CALVINISM: ITS DOCTRINE OF INFANT SALVATION

Are persons who die in infancy saved? Holy Scriptures do not directly address this subject. But various indirect declarations give us every reason to rest assured that they are indeed saved.

The goodness of God suggests the salvation of those who die in infancy. We read in Job 38:41 that He provides food for newborn ravens when they cry unto Him. Surely He will not turn a deaf ear to the cries of infants and permit them to be cast from His presence! We read in Psalm 145:15f that He provides food for "every living thing," even the most loathsome of creatures. Surely He will provide salvation for those made in His own image who die in infancy!

In various passages, the number of the redeemed in glory is so large as to suggest the salvation of those persons who died in infancy. For example, they are described in Revelation 7:9 as "a great multitude which no man could number." It is thought by many theologians that the number of souls in glory will be greater than that of the souls in the regions of the damned on the grounds that Christ must have the preeminence. This certainly will be true if the number of the redeemed in glory will include all those who died in infancy and childhood, which was a vast part of humanity in former times when a great percentage of children did not live long enough to reach adulthood. This number would also include the untold millions who today are snatched from their mothers' wombs and sacrificed by abortionists.

In Ezekiel 16:21, God called the children sacrificed to heathen gods "My children": "you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire." God's children are received in glory, not consigned to hell.

In Jonah 4:11, we read that God had great pity on the citizens of Nineveh, especially upon its "more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left." Such pity suggests these infants would be received into glory if they died in infancy.

In Mark 10:14, Jesus Christ said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." He then admonished adults in the next verse, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

In 2 Samuel 12:23, David expressed his own assurance that his own departed infant was received into heaven, and that he himself would later be forever reunited with him there: "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

The great question before us not is not whether persons dying in infancy are saved and received into glory. Holy Scriptures would seem to assure us that they indeed are. Rather, the question before us should be whether the parents and loved ones of those who die in infancy will be reunited with them in glory.

Arminians err when they aver that persons dying in infancy are saved because of their supposed innocence. Arminians are driven to this view because of a fatal flaw in their scheme of salvation. Arminians believe that God has done all He can to save sinners, and that the success of His desire and endeavor rests solely upon those sinners exercising their supposed "free will" in making what they call a "decision for Christ." Arminians declare that if sinners do not make such a conscious and deliberate decision to let God save them, God cannot do so.

This Arminian heresy mercilessly shuts the door of salvation to infants who are in every way incapable of their own will to make a "decision for Christ." Arminians admit this fatal flaw to their scheme of salvation, but they are not willing to concede that persons dying in infancy are forever lost and damned. Arminians therefore must devise another scheme by which God saves infants, thereby averring that God saves adults in one way, and infants in another.

This Arminian dilemma is compounded for Campbellites, the disciples of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). Campbellites are not only Arminian, but also among the most strident proponents of the heresy of baptismal regeneration. They emphatically deny that anyone can be saved apart from baptism. This Campbellite heresy also mercilessly shuts the door of salvation to unbaptized infants — unless another scheme of salvation can be devised for them.

Arminians generally believe the scheme for the salvation for infants involves their innocence and/or the fact that they have not reached the age of accountability – whatever that is!

This Arminian scheme for the salvation of infants contradicts Holy Scriptures in at least two ways. First, it denies that God has but one plan for salvation, and posits instead that He saves adults in one way and infants in another.

Second, this Arminian scheme for the salvation of infants denies the Biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of the whole human race, including infants.

Romans 5:12-19 teaches us that we all, infants included, sinned and died in the fall of Adam, the first man.

Job (14:4) declared the sinfulness of infants when he said, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!"

The psalmist David declared the sinfulness of infants when he, speaking for us all, said in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

And he poignantly declared the sinfulness of infants when he said in Psalm 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."

Solomon includes infants when he teaches us in Ecclesiastes 7:20 that "there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin."

And Jesus Christ includes infants when He teaches us in John 3:1-7 that "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" and in need of being "born again" by the Holy Spirit if he or she is to see or enter God's kingdom.

Another flaw of the Arminian view is that it in reality denies infant salvation. There is no need of salvation for those who are innocent! "Infant salvation" is a misnomer for Arminians.

Roman Catholics err when they aver that persons dying in infancy are saved if they are baptized. One of the first great heresies to plague the church of Christ was the mistaken belief that salvation is obtained through baptism. Since those who embraced this heresy wished to prevent their children from dying unbaptized, and therefore unsaved, they baptized them as soon as they were born. Scriptures deny both the heresy of baptismal regeneration and of the baptism of infants.

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church emphatically declares that infants and young children dying unbaptized are forbidden to enter heaven. According to the article "Infants, Unbaptized" in A Catholic Dictionary, "The Church has always taught that unbaptized children are excluded from heaven .... Heaven is a reward in no way due to their human nature as such."

Calvinists rightly teach that persons dying in infancy are saved in the same manner as are saved adults. God has only one plan of salvation. It teaches that sinners are saved by God's free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, totally apart from any works of righteousness they perform or any supposed virtue in them. Everyone who is saved — including all persons dying in infancy — is saved through being elected to salvation by God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and regenerated or born again by the Holy Spirit (as set forth in preceding messages).

Calvinists believe persons dying in infancy are saved in this manner. Contrary to the slanders of Arminians and Romanists, Calvinists do not believe any persons dying in infancy are damned.

One of the most glorious aspects of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation is that it magnifies the goodness and grace of God in salvation and in no way contradicts Holy Scriptures. To the contrary, Arminianism denies the need of God's grace for the salvation of infants. And Romanism exalts the work of parents in having their infants baptized, and bars from heaven the departed infants of those parents who did not do so.

