.jpg)
1. Statements that directly entail guiltlessness of infants.
2. Seemingly universal statements about a positive fate for deceased infants. This conveys they aren't viewed as guilty in God's eyes.
3. Statements that indicate inherited/imputed guilt isn't one of the consequences of the fall.
4. Statements that indicate humans are condemned for what they themselves have or haven't done rather than being condemned for the sins of another.
A BRIEF TREATMENT OF THE MAGISTERIAL REFORMERS
"Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost." - Article II, 1-2
The Augsburg Confession is the primary confession among Lutherans. It says that from birth all humans have sin. What we receive from Adam "is truly sin." The document conveys that because of this, all are condemned to eternal death unless they're born again through water baptism.
"For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption in the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality [not an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or burden], which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt of another [namely, Adam’s sin], and without any depravity of their own. Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on account of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman are slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but because of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they are born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an innate evil, but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we are not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace]. To show that this impious opinion is displeasing to us, we made mention of “concupiscence,” and, with the best intention, have termed and explained it as “diseases,” that “the nature of men is born corrupt and full of faults” [not a part of man, but the entire person with its entire nature is born in sin as with a hereditary disease]" - Article II, 5-6
"The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation." - Article IX, 51
This Apology is a defense of the statements made in the Augsburg Confession. In it we find a rejection of a view that says nobody is personally in sin, inherited disgrace, or condemned to eternal death because of Adam's sin. The apology finds such a view "displeasing and impious". Furthermore, it conveys that eternal death is the default fate of infants. The proposed remedy for this is water baptism. It is seen as "necessary" for the salvation of children.
"The two things, therefore, must be distinctly observed—viz. that we are vitiated and perverted in all parts of our nature, and then, on account of this corruption, are justly held to be condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but purity, innocence, and righteousness. And hence, even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb; for although they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their unrighteousness, they have its seed included in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and, therefore, cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt." - Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.10
“The other difference is, that the benefit of Christ does not come to all men, while Adam has involved his whole race in condemnation; and the reason of this is indeed evident; for as the curse we derive from Adam is conveyed to us by nature, it is no wonder that it includes the whole mass; but that we may come to a participation of the grace of Christ, we must be ingrafted in whim by faith. Hence, in order to partake of the miserable inheritance of sin, it is enough for thee to be man, for it dwells in flesh and blood; but in order to enjoy the righteousness of Christ it is necessary for thee to be a believer; for a participation of him is attained only by faith. He is communicated to infants in a peculiar way; for they have by covenant the right of adoption, by which they pass over unto a participation of Christ. Of the children of the godly I speak, to whom the promise of grace is addressed; for others are by no means exempted from the common lot.” - Commentary on Romans 5:17
"Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree." - Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.23.7
"As far as relates to young children, they seem to perish not by their own, but for another’s fault; but the solution is twofold; for although sin does not appear in them, yet it is latent, since they carry about with them corruption shut up in their soul, so that they are worthy of condemnation before God. This does not come under the notice of our senses; but we should consider how much more acutely God sees a thing than we do: hence, if we do not penetrate into that hidden judgment, yet we must hold that, before we are born, we are infected by the contagion of original sin, and therefore justly destined to ultimate destruction: —this is one solution." - Commentary on Ezekiel 18:4
John Calvin clearly says that the whole nature of infants is hateful and abominable to God. They are condemned and convicted before God from birth. Calvin proposes water baptism as the remedy to this. It is said to remit the guilt and condemnation we receive from Adam's sin. He does however bring some nuance to the issue. He proposes that the "children of the godly" participate in the grace of Christ through the covenant. But others aren't exempt from "the common lot." It seems that Calvin has in mind that the children of believers would be saved and exempt from damnation but that other children would suffer condemnation as a result of having Adam's guilt.
"In this respect I willingly concede to the Anabaptists that the dispute has had many beneficial results… Second, the controversy has shown us that it is not the pouring of water which washes away sin. And that was what we once believed, although without any authority in the Word of God. We also believed that the water of baptism cleanses children from a sin which they never had, and that without it they would be damned. All these beliefs were erroneous, as we shall see later. Water-baptism cannot contribute in any way to the washing away of sin." - Of Baptism, p. 60-64
We conclude this brief treatment with Zwingli. Take notice that he has a drastic change of tone from the prior sources. Through his dispute with the Anabaptists, it seems his perspectives changed. He "once believed" that water baptism cleanses children from the guilt of sin that wasn't their own; and that without that water baptism the children "would be damned." These are past beliefs that Zwingli held prior to his disputing with early Anabaptists. At the time of this writing, Zwilgi seems to view these past beliefs as "erroneous".
