In looking at the theology of the text of Romans 5:12-21, which theologian, church, or doctrinal structure do you believe is the most accurate when interpreting the "all sinned" of vs 12 ?
Please give a brief description of the various views, especially that of Calvin, Hendriksen, and Murray.
My guess is that I would be within the views of those three. I really like Hendriksen's NT Commentary so without knowing I would be incline to say him.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
John_C said: Please give a brief description of the various views, especially that of Calvin, Hendriksen, and Murray.
My guess is that I would be within the views of those three. I really like Hendriksen's NT Commentary so without knowing I would be incline to say him.
Well that would be kind of giving away the answer. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> Not that it is going to help any, I will say that the views of Calvin, Hendriksen, and Murray all differ though .... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
J_Edwards said: In looking at the theology of the text of Romans 5:12-21, which theologian, church, or doctrinal structure do you believe is the most accurate when interpreting the "all sinned" of vs 12 ?
Do any of the options incorporate traducianism (i.e., propagation) to interpret "all sinned" of vs 12?
I voted for Murray, since I think his exegesis is more accurate. Here is a rare instance where I find Hendriksen to be faulty. But although I do appreciate Murray's consistency in exegeting the text, I feel that he should not have ruled out "Original Sin" as being referred to in addition to the truth of Corporate Solidarity, which Calvin emphasizes in his comments on the text. So, my personal view is a combination of Murray with his bringing out Paul's emphasis on Corporate Solidarity and Calvin who emphasized Original Sin. I see no contradiction here as I understand the text to be referring to both, albeit the greater emphasis being on solidarity with Adam from whom guilt is imputed and corruption of nature is inherited; the two elements of Original Sin. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Murray is indeed the correct answer IMO. A great book to answer this question is The Imputation of Adam’s Sin by John Murray. Less than 100 pages, but not a quick read. You can also listen to his lectures on-line here. Don't miss the other Featured Speakers or you may look at specific topics at IIIMill (the normal cautions apply).
Do any of the options incorporate traducianism (i.e., propagation) to interpret "all sinned" of vs 12?
Do you embrace this false belief that the soul of man was generated at conception (the soul is inherited) as opposed to creationism, where the soul is created by an immediate act of God?
I'm surprised you label traducianism as a false belief. According to Alan Scholes, Jonathan Edwards held the traducian view.
Quote
Traducianism was held by Church Fathers: Tertullian, Rufinus, Apollinarus and Gregory of Nyssa. This is the view of many Lutherans as well as Jonathan Edwards, Shedd, Strong, and (with reservations) Buswell...
I'm inclined toward traducianism because it accounts for the hereditary defect that makes every person born of a human father guilty of the sin of Adam and utterly corrupt at conception. How does Creationism account for the inborn sin which inheres to man's nature?
Since God is not the author of evil, would you say God creates morally neutral souls who become totally and equally corrupt due to the covenant relationship between Adam and his posterity? Is there an order of corruption?
Since God is not the author of evil, would you say God creates morally neutral souls who become totally and equally corrupt due to the covenant relationship between Adam and his posterity? Is there an order of corruption?
As you know Creationism is the view that each individual soul is to be regarded as an immediate creation of God—owing its origin to a direct creative act of God. The soul is supposed 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 into contact with the body—which would assume that sin is something physical. It may simply mean that the soul, though called into being by the immediate and creative act of God, yet is preformed in the physical life of the foetus, that is, 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.
Creationism is better theologically than traducianism for a variety of reasons:
Quote
(1) The original account of creation points to a marked distinction between the creation of the body and the soul. The one is taken from the earth and the other is directly from God . This is supported from Scripture (Eccl 12:7; Isa 42:5; Zech 12:1; Heb 12:9, etc.).
(2) The immaterial and the spiritual and therefore the indivisible nature of the soul of man is clearly recognized by creationism, where traducianism posits a derivation of essence, which necessarily implies a separation of essence.
(3) it avoids the pitfalls of traducianism in Christology. Christ was very man, possessing a true human nature, a real body, and a rational soul, was born of a woman, and was made in all points as we are—yet without sin. Christ did not share, like other men, in the guilt and pollution of Adam’s transgression. This was only possible in that He did not share the same numerical essence which sinned in Adam.
Traducianism has many weaknesses:
Quote
(1) it fails to admit the simplicity of man. The soul is a pure spiritual substance that does not admit division. The propagation of the soul would imply that the soul of a child separates itself in some way from the parents.
(2) In addition where does the soul originate in the father or mother, or both. If both, is it not a composition? In order to avoid this complication traducianism must resort to one of three theories: (A) the soul of the child had a pre-existence (B) the soul of man is in the seed of the woman or the man, or both—which is materialism, or (C) that the parents are the creators of the soul.
(3) It proceeds on the assumption that after the original creation God only works mediately. As Delitzsch states “the continued creation of souls is inconsistent with God’s relation to the world.” Thus one is left with an Arminian interpretation of the doctrine of regeneration for God could not be immediately involved.
(4) It is normally wedded to the theory of realism since it is the only way it may account for original guilt. However, by doing this it affirms the numeric unity of the substance of all human souls—an untenable position. Moreover, it still fails to answer the question why men are held responsible for only Adam’s fist sin and not his later sins, etc.
(5) Lastly, it leads to problems with 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
Thus, traducianism is a false concept.
Notes from Berkhof’s ST. You need to purchase this book!
speratus asks: Since God is not the author of evil, would you say God creates morally neutral souls who become totally and equally corrupt due to the covenant relationship between Adam and his posterity? Is there an order of corruption?
As you know Creationism is the view that each individual soul is to be regarded as an immediate creation of God—owing its origin to a direct creative act of God. The soul is supposed 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 into contact with the body—which would assume that sin is something physical. It may simply mean that the soul, though called into being by the immediate and creative act of God, yet is preformed in the physical life of the foetus, that is, 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.
Would you say God uses human means to effect His decree (transmission of original sin to Adam's progeny)? There does seem to be an order of corruption, whether chronological or logical, in your approach. The pure soul somehow acquires the guilt of original sin.
In an earlier thread, Pilgrim postulates that God could create a depraved soul. Asked " is there anything inconsistent with God immediately creating a depraved soul as part of the curse?"
Quote
Pilgrim replies Sticky wicket, that question is! I could easily answer yes as well as no. I tend to side on the "no" side, i.e., there is nothing inconsistent with God creating a depraved soul. This is how I would justify that. Since all ex nihilo creation has ceased, anything which is brought forth is from something already existent, either in form or relational. We all, being part of the human race; from Adam, inherit something from our predecessors. But what about the soul? To this I cannot comment as this would tread upon the "mystery" of the origin of the soul, which I have already stated, is beyond my comprehension. But as to the ethics of the question, again, I see no violation of God's justice nor holiness if, in fact, He does create a soul in a corrupt state. It certainly does no violation to the freedom of man, since from the Fall, the guilt incurred by Adam is imputed to all. And, as part of that Original Sin, the corruption of nature was part of the just punishment of God. Thus, for God to create a soul which is depraved, then He is only doing that which He Himself judged to be righteous.
Quote
J Edwards addsNotes from Berkhof’s ST. You need to purchase this book!
