Basic HTML Version
186
creative act of God, yet is pre-formed in the psychical life of the fœtus, that is, in the life of the
parents, and thus acquires its life not above and outside of, but under and in, that complex of
sin by which humanity as a whole is burdened.[Cf. Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. II, pp. 630 f.]
a. Arguments in favor of Creationism.
The following are the more important considerations in
favor of this theory: (1) It is more consistent with the prevailing representations of Scripture
than Traducianism. The original account of creation points to a marked distinction between the
creation of the body and that of the soul. The one is taken from the earth, while the other
comes directly from God. This distinction is kept up throughout the Bible, where body and soul
are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins, Eccl. 12:7;
Isa 42:5; Zech. 12:1; Heb. 12:9. Cf. Num. 16:22. Of the passage in Hebrews even Delitzsch,
though a Traducianist, says, “There can hardly be a more classical proof text for
creationism.”[Bibl. Psych., p. 137.] (2) It is clearly far more consistent with the nature of the
human soul than Traducianism. The immaterial and spiritual, and therefore indivisible nature of
the soul of man, generally admitted by all Christians, is clearly recognized by Creationism. The
traducian theory on the other hand, posits a derivation of essence, which, as is generally
admitted, necessarily implies separation or division of essence. (3) It avoids the pitfalls of
Traducianism in Christology and does greater justice to the Scriptural representation of the
person of Christ. He was very man, possessing a true human nature, a real body and a rational
soul, was born of a woman, was made in all points like as we are, — and yet, without sin. He did
not, like all other men, share in the guilt and pollution of Adam’s transgression. This was
possible, because he did not share the same numerical essence which sinned in Adam.
b. Objections to Creationism.
Creationism is open to the following objections: (1) The most
serious objection is stated by Strong in the following words: “This theory, if it allows that the
soul is originally possessed of depraved tendencies, makes God the direct author of moral evil;
if it holds the soul to have been created pure, it makes God indirectly the author of moral evil,
by teaching that He put this pure soul into a body which will inevitably corrupt it.” This is
undoubtedly a serious difficulty, and is generally regarded as the decisive argument against
Creationism. Augustine already called attention to the fact that the Creationist should seek to
avoid this pitfall. But it should be borne in mind that the Creationist does not, like the
Traducianist, regard original sin entirely as a matter of inheritance. The descendants of Adam
are sinners, not as a result of their being brought into contact with a sinful body, but in virtue of
the fact that God imputes to them the original disobedience of Adam. And it is for that reason
that God withholds from them original righteousness, and the pollution of sin naturally follows.
(2) It regards the earthly father as begetting only the body of his child, — certainly not the most
important part of the child, — and therefore does not account for the re-appearance of the
mental and moral traits of the parents in the children. Moreover, by taking this position it