Quote
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. doah
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 drop
Thus, traducianism is a false concept.

Notes from Berkhof’s ST. You need to purchase this book!

Reformed and Always Reforming,