Please note that I was giving the traditional Reformed position, not necessarily my own.Hedrick, you have said above that "as a result of the Fall, we are all corrupted." IMHO, that's not true and, rather a contradiction to the concept that children are born sinless. Therefore, immune of the charge of corruption.
Please note that I was giving the traditional Reformed position, not necessarily my own.
There is a difference between being corrupted and committing sin. Corruption means that humans have lost abilities that we had before the Fall. We are now incapable of living godly lives, on our own. Of course God is forgiving. But the point is that the basis for sin is in all of us from birth.
So the situation is a new-born child is that they have't committed sin yet, but their wills are incapable of avoiding it. I should note that traditional Reformed thought also believes that all infants are saved. But it's not because they're sinless. It's become God chooses, as a matter of grace, not to hold their sin against them.
However as I said above, the UCC is at the liberal end of Reformed theology. Although the position I just gave you is the traditional Reformed one, it's hard to be sure how many UCC people would hold it.
I haven't found a specific answer to the original question in their web site, but I based on things I saw there I do think they would accept that all of are imperfect, and need God's grace. That would include infants.
I would say, yes. Infants are born not having sinned. Ergo, they are sinless at birth. This view is actually accepted in the Eastern Orthodox churches as well. Instead of original sin, we are born as mortals which causes us to have an inclination to sin as we get older. In Orthodox tradition, for example, the Virgin Mary was voluntarily sinless meaning that she never sinned in her life.I understand that the church of Christ believes that children are born sinless. Are they right on this? What age a child becomes sinful according to them?
The comment you're responding to speaks of "sinless." There's some ambiguity to that. Calvin (remember that this a Reformed group, although a very liberal one) was more concerned with nature than individual actions. That is for him, the question wasn't whether an infant had committed a sin, but whether their nature was corrupted by the Fall so that they were incapable of following God as he demands. I think that's your "inclination to sin," though in the Augustinian tradition, he took it to be a serious opposition to God. He believed that that corruption of the will made them unacceptable to God even before they committed an actual morally responsible sin. However. I'm not sure about Calvin himself, but the Reformed tradition in general believed that God accepted all infants, not because they are sinless, but out of his grace.I would say, yes. Infants are born not having sinned. Ergo, they are sinless at birth. This view is actually accepted in the Eastern Orthodox churches as well. Instead of original sin, we are born as mortals which causes us to have an inclination to sin as we get older. In Orthodox tradition, for example, the Virgin Mary was voluntarily sinless meaning that she never sinned in her life.
I could only speak for how I see it, really. I think that the UCC would find itself with many different views today, for sure.The comment you're responding to speaks of "sinless." There's some ambiguity to that. Calvin (remember that this a Reformed group, although a very liberal one) was more concerned with nature than individual actions. That is for him, the question wasn't whether an infant had committed a sin, but whether their nature was corrupted by the Fall so that they were incapable of following God as he demands. I think that's your "inclination to sin," though in the Augustinian tradition, he took it to be a serious opposition to God. He believed that that corruption of the will made them unacceptable to God even before they committed an actual morally responsible sin. However. I'm not sure about Calvin himself, but the Reformed tradition in general believed that God accepted all infants, not because they are sinless, but out of his grace.
I'm not in a great position to speak for UCC current beliefs. As a fellow member of the liberal Reformed tradition, I'd say I agree that people are imperfect from birth. (I'm not so sure about Augustine's rather dark assessment of humans though.) However I think God, as represented by both the prophets and Jesus, doesn't demand perfection. He demands that people repent when they sin. and forgive others when they do. Nor does he require some kind of legalistic repentance, which becomes (as it did for the preconversion Luther) an impossible burden.
Infants are, as far as I can tell, incapable of understanding when they've done wrong and repenting. So these requirements don't seem to apply to them. Hence I'd agree with the Reformed tradition as a whole that God accepts infants and young children. I would think UCC folk would as well.
Yes, they are. Children are indeed born sinless. Only after they reach the age of liability, they become responsible for their wrongdoings. That age is 13 for the boys and 12 for the girls. I think the difference resides on the age of maturity as girls mature faster than boys. Hence boys celebrate "BarMitzvah" at 13 and girls "Bat Mitzvah" at 12. Do we have any Biblical evidence for this fact? Yes, Ecclesiastes 7:29.