Traducianism and the Atonement

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by koreahog2005, Dec 13, 2004.

  1. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm just wondering how you folks feel about whether one's view of Traducianism affects one's view of the atonement. Normally, those advocating either limited atonement or general atonement argue that Christ was paying for the sins of a certain number of people on the cross, either the sins of the elect or the sins of everyone (potentially). If a person holds to Traducianism (the belief that an infant's depraved spirit/soul comes from its father or both parents rather than from God), however, would that mean that Jesus was paying only for the sin of Adam that we all committed in Adam (Romans 5:12)? This may have been discussed here in the past. If so, I missed it.
     
  2. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    P.S. -- I still believe that the atonement was quantifiable; in other words, Jesus' intention was to die for a certain number of people. The Traducianist view may be an additional slant on the atonement. Perhaps we don't have to choose between the quantifiable view and some Traducianists' "one person at a time" view. Maybe it is a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" type of thing. A Traducianist could say, however, that one person's sin debt is infinite, and if only one person had existed besides Jesus, Jesus would still have had to pay for that one person's sin on the cross with His blood which has infinite value. The Traducianist could thus say that every human being must have his infinite sin debt forgiven by receiving Jesus by faith, and thus he could say that the atonement is not quantifiable. (Two people's sin debts are infinite, just like one person's sin debt.) Any comments on this would be appreciated.
     
  3. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me correct something I said in my first post. My friend who introduced me to Traducianism read my first post and clarified that he believes that the atonement covers more than Adam's sin. I think, however, he thinks that because one sin is infinitely evil, and because Jesus would have had to die on the cross even if only one person committed one sin, therefore he does not believe that the atonement was quantifiable. He made the point that many sins carry the same guilt that one sin carries. I've just been introduced to Traducianism, so again, if anyone has any thoughts on its relevance to the atonement, I would like to hear them.
     
  4. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    How is it the sins of the parents are handed down to the children for accountability if Jesus atoned for all sin...which is what scriptures say about Jesus' Atonement.

    Every one is responsible for their own sins (deeds), but Jesus atoned for ALL sin, so sin is no longer charged to man for salvation purposes! Yes, every human will have ALL their own deeds judged, and no one will be held accountable for any one else's deeds, but their lives are not dependent upon their deeds, but upon their FAITH ALONE!

    What you fail to understand Koreahog, is that Jesus did not atone for people, only for sin!
     
  5. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see the Traducian Theory as more connected to Original Sin and the soul of humans than the atonement. Dr. William G.T. Shedd affirms that the soul as well as the body is generated by the parents.

    If Original Sin is passed on through the male person into the baby and not by way of the woman, this protected Jesus from having the Adamic nature, plus He never yielded to acts of sin. He was pure and without any sin.

    Another idea is that Jesus was magnificently born through a miracle and God made it that He was without Original Sin in His human body. [​IMG]
     
  6. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for your comments, guys!
     
  7. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    One more question, Wes. If, as you say, Jesus was atoning for sins rather than for people, does that mean that His sacrifice was not vicarious and substitutionary? Was He substituting for sins rather than people?
     
  8. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Jesus was paying for sins rather than people, how do we explain the following verses?

    Matthew 20:28 -- "Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

    1 Timothy 2:6 -- "Who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time."

    1 Corinthians 6:20 -- "For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body."

    1 Corinthians 7:23 -- "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also applies to the abortion problem. Would God create a soul for a collections of cells that he knew would be aborted? Traducians have a better case against abortion.

    Traducianism makes the case that inhereted sin is actually defective DNA. If so, then if the defect was corrected . . . .
     
  10. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your point is understood, but what is it that makes the people subject to death? Yes, it is sin! Now that Jesus has atoned for sin, we have no reason to fear death because we are not charged with sin unto death, but we can through faith have life eternal.

    Jesus ATONED FOR SIN, people who are under the influence of sin, benefit by that atonement, because they no longer have to die because of sin...the penalty has been paid already and ONCE, for ALL.

    To say that Jesus died for people, brings out the worst possible doctrines in the arguments between Calvin and Arminius. Doctrines that at best make God a respecter of men.

    Each 0f the scriptures you posted are Good, but when the penalty for sin has been paid, the thinking becomes as the Apostles have said it. The fact remains that Jesus ATONED FOR SIN, not for sinners! Atoned=paid the debt for.
     