Berkhof is on my shopping list, as well as Gerhard who favored Traducianism and Chemnitz who considered the controversary an open question.
Quote
Chemnitz, Loci, I, “De Peccato Originis,” ed. 1599, I, 567 sqq. ..let us learn from this example to cut short, piously, firmly, and in well-founded simplicity, these subtle disputations which endanger faith. As to the causa efficiens [of original sin], it is sufficient to know that the fall of our first parents justly resulted in this, that they transmitted to all their offspring the very same nature, both as to body and as to soul, as was theirs after the Fall. In what manner, however, the soul contracts this evil, faith can safely ignore, because the Holy Spirit did not want to make it known to us through certain and clear Scripture testimonies.
Would you say God uses human means to effect His decree (transmission of original sin to Adam's progeny)? There does seem to be an order of corruption, whether chronological or logical, in your approach. The pure soul somehow acquires the guilt of original sin.
Well He definitely uses means to create the body (the parents, sperm/egg), however IMO not the soul…. I think the immediacy (not using means) is more accurate than mediacy (using means) to create the soul as exampled in the original creation (the only example given us in Scripture regarding the creation of the soul)—I think the Christology issue is central to our understanding here…. While I do believe there is a logical order to corruption, me thinks going any further than I have is getting into mysteries which cannot be presently attested to…. (I will grant that the creationist view is not without its problems as well….). This whole issue though will errupt soon--cloning; Can we clone a soul? Can we clone total depravity in a soul? ....
Quote
In an earlier thread, Pilgrim postulates that God could create a depraved soul. Asked " is there anything inconsistent with God immediately creating a depraved soul as part of the curse?"
This would be a viable option if I was not so attached to Berkhof on this issue…., as God “is only doing that which He Himself judged to be righteous.” Moreover, it is consistent with the creationist view ... and does not have problems in the area of Christology ...
There is another view being postulated by some like Dorner who states that both creationism and traducianism are correct and are merely different aspects of the whole truth—Traducianism = generic consciousness—and Creationism = God-consciousness, but this is not without its problems…..After examining all the views I still side with Berkhof and Creationism…and consider Traducianism as false for the reasons already given …
I am appreciating your comments, which seem to fit the scriptural data well. You mentioned a weakness of traducianism regarding regeneration. While I am in full agreement with you, I would appreciate your elaborating this aspect of the two systems. Specifically, would a creationist say that after regeneration a newly created nature exists, and would a traducianist say the old nature is merely re-shaped. (I'm thinking of Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast: "There must be something there that wasn't there before" versus Maria in The Sound of Music: "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.")
Specifically, would a creationist say that after regeneration a newly created nature exists, and would a traducianist say the old nature is merely re-shaped.
If we took Delitzsch’s statement “the continued creation of souls is inconsistent with God’s relation to the world,” and applied it to regeneration we see that God is so transcendent that He no longer works in the world. Thus, man would be left to make his own way in salvation with a little help of one named Jesus on the Cross (a crude way of describing Arminianism). Delitzsch would most certainly be agast at this.... God is immanent, near, or presently at work in this world. God did not just create once and leave. He is immanent all the way through the OT. Then came the glory and promise of the Cross and then the majesty and working of Holy Spirit. God is presently at work. The proper view of Christianity is that God is both transcendent and immanent—there must be a balance in our perception here ….
Scripture says we are "new creatures" or "creations." I think Jesus said it well in:
Quote
John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
As seen above Nicodemus asked Jesus if the new birth could be after traducianism (can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?) and Jesus answered, "No," the birth must be after creationism because “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.” Ok, I am just having some fun here, however, while this does not prove creationism it does in fact stress: (1) the new creation as opposed to a re-creation (2) it shows God presently at work and (3) since God is a Spirit (as seen in the next chapter, John 4:24) those born again are born of God. The soul comes from God and is not generated by man. As Paul says in 2 Cor 5:17, “Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.” However, he adds in verse 18, “And all things are from God.” No one can ever say that being born again has its origin in human beings, for Paul clearly teaches that God is the originator and source of this birth. God created all things through Christ Jesus (John 1:3; Col. 1:15–18; Heb. 1:2)…..
Regeneration is a poor argument against Traducianism. Traducians affirm that God is the creator of soul and body. They deny that God creates the soul apart from propagation. Lutheran dogmatician Franz Pieper: "We received our soul and body with all their members from our parents as causae secundae, and at the same time we know that God is our creator and Father." So monergistic regeneration is completely consistent with Traducianism. God creates willing men from unwilling men.
Regeneration is a poor argument against Traducianism. Traducians affirm that God is the creator of soul and body. They deny that God creates the soul apart from propagation. Lutheran dogmatician Franz Pieper: "We received our soul and body with all their members from our parents as causae secundae, and at the same time we know that God is our creator and Father." So monergistic regeneration is completely consistent with Traducianism. God creates willing men from unwilling men.
Yes, Lutherans normally embrace Traducianism, however their philosophy does not stand up to scrutiny. It is interesting to note that in his dogmatics Pieper merely remarks in the Prolegomena that the matter should be regarded as an open question?
But if we think this through I believe the answer is very clear. If Adam's soul and ours had a different origin:
(1) Adam by God breathing into him the breath of life, and
(2) us having our souls imparted by our parents (Traducianism)
they could not be said to be of the same species because:
(1) Adam's was from nothing and inbreathed directly by God, and
(2) ours would be from "something" and propagated by our parents
Thus, Jesus could not be the “last man Adam,” since He would have been born of a different species in Mary. Or, if it is accepted that Jesus is "the last man Adam," (because Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit ...) He could ONLY redeem Adam and not his posterity, whom would be propagated of different parents in Traducianism. Thus, either way Jesus could not be the redeemer of God’s elect who, in Traducianism, would each be made from some preexisting material and wholly dissimilar. Thus, the doctrines of Lutheranism (as put forth by Franz Pieper and others) are a poor argument for the regeneration of God’s elect!
Quote
Eccl 12:7 and the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it. .
Zech 12:1 … Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him:
Again, these verses do not say HOW the spirit was formed within man, however it directly says God gave it and formed it. Lutherans of course translate this that God used secondary means of the parents, however the Scripture is clear in Adam’s case that the soul was breathed into him directly from God (Gen 2:7). I think it is very telling as well in the creation of Eve… Would not Adam have said not only that Eve was "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" but "soul of my soul" (Gen 2:23)? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> Of course there are related texts:
Quote
Num 16:22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?
Isa 57:16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit would faint before me, and the souls that I have made.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Though God is God of all, I believe it was Turrentin who asked, Why should God be called "the Father of spirits" as opposed to "the fathers of the flesh” unless the origin of each was different? However, if the souls are propagated (Traducianism), the parents of the body and the soul would be the same. Traducianism and Scripture do not seem to coincide.
Speartus, can you defend Traducianism from Scripture? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
J_Edwards said: Yes, Lutherans normally embrace Traducianism, however their philosophy does not stand up to scrutiny. It is interesting to note that in his dogmatics Pieper merely remarks in the Prolegomena that the matter should be regarded as an open question?
