Traducianism and the Atonement

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Thanks for your comments, guys!

 

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?

 

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."

 

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

 

Bob, please specify the verse in Luke 12 to which you referred.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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 ]