Can infants sin?

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by ChristusResurrexit, Jun 30, 2015.

  1. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Thank you for your well-thought-out post.

    Still, I must say that I am strongly opposed to the Augustinian view of sin and original sin and find no basis for it in scripture or the early church. I am not Eastern Orthodox, but I agree with them on this.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  2. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Such an well-put post, @Lowly Layman.

    Ingenious formulation. :thumbsup:
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  3. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian

    Just to comment further, on the parts of your post I highlighted in bold. Not to deny your experience, but this was certainly not my experience. I have never liked to sin, nor have I liked watching others sin. It pains me to do so.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  4. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    A question: Do Anglican members here believe that Anglicanism is mostly in agreement with Augustine concerning man and sin?
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  5. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Certainly.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  6. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I would not deny your experience either, which is just the reason why I don't think experience is a good, or at least not the best indicator of the truth of a matters of Faith. It, like tradition, can vary over time and from person to person (or culture to culture in the case of tradition). I think the surest course is to stick primarily to the holy scriptures, using tradition and reason, with full recognition that both may be subject to human error, to aid in reconciling contradictory interpretations of Holy Writ.

    Sometimes scripture is silent on an issue; such cases are adiaphora matters where personal experiences and traditions, regardless of any Apostolic origin,may be freely relied upon by believers so long as and only up to the point that begins to run afoul of matters where scripture does speak.

    Jmo.
     
  7. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I've only read a little of Augustine's works, so I'm not in a position to say definitely...He is considered a church father, so I would try to respectfully defer to him unless there was a scriptural reason not to....could you give me a summary of his position on man and sin?
     
  8. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    I would agree with everything you said. I just happen to believe that scripture supports the Eastern view (and incidentally Anabaptist view) and not the Augustinian one.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  9. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Here is a brief article excerpt that might help in distinguishing the Eastern view from Augustine's view:

    "Original sin

    In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the "perfect" mode of existence of Man to the flawed or "fallen" mode of existence of Man. This fallen nature and all that has come from it is a result of "original sin." All humanity participates in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human and follow in his ways. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this renewal of the perfect mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

    This view differs from the Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin, the legacy of Latin father Augustine of Hippo, in that Man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin committed by Adam, conceived as the federal head and legal representative of the human race. According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine's interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born guilty and deserving of damnation, and Protestant doctrines such as predestination which are derived from the Augustinian theory of original sin and are especially prominent in the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions, are not a part of Orthodox belief.

    In the book Ancestral Sin, John S. Romanides addresses the concept of original sin, which he understands as an inheritance of ancestral sin from previous generations. Romanides asserts that original sin (understood as innate guilt) is not an apostolic doctrine of the Church nor cohesive with the Eastern Orthodox faith, but rather an unfortunate innovation of later church fathers such as Augustine. In the realm of ascetics it is by choice, not birth, that one takes on the sins of the world."
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  10. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Very interesting Celtic1, thanks so much for the excellent breakdown of the 2 schools on this. I'll have to chew on this for a bit.


     
  11. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian

    You're welcome.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  12. zimkhitha

    zimkhitha Active Member

    Posts:
    221
    Likes Received:
    218
    Religion:
    Anglican
    [QUOTE="As a father of two children (who are far better children than I ever was), I have had first hand experience with a child's capacity to sin. As babies, they were beautiful and fragile...but they were also selfish and would, like all children, cry if a want was not immediately and completely satisfied.[/QUOTE]

    Our parish priest did put it exactly the way you are putting it Lowly Layman. I haven't studied any of the ancient Fathers so my go to resource is always my confirmation class, which I attended as an adult. Our priest also pointed out at the ability of children to manipulate and blackmail in order to get their way. He also pointed out that as adults bringing children to baptism, in a way we are also promising to bring them up such that they leave these "evil ways" in childhood.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  13. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I’ve given this some thought and I cannot support the Eastern view and here are my reasons why.
    As I stated earlier, all doctrines held by the Church must be found in scripture or proved by it. Your article states:

