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

    I agree with you again, Philip.

    I am a clergy Associate Member of the AMiA, and yet the reason I have not signed the "Anglican oath" here is because this forum requires more in such an assent than the Anglican body that I'm associated with, which, I might add, also asked for a signed affirmation -- one that I had no problem affirming.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  2. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    The 5th Council was in the 6th Century... 553 A.D. to be exact. Over 450 years after the death of John. That is plenty of time for some wrong ideas to worm their way into the church.

    The only good reason for them to care whether Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage was so that Mary could be regarded as sinless. Augustine (who was heavily influenced by the Manicheans to believe that intercourse is inherently sinful) wrote prolifically and convinced many in the church to his way of thinking. The western church probably owes the belief in original sin and the belief in predestination to Augustine, and he contributed to the belief in the 'ever virgin' as well. If Augustine and others had possessed a proper understanding that sexual intercourse in a marital setting is not evil, dirty or sinful, there would have been no need to come up with the 'ever-virgin' doctrine.

    And if people in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Centuries had not shown an ever-increasing proclivity and desire to elevate Mary far beyond the stature which the record reflects was accorded her by the earlier believers, again there would have been no reason to 'peek into Mary's bedroom' after the fact and come up with a doctrine. Mary was a sinner saved by grace who 'rejoiced in God her Savior'. Whether or not she and Joseph 'got it on' should be none of our business, and it should be beside the point because we should not make a huge deal about her. The Roman church let the big deal about Mary snowball, and we see how it led them into serious error. We should want no part of that. The whole erroneous line of belief should be nipped at the root, not pruned a little off the top.
     
  3. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Hi @Rexlion
    I am not sure if you meant this for this thread or not.

    The Second Council of Constantinople was held in 553, and recognised East and West as the 5th Oecumenical Council. It was very much predominated by the East, and I suspect no Bishops from the Italian Peninsula were in attendance, though clearly the Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West has signed off on it. I am not especially sure why you have chosen this Council to discuss the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mother of the Lord. The matter was discussed at the Lateran Council of 649 (A Council in the West that the East did not sign off on). Augustine of Hippo did do some work in promoting the doctrine. Ultimately it is not about the nature of Mary that is important, but the matter of Christology that was central to the discussion. First century writers are a little more divided on the subject, Irenaeus advancing the Idea, whilst Origen made much of the brothers of Jesus and so rejecting the idea.

    The real question of the day had to do with the 3rd Oecumenical Coucil and the title of Mary as Theotokos (which is English is perhaps best rendered The God Bearer). Unfortunately that was translated into latin as Mater Dei (which renders in English as Mother of God). The Nestorian position diminished the understanding of the Divinity of Jesus, and sop was condemned.

    The ongoing virginity of Mary has been held by a number of people through history, interestingly Luther, Zwingli, Latimer and Cranmer were all comfortable with the proposition, and it was only later that the revocation of the idea was championed perhaps in part to highlight the monstrous errors by those who followed in the way of the reformers.

    In the East, certainly from Chrysostom, the idea of perpetual virginity - based to some extent on the Mother behold your Son at the cross has held some sway and is expressed in a number of their liturgies. Ultimately I agree with you, Mary's life with Joseph is a matter for Mary and Joseph. It do however feel it is important for us to affirm Theotokos and the Chalcedonian definition of Christology, notably that Jesus was both Completely Divine and Completely Human, undivided.
     
    Shaun likes this.
  4. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Aargh, too many tabs open at the same time and I posted on the wrong one. Thanks. I meant it to go to the 'perpetual virginity of Mary' thread.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  5. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Regarding whether infants can sin, I believe they are without sin until they reach an age at which they can understand the difference between right and wrong, and actually sin (choose to do wrong). I do not accept the doctrine of Original Sin. Here is my primary reason.

    Original sin is supposedly a condition that inflicts every human being and renders him/her incapable of living in complete righteousness and sinlessness. It is inherited (genetically or by blood line) from Adam. If true, every born human being except Jesus has been afflicted with the guilt of Original Sin. Jesus, obviously, was without sin.

    Article IX states, "...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..." This says that Original Sin causes every human so afflicted to be inclined toward evil. This is a severe handicap to any person who tries to resist sin. It's like trying to wrestle with one arm tied behind the back.

