Infants, Imputed Guilt & Interpreting Romans 5:12

[The Remonstrant]

(This new thread is carrying over lee_merrill's message #26 from the "A Theological Assessment of 2012 Southern Baptist Statement thread", in response to my message [#25] pertaining to infant moral culpability and Romans 5:12-21. As the topic has so far expanded and taken a different turn from Hankins' Southern Baptist statement, I felt it necessary to begin the response with a new thread.)


Infants, Imputed Guilt & Interpreting Romans 5:12

First, thank you, Lee, for your response. Second, what follows is my response to your response which... takes issue with the conclusion of your response to my response.

What, they [infants] have no choice? What I ask people who are strong on free will, and then mysteriously forsake it in this area.

Infant Moral Responsibility(?)

My counter here for the moment is simply this: Why on earth should we suppose infants are morally responsible agents? To my mind such a notion is completely absurd. I would require strong scriptural evidence to reconsider my current stance of the issue.

Some verses, then.

"Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies." (Ps. 58:3)
"From birth I have relied on you..." (Ps. 71:6)
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Ps. 51:5)

Briefly Touching Upon Psalm 51:5

Part 1: "Translation(s)"

First, regarding Psalm 51:5, the English translation you are quoting from is the NIV. Some may be pleased also to learn that numerous English "dynamic" equivalence versions render this verse in a similar fashion:

Yes, I was born in guilt, in sin, from the moment my mother conceived me. (CEB)
Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. (GW [GOD'S WORD Translation])
Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me. (HCSB)
For I was born a sinner—yes, from the moment my mother conceived me" (NLT).

All these renderings reflect certain theological biases. The CEB, GW and HCSB read the concept of imputed guilt into the text, and all appear to read inherited sin or depravity (or the inheritance of a sinful nature") into the psalm (cf. NET; NRSV).

Now for some more literal English translations:

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (ESV).
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, [a]nd in sin my mother conceived me" (NASB).
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, [a]nd in sin my mother conceived me" (NKJV).

Part 2: Interpretive Possibilities

There are a few possibilities to consider in attempting to interpret v.5:

(1) David is speaking of inheriting some kind of "sin" or "sinful nature" from his mother;
(2) David is speaking of his mother's infidelity (perhaps an adulterous affair);
(3) David is employing hyperbolic (or exaggerative) language in order to amplify his sinfulness

Even if we were to assume David is referring to an inherited "sinful nature" of some sort in Psalm 51, we are pushing the text too far attempting to find a link back to the first man, Adam, and the first sin. David goes no further back than his mother. Option (2) sticks closer to a literal rendering of the text, but seems an unlikely interpretation of v.5. Also, (1) doesn't seem likely in the context as it would compromise the integrity of the psalm (and psalmist), where David is taking personal responsibility for his sins, confessing and repenting before God his sinful acts, imploring Yahweh for remission of his transgressions. In light of this, option (3) seems the most likely interpretation.

The Psalms in General

Taking into consideration also the genre of literature that the psalms comprise (i.e., Hebraic poetry), Psalm 58:3 is a perfect example of hyperbolic language: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (ESV). Really? The wicked emerge from the womb speaking? Case in point. Furthermore, it must be noted that David is not concerning himself with mankind in general in this text, but only the unrighteous.

Psalm 71 is a psalm of praise, reliance and trust in Yahweh from. Similarly, hyberbolic language is employed as is common throughout this type of literature.

And the clincher: "For all have sinned..." (Rom. 3:23)

Romans 3:23 & Infant Moral Responsibility(?)

First, allow me to quote the text in full:

[F]or all have sinned and fall short [or lack; are destitute]of the glory of God.

Second, what is this verse being brought forth in effort to prove? The universal sinfulness of every single human being without exception who has ever emerged from the womb? This reading of the text is unlikely as it is improbable, for a number of reasons:

(1) Christ, who is without sin, is not under consideration in this passage (though Paul doesn't specifically point this out and the truth is simply assumed.