Before moving on to primary sources from early Anabaptists, notice the tone and themes of these citations regarding the spiritual condition of humans from conception, their fate, and the proposed remedy. It's quite consistent across the board. To summarize the magisterial reformers, they believed that all humans are guilty of Adam's sin from birth. As a result, the natural and normative fate of infants is eternal damnation. The solution to this fate is water baptism. These points succinctly encapsulate the distinctive views of original sin. As we move to how the early Anabaptists understood the fall and its consequences, you will notice a completely different tone, theme, and outlook.
“It was not so much in their theorizing, however, as in their practice of believer's baptism that Anabaptists challenged the traditional doctrine: If New Testament baptism is precisely for converted believers, it cannot be meant by God as a remedy for infant guilt—thus, God being good, there can be no such guilt. The baptist baptismal practice made a theory of infant guilt appear inconsistent.” - McClendon, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, p. 238
As McClendon points out, the Anabaptist belief of credobaptism undermined and was inconsistent with the magisterial views of original sin.
Disclaimer: (Anabaptists weren't and aren't a monolithic group. We use the term "early Anabaptists" to simply designate those during and soon after the Reformation period who were credobaptists exclusively and didn't affirm infant baptism. We by no means have a perfectly clear picture of history and what each and every writer believed. Our goal is to be fair to each writer and err on the side of not overstating our case or being overly dogmatic regarding what certain individuals did or did not believe. This assessment is based on the documents that we have read ourselves. It's important to acknowledge that we are capable of being in error concerning how we've interpreted and understood some sources. We are by no means claiming that early Anabaptists were in universal agreement with us on this issue. This article will almost certainly have further updates and additions in the future as we continue reading primary sources.)
ANCESTRAL SIN IN THE EARLY ANABAPTISTS
"We hold (according to the following passages)...that all children who have not yet come to the discernment of the knowledge of good and evil, and have not yet eaten of the tree of knowledge, that they are surely saved by the suffering of Christ, the new Adam, who has restored their vitiated life, because they would have been subject to death and condemnation only if Christ had not suffered; but they're not yet grown up to the infirmity of our broken nature—unless, indeed, it can be proved that Christ did not suffer for children." - Letter to Muntzer, para. 9
Conrad conveys that before a child comes to the knowledge of good and evil, they are under grace and not under condemnation yet. It would seem that he views guilt as something that is acquired once our faculties have developed and we begin personally sinning.
"Then, even though he has been affected by Adam’s fall into sin, it can do him no harm (Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 18)." - The reuniting of God's will and human will, para. 2
In citing two prominent Old Testament chapters used in favor of ancestral sin, Hans speaks about humans being affected indeed by Adam's fall yet it not doing any harm. To us, this seems like Hans is attempting to make a primitive and less than precise articulation of the distinction between the consequences and guilt of Adam's sin.
"You child baptizers say that when a child dies without baptism it is lost and will never see God. Show me, I ask you, one single letter of proof for this in the Holy Scriptures. Christ says about the children that the kingdom of heaven is theirs or of such, and that whoever receives one of them receieves him. They belong to him. Whatever you do to the least of these my own, says the Lord, you have done it to me. Now if they are his, the dear little children are not lost. Never!" - Testimonies of Faith, 100-101
“Show me with witness of the Scriptures that baptism is necessary because of original sin. Whenever there is talk of original sin and that original sin condemns children because they are children, you quote to me the passage: behold, in sin was I conceived and in evil did my mother conceive me, etc. But examine the words closely: he says I was conceived in sin not which I did, but which my mother did. He speaks only about conception at which stage the child is not yet a child but only the seed which cannot sin.” - Testimonies of Faith, 100-101
Hans critiques "You child baptizers" and their belief that the normative and natural fate of infants is damnation with the remedy of such a fate being baptism. He is very emphatic about the positive end of deceased infants. They are never lost and belong to God. He also mentions the original sin prooftext of Psalm 51:5 and comments that the focus is on the sin of the mother. He says that at conception children cannot yet sin.
“In short, I have no regard for my first baptism, for it is not the least use to me. As often as a child is baptized, Christ is slandered, for a child, although it is conceived and born in original sin, is pure in soul until the time when it understands good and evil. (Ezek. 28; Isa. 7; Matt. 4)” -Questions and Answers, Answer 13
Ambrosius undoubtedly affirms that all humans are negatively impacted by Adam's sin. However, he also affirms that human souls aren't condemned until they come to understand good and evil. At that point, we sin and our souls become impure. This conveys the idea that human souls aren't inherently impure, condemned, and guilty as a result of possessing the guilt of Adam's sin from conception.
