Will Jesus Save All Infants?

In the online world of theological debate, everyone is talking about “infant damnation.” This is in response to the “#baalgate” controversy, in which Warren McGrew (aka “Idol Killer”) compared the mentality of those who hold this doctrine to that of ancient pagan worshipers of Baal who offered their babies as sacrifices in exchange for their own rewards. His comments were taken by many Calvinists as a slam against Calvinism in general, though he has clarified that he was speaking only of those who also affirm infant damnation. Regardless of whether or not his comparison is valid, the spotlight is shining on this important, yet highly unpleasant topic. While most contemporary Calvinists outright reject infant damnation, some, including one of McGrew’s most vocal critics, James White, affirm it to one degree or another. Why would anyone support such a troubling doctrine? Why is this even a question? 

Historical Background 

The doctrine of infant damnation is inseparably tied to the doctrine of original sin, which can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.). Prior to Augustine, all orthodox Christians agreed that each and every human being suffers the consequences of Adam’s sin, which are a natural bent towards sin and, ultimately, death. This view is commonly referred to as “ancestral sin.” What makes original sin distinct is the added imputation of guilt for all humanity thereafter. All of Adam and Eve’s children, and all children thereafter, were then conceived with his willful sin attributed to their account, and thus they are justly deserving of eternal punishment. This view is echoed by 18th century preacher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards: 

“It is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments.” 

For Augustine, water baptism was necessary to wash away original sin for each and every person, infants included. Without baptism, the soul would certainly be punished in hell for all eternity. This became the predominant view within the Roman Catholic Church, at least until limbo emerged as a more gracious alternative. “Limbo of the infants” can be defined as an eternal state for those who did not personally commit sin, but also did not receive baptism for the removal of original sin. Opinions have varied through the ages, with some proposing it as a mild form of punishment. Others, such as Thomas Aquinas, suggested that it is experienced by inhabitants as a place of everlasting joy, while they remain ignorant of the greater joy of heaven. In any case, limbo is a permanent state. Such a “middle place” was previously condemned by Augustine:

“…let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness…”

In the past few centuries, many Catholic theologians have expressed hope that even unbaptized infants could be saved. In 2007, the International Theological Commission, under Pope John Paul II, release the document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” It reads: 

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.”

While landing short of affirming the salvation of all infants, this represents considerable movement in that direction since Augustine. It is worth noting that no view regarding the eternal destiny of infants has ever been made official Catholic doctrine, which has allowed for this shift. However, the affirmation of the necessity of baptism into the Catholic Church has been consistent.

On the Protestant side, it has always been a question of Heaven or hell with no third option. While reformers such as Calvin and Luther echoed Augustine in regard to God’s justice in damning all humans souls to hell, they also maintained that God has the right to choose to save whoever He pleases. As such, the vast majority of Protestants have maintained that at least some infants who die are saved. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states: 

“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ.” (10.3)

Many Calvinistic Protestants insist this doesn’t imply that there are reprobate infants who are cast into hell, but the wording leaves room for most adherents of infant damnation to affirm the statement.

Calvinists divide into at least four camps. Most believe God elect all infants to salvation by appealing to the goodness of God’s grace. Loraine Boettner says: 

“The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen.”

Some Calvinists believe that God elects some infants and not others irrespective of their parents, just as he elects and reprobates all people for no reason in and of themselves. Others believe that the children of believers are counted as elect, while those of unbelievers are not. A very small minority believe all infants are punished eternally in hell. (Yes, they do exist) What unites all Calvinists is that salvation is not granted on the basis of faith. 

Arminians and other non-Calvinistic Protestants have the challenge of showing how God can grant salvation to those who haven’t yet placed their faith in Christ. To justify universal infant salvation, most simply appeal to the goodness of God. The only way around this would be to allow for the possibility of postmortem salvation. If infants could be given a chance to mature and place their faith in Christ, then no exceptions would need to be made. A small minority of Protestants have presented postmortem opportunity for salvation as a way in which many could be saved. Among them are C.S. Lewis, and more recently, Jerry Walls. 

