Infusionism vs. Creationism

[Robert R. Higby]

Augustine, Charles Hodge, and other theologians taught a form of creationism that really amounts to infusionism. This position is a denial of the wholistic view of man and asserts that God creates each soul as entirely spiritual ('pure spirit') apart from the body, then infuses the same soul into a body. So man is in essence a strict dichotomy of body and soul.

Such a position would also have us believe that the soul is tainted with sin only AFTER entering the physical body; thus preserving Tertullian's view of the strictly biological origin of sin without also affirming his traducianism.

This is NOT the creational teaching that I hold to, neither do I believe it is the form of creationism taught by the ancient Hebrews. But any time someone is known to deny Tertullian's traducianism, it is always assumed that such a person is also into infusionism. It is thought of as the only alternative position to a strictly biological view of the origin of the soul. So an assumption is made that any creationalist is also an infusionist.

The Bible is clear that man is not a living soul ('being') until God gives him the 'breath of life' (elsewhere called a 'spirit') to animate his biological being (Gen. 2:7, Ezek. 37:10). This breath is not the mere inhaling and exhaling performed by the lungs, though that physical phenomenon is certainly used to portray the spirit of man and, in the case of Adam, had its origin at the same moment. So what we have here is this: the 'spirit' of man which relates to God and all other aspects of his soul, including the physical body, personality, etc. all have their origin when the whole personhood of man comes together in a single moment. The individual human spirit does not precede the body except in God's purpose; though aspects of the physical body may indeed exist prior to being animated by the spirit.

Many aspects of the soul do come from the biological parents--personality, likes and dislikes, abilities, tendencies, etc. But the spiritual aspect of man that relates to God comes solely from God. This includes not only the ability to worship God in faith (which is given in regeneration to those created in God's image), but also the spirit of rebellion against God manifested in sin. Both spirits are created and maintained in their appointed measure within each individual soul.

Comments?

[Whammer]

I have to admit, this is a "fuzzy" area for me. I remember thinking along these lines in another thread last year or the year before (cant remember the thread) but it related to the scripture in 2 Cor. 5:1-10.
In looking at our death physically as believers, we leave (leave?) this temporary tent to be in the presence of Jesus and the other saints, and these physical bodies will be resurrected and changed at the 2nd coming of Jesus (our permanent dwelling)....so what does our timely existence look like (wholistically) after our death but prior to the 2nd coming of Christ?

[Robert R. Higby]

What does it mean to be absent from the body and present with the Lord?

We have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

1. We have laid down this present mortal body.
2. Our spirits have then been united to a 'dwelling' or 'tabernacle' prepared by God in the heavens.
3. The eternal dwelling put on in heaven will be 'added to', not laid aside, at the final resurrection of the body in the New Earth. In the interim we will put on a dwelling that involves some type of form, however, it will not yet have all the characteristics of the final resurrection body ('further clothing') to be put on at Christ's last Advent.

That is how I would interpret this passage when compared to all the other teaching of scripture.

[wildboar]

I don't think it is proper to consider Augustine a strict creationist. It is true that probably due to his Platonism he would often speak in such terms but when dealing with the Pelagians he tended to adopt more of a traducianist position.

[Whammer]

Augustine, Charles Hodge, and other theologians taught a form of creationism that really amounts to infusionism. This position is a denial of the wholistic view of man and asserts that God creates each soul as entirely spiritual ('pure spirit') apart from the body, then infuses the same soul into a body. So man is in essence a strict dichotomy of body and soul.

Comments?

I thought about this comment too brother, and as I have done other times, I may have a false presuppostion here that I havnt been able to see as that.....but this scripture came to mind about body and soul in Mat. 10:28.......here it seems to be a dichotomy of sorts in Jesus words about those who can kill the body but not the soul, and also he uses the word "both" with body and soul that seems (in my mind) to add some distinction here.
Also words like the body without the soul is dead.

Thanks also for sharing your thoughts with me on the 2 Cor. passage too Bob, I'm sure my lack of maturity is clearer here to you than me, so please labor (and bear with me) a little with me here in my understanding.....
or of course brethren, if it becomes apparent I am lacking understanding of truth and you see an oportunity to "give me hand"....please do so

[Robert R. Higby]

Brian: this scripture came to mind about body and soul in Mat. 10:28.......here it seems to be a dichotomy of sorts in Jesus words about those who can kill the body but not the soul, and also he uses the word "both" with body and soul that seems (in my mind) to add some distinction here.

