Donations for the month of January


We have received a total of $140 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,895
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,587
Posts50,931
Members922
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,353
Tom 3,374
chestnutmare 2,895
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,750
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 50
Pilgrim 40
John_C 2
Kaylin 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
Theotokos
by Tom. Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:08 AM
Overview of Scripture
by Tom. Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:56 AM
Jesus vs Paul and the Church
by Pilgrim. Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:09 AM
John the Baptist
by Meta4. Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:53 PM
Paul on a Young Earth
by Pilgrim. Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:23 PM
Oregon Baker's ordered to pay 135k
by Anthony C.. Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:48 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#23928 - Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:21 AM Are You a Traducianist or Creationist?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
With the on going debate we have had with this subject I thought it may make an interesting poll.


Are You a Traducianist or Creationist?
single choice
Votes accepted starting: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:00 AM
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Reformed and Always Reforming,
#23929 - Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:28 AM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Peter Offline
Old Hand
Peter  Offline
Old Hand

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
Well Joe I have to say that until the debate I was a "I don't know" but your reasoning has made me go with the creationist view.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
#23930 - Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:22 AM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 103
DaveVan3 Offline
Member
DaveVan3  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 103
Lenexa, Kansas
Quote
Joe asks:
Are You a Traducianist or Creationist?


Joe:
This is certainly an interesting question....now that your debate with Speratus is winding down. Concerning “creationism” vs “traducianism”....I can adamantly, with great conviction of heart, say strongly ,with much enthusiasm.....”I don’t know”! I do believe that you have ably presented the “creationist” viewpoint and Speratus has brought up some interesting thoughts that should cause us all to think this “Origin of the Soul” question through thoughtfully and prayerfully. There are, it seems, some great theologians on both sides of this question and you certainly cannot question their faithfulness to their common Savior.

For instance, “Augustine, the great establisher of Original Sin, professed himself undecided about it, to the end.” Dabney, Lectures.. Buswell, in Systematic Thelology after 2 pages of defending “traducianism” states..”but I do not feel that it can be firmly established on the grounds of any explicit scriptural teaching;..”

I like Dabney’s conclusion (who defended traducianism) of the matter: concerning the propogation of the soul...”(this) the very question, which can be neither proved nor disproved by us because we do not comprehend the true substance of spirit.” He goes on to say in the following paragraph..”But we believe a soul is a spiritual atom, and is brought into existence out of non-existence. Have human parents this highest creative power? With such difficulties besetting both sides, it will be best perhaps to leave the subject as an insoluble mystery. What an opprobrium to the pride of human philosophy, that it should be unable to answer the very first and nearest question to its own origen.”

So again I say..I don’t know. But, this has been a good food (fight) for thought and has once again caused me to search the scriptures for answers. Thanks to both yourself and Speratus for this result!

Dave

#23931 - Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:10 PM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: DaveVan3]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
NH, USA
Dave,

I think there is one other important item you should have gleaned from the exchanges re: Traducianism vs. Creationism and your other readings on the subject. Did you happen to notice that NONE of the Calvinists who held/hold to Traducianism rely upon it to support other doctrines. And why would they when most, like Dabney realize that it is one of those "mysteries" which isn't fully revealed in the Word. However, there are those like speratus and many/most Lutherans who are bound to Traducianism as they have built other parts of their theological system upon it. Thus it becomes a serious caveat to them when it is removed.

Over the years, I have found that this principle of deducing doctrines from other doctrines has led many into the realm of the unknown and even error, Calvinists not excepted. Some have had the propensity to venture into the stratosphere where the air is thin and thus they end up contracting theological asphyxia. In my mind what they have done and some, and doubtless, some will continue to do might be likened to the building of a intellectual tower of Babel. Unfortunately it seems to be a truism that isn't going to leave us soon that "Men rush in where angels fear to tread." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#23932 - Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:20 PM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: DaveVan3]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
I agree there are great theologians on both sides of the issue as was brought out in earlier posts.

