Basic HTML Version
187
ascribes to the beast nobler powers of propagation than to man, for the beast multiplies itself
after its kind. The last consideration is one of no great importance. And as far as mental and
moral similarities of parents and children are concerned, it need not necessarily be assumed
that these can be accounted for only on the basis of heredity. Our knowledge of the soul is still
too deficient to speak with absolute assurance on this point. But this similarity may find its
explanation partly in the example of the parents, partly in the influence of the body on the soul,
and partly in the fact that God does not create all souls alike, but creates in each particular case
a soul adapted to the body with which it will be united and the complex relationship into which
it will be introduced. (3) It is not in harmony with God’s present relationship to the world and
His manner of working in it, since it teaches a direct creative activity of God, and thus ignores
the fact that God now works through secondary causes and ceased from His creative work. This
is not a very serious objection for those who do not have a deistic conception of the world. It is
a gratuitous assumption that God has ceased from all creative activity in the world.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS.
a. Caution required in speaking on the subject.
It must be admitted that the arguments on
both sides are rather well balanced. In view of this fact it is not surprising that Augustine found
it rather hard to choose between the two. The Bible makes no direct statement respecting the
origin of the soul of man, except in the case of Adam. The few Scriptural passages that are
adduced as favoring the one theory or the other, can hardly be called conclusive on either side.
And because we have no clear teaching of Scripture on the point in question, it is necessary to
speak with caution on the subject. We ought not to be wise above that which is written. Several
theologians are of the opinion that there is an element of truth in both of these theories, which
must be recognized.[Cf. Smith, Chr. Theol., p. 169; Dabney, Syst. and Polemic Theol., pp. 320 f.;
Martensen, Chr. Dogm., p. 141; Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. II, p. 630; Raymond, Syst. Theol. II, pp. 35
f.] Dorner even suggests the idea that each one of the three theories discussed represents one
aspect of the whole truth: “Traducianism, generic consciousness; Pre-existentianism, self-
consciousness or the interest of the personality as a separate eternal divine thought;
Creationism, God-consciousness.”[Syst. of Chr. Doct. II, p. 94.]
b. Some form of Creationism deserves preference.
It seems to us that Creationism deserves
the preference, because (1) it does not encounter the insuperable philosophical difficulty with
which Traducianism is burdened; (2) it avoids the Christological errors which Traducianism
involves; and (3) it is most in harmony with our covenant idea. At the same time we are
convinced that the creative activity of God in originating human souls must be conceived as
being most closely connected with the natural process in the generation of new individuals.
Creationism does not claim to be able to clear up all difficulties, but at the same time it serves