(2) It is doubtful infants are even in view here. The sinful actions, attitudes and patterns of life described throughout Romans 1-3 could not even be attributable to infants:

They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:29b-32; ESV)

(3) Throughout Romans 1-3 Paul's focus is on personal or "actual" sins. Any kind of imputation of Adamic guilt in these chapters simply has to be "read back into" or imposed on the text.

(4) Paul's concern in Romans 1-3 is simply to establish the principle that, (a) regardless of ethnic distinction, Jews and Gentiles alike are guilty of personal sins; (b) all who have sinned are liable to divine condemnation on that account; (c) forgiveness of sins has been provided for all those who have sinned through Jesus Christ and, regardless of ethnic distinction, all who trust in Christ and his redemptive propitiatory work on the cross will be declared righteous (i.e, justified; acquitted of their sins [3:21-26]). Though justification is indeed appropriated individually as each comes to personal faith in God, the focus throughout Romans 1-3 is primarily on the corporate ethnic groups comprising the human race (namely, Jews and Gentiles), not necessarily every individual person without exception.

Judicial or retributive divine justice of such a nature as eternal punishment can only be incurred by those having committed actual or personal sins.

Hence that would be everyone, see above.

Again, I don't take such a use of Romans 3:23 to do justice to the context in which its found. See response above.

Of course I'm rejecting a certain interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 and denying the legal imputation of Adam's sin to the entire human race.

Well, I might be willing to waver on that point[1], given Paul's reasoning here: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned..." (Rom 5:12)

(Just to note, your quote of v.12 is taken from the HCSB [I like the way that rhymed].)

Romans 5:12-21 & Universal Imputed Adamic Guilt

Reasons for Pause Before Reaching a Conclusive Interpretation of Romans 5:12

If only it was that easy to arrive at an irrefutable interpretation of Romans 5:12 as requiring the notion of imputed Adamic guilt to the entire race. Certainly, I will concede that that is one possible interpretation, though I personally am not convinced. This forensic reading essentially is taking, "because all sinned" (or alternately, "all have sinned"), to mean that Paul is saying, "all sinned 'in Adam'". Before jumping too quickly to such a reading, however, there are some points I believe we ought to take into consideration:

(1) Romans 5:12-21 is acknowledged by numerous commentators as easily being one of the most difficult passages in the entire NT to exegete (if not the most). That alone should give us some pause in assuming an Augustinian reading is "the" authoritative interpretation of the passage at hand. There are numerous hermeneutical options and issues at stake in Romans 5:12-21.

(2) Romans 5:12 need not be rendered, "because all sinned" (ESV; HCSB; NASB; YLT), though this rendering does indeed reflect a certain bias of the translators of our common English Bibles (cf. ESV; HCSB; NASB; NKJV; YLT). The English Standard Version is typical:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

Variant Rendering(s) of Romans 5:12

What follows is a full quotation from the NET Bible's (New English Translation) note on Romans 5:12 regarding interpretive possibilities for this verse:

The translation of the phrase ἐφ᾿ ᾧ (ef Jw) has been heavily debated. For a discussion of all the possibilities, see C. E. B. Cranfield, “On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324-41. Only a few of the major options can be mentioned here: (1) the phrase can be taken as a relative clause in which the pronoun refers to Adam, “death spread to all people in whom [Adam] all sinned.” (2) The phrase can be taken with consecutive (resultative) force, meaning “death spread to all people with the result that all sinned.” (3) Others take the phrase as causal in force: “death spread to all people because all sinned.”

As a matter of fact, to the best of my understanding, those within the Eastern Orthodox tradition (Mr. George, help!) often do take the second interpretive option above, thus rendering Romans 5:12 like this:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so [or in this way] death spread to all men on the basis of which, or with the result that] all sinned.