  11. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes, it seems to me that it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that Jesus died for people when we look at 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23. Both verses say that people were bought with a price. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson commented on 1 Corinthians 6:20:

    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=1co&chapter=6&verse=20

    Robertson also commented on 1 Corinthians 7:23:

    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=1co&chapter=7&verse=23

    Acts 20:28 says that the church was “purchased with His own blood.” Galatians 3:13 and 1 Peter 1:18-19 say that Christ “redeemed” or “ransomed” us. A.T. Robertson commented on 1 Peter 1:18:

    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=1pe&chapter=1&verse=18

    Robertson also commented on Galatians 3:13:

    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=ga&chapter=3&verse=13

    Revelation 5:9 says that Jesus with His blood “didst purchase” for God “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”

    Again, I don’t see how we can escape the conclusion that Jesus paid for people, not just their sins.

    Let’s look again at the last part of Matthew 20:28: “To give His life a ransom for many.” Craig Blomberg, a NT professor at Denver Seminary, commented on the verse in our newest SBC commentary:

    Blomberg, “Matthew,” The New American Commentary, vol. 22, ed. David Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), page 308.

    The significance of “anti” is that Jesus was acting as a substitute, not just as a representative. A.T. Robertson also commented on the last part of Matthew 20:28:

    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=mt&chapter=20&verse=28
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In any case - the "sin" problem (in terms of payment for sin) is as Luke 12 describes it. It's suffering (payment) portion is based on what you know AND what you did.

    Christ's atonement was a quantified suffering with a measure equaling the accumulated debt of suffering of all people in all of time.

    As for the sinful nature inherited at birth - Babies need a Savior -- Babies HAVE a Savior!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, please specify the verse in Luke 12 to which you referred.
     
  14. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Koreahog,
    That which prevented man from receiving everlasting life is SIN, the penalty for which is death. Jesus atoned for SIN, thus removing the penalty of death for sin from man. NOW, No man faces death for sin!

    From the human perspective the result of atonement is that JESUS DIED FOR ME! HE died so that I might have life! Before Jesus atoned for sin, there was no way for me to escape death, except to be sinless and we all know that ALL have sinned! So no man could have everlasting life. Remember, Sin is a "power" as in "Principalities and powers" that we struggle against. But Jesus defeated the "power" of sin by removing the penalty it imposed on the sinner.

    Since Jesus' death paid that penalty for SIN, as opposed to dying in my place, or your place or for the elect, or for the Jews, or for the gentiles, or for believers, HIS death ENDED THE PENALTY for SIN...Period! SO, none of us is faced with the penalty for sin! Yes, in a way Atonement is one person dying for another, but in reality, Atonement is one person dying for ALL OTHERS! None are excluded from the affect of the Atonement, no man dies in his sins!

    So who gets saved? Jesus said it best, "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life". FAITH IN JESUS (who is God the Son) is the sum total requirement for man to have everlasting life now that Death has been dealt with. Everything else is nothing more than "religion, or the practice thereof".

    FAITH IN GOD is what gets one's name written in the BOOK OF LIFE. Having your name in the BOOK OF LIFE come judgment day, is what keeps you from being cast into the lake of fire! SAVED THROUGH FAITH!

    With that Knowledge, how should one live their life? If the object of your faith is Jesus, live according to the teachings of the object of your faith! If the object of your faith is not Jesus, your life will likewise reveal what you have faith in!
     
  15. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes, I agree with many of the things you say. I disagree, however, with your statement that follows:

    I believe that faith and repentance are requirements for salvation, but I also believe that the names of the elect have been in the book of life for eternity. There was never a time when they were not written there. The names have always been there. Notice the following two verses:

    Revelation 13:8 – “And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.”

    Revelation 17:8b – “And those who dwell on the earth will wonder, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.”

    The relevant exegetical question about these verses concerns whether the book is from the foundation of the world, whether the names were there from the foundation of the world, whether the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, or some combination of these options.

    In the Greek text, the phrase “from the foundation of the world” directly follows the word “slain” in 13:8, and the phrase directly follows the word “life” in 17:8. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson said that the phrase modifies “slain” in 13:8 and “written” in 17:8:

    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=re&chapter=13&verse=8

    The Greek scholar Marvin Vincent commented on 13:8:

    http://www.simpleman.com/AGES/LIBRARY/REFERENC/Vin_nt12.pdf

    Vincent also commented on 17:8:

    http://www.simpleman.com/AGES/LIBRARY/REFERENC/Vin_nt12.pdf

    Remember that the elect were chosen “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). I guess I am sounding like a five-point Calvinist, but actually I only believe three of the points (TUP, not TULIP).
     
  16. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    If that is true, you cannot use Ephesians 1 to substantiate that, or you must conclude that it is the Apostles that are the elect!

    Whether you sound like a Calvinist or not, you have fallen for one of their UNTRUTHS.
     