"That is why the Lord said that the kingdom of God dwells within you. So it is certain that there is a light in every person that shows to that person what is good and what is evil. But until that light shines in Children—that is, until they know the difference between good and evil—they remain innocent and will enter into the promised land. In this case we are not referring to the earthly land of Canaan but rather the heavenly Jerusalem." - Three kinds of grace in the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, para. 15
Leonhard says that children remain innocent until they have knowledge of good and evil. If they perish before this point, they undoubtedly enter into heavenly Jerusalem. We find in Leonhard a clear articulation of guilt being personally acquired through our own sin rather than having Adam's guilt inherited/imputed to us from birth.
“And now they marshal the Scriptures to maintain infant baptism with it. But there is not a single letter about it that I know of. They want to baptize children and do baptize them although they are pure already and are a creation of God, good and well made. Who can improve through infant baptism that which God has made good? What kind of woman would it be, who would wash a nice white dress, and would keep on a black one that was soiled? First of all let each one remove himself from sins and cleanse himself and confess before the almighty and learn the faith, and afterwards have himself washed so that he is clean. And the little child which is clean and beautiful, draw it away from sin and teach it the faith when it becomes dirty and falls into sin; if it believes, it may well be baptized according to the command of Christ. This is my understanding.” - Declaration of the Needle Marchant Hans at Erlangen in 1529, Section 17
Hans says that infants are a good creation of God and well-made. Rather than being dirty and sinful from conception, Hans believes that children inevitably become dirty. Once dirty, they are then appropriate candidates for being taught the faith and baptized. This doesn't seem compatible with the view that all humans are sinful and condemned from conception due to being guilty of Adam's sin.
"Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism." - Article IX
We've touched on the Augsburg Confession previously. In Article IX, this Lutheran document condemns the same ideas that we've been seeing from the Anabaptists themselves up to this point. The underlying implication as to why children are saved without baptism is simply because they aren't yet guilty and aren't yet spiritually condemned. Therefore, there's no guilt for baptism to wash away. To the Anabaptists, water baptism is spiritually unnecessary for the well-being of the infant. This is what the early Anabaptists themselves were articulating.
“For what he had done was worthy of punishment, and therefore he had to suffer it. But the infants have done nothing deserving punishment, having done neither good nor ill. Now if someone says that they have original sin, I agree. But I ask whether the spirit has received original sin or the flesh? You must admit that the spirit is pure and flesh unclean, otherwise God must be a liar and unclean. For the spirit comes from God and the flesh from the earth. It is not that the earth is unclean, of which much could be said, but God remains eternally just, and it is impossible that God lies. For the flesh seduces the spirit, and not the spirit the flesh. For the spirit would gladly again be with God from whence it comes, and the flesh likes to stay on earth from which it comes. Therefore these two are always against each other. Since, now, it follows, that the flesh seduces the spirit, it also follows that it is the flesh that inherits original sin.” - Confession, Para. 7-8
“Therefore I declare the dear children henceforth to have salvation, for they have not sinned.” - Confession, Para. 10
“They said, “Dear men, let everyone be baptized in the name of Jesus,” not in the name of people but in the name of Jesus. “But as many of them as received the word, they were baptized.” It is clearly written: “whoever gladly received the word.” Do you not think that they had infants there? The Scripture reports that three thousand believed at one time what they were told by the apostles, Acts 2[:41]. It would have been a marvel if there had been no infants. But the apostles added nothing to the Word of the Lord, nor subtracted from it. For the Holy Spirit in no wise taught them that they were to hold the children guilty of sin. Oh, no! For repentance must come first, which comes from faith. Faith, however, comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God, as Paul reports.” - Confession, Para. 12
Endres develops his rejection of inherited/imputed Adamic guilt in part from his rejection of Traducianism. He distinguishes the origin of the flesh and spirit. Our spirit doesn't come from Adam. For Endres, the flesh inherits original sin and tempts us to sin. It's the flesh that is unclean but our spirit is naturally pure and not guilty. Endres states multiple times that infants don't deserve punishment and aren't guilty yet because they haven't sinned themselves.
