Arriving at an understanding of original sin based upon Romans 5:12-19
 
by George Sidney Hurd
 
Especially in recent years, there has been much controversy concerning the doctrine of original sin. While most Christians would agree that sin and death had their origin in Adam, there has been much disagreement as to whether sin and death come to us because of Adam’s original sin, or because each of us subsequently sin. If all sinned in Adam, does that mean that we inherited his guilt, or did we simply inherit the consequences of Adam’s disobedience? Are we sinners from conception, or are babies a clean slate, only to subsequently become sinners due to external influences?
 
I believe and hope to demonstrate that the answers to these questions and more can be found in a straightforward understanding of what Paul sets forth in Romans 5:12-19 where the entire human race that fell in Adam is seen to have been recapitulated in Christ, the last Adam. Here I cite the entire passage:
 
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned —  13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense (παράβασις, transgression) of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:12-19 NASU)
 
The main objective of Paul in these verses is to show that, just as one man’s singular act of disobedience brought the condemnation of death upon all men, even so, Christ’s one act of obedience brought the justification of life to all men (v 18). He starts out by saying in verse 12:
 
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.”
 
There has been much debate concerning what Paul meant when he said that sin and death entered the world “because all sinned.” Historically the Church has held that “because all sinned” means that we all sinned in Adam as the original father and representative head of humanity. However, some argue that the phrase, “because all sinned” is not to be understood as saying that all sinned in Adam, but that we all die because we all personally commit sin. However, there are at least three reasons why this cannot be the correct understanding.
 
1.The Parallel Typology
 
In the first place, if it were saying that all die because of something we subsequently do, rather than because of Adam’s one act of disobedience, then the parallel between that which Adam’s one act of disobedience brought upon all, and that which Christ’s one act of obedience brought upon that same all, breaks down. It is not something we continue doing which results in the justification resulting in life for all, but Christ’s one act of obedience that brings justification and life to all (v.18).
 
Irenaeus (130 to 202 AD), having known Polycarp, a disciple of John, is known for his Recapitulation Theory of the Atonement. This important aspect of the atonement is based upon this passage in Romans 5 and Ephesians 1:10. He correctly understood the phrase “because all sinned” as meaning that we all sinned in Adam at the beginning. He said:
 
“For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.” [1]
 
Instead of saying that Adam transgressed the commandment at the beginning, he says in agreement with Paul in Romans 5:12 that we transgressed. While the detractors of the doctrine of original sin often attribute it to St. Augustine (354 to 430 AD), we see that, while Augustine further developed the doctrine (in my opinion overdeveloped it by adding original guilt), it did not originate with him. He himself denied that it originated with him, saying:
 
“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil’s power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.”[2]
 
The heretics he is addressing are the Pelagianists. Historically, those who have most resisted the doctrine of original sin and Christ’s imputed righteousness have been the Pelagianists who believe that one doesn’t need Christ’s imputed righteousness in order to be saved. They believe that one can be saved by their own obedience through divine grace. Those of us who believe that Christ indeed recapitulated all humanity in Christ, the last Adam, should be among the most zealous in preserving the flow of Paul’s logic in this passage.
 
2. The Grammatical Construction 

There are several grammatical reasons why the phrase “because all sinned” cannot be construed as meaning that we die because we sin, rather than because all sinned in Adam. It is commonly argued that the reason why we have come to understand it to be referring to Adam’s original sin is because Augustine used Jerome’s Latin Vulgate where the Greek (ἐφ᾿ ᾧ, eph ho), was rendered as a relative clause, “in whom (Lat., in quo) all have sinned.” They are correct in saying that this reading is in error, since the Greek pronoun ᾧ (which), is neuter, while Adam is masculine.  
 
Most scholars agree that ἐφ᾿ ᾧ should be understood in the causal sense – “because all sinned.” Only a few, in an attempt to deny the doctrine of original sin, argue that it should be understood in the resultative sense: “with the result that all sinned.”
 