The soul cannot be killed by destroying the mere mortal body; that is all Christ is saying. If man destroys the body God clothes the spirit with a new tabernacle, thus continuing the existence of the soul.

Also words like the body without the soul is dead.

As in James 2:26, where faith is proposed to be a dead corpse that can be animated only by works? Well, you know where I stand on that! But it is true that the body without the SPIRIT is dead; man is wholistic. If the body dies the spirit is clothed with a new tabernacle and the soul thus continues to live.

Thanks for your interaction and interest! --Bob

[rlhuckle]

I think what makes this issue a little nebulous is the cultural nature to use "soul" and "spirit" interchangably at times.

[Robert R. Higby]

Correct, this has 2 angles:

1. The Hebrew vs. Greek use of the terms,

and

2. Even in the Bible, we can't assume that the same word when used by a biblical author in a certain context ALWAYS has the same meaning. Many get hung up on the idea that a word can only have one meaning, period, when this is just not true.

[Craig kennedy]

Augustine, Charles Hodge, and other theologians taught a form of creationism that really amounts to infusionism. This position is a denial of the wholistic view of man and asserts that God creates each soul as entirely spiritual ('pure spirit') apart from the body, then infuses the same soul into a body. So man is in essence a strict dichotomy of body and soul.

Such a position would also have us believe that the soul is tainted with sin only AFTER entering the physical body; thus preserving Tertullian's view of the strictly biological origin of sin without also affirming his traducianism.

This is NOT the creational teaching that I hold to, neither do I believe it is the form of creationism taught by the ancient Hebrews. But any time someone is known to deny Tertullian's traducianism, it is always assumed that such a person is also into infusionism. It is thought of as the only alternative position to a strictly biological view of the origin of the soul. So an assumption is made that any creationalist is also an infusionist.

The Bible is clear that man is not a living soul ('being') until God gives him the 'breath of life' (elsewhere called a 'spirit') to animate his biological being (Gen. 2:7, Ezek. 37:10). This breath is not the mere inhaling and exhaling performed by the lungs, though that physical phenomenon is certainly used to portray the spirit of man and, in the case of Adam, had its origin at the same moment. So what we have here is this: the 'spirit' of man which relates to God and all other aspects of his soul, including the physical body, personality, etc. all have their origin when the whole personhood of man comes together in a single moment. The individual human spirit does not precede the body except in God's purpose; though aspects of the physical body may indeed exist prior to being animated by the spirit.

Many aspects of the soul do come from the biological parents--personality, likes and dislikes, abilities, tendencies, etc. But the spiritual aspect of man that relates to God comes solely from God. This includes not only the ability to worship God in faith (which is given in regeneration to those created in God's image), but also the spirit of rebellion against God manifested in sin. Both spirits are created and maintained in their appointed measure within each individual soul.

Comments?

Hi Bob,

This was a most informative article and I have studied it with much interest.

The whole area you have raised is, in my opinion, a highly complex and controverted one; however, I respect your writings highly and I want to follow these issues through.

Many points, many issues and many questions arise from your stimulating article.

I appreciate that you are a creationist but you do not hold to an infusionist viewpoint. I can see that you hold that each individual soul is created with an appropriate capacity to sin; indeed, with a God-ordained proclivity to sin according to the purpose God decrees. In all of this God displays His infinite sovereignty and majesty.

I am thinking out loud here, so I will need your confirmation that I have read your position correctly. I hear you saying that the elect - and the elect alone - are given created souls made "in the image of God". I also hear you saying, by implication, that the reprobate - and the reprobate alone - are given created souls made "in the image of Satan".

Both the elect and the reprobate share in one common biological bloodline from Adam; so, in this sense, one can speak of the biological unity of the human race, made from one lump! However, because the infusionist conception of creationism is incorrect and because God created two separate classes or families of souls, viz:

1. In the image of God - the elect

2. In the image of Satan - the reprobate...

it follows that there are two spiritual destinies, unconditionally decreed by God according to His divine good pleasure.