We Calvinists alone can rightly assure the parents and friends of departed infants that they are saved and received into glory.

But we also exhort these same parents and friends to trust in Jesus Christ for their own salvation. None but such persons can say with assurance the words of David regarding his own departed infant, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

Most Calvinists whole-heartedly affirm that all persons dying in infancy are saved, even though they acknowledge the Bible has no definitive doctrine on this subject. Some Calvinists will go only so far as to acknowledge that the Bible definitely teaches that at least some persons dying in infancy are saved. But no representative Calvinist theologian declares that any person dying in infancy is damned. (See the preceding message, #171.)

Arminians nevertheless deliberately misrepresent Calvinists as believing persons dying in infancy are damned. Let the following quotations from some of the most renown Calvinists suffice to show that the Arminian accusation is false.

John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Reformer for whom Calvinism is named, asserted, "I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost." And "he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation 'as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy'" (cited by Augustus Strong in Systematic Theology). He furthermore declared that "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested" (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).

Charles Hodge was a 19th-century professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, which was in those days a foremost American bastion of Calvinism. He wrote: "All who die in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ. '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. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (Rom. v.18,19.) We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ. All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved. This appears to be the clear meaning of the Apostle, and therefore he does not hesitate to say that where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded, that the benefits of redemption far exceed the evils of the fall; that the number of the saved far exceeds the number of the lost" (Systematic Theology, vol.I, p.26)

John Newton, author of the favorite hymn "Amazing Grace," became a Calvinistic Anglican minister in 1764, serving the English parishes in Olney, Buckinghamshire, and London. In a letter to a friend he wrote, "Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that [infants] are included in the election of grace. Perhaps those who die in infancy, are the exceeding great multitude of all people, nations, and languages mentioned, Revelations, vii.9, in distinction from the visible body of professing believers, who were marked in the foreheads, and openly known to be the Lord's" (The Works of John Newton, vol.VI, p.182)

Alvah Hovey was a 19th-century American Baptist who served many years in Newton Theological Institution, and edited The American Commentary. He wrote in one of his books: "Though the sacred writers say nothing in respect to the future condition of those who die in infancy, one can scarcely err in deriving from this silence a favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those who die before they are able to discern good from evil is surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented by the Spirit of God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of being lost. We therefore heartily and confidently believe that they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by His Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be found with the saints" (Biblical Eschatology, pp.170f).

Lorraine Boettner was a 20th-Century Presbyterian who taught Bible for eight years in Pikeville College, Kentucky. In his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination he wrote at some length in defense of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation. We here quote from his remarks: "Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their 'salvation' is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are 'saved' to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.

"... Calvinism ... extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half of the human race up to the present time has been among the elect."

B.B. Warfield, born in Kentucky in 1851, was along with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck one of the three most outstanding Reformed theologians in his day. He wrote concerning those who die in infancy: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills... And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world" (quoted in Boettner's book).

Charles Haddon Spurgeon is perhaps the most-widely recognized name among Calvinists next to John Calvin. He served many years in the 19th-century as pastor in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England. He preached on September 29, 1861, a message entitled "Infant Salvation" (#411 in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit). In this message, Mr. Spurgeon not only convincingly proved from Holy Scriptures the belief of Calvinists that all persons dying in infancy are saved, but also soundly rebuked those Arminians and others who wrongly accuse us otherwise:

"It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true.... I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, 'You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush.' We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

Whom will you believe: Calvinists speaking for themselves? or Arminians deliberately misrepresenting them?

Sadly, the Calvinist's seem to have inherited the false Catholic doctrine of original sin.

I dearly love the Eastern Orthodox -- And how could I not?

My beloved Youth Pastor, who blessedly introduced me to the Reformation Doctrines of Grace and Calvinism, has now forsaken Protestantism for Antiochan Orthodoxy after a bitter rumor-mongering scandal which demeaned his good name (Let it suffice to say that I knew him as intimately as anyone, and he was certainly NOT homosexual in any way. However -- American Fundamentalist Protestants, having no tradition of Monasticism, can be unfairly suspicious of a perfectly-devout heterosexual Single Man who happens to enjoy more interest in Art and Prayer and Gardening than he has in Sex; but Eastern Orthodoxy offers him an organic and meditative Monastic Tradition, so perhaps he is in the right place).
And my beloved elder brother in France, after sampling French Catholicism, has decided that his children shall be raised French Orthodox (they have a Circuit Priest who is in town to offer Orthodox Eucharist once a month, and that is enough). My nephew has already been baptized French Orthodox, and they have another on the way -- (argh!) I would prefer them to be Calvinists, but better Orthodox than Papist!! God bless them, every one.

That said, you are correct -- as regards the Mechanics of Salvation Theology (i.e., "Soteriology"), we Calvinists are more Augustinian than even Augustine himself. This is a difference between our Tradition and Eastern Orthodoxy. I do not deny these differences, nor do I apologize for them.

If the Bible teaches the Doctrine of Original Sin, then as a Calvinist, I MUST BELIEVE IT.

Tell me of your Icons, your Incense, your incredibly-beautiful Liturgy, your Monasticism, commitment to Holiness and Humility, and even the Fact that Theologians categorize Eastern Orthodoxy as "The Church of Love" (just as they regard Romanism as "The Church of Law", and Protestantism as "The Church of Faith").

Tell me of every aspect of your beautiful Orthodox faith, Destro... and you will have both my Envy and my Appreciation. The Incense of Orthodoxy is sweet, and even its Antidoron is delightful and welcome to a Calvinist like me.

But if the Bible teaches the Doctrine of Original Sin, then as a Calvinist, I MUST BELIEVE IT.

