Can the very youngest infants commit a real and actual sin?

[Tim]

Is there an age when we begin to commit actual sins?

I noted this from the Albert Mohler Program.

From the March 17, 2009 program:

"Let me just give you the gospel in outline. First of all it begins with the fact of our need. The Bible is very, very clear that our need is represented by the fact that we are sinners. We ought to come face to face with the understanding that we have sinned against God. We have sinned by the things we have done; we've sinned by the things that we ought to have done, that we didn't do. We are born into sin and as soon as we are consciously able, we turn ourselves into professional sinners. It is not true that everyone of us does every sin we possibly could do. It is true that every part of us is so affected by sin that even when we try to please God, we try to do it on our own terms and fall far short of God's glory....[he goes on to talk about Christ and the cross]"

I agree with everything except that which I have underlined.

Given total depravity, I can't see that there is any time in our lives that we do not actually commit sins. Is this related to the 'age of accountability' debate? Does Mohler believe that the very young are not able to commit real sins?

By the way, I am not bashing Mohler. I rather like his radio show and listen often. Indeed, this particular program was on the blood atonement and Mohler did a good job explaining how it is essential for the faith.

 

[Quickened]

I wonder. Doesnt being able to sin require a conscious decision? We see small children that steal but what could a premature baby do that would be sinful? It doesnt seem like the mind is operational enough.

*edit - Just to be clear I am not trying to imply that these little ones are sinless (just incase it came across that way)

 

[Scott1]

This is difficult to understand because we condition it on our perception of an infant's cognitive ability.

We really don't know what the infant child is comprehending.

Mothers know that an infant child can recognize his mother's voice and respond to it in the womb.

It seems children often understand way more than we think they can (e.g. when you see a four year old operating an ipod- really(!).

We sometimes refer to age 2 as "the terrible twos" because it seems to us a child is demanding of his own way, crying and screaming if he doesn't get his way, totally self-focused, even to his own detriment in hazardous situations. (Maybe your child was not like this).

The point is that we really do see manifestations of selfishness right away (lots to love, too), but the sin is right there and cries out (literally) for appropriate guidance and discipline. A child who doesn't get this can turn out to be trouble for himself and others. (That's why we say, "the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world"!)

Some might reason, "well they may sin, but they are not accountable yet because they really don't understand it." The assumption is that at age 7, or 9 or 14, they suddenly "do understand" and are accountable.

I'm not so sure that is the case.

 

[Marrow Man]

This is a very interesting question. I've heard it said that the only difference between the sin capacity of an infant and an adult is that the adult actually has the physical ability to carry out the sin (he can walk, grasp objects more easily, etc.). Jesus was very clear that sin proceeds from the heart (e.g., Mark 7), and Reformed, biblical teaching is that we are born with a sin nature (dead in sin and by nature children of wrath), not that it suddenly develops at age 3 or 7 or 12 or whatever. The actions of the hands are only the fruit of the sinful disposition of the heart.

For what it's worth, I can confess to the board that I can actually remember, around age 6 or 7, contemplating a grievous internal sin committed while at church. I am not going to state the exact nature of that sin on a public board (frankly, I'm ashamed/embarrassed to even state it), but suffice it to say that it was of such a grievous nature that even the laws of man would have punished such with lifelong imprisonment or the death penalty (and I'm not exaggerating). I doubt many of us can remember things that happened before, say, age 5. But if I was capable of formulating such an awful sin in my heart at age 6 (and on church grounds, no less), is it inconceivable that such could have taken place earlier, only that I don't recall? Thanks be to God for His mercy, that this evil was restrained, even in a poor, dreadful 6 year old sinner.

 

[BJClark]

By the time children are a year to a year and half old, they are sinning, they are consciously defying their parents.

However, I don't believe they understand they are 'sinning' against God, and are in essence searching for boundaries; They test the waters, what can I and can't I get away with?

It is not true that everyone of us does every sin we possibly could do.

Little kids will do everything they possibly can do..even though they don't understand exactly what a sin is..