Although Chemnitz and Pieper consider Traducianism, as a doctrine, to be an open question, all Lutherans are agreed that original sin is "propagated from sinful seed, through carnal conception and birth from father and mother." And "God even since the Fall is the Creator of man, and creates his body and soul."
Quote
Formula of Concord, Original Sin .. as the Nineteenth Article of the Augsburg Confession teaches, that God is not a creator, author, or cause of sin, but by the instigation of the devil through one man sin (which is a work of the devil) has entered the world, Rom. 5, 12; 1 John 3, 7. And even at the present day, in this corruption [in this corruption of nature], God does not create and make sin in us, but with the nature which God at the present day still creates and makes in men original sin is propagated from sinful seed, through carnal conception and birth from father and mother. ...
These passages clearly testify that God even since the Fall is the Creator of man, and creates his body and soul. Therefore corrupt man cannot, without any distinction, be sin itself, otherwise God would be a creator of sin; as also our Small Catechism confesses in the explanation of the First Article, where it is written: I believe that God has made me and all creatures, that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my members, my reason and all my senses, and still preserves them. Likewise in the Large Catechism it is thus written: This is what I believe and mean, that is, that I am a creature of God; that He has given and constantly preserves to me my body, soul, and life, members great and small, and all my senses, mind, and reason. Nevertheless, this same creature and work of God is lamentably corrupted by sin; for the mass (massa) from which God now forms and makes man was corrupted and perverted in Adam, and is thus transmitted by inheritance to us. 39] And here pious Christian hearts justly ought to consider the unspeakable goodness of God, that God does not immediately cast from Himself into hell-fire this corrupt, perverted, sinful mass, but forms and makes from it the present human nature, which is lamentably corrupted by sin, in order that He may cleanse it from all sin, sanctify and save it by His dear Son. 40] From this article, now, the distinction is found indisputably and clearly. For original sin does not come from God. God is not a creator or author of sin. Nor is original sin a creature or work of God, but it is a work of the devil.
Quote
J Edwards opines But if we think this through I believe the answer is very clear. If Adam's soul and ours had a different origin:
(1) Adam by God breathing into him the breath of life, and (2) us having our souls imparted by our parents (Traducianism)they could not be said to be of the same species because: (1) Adam's was from nothing and inbreathed directly by God, and (2) ours would be from "something" and propagated by our parents Thus, Jesus could not be the “last man Adam,” since He would have born of a different species in Mary (or if it is accepted that He is He could ONLY redeem Adam and not his posterity born of different parents ....) and thus could not be the redeemer of God’s elect who, in Traducianism, would each be made from some preexisting material and wholly dissimilar. Thus, the doctrines of Lutheranism (as put forth by Franz Pieper and others) are a poor argument for the regeneration of God’s elect!
There is difference between the souls of Adam before the Fall and of Christ and the souls of every other person. That difference does not pertain the substance of man only the accident of original sin.
Quote
Formula of Concord, Original Sin ..
in the article of Redemption the Scriptures testify forcibly that God's Son assumed our human nature without sin, so that He was in all things, sin excepted, made like unto us, His brethren, Heb. 2, 14. Unde veteres dixerunt: Christum nobis, fratribus suis, consubstantialem esse secundum assumptam naturam, quia naturam, quae, excepto peccato, eiusdem generis, speciei et substantiae cum nostra est, assumpsit; et contrariam sententiam manifeste haereseos damnarunt. That is: Hence all the old orthodox teachers have maintained that Christ, according to His assumed humanity, is of one essence with us, His brethren; for He has assumed His human nature, which in all respects (sin alone excepted) is like our human nature in its essence and all essential attributes; and they have condemned the contrary doctrine as manifest heresy. 44] Now, if there were no distinction between the nature or essence of corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin; both of which ideas are contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one [and the same] thing, but must be distinguished.
Quote
J Edwards Again, these verses do not say HOW the spirit was formed within man, however it directly says God gave it and formed it. Lutherans of course translate this that God used secondary means of the parents, however the Scripture is clear in Adam’s case that the soul was breathed into him directly from God (Gen 2:7). I think it is very telling as well in the creation of Eve… Would not Adam have said not only that Eve was "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" but "soul of my soul" (Gen 2:23)?
Would you say Eve's soul acquired original sin through her own sin or Adam's?
Quote
J Edwards Though God is God of all, I believe it was Turrentin who asked, Why should God be called "the Father of spirits" as opposed to "the fathers of the flesh” unless the origin of each was different? However, if the souls are propagated (Traducianism), the parents of the body and the soul would be the same. Traducianism and Scripture do not seem to coincide.
Speartus, can you defend Traducianism from Scripture?
I am willing to defend the passages I have quoted from the Formula of Concord.
Although Chemnitz and Pieper consider Traducianism, as a doctrine, to be an open question, all Lutherans are agreed that original sin is "propagated from sinful seed, through carnal conception and birth from father and mother." And "God even since the Fall is the Creator of man, and creates his body and soul."
First, this is NOT an argument against what I posted, but a simple statement that God uses secondary means….. Second, please Scripturally prove how this works. Unless you can disprove Scripturally what I have previously posted, according to your view (Traducianism) there exists multiple species by definition and thus you would need multiple Christs for the redemption of all God’s elect? Since there is ONLY one Christ, your view is necessarily false!
Quote
There is difference between the souls of Adam before the Fall and of Christ and the souls of every other person. That difference does not pertain the substance of man only the accident of original sin.
First, you are changing the subject from regeneration back to the fall …. Second, once again, you failed to address my argument. Third, we know that Lutherans believe that mankind lost the image of God in the fall (of course, then mankind is no longer human by definition, but that is for another thread <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />), however the question here is about regeneration? Please reply to my argument using Scripture????
Quote
Would you say Eve's soul acquired original sin through her own sin or Adam's?
Adam as the covenant head of mankind (Rom 5:12-21), which includes Eve, imputed total depravity to the race. This is clearly seen as Eve's eyes were not immediately opened, she did not immediately hide (et. al.) after her sin, but AFTER Adam sinned (which clearly disproves that total depravity comes through propagation). After the sin of Adam then “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons” and thus, total depravity took root in mankind … and guilt and pollution was manifested … so they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden … however, God called to the covenant head (Adam) for explanation; “And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, ….. As I revealed earlier the representative view is the Scriptural view.
Quote
I am willing to defend the passages I have quoted from the Formula of Concord.
Please do one at a time, so we can avoid confusion …, but please quote more than just the confessions … that is not an exegesis of Scripture … otherwise <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
First, this is NOT an argument against what I posted, but a simple statement that God uses secondary means…
Understood. You had a question mark. My answer: All Lutherans embrace secondary means but not all embrace Traducianism.
Quote
Second, please Scripturally prove how this works. Unless you can disprove Scripturally what I have previously posted, according to your view (Traducianism) there exists multiple species by definition and thus you would need multiple Christs for the redemption of all God’s elect? Since there is ONLY one Christ, your view is necessarily false!
You seem to confuse traducianism with evolutionism. Like propagates like in species.
Quote
First, you are changing the subject from regeneration back to the fall …. Second, once again, you failed to address my argument. Third, we know that Lutherans believe that mankind lost the image of God in the fall (of course, then mankind is no longer human by definition, but that is for another thread ), however the question here is about regeneration? Please reply to my argument using Scripture????