To the Orthodox Christian original sin only applies to Adam and Eve. Since they were thrown out of paradise their offspring live with that consequence but they do not inherit that sin.

But THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES, Destro!!

The Fact is, the Bible teaches that Adam was both the Federal-Representative and Organic-Patriarchal Head and Representative of the Entire Race of Man. When Adam Fell, he spiritually-murdered the entire Race of Man.

The Biblical Laws of Human Depravity:

LAW 1.) The Spiritually Dead are born wicked. (Genesis 8:21; Psalms 58:3)
LAW 2.) All humanely-benevolent works of the Spiritually Dead are considered by God to be unclean filthiness. (Isaiah 64:6)
LAW 3.) As long as he is Spiritually Dead, the Unregenerate Man never freely wills the action of Righteous Good. (Jeremiah 13:23)
LAW 4.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men are only and always set upon the doing of evil. (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
LAW 5.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men are spiritually insane. (Ecclesiastes 9:3)
LAW 6.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men always despise the Light of Grace. (John 3:19)
LAW 7.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men always reject the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7:51)
LAW 8.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER Seek God. (Romans 3:10-11)
LAW 9.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER will any action whatsoever of Righteous Good. (Romans 3:12)
LAW 10.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, it is defined as BIBLICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE that the Unregenerate Man should ever will any Righteous Good. (Romans 7:18)
LAW 11.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER perform any God-pleasing Action of Will whatsoever. (Romans 8:5-8)
Law 12.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men are utterly incapable of knowing, understanding, or believing any Spiritual Truth. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Once the nature of Spiritual Death is correctly understood according to the teachings of Scripture, it becomes clearly evident that it is Biblically-impermissible to teach that Unregenerate men "respond to" and "choose God" prior to God's own monergistic Regeneration of their dead spirits.

And God regenerates whomsoever He will, according to His own Election.

DESTRO -- You would not dare to complain against a Son who inherits the wealth of his Father, would you? Would you Bitch and Moan if you inherited $100 Million Dollars which was Gained for you by your Father? Then how can you Complain that the Race of Man has inherited the Spiritual Death of Our Father, Adam?

I bet you wouldn't be complaining much if Adam had chosen Life and Obedience, and thus secured for you Total Everlasting Happiness before you were ever born -- would you?

The Fact is, God offered Adam Eternal Life and Everlasting Happiness for him and all his descendants FOREVER, and Adam chose Rebellion instead of Obedience.

And thus -- by both Federal-Representation and Organic-Generation -- Adam earned for himself and all his descendants Eternal Death, rather than Eternal Life.

It's totally Fair. By the Law of Inheritance, God can offer to Adam either Eternal Life or Eternal Death, and it's Adam's Choice as to which Inheritance he will pass down to his Descendants.

Adam chose to pass down Eternal Death to his descendants. Don't blame God; blame Adam.

Only a psychopathic God would punish a child for the sin of the parent.

You might as well say, "Only a psychopathic God would grant a child Everlasting Life for the Obedience of his Parent".

But God was prepared to grant the Entire Race of Man Eternal Life and Everlasting Happiness for Adam and all his descendants FOREVER; and by both Federal-Representation and Organic-Generation, Adam chose SPIRITUAL DEATH for himself and all his descendants.

Them's are the Biblical Facts. Don't blame God; blame Adam.

Best, OP

I am not presuming but am strictly going by what God tells us in His Word.

No, you aren't.

In fact, the denial of pre-existing Personal Biases is the very height of Spiritual Pride.

Are you actually willing to believe what the Bible Teaches?

I DOUBT IT. I THINK THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.

And that is that He offers salvation freely to all who respond to the Word in faith.

That is utterly, completely, and totally BESIDE THE POINT.

I do not, in any way, dispute that Man is totally Free to respond to the Offer of Salvation. But "Freedom" ain't even the issue -- the issue is, what an Unregenerate Man will do, not what he is "free" to do.

What I affirm, according to the adamant teachings of Scripture (to which you have NOT responded in any way whatsoever, but only propagated your own Personal Biases)... is that, according to the adamant Teachings of Scripture, 100% and without any exception WHATSOEVER in any case:

NO MAN who is currently Un-Regenerate EVER WILL "Believe in Jesus" or "choose God" or "exhibit Faith" or ANY GOD-PLEASING ACTION OF WILL WHATSOEVER.
SO TEACHES THE BIBLE:

The Biblical Laws of Human Depravity:
LAW 1.) The Spiritually Dead are born wicked. (Genesis 8:21; Psalms 58:3)
LAW 2.) All humanely-benevolent works of the Spiritually Dead are considered by God to be unclean filthiness. (Isaiah 64:6)
LAW 3.) As long as he is Spiritually Dead, the Unregenerate Man never freely wills the action of Righteous Good. (Jeremiah 13:23)
LAW 4.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men are only and always set upon the doing of evil. (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
LAW 5.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men are spiritually insane. (Ecclesiastes 9:3)
LAW 6.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men always despise the Light of Grace. (John 3:19)
LAW 7.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men always reject the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7:51)
LAW 8.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER Seek God. (Romans 3:10-11)
LAW 9.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER will any action whatsoever of Righteous Good. (Romans 3:12)
LAW 10.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, it is defined as BIBLICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE that the Unregenerate Man should ever will any Righteous Good. (Romans 7:18)
LAW 11.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER perform any God-pleasing Action of Will whatsoever. (Romans 8:5-8)
Law 12.) As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men are utterly incapable of knowing, understanding, or believing any Spiritual Truth. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

I have posted thse Scriptues before. You have not responded to ANY of them.

