The Transmission of Sin

Revisiting Creationism and Traducianism

When considering the nature of human sinfulness and the soul, we find ourselves grappling with a concept that pushes human thought to its limits. The old debate between the creationist and traducianist views of the soul’s origin tries to solve how original sin is transmitted and how God interacts with His fallen creation. Is the soul created pure by God, and only tainted by its union with the body, as creationists suggest, or is it propagated along with the body, as traducianism teaches? In my reflections on these matters, I have found that traducianism presents a more consistent and satisfactory explanation of the transmission of sin. Here's why.

Creationism's Problem of Purity and Corruption

The creationist position maintains that God directly creates each soul at or near the moment of conception, infusing a pure and sinless soul into a body inherited from sinful parents. Plato, Aristotle, and Augustin taught that the soul is material, indivisible, and cannot be transmitted through natural human generation, but is divinely given. It nicely preserves the soul’s distinction as a special act of God's creation, but it also raises a significant theological dilemma: how can a pure soul, created by a holy God, become tainted by original sin through its union with a corrupt body?

The typical response is that original sin is transmitted through the body, which is itself affected by Adam's fall (Romans 5:12). The soul, though created pure, is corrupted upon its union with our fallen bodies. But this line of reasoning only raises new problems. If God is directly creating pure souls and placing them into sinful bodies, then He is intimately involved in the process of corrupting what He has just made pure. This raises a troubling question: is God, in some way, responsible for the corruption of the soul?

For creationists, the answer lies in maintaining the distinction between body and soul. But this approach begins to sound like a veiled form of Pelagianism, where the soul is not inherently sinful but becomes sinful through contact with an external environment (in this case, the body). If sin is truly "soulish" as well as material, this solution is unsatisfactory. The creationist explanation implies that the soul, though created pure, is corrupted by something outside of itself—leading us dangerously close to the Pelagian idea that sin is not inherent to the totality of our human nature.

One of the central weaknesses of the creationist view lies in the tension between the immaterial nature of the soul and its corruption through union with a fallen body. The creationist argument posits that the soul, which is immaterial, indivisible, and created directly by God, becomes tainted with original sin the moment it is united with a sinful body. However, this raises a significant philosophical problem: how can an immaterial soul, created pure by God, be corrupted by something material? If the soul is truly immaterial, it should not be subject to the same kinds of corruption that affect the physical body, since the nature of immaterial substances does not allow for contamination in the same way as the material world.

Yet, creationism assumes that the union of a pure soul with a fallen body results in the soul’s immediate corruption. This suggests a kind of transference of corruption from the body to the soul, which contradicts the very definition of the soul as immaterial, thus pure. (More on this later with my favorite theologian, Augustin of Hippo.) The creationist view then struggles to explain how a purely spiritual and divine act of creation—God’s making of the soul—can result in the soul’s defilement simply by its contact with a fallen body. In essence, it undermines the soul’s immateriality, which should, by its nature, resist the contamination that plagues the physical world. This flaw highlights a deep inconsistency within the creationist framework, leaving open the question of how an incorruptible soul becomes corrupted merely through its association with the body.

It is a solemn witness, written with the ink of Adam's rebellion and sealed by every generation since, that man in his entirety—both body and soul—has fallen from the estate of original righteousness. The original corruption of sin is not a cloak cast upon the body, leaving the soul untainted; but it is as a deep-rooted poison that infects the whole man. Will we then argue that the soul, being created pure by God in each birth, is only later marred by the contamination of the body’s corruption? Reasoning like this casts a long shadow over God's work. It prompts unanswered questions like: How could God infuse purity into what is already perverted by sin? Is He not holy, who cannot look upon iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13)? No, it is better to confess with trembling hearts that the sin of our first father has corrupted the very fountain of life itself, and that by natural generation both body and soul bear the grievous wound of original sin. Traducianism rightly asserts this, for both spirit and flesh are alike brought forth in sin, and only by the blood of the Second Adam are they redeemed (1 Corinthians 15:45).

God’s Creative Act and Original Sin

Another aspect of this problem concerns God’s direct creative activity. According to the creationist view, every time a human soul is created, it is a new and distinct act of God’s creative power. Yet, Scripture tells us that God ceased His creative work on the sixth day and rested from all His labors (Genesis 2:2). According to this position, every time a human soul is created, it is a new and distinct act of God’s creative power. However, Scripture clearly states that God ceased His creative work on the sixth day and rested from all His works (Genesis 2:2–3). This cessation was not partial; it was total—God rested from all His work. If God finished all His creative work by the end of the sixth day, how then are we to understand the ongoing creation of new souls after the fall?

Creationists argue that while God rested from the creation of physical things, He continues to create new souls. Where is the proof? This notion is problematic because it suggests that God is still performing acts of new creation, contradicting the clear teaching that He completed His work (very good). Exodus 20:11 affirms this, saying, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." There is no room in this text for the idea of ongoing acts of creation.

