Paper Title: Shedding traducianism: Oliver Crisp’s analysis of William Shedd’s traducianism in light of Herman Bavinck’s creationism
Summary: In this essay I analyze Herman Bavinck’s creationist counterpoint to W. G. T. Shedd’s formulation of traducianism as presented by Oliver Crisp. I argue that, although Bavinck clearly favors the creationist position and rejects Shedd’s anthropological realism, he nevertheless incorporates what he terms “the truth of traducianism” into his creationist formulation of the soul’s origin.
Download PDF (27pp; 172Kb).
An excellent paper. What do you think of Shedd’s assessment of the “elder Calvinists” as realistic? It would seem from Robert Landis’ book on original sin that the whole Reformed Church held fast to an Augustinian realism until the serious departure by Charles Hodge into gratuitous adamic imputation. And while explicit philosophical explanations of traducianism were avoided, such realism logically involved a traducianism of some kind–though it remained an unexamined assumption. While traducianism was never popular among the Reformed, according to Landis, the idea that the human nature of every man was in Adam in such a way as to give every man a real participation and earned condemnation was always foundational to Reformed doctrine.
You are right to see the origin of the soul as a worthy topic. Thanks for writing this.
Ken Hamrick
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your comment and for your synopsis of Landis’ thesis. I am unfamiliar with Landis’ work, so I cannot address it specifically, though it seems to me that to say the whole Reformed church held to the realist position on soul propagation until Hodge is hyperbolic. But it matters, of course, what Landis means by Augustinian realism. Related to this, have you worked through Bavinck’s formulation? He seems to think that much of what the traducianist formulation affirms can actually be incorporated into the creationist position.
Regarding Shedd on the elder Calvinists, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by the evidence, but, in general, many of the Calvin-vs.-later-Calvinists claims that began in the 19th century and came into vogue esp. in the 20th (e.g., Barth, the Torrance brothers, et al.) are being debunked by contemporary historical theologians such as David Steinmetz, Richard Muller, W. J. van Asselt, Carl Trueman, J. Mark Beach, Peter Lillback, et al., all of whom demonstrate much more continuity between early and later Calvinism than the earlier assessments allowed. In this light I wonder whether Shedd’s claim would stand up against a cross examination.
(BTW: I see you are researching Turretin’s creationism. For a great secondary source on Turretin’s federal theology, see Mark Beach’s dissertation which is is freely available as a PDF download via the CTS library.)
Thanks for the reply, Laurence. Landis’ book can be found on Google as a free e-book.
A hard copy can be obtained at http://www.swrb.com.
All of the Reformed Church’s creeds and confessions testify that they, from the beginning, took the realistic approach. Take the WCF, as a prime example. The word, “representative” is never used. Rather than referring Adam’s representation to merely God’s arbitrary “assignment,” they refer to the fact that Adam was the root and stock of mankind and refer the mode of sin’s propagation to mankind’s natural propagation from Adam. Although they did not, from the beginning, accept any philosophical attempt at explaining the details of how this happens, such as traducianism, they firmly held as orthodoxy the realistic principle that the nature of mankind was in Adam, the nature of mankind sinned in Adam, the nature of mankind became guilty and culpable in Adam, and that nature was naturally propagated to all mankind with the guilt and culpability appropriately inhering in it. Gradually, over the centuries, the substance of the realistic language eroded from the thinking and theology of the Church, being replaced by a nominalistic, “designated” representation. Strangely, though, the old creeds and confessions were merely reinterpreted, with a blind denial (by C. Hodge) that the realistic language was ever really meant in a realistic way. Nonetheless, the profound fact remains that what had been held throughout the Church as a sin of participation (in Adam’s sin) is now called an alien sin.
Thanks much for your help in directing me to the contemporary historical theologians who disagree. Do you have one such book you think is the best?
Ken Hamrick
Thanks for sharing your perspective. If you remember, shoot me an e-mail when your paper is finished. I am busy with classes at present, but perhaps I’ll have a future opportunity to take a further look at your proposals.
As for a good book to start with on the so-called Calvin vs. Calvinists thesis, see Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1986). Also, Beach’s dissertation on Turretin’s federal theology has been published: J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace, Reformed Historical Theology 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Also note the books in the Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought series.
There are many more . . .
Richard Muller’s book is on order–I’ll start there. Thanks again!
Ken Hamrick