Lost your password?

Given all the recent brouhaha about baptism on The Fish Tank (for which I am largely responsible), a friend of mine expressed her concern with the lack of brouhaha about infant baptism – the mode of baptism practiced by the majority of Christians today.

As I thought about infant baptism – in particular, as I thought about why I reject infant baptism – I realized that my beliefs about infant baptism were largely bundled with my beliefs about original sin. Therefore, I thought that the best way to explain my thoughts on infant baptism would be to sketch some of my thoughts on original sin, in anticipation of some productive dialogue on the matter.

Before I advance my argument, I should answer a couple questions. First, what is original sin? Not all proponents of original sin agree about what original sin means. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I will assume (for simplicity’s sake) merely that those who accept original sin believe that we are born guilty, while those who deny original sin believe that we are born innocent. That will be the “litmus test.” (I understand that some people who accept “original sin” probably would not fit into my litmus test; my hope is that we all take the time to figure out exactly what we believe about something like this rather than appealing to ambiguous and unclear labels such as “original sin.”)

Second, why are infant baptism and original sin bundled together in my mind? The reason is that I believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Acts 2.38, inter alia), so I see no real justification for infant baptism if infants are not yet culpable for any sin.

Why, then, do I reject original sin?

Well: At first glance, original sin strikes me as unfair. Infants strike me as innocent – and they seem to have struck Jesus in the same way. Infants appear to be incapable of doing wrong, and thus incapable of being blamed for anything.

Of course, the doctrines of Christianity are not always intuitive, so a mere prima facie objection to original sin does not constitute a sufficient argument against a particular belief. Fortunately, however, I am far from convinced that the Bible advocates original sin. To me, Ezekiel 18 presents a huge problem for the proponent of original sin: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (v. 20). It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

What is there to be said on behalf of original sin? The main passage cited in support of original sin is Romans 5.12ff, which discusses our death in Adam and life in Christ. Notice v. 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…” (emphasis added). Why say “because all sinned” if Adam’s sin alone is sufficient for us to die (contra Ezekiel 18)? I see no very good reason. This leads me to conclude that Romans 5 concerns a transmission from Adam of a sinful nature – a predisposition toward sin – that does not itself entail guilt at birth. What about vv. 15, 18, and 19 – which suggest, respectively, that we all die, are condemned, and are made sinners by Adam’s sin? I think Adam’s sin is responsible for those things indirectly – because it resulted in our sinful natures, which resulted in our individual sins.

So far, of course, I’ve provided only a brief summary of my thoughts about original sin. But, for the moment, I see no compelling reason to accept either original sin or infant baptism.

Previous ArticleIn the Presence of All His People
Next ArticleUnderstanding the Loaves

Related Posts

10 Responses

  1. Steven Hovater

    Good initial thoughts…Tough issue to tackle in the length of a blog post!
    In my thinking, the issue is bound up with the choices of the individual will. It’s about sin as action vs. Identity. I think original sin is a tough place to start with on infant baptism though. I think my opposition to that practice grows out of my understanding of baptism as a spiritual practice, one that neccesarily involves the individual’s voluntary submission. It is a communal practice, but one bound up in the individual will.

  2. Mark Covington

    I see baptism as an act of God’s grace. Grace that is extended without cause or merit. Infant baptism is the extension of God’s grace to that infant, even before that infant knows that they need it.

  3. Nick Nowalk

    The obvious question this raises for me is this: IF you believed in original sin in some way akin to your description here, THEN would you baptize infants? For me the legitimacy or illegtimacy of infant baptism shouldn’t be (primarily) connected to a view about original sin, but rather the nature of the new covenant and what baptism signifies in the NT, how it is connected to faith, etc. Which means I wouldn’t practice infant baptism, regardless of what view I held on original sin.

  4. Sarah N.

    Hey there JoPo:

    So, a question: I agree with your views, but it’s still a bit hard for me to wrap my head around how sin is separated from guilt. So you’re saying that we have sinful predispositions (in other words, we have sinful desires), but at the same time we are not held responsible for them (for guilt implies responsibility, culpability, accountability and all that) at birth and in infant hood – when and how do we gain responsibility over ourselves? What does it mean to “gain responsibility” over our desires?

  5. ahswan

    In the Gospel of John, Jesus seems to nearly equate sin with sickness; that is, he treated sin as if it were a sickness, a plague upon mankind. If there is this element to sin, then original sin could be thought of as a genetic issue; we inherit natures which are prone to sin- so much so, in fact, that we all do sin.

    I think the problem comes in with the Augustinian concept of inherited guilt- not only do we inherit sin, but we become guilty for the sins of others. The Ezekiel passage neatly counters this argument.

    So, while we may inherit a fallen nature, prone to sin, and passively sinful, we are only guilty for our own sins (active).

    That’s my thinking, so far, anyway.