However, another grammatical consideration is that it doesn’t say “because all have sinned” (perfect tense) or “because all sin” (present). Rather, it is the aorist tense of the verb “because all sinned (ἥμαρτον).” By far the most common use of the aorist tense in Greek in the indicative is to refer to an action which occurred in the past. One debater who took the position against the doctrine of original sin argued that ἥμαρτον should be understood as a gnomic aorist which expresses a universal truth. This would mean that it should have been rendered “because all sin.” This is a rare use of the aorist which only applies when the context demands it. However, the context actually militates against this use of the aorist. In verses 13 and 14 Paul makes it clear that he meant to say that all sinned in Adam.  
 
3.Even those not legally guilty of Sin die
 
Perhaps the greatest indicator that Paul meant to say that all sinned in Adam is what he says in the following verses. In verses 13 and 14 he actually demonstrates the point that he made in verse 12 – that all die because of Adam’s sin, rather than for subsequent personal sins. He does this by pointing out that all died during the time between Adam and Moses when personal sins were not imputed against sinners. He explains:
 
“for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense (παράβασις, transgression) of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”
 
By “the likeness of Adam’s transgression” he means a transgression which carried the death penalty. His logic is that, although there was no law which involved a death penalty between the time of Adam and Moses when the Law was given, prescribing the death penalty for sins, everyone nevertheless died. This demonstrates that they all died, not because of their own sins, but because of Adam’s original sin. No one transgressed a law with the death penalty between Adam and Moses, yet everyone during that time still died. Therefore, all die due to Adam’s sin, not their own sins. He couldn’t have made his point any clearer.
 
Another evidence that Paul didn’t mention which demonstrates that everyone dies as a result of Adam’s one transgression and not due to personal sins is the fact that over a hundred million die every year without ever having sinned. I am referring to all the aborted babies and infants who die without ever having committed a single sin.
 
Having established that sin and death entered by one man’s transgression, he then proceeds to present the other one Man, Jesus Christ, as the antitype of Adam saying in verses 15 and 16,
 
“But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.”
 
Notice that Paul’s emphasis here is that, just as it was by the one man, Adam alone that the condemnation of death came upon all without any contribution on our part, even so it was by the one Man, Jesus Christ alone, that the free gift of justification of life came upon all without any contribution from us. Typically, those who argue that we die because of something we do (sinning), also believe that the justification unto life comes to us, not solely as the free gift of the one Man, Jesus Christ, but also as a result of something we subsequently do.
 
When Paul says here that “the many” died in Adam, he is not contradicting himself when he says that condemnation and death come to “all men” in Adam in verses 12 and 18 or that “in Adam ‘all’ die” in  1Corinthians 15:22. Likewise, when he says that the free gift of justification abounds to “the many” in Christ, he is not contradicting himself when he says in verse 18 that His one act of righteousness resulted in justification of life to “all men” or that “in Christ ‘all’ shall be made alive” in 1Corinthians 15:22. Paul is simply emphasizing the effect that the one individual had over the many. In Scripture “many” is often used to refer to all. That is why when Paul said that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all in 1Timothy 2:6, He was not contradicting Jesus when He said that He came to give His life a ransom for many (Matt 20:28).
 
Many, interpreting the next verse in isolation from its context, have misunderstood it as saying that only those who actively receive the justification of life will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. In verse 17 Paul says:
 
“For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive (οἱ λαμβάνοντες) the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.”
 
There are two ways in which the phrase, “those who receive” (οἱ λαμβάνοντες), can be understood: 1) to actively take or receive, or 2) to receive as a passive recipient. The context must determine whether the receiving is passive or active. For example, in several New Testament passages we see that the recipient must receive something he did not even desire to receive, such as a just reward for his disobedience (Heb 2:2), or a greater judgment (Luke 20:47). In other instances, the recipient receives that which he was not even anticipating. For example, everyone in Cornelius’ house was surprised when the Gentiles suddenly received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In these examples it is obvious that the recipient is passive.
 
