Are we born sinners?
The following compilation is not exhaustive. But let’s just run with what follows in trying to come to terms with some of the seemingly difficult phrases used by our forefathers.
I hope we all agree that Sin is the transgression of the law. Here is a warning:
“Those who have allowed their minds to become beclouded IN REGARD TO WHAT CONSTITUTES SIN are fearfully deceived. Unless they make a decided change they will be found wanting when God pronounces judgment upon the children of men. They have TRANSGRESSED THE LAW and broken the everlasting covenant, and they will receive according to their works.” Testimonies Vol. 9, p267.
“Search the Scriptures, and you will find that not a son or daughter of Adam is elected to be saved in disobedience to God's commandments.” {RH, September 28,1897 par. 4}
We have inherited Adam’s sinful fallen nature and as a result possess a natural predisposition to sinning, hence the Bible declaration: "for all have sinned" and the appellation, "sinners". That is the legacy Adam left us and everything that goes with it on this side of the fall. It is one of transgression => guilt => condemnation => lost condition => death. But thankfully the Lord intervened.
There is no escaping, if one reaches the age of "understanding and accountability", humanity's enslavement [as a result of that sinful fallen nature] to sin, from which one cannot of one’s own accord extricate oneself. The human nature itself is NOT SIN. It is the thing that leads to sin, the tendency to sin, the bent to sin but in and of itself, is not SIN for which we are condemned and lost at conception or birth, else we would have a problem with Jesus possessing a sinful fallen nature like ours.
The WHOLE duty of man is contained in the Ten Commandments.
“The ONLY DEFINITION FOR SIN that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law... IT CONDEMNS EVERY SIN, AND REQUIRES EVERY VIRTUE.” E.G. White, ST, March 3, 1890 par. 3.
How many sins does the law condemn?
“The law condemns ALL sin, and requires ALL virtue.” RH, Feb. 26, 1901.
The law condemns EVERY sin, that is ALL sin. Is there a transgression the law does not condemn? Does the law condemn ALL and EVERY sin? Is the law the only definition of sin?
Is the claim that “sin is much MORE than breaking the commandments of God” in harmony with inspiration?
“To the law and to the testimony...” Isa 8:20.
“Where no law is, [there is] no transgression,” (Rom 4:15).
Which of the Ten Commandments condemns possessing a fallen nature? Not one. So the fallen nature is not a sin. It is the RESULT of Adam’s sin. We do not need to be forgiven for possessing a fallen nature.
As the law does not condemn having a fallen nature then Christ could come in our fallen nature and live a sinless life in such a nature. That is exactly what inspiration declares...
There is no sin that the law does not condemn, no virtue that it does not require. We will be judged by the law – it is God’s righteous yardstick as embodied in His son. The law must therefore condemn every sin and require every virtue. Transgression of the law is therefore the only definition of sin in the Word of God. Some claim that possessing a fallen nature is a sin. We all inherit a fallen nature from our parents but there can be no sin where there is no law. “Where no law is, [there is] no transgression.” Rom 4:15.
If it is a sin to possess a fallen nature then there must be a law against it. Has God given a law forbidding anyone from being conceived with a fallen human nature? If there ever was a law that was impossible to keep, this would be it, for how could one choose not to violate it before one existed?!
The scripture teaches that the wages of SIN, [the transgression of the law], is death.
Note Waggoner's position on the SINFUL NATURE and its relationship to death: "Adam could not give his descendants any higher nature than he had himself, so Adam's sin made it inevitable that all his descendants should be born with sinful natures. Sentence of death, however, does not pass on them for that, but because they have sinned. {October 18, 1894 EJW, PTUK 658.7} Waggoner on Romans pg 5.100.
Hence according to Waggoner's view, SIN is not NATURE. No-one is condemned for possessing a SINFUL nature as sentence of death does not pass on someone with a such a nature but rather on one who has [sinned], transgressed the law of God – for the wages of sin is death. We should appreciate the difference between SIN and the EFFECTS of sin. The problem is, the label SINNER is often used to describe the sinful nature rather than its effect, sin.
Analogy: A man may have a most undesirable family history in which his great grandfather, grandfather and father were thieves. He is born into the most unfavourable environment of thievery. He even has a bent to thieving but until he commits his first act of thieving, are we justified in labeling him a thief, guilty and condemned to serve time behind bars? Should we also incarcerate him because of his father's thieving? It would be a most unfair justice system to do so. That is the sort of aspersion we cast on God if we do not clarify what we mean by "born sinners", "born in sin", made sinners etc. Like the thievery example, we have inherited a most unfavorable predisposition to sin in that we are shapen in iniquity and in sin did our mother conceive us. Our ancestral history of 6000 years is one of SIN and sinners but does that make us sinners, condemned and lost at the moment of our conception or birth? Even with our Saviour Jesus Christ and his saving grace being freely available to newborns?
Note Waggoner's position in 1887 on this issue: "But everybody who has read the Bible to any purpose knows full well that it does not teach that either infants or adults are condemned for an offense committed either 6,000 years or half as many minutes before they were born. Neither is one person condemned for the offense of another, no matter when that offense is committed. The Bible plainly declares:- {January 20, 1887 EJW, SITI 48.13}
No one is condemned and lost for being born with a sinful nature. On another note, no one would suggest that there was a part of Jesus' humanity which was a sinner at birth, guilty, lost and condemned, for his having taken upon himself our sinful fallen nature - that surely is not a sound understanding of sin as some of the “SIN is NATURE” advocates would have it. And if so, then it naturally leads to the tweaking of Jesus' human nature to a sinless one in order to avoid the SIN is NATURE problem for Jesus.
At least the Catholics are honest and have devised a system which does just that. Why is the professed church following Rome in prescribing a sinless nature for Jesus?
