Warren McGrew’s supporters argue that Original Sin cannot be true because children cannot know they are fallen in Adam. However, this objection overlooks several key points.

First, knowledge of sin is not a necessary requirement for accountability. It is possible to be liable for wrongdoing even if unaware of it. This principle is evident in various legal and moral frameworks where ignorance does not absolve one of responsibility. Additionally, it may be that our innate self-knowledge includes an awareness of our fallen nature, even if not explicitly articulated.

Moreover, it’s important to distinguish between committed sins and Original Sin. While someone might not have committed personal sins, they still possess Original Sin, which is inherited from Adam. This distinction is foundational in Reformed theology, where a clear line is drawn between actual sins (those committed by an individual) and Original Sin (the inherited sin nature). One can possess Original Sin without having committed any personal sins, reflecting the inherent human condition from birth.

1. John Calvin (1509–1564)

Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, clearly differentiates between Original Sin and actual sins. He argues that Original Sin is the inherited corruption and guilt from Adam, which every human being possesses from birth, irrespective of any personal actions. This inherent sinfulness means that even infants, who have not committed personal sins, are still guilty before God due to their inherited sinful nature.

“Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh’ [Gal. 5:19].” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, 1.8)

2. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

The Westminster Confession, a central document in Reformed theology, also makes this distinction. Chapter 6 discusses the fall of man, Original Sin, and the transmission of sin. It states that all humans inherit the guilt of Adam’s first sin and a corrupt nature from which all actual transgressions proceed.

“By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 6, Section 2)

“This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 6, Section 5)

3. Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

Bavinck, a Dutch Reformed theologian, also upheld the distinction between Original Sin and actual sins. He argues that Original Sin is the root from which all actual sins grow and that this inherited sin nature renders everyone guilty before God, even before they commit personal sins.

“Original sin…consists in the depravity of human nature as it is born in each individual, a depravity which is total, encompassing the whole person, and remaining in believers even after their regeneration. This sin is distinguished from actual sins, which are those evil thoughts, words, and deeds that proceed from this depraved nature.” (Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ)

4. Louis Berkhof (1873–1957)

Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology, discusses the nature of sin and makes a clear distinction between Original Sin and actual sins. He explains that Original Sin includes both the guilt and the corruption inherited from Adam, while actual sins are the individual transgressions that people commit.

“It is customary to distinguish between original and actual sin. Original sin is the sin which is ours in virtue of our descent from Adam, and includes both guilt and pollution. Actual sins are those which are the outflow of the corruption of our nature, the sins which we commit ourselves.” (Systematic Theology, Chapter 17: Sin in the Life of the Human Race)

Let’s examine some of the biblical passages often cited in this debate:

Deuteronomy 1:37-40

“The Lord was angry with me also because of you and said, ‘You will not enter there either. Joshua son of Nun, who attends you, will enter it. Encourage him, for he will enable Israel to inherit it. Your children, who you said would be plunder, your sons who don’t yet know good from evil, will enter there. I will give them the land, and they will take possession of it. But you are to turn back and head for the wilderness by way of the Red Sea.’”

This passage refers to children who were not culpable for their parents’ unfaithfulness, as they lacked the ability to discern the moral status of their parents’ rebellion. The language used here is not so much about ignorance as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card, but rather that these children were not held morally responsible for their parents’ sins due to their lack of discernment.

“These children were not morally responsible when their parents chose to rebel against Yahweh. They did not know ‘good from bad’ (cf. Isa 7:15–16; 8:4; Jnh 4:11). This phrase does not signify innocence but a lack of ability to discern morally. The prophets denounced those who knew better and who called ‘evil good and good evil’ (Isa 5:20; cf. Mic 3:2; Am 5:14). The Lord told the Israelites who rebelled at Kadesh Barnea to turn around and head back the way they came. Yahweh closed the door of opportunity for them to enter Canaan.”
(Michael Alan Grisanti, Deuteronomy)

Grisanti emphasizes that the children lacked moral discernment, rather than being innocent. The key point is that they were not held accountable for the sins of their elders, not that they were free from sin altogether.

“Along with Caleb, those children who were beneath the age of discernment (who today do not distinguish between good and evil) would be permitted to enter the promised land; their age freed them from any responsibility for the cowardly position adopted by the adults. It seems, too, that the adults had used the children (whom you said would become captives) as an excuse in their rebellion against the command of the Lord. Their concern for the children was valid, but it was misplaced since it implied that the Lord (‘who carried you just as a man carries his son,’ v. 31) was not able to protect his own people, young and old alike.”
(Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy)

Craigie highlights that the children’s age exempted them from responsibility for their parents’ rebellion. The adults’ concern for their children was valid, but it reflected a lack of trust in God’s ability to protect them.

Furthermore, it is important to remain skeptical of the claim that this passage implies these children lacked any moral discernment whatsoever. The ages mentioned likely ranged from infants to 20 years old. It’s unreasonable to suggest that a 20-year-old is incapable of moral accountability. For example, consider serious crimes committed by individuals under 20—are we to believe they were incapable of understanding right from wrong?

“The young people were not morally responsible for the sinful decision of their elders not to enter the land. The generation who will enter the land is defined as those who at the time was twenty years old or younger. It is this generation that Moses is now addressing on the plains of Moab.”
(John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Deuteronomy)

Currid reinforces that the younger generation, defined as those 20 years old or younger, were not held responsible for the sins of their elders. However, this does not mean they were devoid of any moral accountability.

Isaiah 7:15

“He’ll eat cheese and honey, when he knows enough to reject what’s wrong and choose what’s right.”

The language here is similar to Deuteronomy 1:37-40, and some commentators believe they share the same idea—referring to a time before the child can make moral decisions.

“Before he knows how to reject evil and choose good has been interpreted in two ways. Some believe it refers to moral discrimination (as in Gen. 2:17; 3:5; Deut. 1:39; 1 K. 3:9; Isa. 5:20) and, in that light, suggest an elapsed time of twelve to twenty years. Others point to 8:4, where it is said that Isaiah’s son will not be able to speak clearly before Damascus and Samaria are plundered, and argue that this is the correct interpretation of good and evil here: distinguishing between what is helpful and what is harmful. (2 Sam. 11:35 is appealed to here since it appears that Barzillai is not speaking of moral discernment, but of his capacity to appreciate pleasure; cf. RSV.) Either idea would fit here.”
(John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah)

Oswalt presents two interpretations: one focused on moral discrimination and the other on practical discernment. Either way, this does not negate the doctrine of Original Sin, as the passage does not address the inherent sinfulness of the child.

Romans 9:11

“For though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand—not from works but from the one who calls—she was told, The older will serve the younger.”

This passage refers to God’s sovereign election, not the absence of Original Sin. It affirms that God’s purpose in election is independent of any human actions, underscoring the biblical teaching of God’s sovereignty over human destiny from conception. It’s also important to note that this passage is addressing the lack of committed sins, not the presence or absence of Original Sin.

1 Corinthians 14:20

“Brothers and sisters, don’t be childish in your thinking, but be infants in regard to evil and adult in your thinking.”

Paul advises Christians to be innocent regarding evil, likening it to the innocence of infants. This is an exhortation to avoid sin rather than a statement about the inherent sinfulness or innocence of infants. It emphasizes that believers should strive to remain untainted by sin. This distinction between avoiding personal sins and the inherent nature of Original Sin underscores that one can possess Original Sin without having committed any personal sins.