Are infants guilty because of Adam's sin?

[tdidymas]

This question is only for those holding to Reformed Theology. In the Westminster Confession (or London Baptist 1689) it mentions that infants who die are "regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit." But in my mind this is vague and possibly conflicts with scripture in implications; but sounds more like speculation to work around the "Original Sin" issue that even infants are guilty due to Adam's sin being imputed to them. I question this doctrine with a series of questions below.

I was prompted to this question by R.C. Sproul's survey results on the question "Are we born innocent" wherein 64% of evangelicals agreed. I was not appalled at that result (as Ligonier was), because I question the doctrine of imputed sin to people who have not sinned (infants). Essentially, I question the idea that Adam's sin is imputed to mankind, as distinct from Adam's sin nature is inherited by mankind.

These questions are all related, so there may appear some redundancy. I'm trying to get a handle on what the scripture actually states about the issue.

1. I don't see the scripture teaching the imputation of Adam's sin, but I do see it teaching the inheritance of the sinful nature (traducianism). If Augustine (and the confessions) mean these issues to be the same thing, then I think it imposes some confusion about the spiritual state of infants. Are these issues the same, or not?

2. If infants are guilty by imputation, then how do you interpret Rom. 7:9 and Rom. 4:15? It looks like these verses imply the innocence of infants (people who have not yet learned right and wrong). Exegesis would be helpful, or a link to interpretive commentaries.

Rom. 4:15 -

Rom. 7:9 -

3. It appears to me that innocence does not mean "basically good" or "not having a sin nature." In the teachings I have read on the subject, there appears to me some confusion, that teachers seem to make no distinction. So then, "having a sinful nature" does not necessarily mean a person is guilty, because "through the law comes the knowledge of sin." It seems to me that a person must know moral law, that is, know right from wrong, in order to be guilty of wrongs committed (per Rom. 4:15 and 7:9). If this is the case, then children too young to know right from wrong really are innocent. What do you think of this?

4. Do the confessions that say infants are regenerated, do they mean all infants, or does it mean only those who die? If it means only those who die, or even limited to only those elected to salvation, then when does the regeneration happen - before or after they die? There is an implication here. If they're saying that all infants are regenerated, then how can a regenerated person become spiritually dead after sinning? This is inconsistent with the idea that regenerated people are saved and can't lose their salvation. And if not all infants who die are regenerated, then how can God send them to hell when they have not sinned?

a. If infants are regenerated, then which ones are, and when does it happen?

b. If some infants who die are not regenerated, where do they end up and why?

This is enough for now, but discussion may lead to more questions.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

This question is only for those holding to Reformed Theology. In the Westminster Confession (or London Baptist 1689) it mentions that infants who die are "regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit." But in my mind this is vague and possibly conflicts with scripture in implications; but sounds more like speculation to work around the "Original Sin" issue that even infants are guilty due to Adam's sin being imputed to them. I question this doctrine with a series of questions below.

I was prompted to this question by R.C. Sproul's survey results on the question "Are we born innocent" wherein 64% of evangelicals agreed. I was not appalled at that result (as Ligonier was), because I question the doctrine of imputed sin to people who have not sinned (infants). Essentially, I question the idea that Adam's sin is imputed to mankind, as distinct from Adam's sin nature is inherited by mankind.

These questions are all related, so there may appear some redundancy. I'm trying to get a handle on what the scripture actually states about the issue.

1. I don't see the scripture teaching the imputation of Adam's sin, but I do see it teaching the inheritance of the sinful nature (traducianism). If Augustine (and the confessions) mean these issues to be the same thing, then I think it imposes some confusion about the spiritual state of infants. Are these issues the same, or not?

2. If infants are guilty by imputation, then how do you interpret Rom. 7:9 and Rom. 4:15? It looks like these verses imply the innocence of infants (people who have not yet learned right and wrong). Exegesis would be helpful, or a link to interpretive commentaries.

