Having attempted to finish this off three times now I am forcing myself to complete this series. Its tough when you have three such stalwarts that keep forcing me to think more and write better. And yes Jeremy, I mean David, D.J., and you. By the way David welcome aboard your first post was excellent. And D. J. great stuff on worship.
This series on original sin started when I was confronted by a unknown character on PalTalk here. After that I wrote a little on the history of the doctrine here. Getting down to brass tacks as my father used to say, the doctrine of Original Sin is defined as the guilt and corruption inherited by man after Adam’s fall. Berkhof states it like this: “Original Sin: This includes both guilt and pollution. The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to us. Because he sinned as our representative, we are guilty in him. Moreover, we also inherit his pollution, and now have a positive disposition toward sin. Man is by nature totally depraved. This does not mean that every man is as bad as he can be, but that sin has corrupted every part of his nature and rendered him unable to do any spiritual good. He may still do many praiseworthy things in relation to his fellow-beings, but even his best works are radically defective, because they are not prompted by love to God nor done in obedience to God.”
Now I’d like to point out something here: we are guilty because of Adam’s fall. I was in a bible study recently when a friend of mine started blaming Eve for the effects of sin. Let me correct that error right now. Eve was deceived but Adam wasn’t. Adam did this with his eyes wide open, and it is because of this that sin has been imputed to everyone because Adam represented all of us in the garden. The term for this is Federal headship and it is I believe the best view as I believe scripture plainly teaches that in Eden God had covenanted with Adam promising life for obedience (see Adamic Administration by John Murray). The Federal view seems to be the most compatible with scriptures especially Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.
Now if you recall my annoymous PalTalker seemed to find it incredulous that I a “Baptist” could hold to anything but complete innocence with regards to children. Indeed the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 states:
In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.{emphasis mine}
This would seem to suggest that children are innocent until they commit a sin. But the problem with this is that children die as well as adults. And scripture teaches that death is a result of sin. 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–(Rom 5:12) If children were truly innocent why would they die?
So now we come to that other sticky wicket God sending children to hell. Many Reformed Baptist hold to the idea that all infants that die in infancy are elect. This no matter whether they are the children of believers or unbelievers. Some would say we don’t know so we shouldn’t speculate upon such things. And I would agree that scripture doesn’t give a clear reading regarding this subject. I personally hold to that God saves elect infants by Christ and the Holy Spirit.
And I can not see from scripture whether this means that all children who die in infancy are elect or only some and so choose not to speculate.
Some reading to conclude this post:
What is the biblical evidence for original sin? by John Piper
Born Sinful by Matt Perman
Of the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to All His Posterity by John Gill
“The Fall of Man–Part 1″ (Genesis 3:1-5) by John MacArthur
“The Fall of Man–Part 2″ (Genesis 3:6-7) by John MacArthur
Filed under: Adam's fall, Original Sin, Theology
Great! I was wondering when you would post again!
Well Jeremy you’ve given me so much to digest, there is the stuff you started on Revelations, I’m a partial-preterist non-theonimic postmillianialist so I’m sure I’m going to have something to say as you continue. There is D.J’s post on worship, we really need to encourage more of that he’s excellent, and not to mention the stuff by Mr. Rosati.
Really I mean so much reading so little time. BTW I am still waiting for the means of grace stuff from you.
Peter – thanks for the kind words.
Guilt is not what is inherited but rather the potential (if not predisposition) to sin – it’s our sorry state. If we are born guilty then God’s judgement would not be just but a farce. This would not be judging deeds but producing fodder for hell.
Also, don’t confuse spiritual death with natural death. Spiritual death is a result of sin. The idea that no meat was eaten by carnivores before the fall or that animals looked carefully in case they stepped on ants is simply ludicrous. You would need super-evolution to produce the anatomy and metabolism carnivores now have if they formerly munched on grass.
The death of Adam “in the day” of his trespass was obviously not natural and neither was Christ’s conquering of death at the cross referring to natural death. It is clear that spiritual death is the break or separation from God initiated in Eden and resolved at Calvary.
If only the elect children are going to heaven then how was King David able to say He cannot come to me but I can go to him…………….
First BWS the circumstances of David’s child conception doesn’t exclude him from being an elect infant. Those that are elected by God unto salvation is a direct result of God’s own good pleasure and will and not based upon any circumstances regarding their birth.
Second the verse only indicates that David too would follow the child into death. That is the plain meaning of the text. (cf 2 Sam. 12:21-24).