How can anybody possibly believe that "all have sinned"?

[rtconstant]

OK, I’ll admit that I’m getting confused on this and perhaps I have not and do not understand the Church’s doctrine on all of this perfectly. But the more we talk the more confused about the doctrines I become.

It seems like to me that what’s being said is that everybody with the noted exceptions has Original Sin but not everyone has Actual Sin. So If I’m understanding this all then what’s being said is that the sins of Adam might damn us all even if we have no Actual Sin (understanding this is for most part theoretical). Is that right?

 

[Mannyfit75]

What do you suppose Babies DO in the womb? Unborn infants do not think any more of others and newly born ones do. Ask any woman who’s been pregnant.

Babies are not guilty of actual sin. They do have the original sin from their parents.

Babies do not have the means to reason. To commit a sin, one must know it is a sin, full acknowledge that it is wrong, and full consent.

Babies do not have understand right and wrong, are not sinners.

 

[Syele]

Babies are not guilty of actual sin. They do have the original sin from their parents.

Babies do not have the means to reason. To commit a sin, one must know it is a sin, full acknowledge that it is wrong, and full consent.

Babies do not have understand right and wrong, are not sinners.

I did state in a previous post that they are not accountable for this sin. Sin is still sin even if you didn’t know it was a sin. Weather you are accountable for that sin is is another subject.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I did state in a previous post that they are not accountable for this sin. Sin is still sin even if you didn’t know it was a sin. Weather you are accountable for that sin is is another subject.

Really now? Before the fall of Adam and Eve, they did not know good and evil. To do what is wrong and what is right.

Under any circumstances, babies have not committed sin until they reach the age of reason. They have the stains of original sins.

Where do you get this idea what babies can sin? It isn’t even in the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sin is an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods… It has been defined [by St Augustine] as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

Sin is an offence against God… Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to the contempt of God.”

 

[VociMike]

Sin is an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbour cuased by a perverse attachment to certain goods… It has been defined [by St Augustine] as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

Sin is an offence against God… Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to the contempt of God.”

Hard to see how a baby could be sinning in the womb just by being a baby in the womb. But I know you weren’t suggesting otherwise.

 

[Syele]

Really now? Before the fall of Adam and Eve, they did not know good and evil. To do what is wrong and what is right.

If Adam and Eve did not know good and evil, and you cannot sin unless you know it’s sin, then Adam and Eve COULD NOT sin.

Killing your next door neighbor is a sin even if you never heard of murder and didn’t know it’s wrong.

Sin is doing things against the will of God. Our knowledge of the will of God doesn’t change the will of God. God remains the same. If we do something we didn’t know is sin, God will likely not hold us accountable for it. That dosn’t mean God is happy we did it and it dosn’t mean it wasn’t a sin at all.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hard to see how a baby could be sinning in the womb just by being a baby in the womb. But I know you weren’t suggesting otherwise.

I know for a fact that babies in the womb cannot commit any actual sin. They lack the means to reason, they don’t know God. They have no concept of the Ten Commandments.

Babies are taught by their parents, and as they grow, they gain knowledge, and by the age of 8, they will know right from wrong, and will know what sin is.

Sin is any violation of God’s Commandments. I’m trying to understand if Syele believe babies can sin. Apparent base on her post she does. Correct if I am wrong if her posts were mis-read.

 

[VociMike]

I did state in a previous post that they are not accountable for this sin. Sin is still sin even if you didn’t know it was a sin. Weather you are accountable for that sin is is another subject.

In that case, can animals sin? If an animal commits act X which would be a sin if you or I did it, is it a sin? If a baby commits the same act X, is it a sin?

 

[Syele]

Hard to see how a baby could be sinning in the womb just by being a baby in the womb.

Origional sin is what causes us to naturally have a tendancy to turn from God. We have origional sin from conception so there is a tendancy to sin even at such a young age. They do not sin because they are a baby in the womb but because they have origional sin.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If Adam and Eve did not know good and evil, and you cannot sin unless you know it’s sin, then Adam and Eve COULD NOT sin.

Killing your next door neighbor is a sin even if you never heard of murder and didn’t know it’s wrong.

Sin is doing things against the will of God. Our knowledge of the will of God doesn’t change the will of God. God remains the same. If we do something we didn’t know is sin, God will likely not hold us accountable for it. That dosn’t mean God is happy we did it and it dosn’t mean it wasn’t a sin at all.

Babies aren’t capable of sinning. A man next door knows right from wrong, and knows any act of murderer is morally correct. Do you think babies were already smart and know God at their birth? I doubt that. We have parents who taught them about living, about God, and we send children to school to learn.

We gain knowledge from others. Babies are new in this world, and they have much to learn.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Syele,

Are you telling me that babies can sin?

 

[Syele]

In that case, can animals sin? If an animal commits act X which would be a sin if you or I did it, is it a sin? If a baby commits the same act X, is it a sin?

Animals do not have souls. Animals do not have free-will. Babies are Humans and endowed with a will, with a soul. Babies do not understand what they do, yet they still have free-will. This is a dangerous thing. My 8 month old could walk and she was very curious. Was she still in danger even though she did not know it? YES! Knowledge is not the same as our soul.

 

[Syele]

Syele,

Are you telling me that babies can sin?

It is possible for them to sin, BUT they are NOT held accountable for any sin they commit due to the wonderful mercy of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It is possible for them to sin, BUT they are NOT held accountable for any sin they commit due to the wonderful mercy of God.

But the very definition of sin infants cannot sin. It is not until they reach the age of reason that they can commit actual sins.

In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:11; Isaiah 1:2-4; Jeremiah 2:32); as an insult to God (Numbers 27:14); as something detested and punished by God (Genesis 3:14-19; Genesis 4:9-16); as injurious to the sinner (Tob., xii, 10); to be expiated by penance (Ps. 1, 19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that sin is a transgression of the law (Romans 2:23; 5:12-20); a servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Romans 6:16-18); a disobedience (Hebrews 2:2) punished by God (Hebrews 10:26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder of the will (John 12:43), an iniquity (1 John 3:4-10). Christ in many of His utterances teaches the nature and extent of sin. He came to promulgate a new law more perfect than the old, which would extend to the ordering not only of external but also of internal acts to a degree unknown before, and, in His Sermon on the Mount, he condemns as sinful many acts which were judged honest and righteous by the doctors and teachers of the Old Law. He denounces in a special manner hypocrisy and scandal, infidelity and the sin against the Holy Ghost. In particular He teaches that sins come from the heart (Matthew 15:19-20).

Not even the Bible support that infants can commit actual sin.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Those who would construct a moral system independent of God and His law distinguish between theological and philosophical sin. Philosophical sin is a morally bad act which violates the natural order of reason, not the Divine law. Theological sin is a transgression of the eternal law. Those who are of atheistic tendencies and contend for this distinction, either deny the existence of God or maintain that He exercises no providence in regard to human acts. This position is destructive of sin in the theological sense, as God and His law, reward and punishment, are done away with. Those who admit the existence of God, His law, human liberty and responsibility, and still contend for a distinction between philosophical and theological sin, maintain that in the present order of God’s providence there are morally bad acts, which, while violating the order of reason, are not offensive to God, and they base their contention on this that the sinner can be ignorant of the existence of God, or not actually think of Him and His law when he acts. Without the knowledge of God and consideration of Him, it is impossible to offend Him. This doctrine was censured as scandalous, temerarious, and erroneous by Alexander VIII (24 Aug., 1690) in his condemnation of the following proposition: “Philosophical or moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature and right reason, theological and mortal sin is a free transgession of the Divine law. However grievous it may be, philosophical sin in one who is either ignorant of God or does not actually think of God, is indeed a grievous sin, but not an offense to God, nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God, nor worthy of eternal punishment” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1290).

This proposition is condemned because it does not distinguish between vincible and invincible ignorance, and further supposes invincible ignorance of God to be sufficiently common, instead of only metaphysically possible, and because in the present dispensation of God’s providence we are clearly taught in Scripture that God will punish all evil coming from the free will of man (Romans 2:5-11). There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of as prohibited. A prohibition is unintelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding the conscience of man can be only God, Who alone has power over man’s free will and actions, so that from the fact that any act is perceived to be morally bad and prohibited by conscience, God and His law are perceived at least confusedly, and a wilful transgression of the dictate of conscience is necessarily also a transgression of God’s law. Cardinal de Lugo (De incarnat., disp. 5, lect. 3) admits the possibility of philosophical sin in those who are inculpably ignorant of God, but he holds that it does not actually occur, because in the present order of God’s providence there cannot be invincible ignorance of God and His law. This teaching does not necessarily fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII, but it is commonly rejected by theologians for the reason that a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I know you are not Catholic but consider what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says concerning sin.

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

You can refer to:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

The Catholic Church gives out a good definition what sin is, and the conditions to commit any sin.

 

[Syele]

Romans 5
13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Sin was in the world before the law! if you cannot sin if you don’t know it’s a sin then HOW could sin be in the world before the law? It can be in the world before the law because God has always been. Sin is displeasing God. Note the second half of the verse though… “in is not taken into account when there is no law.” When there is no law (Babies in the womb can’t be under a law they don’t even know of) there is no accountability.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Romans 5
13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Sin came into the world when Adam and Eve fall; this brought forth original sin. The stain of these sins are pass on through the Adam and Eve’s children.

Sin was in the world before the law! if you cannot sin if you don’t know it’s a sin then HOW could sin be in the world before the law? It can be in the world before the law because God has always been. Sin is displeasing God. Note the second half of the verse though… “in is not taken into account when there is no law.” When there is no law (Babies in the womb can’t be under a law they don’t even know of) there is no accountability.

Exactly babies are not under the law, and therefore cannot sin by their very nature. To commit sin, a human being must know that the evil act commit is wicked and against God.

God who is the judge Judge knows what is in the man’s heart. In the Bible itself, Jesus gave parable about the sins of men. Not babies. In fact speakings of the children, Jesus said, “let the children come to me.” …“do not hinder them.”

12: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned, 13: sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law." Romans Chapter 5 verse 12-13

Men are within the age of reason. Note, infants are not mentioned.

What moral doctrine gave you the idea that babies can sin? Is this just your interpretation? You are the first Protestant, I know, who claim that infants can possibly sin.

 

[Syele]

It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”

As I said before even infants can desire things contrary to what is good. that *dosn’t mean they know it is sin. *It dosn’t make them accountable for it, but it’s still contrary to the eternal law. Origional sin sets us towards sin naturally. Babies do not need someone to teach them to be selfish or greedy. We have to teach them NOT to. So many of them have their first words to be a defiant “NO!” or a strong “MINE!”