When it comes to the false doctrine of Original Sin, also known as “Hereditary Total Depravity,” or “Born with a Sinful Nature,” we often hear this common response to try and support this ungodly doctrine that, “No one has to teach a baby to be selfish, self-seeking, or demanding.” The proponents of this doctrine of devils try to prove we are born with a sinful nature by pointing to babies! A baby crying for his mother is called sin! A baby crying because he is hungry is called sin! A baby wanting his diaper changed is called sin! A baby wanting comfort in his mother’s arms is called sin! People, please think about this. What utter lies. The only way a baby can communicate when in discomfort is to cry. Jesus had to do the same to get his mother’s attention!
How can you believe such utter nonsense when the Bible is clear that committing sin is breaking God’s law? No one becomes a sinner until he breaks God’s law (1 John 3:4) and is guilty when giving into temptation (James 1:13-14).
The Bible is also clear that sin is not passed onto others. Sin is not a substance. It is not in the DNA. Sin cannot be transferred from one person to the next. This is silly. Think about it. Ezek. 18:20 is clear that no one bears the guilt of the father nor the father bear the guilt of the son. No one inherits Adam’s sin, but we do suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin. Big difference. Mankind suffers the consequence of Adam’s sin as in pain, sickness, and eventually physical death. However, no one inherits Adam’s guilt. If a man is arrested for stealing, they do not put the parents on trial. The man is guilty for his own transgression.
Since sin is moral issue which is a transgression of the law and conscience (1 John 3:4; James 4:17), and babies are not able to make moral decisions, they are morally neutral! (2Kings 14:6; Deu. 24:16; 2Chr. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-4; Eze. 18:19-20) Babies are innocent. Children are not guilty of evil, nor worthy of praise until they are able to make their own decisions (Rom. 9:11). They have to come to the age of accountability where they know to do right and do wrong, thus sin. (Jas. 4:17) This sin is not by necessity, but rather by choice. (Jas. 1:13-15). This is why every human is responsible for the ‘things done in the body’ and is judged ‘according to what he/she has done, whether it be good or bad.’ (2Cor. 5:10)
The Bible is clear that it is “YOUR iniquities” and “YOUR sins” that separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2). It was not our birth.
Moral character, whether it be good or evil, can never be inherited.
Scripture states in Romans 2:14-15,
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
God made us with a nature to do those things contained in the law, even for those Gentiles who did not have the written law (moral law). This passage proves that if a person lives his/her life according to the precepts of God’s “Law” they have, in effect, BECOME a law unto themselves.
God gives everyone a conscience. But people can ignore their conscience and therefore sear their conscience (1 Tim. 4:2).
The following is a study that was done which showed that even babies know the difference between good and evil at the age of six months. Now I would not say that babies have the knowledge in the sense that they have the ability to reason, to compute, and to analyze, but God makes us with a nature that is good and upright (Ecc. 7:29) and the law written upon our hearts (Rom. 2:15), and everyone faces the day when they have to make moral decisions with the knowledge that they actually know when it is right or wrong. To me, this study shows that babies already see the difference because of the innate nature God has given them even though they do not have the understanding yet. (Isa. 7:15-16)
But notice how some researcher urge caution because it may be what the baby preferred. There will always be denial from those who refuse to look at the Creator who made us and who instilled in each of us a nature that starts out upright and made in His image. It is when we go astray that we go against our nature!
Babies know the difference between good and evil at the age of 6 months, study reveals.
At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let alone take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk.
But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.
An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences. Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.
In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones.
In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.
Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: “A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life.
‘With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life.
‘Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.’
For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys – spending far longer looking at the ‘good’ shapes than the ‘bad’ ones.
‘In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,’ Prof Bloom told the New York Times. ‘This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.’
Two more tests found the same moral sense.
In one, the researchers devised a ‘one-act morality play’, in which a toy dog tries to open a box. The dog is joined by a teddy bear who helps him lift the lid, and a teddy who stubbornly sits on the box.
They also made the babies watch a puppet cat play ball with two toy rabbits. When the cat rolled the ball to one rabbit, it rolled the ball straight back. But when the cat rolled it to the second rabbit, it picked up the ball and ran off.
‘In both studies, five-month-old babies preferred the good guy – the one who helped to open the box; the one who rolled the ball back – to the bad guy,’ said Professor Bloom.
When the same tests were repeated with 21-month-old babies, they were given a chance to dish out treats to the toys – or take treats away.
Most toddlers punished the ‘naughty rabbit’ by taking away treats. One even gave the miscreant a smack on the head as a punishment.
Although the studies appear to show that morality is hard-wired into babies brains, some psychologists urged caution.
Dr Nadja Reissland, of Durham University, said babies started to learn the difference between good and bad from birth.
‘Everything hinges on who decides what is normal,’ she said. ‘By saying pushing the ball up the hill is helpful, the researchers are making a moral judgement. The babies might just prefer to see things go up rather than down.
‘In the other test, perhaps the bear closes the box to prevent the dog from getting in there because there is something dangerous inside. It is like a mother keeping children out of an area where there is something harmful.’