1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a little child to him, and
placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change
and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4
Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the
kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
From Augustine, Confessions:
Hear, O God. Alas, for man's sin! So saith man, and Thou
pitiesthim; for Thou madest him, but sin in him Thou madest not.
Whoremindeth me of the sins of my infancy? for in Thy sight none ispure from
sin, not even the infant whose life is but a day upon theearth. Who
remindeth me? doth not each little infant, in whom I seewhat of myself I
remember not? What then was my sin? was it that Ihung upon the breast and
cried? for should I now so do for foodsuitable to my age, justly should I be
laughed at and reproved. What Ithen did was worthy reproof; but since I
could not understand reproof,custom and reason forbade me to be reproved.
For those habits, whengrown, we root out and cast away. Now no man, though
he prunes,wittingly casts away what is good. Or was it then good, even for
awhile, to cry for what, if given, would hurt? bitterly to resent, thatpersons
free, and its own elders, yea, the very authors of itsbirth, served it not? that
many besides, wiser than it, obeyed not thenod of its good pleasure? to do its
best to strike and hurt, becausecommands were not obeyed, which had been obeyed
to its hurt? Theweakness then of infant limbs, not its will, is its
innocence.
I was raised in a protestant church and really didn't learn much about the doctrine of Original Sin. My understanding of it is that man is stamped with sin that carries forth all the way back from Adam and Eve in the Garden. That's why newborns are baptised fairly quickly, to wash away that sin. We believed (and this still makes sense to me) that sin is only possible from someone who is mature enough to have an understanding of right and wrong. The passage from Matthew seems to back that up.
But, Peder, even Protestants believe that without Jesus Christ's mediation, justice, as a result of the Fall of Adam, would have required the soul of the child to be condemned to hell. That could be considered just as problematic by some folk.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I simply don't remember, so that may be true. Our church practiced baptism only when someone was old enough to have a handle on right and wrong, usually in the early teens. But as a bright line rule, I can't support condemning someone who doesn't understand the rules.
DeleteAnd I guess that would go for other civilizations, pre-Ressurection. How can it be fair for a tribe in faraway Indonesia to face hell and damnation if they were never given an opportunity to know Christian truths?
Many churches don't baptize until 8, and they believe that little children who die without baptism will be saved, but they will only be saved because of Jesus. In other words, original sin still affected them, they are subject to Adam's Fall, but Jesus, in his infinite mercy (which they are in need of) atoned for original guilt, so that little children are saved from the demands of the justice which would have claimed them otherwise. I hope this is making sense.
DeleteHuh, I wonder what those churches are basing that on. Matthew 18:3 suggests that the innocence of children is sufficient to get them into heaven.
DeleteI have always found original sin a fascinating subject. Primarily because I come from one of the faiths that does not baptize until the age of 8 (I didn't know there were others) because we do not believe original sin but that "men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions" (LDS Article of Faith 3).
ReplyDeleteIn fact, one of the writer's of the Book of Mormon (not the South Park guys), stated the following:
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
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!
So, there you go. Some Mormon doctrine you can share at your next cocktail party. Its all the rage these days...
Steve, I appreciate this. It seems to agree with my interpretation that children aren't sinners in the same meaningful way that adults are. Also, I've never seen circumcision in the context of sin before! I wonder if the theory is that the snip removes sin or protects from it or something like that?
DeleteYou know, although I have read that chapter at least 10 times and I don't think I ever really noticed the circumcision clause until I was copying it and pasting it. I am guessing he included it with infant baptism as an example of meaningless ordinances. Circumcision was a physical sign of the Israelites being God's covenant people. Baptism is the ordinance signifying entering into a covenant with Jesus Christ. Peter and the first apostles decided that circumcising Adult males was not required for new converts to become Christians because the Law of Moses ended with Christ, I assume that he is drawing a connection with the meaningless nature of adult circumcision to become Christian (not a great missionary tool) to meaningless act of infant baptism since innocents do not need baptism.
DeleteFor fear of sounding preachy (too late?), I will not go on about the Mormon doctrines that answer your question above "How can it be fair for a tribe in faraway Indonesia to face hell and damnation if they were never given an opportunity to know Christian truths?" but that is also trendy as it is related to the whole news-making controversy of Mormons posthumously baptizing holocaust victims. Despite the public outcry (and extra-doctrinal practice of that specific situation), it is based on a very sensible doctrine with roots in the New Testament. Anyways, I'll save that for another time...