These are the Facts, "gracebeliever": if you ever admit that Man really is every bit as Spiritually Dead as the Bible teaches, then you must admit that God alone is, acting solely on His Own prerogative, totally in charge of Choosing whom He will Regenerate. And you don't WANT to adnit this Biblical Teaching. Your PERSONAL BIASES are against it.

Therefore -- you MUST pretend that Man isn't "Really" Spiritually Dead.
Therefore -- you MUST pretend that Unregenerate, Spiritually-Dead Men "Choose God" of their own volition, without the Prior Regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

In short -- you MUST deny every Scripture which I have posted above, proving beyond doubt that Unregenerate Men DO NOT, EVER "Choose God" without Prior Regeneration... in service of your own false Humanistic Ideology that Unregenerate Men, acting of their own volition, do "Choose God" without Prior Regeneration.

Man's "Freedom" ain't the issue. You can give a Fallen, Unregenerate Man all the "Freedom" you want, and he will still reject God -- until the Holy Spirit regenerates his soul, without asking his "permission" or "consent" (for according to the Bible, an UnRegenerate Man will always resist the Holy Spirit, if his Free Will is consulted) by the purely-monergistic action of God alone: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

The fact is, "Gracebeliever", you Despise and Hate the Bible itself.

For the Bible teaches that Unregenerate Men WILL NEVER "Choose God" while they are still yet Spiritually Dead, without the prior Regeneration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches so ADAMANTLY, according to an AVALANCHE of Scripture which I have provided above -- to which you HAVE NOT responded.

You don't PERSONALLY LIKE this teaching. It OFFENDS your BIASES. You want to teach something DIFFERENT from what the Bible teaches. You want to Teach that Unregenerate Men WILL "Choose God" while they are still yet Spiritually Dead, without the prior Regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

And because the Bible contradicts you, YOU HATE AND DESPISE THE BIBLE ITSELF.

At this point, perhaps I hurt your feelings.

Deal with it.

"Cursed be this 'Love', and cursed be this 'Unity' -- for which the Word of God is put to the stake!!" ~~ Saint Martin Luther

But God was prepared to grant the Entire Race of Man Eternal Life and Everlasting Happiness for Adam and all his descendants FOREVER

Was? Or is? You are also forgetting that the "entire human race" consisted of two people, a male and a female and no chance of procreating.

OP, I am sure you don't think that God was somehow "caught" off-guard with Adam's and Eve's disobedience.

when

Not if but when. So, then the Bible teaches that God knew Adam and Eve will eat the forbidden fruit. Nothing happens if He doesn't will it, so it was His decision that the Man shall fall: there was no disobedience that was not destined in God's design. So if that is so, was Man's fall an act of sin or an act of God? I would say that the former could not happen without the latter! What was the first (conscious) act of sin was Eve convincing Adam to eat (after she had already eaten of the furit herself) and the second sin committed was Adam blaming it on God, Who gave him Eve (Gen 3:12)

So, why did He do it? Because He can? Because He would have to be, as Destro says, a "psychotic God" to punish innocent children? Hardly.

The question is: were Adam and Eve mentally children of responsible adults?

First, God made them and what God makes is Good; they were blessed and sinless. They were naked but they were not ashamed of their nakedness, like little children would not be. And, before they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they did not know the right from wrong, like little children don't. It is therefore not unreasonable to say that they were mentally like little children, incapable of shame and ignorant of what's good and what evil, naive.

wast

So, why would God, then, by design punish -- indeed kill -- such innocence? Is it because He is "psychotic" so much so that He would kill His own innocent children and then demand "revenge" for His wounded "pride" by assuming a human form, suffering and dying on the cross?

Let me propose to you a different view and then you be the judge. God did set up Adam and Eve to fail and die, so we could come back to Him by choice (and I am being careful here not to qualify how we arrive at that choice). For, Adam and Eve were not with God because they loved Him, not because they chose Him. What kind of love was that when there was no choice?

We release our children at one point in their lives, no matter how much we hate to do it. Without them getting the taste of the real life, without getting hurt, without missing the comforts of home, etc. they will never grow up and come of age, and love their parents maturely and eventually becoming like their parents! Instead you will have a 50 year-old son or daughter living with you...because he or she has to [no choice]! How selfish does one have to be to create that?

The only way we will ever love God truly is by a process of spiritual coming of age which we call theosis. It is a life-altering process that gradually becomes defined in terms of God with everything that we see, feel and know.

So, in an incredible act of engineering, God created us -- spiritual children -- to fail, but he also made sure He was near-by to rescue us and brings us back to Him as spiritual adults.

Salvation makes sense only if we understand that God had to let us fall and die in order that we can spiritually grow up. A "wounded" God does not rescue that which He killed, by killing Himself! He came to us to show us the Light, Life and the Way, a gudance of hope and life ever-lasting in true love. There is no guilt and no punishment, OP, just the consequence of God's Divine Plan.

Remark: on quoting the OT, keep in mind Heb 8:8 and 8:13.

FYI, I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. In fact from my perspective of studying the Bible, and without the intent of offending anyone, I find the five points of Calvinism to lack spiritual significance, particularly as held by extreme Calvinists.

Regarding the total depravity of man, I am in complete agreement that man is depraved and cannot save himself. Romans makes this abundantly clear. In addition to the other references you cite, Romans 3:9-23 has at least fourteen points about how spiritually bankrupt man is. This passage starts with "all under sin" and concludes with "all sin." What Calvinists choose to either ignore at worst, confuse, or minimize at best, is that from Romans 3:34 through 8:29 God is telling us of His Grace, freely offered to ALL. Of course it would be foolish to believe that all will accept His gracious offer of salvation. The important message He gives us is that it is possible for all men to be saved.