Of course, the image of God in man is lost before regeneration due to a horrible corruption of the entire nature, an inborn wicked disposition, and a total enmity against God. However, that does not mean that there is any change to the substance of man. The heretitary disease of original sin has resulted in the lost of image of God and this horrible corruption of the nature.
Your argument is based on a false premise which no Lutheran traducian (who agrees with his confessions) can accept: "God is so transcendent that He no longer works in the world." I have quoted the confessions to prove that God creates and preserves body and soul so no further comment is required; however, here is a quote to show God is also active in regeneration:
Quote
Small Catechism I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life.
Quote
Adam as the covenant head of mankind (Rom 5:12-21), which includes Eve, imputed total depravity to the race.
You are consistent.
Quote
Please do one at a time, so we can avoid confusion …, but please quote more than just the confessions … that is not an exegesis of Scripture
To save time, what don't you agree with in my Formula of Concord citations?
You seem to confuse traducianism with evolutionism. Like propagates like in species.
Speratus can others use the terms propagate (to have offspring ...) and species (a class of individuals, a kind, variety, or type ...) and NOT be speaking about evolution? I am in no way confusing the terms, … PLEASE make an argument from Scripture????????
For instance, in Genesis 1 it states,
Quote
11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
Now every creation of God that was created in the verses above brought forth other creatures after their own kind. However, when we get to the creation of man he was not made after his own kind was he? In Gen 1:26 and 27 we read,
Quote
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Mankind was a special creation unlike the beasts of the field. He was so special that “Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen 2:7). Traducianism by definition looks at man as it does the beasts of the field, producing after its kind, but Scripture once again disagrees! Every human soul is a special creative act of the immanent God!
Quote
Of course, the image of God in man is lost before regeneration due to a horrible corruption of the entire nature, an inborn wicked disposition, and a total enmity against God. However, that does not mean that there is any change to the substance of man. The heretitary disease of original sin has resulted in the lost of image of God and this horrible corruption of the nature.
If man was originally created in the image of God (see above) and then lost that image “in totality” (as Lutheran theology states) then mankind is not longer mankind. He is not longer distinct from any other creature in the field. In addition, since Jesus was created in this image (the Second man Adam) He could only redeem mankind in the image of God (not the propagating Lutheran beasts), thus in Lutheranism there is no redeemer of God’s elect! Again and again Lutheranism reveals it has no consistent Christology! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
As Berkhof comments the Lutheran differs materially from the Reformed view as it does not sufficiently recognize the essential nature of man as distinct from that of the angels on the one hand, and from that of animals on the other hand. In the possession of this image men are like the angels, who also possess it; and in comparison with what the two have in common, their difference is of little importance. Man lost the image of God entirely through sin, and what now distinguishes him from the animals has very little religious or theological significance. The great difference between Reformed theology and Lutheranism in the image of God is that Lutherans believe this image is entirely lost. In view of this it is also natural that the Lutherans should adopt Traducianism, and thus teach that the soul of man originates like that of an animal, that is, by procreation.
The Reformed view of the image of God IMO is much more accurate then the Lutheran view. This is known as the Broader and Narrower View. The dominant view (however, not the only view) of Reformed and Presbyterian churches is that the image of God may be spoken of in broader and narrower senses (Charles Hodge notes that Reformed theologians also use the terminology "essential" and "accidental" for the two senses of the divine image (Systematic Theology, vol. 1). The imago dei in the narrower sense, consisting of knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, was wholly lost at the fall, but the imago dei in the wider sense, which includes man’s "intellectual power, natural affections and moral freedom," was retained (Berkhof). Thus, Henrici a Diest (Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics) writes,
Quote
The image of God (which cannot be lost) was the spiritual, immortal, rational substance of the soul, with the powers of knowing and freely willing: the divine image, which can be lost, lay for knowledge in wisdom, for the will and its effects in true righteousness and holiness.
Since, you are into Lutheranism you should note that R. C. H. Lenski (a Lutheran) held to this view as well. Lenski distinguishes between the "general" and the "special" image but their contents are the same as the broader/narrower distinction (The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James, p. 611).
Quote
Your argument is based on a false premise which no Lutheran traducian (who agrees with his confessions) can accept: "God is so transcendent that He no longer works in the world." I have quoted the confessions to prove that God creates and preserves body and soul so no further comment is required; however, here is a quote to show God is also active in regeneration
This merely reveals the continued inconsistency in Lutheran doctrine and their theologians. I have proved scripturally that your Small Catechism (in this area) is impossible for the Lutheran to embrace as true, if they hold to Traducianism. You need to disprove ALL my arguments Speratus before we can accept your confessions. PLEASE support your claim scripturally.
Quote
To save time, what don't you agree with in my Formula of Concord citations?
Because they are NOT scripturally bounded. You quote these before you quote and “explain” Scripture. I had asked in the previous post for you to support your views scripturally, however you DID NOT present one Scripture, but you found room and time for the Small Catechism. You are seeing Scripture, (when you get to it that is), ONLY through the eyes of the FOC, Small Cathechism, etc. which is a false hermeneutic. As much as I respect the history and the truth of the WCF and other such documents the Scriptures are still above them for they are the truth …without question.
To be more specific the FOC speaks of God using secondary means in the creation of the soul and thus …. False. You or it have yet to “prove” this scripturally.… Quoting the confession is not evidence of its veracity or integrity and if it is not supported in, with, under, and by the Scripture it is no different than reading a textbook on American History ....
What you/we are up against here is someone who has more affection for a man (cultish behaviour) than the source upon which that man, Martin Luther, stood on (right or wrong) and was willing to give his life for. It isn't a phenomena exclusive to this speratus nor to Lutherans, for "denominationalism" is found among most, if not all, denominations, groups and cults. It is shameful, IMHO, for someone to not be able to open the Word of God and show by proper exegesis and good and necessary consequence from the Word, evidence for that which they believe. The ability to do so will of course vary with the gifts given by the Spirit. But to whatever degree one is able, one should be able to give a reason for the hope that lies within them from the infallible Scriptures.
It would seem from a multitude of challenges given to speratus that he is either unable or unwilling to stand upon God's Word but rather to base his entire profession upon the writings of men. Most of us can find fault with some of the views held by the Church Fathers, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, Sproul, et al. And how is it that we can do this? By comparing what they embraced to what is written in the inspired, inerrant, infallible written Word of the Living God. Should any of us find no fault in the doctrines of a man/men, then the warning flag should be most visible and indicate that we no longer rely upon the proposition truths of God but upon the fallible ideas of men.
J Edwards opines Speratus can others use the terms propagates and species and NOT be speaking about evolution? I am in no way confusing the terms, … PLEASE make an argument from Scripture????????
For instance, in Genesis 1 it states,
Quote: 11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. Now every creation of God that was created in the verses above brought forth other creatures in the order of nature after their own kind. However, when we get to the creation of man he was not made after his own kind was he? In Gen 1:26 and 27 we read,
Quote: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And continuing to verse 28, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply..." So, when God blessed man and gave him the command to be fruitful, He was speaking of multiplication of bodies not souls? Where is that in the text?
