The Nature of Man

[JSM17]

Since some conclude that a child is born sinful and the only way we can be forgiven for our sins is through Christ's blood to those who believe, then how does a child born in sin have faith that would secure them to heaven?

I hear a lot of advocates for sinful at birth who are afraid to admit the implications of this doctrine.

If you follow your doctrine fully through then all babies who die apart from forgiveness of sins will be condemned.

The arguement for David's son only clarifies that babies are not born sinful and are not accountable to God.

2 Sam 12:23
23 But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."
NKJV

When david said he shall go to him did he mean hell, because babies are sinful from birth? Maybe David understood that babies are not born in sin and understood them to be innocent before God.

Ezek 18:20

20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
NKJV

 

[steaver]

JSM17;

Since some conclude that a child is born sinful and the only way we can be forgiven for our sins is through Christ's blood to those who believe, then how does a child born in sin have faith that would secure them to heaven?

Actually it is declared in scripture, Romans 5, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

All of mankind was "IN" Adam when Adam sinned and sin entered all. This is why ALL are sinners from conception even. Now praise be to Jesus that many shall be made righteous through His obedience. We are no longer in Adam but have been placed in CHrist.

You will have to let the mystery of how God deals with babies and mentally challenged in the perfect hands of God for He has not revealed as much to us. I trust He will be just. David had faith in God so David believed his children would go to God. That is about all we have been given to go on.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: He suffered temptation although he did not sin. It is a mystery as to how he could be tempted, but Scripture tells us he could, so we know it's true.

HP: It is no mystery how He was tempted. He was tempted in all points as we are. Are you saying it is a mystery as to how you are tempted? If so, get your answer straight from the Word of God. God does not desire to leave you in some mystery over the issue, so He tells us plainly and even admonishes us not to err on this issue. One thing that is absurd is for those who refuse to believe the Word of God on the issue to somehow place the logical ends of their own failed ideas on God himself or some ‘mystery.’ Here is the reason God’s Son could be tempted, and the reason why every man is tempted. Jas 1:14 “
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Now let me ask you Marcia, was Jesus a man? Does the word ‘every’ mean ‘every,’ (or to place this in the argument form I receive almost daily) "or all you calling the Word of God a liar?"(Sorry Marcia,I am just illustrating a point) Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:” Yes, Christ came in the same form that you and I come in, sinful flesh, yet He never once gave into those natural propensities that lead to sin, therefore becoming the Sinless sacrifice for sin once for all! Yes he was tempted, just like Scripture says all men are tempted, for Christ was indeed a man, yet without sin. Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE, YET WITHOUT SIN.

Mystery solved by the plain teachings of the Word of God. :thumbs:

 

[Marcia]

HP: It is no mystery how He was tempted. He was tempted in all points as we are. Are you saying it is a mystery as to how you are tempted? If so, get your answer straight from the Word of God.

Please note I was responding to another poster.

It's a mystery in the sense that it is hard for us to conceive of how Jesus, who is God, could be tempted. We know he was man as well as God, but this is still hard to understand because he never gave up his deity.

The big in-house debate is: Could Jesus have sinned? If not, then what does temptation mean to someone who cannot sin? This is what I meant by mystery - the implications of a sinless Jesus being tempted. Arguments over that have lasted for centuries.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: Arguments over that have lasted for centuries

.

HP: Spread the truth! Certainly the possibility existed that He could have sinned, but He did not. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

HP: All does not always mean every living soul. Should I remind you of passages that utilize the word ‘all’ in which you would tell us that the ‘all’ does not really mean all? Legion is the number that could be cited. Here might be just one such example. Lu 21:17 And ye shall be hated of ALL men for my name's sake.” Does all mean literally all or not? Will all infants hate us? I believe you need a reality check of the position you are trying to defend and the line of argumentation you are attempting to use agaist others and reason itself.

