the earth, forms the spirit of the Institutes which shows that he certainly man within him.” This is man generally as veered toward it, (even as Augustine did – in Genesis 1 and 2. There God put a spirit though Augustine refused to be completely within man, but “man” in Genesis 1:26-27 drawn on the subject). is a designation for male and female in that context. Now, the creationists derive their support from a number of passages. These Besides this, we have had earthly passages are, I think, inconclusive: fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much And the dust returns to the earth as more be subject to the Father of it was, and the spirit returns to God spirits and live? – Hebrews 12:9 who gave it. – Ecclesiastes 12:7 Here it is supposed that God is the Father The idea here is that God gives the spirit to of individual spirits placed into us, just in the human body, the body goes to the the way that our fathers are the fathers of dust, and the spirit goes to God. Soul our genetic makeup. But that is not the Creationism uses some reverse logic here subject of the verse. The verse is talking which says that the body is propagated by about paying respect; honor both to our the human genes but the soul is given by earthly fathers, and then to our heavenly God to each individual body that is Father. So, it has nothing to do God created. Of course the verse doesn’t say implanting a soul into every human body this, but it is sometimes inferred. The individually whatsoever. inference does not seem to be very sound. The verse is just a statement of Problems with Creationism’s view of the fact that material things turn back into God creating new souls in individual the dust that they are from. As spirit is bodies: immaterial, then obviously it does not decay like the body does. It goes to 1. What about sin? God. But there is nothing here that says If God is creating new souls in each that God implants the spirit in each individual body then how does that soul individual that is born. become sinful? Or are we back to the old The burden of the word of the LORD Platonic view that the body is sinful and concerning Israel: Thus declares the that somehow by contact with the material LORD, who stretched out the body, the soul becomes sinful? heavens and founded the earth and That gets us back into Greek philosophy. formed the spirit of man within him. – Actually this seems to be Zechariah 12:1 what some creationists at least say! They say that because the flesh, the body, is Again, this is supposedly a proof that God polluted, and they believe that the Greek forms the spirits of individuals, but this is term sarx means ‘the human flesh’ in some

www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2015 Paul Henebury 3 of 13 The Transmission of the Soul contexts, that just by contact with the sinful you are making the same kind of car, but body the soul becomes sinful. none of the cars are really related to each other, they just look the same because Now, quite how that happens I have yet to they are made the same. Our relationship discover. How does immaterial sin pollute to one another and to our first parents a material body? How does sin get from the material body to the immaterial would be similar; we’re just another type of soul? Needless to say, most creationists the model “human being,” but we’re not really connected to Adam other than don’t go there. But what is left to materially. Spiritually, soul-creationism them? The only other solution left to them teaches there is no realistic tie to is the view that God must create sinful Adam. This plays into the federal souls within each of us (because we’re idea. Enter Romans 5: sinners aren’t we?). Therefore, just as sin came into the Certainly, we are sinners from the womb world through one man, and death according to Psalm 51:5. If that is the through sin, and so death spread to case, how does each individual all men because all sinned. person become a sinner? In creationism – Romans 5:12 God has to create the sinner, and that is not a very palatable doctrine. There are All Bible believers hold that when Adam reasons that many creationists hold to it, sinned we all sinned. We’re all part of that but the fact of the matter is that would be transgression, but does that necessitate enough for most people to have nothing to that we are also participants in Adam’s do with the doctrine. The remedy appears guilt? That is a question for another day, to be even worse than the cure! but it does overlap somewhat with the present topic. One must ask how we are 2. What about our relationship to guilty if we did not actually (personally) Adam? participate in Adam’s sin? Remember, Is the only relationship that we bear to according to creationism, we did not Adam a physical-biological participate in Adam’s sin because our relationship? Do we derive only our souls were not created until some time bodies from Adam, but not our souls? If after we were conceived. As we shall see, that is the case, then what is the with the third option; “Traducianism,” just connection between Adam’s immaterial as our physical makeup comes from our nature and personality (which sinned and first parents, so our soulish makeup comes fell), and our personality? Or we might ask from our first parents. And because that is the question this way: what is the passed down to us, so is the sin nature connection between the image of God in within that soulish makeup. In creationism Adam and the image of God in ourselves? however, one can’t have that. In The answer soul-creationists give is that creationism you just have the propagation there is no actual connection at all. Any of the body, not the propagation of the connection is made in the same way that soul. So, how on earth are we considered there is a connection in a car plant where guilty of Adam’s transgression?

