Are We Born Guilty Of Sin?

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, briefly discusses a listener submitted question about the spiritual condition of infants...are we born guilty of sin?

DOWNLOAD OUR APP:

Or @soteriology101 on Twitter

Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!

[rustyshackelford]

Ezek 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

[edgarsalaf]

I'm making a study on my own about this topic. I had an inconsistent and lightweight view of imputed guilt, mostly in the way I expressed myself about infant's condition. But I changed already those inconsistencies, after knowing how calvinist interpret it. I do believe we are born with a fallen nature, but not born actually guilty of a sin we didn't do. Right now, I'm doing a small study to send it to a calvinist friend about the topic. Pray for me to finish it soon, because I had delayed a lot on different projects

[ErictheCleric]

"As to the baptism of infants, it is a mere human tradition, for which neither precept not practice is to be found in all the scripture." - Robert Barclay

[detached]

I remember what it was like as a child and now have three young ones. Born sinners? No, you can't be a sinner if you've never sinned, but Children no doubt have a sin nature. They effortlessly covet, lie, steal, and disobey. Nobody has ever had to teach them these things.

[thm]

How can you be blamed, judged and condemned for a sin that you did not commit? If a baby who did not sin is still considered a sinner for "inheriting the sinful nature" and is coming because of the sin of the parents not the child, then why does the Bible affirm that "children will not die because of the sin of the parents? neither parents for that of children "(Deuteronomy 24:16:" Parents will not die for their children, nor children for parents; each one will die for his sin. ") making it clear that one does not pay for sins Of the others, why then is God going to judge a creature for sins that he did not commit? It would clearly be an act of injustice. If you end up stating that one who did not commit an act "x" pays for it, you go against Deuteronomy 24:16, no matter how you try to disguise that doctrinal position as "biblical" and how many exegetical juggling you do to make it say what it says . NOBODY IS JUDGED FOR SINS THAT WILL BE COMMITTED IN THE FUTURE (In each of these ways), the Bible never says that, not even in the Example of Esau when "he had not done wrong yet ..." since there it speaks of election, not judgment for a sin, God does not judge for something not done, the act must be consummated to be judged, as expressed by James 1: 15 "... and sin, being consummated, gives birth to death." that the sinful act is not carried out, it cannot be judged for what it has not yet committed, otherwise the temptation would already be a sin, and we well know as James 1:15 affirms that it is not a sin, if not that obeying it and putting it into practice is just a sin (the consummate act). When the baby or child who is not aware of what he is doing dies and finds himself in front of the court of God and before being sent to hell, he asks the angel to read the book and tell him what specific sins he committed for the that they are judged and the angel looks at the accusations and the only one he finds is: "Well ..., the child did not commit any, he could not even move in his mother's womb as if to do something that violates the law .. . He is judged for the sin of his parents ... "The confused angel asks his companion what was happening here and the angel tells him that well ... that now they are governed by the doctrine of the Reformed and he quotes Romans 9 ... Imagine the newborn opening his eyes for the first time in a place surrounded by fire, not understanding why he is there and then he learns that it is not because of something he did but because of something that someone else did ... What stupid beliefs! in the same way, if a husband wants to take revenge on his pregnant wife, he can simply kill the baby so that she knows that the newborn will be on fire. Since I heard that R.C. Sporul's son suggested that God created sin, I am no longer surprised by what the Reformed can come up with inventing or believing. The Reformed who speak of the condemnation of someone who was unaware and was forming around a liquid in their mother's womb, are not only heretics, they are deliberately ignorant of the scriptures, remember, they loudly claim to be from the sola Scriptura, but in reality they deny it or do it when it suits them, they bring the Reformed doctrines to the same hierarchical plane of scripture.

[Joan-phes]

Romans 5:12 -- Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Not one word about guilt....

We're born slaves to a sin nature, having inherited death -- no more eternal life.

But we don't arrive with guilt hung around our necks from previous ancestors, and all babies who die too young go to heaven to be with God.

[drjcw]

David said he would go to his 1st child with Bathsheba. If that child is with David in heaven, he wasn't guilty of Adam's sin.

[aidanmcmanus]

We are not born guilty of Adam's sin, nor are we born with a corrupted nature ( Exek. 18: 20; Ps. 14:2-3).