Weighing Our Options 

For all our differences, it is interesting how most Christians across denominations seem to be converging on this issue from a variety of angles. That being said, there remains no consensus. From what I’ve observed, there are seven ways Christians have answered the question, “What happens to babies when they die?” What are the pros and cons for each position? Allow me to present and critique each.

Universal Damnation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy, suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This view is consistent in that it upholds that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ alone. Since infants have not come to understand the Gospel and respond in faith, they have not obtained salvation. This also upholds the universal need for a Savior.

Cons: It is simply unfathomable that the same God revealed in Jesus Christ would condemn billions of children throughout history to eternal punishment without any ability to commit personal sin, or to trust Him to forgive them of such sins they have yet to commit. This view presents God as having the opposite posture towards children as that of Jesus in Scriptures such as Mark 10:14 and Matthew 18:2-6. Also, the Holy Spirit-led conscience of believers cries out against this. It would seem that for this to be true, the Trinity would be hopelessly divided.

Covenantal Election of Infants

Summary: Children of the elect are saved. The rest suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: Comfort can be given to Christian parents who grieve the loss of a child. King David can be cited as an example of one who would be reunited with his child in eternity. One might also point to the conversion of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-40, most notably verse 31: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Cons: In addition to those of #1, this view lacks consistency in a number of ways. First, it creates a class of “elect” who die without professing faith in Christ. Salvation cannot be through “faith alone” unless this is coupled with the belief in postmortem salvation. Once postmortem salvation becomes a possibility, why then should that be limited to those children with elect parents? Second, how do we suppose that salvation is transferred from parents to children? Can it be father or mother, or must both parents be saved? What if they aren’t believers when the child is conceived, but one or both become believers later in life, after the infant dies? Also, if salvation is transferred, how would it be lost if the child survives to an age that he or she rejects Christ? This distinctly Calvinistic version of infant damnation would have to either reject the Perseverance of the Saints or conclude that salvation was never transferred from the parents. The most glaring issue for the Calvinist is that election based upon the faith of the parents is conditional election.

Unconditional Election of Infants

Summary: Elect children are saved irrespective of their parents. All other children suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This seems to me to be the most consistently Calvinistic position. There is truly nothing in the child upon which God bases his decision to save. Election is unconditional. The remaining children are left to the eternal consequences of their sinful state.

Cons: Like #2, salvation cannot be said to be through “faith alone” unless there is postmortem opportunity for salvation. Also, this is not comforting for grieving Christian parents. If most adults are not saved believers, certainly most infants would also not be saved, since God saves infants in the same manner as adults. Moral objections to #1 also apply here.

Damnation of Unbaptized Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All others who die without baptism suffer eternal punishment.

Pros: This is a very clear method for knowing if your child is saved. If your child has been baptized, you are assured they are saved if they should die in infancy.

Cons: This does nothing to comfort those who have suffered miscarriages or whose child died before he or she could be baptized. While eternal punishment may be of a lighter form than for adults who added their own personal sin, the implications are still awful for the majority of infants who have died throughout history. From a Protestant perspective, it is easy to see how this can create a system rife for abuse. Since salvation can only be obtained through baptism into the Roman Catholic Church, believers can also have their salvation revoked by the same authority. 

Limbo of the Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All other infants who die remain in limbo for all eternity.

Pros: Children don’t suffer eternal punishment. This middle ground seems more just in that God is neither rewarding with Heaven nor punishing with hell those who have not done anything to deserve either.

Cons: While this offers some consolation, parents are still left grieving the loss of their unbaptized children for all eternity. They have no hope of being reunited. The default position of humans then is to remain lost, and that is a troubling conclusion when considering the salvific work of Jesus. Is He the Savior of all humanity from conception or just a portion? While God may show them mercy, it seems there is no salvific grace for those who die too young, through no fault of their own.

