The Narrow Path Ministries

If we aren't considered sinners from our fathers, then what exactly has a baby done that was sin? All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. A baby is part of all, isn't it? It seems to me a baby could only have sinned if we consider original sin, but if that's the case, then we are judged by our fathers sin. It really seems like these two verses are contradictory, but I know that God's word is infallible, so the misunderstanding MUST be on my part. As the title suggests, I'm confused and need some clarification.

It is possible, of course, for someone to be a 'sinner' and yet not be held accountable for their sins. All it would take would be grace.

Personally, I don't think Paul really has babies in mind when he says that all have sinned. I think he is thinking of all the people that can comprehend his statement. Babies are, of course, part of a fallen creation and do, of course, grow into sinfulness. But most Christians believe that God's grace covers children until they reach an 'age of accountability.' So it is not that children prior to this age are innocent... it is that their sins are not held against them yet.

Paul's statement, "All have sinned..." is in a context where he is seeking to show the Jews among his readers that they are not better, merely by dint of being Jewish, than are Gentiles. The whole first three chapter, as a unit, build this case. The verse in question is given as a conclusion to the extended argument: "For there is no difference [i.e., between Jew and Gentile]; for all [Jew and Gentile] have sinned..." (Rom.3:22-23).

Matt is correct. The "all" in the verse is not referring to every individual, including babies, but to humanity without regard to racial distinctions. Though it may be true that every individual who lives on earth will sin, this is not the point that Paul is arguing.

I agree with Steve's explanation of "All have sinned".

Also, I would affirm that sin itself is not inherited from Adam and Eve or anyone else. However, I think we have inherited the sinful nature from Adam and Eve. Matt put it a little differently, that babies [and everyone else] are part of "fallen nature."

I recall as a teacher that when I stated that I believed that people were born with evil tendencies, the other teachers labelled me as a pessimist. They believed that everyone was born with a clean slate, and would become good if taught and trained properly.

Then I noticed that the other teachers were rather discouraged when the pupils didn't respond positively to their teaching. "With all we've done for them", one teacher bemoaned, "how can they behave in this way?" But if they got excited about their lessons and responded positively, this was only what the teachers expected.

As for me, I expected them to behave badly because of the fallen nature of mankind, and I got excited when they responded enthusiastically to what was taught.

So I questioned within myself, "Who is the optimist here, and who the pessimist?"

I expected them to behave badly because of the fallen nature of mankind, and I got excited when they responded enthusiastically to what was taught

I like this Paidion. It is also said; you have to 'teach' children to be nice, but bad comes out, 'without' instruction.
All* really young children I have known grab on to the word 'No' like it was their ticket to bliss. And 'I want' like it was their only goal in life.
I believe all will eventually sin, all have a 100% propensity to sin, and yet all may not be held accountable until God deems their reasoning matured enough. I believe we inherent the judgment on Adam, and it is up to us to prove the judgment inappropriate. Yet I think the human record proves God's judgment was right from the start, as if God knew the end from the beginning.
(*I have met some angelic children, who seem so to me, but the parents generally inform me otherwise)