    It appears then that the battleground, from an exegetical standpoint, is around the meaning of Romans 5:12, so I looked to chapter 5 for insight. Here is some context:

    From what I understand from your article, both the Eastern view and the Augustinian view are agreed that there is an inherited condition passed on from Adam and Eve to all future generations by virtue of their original sin. The Eastern view limits that inheritance to “consequences” which, while plural, is only identified as death as far as I can find. The Augustinian view also accepts that the consequences of Original Sin are passed on, but not just consequences …guilt is also passed on. The Eastern view lends itself to a belief that children are born innocent. And I don’t see how that can be reconciled with the passages in Psalms 51 and 58 that I quoted earlier in the thread.

    Additionally, when I read Romans 5:12 and other sections of the portion chapter 5 above, I can’t help but think that the Eastern view is incomplete (and therefore inaccurate). “Sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”. The Eastern view concentrates on the inherited curse of death but denies the inherited curse of sin. In so doing, the East makes God appear most unjust. What judge pronounces a death sentence on those who have committed no crime or for the crime committed by another? I think I hear the echoes of the Lewis Carrol’s Queen of Hearts shouting “Sentence first, verdict afterwards!”

    To me however, and this is why I lean toward Augustine, or at least his ultimate conclusion as described in your article, St. Paul did not write what the supporters of the Eastern view have read. Adam’s OS did not just make all men mortal—his OS made men sinners (“by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”). And the wages of sin is death.

    Perhaps the problem that many have with the idea of inherited “guilt” is that they mistakenly think the nature of this guilt is something equivalent to vicarious liability for the bad act of Adam. I do not believe that is a correct characterization of the guilt being transmitted. The guilt that is passed on is all too personal. Adam sinned, and in so doing made all his children sinners. Sinners sin…we cannot help ourselves. We are so enslaved and defined by sin-nature that we are identified by the evil we do. We are named “sinners” and we live up to the name by sinning from the very moment of conception.
    And this is as it must be…the Prophet Ezekiel prophesied:

    “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own. But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die.”

    The Eastern view contradicts this prophetic saying, requiring the children to suffer death for the sin of Adam regardless of whether they themselves have sinned? The Augustinian view rectifies this problem by pointing out that no one dies for the sins of the father, rather they die for their own sins, which they cannot refrain from committing. (“ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” “there is no one who does good, no, not one”).

    But further than that, and I know this sounds harsh, but it’s a fact of life that babies die. Newborns die. Children in the womb die. The scripture above says that only sinners die. If babies are not sinners, then the truth of the scripture passage above is destroyed. God’s word cannot be destroyed. If babies are completely pure, innocent and righteous, then the fact that they die is a divine injustice. But scripture says that they—and we—are all sinners who sin from the moment of conception.
    Please don’t misunderstand that statement. I don’t mean to say that babies as bad as a mass murderer who deserves death. I only mean to say that they are equally as bad off as any other sinner. Nor do I mean to say that it’s their own fault that babies die. If anything it’s Adam’s fault. His was the only completely volitional sin.

    Adam was created good, righteous and free of the stain of sin. Don’t miss the import of that. He was FREE of sin. He was a moral free agent who freely chose to sin. The curse was that the freedom he possessed was lost and everything got turned upside down. He and his children…and us…instead of being under the righteousness of God and being free (that is able but in no way compelled) to sin; fell under the rule of sin and became free of righteousness. (“When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.”). What Adam did in committing the OS was to compel us to sin.

    Adam’s OS was the spark. And what he transmitted to us is more than just smoke; it’s fire. And that fire burns in every heart at every moment. What Our Lord has done in effect, is to fight fire with water. Through the waters of baptism and the living water of His Grace, we have the hope of putting out that fire. Without that water, we are lost and the fire will consume us.
     
  14. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    I completely disagree and go with the EOC on this. A couple of points. On the contested verse, I trust the EOC interpretation over that of Augustine. The Easterners knew what the verse meant, they being knowledgeable of the Greek but Augustine coming at it from a Latin perspective.