I don't know how many little kids you've been around, but if you ever get a chance to go sit in a day care just to observe these little ones..you'll see it..

Pastor Homer Lindsey Jr. when he was alive used to talk about his when kids were little, he would go to the store and buy some cheap glass vases and set them on his coffee table, tell his children not to touch them--leave the room and watch them. They would look around to see if 'daddy is watching', not seeing him, they would pick them up--He would come in and spank them, telling them again, "Do not touch these"..then he'd leave the room again, and watch...and sure enough with a few minutes, they were looking around to see if 'daddy was watching'; not seeing him..they'd pick them up again..and he would repeat this over and over, until they stopped touching them when he'd leave the room. After awhile, it took them awhile to pick them up, and they even started going and looking around the corner to see if 'daddy' was standing there just out of sight before they picked them up. They knew they would get a spanking, even to the point they went to see if he was watching..yet they did it anyway

So yes, children will do whatever they can..when it comes to sinning, even when they don't understand it's a sin. Even the above, it was a sin of disobeying the parent..

Just like when a parent tells a child don't touch the stove..it's not a sin to touch the stove, the sin is in disobeying the parent..and a child will go in a touch the stove in defiance of their parent..just because they were told 'don't or no'.

that is where the training come's in..teaching them the sin was not in the touching, but in the being disobedient..

While I'm not sure where Dr. Mohler is coming from, but we should ask at what age does a child really understand they are accountable, not necessarily just to their parents, but ultimately to God? Does a one year old understand that? I don't think so, that is the parents responsibility to teach them that..

 

[jwithnell]

"... in sin my mother conceived me ..." I don't think there is a time in our lives when we are not affected by the horrors of the fall. As a Mom, I can tell you I didn't have to teach my children to want to grab toys from one another, twist away from me if they didn't want to follow my instructions, throw a tantrum ... it's just there, waiting to come out.

Many groups teach an age-of-innocence kind of doctrine, but I don't see how it can be supported in scripture. From Day 1 we need to be instructing our children to be faithful to the covenant to which they were born.

 

[OPC'n]

I believe so. Disobedience in infants to their parents can be seen pretty early on. They obviously don't know the whole ramifications of their sin but it is sin none the less.

 

[Skyler]

The Bible also differentiates between someone who commits a sinful action intentionally and unintentionally. Both are still guilty--however, the one who does so intentionally is much more so than he who does so unintentionally. I don't remember the reference off the top of my head, but it refers to servants and many stripes vs. few stripes.

 

[he beholds]

I'd guess that even infants are doing things that are wrong--even if our own sin blinds us to it and we don't recognize it. And I KNOW that babies and toddlers sin often and willfully--I think it is recognizable at least by eight months.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Mohler is not implying an age of accountability. I think he uses the term "professional sinners" to merely suggest willful disobedience. However, I'm not sure one could even draw that line.

Infants earliest cognition (or self awareness) assumes they are the center of their own universe and they act accordingly at the earliest opportunity. They are born sinners, guilty of Adams sin and under condemnation. They confirm that condition at the earliest opportunity either by unintentional acts of a "corrupt" nature or by cognitive will.

 

[CharlieJ]

If you read the first couple chapters of Augustine's Confessions, you must either conclude that infants and children are way more sinful than we tend to think, or Augustine was an extremely disturbed man. On PB, I think I can guess what the majority conclusion will be.

 

[CDM]

No answer would alter the fact that the infant sins becasue it is a sinner from the womb. The so called "age of acountability" or a one year old defying its parents are just indications of a matured sinner acting according to his nature.

 

[ewenlin]

As I come from a non reformed seminary, the stand is that man inherited the sinful nature from Adam though not the guilt of Adam's sin. It is only when one passes the age of accountability and commits sins intentionally and being fully aware of it is one considered guilty.

In this way, they can uphold original sin (or claim to) by stating that man inherits the sinful nature whilst adhering to semi-pelagic views.

Its all mishmash in my opinion and even most of the students here don't really know what they believe in and can't offer a solid biblical case for either.

