Are infants guilty because of Adam's sin?

DialecticSkeptic said:

By being redeemed.




"It sounds like" and "I don't get it" are not logical criticisms but rather autobiographical statements, telling us something about you. The only thing I can really say is, "I'm sorry to hear that."

Again, mankind is corporately guilty by imputation because Adam was our federal head in covenant relationship to God—and infants are a part of mankind, as are children, teenagers, young adults, the elderly, etc. And then, on top of being sinners, we are held personally guilty for our sins (transgressions), whether by commission (doing what we ought not) or omission (failing to do what we ought).

A popular way of expressing this view: "We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners."

And Adam is why we are sinners.




That is not the difference. "Corporately" means all mankind in Adam, condemned by imputation (original sin); "individually" means each man in himself, condemned by transgressions (actual sins).

We sin (personal guilt) because we are sinners (corporate guilt).

(Notable consideration: The idea that "we are sinners because we sin" is the Pelagian heresy.)




I never denied a connection between sin and our bodies. Our sinful corruption is a product of our sinful condition—and, again, Adam is why we are sinners.




Perhaps you don't see it because nobody proposed it.




I don't think your view can be maintained in the larger context of this epistle. Paul did not consider himself spiritually alive until the law; rather, he wasn't aware of his spiritual death until the law—for it exposes and condemns what is already there (Rom. 5:13-14). This fits with the broader argument that the law functions to bring knowledge of sin (3:20; 7:7).




That is a separate question. If we assume federal headship in covenant theology for the sake of argument, mankind's corporate guilt and condemnation logically follows (and infants are a part of mankind). I would remind you that the opening post questioned whether infants are included in this corporate guilt and condemnation.

It sounds like you now want to challenge that premise: "What if we don't assume that for the sake of argument? Does scripture actually teach this doctrine?" That is a great question but it's a separate one from the question being asked in this thread.

(The short answer is, "Yes, it does.")




Those regard personal sin, not corporate sin (i.e., category error). I will concede that infants have not committed any personal sins.



That is what Reformed theology teaches. However, it is not only corruption but also condemnation that we inherit from Adam—just as in Christ we receive not only a new nature but also justification. "Condemnation for all people came through one transgression," Paul said (Rom. 5:16-18).

Click to expand...

I was trying to explain my thoughts on how your argument was not convincing having to do with corporate guilt. I still don't see scripture teaching that. It appears to me that your interpretation of those verses are assuming a corporate guilt idea, rather than extracting the doctrine from the scripture. So, I'm just saying I'm not convinced.

But if you admit that infants haven't sinned, then you're essentially admitting they are innocent, because that's the definition of innocence - not sinned and having no knowledge of sin. Again, "corporate guilt" idea seems detached, sounds like something propping up the imputed sin idea. While reading through your interpretation I was thinking that it sounds like those verses you claim are teaching corporate guilt can easily be interpreted as having a sinful nature, which is a completely different issue in my mind.

Clare73 said:

"Convincing" is not the criteria for God's truth in Ro 5:14, 17, 18-19, where
all those of Adam are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them (Ro 5:14, 17), just as
all those of Christ are redeemed by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them (Ro 5:18-19).

Click to expand...

If you're not trying to convince me, then why the hubbub?

Clare73 said:

Study Ro 5:14, 17 (which imputed sin, v.17, is the pattern, v.14, for the imputed righteousness of the one to come; i.e., Jesus of Nazareth).

Click to expand...

The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer. The sin of Adam is not imputed to mankind. It's not symmetrical. The sin imputed to people are the actual sins they commit, which they are culpable for. So this makes infants, having initially a dormant sin nature, innocent until they commit sin. There are plenty of scriptures that back this up.

Clare73 said:

It is our nature (with which we are born) that makes us "objects of God's wrath" (Eph 2:3); i.e., "by nature, objects of wrath."
All the sons of Adam are sons of disobedience through their inherited fallen sinful nature.

Click to expand...

People are sons of disobedience when they practice it. Eph. 2 is talking about people "walking according to the course of the world" who are already sinners. It doesn't include infants which are innocent, since they have not yet sinned.

Clare73 said:

Why would an infant rattlesnake in my backyard where my children play, which snake doesn't even have rattlers yet, be killed by me?

It's not God's job to convince you, it's your job to believe God in his word written.
And that belief/faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Php 1:29, 2 Pe 1:1, Ac 13:48, 18:27, Ro 12:3).

Click to expand...