Quote
Mankind was a special creation unlike the beasts of the field. He was so special that “Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen 2:7). Traducianism by definition looks at man as it does the beasts of the field, producing after its kind, but Scripture once again disagrees! Every human soul is a special creative act of the immanent God!
Does God continue to form man from the dust of the ground or does God now employ other means (biological reproduction)? If God uses other means to propagate the body, what in the text prevents Him from using other means to propagate the soul?
Quote
If man was originally created in the image of God (see above) and then lost that image “in totality” (as Lutheran theology states) then mankind is not longer mankind. He is not longer distinct from any other creature in the field. In addition, since Christ was created in this very image (the Second man Adam) He could only redeem them whom He was like and thus in Lutheranism there is no redeemer of God’s elect! Again and again Lutheranism reveals it has no consistent Christology!
As Berkhof comments the Lutheran differs materially from the Reformed view as it does not sufficiently recognize the essential nature of man as distinct from that of the angels on the one hand, and from that of animals on the other hand. In the possession of this image men are like the angels, who also possess it; and in comparison with what the two have in common, their difference is of little importance. Man lost the image of God entirely through sin, and what now distinguishes him from the animals has very little religious or theological significance. The great difference between Reformed theology and Lutheranism in the image of God is that Lutherans believe this image is entirely lost. In view of this it is also natural that the Lutherans should adopt Traducianism, and thus teach that the soul of man originates like that of an animal, that is, by procreation.
The Reformed view of the image of God IMO is much more accurate then the Lutheran view. This is known as the Broader and Narrower View. The dominant view (however, not the only view) of Reformed and Presbyterian churches is that the image of God may be spoken of in broader and narrower senses (Charles Hodge notes that Reformed theologians also use the terminology "essential" and "accidental" for the two senses of the divine image (Systematic Theology, vol. 1). The imago dei in the narrower sense, consisting of knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, was wholly lost at the fall, but the imago dei in the wider sense, which includes man’s "intellectual power, natural affections and moral freedom," was retained (Berkhof). Thus, Henrici a Diest (Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics) writes,
Quote: The image of God (which cannot be lost) was the spiritual, immortal, rational substance of the soul, with the powers of knowing and freely willing: the divine image, which can be lost, lay for knowledge in wisdom, for the will and its effects in true righteousness and holiness. Since, you are into Lutheranism you should note that R. C. H. Lenski (a Lutheran) held to this view as well. Lenski distinguishes between the "general" and the "special" image but their contents are the same as the broader/narrower distinction (The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James, p. 611).
The Apology defines the image of God as “the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth.” Are we agreed that unregenerate man has lost the image of God as defined in the Apology?
Quote
This merely reveals the continued inconsistency in Lutheran doctrine and their theologians. I have proved Scripturally that your Small Catechism (in this area) is impossible for the Lutheran to embrace as true, if they hold to Traducianism. You need to disprove ALL my arguments Speratus before we can accept your confessions. PLEASE support your claim Scripturally.
I am not asking you accept my confessions. I am correcting false assumptions regarding the definition of Traducianism and the content of Book of Concord. The issue, as I see it, is whether God uses means to create souls and to regenerate. If we are agreed on this, we can proceed to scriptural proof.
Quote
To save time, what don't you agree with in my Formula of Concord citations? Because they are NOT scripturally bounded. You quote these before you quote and “explain” Scripture. I had asked in the previous post for you to support your views scripturally, however you DID NOT present one Scripture, but you found room and time for the Small Catechism. You are seeing Scripture, (when you get to it that is), ONLY through the eyes of the FOC, Small Cathechism, etc. which is a false hermeneutic. As much as I respect the history and the truth of the WCF and other such documents the Scriptures are still above them for they are the truth …without question.
I asked "what" not "why". Of course, scripture is the sole standard by which all confessions are judged. Confessions are prepared to refute those who would deny scripture. If confessions do not refute error, what purpose do they serve?
Quote
To be more specific the FOC speaks of God using secondary means in the creation of the soul and thus …. False. You or it have yet to “prove” this scripturally … Quoting the confession is not evidence of its veracity or integrity and if it is not supported in, with, under, and by the Scripture it is no different than reading textbook on American History .
You asked if I could defend traducianism from scripture. I will not defend traducianism but I will defend the FOC since it refutes error.
Gen. 5:1-3 states that God created Adam in His likeness and that Adam begat Seth in his (Adam’s) likeness. The likeness of Adam passed on to Seth through procreation includes a horrible corruption of the entire nature (Romans 5:12). All people begotten in the natural way are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin (Ps. 51:5). Thus God uses procreation in His creation of souls to fulfill His curse (Gen. 2:17). But He Himself does not create sin (1 John 3: 7, 8).
And continuing to verse 28, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply..." So, when God blessed man and gave him the command to be fruitful, He was speaking of multiplication of bodies not souls? Where is that in the text?
Where is the command to make souls? There is nothing in this text that says mankind can make a soul. There is only a command to do what God has designed mankind to do—be fruitful and multiply. If we define the imago dei (image of God) in the Lutheran sense, consisting ONLY of knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, and it was wholly lost in the fall (Lutheran theology), HOW can it be multiplied by man if it was wholly lost by man? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
Quote
Does God continue to form man from the dust of the ground or does God now employ other means (biological reproduction)? If God uses other means to propagate the body, what in the text prevents Him from using other means to propagate the soul?
How can man multiply that which he, in the Lutheran definition, no longer has? God in the wonder of His creation has allowed us procreative powers of the body, however He still maintains the power to create and ONLY He may create a soul.
Quote
The Apology defines the image of God as “the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth.” Are we agreed that unregenerate man has lost the image of God as defined in the Apology?
NO, the Apology is correct ONLY in part. You need the second half of the equation—what in the image was retained. The imago dei in the narrower sense, consisting of knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, was wholly lost at the fall, but the imago dei in the wider sense, which includes man’s "intellectual power, natural affections and moral freedom," was retained (Berkhof). The image of God (which cannot be lost) was the spiritual, immortal, rational substance of the soul, with the powers of knowing and freely willing: the divine image, which can be lost, lay for knowledge in wisdom, for the will and its effects in true righteousness and holiness.
If we speak about the image of God from the Lutheran perspective after the fall there is nothing left to speak about, for the image of God never left the Garden (except in Christ, and then we need to discuss the Christology problems again...). If however the image of God continued in any form after the fall, one must abandon the Lutheran understanding of it.
Quote
Gen. 5:1-3 states that God created Adam in His likeness and that Adam begat Seth in his (Adam’s) likeness. The likeness of Adam passed on to Seth through procreation includes a horrible corruption of the entire nature (Romans 5:12). All people begotten in the natural way are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin (Ps. 51:5). Thus God uses procreation in His creation of souls to fulfill His curse (Gen. 2:17). But He Himself does not create sin (1 John 3: 7, 8).
Finally, the Scripture. As Paul Harvey says, now the rest of the story.
Quote
Genesis 5 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
First, thanks for proving creationism, not Traducianism. Second, once again it is stressed that God is the one that created man and woman (vs 1 & 2). Third, AFTER the Fall, Seth was born. Fourth, Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, however in Lutheranism the “image of God” (“the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth”) in man was ALREADY lost. Thus, what image is vs 3 speaking about? We are left once again with the Reformed view of the image of God in the broad and narrow sense (see above). This disproves Traducianism, for there is nothing in the Lutheran sense to pass down from generation to generation.