The devil knows that the proper definition of sin, the correct view of Jesus’ human nature and hence overcoming are intimately connected with justification, sanctification and perfection and if he can confuse the brethren at large on these issues then his work is well and truly done. Which is easier? To lead a true Christian into sin or to confuse him as to what sin is so that he is living a life of sin while professing godliness? Remember the devil is the great deceiver, and he does a fantastic job at it. Amen?
“The sinful conduct of his daughters after leaving Sodom was the result of wicked associations while there. The sense of right and wrong was confused in their minds, and sin did not appear as sin to them.” {4T 111.3}
“Those who have allowed their minds to become beclouded IN REGARD TO WHAT CONSTITUTES SIN are fearfully deceived. Unless they make a decided change they will be found wanting when God pronounces judgment upon the children of men. They have TRANSGRESSED THE LAW and broken the everlasting covenant, and they will receive according to their works.” Testimonies Vol. 9, p267.
Now the Lord is not only a just God but a God of love. He could not possibly leave Adam's posterity in such a predicament (Gen 3:15) enslaved with a sinful nature to sin, through no fault of their own, hence He sent his own son in the "likeness" of sinful fallen nature and for sin condemned sin in that nature [or as a result of that nature], that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. That is the fundamental gospel.
Waggoner and others are basically saying the same thing in so many different ways which is compatible with the understanding that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. That is the fundamental issue - the sinful nature. A nature which left to its own devices will naturally result in the individual committing this “thing” called sin. As Waggoner stated:
"They are born into a prison, and this prison is represented by the carnal nature." {November 30, 1893 EJW, PTUK 550.10}
Here’s a thought:
Waggoner has repeatedly stated that infants are not sinning at birth, in other words they are not sinners, not transgressors of the law, not lost or condemned. Having said that, he also stated that they are not condemned for possessing a sinful nature.
So these infants have never sinned, neither are they condemned for possessing sinful natures. How then does one interpret the following which appear to be an issue with many of our brethren?
"We were made sinners by birth", "...born sinners", "born in sin", "We did nothing to make ourselves sinners; we are born so,"etc etc
These statements needn't be an issue. The writers are describing an inevitable end result (being a SINNER) of the sinful fallen nature we were born with, when stating that we are "born sinners", “made sinners by birth” “born in sin” etc. The infant that emerges from the womb is eventually going to be a sinner – the Bible declaration that “all have sinned” remains true, hence because of that inevitability, the “thing” that emerges at birth is said to be a “sinner” but only with that understanding in mind as it is not sinning at birth, neither is it lost or condemned at birth as Waggoner has stated on many occasions. It is spoken of as a sinner at birth because that is its point of entry into the world and because that is the inevitable end result of the nature it possesses. Its makeup is one that predisposes it to sin and is confirmed by the observation that “all have sinned”. It is described as occurring by birth simply because that’s how we all come into the world – we are born.
Someone once said that “Events are called inevitable only after they have occurred” and its inevitable your nature will influence what you do. The child being born is the vehicle whereby the sinful nature will in due time manifest that inevitability – that which we call SIN and SINNER.
EG WHITE:
“But Adam failed to bear the test. And because he revolted against God's law, all his descendants have been sinners.” {9MR 229.1}
“Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience.” {13MR 18.1}
“All his descendants HAVE BEEN SINNERS”. Why as a result of Adam’s disobedience, have all his descendants been sinners? Why haven’t some of his descendants been labeled as “NOT SINNERS”? Because “his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience.” It is their very nature. Those inherent propensities of disobedience will manifest in disobedience -the transgression of the law and hence the declaration, “sinners”.
A T JONES stated: “As by that one man's disobedience you and I were made sinners, so by that other one Man's obedience you and I are made righteous. ... You and I were not made subject to sin, not made heirs to sin, by our own sinning; it was in us before we had time to sin. {October 16, 1900 ATJ, ARSH 659.8}
Note what Jones is saying. What was in us? Being subject to sin. Being heirs to sin. That was what was in us. And what was it that was in us that MADE us subject to sin, that MADE us heirs of sin? It was a NATURE inherited from Adam with inherent propensities to disobedience that was in us.“As by that one man's disobedience you and I were made sinners,”A similar disobedience which Adam displayed in the garden. It became his nature and was transmitted to us and became our nature by inheritance – a father can only give to his child what he has. We did not manufacture that disobedient nature. It was already in us as a result of inheritance and not by our own sinning (disobedience), is what Jones is saying, ie. even before we had time to sin, that sinful disobedient nature was already in us. You and I were MADE sinners as a result of one man’s disobedience - we inherited that same disobedient streak of Adam’s which is in the very fiber of our nature and which naturally results in SIN and the label, SINNER. That is altogether different from saying that we are LOST and CONDEMNED at birth without even exercising that disobedience. Jesus himself had the same nature, “one subject to sin”. He himself was “born in sin” as in (c) below.
EJ WAGGONER:
“The human nature that he took was a sinful nature, one subject to sin. If it were not, he would not be a perfect Saviour. We could not then go to him as one who is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities." {June 9, 1890 EJW, SITI 342.5}
“The sins which are committed by any person, are the outgrowth of the sinful nature that is common to all. {August 31, 1893 EJW, PTUK 344.1}
“And now He "is come in the flesh." You can go to the tempted and outcast with that, and assure them that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and that every sin that they have committed, and even the sinful nature which led them into those sins, He takes upon Himself, and identifies Himself with it, assuming all the responsibility for the sins committed with the life which has been perverted. Oh, the blessedness of the fact that God hath made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor. v. 21. {March 8, 1894 EJW, PTUK 151.2}
No-one would suggest that Jesus in his own humanity was a sinner because he took our sinful nature. Yet the “sin is nature” folk accuse us of making Jesus a sinner when we say he took our sinful nature because they equate the sinful nature with sin. Hence they must have a Jesus with a sinless human nature in order to accommodate their theology.