I believe God's word, not your assertions. Your assertions are not God's word. Your rattlesnake analogy is a straw man. Infants don't bite and poison people because it's not in their nature as an infant. Since the sin nature is still dormant in them until they start sinning, they remain innocent. So your dogma about imputed sin just doesn't cut the mustard.

Clare73 said:

What part of "my job is to present/explain God's word to you" do you not understand?

Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to do for you, but you don't accept it. You keep on making assertions without any exegesis. Like I said, I'm not going to quarrel with you. If you keep on it, maybe I'll have to put you on ignore.

DialecticSkeptic said:

Again, the thread is not about the doctrines of federal headship, covenant union, and original sin—that is, corporate guilt. Those doctrines are assumed for the sake of argument in answering your question, which targets Reformed theology, about whether or not infants are guilty because of Adam's sin. On this view, formed by those doctrines, yes they are (and for the reasons I provided).

If you want those doctrines themselves defended, that would be a separate issue from this one and require its own thread. In this thread, the only legitimate response you could give is, "Okay, given Reformed theology, infants are indeed guilty—but not of personal sin. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. Having said that, I now want to see this Reformed doctrine of corporate guilt itself explained and defended biblically, not assumed like it was here—but that's for a separate thread."

Moreover, the fact that you aren't convinced is simply not relevant because the intent was never to persuade you to embrace any Reformed doctrine or belief, but rather to demonstrate that your objection against it doesn't hold. Whether or not you end up accepting a doctrine is beside the point; the argument was aimed at answering your question and demonstrating the weakness of your critique, not at securing your agreement.




False. That is a fallacy of equivocation. You are treating innocent as a univocal, absolute category. But to admit innocence in one sense (e.g., personal sin) does not admit innocence in every sense (e.g., original sin).

They are innocent in themselves of personal guilt by transgression. However, according to scripture, they are condemned in Adam of corporate guilt by imputation. In other words, they are innocent of personal sin but not of original sin.




Notice how your reply leans entirely on subjective impressions—seems, while reading I was thinking, sounds like. But impressions aren't arguments. I am defending a doctrine, not your feelings about it.

You claim that passages like Romans 5:16-18 can "easily" be read as teaching nothing more than a sinful nature, yet you haven't shown how. The text explicitly says "condemnation," not merely corruption. If it's so easy, then demonstrate how Paul's repeated use of katakrima can be erased from the passage without distorting his argument.

Click to expand...

In the OP, I asked specific questions; in your response, I see only assertions, in which you admit that you assume corporate guilt. I'm not just going to take your word for it. If you can show a link that exegetically explains the doctrines you are talking about, it would be appreciated. It's definitely not about my feelings as you claim, but about exegesis of scripture. I refuse to believe something based solely on someone's assertions.

DialecticSkeptic said:

Different subject matter. Separate thread. I won't be thrown off the trail by a red herring.

Click to expand...

I was asking for a link, not a discussion. But with your response, I guess this conversation is over.

Aaron112 said:

for review: infants are unclean if neither of their parents is redeemed.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of that verse. But I don't think it necessarily means that infants of unbelievers automatically go to hell when they die in infancy. Alternatively, a child of believing parents is holy, but it doesn't guarantee they go to heaven or become a believer. John 1:13 - "not of blood" (that is, not of heritage).

Clare73 said:

Because you don't present a Biblical demonstration, you just assert what you think.

What would you like me to exegete?

Click to expand...

I'm the one asking the question. All I'm doing is objecting to your assertions. I asked for an exegesis in the OP, or a link to one. Can you give me one?

Clare73 said:

Ro 7:9 is absolutely not figurative, nor did I say it was.
Paul is speaking there of his own experience from the vantage point of his present understanding.
Before he realized that the law condemned him to death, he was alive.
"When the commandment came;" i.e., when Paul came to the realization that he stood guilty before the law and was condemned to death.

Click to expand...

So, if you aren't using "alive" figuratively, then what exactly does it mean? I'm taking it to mean he was spiritually alive. It looks like you are saying it means psychologically "alive", that it's a point of view, that since he is ignorant of guilt, he doesn't feel condemned. Is this your meaning? If so, then you are certainly interpreting it figuratively. In my mind, "alive" is a literal term, meaning spiritually alive, since he is speaking of the spiritual condition in this passage. If you mean that when the law came to him "I died" means he came to the realization that he is guilty, then you are certainly using it figuratively.

Clare73 said:

Ro 5:17, 18-19, 14-16, is not mere premise, it is Biblical fact:

Click to expand...

