Does Inherited Adamic Guilt logically entail Infant Damnation?

 

Previously, we've made our case for ancestral sin and our view that the guilt of Adam's sin isn't inherited/imputed to the souls of all humans from conception. (See our article on ancestral sin here.) In this article, we'll talk about the logical implications of affirming inherited/imputed guilt which is the primary distinction of the original sin perspective. 

A SIMPLE SYLLOGISM

Statement 1: Guilty souls don't go to be in the presence of God in heaven upon death.

Statement 2: Guilty souls go to hell upon death. 

Statement 3: The souls of all humans from conception inherit or are imputed with the guilt of Adam's sin and are all therefore guilty from conception. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the default place that unborn children and infants go upon death is hell if they are guilty of Adam's sin. 

This is the basic outline of how we understand inherited guilt to entail infant damnation. Statements 1 & 2 seem virtually uncontested. Virtually everyone would agree that no guilty sinner goes to heaven outside the application of Jesus' righteousness. The fate of guilty sinners without Jesus' righteousness is hell. Statement 3 is what we contend against. We don't affirm perpetual inherited/imputed Adamic guilt as one of the consequences of the fall. We believe that unborn children and infants aren't yet guilty of sin. They have done neither good nor evil. The conclusion above logically follows if the first 3 statements are affirmed. 

“Stated summarily, the Western (or Augustinian) doctrines of the fall and original sin affirm (1) that Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s primordial commandment against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16 – 17; 3:6) caused a fundamental deformation in humanity’s relationship to God, each other, and the rest of creation; and (2) that this “fall”includes among its consequences that all human beings thereafter are born into a state of estrangement from God –an “original” sin that condemns all individuals prior to and apart from their committing any “actual ”sins in time and space.” - McFarland, In Adam’s Fall, p. 29-30 

McFarland succinctly points out this entailment from the original sin perspective in which all humans are born condemned before sinning themselves due to possessing Adam's "original sin". 

THE IMPLICATIONS OF INHERITED GUILT IN HISTORY BRIEFLY EXAMINED

Council of Carthage, 419 AD

“Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, "In my Father's house are many mansions" is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven," what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.” - 110th Canon

 

Augustine of Hippo, 354 AD - 430 AD 

“If you wish to be a catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or teaching that "infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins." - On the Soul and its Origin, Book III, Chapter 12

“Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent’s poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted.” - On the Merits and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 43, XXVII 

 

New Advent 

“This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.).” - Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo, Section 5

To be brief, in the earliest centuries of its affirmation, inherited/imputed guilt was clearly tied at the hip with the notion of infants going to hell and being damned upon death. This was the default end of deceased infants. The believed remedy for this fate was water baptism. The council of Carthage clearly anathematizes anyone who believes there is any sort of happy end for infants who die before water baptism. New Advent succinctly summarizes these facts. It seems clear that in the minds of its earliest affirmers, inherited guilt certainly does entail the damnation of infants. Our brief coverage of the history here doesn't do the issue justice. To see a deeper analysis of how original sin historically included infant damnation, read our article here. 

EXAMINING SOLUTIONS TO THE INFANT DAMNATION CONCLUSION

It goes without saying that the notion of unborn children and infants going to hell is a difficult idea to stomach.  As a result, many Christians who affirm inherited/imputed guilt have sought solutions that would result in a better fate for unborn children and infants who die while still affirming this premise. This is commendable. However, most of these solutions are problematic. Let's take a look at these solutions and comment on them.

Solution 1: Some Christians seek to affirm inherited/imputed guilt while simultaneously affirming an "age of accountability" type of view. In this model, all humans from conception do receive the guilt of Adam's sin and are therefore guilty from conception. Except, all who die before a certain point aren't actually responsible, culpable, or chargeable for the original sin. This view basically takes the premise of inherited/imputed guilt and mashes it together with the conclusion belonging to our view of ancestral sin. In our opinion, this is contradictory. Dictionaries define guilty as being responsible, chargeable, and cuplable for a wrongdoing. It's contradictory to say all humans are guilty of Adam's sin from conception but that they aren't culpable or responsible for that sin until later. If they aren't responsible or culplable for that sin until later then they actually aren't guilty until later. In such case, the entire premise of original sin is contradicted and the definition of guilty is  butchered. This view takes everything that comes with an original sin conception of the fall yet it reverses and collapses on itself when it comes to putting to practice and applying what the view entails. If the advocate of this solution also affirms that the guilt of Adam's sin is actively imputed by God rather than inherited from parents, it would entail God going back and forth between imputing and remitting guilt to recently conceived children millions upon millions of times. It would need to be explained from scripture how this works. This solution is perhaps more plausible from a Traducian perspective on how the Adamic guilt is acquired. However, those who affirm this perspective should honestly just abandon inherited/imputed guilt entirely because in this scheme it ultimately serves no practical purpose. Possessing the guilt of Adam seems irrelevant if it’s only applied to those who’ve become old enough to sin on their own and are able to be accountable. At that point, they don’t need Adam’s guilt to be guilty. They’d be just fine being a guilty sinner on their own with their own sinful inclinations. 

