|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
(Original sin) is the fault and
corruption of every msn,
that naturally is engendered the offspring of Adam;
whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness,
and is of his own nature inclined to evil,
so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit;
and therefore in every person born into this world,
it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1563)
Because of the wide divergence of opinion on the question of original sin a comparison of several confessional statements may be helpful. [i]
The New Hampshire Baptist Confession, Article III, reads as follows:
We believe that man was created in holiness, under the law of his Maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners, not by constraint but choice; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.
Article VI of the Westminster Confession of Faith says:
Our first parents, being seduced by' the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin.
Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
The Remonstrant (Arminian) view is set forth in the Apology For Confession of Remonstrants, p. 84, as follows:
They (The Remonstrants) do not regard original sin as sin properly so-called, nor as an evil which as a penalty, in the strict sense of that word, passes over from Adam upon his posterity, but as an evil, infirmity, or vice, or whatever name it may be designated by, which is propagated from Adam, deprived of original righteousness, to his posterity.
In the Methodist Articles of Religion, Article VII reads:
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.
The Manual of the Church of the Nazarene, Article V, states:
We believe that original sin, or depravity, is the corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam, by reason of which everyone is very far gone from original righteousness, or the pure state of our first parents at the time of their creation, is averse to God, is without spiritual life, and is inclined to evil, and that continually; and that it continues to exist with the new life of the regenerate, until eradicated by the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Finally, the Socinian doctrine is stated in the Racovian Catechism, p. 294:
And the fall of Adam, since it was one act, could not have had the power of corrupting the nature of Adam himself, much less that of his posterity. We do not deny, however, that from the constant habit of sinning the nature of man has become infected with a certain fall and excessive proclivity to sinning. But we deny that this is per se sin, or of that nature.
It is quite apparent from an examination of the preceding statements that there is great divergence of viewpoint on what original sin actually is. The views range from a complete denial (Socinianism) to a deprivation (rather than depravity) (Arminianism) to an inclination of nature (Wesleyanism) to corruption of nature (Baptist Confession) to original guilt and original corruption (Westminster). The following presentation will narrow the discussion down to just one of these concepts.
These terms all describe man's sinful state. The term original sin needs some elaboration for it is not used the same way by all.
i. It may refer to Adam's act of sin; the Fall.
ii. It may refer to the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin.
iii. It may refer to the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin (original sin) and to the hereditary moral corruption (original corruption or pollution) which is received by the human family. [ii] This is the usual reformed view.
iv. It may refer to the hereditary state of spiritual death and its-consequent manifestation in moral corruption of nature which is experienced by the totality of the human family as a result of Adam’s sin (Christ excepted). [iii] This latter usage is the one followed in this study. We believe that inherited sin and imputed sin are distinct from one another and will treat them separately.
Psalm 51:5 and Ephesians 2:1-3 indicate that man is born with a sin nature. This condition extends to the whole man, and thus "we say he is totally depraved, and it affects all that he does, and thus we say he is totally unable to please God. [iv]
To say that inherited sin extends to man’s whole nature does not mean that be cannot think worthy thoughts, make good choices, have noble and loving feelings, or make proper judgments. But, it does mean that none of these are of value in gaining acceptability with God (Isa. 64:6). Fallen man may be moral but not spiritual (cf. Rom 2:14 with 3:9, 10, 19, 20).
The result of inherited sin is twofold: corruption of nature (separation from God) (Eph. 2:1 ff.; Gen. 2:17). Moral corruption manifests itself in two ways
The belief that man is totally depraved has been the orthodox doctrine of the church from the apostle Paul to contemporary evangelicalism. Calvin wrote, “We are so entirely controlled by the power of sin, that the whole mind, the whole heart, and all our actions are under its influence.” [v] This fairly represents the views of Augustine before him, Luther his fellow-reformer, the puritan Jonathan Edwards, the great American theologians of another generation Charles Hodge, William G. T. Shedd and Augustus H. Strong, as well as most recent writers such as Louis Berkhof, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Francis Schaeffer and Carl F. H. Henry.