What a lame answer you have given. You have not even begun to answer the arguments given in my post. Is this all that you can respond to.
It is a feeble attempt, isn't it? How about giving it another try--answering my post, posted at 12:42 pm yesterday.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
--Except for the resurrection, all will die. It is a fact of life. There are no exceptions. And after death is the judgment. Every man will face it. Every sinner will be judged. No one will escape a judgement--not one.

HP: Here DHK proves my point once again that ‘all’ does not always mean ‘all’ without exception.:thumbs: Neither Enoch nor Elijah saw physical death, and neither will those that live to se the rapture and have on white robes ready to meet Him in the air. Thanks for making my point DHK. :thumbs:

DHK: But your theology is: "Sin is not acquired until one is drawn away with his own lust and enticed."
This is a false theology. It is false because:
1. James was writing to those that were already saved (see verse 1).

HP: James never limited his instruction nor confines his admonition on sin to strictly those that are saved. You are beside yourself DHK.

DHK: 2. It is false because it negates the truth in Romans 3:23 that all have sinned.

HP: Only if you hold as an unproven presupposition as you do, to infants having sinned. That idea is simply foreign to the Word of God, and reason itself.

DHK: 3. It is false because it presupposes that a person could go through life without sin, and like Christ be qualified to die for our sins as well. A sinless person can die for a sinful person. That is the ransom to be paid. But Christ being God could die for all the sinners of all the ages.

HP: Yet another unproven, unsupported notion. IF one were sinless and a mere man, there is no indication that God would accept them as a substitute for anyone’s sin other than their own. God made of Himself a Substitute. You are correct in that God was able to do that which no man, sinless or not, i.e., make an atonement for the sins of the entire world.

DHK: 4. Like Charles Finney you are putting forth a strange anti-Biblical philosophy that because it is possible to live a sinless life, it is possible to build a community of sinless people, and thus work toward building the kingdom on earth.

HP: Finney can speak for himself on the issue. As for myself, I would say that you have little knowledge of his beliefs and certainly misrepresent mine. The possibility has to exist that one could do something other than sin, for God blames man for sinning. Now listen carefully DHK. This business of living a sinless life in our dispensation, or building a community of sinless people is an idea of your own vivid imagination, and is a flat out lie if you attach such a notion to the beliefs of any on this list or Finney. I have repeatedly stated that ALL, without exception, that come to the age of accountability in our dispensation will sin and become guilty before God. Let me modify my statement slightly for a moment. I suppose if you consider the nursery in a hosp[ital filled with innocent babies a community, I might tend to agree with you, at least for a limited time. But even then, if they live to become accountable for their intents and subsequent actions, ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION will sin and come short of the glory of God.

Stop the complete fabrication of notions as you exhibit here. If you have a quote that says that I or another believes a certain way, post it. If not, cut the lies.

DHK: Thus your position would be amillennial. But the reality is that people do have sin natures; Finney was wrong in his theology; there are no such thing as sinless saints; perfect communities do not exist; perfect saints deny the teaching of Scriptures.

HP: Again, nothing short fabricated lies. What in the world are you speaking of? What would being ‘amillennial’ (if that is in fact what I am) have to do with the lies you have attached to my beliefs and the beliefs of Charles Finney? I may be wrong, but as I recall Finney believed in a millennium. I am personally undecided as to whether or not there will be a literal thousand year reign on the earth.

DHK, if you desire to debate, you would do well to get your facts straight instead of fabricating lies concerning others and then beating as one beateth against the wind. :thumbs:

 

[Gup20]

You folks all seems to be missing it here. Allow me to illuminate the scriptures for you, and please cease your petty jabs at one another.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Sin entered the world by one man, Adam. Death entered the world because of Adam's sin. It is DEATH that passes to all men, not sin. The idea of "Original Sin" is a bit of mis-nomer. It could be called "original death".

However, because all men sin, the death they inherit biologically is justified.

For example, notice how Jesus - who had never sinned - still experienced death, pain, and suffering. This tells me that death is inheritable, whereas the scripture (as HP has pointed out) says he never sinned. Therefore, sin is not inheritable... only death.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So the 'original sin' didn't pass on... death did... even to those who didn't commit the same sin as Adam.