Interestingly, there is now one translation (!) I am aware of that takes this interpretive approach. Can you guess which? Has everyone given up? Alright, I'll save everyone the effort -- the new CEB, of all translations!

So, in the same way that sin entered the world through one person, and death came through sin, so death spread to all human beings with the result that all sinned

O, how this warms this Remonstrant, Arminian, Pelagian (if you must) heart of mine!

He [Paul] says everyone dies because everyone sinned (there it is again, everyone), not because Adam sinned.

This is but one possibility, not a bulletproof interpretation. See above.

Even supposing Adam's sin was in some sense imputed to the whole human race (which, frankly, I do not concede), the universal atonement of Christ would have canceled it out. Thus no one would in fact enter into final punishment on account of Adam's sin. This, personally, is of great comfort to me.

I agree with universal atonement, "one man died for all" (2 Cor. 5:14).

Thank goodness! At least there's one less issue for us to disagree about.

[micah719]

John 17, even in the "dynamic translations", is a problem for your reasoning. So, what makes the difference between someone going to hell or heaven? Is it in them, or is it decided elsewhere? If "all" have had their sins paid for, why is anyone going to hell?

[hedrick]

I'm not happy with your tendency to identify original sin with imputed guilt.

I agree that infants are fallen. I don't think they're guilty of specific sins, but they are in a condition that will lead to those sins. And I think that's what "sin" actually is: it's a condition of isolation from God, not specific actions.

But being fallen doesn't require that Adam's sin has been imputed. Indeed Calvin denies that. Rather than being specifically guilty of Adam's sin, he says that we inherited from him a corrupted nature.

I can't speak for Arminians, but at least in the Reformed tradition, salvation of infants isn't due to sinlessness. It's due to an assumption that God's grace applies to all infants. So it's consistent with infants being fallen.

Rom 5:12 doesn't make this point explicitly. It certainly doesn't support imputed guilt. It says death spread because all have sinned. But the whole point of the Adam/Christ analogy is that there's a racial solidarity by which we can be "in Christ" on even "in Adam" (1 Cor 15:22). So surely Paul doesn't mean that just by chance we all happen to have sinned. Rather, death spread to all because we're all sinners. And that condition of being a sinner comes from being part of a sinful people, in Adam if you like, which applies to infants even before they are individually responsible for any sins.

[micah719]

Psa 58:1 To the chief Musician, Altaschith, Michtam of David. Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
Psa 58:2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Psa 58:4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
Psa 58:5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
Psa 58:6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
Psa 58:7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
Psa 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Psa 58:9 Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.
Psa 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
Psa 58:11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

I'm not happy with your tendency to identify original sin with imputed guilt.

I didn't invent it, and wasn't thrilled when I first learned of it, but have to accept it since God says it. He did provide the Remedy, after all.

I agree that infants are fallen. I don't think they're guilty of specific sins, but they are in a condition that will lead to those sins. And I think that's what "sin" actually is: it's a condition of isolation from God, not specific actions.

Does your idea of fallen mean spiritually dead, or just sick?

But being fallen doesn't require that Adam's sin has been imputed.

What then, are you claiming we each and every one fall from purity individually? Would that mean at some time after conception we were not lost? What about Romans 5 then, where it is clearly stated? Imputation is a very important doctrine....both imputation of original sin, and the imputation of The Lord Jesus Christ's righteousness to the elect. (see Jer 23:6....)

Indeed Calvin denies that.

Where?

Rather than being specifically guilty of Adam's sin, he says that we inherited from him a corrupted nature.

So Calvinists have missed the mark with the T of tulip? Remembering that tulip is merely a summation of the response to the remonstrant heresies, which included the romish concept of mere sin illness rather than sin death, as The Lord declared to Adam in Gen 2:17. Calvinism, doctrines of grace, go a whole lot further than the tulip summation, yet the tulip summation is a golden chain. Remove any of the links and you destroy the system. Arminianism is also a logically coherent system but does not accord with Scripture, though it resonates with fallen man's wicked rebellious heart.