Universal Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are saved.

Pros: This is truly good news for all parents who grieve the loss of infants, and for the children themselves. The heart of Jesus for children we see in the Gospels is consistent with the gracious gift of salvation for those who have suffered the consequences of sin without personally committing sin.

Cons: As with the previous options, other than universal damnation, salvation is not through “faith alone” since infants are incapable of consciously placing faith in Christ. Thus, the standard for receiving the gift of eternal life is inconsistent across the human race. This may not be a dealbreaker in itself, but it is especially problematic for the Reformed. Central to Calvinism is Unconditional Election. If all who die as infants are saved, how is this not a condition for salvation? For God to say, “You died as an infant. Therefore, I will save you,” is a very clear example of God choosing to save an individual with respect to something about that individual. While most Calvinists today believe all infants who die are saved, they do so in a way that undermines Calvinism.

Postmortem Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are given the postmortem opportunity to express faith in Christ and be saved.

Pros: In addition to upholding the goodness of God and Trinitarian unity in the welcoming of children, this position also has the advantage of a consistent standard of salvation through faith in Christ alone. There would be no theoretical case of a child being welcomed into Heaven while refusing to worship Christ as Lord. 

Cons: There is no guarantee that all infants would willingly place their faith in Christ. Here is where our views on the created state of human souls will make a huge difference. If souls are created in a fallen, totally depraved state, then it would seem that they would universally reject Christ postmortem, just as they would in this life. However, if souls are created innocent, and not in a hardened state of rebellion against God, it would seem quite likely that most, if not all, would willingly receive the offer of salvation in Christ. So our views on original sin will determine whether we think this will result in some infants being damned. Perhaps the greatest challenge for this view is the lack of clear biblical support. Hebrews 9:27 is often cited as evidence against postmortem opportunities, though it must be interpreted in an absolute, immediate, and final sense to rule them out.

Where I Stand 

As children often repeat in Sunday school, “God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good!” Do we as Christians sincerely believe this? Do we believe what Jesus said about children?

“Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19:13-14)

Considering the goodness of God and his love for children, the only good options are #6 and #7. In years past, I would have ruled out the possibility of postmortem salvation, but I lean towards that view now, especially as I consider how it can resolve all of these difficulties. The words of Jesus, counter to Augustinian anthropology, suggest that children are predisposed to believe. He cites them as possessing the kind of faith we should all desire to have. It is only as we grow older that we can become cynical and jaded. Thus, hearts become hardened. They don’t begin that way. For this reason, I am convinced that all infants, given the opportunity by Christ Himself to place their faith in Him, will do so. 

This could even make sense of the Catholic conviction concerning baptism. If infants have the opportunity to grow enough to place their faith in Christ, it’s no stretch to imagine that they might also have the opportunity to be baptized in a temporary dwelling place prior to entering the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. 

I am not convinced that Hebrews 9:27 rules out postmortem opportunities, and I do think that Scripture teaches of the “Harrowing of Hell” in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6. In these verses, it seems that Peter is teaching that Jesus preached the Gospel to lost souls in Hades while He was bodily in the grave prior to His resurrection. If I am interpreting 4:6 correctly, Jesus was giving these people the opportunity to receive Him as Savior or be judged for their sins in their rejection. There are alternate theories to explain these verses, but I believe this makes the most sense, and is consistent with the expressed desire of God to save each and every person (see 2 Peter 3:9). If God was willing to give wicked sinners another chance to believe and be saved, why wouldn’t He give innocent children that opportunity?

Logically, it would seem that some form of postmortem faith in Christ is necessary for any view where infants are saved. Faith can only be exercised by those who have developed the maturity to understand and believe, and it seems reasonable to assume that infants in the afterlife will not remain infants forever. So the question then is WHEN do they express faith in Christ: before or after they enter Heaven? Additionally, evidences from near death experiences suggest that individuals who have died as infants are present, and they mature in the afterlife. Of course, NDEs are controversial, and it’s debated whether they say anything about eternity. I believe they make a compelling case for postmortem opportunities, but that’s a topic for another day.

