Morning Coffee with Gomarus

Has the atonement removed the guilt of Adam’s sin for all men? 

In order to explain how those who die in infancy are saved, some have suggested that “the atonement of Christ nullified the effects of Adam’s sin.”  This is to say that, by the blood of Christ, the guilt of Adam’s sin is removed at birth for all men.  It is one thing to argue that all who die in infancy are saved by God’s grace based on Christ’s atonement, but it is another to assert that Christ’s atonement has removed the consequences of Adam’s sin for all men.  The latter is the point of issue for this little discussion.

If it is true that the effects of Adam’s sin have been nullified by the atonement, then men are born pardoned as far as their connection with Adam’s sin; and if pardoned, they are justified from that guilt (since Scripture indicates that all those pardoned are also justified).  What we have then is justification of all men at birth from the guilt of original sin.  This view has been historically associated with Arminian theology, often as part of its doctrine of universal atonement.  I mention this only because Dr. John Girardeau has addressed this particular view to some extent in one of his prominent works.^1  A brief summary of his major points follows, which I believe are important for consideration.

(1)  This view necessarily supposes two justifications, separated by an interval of time.  Apart from those dying in infancy, those who reach maturity and who believe in Christ were first justified at birth from the guilt of original sin and afterwards, upon the exercise of faith, are justified from the guilt of conscious actual sins.  Until the adult believes on Christ, he is a partially justified man.  Should the adult die without believing in Christ, he dies justified in part and unjustified in part, partially pardoned and partially condemned.  But as Girardeau put it, “since actual sin springs from the principle of original sin, he is condemned for a sin the guilt of which supposes a sin for which he has been pardoned.”  If not, then the man must have fallen from innocence into sin, since he must have been innocent (free from guilt) in the interval between his birth and his first voluntary sin.

(2)  If the atonement of Christ has removed the effects of Adam’s sin, then, since there is no other source of guilt, he is entirely innocent.  This is to stand on Pelagian ground — that infants are altogether innocent — and denies the doctrines of total depravity and original sin.  Scripture says, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me,” Psa. 51:5.  However, if the doctrine of total depravity is not rejected, then we have a paradox: We have the totally innocent and the totally depraved at the same time.  Furthermore, if it is suggested that total depravity is somehow the result of development and is consequently attributable only to an adult, then we must still have at the outset a partial depravity as the basis for the supposed development.  How can this coexist with entire innocence?

(3)  If it is contended that the infant is both innocent and undepraved, then we have a blatant contradiction of Scripture, for “we are children of wrath,” Eph. 2:3, and “the wicked are estranged from the womb.  These . . . go astray from birth,” Psa. 58:3.  Moreover we are led to conclude that each individual falls as Adam did.  But surely this is denied.  If so, then each individual must begin his existence depraved, and therefore cannot be innocent.  But if he has guilt, it must be Adam’s guilt imputed since he cannot, as an infant, contract the guilt of personal conscious transgressions.  Basically this view involves the coexistence of entire innocence and depravity.

(4)  Also, if Adam’s guilt is removed, how do we account for spiritual death remaining in a person?  Spiritual death is a consequence of Adam’s guilt entailed upon his posterity.  If the cause is removed, the effect must go with it.  But the effect does not go, for Scripture makes it clear that “you were dead in your trespasses and sins,” Eph. 2:1.  It must be concluded that the cause still operates to produce the effect.  If all infants are in a condition of spiritual death, Adam’s guilt has not been removed from them.

Dr. Girardeau’s argument is significant and raises some serious theological questions that must be addressed if this view is to be seriously considered.  Interestingly enough, I do not believe this suggested effect of the atonement is necessary in order to presume the salvation of those who die in infancy.  Although Scripture is for the most part silent on this issue, Reformed theology has generally maintained the salvation of those who die in infancy; yet they have done so without compromising the doctrines of original sin, the atonement, and/or justification.  Dr. B. B. Warfield confirms this in his excellent essay on the doctrine of infant salvation.  Therein he states,
 
“Today few Calvinists can be found who do not hold . . . that all who die in infancy are the children of God and enter at once into His glory — not because original sin alone is not deserving of eternal punishment, nor because they are less guilty than others, nor because they die in infancy, but simply because God in His infinite love has chosen them in Christ before the foundation of the world.” ^2

While Girardeau has shown that this errant view is not new, we must not assume it has been relegated to the past.  Most recently, in a popular evangelical work in theology, Millard Erickson has adopted what seems to be the very position that we are arguing against.  He states,

“We all were involved in Adam’s sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that was his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin [true enough].  With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part.  Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt [sic!].  Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility.  If a child dies before he or she is capable of making genuine moral decisions, there is only innocence, and the child will experience the same type of future existence with the Lord as will those who have reached the age of moral responsibility and had their sins forgiven as a result of accepting the offer of salvation based upon Christ’s atoning death.”^3

Heaven help us!  What has become of the doctrine of original sin?  Erickson admits elsewhere that Arminianism errs when it says that there is no imputation of Adam’s sin (and guilt) because of Christ’s atonement.  His view, however, is that there is no final imputation until we “acquiesce” to our sin nature, at which time “we become guilty of both our sin and the original sin as well.”  In either case, it seems to me that we have abandoned the orthodox doctrine of original sin.  Erickson apparently sees this as a departure from classical Christianity since he calls his view a “Contemporary Model.”  I’m sure he also believes his view is biblical; however, I do not!

It has been suggested that the parallelism between Adam and Christ in Romans chapter 5 gives support for this view.  For example: if through the transgression of one (Adam), every person is constituted a sinner and subject to death, and if through Jesus Christ grace “did much more abound,” isn’t it thus implied that the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind has been offset by the atonement?  If not, then how can grace be said to much more abound?

Paul’s phrase, “grace did much more abound,” occurs in one form or another three times in Romans 5:12-21.  However, I believe the significance of the “much more” is to be found in the nature and quality of God’s redeeming grace, not in Christ’s having nullified the effects of the fall for every member of Adam’s race.  The point is that the atonement did “much more” than offset the effects of the fall.  It not only removed the guilt of original sin and brought forgiveness for actual sins, but Christ’s atonement is the basis for our imputed righteousness: “Through one act of righteousness there resulted justification,” Rom. 5:18.

Nullifying the effects of Adam’s sin only removes guilt.  But I don’t need Adam’s original innocence, I need Christ’s righteousness.  Through Christ’s atonement, I am justified and have eternal life.  Adam may have been created innocent, but he was not justified and did not have eternal life until he was regenerated and brought to faith after the fall.  This is why Paul describes God’s grace in Christ as “abounding all the more.”  All whom Adam represented fell with him, and this happens to be every member of the human race.  All whom Christ represented, those given to Him by the Father, are those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness and “will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ,” Rom. 5:17; and thus grace did much more abound!

Endnotes:
1. John L. Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, Sprinkle, 1984, p. 196-207.
2. Benjamin B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, Banner of Truth, p. 438.
3. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Baker, pp. 636-639. Inserted brackets mine.