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

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!

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:

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="" />

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."



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.



Would you say Eve's soul acquired original sin through her own sin or Adam's?


I am willing to defend the passages I have quoted from the Formula of Concord.

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!

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????

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.

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="" />

Understood. You had a question mark. My answer: All Lutherans embrace secondary means but not all embrace Traducianism.


You seem to confuse traducianism with evolutionism. Like propagates like in species.


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:




You are consistent.


To save time, what don't you agree with in my Formula of Concord citations?

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,

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,


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!

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,

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).

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.

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 ....

J_Edwards,

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.

In His Grace,

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?


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?


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?


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.


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?


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).

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="" />

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.

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.

Finally, the Scripture. As Paul Harvey says, now the rest of the story.

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).

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.


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.

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:

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="" />

God does use secondary means to create bodies as pointed out by your excellent text, however not the soul. Speratus re-read these passages.

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:

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 ...

In the Catholic sense:


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.


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).

Joe,
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?

Thanks!

Prove it! How does this Scripture prove it. Exegete it! Please deal with this verse in your reply as well:

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):

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