WAGGONER on "BORN IN SIN" :
a).“The most discouraging and depressing thing that comes to our minds when we think of the possibility of overcoming sin is our heritage. We think, "I was born with these crooked, perverse tendencies; I was born in sin, and it is a part of myself; how then can I escape from it?" {September 4, 1902 EJW, PTUK 564.5}
b). “It may be objected that the child is born in sin,- that it has a sinful nature,-and that therefore it should be baptized for the remission of sins. ....". {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.7}
c). Since we are partakers of flesh and blood, born in sin, Christ also Himself took part of the same; "that through death He might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."-- {1900 EJW, EVCO 117.2}
This last one, (c), sounds strange doesn't it: ?? Christ was "born in sin" is the natural conclusion. It sounds strange because we have been conditioned to equate the SINFUL nature with SIN and ascribe a condemnatory aspect to it when that is not what Waggoner is saying as noted above: "…so Adam's sin made it inevitable that all his descendants should be born with sinful natures. Sentence of death, however, does not pass on them for that, but because they have sinned." Hence Jesus’ partaking of our sinful nature is not a problem at all.
EG WHITE on "BORN IN SIN":
“Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he was a son of Adam like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin;but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing his will. He separated himself from the corrupt descendants of Cain, and labored, as Abel would have done had he lived, to turn the minds of sinful men to revere and obey God.” {1SP 60.2}
`Parallel passage in PP: "While Adam was created sinless, in the likeness of God, Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents. But he received also the knowledge of the Redeemer and instruction in righteousness. By divine grace he served and honored God; and he labored, as Abel would have done, had he lived, to turn the minds of sinful men to revere and obey their Creator. {PP 80.1}
Both Waggoner and Ellen White are referring to the sinful nature when stating we are "born in sin”:
1). "I was born with these crooked, perverse tendencies; I was born in sin,"
2). "...the child is born in sin, - that it has a sinful nature,"
3). "...we are partakers of flesh and blood, born in sin, Christ also Himself took part of the same;"
4). Seth ....inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin;"
5). "Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents.".
1. "If a person is a child of disobedience and of darkness, he is not a child of God. "All have sinned;" and therefore none are by nature children of God." {February 24, 1887 EJW, SITI 123.1}
Notice what Waggoner is saying, that: "...a child of disobedience and of darkness, he is not a child of God". The reason he is not a child of God is because of DISOBEDIENCE and DARKNESS and the reason they are thus described is because "All have sinned;"
Note, Waggoner uses the phrase "IF a person.." - so it is conditional, meaning if a person IS NOT a child of disobedience and of darkness then he must be a child of God? Throughout the passage from which the above statement has been extracted Waggoner maintains that:
a). "He says: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,..." {February 24, 1887 EJW, SITI 122.5}
b). "Again the apostle warns the Ephesian brethren against the sins to which they had formerly been addicted, saying, "For because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Eph. 5:6. See also Col. 3:6. {February 24, 1887 EJW, SITI 122.5}
c). "Putting these texts together, we learn that all who know not God are the children of wrath; they are the children, or recipients, of wrath, because they are children of disobedience because they are the children of the devil. " {February 24, 1887 EJW, SITI 123.1}
Waggoner's statements are referring to those who have reached the age of “understanding and accountability” and are continuing in transgression, children of disobedience, dead in trespasses and sins. The meaning of the statement that "none are by nature children of God."(1887) needs to be contrasted with and understood in the light of his other statements below regarding infants.
EJ Waggoner & JH Waggoner stated from 1878 to 1903 that:
1. "Infants have no personal sins of which to repent, and are saved by virtue of the life of God poured out in Christ for all the race. As soon as people come to years of understanding and accountability, they must personally accept the Lord Jesus by faith, and show their faith in Him, not because God has arbitrarily decreed it, but because only so can they be kept from sin. Men can live only by faith; but the tender infant on its mother's breast is the perfect picture of faith and trust. It is the farthest possible from rejecting God's grace. It shows us how we should be related to the living Word. Of this Christ bears witness, through David, when He says to the Father: "Thou didst make me trust when I was upon my mother's breast." Ps. xxii. 9. {December 12, 1901 EJW, PTUK 790.12}
2. "Infants that have not come to an age where they can understand right and wrong for themselves, are special subjects of God's favor. By virtue of Christ's sacrifice they share in the universal redemption from the death which results from their being descendants of Adam. They do not have to be baptized in order to be made alive from this death, for that is promised to the wicked as well as to the good. But being made alive from this death, they cannot suffer the death which is the penalty of sin, for they have never had personal guilt. Consequently they are saved by God's grace, the same as all who are saved, but without baptism, for it is impossible for them to comply with the conditions of baptism; they can neither believe nor disbelieve. {August 25, 1890 EJW, SITI 461.1}
3. "The common thought concerning the so-called baptism of infants is that stated by Cyprian, in his argument against delaying the ceremony. His words are: "We all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, 'The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them,' as far as we can we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost."-Epistle 58. Now this in itself is perfectly correct; but when it is produced as a reason for baptizing children, it is all wrong, since it not only attributes magic charm to the ceremony, but it makes the grace and mercy of God wholly dependent upon the zeal or negligence of men. It is a monstrous doctrine, and horrible beyond expression, and a libel on God's goodness, that the salvation of an innocent baby should depend solely on whether or not a formula has been recited over it. {December 12, 1901 EJW, PTUK 790.2}