  17. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oops! I just looked at the Greek grammar a bit more for Revelation 17:8. The Greek word for “written” is “gegraptai” which comes from “grapho” (to write). “Gegraptai” is a perfect passive indicative verb. Thus, it describes a completed action that has continuing results. The book could not have existed from eternity, because only God has been eternally in existence. The book has been in existence since God created the world. In other words, the book has been in existence “from the foundation of the world” whereas the elect have been chosen since “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). The difference in prepositions is important. “Pro” (before) is in Ephesians 1:4, and “apo” (from) is in Revelation 17:8. God’s foreknowledge and election are both eternal; one does not precede the other. The created book simply revealed what God already knew about the elect.
     
  18. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me suggest that "from before the foundation of the world" could very easily mean that the Book of Life existed from before creation, BUT, all along the time line since the world was founded, God has been writing names in the book of life. That could make the understanding "when one comes to faith in God, his name is entered into the book of life" as I've said. Well, that would also mean that NOT all of the names in the Book of Life have been there from before the foundation of the world. So the "theory" that says, "ALL names in the Book of life have been in there from before the beginning of the world" may well be an incorrect interpretation of the word. Thus it would not support the Calvinist point of view at all!

    In Ephesians 1:3-12 Paul is relating to the Ephesians the "history" of God's "election" of the Apostles, which may well have preceded creation. HOWEVER, in verses 13 and 14, Paul it telling the Ephesians about themselves. So 3-12 is about the ELECTED Apostles, while 13 and 14 are about the Ephesians (gentile believers), Paul's intended audience.

    By the way, doesn't "Pro" mean in favor of, where "Pre" means "before"?
     
  19. koreahog2005

    koreahog2005
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes, you said the following:

    I disagree. Paul, not a group of apostles, was writing to the Christians at Ephesus (1:1). Paul used the word "you" in verse 2 when he greeted them. He used the word "us" in verse 3 in reference to the access to spiritual blessings by himself and the Ephesian Christians. The spiritual blessings in heavenly places (verse 3) are for all Christians, not just the apostles. In Ephesians 2:4 -6 Paul described all Christians using the words "us," "we," and "you":

    "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us , even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus."

    God loved all the Christians, not just the apostles. God made all the Christians alive, not just the apostles. In Ephesians 1:12, when Paul mentioned "we who were the first to hope in Christ," he was not talking just about the apostles. Robertson commented on verse 12:

    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=eph&chapter=1&verse=12

    After mentioning this particular group in verse 12 that didn’t include the Ephesian Christians, it was natural for Paul to use the word "you" in verse 13.

    I don’t think you can avoid the conclusion that the elect have always been known and chosen by God. God saved Christians "according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Timothy 1:9). The phrase "from all eternity" is pro chrónon aioníon in Greek which literally means "before times eternal." This same phrase is found in Titus 1:2 in regard to the time when eternal life was promised by God.

    Time is defined by change. Since God is unchanging, time had no meaning before God created the changing universe. Thus, "before the foundation of the world" there was no time; there was only eternity. Some people believe our universe is eternally old. If that were true, everything would have already happened. There would be no present or future. God’s sovereign plan to create the universe was always in existence. Even though He is "above and beyond time," He can intervene in time. God never made a decision to elect certain people; He has simply always known who the elect would be. God has always had infinite knowledge of everything, including imagined worlds and persons that He didn't create (counterfactual knowledge). God has never made a decision; a decision would imply change, and God doesn’t change. God has always known how He would intervene in time. Jesus, by His human nature, made decisions, but by His divine nature He did not. The two natures of Jesus were in union but never mixed (reference: Chalcedon).

    Because both God’s foreknowledge and election (choice) extend back through eternity, we can conclude, in terms of temporal order, that His election did not precede His foreknowledge, and His foreknowledge did not precede His election. There was never a time when Christians were not both foreknown and elected. Because of the eternal existence of both aspects, we can also conclude, in terms of logical order, that God’s election was not dependent on His foreknowledge, and His foreknowledge was not dependent on His election. Rather, His election has always been in accordance with His foreknowledge.

    Classic Arminians often use 1 Peter 1:1-2 to say that God’s election is dependent upon His foreknowledge (conditional election), but the phrase "according to" (the Greek preposition katá ) can also mean "in accordance with, corresponding to." An example of this usage is 1 Peter 1:15: "But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior." The word "like" is the Greek word katá . The same preposition is found in Romans 15:5: "Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus." Paul wanted their perspective to be in accordance with Christ’s perspective.

    [ December 15, 2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: koreahog2005 ]
     
  20. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Koreahog, read the scripture, I posted verses 3-14 so that it could be read without "verse breakes" as it was in the original, there were no verse breaks.

    I did not include verses 1 and 2 because they are Paul's greeting to the Ephesians. Nor did I include Verses after 14 because 15 through 23 is a discussion of the triumph and supremeacy of the Christ. I especially wanted the "proof text" to remain in its context because it does not mean the same as when it is used as a stand alone proof text.
     

Share This Page

Loading...