Solution 2: Some Christians seek to affirm inherited/imputed guilt and affirm a sort of "middle state" for unborn children and infants who die. This idea is often referred to as limbo. I question how scriptural this idea is. Scripture conveys a very black-and-white picture of two potential paths for humans. There's a path to heaven and a path to hell. There doesn't seem to be a clear articulation in scripture of a "middle state" between the two. After all, in 2 Samuel 12, King David said that he would go to be where his deceased baby was. Did the baby go into limbo? Did King David go into limbo? I doubt there are many who would want to assert such a claim. A view of limbo to me is wishful thinking and a post-hoc construct with little if any biblical backing. 

Solution 3: Some Christians seek to affirm inherited/imputed guilt and affirm that infants who die go to heaven because they're all elect. There are some variations to this view though. Some view all deceased infants as elect while others view only some to be elect and the rest of the infants are rejected and damned. To me, this view is nigh identical to proposed solution 1 except with a Reformed spin entailing unconditional election. It faces the same challenges but in addition it has to get over the hurdle of establishing unconditional election as a true doctrine. But, if all who die in infancy are elect, that sounds more like a conditional election rather than the unconditonal election found in Reformed theology. Meaning, an election seemingly conditioned on the fact that you died in infancy. 

Solution 4: Some Christians seek to affirm inherited/imputed guilt and affirm that deceased infants of believing parents go to heaven. This solution still has millions upon millions of infants being damned but tries to offer some hope. This solution to me seems to flat out contradict God's character in how he judges all of humanity in the eschaton. We're clearly told in the Bible that God judges everyone for what they do or don't do in their own bodies. Everyone is judged for their own actions and not the actions of others fallen humans. But this view would have some infants eternally damned for the actions of their parents while another group of infants are let into heaven for the actions of their parents. Some might counter and argue that it's not really the parents' actions that're determinative because salvation is of the Lord and God gives the gift of faith. Therefore, it's by grace that the infants go to heaven. But this would only worsen this solution especially if it's coming from an Augustinian viewpoint. Because if God determines who gets faith and who doesn't He's also determining which infants go to heaven and which go to hell. Anyone who isn't given the gift of faith by God is doomed to have damned children if they were to die prematurely in such a view. 

INTRODUCING OCKHAM'S RAZOR  

I'm sure more solutions have been proposed through the centuries. However, the primary solutions we see today are all riddled with issues and those who promote them seem to be trying to untie the knot they've already tied when they decided to affirm inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. The very fact that so many Christians have tried to come up with solutions to the issue of infant damnation is extremely telling to me that such a notion goes against our God-given conscience. The words of Ockham might just be the solution we need here. If someone wishes to conclude that infants who die aren't damned, just affirm the premise that they aren't guilty of sin yet. That's precisely the view that we defend in our article on ancestral sin. This solution is by far the most simple in concluding that infants aren't damned.

CONCLUSION 

To conclude, inherited guilt does logically entail the damnation of infants. This is true historically of those who affirmed the doctrine. It's also true today of those who propose solutions to get around the conclusion of infant damnation. The very fact that theologians through the centuries have made such attempts further demonstrates that their premise of affirming inherited/imputed guilt does entail the damnation of infants. If it didn't, it would be unnecessary to propose such solutions. All of this goes to show exactly what's at stake with the issue of Adam's sin and the potential consequences of it. These facts show how vastly complicated it becomes to deny infant damnation if one affirms inherited/imputed guilt. These complications are easily undone by simply affirming our view of ancestral sin. 

That's all for now. Thank you for engaging with this article!