What do you mean "mere premise"? Who said the verse was a "mere premise"? You misunderstood what I wrote, and it appears to me you are confusing the text with your interpretation of it. This is the basis of the argument. It does NOT say the sin of Adam is imputed. That's your interpretation. Can you see a difference? You approach the text with the preconceived idea that it means Adam's sin is imputed. But the text doesn't say that. So how you are reading the text is faulty.

Clare73 said:

death is the wages of sin (Ro 6:23),
sin is trangression of the law (1 Jn 3:4),
where there is no law, there is no transgresion/sin (Ro 4:15) and, therefore no death.

Click to expand...

When applied to infants, what you quote here could easily mean they are spiritually alive and innocent.

Clare73 said:

There was no law between Adam and Moses and, therefore, no transgression/sin to cause their deaths.
Then what caused the deaths of those between Adam and Moses when they did not sin against the law?
Their deaths were caused by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19) to all mankind when there was no law to transgress and cause death.

Click to expand...

This is your interpretation, which I differ with. In the first place, you are interpreting Paul's statement as "there was no law between Adam and Moses, therefore no transgression." But Paul has to mean something different than that, because there was certainly law, albeit not the law of Moses. Examples: Cain most certainly knew he had violated an unwritten (or unspoken) law "you shall not commit murder." If he thought he was innocent, he would not have lied to God saying he didn't know where Abel was. But he did lie, because he wanted to escape the impending judgment in violation of that moral principle. This is how we know there was law prior to Moses. Another example is when God said to Noah if a man sheds another man's blood (murder), his blood shall be shed (capital punishment). This is most certainly law before Moses. A 3rd example is God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah because their sins stunk to high heaven. In this we can see there was most certainly law and transgression prior to Moses. Therefore Paul had to mean something different than what you claim.

Sin is sin regardless of whether one knows it or not. Ignorance of the law does not make someone innocent, not guilty, or not a sinner. So everyone who sinned prior to Moses still suffered the consequences, which was death.

Clare73 said:

Physical death wasn't "natural" until Adam sinned. . .physical death is the consequence of Adam's sin.

Now I see where your problem is.
Mine is not a figurative but a literal understansing of Ro 5:12-19 (post #7), where in Ro 5:17, 18-19 Adam's sin is imputed to all those of Adam, and which imputation is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for Christ's righteousness being imputed to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Click to expand...

I disagree with you, you only see a problem because I am disagreeing. No, your understanding is figurative, mine is literal. But you can't see that, can you? In that whole passage Paul is talking about spiritual death, not physical. Therefore, my interpretation is literal, in line with Paul's conversation.

And I disagree with your premise "physical death wasn't "natural" until Adam sinned." Nowhere does the scripture say that. Rom. 5 is speaking of spiritual life and death, not physical life and death. Adam died because he was denied access to the tree of life. This is clearly taught in Genesis. Physical and material death is all around us as a natural process, so your theory doesn't hold water.

Can you see the truth in my response here?

DialecticSkeptic said:

You are mistaking the absence of a single English word for the absence of the doctrine it names. That is the word–concept fallacy, assuming that if a particular word does not appear in a passage then the concept it names is absent from the passage. See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 1996); Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, rev. ed. (Zondervan, 1994); James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford University Press, 1961).

Click to expand...

I do not agree with your assessment of my response. When I said, "it doesn't say that," the implication is that it is not teaching the doctrine of imputation in that verse. So then, your assessment is a fallacy, since you are assuming that my response was merely because the term "impute" was not in the text. But that was not the case.

DialecticSkeptic said:

Paul's forensic argument in Romans 5:14-19 embodies the very logic of imputation, namely, liability transferred on the basis of federal representation. The concept is structurally and contextually present, even though the technical English gloss "impute" is absent. Paul is arguing representationally and forensically:

• v. 13 uses ἐλλογέω ("count/charge/credit"): "sin is not counted where there is no law." The lexical field of imputation is already in the pericope.
  
  ​

Click to expand...

The way I read this verse is that 4:8 is the same context. Paul is quoting Ps. 32:2 "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity." The premise in this context, how it reads, is that Paul is talking about people "of age" - that is, who already have knowledge of moral law, and have already sinned. This is the context of Ps. 32:2. So then, this imputation of sin is the holding of the sinner culpable for the sin he has committed, not holding everyone culpable for Adam's sin.

DialecticSkeptic said:

• vv. 16, 18 uses κατάκριμα ("condemnation"): a courtroom term, not a mere description of corruption.
  