Speaking of Romans 3, Calvinists often use verses 10 and 11 as a proof text for their position, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." While these verses are absolutely true; in fact, unregenerate man cannot do good or seek God. (This sort of puts to rest the idea of having "seeker services.") It is interesting to note, however, that the Apostle Paul has already answered this issue in chapter 1, verses 18-20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." It seems logical that if man has no way of knowing about God and therefore does not seek God, then when he stands before God he could argue with his excuse being how could he seek what could not be known.

Romans 2:15 further explains, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." God has, in his grace, mercy ans wisdom, given fallen man something, or enough conscience to know the difference between good and evil so that he is without excuse. Paul says this is "manifest in them." He also says in verse 19, "For God hath shewed it unto them." This is external whereas the conscience is internal.

As stated earlier, man, in and of himself would never seek God, as clearly stated in chapter 3. But God has revealed himself through "creation" and the "things that are made" to give man enough knowledge that he can begin to respond to God in some way. Paul even clarified this in Acts 17:26, 27, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and had determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from EVERY ONE of us." As man responds, God can give him more light.

Before you jump to conclusions, I do not want to be confused with liberal theologians who teach that man is not truly fallen. These people think that man has just a few problems, but basically he is pretty good and needs a little "spark of the divine." They feel that if that spark is fanned, a flame will result and man will be all right. That is not what Paul is teaching in Romans, nor what I believe.

Another favorite passage of Calvinists to show man cannot believe until he is regenerated is 1Cor.2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Even though this seems like a strong defense of the Calvinist position, this verse needs to be taken in context and grammar needs to be considered. Beginning in verse 7, Paul is explaining the revelation of the mystery to himself, hence the "but we speak." He tells us that we cannot know the things of God by our own intellect or observation, vs. 9, but that God divinely reveals them to our spirit, vs. 10. The issue here is that Paul is speaking of the revelation given to him as an apostle, not to everyman, as he states in vs. 13, "which things we speak."

The word "natural" in vs. 14 is literally "soulish." The point Paul is making in this passage is God divinely revealed his word to Paul's human spirit, vss. 11, 12, not his soul, vs. 14. Since Paul's focus is on receiving divine revelation in this passage, the broad principle that the unsaved man, often called natural man, might not be able to understand Scripture is a possible application, but not the correct interpretation. Earlier in this chapter, Paul makes a distinction between the unsaved, to whom he preached only the gospel, vss. 1,2, and the saved, to whom he preached the mystery, vss. 6,7. Therefore, the conclusion is that there is a difference between the gospel, which is the "power of God UNTO SALVATION," Romans 1:16, which is able to do something to jump start the lost; and the further revelation of Scripture that must be "spiritually discerned." I find 1Cor. 1:21 a great verse, "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." It is interesting to note this verse says "to save them that BELIEVE," not "to save them that God chose." One must hear to believe,hence the "preaching," then be saved and regenerated.

One last point, since this has turned out much longer than anticipated. Eph. 2:1, "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins," is often used to prove that an unsaved man cannot believe. The argument, which you ably made, is that dead men cannot do anything, including believe, which is true. However, context must again be considered. This verse says we were "dead in trespasses and sins," but the next verse shows the people were walking around and being disobedient. Paul's point is that spiritual death, or being spiritually dead, which is the way we all were, does not mean brain dead. Even though he is spiritually dead, as long as a man is physically alive, he still has a mind that God can minister to through His Word. Man, in verse 2, is spiritually dead but is walking around according to the course of the world and the prince of the power of the air. In that spiritual death is separation from God, we can rejoice that God has spanned the gap of separation by His Gospel. If God had not given us His Gospel, which is the "power of God unto salvation," then the Calvinist might be right. But thanks be to God!

To summarize, man is utterly lost in sin, is totally bankrupt spiritually and is unable to save himself. But praise God, He has paved the way and made it possible so that man is responsible to believe, and in the end, man is held responsible and accountable for his unbelief. The Calvinist will tell you that if a man has the ability to believe, he is contributing to his own salvation. Just by believing that Christ died for our salvation at Calvary does not mean we aided in our salvation. Somehow Calvinists leave faith out of the equation even though they admit we are saved by grace through faith. The important thing is that God did it all,
; 100% of it. We did not lift a finger. A person either believes or he does not. Simple as that. People, the saved and unsaved, believe things all the time and have the capacity to believe. It is not that the lost cannot believe, it is that they do not believe the Gospel of their salvation. by the same token, everyone who believes the Gospel can be saved.

Maybe at another time when I feel ambitious, I will comment on the ULIP of TULIP.

BTW, OP, you did not respond to my simple question about King David's comment, since this thread is supposed to be about Infant Salvation.

Our RC friends argue to the end that to believe, in and of itself, is a work, thus contradicting grace. While work is the opposite of, and cancels, grace, faith, or to believe, is the only thing we do that is not a work.

If you would have cited all of my quote, you would realize that my reference is to the physically dead, who of course cannot do anything, including believe. But my comments went on to discuss spiritual death, or separation, which is the state of an unsaved individual even when physically alive.

You get no argument from me that salvation is of the Lord. Where we do differ is that while Christ effected the work of salvation, it is free for man to accept or reject. A key verse Calvinists use to support this position of the Lord choosing whom He will is John 6:44, "No man can come to me, except I draw him..." Generally this is interpreted as meaning that only people who are saved, e.g., those God elects, are those who Christ has drawn and the rest are not saved. In part, Christ answers this himself in John 12:32 where He says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me." That sure sounds as if Christ wants ALL men to be saved, not just the so-called elect. Paul even tells us in 1Timothy 2:4, that God's desirous will is for "ALL men to be saved and to come unto a knowledge of the truth."