This creates a theological dilemma: if God ceased creating, how can He be continuously forming new souls? To suggest that God is still creating new souls would imply that His work of creation is not truly finished, which runs contrary to the doctrine of divine rest after the sixth day. The creationist view then faces the difficulty of maintaining that God’s direct creative acts continue—implying ongoing creation—which directly contradicts the biblical teaching of God's completed work.

Furthermore, if God is continually creating pure souls and placing them into sinful bodies, His ongoing creative work is now intimately tied to the transmission of sin, raising profound theological concerns. It suggests that God, who is utterly holy and without sin, is placing newly created pure souls into corrupt bodies, implicating Him in the process of original sin. This only deepens the problem of how a pure and holy God can create something that immediately becomes tainted by sin.Creationists must then argue that while God finished His initial work of creation, He continues to create new souls as part of His providential care over the world.

Since neither side wishes to think lightly of the holiness of God, we must avoid the thought that, in trying to guard God's holiness, He, in creating the soul, would expose His purity to the contagion of sin. How could He, the thrice-holy One, breathe the "breath of life" (Genesis 2:7) into what is already defiled? It is not in the nature of God to participate in the corruption of His creatures, even as He providentially sustains the fallen world. Is it not more reasonable to hold that the whole man—soul and body—is begotten in sin, as the Psalmist declares in Psalm 51:5—“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”?

David’s use of the word "shapen" (or "brought forth," in some translations) refers to his very formation or development within the womb. To be "shapen" in "iniquity" suggests that sin is present from the first spark of life, at the very inception of human existence. Sin is not something that occurs later in embryonic development or only affects the soul once it arrives in the body. It is part of the very fabric of human nature. If the soul were created pure and only later corrupted by God's infusion or ensoulment, it suggests, unknowingly, that God Himself is on the very borderland of the transmission of sin. This cannot be. The stain of sin is not a physical force that clings only to the body and then later corrupts its new tenant; it permeates the very essence of our nature. In Adam, all died—not in part, but in whole (1 Corinthians 15:22), not as "corruption in waiting," but at our very moment of conception.

Preexisting Souls

Some creationists see this flaw in their argument. To remove this, they posit that all souls were created simultaneously, along with the rest of creation, during the six days in Genesis. These souls are then "waiting" to be embodied at the appropriate time. This preserves the ceasing of God's creative work on day six because it suggests that God is no longer actively creating new souls—He simply draws from the already-existing pool of souls when conception occurs.

This addresses the issue of God’s ongoing creative acts after He rested, since it claims that no new creation of souls takes place post-fall. It also attempts to avoid the contradiction that arises in the traditional creationist view, where God is seen as continuously creating souls after day six.

The problem with the preexistence view is no explicit biblical text that suggests souls were created in advance and kept in a "bank." Scripture consistently presents God as forming and knowing individuals at the moment of their creation or conception, such as in Psalm 139:13–16: "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb... My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret."

It also brings us perilously close to the danger of Dualism, leading toward Platonism, a philosophy where souls are thought to exist independently of bodies and are temporarily "housed" in physical form. This dualistic thinking contradicts the biblical view of human beings as whole persons—body and soul created to be unified (Genesis 2:7).

If all souls were created in advance, the question remains how they become affected by original sin. The idea of waiting in a preexistent state doesn't explain how these souls, created purely by God, would become tainted by sin upon union with the body unless one reverts to a legal understanding of imputation alone. Most of the early Church Fathers, including Augustin, rejected the idea of preexisting souls, viewing it as speculative and inconsistent with the biblical account of God's creative activity.

Most creationists typically avoid this notion of preexisting souls, holding instead that God creates each soul individually at conception. While the concept of preexisting souls addresses the issue of God's rest on the sixth day, it introduces more significant theological complications. The Bible does not support such an idea, nor does it even hint at it, and it remains a minority view within both historical and contemporary Christian thought.

The Case for Traducianism

In contrast, the traducianist position provides a clearer and more cohesive understanding of human sinfulness. Traducianism teaches that both body and soul are transmitted together through natural human generation. Here, the whole person—body and soul—is passed down from parent to child, including the corruption of original sin. The sin is not something that comes from external contact. It is an inherent part of our humanity from the moment of conception.

Traducianism avoids the theological pitfalls of creationism because it does not require God to create a new soul at each conception, nor does it place Him in a position where He is infusing purity into corruption. Instead, human beings inherit both body and soul from their parents, and along with them, the guilt and corruption of original sin. This maintains the integrity of the doctrine of original sin and preserves God's holiness in the process.

Furthermore, traducianism offers a more unified view of human nature. Body and soul are not separate entities that come together after the fact; they are part of the same whole. Human beings are not just bodies with souls or souls with bodies—we are a unit, created in the image of God but fallen and corrupted through Adam’s sin. This understanding of the metaphysics of human nature better accounts for the pervasive effects of original sin on both our physical and spiritual selves.