"Nearly all Anabaptists consider children to be of pure and innocent blood, and they consider original sin not a sin which of itself condemns both the children and the adults. They also claim that it does not make anyone unclean except the one who accepts this sin, makes it his own, brings forth fruits of it and is unwilling to part from it. For they claim foreign sin does not condemn anybody, and in this they refer to the Ezekiel 18." - Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel, Fol. 446
"Concerning original sin nearly all Anabaptists teach as follows: just as the righteousness (Gerechtigkeit) of Christ is of no avail to anyone unless he makes it a part of his own being through faith, so also Adam's sin (i.e., original sin) does not impair anybody except the one who makes it a part of his own being through faith, and likewise brings forth fruit of this sin. For, as foreign righteousness does not save anybody, so will foreign sin not condemn anybody either." - Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel, Fol. 447
Sebastian Franck was a German humanist. While he wasn't an Anabaptist himself, his writings about them give us some insight into early Anabaptist theology. Franck comments that the Anabaptists viewed children as innocent. Additionally, Adam's sin, being foreign, doesn't condemn anyone of itself. The Anabaptists, according to Franck, believed that humans only become condemned when they themselves begin sinning personally and make Adam's sin "his own".
Question: Why not let the baptism of infants hold? For it was given in Christ as a remedy for original sin, and so much depends on it. Whoever is not baptized will not be saved. Unless you are born again for the second time of water and the Holy Spirit, you may not enter into the kingdom of heaven. And were you Anabaptists “born again, for a second time?” Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. For the child that is not baptized is robbed of salvation.Answer: No, for the Lord says: Let the children come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.Question: So then are the children without sin, that they need not be baptized?Answer: Yes. How can they sin in their mother’s womb or share in or pay for their parents’ sin?[Jakob Stossel]: His belief and view is that faith should come before baptism and that they [infants] would be children of God without baptism.
[Jakob Stossel]: The other persons who lie in chains also hold his views
Jakob Maler was one victim of a mass arrest of Anabaptists in Toggenburg during 1553. The above Q&A is taken from Maler's interrogation by the local pastor named Jakob Stossel. Maler's answers are underlined and Stossel's comments are noted with his name. He clearly affirmed the salvation of children without baptism and that infants are guiltless of sin. These points are noted at the end by his interrogator.
"But the inheritance that we all have from our father, Adam, is the inclination to sin: that all of us have by nature a tendency toward evil and to have pleasure in sin. This inheritance manifests and shows itself in all the children of Adam—all who are born after and according to Adam—and removes, devours and consumes all that is good and of God in man; so that none may attain it again except he be born again." - Accountability of our Faith, What original sin is, para. 1
"In the first place, original sin is the cause of people’s physical death…Therefore, we believe that God has brought it about that original sin, even though it rouses people to still more sin, now causes only physical and not eternal death. Thus the prophecy in Ezekiel is fulfilled, which says that the children shall not bear the sins of their fathers but shall die for their own sins. Accordingly, we say that God accepts little children as they are, for indeed Christ is their reconciler. On the other hand, we say that original sin also causes eternal death because it leads and directs people into sin, and through it we all commit many sins. That is the sin which stirs up, rouses, and brings to pass all the other sins in us, as Paul indicates when he says, “Sin shows its true nature in that it causes death through what is good. So, through the commandment, sin’s utter sinfulness is revealed.” - Accountability of our Faith, Harm caused by original sin, para. 1-3
Peter very clearly lays out his beliefs about the consequences of Adam's sin. We inherit physical mortality as well as an inclination and tendency to sin. He is very clear that nobody bears the sin of Adam and that nobody suffers eternal death because of his sin. Little children are accepted by God "as they are". Peter's articulation of the fall is aligned with the doctrine of ancestral sin. For Peter, the only sense in which Adam's sin causes eternal death for other humans is because of the sinful inclinations and tendencies we receive in the flesh from his sin. It's those inclinations that lead us to sin ourselves and therefore be under spiritual condemnation at that point in time; to this wholeheartedly agree. Absent from Peter's mind is any notion of Adam's guilt being perpetually inherited/imputed to all humans from birth.