Bob, I need your confirmation that I have correctly understood your position.

If my understanding of your position is correct, then I would be pleased if you could respond to the following two questions:

1. You talk of a wholistic understanding of the human person. It is not plain to me, however, if you hold to dichotomy or trichotomy within your distinctive creationist viewpoint. Could you please articulate this aspect and make plain which one you do hold to; and why.

2. Although the reprobate are made spiritually "in the image of Satan" do they still have the same human constituency as the elect; that is, whatever your answer is to 1 above do they share that with the elect.

I look forward to your responses.

Craig

[Robert R. Higby]

Answers to Craig

I appreciate that you are a creationist but you do not hold to an infusionist viewpoint. I can see that you hold that each individual soul is created with an appropriate capacity to sin; indeed, with a God-ordained proclivity to sin according to the purpose God decrees. In all of this God displays His infinite sovereignty and majesty.

I agree that you have correctly stated my position, with the one exception that it is better to state "with a predetermined capacity to sin according to the measure that will fulfill God's purpose" instead of "with an appropriate capacity to sin." It just seems like the word 'appropriate' doesn't quite fit here!

I am thinking out loud here, so I will need your confirmation that I have read your position correctly. I hear you saying that the elect - and the elect alone - are given created souls made "in the image of God". I also hear you saying, by implication, that the reprobate - and the reprobate alone - are given created souls made "in the image of Satan".

You are correct! This is not ALL that needs to be stated, however. Both seeds are created in rebellion against God (Christ only excepted) and the spirit of this rebellion does not differ in one seed as opposed to the other. In this sense, sin is sin--whether it operates within the elect or the reprobate. Both groups are totally unable to lift themselves out of their absolute slavery to sin and resulting utter (total, if you will) depravity.

The nature of the 'image of God' is a complex issue and requires much prayerful study to discern the true meaning from scripture. Mankind (generically) was created in God's image, however, this does not mean in and of itself that every biological human ever conceived is created in God's image. Many scholars think the expression refers to the innate immortality of the soul (whether the soul goes to heaven or hell eternally); that interpretation I totally reject as based on pure Greek philosophy instead of straightforward biblical exegesis. In the Genesis narrative we have the real meaning laid out by the serpent himself! The image of God has to do with knowing good and evil--and the capacity to discern such. It therefore involves the created capacity to know God and fellowship with Him. This capacity is not EXERCISED until regeneration, when the Holy Spirit performs the miracle necessary for a soul created in God's image to discern and love the truth of the gospel. But the spirit of light is present in the elect to some degree even from the beginning; otherwise they would not only be UNABLE to believe but also UNABLE TO BE MADE ABLE BY GOD'S REGENERATIVE MIRACLE to believe! A soul does not so completely lose its former identity after regeneration that he/she is in NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER the same person at all as before.

Both the elect and the reprobate share in one common biological bloodline from Adam; so, in this sense, one can speak of the biological unity of the human race, made from one lump! However, because the infusionist conception of creationism is incorrect and because God created two separate classes or families of souls, viz:

1. In the image of God - the elect

2. In the image of Satan - the reprobate...

it follows that there are two spiritual destinies, unconditionally decreed by God according to His divine good pleasure.

Right on! This is totally what I believe.

Bob, I need your confirmation that I have correctly understood your position.

If my understanding of your position is correct, then I would be pleased if you could respond to the following two questions:

1. You talk of a wholistic understanding of the human person. It is not plain to me, however, if you hold to dichotomy or trichotomy within your distinctive creationist viewpoint. Could you please articulate this aspect and make plain which one you do hold to; and why.

I hold to neither in a doctrinare sense. The scriptures do not always speak in the exact same language with regard to the different aspects of man's whole person; I Thess. 5:23 implies trichotomy to some but many other passages speaking of only 'body and spirit' or 'body and soul' imply dichotomy to others. There is no strict separation of any of the aspects of who man is, just distinction. If man is wholistic, we need not dissect the various parts of man's essence as if these can be cut apart from one another and exist independently. I don't know if this makes sense to all; I hope it does! Viewing man as a unitary person violates many of the categories of thought asking such questions as "is man made up of TWO or THREE distinct parts?"