We will get to the error of the rest of your explanation later--i.e. inherited corruption vs. imputed ... (which actually was already addressed in the example of Eve).
NO, the Apology is correct ONLY in part. You need the second half of the equation—what in the image was retained. The imago dei in the narrower sense, consisting of knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, was wholly lost at the fall, but the imago dei in the wider sense, which includes man’s "intellectual power, natural affections and moral freedom," was retained (Berkhof). The image of God (which cannot be lost) was the spiritual, immortal, rational substance of the soul, with the powers of knowing and freely willing: the divine image, which can be lost, lay for knowledge in wisdom, for the will and its effects in true righteousness and holiness.
If we speak about the image of God from the Lutheran perspective after the fall there is nothing left to speak about, for the image of God never left the Garden (except in Christ, and then we need to discuss the Christology problems again...). If however the image of God continued in any form after the fall, one must abandon the Lutheran understanding of it.
I'm not exactly sure how Berkhof defines "intellectual power, natural affections and moral freedom" but it appears from your description that he has sorely understated the effects of original sin. But, however these effects are defined, they remain accidents and do not effect the substance of unregenerate man. He is still a man and a creation of God even though the image of God is lost. So there is no Christological problem because Christ shares the same substance of every man which He received of His mother.
Quote
First, thanks for proving creationism, not Traducianism. Second, once again it is stressed that God is the one that created man and woman (vs 1 & 2). Third, AFTER the Fall, Seth was born. Fourth, Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, however in Lutheranism the “image of God” (“the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth”) in man was ALREADY lost. Thus, what image is vs 3 speaking about?
1, You're welcome, I think. It was not my intent to prove Traducianism or disprove creationism but to show that God uses means to create souls. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. The image of Adam is that of a man corrupted by sin.
I'm not exactly sure how Berkhof defines "intellectual power, natural affections and moral freedom" but it appears from your description that he has sorely understated the effects of original sin.
We (Berkhof and myself) believe in a complete fall, however not in a complete loss of the image of God. The Bible specifically says that AFTER the fall man did not lose the complete image of God:
Quote
Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.
This verse would have absolutely no meaning if man lost the totality of the image of God! We must humble <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" /> ourselves before the text.
I know you agree that Jesus is the image of God (Heb 1:3), but remember the text where it states that it "behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17). Simply Jesus is not a man if He does not have the “image of God,” which He could not have if born of Mary, in the Lutheran sense?
Pilgrim is correct, you are allowing your denominationalism (and you are not the only one) to dictate your understanding of Scripture, instead of allowing your exegesis of Scripture to (1) select your denomination (2) to continue to evaluate your denomination (3) to direct your denomination toward the truth, etc. You shall know the truth and it shall set you free, not you shall know your denomination and it will set you free. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />
Quote
1, You're welcome, I think. It was not my intent to prove Traducianism or disprove creationism but to show that God uses means to create souls. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. The image of Adam is that of a man corrupted by sin.
God does use secondary means to create bodies as pointed out by your excellent text, however not the soul. Speratus re-read these passages.
Quote
Genesis 5 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Highlighted area #1 (H1) says Mankind (book of the generations … created man), not just Adam, was CREATED in the likeness of God, reiterating Genesis 1:26-27. Highlighted area #2 (H2) says that Seth was BEGAT in the likeness of Adam.
Here in these three verses the text is specifically saying something wonderful. First, ask yourself why does God state AGAIN that He created man in His own likeness (H1)? Second, though we are speaking here of Adam's posterity, H1 uses the word CREATE not BEGET? Third, we see Adam who BEGETS (however, not without Divine providence and blessing, “God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel” Gen 4:25), but does not CREATE (H1). Fourth, we know that Adam is ALREADY fallen (Gen 3).
While mankind (Adam) by divine mandate is permitted to procreate (H2) the Bible is extremely clear that mankind does not CREATE (H1). Man may only BEGET (H2). It is proven from Scripture though that God CREATES the soul:
Quote
Genesis 2:7 Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Adam passed on to his posterity that which is common (something made from something else, already created …) to all mankind (1) that which came from the earth, since he is made of the “dust of the ground” (something made from something else, already created), and (2) total depravity by imputation as proved in the case of Eve here and Rom 5:12-21. However, ONLY God is said to “breath into nostrils the breath of life; and man becomes a living soul” (not something made from something else already created). God is the creator of the soul! The soul is a unique creation of God. Your text in Genesis 5:1-3 is telling you this, by the reiteration of Gen 1:26-27. Gen 5:2 now becomes the focal point, which reveals God as the CREATOR of mankind ...
I know you agree that Jesus is the image of God (Heb 1:3), but remember the text where it states that it "behooved him , that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17). Simply Jesus is not a man if He does not have the “image of God,” which He could not have if born of Mary, in the Lutheran sense?
In the Catholic sense:
Quote
Athanasian Creed:Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ...
As the Creed teaches, let us not confuse the substance. Christ did not receive the image of God at the incarnation. Christ was the image of God before the worlds being eternally begotten of the Father (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15-17). At the incarnation, Christ was made man of the substance of His mother (Gal. 4:4,5) that "in all things to be made like unto his brethren." Christ is true man of a "reasonable soul and flesh" conceived by Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary.
Quote
Pilgrim[/url] is correct, you are allowing your denominationalism (and you are not the only one) to dictate your understanding of Scripture, instead of allowing your exegesis of Scripture to (1) select your denomination (2) to continue to evaluate your denomination (3) to direct your denomination toward the truth, etc. You shall know the truth and it shall set you free, not you shall know your denomination and it will set you free. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />
The Churches of the Augsburg Confession are always reforming but they do not depart from scripture or the Church Catholic in any doctrine (Augsburg Confession, Conclusion). We are taught that all confessions should be examined against scripture (FOC, Comprehensive Rule). Teaching your brand of "image of God" in the unregenerate is contrary to scripture (Ps. 17:15) and the Church Catholic which has always taught that man is spiritually dead and without free will in spiritual matters (Romans 3:11).
We (Berkhof and myself) believe in a complete fall, however not in a complete loss of the image of God. The Bible specifically says that AFTER the fall man did not lose the complete image of God:
Although Jesus' direct, inspired interpretation of Psalm 82's "you are gods" is applied to a different question than soul origins in John 10:34ff, its ramifications also seem to strongly favor partial (albeit corrupted) retention of the imago dei. Would you mind commenting on the applicability--or lack thereof--of Psalm 82/John 10 to the question? More specifically, does the Psalm's "you are gods, children of the Most High", according to Jesus those "to whom the word of the Lord came", address (a) exclusively the redeemed, or does it include (b) the pre-redeemed as well, ((a) and (b) constituting the elect) or does it include (c) the reprobate as well in a partial image sense?