Scholars are divided as to whether (οἱ λαμβάνοντες) in verse 17 should be understood in the active sense or in the passive sense. Arminian scholars generally understand it in the active sense as something we must do. On the other hand, St. Augustine and Calvinists generally understand it in the passive sense, emphasizing the divine initiative.
 
The highly esteemed Greek scholar Marvin Vincent correctly applies the passive meaning to Romans 5:17. He says: “They which receive (hoi lambanontes). Not ‘believingly accept,’ but simply ‘the recipients.” [3] Although he does not go into further detail, his rendering of οἱ λαμβάνοντες in the passive sense is necessitated by the context. The contrast throughout is between what all men receive in Adam as opposed to what all men receive in Christ - the Last Adam. As all men passively receive death, condemnation and bondage to sin through the one man’s disobedience, even so all receive life, justification, and dominion restored, through the one man, Christ.
 
I think it is significant that Irenaeus who is known for the Recapitulation Theory of the Atonement, understood οἱ λαμβάνοντες here in the passive sense, as did Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, believing as they did that eventually all will have been reunited in Christ, resulting in God being all in all (Eph 1:10; 1Cor 15:28). In light of the following verse, it becomes undeniable that Paul meant to say that all will be the recipients of grace unto justification and life through the One, Jesus Christ. In verse 18 Paul draws his conclusion saying:
 
“So then, as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”
 
In no uncertain terms Paul makes it clear that all who came under the condemnation of death in Adam will receive justification and life in Christ, the Last Adam. However, that being said, even as not every man experientially entered into Adam’s death, condemnation and bondage to sin at the moment Adam sinned, in like manner, not everyone experientially received life, justification or dominion restored at the moment when Christ - the Last Adam, died and rose from the dead.
 
Even as one must be born into Adam in order to experience the death, condemnation and bondage to sin he brought upon us all, so also every man must be made alive or born again before experientially entering into that justification and dominion which every man received when Christ the Last Adam died and rose again. Of the Last Adam’s death and resurrection, it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1Cor 15:45). And again, “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1Cor 15:22).

We inherited Death from Adam, not Guilt
 
The condemnation which came upon all men for Adam’s one transgression was death, not guilt. Only Adam was guilty for his transgression. A person is only guilty for the sins they personally commit. None of the Church Fathers prior to Augustine in the 5th century taught that we inherited Adam’s guilt. While they believed, as we see here in Romans 5, that Adam’s original sin brought death and corruption to all his progeny, they did not teach that one inherited guilt from the womb as Augustine taught.
 
God told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate from the tree. While he didn’t die physically that same day, he did die spiritually. He lost the beatific vision of God and was cast from the garden of Eden. In the garden before the fall, Adam and Eve were predominately spirit, even though they had a body of flesh. This loss of communion with God in their spirit resulting in them becoming predominately flesh (Gen 6:3). While we are born without having sinned, this spiritual death or absence of communion with God, resulted in us being sinners from the womb with a proclivity towards sin. In verse 19 Paul says that Adam’s one act of disobedience constituted the many or all sinners:
 
“For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners (καθίστημι, ‘constituted sinners’), even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous (καθίστημι, ‘constituted righteous’).”
 
As many as have been born of Adam were constituted sinners because of his one act of disobedience. In Adam we are sinners by nature even before we commit our first sin. We don’t become sinners by sinning: rather, we sin because in Adam we are sinners by nature from the womb. As David says in Psalm 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”
 
Those who deny original sin have difficulty with this straightforward statement from the Old Testament affirming the doctrine of original sin. They often argue that David was using exaggerated speech and since it is poetry it shouldn’t be taken literally. However, it seems that from the Apostolic Period, long before Augustine in the 5th century, the Church Fathers understood it literally. Commenting on Psalm 58:3 Irenaeus said:
 
“As also David says, ‘The alienated are sinners from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born.’" [3]
 
As Paul said in Ephesians 2:3, prior to receiving a new nature through regeneration and having the righteousness of Christ, the Last Adam, imputed to us, we were “by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”  Although often ridiculed, the saying is true: “We are not sinners because we sin, but rather we sin because we are sinners.”
 