I can't speak for Arminians, but at least in the Reformed tradition, salvation of infants isn't due to sinlessness. It's due to an assumption that God's grace applies to all infants. So it's consistent with infants being fallen.

Salvation according to Scripture is of The Lord, and grace is not universal or obligatory. The Lord has mercy on whom He will have mercy.....this would mean there are some infants receive grace, others do not. Before we sidetrack into humanist sentimentalism, and the folly of judging God by our fallen human reason and hypocritical self-righteousness, I'd like to hear the arminian explanation of how cruel they think God must be to never give any angels grace, or salvation. Never seems to come up in the discussions.

Rom 5:12 doesn't make this point explicitly. It certainly doesn't support imputed guilt. It says death spread because all have sinned.

Keep reading Romans 5 past v12 and you get a full and explicit explanation diametrically opposite to your statement.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

But the whole point of the Adam/Christ analogy is that there's a racial solidarity by which we can be "in Christ" on even "in Adam" (1 Cor 15:22). So surely Paul doesn't mean that just by chance we all happen to have sinned. Rather, death spread to all because we're all sinners. And that condition of being a sinner comes from being part of a sinful people, in Adam if you like, which applies to infants even before they are individually responsible for any sins.

Yes, we're all sinners by way of being "in Adam". But, not all who were in Adam are in Christ. And no, The Lord's vicarious atonement did not make a way for all to be saved....it definitely saved those who were in Christ from before the foundation of the world and only them. That number cannot be reduced or increased. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and does not fail to accomplish what God intends it to. The Lord does not fail. Sinners in hell do not represent defeats for God, and saints in heaven do not represent triumphs of man's will but God's mercy and grace and power.

2Ti 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
2Ti 1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

[hedrick]

Total inability doesn't require imputed guilt from Adam. It requires us all to be sinners. That's what Paul says. There is a connection with Adam: we inherit the corruption from him, but it results in an actual fault in us. I see a difference between our own personal state due to inheriting a corrupted nature and having guilt imputed.

I'm not a great admirer of Dordt, but canon one says that all sinned in Adam, not that we are personally guiltless but Adam's sin is imputed to us.

See institutes 2.1.8. "This is not liability for another’s fault." I believe this is a rejection of the idea that we are held guilty for Adam's sin. Calvin's concept is that Adam was corrupted, and he passes this corruption to us. It is the corruption that Calvin calls sin. The corruption is actually in us, so we are actually sinners. Sinful actions follow from it.

Remember that for Calvin the primary meaning of the atonement is not purely forensic. Through union with Christ, his righteousness actually comes to be present in us. Hence this maintains the parallel.

[micah719]

for Calvin the primary meaning of the atonement is not purely forensic. Through union with Christ, his righteousness actually comes to be present in us.

That sounds like the romish impartation rather than imputation . Where is impartation in Scripture, and in Calvin's writings? How does impartation fare when compared to Scriptures such as Romans 7 where Paul explains the travail of having a new nature in a sinful body of flesh, or Scriptures speaking of Abraham and imputation of righteousness?

[hedrick]

That sounds like the romish impartation rather than imputation . Where is impartation in Scripture, and in Calvin's writings? How does impartation fare when compared to Scriptures such as Romans 7 where Paul explains the travail of having a new nature in a sinful body of flesh, or Scriptures speaking of Abraham and imputation of righteousness?

The problem with the Catholic view was that they thought righteousness was actually our property. Because of that, our status before God depends upon our own spiritual state. When we sin, our relationship vanished. As I understand it, righteousness transforms us, but it never becomes completely ours. It's in us, but Christ remains its source. It's like in John. Christ is the vine, and we're alive only when we're attached. The relationship is entirely due to God's grace, and doesn't depend upon our current spiritual state. But it's also not a complete legal fiction. The forensic metaphor captures some important aspects of salvation. God does credit us with what isn't ours properly. But I think he does so because of the exchange that lies at the heart of the atonement: Christ takes our sin and we get his righteousness. But Paul would say that the exchange is due to our dying and rising again with Christ, and its continuing effect depends upon our continuing as branches of his vine (a status that is due to grace, I note, not our ongoing freedom from sin).