Among those who have tried to hold on to some vestige of moral goodness in man, no matter how small, have been Tertullian, Origen, Pelagius, the semi-Pelagians, Thomas Aquinas, the Anabaptists, the Arminians and those whose theology is molded more by the Enlightenment more than the Reformation or the New Testament.
Schleiermacher and Ritschl both rejected the doctrine and Modernism and the Social Gospel movement, which built upon their thinking, had no place for it, either. Contemporary expressions of existential and neo-liberal theology, the liberation theology movement and process theology give no serious place to the concept of total depravity although neo-orthodoxy made much of man’s sinfulness.
Donald Bloesch, a contemporary evangelical, gives a very orthodox statement regarding total depravity, noting that it may be viewed as having four meanings,
First, it refers to corruption at the very center of man's being, the heart, but this does not mean that man's humanity has ceased to exist. Second, it signifies the infection in every part of man's being, though this is not to infer that this infection is evenly distributed or that nothing good remains in man. Third, it denotes the total inability of sinful man to please God or to come to him unless moved by grace, though this does imply that man is not free in other areas of his life. Fourth, it includes the idea of the universal corruption of the human race, despite the fact that some peoples and cultures manifest this corruption much less than others. [vi]
Total depravity is so called because of its all-pervasive character (Titus 1:15-16; Rom. 7:18 ff.) and because man is naturally given to self-preference rather than to God's ways (2 Tim.3:2-4). The pollution of sin touches every major area of human experience. [vii]
The scholastics in general and Thomas in particular gave significant place to man’s reason. In contrast both Luther and Calvin held that sin has made it impossible for man to think rightly about God. "Human reason as well as the will have been blinded and turned away from the good and the true." [viii] "The light of reason which God imparted to men has been so darkened by sin that scarcely a few meager sparks still shine unquenched in this intense darkness or rather dreadful ignorance and abyss of errors." [ix] As Bloesch notes, sin “has serious noetic implications." [x]
We must not think that because the Romans passages cited above seem to represent an extreme view, "civilized" man is exempt from the effect of sin on his sensibilities. The uniform testimony of scripture is that all his loves and desires are tainted by sin (Gal. 5:19-21).
The question of the effect of sin upon man's will has persisted in the church throughout the centuries. In the fifth century Pelagians held to the freedom of the will and denied the need of any "directly assisting grace for any true service of God on the part of man.”[xi] This error was answered by Augustine and condemned in the Councils of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431). In the Reformation Luther took a very strong position in The Bondage of the Will as did Jonathan Edwards, the American Puritan, in The Freedom of the Will, both holding than man apart from redeeming grace cannot choose God. In response to this Reformation position the Arminians taught,
The grace of God is the primary cause of faith, without which a man is not able rightly to use his free-will…. Therefore free-will cooperates with grace, otherwise the obedience or disobedience of man would have no place.... Grace is not the sole cause, although it is the primary cause of salvation … for the cooperation itself of the free-will with grace is of grace as a primary cause. [xii]
Commenting on this synergistic position A. A. Hodge states regarding Semipelagianism, "The human will takes the initiative in regeneration but needs divine assistance.... While the corresponding Arminian position is that grace takes the initiative in regeneration but depends for its effect upon human cooperation." [xiii] Evangelical Wesleyanism, while giving greater place to grace than much Arminian theology, continues to be synergistic as well.[xiv]
As Bloesch notes, however, "The bondage of the will is affirmed throughout scripture as one of the principal hallmarks and penalties of sin. After sin man's will is no longer directed toward God but away from God. He finds himself in flight from God rather than in quest for God (Gen. 3:8; Isa. 65:1; Ps. 53:1- 3; Rom. 3:11).” This truth becomes, then, the basis for the following point on man’s total inability. “In his sin he is not only unwilling but also unable to do good and choose salvation.” [xv]
Thus, man has no spiritual good in him. This is not to be construed as meaning that everyone is as depraved as he may possibly become, that man has no conscience to evaluate good and evil, nor that he is devoid of all qualities that would commend him to men.