Logically, according to verse 19, those who deny that we were constituted sinners by one man’s act of disobedience must also deny that we were constituted righteous by Christ’s one act of obedience. Those who say that we are only sinners because we sin, typically say that we are only righteous because we stop sinning, rather than us being constituted righteous before God due to Christ’s righteousness having been imputed to us.
 
To me, those who oppose the historic doctrine of original sin and Christ’s imputed righteousness deny truths central to the gospel and are those whom Paul refers to as enemies of the cross of Christ, reducing His atoning death on the cross to nothing more than an example to follow. It concerns me to see so many enamored with the writings of George MacDonald, considering his contempt for the doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness through simple faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. He said:
 
“- some of you say we must trust in the finished work of Christ; or again, our faith must be in the merits of Christ in the atonement he has made in the blood he has shed. All these statements are a simple repudiation of the living Lord, in whom we are told to believe, who, by his presence with and in us, and our obedience to him, lifts us out of darkness into light...” [4]
"And any system which tends to persuade men that…a man is saved by having his sins hidden under a robe of imputed righteousness – that system…is of the devil and not of God." [5]

Many today, even among those of us who profess to believe that all mankind was recapitulated in Christ and therefore all will finally be restored, reject the words of Paul here when he says that the free gift of justification came to all by the One Man, Christ (v.15), and that Christ’s one act of righteousness resulted in justification of life to all men (v.18). More often than not, they also deny the doctrine of original sin: that all sinned in Adam, and for that reason sin and death passed upon all, resulting in all being constituted sinners by nature (vv. 12,19). As Paul said of some: “For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God” (Rom 10:3). May we be found in Him, not trusting in our own righteousness but the righteousness which is by the faith of Jesus (Phil 3:9).
 
[1] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5:16:3
 
[2] Augustine of Hippo, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 293.

[3] Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3:5:1
 
[4] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 147).

[5] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 100). 

​by George Sidney Hurd
 
As I sought to demonstrate in the previous article, What about Original Sin?, while we all suffer the consequences of Adam’s original sin, which include both physical and spiritual death, we did not inherit Adam’s guilt.
 
Prior to Augustine in the 5th century, it was generally held by Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa that Adam’s original sin resulted in mankind being alienated from the life of God and therefore having a corrupt human nature with a proclivity towards sin.
 
However, in Augustine’s opposition to Pelagianism, he added original guilt to the previously held doctrine of original sin and said that all who die without having put faith in Christ are eternally damned because they bear the guilt of Adam’s sin. According to Augustine’s belief in original guilt, even aborted infants and babies will be subjected to eternal punishment for Adam’s sin. He writes, “If infants are damned, it is just, for they are born in sin.” [1] However, this fails to consider the fact that the penalty for Adam’s sin was death, not eternal torment (Gen 2:17). Also, since Christ conquered death for all of Adam’s race, all will be made alive in Him, including infants, thereby reversing the original curse of death upon the entirety of Adam’s race (2Tim 1:10; Heb 2:14-15; 1Cor 15:22,54-55; Rom 5:18). Those who do not die in Christ will be judged according to their own deeds, not according to Adam’s original sin (Ezek 18:20; Rom 2:6; Rev 20:12).
 
Adding eternal torment to the penalty for Adam’s sin, and then holding everyone liable for it, created a moral dilemma that the Church has had to grapple with down through the centuries. Will aborted infants and babies who die be eternally damned even though they never personally committed a sin? Since Augustine believed that water baptism was the sole means for the remission of original sin, he taught that those who were aborted or died in infancy without having been baptized would be punished forever for Adam’s original sin. He sought to alleviate the grief of bereaved parents, saying that they were “condemned to the mildest punishment” (damnatus mitissima poena).
 
Largely due to the high infant mortality rate, in the 12th and 13th centuries midieval theologians like Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas put forward the idea of limbo for unbaptized infants who died before having committed any personal sin. They presented it as a state of natural happiness, although deprived of the beatific vision. While this offered more consolation to bereaved parents, it was purely speculative and was never officially adopted by the church of Rome. By the 20th century, most within the Catholic Church had abandoned the idea of limbo for unbaptized infants altogether, appealing rather to the mercy of God for their salvation.
 