If the reprobate are made spiritually "in the image of Satan" do they still have the same human constituency as the elect; that is, whatever your answer is to 1 above do they share that with the elect.

Definitely not! While both the elect and the reprobate have a spirit that relates to God their creator, the spirits of each respectively are not of the same essence. The elect are created with a temporary 'spirit of darkness' residing in their spirits with a view to redemption from that evil in Christ, whereas the reprobate are created with a permanent and eternal 'spirit of darkness' residing in their spirits after the image of their true father (John 8:44).

Bro. Bob

[Craig kennedy]

Hi Bob,

I am deeply grateful to you for such an edifying reply.

Your reply has aided me significantly in my progress in understanding the truth of these matters.

You state that both seeds are created in rebellion against God. In this connection you write:

"Both seeds are created in rebellion against God (Christ only excepted) and the spirit of this rebellion does not differ in one seed as opposed to the other. In this sense, sin is sin--whether it operates within the elect or the reprobate. Both groups are totally unable to lift themselves out of their absolute slavery to sin and resulting utter (total, if you will) depravity."

Bob, I realise that we will never be able to tell who is elect and who is reprobate with any degree of certainty in this life. Do you agree?

However, having said this are there any certain "tell" signs whereby we may be able to tell if a person is of Christ's seed or of Satan's seed? Is it possible for a person to have lived most of their earthly lives in wickedness and then be given the gifts of faith and repentance to manifest their eternal election, near the end of their lives? Is this God's extraordinary way of working? Are most of the elect brought to faith and repentance at a relatively young age?

I will appreciate your input here.

Bob, you point out that both the elect and reprobate have a spirit that relates to God. You write:

" While both the elect and the reprobate have a spirit that relates to God their creator, the spirits of each respectively are not of the same essence. The elect are created with a temporary 'spirit of darkness' residing in their spirits with a view to redemption from that evil in Christ, whereas the reprobate are created with a permanent and eternal 'spirit of darkness' residing in their spirits after the image of their true father (John 8:44)."

Does this mean that there are degrees of "rewards" in heaven for the elect and degrees of "punishments" in hell for the reprobate? Do you, indeed, agree with or support such theology in view of your distinctive creationist position.

I am learning much here and look forward to further light being cast on these issues.

Craig

[Robert R. Higby]

Further answers to Craig:

Bob, I realise that we will never be able to tell who is elect and who is reprobate with any degree of certainty in this life. Do you agree?

However, having said this are there any certain "tell" signs whereby we may be able to tell if a person is of Christ's seed or of Satan's seed? Is it possible for a person to have lived most of their earthly lives in wickedness and then be given the gifts of faith and repentance to manifest their eternal election, near the end of their lives? Is this God's extraordinary way of working? Are most of the elect brought to faith and repentance at a relatively young age?

There may be several different answers here.

1. On the matter of whether a person might be granted faith and repentance to manifest eternal election near the end of life, the answer has to be 'yes'. The Lord certainly does not restrict His sovereign work of regeneration to any particular age. I, for one, have certainly seen cases where this happened.

2. I cannot say that most elect are brought to faith early in life; the Sunday School statistics may propose that but those numbers are based on external phenomenon such as water baptism instead of settled convictions expressed over time. It seems to me that a very large number are brought to faith between 20 and 60 years old, not only in the biblical record but in the accumulated testimony of history itself.

3. There are levels or manifestations of evil that indicate the likelihood of reprobation in certain souls. Although we can not be 100% sure, there is often a spirit of the finality of wickedness present in certain men or women that is hard to define in terms of mere external acts of sin.

{Myself quoted} Both the elect and the reprobate have a spirit that relates to God their creator, the spirits of each respectively are not of the same essence. The elect are created with a temporary 'spirit of darkness' residing in their spirits with a view to redemption from that evil in Christ, whereas the reprobate are created with a permanent and eternal 'spirit of darkness' residing in their spirits after the image of their true father (John 8:44)."

Does this mean that there are degrees of "rewards" in heaven for the elect and degrees of "punishments" in hell for the reprobate? Do you, indeed, agree with or support such theology in view of your distinctive creationist position.

