Are We Born Sinners?

I was recently asked a seemingly simple question: "Aren’t we all born sinners?" Like many biblical questions, the answer appears straightforward, until it isn't. The more I considered the question, the more I realised the answer depends on how the question is framed. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that we all sin, regardless of how we understand the mechanics.

It seems reasonable to assume that if professing Christians are to open a conversation about the doctrine of sin, we might first agree that the biblical position on the matter is true and that God holds the final authority in the story. We might agree that free will is not sin, and therefore not something we can blame on the Creator. Free will is, in fact, limited; it exists only within the bounds of creation. Man and nature alike can never become God.

Is the distinction between being born with sin and inheriting the guilt of sin merely semantic? In my estimation, no. The idea that we are born with sin suggests that sin is embedded in creation itself, which would mean God created something flawed. Alternatively, inheriting the guilt of sin suggests the punishment of Adam's sin is imputed—the punishment not being the result of committing sin, and therefore not to be considered genetic. The decision to sin begins later in the conscience of man.

This commentary has a narrow focus that concerns the spiritual condition into which we are born. Whether we argue that we are born sinners or that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, one fact remains: we all eventually sin. The more pressing question is, when does this occur?

 I’m not convinced by the theological simplicity of Wayne Grudem’s statement, suggesting "Our sinful nature was inherited from Adam because Adam sinned.” While it may have the appearance of doctrinal clarity, it seems theologically underdeveloped. The statement itself raises deeper and more pressing questions about what exactly the “sinful nature” is. Is it something we “inherit” from Adam, as suggested by Grudem, as though it were passed down genetically, and solely because of his transgression? Or is the so-called sinful nature dormant within the nature of free will, long before Adam sinned? It seems logical that pride, lust, and rebellion do not arise from outside ourselves, but latent, unprovoked potentials within the architecture of free will, capable of becoming sin when presented with choice. After all, Eve’s decision to sin was provoked before she ate the apple. If that’s the case, then sin is not inherited from Adam, at least in the manner Grudem suggests; rather, it’s a function of moral agency. The “nature” that makes sin possible is not corrupt or passed down from Adam, because the capacity to choose pre-existed the fall.

If free will exists, so that man can freely love God, then logically, the capacity not to love God must also exist. Rebellion must be a possibility for love to have any meaningful value. This raises an even more provocative question: What if Adam had not sinned? Would the sinful nature still exist? If the “sinful nature” is viewed as a latent proclivity, then yes. What we call a “sinful nature” is a misleading term for the inherent potential of free will to choose wrongly. Adam’s sin didn’t create the sinful nature, it activated it. Though perfect, the danger was already present in the moral architecture of creation, not as a defect, but as design. However, the fall of Adam is ultimately immaterial insofar as God knew his creation would sin. This is why salvation, through Christ, is the beating heart of the gospel. And salvation has no relevance if sin does not exist.

The real tensions lie in the language, the metaphor, the interpretation, and the sequencing of events. A coherent theology of sin must be rational and harmonise four interlocking themes: the fall, the implications of free will, Jesus’ sinless life, and His death and resurrection. The language in scripture around predestination must be viewed through the lens of God’s foreknowledge. He knows the beginning and the end. When God predestines something, He is not predicting or deciding in advance; He’s revealing what He already knows.

The question of whether we are born with sin or inherit the guilt of sin ultimately hinges on how we interpret metaphorical language, particularly where Scripture speaks of death, free will, and guilt. Take, for example, Paul’s statement in Romans: “The wages of sin is death.” Death can be physical, spiritual or both. The phrase here implies something far more severe than physical death, it defines death that signifies total separation from God.

If a Christian believes that education or the power of the human will can resolve sin, they fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. If the apple was the problem, then remove the apple. But humanity cannot be described as good, not because we fail by accident, but because the spirit of free will is inherently self-consumed. Real transformation requires a brutal awareness of what Scripture calls “filthy rags” and a sober reckoning with the reality that got Adam evicted from the garden in the first place.

The thought behind the question “Aren’t we all born sinners?” assumes a baby is born having already sinned. This isn’t possible, physically or psychologically. Sin requires an act of the will, a conscious choice, even though the will is predisposed through inclination (Rom 7:7-12). Therefore, we are not born with sin. Theologian Wayne Grudem suggests this period of innocence may extend up to two years. In my experience, that’s somewhat generous.

Inherited guilt - The second part of this question is that we begin life separated from God, why? Humanity inherits the consequences of Adam’s sin, but what does it mean when we say that Adam’s sin is imputed? How do we reconcile this with the innocence of a newborn? This is where inherited guilt is more precise language. It describes not sin itself, but a position, a spiritual condition, and a curse, into which we are born. Inherited Guilt is the idea that we are held accountable for the consequences of Adam’s sin and thus receive the same punishment.

The first mention of this concept appears in Genesis 3:22, interpreted through God's omniscience:
"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life..."
From that point forward, death reigned. No one lives forever.

The second reference follows in Genesis 3:23:
"So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden..."
Every human being is born outside the garden, separated from God, and spiritually dead. This death is a metaphor for the complete disconnection from God.

The third reference is the curse on the creation (Rom 8:19-22). On humanity is outlined in Genesis 3:16-19.

“To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam, he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

In the final analysis, we’re all sinners, whether or not we agree with the terminology. The real question is not whether we are born with sin or inherit guilt, but rather, how will sin define our future?