Introduction to Traducianism

In essence, the forthcoming blog has to do with the genesis of the human soul. Where did it come from? That is the question you need to start with. Close your eyes and ask yourself, “How is the soul of a human being created?”

Traducianism is a doctrine in theology that posits the soul of a conceived child is derived from the souls of the child’s parents. This essentially argues that both the body and soul are propagated from the parents. No beating around the bush this time. This is the doctrine to which I subscribe with a surprising amount of theological vigor. No, it is not a cardinal doctrine of the faith that will send you to hell if you deny it, but it is foundational to so much of the Christian worldview as you will see.

The word Traducian comes from the Latin word “tradux” which means “source” or “transmit.” As a vine or branch is sourced or transmitted by its root, so the complete and unified constitution of a person, body and soul, material and immaterial, all come indirectly by God through the parents of the child. Therefore, for the traducian, a person does not have a body and soul, but a person is a body and soul.

This stands in contrast to Creationism (not to be confused with the debate over biological evolution), which asserts that each individual soul is created directly by God without parental involvement.

Arguments for Traducianism:

  1. The Gnostic Implications of Creationism: Gnosticism is a prevalent philosophy that purports, in essence, that the material/physical world is evil while the immaterial/spiritual world is good. Therefore, a “gnostic Christian” must deny Traducianism as they believe our ultimate goal is to be released from the physical world into the spiritual realm. But this is antithetical to the Christian worldview which not only expresses that original creation was good but upon completion, “very good” (Gen 1:31). The Christian worldview is so invested in the physical world that our entire theological system is built around the redemption motif of all creation. One day, the consummation of Christ’s victory will be seen through the resurrection of every person’s body and the restoration of a new, recreated physical universe.
  2. Transmission of Original Sin: The doctrine of Original Sin states that all humans inherit a sinful nature from Adam. Traducianists argue that if the soul is inherited from one’s parents, it offers a consistent explanation for how Original Sin is passed down through generations. The cells of our body are infected with sin; therefore, the cells of our soul (if you will) are as well. If God created the souls directly, how do we explain the inheritance of sin? Does God create a sinful soul? Or does it get infected upon insertion into the body? The problems with the creation model are significant. The Traducian model fits very well into a Christian harmartiology (doctrine of sin).
  3. God’s Sabbath Rest: The Bible says that God rested on the seventh day of creation. This does not mean He was getting his second wind so He could start again. The resting is complete. His work in creation is over. Hebrews 4:10 compares our future rest with his. However, if God is still creating new souls for each human then He isn’t resting at all. There are 385,000 people born every day. How could that be considered rest? And if he created all the souls by the seventh day, are they all preexisting their bodies in some holding area? Some Christians have believed in the preexistence of the soul theory (Mormons do as well), but there are no good reasons to believe this.
  4. Human Unity: The belief that all aspects of a human (both body and soul) come from our parents underscores the profound unity of the human person, in that there’s no dualistic division between a directly God-created soul and a parentally derived body. I am a dualist. I do believe that our constitution consists of an immaterial soul/spirit and a material body. But this constitution is a unity. I call my view “Conditional Unity” in my Humanity and Sin course. I don’t know if anyone else uses that name, but it is a perfect expression of who we are. We are a unified body and soul. But this unity is conditioned upon our life.
  5. The Abortion Debate: If Traducianism is indeed correct, there would be no debate as to when life begins. The moment the physical body begins to exist is the same moment the immaterial soul begins to exist. Think of the soul as being a vital component of cells. The soul is not in the cells but is in, with, under, around, and a part of every cell. Now, of course, this is not really an argument for Traducianism. It just speaks to the implications. But we should never decide to be a Traducian simply because it supports most pro-life arguments.

Argument Against Traducianism:

1. Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into man and gave him his soul.

Response: The Hebrew word for soul (נֶפֶשׁ; nephesh), while it can mean the immaterial soul, it also just means “life” or “living.” That is why most every modern translation, even the New King James, rightly translates it in Genesis 2:7 “living being” or some variant of that.

New Living Translation
Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.

English Standard Version
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

King James Bible
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

New King James Version
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

New American Standard Bible
Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person.

Christian Standard Bible
Then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

New American Bible
then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

NET Bible
The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

2. The Bible explicitly says that God directly created the soul. Hebrews 12:9 says, “Besides, we have experienced discipline from our earthly fathers and we respected them; shall we not submit ourselves all the more to the Father of spirits and receive life?”