I do not support the notion of degrees of reward. Since the greatest reward that God can give, eternal life in His presence, is strictly the result of 100% unmerited Grace residing only in Christ's person and work, there can be no degrees of reward meted out in the unbounded joy of sitting with Christ on His throne. All the redeemed will be of equal status there.

There are degrees of punishment meted out based on judgment according to the curse of the Law as expressed by Paul in Rom. 2 & 3. Such degrees, however, are not administered in ETERNAL punishment. They are real degrees of suffering meted out according to evil works performed in this earthly life. For example, one who tortured others shall himself be tortured according to the measure of his actions.

The eternal aspect of punishment is the curse of the gospel; it is not a matter of degrees but is consistently the same for all reprobates--shame and everlasting contempt in the presence of Christ who is the object of their hatred and rebellion.

That is a most admittedly brief answer to your questions; I can answer in more detail soon on specifics that you might feel I have not dealt with enough!

[Craig kennedy]

Further answers to Craig:

Bob, I realise that we will never be able to tell who is elect and who is reprobate with any degree of certainty in this life. Do you agree?

However, having said this are there any certain "tell" signs whereby we may be able to tell if a person is of Christ's seed or of Satan's seed? Is it possible for a person to have lived most of their earthly lives in wickedness and then be given the gifts of faith and repentance to manifest their eternal election, near the end of their lives? Is this God's extraordinary way of working? Are most of the elect brought to faith and repentance at a relatively young age?

There may be several different answers here.

1. On the matter of whether a person might be granted faith and repentance to manifest eternal election near the end of life, the answer has to be 'yes'. The Lord certainly does not restrict His sovereign work of regeneration to any particular age. I, for one, have certainly seen cases where this happened.

2. I cannot say that most elect are brought to faith early in life; the Sunday School statistics may propose that but those numbers are based on external phenomenon such as water baptism instead of settled convictions expressed over time. It seems to me that a very large number are brought to faith between 20 and 60 years old, not only in the biblical record but in the accumulated testimony of history itself.

3. There are levels or manifestations of evil that indicate the likelihood of reprobation in certain souls. Although we can not be 100% sure, there is often a spirit of the finality of wickedness present in certain men or women that is hard to define in terms of mere external acts of sin.

{Myself quoted} Both the elect and the reprobate have a spirit that relates to God their creator, the spirits of each respectively are not of the same essence. The elect are created with a temporary 'spirit of darkness' residing in their spirits with a view to redemption from that evil in Christ, whereas the reprobate are created with a permanent and eternal 'spirit of darkness' residing in their spirits after the image of their true father (John 8:44)."

Does this mean that there are degrees of "rewards" in heaven for the elect and degrees of "punishments" in hell for the reprobate? Do you, indeed, agree with or support such theology in view of your distinctive creationist position.

I do not support the notion of degrees of reward. Since the greatest reward that God can give, eternal life in His presence, is strictly the result of 100% unmerited Grace residing only in Christ's person and work, there can be no degrees of reward meted out in the unbounded joy of sitting with Christ on His throne. All the redeemed will be of equal status there.

There are degrees of punishment meted out based on judgment according to the curse of the Law as expressed by Paul in Rom. 2 & 3. Such degrees, however, are not administered in ETERNAL punishment. They are real degrees of suffering meted out according to evil works performed in this earthly life. For example, one who tortured others shall himself be tortured according to the measure of his actions.

The eternal aspect of punishment is the curse of the gospel; it is not a matter of degrees but is consistently the same for all reprobates--shame and everlasting contempt in the presence of Christ who is the object of their hatred and rebellion.

That is a most admittedly brief answer to your questions; I can answer in more detail soon on specifics that you might feel I have not dealt with enough!

Hi Bob,

I appreciate your answers and they are helping me in my progress to understand more fully some of the nuances of High Grace Predestinarian doctrine.

You graciously invited me to pick up on any specifics that I need more clarity on.

I want to hear you enlarge on the theme of the "equality of blessedness" for the elect in heaven. Over the years, "Reformed" theologians have emphasised the degrees of glory that the elect will experience in heaven.
The idea, of course, inherent in such a proposal is that although the elect are saved by grace - and grace alone! - there is a God-given capacity for the elect to glorify God which varies in degrees by God's sovereign appointment.

