Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

His creative work ceased. The continued creation of souls, says Delitzsch, is inconsistent
with God’s relation to the world. But the question may be raised, What, then, becomes
of the doctrine of regeneration, which is not effected by second causes? (4) It is generally
wedded to the theory of realism, since this is the only way in which it can account for
original guilt. By doing this it affirms the numerical unity of the substance of all human
souls, an untenable position; and also fails to give a satisfactory answer to the question,
why men are held responsible only for the first sin of Adam, and not for his later sins,
nor for the sins of the rest of their forebears. (5) Finally, in the form just indicated it leads
to insuperable difficulties in Christology. If in Adam human nature as a whole sinned,
and that sin was therefore the actual sin of every part of that human nature, then the
conclusion cannot be escaped that the human nature of Christ was also sinful and guilty
because it had actually sinned in Adam.
4. CREATIONISM. This view is to the effect that each individual soul is to be regarded
as an immediate creation of God, owing its origin to a direct creative act, of which the
time cannot be precisely determined. The soul is supposed to be created pure, but
united with a depraved body. This need not necessarily mean that the soul is created
first in separation from the body, and then polluted by being brought in contact with the
body, which would seem to assume that sin is something physical. It may simply mean
that the soul, though called into being by a creative act of God, yet is pre-formed in the
psychical life of the fœtus, that is, in the life of the parents, and thus acquires its life not
above and outside of, but under and in, that complex of sin by which humanity as a
whole is burdened. 11
a. Arguments in favor of Creationism. The following are the more important
considerations in favor of this theory: (1) It is more consistent with the prevailing
representations of Scripture than Traducianism. The original account of creation points
to a marked distinction between the creation of the body and that of the soul. The one is
taken from the earth, while the other comes directly from God. This distinction is kept
up throughout the Bible, where body and soul are not only represented as different
substances, but also as having different origins, Eccl. 12:7; Isa 42:5; Zech. 12:1; Heb. 12:9.
Cf. Num. 16:22. Of the passage in Hebrews even Delitzsch, though a Traducianist, says,
“There can hardly be a more classical proof text for creationism.” 12 (2) It is clearly far
more consistent with the nature of the human soul than Traducianism. The immaterial
and spiritual, and therefore indivisible nature of the soul of man, generally admitted by
11 Cf. Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. II, pp. 630 f.
12 Bibl. Psych., p. 137.
215