Rom. 4:15 -

Rom. 7:9 -

3. It appears to me that innocence does not mean "basically good" or "not having a sin nature." In the teachings I have read on the subject, there appears to me some confusion, that teachers seem to make no distinction. So then, "having a sinful nature" does not necessarily mean a person is guilty, because "through the law comes the knowledge of sin." It seems to me that a person must know moral law, that is, know right from wrong, in order to be guilty of wrongs committed (per Rom. 4:15 and 7:9). If this is the case, then children too young to know right from wrong really are innocent. What do you think of this?

4. Do the confessions that say infants are regenerated, do they mean all infants, or does it mean only those who die? If it means only those who die, or even limited to only those elected to salvation, then when does the regeneration happen - before or after they die? There is an implication here. If they're saying that all infants are regenerated, then how can a regenerated person become spiritually dead after sinning? This is inconsistent with the idea that regenerated people are saved and can't lose their salvation. And if not all infants who die are regenerated, then how can God send them to hell when they have not sinned?

a. If infants are regenerated, then which ones are, and when does it happen?

b. If some infants who die are not regenerated, where do they end up and why?

This is enough for now, but discussion may lead to more questions.

Hello,
I am not a Calvinist just curious on the subject and look forward to their answers.
Thanks for positing!
Be blessed

 

[NBB]

I don't think kids are born again unless like everyone else they seek/accept God.
But, Jesus said, 'let the children come to me, because of them is the kingdom of heaven'
So from that scripture i would say, kids are saved.

 

[eleos1954]

This question is only for those holding to Reformed Theology. In the Westminster Confession (or London Baptist 1689) it mentions that infants who die are "regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit." But in my mind this is vague and possibly conflicts with scripture in implications; but sounds more like speculation to work around the "Original Sin" issue that even infants are guilty due to Adam's sin being imputed to them. I question this doctrine with a series of questions below.

I was prompted to this question by R.C. Sproul's survey results on the question "Are we born innocent" wherein 64% of evangelicals agreed. I was not appalled at that result (as Ligonier was), because I question the doctrine of imputed sin to people who have not sinned (infants). Essentially, I question the idea that Adam's sin is imputed to mankind, as distinct from Adam's sin nature is inherited by mankind.

These questions are all related, so there may appear some redundancy. I'm trying to get a handle on what the scripture actually states about the issue.

1. I don't see the scripture teaching the imputation of Adam's sin, but I do see it teaching the inheritance of the sinful nature (traducianism). If Augustine (and the confessions) mean these issues to be the same thing, then I think it imposes some confusion about the spiritual state of infants. Are these issues the same, or not?

2. If infants are guilty by imputation, then how do you interpret Rom. 7:9 and Rom. 4:15? It looks like these verses imply the innocence of infants (people who have not yet learned right and wrong). Exegesis would be helpful, or a link to interpretive commentaries.

Rom. 4:15 -

Rom. 7:9 -

3. It appears to me that innocence does not mean "basically good" or "not having a sin nature." In the teachings I have read on the subject, there appears to me some confusion, that teachers seem to make no distinction. So then, "having a sinful nature" does not necessarily mean a person is guilty, because "through the law comes the knowledge of sin." It seems to me that a person must know moral law, that is, know right from wrong, in order to be guilty of wrongs committed (per Rom. 4:15 and 7:9). If this is the case, then children too young to know right from wrong really are innocent. What do you think of this?

4. Do the confessions that say infants are regenerated, do they mean all infants, or does it mean only those who die? If it means only those who die, or even limited to only those elected to salvation, then when does the regeneration happen - before or after they die? There is an implication here. If they're saying that all infants are regenerated, then how can a regenerated person become spiritually dead after sinning? This is inconsistent with the idea that regenerated people are saved and can't lose their salvation. And if not all infants who die are regenerated, then how can God send them to hell when they have not sinned?

a. If infants are regenerated, then which ones are, and when does it happen?

b. If some infants who die are not regenerated, where do they end up and why?