Among the Protestants of the Reformation and Post-Reformation period it was generally held, especially among the Calvinists, that all non-elect babies who died went to hell. Jonathan Edwards is often credited with characterizing babies and little children as young vipers. On one occasion he said:
 
"Innocent as children seem to be to us...they are not so in God’s sight but are young vipers—and are infinitely more hateful than vipers—and are in a most miserable condition, as well as grown persons." [2]
 
Most Evangelicals today would say that a child who dies before the “age of accountability” will go to heaven when he dies. However, some Calvinists like the Reverand Voddie Baucham, still maintain that all except for the elect go to an eternal hell. This would logically include infants and little children. Baucham is known for referring to babies as “vipers in diapers.” Here is link to a 1 ½ minute clip where he refers to infants as Vipers in Diapers. However, while rejecting the age of accountability argument, he avoids making dogmatic statements concerning the eternal destiny of non-elect infants by appealing to divine mystery. In this manner many Calvinists avoid having to express the logical conclusion of their beliefs on this subject in our increasingly sensitive modern culture.
 
Three Erroneous Beliefs concerning Infant Salvation
 
There are three erroneous beliefs in addition to Augustine’s doctrine of original guilt which over time became a part of mainstream Christian theology, creating additional obstacles to infant salvation. They are:  1) All possibility of salvation ends at death; 2) The penalty for finite sins is infinite; 3) Infant water baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
 
1) All possibility of salvation ends at death
 
The belief that salvation is impossible after one’s heart stops beating is so prevalent that we just assume that it is true. However, nowhere is this found in Scripture. The only verse presented in support of this doctrine is Hebrews 9:27 which simply says: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” However, this verse only states what both Traditionalists and Universalists agree upon - that men must face judgment upon dying. Those who deny that salvation is possible beyond the grave must ignore the multiple passages of Scripture indicating the final restoration of all; that every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus Christ as Lord, and that in the final dispensation of the fullness of the times all in heaven and earth will have been reunited in Christ, resulting in God being all in all upon entering into eternity (Phil 2:10-11; Eph 1:10; 1Cor 15:28). I consider the Scriptural basis for the belief in salvation after death in my article, Hope for the Dead, so I will not enter into more detail here.
 
2) The penalty for finite sins is infinite
 
The penalty for Adam’s original sin which fell upon us all, including infants who never personally sinned, is death (Gen 2:17; Rom 5:12; 6:23). If Christ had not tasted death for everyone, having died a substitutionary death for all mankind, then death would have been a permanent condition (Heb 2:9; 2Cor 5:14; Heb 2:14-15). However, having died for all, destroying Satan’s power over death, all who die in Adam will be made alive in Christ, the last Adam (1Cor 15:22; Rom 5:18). No one, including infants, will remain eternally in a state of death (Rev 21:4).
 
Christ not only defeated death for us on the cross, but He also bore the just penalty due to us for our own personal sins (1Peter 2:24-25; Heb 9:28; Isa 53 4-6,11). Those who believe on Him are justified from their sins (Rom 5:1). There is no condemnatory judgment awaiting those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1).
 
Neither is the penalty for personal sins infinite. Each will be judged “according to their works” and will receive their “part” or “portion” in the purifying lake of fire. No one will be punished endlessly. Some will receive “many lashes” while others will receive “few lashes” (Luke 12:47-48). Some will enter the kingdom before others (Matt 21:31). Some will be first to enter the kingdom of heaven, while others will be last (Luke 13:30), but in time all will have confessed Jesus Christ as Lord, being reunited in Christ (Phil 2:10-11; Eph 1:10).
 
However, since infants and little children “have no knowledge of good and evil” (Deut 1:39), and do not yet “know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa 7:16), they will not be judged for their sins but go directly to heaven when they die. This is seen, for example, in the Old Testament when David’s son born through his adulterous union with Bethsheba died. He said: “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam 12:23). Even though David knew that his son had died as a consequence of his sin (2 Sam 12:14), there was no question in his mind as to whether or not he would be reunited with his son in paradise.
 