Furthermore, John 6:45 validates a point I made in an earlier post regarding the order of faith and regeneration by Christ stating, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be ALL taught of God. EVERY MAN therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." Just like Romans 10:17, the order, from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ, is that hearing and learning, or believing what one has heard, precedes the coming, or salvation/regeneration.

The problem most people have is that labels have to be applied, such as Arminian or Calvin, and that you have to be categorized completely in one camp or the other to be consistent. I actually feel both limit God and I have significant problems with both based on the Scriptures.

To wit, Arminianism says that man has a choice whether or not to believe, whereas Calvinism teaches only those whom God chooses can believe. I lean to the Arminian position, but disagree with their rationale.

Arminianism teaches that foreknowledge is informative. In other words, God looks down through time and sees who will believe then picks those people to salvation. Calvinism teaches that foreknowledge is determinative, or that God knows in advance those to whom He will give faith. It thus is a matter of God deciding in advance who will be given faith rather than looking ahead to see who will believe. Both are faulty and limit God's sovereignty.

Arminianism teaches that salvation can be lost if a person stops believing. Calvinism teaches salvation cannot be lost, because it was God who caused the person to believe in the first place and God keeps causing the person to believe. Thus according to Calvinist doctrine, the saints remain saved because God gives them perseverance to keep believing.

The idea that a saved person can lose their salvation is not supported by the Word of God. Some elements of Calvinism are correct such as eternal security. While this is an accurate belief, the reason Calvinists believe this to be true is inaccurate. Paul teaches that salvation cannot be lost because the believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit per Eph. 1:13 and 4:30. This I believe rather than God causing the saints to persevere. I suppose even the Calvinist position admits that salvation can be lost should God choose to not cause the person to continue to believe. How ironic.

Actually, Arminianism is found in the pentecostal, charismatic and Mennonite groups in addition to the Methodist denomination. Calvinism is found in Baptist, Reformed, and many fundamentalist groups in addition to Presbyterians. Since I participate in a nondenominational body of believers, I am not mandated to conform to either set of doctrines but am open to reach my own conclusions based on Scripture.

As stated above, I think a mistake is made when Christians view a person as falling into one camp or the other. I do not know if I have met a five-point Calvinist, but I know a lot of three pointers. Most Arminians I know do not view all five points as strongly either. There are contradictions in both viewpoints. One does not have to be totally Calvinist or Arminian in his thinking to be consistent. It is a clear understanding of the Scripture rightly divided as Paul instructs in 2Tim. 2:15, that should be the basis for our doctrine.

Your statement
There is no scriptural support for what you are saying and you'll be hard pressed to defend it scriptural.
This would indicate that either you have a deep understanding of God 's word and, therefore, are confident that your statement will stand upright in the light of truth, or you are truly ignorant of God's will. I must contend the later.
I ask that you look at the truth with a open mind and heart. God is not the author of confusion. Confusion is from the evil one. To understand God's word, we must have a love for the truth. (2 Thess. 2:10 'And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.') A love for the truth would require a hate for that which is false. (Psalms 119:104 'Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore, I hate every false way.') The teaching of Calvin is false. If it was true, it would be the teaching of Christ.

Before I set to the defense of the faith concerning whether children are sinners when they are born, I would first like to address your statement. (If you could provide me with some quotes that children don't have sin until they're thirteen I would gladly review my position. ) At no point in any statement I have written here or anywhere else, or have ever spoken publicly or privately have I ever said that children don't have sin until they are thirteen. At what age one goes from safe to lost, I don't know. They know and God knows. Your attempt to put me at a certain age is to try and get me to go beyond that which is written. I will not do that.

The Question is: Are we born sinners. A sincere and logical look at the scriptures will reveal that we are all born without sin. Sin is a transgression of God's law. What law has or could a baby transgress up to and including birth? You know, as well as I, the answer is none. Therefore, in order to cast stones upon the innocent--it must be deemed hereditary.
After all, God's word says all have sinned and come short of his glory. (Romans 3:23 'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God'.) The word 'all' is inclusive, therefore, babies must be born with sin. This line of logic is not without fault, however, for the same bible that's says all have sinned also says that the Blood of Christ removes all sin. (1 John 1:7 'But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.') The false position that you have been taught has forced you to accept the 'all' of Romans 3:23 but deny the 'all' of 1 John 1:7.
Paul stated that he was pure from the blood of all men (Act 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.)
Had Paul spoken to every single person in the whole world? Even if Paul had all of the technologies that exist today, I doubt that he would have been able. On this I think we should be in agreement.
God does expect us to use our minds to study and to reason. What Paul stated was that he had taught them the truth, and that later when some would depart he would not be to blame as he had warned them day and night with tears.

I would expect that you will agree that we must look at the context of each passage in order to reach a reasonable understanding of what is being taught.

Let's now take a look of some proof texts concerning the question 'Are babies born sinners?'

Who creates man?
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Psa 102:18 This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.
Psa 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
Exo 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Hebrews 12:9; Zechariah 12:1; Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Our fleshly nature comes from our earthly fathers (like Adam). But God is the Father of our spirits. God gives the spirit and forms it within man.

Total depravity says man is "wholly defiled in ... soul and body." Does the sinless Father in heaven give us wholly defiled, totally depraved spirits? If the spirit comes from God, not from earthly parents, how can we inherit sin from our parents?

Matthew 19:14; 18:3 - The kingdom of God belongs to those who are converted and become like little children. But if little children are totally depraved, why should we become like them? Does conversion make us totally depraved?

Inherited Sin?

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself

If you or I are guilty of sin, it is because of what we have done.

Ezekiel 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Please name one sin that all babies commit.

Did Jesus Inherit the Guilt of Adam's Sin?