This is enough for now, but discussion may lead to more questions.

"If this is the case, then children too young to know right from wrong really are innocent. What do you think of this? "They get a pass ... this has to be true .... we are responsible for what we know ... not what we do not know.

David testifying that he would be reunited with his dead child after death in 2 Samuel 12:23) support the reasonable belief that infants will go to heaven. The same holds true for those with mental disabilities who cannot comprehend right and wrong. They will be in the 1st resurrection when all the saved will be "regenerated" and taken to heaven

 

[Clare73]

This question is only for those holding to Reformed Theology. In the Westminster Confession (or London Baptist 1689) it mentions that infants who die are "regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit." But in my mind this is vague and possibly conflicts with scripture in implications; but sounds more like speculation to work around the "Original Sin" issue that even infants are guilty due to Adam's sin being imputed to them. I question this doctrine with a series of questions below.

I was prompted to this question by R.C. Sproul's survey results on the question "Are we born innocent" wherein 64% of evangelicals agreed. I was not appalled at that result (as Ligonier was), because I question the doctrine of imputed sin to people who have not sinned (infants). Essentially, I question the idea that Adam's sin is imputed to mankind, as distinct from Adam's sin nature is inherited by mankind.

Ro 5:17 is pretty clear - "by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, as is

Ro 5:18 - "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men,"
[which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the one righteous act resulting in justification/righteousness for all men (Ro 5:18-19)], as well as

Ro 5:19 - "through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners.

The inheritance of Adam's sinful nature subject to physical death (Ro 5:12-16) is distinct from the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17) subject to condemnation (Ro:18-19).

 

[tdidymas]

Ro 5:17 is pretty clear - "by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, as is

Ro 5:18 - "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men,"
[which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the one righteous act resulting in justification/righteousness for all men (Ro 5:18-19)], as well as

Ro 5:19 - "through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners.

The inheritance of Adam's sinful nature subject to physical death (Ro 5:12-16) is distinct from the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17) subject to condemnation (Ro:18-19).

I know that you think you're clear on this matter, but your response begs questions.
1. Are you advocating for the imputation of Adam's sin to all of mankind? If so, how can you prove scripturally without assuming so?
2. Can you please explain how Rom. 5:17 teaches the imputation of Adam's sin, and is NOT teaching that the sinful nature is inherited? The reason why death reigns is because the sin nature is inherited in all mankind, which causes all people to commit sin, resulting in death (spiritual death). In my mind, it does not prove imputation, and does not prove any guilt in regard to infants. Ref. 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
3. Why do you think Rom. 5:12-16 is talking about physical death only, since you specify? Can you please explain why it does not include spiritual death? My take on Paul's ambiguity between physical and spiritual death in this passage and a few others is because he is suggesting that physical death is proof of spiritual death, in which spiritual death is the thrust of his argument. The fact that he uses the phrase "justification of life" in v. 18 shows he is speaking of spiritual life vs. spiritual death, since every believer physically dies. In 8:10 he says "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness," in which righteousness is applied at the time one believes, not at resurrection. But in context, resurrection is as good as done, since righteousness is applied when living at the time of believing. Therefore, 5:12-16 is only mentioning physical death, but the underlying argument refers to spiritual death, IMO. Can you prove my understanding wrong here?

Of course, 5:19 does clearly teach inheritance of sin, IMO.

 

[Clare73]

I know that you think you're clear on this matter, but your response begs questions.

Depends on your understanding. . .

1. Are you advocating for the imputation of Adam's sin to all of mankind? If so, how can you prove scripturally without assuming

Because imputation of Adam's sin is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, not the pattern for the inheritance of Christ's righteousness, which we do not inherit. What we inherit is Adam's sinful nature ("flesh").

2. Can you please explain how Rom. 5:17 teaches the imputation of Adam's sin, and is NOT teaching that the sinful nature is inherited?

