- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,786
- 1,131
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
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.