    Second, your point about babies and death does not hold up. What about animals and indeed the entire creation? Animals are not sinners, but they die. Jesus overcomes death and Satan. Thus, the only correct interpretation of the atonement is also that held by the early church and for the first millennium, until Anselm, Latin Roman Catholic introduced the error of the Satisfaction theory which was to influence a worse error by the Magisterial Reformers, penal substitution.

    No, I'll go with the East who had the correct interpretation based on their knowledge of the Greek language in which the scriptures were written.
     
  15. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Good counterpoint Celtic. However, I need to point out that animals, unlike man in his original state, had no promise or expectation of eternal life. Genesis tells us that man, unlike all other of God's creations, was created in both the image and likeness on the eternal God. Man lost his immortal nature when he lost his innocence. Man and animals are not the same. So your argument is weakened in that regard.
     
  16. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Adam's and Eve's fall brought death and decay into the world, for them and the whole creation, including animals. There was no death prior to that.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  17. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.
    The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men

    IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
    Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

    XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
    The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

    _______________________________

    It seems for Anglicans there is a approach in the 39 Articles which does embrace a notion of original sin. The question then becomes how do you understand it, remembering of course that we are not a confessional Church, so the standing to the 39, may not be as legally binding as some would argue. I personally think that something of the Eastern view is entirely compatible with this, and that Augustine has on this and many issues been misrepresented by those who came after, often taking him beyond the point that he was making. Some want to see that Adam's Sin was special, in that it was then invested in the hereditary genes and simply passed down from one generation to another, whilst there is another view that sees Adam as the archetypal human representing the notion that we all share a capacity and inclination to serve self over other. Paul tells us 'all have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God' (Romans 3:23). I personally do not believe that our DNA has been corrupted as such, but rather the corporate notion of humanity as a whole has been damaged, and repaired in Jesus Christ.

    So can infants sin? For most of us the nation of sin requires an intellectual intent, which means we need an understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, and it would seem to me than requires a development from infancy. It seems to me that the notion of original sin proposed in the 39 suggests indeed that infants are not personally culpable but rather that as part of humanity they, like all of us, are in need of the redemptive love of God.

    I suspect that the language of original sin is less helpful that perhaps it once was.
     
  18. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Philip, I wholeheartedly concur with your analysis, which was an excellent one.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  19. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    I don't think you can make such a blanket statement as that. We certainly have formularies proposed to us by the Church, unanimously taught over the course of our history by our Bishops and Pastors, advocated and died for by our Saints and Martyrs, and viewed for centuries as the highest form of canonical and Ecclesiastical Law. This was the reason why I was pleased to see them required of Anglicans here. I don't think you can dismiss them as cavalierly as that.
     
  20. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    My Dear Anglican74, the last thing I intend is to dismiss the 39, cavalierly or otherwise, and indeed one of the reasons I have not signed up for my subscribed designator is because in all honesty and integrity I am personally struggling with article 5. Most things Anglican in my view are about an approach, rather than a single view, and this I take to be part of our strength. I don't believe I am a second class Anglican as a result. I believe that the 39 articles are a most important historic document, that have set the course for the development of our communion. Yet there are points where they are not quite a clear as some suggest.

    For example the Nicene Creed referenced in Article 8, it is not entirely clear if that is the creed of the Council of Constantinople in 382, or of the western Church as of the Synod of Frankfurt in 794. One would be inclined to think that it would be the creed of the Oecumenical Council, yet the prayer books printed in the liturgy use the western variant creed.

    And I wonder how much use is made these days of the 1st and second book of homilies, and I have read some of them and am impressed, yet I don't think it will hold a contemporary congregation with paragraphs that extend over a couple of pages. I suspect that many Anglicans assume that they accept the 39 Articles, because that is the Anglican thing to do, and it is symbolic of their acceptance of the Anglican ethos community and culture.

    I suspect that most of us would want to put greater emphasis on some articles and lesser emphasis on others. Article 21 is omitted from the Anglicans Online display of the Articles. http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html. My favorite article is number 1.