Well, let's look at Ro 5:18-19.
"The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Ro 5:18)
"Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners (guilty of Adam's sin). (Ro 5:19)

And Ro 5:17:
Death "reigns over all mankind through the trespass of one man."

The inheritance of Adam's sinful nature ("flesh") does not condemn us. It simply makes us prefer sin.
It is disobedience to the law that condemns us, as well as the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-14).

The reason why death reigns is because the sin nature is inherited in all mankind, which causes all people to commit sin, resulting in death (spiritual death). In my mind, it does not prove imputation, and does not prove any guilt in regard to infants. Ref. 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
3. Why do you think Rom. 5:12-16 is talking about physical death only, since you specify? Can you please explain why it does not include spiritual death? My take on Paul's ambiguity between physical and spiritual death in this passage and a few others is because he is suggesting that physical death is proof of spiritual death, in which spiritual death is the thrust of his argument. The fact that he uses the phrase "justification of life" in v. 18 shows he is speaking of spiritual life vs. spiritual death, since every believer physically dies. In 8:10 he says "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness," in which righteousness is applied at the time one believes, not at resurrection. But in context, resurrection is as good as done, since righteousness is applied when living at the time of believing. Therefore, 5:12-16 is only mentioning physical death, but the underlying argument refers to spiritual death, IMO. Can you prove my understanding wrong here?

Of course, 5:19 does clearly teach inheritance of sin, IMO.

Man does not "inherit" sin (Eze 18:20).
Man inherits a sinful nature ("flesh").

Sin is "imputed" to man (Ro 5:17, 18, 19).

 

[tdidymas]

Depends on your understanding. . .

Because imputation of Adam's sin is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, not the pattern for the inheritance of Christ's righteousness, which we do not inherit. What we inherit is Adam's sinful nature ("flesh").

Well, let's look at Ro 5:18-19.
"The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Ro 5:18)
"Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners (guilty of Adam's sin). (Ro 5:19)

And Ro 5:17:
Death "reigns over all mankind through the trespass of one man."

The inheritance of Adam's sinful nature ("flesh") does not condemn us. It simply makes us prefer sin.
It is disobedience to the law that condemns us, as well as the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-14).


Man does not "inherit" sin (Eze 18:20).
Man inherits a sinful nature ("flesh").

Sin is "imputed" to man (Ro 5:17, 18, 19).

I don't agree with your interpretation of these verses. You have not explained how infants are considered guilty, and if they are then they will go to hell if they die young before hearing the gospel, right? If Adam's sin is imputed to them, it makes them guilty, deserving of condemnation. But you haven't explained Rom. 7:9 or anything that supports the idea that infants are innocent. Unless you do so, then this discussion is over.

 

[Aaron112]

I question this doctrine with a series of questions below.

A lot of doctrine is wrong, in serious and grave and total error, so that might not be a good defining point.
Rather, someone is guilty because God says they are guilty. Period.

 

[Clare73]

I don't agree with your interpretation of these verses.

Feel free to Biblically demonstrate their error, your demonstration being in agreement with all the NT.

You have not explained how infants are considered guilty.

All mankind (including infants) is guilty of Adam's imputed sin (Ro 5:17, 18, 19), because God has imputed that sin to all those of Adam.

No one actually committed Adam's sin, nevertheless, God has imputed that sin to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

You either believe Ro 5:17-19, or you don't.

and if they are then they will go to hell if they die young before hearing the gospel, right? If Adam's sin is imputed to them, it makes them guilty, deserving of condemnation.

That is correct. . .God has shut up all men in sin (bound all men over to disobedience) so that only his mercy can save them (Ro 11:32).
There is no salvation by works, personal righteousness, or absence of actionable guilt.