Hebrews 2:14,17 - He shared in flesh and blood, made in all things like us.

Luke 3:38; Galatians 4:4 - He was a descendant of Adam, born of woman.

2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 2:22 - Yet Jesus knew no sin. In Him is no sin, because He did no sin [Heb. 4:15; 7:26]

If we inherit sin from Adam, then Jesus must have inherited it since he was a descendant of Adam and was like us in all things. But He did not inherit it, therefore we do not inherit it. Guilt is not inherited.

Sin is what people do (in word, deed, or thought) that is not in harmony with God's will.

1 John 3:4 - Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. Sin is defined as something a person "commits" ("transgression" - KJV), not what he inherits. [cf. v6,8].

Mark 7:20-23 - A man is defiled (made guilty) by things (such as those listed) which a person does because of decisions in his heart. Contrast this to original sin.

Romans 3:9-18,23 - We are all "under sin" (v9) because we "have sinned" (v23). We have "turned aside" (v12), we do not "do good" (v12), etc. [cf. Psa. 14:1-4].

Romans 6:16,19 - People become servants of sin because they present themselves, their own members, as servants of sin and uncleanness. When we obey sin, we become servants of sin. Compare to original sin.

James 1:14,15 - A man becomes worthy of death when he responds to temptation by sinning (note "then ... when"). Sin and spiritual death are results of what he does. Note "each man" - it is an individual matter, and it is true of each of us.

James 2:10,11 - A person becomes guilty and a transgressor when he disobeys the law (stumbles).

John 8:34 - A person becomes enslaved to sin because of what he himself "commits."

1 Timothy 6:10 - Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Original sin says the love of money has another root - inherited depravity - a "root" to the "root." The Bible says the root is the man's attitude, not Adam's sin.

1 Peter 2:22 - Jesus was not a sinner because he did no sin. If original sin is true, He would have been a sinner whether He did anything sinful or not.

Where is the passage that teaches that anyone is guilty of sin because he inherited guilt from Adam or is counted guilty before he himself commits sin?

Answers to Defenses of Original Sin and Total Depravity.
Psalms 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Does this mean he was born guilty of sin, totally depraved?

1. It says nothing about Adam, Adam's sin, or that David inherited guilt of Adam's sin.

2. The verse does not state that David was born guilty. It describes the guilt of his mother. His mother is the one who was guilty of sin and iniquity when she conceived him and brought him forth. (The first part of the verse is, in Hebrew parallelism, explained by the last part of the verse.)

3. Consider parallel language in Acts 2:8. People were born in a native language or tongue. Did they inherit the language? Was it part of their inherent nature? No, but the people around them spoke it, so they soon learned it.

4. So David's point is, not that he was guilty of sin from birth nor inherited it, but he was born into the midst of a sinful environment and sinful influences. His mother was guilty and so were all around him, so he soon learned it, like one learns a language

Ephesians 2:1-3

Some say you were "by nature children of wrath" means inherited depravity, and "dead in sin" means powerless to do anything about your condition like a dead body.

1. But it nowhere mentions Adam, Adam's sin, nor inheriting guilty of Adam's sin.

2. They were dead because of "sins" (plural, not singular, as Adam's sin) "in which you once walked" (v2), and conducted themselves in the lusts of the flesh (v3). This contradicts inherited depravity and proves our position, that people are in sin because of their own conduct, not Adam's conduct.

3. "Nature" here refers to a person's character which comes as a result of repeated practice, not necessarily by inheritance. Rom. 2:14 says some people by nature obey God's will, but total depravity says that is impossible.

4. "Death" refers to spiritual separation from God - see v11-13. As the body is dead when the spirit separates from it (James 2:26), so our sins separate us from God (Isa. 59:2) and we become spiritually dead in sin.

5. Luke 15:24 - The prodigal son had been "dead," yet in that condition was able to decide to turn from sin and return to His father (v17-20).
Romans 7:14-25

It is argued that this passage describes the total depravity of nature inherited from Adam.

1. Again, the passage nowhere mentions Adam or Adam's sin, nor does it say anyone inherited sin or depravity. The passage does describe depravity, but it is the consequence of sin the man himself practices (v15-20).

2. The passage actually contradicts total depravity. The spirit "delights" in God's law (v22), and man "wills" to do good (v. 18,19,21). But this is impossible according to total depravity, for it says man is wholly defiled in all parts of soul and body, opposite to all good, wholly inclined to all evil, and has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good. Total depravity has serious problems in this passage.

3. The context in v9 teaches the innocence of children (as discussed previously). Surely v14-25 does not contradict v9.

4. The passage describes the condition of men in sin, outside Christ, before conversion (especially Jews under the law, like Paul was before conversion). Paul uses first person and present tense, but he sometimes does this to show how he identifies with the people in the condition, especially if he himself has experienced the problem (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6; Rom. 13:11-13).

Yet it cannot be that Paul still had the problem he describes. He describes one who is "carnal, sold under sin" (v14), but 8:8,9 condemns those who are carnal, and 7:5 shows it is a past condition for Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1ff). He says sin dwells in him and he is captured under the law of sin (v17,23), yet he elsewhere shows that Christians must not let sin reign in their members - 6:11-19; Gal. 5:16-24; Eph. 4:17ff; Col. 3:5-14. He says he is "wretched" (v24), but that is not the state of one in Christ (Phil. 4:4ff). He says Jesus delivers people from this wretched state (v24,25).

So Paul is using the historical present tense, just as we might do to tell a story that already happened. Paul used it to express understanding of the condition of those in sin, and because he once had that condition (Imagine him on the Damascus road after he knew he was wrong but had not yet been told what to do about it.)