I have not studied this set of verses in reference to this argument. There are a lot of different interpretations of Ps 82:6 (angels, demons, etc). My interpretation of Ps 82:6 is that “gods” refer to “human judges” as in Ex 21:6, 22: 8 (compare Ps. 138:1). IMO the human nature of these “gods” is indicated in verses 6-7 revealing they are mortal. If my interpretation is correct they could be either elect or reprobate judges. IMO though an argument should not be made for the image of God here, because the Hebrew use of the term “elohim” can also simply mean one viewed as acting in God’s place as His agent in administering justice and thus not actually needing to be “in His image.”
You did spur my thoughts though on another verse (however the argument still needs a lot of work):
Quote
Ex 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Adam was created in God’s likeness. However if man can propagate the soul is he not is violation here? Is he not propagating God’s image? Thus, mankind cannot propagate the soul otherwise every time he gave birth he would be in violation of the ten commandments, however the creation mandate is to be fruitful and multiply! Thus, God is the author of the soul or else mankind would ever be in violation of the ten commandments. What is unique here is that Adam would not have fallen he would have maintained the perfect image of God and yet would have been in violation of the ten commands with the very first birth—thus, the Lutheran concept of the propagation of the soul is once again disproved. I have not had time to think this all the way through... may be someone elese can take this and develop it further.... I need some sleep
David contrasts himself to the wicked previously described. David has divine assurance of the imputed righteousness of Christ. After death, the image of God will be fully restored to David but not to the wicked who lack any righteousness being spiritually dead and in bondage to sin.
Gen. 9:6
God made man in His image. Although knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth have been lost, unregenerate man remains a rational creature with an immortal soul. The law restrains his murderous impulses.
Psalm 17:15 As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy form.
You described this verse and commented saying,
Quote
David contrasts himself to the wicked previously described. David has divine assurance of the imputed righteousness of Christ. After death, the image of God will be fully restored to David but not to the wicked who lack any righteousness being spiritually dead and in bondage to sin.
By “fully restored” do you mean David has “some” of the image of God now and is only missing his true righteous, knowledge, and holiness, or do you mean he is missing the “image of God in totality? You probably meant the later. However, I DO NOT see where this Psalm said that David does not have ANY of the image of God NOW (see Van Til’s attachment). As matter a fact you are attempting to proof text and have removed its context. Calvin states,
Quote
I shall be satisfied. Some interpreters, with more subtility than propriety, restrict this to the resurrection at the last day, as if David did not expect to experience in his heart a blessed joy until the life to come, and suspended every longing desire after it until he should attain to that life. I readily admit that this satisfaction of which he speaks will not in all respects be perfect before the last coming of Christ; but as the saints, when God causes some rays of the knowledge of his love to enter into their hearts, find great enjoyment in the light thus communicated, David justly calls this peace or joy of the Holy Spirit satisfaction.
Needless to say your analysis of the text does away with the faith of all the OT saints (i.e. no one had the image of God till after Christ). Did David have the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit in the “image of God,” one might say, “the express image of His likeness?”
However, if you restrict this Psalm to “the last day” (against Calvin, but like Wesley) then in reality you do not believe man will have the image of God till the final resurrection, or as Wesley says, “the image of God stamped upon my glorified soul.” Thus, no one is yet saved! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Quote
Speratus articulates,
God made man in His image. Although knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth have been lost, unregenerate man remains a rational creature with an immortal soul. The law restrains his murderous impulses.
Your explanation fails to explain HOW the SCRIPTURE says man is STILL in the image of God AFTER the fall. Re-read the text:
Quote
Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.
This Scripture DOES NOT merely say man remained a rational soul, it rather says he is made in the image of God! R.C. Sproul states, “Since man is created in the image of God, an attack upon the human person is considered an attack upon God himself. To slay the image-bearer is to insult the One whose image is borne" (Chosen by God). In addition, you spoke of the law. As Pink stated, (An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount),
Quote
The “image” of God was broken and His “likeness” was greatly marred, though not completely effaced, for, as the apostle points out, the heathen which had not the Law in its written form “did by nature [some of] the things contained in the law,” and thereby they “showed the work of the law written in their hearts,” their conscience being proof of the same (Romans 2:14, 15). At the Fall, love for the Divine Law was supplanted by hatred, and submission and obedience gave place to enmity and opposition.
And Edwards adds (Religious Affections),
Quote
As there are two kinds of attributes in God, according to our way of conceiving of him, his moral attributes, which are summed up in his holiness, and his natural attributes of strength, knowledge, etc., that constitute the greatness of God; so there is a twofold image of God in man, his moral or spiritual image, which is his holiness, that is the image of God’s moral excellency (which image was lost by the fall), and God’s natural image, consisting in man’s reason and understanding, his natural ability, and dominion over the creatures, which is the image of God’s natural attribute.
Moreover, while the dominion in Genesis 1:28 granted man is not the image, it is a consequence of man being the image of God. The dominion is a function of man, and not a quality of his nature. As John Owen notes (The Glory of Christ), “This representation, I say, of God, in power and rule, was not that image of God wherein man was created, but a consequent of it.” It was specifically commanded to man, upon the completion of His creation. Dominion was assigned to man over the whole world (Gen 1:26–27; Psa 8; 1 Cor 15:24–28; Heb 2:5–8). This dominion was the rationale for the “creation mandate” to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1:28). Being by nature equipped to have dominion over the earth, man has sought to fulfill this function, even as a sinner. Thus, the very act of a sinner desiring dominion reveals he still remains in the “image of God” in part!
By “fully restored” do you mean David has “some” of the image of God now and is only missing his true righteous, knowledge, and holiness, or do you mean he is missing the “image of God in totality? You probably meant the later. However, I DO NOT see where this Psalm said that David does not have ANY of the image of God NOW (see Van Til’s attachment). As matter a fact you are attempting to proof text and have removed its context. Calvin states,
Quote
I shall be satisfied. Some interpreters, with more subtility than propriety, restrict this to the resurrection at the last day, as if David did not expect to experience in his heart a blessed joy until the life to come, and suspended every longing desire after it until he should attain to that life. I readily admit that this satisfaction of which he speaks will not in all respects be perfect before the last coming of Christ; but as the saints, when God causes some rays of the knowledge of his love to enter into their hearts, find great enjoyment in the light thus communicated, David justly calls this peace or joy of the Holy Spirit satisfaction.
Needless to say your analysis of the text does away with the faith of all the OT saints (i.e. no one had the image of God till after Christ). Did David have the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit in the “image of God,” one might say, “the express image of His likeness?”
However, if you restrict this Psalm to “the last day” (against Calvin, but like Wesley) then in reality you do not believe man will have the image of God till the final resurrection, or as Wesley says, “the image of God stamped upon my glorified soul.” Thus, no one is yet saved! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Sorry for my lack of clarity. Yes, the image of God is partially restored in the sense that the righteousness of Christ is imputed and the Holy Spirit enlightens the regenerate.
Quote
J Edwards articulates,This Scripture DOES NOT merely say man remained a rational soul, it rather says he is made in the image of God! R.C. Sproul states, “Since man is created in the image of God, an attack upon the human person is considered an attack upon God himself. To slay the image-bearer is to insult the One whose image is borne" (Chosen by God). In addition, you spoke of the law. As Pink stated, (An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount),
Quote
The “image” of God was broken and His “likeness” was greatly marred, though not completely effaced, for, as the apostle points out, the heathen which had not the Law in its written form “did by nature [some of] the things contained in the law,” and thereby they “showed the work of the law written in their hearts,” their conscience being proof of the same (Romans 2:14, 15). At the Fall, love for the Divine Law was supplanted by hatred, and submission and obedience gave place to enmity and opposition.