Note Rom 7:4. It is our union with Christ that is the basis for the free sonship described throughout that chapter. After all, it's a continuation of chapter 6, which describes the basis of our salvation as dying and being reborn through our union with Christ.

Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon had much in common, but they were not identical. Of the three Melanchthon was the most hard-core about forensic justification. Calvin refers to it in one place in the Institutes, in the discussion of Osiander. He certainly believes that God credits us freely with Christ's righteousness, but in my opinion Paul would say he does this because we are in Christ, and I think that's true of Calvin as well.

[lee_merrill]

First, thank you, Lee, for your response. Second, what follows is my response to your response which... takes issue with the conclusion of your response to my response.

My response to your response to my response,then! Is this being responsible?

My counter here for the moment is simply this: Why on earth should we suppose infants are morally responsible agents? To my mind such a notion is completely absurd.

Because all have sinned, would do. So let's examine this and see if it's taught.

But I need to know if some are to obey God and serve him (for this is the business of heaven) without any opportunity for choice. This seems to go right against the grain of free-will theology. A simple yes here will do.

(1) doesn't seem likely in the context as it would compromise the integrity of the psalm (and psalmist), where David is taking personal responsibility for his sins, confessing and repenting before God his sinful acts, imploring Yahweh for remission of his transgressions.

I think he's magnifying his sinfulness, saying "I didn't even start out good"--but I agree that the meaning here is debateable.

Psalm 58:3 is a perfect example of hyperbolic language: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (ESV).

Certainly this is not literal language, but why need it be exaggeration? The crucial question here is when the wicked start being wicked, and the clear answer here is that there is no such transition.

Psalm 71 is a psalm of praise, reliance and trust in Yahweh from. Similarly, hyberbolic language is employed as is common throughout this type of literature.

Well, if we note the view in Jesus' day that infants can sin (John 9:1), I don't know that that fits very well with the view of Hebrews taking this as hyperbole.

Christ, who is without sin, is not under consideration in this passage (though Paul doesn't specifically point this out and the truth is simply assumed.

Right (cf. 1 Cor. 15:27, Paul assumes we can make these distinctions).

It is doubtful infants are even in view here. The sinful actions, attitudes and patterns of life described throughout Romans 1-3 could not even be attributable to infants...

According to your view, certainly. Now Paul we may note, even quotes from Psalm 53 (Rom. 3:12)!

So my question to you, is this, do infants die? Certainly they do, and if this is not due to sin, then what is it due to? "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), not the wages of an inclination to sin, nor the result of a sinful and broken world.

Throughout Romans 1-3 Paul's focus is on personal or "actual" sins. Any kind of imputation of Adamic guilt in these chapters simply has to be "read back into" or imposed on the text.

Yes, I'm saying that everyone, including infants, have actually sinned. Paul it seems makes both points, that Adam's sin is imputed, and that everyone as well has sinned.

Romans 5:12-21 is acknowledged by numerous commentators as easily being one of the most difficult passages in the entire NT to exegete (if not the most). [Reads the CEB translation: "So, in the same way that sin entered the world through one person, and death came through sin, so death spread to all human beings with the result that all sinned."] O, how this warms this Remonstrant, Arminian, Pelagian (if you must) heart of mine!

You may turn off the heart-warmer for now? For I can grant you this interpretation, and still make the point that "all sinned."

And then in your view, there are implications.

What then, are you claiming we each and every one fall from purity individually? Would that mean at some time after conception we were not lost?

I understand the reasonableness of imputing innocence to infants, but not every appearance (you know) is real. Let's investigate the implications here, then.