This refers to the effect of the corruption on man's spiritual powers. There is no capacity, for exercising these things in a way that will please God (I Cor.2:14). He is unable to do spiritual good. This does not mean that man cannot do good in a social, civil, or externally religious sense. The corruption of sin extends through the whole man rendering the mind and its thoughts, the will and its volitions, the heart and its emotions, the conscience and its evaluations, sinful. Thiessen has summarized this doctrine well, giving it appropriate balance, in the following statement:
Depravity has produced a total spiritual inability in the sinner in the sense that he cannot by his own volition change his character and life so as to make them conformable to the law of God, nor change his fundamental preference of self and sin to supreme love for God, yet he has a certain amount of freedom left. He can, for instance, choose not to sin against the Holy Spirit, decide to commit the lesser sin rather than the greater, resist certain forms of temptation altogether, do certain outwardly good acts, though with improper and unspiritual motives, and even seek God from entirely selfish motives. Freedom of choice within these limits is not incompatible with complete bondage of the will in spiritual things. Inability consists not in the loss of any faculty of the soul, nor in the loss of free agency, for the sinner still determines his own acts, nor in the mere disinclination to do what is good, but want of spiritual discernment, and therefore of proper affections. He cannot of his free will regenerate himself, repent, nor exercise saving faith (John 1:12 f.). [xvi]
While acknowledging the validity of this presentation we must, nonetheless, remember that even the non-redemptive good that man performs is because of God’s common grace. [xvii]
Total inability is proven by:
i.
The fact that the Bible
never attributes to men the power to change their lives (Jer. 13:23).
ii.
The necessity of the
Holy Spirit’s work in salvation (John 3:3-7, cf. Zech, 4:6).
iii.
The direct statements
of scripture (John 6:44, 65; 15:4-5; Rom. 9:16; 1 Cor. 2:14; cf. John 5:40).
As Thiessen notes, "Penalty is that pain or loss which is directly inflicted by the lawgiver in vindication of his justice, which has been outraged by the violation of law.... In all penalty there is a personal element, that is, the holy wrath of the lawgiver, and this is only partially expressed by natural consequences." He goes on to point out that "there is a difference between discipline and punishment. Discipline proceeds from love and is intended to be corrective (Jer. 10:24; 2 Cor. 2:6-8; I '1 Tim. 1:20; Heb. 12:6); but punishment proceeds from justice and so is not intended to reform the offender (Ezek. 28:22; 36:21 f.; I Rev. 16:5; 19:2)." The significance of this distinction is noted in that "punishment inflicted by law is not discipline or remedy, but just retribution. It is not a means, but an end." [xviii]
If this condition is not remedied through salvation the state of spiritual death is fixed. The person who terminates this life in this condition enters upon eternal death (the second death) for which there is no remedy (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:11-15; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
The sin nature is transmitted mediately, by natural generation, from parent to child (Ps. 51:5; John 3:6). The New International Version of Psalm 51:5 reads, "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." David is stating what is true of him and all others save our Lord, as well, namely that the sin nature dates from his biological beginning and from this all his sinful acts spring.
This remedy is all conditioned upon personal faith in Christ, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and the impartation of eternal life. More particularly,
The penalty attaching to the sin nature is dealt with internally through Christ’s redemptive work at the cross. A judgment was secured against the sin nature there (Rom. 8.1).
The power of the sin nature over the life may be rendered ineffective day by day by living in the victory provided by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6; 8:2-14).
The presence of the sin nature in the life will be removed in a future day of redemption of the body (Rom. 8:18, 23).
If all inherit a sin nature from their parents and as a result are totally depraved and spiritually dead, can we believe that infants go to heaven when they die? It is clear from the outset that this is an intensely pastoral question but we must remember that the basis for our answer must be biblical theology. Our analysis of this issue will follow three steps: consideration of the pertinent biblical data, review of the theological views, a proposed resolution of the problem.
The biblical passages that are usually adduced in such a discussion are 2 Samuel 12:18-23; 1 Kings 14:13; Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17. In point of fact only the passage in 2 Samuel has any bearing on the subject. The statement in 1 Kings about Jeroboam’s son only serves to differentiate him from other male descendents of Jeroboam.