Some might object that if infants are not personally guilty of sin then they do not need a Savior. Infants have not sinned, but those who died suffered the consequences nonetheless. Is their suffering in vain? Will those who suffered the cruel injustice of abortion be vindicated, or will such evil remain eternally victorious? Everyone needs a Savior because everyone dies. Only Jesus has the power to raise us up out of our graves. 

I am convinced that the Good News of the Gospel is for all of the human race. Jesus has redeemed the totality of mankind. It is only those who willfully reject Him that will not receive His salvation. It is never a matter of Him first rejecting us. Whether it’s through an act of instantaneous transformation, or the grace to simply allow these souls to choose life with Jesus, I cannot know for certain, but I can be sure that our God loves these infants. He sympathizes with their suffering, and will call them to Himself with His arms stretched out to receive them.

And what a glorious reunion that will be for those of us who have lost a child so young! Many of us have experienced the sorrow of miscarriage, and never had the joy of meeting our child face-to-face. Yet something within our souls knows that this isn’t the end. We will meet them someday, and we will never again have to say goodbye.

Concluding Thoughts 

Looking back on the history of infant damnation within Christendom has left me with conflicted emotions. On one hand, I am saddened to see how pervasive this doctrine has been throughout the centuries. On the other hand, I am greatly encouraged that the Holy Spirit is at work, pricking the conscience of believers to a place where we can all hope for the salvation of “the little ones.” We are, slowly but surely, being brought into conformity with Christ.

Making Sense of Christianity 4: The Spiritual War

As I explained last time, the world is tainted by the effects of sin, but each of us are personally guilty of contributing to the mess. Human responsibility lies at the core of what is wrong with the world and why we see so much evil. However, the problem runs much deeper than the physical realm in which we choose to satisfy our skewed physical appetites. Underneath it all, there is a spiritual war for the souls of each and every human being.

Souls with Bodies

Orthodox Christians believe that human beings are not merely physical machines. While we have bodies, we are souls. This dual nature involves the interaction between the two, where the soul affects the body and the body affects the soul. They are not one and the same, but are both needed to live according to God’s design for our lives here on the earth. This dual nature is also reflected in the relationship between the brain and the mind. The two are not the same, but work in concert with each other. How we think and what information we choose to take in impacts the brain, and the condition of the brain impacts our ability to think (ie. brain trauma, Alzheimer’s). The immaterial part of ourselves, which we associate with our “hearts” and minds, is where our core identity resides. I can imagine my soul inhabiting a different body and still being the same person, but if I imagine a different soul inhabiting my body, I intuitively know that such a person would not be “me.” So it is self-evident that I am most essentially a spiritual being. Going back to what we said about the “image of God,” it only makes sense that we are most essentially spiritual in nature because God Himself is an immaterial, spiritual being. As Jesus said, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John‬ ‭4:24‬) Therefore worship of God is not rooted in physical action, but spiritual submission to Him. 

Spiritual Beings

God has created us as spiritual beings who inhabit physical bodies, and God Himself is an immaterial, spiritual being who is not bound by any physical limitations. But are there any other beings that are spiritual in nature? There is some debate among Christians as to whether animals have souls, and I believe they do, though they are not created in the image of God (Ecclesiastes 3:21). If they have souls, then human beings are above them in a hierarchy of beings with God at the top. Yet Scripture teaches us that there are other created beings who are spiritual in nature, but are in at least some ways, superior to human beings (Hebrews 2:9). These are what we call “angels.”

