(redirected from traducianist)


 (trə-do͞o′shə-nĭz′əm, -dyo͞o′-)
n. Theology
The belief that the soul is inherited from the parents along with the body.

[From Late Latin trādūciānus, believer in traducianism, from trādux, trāduc-, inheritance, from Latin, vine-branch trained for propagation, from trādūcere, to lead across; see traduce.]

tra·du′cian·ist adj. & n.
tra·du′cian·is′tic adj.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.


(Ecclesiastical Terms) the theory that the soul is transmitted to a child in the act of generation or concomitantly with its body. Compare creationism
[C18: from Church Latin trādūciānus, from trādux transmission; see traduce]
traˈducianist, traˈducian n, adj
traˌducianˈistic adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014


Theology. the doctrine that a new human soul is generated from the souls of the parents at the moment of conception. — traducianist, n. — traducianistic, adj.
See also: Soul
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Soul origin: Revisiting creationist and traducianist theological perspectives in light of current trends in developmental psychology.
In traditional theology, the Creationist position has each new human soul as the direct creative act of God, while the Traducianist perspective assumes primarily human contribution to soul origin.
Rather than concede a traducianist view, he explains "that God gives an individually created soul to the child and that that soul is consistent with the hereditary traits and personality characteristics that God allowed the child to have through its descent from its parents" (p.
These arguments favoring the traducianist explanation for soul origin using secondary means are consistent with the evidence for the beginning of persons as seen in the book of nature.
Third, and briefly, they fault Moreland and Rae (Body and Soul) for holding to a creationist view of the origin of the soul, when actually they are traducianists. This mistake also may have significant implications for their assessment of Moreland and Rae's view.