    Hebrews 4:15 says of Jesus, For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

    If Jesus incarnate was the only human to be born without original sin, then Jesus was not fully like all the rest of us who allegedly are handicapped by original sin; Jesus would have been born with a clear sin-resisting advantage! Without the sin nature inherent in the rest of us, Jesus would have had a much easier time resisting temptation! Yet scripture says He was tempted just like we all were. The doctrine of original sin reduces the impact of the Gospel message and cheapens the sacrificial nature of Christ’s sinless life, because He would not have had to work so hard to resist sin as the rest of us have had to do. This is unacceptable. The doctrine of Original Sin contradicts a vital scripture truth concerning the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

    This leads to the conclusion that no one is born with Original Sin. Not Jesus, not any of us. This means the playing field was level, and Jesus truly "was in all points tempted like as we are."

    The doctrine in question was not taught by Jesus. It was not taught by the Apostles. It is not found, as a whole, in scripture. Rather, it is concocted by sewing together a disparate collection of mismatched verses to create a patchwork quilt (with several holes) of creative doctrine in extreme reaction to the heresy of Pelagius.

    We are living in a fallen and decaying world, without a doubt. The sin of Adam was the original sin, and that sin caused damage to his relationship with God as well as loss of access to the Tree of Life and to the perfectly ordered Garden of Eden. Adam and his offspring have had to live outside of that perfect Garden in a place that is far less than ideal. So Adam's sin had ill consequences for all humans since. We grow ill and die, we live in a place where demons (fallen angels) roam freely to tempt us, and we subsist by the sweat of effort. Yet God has never closed the door on any human being who would reach out to God in a desire for a right and trusting relationship with Him. People like Abraham and Moses had faith & trust in God and He accounted it to them as righteousness. God never closed the door against anyone who came to Him in faith, but precious few did so.

    The Original Sin doctrine supposes that every man is saddled from birth (or perhaps conception) with guilt for Adam's sin. But God is a just and loving God. It would be unjust, unfair, and unloving for Him to make us responsible for a sin we did not commit, a sin we had no control of, a sin committed thousands of years before we existed. Ezekiel 18:20 speaks of who, from a legal standpoint, is responsible for sin. The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Other scriptures which may seem contradictory are actually coming from a covenantal, not legal, standpoint; but there was no covenant made between God and Adam, let alone one which should bind all of us.

    Back to Hebrews 4:15. If we all are hobbled in our ability to resist sinning by the presence of Original Sin in each of us, and Jesus was born free of Original Sin, then he was not tempted in all ways. In fact it would have been a relative cakewalk for Jesus to live a sinless life without Original Sin! Since we can be sure He did not have Original Sin, and since we can be sure that He was fully human in every way, then it only makes sense that none of us have this thing called Original Sin (of which the Bible is silent). We live under the consequences of Adam's sin, but not under Original Sin. A child is innocent in God's eyes until he grows sufficiently to be capable of committing, and does commit, an actual sin.
     
  6. Religious Fanatic

    Religious Fanatic Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    609
    Likes Received:
    305
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    So, you'd agree with the Orthodox on this issue, Rex?
     
  7. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Insofar as I understand their view (and I haven't studied it in-depth), I think theirs and mine are pretty close, yes. But we should take note that the Orthodox still see evil in an infant; my son attended a chrism/baptism ceremony in which the priest repeated something like six exorcisms over the baby prior to baptizing her!
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2019
  8. rcconvert

    rcconvert New Member

    Posts:
    20
    Likes Received:
    16
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Roman Catholic
    Like adults, babies too are born bearing the consequences of the First Sin. In my opinion, I think babies need to develop some reasoning capacity before they can commit personal sins. I'd need to read the passage you are referencing.
     
  9. rcconvert

    rcconvert New Member

    Posts:
    20
    Likes Received:
    16
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Roman Catholic
    "Sin is a congenital, chronic, and, absent the saving work of the Great Physician, terminal condition for the whole human race. Maybe there's an distinction that could be made that Adam's descendants bear the consequence of his original sin rather than his guilt...but I think it's a distinction without a difference. The consequence of Adam's sin was in fact slavery to sin and death. We are, all of us, sinners, both in what we do and in who we are."

    Agree 100% with the quote I cited from your post. Actual Sin (the sins we commit freely) involves choice. Do babies have a choice?