Angels and Demons

Like human beings, it seems that angels possess all the qualities we attribute to the image of God. They are rational, moral beings, possessing the ability to choose to submit to or reject God’s purposes for them. Unlike human beings, they do not possess physical bodies, but seem to have some kind of “spiritual body” which allows them to interact with the physical world, but also inhabit the heavenly realm. Regardless of their relationship with God, their spiritual bodies are not under the curse of death, so it seems that they will go on living forever unless God willfully extinguishes their lives. This is not to say that they have existed for all eternity (only God has), but they were created at some point in the past to dwell in the presence of God. 

Like human beings, all angels were created good, but some of them turned against God in an act of rebellion. It is believed by many Christians that as many as 1/3 of all the angels rebelled against God and were cast out of His presence. The leader of this rebellion is called “Satan” or “the Devil.” Those angels, which we call “demons,” are in a continual state of rebellion, and they are actively working in our world to thwart God’s plans for His creation. When it comes to human beings, that means appealing to fellow moral agents to join their rebellion against our Creator. (See addendum below for my theory on why they rebelled.)

Hope for Humanity 

While the fate of Satan and the host of demons is set, ours is open-ended. We will die a physical death, but the destiny of our souls is a matter to be decided. For the angels, their sin is purely an act of the will. Being in the presence of a perfectly good, holy God and choosing to war against Him is something you don’t return from. There is nothing God can do to show Himself more worthy of their worship and devotion, so their decision is made. However, human beings have not known the fullness of the glory of God, therefore we are capable of seeing Him more clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12). It is possible that those of us in a current state of sinful rebellion could come to know more about who God is, and learn that He is worthy of our love and devotion.

Demonic Strategy

Now we can begin to see the war raging all around us. Demons, though they are motivated by pure hatred of God and not physical desires for sin, know that we have those desires, and can influence us to obey them, knowing that doing so will begin to reshape our affections to be in opposition to God’s will for our lives. Hebrews 3:12-13 says, “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” 

Sin’s Deception

How can sin be deceitful? Going back to what I said earlier, the body and soul are interconnected. What we do with our bodies has an impact on our souls. We can become hardened in unbelief by embracing the desires of our flesh. The demons know that if we indulge ourselves, we will become willing to join their rebellion against God. And this is what we see in Romans 1. “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭1:24-25‬). 

Continuing in this thought from verse 28 onward: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;” (Romans‬ ‭1:28-31‬). 

What we see is a progression from physical disobedience to spiritual hostility. The culmination is in verse 32: “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” At this stage, the individual has joined forces with Satan and the demonic host in waging war against God by encouraging others to join the rebellion. This is why no Christian can be in the business of calling sin “good.” To do so is “Satanic.”

Like Satan

People often get confused by Christians talking about things being Satanic. The assumption is that we are ascribing an intention in those who practice such things to worship Satan. Some Christians might believe this, but most of us do not. The truth is that what is Satanic (or “demonic”) has nothing to do with any conscious acknowledgment of Satan. An accurate definition would be to say that whatever is like Satan in its willful rebellion against God is Satanic. To live in opposition to God’s stated or teleological purposes is to do as Satan and his demons did. This is Satanic rebellion, and those who are “religious” can be be guilty of it, as Jesus makes clear in John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.”

The Great Deceiver

Satan is called “the father of lies,” and sin accompanies those lies. Just as the practice of sin can affect our thinking so that we believe lies to justify our sin, we may also first believe lies and proceed to sin in our flesh on the basis of those false beliefs. Remember, the body is dependent on the mind, and the mind is dependent on the body. This is why it is important to be grounded in the truth and to understand what we believe as Christians and why we believe it. 