It seems to me, that your distinctively creationist view of the soul - which rejects the infusionist notion of "innocency" or moral "neutrality" - is not from a logical, theological construct point of view incompatible with the degrees of glory theory. I have no doubt you will readily see what I am driving at here.

If God, on your view, created each elect soul distinctly "in His image" then He could have created each soul with a differing capacity to glorify Him.
God could have done this, if He wanted to, and it would not infract your creationist position.

I will be pleased to hear you respond to these observations.

Furthermore, if you do reject the "degrees of glory" theory for the elect then it seems that you must do this on exegetical evidence from the New Testament itself. If this is the case, I would be most grateful to learn what that exegetical evidence is that convinces you that all the elect will share the same degree of blessedness in the eternal state.

Craig

[Bob Martin]

Bro. Bob,

If you could help me on this too. I have been reading this thread with interest, and wish that you would elaborate on the question; "Are there tell tell signs" of the regenerate? It seems to me that the teaching of I John is that we should be able to judge by their fruits, those who are and those who aren't. We certainly make no bones about judging by their theology, but what about their fruit?
Thank you for further time on this.

Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

I'll get to answering these questions this weekend. Thanks! --Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

Here's a start.

Bob M. I have been reading this thread with interest, and wish that you would elaborate on the question; "Are there tell tell signs" of the regenerate? It seems to me that the teaching of I John is that we should be able to judge by their fruits, those who are and those who aren't. We certainly make no bones about judging by their theology, but what about their fruit?

Well, something about the expression "tell tale signs" seems a little scary but I guess I can go there! Firstly, I don't make a clean distinction between theology and fruit. The two signs mentioned in 1 John 3:23 are:

1. Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Love others who do the same.

#1 involves serious theology and it is also fruit; believing on Christ's name involves a correct understanding of His person and work as John outlines elsewhere in his epistle and gospel. So here the theology itself is the fruit or 'tell-tale sign' to be examined--does a person confess the truth regarding Christ's person and saving work? Moving on to the second sign--the manner in which a believer regards and treats others who believe the true gospel is the issue. Many abuse this and other NT passages by reasoning away the dynamic of faith and reducing 'love' to a general compassion for all humanity. Now I am not going to deny that such compassion is where we ought to be, however, I'm going to deny that this compassion is what John is talking about in this context. The faith dynamic is plain: I am in Christ by faith alone; others who believe the same gospel that I do are also in Christ by faith alone--therefore by embracing Christ's true person and work in faith I am also embracing all other elect believers! It is impossible for one to have a correct theology and bad fruit in this regard; if one does not love other elect and express it he/she doesn't know the gospel.

Knowing the historical situation behind this epistle is paramount. It is not addressed to a congregation but to 'all believers everywhere.' It may actually be the last book of the New Testament written. After Paul's death, the apostasy he predicted began to spread far and wide. False doctrines invaded and deceived congregations that previously had known and believed the truth. The true believers remaining in such congregations then became targets of persecution and hatred by those who had gone off into heresy. This is the situation addressed when John refers to Christ's command to love one another. The fact that the non-elect who believe fables hate the true elect is always with us--the phenomenon is certainly as alive and well today as ever before! Those who hate the gospel of God's free grace in Christ dispensed according to sovereign election want to avoid fellowship with their enemies who believe such a gospel as much as possible!

[Robert R. Higby]

Now on to answering Craig's issue:

Over the years, "Reformed" theologians have emphasised the degrees of glory that the elect will experience in heaven. The idea, of course, inherent in such a proposal is that although the elect are saved by grace - and grace alone! - there is a God-given capacity for the elect to glorify God which varies in degrees by God's sovereign appointment.

It seems to me, that your distinctively creationist view of the soul - which rejects the infusionist notion of "innocency" or moral "neutrality" - is not from a logical, theological construct point of view incompatible with the degrees of glory theory. I have no doubt you will readily see what I am driving at here.

If God, on your view, created each elect soul distinctly "in His image" then He could have created each soul with a differing capacity to glorify Him.
God could have done this, if He wanted to, and it would not infract your creationist position.