Well, this is just for your information
Ewen

 

[Herald]

I believe the key to Mohler's statement is his use of the tern "professional sinners." Someone who is a professional is proficient at whatever it is he does. Our proficiency in sinning increases exponentially as soon as we are able to comprehend the pleasures of sin. I don't believe Mohler was saying it is impossible for an infant to sin. If we are born into a state of sin (Eph. 2:1), then everything we do springs forth from that sin nature. Hence, we sin. I've told my church body many times, "We are sinners because we sin, and we are sinners because we are born in sin. We can't escape our culpability for sin."

 

[christianyouth]

I would like to talk to some cognitive scientists about the levels of mental awareness that infants have, since Paul, in Romans, believes that those who sin without the law will perish without the law, and then goes on to explain why that's not unjust : because they have the law of God written on their hearts. I'm not fully sure what this means, but I'm guessing that it means that people are aware, roughly, what is good behavior and what is bad behavior, and consciously choose to do bad and are therefore guilty, even though they never had special revelation from God regarding what he expects from peoples behavior.

I don't know really. Infants, as a group of people, aren't dealt with specifically in the NT, and I think that everyone will have to acknowledge that whatever answer we give is going to be speculative.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I believe the key to Mohler's statement is his use of the tern "professional sinners." Someone who is a professional is proficient at whatever it is he does. Our proficiency in sinning increases exponentially as soon as we are able to comprehend the pleasures of sin. I don't believe Mohler was saying it is impossible for an infant to sin. If we are born into a state of sin (Eph. 2:1), then everything we do springs forth from that sin nature. Hence, we sin. I've told my church body many times, "We are sinners because we sin, and we are sinners because we are born in sin. We can't escape our culpability for sin."

Bill, don't you mean "we sin because we are sinners?" I'm sure it was a typo.

 

[Romans922]

This has nothing to do with what you can SEE with YOUR eyes.

This is what is in the heart of the child. All I have to do is ask one question, does my child at the moment of conception Love God? ANSWER: No, unless God regenerates their heart.

That would be sin.

 

[Webservant]

Well, if sin was only something we did, we could just stop doing it. It's not: it's what we are. The actions are merely the symptom. The baby would commit acts of wanton disobedience if it could. A person in a coma is still a sinner even though he can't commit sins anymore. A flu virus frozen in the artic permafrost doesn't cease to be deadly and dangerous. It's just asleep.

 

[Idelette]

Children certainly do sin, even at the youngest of ages! I have taken care of children at every age, and even from birth you can see anger, jealousy, and selfishness. I think children do comprehend a lot more than we think! I won't even begin to tell you the things that I have seen little children do......things that certainly demonstrate a willful disobedience, and being fully aware that what they are doing is wrong!

 

[chbrooking]

I remember when my first child was VERY young, he bit my wife while she was feeding him. She kept repositioning him to a more suitable position. It was very clear that he was angry. Then, when she lightly thumped his lip and said, "no", this little devil actually held a grudge. He wouldn't eat for some time -- my wife paid for that one!

The scriptures are clear that we are sinful from birth. I know that this is only an anecdote, but it left no doubt in my mind ... sin can show up very early.

 

[ExGentibus]

According to Augustine, infants are innocent with regard to their weak body and limited abilities, but not to their mind.

Confessions, I.7:

Thus, the infant’s innocence lies in the weakness of his body and not in the infant mind. I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched another infant at the breast.

Who is ignorant of this? Mothers and nurses tell us that they cure these things by I know not what remedies. But is this innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, that another who needs it should not be allowed to share it, even though he requires such nourishment to sustain his life? Yet we look leniently on such things, not because they are not faults, or even small faults, but because they will vanish as the years pass. For, although we allow for such things in an infant, the same things could not be tolerated patiently in an adult.

 

[Scott1]

ewenlin
Its all mishmash in my opinion and even most of the students here don't really know what they believe in and can't offer a solid biblical case for either.

