Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

Adam was before he was endowed with original righteousness, though with a
somewhat stronger bias towards evil.
3. RATIONALIZING VIEWS. Pelagians, Socinians, Arminians, Rationalists, and
Evolutionists, all discount the idea of a primitive state of holiness altogether. The first
four are agreed that man was created in a state of innocence, of moral and religious
neutrality, but was endowed with a free will, so that he could turn in either direction.
Evolutionists assert that man began his career in a state of barbarism, in which he was
but slightly removed from the brute. Rationalists of all kinds believe that a concreated
righteousness and holiness is a contradiction in terms. Man determines his character by
his own free choice; and holiness can only result from a victorious struggle against evil.
From the nature of the case, therefore, Adam could not have been created in a state of
holiness. Moreover. Pelagians. Socinians, and Rationalists hold that man was created
mortal. Death did not result from the entrance of sin into the world, but was simply the
natural termination of human nature as it was constituted. Adam would have died in
virtue of the original constitution of his nature.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY: What is the precise distinction which Delitzsch
makes between the soul and the spirit in man? How does Heard make use of the
tripartite conception of man in the interpretation of original sin, conversion, and
sanctification? What accounts for the fact that Lutherans are prevailingly Traducianists,
and Reformed prevailingly Creationists? How about the objection that Creationism
virtually destroys the unity of the human race? What objections are there against
realism with its assumption of the numerical unity of human nature? What criticism
would you offer on Dorner’s view, that the theories of Pre-existentianism,
Traducianism, and Creationism, are simply three different aspects of the whole truth
respecting the origin of the soul? How do Roman Catholics generally distinguish
between the “image” and the “likeness” of God? Do they believe that man lost his
justitia or natural righteousness by the fall or not? How do those Lutherans who restrict
the image of God to man’s original righteousness explain Gen. 9:6 and Jas. 3:9?
LITERATURE. Bavinck, Geref. Dogm., II, pp. 566-635; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm., De Creaturis
C. pp. 3-131; Vos, Geref. Dogm. II, pp. 1-21; Hodge, Syst. Theol. II, pp. 42-116; Dabney,
Syst. and Polem. Theol., pp. 292-302; Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II, pp. 4-114; Litton, Introd. to
Dogm. Theol., pp. 107-122; Dorner, Syst, of Chr. Doct. II, pp. 68-96; Schmidt, Doct. Theol. of
the Ev. Luth. Church, pp. 225-238; Martensen, Chr. Dogm., pp. 136-148; Pieper, Chr. Dogm.
I, pp. 617-630; Valentine, Chr. Theol. I, pp. 383-415; Pope, Chr. Theol. I, pp. 421-436;
Raymond, Syst. Theol. II, pp. 7-49; Wilmers, Handbook of the Chr. Rel., pp. 219-233; Orr,
228