There is another implication, if infants are innocent, then the surest and safest way to get them to heaven would be infanticide. Would this be correct, according to your view? Let this be a cautionary note, if we find such weeds growing in the ground of our theology.

And I would like to hear your take on Grudem's exegesis here, I believe he makes a strong point.

Grudem, Systematic Theology

The idea that God counted us guilty because of Adam’s sin is further affirmed in Romans 5:18–19:

Scripture Verse:

Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Here Paul says explicitly that through the trespass of one man “many were made [Gk. κατεστάθησαν from καθίστημι, G2770, also an aorist indicative indicating completed past action] sinners.”

© source where applicable

Thank goodness! At least there's one less issue for us to disagree about.

I likes to agree. Are we being agreeable?

Blessings,
Lee

[footwasher]

Romans 5
12Therfore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Don't read this literally. The gist is,

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Therefore through one man the world became liable to keeping the law, and culpable, and sentence-able by imposing of the death penalty. That's why all men face death, because all are liable.

13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.*

Before Law was given at Sinai, the world was in infraction, but the infraction was ignored because the law was not imposed.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Still, people died, even those who did not disobey like Adam did, who represents mankind, a foreshadowing of Jesus.

Bottomline, whoever pays the penalty for sin pays it because he sinned. By that logic, if infants don't sin, they don't pay the penalty.

[footwasher]

The Jewish court held persons responsible for their actions only after bar/bat mitzvah, that is after age 13, but the heavenly court considers them able to reason only after age 20 (kohanim only start their priestly training at that age).

[The Remonstrant]

John 17 & Its Relevance to the Opening Post(?)

John 17, even in the "dynamic translations", is a problem for your reasoning.

Frankly, I am at a loss as to what John 17 has to do specifically with the contents of the opening post. Is it perhaps that you are taking John 17 to be a definitive text regarding unconditional election to salvation? If so, that still doesn't have a bearing on the discussion.

So, what makes the difference between someone going to hell or heaven?

For morally responsible agents? Repentance, faith and baptism into Christ's death, burial and resurrection (see Romans 6).

Is it in them, or is it decided elsewhere? If "all" have had their sins paid for, why is anyone going to hell?

You have really strayed from the opening post, my friend. This thread is not a debate over conditional or unconditional election, the scope of the atonement or Calvinism versus Arminianism (see thread title). Perhaps at a future date we may engage these issues, but this isn't the right thread for that.

[The Remonstrant]

The Components of Original Sin

I'm not happy with your tendency to identify original sin with imputed guilt.

I'm sorry to discontent you, but imputed Adamic guilt is part of the Augustinian original sin package (the second part being inherited depravity).

Fallen Infants

I agree that infants are fallen. I don't think they're guilty of specific sins, but they are in a condition that will lead to those sins.

Is this more taken from your personal experiential observations or from Scripture? If Scripture, then which texts specifically do you interpret to teach this?

And I think that's what "sin" actually is: it's a condition of isolation from God, not specific actions.

Perhaps one could arrive at this from a certain reading of the Pauline corpus, but taking Scripture as a whole, I believe such a view is deficient. In a sense, yes, sin or sinfulness is a state or condition. However, sin is indeed specific actions or deeds. What is it that makes thoughts, attitudes and actions engaged in -- contrary to divine moral precepts -- sinful other than they are willfully indulged in? Adam's "original" sin is a perfect example as his condemnation and subsequent expulsion from the garden is a result of his disobedience to God's explicit moral command (as a matter of fact, in Genesis 3, even Adam's thoughts prior to eating of the fruit are in view, but merely his outward disobedience).

Infant Salvation & Calvinism

I can't speak for Arminians, but at least in the Reformed tradition, salvation of infants isn't due to sinlessness. It's due to an assumption that God's grace applies to all infants. So it's consistent with infants being fallen.