Interesting. You list your denomination as Assemblies of God and your confession as the Westminster standards.

As I come from a non reformed seminary, the stand is that man inherited the sinful nature from Adam though not the guilt of Adam's sin.

Can you explain how this could be, in light of your Confession?

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter VI
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

...

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

 

[chbrooking]

ewenlin
Its all mishmash in my opinion and even most of the students here don't really know what they believe in and can't offer a solid biblical case for either.

Interesting. You list your denomination as Assemblies of God and your confession as the Westminster standards.

As I come from a non reformed seminary, the stand is that man inherited the sinful nature from Adam though not the guilt of Adam's sin.

Can you explain how this could be, in light of your Confession?

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter VI
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

...

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

I took him to be explaining the position he is hearing in his Seminary, not necessarily his own views. I hope my reading of him is correct, or he is really calling his subscription into question, to say the least.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I wonder. Doesnt being able to sin require a conscious decision? We see small children that steal but what could a premature baby do that would be sinful? It doesnt seem like the mind is operational enough.

*edit - Just to be clear I am not trying to imply that these little ones are sinless (just incase it came across that way)

being able to commit sin simply requires a sin nature.

 

[MW]

Given total depravity, I can't see that there is any time in our lives that we do not actually commit sins.

It may come down to how sin is defined. If it is seen merely as positive transgression of the law, then by virtue of the fact that the smallest infants do nothing it might be concluded that they do not commit sin. But if it is seen in terms of the full biblical definition provided by the Catechism, and sin is also regarded as a want of conformity to the righteous requirements of God, and God requires us to love Him with all our being, then the very act of breathing without dependence upon and thanksgiving to God is sin.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Psalm 58.3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Isaiah 48.8: Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

I do believe newborns are sinners, not only by virtue of their guilt from Adam, but also from their own corruption and personal sins. If we remember, as Pastor Winzer stated, the pristine nature of God's holiness, and its expression in the Moral Law, we understand that none are able to rise to its perfect requirements.

 

[Romans922]

Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.

 

[Theognome]

Is there an age when we begin to commit actual sins?

I noted this from the Albert Mohler Program.

From the March 17, 2009 program:

"Let me just give you the gospel in outline. First of all it begins with the fact of our need. The Bible is very, very clear that our need is represented by the fact that we are sinners. We ought to come face to face with the understanding that we have sinned against God. We have sinned by the things we have done; we've sinned by the things that we ought to have done, that we didn't do. We are born into sin and as soon as we are consciously able, we turn ourselves into professional sinners. It is not true that everyone of us does every sin we possibly could do. It is true that every part of us is so affected by sin that even when we try to please God, we try to do it on our own terms and fall far short of God's glory....[he goes on to talk about Christ and the cross]"

I agree with everything except that which I have underlined.

Given total depravity, I can't see that there is any time in our lives that we do not actually commit sins. Is this related to the 'age of accountability' debate? Does Mohler believe that the very young are not able to commit real sins?

By the way, I am not bashing Mohler. I rather like his radio show and listen often. Indeed, this particular program was on the blood atonement and Mohler did a good job explaining how it is essential for the faith.

First, and apology- It's late, I've been pressing tortillas, cooking them, quartering them and frying them into chips for an office party tomorrow since I got home, and am just now addressing this thread- and without reading all of the responses. So what I'm about to reply has most likely been expressed already above- just in better language.

I can't say what Mohler believes or does not, but I would say that if someone claims that all sin must be conscientious, they are patently all wet. Since when is sin exclusively a conscious thing? Did not David pray for forgiveness of sins both known and unknown? Does not our fallen nature rightly assume sin in anything we do, think and indeed are?

Can an infant still in the womb sin? Yes! Why? Because said infant has a nature inclined to pursue it, despite conscious desire for sin. The proclivity permeates mankind from zygote to deceased. Oh, we can look at the things an infant does and, due to our compassion, assume that they are innocent. This is erroneous. Outside of Christ Himself, there is no such thing as an innocent human, regardless of age. An age of conscientious sin in a human only demonstrates a point of understanding (comparatively) that what we think or do is sin, not an absence of it prior.

