The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Romans 5:12

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?

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.

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!

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.

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)?

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?