4. "That Christ should be born under the law was a necessary consequence of his being born of a woman, taking on him the nature of Abraham, being made of the seed of David, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Human nature is sinful, and the law of God condemns all sin. Not that men are born into the world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy they have no knowledge of right and wrong, and are incapable of doing either, but they are born with sinful tendencies, owing to the sins of their ancestors. And when Christ came into the world, he came subject to all the conditions to which other children are subject. {October 21, 1889 EJW, SITI 631.10}
5. "Here we see that baptism is connected with repentance; but it is obvious that young infants cannot repent, and have nothing to repent of, having never committed sin. We find, in this instance, that "they that gladly received his word were baptized." Verse 41. {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.4}
6. "Again, while Philip was preaching Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, as they journeyed, the chariot passed by a pool or stream of water, and the eunuch proclaimed, "See, here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Philip replied, "If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." Here we see that belief is a prerequisite to baptism. But an, infant can neither believe nor disbelieve; therefore it cannot be baptized. {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.5}
7. "Adam a Figure.-"Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come." How is Adam a figure of Him that was to come, namely, Christ? Just as the following verses indicate, that is, Adam was a figure of Christ in that his action involved many besides himself. It is evident that Adam could not give his descendants any higher nature than he had himself, so Adam's sin made it inevitable that all his descendants should be born with sinful natures. Sentence of death, however, does not pass on them for that, but because they have sinned. {October 18, 1894 EJW, PTUK 658.7} Waggoner on Romans pg 100
8. "Again, referring to the text first quoted, we find that baptism, preceded by belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, is "for the remission of sins;" but a tender infant has no sins to be remitted, and so again there is no occasion for it to be baptized. {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.6}
9. "Now an infant has no conscience of sin, neither is it living in sin. It needs no exhortation not to continue in sin, nor to "live any longer therein," for it is as completely dead to sin as it is possible for anybody to be. Indeed, it has never yet been alive to sin. Therefore baptism would be for it wholly a work of supererogation. {January 9, 1902 EJW, PTUK 20.9}
10. The requirement to repent refers only to sinners, and that to be baptized is for the remission of sin. But infants have no sins of which to repent, or to have remitted. The last two propositions call for more extended notice. {1878 JHW, Thoughts On Baptism 74.6}
11. As in the case of the saints--the justified--so in the case of infants. They have no sins for which to answer. They cannot fall under a penalty, because they are innocent. Yet they die; of course not as sinners condemned, but as mortal creatures cut off from the tree of life by the action of Adam. His sin brought condemnation to himself, and it was deserved; but it brings no condemnation to these innocent ones; they do not deserve it, and "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." {1878 JHW, TOB 81.2}
12. There will be three classes in the resurrection. One, of sinners condemned, who have never accepted the gospel nor received pardon through Christ. The second death claims them as its own. Another, the saints; those who have had their sins washed away by the blood of the Redeemer. Being justified, the law has no claim against their lives. "On such the second death hath no power." The third, infants, who have never sinned. Of course they are not condemned; they have done no wrong; on no principle of justice can they be condemned. Through Christ they are brought up from death, of course to die no more. They stand related to the law as the saints do; not as the saints, pardoned, but as innocents, against whom no charge can be brought. Having no sin upon them, they will die no more. That life they get through Christ as truly as do the saints. Hence they can join the everlasting song of redemption, with all the saints in glory. Had it not been for Christ they would have remained dead. For eternal life, its joys and its glory, they are as truly indebted to divine love and favor in the gospel as David, or Peter, or Paul. Thus it is easy to see that infants are saved by the gospel, but not by means of faith, repentance, and baptism. These are for sinners, not for innocents. {1878 JHW, TOB 82.1}
Waggoner is saying that none of us who have reached the age of accountability are by nature children of God while continuing in disobedience. He is not saying we are "born sinners", "lost" and "condemned" as clearly the above statements regarding infants are incompatible with the thought that we are born lost and condemned to the flames. It is a rule of thumb that we look at the weight of evidence and interpret statements that appear ambiguous or contradictory by the clearest statements on a subject by that author. We apply the same principles to Sister White's testimonies in order to get the proper meaning of what she is saying.
The following excerpts from the above statements are some of the clearest and unambiguous thought positions on infants by Waggoner and his phrases like "born sinners", "All men are by nature sinners", "By nature ALL men are sinners", "We are not responsible for having been born sinners" need to understood in the light of his very clear position on infants. I believe there is no difficulty in the statements if we understand that he means we are born with sinful fallen natures with the inevitable results of that nature => sin => sinner. Except that he simply states the inevitable result of what we will be ie. sinners, at the point of birth when we come into the world, ie a “sinner” is born.
Waggoner:
a). "Infants have no personal sins of which to repent,..." In other words they are not sinners, lost and condemned and do not fit the mold of: "If a person is a child of disobedience and of darkness, he is not a child of God." A child of disobedience and of darkness is one who has sinned and infants do not come into that category. They cannot be classified as: "All have sinned;" and therefore none are by nature children of God." SOP states that: "The word "therefore" implies a conclusion, an inference from what has gone before." {MB 76.1} In this case the reason that "none are by nature children of God."is because of what went before which is: "All have sinned; and therefore none are by nature children of God." Waggoner is simply stating that we all possess sinful fallen natures which naturally lead to disobedience and darkness, when we "come to years of understanding and accountability," and this is witnessed by the fact that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and it is by virtue of the fact that "all have sinned" that "none are by nature children of God."
What about Christ? He possessed a sinful fallen nature. Was he a child of God?