Response: This is trying to say too much about the direct creation of the soul. God is the ultimate Creator of all things, material and immaterial, but this does not mean that He does on use intermediaries in the creation process. If this argument were true, then is would also have to mean that God directly created the body without using the parents as the intermediate cause since Ps. 139:13-15 says that God formed our body.

3. Probably the most important argument (and the only one that seems to have merit on the surface) is this: If God does not create each soul individually, Christ’s soul was not created by God, but by Mary. But if this is the case, Christ’s soul is sinful like hers. He could not be our redeemer since his soul would be fallen.

Response: While, admittingly, there are problems here, they are not solved by having God be the direct creator of all souls. The Roman Catholic church overcomes this by dogmatizing what is called the “Immaculate Conception,” which purports that Mary was conceived, herself, without original sin. So she did not pass sin on to Christ. But all this does is back up the problem one generation. How is it that Mary’s mother did not pass on Original Sin to her? The better solution is that Christ did not have a human father. While this is simply a theory, it could be that the sinful corruption of the soul is passed on by the male. This would fit better in all accounts. It is important to emphasize that we are just not told this directly in Scripture, so it must remain a theory.

I do believe that the arguments for Traducianism are overwhelmingly persuasive. I will be surprised if we get to heaven and find out I was wrong.

Implications for Death and Resurrection:

Understanding the implications of the soul’s constitutional unity with the body helps to see the significance of the resurrection of our bodies. As Christians, we believe that at the second coming of Christ, our bodies will be resurrected. The unique DNA that we have in this life will be the same DNA that we have in the future as God recreates our physicality from the dust in the ground. The separation of the body and soul that happens at death is a violent breach of our constitution that was not supposed to happen. I think Paul’s statement to the Corinthians is significant here:

2 Corinthians 5:4

Our dying bodies make us groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and have no bodies at all. We want to slip into our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by everlasting life. (emphasis mine)

While we exist for a short time without a body between our death and resurrection, we will be incomplete persons, longing for the resurrection. Yes, it will be better than it is here in this fallen world as we, who trust in Christ, will be with Christ, but we were not meant to ever exist without a body. That is why Paul emphatically says, “It’s not that we want to die and have no bodies at all.” We don’t want to be incomplete persons. Here is an illustration I made to help explain:

In short, the Traducian view of the soul helps us to understand why it is so important that we be resurrected. God won’t even judge the reprobate until they have their full constitution. Have you ever thought of that? When someone outside of Christ dies, their bodies go to the ground and their souls, more than likely, have some sort of conscious existence in a “holding tank” of some sort. It is not until the general resurrection of the dead that God “opens the books” and judges people. And it is not until they have their full constitution that they God to hell.

 

Postscript: Notable Figures in Church History who held to Creationism or Traducianism:

It is unfortunate that I find myself outside the company of so many good theologians whom I respect greatly. This misfortune is only amplified due to my seemingly uncharacteristic passion for it. But among those who are Creationists (again, the opposite of my Traducian view) are Wayne Grudem, Charles Hodge, Louis Berkhof, and John Calvin. You may think I am more disappointed by Calvin, but I’m not. I left one heavyweight out of it who brings me the most disappointment: St. Thomas Aquinas! Notice anything about all of them? Yep, they are all Calvinist! (Yes, even Aquinas was a Calvinist before Calvin).  Oh well, they are probably right and I am wrong. Wait, why am I conceded just because there are people who are smarter than me who disagree with me when there are also people smarter than me who agree with me! It’s no fly-weight list either: Tertullian (who is considered the father of Traducianism . . . he coined both the “T” words, Traducianism and Trinity!), St Augustine (woohoo!), Gregory of Nyssa, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, and John Frame. James Sawyer is also a Traducian and has written one of the most important little books on the subject of Gnosticism/Dualism (A World Spit Apart) and has many implications toward our current subject. As I have attempted to take inventory of this issue, finding out where everyone stands, I am most discouraged by the significant number of systematic theologians who don’t ever mention it.

Side Note:

Just as a side note, in 2008 I was asked to be on a radio program to discuss this. They said they wanted me to focus on the theology of abortion with regard to this issue. They also said that someone would be on with me in the “green room” and that they would go first. The person who went first was in favor of abortion and I came in after to respond. I didn’t know who it was at the time, but they introduced him as Barak Obama! So, there is a claim to fame. I hung out with Barack Obama in a green room! I think I even said “Sup?”


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    21 replies to "The Forgotten Doctrine of Traducianism"

Comments are closed.