If death were not inheritable, Jesus would not have been able to die... as he never sinned. If sin were inheritable, Jesus would not have been "sinless".

So by the scripture, and by logic and reason we can conclude that death was inherited, and sin was not. Though, we all commit sin, and therefore deserve the death we inherit in our bodies. All exept for Jesus... who was resurrected because he didn't deserve death.

 

[webdog]

Actually it is declared in scripture, Romans 5, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

You would have to be a universalist to apply this passage in favor of all men being sinners in Adam. The parallel would make all men automatically in Christ as well.

 

[DHK]

HP: Here DHK proves my point once again that ‘all’ does not always mean ‘all’ without exception.:thumbs: Neither Enoch nor Elijah saw physical death, and neither will those that live to se the rapture and have on white robes ready to meet Him in the air. Thanks for making my point DHK.

You have proved nothing. To take the two exceptions, Enoch and Elijah (plus those that will be resurrected) from that statement of truth, does not negate the statement of truth. "It is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgment." True of false? I believe the Bible. That is what it says. You can make fun of it, mock it, disbelieve it, try to find an escape mechanism to avoid God's judgment, or whatever. But mark my words HP. God's judgment will come. His word is true. There are no exceptions. After death the judgement will come. It will come for you too, and that is 100% guaranteed.

HP: James never limited his instruction nor confines his admonition on sin to strictly those that are saved. You are beside yourself DHK.

You would do well to read your Bible before you make such statements. Here are the verses you referred to before making your unsubstantiated and unbiblical claim that:
"Sin is not acquired until one is drawn away with his own lust and enticed."

James 1:14-16 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.

--My beloved brethren refer to the Christians that he was addressing. That is right in the very context that you were quoting. How can you miss something so obvious. He is speaking to Christians and their temptations. Even Christians are tempted to sin in their Christian life, and James explains how.
This has nothing to do with the unsaved. He is not writing to the unsaved:

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
--From the beginning he is writing to believers. Pay attention to context!!

HP: Only if you hold as an unproven presupposition as you do, to infants having sinned. That idea is simply foreign to the Word of God, and reason itself.

"Sin is not acquired until one is drawn away with his own lust and enticed."
--The above is your false statement, an unbiblical statement not found or proven in Scripture.
However we see both through Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3, that man is a sinner right from the womb. David confesses this fact. You deny it, but I would rather believe David writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit than you.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
--You say that sin is not acquired until one is drawn away..."
But that is not what Rom.5:12 says. It plainly says that all have sinned as a direct result of Adam sinning. We inherit a sin nature. The teaching is quite clear.

HP: Yet another unproven, unsupported notion. IF one were sinless and a mere man, there is no indication that God would accept them as a substitute for anyone’s sin other than their own.

That is true. But if one is sinless he is putting him on the same level as Christ. The Bible declares that Christ alone is sinless. If one claims sinlessness he deceives himself and calls Christ a liar according to 1John 1:8,10. You stand on shaky ground.

HP: Finney can speak for himself on the issue. As for myself, I would say that you have little knowledge of his beliefs and certainly misrepresent mine. The possibility has to exist that one could do something other than sin, for God blames man for sinning. Now listen carefully DHK. This business of living a sinless life in our dispensation, or building a community of sinless people is an idea of your own vivid imagination, and is a flat out lie if you attach such a notion to the beliefs of any on this list or Finney. I have repeatedly stated that ALL, without exception, that come to the age of accountability in our dispensation will sin and become guilty before God.

You contradict yourself again and again.
Here is your "repeated" position:
"Sin is not acquired until one is drawn away with his own lust and enticed."

We know that the age of accountability changes with each child, for each child is unique; some learn faster than others.
Suppose for arguments sake a child comes to the age of accountability at the age of six, right on his birthday, on that specific day, he has an understanding of the gospel.
Was he a sinner one day before that time, one week before that time, one month before that time?
If he died one day after his sixth birthday without trusting Christ would he have gone to heaven or Hell?
Could he have lasted a week without any sin, and if so would that make Rom.3:23 null and void?
Even if he went just one day without sin, would that make Rom.3:23 null and void--for all have sinned.
Isn't it possible that this six year old had disobeyed his parents at the age of three, four or five--that he had become a sinner much earlier than that?

Your theology has too many holes in it.
Any parent will tell you that even the child whose age of accountability is about six will have sinned countless of times before that age. He sins because he has a sin nature. Is he accountable for it? Yes he is. A good parent will discipline the child even at age three though at the age he will not receive Christ, for he has not reached "the age of accountability." But he is accountable for his sin. Even for those sins Christ atoned. A child sins because it is his nature to do so.

Let me modify my statement slightly for a moment. I suppose if you consider the nursery in a hosp[ital filled with innocent babies a community, I might tend to agree with you, at least for a limited time. But even then, if they live to become accountable for their intents and subsequent actions, ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION will sin and come short of the glory of God.

There is no one that is innocent.
We are moral beings. When Adam sinned the image of God in mankind was marred. Not even an infant is innocent. He is born, not in the perfect image and likeness of God, but in an imperfect image and likeness of God. He is not innocent. No one is. We all stand guilty before God.

HP: Again, nothing short fabricated lies. What in the world are you speaking of? What would being ‘amillennial’ (if that is in fact what I am) have to do with the lies you have attached to my beliefs and the beliefs of Charles Finney? I may be wrong, but as I recall Finney believed in a millennium. I am personally undecided as to whether or not there will be a literal thousand year reign on the earth.

Your statement again:
"Sin is not acquired until one is drawn away with his own lust and enticed."

If you really believe that, then what guarantee do you have that a person will sin as you have said above. With the above statement you infer a possibility of living a perfect life without sin, because one will not sin unless or until he is drawn away with his own lust. But isn't there the possibility of that never happening? You leave the door open for that possibility as did Finney. And thus the progression into entire sanctification. It is not a biblical doctrine.

Man sins because he has a sin nature. This is a Biblical truth.
However man sins because he wants to sin. This also is a Biblical truth. Both are true. Man enjoys his sin. He sins because he wants to, and thus we have a justice system in place so that man will take responsibility for his sin, and the nation will not delve into complete chaos.
But the root cause is the sin nature, something inherited from Adam.

 

[steaver]

But the root cause is the sin nature, something inherited from Adam.

I heard someone say once. if you think a two year old cannot sin, put a couple of two year olds side by side and give one of them an ice cream cone. The one without will lust after the cone and the one with the cone will not share.

It is true and can be proven that a two year old does "lust". It is also true that a two year old cannot understand what sin is. Therefore, "accountable or not" doesn't matter in this debate of "sin nature".

It is proven from the actions of a two year old, who cannot understand any further than a whack on the butt or hand, that him wanting another's stuff is "lust" (sin). This is sinning without any idea it is sin nor any choice to not sin. That is "sin nature" that was passed down from Adam's offence.

:jesus:

 

[webdog]

This is sinning without any idea it is sin nor any choice to not sin.

Then by your definition above...it is not sin.

 

[Gup20]

James 1:14-16 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.

--My beloved brethren refer to the Christians that he was addressing. That is right in the very context that you were quoting. How can you miss something so obvious.

I would agree... he is speaking to believers.

However we see both through Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3, that man is a sinner right from the womb. David confesses this fact. You deny it, but I would rather believe David writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit than you.

In Psalm 51:5, the subject of those in sin are the parents, not the child in the womb.

In Psalm 58:3, it doesn't attribute sin to a person until after they are born, and even after they commit a sin (lying).

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

--You say that sin is not acquired until one is drawn away..."
But that is not what Rom.5:12 says. It plainly says that all have sinned as a direct result of Adam sinning. We inherit a sin nature. The teaching is quite clear.

I disagree. It says "death passed upon all men"... not sin. It is death that is inherited.

That is true. But if one is sinless he is putting him on the same level as Christ. The Bible declares that Christ alone is sinless. If one claims sinlessness he deceives himself and calls Christ a liar according to 1John 1:8,10. You stand on shaky ground.

I agree. Christ is the only one who was sinless. However, if sin passes biologically, then Christ - who is biologically human - would have had sin. Since Christ had no sin, we know that sin is not passed biologically. However, we can see that death was passed biologically because Jesus died and suffered even though he had no sin.

We know that the age of accountability changes with each child, for each child is unique; some learn faster than others.

Where is the concept of "age of accountability" in the Bible? It sounds like a good concept, but I don't recall seeing it in scripture.

Suppose for arguments sake a child comes to the age of accountability at the age of six, right on his birthday, on that specific day, he has an understanding of the gospel.

Was he a sinner one day before that time, one week before that time, one month before that time?
If he died one day after his sixth birthday without trusting Christ would he have gone to heaven or Hell?
Could he have lasted a week without any sin, and if so would that make Rom.3:23 null and void?
Even if he went just one day without sin, would that make Rom.3:23 null and void--for all have sinned.
Isn't it possible that this six year old had disobeyed his parents at the age of three, four or five--that he had become a sinner much earlier than that?

Assuming for the sake of argument that this "age of accountability" exists, your assumption here is that - not only is the sin commited before the magical "age of accountability" not imputed until after the age, but you are also assuming that it is forgiven until the age of accountability. What if the imputation (laying the charges against) for the sin the person commits is simply stayed until this "age of accountability" (which may or may not exist)? At which point, as soon as the accountability standard is met, all their sin is laid to their charge.

 

[DHK]

Then by your definition above...it is not sin.

I disagree. We have four children. I remember specifically teaching the first two "not to cross a line." The house was small; the kitchen dangerous for a "young one" to be in. Both children learned and understood well that it was wrong to cross "the line" (the one where the carpet met the linoleum) into the kitchen. If they did they were disciplined. In fact the oldest child learned before the age of one. If they crossed that line they knew they would receive punishment. They knew that they had sinned. A one year old child knew the consequence of sin, and knew when they had committed that sin!

 

[webdog]

I disagree. We have four children. I remember specifically teaching the first two "not to cross a line." The house was small; the kitchen dangerous for a "young one" to be in. Both children learned and understood well that it was wrong to cross "the line" (the one where the carpet met the linoleum) into the kitchen. If they did they were disciplined. In fact the oldest child learned before the age of one. If they crossed that line they knew they would receive punishment. They knew that they had sinned. A one year old child knew the consequence of sin, and knew when they had committed that sin!

[/size]

Did they know they broke mom and dad's law...or God's?

 

[DHK]

In Psalm 51:5, the subject of those in sin are the parents, not the child in the womb.

Show me from Scripture where David's mother was being sinful in giving birth to David. Was David born out of wedlock? Was he illegitimate? Did David's mother commit adultery? Just what sin are you attributing to David's mother? I want to know this hidden sin that isn't referred to in the Bible. Please explain. Remember that Samuel went to the family of Jesse, a noble man. And all the sons of Jesse passed before him, for one of them were to be chosen to be king of Israel. Finally Samuel asked if he had any other sons. He did: one younger one keeping the sheep. It was that one, David, that was anointed king over Israel.
The Book of Hebrews declares that in marriage the bed is undefiled and honorable in all. Where is your proof that Jesse and his wife did anything wrong--that any sin was committed??

Psalm 51 is a personal psalm of David--a psalm of David's repentance of his own sin (not his mother's), and in verse 5 he points directly to his own sin nature, the origin of his sin. Yes he was responsible for his sin; he had no one else to blame. But he knew that he was sinful, conceived with a sinful nature passed on to him from his father, and from Adam.

In Psalm 58:3, it doesn't attribute sin to a person until after they are born, and even after they commit a sin (lying).

"They speak lies as soon as they be born." As soon as one is born they start sinning. Why? They have a sin nature. How plain is the teaching there? Very plain; very clear.

I disagree. It says "death passed upon all men"... not sin. It is death that is inherited.

Disagree all you like.
The wages of sin is death.
There is no death without sin. Thus it is sin that is passed on. Death is only the consequence of the sin that is passed on.

I agree. Christ is the only one who was sinless. However, if sin passes biologically, then Christ - who is biologically human - would have had sin. Since Christ had no sin,

We know that because Christ was born of a virgin. That was the purpose of the virgin birth, that Christ would not inherit the sin nature (appropriately called the Adamic nature) passed on through the male (the seed of a man). Note in the first Messianic Promise, given in Gen.3:15, the Messiah promised is referred to as "the seed of a woman." His birth would be miraculous for he would be born of a virgin, not of a man, and still be wholly human. He would avoid having the sin nature of Adam.

we know that sin is not passed biologically. However, we can see that death was passed biologically because Jesus died and suffered even though he had no sin.

Jesus died biologically because he wanted to; not because he had to. He didn't have to. He did so because he loved us enough to die for our sin. He could have ascended into heaven when he was on the Mount with Elijah and Moses, but he didn't. He could have called 12 legions of angels, he told Peter, but he didn't. He didn't have to die. But he did. He died to make an atonement for our sins because of his great love for us; not because of his biological make up.
Don't degrade the majesty and glory of our Saviour so much.

Where is the concept of "age of accountability" in the Bible? It sounds like a good concept, but I don't recall seeing it in scripture.

If there isn't one, then it would only be logical that all infants would go to Hell. But even David was confident of seeing his child in heaven though he was an infant when he died.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this "age of accountability" exists, your assumption here is that - not only is the sin commited before the magical "age of accountability" not imputed until after the age, but you are also assuming that it is forgiven until the age of accountability. What if the imputation (laying the charges against) for the sin the person commits is simply stayed until this "age of accountability" (which may or may not exist)? At which point, as soon as the accountability standard is met, all their sin is laid to their charge.

HP says a person is not accountable until he sins. That theoretically could be the age of 20 or 30 (if a person could be that lucky)--unlikely but theoretically possible. Then if the person died, you would have an unsaved person going to heaven because he had not sinned. Salvation would be by works according to HP's theology. Christ's work on the cross would all be in vain. Do you see where this leads?

Once a person is accountable, salvation is by grace through faith. The only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ and in his work on the cross is the only way to heaven. There is no universalism. As to an infant, one must fall on the mercy of God, as did David.

 

[DHK]

Did they know they broke mom and dad's law...or God's?

Yes.........

 

[steaver]

Did they know they broke mom and dad's law...or God's?

"Sin nature" has nothing to do with "knowledge" or "choice". WE all sin from birth because of Adam's original offence. Knowledge and choice comes later and you may call this "age of accountability" but this has nothing to do with the born "sin nature".

:jesus:

 

[JSM17]

"Sin nature" has nothing to do with "knowledge" or "choice". WE all sin from birth because of Adam's original offence. Knowledge and choice comes later and you may call this "age of accountability" but this has nothing to do with the born "sin nature".

If the child dies while in this sinful nature, does the child go to hell?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If they crossed that line they knew they would receive punishment. They knew that they had sinned. A one year old child knew the consequence of sin, and knew when they had committed that sin!

HP: My dog knows as much about crossing a line as your one year old. I suppose “all” includes him as a sinner as well? (Just kidding)

In order to sin one has to understand the intrinsic value of a command. Your one year old is responding to punishments and rewards. Such a toddler has not concept of the intrinsic value of crossing the line, and is far from moral accountability. If morality is to be predicated of an intent, one has to understand the intrinsic value of the command apart from punishment or rewards. Small children have no such developed moral understanding.