There are two false assumptions I see online repeatedly regarding original guilt:
- That if you hold to total depravity or original sin, then you must also hold to original guilt. (false)
- That there are only two options on original guilt: affirm or deny. (false)
And so, the thinking goes, strike down original guilt (or, more often, the Realist version of it), and you’ve successfully argued against total depravity. (false)
Dr. Thomas McCall has a chapter in his book, Against God and Nature: The Doctrine of Sin, where he outlines the range of views on the question of original sin vs original guilt, and divides the proponents into at least six categories.
Here’s a chart I put together based on McCall’s chapter. The labels and quotes are from his book (of course, he says far more about each view; the quotes I’ve chosen are just intended to give a basic idea of the category, and do not cover all of the nuances within each camp), with the page number from the Kindle version noted. The proponents are also from McCall’s book, but I may not have all of these correct (McCall will sometimes quote an author’s description of a view, but it is not clear if the author actually agrees with that view himself), I think I have them right, but I’d still say to use that part with a bit of caution — or better yet, read McCall’s chapter.
You can click on the image to enlarge:
A few of my own thoughts:
Don’t assume
Since Total Depravity is “in consequence of the sin of our first parents” (Richard Watson)—and since Total Depravity is one of the 5-points of Arminianism—it is safe to assume all Arminians hold to original sin. But as you can see from the chart, not all Arminians (nor even all Reformed authors) hold to original guilt, and among those that do, they may still not agree on what that means. Arminians can be found holding at least three of the six views, and Reformed authors span all six.
You will also notice, as McCall points out, “where there are disagreements, they do not run along the predictable ‘Calvinist vs. Arminian’ lines—if anything, Wesley is arguably in closer continuity with the confessional Reformed tradition than is Edwards” (p 30)!
And between those camps, the differences can be stark: even Herman Bavinck, who held Federalism, did not hold back in his criticisms of the Realist view (see McCall, pages 213-214). So if you find you have an issue with Realism, don’t assume you must reject original guilt in every form. You might just be rejecting one version of it, and you may even find those who hold another version of original guilt agree with your criticisms.
Infant Damnation?
Another question often raised when original guilt is discussed is whether we who hold to original guilt also hold that infants are therefore damned by it. That is, if all people, including infants, are guilty in Adam, then do we think those who die in infancy might be sentenced to Hell?
No.
As the Wesleyan Theologian Richard Watson explains: We can’t regard “the legal part of the whole transaction which affected our first parents and their posterity, separately from the evangelical provision of mercy which was concurrent with it, and which included, in like manner, both them and their whole race.” (Institutes, Vol. 2, p 56)
Original guilt is part of the problem stemming from Adam’s rebellion, but it is not the end of the story. Remember, Arminians hold to unlimited atonement, and the universal work of the Holy Spirit (prevenient grace). Infants are, of course, recipients of this work.
Arminians have had different ways of explaining of how grace and atonement are savingly applied to infants, but we all agree —in the case of those dying in infancy— they are. Richard Watson, who held Federalism, can serve as an example. He writes: “If, however, an infant is not capable of a voluntary acceptance of the benefit of the “free gift;” neither, on the other hand, is it capable of a voluntary rejection of it; and it is by rejecting it that adults perish.” (p 59; See his full discussion from pages 57-61: GoogleBooks).
Arminius’ position?
You might be questioning whether Arminius has been placed correctly. And you’d be right to wonder. After all, in Arminius’ “Friendly conference with Junius”, he actually writes that God does “imput[e] the guilt of the first sin to all the posterity of Adam, no less than to Adam himself and to Eve, because they also sinned in Adam” (Works, vol 3, p 249).
In their book, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas McCall (yes, the same McCall) write, “The modern reader who compares all the relevant passages in Arminius’s writings must acknowledge a degree of ambiguity.” (p 149) They weigh the passages and conclude that Arminius held that original sin is the punishment for Adam’s guilt, which ends up as a “corruption-only” type view. But other authors have interpreted Arminius differently. For discussion on this point, see Stanglin & McCall, Jacob Arminius, p 149-150; Paul Harrison, “Edwards on Original Sin and Depravity”, in Jonathan Edwards: A Reformed Arminian Engagement, (M. Pinson, ed), chapter 3, note 52; Matthew Pinson, 40 Questions About Arminianism, page 141; and John Mark Hicks, “The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch”, p 23-25 (but compare Mark A. Ellis, Simon Episcopius’ Doctrine of Original Sin, page 77, who challenges some of Hicks’ conclusions).