The quote you gave does not make me think Mohler would disagree; rather he was simply not addressing the infants situation directly. However, if we assume any kind of innocence towards the infant and/or unborn, we must also change/toss aside the doctrine of original sin. We are either made in Adam the sinners God's word proclaims, or we are not. There is no middle ground.

Theognome

 

[Turtle]

capacity to sin is not the issue or initiation of our guilt

... man inherited the sinful nature from Adam though not the guilt of Adam's sin. ...

Hi Ewen, I appreciate that you posted this thought (even though you didn't claim to be a proponent of it). Your post is relevant as we consider a baby's capacity to sin, thus guilt. Naturally, we may be inclined to say babies must be innocent and without sin if they are too young to have the capacity to sin, but frankly their capacity to sin is not what makes them become guilty. As some have already posted, "In sin my mother conceived me" and in Romans 5 it is explicit how we all have sin, and thus are worthy of death. Romans 5 continues on and provides a strong proof that capacity to sin is not the issue or initiation of our guilt.

The idea that all of man did not participate in Adam's sin, and are thus not equally guilty, is false. Romans explicitly proves otherwise. In Rom 5:12 it says "so death passed upon all men, because all sinned." In the context it is clear the sin here spoken of is the sin Adam committed (Gen 3:6, "Adam did eat"). Rom 5:12 is not speaking of sins we now commit (or that babies commit once they have the capacity).

As proof that we all sinned in Adam (and deserve death), Paul reminds us that from Adam until Moses no one broke any law that required death (sin is not imputed where there is no law, Rom 5:13), yet they still died. Why did they die? How could anyone from Adam to Moses break any law worthy of death if no law was yet given until Moses? And of course none from Adam to Moses could sin in the same way that Adam did by eating of the fruit Adam was commanded not to eat (Rom 5:14). How is God just if they died while unable to break any law? (You might say from Adam to Moses they didn't have the capacity to break a commandment, since the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was unavailable to them and Moses hadn't yet come down the mountain with the tablets). The only way that "death passed upon all men" from Adam to Moses was that they inherited the guilt of Adam's sin, even sinned with Him, "because all sinned." (Rom 5:12)

This claim of "participating" is not unlike the assertion that is said of Levi who paid tithes to Melchisedec while he was yet in the loans of Abraham (Heb 7:9,10). This assertion of "participation" is of course also said in like manner, "Our old man is crucified with Christ." Rom 6:6

If we deny that the scripture says we "participated" in Adams sin then we would find it problematic to claim the scripture that says we have "participated" in Christ's death.

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.

 

[Quickened]

I wonder. Doesnt being able to sin require a conscious decision? We see small children that steal but what could a premature baby do that would be sinful? It doesnt seem like the mind is operational enough.

*edit - Just to be clear I am not trying to imply that these little ones are sinless (just incase it came across that way)

being able to commit sin simply requires a sin nature.

Yeah. I think perhaps my problem was/is when i read the thread title I applied the question to me personally. I based it upon my own memory. I can remember quite far back. In fact the first thing i remember was actually related to this verse

"Psalm 58.3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. "

The first thing i can remember was lying. I must have been 2 or 3 but i clearly remember lying to my mother about something stupid.

But before then i have no memory. So i guess thats where i got pondering. I was looking at sin as a person committing an action. When i read Armorbearers post

It may come down to how sin is defined. If it is seen merely as positive transgression of the law, then by virtue of the fact that the smallest infants do nothing it might be concluded that they do not commit sin. But if it is seen in terms of the full biblical definition provided by the Catechism, and sin is also regarded as a want of conformity to the righteous requirements of God, and God requires us to love Him with all our being, then the very act of breathing without dependence upon and thanksgiving to God is sin.

I had to stop and ask myself. Am I understanding sin wrong or perhaps Is how i am looking at "sin being defined" wrong? Could someone point me to the Catechism on this so i could have a better understanding?