"Christ has accepted the children without sacrifice, without circumcision, without faith, without knowledge, without baptism; he has accepted them solely in the virtue of the Word: "To such belongs the kingdom of heaven." That is the difference between the children and understanding. And even if the children were referred to here, it would not follow that they should be baptized, or that they should be sacrificed in baptism, but that they should be left in the order into which Christ put them." - The Text, 107-111
"However, children who cannot speak or think cannot be converted; they have not yet been perverted by their own fleshly mind and thus, do not know the difference between good and evil. This knowledge led to sin in Adam and Eve, and was the beginning of God’s enmity toward man. In baptism, children can receive no forgiveness for sins because, in the presence of God, they have as yet no conscience, nor do they have guilt related to sin. Thus, such a baptism is completely empty and perverted, and is a mockery in the presence of God." - Admonition, p. 33
"Just as man acknowledges and rules the creatures for his own personal advantage, so must he acknowledge the one who governs man, as Christ the Lord says. To Him has been given all authority over heaven and over earth. And His apostles have been sent to preach the gospel to all creatures: He alone is the Lord and Christ of God, preeminent over the universe. That means nothing to an ignorant child, since it has, as yet, no mastery of the creatures. Therefore, the infant is unable to witness to any faith and, consequently, cannot be damned…God is merciful toward the infants because of their ignorance and genuine innocence; to others, He is merciful because of their faith and repentance. In this way, all Scriptures follow the divine order in their place without error." - Admonition, p. 49
"Thus, the children are born with the purity of creation, unaware of good and evil. Who, then, would want to accuse the innocent children of an inherited sin? Since the origin and basis of sin, the knowledge of good and evil, does not come with birth, the inheritance of the sin against God comes only with the eating of the forbidden fruit. Of its own volition, the hand has to touch the tree of knowledge, and not sooner, before man sins against God and stands accused. For Ezekiel states that neither will the child carry the father’s guilt, nor the father the childs (Ezek. 18:19, 20). Who, then, wants to accuse the innocent children of a sin? Not one letter of Scripture supports this view, any more than it supports the view that a man should baptize infants." - Admonition, p. 50
"Concerning the state of the children, who stand in all created simplicity, knowing neither good nor evil, Scripture indicates nothing except that they are innocent without guile. Thus, we conclude that we rightly and wisely refrain from saying anything about it except what is found in Scripture. Rather, we commit them to the hidden verdict of God, who best knows how to keep them to His praise and honor. Since God ordained that they be born in created innocence, God will refrain from accusing this innocence, since sin has its origin in the knowledge of good and evil. The children, therefore, cannot be accused of any sin. What kind of state of salvation such infants have, we will allow God to decide since He has ordered creation in this way." - Admonition, p. 54
Pilgram had much to say on this issue. For Pilgram, infants have not yet been perverted, have no guilt related to sin, cannot be damned, have genuine innocence, without guile, etc. Pilgram is clear that the origin of sin is in our own volition and choice; and that before someone sins against God they aren't accused guilty. Pilgram's beliefs are wholly incompatible with the doctrine of perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. He undoubtedly affirmed infant salvation, however, it seems that he leaves their exact estate and rewards in heaven up to mystery.
"man as a child of Adam stands under the general curse of original sin; hence physical death. But Christ is the reconciliation of this world including small children. The mere "inclination" to sin (which is inborn in all of us) does not yet condemn man. Only the doing of sin will cause eternal death. Moreover, the Scriptures declare that the children will not bear the consequences of the bad deeds of their fathers, rather everyone dies for that which he has perpetrated himself (Ezekiel 18:17, 20)." - Handbook Against the Process, Book 7
The Handbook Against the Process is a document written in response to a Lutheran document written the year prior by eight prominent Lutheran theologians under the heading “Thoughts Regarding the Anabaptists: On Church Courts and the Ensuing Ecclesial and Corporal Punishment of the Anabaptists.” In it, the Lutherans argued the Anabaptists were to be condemned because of their beliefs and that the civil authorities were justified in punishing and executing them. Among the beliefs the Lutherans listed was a rejection of inherited Adamic guilt. Book 7 of this Anabaptist response details their view of the fall and its consequences. It's said that physical death is the general curse of original sin. Perpetually inherited guilt is not mentioned. It also says that while we do have the inclination to sin as a result of the fall, this inclination to sin does not condemn someone spiritually in and of itself. A person becomes condemned spiritually when they themselves personally sin. It's stated clearly that children don't inherit the guilt of their parents. These statements seem in alignment with ancestral sin.