Yes that is right! I think there is a big difference between a notion of 'degrees of glory' and 'degrees of reward.' The former may be the logical and inevitable outcome in glory of what has transpired in this life. The latter, however, involves a positive conferment by God of a higher congratulatory status to some elect over others expressed in some sort of outward formal position or tangible material gain.

Dan. 12:2,3 is one of the passages used to support the 'degrees of glory' notion:

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

I tend to view this as not as a 'brightness' conferred outwardly by God--but rather that the wisdom, fruitful teaching, and resultant joyful experience of the just will stand out and be noticed for eternity. So there is distinction in terms of a manifested degree of everlasting 'fruit' but not necessarily in terms of bigger mansions, crowns with more stars, bodies that shine more brightly, a closer geographic position to Christ's throne, etc.

So let us consider the the concept of eternal reward:

After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great." Gen. 15:1

He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. Ps. 103:10

The reward of humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, honor and life. Prov. 22:4

Behold, the Lord God will come with might, With His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him And His recompense before Him. Isa. 40:10

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Mt. 5:12

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. Mt. 6:1

He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. Mt. 10:41

For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward. Mk. 9:41

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Luke 6:35

Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. I Cor. 3:8

If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. I Cor. 3:14

. . . knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. Col. 3:24

Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. Heb. 10:35

And without faith it is impossible to please Him for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Heb. 11:6

And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth. Rev. 11:18

Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. Rev. 22:12

Taken collectively and not just looking at a twist on any one individually, these verses indicate to me that the reward in view is eternal life itself, the reward of the inheritance (Col. 3:24), not varing outward positions in the hereafter. Others may see something different. But that is where I take my stand because in my judgment it is the straight-forward meaning.

--Bob

[Craig kennedy]

Hi Bob,

Thank you very much for your response and I want you to know that your insights are greatly appreciated.

I am enjoying this thread immensely and learning much through it. I have much to reflect on and chew over!

I have many more questions to ask you on your distinctive creationist position of the human soul. Rather than over-burdening you with too much at any one time, I will ask these questions of you in "bite-size" portions so that you are not overwhelmed by the time asked of you and so that others can benefit from the discussion.

All of these questions are asked in a spirit of genuine enquiry and searching for truth.

One such question for now:

I notice on your profile you have indicated an agreement with the London Baptist Confession 1644, the Canons of Dort and the Gospel Standard Articles of faith. In view of the fact you hold to the "two seeds" theory and the creation of a damned people with no potential of redemption, do you not sense a "tension" between these views and the confessional statements.

As far as I can tell, the above listed confessions appear to favour a common fall and so mitigate against your position.

Can you please explain this apparent contradiction please?

Craig

[Robert R. Higby]

Craig: I notice on your profile you have indicated an agreement with the London Baptist Confession 1644, the Canons of Dort and the Gospel Standard Articles of faith. In view of the fact you hold to the "two seeds" theory and the creation of a damned people with no potential of redemption, do you not sense a "tension" between these views and the confessional statements.

As far as I can tell, the above listed confessions appear to favour a common fall and so mitigate against your position.

For once an easy one to answer!

In asking the user profile questions we are only trying to ascertain which confessions people agree 'most' with in contrast to the whole lot of well-known and well-published confessions. We are NOT asking for agreement in the strict subscriptionist sense. This is not like a presbytery examination to determine fitness for the ministry or anything like that!

You are correct in assuming that I differ with any confessional statements affirming a common fall of every biological human in Adam.

We have had discussions about publishing our own confession of faith here at p-net but just haven't got there yet. Thanks for bringing this up though; maybe it points out the need for us to pursue that objective more aggresively!

--Bob

[Craig kennedy]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for a great answer!

My next "bite-sized" question on the distinctive creationist position of the human soul:

I realise your theological construct builds heavily upon the "proto-evangel" as it is given to us in Genesis 3:15. I can see that your position is implied but, not necessitated, by this pivotal text. Indeed, one could equally argue the "traditional" position from the same text.

Could you please list for me, in as much detail as you can, the verses in scripture which bear the exegetical weight of your position; a position which, in a nutshell, posits a separate soul created by God for the reprobate which does not bear God's image and which does not have any potential of redemption.

I look forward to your further insights.

Craig