Waggoner cannot be referring to the SINFUL FALLEN NATURE as the reason that none are by nature children of God. Reason being, he also stated that: "Adam could not give his descendants any higher nature than he had himself, so Adam's sin made it inevitable that all his descendants should be born with sinful natures. Sentence of death, however, does not pass on them for that, but because they have sinned." [Note it is not a SIN to possess a SINFUL nature as the sentence of death is not passed on one who has such a nature but on one who commits sin.] Waggoner also stated: "Not that men are born into the world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy they have no knowledge of right and wrong, and are incapable of doing either, but they are born with sinful tendencies, owing to the sins of their ancestors. And when Christ came into the world, he came subject to all the conditions to which other children are subject".
Christ with our sinful NATURE was / is the child of God. Reason is the reverse of what Waggoner stated, that despite possessing our sinful NATURE which is not a sin in itself, he was not a child of disobedience nor of darkness and neither did he sin. Therefore, the sinful NATURE is not what is alluded to by EJW as the reason for our not being children of God but for the fact that “all have sinned". Christ possessed our nature and was a child of God in that nature. He did no sin.
b). They "are saved by virtue of the life of God poured out in Christ for all the race.." They are actually saved according to Waggoner.
c). " the tender infant on its mother's breast is the perfect picture of faith and trust. It is the farthest possible from rejecting God's grace."
d). "Infants that have not come to an age where they can understand right and wrong for themselves, are special subjects of God's favor."
e). "they cannot suffer the death which is the penalty of sin, for they have never had personal guilt. " They have no guilt or condemnation.
f). "Not that men are born into the world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy they have no knowledge of right and wrong, and are incapable of doing either,.." They are incapable of doing wrong.
g). "... but it is obvious that young infants cannot repent, and have nothing to repent of, having never committed sin.
h). "... so Adam's sin made it inevitable that all his descendants should be born with sinful natures. Sentence of death, however, does not pass on them for that, but because they have sinned."
i). " but a tender infant has no sins to be remitted, and so again there is no occasion for it to be baptized"
j). "Now an infant has no conscience of sin, neither is it living in sin."
Rightly understood I believe statements like the following should pose no difficulty at all:
2. "Man's relation to God, then, is simply this: By nature all men are sinners,- servants of sin,- children of Satan,- under the law,- condemned to death. {November 17, 1887 EJW, SITI 695.11}
3. All men are by nature sinners. {November 30, 1893 EJW, PTUK 550.10}
a. "By nature all men are sinners" - It is inevitable that with a sinful fallen nature, we ultimately end up sinners. His views on infants would appear to contradict the phrase but this is not the case if we understand that the inevitable result of our sinful fallen nature is what is meant.
b. "servants of sin" - The sinful nature naturally results in us committing sin and being the servants of sin. We are naturally a slave TO sin as a result OF a sinful nature. But praise God he has broken the stranglehold of this sinful nature and placed in man the enmity, the faith which overcomes, the light which lighteth every man and the grace of God which bringeth salvation.
c. "children of Satan" - And naturally if willfully the servants of sin we become the children of satan.
d. under the law" - the sinful nature naturally leads to sin and results in us being under the condemnation of the law.
e. "condemned to death." - the inevitable result of a sinful fallen nature is sin and the wages of sin is death. As noted previously Waggoner is saying we are not condemned to death because we possess a sinful nature but that all have sinned.
Nowhere do I understand Waggoner inferring that we are born sinners or that sin is nature which condemns us to hell should we perish soon after birth. He does use the phrase "born sinners" (only twice on the CD ROM. Ellen White does not use it at all.) but rightly understood as expressed above, he means we are born with sinful natures which inevitably result in sin hence one can say we are "born sinners" but only with the latter thought in mind. I believe we ought to avoid the phrase "born sinners" in order to avoid any misunderstanding of our position and because of the proximity in meaning of the phrase to original sin. Similarly, we should avoid "born in sin" in case someone thinks we mean the child is a sinner AT birth and not inevitably a sinner BY birth, by being born into the world. Waggoner clarified his position on what it means to be "born in sin" as noted previously and repeated in the following:
“It may be objected that the child is born in sin,-that it has a sinful nature,-and that therefore it should be baptized for the remission of sins. {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.7}
“But death came by sin, and as Satan is the author of sin, so he has the power of death. Since we are partakers of flesh and blood, born in sin, Christ also Himself took part of the same; "that through death He might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil; ..." -- {1900 EJW, EVCO 117.2}
Therefore to be "born in sin" means to possess a sinful nature and Christ also himself took part of the same and can be said to be “born in sin” according to Waggoner.
4. "We were made sinners by birth; we are made righteous by the new birth. {July 15, 1897 EJW, PTUK 434.4} In what way were we made sinners by birth? Clearly we were not sinning at birth as Waggoner has stated on numerous occasions: "Now an infant has no conscience of sin, neither is it living in sin.", "Infants have no personal sins of which to repent,..." , "... but it is obvious that young infants cannot repent, and have nothing to repent of, having never committed sin. "
So how then were we made sinners BY birth? By inheriting from Adam a sinful fallen nature. That is what fundamentally leads to the end result of sin, hence the label "sinners by birth". Our inheritance is a nature which leads to sin, guilt, condemnation and death if we willfully continue along that path.
WAGGONER: "By nature, all persons are in a state of bondage. They are born into a prison, and this prison is represented by the carnal nature. Men may not realise the fact, like the Jews who said to Christ, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man;" but the truth is not affected by man's ignorance. "Whosoever committeth sin is the bond servant of sin." John viii. 34. All men are by nature sinners. "Of whom a man is overcome, of the same is He brought in bondage." 2 Peter ii. 19. Satan is the author of sin. Satan overcame Adam, and thus the whole human family were brought into the bondage of sin. {November 30, 1893 EJW, PTUK 550.10}
5. “We are not responsible for having been born sinners. {January 12, 1899 EJW, PTUK 21.4}
6. "We did nothing to make ourselves sinners; we are born so, but the first Adam dragged us all down with him in his fall. {November 23, 1899 EJW, PTUK 746.11}
7. "Through no fault of our own, but "by one man's disobedience," through the sin of our first father Adam, we are all born sinners. {November 23, 1899 EJW, PTUK 746.8}
Again to interpret Waggoner correctly one would have to conclude that he is not speaking of the act of committing sin at birth and equating that with being born sinners but of the fact that we possess sinful fallen natures as a result of Adam's fall and equating that inheritance with being born sinners, which of course we played no part in and therefore are not responsible for the predicament we now find ourselves i.e. with a sinful fallen nature which unaided will only result in SIN. Waggoner is taking what amounts to a foregone conclusion in every man's life, ie. being a sinner, and applying it to the point of our entry into the world when one is born – “born sinners”.