But you haven't explained Rom. 7:9

Ro 7:9 deals with the law, which cannot, and was not given to, save (Gal 3:23-25), for since Abraham (Ge 15:5-6), salvation has been only by faith (Eph 2:8-9). . .the law was given only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20-21), and the need for a Savior.

or anything that supports the idea that infants are innocent. Unless you do so, then this discussion is over.

Ro 5:17, 18-19, imputation of Adams sin (Ro 5:17) to all those of Adam, as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteosness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19) does not allow the innocence of anyone descending from Adam (which Jesus did not).
LIkewise, it does not prevent God from applying Jesus' atonement to them if he so chooses.

 

[tdidymas]

Feel free to Biblically demonstrate their error, your demonstration being in agreement with all the NT.

I already demonstrated it by the questions I asked. What I'm asking from a Reformed Theologian (or someone knowledgeable enough) is to exegete scripture showing how the confessions arrive at their conclusion. So far, no exegesis has ever been done, as far as I can see.

All mankind (including infants) is guilty of Adam's imputed sin (Ro 5:17, 18, 19), because God has imputed that sin to all those of Adam.

You're still assuming it and making this assertion without any explanation as to how you arrive at your conclusion. I have already objected to this and shown how it can be interpreted differently than you do. In fact, you haven't even addressed by objection to try to correct it; all you do is keep making this assertion. Like I said before, if this is all you can do, then I'm done with this conversation.

No one actually committed Adam's sin, nevertheless, God has imputed that sin to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

You either believe Ro 5:17-19, or you don't.

I believe Rom. 5:17-19, that's not the issue. What you are doing here is making an assertion that parrots tradition, and then claiming it's what Rom. 5:17-19 says. But it's not. If this is all you can do, then I'm done with this conversation.

That is correct. . .God has shut up all men in sin (bound all men over to disobedience) so that only his mercy can save them (Ro 11:32).
There is no salvation by works, personal righteousness, or absence of actionable guilt.

I think you have the burden of proof of your belief here. Again, an assertion without scriptural exegesis. IMO your idea that infants who die "go to hell, go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200" is a ludicrous doctrine. The God I believe in is much more merciful than that. Jesus said the kingdom belongs to little children. Paul said before he had knowledge of sin he was alive (spiritually). David believed that his dead son would be in heaven where he was going. Eze. 18:20 says, "The soul that sins shall die." But you condemn the souls of infants before they even have any chance to commit sin. Your traditional "imputed sin" doctrine is cruel and unbiblical IMO. I think you have the burden of proof, which needs to go so far past your assertions that I don't see any hope in it.

Ro 7:9 deals with the law, which cannot, and was not given to, save (Gal 3:23-25), for since Abraham (Ge 15:5-6), salvation has been only by faith (Eph 2:8-9). . .the law was given only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20-21), and the need for a Savior.

Your response here leaves much to be desired. If infants who haven't even heard the law, much less know right from wrong, are guilty anyway, even before they have committed any sin, then God is cruel to them, having brought them to life only to send them to hell when they die in infancy. I don't think your God is the same as mine. Paul clearly states, "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." - "I was alive" means he was alive before he knew the law. Knowledge of the law put him to death (spiritually). So then, it's not really about the law, but about his experience with it. From where I'm looking, it seems like you're trying to brush off what Paul says here to avoid dealing with it. So I see more assertions with assumptions, not any real exegesis. So if this is all you have, then I'm done here.

Ro 5:17, 18-19, imputation of Adams sin (Ro 5:17) to all those of Adam, as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteosness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19) does not allow the innocence of anyone descending from Adam (which Jesus did not).
LIkewise, it does not prevent God from applying Jesus' atonement to them if he so chooses.

How do you know that God does not choose to apply atonement to all who die in infancy? And if that be the case, you might as well say they are innocent. So even then the doctrine of imputed sin is pointless, and is a useless doctrine. Not only does it not edify anyone, but it also doesn't comfort anyone who had a child die in infancy. So then, if you keep on just making assertions, I'll likely ignore anything else you say.