  ​
• v. 19 uses κατεστάθησαν ("by the one man's disobedience the many were made [κατεστάθησαν, constituted] sinners"): parallel to being constituted righteous in Christ; if you deny forensic imputation in Adam, you shipwreck the parallel that grounds justification in Christ (whatever κατεστάθησαν means for Adam must apply analogically to κατασταθήσονται for Christ).
  
  ​

Click to expand...

The way Adam's disobedience made many sinners is that Adam's sin caused his progeny to be born with a sin nature. "Many were made sinners" does not necessarily mean that his sin was imputed to everyone. And how do you know that justification in Christ is a "parallel" rather than a contrast? The imputation of sin on the sinner has to do with the sinner's own sin, not someone else's sin. In contrast, the imputation of righteousness has to do with someone else's righteousness.

DialecticSkeptic said:

• The verb is καθίστημι, which in Romans 5:19 is the aorist passive indicative, third person plural (κατεστάθησαν, constituted/appointed/made). Lexically, καθίστημι means to bring into a particular state or relation, to appoint, to make, to constitute (BDAG, s.v. καθίστημι). This range includes judicial or declarative senses. For example: Matthew 24:45, "whom his master has set over his household" (appointed to a role); Acts 7:10, Pharaoh "made him ruler" or governor (appointed, not transformed); Hebrews 5:1, "every high priest is appointed to act on behalf of men."

Romans 5:12-21 contrasts two representative heads, Adam and Christ. The governing ideas are judgment and condemnation versus justification and life, all forensic or covenantal categories. When Paul says the many were constituted sinners, he is not describing an ethical change in personal character but a judicial placement under condemnation through Adam's disobedience. The result—death reigned—follows from legal liability.

• Lexically: καθίστημι means to appoint, constitute, not become.
  
  ​

Click to expand...

This one I have difficulty objecting to, which I think is the strongest argument so far in favor of the imputation idea.

DialecticSkeptic said:

• Syntactically: The Adam–Christ parallel demands forensic symmetry.
  
  ​

Click to expand...

I don't think it demands that as I explained above, as I don't think it's symmetrical.

DialecticSkeptic said:

• Contextually: The whole pericope revolves around judicial categories—sin/righteousness, judgment/life, condemnation/justification.
  
  ​

Click to expand...

Judicial category does not have to exclude 'becoming'. By the nature of sin, people become sinners, become condemned, and die (spiritually); and contrasting that, by the nature of the indwelling Holy Spirit, people become righteous, become justified, and live forever. How is this excluded from Paul's argument?

DialecticSkeptic said:

• Theologically: Denying the forensic sense in Adam undermines it in Christ.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this premise. Finding ourselves in a sinful condition (and not blaming it on Adam) does not undermine the substitutionary nature of Christ's righteousness and justification of the believer. I'm not assuming symmetry.

So then, if imputation of Adam's sin is true, and everyone is guilty forensically (including infants) as you claim:
1. What do you do with David indicating that his son dying in infancy went to heaven?
2. What do you do with Jesus' statement about little children, "for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven"?
3. Do you think that Paul's statement about children of unbelievers are "unclean" means that they go to hell if they die in infancy?
4. Is your interpretation of Rom. 7:9, where "I was once alive" is merely a point of view or a psychological construct, and not a literal "I was spiritually alive" because he really was innocent, not having committed any sin, or at least not having his own sin imputed to him because he was "without the law" at the time?

Clare73 said:

Spiritual life and death are not figurative, they are reality, but they are physically unseen.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Paul thought he was spiritually alive until he came to the realization (bar mitzvah, conversion) that he stood guilty before the law ("I died") and was condemned to death.

Click to expand...

You seem to contradict yourself here. You say that spiritual life is reality, but then you say "Paul thought he was spiritually alive" - this is how you are interpreting 7:9 - "Paul thought..." is not literally alive. Therefore, your interpretation of the text "I was alive" is not literal.

Clare73 said:

That is precisely what Ro 5:17 states, ". . .by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man,"

as does Ro 5:18-19 - "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. . .through the disobedience of one man, the many were made sinners."

That is precisely what Ro 5:12-14 demonstrates. . .in
that they all died between Adam and Moses when there was no law to transgress/sin against to cause their death,
that their death was caused by the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17), and
which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

Click to expand...

Again, my previous response completely refutes your idea here, but you continue to assert the same idea. I think I'm done with this conversation.