8. "We have all felt the motions of sin working in our members and forcing us to do this thing that we would not, testifying to the fact that we were made sinners by birth." {May 1, 1902 EJW, PTUK 288.2}
Notice he says: "We have all felt the motions of sin working in our members and forcing us to do this thing that we would not,.." In other words at the age of understanding we have come to appreciate the out working of that sinful nature we were born with, the prison house we are in and like Paul we are frustrated that the thing that I would not, that I do, testifying to the fact that we were made sinners by birth - by our coming into the world with a sinful fallen nature which is now brought sharply into focus with our coming of age and which can only bring forth sin and the cry: "O wretched man that I am...." Note he says "we were made sinners BY birth." not "we were made sinners AT birth"
9. "As by that one man's disobedience you and I were made sinners, so by that other one Man's obedience you and I are made righteous. ... You and I were not made subject to sin, not made heirs to sin, by our own sinning; it was in us before we had time to sin. {October 16, 1900 ATJ, ARSH 659.8}
10. By whose sin were many made sinners? - Adam's. {February 25, 1897 EJW, GCDB 156.6}
11. How is it that by the disobedience of one we have been made sinners? - We have inherited it. {February 25, 1897 EJW, GCDB 156.9}
12. Just as we were made sinners, born sinful, through the disobedience of Adam, even as we may be made righteous, born again God's obedient children, through the obedience of Jesus. {July 4, 1901 EJW, PTUK 426.10}
In what way or through what mechanism have we been made sinners? By the disobedience of one. So what did we inherit that made us sinners? We inherited the mechanism for sinning – the disobedient [sinful] nature of Adam. The expression of that nature results in sin, hence the declaration “sinners”. That’s how we were MADE SINNERS. We inherited the disobedient nature of Adam.
Finally, compare these statements; their meaning should be obvious after the above discussion:
1. If a person is a child of disobedience and of darkness, he is not a child of God. "All have sinned;" and therefore none are by nature children of God. {February 24, 1887 EJW, SITI 123.1}
1. "Infants have no personal sins of which to repent, and are saved by virtue of the life of God poured out in Christ for all the race. … Men can live only by faith; but the tender infant on its mother's breast is the perfect picture of faith and trust. It is the farthest possible from rejecting God's grace. It shows us how we should be related to the living Word. Of this Christ bears witness, through David, when He says to the Father: "Thou didst make me trust when I was upon my mother's breast." Ps. xxii. 9. {December 12, 1901 EJW, PTUK 790.12}
2. "Man's relation to God, then, is simply this: By nature all men are sinners,- servants of sin,- children of Satan,- under the law,- condemned to death. {November 17, 1887 EJW, SITI 695.11}
2. "Infants that have not come to an age where they can understand right and wrong for themselves, are special subjects of God's favor. By virtue of Christ's sacrifice they share in the universal redemption from the death which results from their being descendants of Adam. They do not have to be baptized in order to be made alive from this death, for that is promised to the wicked as well as to the good. But being made alive from this death, they cannot suffer the death which is the penalty of sin, for they have never had personal guilt. Consequently they are saved by God's grace, the same as all who are saved, but without baptism, for it is impossible for them to comply with the conditions of baptism; they can neither believe nor disbelieve. {August 25, 1890 EJW, SITI 461.1}
3. All men are by nature sinners. {November 30, 1893 EJW, PTUK 550.10}
3. "Here we see that baptism is connected with repentance; but it is obvious that young infants cannot repent, and have nothing to repent of, having never committed sin. We find, in this instance, that "they that gladly received his word were baptized." Vs 41. {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.4}
4. We were made sinners by birth; we are made righteous by the new birth. {July 15, 1897 EJW, PTUK 434.4}
4. "Again, referring to the text first quoted, we find that baptism, preceded by belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, is "for the remission of sins;" but a tender infant has no sins to be remitted, and so again there is no occasion for it to be baptized. {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.6}
5. We are not responsible for having been born sinners. {January 12, 1899 EJW, PTUK 21.4}
5. "Now an infant has no conscience of sin, neither is it living in sin. It needs no exhortation not to continue in sin, nor to "live any longer therein," for it is as completely dead to sin as it is possible for anybody to be. Indeed, it has never yet been alive to sin. Therefore baptism would be for it wholly a work of supererogation. {January 9, 1902 EJW, PTUK 20.9}
6. "We did nothing to make ourselves sinners; we are born so, but the first Adam dragged us all down with him in his fall. {November 23, 1899 EJW, PTUK 746.11}
6. As in the case of the saints--the justified--so in the case of infants. They have no sins for which to answer. They cannot fall under a penalty, because they are innocent. Yet they die; of course not as sinners condemned, but as mortal creatures cut off from the tree of life by the action of Adam. His sin brought condemnation to himself, and it was deserved; but it brings no condemnation to these innocent ones; they do not deserve it, and "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." {1878 JHW, TOB 81.2}
7. "Through no fault of our own, but "by one man's disobedience," through the sin of our first father Adam, we are all born sinners. {November 23, 1899 EJW, PTUK 746.8}
7. There will be three classes in the resurrection. One, of sinners condemned, who have never accepted the gospel nor received pardon through Christ. The second death claims them as its own. Another, the saints; those who have had their sins washed away by the blood of the Redeemer. Being justified, the law has no claim against their lives. "On such the second death hath no power." The third, infants, who have never sinned. Of course they are not condemned; they have done no wrong; on no principle of justice can they be condemned. Through Christ they are brought up from death, of course to die no more. They stand related to the law as the saints do; not as the saints, pardoned, but as innocents, against whom no charge can be brought. Having no sin upon them, they will die no more. That life they get through Christ as truly as do the saints. Hence they can join the everlasting song of redemption, with all the saints in glory. Had it not been for Christ they would have remained dead. For eternal life, its joys and its glory, they are as truly indebted to divine love and favor in the gospel as David, or Peter, or Paul. Thus it is easy to see that infants are saved by the gospel, but not by means of faith, repentance, and baptism. These are for sinners, not for innocents. {1878 JHW, TOB 82.1}