[nathanhellrung]

The original question was if Leighton held to what David believed that we were conceived in sin and guilty from birth. The problem is that only half of that statement is even biblical. The conceived in sin is what Psalm 51:5 says but it doesn't say we are guilty from birth.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

There is nothing in this text about being guilty from birth. David says that he was brought forth in iniquity and in sin his mother conceived him. Who's iniquity and who's sin? His mother's according to the text. And David says nothing about how that made him born guilty of sin. See the presuppositions brought into the text? So much so that one reads this text and reads it as David saying he was born guilty when the text doesn't even say that? This is dangerous and it shows a bad handling of the text that we should be aware of and avoid. It's not proper hermeneutics or proper exegesis.

[deborahsuazohernandez]

So… He didn’t answer the question, he just pointed to a book written by some guy. What is the Biblical answer?
Romans 5:12
Genesis 6:5
Psamlm 58:3
??? Just to give a few examples.

[andykennedy]

The grammar of Psalm 51 is very important. David says, "I was brought forth in iniquity." (first person singular). He does not say "we" or "all human beings". There is no legitimate reason to think that this passage in the context of David seeking mercy for his personal, individual sin, somehow applies to everyone else. Biblical Hebrew has a first person plural form and multiple other ways that the Holy Spirit could have inspired the wording of this psalm if the intent was to say that all of us are born sinners. This passage makes no such claim, unless one reads their own (Calvinistic) theology into the passage eisegetically. The grammar would have to be changed if this passage applied to all. Maybe Calvinists think that David is also somehow a "Federal head" of all human beings. Anyway, both the grammar and context clearly indicate that this passage only speaks to David's situation and not that of all persons on earth.

[totalityofscripture]

The issue at hand is that we don’t have to adopt any newer idea of Augustinian or Thomistic original sin. We just have to return to the Orthodox teaching of the fall. They reject the idea of original sin completely.

[Giraffe]

If a new Born baby could stop suddenly breathing and die, inside their crib, then we must conclude that
God is in fact punishing all of Adam's descendents for what the first human pair did wrong. If the wage for sin is death, and a new born baby is incapable of commiting sin, then God is obviously punishing all of us for Adam's sin which is immoral.

[lionoffireministries]

100%
We are guilty because of our sin, not the sin of another!
Having said that, we have inherited a sin nature where it is as natural for us to sin as it is for a cat to meow (as Wesley put it)!

[lbamusic]

Everyone should remember that John was filled with the Holy Ghost while still within the womb of his Mom Elizabeth. Presumably he never had sinned (eventhough conceived in sin) and he was filled with the Holy Ghost !! Luke 1:15, 41. This would suggest that babies are not born with inherited sin, but perhaps gain their sinful natures after birth?

[bigdogboos]

sin is transgression of the law. sin is you offending God. sin is not a physical attribute of being, it's a moral action/non action by an accountable being. it makes absolutely no sense to think we are born guilty of sin, or even born "sinners", b/c that would imply sin is a physical thing that is passed down from generation to generation. you sin out of your own will and thus become a sinner. To think God condemns you for the sin of someone else is to stain God's holy character and rip out his holiness and justice.

[JStevensdk]

Ezekiel 18

“Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.

¶“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.

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.

21¶“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

22“None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.

23“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

[ErictheCleric]

"First we may call this doctrine(Calvinism) a novelty, seeing that for the first four hundred years after christ there is no mention of it. The first foundations for it were in the writings of Augustine, who, in his warring against Pelagius, let fall some expressions which some have unhappily picked up to the establishment of this error."- Quaker Theologian Robert Barclay

[romeomk]

Or you can just read the bible. Ezekiel 18 very expressly states that a child will not bear the sins of his father, but will be guilty only of his OWN sin.

[thm]

In the same way that God will not judge you for the murder that your neighbor committed, since that is unfair, neither will He judge a newborn for sins that he did not commit since it would go against Deuteronomy 24:16: " Parents will not die for their children, nor children for parents; each one will die for his sin. " . What is the difference that you pay for the murder that your neighbor committed and that a newborn pays for the sins of his parents / his Adam? None. Both are unjust acts and in God there is no injustice and I make it very clear in Deuteronomy 24:16 and 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. " .