ORIGINAL SIN WILL CONDEMN NO MAN

This was a charge leveled at Arminius by his Calvinistic opponents, that he taught: "Original sin will condemn no man." It also included the charge that he taught: "In every nation all infants who die without [having committed] actual sins are saved."¹ This charge was intended to condemn Arminius for denying original sin. He answered:

These articles are ascribed to [Adrianus] Borrius. To augment their number they have made them two when one would have been sufficient, from which the other necessarily follows, even according to their own opinion. For if "original sin condemns no one," it is a necessary consequence that "all those will be saved who have not themselves committed actual transgressions:" Of this class are all infants without distinction; unless someone will invent a state between salvation and damnation ~ by a folly similar to that by which, according to St. Augustine, Pelagius made a distinction between salvation and the kingdom of heaven.
But Borrius denies having ever publicly taught either the one or the other. He conferred indeed in private on this subject, with some candidates for Holy Orders: And he considers that it was not unlawful for him so to do, or to hold such an opinion, under the influence of reasons which he willingly submits to the examination of his brethren; who, when they have confuted them, may teach him more correct doctrine, and induce him to change his opinion.²

What the Calvinists of his day were vying for was that Classical Arminianism denied original sin. Clearly, however, Paul taught (and Arminius acknowledged) that "just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12 NASB). Can any Christian deny Paul's words, that, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23); or that, "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23); or that, "in Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22)?

Having concluded that the Word itself is correct, and that every person born into the world is born with a sin-tainted nature, are we, then, to assume that God is angry with every person born into the world for the specific sin which Adam committed? Arminius responded, in a conversation with an unnamed man:

For, in that case, the progress would be infinite, if God, angry on account of the actual sin of Adam, were to punish us with this original sin; were He again to be angry with us for this original sin, and inflict on us another punishment; and, for a similar cause were He a third time to be angry on account of that second punishment which had been inflicted, guilt and punishment thus mutually and frequently succeeding each other, without the intervention of any actual sin.³

The man to whom he was speaking replied: "Still it was sin." Arminius replied:

"I did not deny that it was sin, but it was not actual sin:" And I quoted the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in which the Apostle treats on the sin, and says that "it produces in the unregenerate all manner of concupiscence," thus intimating that we must distinguish between actual sin, and that which was the cause of other sins, and which on this very account might be denominated "sin."⁴

It was held by Augustine that infants who were not baptized, if they should die in infancy, would enter hell. For him, baptism washed away original sin. This false teaching, however, contradicts his view of unconditional election of some unto salvation. For if all infants were baptized, thus having original sin removed, how would all people not be saved, since God could no longer judge them for sin? Moreover, would not all baptized persons live in a state of sinlessness, since original sin had been eradicated? Arminius responded:

But with respect to the sentiments of the Ancient Christian Fathers, about the damnation of the unbaptized solely on account of original sin, they and their successors seem to have mitigated, or at least, to have attempted to soften down such a harsh opinion: For some of them have declared, "that the unbaptized would be in the mildest damnation of all" [is that any comfort?]; and others, "that they would be afflicted, not with the punishment of feeling, but only with that of loss."
To this last opinion some of them have added, "that this punishment would be inflicted on them without any stings from their own consciences." Though it is a consequence of not being baptized [a fault not of their own, mind you], that the parties are said to endure only the punishment of loss, and not that of feeling; yet this feeling exists wherever the stings or gnawings of conscience exist, that is, where the gnawing worm never dies. But let our brethren consider what species of damnation that is which is inflicted on account of sin, and from which no gnawing remorse proceeds.⁵

Original sin explains the commencement of our sin-tainted, sin-bent nature. Yet, when each person shall give account of his or her actions before God, He will not mention Adam nor his disobedience. Each one will be judged according to his or her own deeds (Rev. 20:13). It will thus not be original sin for which one is condemned, but for actual sins committed in the body.

Incidentally, since infants have no bad deeds, if they should die in infancy, God receives them into His care, for "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such" (Matt. 19:13-14; cf. 18:1-6).

1 James Arminius, "Apology Against Thirty-One Theological Articles: Articles XIII and XIV," in The Works of Arminius, Vol. II, trans. James Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 10.

2 Ibid., 10-11.

3 Arminius, 2:59.

4 Arminius, 2:59-60.

5 Arminius, 2:13.