And Edwards adds (Religious Affections),
Quote
As there are two kinds of attributes in God, according to our way of conceiving of him, his moral attributes, which are summed up in his holiness, and his natural attributes of strength, knowledge, etc., that constitute the greatness of God; so there is a twofold image of God in man, his moral or spiritual image, which is his holiness, that is the image of God’s moral excellency (which image was lost by the fall), and God’s natural image, consisting in man’s reason and understanding, his natural ability, and dominion over the creatures, which is the image of God’s natural attribute.
Finally, a Reform theologian who rightly distinguishes between the moral or spiritual attributes which are lost and the natural attributes which are not lost. Does Edwards teach that these natural attributes are propagated by procreation?
Unregenerate man posesses natural reason and understanding but no moral excellency. He is spiritually dead and does everything to escape punishment and obtain rewards. His outward acts of obediance that appear good are really evil. God gives him the law he craves in order to curb his gross acts of depravity.
Finally, a Reform theologian who rightly distinguishes between the moral or spiritual attributes which are lost and the natural attributes which are not lost.
So do you believe "part" of the image of God exists after the Fall? YES or NO (please don't add an explanation, just YES or NO)
Quote
Does Edwards teach that these natural attributes are propagated by procreation?
Traducianism was held by many Church Fathers: Tertullian, Rufinus, Apollinarus and Gregory of Nyssa. Lutherans as well as Jonathan Edwards, Shedd, Strong, and (with reservations) even Buswell, however just because someone holds to it does not make it correct. YOU must still PROVE it from Scripture. Yale University Press has all JE's writings in print (23 vols) if you care to use his arguments ... your library may have a set ... (however at app 2K a set they may not).
speratus said: No, in those who bear the image of Satan.
Incredible!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> I learned for the first time, thanks to you, that Satan is capable of the propagation of human souls. Ya know, speratus, before you came here and started what you probably believe is a defense of Lutheranism, I held Lutherans in high regard. The only hope I have of retaining that high regard is that what you are espousing is your own distorted personal views. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
speratus said: No, in those who bear the image of Satan.
Incredible!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> I learned for the first time, thanks to you, that Satan is capable of the propagation of human souls. Ya know, speratus, before you came here and started what you probably believe is a defense of Lutheranism, I held Lutherans in high regard. The only hope I have to retaining that high regard is that what you are espousing is your own distorted personal views. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
1. I did not say that Satan propagated souls. Furthermore, the image of Satan is an accident and not of the substance of man. 2. I first learned of this view through my reading of Reform theologicians; however, I believe that it is consistent with both Reform and Lutheran historic doctrines of the Fall and, more importantly, with scripture.
Quote
The Doctrine of Sanctification, A. W. Pink Even among those preachers who desire to be regarded as orthodox, who do not deny the Fall as a historical fact, few among them perceive the dire effects and extent thereof. "Bruised by the fall," as one popular hymn puts it, states the truth far too mildly; yea, entirely misstates it. Through the breach of the first covenant all men have lost the image of God, and now bear the image of the Devil (John 8:44). The whole of their faculties are so depraved that they can neither think (2 Cor. 3:5), speak, nor do anything truly good and acceptable unto God. They are by birth, altogether unholy, unclean, loathsome and abominable in nature, heart, and life; and it is altogether beyond their power to change themselves.
Quote
NATURAL MEN IN A DREADFUL CONDITION, J. EdwardsNatural men are in the image of the devil. The image of God is rased out, and the image of the devil is stamped upon them.
Please if you ae going to qote people like J_Edwards keep him in context:
Quote
The hearts of natural men are exceedingly full of sin. If they had but one sin in their hearts, it would be sufficient to render their condition very dreadful. But they have not only one sin, but all manner of sin. There is every kind of lust. The heart is a mere sink of sin, a fountain of corruption, whence issue all manner of filthy streams. Mark 7:21, 22, From within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication s, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. There is no one lust in the heart of the devil, that is not in the heart of man. Natural men are in the image of the devil. The image of God is rased out, and the image of the devil is stamped upon them. God is graciously pleased to restrain the wickedness of men, principally by fear and respect to their credit and reputation, and by education. And if it were not for such restraints as these, there is no kind of wickedness that men would not commit, whenever it came in their way. The commission of those things, at the mention of which men are now ready to start, and seem to be shocked when they hear them read, would be common and general; and earth would be a kind of hell. What would not natural men do if they were not afraid? Mat. 7:17, But beware of men. Men have not only every kind of lust, and wicked and perverse dispositions in their hearts, but they have them to a dreadful degree. There is not only pride, but an amazing degree of it: pride, whereby a man is disposed to set himself even above the throne of God itself. The hearts of natural men are mere sinks of sensuality. Man is become like a beast in placing his happiness in sensual enjoyments. The heart is full of the most loathsome lusts. The souls of natural men are more vile and abominable than any reptile. If God should open a window in the heart so that we might look into it, it would be the most loathsome spectacle that ever was set before our eyes. There is not only malice in the hearts of natural men, but a fountain of it. Men naturally therefore deserve the language applied to them by Christ, Mat. 3:7, O generation of vipers; and Mat. 23:33, Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers. Men, if it were not for fear and other such restraints, would not only commit all manner of sin, but to what degree, to what length would they not proceed! What has a natural man to keep him from openly blaspheming God, as much as any of the devils; yea, from dethroning him, if that were possible, and fear and other such restraints were out of the way? Yea, would it not be thus with many of those, who now appear with a fair face, and will speak most of God, and make many pretenses of worshipping and serving him? The exceeding wickedness of natural men appears abundantly in the sins they commit, notwithstanding all these restraints. Every natural man, if he reflects, may see enough to show him how exceedingly sinful he is. Sin flows from the heart as constantly as water flows from a fountain. Jer. 6:7, As a fountain casteth out her waters, so she casteth out her wickedness. And this wickedness, that so abounds in their hearts, has dominion over them. They are slaves to it. Rom. 7:14, Sold under sin. They are so under the power of sin, that they are driven on by their lusts in a course against their own conscience, and against their own interest. They are hurried on to their own ruin, and that at the same time their reason tells them, it will probably be their ruin. 2 Pet. 2:14, Cannot cease from sin. On account of wicked men s being so under the power of sin, the heart of man is said to be desperately wicked. Jer. 17:9 and Eph. 2:1, Dead in trespasses and sins.
Marvelous writing! After reading "Natural Men in a Dreadful Condition", I have a strong desire to read all 23 volumes. Unlike many Reform and Lutheran dogmaticians, Edwards preaches a Fall that marks men with the image of Satan, not a Stumble that leaves men with some tattered remains of the image of God.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Doh3.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Doh2.gif)
Traducianism and Scripture do not seem to coincide. ![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/rofl7.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Thats-Funneh.gif)
in, with, under, and by the Scripture it is no different than reading a textbook on American History ....![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/Sigh.gif)