All of the statements in the synoptic accounts serve as illustrations of the truth that childlike faith in God is necessary for one to enter the kingdom of God. The incident recorded in 2 Samuel does give some help to us but it is only a narrative record with no didactic design and is a somewhat obscure one, at that. The first male child that Bathsheba bore to David becomes ill and dies as punishment by God upon David for his sin. Rather than being prostrate with grief as was expected) David breaks his fast and resumes normal living patterns. When quizzed about this unexpected behavior he answers, "But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
The question is, what did David have in mind with these words? Was he saying simply the child is dead, there is nothing that can reverse the situation and some day I, too, shall join him in the grave? Or, was David giving voice to a personal eschatological view which said, in essence, some day I will see my child in heaven?
The common interpretation is the latter one, which may very well be the case, but it is far from certain that this is what David had in mind. He manifests great ambivalence in the Psalms regarding life after death (compare Ps. 16:1-5 and 16:7- 11), on the one hand expressing despair and on the other (a clearly messianic passage in light of Acts 2:24-31) great hope.
In light of this we must say that biblical evidence for any doctrine of infant salvation is either totally lacking or, at best, miniscule and unclear.
From a theological standpoint there is almost universal agreement that infants do not go to hell when they die but there is great difference as to where they do go and on what basis. At least four views have been set forward.
i. Infants are sinless or morally innocent since there is no such thing as racial guilt or native depravity and they have not yet committed personal sin. This view is contradicted by the biblical teaching on the imputation of Adam's sin to the race (Rom. 5:12 ff.) and on the inherited sin nature (Ps. 51:5, Eph. 2:1-3).
ii. Original sin is removed by baptism which effects the infant’s regeneration. Unbaptized infants go to Limbo. The overwhelming testimony of scripture, however, is that the prerequisite to salvation from a human standpoint is faith in Jesus Christ (98 times in the Gospel of John alone; see also Acts 16:30-31; Eph. 2:8-9). Baptism is not saving but rather is testimony to God's saving work (1 Pet. Ii 3: 21) and even those passages which speak of baptism in conjunction with salvation make it to follow upon faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:31).
iii. All mankind in some sense sinned in Adam and are therefore racially guilty and corrupt. In his death Christ therefore removes the racial guilt and leaves only the corruption, but since this does not take the form of a personal action performed by the individual it carries neither guilt nor penalty by itself. Therefore, those who die in infancy are not subject to condemnation and are saved by the universal effects of Christ’s atoning work. Those who live to an age of moral accountability ratify their corrupt nature by actually sinning and thus become guilty before God in this way. This personal guilt is removed for any who receive Jesus Christ as Savior.
This view is out of harmony with scripture on several counts. It denies the doctrine of the individual imputation of Adam's sin to the race (Rom. 5:12 ff); it teaches that whatever racial guilt there was now cancelled by Christ's death and yet the Bible teaches that God's wrath continues to abide on the one who does not enter into the obedience of faith (John 3:36); and it teaches that one who is at one point saved (an infant) becomes unsaved when they willfully sin (at the age of accountability) and needs to be saved again whereas the scriptures teach the eternal safety of the redeemed (John 10:27; 29; Rom. 8:33-39).
iv. All mankind are racially guilty and corrupt because of Adam’s sin. From among this group, wholly apart from merit, foresight of any personal response, or individual faith, God elects, calls, and regenerates some. Among the elect are some who die in infancy. Non-elect infants "all reach the age of maturity and reveal their evil bent and destiny by sinful acts and rejection of Christ." [xix]
The death of an elect infant is the evidence of its salvation as conversion is the evidence of an accountable being's salvation. [xx] Since conversion is not the basis but merely the manifestation of salvation at the conscious level (as a counterpart to the divine work of regeneration at the unconscious level) "the infant who dies in infancy and before the age of conscious responsibility has no need for the conscious act of conversion." [xxi]
For judicial penalty to be realized it must be understood and yet "an infant, though capable of suffering" and "subject to condemnation because of Adamic sin" nonetheless "is not condemned" and "is incapable of judicial penalty" in that "he does not understand the reason." [xxii]
The conclusion of this view is that "a non-elect infant... cannot die in infancy; and all infants dying in infancy are elect, regenerated, etc." [xxiii]
While ingenious and plausible this fourth viewpoint is based upon two questionable assumptions and faces several problems posed by scripture. It, first of all, assumes (as do the other views) that infants do not go to hell. While this is a reasonable assumption given at least certain aspects of God's character (love, mercy, etc.) it is nonetheless an assumption without clear support.