We each need to learn to put things in what I have been taught to call a "cone of certainty." There are 3 main divisions of certainty in this cone (high, medium and low) with any number of ranges in-between. Things we may be dogmatic about and should be dogmatic about (i.e. atonement, the existence of God) go in the "high" area. These things I am willing to die for. The issue of Baptism probably "medium" or "medium high" for me, with the mode being in the "low" category. Traducianism and creationism, the "low" category. However, no matter what level the item is in our cone, we should be willing and able to defend the one we believe is true until biblically convinced otherwise. This is one reason why I desire individuals to use Scripture to defend their views, for I know I would require it if I ever would change in any specific area (and I don't expect others to change either unless they see it from Scripture). In addition, I put everything in the cone someplace for theology is made up of webs of multiple reciprocities.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#23933 - Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:46 PM John said [Re: Peter]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
William Offline
Addict
William  Offline
Addict

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
.
In 1996 Pope John Paul II supposedly issued a statement this week saying new research shows that physical evolution is
"more than just a theory," a significant step beyond the Catholic Church's pronouncement nearly 50 years ago
that evolution was worthy of discussion but still an open question.

<span style="background-color:#FFFF00">The pope nevertheless said the human soul is divinely created anew in each person,</span><span style="background-color:#FFFF00">and not subject to the evolutionary process. Any other teaching, he said, is "incompatible with the truth about man."</span>

#23934 - Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:14 PM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 103
DaveVan3 Offline
Member
DaveVan3  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 103
Lenexa, Kansas
Quote
Pilgrim said:
I think there is one other important item you should have gleaned from the exchanges re: Traducianism vs. Creationism and your other readings on the subject. Did you happen to notice that NONE of the Calvinists who held/hold to Traducianism rely upon it to support other doctrines.


That is an interesting point which I didn’t notice...but will now take note of. My leanings are toward “creationism”, especially in light of such verses as Heb 12:9 of which Berkof quotes Delitzsch, who was a Traducianist, as saying..”There can hardly be a more classical proof text for creationism.” Systematic Theology pg 199...and Ecc 12:7..” Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Still studying!

Dave

#23935 - Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:20 AM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
Pilgrim said:
Dave,

I think there is one other important item you should have gleaned from the exchanges re: Traducianism vs. Creationism and your other readings on the subject. Did you happen to notice that NONE of the Calvinists who held/hold to Traducianism rely upon it to support other doctrines. And why would they when most, like Dabney realize that it is one of those "mysteries" which isn't fully revealed in the Word. However, there are those like speratus and many/most Lutherans who are bound to Traducianism as they have built other parts of their theological system upon it. Thus it becomes a serious caveat to them when it is removed.


Doesn't the WCF also use elements of traducianism in its doctrine of original sin.

Quote
They {Adam and Eve} being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

#23936 - Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:42 AM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Yep, sure seems to, and so does the Westminster Shorter Catechism - Q&A #16, but that still does not mean its correct--Scripture, not the Confessions, et.AL. continue to be our source of absolute truth!!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" />

From Thomas Vincent's The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture (Banner of Truth).

Q. 1. Did all mankind, without any exception, fail in Adam’s first transgression?
A. No; for our Lord Jesus Christ, who was one of Adam’s posterity, did not fall with Adam, but was perfectly free, both from original and actual sin. “For such an high priest became us, who was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” — Heb. vii. 26. “Who did no sin.” — l Pet. ii. 22.

Q. 2. How was it that the Lord Jesus Christ escaped the fall with Adam?
A. Because our Lord Jesus descended from Adam by extraordinary generation, being born of a virgin. “Now the birth of Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” — Matt. i 18.

Q. 3. Did all the posterity of Adam, besides Christ, fall in his first sin?
A. All the posterity of Adam, besides Christ, descending from him by ordinary generation, did fall in his first sin. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” — Rom. v. 12.

Q. 4. How could all the posterity of Adam, being then unborn, fall in his sin?
A. All the posterity of Adam were in him before they were born, and so they sinned in him, and fell with him. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” — 1 Cor. xv. 22.

Q. 5. How were all Adam’s posterity in him when he first sinned?
A. 1. They were in him virtually—they were in his loins; and as Levi is said to pay tithes in Abraham, when only in his loins (Heb. vii. 9), so Adam’s posterity sinned in his loins. 2. They were in him representatively; Adam was the common head and representative of all mankind.