That infants and small children who die go to heaven is also made clear in Matthew 19:14 where Jesus said: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Then in Matthew 18:3 He said: “unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” Children have the simple receptivity and trust that we must have in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. It wasn’t until Augustine’s popularization of the belief in eternal torment, combined with the doctrine of inherited guilt, that the salvation of infants and small children was even brought into question.
 
3) Infant water baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
 
Augustine taught that all infants who died without having been baptized in order to cleanse them from the guilt of Adam’s original sin would spend eternity in hell.  However, in the New Testament, infant baptism is nowhere mentioned, as would be expected if their salvation depended upon it. Some argue that, while it is not explicitly enjoined, it can be inferred from passages where it states that the whole household of some who believed were baptized.
 
However, most often the New Testament references to households logically exclude infants. For example, in Acts 16:31-34 all of Cornelius’ household believed and were baptized. Infants within the household would obviously have been excluded since they lack the cognitive ability necessary in order to understand and believe the gospel (cf. John 4:53). Likewise, in Acts 10:2 it says of Cornelius that he “feared God with all his household.” In 11:14 when it is said that Peter would tell them words by which Cornelius and his household would be saved and the Spirit fell on them as he spoke, it obviously would not have included infants, since they would not have been able to understand the gospel message so as to believe and be saved, receiving the Spirit. In fact, of the 26 times in the New Testament that reference is made to someone’s household, infants are almost always logically excluded.
 
Saying that all unbaptized infants are condemned creates an insurmountable moral challenge, considering that at least 99.9 percent of all the aborted babies and those who died in infancy were never baptized. While, as I hope to establish, we are all born with an innate propensity to sin, infants are free of guilt because they have never sinned.
 
In the New Testament, baptism was only to take place upon believing (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37). Baptism isn’t a condition of salvation in addition to faith but is an outward representation of our baptism into the body of Christ (Rom 6:2-4 cf. 1Cor 12:13). I discuss the subject of water baptism in more detail in my book, Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
 
The first mention of the practice of baptism for infants is found a 3rd century treatise entitled, The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus of Rome. [3] However, many scholars believe that the treatise was actually written by a different author at a later date in order to give credence to the practice. While the treatise mentions the baptism of children too young to speak, it does not elaborate as to the reasoning behind the practice.
 
Once we understand that there is postmortem salvation since all will finally confess Jesus Christ as Lord and be restored; that the penalty for sins is just rather than infinite; and that the requirement of infant baptism for the remission of original guilt is a man-made tradition not found in Scripture, we can find comfort in the assurance that all who die as infants and little children are welcomed into heaven upon dying.
 
Are babies sinful by nature?
 
This brings us to the main subject of this article concerning the nature we are born with. Are babies born a “clean slate,” only becoming sinners due to external influences, or are we born “vipers in diapers.” It is my conviction that both extremes are in error. While external influences clearly play a role in our formation, that doesn’t explain the innate proclivity we all have towards sin. It fails to consider what made external influences evil to begin with. On the other hand, to say that we are intrinsically evil by nature like vipers in diapers fails to consider the fact that we were created in the image and likeness of God. To say that we are intrinsically sinful as to our essential nature makes it difficult to explain how Christ could have been truly human in His incarnation without being a sinner.
 
Paul said in Romans 5:19: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners…” What does it mean to be made or constituted a sinner? We understand that a fornicator is someone who has an inner compulsion to fornicate. Likewise, someone is not a liar for telling a lie, but someone who compulsively lies. In the same way, we are all sinners because all of us sin due to an inner compulsion as a consequence of Adam’s original sin. Paul referred to this as “the law of sin which is in our members” (Rom 7:23).
 