Does it not make more sense that the Lord has ordained our sinful souls, as well as our sinful bodies, (thus corrupted DNA) should descend from parents to children? In this, the isolation of the human family is revealed and guilty by nature, and practice as a whole. Not broken into segregated pieces. When God fashioned Adam, He breathed into him the breath of life, making him a living soul (Genesis 2:7). And by His sovereign decree, this same life of the soul now flows through natural generation, from parent to child, binding them in the bonds of shared nature, both in sin and in the hope of salvation. What a holy office, then, parenthood is, to be entrusted with the transmission of souls! Though the sin of Adam is passed down, yet in God’s salvation, even this serves His purpose, that the soul, though fallen, might be drawn to Christ. The very soul that is generated through natural means is yet the object of supernatural grace.

A Question of Consistency

When we examine the creationist view in light of these theological concerns, we are forced to ask whether it truly holds up under scrutiny. Can a pure soul, created directly by God, become corrupted by contact with a sinful body? If so, this seems to create more problems than it solves. The moment of God's infusion of the soul into the body becomes a direct encounter with sin—a difficult concept to reconcile with God's perfect holiness. If the soul is truly "pure" at creation, how can it be immediately tainted by the corruption of the body without implicating God as the direct conduit of that transmission?

By allowing for the propagation of both body and soul through natural means, traducianism offers a more consistent solution. Sin is not something that comes from external contamination but is an inherent part of our nature as fallen creatures. It is passed down from generation to generation, affecting both body and soul alike. And most importantly, it preserves the doctrine of original sin without placing God in a position where He must directly interact with corruption in the act of creating new souls.

In City of God, Augustin emphasizes that a woman who is sexually exploited does not lose her inner purity or her moral integrity, as the violation is an external act that does not corrupt her soul (City of God, Book 1, Chapter 16). He makes a clear distinction between the physical defilement of the body and the spiritual purity of the soul, arguing that the soul remains intact, unsullied by the sinful acts of others. Yet in the transmission of the soul, he and other creationists argue that the touch of the soul with the body transmits original sin!

This position is inconsistent with his creationist stance. If the soul, newly created by God, becomes immediately corrupted at conception due to its union with a fallen body, why is it not similarly protected from defilement, as in the case of physical violation? Augustin’s distinction between bodily defilement and the soul’s integrity seems to suggest that the soul should remain pure even when united with a corrupt body at conception. Yet, in the creationist view, the body’s corruption transfers to the soul at the moment of conception, introducing sin into the soul’s very essence. This inconsistency exposes a weakness in the creationist framework, as it fails to adequately reconcile the soul’s supposed purity in cases of physical defilement with its immediate corruption at the start of life.

This is apples to apples as both have to do with the soul’s contact with sin. Yet, why would an immaterial, newly created soul be susceptible to sin just by being united with a fallen body? If the soul is pure, its immediate corruption through the body introduces a tension between the soul's immaterial essence and its vulnerability to sin. According to the creationist, this immateriality should theoretically make it impervious to corruption from the material world. Yet, the creationist position posits that the soul becomes tainted when it is joined to a fallen body.

Federal Headship

While the creationist’s use of the doctrine of federal headship explains the legal imputation of Adam's sin to humanity, it does not sufficiently account for the deeper issue of the soul’s corruption by it. Imputation, by its nature, is concerned with guilt, not with the transformation of the soul’s essence. These are two different categories. Under federal headship, Adam’s sin is credited to us because he acted as the father of mankind. But this is a legal transaction, not an intrinsic change in the soul’s substance. Herein lies the dilemma for the creationist: if God creates each soul pure and only the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed, why and how does the soul become sinful in nature upon union with the body? Traducianism resolves this tension by affirming that both the guilt and the corruption of sin are transmitted naturally through human generation, encompassing the whole person—body and soul. There is no need to rely on a legal fiction to explain the depth of human fallenness. Rather, it is the very propagation of our sinful nature, passed down from parent to child, that fully accounts for the total depravity of mankind.

Final Thoughts

Admirably, the creationist position seeks to preserve the purity of the soul and the holiness of God. Unfortunately, it ultimately raises more questions than it answers. Traducianism, on the other hand, offers a clearer, more consistent understanding of the transmission of sin and the nature of human beings. It maintains the integrity of original sin, keeps God’s creative activity untangled from sin’s corruption, and upholds the unity of body and soul in the transmission of our sinful nature. For these reasons, I find traducianism to be a more compelling and theologically sound view.

I admit readily that much of this is a great mystery. God has ordained that not only the body but our very souls, be transmitted through the union of man and woman. In this, we see the providential hand of the Almighty, who knits the immortal into the mortal, binding together the seen and the unseen in the womb of creation by natural propagation. And though the soul is born with the tincture of Adam’s sin, this inheritance of corruption does not detract from the dignity of the soul’s origin, nor from the glory of its Maker. For in this, the grace of Christ shines more brightly…that the soul, fallen by nature, might be lifted by grace, restored to God which first fashioned him. And so, in the propagation of souls, we see the unfolding of God’s salvation, that from the loins of sinful man, He should raise up a people holy unto Himself, born not only of the flesh, but of the Spirit (John 3:6).