(b) That the vitiosity, which predisposes to sin is a part of each man?s nature as it proceeds from the creative hand of God.
(c) That physical death in the human race is not a penal consequence of Adam?s transgression.
(d) That infants, before moral consciousness, do not need Christ?s sacrifice to save them. Since they are innocent, no penalty rests upon them, and none needs to be removed.
(e) That we are neither condemned upon the ground of actual in-being in Adam, nor justified upon the ground of actual in-being in Christ.
If a child may not be unholy before he voluntarily transgresses, then, by parity of reasoning, Adam could not have been holy before he obeyed the law nor can a change of heart precede Christian action. New School principles would compel us to assert that right action precedes change of heart and that obedience in Adam must have preceded his holiness. Emmons held that, if children die before they become moral agents, it is most rational to conclude that they are annihilated. They are mere animals. The common New School doctrine would regard them as saved either on account of their innocence or because the atonement of Christ avails to remove the consequences as well as the penalty of sin.
But to say that infants are pure contradicts <450512>Romans 5:12 ? ?all sinned?; <460714>1 Corinthians 7:14 ? ?else were your children unclean?;
<490203> Ephesians 2:3 ? ?by nature children of wrath.? That Christ?s atonement removes natural consequences of sin is nowhere asserted or implied in Scripture. See, per contra, H. B. Smith, System, 271, where, however, it is only maintained that Christ saves from all the just consequences of sin. But all just consequences are penalty, and should be so called. The exigencies of New School doctrine compel it to put the beginning of sin in the infant at the very first moment of its separate existence, in order not to contradict those Scriptures which speak of sin as being universal and of the atonement as being needed by all. Dr. Park held that infant?s sin so soon as they are born. He was obliged to hold this, or else to say that some members of the human race exist who are not sinners. But by putting sin thus early in human experience, all meaning is taken out of the New School definition of sin as the ?voluntary transgression of known law.? It is difficult to say, upon this theory, what sort of a choice the infant makes of sin or what sort of a known law it violates.
Was this article helpful?