5. Why can't the passage be describing the depraved and hopeless case of one who is guilty of sin as a consequence of his own practice, before he is forgiven (like we discussed in Eph. 2)? Man has physical urges and natural instincts that are neither good nor bad, moral or immoral, in and of themselves. God's law reveals proper ways to satisfy these urges, but sometimes our natural body sees ways to satisfy these urges which are improper, but it does not know the difference so it still desires it.

As a result we all eventually sin and become a slave of sin. We do not have God's promise to answer our prayers, nor do we have other blessings in Christ to strengthen us. We know we are guilty and not forgiven, so we despair and are wretched. We have little motivation to do good because doing good of itself will not remove our past guilt. We know we are wrong, wish to be right, but can see no solution to our wretchedness.

The solution, as Paul finally states, is forgiveness in Christ. As Christians we still sin occasionally (1Corinthians 10:13), but sin does not reign in our lives as before, and we have a means of forgiveness when we do sin (cf. chap. 6,8).
Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:22

We are told "in Adam all die" means that all inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, thereby being born totally depraved.

1. 1 Cor. 15:22 is discussing physical death, which all men do suffer unconditionally as a consequence of Adam's sin, but it is not saying we all unconditionally suffer spiritual death and total depravity as a consequence of his sin. This is clear by the contrast to Christ who unconditionally will make all alive, referring to the resurrection from physical death, which has been discussed throughout the context (v3-8,12-21). This will happen "at Christ's coming" (v23), when the "end" comes (v24).

2. Rom. 5:12-19 is, I believe, discussing spiritual death, but it does not teach the key points of original sin and total depravity. It does not say people receive the guilt of Adam's sin by unconditional inheritance, nor does it say people as a result become totally depraved, unable to do good, etc.

3. Adam is compared and contrasted to Christ (v14). They are alike in some ways, different in other ways. The key point is this: Whatever people lost through Adam, the same people gain through Christ! Note the chart:
Verse BY ADAM
One man's offense BY JESUS
The gift by grace
V15 many died much more the grace... abounded to many
V16 resulted in condemnation resulted in justification
V17 death reigned much more ... righteousness will reign in life
V18 AS through one man's offense judgment came to ALL men resulting in condemnation EVEN SO through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL men resulting in justification of life
V19 For AS by one man's disobedience many were made sinners SO ALSO by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous

4. If this means through Adam's sin all men unconditionally received guilt and condemnation imputed to them, then it must mean that through Jesus' death those same all men unconditionally received justification of life! Whatever problem Adam caused and for whatever people he caused it, Jesus solved the problem for those same people. If everybody was unconditionally lost through Adam, then everybody is unconditionally saved through Jesus!

Again, consistency would require advocates of original sin to believe in universal salvation. But this contradicts the Bible, so it must not be that people unconditionally inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.

5. What the passage really teaches is what we have said all along. The consequences of both what Adam did and what Christ did are made available to all men conditionally on our conduct. Whether or not we actually receive the consequences of their deeds depends on what we do.

"How can people receive condemnation conditionally through what Adam did?" Even as people receive justification conditionally through what Jesus did! We have proved by many passages that Jesus' death brought salvation into the world, making it available to all men, giving us the opportunity to be justified. But whether or not we actually receive that justification depends on our conduct based on the choices we make.

Likewise Adam's sin brought sin into the world (v12), creating an environment of sin that tempts and influences us all toward sin. But we actually become sinners and are held guilty for sin only when we decide to participate in conduct that is sinful. We become sinners by our own conduct, as we have also proved by many passages.

This is clearly stated in the passage. V12 - "death spread to all men, because all sinned." We become guilty of sin when we commit sin, not before. Adam brought sin into the world and we all sooner or later follow his example. All the consequences of sin listed in v15-19 come upon us conditionally when we practice sin, and all the blessings of forgiveness come upon us conditionally when we obey Jesus.

Illustrations: "Through the knowledge of the math teacher, all the class became good mathematicians." "Through the talents of the music teacher, all her students became good musicians." Were the consequences inherited unconditionally? No, but the teachers made the knowledge or skill available, so when the students responded properly, they received what the teacher had to offer.
Psalm 58:1-6

The wicked are estranged from the womb (v3), so we are told this means we are guilty of sin and totally depraved from birth.

1. Again, it does not mention Adam, Adam's sin, nor that men inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.

2. What makes these people sinners? In their hearts they work wickedness (v2), and they have violent hands (v2). They are sinners because of their own conduct, exactly as we have taught. This proves our position, not inherited guilt.

3. "Estranged from the womb" is explained to mean "they go astray as soon as they are born" (v3). How can one go astray into sin if he was in sin from the start? If you are already in sin and you "go astray," where do you go?

4. How did they "go astray" and become "estranged"? By "speaking lies" (v3). Again, it is the conduct of the individual that makes him a sinner. But can babies literally speak lies at the moment of birth? No. So the verse itself forces us to conclude that the phrase "as soon as they are born" is not literal but figurative. It is an hyperbole - a poetic exaggeration to emphasize a point. (Compare the following verses where many illustrations are used to describe these same people.)

5. V6 says they have teeth. Again this is not describing people at the moment of birth.

Nothing here teaches that people are born guilty of Adam's sin. Clearly the passage confirms what we have taught: people are not born guilty of sin, but become sinners later when they go astray by their own conduct.
Conclusion

The Bible nowhere teaches the Calvinistic concept that man inherits sin or is born totally depraved, incapable of doing good or evil. Rather, little babies are born innocent and not accountable for their conduct. As they grow up in a sinful world, they reach the age when they are capable of understanding God's will for their lives. He then holds them accountable for their conduct, and they are counted sinners when they themselves choose to practice that which is a violation of God's will.

.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.