“A terrible doom awaits the sinner, and therefore it is necessary that we know what sin is, in order that we may escape from its power. John says, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." Here we have the true definition of sin; it is "the transgression of the law." How often the sinner is urged to leave his sins, and come to Jesus; but has the messenger who would lead him to Christ clearly pointed out the way? Has he clearly pointed out the fact that "sin is the transgression of the law," and that he must repent, and forsake the breaking of God's commandments? Christ will come to consume the false prophet, to sweep away the hosts of apostasy, to take vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of God; and it is of the highest importance to each one of us that we know the conditions by which we shall escape the sinner's doom. It is of the greatest moment that we understand the nature of our fall and the consequences of transgression. Man's conscience has become hardened by sin, and his understanding darkened by transgression, and his judgment has become confused as to what is sin. He has become benumbed by the influence of iniquity, and it is essential that his conscience be aroused to understand that sin is the transgression of God's holy law. He who does not obey the commandments of God is a sinner in the sight of God.”
{ST, June 20, 1895 par. 5}
Extra evidence;
1. "But it must not be supposed that making "a good confession" means the recollection and acknowledgement of every act of sin that has ever been committed. That is an impossibility. In the first place, life would not be long enough for a man to recount all his sins, even if he knew them; and in the second place, no man can know all his sin. The sins that lie hidden in the heart,-the sinful nature,-are as deadly as those that have come to the light. {August 31, 1893 EJW, PTUK 337.7}
2. "The sins that lie hidden in the heart,-the sinful nature,-are as deadly as those that have come to the light. So confession involves the acknowledging to God that there is no good thing in us, and praying, "Cleanse Thou me from secret faults." Ps. xix. 12. And this alone is sufficient to show that confession should be to God only, and not to man, except to the man whom we may have offended. For confession does not mean the telling of news, but the acknowledging of a known fault. {August 31, 1893 EJW, PTUK 337.7}
3. "There are many people, even Christians, who wonder why it is that in the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples to pray, there is the petition constantly for the forgiveness of sins, when it is taught, and provided and expected, that His disciples shall not sin at all. This petition is in that prayer for this very purpose that we shall not sin, and as the sure defense against our sinning. Sin is in us. Our human nature is a sinful nature a nature full of sin. Yet though this be ever true, as surely as we recognize, and acknowledge, and confess it, and offer the Offering that is ever acceptable to God, so surely the sin is forgiven and we are made "partakers of the divine nature;" and the sin of our human nature is not manifested, but the righteousness of the divine nature is made manifest instead. {August 12, 1908 ATJ, MEDM 646.3}
4. "Now an infant has no conscience of sin, neither is it living in sin. It needs no exhortation not to continue in sin, nor to "live any longer therein," for it is as completely dead to sin as it is possible for anybody to be. Indeed, it has never yet been alive to sin. Therefore baptism would be for it wholly a work of supererogation. {January 9, 1902 EJW, PTUK 20.9}
5. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Acts ii. 38. Here we see that baptism is connected with repentance; but it is obvious that young infants cannot repent, and have nothing to repent of, having never committed sin. We find, in this instance, that "they that gladly received his word were baptized." Verse 41. {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.4}
Here are some of the sentiments of the other side regarding infants. These are very Catholic and should find no place in the third angel's message. The ideas expressed are very similar to those I recall as a child and scared the hell out of us as children. (Personal testimony by an ex-Catholic) Compare these with those of our forefathers which I have italicized bold. These are on the "Words of the Pioneers" CD. Thought I'd share them with you:
1. "And John Calvin, of Servetus memory, disposes of juvenile infants as sinners without ceremony. He tells us: "Children bring then condemnation with them from their mother's womb, being liable to punishment, not for the sins of another, but for their own; for, although they have not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity, they have the seeds enclosed in themselves; nay, then whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin;therefore it can but be odious and abominable to God." {August 22, 1865 UrSe, ARSH 91.9}
"The requirement to repent refers only to sinners, and that to be baptized is for the remission of sin. But infants have no sins of which to repent, or to have remitted. The last two propositions call for more extended notice. {1878 JHW, Thoughts On Baptism 74.6}
2. Rev. Jonathan Edwards says: "Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell in the tongs of his wrath, until they turn and spit venom in his face." {August 22, 1865 UrSe, ARSH 91.8}
"As in the case of the saints--the justified--so in the case of infants. They have no sins for which to answer. They cannot fall under a penalty, because they are innocent. Yet they die; of course not as sinners condemned, but as mortal creatures cut off from the tree of life by the action of Adam. His sin brought condemnation to himself, and it was deserved; but it brings no condemnation to these innocent ones; they do not deserve it, and "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." {1878 JHW, TOB 81.2}
