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)…..
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