Well, how did we sin? sin in any way apart from federally, wherein God designates Adam our But the free gift is not like the representative? As Tertullian said many trespass. For if many died through centuries ago, “the transmission of sin one man’s trespass, much more involves the transmission of Or, have the grace of God and the free the soul.” to cite Shedd: gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. The imputation of the first sin of And the free gift is not like the result Adam to all his posterity as a of that one man’s sin. For the culpable act is best explained and judgment following one trespass defended upon the traducian basis. brought condemnation, but the free The Augustinian and Calvinistic gift following many trespasses anthropologies affirm that the act by brought justification. For if, because which sin came into the world of of one man’s trespass, death mankind was a self-determined and reigned through that one man, much guilty act and it is just rechargeable more will those who receive the upon every individual man, equally abundance of grace and the free gift and alike. But this requires that the of righteousness reign in life through posterity of Adam and Eve should in the one man Jesus Christ. some way or other, participate in it. Therefore, as one trespass led to Participation is the ground of merited condemnation for all men, so one imputation, though not of unmerited act of righteousness leads to or gratuitous imputation.5 justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience Sin is imputed to us because the many were made sinners, so by we deserve it. We are all sinners! But the one man’s obedience the many grace is imputed to us, not because we will be made righteous. Now the law deserve it, but because God is gracious. came in to increase the trespass, but Creationists believe that imputation of sin where sin increased, grace in Adam is the same as imputation of abounded all the more, so that, as grace and life in Christ, and they balance it sin reigned in death, grace also out that way. But that cannot be the case, might reign through righteousness as even Romans 5:12-21 tells us. Again, leading to eternal life through Jesus here is Shedd: Christ our Lord. – Romans 5:15-21 But a transgression supposes a transgressor, and a transgressor in How were we made sinners if we didn’t this instance must be the ‘all’ who participate in Adam’s disobedience? We sinned spoken of in Romans 5:12. can only be made sinners if there is a The doctrine of the specific unity of soulish cum spiritual connection between Adam and his posterity removes the us and Adam (which traducianism teaches). How can sin reign (verse 21), in 5 death if we are not connected with Adam’s W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Gomes edition), 444 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2015 Paul Henebury 5 of 13 The Transmission of the Soul

great difficulties connected with the of the soul. Why “realistic?” Because it imputation of Adam’s sin to his actually happens; it is not something posterity that arise from the injustice whereby guilt is just decreed, but because of punishing a person for a sin in we participate in sin by sinning according which he had no kind of to the fallen nature which we inherit from participation.6 Adam. As W.G.T. Shedd writes, And of course, that is exactly what creationists have to teach! They teach even though we did not sin in Adam, that Sin cannot be transmitted along God, because of some voluntaristic absolute nonentity; neither can it be decree, decided that we did, and that we transmitted by merely physical are guilty for it, even though we weren’t in substance. If each individual soul Adam when he did it (since there is no never had any other than an connection between the soul of Adam that sinned and our souls). individual existence and were created ex nihilo in every instance, Now, creationists will come back and say, nothing mental could pass from “Well, what you’re saying is that Adam had the complete contents of humanity’s Soul Adam to his posterity; there could be within him, and that Soul was somehow the transmission of only bodily and divided up into his offspring and into the physical traits. There would be a millions of people who came from them.” chasm of 6000 years between an But this is to commit the fallacy of a false individual soul of this generation and conception. Yes, some traducianists have taught something like that, but it is not at the individual soul of Adam, across all necessary to think of “Soul” in which original sin or moral corruption quantitative terms. We certainly do not could not go by natural generation.7 have to conceive of this one “Soul” as if it were somehow part of the gene pool. I myself am drawn to the Traducianist view for the following The Traducianist Position reasons: Traducianism (from a word meaning ‘to 1. It appears to be everywhere assumed holds that both the material-bodily sprout’), by Scripture that through conception substance of a person, and the soulish via our human parents, we inherit sin part of a person is passed on from parent natures, and not just physical to child through all generations, and bodies. because of this, the sin nature is passed So the psalmist says, “…in sin on through all generations. This involves did my mother conceive me” (Psa. what is called a realistic view of the 51:5b). impartation of sin, within the transmission

6 Ibid, 445 7 W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology,446

When Charles Hodge, himself a conception or birth. The passages staunch creationist, to avoid the teaching that spirits come from God conclusion that God creates sinful can be interpreted providentially and souls, declares ‘We do not know how ultimately, rather than miraculously the agency of God is connected with and approximately. Creationists the operation of second causes, how raise the problem of how Christ far the agency is mediate and how far could be without sin if souls are derived from parents along with it is immediate’, and then admits in his bodies. The point is irrelevant to later discussion of Original Sin that, “it normal conceptions however, is, moreover, a historical fact because the conception of Jesus universally admitted, that character was miraculous! The conception of within certain limits is transmissible Jesus by a virgin, involved both a from parents to children; every nation biological miracle and a moral and every tribe and every extended miracle, so that Mary’s sinful nature family of man has its physical, mental, was not transmitted to Jesus and he social, and moral peculiarities which was holy (Lk 1:35). The major are propagated from generation to problem with a Creationist generation”, he has effectively hypothesis is that for all normally abandoned his Creationism, for if God born persons, the Holy One does immediately create souls at allegedly directly creates their souls conception or at birth, the mental and with sinful dispositions. Scriptural moral characteristics of parents cannot teaching traces sinfulness not to the be propagated. body but to the inner soul or 2. Creationism allows for only the physical spirit…(Jer.17:9). The “flesh” refers or corporeal connection between Adam in moral contexts only secondarily to and his offspring, and has to explain the body as the instrument of the how human souls, immediately created fallen spirit; primarily the flesh is the sinful nature conceived at by God, with no soulish connection to conception. Since throughout their parents, become evil. Whereas Scripture God is the source of good Traducianism has a ready answer for and not of moral rebellion against why the individual is guilty in Adam Himself, it seems unthinkable that 8 and is thus corrupt. He, the Holy One, should specifically create each human soul with a bent Lewis and Demarest add, toward disbelieving and disobeying him.9 Neither do we find adequate evidence to support the view that To this I add the comment of Robert spirits are individually created at Culver:

8 E.g. Robert Reymond, A New Systematic 9 Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, Integrated Theology of the Christian Faith, 424-425 Theology, Vol. 2. 170 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2015 Paul Henebury 7 of 13 The Transmission of the Soul

It seems to this writer that it takes vicarious [i.e. “in our place”] sin, some shading of evidence from contradicts the profound convictions of the sincere convictions drawn from human conscience.” another quarter of doctrine to To say that because Adam sinned we’re suppose damned, just because that’s the way God that adam and anthropos whence decides it, and not because of any ‘anthropology’, ever means just relationship we bear to Adam, would be man’s body to the exclusion of his unjust. Calling on God’s freedom to do as 10 soul. He wants to validate such a thing amounts to redefining God’s desires along But that is what Creationists must voluntarist and nominalist lines. This is a teach. So, how do Creationists say that card played all too often by some we are sinners and we are guilty of Adam’s theologians. transgression if we didn’t participate in it, and really we had nothing to do with it? Arguing against Traducianism They say that it is because God imputes and for Creationism, Herman Bavinck his sin to us in the same way as God introduced covenant theology to bolster his imputes righteousness in Christ to us. doctrine. He wrote: Well, we understand why God has to The so-called realism, say of Shedd, impute the righteousness of Christ to us: is inadequate both as an explanation because we’re not in ourselves connected of Adam’s sin, and as an explanation to the righteousness of God in Christ. But of righteousness by faith in we also understand that we are connected Christ. Needed among human to Adam! beings is another kind of unity, one For as in Adam all die, so also in that causes them to act unitedly as a Christ shall all be made alive. – I moral body, organically-connected Corinthians 15:22 as well as ethically-united, and that is a federal unity, that is a covenant Why Do We Die? unity. Now on the basis of a physical Why do we die? Because we are “in unity an ethical unity has to be Adam.” We need to get into Christ to be constructed; Adam as our ancestor made alive. But how do we get into Christ? is not enough, he must also be the By a new birth. We have to be joined to covenant head of the human race Christ, and we are joined to Him through just as Christ, although he is not our adoption and the new birth by the Holy common ancestor in a physical Spirit. That is when His righteousness is sense, is still able as covenant head imputed to us. But why do we need to bestow righteousness and Adam’s sin and guilt heaped on us? blessedness upon his church. Now this moral unity of the human race As Shedd says, “to make the eternal can only be maintained on the basis damnation of a human soul depend upon of Creationism, for it has a character

of its own, is distinct from that of 10 Robert Culver,Systematic Theology, 279

animals, as well as that of the Church, which says Christ had a human angels, and therefore also comes body but a divine soul? Or are we to fall into being in its own way; both by into the Eutychian heresy, where Christ physical descendent [Adam] and by was said to have had a human body mixed a created act of God [Creationism], with the divine soul? Those are not the two of them in conjunction with orthodox positions. But there are certain each other.11 passages which speak to this doctrine and must be clarified. What is one to do with Of course, Traducianism is not inadequate these texts? for an explanation of Adam’s sin, because For instance, Romans 1:3 says, we are connected to him spiritually. As the Bible clearly declares, God created Concerning his Son, who was the whole person: descended (who was born) from David according to the flesh. The Creation of Eve - So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall Whether one is a creationist or a upon the man, and while he slept traducianist, there is no getting around the took one of his ribs and closed up its need for the miraculous when it comes to place with flesh. And the rib that the the birth of Christ. The creationist may LORD God had taken from the man point to the logic of Christ’s human soul he made into a woman and brought being newly created by the Father at her to the man. – Genesis 2:21-22 conception, but the traducian realist will ask how that soul remained sinless in a Did God just bring a body to the man, or sinful mother, and will again call attention did he bring a person, body and a to the implication that if the human body soul? There is nothing here to say that does not stain the soul the only other road God breathed a soul into Eve like he did open to the creationist is to say that God with Adam in verse 7. Here, God just makes each new soul sinful (all except takes the material as it were – the Christ that is). substance, the essence of the man – from the man and creates a woman, body and In place of this miracle the traducian view soul. In the Old Testament the words will say that although the soul may be for ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ (especially the passed on through the female, the absence former), designates more often than not of a human father could account for why the whole person. the sin nature was not passed on to Jesus. If this conclusion seems The Question of the Incarnate Christ unsatisfactory the alternative is to say that What do we do with Christ’s human soul in God protected Christ’s soul from the stain this matter of transmission? Do we of sin. Either way, the realist position has commit the Apollinarian heresy of the Early less explaining to do than the creationist – federalist view. 11 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2.586 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2015 Paul Henebury 9 of 13 The Transmission of the Soul

More Evaluations One might even say that Levi In his great volume on Sin, the Dutch himself, who receives tithes, paid theologian G. C. Berkouwer spends many tithes through Abraham, for he was pages evaluating both the realist still in the loins of his ancestor when (traducian) position and the federalist Melchizedek met him. (creationist) position. His problems with If Creationism is true this statement would the traducian position basically boil down be untrue. In fact, it would be nonsense. to the imputation of guilt (something which will have to be taken up elsewhere). But it This genealogical passage in the early should be noted that many theologians, chapters of Genesis should also feature in both in the early church and after the the debate: Reformation, did not tie in the imputation of This is the book of the generations guilt with the imputation of sin. of Adam. When God created man, Berkouwer’s problems with federalism are he made him in the likeness of God. more numerous and severe. They can be Male and female he created them, summed up in his statement about the and he blessed them and named double-meaning of imputation as guilt them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he accounted because of our fathered a son in his own likeness, sinning, and ‘alien guilt’ foisted upon us by after his image, and named him -459). He continues, God’s ordinance (458 Seth. – Genesis 5:1-3 Realism has done us the service of sharpening our insights concerning Regarding the image of God, is this the meaning ofimputatio. Is [this] passage just talking about Seth’s physical concept at odds with the very nature body and not also talking about his soul? If of his justice? Does it contradict the only Seth’s body is under consideration statement of Ezekiel [ch.18:4, 20, then surely ‘likeness and image’ in 25-26] concerning the activity of Genesis 5:3 refers just to the physical God? Surely the “rule of Ezekiel” makeup? But if we allow that underscores the correlation of guilt interpretation we must allow it as the right and punishment in a very interpretation of ‘image and likeness’ in Genesis 1:26-27. Of course, no unambiguous way.12 Creationist would wish to assent to that! Certain passages of Scripture clearly imply What about the great proof text for realism rather than mere federal Creationism: representation. Surely John 1:14 Besides this, we have had earthly designates the human nature of Christ, fathers who disciplined us and we body and soul? And what is one to do with respected them. Shall we not much Hebrews 7:9-10? more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? – Hebrews 12:9

12 G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, 460

Straight away the antenors go up, for the children to parents. The verse seems hardly to be asserting that characteristics of the evil heart (Matt. God the Father is responsible for 15:18-19) or sinful nature (Eph. 2:3) implanting new spirits within newly can hardly be the creation of a God conceived human beings. who is of purer eyes can look with As Robert Culver says: favor upon sin (Hab. 1:13)… A Traducian view does not contradict Is this contrasting human males as divine justice in condemning all fathers of our material nature and mankind for the one act of Adam God as Father of our immaterial (Rom. 5:16, 18). On this view Adam nature? Quite to the contrary! Note it is not merely the legal or federal is not said that God is Father representative of the race as of our spirits, but simply of spirits. Creationists maintain. God may The argument is from the less to the have made a covenant of works with greater to encourage reverence Adam as the legal head of the race, toward God. So the author is the biblical evidence for this is arguing that if we revere the lesser minimal. If we were not in some earthly parents of our humanity, we sense in Adam generically, surely should revere the greater physically, and spiritually, however, universal heavenly Father, God of all the covenant of works appears to be spirits. The manner of generating a legal fiction without basis in reality. parts of human nature is not even From a Traducian perspective, with under consideration.13 or without the covenant of works, God can justly regard the race And in their lengthy treatment of the generically in Adam. So “in Adam all subject, Gordon Lewis and Bruce die” (I Cor. 15:22), for in Adam all Demarest conclude: “sinned” (Rom. 5:12, Greek aorist The derivation of all persons from tense). Hence a Traducian view of Adam and Eve accounts for the unity the origin of the soul provides the of the entire human population (Acts more coherent position with the 17:26). The unity of human beings fewer difficulties. The difficulty of is not merely physical but also moral explaining how the soul originates is and spiritual. Humanity is not a less than explaining how a holy God company of individually created can create depraved souls.14 spirits, such as the angels are. The fact that human persons comprise a Creationists teach that there is a direct single race is crucial theologically, correlation between Christ’s act of as well as socially and politically representation in redemption and Adam’s (Rom. 5:12-14)… Jesus explicitly act of representation in sin. But W.G.T. attributes the fleshly nature of

Shedd demolished this inference long Fifth, the guilt of Adam’s sin did not ago. rest upon Christ as it does upon In criticizing the federalist representative Adam’s posterity and hence, he could voluntarily consent and agree view Shedd commented: to endure its penalty without being In the first place, Christ suffered under obligation to do so. Christ was freely and voluntarily for the sin of free from the guilt of Adam’s sin, man, but Adam’s posterity suffer both in the sense of [culpability] and necessarily and involuntarily for the [punishment]. But the posterity are sin of Adam… They do not, like obligated by both. Christ therefore Christ, volunteer and agree to suffer, suffers as an innocent person to but are compelled to suffer; and their expiate a sin in which he did not suffering, unlike that of Christ, is participate; but Adam’s posterity accompanied with the sense of ill suffer as guilty persons to satisfy the dessert… law for a sin in which they did participate.15 Second, Christ was undeservedly punished when He suffered for the The question of participation in regard to sin of man. But Adam’s posterity are guilt is not before us at present. Shedd, as not undeservedly punished when a covenant theologian, argued for original they suffer for the sin of Adam… guilt as well as for original sin. Not everyone has linked the two together as Third, Christ was a substitute when Shedd did. But the arguments he set forth He suffered, but Adam’s posterity against creationism are not blunted either are the principals. They do not way. As he wrote a little further on, suffer in the place of sinners when they suffer for Adam’s sin, but they …to argue that if gratuitous suffer as sinners. They are not imputation is not true in the case of vicarious sufferers, As Christ Adam’s sin it is not true in the case was. They suffer for themselves… of Christ’s righteousness is like arguing that if God is not the author Fourth, the purpose of Christ’s of sin by direct efficiency he is not suffering is expiatory; that of the the author of holiness by direct suffering of Adam’s posterity is efficiency.16 retributive. Christ endured penalty in order for the remission and removal You don’t need Creationism to be a of sin; but Adam’s posterity endure covenant theologian, Shedd, Dabney, and penalty solely for the satisfaction of Reymond are examples of covenant justice. Their suffering obtains theologians who were traducianists. But neither the remission nor the removal of sin. 15 W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, (3rd edition), 461-462 16 Ibid, 464

www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2015 Paul Henebury 12 of 13 The Transmission of the Soul creationism certainly fits in with covenant theology, and that is why covenant theologians tend to be Creationists. Calvin it appears was not a Creationist. There is a quotation from the Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 7, which seems to clearly indicate that he believed that a ‘contagion’ was imparted from Adam to us. That would put him closer to Traducianism than to Creationism. It is often thought that this subject is unimportant. But it is not unimportant; it is needful that we establish that we have a direct relationship with Adam, not just physically, but also spiritually. And it is essential that we do not create trouble for the justice and goodness of Almighty God due to the seeming logic of our theological precommitments.

Source: SpiritAndTruth.org