Q. 6. What reason is there that the posterity of Adam should fall with Adam their representative?
A. Because the covenant of works, wherein life was promised upon condition of obedience, was made with Adam, not only for himself, but also for his posterity; therefore, as if Adam had stood, all his posterity had stood with him; so Adam falling, they all fell with him.

Q. 7. How could Adam be the representative of all his posterity; when there was none of them in being to make choice of him for their representative?
A. 1. It was more fit Adam should be the representative of his posterity than any one else, being the father of them all. 2. Though they did not choose him for their representative, yet God did choose him; and God made as good a choice for them as they could hare made for themselves.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#23937 - Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:49 AM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: J_Edwards]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


The Canons of Dordtrecht also appear to favor traducianism:

Quote
Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent, not by imitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature.

#23938 - Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:47 PM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Thank you for once again giving us a presentation—minus the scripture! However, seeing you are apparently stuck “in” the confessions vs. the scripture, can you advise us how parents propagate both the “elect” and “non-elect” (reprobate)? Seeing their children are chosen before the foundation of the world, how is “election” or “reprobation,” applied seeing that, in your estimation, God has turned the creation of mankind over to the parents? Don’t forget to deal with the fact that there are “elect angels” (1 Tim 5:21; an innumerable host created early in redemptive history), and if angels propagate (Matt 22:30).

Quote
Romans 9:11, 22-23 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,

What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:

and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

Eph 1:11 in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;

Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#23939 - Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:16 AM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: J_Edwards]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


I am stuck in the mode that confessions should uphold scripture. You are quite right to place scripture above confessions. The fathers may have erred.
Scripture provides only limited information on "how" and "why" there are vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy (Romans 9:11, 22, 23). But we do know God uses instrumental means to deliver the vessels of mercy (Romans 10:17). What would prevent God from using generational means to accomplish what He determined before the foundation of world (Eph 1:4, 11)?
Of course, generational means are specifically excluded in the case of elect angels (Matt. 22:30).

#23940 - Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:32 AM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
If I read the Scriptures right "election" and “reprobation” are acts of God, not man. Election was designed by God before any parents existed, much less the children coming from them. All the angels were created either “elect” or "non-elect.” If He did not apply “election” and “reprobation” by propagation in the angels, why would He apply it to us in that manner? Since, God would have to be involved in the human process of applying election, it must be in some other way. I was just thinking He may do this when creating the soul. I'm sorry, but a DNA gene of election and reprobated chromosomes just don't do it for me. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#23941 - Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:33 AM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist? [Re: J_Edwards]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


I see three possibilities with elect angels as well as elect people. They are elect because of
1. something within them
2. something God foresees they will do
3. God's mercy and grace

I don't know about angels but 1. and 2. are excluded for people (Eph 2:8,9). So any theories about God creating special elect souls or special elect genes are contradicted by scripture. The souls of all people are utterly corrupt at conception and bear the image of Satan. That God has elected some before the foundation of the world is not owning to something within man or due to any foreseen act of man but purely according to His mercy and grace.

#23942 - Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:25 PM Re: Are You a Traducianist or Creationist?  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
NH, USA
Quote
speratus said:
I don't know about angels but 1. and 2. are excluded for people (Eph 2:8,9). So any theories about God creating special elect souls or special elect genes are contradicted by scripture. The souls of all people are utterly corrupt at conception and bear the image of Satan. That God has elected some before the foundation of the world is not owning to something within man or due to any foreseen act of man but purely according to His mercy and grace.

The issue is NOT how men are elected for it is utterly UNconditional. So, there is no reason to discuss this further. What is now being disputed is the "imago dei" in man, which you say is "image of Satan", which would necessitate that all men are descendent's of the Evil One; something which Scripture does not teach. That all unregenerate men are of their father the Devil doesn't mean that they proceed from him, but rather they emulate his wickedness since both have depraved natures. What the Scriptures DO teach is that all men after the Fall come forth bearing the image of Adam. (Gen 5:3) YET.... men also bear the imago dei even though they have a corrupt nature; Adamic nature. (Gen 9:6).

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 15 guests, and 99 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SmallFry, drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron
922 Registered Users
Shout Box
January
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
Saved_n_kept
Popular Topics(Views)
686,667 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.058s Queries: 19 (0.004s) Memory: 2.7958 MB (Peak: 3.1103 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-01-20 15:00:43 UTC