As I understand it, our proclivity towards sin is the result of the spiritual death that occurred on the day that Adam sinned which has passed down to us. Spiritual death is spiritual separation from God. Although in Him we live and move and have our being, ontologically speaking, Adam and Eve immediately lost the beatific vision of God in communion with Him and were cast from the Garden of Eden. Our communion with God is a Spirit-to-spirit communion. We were originally created as spiritual beings in a body of flesh. However, when we died spiritually we became “flesh” (Gen 6:3). Destitute from the presence of God who is spirit, we went from being predominately spiritual beings, to carnal beings, no longer communing with God, but rather seeking gratification through the desires of our fallen flesh.
 
Adam and Eve were complete and spiritually fulfilled as to their essential being, having been created in the image and likeness of God in order to enjoy communion with God. They knew nothing of sinful inclinations. However, when they sinned and lost the beatific vision in communion with God, it left a void which could never be satisfied outside of God Himself. As the 17th century theologian and philosopher Blaise Pascal eloquently said:
 
“What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, by God himself.” [4]
 
Our sinful desires are the result of this “infinite abyss” in our souls that only God can fill. Our physical flesh is not intrinsically evil, as the Gnostics taught. In the beginning God created us “very good” (Gen 1:31). Our flesh became sinful due to the privation of the beatific vision of God and the loss of communion with Him. Through regeneration we become reunited with God, and to the degree that we walk in the Spirit, we experience freedom from the desires of the flesh. That is why Paul said: “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Gal 5:16).
 
However, although we have been made alive unto God, maintaining intimate communion with Him in this fallen world requires a continued vigilance and dependence upon God. That is why Paul said to the regenerate believers in Galatia: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (Gal 5:25). In Christ we have been made alive unto God. As long as we walk in the Spirit, being filled with the Spirit, fleshly desires have no appeal to us.
 
In my teenage years I became hopelessly addicted to drugs and was a compulsive delinquent. That all changed the moment I had my transforming encounter with the Lord in 1969. The reality of His presence was so wonderfully fulfilling that the addictions and destructive behavior I previously wasn’t able to overcome no longer had any appeal to me. This is what the Church Fathers referred to as the beatific vision. Paul described it as a transformation which takes place as we “with unveiled face behold as in a mirror the glory of the Lord” (2Cor 3:18).
 
I wish that could have been my uninterrupted experience until the present, but after a couple of years I had what I would describe as a desert experience where I didn’t sense the presence of the Lord as in the beginning, and I began to struggle again with temptations. I had another similar experience in 1982 which I can only describe as an open heaven experience that continued for about three months. Looking back, I believe that it was an oasis the Lord granted to give me the strength to undergo an even more difficult and prolonged time in severe trials.
 
What I learned from those experiences is that our propensity to sin that some refer to as the sin nature is absent when one has the beatific vision in intimate communion with God. It is the sense of alienation from God that creates the “infinite abyss” which we try in vain to fill with anything within our reach. Even though we are a new creation in Christ, as long as we remain in this body we will have the law of sin in our members which can only be overcome by the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:2). In the final dispensation of the fulness of the times when all will have been reunited in Christ and God is all in all, we will possess glorified spiritual bodies and, even though our will shall be freer than ever before, sin will be a logical impossibility due to the uninterrupted beatific vision of God (Eph 1:10; 1Cor 15:28; Rev 21:4-5, cf. Isa 25:6-8).
 
Babies have a Sinful Inclination from the Womb
 
As I understand it, babies are born innocent (Psa 106:38). While we all sinned in Adam and therefore all die in him, we are not born guilty of Adam’s sin as Augustine taught. Babies and small children who do not yet know to discern between good and evil are not morally culpable (Isa 7:15-16). However, while Scripture calls them innocent in the sense that they lack personal guilt, we are all born with a propensity to sin which the Early Church Fathers referred to as a “corrupted nature.”
 
This propensity to sin is not something intrinsic to our nature that is sexually transmitted as Augustine taught. It is not something genetic such as a virus. Rather, as I pointed out previously, this proclivity towards sin is the result of the “infinite abyss” we have in our soul as the result of being spiritually stillborn in Adam. We are born spiritually dead towards God and incomplete since we were created to enjoy communion with God.
 