Secondly, this view assumes that God's redemptive purposes for the elect are at least occasionally (in the case of infants and presumably in the case of the mentally deficient as well) realized apart from personal faith. Again this is reasonable assumption given some aspects of God's character (e.g., righteousness which would call someone to account with God's revealed will—moral law—only if they could understand it). Yet, this too is only an assumption with no clear support.
From a biblical standpoint, as noted above, there is absolutely no formal doctrine of infant salvation. There is only one relatively obscure passage (2 Sam. 12:18-23) which may suggest that at least in one case an infant went to heaven when he died. If this is the meaning of the passage we may extrapolate this experience to all infants (but with what license and guidelines since none are given) but we must remember that the passage is descriptive rather than a prescriptive one.
The major problem raised by scripture, however, is that salvation is always by faith through grace and never apart from either one. We happily agree that election, calling, regeneration and all of the works of God relating to salvation are gracious, sovereign and apart from human merit. Nonetheless, it is God's plan that these sovereignly gracious benefits be appropriated by means of the gift of faith. An infant is incapable of faith in the way that it is described in scripture.
Where, then, does this leave us? I would suggest a wholly different approach which leaves the question open and in the capable hands of an all-wise, all-holy, all-loving God. Let us remind ourselves of what kind of God the God of reality is. Therein lies the key to our dilemma. At one and the same time God is holy and just and therefore cannot overlook the laws of his own character, will not arbitrarily wink at sin (even in the form of racial guilt or inherited corruption in an infant, granting that his elective decree and the atoning work of Christ may work to cancel sin's effects when applied by the Spirit through faith to the elect), or unjustly condemn any who should not be condemned; he is gracious, merciful and loving and therefore will always act accordingly, even in judgment; and he is wise and true and therefore knows how to bring these factors together in the right and best way without compromising any of them.
God's character must not be compromised under the pressure of pastoral concerns. But let us not assume that to take this approach is insensitive and without compassion. What greater comfort can be given to anyone in grief than the truth about the unimpeachably just, loving and wise God of realty? He always does the eternally best thing whatever it may be. Will he in sovereignty deliver some or all infants who die in infancy into his presence? If so, let us praise his name for that is good. Will he not deliver some or any infants who die in infancy into his presence? If not, let us praise his name for that too is good.
[i]
For an extended treatment of the subject of "Original Sin" see A. A.
Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 323-37.
[ii]
See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 244 ff
[iii]
See A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p. 325
[iv]
See also Isa. 1:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 John 1:8; 2 Cor. 4:4;
Eph. 4:17-18; 1 Tim. 4:2; Matt. 7:16-19; Rom. 7:13-25.
[v]
John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Romans, p. 161
[vi]
Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 90
[vii]
See A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 327-28
[viii]
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 12, 342
[ix]
John Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John, I, 15
[x]
Bloesch, op. cit., p. 101
[xi]
Ibid., p. 99
[xii]
Limborch, Theol. Christ, quoted by A. A. Hodge, op. cit., p.
347
[xiii]
A. A. Hodge, op. cit., p. 335
[xiv]
See H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, II, 108).
[xv]
Bloesch, op. cit., p. 98
[xvi]
Thiessen, op. cit., p. 192
[xvii]
Bloesch, op. cit., p. 91
[xviii]
Thiessen, op. cit., p. 194
[xix]
(William F. Kerr, "Do Infants Go to Heaven When They Die?" p. 4;
unpublished monograph
[xx]
Ibid.
[xxi]
Ibid., pp. 3-4
[xxii]
Ibid., p. 5
[xxiii]
Ibid.
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
12.11.07