Not all Calvinists maintain universal infant salvation. Some leave open the possibility of infant reprobation on the basis imputed Adamic guilt (unless he has changed his opinions in recent times, I believe one example is James R. White, author of The Potter's Freedom).

Romans 5:12

Rom 5:12 doesn't make this point explicitly. It certainly doesn't support imputed guilt.

Augustine, the originator of the original sin dogma (speaking anachronistically), would have argued otherwise.

It says death spread because all have sinned.

See some of my comments above (post #1) regarding interpretive issues and possibilities. The rendering "because all sinned" is but one such possibility.

But the whole point of the Adam/Christ analogy is that there's a racial solidarity by which we can be "in Christ" on even "in Adam" (1 Cor 15:22). So surely Paul doesn't mean that just by chance we all happen to have sinned.

I'm not convinced that Paul is speaking of a transmitted "sin nature" in Romans 5:12 as of Adam's sin. That doesn't seem to be his point. Also, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 is set in the context of physical resurrection. Paul is not speaking anywhere in this context of the transmission or inheritance of a sinful nature.


Rather, death spread to all because we're all sinners. And that condition of being a sinner comes from being part of a sinful people, in Adam if you like, which applies to infants even before they are individually responsible for any sins.[/QUOTE]

[RBerman]

Is this more taken from your personal experiential observations or from Scripture? If Scripture, then which texts specifically do interpret to teach this?

Romans 3:23 teaches that infants do sin. Granted that they have very little knowledge, so they have very little knowledge to sin against, it seems unhelpful to put these things in a binary fashion so that a person becomes liable for sin at some particular date and time, according to his personal maturity. Rather, as we mature from fetus to infant to child to adult, we grow in our maturity, and our accountability before God. It seems to me that denying infants accountability for sin is the same as denying them personhood, a concept I find abhorrent as a pro-lifer.

[The Remonstrant]

So Calvinists have missed the mark with the T of tulip? Remembering that tulip is merely a summation of the response to the remonstrant heresies, which included the romish concept of mere sin illness rather than sin death, as The Lord declared to Adam in Gen 2:17.

Remonstrant heresies? This is great; keep going!

Calvinism, doctrines of grace, go a whole lot further than the tulip summation, yet the tulip summation is a golden chain. Remove any of the links and you destroy the system. Arminianism is also a logically coherent system but does not accord with Scripture, though it resonates with fallen man's wicked rebellious heart.

The only pride I'll exhibit here is in not employing a smiley.

Yes, we're all sinners by way of being "in Adam".

No.

But, not all who were in Adam are in Christ.

True, not all have come to saving faith in Christ.

And no, The Lord's vicarious atonement did not make a way for all to be saved....it definitely saved those who were in Christ from before the foundation of the world and only them. That number cannot be reduced or increased. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and does not fail to accomplish what God intends it to. The Lord does not fail. Sinners in hell do not represent defeats for God, and saints in heaven do not represent triumphs of man's will but God's mercy and grace and power.

Is this the gospel according to Calvinism time or did you not read the opening thread's title?

[The Remonstrant]

Romans 3:23 teaches that infants do sin.

Again, I find it unlikely that infants are in view in the context of Romans 1-3. Even glancing upon Romans 1:28-32, I honestly do not see how one could one think to attribute such thoughts, attitudes and or actions to infants. For a fuller response, see opening post (#1).

Granted that they have very little knowledge, so they have very little knowledge to sin against, it seems unhelpful to put these things in a binary fashion so that a person becomes liable for sin at some particular date and time, according to his personal maturity.

My interest is not so much in attempting to unearth the precise date or time an individual becomes a morally responsible agent before God. Rather, i am disputing the notion that infants are even liable to eternal punishment or that Paul even has infants in view in Romans 1-3. If they are, then the gospel call must also be to infants to repent of their (alleged) sins and believe in Christ. Where in the gospel accounts (or Acts) do we even see such an idea? Rather. Jesus commends little children to his disciples as a model for humility and kingdom entrance.