3. The Rev. Thomas Vincent a Calvinistic clergyman of the seventeenth century, indulges in the following strain: "This will fill them (the saints) with astonishing admiration and wondering joy, when they see some of their near relatives going to hell; then fathers, their mothers, their children, their husbands, their wives, their intimate friends, and companions, while they themselves are saved. . . . . Those affections that they now have for relatives out of Christ will cease; and they will not the least tremble to see them sentenced to hell, and thrust into the fiery furnace! {August 22, 1865 UrSe, ARSH 91.6}
"There will be three classes in the resurrection. One, of sinners condemned, who have never accepted the gospel nor received pardon through Christ. The second death claims them as its own. Another, the saints; those who have had their sins washed away by the blood of the Redeemer. Being justified, the law has no claim against their lives. "On such the second death hath no power." The third, infants, who have never sinned. Of course they are not condemned; they have done no wrong; on no principle of justice can they be condemned. Through Christ they are brought up from death, of course to die no more. They stand related to the law as the saints do; not as the saints, pardoned, but as innocents, against whom no charge can be brought. Having no sin upon them, they will die no more. That life they get through Christ as truly as do the saints. Hence they can join the everlasting song of redemption, with all the saints in glory. Had it not been for Christ they would have remained dead. For eternal life, its joys and its glory, they are as truly indebted to divine love and favor in the gospel as David, or Peter, or Paul. Thus it is easy to see that infants are saved by the gospel, but not by means of faith, repentance, and baptism. These are for sinners, not for innocents. {1878 JHW, TOB 82.1}
4. The Rev. Thomas Boston, an orthodox divine, in his Four-fold State says, "The godly wife shall applaud the justice of the Judge in the condemnation of her ungodly husband. The godly husband shall say, Amen, to the condemnation of her who lay in his bosom! The godly parents say,Hallelujah, at the passing of the sentence on their ungodly child. And the godly child shall from his heart approve the damnation of his wicked parent who begot him, and the mother who bore him."--Page, 336. {August 22, 1865 UrSe, ARSH 91.5}
"Doubtless many besides Spiritualists will adopt that language as their own, and will fancy that in so doing they are bringing an unanswerable argument against the doctrines of Christianity. But everybody who has read the Bible to any purpose knows full well that it does not teach that either infants or adults are condemned for an offense committed either 6,000 years or half as many minutes before they were born. Neither is one person condemned for the offense of another, no matter when that offense is committed. The Bible plainly declares:- {January 20, 1887 EJW, SITI 48.13}
5. Emmons says, "The happiness of the elect in Heaven will in part consist in witnessing the torments of the damned in hell. And among those it may be their own children, parents, husbands, wives, and friends on earth. One part of the business of the blessed is to celebrate the doctrine of reprobation. While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of those miserable objects, will say, 'Amen, hallelujah, praise the Lord.'"--Sermons, XVI. {August 22, 1865 UrSe, ARSH 91.3}
"John preached the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." This dictates that he did not baptize infants. His message was, Repent, and believe. Repentance and faith were the indispensable conditions. Without these things none could be baptized by John. But infants cannot repent and believe. They have no knowledge of sin, and no ability to believe. Therefore those who take up and carry on the work of John the Baptist,-the work of preparing a people for the coming of the Lord,-will have nothing to do with the so-called baptism of infants. They will not thus caricature one of the most solemn ordinances of the Gospel. {May 3, 1894 EJW, PTUK 276.5}
6. There is a never-ending hell, And never-dying pains; Where children must with demons dwell, In darkness, fire, and chains. {August 22, 1865 UrSe, ARSH 91.10}
Rom. vi. 1-6. [quoted] "Can you not see that this applies to those who have been living a life of sin, and who consciously come to Christ for salvation from sin, that they may not live any longer therein: and that therefore it can by no means apply to infants? The same apostle who wrote this, said of the Jewish ceremonies that they could never make the comers thereunto perfect, and that if they could do so, they would not be offered year by year, "because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sin." Heb. x. 1, 2. Now an infant has no conscience of sin, neither is it living in sin. It needs no exhortation not to continue in sin, nor to "live any longer therein," for it is as completely dead to sin as it is possible for anybody to be. Indeed, it has never yet been alive to sin. Therefore baptism would be for it wholly a work of supererogation. {January 9, 1902 EJW, PTUK 20.9}
7. Have faith the same with endless shame, To all the human race; For hell is crammed with infants damned, Without a day of grace. --Dr. Watts. {August 22, 1865 UrSe, ARSH 91.11}
"But I will not leave the matter here. I cannot read the Bible through to you in this "corner," so as to show you that it does not mention infant baptism; but I can set before you the nature and object of baptism, so that you can see that it is plainly a thing with which infants cannot have anything whatever to do; or, rather, which cannot have anything to do with them. So let us study the subject briefly. We cannot do better than start with the words of Peter filled with the Holy Spirit: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Acts ii. 38. Here we see that baptism is connected with repentance; but it is obvious that young infants cannot repent, and have nothing to repent of, having never committed sin. We find, in this instance, that "they that gladly received his word were baptized." Verse 41. {January 8, 1903 EJW, PTUK 19.4}
Do not confuse our sinful human NATURE which we had no part to play in and for which we are not responsible or condemned for, with SIN, the transgression of the law for which we are responsible at the age of accountability and ultimately will lose eternal life as a result of.
Thank God for Jesus who took upon himself our sinful fallen nature and in that nature was victorious over this “thing” called SIN leaving us an example that we should follow his steps who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth.
"Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. {DA 638.2} "
“As Adventists; however, we do not believe in original sin.” “The Witness that our Fathers Bore” (ML Andreasen page 55)