How does Satan go about achieving his plan? As Jesus said, he is a liar. Through demonic influence, we are deceived into believing that rejection of God’s will is what is best for us. Consider how this played out in the Garden of Eden: “Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” ‭‭(Genesis‬ ‭3:4-6‬) 

Just as Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 tells us that the serpent who deceived Adam and Even in the garden was Satan, we are also led on the path of sin through the deception of spiritual beings whose influence in the world can lead us to join their rebellion. 1 Peter 5:8 says: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

Looking Ahead / Catching Up 

Putting all of this together, it would seem that we are in a hopeless situation. We have sinful appetites in our bodies working against us, and we have a whole host of beings more powerful than ourselves who are actively working to deceive and lead us to sin, which itself deceives us into believing the lies that they tell us. It’s a vicious cycle. Yet God has provided a way for us that leads to freedom from sin and death. This way is not dependent on our perfect obedience, for He knows what we are dealing with. This will be made evident next time, as we discuss “Atonement Through Incarnation.” 

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Addendum

The following is my own speculation about why Satan and the demons rebelled against God. Scripture doesn’t give us an answer, so this is my best guess. Take it for what it’s worth. 

I think it could be that Satan resented that God created this world, and particularly that He created human beings in His image. As angels, they had a unique relationship to God as “sons of God” prior to our creation. God’s choice to create lower beings that also bore His image was something Satan found to be beneath Him and defiling to His holiness. As the first to object to God’s plan, Satan found other angels to join him in voicing their disapproval. Lacking trust in His wisdom, and thinking they knew better than the all-knowing, perfectly benevolent God, they sought to turn all of the heavenly host of angelic beings against Him. In response, God banished them from His presence, yet gave them the freedom to influence His created world. God would prove to him that He would succeed in His plan to bring human beings into a loving relationship with Him, and that Satan could try his hardest, but he would still lose. This plan would not only succeed in bringing in many human beings who willfully chose to worship God, but would also succeed in exposing those angels who had enjoyed His presence and worshiped Him in practice, yet did not truly submit to Him as their Lord. 

Now that the demons have been expelled, and certain judgment awaits them, their goal is to make a fool of God and show that His plan failed. They are committed to the task of destroying human flesh by deceiving us into trusting our physical desires above God’s intended design for our lives. Satan desires to annihilate the human race and prove that he was right and God was wrong. But God will win in the end!

Making Sense of Christianity 3: Sin and Death

If there’s one thing everyone can agree upon it is this: the world is not as it should be. While we all see significant problems, we offer vastly different and contradicting solutions to them. Much of our disagreement arises from where we believe the problems originate. The secular world often assigns the blame to external circumstances and accidents of nature, believing that human beings are victims of chance. Those who inflict harm on others do so because others inflicted harm on them, with the blame continually pushed back in an endless chain of prior causes. Christianity offers a different view. Evil exists in our world because we all sin. While each individual cannot change their circumstances, we always have a choice to do what is right or wrong. Therefore, the world is tainted by the effects of sin, but each of us are personally guilty of contributing to the mess. 

What is Sinful about Sin?

While the Christian belief in personal responsibility and the universal sinfulness of the human race is well known, what is not clearly understood by most, including those within the Church, is what makes a sin a sin. Many understand it in terms of “divine command theory.” That is to say, a sin is a sin because God declares it so. The Bible states that such and such behavior, thought, or belief is wrong, therefore it is sin. While God’s commands make it clear to us that such things are sinful, they don’t encompass all of what is sin, especially since Scripture is silent in many areas. While we can apply principles from certain commands to other situations, we cannot always arrive at a clear answer. Perhaps there is a better way to understand sin. I believe that better way is teleology.

Teleology

Teleology is the idea that there is purpose and design in nature. Many of us may be familiar with teleological arguments for a Creator God that show how “fine-tuned” the universe and our planet are to make life possible. We might consider the distance from the earth to the sun, or the strength of the gravitational force, or how we happen to have the water and food we need to survive, as well as the abiltity to reproduce to keep life going. These are a minuscule sampling of the various factors of what is required for us to live and sustain life, and they collectively make a powerful case for the conclusion that this world is not an accident, but the result of an intentional Creator. However, we often fail to make the connection to how we ought to live. If God has fine-tuned the universe for our existence, couldn’t He also have created us with functional purposes in mind? For many, the discussion of teleology stops short at what has been done for us. Doesn’t it also imply what WE should be doing?