Christ, on the other hand, was truly human just as Adam was. He was presented with the same external temptations that we are, yet He did not have our proclivity towards sin since there was never any spiritual separation between the human and the divine. A sinful nature is not an essential element of true humanity. In John 1:14, it says that the Word “became flesh” and dwelt among us, but Paul makes it clear that the incarnate Christ’s flesh wasn’t sinful as ours is, clarifying that He came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). He came as the Last Adam to restore the human race and recapitulate all of humanity in Himself.
 
I believe that it is due to this alienation from the life of God, this privation of the beatific vision in communion with God, that results in all of us being born with this proclivity towards sin. It is in this sense that I believe we should understand Davids words in Psalm 51:5 where he says: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” This is also the way I believe the Early Fathers understood David’s words. Irenaeus, alluding to Psalm 58:3 says:
 
“As also David says, ‘The alienated are sinners from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born.’" [5]
 
It is this alienation from the life of God that results in us having this proclivity towards sin from the womb. We can only say that we are a “clean slate” in the sense that we are born innocent without guilt. I believe that it is because of this alienation that Paul says we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). It is our inevitable persistence in personal willful sin that makes us objects of God’s wrath (Rom 1:18; 2:5-6). I believe that Paul is saying that, due to our fallen alienated nature, we are children of wrath even before we commit our first sin. We do not sin because of external influences, as the Pelagians claim, although external influences do contribute to sinful conduct. Rather, we sin because, being alienated from God, it is in our nature to sin. I believe that the saying is true: “We are not sinners because we sin – we sin because we are sinners.”
 
Conclusion
 
There is much more that could be said on this subject, and I by no means claim infallibility. While I believe that the doctrine of original sin as taught by the pre-Augustinian Fathers is biblical, I find no justification for Augustine having added the element of inherited guilt, holding that unbaptized infants would be eternally condemned for Adam’s original sin. I believe that a proper understanding of the Scriptures requires postmortem salvation, removing another manmade obstacle for the salvation of infants and little children. Another unbiblical obstacle for the salvation of little ones who die is the requirement of infant baptism to remove inherited guilt.
 
I believe that Scripture as well as common observation demonstrate that, being alienated from the life of God from the womb, we are sinners by nature and not simply the product of our environment. That being said, we do not sin because of something genetically transmitted through sexual intercourse, as Augustine taught. Rather we sin due to the infinite abyss in our soul as the result of our estrangement from God from the womb.
 
The fact that we are not born guilty due to Adam’s original sin removes the dilemma as to how Christ could have been born truly human without inherited guilt. He was truly human, yet He was not estranged from God from the womb as we are, and therefore He did not have a sin nature.
 
The Roman Catholic Church debated for centuries as to how Christ could have been truly human without being guilty of Adam’s original sin. In the 14th century John Duns Scotus promoted the theory of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (that Mary was miraculously conceived without original sin) in an attempt to resolve this problem, and in 1854, Pope Pius IX formally decreed the Immaculate Conception to be an official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. However, not only does the Bible nowhere say that Mary was immaculately conceived, but she refers to the Lord as “her Savior” in Luke 1:47. This confession makes it clear that she considered herself to be a sinner in need of the Savior.
 
All of these attempts to explain how Christ could have been truly human without inheriting Adam’s guilt and a corrupted nature were absent among the Church Fathers prior to Augustine’s doctrine of inherited guilt in the 5th century. I believe that it is because they believed that our corrupted nature, with its proclivity to sin, is solely due to our estrangement from God, and Christ was never estranged from God. The only time Christ felt estranged from the Father was during those dark moments on the cross when He was made to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2Cor 5:21). During those moments He felt estranged from the beatific vision and cried out saying: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?”


[1] Augustine, On Free Will III.23

[2] Jonathan Edwards, The Littlest Demons. https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/youth/more-hateful-vipers
 

[3] Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition Chapter 21, Section 4.
 

[4] Blaise Pascal, Pensées, Fragment 148
 

[5] Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3:5:1