"Therefore, each person who has reached the age of understanding and knows the difference between good and evil must be transformed into a new, godly being through the enlightenment, work, and transfiguration of the Holy Spirit." - Concerning the new birth and the new creature, para. 6
"Anyone who has been taught by God knows this well. For both scripture and common experience clearly witness to and prove the fact that children do not have faith. They are saved by grace through Jesus Christ. Understanding adults are made pleasing to God by their faith. But children are pleasing to God in their childish and simple innocence. That is why both Christ and Paul used children as a symbol and an example. Not, of course, that we should become as children in terms of a lack of understanding. We should be as children in their lack of viciousness, but be as adults in terms of understanding. We should always keep in mind this simplicity and humility of children, so that we may strive for the same conduct." - Concerning the new birth and the new creature, para. 20
"That children receive the kingdom of heaven we believe without doubt, just as we have confessed above. But that this salvation of children should depend upon baptism and be bound to it, this we do not believe and cannot consent to. For Christ accepted the children and promised them the kingdom of heaven on the basis of grace and mercy, and not on account of baptism. For he neither baptized them nor commanded that they be baptized but blessed them through the laying on of his hands…Since Christ has now set the children as an example for us and said that we should become as children and humble ourselves, it follows from this without any contradiction; first, that children (so long as they are in their simplicity) are guiltless and reckoned as without sin by God;…Since then infants are saved and included in the hand and grace of God, and the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Matt. 19:14, therefore, it is a great lack of understanding that one should baptize children so that through this they might be kept and saved, and besides this condemn children who die without baptism. This is an open diminishing and denial of the grace of God and merit of Jesus Christ…But while the nature of children is inclined toward evil, Gen. [6:5]; 8:21, that does not condemn them. Yes, this is not attributed to them as sin out of grace, for as long as they are simple and without knowledge of good and evil, they are pleasing to God and acceptable to him through Jesus Christ But what needs many words? It is a sure and undoubted word that the children as well as the adults, the children in their innocence, but the adults in faith, are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 15:11." - Our Confession concerning the creation, redemption, and salvation of humanity, p.26-27
"But just as sin had its origin in disobedience and began with the knowledge of good and evil in Adam and Eve, in like measure it also occurs with children. For though they all come from a sinful Adam, yet original sin (as people call it) is not imputed to them by God to damnation, for the sake of Jesus Christ For they are in part like Adam and Eve were before the fall, namely this, that they being simply both good and bad, understanding neither good nor evil. But as soon as they come to a knowledge of good and evil and step from simple ignorance into conscious wickedness, and they sin against the Lord through their own disobedience and transgression of the divine Word and command, then it is the proper and appointed time that they first be taught, yes, with the law of God be heartily admonished to penitence so that they amend themselves, lament their sins before God, confess, and bear remorse over them. Matt. 28:19; Rom. 3:19; Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38. Thereafter, they must again be comforted with the gospel, Eph. 2:7." - Our Confession concerning the creation, redemption, and salvation of humanity, p.11
Dirk is clear that in his mind, humans only become guilty and spiritually condemned before God once they have attained the knowledge of good and evil and personally sinned as a result. This is when the gospel is needed. He maintains that infants are innocent and affirms a positive fate for all deceased infants through God's grace and mercy. Dirk views children as "guiltless and reckoned as without sin" while they have not yet personally sinned. He acknowledges that humans inherit sinful inclinations from the fall. Yet these inclinations don't condemn someone. Rather people are condemned for their actions. Dirk maintains that the guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed to humanity unto damnation. Again, he says that children become guilty "through their own disobedience and transgression".
“Observe how plainly Christ here speaks of the children, promising them the kingdom of God. But he did not baptize them nor command them to be baptized. Now Christ speaks further about the children: “Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. 18[:3]; Mark 9[:36-37]; Luke 9[:47-48]. Notice, we said, how Christ here sets the children before us as an example, so that we might turn and become as the children. What does Christ want to teach us through the children? Surely that as the children subordinate themselves to their master, are subject to him and obey him, have not sold themselves to created things, and are innocent of sin and wickedness as well, even so our whole life should be ordered before God.” - First Defense, Answer 4
Paul says that Christ sets children as an example because they're innocent of sin and wickedness. Such reasoning for Paul seems incompatible with the idea that infants are guilty and under condemnation from conception.
“Now that an infant cannot be baptized with the Spirit is plain, 1 Pet 3:21, where the Apostle saith that the baptism of the Spirit is the question of a good conscience into God, and Heb 10:22, where the baptism which is inward is called the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience: seeing therefore infants neither have any evil conscience, not the question of a good conscience, not the purging of the heart, for all these are proper to actual sinners: hence it followeth that infant’s baptism is folly and nothing.” - The Character of the Beast, in A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage, p. 20
"That there is no original sin (lit;, no sin of origin or descent), but all sin is actual and voluntary, viz., a word, a deed, or a design against the law of God; and therefore, infants are without sin." - A Short Confession of Faith in Twenty Articles, Article V
Smyth's understanding of infants and their spiritual condition can be seen when he speaks of infant baptism. Smyth denies that infants have an evil conscience and aren't in need of having their hearts purged. He doesn't view infants as "actual sinners" yet. He says all sin is actual and voluntary and infants are "without sin."