  6. Judith

    I know this is anticipatory, but are you going to refute infant baptism + confirmation as a package, or just infant baptism? Cos I came from an evangelical church which rejected the latter without even knowing that customarily the Anglican church, for example, also requires confirmation when the child has come of age.

  7. Jordan Monge

    So I know that Ezekiel 18 says “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.”

    BUT, there are lots of other passages in the Bible where it specifically says that the son will suffer for the sins of the father up to the third generation. Exodus 20:5 says, “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” Numbers 14:18 says, “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

    This seems to directly contradict the Ezekiel 18 passage. Obviously, these verses don’t definitively support original sin (in fact, the limitation of a few generations might hurt the case for original sin), BUT they do challenge your interpretation of Ezekiel 18.

    Thoughts? How do you make light of these verses?

  8. J. Joseph Porter

    Steven: You say you oppose infant baptism because you believe baptism “neccesarily involves the individual’s voluntary submission.” That, I suppose, is the reason I suppose original sin; sin, for me, necessarily involves the individual’s voluntary submission.

    Mark: I don’t see why infants would need grace in the same way that adults do.

    Nick: I don’t think original sin is completely unrelated to the other issues you mentioned. I think baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and so, if infants were guilty of sin, it would make me more likely to consider the validity of infant baptism. Of course, I see no reason to suppose that infants are capable of sin but not of faith.

    Sarah: I don’t think sin is separated from guilt; I think the sinful nature – the flesh – can be separated from guilt. The most obvious example is Jesus, who was tempted yet without sin (Hebrews 4.15). Infants have flesh – have predispositions to be tempted and sin (eventually) – but do not yet have the rational and moral capacity to be held responsible for their actions.

    I am not sure that there is a great “dividing line” between “infanthood” and adulthood – nor am I sure that we should suppose such a dividing line to exist. People talk about the “age of accountability,” but I’m not sure how to go about defining that.

    As far as gaining responsibility over our desires: The details get complicated, but we recognize the principle intuitively when we don’t reprimand infants for doing things that we definitely would reprimand adults for doing.

    Ashwan: I think there is certainly a genetic component to our sinfulness, insofar as certain personality traits and predispositions can be shown to be inherited genetically. However, I would be wary of completely reducing our sinful natures to our genetic codes.

    Judith: I think confirmation helps make a bit more sense of infant baptism (because it allows for some choice on the child’s part), but I think that neither is a biblical practice. The fact that infant baptism seems to require something like confirmation only counts against infant baptism, I think.

    Jordan: I think Ezekiel 18 marks a shift in earlier patterns of thinking. There are other such shifts, as Newman makes clear: “Thus with respect to the evangelical view of the rite of sacrifice, first the rite is enjoined by Moses; next Samuel says, ‘to obey is better than sacrifice;’ then Hosea, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice;’ Isaiah, ‘Incense is an abomination unto me;’ then Malachi, describing the times of the Gospel, speaks of the ‘pure offering’ of wheatflour; and our Lord completes the development, when He speaks of worshipping ‘in spirit and in truth.'” I would agree with van Inwagen that such shifts are the result of God’s slowly straightening the crooked timber of Israel.

  9. John S

    An argument often made by proponents of non-adult baptism is the “household” baptism often portrayed in Acts. The argument goes “isn’t it likely some of these “households” contained “non-adults” (small children and infants)”. Also, an appeal can be made to the Exodus account of the “Passover of the destroyer” in that blood over the door was required for the entire household. All firstborn needed protection regardless of age. This it is said shows the corporate nature of the “family” with respect to God, in that the adults were required to protect the non-adults from the Devine judgment on the land. An appeal to 1 Co 7:14 is made to highlight that this corporate aspect of the family, as viewed by God, clearly extends to the spiritual.

    [For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy
    (1 Co 7:14).]

    It is worth noting that it there is in fact a connection between 1 Co 7:14 and baptism one would likely conclude the baptism of the parent “covers” the infant and so baptism of the infant is in fact not specifically required. Furthermore, the only way the child can be rendered holy is by the parent; that is the spiritual status of the infant is determined by the spiritual status of the parent(s).

    Bertrand Russell in his book “Why I am not a Christian” tells the story about two priests in early Mexico that were caught baptizing Indian babies and then promptly bashing in their heads. Russell claims there is absolutely no logical reason why any Christian could object to their practice. Russell’s point, it seems to me, would equally apply to those who do not hold to the notion of original sin. It seems that the problem lies in the concept of original sin itself. That is both not original sin and original sin lead to difficulties; particularly when applied at the individual level.

    It seems the burden of proof is on the proponents of infant baptism. In any case most would agree that the ultimate status of the child is strongly correlated to the status of the parent(s). But we are not ready (yet) to say the status of the child may be fully determined by the action of the adult parent.