posted
As I read the several verses before and after 16, it seems to be stating that no matter who a person is, or what station they had in life or death, they are saved only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It seems to be affirming that whether children/infants can sin or not, they cannot and would not be saved without Christ. It is not their "sinlessness" per se that saves them, but the atonement of Christ.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is he talking about at the end of the verse when he says Christ atones for their sins? I thought they couldn't sin. (By the way, I favor your take on it).
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sin is an act that would separate one from the will of God, and thus God himself.
The ancient Israelites had a special sacrifice set forth just in case they found out they had sinned after the fact, or to cover sins that they didn't know they had committed. A sin is a sin, whether we aknowledge it as one or not.
Posts: 244 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(In other words, could you add to your definition, or clarify, why it is that little children are not sinning, whereas others are sinning unknowingly.)
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moroni chapter 8 is applicable here. All action opposed to truth is sin. However, we are only held accountable for those sins we commit knowingly. All others are covered by the mercy of Christ through His atonement adn are generally not called 'sin'. This is why infant baptism is condemned.
Generally when speaking of sin we mean those things for which we will be held accountable, however I believe the more broad definition is being used in Mosiah.
Mormon tells Moroni in Moroni 8:22...
quote: For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
Moroni 8:22
Now I know that Mormon precedes this by saying that little children cannot sin, however I believe that he gives the reason for his statement in verse 22. They can't sin because their sins are automatically covered, or made non-affective, through Christ. They are "alive," spiritually, in Christ. Where all others suffer a form of spiritual death and are only made "alive in Christ" through repentance.
Thank you. Actually that was the other scripture I had in mind. (I hope you all don't mind me leading this discussion so much. :|)
I disagree with your take simply because (as you said) Mormon says they don't sin. Whereas, those who have no law DO sin, just unknowingly. So there seems to be a difference. Especially since both groups are "alive in Christ." (Same terminology used in Mosiah. Children don't sin. Those without the law sin, but unknowingly.)
In D&C 76 we find that these two groups actually inherit (as groups, perhaps not as individuals) different degrees of glory. Those without the law get the terrestrial world, and children receive celestial glory.
posted
That's a good point, Zeta, one I had not thought of. I always followed the discussions' version of sin. El pecar es saber la voluntad de Dios y no lo haga. So, sin is to know the will of God and not do it. This definition would seem to apply equally to bith children and those without law. Although maybe there is something involving our conscience (the light of Christ), which those without law are accountable to, and children are not. The scripture that says men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil may be relevant here. I've always wondered if this meant all men, or specific men in a specific context, or men in the generic sense. Hmmmmmmm.
Posts: 2970 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was taught in my youth (upon reflection its amazing how many LDS urban legends I heard growing up) that people who had not heard the gospel (i.e. those without law) would be held accountable to the law they did know (i.e. civil and or whatever portion of applicable religous law learned).
Which may be the key difference between an young child and someone more grown up. A child is truly innocent because they need to be taught.
But, then how does the idea of a person with no law square with the notion that all will be given a chance to hear the gospel. Will there be those that have still not heard when at the final judgement?
Posts: 10866 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point with regard to infants and small children is their lack of accountability - NOT whether some twit in an EQ class figures they may have sinned, wittingly or unwittingly.
The fact is many in the church, globally, are simply assessed as non-accountable, it goes on their church records and their progress through life is measured according to the best efforts of which they are capable.
In my experience, the greater difficulty in applying this category to members is overcoming the reservations of parents who prefer to pretend their family member is 'normal' when clearly, the person is and will likely always be intellectually impaired. These are saved in Christ, not because they never are guilty of wittingly acting in provocative or naughty ways but simply because they are not accountable for their actions.
Does this cast a further light upon the irrelevance of 'sin' in the salvation of children too young to be baptised, for instance?
Posts: 886 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
My wife had an interesting idea. She thinks that maybe little children aren't given the capacity to know right from wrong the same way adults do, that they aren't given the light of Christ the same way adults are. In other words, one can only sin if one knows the difference between right and wrong. If they do know the difference between right and wrong, but don't know the specifics of whether their actions are wrong, then they are not under condemnation until they are taught. At which time they can repent. Make sense?
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps these references throw some light on the question:
quote: (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25-28.) 25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents. 26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized. 27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands. 28 And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.
This seems to support the concept that the teaching of little children is important in their accountability process, as your wife said. However this next one seems to support WenU’s thoughts:
quote: (JST Genesis 17:11.) 11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.
OK, don’t want to start another circumcision thread, but its interesting that circumcision was given to remind all of this concept.
Posts: 259 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple of more scriptures on the subject:
quote: (Moroni 8:10-15.) 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! 13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. 14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. 15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
(Moroni 8:19-20.) 19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy. 20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
posted
This is one scripture I had thought of that might add to the discussion:
quote: In Doctrine and Covenants section 29, the Lord states that “little children … cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me; … that great things may be required at the hand of their fathers.” (D&C 29:46–48.)
Perhaps this is why children receive a "sinless" status, because they may falter, but would do so due to inexperience and not due to succumbing to Satan's influence.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
trooperswife, good scripture find for this topic. However, I don't want it to take away from your first post:
quote: It is not their "sinlessness" per se that saves them, but the atonement of Christ.
I thought that cut to the heart of the matter brilliantly. I think 2 Nephi 9, where it explains what our situation would be if there were no Atonement--namely that we would become devils, etc--is also a good way to think about this situation. We all are mortal and do not have the power to take up our bodies after we die. That goes for little children, too. They have no power over their bodies, which they will need to be saved. So the Atonement helps them there, as it helps all of us. As for the sin part of the equation, I don't have anything to add ATM. I will satisfy myself with reading the well-put posts of you others for now. Posts: 872 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Today as I was waiting for the temple session to start, I read some of the scriptures listed here, particularly those in Moroni, which LVChuck and efrum mentioned. It just solidified for me the idea that children's status is provided by the Atonement, that if there were no atonement, children, while they might be sinless, could still not be saved. And I especially liked the word usage in verse 8 in Moroni 8: "...wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me , and it hath no power over them;"
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