.jpeg)
Stephen Marshall, 1594 AD - 1655 AD
“Thirdly, this opinion puts all the Infants of all Believers into the self-same condition, with the Infants of Turks and Indians, which they all readily acknowledge; and from thence unavoidably one of these three things must follow. 1. Either all of them are damned who die in their Infancy, being without the Covenant of grace, having no part in Christ. Or, 2. All of them saved, as having no original sin, and consequently needing no Saviour; which most of the Anabaptists in the world do own, and therewith bring in all Pelagianism, Universal grace, Free-will,” - A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants
Stephen Marshall was an English preacher in the 17th century. In 1644, he preached a sermon at the Abbey-Church in Westminster defending infant baptism. In his sermon, he mentioned that most of the Anabaptists in the world believed that all deceased infants were saved because they did not possess any guilt from original sin. In Marshall, we find testimony of Anabaptists affirming ancestral sin well into the 17th century. Marshall certainly misunderstands the Anabaptist perspective in some respects when he says their view means infants don't need a savior. Many early Anabaptists like Conrad Grebel, Hans Schlaffer, Peter Riedemann, Dirk Philips, and others repeatedly used redemptive language about Christ's relationship to infants.
ANCESTRAL SIN IN EARLY ANABAPTIST CONFESSIONS OF FAITH
We will now look at ancestral sin in various confessions of faith from 1577 AD to the very end of the 17th century. These date later than most of the sources we've covered so far. The vast majority of relevant sources that have come down to us today are from the 1520s to the 1550s. These confessions shed light on the continuity of thought about ancestral sin further into post-Reformation history.
Waterlander Confession, 1577 AD
"We believe and confess that Christ has freed the entire human race from the power of original sin, which is death. Therefore, we know of no children who are to be damned because of it, before the time when persons deliberately will to live by and pursue their inner failures." - Chapter XII
Swiss Brethren Confession of Hess, 1578 AD
"We believe, acknowledge and confess that children are blessed [or saved] because of the promise as long as they remain innocent and cannot yet distinguish between good and evil. As for Adam’s or inherited sin, it is not accounted to them, even though they are of a sinful disposition, because through the death of Christ and through Christ’s shed blood they are reconciled." - Chapter XXXI
Second Waterlander Confession, 1580 AD
"This one God created man, good, according to his own image and likeness, for salvation or safety, and in him all men for the same happy end. The first man fell into sins and became subject to divine wrath, and by God was raised up again through consolatory promises and admitted to eternal life at the same time with all those who had fallen; so that none of his posterity, in respect of this restitution, is born guilty of sin or blame.” - Article IV
"There was in man who was created good and was continuing in goodness, a faculty of hearing, admitting or rejecting evil which was offered to him by the spirit of wickedness. Now in the same man, fallen and perverted, was a faculty of hearing, admitting or rejecting good, occurring and offered by God. For just as before the fall, hearing and admitting occurring evil, he manifested the faculty of admitting it, so also after the fall, by hearing and admitting occurring good, he shows that he has the faculty of accepting it. But that faculty of accepting or rejecting the grace of God truly offered, remains, through grace, in all his posterity." - Article V
A Short, Simple Confession on the Thirteen Articles which were debated at Frankenthal in the Palatinate, 1590 AD
“Therefore, since the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, they are—as long as they remain in their innocence—no longer in Adam, but rather in Christ Jesus. And if they are in Christ Jesus there is nothing condemnable about them. That is, as long as they do not walk in the flesh and transgress God’s commands when they come to the age of understanding and are able to do so. For all souls belong to God, as he says through Ezekiel; they are the Father’s as well as the Son’s. And the soul that sins is the one that must die, for no one is able to take upon himself the sins of another person, lest he too falls into sin. Therefore, despite the fact that the children have fallen under the disfavor and wrath that has come upon Adam, nevertheless this does not count against them because of Christ’s merits, as long as they do not themselves sin. Because they still cannot distinguish between good and evil, sin is not attributed to them. If we have been reconciled to God through the death of Christ while we were yet sinners, why should the children be regarded as unreconciled?” - Article VII
Short Confession, 1610 AD
"These first humans fell into sin and disgrace…Consequently, none of their descendants, being included in this redemption, are born with sin or guilt." - Chapter IV