Recall what I said in the previous post: “If He (God) IS love, then love is in accordance with what is good, which is in accordance with what is rational, which is in accordance with the will of God. And if this is so, the perfect expression of our love is to be in submission to His will for our lives, and to encourage others to do the same.” From this we can logically infer that sin is that which is not in submission to God’s will, which is ultimately irrational, not good, and unloving. From a teleological perspective, sin is the willful rejection of God’s design for human beings to flourish. Having this framework for our definition of sin helps to bring clarity to the issue. On divine command theory, God’s rules may be arbitrary. Theoretically, He can command us to do things that we know intuitively to be morally wrong. From a teleological perspective, He only commands us to do what is good for us collectively and helps us to function properly in this world. This proper function is based on God’s knowledge of His creation and how it is designed to work. Instead of merely “because God says so,” we want to obey Him because it is good for us to do so. Living according to the purpose for which we are created is the way that we flourish. When we disobey, there are negative consequences for us and for others. 

Another advantage teleology provides is that it helps make sense of sin as a universal problem for humankind. For much of humanity prior to Christ, and continuing today, access to Scripture and the stated commands of God is either forbidden or has yet to be obtained. There are corners of the world where the Gospel has yet to be preached and the Scriptures have yet to be delivered to the people. Are those who have not heard accountable for commands they haven’t received? 

Breaking From the Design

Romans 1:18-32 details the universal sin problem, and shows how sin is not rooted in arbitrary commands, but is associated with rebellion against God’s design for human nature. Those who have not heard the specific commands we find in Scripture still have knowledge of God as revealed in the natural world. They have enough of this knowledge that verses 19-20 says, “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” What follows is an explanation of how detachment from God-given design and purpose leads to our affections being for created things, and our behaviors deviating from the form and function for which we exist. Verses 26-27 illustrate the degree to which teleology is rejected. “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” The example Paul uses here may trigger our modern sensibilities, but it is a clear example of sin being defined as a break from God’s intended design for human beings. Following desire over design leads to destruction.

God’s Right to Life

Teleology stands in sharp contrast to our culture’s commitment to autonomy. While we value our own right to do whatever we want with our own bodies, God requires that we submit ourselves to His will. Disobedience is disfunction, and it leads us to destruction. While Christians defend the “right to life,” we often fail to see that it is first and foremost God’s right, and it applies to each and every one of us. Our lives belong to God as our Creator and the one who gives us our purpose. We are accountable to Him. He has the right to give us life and the right to take it away. 

The Consequences of Sin

This brings us to the reality of death. As Scripture records in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they brought damage to God’s perfect design. The thing about sin is that it takes root in the body of the sinner and skews its desires, making the sinner prone to keep on sinning. Once that first sin was introduced to the human race, it began a cycle of sin that was then passed on to the children of the first couple as they inherited the fallen flesh of their parents with its sinful appetites. The human body was misaligned with its perfect design, and would be incapable of restoring itself to its original condition. 

To be in unity with God is to be in perfect alignment with His will. We have each “fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and have incurred the penalty of death as the “wages of sin” (Romans 6:23). As God warned Adam and Eve, “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).

The Mercy of Death

Through sin, suffering and death were introduced into the world. The “curse” of death is often seen as punishment, but what is often overlooked is the mercy of God. We are told that God set angels at the Gates of Eden to block entry so they would not have access to the tree of life. The lesson here is that it is not God’s will for the human race to exist eternally in a sinful state. Death is required to free us from our fallen condition. But death is not God’s ultimate desire for us. His desire is that we live forever free of sin. We cannot do so in our present state. 

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

We love to do things our own way, and to make matters worse, there are powerful forces at work to lead us down that path. I will turn my attention to those next time as we discuss “The Spiritual War.”

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith