Basic HTML Version
185
immediate creations, but by the natural derivation of new individuals from a parent stock. But
cf. Ps. 104:30. (3) It also seeks support in the inheritance of mental peculiarities and family
traits, which are so often just as noticeable as physical resemblances, and which cannot be
accounted for by education or example, since they are in evidence even when parents do not
live to bring up their children. (4) Finally, it seems to offer the best basis for the explanation of
the inheritance of moral and spiritual depravity, which is a matter of the soul rather than of the
body. It is quite common to combine with Traducianism the realistic theory to account for
original sin.
b. Objections to Traducianism.
Several objections may be urged against this theory. (1) It is
contrary to the philosophical doctrine of the simplicity of the soul. The soul is a pure spiritual
substance that does not admit of division. The propagation of the soul would seem to imply
that the soul of the child separates itself in some way from the soul of the parents. Moreover,
the difficult question arises, whether it originates from the soul of the father or from that of the
mother. Or does it come from both; and if so, is it not a compositum? (2) In order to avoid the
difficulty just mentioned, it must resort to one of three theories: (a) that the soul of the child
had a previous existence, a sort of pre-existence; (b) that the soul is potentially present in the
seed of man or woman or both, which is materialism; or (c) that the soul is brought forth, that
is, created in some way, by the parents, thus making them in a sense creators. (3) It proceeds
on the assumption that, after the original creation, God works only mediately. After the six days
of creation His creative work ceased. The continued creation of souls, says Delitzsch, is
inconsistent with God’s relation to the world. But the question may be raised, What, then,
becomes of the doctrine of regeneration, which is not effected by second causes? (4) It is
generally wedded to the theory of realism, since this is the only way in which it can account for
original guilt. By doing this it affirms the numerical unity of the substance of all human souls, an
untenable position; and also fails to give a satisfactory answer to the question, why men are
held responsible only for the first sin of Adam, and not for his later sins, nor for the sins of the
rest of their forebears. (5) Finally, in the form just indicated it leads to insuperable difficulties in
Christology. If in Adam human nature as a whole sinned, and that sin was therefore the actual
sin of every part of that human nature, then the conclusion cannot be escaped that the human
nature of Christ was also sinful and guilty because it had actually sinned in Adam.
4. CREATIONISM.
This view is to the effect that each individual soul is to be regarded as an
immediate creation of God, owing its origin to a direct creative act, of which the time cannot be
precisely determined. The soul is supposed to be created pure, but united with a depraved
body. This need not necessarily mean that the soul is created first in separation from the body,
and then polluted by being brought in contact with the body, which would seem to assume that
sin is something physical. It may simply mean that the soul, though called into being by a