Propositions and Conclusions Concerning True Christian Religion, 1612 AD - 1614 AD
"That original sin is an idle term, and that there is no such thing as. men intend by the word (Ezek. xviii. 20), because God threatened death only to Adam (Gen. ii. 17) not to his posterity, and because God created the soul (Heb. xii. 9)." - Proposition 18
"That infants are conceived and born in innocency without sin, and that so dying are undoubtedly saved, and that this is to be understood of all infants, under heaven (Gen. v. 2; i. 27 compared with 1 Cor. xv. 49) for where there is no law there is no transgression, sin is not imputed while there is no law (Rom. iv. 15 and v. 13), but the law was not given to infants, but to them that could understand (Rom. v. 13; Matt. xiii. 9; Neh. Vill. 3)." - Proposition 20
"That the outward baptism of water, is to be administered only upon such penitent and faithful persons as are (aforesaid), and not upon innocent infants, or wicked persons (Matt. iii. 2, 3, compared with Matt. XXVili. 19, 20, and John iv. 1)." - Proposition 70
Thirty-Three Articles, 1617 AD
“Thus none of Adam's race are created or born to condemnation, but all are born and brought forth into the world in the same state of grace and reconciliation with God. Hence, we hold it to militate not only against the holy Scriptures, but also utterly against the nature of God, which is just, righteous, holy, and merciful, that God should punish with eternal death and damnation, simply on account of Adam's sin, so great a number of Adam's race who die in their infancy in a state of innocence, before they have followed Adam in sin; seeing the good God, through Christ and for Christ's sake, so graciously forgave Adam, (who had himself committed the sin) and placed him in a state of grace." - Article VIII
"But men having attained the knowledge of good and evil, and, through the lust of the flesh, and their own desire, having been drawn away from the path of virtue and innocence, so that they follow Adam in sin, hence it comes that they separate themselves from their Creator, and, consequently, do not perish, nor are condemned on account of Adam's transgression, but because of their own unbelief and evil works.” - Article VIII
The 13 Articles, 1626 AD
"That the one group shall enter into eternal, unending blessedness, where they, in confessing the divine presence, shall rejoice eternally. Among those blessed shall be included all the innocent, or immature children who from the beginning of the world to that time have lived and died." - Chapter XII
The Standard Confession, 1660 AD
"That all Children dying in Infancy, having not actually transgressed against the Law of God in their own persons, are only subject to the first death, which comes upon them by the sin of the first Adam, from whence they shall be all raised by the second Adam; and not that any one of them (dying in that estate) shall suffer for Adams sin, eternal punishment in Hell, (which is the second death) | for of such belongs the Kingdome of Heaven, 1 Cor. 15. 22. Mat. 19.14. not daring to conclude with that uncharitable opinion of others, who though they plead much for the bringing of children into the visible Church here on earth by Baptism, yet nevertheless by their Doctrine that Christ dyed but for some, shut a great part of them out of the Kingdome of Heaven for ever." - Article X
A Brief Narrative of Faith, 1691 AD
"But that this transgression did procure in itself the second death, viz. in the lake of fire, or hell torments, either to Adam, or any of his posterity, as is by some not only imagined but affirmed; as it's a doctrine that is altogether scriptureless, and so false, so it's altogether irrational; from whence it hath no room in our faith. We shall here set down a saying of Dr. Jer. Taylor, taken out of his discourse of Original Sin, in opposition to those that were of the judgment, that all infants dying without baptism, are sentenced to hell torments for original sin: His words are these:
1. Original sin is not an inherent evil, not a sin properly, but metonymically, that is, it is the effect of one sin, and the cause of many; a stain but no sin.
2. It does not destroy our liberty which we had naturally.
3. It does not introduce a natural necessity of sinning.
4. It does not damn any infant to the eternal pain of hell.” - Chapter IV
“Concerning reprobation we believe, that God hath not decreed, from eternity, the reprobation of any person of mankind, considered as such, who may not very possible be saved, notwithstanding any decree in God; much less do we hold a decree of reprobation, from eternity, of the greatest part of mankind, excluding a possibility of their being saved; for we believe that God doth not hate or reprobate any man, as his creature, before he considers him as an actual sinner. We believe, that whensoever God doth reject or reprobate any person of mankind, it is for their own willful and actual transgressions, as the just deserving cause thereof, and not from his own will, any otherwise considered….We believe, that God hath not decreed the reprobation of any infant, dying before the commission of actual sin.” - Chapter XXI
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment