Are infants guilty because of Adam's sin?

tdidymas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

tdidymas said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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

tdidymas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

Depends on your understanding. . .

tdidymas said:

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

Click to expand...

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").

tdidymas said:

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?

Click to expand...

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).

tdidymas said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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 said:

I question this doctrine with a series of questions below.

Click to expand...

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.

tdidymas said:

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

Click to expand...

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

tdidymas said:

You have not explained how infants are considered guilty.

Click to expand...

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.

tdidymas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

tdidymas said:

But you haven't explained Rom. 7:9

Click to expand...

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.

tdidymas said:

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

Click to expand...

Infants are not innocent of Adam's sin any more than I am, but Adam's sin is nevertheless imputed to me, as well as to all mankind )Ro 5:17).

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 said:

I already demonstrated it by the questions I asked.

Click to expand...

Personal doubt is not a Biblical demonstration.

You must Biblically demonstrate my error in post #10, or it stands error-free as it is.

tdidymas said:

What I'm asking from a Reformed Theologian (or someone knowledgeable enough) is to exegete scripture showing how the confessions arrive at their conclusion.

Click to expand...

I deal in Scripture.
If what I present is not in agreement with Scripture, it falls to those who object to Biblically demonstrate that it is not.
If they do not Biblically demonstrate error, then their view has no Biblical basis.

Feel free to present your Biblical demonstration of my Biblical error in post #10.

I hold to a Reformed covenant theology, not as articulated in the Westminster Standards (Presbyterian) but rather the Three Forms of Unity (Reformed)—the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort.

The Westminster Confession of Faith asserts that "the guilt of this sin was imputed ... to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generations" (6.3). Motivated by my theological convictions, and because their language could be misunderstood, I would nuance that statement a little bit.

First, Adam alone is personally guilty of his trespass, while all those in him are held corporately guilty through federal headship. We are guilty and condemned in Adam as covenant-breakers due to his trespass; in the same way, we are justified in Christ as covenant-keepers by his obedience. In both cases, it is a forensic matter of imputation via federal headship and covenant union: Adam is the covenant-breaker, as are all those in him, so also Christ is the covenant-keeper, as are all those in him. But I think that is probably what the divines meant anyway, that the guilt is personally his by trespass and corporately ours by imputation.

Second, the clause "descending from them by ordinary generations" seems to imply that sin is passed along through human reproduction. As for me, I reject that idea. It is my understanding that sin is passed along theologically (via covenantal solidarity), not biologically (via the gene pool), because sin pertains to the covenantal relationship between God and man. Both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenantal solidarity, not biological inheritance. (I don't believe that sin is something we can identify and isolate biologically, as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." And if sin is not a gene, then it's not a component of the reproductive cells involved in procreation, i.e., it's not passed along through biological continuity.)

In answer your question, then, infants are guilty and condemned in Adam as covenant-breakers because he was the federal head of the old humanity—and infants are humans. We are in Adam by nature, and in Christ by grace. While infants have not committed any actual sins, to say they "have not sinned" is to simply beg the question against federal headship and covenant union, and the symmetrical logic of Paul's contrast of Adam and Jesus.

1. "I don't see the scriptures teaching the imputation of Adam's sin, but I do see it teaching the inheritance of the sinful nature."

Why do we have this sinful nature? It is because something was broken, correct? Adam's trespass consisted of breaking the covenant (individually); and, since he is our federal head, we are reckoned as covenant-breakers (corporately)—that is, sinners. Thus, "the guilt of this sin was imputed" to all those in Adam.

2. "If infants are guilty by imputation, then how do you interpret Romans 4:15 and 7:9?"

Romans 4:15 defines what makes something a transgression, not what makes someone guilty. You can't step over a line if no line has been drawn. That doesn't mean there is no sin or guilt where there is no revealed command (cf. Rom. 2:12-15). In the next chapter, Paul explicitly says sin exists "before the law was given," though it is not counted as transgression in the same way. Infants are guilty in Adam apart from conscious transgression.

And Romans 7:9 is not teaching that infants are innocent until law arrives; Paul had said earlier that "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam" (5:14). His whole argument is that spiritual death (proof of guilt) is universal, even without personal law-breaking.

3. "It seems to me that a person must know right from wrong in order to be guilty of wrongs committed. If this is the case, then children too young to know right from wrong really are innocent. What do you think of this?"

There is a difference between being held corporately guilty and individually guilty. Infants are held corporately guilty (original sin), not individually guilty (actual sins).

4. "As for the confessions that say infants are regenerated, do they mean all infants or only those who die?"

I don't know.