Original Sin and Infants
Romans 5:12-14
says, “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—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” In v.14 there is much division over who are “those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam.” The Reformed position that I have learned from is that they are infants. Infants have not the mental capacity to understand and violate their consciences or God’s laws, like Adam did. Yet infants die and in Paul’s mind, there is nothing in here about neonatal and all of the wonderful medical breakthroughs that we have two thousand years later. Those whose theology is not Reformed often press me on this issue to say, “You believe then that all babies go to hell? That’s what you seem to be implying.” I didn’t really know how to respond to that. But I found an article that articulates my position and gives Scripture to back it up. Babies die because of Adam’s sin and their union with Adam. However, I believe that God can and does save those babies according to his sovereign design. Here is the link, check it out.
Related posts:
5 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Interesting position and interesting article. Mind you, it is three AM and I have just spent hours reading a 600 page work on the history of American Religion 1770-1850. So if I don’t make a whole lot’ta sense, let me know.
This still boils down to the questions of why a God would want to save a few - if he really has desired there is no human cooperation in salvation.
I’ll grant you the proposition that babies are not saved because they are innocent. Under your system they are guilty. And you are consistent with God deciding to damn them according to their guilt and be justified by doing so. However, if He elects all of the infants that die to go to heaven, on no accord or cooperation of their own, then why would he not do that with all of humanity? All in all, it seems like Desiring God and Piper feel that if babies die and are damned, then that is truly unjust. It seems like they are grasping at straws to explain their position. They are pretty consistent, and admit when they are guessing, or what would be guessing, I will give them that. I liken their position to mine on those that respond to the general revelation that Paul describes in Romans 1:20
. I hope that God judges them on what they knew, but I cannot back it up scripturally; I don’t try to teach it, but merely admit that it is my hopeful speculation.. I know and have faith that he is the good judge and I hope he makes an exception for them. However, I fully acknowledge that none come to the father, but thru Christ.
I also find a lack of consistency in Piper’s words on the ability to respond:
Under the reformed view of OS, all humans lack the natural capacity to respond to God. Therefore, it would seem that he would not execute his judgment.
Actually that is not quite really the question. No Calvinist, if he or she is biblical, will say that God does not desire to save the whole world. The real question is what has God purposed to do and what has God desired to do? One must understand these two different ideas to understand why God would elect some to mercy and pass over the rest. Have you taken time to look at God’s purpose in Scripture? If not, I really recommend that you do because this helped me understand the arguments more for unconditional election and predestination.
Actually, again, I don’t think that is what Piper is doing. In his sermon on Romans 5:12-14
, when he says that those whose sin is not like Adam’s, he never once questioned God’s justice and never put this in his sermon to make people feel at ease with the system. He just said infants are condemned by Adam’s sin by virtue of their union with him. That’s it.
You should read Romans 1:21-23
. These people knew God but rejected his glory. We all do respond to God’s will and his revealed revelation, general and Scripture. The Reformed view does not deny that. What the Reformed position denies is that the person cannot respond positively to God’s revelation of his glory and will. Men in their natural condition respond with rejection and self-autonomy and self-glorification. Reformed theology denies that man lacks the natural capacity to obey God’s law. Thus God said he would cause us to obey him when he promised the New Covenant in Deuteronomy 30:6
, Ezekiel 11:19-20
, Ezekiel 36:26-27
, Jeremiah 31:33-34
and Jeremiah 32:38-40
.
Besides the inherent arrogance in assuming that all who disagree are not “biblical” in their thinking, I take exception to that statement.
When I read verses like 2 Peter 3:9
, I come away thinking that God “wishes that none will perish“. Jesus said in John 3:16
that it was because God loved the world that he sent his son. John 6:40
speaks about it being God’s will that those that believe in Jesus he will grant eternal life to.
Why all the polemical statements? Not only is it straw man argumentation, but it is downright insulting.
Total depravity states that everyone cannot (on their own) even want to try and seek God. In our natural condition we cannot respond positively to the message. The will is not free to accept or reject God. Therefore the capacity is not there.
Any Calvinist who denies that in some way God desires all to come to Jesus they are unbiblical (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4
, Ezekiel 33:11
). I did not mean to be arrogant but only to echo the language of the Scriptures. I was only trying to say that many Calvinists don’t acknowledge that position. Most, if not all, Arminians acknowledge this position because it is part of the heart of Arminianism and why the Remonstrants broke away from the Dutch Reformed Church after the Synod of Dort. I was not saying that you aren’t biblical because you disagree with me, I was merely trying to articulate that many on my side of the debate leave the Bible so that they can make words like “all” or “world” or “everyone” mean what they want even when the Scriptures clearly won’t allow for their interpretations. I thought I was coming down on your side in that. Again sorry if I offended.
My question about examining the difference in the Bible was not taken as it was meant. Sorry to insult you. I was only asking if you had, and if you haven’t, to do it because it is very enlightening.
Now as far as your verses dealing with all, let me remind you (and I do not presume to be arrogant or rude) to read John 6:40
in context of John 6:35-51
. In John 6:37-39
Jesus speaks of not losing those whom God has given him. If the all there speaks of a universalism and all being in heaven, then obviously the all is limited. God does not give everyone to Jesus. But like Jesus says in John 6:44-45
, only those who God draws (as a fisherman draws a net full of fish into the boat, cf. James 2:6
- “But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?”) to Jesus Christ and only those are raised from the gave to eternal life.
As far as 2 Peter 3:9
, read the whole verse. “he Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Peter is not using a general “you” here but is addressing a specific audience, his church. Thus it is to be understood “not wishing any/none [of you] should perish, but that all [of you] should reach repentance.” Also, Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:25
, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.” God grants repentance.
In John 3:16
, I agree that that so loved the world. It wasn’t just a select group of people that he loves. God’s love is sufficient for all people. But don’t read into this text that just because the love is offered to all means that all can believe and be saved. All we know is that God’s love is sufficient for the whole world to save them and that if anyone believes in Christ, he will be saved by the all-sufficient love of God. I do not read into it election, nor should an Arminian read into it free will. If you believe, then God’s world-encompassing love will save you. Also, to focus on the scope of the love and realize the main point of that clause is to do this verse a great disservice. God should not love the world, he should hate it. After all, God cursed the world in his wrath against sin in the Garden of Eden. The fact that God loves us should astound us. There is a reason why Jesus begins John 3:16
with the word gar or “for” or “because” or “therefore.” As God loved Israel in the midst their condemnation and the pouring out of his wrath against their sin with the poisonous serpents, God made a bronze serpent to save them if they believed God would heal them if they looked to it, so God sent Jesus to save them if we will look to him as our bronze serpent. God should not love us, he should hate us for we are all sinners (cf. Romans 3:9-12
; Genesis 8:21
).
That is not how I understand Total Depravity. The will is free to reject God because it is enslaved to sin (Romans 6:12-7
:25). The capacity is there, the ability is not. I do not reject that man has a will and makes decisions, nor should any person. Again this is why I don’t hold completely to what is articulated as 5-Point Calvinism because that system often leaves the Bible for the sake of the system.
I am sorry I took you the wrong way. I apologize for over-reacting.
I’ll be back after I write a book review and branch evaluations.